In Defense of
Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg
D. Patrick Ramsey
I. Introduction
It would be hard to overstate the
importance of understanding the correct place and role of the Mosaic Covenant
in redemptive history.[1] This is so because it is directly tied to the
proper relationship between law and grace, which is fundamental to many
important doctrines. As John Newton once
observed, “Ignorance of the nature and design of the law is at the bottom of
most religious mistakes.”[2] It should not surprise us, then, that
“differing systems of theology often have radically different conceptions of
the proper relationship between Law and Gospel.”[3]
Notwithstanding such importance, the
church as a whole has not been overly successful in discerning the Christian’s
relationship to Moses. Some within the
church have idolized him,[4]
others have hated him,[5]
and still others are simply bewildered by him.[6] Sadly, all too few have clearly and properly
assessed and appreciated his role in the history of redemption.
It is my conviction that the
historic Reformed faith, as it is expressed in the Westminster Confession of
Faith, has essentially understood the correct purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in
redemptive history. This is not to say,
however, that the Reformed community has been and is agreed upon this
issue. There have always been some
within the Reformed camp who have departed from the position stated in the
Confession. Two contemporary examples
are Mark W. Karlberg and his mentor Meredith G. Kline.[7]
Although they claim to hold to the classic form of
covenant theology,[8]
this article will attempt to demonstrate that their view is incompatible with
the Westminster Standards. In order to
do so I will first summarize their view of the Mosaic Covenant, then present
some reasons why this view is inconsistent with the Westminster Standards, and
finally answer some possible objections.
II. Kline and Karlberg’s View of the Mosaic
Covenant
According to Kline and Karlberg the Mosaic Covenant
is to be interpreted as a covenant of works, although not exclusively. As Mark Karlberg writes, “The Mosaic Covenant
is to be viewed in some sense as a
covenant of works.”[9] In fact, sound biblical exegesis requires
that one “not reduce the Mosaic Covenant to a covenant of ‘pure grace,’ with no
element of works in its administration.”[10]
To understand properly the role of
works one must divide the Mosaic Covenant into two distinct spheres or levels. [11] There is a foundational level, which deals
with the spiritual or eternal salvation of
The second, or upper, level of the
Mosaic Covenant refers to the temporal life of
The promise of the “upper level” is
temporal blessing and prosperity whereas the threat is temporal cursing and
removal from the Land. The promises and
threats of this temporal relationship are found in such places as Lev 26. Thus, the blessings and curses of the Mosaic
Covenant refer to the “upper level.”
The condition of the “upper level”
is “work” or “obedience to the law.” In
this sphere the Israelites, both individually and corporately,[14]
lived under a works/law/merit-inheritance principle.
This condition is both similar and
dissimilar to the condition of the Covenant of Works. It is similar in that the condition is
obedience to the law apart from faith in Christ. In other words, the principle of
works/law-inheritance is distinct from and antithetical to the
faith-inheritance principle. Karlberg
writes:
Likewise,
Kline asserts that the “law” in Rom 5:13b “refers to the old covenant, the
covenant that was not of faith but of works.”[17] In short, if
For this reason, Kline draws a
“radical contrast” between the Mosaic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant.[18] And Karlberg claims that “in some very
crucial sense the law of Moses is deemed to be contrary to the law of Christ.”[19]
The “upper level” condition is
dissimilar from the condition of the Covenant of Works in two respects. First, the condition of works in the Covenant
of Works was related to eternal life, whereas in the Mosaic Covenant it was
related to temporal matters only. As
Kline writes, “The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the
typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as
a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum.”[20] Legalism occurs when one applies this “works”
principle beyond temporal matters to spiritual ones (i.e., the “foundational
level”) as was the case with the Pharisees.[21]
Second, the Covenant of Works required perfect
obedience while the works-inheritance principle under Moses only demanded “the
necessary measure of corporate righteousness.”[22] Kline explains, “Flawless obedience was the
condition of Adam’s continuance in the Garden; but
Karlberg . . . thinks that the Mosaic covenant has a
double character. Under the Mosaic
covenant justification in the spiritual sphere was by faith alone and not by
works. But the Mosaic covenant
functioned in a different way in the earthly sphere; in time and space the
covenant was based on “works-inheritance,” so that obedience brought blessing
but disobedience punishment . . . Karlberg contends that the Mosaic covenant is
a covenant of works at the earthly and temporal level.[24]
The purpose of the “upper level”
relationship was to typify the Covenant of Works with the goal of leading
Just as the ceremonial laws of Moses typify the work
of Christ, so does the reward of temporal blessing for Israel’s obedience
typify Christ’s ultimate fulfillment of the covenant of works broken by Adam .
. . The work of Christ, in conjunction with the law-principle of inheritance,
is depicted in the typological system of Old Testament revelation. At the same time, the law-principle has
served as
Consequently
the “upper level” is often referred to as the “symbolical” or “typological”
sphere.
The biblical support for this view is in part as
follows: (1) Leviticus 18:5 (see also
Ezek 20:11; Luke 10:28; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12) teaches that the blessings of God
are obtained on the basis of obedience (i.e., the works-inheritance principle).[27] (2) The Babylonian exile is evidence that
In short, it is only by means of dividing the Mosaic
Covenant into two distinct levels that one can maintain the continuity (one way
of salvation) and discontinuity (OT works vs. NT grace) of the covenants found
in Scripture. Kline asserts that his
view
recognizes that the old Mosaic order (at its
foundation level . . . ) was in continuity with previous and subsequent
administrations of the overarching covenant of grace. But it also sees and takes at face value the
massive Biblical evidence for a peculiar discontinuity present in the old
covenant in the form of a principle of meritorious works, operating not as a
way of eternal salvation but as the principle governing
III. Reasons why Kline and Karlberg’s View of
the Mosaic Covenant is Incompatible with the Westminster Standards
1. A similar view of the Mosaic Covenant
(Subservient Covenant) was rejected by the
Generally speaking, there were four different views
concerning the nature of the Mosaic Covenant espoused by the
seventeenth-century Puritans.[32] First, the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of
works. Second, the Mosaic Covenant was a
subservient covenant. Third, the Mosaic
Covenant was a mixture of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Fourth, the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant
of Grace.
The difficulty in classifying the
various Puritans according to these four categories is that “many of them held
several of the different views in varying combinations.”[33] As a result, some divines seemed confused and
contradictory.[34] Other divines use the same terminology of the
various classifications but in different senses.[35] Moreover, many theologians within the same
general category differ on the various details of the Mosaic Covenant.[36]
Nonetheless, if we are careful to make the necessary distinctions, these four
classifications are both necessary and useful.
After all, the Puritans themselves employed them.
The view that bears the closest
resemblance to Kline and Karlberg is the Subservient Covenant.[37] If this view is proven to be contrary to the
Westminster Confession of Faith, then it must follow that Kline and Karlberg do
not hold to the classic form of covenant theology (at least as it is expressed
in the WCF) and that their view is also rejected by the Confession.[38]
a. The Subservient Covenant view
Following John Cameron,[39]
a precursor to Amyraut,[40]
some Puritans saw three distinct covenants in Scripture: (1) foedus
natura: the covenant made with man before the fall; (2) foedus gratiae: the covenant of grace
made with us in Christ; and (3) foedus
subserviens: a subservient covenant.
