A pastor writing a Q&A column in a small Canadian religious newspaper answered a question about republication recently by writing “as a general rule, Reformed Christians agree that the Covenant of Works was established at the start with Adam, and with all humanity in Adam.” Controversy, he writes, “enters the discussion with the claim that the Mosaic Law contains a ‘republication’ of the Covenant of Works.” He concedes that this is a historic Reformed position although he misstates the case rather significantly when he writes, “a smattering of Reformed and Presbyterian scholars have used ‘republication’ terminology all the way back to the days of the Reformation.” He notes correctly that “‘republication’ means different things to different scholars. He distinguishes between a “‘material’ republication” that teaches that the moral law “expressed in the Mosaic Law is the same moral law as was set before Adam at the start.” Another version, he observes, is a “formal” republication wherein the the Mosaic law functioned as a “covenantally as a works-based covenant, such that Israel’s blessing was conditional (in some sense) on its obedience to the law.” He notes correctly that there are variations within these general categories and that there have been for centuries. He proceeds to work through some of the relevant confessional material even conceding that Westminster Confession 19.1–3 “affirms a material republication view, indicating that the moral law which was given to Adam as a Covenant of Works was delivered to Adam in the Ten Commandments.”
For reference the WCF says:
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
He rightly notes that the WCF and the Heidelberg Catechism both clearly teach that believers in Christ are not under the law as a covenant of works but only as a rule or norm of the Christian life, lived by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
From these premises he concludes that it is “confusing” to speak of a “republication” of the covenant of works. He criticizes the term republication as “singularly unhelpful” since Israel was under a covenant of grace during and after Moses, since their obedience was only a response to God’s saving grace. He argues the contemporary use republication to the “the conviction that each passage of Scripture must be delineated as either law or gospel. Law is regarded as bad—as that which requires us to earn or merit our standing before god—while gospel is regarded as being incompatible with conditions.” He continues by complaining that this neat theory doesn’t work in the real world of biblical exegesis because it doesn’t account for passages that require saved people to obey God’s commands or for “threats of curses for disobedience.” David, writes, sang “sweetly” about God’s law implies that this approach to law and gospel, in effect, denies the third use of the law.
He also claims that Israel was blessed because of their obedience (he cites Deut 28:1–14) and God
“promises the same to us (e.g., Matt. 25:34; Rom 8:17; 2 Tim 4:8; Rev 21:7). In fact, Jesus said in John 14:21, “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And John says that those who say they know Jesus but refuse to keep his commandments are liars (1 John 2:4; cf. Matt. 7:21–23). Our obedience is the fruit of true faith (James 2:17); but we are saved by grace alone (Eph 2:8–9). Likewise Israel trusted in the grace of God for salvation (Psalm 130) and for blessing (Psalm 127)—not the works of their own hands (Mic 7:18–20).
Responses
I provide an extensive account (700+ words) of the article because it is published only in print and in an obscure news magazine. I’m not naming the author because I want to keep the discussion focused on ideas and not on persons.
- First, the first half of the article is commendable for presenting the case fairly and objectively. The broad categories are helpful. In fact the survey was so clear that I was surprised to see the author using the word “confusing.” Clearly, he was not confused. I, the reader, was not confused by his account but I am a little confused by his claim that the doctrine of republication is confusing. I was glad to see him recognize the fact that the doctrine of the covenant of works was widely taught by Reformed orthodoxy. Sometimes one gets the impression that the doctrine of that God entered into a legal, probationary covenant with Adam before the fall whereby Adam (and we in him) would enter into a state of blessedness conditioned upon meeting the terms of the covenant (obeying the law) is a novelty. That anyone should think that way would be a great surprise to the Westminster Divines, who, when they articulated this doctrine in chapters 7 and 19 of the Westminster Confession, thought that they were summarizing what most all Reformed folk held in Europe and in the British Isles. What is confusing is the modern, a priori notion that God could not have entered into a covenant works because God can only relate to creatures on the basis of grace. The early fathers talked regularly about Adam being in legal probationary relation to God and state of future blessedness. Augustine did not reach his view (City of God, ch.16) out of the blue. The classic Reformed writers in Europe and the British Isles taught the covenant of works. It wasn’t peculiar to the British or the covenant of works. Ironically, in the history of Reformed theology, when we have failed to distinguish the covenants of works and grace, the covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. The demand, “do this and live” gets imported into the covenant of grace as a condition of acceptance with God.
- Though this article doesn’t put us under a covenant of works for acceptance with God, it does argue that Israel was blessed materially because of their obedience and that New Testament believers are blessed when they obey. This is ironic because this seems like a sort of covenant of works. It fails to recognize the uniqueness of national Israel’s position in redemptive history. I understand concern about saying that Israel was under a covenant of works but we should also be concerned about reintroducing a covenant of works (quid pro quo) particularly for Christians, in the new covenant. Deuteronomy 28:1–14 was given to national Israel, they had a status, a national relation, and land promises that New Testament believers simply do not have. The blessing and curse of Deuteronomy 11:26 and chapter 28 belonged to them in a way they cannot be said to belong to us now, in the new covenant. Christ is the Israel of God. The national, temporal blessings promised to national Israel were illustrations (types) of the more profound spiritual blessings that we have in Christ. If we say that there is a direct correlation between our obedience and the material blessings we receive, should we say that there is a correlation between our disobedience and the bad things that happen to us? Was the man born blind (John 9) because of his sin or his parents’ sin? Did the Tower of Siloam (Luke 13) fall on those people because they were disobedient? No. Scripture says the very opposite. There are plenty of examples in Scripture (e.g., Jer 12:1; Ps 92:7; Job 21:7) of lament about the wicked prospering and flourishing while the godly suffer loss. If we say that there is a direct correlation between our obedience and material blessing, then why do we complain against health and wealth teachers? Further, it is not at all obvious that the passages he cites say what he claims. Matthew 25:34, Rom 8, and 2Tim 4:8, and Rev 21:7 does not teach that a cause and effect relation between our obedience and the blessings described. This seems to be a case of confusing is with because. Certain things are the case but we are not blessed because we obeyed.
- The article’s account of the law/gospel hermeneutic is such a caricature that is beyond recognition. I’ve no idea where one would get the idea that the historic Reformed, hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel, teaches that the law is “bad” and the gospel is “good.” Here is a category of posts on the law/gospel distinction. There one can find any number of reputable, historic accounts of the law/gospel distinction. The author may not think much of the law/gospel distinction but the classic Reformed theologians, churches, and confessions make this distinction and repeated taught that it is essential to our theology, piety, and practice.
- The article also implies that the doctrine of republication and the law/gospel distinction leads to a denial of the third use of the law. This one is a puzzler because, historically, the same folk who taught these doctrines also taught the third use of the law, i.e., the doctrine that moral law of God norms the believer’s life of gratitude in Christ.
The doctrine of republication can be challenging but, as the first half of the article under review demonstrates, it can be presented clearly. It only becomes unduly complicated when we reject the premises upon which Reformed theology was originally organized, e.g., the distinctions between the covenants of works and grace, law and gospel (which Ursinus, correlated explicitly), national Israel (the Old Covenant), and the New Covenant. Virtually all our theologians thought that the same law which was given to Adam before the fall was re-stated in substance at Sinai. The idea that the Old Covenant had, in certain respects, a legal quality was not controversial in the classic Reformed period.
In view of the current controversy over the doctrine of republication, we should be clear that the Israelites were under a covenant of grace. The Old Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. I think we should say that, despite the conditional language concerning their land tenure and material blessings, the Israelites received blessings and remained in the land as long as they did by grace, not by works. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the strongly conditional language, the covenant lawsuits, and the strong connections between the covenants of works and the Old, Mosaic, covenant. We should be equally clear that we are also under a covenant of grace, for justification, salvation, eternal life, and even the material blessings we receive in this life.
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Timely post, Scott. Thanks! I’m pssing this along.
pssing… No – passing!
And all God’s people said…?
I am glad to see you write, “The Old Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.”
Would you therefore agree that the way in which this is so enfolds the covenant of works as an outworking of the broader covenant of grace?
Oh yeah, “…published only in print and in an obscure news magazine.” had me snickering 🙂
Hi Harold,
Glad to amuse. We do try.
