Evangelical Obedience in the Mosaic Covenant?

Clearly, the Mosaic covenant called for evangelical obedience founded on gospel conversion (Deut. 30:10). How then is its conditional form consistent with this evangelical nature? ... By walking in gospel obedience they would retain their present inheritance and receive the Messianic inheritance at his coming. This teaches the necessity of gospel obedience unto complete salvation. ...

Thus the Mosaic covenant was not a proclamation of works righteousness, but of gospel sanctification.(Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, 234)

The Mosaic Covenant is clearly conditional. How one deals with the conditionality in the Mosaic Covenant does affect to some extent one's soteriology. Greg Nichols has decided that the conditionality in the Mosaic Covenant refers to the necessity of evangelical obedience for sanctification. However, is that even a plausible interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant?

We note that in the Mosaic economy, blessings come with obedience and curses with disobedience. What is important to notice here is that the sanctions for disobedience in the Mosaic economy include death (Deut. 30:18), and obedience grants life (Deut. 30:20). Leviticus 18:5 states that the way to life is obedience of God's commands, and this verse is cited in the New Testament in Galatians 3:11 as the means of salvation "under the Law," which is contrasted with the way of salvation that is by faith, for "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12). In other words, the Scriptures seem to proclaim that the life promised under the Mosaic Covenant is (1) not of faith, (2) actually merited by obedience unto salvation. We also note that God does not punish with eternal death the misdeeds of His children, but merely chastise them for our good (Heb. 12:3-11). To render death for disobedience is certainly not compatible with the way God treats His wayward children.

What this proves is that the obedience in the Mosaic economy cannot be evangelical obedience, but legal obedience. Yes, we understand the graciousness of the giving of the Mosaic Covenant, but that is different from stating whether the stipulations and conditions IN the Mosaic Covenant are in fact evangelical or not. To predicate life upon obedience and death upon disobedience can never be about evangelical obedience. If, as Nichols put it, this conditionality teaches "the necessity of gospel obedience unto complete salvation," and thus "gospel sanctification," then does this mean that one can lose one's salvation ("death" under the Mosaic system) if one disobeys God? Are Christians in by faith, but stay in by covenantal faithfulness? I would sincerely hope not!

The denial of any type of works principle in the Mosaic Covenant, as Nichols does, results in confusion concerning the Mosaic Covenant, and even introduces confusion into one's soteriology. Our salvation is not conditioned upon our sanctification, for salvation is all by faith in Christ alone. Sanctification is necessary, but it is not a condition for salvation, but rather a condition from salvation. We are saved, therefore we obey; we are not sanctified in order that we might have "complete salvation," whatever that means.

Nichols, by denying the works principle in the Mosaic Covenant and placing the continuity/ discontinuity line of the Mosaic from the New Covenant on the wrong axis, leads his readers to confusion regarding salvation by faith alone. It is hoped that his expressed soteriology is better than his implicit one from his errant covenant theology.

Again, what is Formal Republication?

All we Reformed believers are "republicationists" in the sense that we all believe the moral law of God was reaffirmed — summarized or "republished" if you will — on Mt. Sinai. We have no argument there. The point at issue is whether or not that moral law was reaffirmed/ republished on Mt. Sinai as in some sense the covenant of works made with Adam. (Robert Strimple, "Westminster Confession of Faith: Was the Mosaic Covenant a Republication of the Covenant of Works," Unpublished essay, 4; cited in Andrew M. Elam, Moses and Merit, 79-80)

...Despite its affirmation that the Mosaic covenant is "part of the covenant of grace," the republication formulation of this covenant includes elements that differ in substance from the covenant of grace. In the Republication Paradigm, the Mosaic covenant includes a different set of essential elements on the typological level — the condition of meritorious works in order to earn the reward of temporal life in the promised land. ... This seems to imply that the nature of substance of the Mosaic covenant differs in some degree from other administrations of the covenant of grace. (Moses and Merit, 97)

As I have mentioned, the theory of Formal Republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant can have different interpretations. With all the focus on ontology, it seems that even more misunderstandings have developed, as we see in these two sections.

In the first sample from an unpublished essay by Robert Strimple, Dr. Strimple claimed that Formal Republication states that the moral law was republished "as in some sense the covenant of works made with Adam." As someone holding to Formal Republication, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The moral law is the moral law, especially in the Decalogue. But I do not hold to a formal republication of the moral law, but a formal republication of the covenant itself. I thus find myself disagreeing with Dr. Strimple's understanding of Formal Republication.

A more significant error comes in the inability of the authors to stop viewing everything in terms of ontology. Thus, they confuse the idea of Formal Republication with essential republication, confusing form and matter, substance and accidents. Now, whether this is due to certain variations of Klinean republication is not for me to say, but it seems to me that the last thing a critic of Formal Republication should do is to accuse its adherents of putting forward a competing substance that it is claimed made up the Mosaic Covenant. Formal republication is republication of the form, not of the substance, and it is thus that the authors erred and misrepresented what they are critiquing.