The foedus
subserviens, or Subservient Covenant, is the Mosaic Covenant. God established this covenant at Mount Sinai
with
The Subservient Covenant was not a covenant of grace
nor a covenant of works nor a mixed covenant; rather, it was a third
covenant. It was preparatory to the
covenant of grace being midway between the Covenant of Nature (works) and the
Covenant of Grace. Samuel Bolton
explains: “The subservient covenant, which was called the old covenant, was
that whereby God required obedience from the Israelites in respect of the
moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. Blessings in the possession of
The promises of the Subservient Covenant were
temporal blessings in the
The condition of the Subservient Covenant is, in
general, the same as the Covenant of Works, namely, “Do this and live.” This is in contrast to the condition of the
Covenant of Grace, which is “Believe and you shall be saved.” The reception of the promises was contingent
upon the works of the Israelites. Hence,
this covenant was a legal covenant, condemning sin and approving righteousness. The New Covenant, on the other hand, was a
gracious covenant, pardoning sin and renewing fallen man.
This condition of works required perfection and was
antecedent to the promise. Sincere,
gospel obedience was not acceptable in this covenant.
In this way, the Subservient Covenant parallels the
Covenant of Works. The difference, however, is that when
How is this discrepancy to be explained? According to
When [Israel] had broken [the Subservient Covenant],
they were not to think the case hopeless, but had liberty of appeal from the
law to the Gospel, from God’s justice offended to God’s mercy pardoning and
covering their sin, as we find the people frequently doing when they implored
mercy and pardon for His Name’s sake: “For thy name’s sake forgive, and for thy
name’s sake cover our transgressions”; under which expressions Christ was
darkly foreshadowed.[44]
John Owen had a somewhat different explanation. He realized that if God dealt with them
according to the prescribed terms of the covenant,
Another distinctive characteristic of this covenant
is that it provided no strength to obey the commandments. As a result, the Subservient Covenant
slavishly forced sinful
The purpose of this covenant was primarily to lead
the Israelites to Christ. It did this by
preparing them for faith through exposing their sin and highlighting their
failure to keep the law. Furthermore, it
inflamed their hearts with desire for the coming Messiah, who would come and
deliver them from the Subservient Covenant.
A secondary goal was to restrain sin until the coming of the Spirit (of
adoption), who would govern them with a more free spirit.
The primary reason for holding to
the Subservient Covenant is the contrast and opposition found in Scripture
between the old and new covenants (2 Cor 3:6-9; Gal 4:24-26; Heb 7:22;
9:15-20).[46] Since the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant, it
must either be a covenant of works, a covenant of grace, or some other
covenant. Clearly it cannot be a
covenant of works, since, among other reasons, that would annul the
promise.
The Mosaic Covenant cannot be the Covenant of
Grace. For the glory of the New Covenant
is that we are freed from the law as a covenant and not just its legal or
administrative aspect. Accordingly, it
cannot be part of the Covenant of Grace for we are never set free from it. Hence, the Mosaic Covenant must be a third
covenant, one that is not contrary to the promises of grace, though one that
could be set aside, namely the Subservient Covenant.[47]
b. Comparison of Kline and Karlberg’s view and
the Subservient Covenant
Agreements
1. The way of eternal salvation
has been the same throughout the history of redemption, that is, by means of
the Covenant of Grace.
2. The blessings and curses of
the Mosaic Covenant refer to temporal blessings in the
3. The Mosaic Covenant is
distinct from the Abrahamic and New Covenants.
4. The Mosaic Covenant is
distinct from the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
5. The condition of the Mosaic
Covenant is works apart from faith in Christ.
6. The Mosaic Covenant was
designed to lead people to Christ by exposing their sin.
Disagreements
1. For the Subservient Covenant
view, the condition of the Mosaic Covenant was perfect obedience whereas for
Kline and Karlberg, less than perfect obedience was acceptable to obtain the
blessings.
2. Kline and Karlberg teach
that the righteousness of
c. The Subservient Covenant is incompatible with
the
The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6 asserts that
“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but
one and the same, under various dispensations.”
All that is required, therefore, to demonstrate that the Subservient
Covenant is incompatible with the Confession is to show that it is a covenant
different in substance. This we will do
by the following observations.
First, the nature of the Subservient Covenant. It becomes a covenant that is different in
substance from the Covenant of Grace in that it is distinct and separate from
the Abrahamic and New covenants, contains the same condition as the Covenant of
Works, terrifies the conscience without any comfort, creates bondage and
slavery, and only condemns sin and approves righteousness. Rightly does John Ball say of the Subservient
Covenant, “But not to examine these things particularly, by this explication it
appears, the Divines of this opinion, make the old Covenant differ from the new
in substance, and kind, and not in degree of manifestation, as also did the
former [view that saw the Mosaic Covenant as a strict covenant of works].”[48]
Second, the explication of the Subservient
Covenant. Consider the following
statements:
·
“I shall propose sundry things which relate unto the nature of the
first covenant [Mosaic Covenant], which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere
administration of the covenant of grace.”[49]
·
“These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth
plainly and expressly make mention of two
testaments, or covenants, and
distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be
accommodated unto a twofold
administration of the same covenant.
The one . . . the covenant that God made with the people of
·
“The old covenant is abrogated as to the impossible condition of
perfect obedience.”[51]
·
“It was a covenant which, though it stood upon opposite terms to the
covenant of grace, served the purpose of the covenant of grace subserviently.”[52]
·
“We are freed from the law as a covenant, and if the law were a
covenant of grace, only more legally dispensed and administered after a more
legal manner, it might seem better to say that we are freed from this aspect of
it rather than to say we are freed from it as a covenant. Therefore, if they say we are freed from it
as a covenant, it cannot possibly be held to be the covenant of grace.”[53]
Third, the contradiction of the Subservient
Covenant.
the same covenant in respect of its nature and
design under which we stand under the Gospel, even the covenant of grace,
though more legally dispensed to the Jews.
It differed not in substance from
the covenant of grace, but in degree . . . in the economy and external
administration of it . . . the new and old covenants, the covenants of the law
and Gospel, are both of them really covenants of grace, only differing in their administrations.[54]
One
who is familiar with the language of the Westminster Standards can immediately
recognize the similarities with the above quote. The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6
states, “This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law . .
. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but
one and the same, under various dispensations.”
It is important to remember that the primary
biblical reason that some divines held to the Subservient Covenant was because
they understood the Scriptures to teach that the Old Covenant was abrogated as
a covenant. The contrast was not found
to be in mere administrations but in covenants.
As we have already seen, they themselves understood their view of the
Mosaic Covenant to differ in substance with the Covenant of Grace. This is why they taught a “third” covenant,
distinguishing it from the “same in substance” position. Consequently, the Subservient Covenant is
distinguished from and opposed to the Confession’s understanding of the nature
of the Mosaic Covenant.