I’m not sure that I understand the question. I think I don’t understand quite what you mean by “enfolds.” The Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of works. It also had a legal aspect, so much so that Olevianus called it a “legal covenant” that the Israeltes “broke” (De substantial, 1.1). I don’t want to redefine Reformed orthodoxy to exclude the many Reformed writers who taught the same moral law given to Adam was re-stated at Sinai, that, in certain respects, the Mosaic covenant was a recapitulation of the covenant of works. In the main they regarded the republication of the law in pedagogical terms. They saw the re-statement of the covenant of works on Sinai as a way to teach the Israelites the greatness of their sin and misery. So, I don’t want to lose that note regarding the first use of the law anymore than I want to lose the 3rd use of the law. We ought to see all three uses of the law under Moses.
As I see it, the covenant of grace was, to borrow the Lutheran prepositions, in, with, and under the Mosaic, old, covenant. I insofar as the Mosaic law included the first use of the law, I’m not sure that we want to include that in the covenant of grace. The law, in the first use, isn’t a covenant of grace inasmuch as it says: “do this and live.” The law certainly functions under the covenant of grace in the 3rd use, as we see in the catechism. The Spirit certainly uses the law in the 1st use to teach sinners the greatness of their sin and misery and their need for a Savior and it has an essential place in the administration of the covenant of grace.
Thanks for this!
In the interests of clarity, we should have you out for a H&S on the topic of Republication!
You have three editors/contributors to a book on republication in your congregation.
I’d be glad to take any of them too, but Estelle’s categorically out. So you are referring also to Fesko and… DVD?
Following with interest including
‘the covenant of grace was, to borrow the Lutheran prepositions, in, with, and under the Mosaic, old, covenant’
I insofar as the Mosaic law included the first use of the law, I’m not sure that we want to include that in the covenant of grace.
It would seem then that you hold to the Mosaic covenant as being some mixed covenant–containing in substance both works and grace?
No, not in substance. We should, however, recognize the legal qualities or aspects of the Mosaic covenant, as the Reformed tradition always has.
Perhaps I’m not following your line of argument, but if “legal quality” does not equal “substance”, then why do you want to remove the first use of the law (a legal quality) from the covenant of grace? I’m just guessing, but is it that you see the first use of the law as different in “substance” and can only belong to the covenant of works?
Frank,
What are your concerns?
Dr. Clark, no concerns, just that it is good to strive for the same understanding of terms to avoid anyone misconstruing what is being said in the discussion. I realize there can be a lot of cross talking on this topic. Since I remained unclear on your meaning on some terms, I thought it helpful to ask my last question.
Thanks Frank. I thought that, perhaps, if you had specific concerns I could address them directly.
The question is whether the 1st (pedagogical) use of the law is part of the substance of the covenant of grace. Historically Reformed folk haven’t spoken that way. The law, in its first use, is a covenant of works: It demands perfect righteousness for acceptance with God. That’s not grace. That’s not gospel. That’s bad news for sinners. That’s why, e.g., Ursinus, explicitly juxtaposed the covenants of works and grace. He wrote that the covenant of works = 1st use of the law, the covenant of grace = the gospel. We may speak of the 1st use as part of the administration of the covenant of works, however, since it’s the means that the Spirit uses to teach us the greatness of our sin and misery.
Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could provide the Ursinus reference, that would be great! Sorry if this is bothersome, but that reference prompted another question in my mind: if the first use of the law = covenant of works, would Ursinus say that the first use applies to unbelievers only? If I’m following the line of thought, I’d guess the answer is “yes”, since believers no longer under the covenant of works but are under the covenant of grace.
Yes, the first use of the law speaks to non-Christians. Believers are no longer under the covenant of works or the law in that use. We remain under the law in the third use. To deny that is antinomianism.
As the Heidelberg Catechism makes clear in QQ. 114-115, even in its third use, the law has an elenctic element that drives us sinners back to Christ.
On Ursinus:
Thanks again. It looks like Ursinus’ commentary would be helpful. Off to the library!
For believers to deny the law and its continuing importance would be to say that Jesus abolished the law, which we know He did not. That would unbiblical and antinomianism.
But to deny the third use is not necessarily antinomian; it is to deny Calvin’s divisions. Calvin is not scripture
Describing the law, in its third use, as ‘normative’ for the Christian means what? Does that mean it is educational/pedagogical – in which case it does the same as the first use but, through the lens of the gospel, can be seen as sweet since we see what Jesus’ active obedience has achieved.
But once we start to say that ‘normative’ implies ‘ought’, we have returned to the pedagogical plus condemnatory force of the (first use of the) law. Put crudely this amounts to being set free from the burden of the law in order to be able to obey the law – a cheap gospel
In the context of this blog, it is saying that the Mosaic law is an administration of works within a covenant of grace. I know that expression has a long-standing tradition but what does it mean? What is the significance of saying ‘within the covenant of grace’ if we are talking a works element where the blessings are conditional on behavior? (Presumably ‘covenant of grace’ is to mean being within the visible church)
Why not merge the first and third uses into one pedagogical use which is condemnatory for the unbeliever (and frightening for the old man remaining within the believer) but descriptive and joyous for the believer (or that new part of him). Does that not fit with scripture and with Calvin’s underlying thought?
Richard,
The third use is not merely Calvin’s private view. It is the confession of the churches. That makes it a public matter and an ecclesiastical matter and a matter of authority. Further, as a historical matter, it was Luther (in substance) and Melanchthon (formally) who taught us the third use and it is the Lutheran confession as well so it is a pan-Protestant doctrine.
Scott, thanks
I know it is the confession of the Reformed churches; that Luther wanted the Law preached; that Melanchthon coined the phrase, and indeed that it was in the context of concern about antinomianism and the peasants etc. I am happy with all that.
But I don’t understand the word, or rather the intended or unintended implications of the word, ‘normative’.
When the law is preached to believers, is it preached to the old man in us or to the new man?
That is why I asked whether (in principle) the third use can be subsumed under the first use? (I am trying to understand ‘normative’, not roll back reformation principles)
Richard,
The same law preaching has multiple functions simultaneously. To the believer, of course, it is never the first (pedagogical use) in the strict sense. Heidelberg Q/A 115 says:
The law remains normative for believers. We must love God and neighbor. That’s rightly described as normative. We’re not under law for righteousness (!) because Christ is our righteousness. He has fulfilled the law but it remains in force for us as a rule of life. This was Luther’s doctrine, it was Melanchthon’s, it was the pan-Protestant doctrine.
The law is preached to the whole person. I don’t have to outguess the Holy Spirit. Believers are being renewed by the Spirit. He uses the law in the work but it is the gospel that he uses to empower us to obey the law.
The same preaching of the law will have a very different relation to the unbeliever. To him it only says: Do this and live.
No, the 3rd use cannot be subsumed under the 1st, since the first is the covenant of works and believers are not under a covenan of works but only a covenant of grace.
Scott
Thanks again for a speedy reply and for your forbearance. I am not, I think, being clod-headed, but simply wanting to tease out any unintended implications of preaching the law to the believer.
As you say, we preach the law to an unbeliever and (in its first use, as a covenant of works), it drives him to the gospel. We then preach the law again to a believer and (in its third use but within a covenant of grace) it does two things
(i) it again drives him (back) to the gospel because of his continuing sinfulness (but this time within a covenant of grace, so that perhaps one might say it reminds him of his ‘ongoing’ need for God’s mercy, notwithstanding that all his sins, past and future, have already ‘once-for all’ been forgiven and forgotten), and
(ii) it reminds him, in an educational (but not pedagogical in the sense of ‘until he comes of age’) way, of what he ‘must’ do. I have been waiting for this ‘must’ to emerge from behind ‘normative’.
The word ‘normative’ is like the word ‘rule’ which originally describes a standard, but which subsequently takes on the prescriptive meaning of ‘reach the standard’.
My concern is therefore that preaching the law to believers (ie in its third but nevertheless ‘must’ use) will, to the less knowledgeable, those of weak conscience/assurance, sound like a return to the first use, ie maybe they have not been saved/repented enough – that there is an ongoing process, not a once-for-all. At this point, what they hear is very like romanism. For them going from law (in its first use) to gospel brings relief and release, but then going from gospel back to law (in its third use) can bring confusion and concern.
