Dispensational Federalists affirm a formal republication of The Covenant of Works.
The Doctrine of Republication refers to the similarities between The Covenant of Works and the Mosaic covenant. It teaches that the Mosaic covenant is to be viewed ‘in some sense’ as a covenant of works. Describing the exact sense in which it is republished is the goal of this article.
Dispensationalists that are uncomfortable affirming The Covenant of Works don’t need to feel alienated here either, they can still appreciate the theological connections that link the Edenic arrangement that God established with Adam to the Mosaic law that was ratified at Mount Sinai.
As we have outlined previously in our own formulation of The Covenant of Grace, Dispensational Federalists comprehend an organic unity to exist between The Covenant of Works and the Mosaic covenant. Their shared substance and conditional nature are inseparable. This feature of our system highlights the biblical framework by which the second Adam is obligated to the same standard of obedience as the first Adam. The doctrine of republication, therefore, has clear implications for the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ.
Reformed Categories
After the general category of ‘republication’ has been established, the Reformed tradition observes a further distinction between what they term ‘material’ and ‘formal’ republication.
Material Republication
Material republication means that the precepts of the moral law given in the Mosaic covenant, as a rule of life, share continuity with the prelapsarian era.[1] This is known as ‘soft republication’. It is compatible with notions of a substantially gracious Mosaic covenant, or administrative forms of republication.
Advocates of material republication often claim that the Mosaic covenant must be gracious in nature because it was established in the context of God’s gracious deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt. Exodus 19:4-6 is usually cited as proof,
“’You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples”.
Taken in this way the Mosaic covenant is understood as an expression of the third use of the law, that it was given to God’s people as a rule of life, and not as a covenant of works.
At first glance this appears convincing, but Dispensational Federalists find this explanation unsatisfactory. We believe it to be a significant error to assume that simply because the Mosaic covenant was grounded in God’s deliverance of his people from Egypt, that this physical salvation should be understood synonymously with spiritual salvation. From our perspective, conflating these two realities causes covenantal chaos.
Unlike The New Covenant, the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant. At any given time, the majority in Israel were still unbelievers. Only the believing remnant were eternally saved by faith. This reality has major implications for how we understand the nature of the church, and how we delineate its distinction from Israel. The church might be easily associated with the believing remnant, but not with the entire nation. This dynamic is what explains the church’s elements of continuity and discontinuity with The Old Testament. But without pulling that thread any further just yet, we are currently arguing for a doctrine of republication that is stronger than a merely material republication.
Formal Republication
In this seventh Tenet of Dispensational Federalism, we are affirming a formal republication of The Covenant of Works. Formal republication means that the Mosaic covenant not only republished The Covenant of Works as a rule of life, but also as a covenant. This is also known as ‘hard republication’.[2] This view places its federates under the law as a covenant of works.
In terms of its biblical basis, Lee Irons notes an important observation from Deuteronomy 9:9, where Moses speaks of, “the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you”. He says it, “shows that the decalogue is not bare [moral] law… it is the moral law as a covenant of works” .[3] This detail needs to be taken seriously and begins to show the inadequacy and limits of material republication. The law was in fact given as a covenant, and all the people stood at the foot of Mount Sinai during the oath ceremony and confessed,
“All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exodus 24:7-8).
Given this, we believe that the Mosaic covenant not only republished The Covenant of Works as a rule of life, but also as a covenant.
Classical, revised, and progressive dispensationalists would do well at this point to overlook any offence that may be caused by the tendency of Dispensational Federalists to use Reformed language in describing our leaky version of dispensationalism. We are not trying to water down our theology in any way to appear more Reformed and win a seat at their table. We are genuinely trying to state our position within the already established categories of Reformed Theology. We believe this will enable a much more fruitful conversation and allow better identification of specific differences. It may also be helpful to realize that from the Reformed perspective, the concept of formal republication is frequently considered quite radical, if not even heretical. This isn’t winning us many friends. It is often viewed extremely negatively and is typically opposed by all that insist on comprehending the mosaic covenant in gracious terms, often believing that it necessarily entails salvation by works. This is the major objection commonly raised against formal republication.