Fourth, the influence of John Ball upon the
Westminster Confession of Faith. This great
divine taught that “the Mosaic Covenant is wholly devoid of any administrative
element of works-merit.”[55] It is noteworthy, therefore, that “no one
probably was more highly esteemed as a judicious divine by the fathers of the
Assembly” than John Ball.[56] The exposition of the Ten Commandments found
in the Larger Catechism was partially derived from Ball’s catechism.[57] Moreover, chapter 19 of the Confession is a
summary of his views.[58]
According to Alexander F. Mitchell, “The later and most remarkable treatise of
Ball, on the ‘Covenant of Grace,’ was published with recommendatory notices by
Reynolds, Cawdrey, Calamy, Hill, Ashe, and Burgess at the very time the
Assembly began to frame its Confession, and it contains all that has been
admitted into the Westminster Standards, or generally received on this head
among British Calvinists.”[59]
Fifth, the conclusions of contemporary
scholars. Again, consider the following
statements:
·
E. F. Kevan: “ It is not possible to make an accurate classification of
the Puritans on the basis of their views about the Mosaic Covenant, because
many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations. On
the whole, however, they can be divided into two groups on this subject; those
who regarded the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works, and those who regarded
it as a Covenant of Grace . . . The outcome of the Puritan debate was that, on
the whole, it was agreed that the Mosaic Covenant was a form of the Covenant of
Grace; and this view was embodied in the Confession
of Faith [the author references WCF 7. 5-6].”[60]
·
Sinclair Ferguson:
·
Jan Rohls: “With their thesis of the double administration of the
substantially identical covenant of grace, the Westminster Confession and the
Helvetic Consensus Formula oppose the thesis advanced by John Cameron and Moyse
Amyraut in the school of Saumur, which holds that there are three substantially
different covenants of God with humanity: namely, the covenant of works or of
nature, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of law (foedus legale).”[62]
·
James Kirk: In commenting upon Cameron’s view of three covenants, Kirk
writes, “This seemed at variance with the Calvinist emphasis on two covenants
and gave rise to suspicions that Cameron favoured Arminianism.”[63]
On the basis of the above observations we are
compelled to conclude that the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly and
unequivocally rejected the Subservient Covenant position. Consequently the Confession also closes the
door on the similar position of Kline and Karlberg.
2. The Westminster
Kline and Karlberg assert that the
blessings and curses in general and of the Mosaic Covenant in particular refer
to the works-inheritance principle, and are antithetical to the Covenant of
Grace and were abrogated by the coming of Christ. The Confession, on the other
hand, believes that they are part of the Covenant of Grace and applicable to
the New Testament believer.
WCF 19.6: It is likewise of
use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:
and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what
afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the
curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show
them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon
the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant
of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law
encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his
being under the law; and, not under grace.
According to this section of the Confession, the
curses (“threatenings”) of the Mosaic Law teach the regenerate what temporal
afflictions they may expect when they sin while the blessings (“promises”)
instruct them concerning the benefits they may expect when they obey.[64] Saving faith “trembles” at these curses and
“embraces” the blessings “for this life, and that which is to come.”[65]
To establish a connection between obedience and
blessing and disobedience and cursing is for many—notably antinomians—to
establish in some sense a covenant of works.[66] The divines were certainly aware of this
possible misunderstanding. After all,
they debated this issue for years.
Consequently, they made it explicitly clear that such a connection does
not in any form or fashion indicate that man is under a covenant of works. They accomplish this by repeating themselves
three times.
The divines wrote that though we may be afflicted
for sin, we are “freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law” and though
we are blessed, it is not on account of our works as “by the law as a covenant
of works.”[67] They then immediately restate it: “So as, a
man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the
one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law;
and, not under grace.”
The divines repeat themselves for the third time in
paragraph 7 of chapter 19. Here they
point out that the uses of the blessings and curses of the Mosaic Law are not
contrary to the “grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it.”[68]
The minutes of Session 699 of the Westminster
Assembly state the matter with greater clarity and intensity:
Neither is it an evidence that a man is under law,
and not under grace, when he refrains from evil and doeth good, because the law
encourageth to the one, and deters from the other, but rather a sign of the
power of God’s grace in him, when his heart is subdued conscientiously to live
according to the Rule, though in things contrary to the dictate of corrupt
nature, from the consideration of God’s goodness in rewarding freely those that
do well, and of his justice in punishing them that do ill.[69]
How the regenerate can be afflicted according to the
threatenings (curses) of the law yet at the same time be freed from the curse
of the law is explained by Thomas Boston:
For though believers ought never to fear that they
shall be condemned and cast into hell, yet they both may and ought to awfully
to regard the threatenings of the holy law: and how they ought to regard them,
one may learn from the Westm. Confess. chap. xix. art. 6, in these words, “The
threatenings of it [viz.: the law] serve to show what even their sins deserve;
and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed
from the curse thereof threatened in the law.”
Thus they are to regard them, not as denunciations of their doom, in
case of sinning, but as a looking-glass wherein to behold the fearful demerit
of their sin; the unspeakable love of God in freeing them from bearing it, his
fatherly displeasure against his own for their sin, and the tokens of his anger
to be expected by them in that case. So
will they be influenced to eschew evil and do good, being thereby filled with
hatred and horror of sin, thankfulness to God, and fear of the displeasure and
frowns of their Father, though not with a fear that he will condemn them, and
destroy them in hell.[70]
Therefore,
the Westminster Divines strongly affirmed that blessings and curses do not
reflect a works-principle. Furthermore,
the Mosaic sanctions are applicable to saints (i.e., the “regenerate”) in the
Old and New Testaments (note that Matt 5:5 and Eph 6:2-3 are cited as proofs
texts).
A proof text used in this section that is worth
commenting upon is Ezra 9:13-14.
Specifically, this text is used to prove that the “threatenings [of the
law] serve to show what even [believers’] sins deserve; and what afflictions,
in this life, they may expect for them.” In this text Ezra prays: “What has happened to us is a result of our evil
deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our
sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this. Shall we again break your commands and
intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not
be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor?” The punishment that Ezra refers to is
the Babylonian captivity. According to
Kline, this exile is evidence that
WCF 30.3: Church censures
are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for
deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven
which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the
holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might
justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals
thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[73]
Church discipline is necessary in order to prevent
the wrath of God falling upon the corporate body of Christ. God is just in “cursing” His Church “if they
should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious
and obstinate offenders.” One example,
according to the Confession, of God’s wrath or curse falling upon the church is
found in 1 Cor 11.[74] In this passage God afflicts his people with
sickness and even death because of their abuse of the Lord’s Supper.
WCF 17.3: Nevertheless, they
may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of
corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their
preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein:
whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be
deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts
hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring
temporal judgments upon themselves.
The clear testimony of Scripture and the Confession
is that true believers can fall into grievous sin. One of many possible consequences is that
believers may “bring temporal judgments upon themselves.” The two proof texts to support this teaching
are 1 Cor 11:32 and Ps 89:31-32. The
former refers to the Corinthians’ abuse of the Lord’s Supper and the ensuing
temporal judgments of sickness and death.
The latter refers to the threat of punishment to David’s sons who fall
away from the Lord: “If [David’s] sons break My law and do not walk in My
judgments, if they break My statutes and do not keep My commandments, then I
will punish their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with
stripes.”
