Sermon: Common Trials, Uncommon Heritage (1 Cor. 10:1-13)

Here is the audio for my sermon preached on Sunday at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, on 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, entitled "Common Trials, Uncommon Heritage."

Eschatology precedes soteriology

My latest sermon, preached at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church in Singapore, was on 1 Corinthians 1:1-9, and it can be heard here. In that sermon, one particular emphasis that I made was on the Christian hope, the revealing (ἀποκαλυπσις) of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, which ought to re-orientate the way we live our lives. It is when we keep our eyes on this hope that the priorities in our lives will be ordered properly, in a way that glorifies God, and also in the way we were made to live.

It is this latter point that I attempt to elucidate when I introduced the phrase "Eschatology precedes soteriology." These three words encompass a very important concept in biblical theology. Eschatology, the doctrine of the last things, precedes soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, not because we ought to focus our attentions on one's view of the millennium or the rapture, but rather because the main points of Reformed eschatology (as oppose to Dispensational eschatology) concerns the breaking-in of God's glory, where God tears open the fabrics of the heavens (metaphorically and phenomenologically of course) and the glory of God, the knowledge of the glory of God, floods the earth as the waters cover the sea (cf. Hab. 2:14). (Reformed eschatology, whether of the pre-, post-, or a-millennial varieties, all have this as their focus, as opposed to the Dispensational predilection for dates, timelines and literal fulfillment of biblical figures of speech). This focus of Reformed eschatology precedes soteriology primarily because of our understanding of Adam and the Covenant of Works, and therefore those who deny the Covenant of Works can never have this full-orbed understanding and comfort in the Christian hope.

The traditional Reformed understanding of the Covenant of Works, which is confessed both in the Presbyterian and the (European) continental Reformed churches, is that Adam was bound by God a short time after his creation. In this covenant, God bound Adam to perfect and perpetual obedience to His commands, as expressed in the one explicit command given to Adam (and Eve) not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By divine fiat, the fruits of this one tree was forbidden to Adam and Eve, our first parents. If Adam and Eve were to obey God's commands as they are focused on this one simple prohibition, God promised eternal life to them. If however they were to disobey God, they would merit death and surely die.

In Hebrews 2: 5-9, the author of Hebrews cites Ps. 8:4-6 and expounds on it in relation to Christ. The context of Psalms 8:4-6 concerns how God has glorified Man in creation and crown him with glory and honor. In Man's original creation, Adam was a great priest and king before Creator God. But of course, we know Adam failed the test and fell from his glorious estate. Hebrews 2:5-9 brings up this motif to show us how Jesus fulfilled what Adam was tasked to do and bring us believers to the state of glory that Adam was meant to have brought about. In other words, the goal of the Eschaton, that of God coming down from heaven in all of His glory, was the intended telos of Adam's probation. The Fall interrupted that goal however, for now where God's glory was to be made manifest upon the earth, now sin pollutes all of God's creation. Eschatology precedes soteriology because the telos existed (in time) before even the Fall. We are saved from sin in order to get us back to the intended telos of creation. Salvation follows upon the interruption of the telos of the world, and serves the restoration of all things when Christ comes again, and therefore eschatology precedes soteriology.

As a short excursus, it is of course true that God's plan has always been for the Fall to happen and for Christ to die for the sins of the elect, from a Systematic Theological point of view, whether ones takes an infralapsarian or supralapsarian perspective. But the truths of God's plan on the vertical transcendent plane does not negate the truths of God's plans acted on along the horizontal plane of redemptive-history. So it is true that God decrees the Fall to happen and that Christ would die for the sins of the elect, but it is also true that the Fall interrupts the intended telos of the in-breaking of the glory of God upon the earth if Adam had obeyed. Those who desire to pit Systematic Theology against Biblical Theology and make one prior to the other have a stunted view of God and His glory, as if God is limited to one plane of operation. Both are true, as such both show us different facets of God's plan and God's glory.

