Over the last few days I’ve been outlining the new book, Merit and Moses, which critiques the idea that the Mosaic covenant is, in an important sense, a republication of the covenant of works (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Today I’d like to offer some concluding comments about the book.
Simplicity and Clarity
The first thing that struck me about the book was its relative simplicity and clarity compared to the book it is opposing, The Law is Not of Faith (TLNF). Merit and Moses (MM) demonstrates that it is possible for complex theology to be debated in an accessible way. I found TLNF to be virtually impenetrable in parts with little evident concern to write in as simple and clear a way as possible for the benefit of the church.
I suspect that part of the reason for MM’s superiority in this area is that it was written by three pastors as opposed to professors and academics. To me, MM is a model of how to teach. It’s well-paced, not too dense, consistent in quality and content, attractively presented, uses as few words as possible, avoids unnecessarily complicated jargon and sentences, provides concise definitions, and drives home important points with repetition and summaries. In terms of tone, although firmly opposing the republication paradigm, it did not veer into any personal attacks or excessive language. In a few places, MM credits Meredith Kline and TLNF for the work they have done in guarding important areas of truth.
Danger of Over-reaction
One of the strong points of MM is that, especially in the first chapter, but also throughout, it sets the republication debate in historical context. It explains how Westminster Seminary’s Norman Shepherd rejected key aspects of covenant theology and how another Westminster professor, Meredith Kline, reacted (indeed over-reacted) to these errors. In the process MM also persuasively clears Professor John Murray from the unfair linking of him to Shepherd’s errors.
If there’s one lesson I’ve learned in studying church history it’s the huge danger of overreacting to one error, thus unintentionally creating another. Thus the errors of psychology swing some to the rejection of all psychology in soul care, the errors of legalism swing some to antinomianism (and vice versa), too much exemplarist preaching swings to none at all, and so on. In this case, Norman Shepherd’s error of rejecting any idea of merit in the covenant of works led to Kline’s (and TLNF’s) overreaction of teaching meritorious works in the covenant of grace.
It’s always tempting to try to make our case stronger by adding to the Bible’s teaching (in this case, adding a covenant of works to the Mosaic covenant), as if we think the Bible needs just a bit more help in stopping error. However, we then create the circumstances where other serious error can occur, as in this case. We guard the truth with the truth not by constructing some complicated system that we think helps buttress our case.
Nobody doubts Meredith Kline’s (or TLNF’s) worthy intentions and goals. They saw serious error with many serious repercussions and acted to protect the truth by constructing this republication paradigm (RP). It’s highly doubtful that they foresaw some of the dangerous doctrinal consequences of this theory, the knock-on effect on other doctrines. But, just as we can often know if a person has true faith by their fruits, so we can often tell if a teaching is true by its fruits.
It can often take a while and it often takes other people not immediately involved in a hot debate to work out the impact of one doctrine upon others. That’s what I see MM’s role as – not saying that RP teachers also teach the errors that MM sees flowing from RP – but explaining how changing one area of the foundation can also unexpectedly bring large and important parts of the whole house down. I’m hopeful that RP supporters, including the authors of TLNF, will read MM and, instead of setting the rottweilers on it, will pause and say, “Whoa! I didn’t see that result. This makes me reconsider the whole RP idea.”
There are two responses I hope we won’t see. First, I hope RP advocates will not simply go on the attack and pounce on one or two weaknesses in the MM case. Instead, let’s see a pause for serious and prayerful consideration, with a sincere effort made to recognize and admit that MM has even one or two valid points.
Second, it’s not enough for RP proponents to quote certain older theologians who used the terminology of “covenant of works” to describe the Mosaic covenant. Usually these theologians are not advocating the RP as we know it, but using “covenant of works” terminology to speak of the republication of the law rather than of the covenant of works itself. They are certainly not speaking in the context of the current debate.
MM is strong on systematic and confessional theology. However it makes little or no attempt to base its arguments on exegesis of Bible verses or to deal with some of the verses that seem to support RP (e.g. Lev. 18:5 and Gal. 3:12). It’s a relatively short book and the authors probably decided to restrict their case to systematic and confessional theology. However, there’s still a need for a similar kind of work that presents the exegetical case for the non-RP view of the Mosaic covenant and that also takes on the RP interpretation of a few key Bible verses in both the OT and NT. Although I do not agree with all of TLNF’s exegesis, at least they make an attempt to wrestle with vital verses. I don’t believe that MM offered a convincing explanation of the covenant rewards in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
If I can get the time, I hope to return to this in the near future and present at least part of the exegetical case for the covenant with Moses being a pure administration of the covenant of grace, unmixed with any covenant of works or ideas of merit.
Some may read this book or my outline of it and think, “Hey, what’s the big deal? This is just academic squabbling that has no impact on the church or my Christian life!” I think if you read MM, you’ll realize that it is indeed a big deal. Even the authors of TLNF don’t hold back in describing how central the issues are and how the Gospel and the person and work of Christ are at stake in this debate (see the summary in Part 1). Chapter 12 in MM also demonstrates how the RP not only results in a kind of spiritual schizophrenia in OT believers (where the same act of obedience is rewarded by grace on one level and by merit on another), but also distances OT saints from our own spiritual experience and therefore reduces their usefulness as heroes and heroines of the faith.
For myself, my own concerns about RP have grown as I’ve increasingly come into contact with people who are using the RP to argue against any place of the law in the Christian life. They hear RP teachers saying that Israel obeyed the law to merit the land, but the NT believer is no longer under that arrangement. Thus they conclude, we don’t need to obey God’s law any more. Again, I know that’s not what RP intends but it is such a complex and confusing system that even those who have heard it explained many times still struggle to understand and communicate it accurately. I remember the first time I heard the RP preached, I thought, “What on earth was that?” To some degree, I still feel that sense of bafflement. With theology, I’ve often noticed that the more complex a system, the more likely that it’s wrong.