So we explain that the law does indeed still carry imperatives similar to the first use, but it does not affect one’s righteousness. (We may add that one of the ‘third use’ necessities is that we ought/must be grateful. Previously we had to ask for mercy; now we have to be grateful for that mercy. Maybe we believe that at least the call to be grateful will provide a dutiful response even if not a grateful heart).
We further explain (faced with this apparent Law to Gospel to Law linkage – although we never leave the gospel), that the value of the gospel was not only a declaration of righteousness but also a means by which ‘to empower us to obey the law’ – an infusion?
We avoid all talk of ‘try your best and Jesus’ll make up the rest’. We explain the law still requires perfection but now there is, by faith, a new way efficacious forward (unlike the inefficacious OT blood sacrifices), the way of repentance and confession to cover our imperfect obedience.
When faced with a believer disheartened by his continuing disobedience and conscious that he has not repented sincerely each and every time, we can still say ‘be of good cheer, you have not lost Christ’s righteousness given to you; (you need only?) repent and confess’.
But the subtle danger is that we are focusing him on a romanist-like cycle of effort and repentance. The ‘obedience of faith’ has become the obedience that comes from faith, rather than the call to be obedient to (the) faith. The focus of the first is works; the focus of the second is Christ.
How do we avoid this slide into moralism?
Richard,
We avoid the slide into moralism by clearly distinguishing law and gospel. That is the bulwark. When we fail or refuse to do so then we slide into moralism.
Having spent some enjoyable and profitable time with Ursinus (thank you!), I do have a concern that it could be confusing to segregate the first use of the law (pedagogical revealer of sin) to the covenant of works and to unbelievers only.
Ursinus has a detailed section on the Uses of the Law, where he wrote:
Frank,
As I mentioned to Richard above, HC 115 says:
Clearly there is an elenctic element in the third use. I’m trying to account for the “chief…nevertheless” structure of Ursinus’ analysis.
I assume we agree with WCF 19, that believers are not under a covenant of works. That’s why I speak as I do.
A minor point; you quote Ursinus as
“since faith cannot be kindled, or remain in the heart, unless open and grievous offenses, and such as wound the conscience, be hated and shunned”.
Are you happy with the ordering here? Surely we can only hate and shun by virtue of the faith already graciously given?
Richard,
You seem to want me to speak like an antinomian and Frank seems to want me to speak like a neonomian.
Scott, thanks again for your work in this area.
Might there be a difficulty in grasping this very simple concept when one goes from the LBCF, which strikes out the Covenant of Works, to the WCF as they change denominations in their pilgrimage?
A few in my life who have done this have big problems grasping Republication when they have not fully absorbed a Covenant of Works in the first place.
Besides P&R, who else explicitly teaches a Covenant of Works?
In my morning devotional reading I have been in the middle of Exodus as of late. I was struck by a few passages that make it so clear that Israel was under a covenant of works in the Mosaic Covenant, but yet still the Abrahamic Covenant is always in the background working (since the Sinai Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace).
The people definitely did not “feel” much grace under this covenant from Exodus 20:18-19:
Exodus 32:8-14:
Exodus 33:3-4
Relevant to this discussion as well is Joshua 24:19-20 that does not hold out any grace within the Sinai Covenant which was just renewed. That grace would have to be found elsewhere (i.e. in the Abrahamic Covenant).
Finally, Deut 4:15-31 contrasts these two covenants very clearly especially their works vs. grace natures. Here are some verses:
Just some passages to ponder!
Mark
What I’m pointing out is that Ursinus has the first use (not just some elentic element under the “third use”) applicable to both believers under the covenant of grace and unbelievers under the covenant of works; wherein, I read you to say you would assign the first use to unbelievers only since the first use= the covenant of works. That seems to be saying something different from Ursinus, but it could be I’m confused by what you mean.
Frank,
Are believers under a covenant of works? Did Ursinus think that believers are under a covenant of works?
RSC’s reply, if I may say so, might seem to put the cart before the horse.
Of course, IF we take the first use to be ‘covenant of works’ then by definition it is not intended for believers. But first/third use is not a biblical distinction.
Can we not say that the law has the (one) purpose of setting out God’s standards, for believer and unbeliever alike. The unbeliever can only hear that in its first (condemnatory) use but the believer, in faith, can hear it as the measure of Jesus’ sacrifice.
I did not realise that I might have been aping Ursinus in this
Of course, with the old Adam in, or clinging on, the believer can also hear the law in exactly the way you set out from HC 115. But this takes him back to Christ, not forward in some ‘moralist’ way to achieve what has been commanded of him – which (see my post) is how the third use can so easily come across.
Again, RSC, if I may say so, I don’t think you have done my previous post justice.
Your suggestion of ‘distinguishing law and gospel’ is clearly right but does not say enough. Are you saying that the law sends us to the gospel which empowers us to obey the law but as we fail, we go back to the gospel which empowers us to obey the law but as we fail, we go back to the gospel..etc etc.
The weak of conscience will hear much more of the law here since the gospel is phrased as a means of achieving the law’s demands. (In an OH talk with, I think, M Horton, you say that the goal is our transformation; but surely the goal is God’s glory and that is served ultimately in Jesus’ redemptive death)
Preachers say that their sermons often seem to impose guilt on the afflicted and pass by the impervious. I am especially concerned with lodging the gospel with the afflicted without snatching it back with (the (third use of) the law.
Dr. Clark, no, believers are not under the covenant of works. Ursinus did not believe they were under the covenant of works either.
Yet Ursinus says believers are under the first use of the law.
Hence, it seems contradictory to say the first use of the law = covenant of works.
Frank
Fair enough. Maybe it comes down to definitions?
How do you distinguish 1st and 3rd use?
What do you do with HC 2 and Ursinus’ identification of the covenant of works with the law and covenant of grace with the gospel?
Isn’t there an implicit distinction between the 1st and 3rd uses in that?
Thanks, Dr. Clark. I try to be fair!
Yes, indeed it comes down to definitions. I’m satisfied with Ursinus’ definition of the first use as the law as showing men their sin and misery, and the third use as the believer’s guide for gratefully following after Christ and being conformed to His image.
It looks like Heidelberg LD 2 is simply describing the first use of the law. If that is true, then Ursinus has told us that use applies to both the unregenerate and regenerate, so we know that LD 2 is not “equal” to a description of the covenant of works per se.
I’m not clear, yet, where you find Ursinus “equating” the law with the covenant of works. We know he doesn’t do so with the first use as we already discussed, and certainly it can’t be with the third use.
Also, I’m not sure of the meaning of your last question about seeing an implicit distinction between the first and third use in “that”. What is the “that” you are asking me to look at?
Frank,
1. Ursinus clearly distinguished the law and the gospel. e.g.,
For more context see this collection of quotations on the law/gospel distinction.
2. He identified the covenant of works with the law and the covenant of grace with the gospel.
3. He wrote that the entire catechism is structured by this distinction:
Q. 2 of the catechism clearly distinguishes between the 1st use and the 3rd. There are similarities between them but they are not identical.
See my running commentary on the catechism for more explanation.
Your account does not clearly distinguish the function of the law in the 1st use and in the 3rd. For Ursinus, in the 1st use, the law says: “do this and live.” It does not say that in the 3rd use. Nevertheless, as Ursinus wrote, the law even in the third use points the believer back to Christ. In its 1st use, the law demands from the sinner perfect righteousness. In its 1st use the law damns us. The law does not condemn us in the third use.
The distinction between these uses is grounded in the fourfold state of man. That is how the commentary/lectures explain Q. 115. Note: there are some text critical questions with this section of the “commentary” but, for our purposes, they give a clear account of how the catechism was originally understood.
ps. I asked sometime back what are your concerns. You wrote that you have no concerns about what I’m saying but you seem to disagree with what I’m saying. That suggests that you do indeed have concerns but I cannot tell what are the nature of the concerns. You seem to want to conflate the 1st and 3rd uses, which would lead to moralism but Richard thinks that you agree with him, which would put you more toward the antinomian/libertine end of the spectrum. I’m not saying that you are either one of those things but it would help me if you could be more explicit what you think is at stake here.
In other words, why are we having this discussion? If you’ll answer this question I’ll continue but if you won’t or can’t then I’m not sure how this discussion can continue. As far as I know I agree entirely with what Ursinus/the corpus doctrinae (since the sources of the last section are in question) says.
