Customer Reviews

The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Covenant-minded pastors and scholars entranced by sundry Reformed perspectives (herein Republication), will be riveted and challenged by Byran D. Estelle's, J.V. Fesko's, and David VanDrunen's "The Law Is Not Of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant," a concise, academic presentation on the relationship between obedience and faith under the biblical covenants revealed by God. There are various Reformed perspectives within orthodoxy and the editors provide an outstanding presentation of Republication as they cover the scriptural, theological, and historical material. The essays are top-notch and aimed at ministers, scholars, and academic writers. If you are unacquainted with Latin and not conversant in theological terminology, then this collection of fine essays is not for you, but buy this volume for your pastor.

For those who are a little alarmed by this perspective on the covenants, nonetheless take a look: the contributors discuss the many facets, fulfillments, and extensions of the biblical covenants and their inter-relation and dependence upon the covenant of works.
If you agree or not, "The Law is Not of Faith" is an: educational, cerebral, superb presentation.
Whereas many will not come to full agreement on the minutia of implications regarding the correct affirmations, let us always confess:
WCF 7: 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; 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; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies

The Law is Not of Faith is a book that I readily looked forward to reading because it was well received in the 'conservative' Reformed community, written by knowledgeable authors striving to stay true to historic Protestantism. That said, I think the book largely failed to prove what it was set out to prove, namely that there exists such a thing as a "Covenant of Works" (cf Westminster Confession Ch19), and that this Covenant of Works has been 'republished' within the Mosaic Covenant (also called the Mosaic Law). Now I'm speaking Biblically here, meaning that while the Covenant of Works concept makes sense on paper, it is not a Biblical concept, and the authors of the various essays fell well short of ever proving it (even though they provided the best possible case).

For example, Chapter 6 is solely devoted to examining one verse, Hosea 6:7, trying to see if Hosea 6:7 provides support for the existence of a "Covenant of Works" (and is the longest chapter in the entire book). Yet look at these frank admissions made in this Chapter:

PAGE 170 (Opening page of chapter):
"Does Israel's prophetic literature support the republication thesis? ... ... Hosea 6:7 is *PERHAPS* the great exception, and is *PERHAPS* the only Old Testament text that explicitly connects the person of Adam to the biblical covenants."
PAGE 209 (Concluding page of chapter):
"Hosea 6:7 thus provides PERHAPS UNEXPECTED SUPPORT for the `republication' thesis."

Is that the kind admission and language of a well supported thesis? Not at all, and throughout the chapter the author repeatedly admits there are various plausible interpretations. If *that* is the "strongest" proof for a Covenant of Works and Republication, then we should rightly reject that doctrine and thesis. Also, the very TITLE of Chapter 6 was "Hosea 6:7 and Covenant Breaking like/at Adam," with the backslash (/) included in the title and every page of the Chapter. The backslash is there because the author admits (as does many scholars he quotes) that the verse likely means a location site called "hadam", not the name of a person "Adam" from Eden.


My favorite chapter in the entire book was Chapter 8, "Abraham and Sinia Contrasted in Galatians 3:6-14." I enjoyed this chapter because I largely agreed with its arguments - but the ironic thing is that the arguments and thesis of this chapter actually undermine and even refute the Book's main thesis of Covenant of Works and Republication. Consider the following astonishing admission.

PAGE 249:
"Few contributions to Pauline studies in the last several decades are more important than THE NOW WIDELY RECOGNIZED lexical reality that for Paul, [ho nomos, 'the law'] means `the Sinai covenant' far more consistently than it means anything else. As DOUGLASS MOO has said: `What is VITAL for any accurate understanding of Paul's doctrine of law is to realize that PAUL USES NOMOS [LAW] MOST OFTEN AND MOST BASICALLY OF THE MOSAIC LAW.` That is, Paul uses the term VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE TERM LATER CAME TO BE USED in Christian theology, ORDINARILY to denote something like Gods's demand. Again, Moo is right to correct this notion: `As we have seen, THE REFORMERS, AS MOST THEOLOGIANS TODAY, use `law' to mean anything that demands something of us. In this sense, `law' is a basic factor in all human history; and man is in every age, whether in the OT or NT, confronted with `law.' What is crucial to recognize is that THIS IS NOT the way in which Paul usually uses the term nomos.'"

Consider what was admitted by these scholars: the term "law" (nomos) for Paul almost exclusively means "Mosaic Law," and does *not* mean what the Reformers and most Theologians came to define "law" as, specifically a universal standard of what man must do, which is essentially the concept encapsulated in the BOOK THESIS about a "Covenant of Works". In other words, when Paul spoke of the "law" and "Gospel," he was not speaking of a Law-Gospel Distinction in the Reformed sense, nor speaking of a Covenant of Works. That's because "law" means Mosaic Law, not Republication of Covenant of Works or anything close.


Some other comments worth making:

(1) The first 100 pages (i.e. 1/3 of the book) were of a historical nature, tracing the history of theologians who taught the Covenant of Works (and related concepts). The two points I would make here is that (a) nobody prior to the Reformers is quoted in support of this, and (b) with the impressive names listed from the Reformed tradition I was expecting some 'slam dunk' Biblical exegesis to support the Book's Thesis.

(2) The book, for the most part, was not concise and there was a lot of special pleading. The prime example is the one I gave earlier, where the longest chapter of the book was spent analyzing Hosea 6:7 and yet the author admitted the evidence was hardly conclusive for his thesis. Also, THROUGHOUT the book the authors quote various scholars while in the same breath the authors often freely disagree and reject those scholars' arguments at will. It's not that there is something wrong with disagreeing, only when one disagrees without basis, especially when an opposing scholarly viewpoint has equal if not greater merit.

(3) Many of the exegetical arguments in other Chapters contradict the repeatedly admitted fact that "law" in Paul almost always means "Mosaic Law," not something else (as quoted earlier). A clear example (of MANY) of this special pleading and contradiction is when Dr Waters on PAGE 225-6 says:

"It is this law (nomos)-the MORAL LAW-of which Paul speaks in Romans 2:12-16. Because Paul invokes a "law righteousness" pertaining to all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile) in Romans *10:5*, IT MUST BE THIS SAME [MORAL] LAW THAT HE HAS IN MIND THERE."

And on PAGE 237 WATERS "concludes" his examination of Romans *10:5* by saying that the person with faith "is freed from THE LAW AS A COVENANT OF WORKS because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ."

This is nothing but special pleading, seeking to prove what he's already convinced of but not sufficiently prove by any means. As I noted, these kind of arguments abound. As with many of the arguments, they take liberties to redefine Paul's term "law" to mean 'universal moral law', and even sneak other considerations in left and right.