Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So He said to him, "... if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Luke 18:18-19)
.jpg)
In essence, Jesus replies "Do this and live." He was telling the rich young ruler that in order to obtain eternal life one needs a perfect obedience before the law of God. Jesus's law formula, if you will, wasn't at odds with his gospel. It was and still is the foundation upon which one obtains eternal life. "What?" you say! Yes, it's the very ground upon which Jesus obtained eternal life for the elect. He 'did' the "Do this and live" of the law for all those who put their trust in him for salvation. His obedience is credited to them as their obedience. His death for the sins of the elect is credited as their death for their sins. Jesus fulfilled all the righteous demands of the law of commandments and thus earned eternal life for those he came to save.
"Do this and live" (Lev. 18:5) is the promise/works principle embodied in the Edenic covenant of works and later echoed in the Mosaic Covenant at Mt. Sinai as the condition upon which God would temporally bless Israel in the land of Canaan as well as to direct the people to the mercy offered in Christ. It was also the Law of works under which Jesus was born. God was still looking for a Man - the true Israel/the second Adam - to fulfill the covenant of creation which offered lif upon perfect obedience. The first Adam had failed when he disobeyed and ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, hurling all mankind into sin and under condemnation. Though not under a strict covenant of works by which to obtain eternal life, Israel as a nation broke the Sinai covenant which contained a shadow of the original works covenant made with Adam. Thus the Israelites were exiled by God from the promise land even as Adam was exiled from the Garden of Eden. As the writer in Hosea 6:7 declares,
But like Adam they [i.e. Israel] have transgressed the covenant;
Is it really such a stretch to see that the conditional promise of life based on obedience offered by Jesus to the rich young ruler is the very same condition of obedience for life that Adam transgressed in the original covenant of works in Genesis 3, and the same works principle typologically and pedagogically republished to Israel as a nation in the Mosaic covenant? Can it be that God is trying to get our attention? And can it be that God has writ large in Scripture that for one to "have eternal life," then obedience to all the Law must be performed. And that complete and necessary obedience comes either by one's own personal works or through the One who has performed that obedience for all who receive him by faith.
There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
Pages
▼
The first Adam had failed when he disobeyed and ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, hurling all mankind into sin and under condemnation. Though not under a strict covenant of works by which to obtain eternal life, Israel ,,,,,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the strictness of the Adamic covenant is testified by the fact that Adam's sin was imputed to all humans so that all humans died in Adam. Why add your speculation about the possiblity of Adam doing enough works to earn "eternal life"? it's not in the Genesis text.
What makes the Adamic covenant strict but the Mosaic covenant not strict? My guess is that the difference is that all born in the Mosaic covenant are already dead in Adam. Wouldn't you agree with that, Jack?
"The very same condition of obedience for life that Adam transgressed". I am almost content to read you say that it's a "stretch" but not that much of a stretch, for Adam to "transgress the offer". But there was no such offer. There was a promise, a threat, if you sin, you die. I agree to the inference, which says---if you don't sin, you don't die---but if you are being clear with yourself, you know that threat is not the same as the "offer of eternal life" you suggest. Creation justice does not demand that God give Adam life off probation as a reward for finite success at not sinning. Failure to do works of obedience is sin. Sin is failing to obey.
Genesis 2: 6 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Mark, I daresay you are coming off a bit contentious on this question of the promise of life to Adam and his posterity. We've discussed this a number of times and we disagree. And, I might add, you also disagree with many others past and present who have explained it, I'm sure, better than I. Other than registering your objections what are you looking for? I would direct you to John Colqhoun's "Treatise of the Covenant of Works."