It is significant that the Confession uses Ps 89 as
a proof text, for according to Karlberg, this passage refers to the
works-inheritance principle that was limited only to Old Testament
The purpose of the curses for God’s people in both
the Old Testament and the New Testament is not to place them under a type of
covenant of works but to “chastise them for their former sins, or to discover
unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts,
that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant
dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful
against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.”[78]
WLC 133. Q: What is the
reason annexed to the fifth commandment, the more to enforce it?
A: The reason annexed to the fifth commandment,
in these words, That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God
giveth thee, is an express promise of long life and prosperity, as far as it
shall serve for God’s glory and their own good, to all such as keep this
commandment.
The temporal blessing of long life and prosperity is
promised to all those who keep the fifth commandment. That this promise is not restricted to Old
Testament
WLC 114. Q: What reasons are
annexed to the third commandment?
A: The reasons annexed to the third commandment,
in these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless
that taketh his name in vain, are, because he is the Lord and our God,
therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially
because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this
commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment,
albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.
James Durham asks how the
threatening of the third commandment is to be understood. In answering he distinguishes between the
godly and ungodly, that is to say, between those who turn to Christ for pardon
and those who do not. With respect to
the believer,
WLC 110. Q: What are the
reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A: The reasons annexed to the second
commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the Lord
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are,
besides God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for
his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as
being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as
hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming
the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising
mercy to them unto many generations.
It is certain that children will not
suffer eternal punishment because of their parents’ sin even as they will not
be saved due to their parents’ faith.
Nonetheless, godly children of ungodly parents are liable to experience
temporal punishments due to their parents’ sins. On the flip side, children are subject to
blessing if their parents love the Lord.
Thomas Ridgeley comments:
For understanding this language, let it be
considered that, though God does not punish children with eternal destruction
for the sins of their immediate parents, yet these often bring temporal
judgments on families . . . These judgments fall more heavily on those children
who make their parents’ sins their own . . . Whatever temporal judgments may be
inflicted on children for their parents’ sins, shall be sanctified, and redound
to their spiritual advantage, as well as end in their everlasting happiness, if
they do not follow their bad example.
Accordingly, it is farther observed that God “shows mercy unto thousands
of them that love him and keep his commandments.” These are very motives and inducements to
enforce the observance of all God’s commandments, and this in particular.[81]
The
proof text for the phrase, “and his revengeful indignation against all false
worship, as being a spiritual whoredom” is 1 Cor 10:20-22. This indicates that the Divines understood
the sanctions of this commandment to be applicable in the New Testament.
3. The Westminster
WCF 7.6: There are not
therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same,
under various dispensations.
WLC 33. Q: Was the covenant
of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
A: The covenant of grace was not always
administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old
Testament were different from those under the New.
WLC 34. Q: How was the
covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A: The covenant of grace was administered under
the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the
passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then
to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in
the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal
salvation.”
WLC 35. Q: How is the covenant
of grace administered under the New Testament?
A: Under the New Testament, when Christ the
substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be
administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the
sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; in which grace and salvation are
held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.
These passages of the Confession and Larger
Catechism teach that there is continuity in “substance” and discontinuity in “administration”
between the Old and New Testaments. Such
teaching, however, runs counter to the view of Kline and Karlberg. For a covenant that is radically contrasted
with the Abrahamic Covenant and contains a condition of works, which is opposed
to faith, must necessarily be a covenant differing in substance.[82] At the very least, the Puritans would have
certainly thought so since they considered the Subservient Covenant position to
be different in substance.
Notwithstanding, Kline and Karlberg do not claim to
deviate from the Westminster Standards.
They maintain that their view is compatible with the “same in substance”
view because they strongly believe in only one way of salvation. Saints in the Old Testament were saved in the
exact same way as saints in the New Testament.
This acknowledgement by itself does not escape the
charge of holding to a “differing in substance” view of the Mosaic Covenant,
for the Puritan adherents to the Subservient Covenant position also strongly
believed in one way of salvation. Hence,
Kline and Karlberg further teach that the Mosaic Covenant is not a distinct
covenant but a typological one. The
works element was a typological administration of the covenant of grace. Therefore, there is only one covenant of
grace and the difference is found in the administration.
At first glance, this position might
now seem compatible with the Confession.
Upon closer inspection, however, it is far from it. Where does the Confession describe or refer
to the Mosaic Covenant as a typological works covenant that is merely an
administration of the Covenant of Grace?
According to Karlberg, there is a glimmer of hope to be found in WCF
19.3-4:
The Westminster Standards reaffirm its commitment to the
traditional Reformed understanding of the similarities and differences between
the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the New Covenant. The Confession concludes with
the statement: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in
substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (VII. 6; cf., Larger Catechism Q. A. 33–35). The
Confession stresses that the purpose of the law of Moses is as a rule of life
and righteousness (XIX. 2). It has been commonplace in Reformed theology from
the beginning to speak of the law as a “rule” for life both in creation and
redemption. This is different from the use of the law with respect to the
principle of inheritance in which there is an antithesis between law and grace
and an abrogation of the law with respect to soteric justification. But the law
of Moses also contained “several typical ordinances,” as part of the ceremonial
laws which have all been terminated by Christ (XIX. 3). The civil or judicial
laws have likewise expired, except as they can be applied now to civil
legislation according to the principle of “general equity” (XIX. 4). The civil
laws no longer carry any typological meaning as they did in the Old Covenant.
With respect to the typological picture, these civil laws of Moses signify the
eternal, antitypical state of consummation glory. The Westminster Confession
has left the door open to a diverse range of interpretation in giving detailed
expression to the law-character of the Mosaic covenant of grace.[83]
Karlberg
claims that the Westminster Confession of Faith opens the door wide enough to
allow the works-inheritance principle to be encapsulated in the now abrogated
ceremonial and/or civil law. This
proposal has some devastating flaws.
First, this argument is fallacious in that it is a non sequitur. The fact that these laws have been abrogated
or expired does not imply that they were part of a covenant of works. Nor does the fact that God made a national
typical covenant with
Second, it is both contrary to the Confession and
absurd to consider the ceremonial law as a covenant of works.[87] How is it possible that laws—which, according
to WCF 19.3, prefigured “Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and
benefits,” and which were “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through
the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the
promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal
salvation” (WCF 7.5)—were part and parcel of the works-inheritance
principle? How is it possible that “the
sacraments of the old testament,” which were “for substance, the same with
those of the new” (WCF 27.5), were part of a covenant of works?
Finally, and more importantly, Karlberg’s
interpretation leads to an unacceptable conclusion. The works-inheritance principle established
with
WCF 20.1: The liberty which
Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom
from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;
and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan,
and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the
victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access
to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under
the law. But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further
enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the
Jewish church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of
grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers
under the law did ordinarily partake of.
This section of the Confession outlines the liberty
believers have in the gospel both for Old and New Testament saints. Believers in all ages are free from “the
guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in
their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and
dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory
of the grave, and everlasting damnation.”