Eschatology precedes soteriology. The in-breaking of the full glory of God upon this earth has been interrupted by the Fall, and it is this that is our hope, when Christ will come again from heaven with glory to cleanse the creation and restore it and bring it to its glorified state. This very public revelation or unveiling of God is the blessed hope for the Christian, the one who puts his hope and trust in Jesus Christ. We are not just saved from hellfire, as if Christianity is merely a hell insurance policy. Rather, we are being saved towards the intended goal of all creation, so that we might revel in the manifest glory of God and in communion with our Lord. So Maranatha, come Lord Jesus! Come!

The problem of "simple justice"?

In the republication view, merit is defined in terms of God's revealed will as specified by the terms of the covenant. Simply stated, merit is whatever God says it is. According to the republication position, the nature of the specified condition is ultimately irrelevant for determining its meritorious or non-meritorious character. The condition may be perfection (as in the covenant with Adam), or it may be something less than perfection (as in the Mosaic covenant). A work is meritorious, therefore simply when God decides to accept it as such through the stated stipulations or conditions of a particular covenantal arrangement. Kline referred to this as simple justice. ... In this redefined view of merit, there is no longer any need or place for the previous distinction made between Adam's covenant merit in contrast to Christ's strict merit. In terms of the definition of merit, Adam and Christ can equally earn the rewards of their respective covenants according to the principle of simple justice.(Andrew M. Elam, Merit and Moses, 67)

In dealing with Kline's view of merit, the authors claim that Kline teaches something called "simple justice," which is a merit that is nominalistic and totally arbitrary. Whatever God says is merit is merit. This sounds wrong, but the issue is: Is this a correct representation of what Klineans hold to?

First of all, it must be mentioned that claiming that both Christ and anyone else (e.g. Adam, Israel) "merit" in the same way is totally in error. Nowhere have the authors given any proof that any Klinean believed that, and one should not argue from silence. If we remember that we are talking about Form, and especially literary forms, then one should be cautious about reading one's preconceived notions into what Klineans write. Just because Kline mentioned the phrase "simple justice" and link Adam with Christ does not imply that the two "merit" in exactly the same way, since a typological relationship might just be referenced here, not some "ontological" equivalence.

"Covenant merit" deals with the logical construction of the covenant condition and reward. In form, it seems very similar to how "simple justice" seems to be construed, except it is a logical construct whereas it is unclear what kind of construct "simple justice" is. As such, on this topic it seems to me that Kline's view of merit require more clarification, yet even apart from that it can be seen that critics of Kline are grasping at straw to make the charges stick.

Man, Creation and Covenant

The Klinean republication view teaches that man was in covenant with God at the very moment of creation. This is an important shift from the traditional viewpoint. Ontological considerations demand that there be at least a logical distinction (rather than a chronological or historical sequence) between God's creating man and his entering into covenant with him. The republication teaching now erases this confessional distinction (which is based upon the "great disproportion" between the Creator and creature) and thereby turns God's providential work of establishing the covenant into an aspect of the work of creation. Thus, we may say that the two distinct acts have been conflated or collapsed into essentially one act in this new view. ... Thus, man's covenantal status seems to "trump" his creaturely status. (Andrew M. Elma et al, Moses and Merit, 61)

One major critique leveled against the "Klinean view of republication" is that Klineans conflate creation and covenant into one act, which results in the erasure of the Creator-creature distinction. Such a critique really sound strange, for even if it were one act, how exactly does one go from "God's act of establishing the covenant as an aspect of the work of creation" to "denial of the Creator-creature distinction"? Do the critics understand the view of covenant held by Klineans? Covenants ARE themselves condenscension; we have no access to the naked God (nudus Deus) and the very point of covenants is that they are condescension from the Creator God to His creatures. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant (WCF 7.1)

By stating that Man is created in covenant, the Creator-creature distinction is not eliminated but rather established. Only with creatures (and creation) does God relate by means of covenants.