ReplyDeleteA teaser from JC:
ReplyDeleteThe apostle Paul informs us, That the commandment was ordained to life, " The commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." By the commandment, as the context plainly shows, is meant the moral law, that bright transcript of the image of Jehovah ; which is a system of holy commandments, so intimately con- nected, and so entirely consistent with each other, as if they had been but one precept. This law, he tells us, " was ordained to life,'' or was unto life. When it was given to mankind, it was given with a promise of life, to all who should yield to it a perfect obedience. Now since it is evident, that the perfect obedience, either of Adam, or of any other mere man, could not by any intrinsic value of its own, merit life for him, at the hand of the infinitely high and holy Jehovah; it follows, that when the law was given with a promise of life, to such as should perfectly obey, it must have been given as a covenant of life ; a covenant, according to which the Lord condescended to promise life, upon condition of perfect obedience ; saying, " The man which doeth those things, shall live by them ." The law could not have secured a title to life, to such as should have performed perfect obedience, if it had not been vested with the form of a covenant of life, for that, as well as for other purposes.
1. There are way more folks who don't confess a covenant of works with Adam that promised the possiblity of eternal life than those who do, and you need to be reminded that this is not about me, but about the many who don't need a-historical coveants in order to talk about Christ's meritorious righteousness, His satisfaction of the law by His death. I think not only of Lutherans, but of the Portestant Reformed, of Piscator and many others "Reformed" folks.
ReplyDelete2. Jack, you are the one who revisited this. Certainly you are most welcome to do so, but why be divisive about it? I have agreed that it's not a gospel issue, as long as we agree that Christ's obedience to death is divine righteousness. This is a serious question. Do you keep pushing the speculation about Adam, because of confessional loyalty or because you sincerely think that those who miss what you think was potentially true of Adam will faith to see the gospel?
3. What am I looking for? I hope I am sincere in saying that this is not a topic on which my mind is closed. I don't bring it up all the time, because I am on the side of those who do teach plan a was that Adam could bring in the righteousness by his "active obedience" and take sides against Shepherd and others who deny there was such a "covenant of works". So I am willing to be persuaded by Bible texts. But i continue to be shocked by how little there is of that, and how circular the reasoning is.
All that being said, Jack, i do think we agree on the basics of law-gospel. For example, this from Machen (What is Faith, p 192)
"Galatians is not an alternative between an external or ceremonial religion and what men would now call (by a misuse of the New Testament word) a “spiritual” religion, important though that alternative no doubt is; but it is an alternative between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. The Epistle to the Galatians is directed just as much against the modern notion of “salvation by character” or salvation by “making Christ Master” in the life or salvation by a mere attempt to put into practice “the principles of Jesus,” as it is directed against the Jewish ceremonialists of long ago: for what the Apostle is concerned to deny is any intrusion of human merit into-the work by which salvation is obtained. That work, according to the Epistle to the Galatians and according to the whole New Testament, is the work of God and of God alone.
Machen---At this point appears the full poignancy of the great Epistle with which we have been dealing. Paul is not merely arguing that a man is justified by faith so much no doubt his opponents, the Judaizers, admitted but he is arguing that a man is justified by faith alone. What the Judaizers said was not that a man is justified by works; but that he is justified by faith and works. No doubt they admitted that it was necessary for a man to have faith in. Christ in order, to be saved: but they held that it was also necessary for him to keep the law the best he could. A man’s obedience to the law of God, they held, was not, indeed, sufficient for salvation; but it was necessary; and it became sufficient when it was supplemented by Christ. Against this compromising solution of the problem, the Apostle insists upon a sharp alternative: a man may be saved by works (if he keeps the law perfectly), or he may be saved by faith; but he cannot possibly be f’saved by faith and works together. Christ, according to Paul, will do everything or nothing; if righteousness is in slightest measure obtained by our obedience to the law, then Christ died in vain; if we trust in slightest measure in our own good works, then we have turned away from grace and Christ profits us nothing."
