Mosaic Covenant as republication of the Covenant of Works, once again, and once...again
Forgive me, but my God these Reformed academics are idiots.
Allow me to summarize in one sentence what this 'fool that hath a desire to teach' can't comprehend:
The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works for Jesus Christ, and national Israel (as unique a player in God's plan of redemption as the first Adam himself) is a type of Jesus Christ; *therefore*: that makes the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of grace for God's elect.
See? Not difficult. When a Kline or any other Reformed theologian says the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works in the garden *he is not saying it is not therefore a covenant of grace or not a part of the covenant of grace.* It is both (stop teaching for a moment and ponder, geniuses). It is a covenant of works for Jesus Christ (and national Israel was a type for Jesus Christ, i.e. kept the royal bloodline pure and brought to birth the Messiah Himself; even their histories correlate, if you ever get around to actually reading the Word of God) and in that it is part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect.
This subject is obviously a stumblingblock for many. It tends to expose who does and who doesn't have real understanding of Federal Theology.
ps- OK, postscript: how is the Mosaic Covenant part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect? Because it is what Jesus followed (to a 't') thus accomplishing what the first Adam failed to accomplish. Was Jesus suppose to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? No, that tree represented all the law of the Covenant of Works, and the republication of that law on Sinai was for the purpose of Jesus having that law to be born under so that He could *keep it* and succeed where the first Adam failed. (Jesus is the 'second Adam.') So that republication of the Covenant of Works called the Mosaic Covenant given on Sinai *is* a covenant of works...for Jesus. And for Israel before the birth of Jesus because Israel *was Jesus* as type.
National Israel *does not correlate* to fallen man. Repeat: national Israel does not correlate to fallen man. National Israel correlates to the first Adam and to the second Adam. The first Adam, Adam in the Garden, and national Israel *are unique players in God's history of redemption.* (Get it through your heads one way or another --- please.) This is why the apostle Paul has difficulty explaining in Romans just *why* Israel is a bit different in God's plan than all other people. He says, don't judge them, they basically had a unique role to carry out, and God will deal with them a bit differently for that reason. Yet they are still only saved by faith alone, in their case, faith in the coming Messiah. Yet just like the first Adam they were a unique player and thus have a bit of a unique status in God's overall plan of redemption.
2 Comments:
I stumbled on your blog entry via googling for material on this subject.
I do have some questions though: Within this scheme how do we see the curses at the end of Deuteronomy - do we see them as ultimately falling on Christ as the Federal head of the real Israel, though typologically they play out partially during the Exile of Israel/Judah. How do we interpret the northern kingdom essentially being completely dissolved - do we then read back the references to Ephraim as references to the Gentiles who are grafted into the faith?
Also, I'm wondering if at least part of the resistance to the notion of republication is coming from people who are influenced by the - IMO correct - view that israel under the law followed a scheme of covenantal nomism rather than being a religion of works, and are overreacting to what they believe to be the opposite erroneous viewpoint.
>Within this scheme how do we see the curses at the end of DeuteronomyThe curses and blessings are what happens to regenerated believers. If a regenerated, converted believer is tempted into sin he will be chastised in some way by God. He won't be cast out, but he will be chastised. All regenerate Christians experience this, to greater degree the more we are awake and changed by the Spirit within us, and thus more convicted.
>How do we interpret the northern kingdom essentially being completely dissolvedAs long as that bloodline from Adam to Christ was kept pure, in all the bad history of the Israelites, they weren't being 'cast out.' That bloodline was kept pure up to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
It's not warranted by Scripture to say the northern kingdom was completely dissolved, in the way you are meaning it. We have to speak of tribes, anyway. Scholars get embarrassed when speaking of the tribes in this context, because they fear man more than God. I fear only God and will say those Israelite tribes did not cease to exist and God did not abandon them. The northern kingdom itself as a political entity is less important, if not important at all, in the context of this subject.
As for Israel following a religion of works, this is where objectors to republication show their really rather inexcusable cluelessness. Most Reformed academics and their followers don't grasp Federal Theology. They didn't even know Federal Theology is Covenant Theology *systematized* until they read it from me. Suddenly one of their great academic historians started to write that after I introduced him to the fact on his blog (R. Scott Clark). But they still don't grasp Federal Theology. They can't see how the covenant of Sinai is a Covenant of Works *for Jesus* while at the same time it is part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect. That seems to be too much for them to handle. Then also they can't discern that *national Israel* does not correlate, in God's plan, to *fallen man.* National Israel *is a unique player* - just as Adam in the Garden was a *unique player* - in God's plan of redemption. So for Israel to be in a strange position vis-a-vis the law is similar to Adam's position vis-a-vis the Covenant of Works. Adam was going to break that covenant because it was part of God's plan that he break it, yet he is still guilty at the same time. Israel too was presented with the law, they would break it, as part of God's plan, yet they too were in a position of only being saved by faith in the future coming of the Messiah. Their uniqueness in God's plan, among other things, was the fact that they *were the living, historical material* of the written Word of God.
This isn't difficult, and the diffidence and petulance of Reformed academics in refusing to see it has everything to do with their inherent Romanist sympathies (their disdain for a Covenant of Works in the Garden to begin with). Their sacramentalism, and their secret sympathy with quasi works righteousness.
And, again, for the confused: *these types who refuse to recognize republication will bellow in righteousness like they are tied to a stake and being set on fire that they "will not stand for any stench of works righteousness, by God" and that they are "defending justification by faith alone" while in fact they are doing just the exact opposite. By denying Jesus (the Second Adam) accomplishes what Adam in the Garden failed to accomplish - and does sit on the elect of God's behalf - *they put the burden of fulfilling the law right back onto the back of fallen man, right where the devil wants it to be.*At a real level within them they *know* what they are doing.
They need to get out of their villages of morality and get in to the pure and whole - God preserved - received Word of God.
Post a Comment
<< Home