But as we have stated previously, Dispensational Federalists eliminate this concern by proposing a theological model with two covenantal layers. We believe this best reflects the biblical data while also reflecting dispensational thinking. First, the Mosaic covenant is understood as a republication of The Covenant of Works, they are inherently linked, consist of a single substance, and correspond to, ‘The Law’. Secondly, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants, are understood to share organic unity, consist of a single substance, constitute what we refer to as, ‘The Covenant of Grace’, and correspond to, ‘The Gospel’. In this model, a law-gospel model, when we propose a formal republication of The Covenant of Works, the inability to keep the law is undergirded by a gospel layer of saving grace that flows uninterrupted throughout the Mosaic economy. Given this, the Covenant of Works is not republished in an ultimate sense, with no access to saving grace.
With this major obstacle removed, the door is now open to consider the exact nature of the formal republication we are proposing.
Types of Formal Republication
Below the heading of ‘formal republication’ there are several more Reformed categories that further describe the exact sense in which the Mosaic covenant republishes The Covenant of Works.
The Pedagogical Principle
The first is the pedagogical principle. This means that the Mosaic covenant was made with Israel to teach them of the covenant of works, to show them their sin and inability to keep God’s law, in order that it would lead them to Christ.[4] This principle is taken directly from Galatians 3:24, where Paul says that, “the law was our schoolmaster (Paidagogos/παιδαγωγός) to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
Dispensational Federalists affirm the Pedagogical Principle; however, we believe that it doesn’t explain everything. There is still more that needs to be said.
The Hypothetical Principle
This principle states that in the Mosaic covenant, “the covenant of works was republished hypothetically in coordination with the pedagogical principle”.[5] In other words, the Mosaic covenant contains within it a hypothetical offer of salvation, or eternal life, based on the condition of perfect obedience to the moral law.
Regarding this principle, Dispensational Federalists agree that any offer of salvation based on condition of perfect obedience to God’s law is impossible for any sinful man to attain. We understand this sense in which it is called hypothetical. But again, we want to say more. We believe that the Mosaic covenant did in fact offer eternal life on condition of perfect obedience.
From the law itself, the Mosaic covenant promises eternal life. Leviticus 18:5 says that, “The one who does them shall live by them.” In Galatians 3:12 Paul quotes this verse to characterize the nature of the Mosaic covenant. And while it is often cited to show the works principle, it is important to note that it also describes the promise of eternal life on condition of perfect obedience. To paraphrase Leviticus 18:5, we could say that the one who keeps the law will earn eternal life.
From the New Testament, and from the teaching of Jesus himself, it is evident that Leviticus 18:5 refers to eternal life. In Luke 10:25, Jesus was asked, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And after explaining that one must love God and neighbour perfectly, Jesus responds by saying, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” Jesus also quotes Leviticus 18:5 demonstrating that He understands ‘life’ to correspond to ‘eternal life’. Thus, in Jesus own words, to read the Mosaic covenant in this way is to have, ‘answered correctly’.
Further biblical evidence to reinforce this point could be drawn from Genesis 3:22, Deuteronomy 6:25, Romans 7:10, Matthew 19:17, and Romans 10:5-6.
Considering this biblical basis, we believe that the Mosaic covenant does contain within it an Actual (not merely Hypothetical) offer of salvation, or eternal life, based on the condition of perfect obedience.
The Typological Principle
This principle states that a typological principal of works, rather than an actual soteriological principle of works, is operative in the Mosaic covenant. Many covenant theologians would understand the ‘life’ of Leviticus 18:5 to refer only to temporal life in the land of Canaan, rather than eternal life.
