Thanks Jeff. I read the Venema article and there is a lot of good stuff to think on.

One thing I am confused about is how does the meritorious work of Christ fit into the CoG? Does it fit at all or is Christ’s merit better understood in relation to the Covenant of Redemption. But then if I recall correctly O. Palmer Robertson in “Christ of the Covenants” rejects the idea of a CoR. That would seem to imply that there has to be a “works principle” within the CoG “in some sense.”

Another thing that confuses me is when the WCF equates the 10 Commandments with the moral law without qualification whereas in the catechism it argues, for example, that the Sabbath has changed from the last day to the first day of the week. Since God’s moral will does not change I guess the change in days and land promises must be considered as “accidents” but this qualification is not stated in the WCF. This also brings up questions about the division of OT law into moral, civil, and ceremonial, which is relevant to the relationship between OT law and contemporary law/government/culture. It’s not uncommon to hear folks in adult Bible class say that the 10 commandments should be the basis of law in modern states.

It seems to me that OT law cannot be easily divided up into moral, civil, ceremonial. For example, the civil and ceremonial cannot be amoral. It seems that in Israel’s theocracy that the civil and ceremonial are largely confounded, or at least not always sharply divisible. It’?)s not hard to understand why Kline came up with the two-fold typological/moral distinction, i.e., other than that he was perhaps also reacting (over reacting?) to theonomy’s two-fold moral/ceremonial distinction.

Mark

You ask very good questions. Let me try to tackle each in order:

Meredith Kline’s view of the republication of the CoW in the Mosaic administration involves the idea that the Mosaic covenant is an instance of the CoG with a national, typological overlay. In other words, individual Israelites are saved by grace as we are, but that the nation of Israel was under a CoW-like arrangement with regard to temporal blessings in the land. In even different words, there is a clear distinction between the historia salutis (Israel resembles Adam in the Garden of Eden in the Promised Land) and the ordo salutis (how individuals are saved).

There is something unique about the Mosaic administration as an instance of the CoG, but it is nevertheless a CoG and not a form of the CoW. To use standard language, the Mosaic administration is as to substance the CoG even though it differs from other administrations as to accidents. So Kline is right when he notes that the Mosaic administration is unique, but I have questions about thinking of it as having two layers: one individual (soteriology) and one national and typological (eschatology and pedagogy). As others have noted, this would appear convoluted and spiritually schizophrenic. For a thorough assessment of the republication idea, see Cornelis Venema’s book review: http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/21/venema21.pdf.

Having said all this, and maybe some of our Puritan experts can chime in here, the Puritans had the notion of a national covenant, an idea that came over to America and may be the source of the idea of America being a chosen nation. This idea of a national covenant related to temporal blessings in a land and was not directly related to individual salvation. On one level it looks to me like the Puritan idea of the national covenant resembles the national typological overlay of the Mosaic administration. This is a question I need to work on.

My assessment of the republication doctrine is also tied in with the NL2K question. So there is much work that needs to be done on this.

The Modernist Impulse In American Protestantism, Hutchinson

The Broadening Church, Loetscher

Redeemer Nation, Tuveson

The War for Righteousness, Gamble (most recent, Dr. Gamble would make a great guest on the show).

Blessings