However, that Klineans only believe that there is only one act is itself not established. For the issue is whether the two, creation and covenants, are distinguishable, not whether they are separable. The many quotes the authors come up with only show that Klineans deny that the two can be separated; it did not say that the two cannot be distinguished. For example, David VanDrunen wrote in the maligned book The Law is Not of Faith that Klineans refuse "to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam" (VanDrunen, "Natural Law," in Bryan D Estelle et al., The Law is Not of Faith, 291). Note that it said "separate," not "distinguish." Is it possible that some Klineans refuse to distinguish between Creation and Covenant? Perhaps, but the point is that the idea that Man is created in covenant does not imply that there is only one act, only that the two acts are so closely tied that they exist together.

Man is created as a covenant creature, although we acknowledge that the formal giving and establishing of covenants occur later after creation. As this is the main charge of the 3 authors, it is clear that they have not adequately represented Kline and Klineans.

NT typology of OT redemptive historical events, and Formal Republication

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. ... For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (Heb. 4:1-2, 8-10)

And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matt. 2:14-15)

The usage of the Old Testament in the New Testament is an interesting issue to consider. One manner in which the New Testament uses the Old Testament is by the usage of typology, which can be illustrated in the two passages shown here.

In the first passage from Hebrews, we see that Israel's historical experience of her wilderness longing for rest in the promised land is used to illustrate how believers today are similar in their experience in the "wilderness" of the world longing for rest in the heavenly promised land, the New Heavens and the New Earth. The typology here is made between the experience of Israel and that of Christians.

In the second passage, Matthew cites Hosea 11:1 which speaks of Israel's historical experience of the Exodus from Egypt. Matthew uses that passage and applies it to Christ, who in his infancy was in Egypt for a while before getting out of Egypt ("exodus") to return back to Nazareth. The typology here is between Israel and Christ. Christ is portrayed as the new Israel, such that Israel's exodus experience is recapitulated by Christ's experience of being in Egypt and then getting out of Egypt. We note here that the whole idea is not some form of "ontological" recapitulation (whatever that is supposed to be), but rather that it is a literary painting. Christ's experience is very much different from Israel's actual experience, since Christ was not enslaved in Egypt neither did he get out of Egypt by the express deliverance of God, but these differences are irrelevant, because the purpose of the typology is not to create a total correspondence of Christ to Israel, but rather to show through literary portrayal that Christ is the new Israel.

In the first example, Israel is the type for believers. In the second example, Christ is the antitype of Israel, Israel's fulfillment. But as we look at how the typological relations are formed, we see they are formed from facts and events in redemptive history, which seem to be "spiritualized" to make a point. In other words, it is not in what those events are in and of themselves that is relevant, but rather how these are portrayed to show forth the New Covenant reality for us. To put it in classical philosophical terms, it is the Form or Accident of the experiences that is used, not the Matter or Substance of the OT experiences, that creates these typologies.

This point is very important for the issue of Formal Republication. Much of the misrepresentation of Formal Republication seem to stem from the thinking that Formal Republication teaches or implies that the Mosaic Covenant has in part an essence of the Covenant of Works. But that is to misunderstand what "Form" in "Formal Republication" actually refer to. Formal Republication deals with Form, which is to say literary forms. Therefore, when Matthew cites Hosea 11:1 to say that Jesus is the new Israel, we are not to imagine Israel as being a "Third Adam," for the reason that typology is not ontological but literary. The "is" in the sentence "Jesus is the New Israel" is not a equivalence of being, but an equivalence of relation. Once this is seen, then the fog surrounding the discussion concerning the topic of Formal Republication should be thinner.

More on formal/ material republication

It is my opinion that one reason why there is so much confusion over the issue of formal and material republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant is that the phrases are used in more than one sense. In an effort to add some clarity, I would like to delineate the various manners, as I understand it, in which the phrases "formal republication" and "material republication," as used of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant, can be used.

A republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant is simply to say that some aspect (form or matter) of the Covenant of Works is also found in the Mosaic Covenant which God gave ("published") to Moses especially on Mount Sinai. The trouble here is that even here we have a genitive phrase ("of __"). As anyone who has studied grammar would have known, genitives can be notoriously hard to pin down as to their exact meaning. For example, what does the phrase "love of God" mean? Is it to be taken as the subjective genitive, which is to say "God's love" (God loves X), or is it to be taken as the objective genitive, that is "X's love for God"? Normally, we decipher which sense it is from the context. Unfortunately, things get complicated when we deal with terms as big as "republication" coupled with the adjectives "formal" and "material."

On this particular topic of republication, let us see what happens when we take the phrase "republication of the Covenant of Works" as a subjective genitive. If it is a subjective genitive, then the Covenant of Works is the subject, thus we have the meaning being "the Covenant [of Works] as an oath bond being republished." If such is the case, then to claim a formal republication is to claim that the Mosaic Covenant qua covenant has the same structure or form as the Covenant of Works. To claim a material republication on the other hand is to claim that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially a Covenant of Works. Thus, if one takes the phrase as a subjective genitive, it seems to me that Formal republication in this sense is what most of those who are promoting Formal Republication are claiming, and what I see as the view of Francis Turretin for example. Material republication in this sense however must be rejected as heresy.

If one were to take the phrase as an objective genitive, then the Covenant of Works is the object, thus we have the meaning being "the republication of something within the Covenant of Works." Formal Republication in this view is to state that the form of the Law (the covenant material) seen in the Covenant of Works is the same in the Mosaic Covenant, which is to say the law in the Covenant of Works, which was given as a stipulation to be obeyed for the reward of eternal life (the form in which the Law works in the Covenant of Works) functions in the same way in the Mosaic Covenant. On the other hand, Material Republication in this view states that the material of the Law, which is in the Covenant of Works, is found in the Mosaic Covenant. Thus, we see here that, taking the phrase as an objective genitive, we affirm material republication, while formal republication in this sense is heresy.

Due to the different ways in which the genitives can be interpreted, both the phrases "formal republication" and "material republication" can be either orthodox, or heretical. If we take it as the subjective genitive, then we hold to formal republication and reject material republication, while the converse holds true if we take it as the objective genitive. In my opinion, much of the confusion over republication stems from the failure to discern and differentiate between the two ways one can interpret the genitive, resulting in massive confusion as the one attacking formal republication interpret the phrase as an objective genitive, while the defenders of formal republication interpret the phrase as a subjective genitive.

The four views are summarized as follows:

Type of Genitive	Manner of republication	Meaning	Orthodox?
Subjective	Formal	The outward form of the Mosaic Covenant is the form of the Covenant of Works	Contended, should be
	Material	The Mosaic Covenant is essentially a covenant of works	No
Objective	Formal	The form of the Mosaic Covenant functions just like the form of the Covenant of Works, i.e. to gain eternal life through obeying the law	No
	Material	The substance of the Covenant of Works, the Law, is the same Law published at Sinai under the Mosaic Covenant	Yes

Dr. Alan Strange on the topic of Republication

Hope OPC recently hosted a seminar at the Presbytery of the Midwest's 2015 Spring Seminar on the issue of Republication of the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Economy, by Dr. Alan Strange. It can be heard here.

An informal presentation and discussion concerning the topic of Formal Republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant

Recently, I did an informal presentation (with discussion) on the issue of Formal Republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant, as taught by Herman Witsius but especially Francis Turretin. I recorded the presentation and discussion and the edited version can be heard here.

The references for Witsius and Turretin are as follow:

• Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 2: 182-7
• Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2: 227, 235, 262.

For those who want a fuller idea of where I'm going, here is my thesis:

The material cause of Formal Republication is the literary structure of the covenant and covenant documents. The formal cause of Formal Republication is typology, or relations. The efficient cause of Formal Republication is the will of God in making covenants with His people. The final cause of Formal Republication is pedagogy for our benefit.