Mark, the point of my reply to you wasn't to tally the number of folks pro or con regarding a covenant of works unto life. Nor was it to convince you personally of anything. I know you're not convinced of that doctrine. I am. We've discussed it. Neither of us is persuaded by the other. I simply pointed out that there are many Reformed past and present who explain it better than I. If they don't convince you I know I won't. And that said I'm not trying to convince you. So I'm not seeing what purpose is served by your questioning me as to my understanding on this. I don't think it's an information problem per se, but rather how we are reading the relevant texts in different ways. That said, feel free to reply and present your views.
DeleteYes, I brought it up as a blog post. And you are sincerely welcome to comment. In fact, I value your seriousness and thoroughness. But it's not like I rang you up and said, "Hey Mark - let's try and convince each other some more."
As far as the universe of Reformed theologians, I do think its safe to say that a covenant of works that promised life to Adam is well within the consensus view. I'm not much concerned with the Lutheran view or other non-reformed, though I suspect that Martin Luther wouldn't disagree with a CoW unto life for Adam.
"Do you keep pushing the speculation about Adam, because of confessional loyalty or because you sincerely think that those who miss what you think was potentially true of Adam will fail to see the gospel?"
Some of your approach: why add your speculation... and because of confessional loyalty... troubles me. You don't seem to give much credence to the possibility that I think the CoW might just be biblical. And because you don't agree with the CoW view doesn't mean that I think you fail to see the gospel. Again, why speculate as to that given the agreement we have already expressed on the gospel? I just happen think your view is missing some of the context that is given in Scripture for a CoW and the promise of eternal life. And I think that biblical context strengthens the gospel. Again, John Colqhoun's book is pretty good on delving into the topic.
I can see how my reply seemed somewhat divisive. I'll own part of that due to my always present reservoir-lack-of-charity - apologies - and part due to the limitations of short replies that fail to communicate subtleties that would be present in a face to face. What came across as divisive was meant to be no more that tweaking. Good lesson for carefully rereading a post that has some emotional content before hitting the "publish" button.
cheers...
Think about Adam. John Calvin did not seem to know what later Reformed scholastics knew about "the covenant of works" with Adam. Calvin did not know that "don't sin and have life" meant "if Adam did not sin for so long a time then Adam's children would not have been under probation anymore but have eternal life". Calvin never got that far.
ReplyDeleteBut the specific language you quote above does have an idea of "grace in the law" to which Kline and Irons and Karlberg object. They say there "could have been " intrinsic merit. Calvin-- Now since it is evident, that the perfect obedience, either of Adam, or of any other mere man, could not by any intrinsic value of its own, merit life for him,
Kline and Irons (redefining merit) also object to the idea of "condescending" as grace.. But Calvin----"it follows, that when the law was given with a promise of life, to such as should perfectly obey, it must have been given as a covenant of life ; a covenant, according to which the Lord CONDESCENDED to promise life, "
I tend to side with Kline on the law being strictly the law, even though I don't agree with what he thinks the law promised. But diversity is to be expected when we speculate about what Adam could have done, when the Bible does not tell us. To read the commandments of the Mosaic covenant "ordained to life", after the fall, back into the one commandment to Adam, before the fall, is a very big stretch.
Tullian— Leviticus 18:5 (both in Gal. 3 and Rom. 10) is a summary of the salvation-structure of the law: “if you keep the commandments, then you will live.” Here there is a promise of life linked to the condition of doing the commandments and a corresponding threat for not doing them: “cursed is everyone who does not abide in all the things written in the Book of the Law, to do them” (Gal 3.10 citing Deut 27.26). When this conditional word encounters the sinful human, the outcome is inevitable: “the whole world is guilty before God” (Rom 3.19). It is the condition that does the work of condemnation.
ReplyDeleteGalatians 5 “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore stand firm (imperative) and do not be subject (imperative) again to the yoke of slavery.” Are these imperatives equal to Paul’s description of the law? No! The command here is precisely to not return to the law
Dan Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (1992, Zondervan, p 181): “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’
ReplyDeleteDan Fuller: I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `Faith seeks life that is not found in commandments.’