And, their freedom consists “in their free access to God, and their
yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and
willing mind.” How could this be if
The freedom of New Testament believers is further
enlarged. They are free from the
ceremonial law, have greater boldness to approach God, and have a fuller
measure of the Spirit of God. There is
no hint of the abrogation of the blessings and curses. Nor is it mentioned that God’s people were
set free from a works-inheritance principle, the form of a covenant of works,[89]
the rigor of the law, or the Subservient Covenant. This observation is all the more conspicuous
when we realize that the Savoy Declaration (1658), under the influence of John
Owen, augmented the liberty of New Testament believers to include freedom from
“the whole legal administration of the covenant of grace, to which the Jewish
church was subjected.”[90]
a. The
As has been mentioned, Kline and Karlberg in
defending the works-inheritance principle of the Mosaic Covenant use 2 Cor
3. Such an appeal, however, runs counter
to the Confession’s interpretation. This
chapter of Scripture, according to the Divines, teaches us that the covenant of
grace was administered differently in the Old Testament, that is, by the
ceremonial laws which were sufficient to teach the elect the way of salvation
but certainly not able to save in and of themselves.[91] Hence a new covenant with better promises was
required (Heb 8).
Moreover, this passage of Scripture reveals that the
gospel in the New Testament is held forth in “more fullness, evidence, and
efficacy to all nations” because “Christ the substance was exhibited” and
Pentecost led to “fuller communications of the free Spirit of God.”[92] In other words, the difference between the
old and new covenants is comparative (in terms of degree and intensity) and not
absolute.
The use of 2 Cor 3 to support a
comparative difference between the covenants excludes the idea of a
works-inheritance principle in the Mosaic Covenant. For such a principle is an absolute or
antithetical difference.
In light of this, we may well wonder how the
Puritans understood the phrases “ministry of death” and “ministry of
condemnation” as found in 2 Cor 3 as well as the other New Testament passages
that speak negatively of the law. The
majority explained these denunciations of the law, not as it was given to
Moses, but as the unbelieving Jews perverted it.[93] John Flavel writes:
This fatal mistake of the use and intent of the law,
is the ground of those seeming contradictions, in Paul’s epistles. Sometimes he magnifies the law, when he
speaks of it according to God’s end and purpose in its promulgation, Rom. 7:12,
14, 16. But as it was fatally mistaken
by the Jews, and set in opposition to Christ; so he thunders against it, calls
it a ministration of death and condemnation: and all its appendant
ceremonies weak and beggarly elements. And by this distinction, whatsoever seems
repugnant in Paul’s epistles, may be sweetly reconciled; and it is a
distinction of his own making, 1 Tim. 1:8.[94]
IV. Possible Objections Answered
Objection
1: The
The Mosaic Covenant is referred to as “law” while
the New Covenant is labeled “gospel” (WCF 7.5-6). Old Testament saints are described as being
“under the law” whereas New Testament saints are “under the Gospel” (WCF 20.1;
25.2). Since “law” also describes the
Covenant of Works,[95]
the Mosaic Covenant must be a covenant of works in some sense. To be “under the law” is therefore, according
to the Confession, equivalent to being under a covenant of works.
This objection fails to recognize the way the Confession
is using the term “law.” It is
synonymous with “Old Testament.”
According to WCF 7.5, “This covenant [of grace] was differently
administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel.” And WCF 25.2 says, “The visible church, which
is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as
before under the law) . . .” Clearly, “Law” does not refer to the Mosaic
Covenant exclusively but to the whole Old Testament (including the Abrahamic
and Davidic Covenants). Therefore, to be
“under the law” is not equivalent to the Covenant of Works but to be under (or
living in) the old dispensation.
Objection 2: The connection between the first two
paragraphs of chapter 19 of the Confession implies that the Mosaic Covenant was
a covenant of works in some sense.
Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states that the
law given to Adam was a covenant of law.
Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law
described in paragraph 1. Since the law
in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2
must be as well.
This objection cannot be sustained when one
considers that the law was given for two different and distinct purposes. First, it was given to Adam alone (though
later to Christ) as a covenant of works (cf. WCF 19.1; WLC 92). Second, the law was given to all men as a
“perfect rule of righteousness” (WCF 19.2; WLC 95). The connection between paragraphs 1 and 2 of
chapter 19 is that the content of the law is the same (except the law with
reference to the tree of knowledge of good and evil). The discontinuity between the two paragraphs
is found in the use or purpose of the same law as indicated by the respective
qualifiers “as a covenant of works” and as “a perfect rule of righteousness.”[96]
In paragraph 1 we read that the law was given to
Adam as a covenant of works. Larger
Catechism 92 explains that this law entailed the special command and the moral
law. The qualifier “as a covenant of
works” is crucial because the giving of the law does not necessitate “a
covenant of works.” We have the law
today though we are not under the Covenant of Works. In paragraph 2, “this law” refers to the
moral law (see paragraph 3) but is not said to be given as a “covenant of
works.” In fact the rest of the chapter
indicates that “this [moral] law” given at Mount Sinai is the perfect rule of
righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5)
and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, the Confession itself forbids us
to infer that the phrase “as a covenant of works” is to be applied to the
giving of the law to the people of God at
In his exposition of the Ten Commandments, James
Durham notes that we must distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the
law as given to
Then you would distinguish between this law, as
given to Adam, and as given to
Objection 3: The position of the Westminster
It is certainly true that there was a great debate
among the Puritans as to the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. Moreover, Reformed Presbyterians have
continued the debate. However, this does
not imply that the Puritans themselves did not come to a majority
consensus. As we have already noted, the
exhaustive research of E. F. Kevan concludes that they did: “The outcome of the
Puritan debate was that, on the whole, it was agreed that the Mosaic Covenant
was a form of the Covenant of Grace; and this view was embodied in the
Confession of Faith.”[99]
The Puritans debated church government. There were Presbyterians, Erastians, and
Independents at the Assembly.
Nonetheless, the Presbyterian view prevailed as is indicated by the text
of the Confession itself. The section on
church government is simply intolerant of any view other than
Presbyterianism. The same is true
concerning the nature of the Mosaic Covenant.
A cursory examination of the Westminster Confession of Faith is all that
is needed to know that the Divines clearly and unequivocally rejected any
position that held a “works principle” to be operative upon believing
Objection 4: In expounding the covenant of works made with Adam the Westminster
Confession of Faith uses Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 as proof texts. Both of these texts quote Lev 18:5, which
refers to the Mosaic Covenant.
Therefore, the Divines understood the Mosaic Covenant to be a covenant
of works.
The texts that the Westminster Standards used to
expound the Covenant of Works are Gen 1:26-27; 2:17; Job 28:28; Eccl 7:29; Rom
2:14-15; 5:12-20; 10:5; Gal 3:10; 3:12 (WCF 7.2; 19.1). None of these texts are from the Mosaic
Covenant; however, Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:10, 12 quote verses from the Mosaic
Covenant.
The reasons for appealing to these New Testament
quotations of Moses vary among the writings of the Puritans. Some believed that they taught that the
Covenant of Works was renewed at
The purpose or intention of this renewal was not for
God never made the covenant of works with any man
since the fall, either with expectation that he should fulfill it, or to give
him life by it; for God never appoints any thing to an end, to the which it is
utterly unsuitable and improper . . . Therefore, his purpose in renewing the
covenant of works, was not, neither could be, to give life and salvation by
working; for then there would have been contradictions in the covenants, and
instability in him that made them.[102]
So
why then did God renew the Covenant of Works?