RSC
I don’t know why (or do I?) you keep labelling me as antinomian just because I am pastorally concerned that preaching the 3rd use of the law can (can) so easily produce legalism. I am no more antinomian than Luther; I agree that the law should be preached to unbeliever and unbeliever alike
I too am now less clear what Frank is seeking to suggest (unless the technical point that the 1st use is not to be ‘described’ as a covenant of works even though it has the same thrust as the Adamic covenant). Perversely however my thought of conflating the 1st and 3rd use could lead to antinomianism (not moralism as you suggest) because believers were to hear it in the light of the gospel heard and believed and the freedom provided. (but I understand the fear of many that too much freedom is dangerous!!)
Having read Ursinus above, I am not sure his reasons 3-7 for preaching the law in church are not already achieved by his second reason (ie the 1st use for us). For reason 3 he says “Another use of the moral law is, that it may be a rule of divine worship and of a Christian life. For although the law be also a rule of life to the unregenerate before their conversion, yet it is not to them a rule of worship and gratitude to God, as in the case of the regenerate.”
But it is exactly this ambiguity about the word ‘rule’ that concerned me. For the unregenerate (obedience to) the law is the rule of (= requirement for) life. But this does not fit for the law as a rule for the regenerate, so again I ask what is meant? Does it mean that (obedience to) the law is the rule (= requirement for) of [showing proper] worship and gratitude? That’s first use again.
Frank,
FWIW, while it’s true that Ursinus views the first and second uses as “chiefly” (though not exclusively) belonging to the unregenerate, in Calvin’s discussion, the categories are much more airtight. For example, he speaks of “the first office of the Law as experienced by sinners not yet regenerated,” and “The second office of the Law … to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.” Have you read him on the three uses?
“Might there be a difficulty in grasping this very simple concept when one goes from the LBCF, which strikes out the Covenant of Works”
Somebody wrote the above quote somewhere up in the thread. The LBCF actually does mention the Covenant of Works though. Not where they *should have*, but later in the confession. I’m not an LBCF person, but the Covenant of Work is also implied in its Federal Theology, I’m pretty sure.
“In the context of this blog, it is saying that the Mosaic law is an administration of works within a covenant of grace. I know that expression has a long-standing tradition but what does it mean?”
It means that the Mosaic Law as a republication of the Covenant of Works is a Covenant of Works *for Jesus* and *in that* it is the Covenant of Grace *for us.*
I’m glad to see Dr. Clark point out that National Israel is a unique player in God’s plan of redemption – as unique as pre-fall Adam and as Jesus Christ Himself – which helps one to see how they (National Israel), as the proto-type of the coming Messiah, have a real relationship of works with the Mosiac Covenant that *we* (and all *individual* Old Testament saints as well) *don’t.*
To make clear: *indivudal* Israelites were saved by faith in the coming Messiah just as we are saved by faith in the already come Messiah. But *National Israel* as a corporate body were in a different category in God’s plan of redemption (just as pre-fall Adam and Jesus Christ Himself were/are).
Thank you, David
I had never heard that explanation before; works for Jesus within grace for the Israelites – ps you must mean individually*.
[I had previously understood it as a covenant of works for Israel (individually or as a nation) ref the land, within a covenant of grace ref salvation/heaven.]
*But you then say that it is national Israel that has the covenant of works; so it is them and Jesus?
I know individuals have always only ever seen saved by faith (apart from Adam and Jesus); I just find this new twist – the treatment of a national Israel separate from the individuals – hard to understand
Jesus had to be born under the law…the same law Adam failed to fulfill. That is why the Covenant of Works was republished (in obviously elaborated form) on Mt. Sinai. Because Jesus came to fulfill what the first Adam failed to fulfill.
This subject is confusing because false teachers attack biblical doctrine ultimately always to do away with justification by faith alone. And lately they’ve made their attack at the level of the Garden itself and the Covenant of Works, by denying the Covenant of Works. (It doesn’t help that some influential theologians who understand and agree with justification by faith alone have also dismissed a Covenant of Works in the Garden usually because they are either strangely confused or being overly pious regarding man not being possibly able to ever merit anything from God, etc.)
The trick of the false teachers is (as Dr. Clark has pointed out) to make it seem like they are *defending* justification by faith alone by doing away with a Covenant of Works when they are *really* turning the Covenant of Grace into a works righteousness covenant, where justification by faith alone becomes justification by *faithfulness* alone, or some such related articulation.
The Devil knows when you can see and understand and accept biblical doctrine at this level that he has lost you (he can’t get at the elect anyway, he’s really just playing for time, i.e. the Devil can annoy God’s plan, but he can’t defeat God’s plan). Thus the false teachers, motivated, even unconsciously, by that strange spirit, obviously, have to throw confusion into these very joints in the machinery.
I don’t understand your view on this at all, I fear.
The Judaising false teachers coming into Galatia were not remotely doing away with works; they were adding back into the gospel the importance of works of the law, starting with circumcision. They were very clear that works were important.
I agree nowadays false teachers are more subtle and will interpret ‘justification by faith’ as ‘justification by (our) faithfulness’ (ie by our continuing obedience in faithful and grateful response to the gospel offer of eternal life)
Richard,
As I’ve been saying for years, online and in print, there is a HUGE. cavernous distinction to be made between a grateful response, flowing from the gospel, from faith, from justification, from grace and seeking to corrupt that response into either the ground of acceptance OR the instrument through which God accepts us.
The Reformed faith, as confessed does neither, because Scripture does neither.
We need not get rid of or downplay Scripture’s teaching regarding the abiding validity of God’s law as the rule or norm or standard for our lives BECAUSE the law cannot justify. Only Christ justifies but those whom he justifies he also sanctifies, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in union with Christ, conforming us to the image of Christ by putting to death the old man and making alive the new. The rule of our new life, the standard to which we aspire, out of gratitude, as evidence of the salvation freely given, is God’s good and holy law.
That some manifestly do corrupt God’s law and our obedience to it into the ground or instrument of acceptance with God does not change the law or the teaching of Scripture and the faith as confessed by the churches.
We need both to affirm free acceptance with God AND the abiding validity of God’s moral law. This is the biblical pattern. Paul, e.g., teaches both free grace AND the moral, logical necessity of renewal into the image of Christ. When he teaches us the pattern of the new life, he does so unashamedly by appealing to our union with Christ AND to the moral law as the standard, norm, rule, and pattern.
Amen to all that, RSC, and with gusto
Of course the pastoral burden-placing legalists (those who cannot easily be spotted as in error ie they are not signed up romanists, FVs etc) never, ever say – do they – that works are needed for acceptance
But they do say that good works will (or sometimes crassly ‘should’) flow from faith AND THAT IF there are no such works, then maybe you are not a believer. (They use the Heb warnings accordingly)
Now that of course might be true, but it should not be used as a big stick to drive the anxious into good works; they would be bound to mistake and confuse horse and cart
Whether we should use the big stick with the complacent is a different issue. Calvin clearly says yes; others (Thomas Chalmers, and possibly Luther) would say that sin and apathy are driven out by a fresh glimpse of the gospel.
At the end of the day, we cannot tell people to be grateful. We can order them to do the things that gratitude would have led to, but we can only elicit gratitude – as you say – by the gospel, not by the law
It is this practical consideration, not the doctrinal point, that has concerned me. (I am not advocating antinomianism!)
In the sequence of comments immediately above between Richard and Dr. Clark the unmentioned element is a recognition of regeneration. Without a strong doctrine of regeneration as being effected (when it is effected) by the word and the Spirit you get these conversations where people talk past each other. When Dr. Clark talks about how the law is followed in gratitude (the fruit of justification not the ground) he assumes a monergistic regeneration has taken place within the believer. The FVist assumes a synergistic regeneration (usually baptismal regeneration which can only be made sure by continuing law abiding behaviour).
False teachers attack where there are breaches in the wall. A weak doctrine of regeneration is one of those breaches in the wall in Reformed Theology. A vague belief in baptismal regeneration (through the back door, at night, rather than as the Catholics put it forth, through the front door, in broad daylight) is where Federal Visionists, for instance, saw an opening.
The problem regarding regeneration as a doctrine is it is difficult to discuss it with pin-point doctrinal clarity because it is such an ‘out of our power’ manifestation. God does it. All we can say to others is it usually happens in the environment of reading and hearing the word of God. Then questions of the marks of regeneration are discussed. Individuals who have experienced it know it. But that makes it difficult to discuss as a topic of theology.