Union with Christ and justification

A decisive break with the ordo salutis thinking that has vitiated Reformed thought since the early seventeenth century is clearly implied here [in T.F. Torrance's thought -DHC]. This historical record shows that as long as justification is viewed as taking place at a specific point in time (either in eternity or upon the exercise of faith) it is nearly impossible to find a meaningful relationship between justification and the economy of faith (the ongoing life of faith and obedience). Only when the traditional ordo salutis is eschewed can a truly forensic and synthetic doctrine of justification that is at the same time relational and dynamic be articulated.

...No longer is justification viewed as an abstract punctiliar decree in eternity or when a person believes. Rather, justification inheres once for all in the person of Christ, the resurrected and justified one. The believer's justification, then, is viewed as a continual and ongoing participation in the one divine forensic decree of justification—the resurrection justification of Christ. ... As to the time of justification, to speak theologically, the Christian's justification is intended in the eternal purposes of God; it is objectively declared at the resurrection of Christ; it is subjectively realized in the ongoing union with Christ by faith and the Holy Spirit; and it is conclusively ratified at the eschaton. [William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008), 265]

...according to them [the Sophists - DHC], man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul's only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their own strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (Gal. iii. 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. x. 5-9). Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification [read "regeneration" -DHC] and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.14)

The modern idea of "union with Christ" it seems partakes of the "Calvin versus the Calvinists" paradigm, and follows the revisionist historiography of the Barthians in this regard. According to William Evans, who followed Barthian T.F. Torrance's revisionist interpretation of Calvin and the Reformed tradition, we need to reject all talk about the Ordo Salutis as being a distortion of Calvin's thought of a vital and sustantial union with Christ. Justification in this scheme is a continuous process it seems, although it must be pointed out that the continuation is not the doing of good works but of the spiritual work of faithfulness.

As I have mentioned, I do not see how John Calvin can be interpreted to have this idea of a union with Christ in nobis. This whole idea of union with Christ as being John Calvin's focus really stinks of the whole discredited central dogma theory, as if Calvin interprets all of Scripture (eisegesis) through a theological hermeneutical lens. Also, the entire "Calvin versus the Calvinists" nonsense treats Calvin as THE definition of what Reformed means, something which Calvin would be much appalled about. John Calvin, while an influential Reformed, was not the only Reformer neither did he see himself as in any way superior to the other Reformers. Disagreeing with Calvin is thus not falling away from the Reformed faith!

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that Calvin is the paradigm of Reformed thought. When we look at Calvin's view on justification, what do we see but that justification is purely through faith alone, a faith that is passive and without works of any sort. We note that Calvin even excludes evangelical or spiritual works from consideration of justification. How different is that from Evans' idea of justification requiring "ongoing union with Christ by faith and the Holy Spirit" or perseverance in union with Christ, which must be considered an evangelical or spiritual good work. Evans might say it is still all of grace without good works, but the question is: Can a person lost his justification if he does not continue in the "ongoing union with Christ by faith and the Holy Spirit"? If justification can be lost, then we are back with Rome and her false gospel of salvation by faith and works. But if justification cannot be lost, then justification is not really continual is it? One just has to "begin" the process and all who "begin" the "continual" process will most certainly complete it.

The entire accusation against the Ordo Salutis is bad revisionist history. While we agree that a full-orbed Ordo was still forming during the time of the Reformers like John Calvin, yet it is simply ludicrous to think that there is no sort of order between the various works of God since they are all subsumed under "union with Christ." From 3.11.14 of Calvin's Institutes, Calvin clearly saw regeneration and justification as being prior to the "blessings" that flow from them, thus showing that having some version of an Ordo is inevitable within the Reformed tradition, despite Evans' distorted historiography

In order for salvation to be by faith alone, it must have a "punctiliar" nature, in the sense that a person that has faith does not create and nurture this faith unto justification by evangelical works. That is the problem Evans does not see: that erasing the punctiliar nature of justification means that one's evangelical works contribute to one's "final" justification, and thus justification by faith alone is compromised.

In conclusion, I am not impressed with the type of irrationality behind this project of denying the Ordo. The Reformers, Calvin included, all believed in justification by faith alone apart from any type of good works, and smuggling works in the back door is not something any of them would countenance.