Covenant Merit Revisited

What exactly is Covenant Merit (meritum ex pacto)? By definition, "covenant merit" must denote a type of merit that functions within a covenant. In other words, the term must be defined as generically as possible, according to its referent ("covenant"), without any specific and arbitrary restriction in its basic definition.

In a covenant, which can be defined simply as an "oath-bound agreement," an agreement between two parties is envisioned. One party sets the condition, or gives a promise, to the other party. If it is a condition, then the other party (X) has to fulfill the conditions to get the promised rewards, failing which there might be sanctions. If it is a promise, then the party promising it has to fulfill the promise, and X can hold him to his word to fulfill it.

For a covenant with conditions, for someone, X, to fulfill the condition indicates that he merits the reward promised. This meriting is a purely logical construct, in the form of fulfilling the condition of the arrangement "If p, then q" where p is the condition, and q the reward. As a purely logical construction, it is solely interested in the logical relation in the argument form known as modus ponens. It is noted that the logical construction is totally uninterested in how p is accomplished. p can be achieved purely by grace, by one's own virtue or a mixture of them, and however p is achieved is absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is this, "Is p fulfilled by the party given this covenant obligation?" If so, then the party X has covenant merit before God, and God is obligated to reward the meritorious person X, because He has so promised in His word. After all, that is what "merit" means. One has done something which deserves a reward, and in the logical sense, X in accomplishing p does deserve the reward, not in an ontological sense but in a logical sense.

This it seems to me is the most basic meaning of "covenant merit." Being a logical relational construct, it has no bearings on ontology. Therefore, the denial of merit in the Reformed Confessions are inapplicable in dealing with the idea of "covenant merit."

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.

On Covenantal merit

Dear Reformed believer please do not pay attention to amateurs prattling on about merit. Most have no idea what they are saying.

— R. Scott Clark (@RScottClark) March 20, 2015

@RScottClark. Dr. Clark, do you have any good resources on meritum ex pactum?

— puritanreformed(@puritanreformed) March 20, 2015

@puritanreformed Definition? It's just meritum de congruo and any decent theological dictionary has that.

— R. Scott Clark (@RScottClark) March 20, 2015

@puritanreformed It would be we talking salvation but we're not so it isn't.

— R. Scott Clark (@RScottClark) March 20, 2015

According to Dr. Clark, Covenant merit (meritum ex pacto) is just congruent merit (meritum de congruo), which is to say that God rewards imperfect works as if they were fully righteous. However, at the same time, he states that covenant merit has nothing to do with salvation. But since condign and congruent merit are phrases used within the context of salvation or soteriology, then shifting the referent of "merit" from salvation (justification, sanctification, good works) to something that is NOT salvation would it seems imply a radical break between the meaning of covenant merit and congruent merit as-traditionally-defined, even though the concept of credited righteousness is found in both forms of merit.

If the referent has nothing to do with salvation, then covenant merit should not be called congruent merit, although it is certainly analogous to it. If used for the purpose of typology, then it seems to be the case that it is a literary phenomenon more than it is an actual phenomenon. Thus, "covenant merit" is defined as the literary portrayal of a person fulfilling the requirements of the covenants (without regard for the motivation or the empowerment to do so), and thus God is required upon His own word to reward the one who fulfilled the requirements. Thus, while a person does not really, actually, merit anything by doing what God commands, in a literary sense he does "merit" something when he fulfills the conditions of the covenant.

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.

Francis Turretin on the topic of Formal Republication within the Mosaic Covenant

However, we recognize only two covenants mutually distinct in species (to wit, the covenant of works, which promises life to the doer; and the covenant of grace, which promises salvation to believers). Although we confess that the Sinaitic covenant as to mode of dispensation was different from both, still as to substance and species we deny that it constituted a third covenant and hold that it was nothing else than a new economy of the covenant of grace. It was really the same with the covenant made with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances (to wit, clothed as to external dispensation with the form of a covenant of works through the harsh promulgation of the law; not indeed with that design, so that a covenant of works might again be demanded with the sinner [for this is impossible], but that a daily recollection and reproaching of the violated covenant of works might be made; thus the Israelites felt their sin and the curse of God besides hanging over them and acknowledged the impossibility of a legal righteousness; driven away from that hope, they so much the more ardently thirsted for the righteousness of redemption and were led along by the hand to Christ), Hence in it there was a mixture of the law and the gospel: the former to strike terror into sinners and press upon them the neck of the stiff-necked (schlerotragelou) people; the latter to lift up and console the conscience contrite and overpowered by a sense of sin.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr.; Phillipsburg, P&R publishing, 1994), 2: 263]

Here we see Francis Turretin teach a formal pedagogical republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant, as well as the Law/ Gospel distinction.