Again, I fear I’m not sure where your post takes us.
RSC and I have not been talking past each other – we would certainly both agree on monergistic regeneration. He has correctly stated Reformed doctrine on the 3rd use of the law; I am simply concerned at how easily and how often it is abused by false, legalistic teachers.
Clarification, I wasn’t saying Richard is FV.
Thanks! (I knew you were not – in fact an antinomian would be the opposite of FV)
I’ll guess I’ll leave the discussion here, as the Ursinus quotes you provided really don’t “equate” law with the covenant of works. Certainly the law was given to Adam pre-fall as a COW, but it does not take that form for those under the covenant of grace. WCF Chapter 19 distinguishes the law given to Adam “as a covenant of works”, but that same law is given to Moses as a “perfect rule of righteousness”. No republication of the Covenant of Works there.
So I would say that my concern now is similar to your report of what that pastor wrote in that Q&A column, indicating that the law is being generally set in opposition to the gospel (=it is “bad news”). Mr. Vander Pol’s comment is an example of this unfortunate confusion over the Mosaic covenant, since he suggests those passages– spoken to God’s covenant people– should be viewed as a covenant of works rather than the first use of the law for the elect.
Neither the confessions nor Ursinus equate the law in any of its uses as a “covenant of works” for the elect who are in the covenant of grace. At the same time, this does not mean any of the uses of the law are conflated for the elect.
So, Frank, you do have a concern! I asked you that at the outset and you denied having any.
So, Ursinus didn’t distinguish law and gospel? Haven’t I given you extensive evidence that he did? I don’t understand that comment at all.
Who claimed here that Ursinus taught republication?
We agree that believers under the covenant of grace are not under the covenant of works. The question is, when the law is read/preached to a congregation, whether unbelievers are under a covenant of works. The Reformed answer has traditionally been yes, they are. The same law word has multiple functions simultaneously.
RSC
I’m not sure you have read Frank aright
1. He is not saying (as you suggest) that Ursinus does not distinguish between law and gospel; he is saying that Ursinus does distinguish between law and covenant of works at Sinai
2. He is not saying (as you suggest) that Ursinus taught republication; he is specifically saying the opposite.
It is for Frank to say but my impression is still that he is not addressing the gospel at all – he is simply saying that the law at Sinai was not a republication – it was the “perfect rule of righteousness”.
Incidentally this confirms my suspicion that some conservatives too quickly equate “perfect rule of righteousness” with “covenant of works” (whether for land, blessings, or heaven) causing terror to the afflicted.
As discussed earlier, the US may well have many ‘complacent’, but here in the UK many attending a conservative church are afflicted and need no more affliction – they need to know the gospel is really true, and for them too
Ezekiel Hopkins asserted,
“And, therefore, the Antinomian is to be abominated, that derogates from the value and validity of the Law: and contends, that it is to all purposes extinct unto believers, even so much as to its preceptive and regulating power; and that no other obligation to duty lies upon them who are in Christ Jesus, but only from the law of gratitude: that God requires not obedience from them, upon so low and sordid an account, as the fear of his wrath and dread severity; but all is to flow only from the principle of love, and the sweet temper of a grateful and ingenuous spirit. But this is a most pestilent doctrine, which plucks down the fence of the Law, and opens a gap for all manner of licentiousness and libertinism to rush in upon the Christian world
Dr. Clark, I did not have a concern at the outset, but this discussion has given rise to one, as I indicated.
Of course Ursinus distinguishes between law and gospel. The issue here is not about the existence of that distinction, but the fact that for the believer under the covenant of grace, those two “do sweetly comply”. In other words, law/gospel are not in opposition to one another, as would be the case if we said the law=covenant of works. That was the equivalence you made earlier, which I thought we cleared up by looking at Ursinus.
Even the author of the original article under review admits that WCF 19 teaches a version of republication.
I think I finally understand Frank’s concern and logic. He reasons:
1. After the fall, only unbelievers are under the covenant of works
2. Israel was the church/believers
3. Ergo Israel couldn’t have been under the covenant of works
The problem is with the middle premise and thus the conclusion. When Reformed writers said that the law was republished at Sinai they didn’t intend to say that believers were under a covenant works relative to salvation or acceptance with God. They were saying that the law was republished as a pedagogue, to teach them the greatness of their sins and their need for a Savior. Some said that it was republished as a condition of their status as a national people and their tenure in the land. No one, of whom I’m aware, has ever said that the law was republished relative to salvation from sin or acceptance with God.
As we know from history, from the prophets, from the Romans, that not all Israel was Israel, i.e., the national Israelite church was a mixed assembly. No believer could ever be put under the law for acceptance with God. It’s true in the church today. When I read the law from the pulpit it reminds unbelievers present that they are still under the covenant of works. To believers, however, it is ONLY and ever the 3rd use.
So, the conclusion is in doubt. Whether Israel was under a covenant of works depends on what we mean by covenant of works, something that has not always been articulated clearly in the current debate.
Again, I think seeing that 1) national Israel is a unique player in God’s plan of redemption is foundational here. No other nation or group of people had the unique role national Israel had. Just as no other individual human being had the unique role pre-fall Adam had or that Jesus Christ Himself has. When you see this uniqueness you can see how national Israel can be typologically related to the Covenant of Works republished on Sinai in a way no other people or individuals can.
And 2) seeing how Jesus, the antitype of national Israel, the culmination of the very reason for the existence of national Israel, fulfilled the Covenant of Works. He came to fulfill what the first Adam failed to fulfill. I.e. Jesus is national Israel. Jesus fulfill the Covenant of Works. Individual Israelites all along are just like you and I. Or any other Old Testament era saints. They were justified by faith in the coming Messiah just as we are justified by faith in the already come Messiah.
See that difference this way: it was the behavior of the Israelite kings that determined their nation’s land (etc.) status vis-a-vis the Mosaic Covenant. If the kings fell into idolatry the entire nation was punished. Then, in time, Jesus incarnates and is the ultimate King of Israel, and we all know how He behaved vis-a-vis the Mosaic Covenant (that republished Covenant of Works from the Garden). He fulfilled it to a ‘t’.
This is all what Paul is getting at in Romans when he is having difficulty explaining how the Israelites are the same as you and I vis-a-vis faith and justification, yet at the same time are different.
I also believe that the Jews (as a corporate, or self-conscious people group) were put to sleep regarding the Gospel because you can see how the plan of God would have been distorted if the Jews had wholly accepted and understandably appropriated the whole business to themselves, and in effect set themselves up as the priestly arbitrators of it all throughout the subsequent centuries. The Gospels would inevitably have been distorted and twisted (not because the Jews are bad people, but because *any* people in that position would have been prone to do that).
Dr. Clark, it looks to me that you again equate the first use of the law with the covenant of works applicable only to unbelievers. You say that for believers the law is “only and ever” the 3rd use (guide for grateful living).
Ursinus and (and others) would have the first use (showing sin/misery/ need of Christ) as operative for believers as well.
That is not to say you can’t disagree with Ursinus.
For what it is worth, I believe the mainstream Reformed position is that all three uses of the law apply to the elect/believer. The first and second apply to the unbeliever as well. The third applies to the believer only.
Frank,
Yes, that is what I’m saying. I am willing to concede that I may be wrong but I do not think that you are accounting for the clear teaching of Heidelberg catechism question 115, where it clearly is addressing the third use of the law.
Under the third use it says that the law continues to teach us the greatness of our sin and misery but there is a distinction to be made between the first and the third uses. I do not see how you are able to clearly distinguish the first use and the third. I do not think that you have answered this question yet in our dialogue.
How do you account for the fact that the Heidelberg Catechism is in three parts: 1) the greatness of our sin and misery; 2) how we are redeemed from our misery; 3) how we are to be thankful for such redemption.
Notice that there is no exposition of law under the first part. There was only a statement as to what the law is and as to our inability to fulfill it. The exposition of the law does not occur until the third part because it fulfills a distinct function there as the norm/guide of the Christian life. The believer is not under law in the sense in which it is used in the the pedagogical use.
If the believer is under both the first and third uses how are these uses different? How can you keep from saying that the believer is under the demand of the law to perform perfect obedience for acceptance with God? This is an essential question that one must answer.