It was, according to Fisher, added to the Covenant of Grace
by way of subserviency and attendance, the better to
advance and make effectual the covenant of grace; so that although the same
covenant that was made with Adam was renewed on
A similar position stated that these passages taught
that the Mosaic Law contained a restatement of the principle of works. It was not re-established or renewed, only
republished and repeated in order to drive men to Christ.[104] Herman Witsius explains:
And first, we observe, that, in the ministry of
Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the
covenant of works. For both the very
same precepts are inculcated, on which the covenant of works was founded, and
which constituted the condition of that covenant; and that sentence is
repeated, “which if a man do he shall live in them,” Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13
by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom.
10:5. And the terror of the covenant of
works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, “cursed be
he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deut. 27:26. Now the apostle declares, that this is the
curse of the law, as the law is opposed to faith, or the covenant of grace,
Gal. 3:10, 12 . . . Secondly, we more especially remark, that when the law was
given from mount Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of
works . . . Thirdly, we are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the
covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with
the Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation . .
. The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in
order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of
themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to
Christ. And so their being thus brought
to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of
grace.[105]
A third Puritan position understood the proof texts
used by the Westminster Confession of Faith to refer to the Law absolutely or
separated from the Gospel.[106] When the Mosaic Law is taken out of its
context, then and only then does it become contrary to the Gospel by becoming
the matter (describes the righteousness required in the Covenant of Works)
and/or form (offers life by works) of the Covenant of Works. Hence, passages like Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5
did not, in their original intent, renew or repeat the Covenant of Works.
The Pharisees and Judaizers of Paul’s day distorted
the Law by separating it from the Gospel and used it for their justification
before God. Paul’s quotations of Moses
in Romans and Galatians are thus referring to the Jews’ perversion of the Law.
In so doing the apostle expounds the principle of works, which is applicable to
the Covenant of Works made with Adam.
Of these three possible explanations for the use of
Gal 3:10, 12 and Rom 10:5 as proof texts for the Covenant of Works, the third
is the most likely. This is so because
the Divines did not use Lev 18:5, Deut 27:26, or any passage pertaining to the
Mosaic Covenant as proof texts. If they
had understood the Mosaic Covenant to be a renewal or republication of the
Covenant of Works, they probably would have appealed to the Law of Moses
directly, as many Puritans did.
For our purposes, however, it does not matter which
view provides the best explanation for the proof texts. All of them disagree substantially with Kline
and Karlberg. The third sees no aspect
of works in the Mosaic Covenant while the other two do but in a different
manner.
The Puritans who believed that the Covenant of Works
was renewed or repeated at
By contrast, Kline and Karlberg believe that the
works-principle, which involved the whole law (moral, civil, and ceremonial),
was not merely hypothetical, but actually applied. Kline says:
The law’s principle of works was not just something
hypothetical. It was actually
applied—and with a vengeance. It was the
judicial principle that governed the corporate life of
This
real application of the works-principle was established with all
Consequently, at best this objection
can be used to demonstrate that the Westminster Confession of Faith is
compatible with the renewal/repetition views of the Covenant of Works in the
Mosaic Covenant. But by no means can it
be used to support the position of Kline and Karlberg.
Objection 5: Larger Catechism 93 defines the moral law which includes, “promising
life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.” Larger Catechism 98 says that the moral law
was summarized in the Ten Commandments, which were delivered upon Mount Sinai .
Connecting these two ideas, one must logically conclude that the law
given to Israel Israel
This objection proves too much. We are under the moral law today, so we would
have to conclude that we, like
The distinction of the Law and Gospel as they are
opposed one to another is clean and evident: but as the Law was given to the
Jews it is not opposite, but subordinate to the Gospel. The Law in itself considered exacted
perfection of works as the cause of life: but when that was impossible to man
by reason of the infirmity of his flesh, it pleased the Lord to make known to
his people by the ministry of Moses, that the Law was given, not to detain men
in confidence of their own works, but to lead them unto Christ. Whatsoever the Law teaches, whatsoever it
promises, whatsoever it commands, always it has Christ for the scope thereof.
The Law was never given or made positive without the
Gospel, neither is the Gospel now without the Law.[111]
V. Conclusion
Presbyterian and Reformed
theologians have disagreed over the nature of the Mosaic Covenant since the
Reformation. The debate has by no means
abated in our day. However, this is not
to imply that the Presbyterian and Reformed creeds have not reached a majority
consensus on this matter. The
Westminster Standards is a majority consensus, and it is not tolerant of any
position that holds to a “works principle” operative upon believing
D.
Patrick Ramsey is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, London,
[1] Alexander Stewart writes,
“That the Mosaic Economy was a
dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, is a highly important position. An error on this point is fundamental . . .
the Church was as really under the Covenant of Grace at Sinai, as Abraham at
Mamre, or the Christian Church at the present day” (The Tree of Promise: The
Mosaic Economy a Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace [1864; repr.,
Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1999], 28-29; emphasis his).
In his book on Divine Covenants, A. W. Pink says,
“We deem it of great importance that a clear conception be obtained of the
precise nature and meaning of that august transaction which took place at
Sinai, when Jehovah proclaimed the Ten Commandments in the hearing of
John Murray concludes that a good deal of
misconception pertaining to the relation of the law to the believer is due to
“the misrepresentation of the Mosaic economy and covenant in relation to the
new covenant” (Principles of Conduct
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 195).
[2] John Newton, “Letter XXX”
in The Works of John Newton (repr.,
[3] Wayne Strickland, preface
to The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern
Christian (ed. Wayne Strickland;
[4] E.g., legalists like the
Judaizers.
[5] E.g., antinomians like John
Agricola who declared, “The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the
pulpit. All those who are occupied with
Moses are bound to go to the devil. To
the gallows with Moses!” Interestingly,
Agricola believed he was following Luther who taught that Moses is dead for the
Christian and that the believer is free from the Law of Moses though bound by
natural law or conscience and the NT. See Peter Lillback, The Binding of God (
John Stott, following Luther, says, “God’s dealings
with Abraham and Moses were based on two different principles . . . God’s
dealings with Abraham were in the category of ‘promise,’ ‘grace,’ and
‘faith.’ But God’s dealings with Moses
were in the category of ‘law,’ ‘commandments,’ and ‘works.’ The Christian religion is the religion of
Abraham and not Moses, of promise and not law; and Christians are enjoying
today the promise which God made to Abraham centuries ago” (The Message of Galatians [Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1968], 86-87).
Similarly the note on Exod 19:5 in the New Scofield Bible says, “To Abraham the
promise preceded the requirement; at Sinai the requirement preceded the
promise. In the New Covenant the
Abrahamic order is followed. The
Christian is not under the conditional Mosaic Covenant of works, the law, but
under the unconditional New Covenant of grace.”
Cited by O. Palmer Robertson, The
Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1980), 216.
[6] John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (
[7] Mark W. Karlberg, “Reformed
Theology as the Theology of the Covenants: The Contributions of Meredith G.