Meredith Kline, for example, says that “Leviticus 18:5 in stating that the man who performed the covenant stipulations would live in them, declared that individual Israelites must observe the requirements of the law to enjoy the blessings of the typological kingdom community.” [6]
Those who hold this position see the works principle that was imposed on the Jewish people in the Mosaic covenant to be only a type or shadow of Jesus being born under the law to actively fulfil its precepts.[7] They do this by understanding these aspects of the Mosaic covenant as typological.
Meridith Kline, again, acknowledges that, “the old (mosaic) covenant order… was nevertheless itself governed by a principle of works” [8] but he goes on to add that, “The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom”.[9]
Given dispensationalism’s well documented tendency towards literal hermeneutics, this represents a major point of divergence. Dispensational Federalists don’t deny the concept of typology outright, we affirm that the Mosaic covenant has a typical relation unto The Covenant of Grace (think sacrificial system, priesthood, tabernacle, etc), but we deny the typological principle as stated in relation to the works principle and the promise of eternal life that are located within the Mosaic covenant.
Dispensational Federalists affirm an actual Soteriological (not merely Typological) republication of the works principle in the Mosaic covenant.
It seems quite strange, that when stated succinctly, the grand novelty of Dispensational Federalism is that we affirm an actual works principle in The Covenant of Works, and an actual grace principle in The Covenant of Grace.[10]
The Complex Principle
Rather than a simple republication of the covenant of works, the complex principle states that a complex republication of both the covenants of works and grace were published on Mount Sinai.[11]
As stated, Dispensational Federalists deny this principle, however, we are sympathetic towards what is trying to be expressed. There are certainly both aspects of works and grace operative during the Mosaic economy as we have outlined in our two-layer formulation of Covenant Theology. Our disagreement stems from viewing both works and grace specifically within the Mosaic covenant itself. If we are allowed to introduce a further level of classification, we would then distinguish between what I would like to call the ‘Internally Complex’ and ‘Externally Complex’ principle of republication. ‘Internal’ refers to the complex principle as stated, ‘External’ refers to the grace principal operative in the Mosaic economy which is ‘External’ to the Mosaic Covenant itself. This would benefit those who comprehend the Mosaic covenant to be a distinct and independent covenant in relation to The Covenant of Grace.
On this basis, Dispensational Federalists can affirm an Externally Complex (not Internally Complex) doctrine of republication.
As an aside, it may be noteworthy for some to know that the best of the Marrow Men, Thomas Boston for example, affirmed the doctrine of Formal Republication.[12] He was often called the “theologian” of the Marrow Men.
The Relative Principle
This principle states that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works relative to unbelievers during the Mosaic economy but was a rule of life and covenant of grace relative to believing Israelites.[13]
Dispensational Federalists want to acknowledge that this principle may be helpful to a certain extent, however, it is inadequate and somewhat misses the mark in capturing a significant aspect the difficulties associated with interpretating the Mosaic covenant.
One notable weakness in Reformed covenant theology when considering the Mosaic covenant, is that there needs to be another distinction in addition to this somewhat anthropocentric focused relative principle. If we are allowed to introduce a further level of classification, we would distinguish between what I would like to call the ‘Anthropocentric Relative’ and the ‘Christocentric Relative’ principle of republication. The ‘Anthropocentric Relative’ principle refers to the relative principle as stated. The ‘Christocentric Relative’ principle distinguishes between Jesus and his people, rather than an internal distinction between the people themselves.
The benefit of this distinction is hard to overstate.
The more I study this subject, the more I am convinced that everything in Reformed covenant theology is always intentionally calculated to ensure that there is absolutely no possible way that an actual works principle could ever be allowed to be operative at a soteriological level within the Mosaic covenant. But this simple distinction changes everything. A ‘Christocentric Relative’ principle that distinguishes between Jesus and his people allows the works principle in the mosaic covenant to be operative at the soteriological level.
And all it means is this; that we were actually saved by works, the works of Jesus.
The ‘Christocentric Relative’ principle helps us view the Mosaic covenant in a Christocentric orientation. The Mosaic covenant can then in turn function as the tangible basis for the active obedience of Christ as it unfolds in the progressive revelation of redemptive history.