Thanks for providing clarity in your position, Dr. Clark.
I simply read HC Q115 at face value as describing both the first and third use of the law. I understand the section this question is in, but as a teaching mechanism, the catechism helpfully refers back to other spiritual realities that were exposited in earlier sections in answer to the particular question being posed.
Your last question about distinguishing the first and third use was one I thought I answered before. I am satisfied with how Ursinus’ defines it. As for how this distinction looks, I’d say 1 & 3 could be happening nearly simultaneously/sequentially/harmoniously in the believer. Reminded of the perfect law and its demand for perfect obedience for acceptance before God, I am made aware of my sin and impossibility of my attaining this, which then drives me to Christ, and by His grace through faith, am grateful for His imputed righteous for acceptance by God (no condemnation/no COW for me!), desire to live according His beautiful law.
Frank,
If I may be blunt, it seems to me that you are cheating, if you will. You are ignoring the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism. This is not some arbitrary analysis that I am imposing on the catechism. This is the analysis of the catechism that Ursinus himself gave it his lectures.
Just to set some context, Ursinus was the authorized expositor of the Heidelberg catechism. He wrote probably 70% of the catechism. Thus, when, in the lectures, he says that there are three parts to the catechism we should take that seriously. We certainly cannot blithely ignore that fact in our analysis.
Thus, when you say that question 115 is addressing both the first and third uses it flies in the face of the whole structure of the catechism. It contradicts Ursinus’ own analysis of the catechism. It makes no sense.
You cannot solve a problem properly by omitting some of the factors.
Robert Shaw’s (The Reformed Faith – 1846) exposition on WCF 19 is very helpful on this matter of covenant of works and the law as a perfect rule of righteousness for believers:
“Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us—such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity…
“It may be remarked, that the law of the ten commandments was promulgated to Israel from Sinai in the form of a covenant of works. Not that it was the design of God to renew a covenant of works with Israel, or to put them upon seeking life by their own obedience to the law; but the law was published to them as a covenant of works, to show them that without a perfect righteousness, answering to all the demands of the law, they could not be justified before God; and that, finding themselves wholly destitute of that righteousness, they might be excited to take hold of the covenant of grace, in which a perfect righteousness for their justification is graciously provided.
“The Sinai transaction was a mixed dispensation. In it the covenant of grace was published, as appears from these words in the preface standing before the commandments: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage;” and from the promulgation of the ceremonial law at the same time. But the moral law, as a covenant of works, was also displayed, to convince the Israelites of their sinfulness and misery, to teach them the necessity of an atonement, and lead them to embrace by faith the blessed Mediator, the Seed promised to Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed. The law, therefore, was published at Sinai as a covenant of works, in subservience to the covenant of grace. And the law is still published in subservience to the gospel, as “a schoolmaster to bring sinners to Christ, that they may be justified by faith.”—Gal. iii. 24.”
Dr. Clark, Ursinus’ commentary on Q115 clearly shows he is speaking of both the first and third use of the law for the believer. Ursinus did not constrain himself to exclude all references to the first use for the believer in the catechism’s third section as you are suggesting.
Ursinus was not inconsistent with himself when he wrote the following on his commentary on Q 115 as to the law’s use for the believer:
“In nature restored by Christ, or as it respects the regenerate, there are many uses of the law.
1. The preservation of discipline toward outward obedience to the law. For although this use has respect chiefly to the unregenerate, as we have already shown, who do not refrain from sin from love to God, but only from a fear and dread of punishment and shame ….yet in like manner has its use in relation to the godly, because on account of the weakness and corruption of the flesh, it is useful and necessary, even to them, that the threatenings of the law, and the examples of punishment set before them, may keep them in the faithful discharge of their duty. For God threatens severe punishment even to the saints, if they become guilty of sins of a shameful and grievous nature….
2. A knowledge of sin. This use of the law, although it likewise has reference chiefly to the unregenerate, nevertheless belongs to the godly also. For the law is to the regenerate as a mirror, in which they may see the defects and imperfections of their own nature, and also leads them to the true humility before God, that so they may continually advance in true conversion and faith; and that whilst the renewing of their nature is going forward, they may become more earnest in prayer and supplication, that they may become more and more conformed to God and the divine law…….”
Ursinus could not be any clearer that the first use of the law applies to the believer and that such first use is described in Q 115.
Of course, Ursinus understood the catechism’s third section deals primarily (but not exclusively) with the third use of law. That should not be in dispute.
Frank,
I don’t disagree with Ursinus. What do you make of the adverb “chiefly”?
Have you ever explained how the 1st and 3rd use differ?
How do you account for the difference between the covenants of works and grace?
Did you perhaps listen to the latest episode of the Heidelcast?
I don’t disagree with Ursinus.
With all due respect, you’ve been consistently resisting Ursinus’ position that the first use applies to the believer. You’ve been very clear that you think the first use is essentially a covenant of works applicable to the unbeliever only. You’ve clearly stated that for the believer it is “only and ever ” the third use of the law. This is not in line with Ursinus, nor with the mainstream of confessional Reformed thought.
What do you make of the adverb “chiefly”?
I take it in in its common meaning, i.e. “primary” which is the term I used in my prior comment.
Have you ever explained how the 1st and 3rd use differ?
Yes, I’ve said (twice now) I can’t improve on Ursinus’ definition of the first and third use.
How do you account for the difference between the covenants of works and grace?
The covenant of works was made with the prelapsarian Adam who was created with the ability to achieve/merit the terms of the covenant. The covenant of grace was made with post-laspsarian man who was unable to merit anything in any sense.
Did you perhaps listen to the latest episode of the Heidelcast?
I have not yet, but will take the time to do so.
Frank,
Ok. I think I agree with Ursinus. There is a way in which the law speaks to the unbeliever that it does not speak to the believer. The law never says to the believer, who is united to Christ, to whom the perfect obedience of Christ has been imputed, “Do this and live.” It does say that to the unbeliever.
Do you agree with this distinction?
That was the distinction I was trying to articulate in distinguishing between the first and third uses.
I agree entirely with Ursinus that there is an elenctic/pedagogical use of the law even in the third use. I have always taught this.
I don’t think I agree that the law never says “do this and live” to the believer, if by that phrase we mean what Ursnius says: “…that the threatenings of the law, and the examples of punishment set before them, may keep them in the faithful discharge of their duty. For God threatens severe punishment even to the saints, if they become guilty of sins of a shameful and grievous nature….”
The distinction that I believe Ursinus makes and what I hold to (and which incidentally is what I thought I heard you say in your podcast) is that due to Christ’s imputed righteousness, the believer is no longer under death *curse* of the law.
So in other words, the law says what it says, but it comes to sinners in different contexts. For unbelievers, it remains a covenant of works demanding perfect obedience and curse upon disobedience. To the believer, it comes in the context of the covenant of grace, still holding out the perfect obedience required, but now humbles us and shows us our need of a Saviour who has set us free from that condemnation/ curse.
I’d suggest that your phrasing of an “elentic” use within the third use is a confusing way of stating things. If we follow Ursinus’ definitions, your “elentic” use would be functionally equivalent to having the first use as found in the third use. I suspect you would not agree you are doing this, but that would be because you seem committed to idea that the first use is applicable only to the unbeliever as a covenant of works.
I think it is far clearer to say that all three uses of the law apply to the believer. The first use is primary (though not exclusive) for the unbeliever and the third use is primary (and exclusive) for the believer, as Ursinus explains in his commentary.
Frank,
Do you accept a categorical distinction between law and gospel in the way that Ursinus explained it? Does the law say one thing to the sinner, “do this perfectly or suffer eternal punishment”? and does the gospel say to the believer, “Christ has done this for you”?
By “do this and live” I mean to say, “perform the perfect, perpetual, and personal righteousness demanded by the law as the condition of acceptance with God.”
Does God say that to the believer?
Yes, I do accept Ursinus’ categorical distinctions between law and gospel. For the believer these distinctions do not oppose one another, but complement and comply with one another.
So, working with your definition of “do this and live”, I would say that God does not declare to the believer under the covenant of grace that he is accepted on account of his own personal righteousness. Rather, the law’s demand for perfect obedience with the attendant curse for failure to do so has been fulfilled and satisfied by Christ’s righteousness.