Kline to Reformed Systematics,” in Creator,
Redeemer, Consummator (ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Meuther;
[8] Meredith G. Kline, “Gospel
until the Law: Rom. 5:13-14 and the Old Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 434. See
Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John
Murray’s and Meredith G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of
Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1999), 237.
This seems to be a reversal of Kline’s earlier
declaration that Theonomy, which is certainly at odds with his view of the
Mosaic Covenant, was the view of the WCF.
See his “Comments on an Old-New Error: A Review Article,” WTJ 41 (1978): 173.
[9] Mark W. Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant,” WTJ
43 (1981): 3.
[10] Ibid., 56.
[11] Kline, “Gospel until the
Law,” 435. See Karlberg, “Theology of
the Covenants,” 245.
[12] Karlberg. “The Search for an Evangelical Consensus on
Paul and the Law,” JETS 40 (1997):
565.
[13] Karlberg, “Justification in
Redemptive History,” WTJ 43 (1981):
236.
[14] Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (
[15] Karlberg, “Evangelical
Consensus,” 568.
[16] Ibid., 577. See Karlberg, “Justification in Redemptive
History,” 222.
[17] Kline, “Gospel until the
Law,” 441.
[18] Ibid., 438.
[19] Karlberg, “Evangelical
Consensus,” 566.
[20] Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 321.
[21] Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 56; and “Theology of the Covenants,” 248. Thomas Schreiner rightly points out that if
this were true, one could hardly blame the Pharisees for being legalistic since
the typological aspect was dominant in the Old Testament. See his The
Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1993), 248-51.
[22] Karlberg, “Justification in
Redemptive History,” 223. See also
Karlberg, “Reformed Interpretation,” 47; Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 322. One
wonders why God would establish a covenant of law (not to mention how God
could), even in the temporal realm, that required less than perfect
obedience. Moreover, this view seems to
be at odds with Deut 27:26 and Gal 3:10.
Another problem is that this condition suffers from ambiguity. What exactly is “the necessary measure of
righteousness”? How would
[23] Meredith G. Kline,
“Deuteronomy,” in The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary (ed.
[24] Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 247.
[25] The New Geneva Study Bible apparently follows Kline and
Karlberg. (See Karlberg, “Evangelical
Consensus,” 568 n. 14.) The note on Neh 9:29 says, “The Mosaic covenant offered
life for obedience (Lev. 18:5;
[26] Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 56-57. See also
Karlberg, “Justification in Redemptive History,” 224; and “Evangelical
Consensus,” 578 n. 41.
[27] Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 321; Karlberg, “Justification in Redemptive
History,” 222, 226, 235; and “Moses and Christ—The Place of Law in
Seventeenth-Century Puritanism,” TJ
10, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 18.
[28] Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 55. See Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 322.
[29] Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 56. See also Karlberg,
“Justification in Redemptive History,” 227-28; Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 321; and “Gospel until the Law,” 440.
[30] Karlberg, “Justification in
Redemptive History,” 222-23.
[31] Kline, “Gospel until the
Law,” 434. See Karlberg, “Evangelical
Consensus,” 568.
[32] See Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan
Theology (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, n.d.; repr., Ligonier, Pa.: Soli
Deo Gloria, 1993), 113.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ball writes, “Most Divines
hold the old and new Covenant to be one in substance and kind, to differ only
in degrees: but in setting down the differences they speak so obscurely, that
it is hard to find how they consent with themselves.” After listing the differences between the two
covenants according to these divines, Ball concludes, “And many things herein
are spoken truly, but how all these differences should stand, if they be not
Covenants opposite in kind, it is not easy to understand” (A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 95-96). (In this and other quotations from Ball’s Treatise,
I have updated the English.)
Note similar observations by Daniel Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and
Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 51, cited by Karlberg,
“Reformed Interpretation,” 38; and Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1869; repr., Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996), 154, 157 n.
1.
[35] E.g., the word
“subservient.”
[36] E.g., the various
interpretations of Lev 18:5.
[37] T. David Gordon, “Critique
of Theonomy: A Taxonomy,” WTJ 56
(1994): 36.
[38] For a refutation of the
Subservient Covenant view see Turretin, Institutes
of Elenctic Theology (ed. James T. Dennison, Jr.; trans. G. M. Giger;
[39] John Cameron (c. 1579-1625) was the first to teach a
three-fold division of the covenants in Scripture. He was a Scotsman who spent most of his
teaching career in
[40] Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (ed. John McClintock and
James Strong;
[41] Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom
(1645; repr.,
[42]
[43] Annesley, Puritan Sermons, 5:184-185. See also Owen, Works, 22:69.
[44]
[45] Owen, Works, 22:84.
[46] Ibid., 22:76.
[47]
[48] Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 95.
[49] Owen, Works, 22:77;
emphasis his.
[50] Ibid., 22:76;
emphasis his.
[51] Annesley, Puritan Sermons, 5:196.
[52]
[53] Ibid., 98-99.
[54] Ibid., 99-100 (emphasis
mine).
[55] Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 37.
[56] B. B. Warfield, “The
Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture,” in Selected
Shorter Writings (ed. John E. Meeter; 2 vols.;
[57] Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and
Standards (London, 1883; repr., Edmonton, Canada: Still Waters Revival
Books, 1992), 420. See B. B. Warfield, The
[58] Ernest F. Kevan, “The Law
and the Covenants—A Study in John Ball,” in Puritan
Papers: Volume 1 (ed. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones;
[59] Mitchell,
[60] Kevan, The Grace of the Law, 113, 114, 117.
[61] Sinclair Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life
(Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1987), 28.
[62] Jan Rohls, Reformed Confessions: Theology from
[63] Dictionary of
[64] That the blessings and
curses of the Mosaic Covenant are being referred to here is clear from the
proof texts, namely Lev 26:1-14 and Ps 89:30-34.
[65] See WCF 14.2. Notice that the Confession does not make a
sharp dichotomy between the temporal and the eternal, as do Kline and
Karlberg. The WCF understands that God
relates to His people in the temporal and typological spheres in the same way
as He does in the spiritual.
[66] Ezekiel Hopkins asserts,
“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 . . .” (“An Exposition Upon the Commandments,” in The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins [ed. Charles Quick; Philadelphia,
1874; repr., Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995], 1:251). See also Kevan, The Grace of Law, 185.
Daniel Doriani, though by no means an antinomian,
succumbs to this view when he writes, “Legalists also misconstrue the motives
for obedience. They motivate by guilt:
If you don’t obey, God will be angry or withhold his blessings. They motivate by fear: If you don’t obey, he
will punish you” (Putting the Truth to
Work [
John Murray is much more sound. He writes, “Is it proper to be afraid of
God? The only proper answer is that it
is the essence of impiety not to be afraid of God when there is reason to be afraid . . . The Scripture
throughout prescribes the necessity of this fear of God under all the
circumstances in which our sinful situation makes us liable to God’s righteous
judgment . . . To aver that the fear of God’s wrath and of the judgments which
execute his wrath is an improper motive to action is to go counter to all that
sound reason would dictate . . . It is quite obvious that the Scripture
represents the dread or terror of God’s wrath as belonging to the total concept
of the fear of God. Even where there is
no sin, and therefore no existent wrath, we cannot eliminate the fear of
incurring God’s displeasure as one motive deterrent to the commission of sin” (Principles of Conduct, 233-35). See also B. B. Warfield, Faith and Life (1916; repr.,
[67] It is clear that the
Divines made a distinction between being rewarded on account of your works and
according to your works, that is to say between legal obedience and gospel
obedience. See WCF 16.6 and Larger Catechism
45. For more on this vital distinction
see Robert Dabney “The Moral Effects of a Free Justification,” in Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney
(1891; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1982), 1:86; William S. Plumer, The Law of God (Presbyterian Board of
Publication, 1864; repr., Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1996), 58-59; Thomas
Watson, The Ten Commandments (1692;
repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 16; Kevan, The Grace of the Law, 187-90, 216-23;
Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants,
184-85.