Luke 10:28: And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
John Calvin on Luke 10:28. Do this, and thou shalt live. I have explained a little before, how this promise agrees with freely bestowed justification by faith; for the reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Romans 8:3.) So then these two statements are perfectly consistent with each other, that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men. It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime, to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.
You don't seem to give much credence to the possibility that I think the CoW might just be biblical.
ReplyDeletemark: correct, maybe that's because you talk more about John Colqhuin than about what Genesis actually says God said to Adam. "life" is not defined as eternal life there. And the promise of life to sinners after Adam can't be the same as the promise of life to Adam before he was guilty. This is important to me, because I want to be on Kline's side against Shepherd, but then he takes (what is to me) this unnecessary baggage. We can talk merits of Christ, and justification as "eternal life" (off probation, with positive access to all blessings in Christ) without the stuff about Adam. In a day when even the historical existence of Adam is being denied, let's stick with what we know to press the fight against the federal visionists who make our obedience co-instrumental.
Mark: You don't seem to give much credence to the possibility that I think the CoW might just be biblical.
Deletemark: correct, maybe that's because you talk more about John Colqhuin than about what Genesis actually says God said to Adam.
Kind of like you quoting all the guys you quote all the time? Does that mean you don't hold positions based on Scripture? Come on now...
Colqhoun or Horton or Berkhof or Kline present their views in light of the biblical data. To recommend any of them is not to exclude a biblical position but rather to strengthen the biblical position. Or is my position valid only if I present it as original exegesis?
RE Calvin. You know that theology develops as issues come forth. Calvin didn't deal in the categories of covenant of works and grace as later Reformed theologians did. Theology understanding develops as questions arise.
But the specific language you quote above does have an idea of "grace in the law"
What language? I totally reject that characterization. I think that is your interpretation or misreading. We'd get further along if you'd just ask for clarifications rather than coming to immediate conclusions. I agree with Kline and Irons. What in the post do you "assume" contradicts them?
I don't know when I can get back to any new comments as I'll be busy most the day.
cheers..
Romans 2: 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
ReplyDeleteclarification---I think we agree that this is "an empty set", that no sinner does this and no sinner gets immortality by well doing. So my question of clarification----is this Romans 2 text talking about Christ, and the gospel of His obedience? Cranfield in his commentary on Romans says so---that this is not simply an implication or application of the text, but that Romans 2 is talking about Christ keeping covenant? I sincerely wonder if you think the Romans 2 text fits along side your other proof texts (what must i do to inherit...?)
Since Christ's miracles were not "obedience to the Mosaic law", are those miracles part of the vicarious righteousness imputed to the elect when God justifies the elect?
Thanks for your patience with my questions.
I would take Paul's words as the description of the covenant of works that man is judged by. Obey all of the law in thought, word, and deed and that reward is glory and honor and immortality. This is a true condition of which, due to sin, no one can meet. And yes, it points to Christ as the One who did fulfill its conditions for elect sinners.
DeleteSo yes, I do think it fits Jesus's answer to the rich young ruler's question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" For a sinner who has the law as a covenant of works written on his heart that "legal" question is most natural.
As far as the miracles, I haven't given that any thought in terms of their relation to fulfilling righteousness on behalf of the elect. But I suppose we can say that part of fulfilling the righteousness of the original creational covenant was For Adam to have dominion over all the earth. Christ, the 2nd Adam, exhibited that dominion via miracles, especially over the Serpent and his legions. Certainly the Law that Christ (the true Israel) fulfills is republished in the Mosaic Law given to the nation of Israel. So, looking at that republished picture we understand that the Israelites (pointing back to Adam's mandate) were to have dominion over all of the Land of Canaan. They were to expel all who didn't belong and keep it as a temple-paradise of the living God. They failed. Jesus succeeded. Any way, these are some initial thoughts...