Now through faith in Christ, we can sincerely (albeit imperfectly) seek after that very righteousness revealed in the law. The law reminds us of that perfect standard, our imperfection and our need of a savior, as well as a rule for our life of gratitude for the good news that we are accepted of God through Christ.
As Ursinus said, ” But God commands us to seek and to desire the perfect fulfillment of the law in this life, and that: 1. Because he purposes at length to accomplish it in those who desire it, and to grant it to us after this life, if we here truly and heartily desire it. 2. That we may here make progress in true piety, and that the desire to conform our lives to the requirements of the divine law be daily more and more kindled and con firmed in us. 3. That God may, by this desire of fulfilling the law, exercise in us repentance and obedience.”
Again, just as Ursinus did, I see first and third use operative for the believer, and at the same time maintaining the broader categorical distinctions of law and gospel and how these operate in covenant contexts.
Frank,
I think we agree. Here’s a passage from Berkhof that has influenced me:
Berkhof’s numbering is different. He placed the civil use first but what becomes his second use, is effectively what the catechism and Ursinus make the 1st use. I agree that believers continue to be reminded of the greatness of their sin and misery so I agree that one should not say that the pedagogical use is only a covenant of works but shouldn’t we say that it is only a covenant of works to the unbeliever and never a covenant of works to the believer?
In other words, the same use of the law has different functions simultaneously depending upon which audience is in view.
FWIW, Calvin seems rather clear, in his discussion, that he views the first and second uses as exclusively for the unregenerate (while the third of course is exclusively for the regenerate). Institutes 2.7.6.-2.7.13.
Dr. Clark, I think we are closer now.
I agree that believers continue to be reminded of the greatness of their sin and misery so I agree that one should not say that the pedagogical use is only a covenant of works
We agree on this, except I would not insert the word “only”, as that leaves open the option that it could be a covenant of works plus something else. I do think we’ve made some progress in understanding though, in that it appears we agree we should avoid an equivalency of first use=covenant of works.
shouldn’t we say that it is only a covenant of works to the unbeliever and never a covenant of works to the believer?
Yes!
In other words, the same use of the law has different functions simultaneously depending upon which audience is in view.
Yes again!
Any comment on Berkhof? Is his language outside the pale?
ps. When I say “never a covenant of works to the believer” I’m thinking in soteriological categories. I’m not precluding the possibility of a typological, pedagogical republication of the covenant of works.
No problem with Berkhof. Sounds like he is describing the same first use of the law in similar terms as we saw in Ursinus.
As for the “ps.”, I figured that might be forthcoming, given the title of your post!
If a covenant does not have the same promise as the covenant of works then it isn’t a republication of the covenant of works. IOW, if the covenant is different substantially, then it can’t be a republication. This is why some like S. Bolton who believed the Mosaic Covenant was a legal covenant pertaining to temporal life in Canaan referred to it as a third covenant, different from both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
It is therefore a misnomer to call the typological/pedagogical view of Kline, Horton, et al a “republication of the covenant of works.” It may be legal, typological and pedagogical, but it is not a republication.
Patrick,
I just published a fairly comprehensive history of covenant theology, extensively documented, that takes a rather different view. See this volume. Writers in the classical period used the term “republication” to describe their views who did not hold to a “third” covenant view.
If the substance of the moral law given to Adam was also recapitulated, re-stated, or re-published at Sinai, then that is some version of republication.
Scott,
I agree that many held to republication who did not hold to a third covenant view. But they held to an actual republication, i.e. eternal life conditioned on perfect obedience, which was designed to drive the sinner to Christ and the covenant of grace. It was thus pedagogical. But it wasn’t typological in the sense that it didn’t pertain to temporal life in Canaan or govern Israel’s life in it.
D. Patrick Ramsey,
I agree that many held to republication who did not hold to a third covenant view. But they held to an actual republication, i.e. eternal life conditioned on perfect obedience, which was designed to drive the sinner to Christ and the covenant of grace. It was thus pedagogical. But it wasn’t typological in the sense that it didn’t pertain to temporal life in Canaan or govern Israel’s life in it.
Since it is clear that the view prevailed among 19th and 20th century Reformed (e.g., Hodge, Dabney, Buchanan, Berkhof) that the covenant of works was republished in terms of temporal sanctions in Canaan and the governance of Israel’s life therein, would you argue that this was a 19th century innovation?
By way of clarification, of those four men I mentioned parenthetically, only Buchanan used the terminology, “national covenant of works.” But all of them clearly held that the Mosaic covenant was legal insofar as it governed Israel’s tenure in the Land, and yet (as far as I know), none of them held to the “third covenant” view.
David R, the republication view you identify has not been the “prevailing view”. I commend for your reading Beeke & Jones’ “A Puritan Theology” where it is shown that historically republication in various permutations was a minority view which was not accepted into the Westminster standards.
Further, Berkhof explicitly states the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; rather the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace. He goes on to identify the following as “deviating” opinion which he rejected as unbiblical:
“Others regarded the law as the formula of a new covenant of works established with Israel. God did not really intend that Israel should merit life by keeping the law, since this had become utterly impossible. He simply wanted them to try their strength and to bring them to a consciousness of their own inability. When they left Egypt, they stood strong in the conviction that they could do all that the Lord commanded; but at Sinai they soon discovered that they could not. In view of their consciousness of guilt the Lord now reestablished the Abrahamic covenant of grace, to which also the ceremonial law belonged. This reverses the position of Coccejus. The element of grace is found in the ceremonial law. This is somewhat in line with the view of present day dispensationalists, who regard the Sinaitic covenant as a “conditional Mosaic covenant of works” (Scofield), containing in the ceremonial law, however, some adumbrations of the coming redemption in Christ.”
Frank,
I quite disagree with your historical claims. It is well established that versions of the doctrine of republication have been taught widely by Reformed theologians since the 16th century. I have documented this extensively in a recent chapter which about which I posted here on the Heidelblog. You can get this chapter via inter-library loan. Further other writers have observed for many years the widespread existence of the doctrine of republication. I have documented it’s existence here in this space as well.
As to the teaching of the Westminster confession I agree with Thomas Boston, who observed that he could not understand how anyone could not see it in chapter 19. The grammar itself almost demands that we see some doctrine of republication.
The most reasonable antecedent for “this law” is the very covenant of works just described in section 1. When the confession says “and, as such, was delivered by God upon upon Mount Sinai” we must conclude that the covenant (mutatis mutandis) described in section 1 is that same law delivered by going upon Mount Sinai. That is, in some sense, a republication of the covenant of works.
Here are more resources on this question.
Frank McMahon,
I have read Jones’ chapter on the Sinai Covenant. As I recall, he may have argued that the third covenant view was not accepted (though if Bolton, as a Westminster divine, held to that view, I am not sure how realistic this is). But I am not talking about this view. I am talking about the view expressed by Hodge, Dabney, et. al., namely that the Mosaic covenant was fundamentally an administration of the covenant of grace, and yet, wrt Israel’s temporal prosperity, it was a legal covenant. And this was clearly Berkhof’s position as well:
“It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut. 28:1-14.”
David,
This is helpful thank you. Yes, the “third covenant” view was a minority view but as you suggest the view widely held in the 19th century and before that Sinai was, in some sense, a republication of the covenant of works was widely held in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The doctrine that Israel’s tenure in the land was conditioned upon their obedience was taught in the classical period.
The reason I use the qualifying phrase “in some sense” is because there was such a great diversity of views, particularly in the British Isles, on this question. But there was a general consensus that the law given at Sinai was, in substance, the same law given to Adam.
It was also universally held that the Mosaic covenant, the old covenant, was an administration of the covenant of grace.
This is why 19th-century writers wrote so matter-of-factly about the doctrine of republication. They did not see it as controversial because, it was not controversial. That it has become controversial in our time testifies to the degree to which we have become ignorant of and disconnected from our own tradition. We have replaced the traditional views with revisionist views and then proceeded to take those revisionist views as the baseline by which to judge the tradition. In that respect, we live in an Alice in Wonderland world.
Scott,
In light of the diversity of views, which Reformed theologians of the classical period held to the doctrine of republication of the covenant of works in the sense that “Israel’s tenure in the land was conditioned upon their obedience?” I have read your article (at least the one posted online in a pdf) and it is not clear to me which ones held to this very specific sense of republication. Or did everyone who held to republication believe that it pertained to Israel’s tenure in the land?