[68] The phrase, “Neither are
the forementioned uses of the law,” includes the uses of the blessings and
curses as is clear from paragraph 6.
[69] A. F. Mitchell and John
Struthers, eds., Minutes of the
Westminster Assembly (1874; repr.,
[70] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with
notes by Thomas Boston (repr.,
[71] Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 322.
[72] The Confession’s use of
Ezra 9:13-14 is identical to the NT’s use of the curses suffered by
Likewise, in the NT Jesus says to the individual and
the church, that if they refuse to repent, they too will be excommunicated
(Matt 18:15-17; Rev 2:4-5). Jay Adams
notes the close relationship between the exile in the OT and excommunication in
the NT in Handbook of Christian
Discipline (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 79-80.
[73] The Confession’s proof
texts are 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim 5:20; Matt 7:6; 1 Tim 1:20; 1 Cor 11:27ff.; Jude 23.
[74] For further biblical
examples see Rev 2-3; Luke 17:1-2; Acts 5:1-11.
[75] Karlberg, “Justification in
Redemptive History,” 225.
[76] See Thomas Boston’s notes
in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 26.
[77] WCF 11.5.
[78] WCF 5.5. Note carefully the proof texts used: 2 Chron
32:25-26, 31; 2 Sam 24:1; 2 Chron 12:7-9; Ps 73. See Ezekiel
[79]
[80] Ibid., 199.
[81] Thomas Ridgeley, Commentary on the Larger Catechism
(1855; repr.,
[82] For an explanation of “same
in substance,” see Ball, A Treatise on
the Covenant of Grace, 108, 163-64; Fisher, Marrow of Modern Divinity, 71-72.
[83]Karlberg, “Reformed
Interpretation,” 40-41. See Jeong Koo
Jeon, Covenant Theology, 44.
[84] John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel
(New York: Wiley and Long, 1835; repr., Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999),
68. Colquhoun seems to be following
Herman Witsius, The Economy of the
Covenants Between God and Man (trans. William Crookshank;
[85] See Fisher, Marrow of Modern Divinity, 68-69.
[86] Dabney has a similar
critique of Cameron’s position. He
writes, “The French divines, Camero and
Amyraut, proposed an ingenious modification of the legal theory of Moses’
covenant: That in it a certain kind of life was proposed (as in the Covenant of
Works) as a reward for an exact obedience. But that the life was temporal, in a
prosperous
[87] For similar comments in
this regard see John Flavel, “Vindiciae
Legis Foederis,” in The Works of John
Flavel (1820; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1997), 6:323-24;
Thomas E. Peck, “The Moral Law,” in Writings
of Thomas E. Peck (Richmond, Va.: Presbyterian Committee of Publication,
1895-1897; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1999), 2:156.
[88] Note that the Subservient
Covenant compelled obedience and produced a spirit of fear and bondage.
[89] According to William Ames
NT believers were set free from the law as a form of the covenant of
works. He writes, “The testament is new
in relation to what existed from the time of Moses and in relation to the
promise made to the fathers. But it is
new not in essence but in form. In the
former circumstances the form of administration gave some evidence of the
covenant of works, from which this testament is essentially different . . .
Freedom comes, first in doing away with government by law, or the intermixture
of the covenant of works, which held the ancient people in a certain bondage” (The Marrow of Theology [ed. and trans.
John D. Eusden; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], 206).
[90] Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of
Congregationalism (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 367-402.
[91] WCF 7.5 and Larger
Catechism 33. Ball: “It may be said the
Apostle shows the former covenant to be faulty, or that another covenant was
lacking. But that is not mentioned to prove
the covenants to be two opposite one to the other: but because the first
testament did not contain the image of the things themselves, and therefore was
not to be rested in, as if we could be justified by the works of the Law, or
ceremonial observances annexed: but must be used as an introduction to lead us
to Christ, who is the very image of the things themselves. The first covenant therefore could not be
fulfilled or effectual, but by the bringing in of a second, which was
prefigured thereby” (A Treatise on the
Covenant of Grace, 118-19).
[92] Larger Catechism 35 and WCF
20.1. See Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 118; Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism
(trans. G. W. Williard; 1852; repr.,
[93] See Kevan, Grace of the Law, 130-34.
[94] Flavel, Works, 6:340.
[95] WCF 7.2; 19.1.
[96] See Kevan, The Grace of the Law, 148-51.
[97] James Durham, Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments,
62. See Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (repr.,
[98] See Karlberg, “Reformed Interpretation,” 41,
54; and “Moses and Christ,” 18.
[99] He footnotes WCF 7.5, 6.
[100] This view must be
distinguished from the “strict” Covenant of Works view held by such men as
Philip Cary.
[101] Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 53,
57-62. On p. 58 Fisher writes, “And doth
not the apostle Paul give evidence that these words were the form of the
covenant of works, when he says, Rom. x.5 . . . and when he says, Gal. 3:10?” Thomas Boston concurs with Fisher and argues
that this is the position of the WCF.
See his notes on pp. 55, 58, 59.
Compare Fairbairn’s analysis of Fisher and
For similar positions see Flavel, 6:323, 339;
Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the
Gospel, 55-64; Henry Ainsworth, Annotations
on the Pentateuch and the Psalms (1612; repr., Ligonier, Pa.: Soli Deo
Gloria, 1991), 1:587-88.
[102] Fisher, The Marrow of
Modern Divinity, 62.
[103] Ibid., 63.
[104] See, e.g., James Fisher, Exposition of the Shorter Catechism
(1765; repr.,
[105] Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and
Man, 2:182-84. Compare Fairbairn’s
analysis of Witsius, The Revelation of
Law in Scripture, 155.
[106] See Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace,
117-22; Bolton, The True Bounds of
Christian Freedom, 105-9; James Fergusson, “A Brief Exposition of the
Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and
Thessalonians,” in The Epistles of Paul
and The Epistle to the Hebrews (1656-1674; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of
Truth, 1978), 38, 51.
[107] A distinction was sometimes
made between the first and second writings of the Ten Commandments. The first writing was the renewal of the
Covenant of Works, whereas the second was the renewal of the Covenant of Grace. See Fisher, Marrow of Modern Divinity, 56-78; Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 96-101; Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel,
62-63.
[108] Kevan, The Grace of Law, 114. See
Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity,
74. Contra Karlberg’s interpretation of
Fisher in “Reformed Interpretation,” 35.
[109] See
[110] Kline, “Gospel until the
Law,” 435.
[111] Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 113-14, 102.