Conclusion
The added dynamic afforded to us by distinguishing a principle of Christocentric-Relativity, in addition to the other principles discussed above, gives Dispensational Federalists the ability to coherently propose:
A Formal (not Material), Christocentric-Relative (not merely Anthropocentric-Relative), Actual (not merely Hypothetical), Soteriological (not merely Typological), Externally Complex (not Internally Complex), Pedagogical, Republication of The Covenant of Works in the Mosaic covenant.
With respect to Jesus, as a federal head of humanity, it was a genuine soteriological republication of the moral law, given as a covenant of works (Galatians 4:4). It highlights the biblical framework by which the second Adam was obligated to the same standard of obedience as the first Adam. By keeping the terms of this covenant, in both the active obedience of its precepts and in the passive receiving of its penalty, Jesus earned the promised blessing of eternal life and bestows it on all those He represents.
With respect to the people of the mosaic economy, it was a covenant of works that was still undergirded by a covenant of gospel grace (The Abrahamic Covenant), due to humanity’s sinful nature it was a real yet entirely unattainable republication of The Covenant of Works, therefore practically hypothetical, yet useful for pedagogical purposes just as Paul explains (Galatians 3:24), so that the promised blessing of eternal life might be received by those who have faith in Christ (Galatians 3:22), who is to be eternally worshipped as the only perfect law-keeper!
Among His people, as those who draw near to Him,
“I (Jesus) must be regarded as holy”
– Leviticus 10:3
The Bottom Line
Dispensational Federalists believe this articulation of formal republication, or at least something very close to it, goes a long way in resolving the Reformed traditions internal debate concerning The Doctrine of Republication. While learning much from the Reformed tradition, we believe that Dispensational Federalism contributes positively to the formulation of the most biblically defensible version of Reformed covenant theology.
-DF
***Please Note: We have knowingly skipped over Tenet #6, The New Covenant. This article will focus on the precise nature of the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church. We intend to complete this article in the near future.
[1] The Reformed categories and distinctions used in this article come from Brenton C. Ferry’s excellent chapter titled, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, p76-105. On p91-92, he writes, “The principle of republication is expressed, first, in terms of moral law. Dabney says “the transactions at Sinai,” among other things, include a “republication of the moral law.” This means the precepts, as a rule of life, are continuous and consistent with the prelapsarian era.”
[2] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 92. He writes, “the Mosaic covenant republished the covenant of works as a rule and a covenant. This is hard republication, or formal republication.”
[3] Glory-Cloud Podcast, Episode 4, Lee Irons.
[4] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 94. He writes, “the Mosaic covenant was given to the Israelites on Saini in such a way as to teach them about the covenant of works, but no further. The pedagogical principle is taken from Galatians 3:24 where Paul says, “The Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ”.
[5] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 94.
[6] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p323.
[7] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 96. He writes, “The heavy works burden, which is pressed upon the Jewish people, is a shadow of Jesus being born under the law to fulfil actively all its precepts”.
[8] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p320.
[9] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p321.
[10] This is possible because we understand the Mosaic Covenant to share organic unity with The Covenant of Works, rather than The Covenant of Grace.
[11] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 97. He writes, “The covenant of works and the covenant of grace were republished on Mount Sinai” and speaks of, “a complex republication of the covenants of works and grace”.
[12] See Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 97.
[13] Brenton C. Ferry, ‘Works in the Mosaic Covenant, A Reformed Taxonomy”, The Law is Not of Faith, 93. He writes, “if a person was a believer, then the Ten Commandments represented the precepts that Christ perfectly performed in the believer’s stead… and a rule of righteousness governing the believer’s behaviour… But if a person is not a believer, then the Ten Commandments represent the broken covenant of works… This principle of relativity is found also in the Westminster Larger Catechism (q. 93), in which the moral law functions as a covenant of works “to unregenerate men… to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.” Whereas “they that are regenerate” are “delivered from the Morrall Law as a Covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned.”
Dispensational Federalism 