Patrick,
That PDF was posted for my students. I have taken it down now. Please keep that to yourself especially since the work is in print now. Thanks.
No, I don’t think that all the those who held to republication also held that Israel’s tenure in the land was contingent upon obedience. Right now, as far as I can tell, that was a minority view. That said, I do think it is and was an orthodox view.
Speaking personally and theologically (as distinct from historically) I don’t think that Israel’s tenure in the land was strictly determined by their obedience. At the same time, there was a republication of the covenant of works for pedagogical purposes and the formal ground of their expulsion was disobedience. Yet, I think we must say that the only way they ever entered the land and remained in it was by grace. I think we should say that it was both a republication and an administration of the covenant of grace.
Here is a sermon from a few months back on Exodus 24:
http://heidelblog.net/2013/04/the-old-covenant/
FWIW, Buchanan has the following footnote:
“On the external National Covenant of the Jews, see H. Venema, ‘De Fœdere Externo Veteris Testamenti,’ 1771, p. 250,—being Book ii. of his Dissertations; Dr. John Erskine (of Edinburgh), Theological Dissertations, No. 1, 1765,—’The Nature of the Sinaitic Covenant,’ pp. 1-66; Bishop Warburton’s ‘Divine Legation of Moses,’ vol. ii. Book v. p. 235, Book vi. sec. vi. 329; Rev. T. Bell (of Glasgow, 1814), ‘View of the Covenants of Works and Grace,’ Part 4:’ The Covenant at Sinai,’ p. 253; Adam Gib (of Edinburgh), ‘Divine Contemplations,’ 100:i.”
An excerpt from Thomas Bell’s notes on Witsius’ Conciliatory Animadversions:
This is helpful David. Thank you for all your good work here.
Dr. Clark, thank you. And thanks for all your work on the blog, I continue to find it very helpful.
David, those are all much later sources. Do you know of anyone in the 16th or 17th centuries who didn’t hold to the third covenant view but who believed “the doctrine that Israel’s tenure in the land was conditioned upon their obedience?”
Dr. Clark, your reading of WCF 19 appears idiosyncratic both historically and grammatically. The law was given to Adam as a “covenant of works”. This same law was given at Sinai as a “perfect rule of righteousness.” The Westminster Divines could not be clearer in telling us the law given at Sinai was not a covenant of works, but a rule of righteousness. Yet, probably for the opposite reason you state, I concur we are living in a time of peering through some sort of looking glass. I have read some of your linked material you link, but it really does not address the fundamental problem with your position.
I believe we agree that the covenant of works requires strict merit. You say it was not works but grace that provided Israel’s entry into the land. But why not a typological covenant of works for entry? It seems very strange to introduce the concept of works regarding Israel’s tenure in the land. If tenure in the land was by works– in any sense –and not by grace, then Israel surely would not have lasted there more than a moment.
Rather than employing confusing terminology of a typological covenant of works for tenure in the land, it seems to be much clearer to say the legal aspect of the Mosaic was “in the forefront” per Berkhof, which allows us to maintain the Mosaic *in its essence* as gracious.
Frank,
Well, if idiosyncratic = agrees with Thomas Boston and many others (e.g., Robert Shaw, a standard commentary on the WCF), then yes I suppose but that’s an exceeding idiosyncratic definition of idiosyncratic.
You’ve completely ignore the next clause of 19.2, “and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” The moral law that was delivered at Sinai was substantially the same law that God gave to Adam. That’s the point. That’s a form of republication.
The demonstrative pronoun “this” (as in “this law”) must refer back to something. It refers back to the covenant of works, which the divines have repeated almost verbatim from chapter 7.
It seems to me like special pleading to say that “this law” isn’t the covenant of works just described in §1.
Have you read Brenton Ferry’s chapter in The Law is Not of Faith? He provides copious documentation for the existence of multiple versions of republication in the British Isles in the 17th century.
I understand that you reject any version of republication but you can’t tell me that there’s no historical precedent for it. I’ve provided too much evidence here on the HB and in print to even consider such a claim.
Patrick, I believe the above citation is from Witsius.
I am not sure whether or not Witsius held to the third covenant view. I think Venema in his critique of The Law is not of Faith argued that he did not.
Frank,
Dr. Clark, your reading of WCF 19 appears idiosyncratic both historically and grammatically. The law was given to Adam as a “covenant of works”. This same law was given at Sinai as a “perfect rule of righteousness.” The Westminster Divines could not be clearer in telling us the law given at Sinai was not a covenant of works, but a rule of righteousness.
Thomas Bell is admittedly not a classic source, but here he argues that the divines did indeed understand the covenant of works to be delivered at Sinai (start at the bottom of page 260).
David, The republication of the covenant of works, according to Witsius, is not tied to the national covenant, which is neither a covenant of grace or a covenant of works. So I don’t think he can serve as an example.
The moral law that was delivered at Sinai was substantially the same law that God gave to Adam. That’s the point. That’s a form of republication.
If all you were saying is that the “law” was republished, (i.e., the law given to Adam =law given at Sinai), then you should have seen that I already agreed with that idea.
You go beyond that. You say the covenant of works was republished. Surely you recognize the law being republished is not equivalent to the covenant of works being republished.?
Patrick, Since that quote makes clear that Witsius believed “the doctrine that Israel’s tenure in the land was conditioned upon their obedience,” I’m not sure why he isn’t an example.
Aren’t those Thomas Bell notes? Witsius himself says that the national covenant is not a covenant of works.
All the Reformed agreed that Moses was not a covenant of works for salvation. That’s never been proposed and isn’t being argued now. Indeed, Cocceius taught the gradual abrogation of the covenant of works, beginning with the covenant of works as a way of acceptance with God.
The law was republished as a covenant of works for pedagogical purposes and possibly as a condition for tenure in the land.
Here is m synopsis of Witsius on the MC:http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/herman-witsius-on-the-mosaic-covenant/
I am particularly interested in theologians before or during the Westminster Assembly. Do you know of any who relate republication of the CW to Israel’s tenure of the land?
Patrick,
I think Turretin fits the bill.
In his discussion of “the twofold economy of the covenant of grace,” he has a section in which he deals with “the third age of the church,” that is, “from Moses to Christ.” Within this section, there are several pages in which he contrasts the “external economy” of the Mosaic covenant era with its “internal economy.” In his characterization of the “external economy” of the MC, he speaks much like Bell, Hodge, Buchanan, Dabney, and Berkhof do in the citations here.
He says (in volume 2, beginning on page 227) that “the matter of that external economy was the “threefold law … The form was the pact added to that external dispensation which on the part of God was the promise of the land of Canaan and of rest and happiness in it; and, under the image of each, of heaven and the rest in him; or of eternal life according to the clause, “Do this and live.”
He then describes the “marks and effects of that economy,” one of which he explains was
He also speaks of “the spirit of bondage, which commonly wrought a servile fear of God, the judge, and a dread of punishment.” This bondage belonged to believers as well as unbelievers. He speaks of Moses as a “hard taskmaster with his rod, not so much persuading as extorting obedience.”
If I could cut and paste, I would include more, but since I’m transcribing (and its late), I’ll leave it at that. If you have a chance to read the entire section on “marks and effects” of the Mosaic economy (pp. 227-229), I would be interested in your thoughts.
Patrick,
Aren’t those Thomas Bell notes? Witsius himself says that the national covenant is not a covenant of works.
No. As I understand it, that is Bell’s translation of Witsius from the Latin.
I take that back. I believe you’re right, that quote is from one of Bell’s lengthy notes.
However, following is something very much to the same effect, and this time it really is from Witsius (Economy of the Covenants, volume 4)!
Start here.
Continue here.
Finish here.
The law was republished as a covenant of works for pedagogical purposes
I think we just landed right back where we were before, that is, the first use of the law (pedagogical) being equated with the covenant of works. I thought we dispensed with that idea via Ursinus.
And when you say it was “possibly” a COW for tenure in the land, I assume you are not yet persuaded of that idea?
Witsius clearly held to some sort of third covenant view. Since all the other views of the MC under discussion here, including that of Kline, argue for the MC being substantially the covenant of grace, Witsius stands out as the radical.