050. Chapter 45: The Law of God: General Considerations
------------ CHAPTER FORTY-FIVE ------------ The Law of God: General Considerations The rule for holiness is the law of God. We shall first discuss the law in a general sense, and then each commandment in particular.
Torah, which is the Hebrew word for "law," is derived from hora, which means "to teach," "to instruct." A law is thus a lesson or instruction in the way which one ought to go. This is likewise true for mitzvah, which means "commandment," chãq, which means "institution," as well as mishpat, which means "judgment" or "judgments." To make a distinction between these words, as if the one were to refer to the moral, and others to the ceremonial and civil laws, is without foundation (cf. Psalms 119:1-176). In Greek we have the word nomos -- a derivative of nemein -- which means "to direct," or "to distribute," for the law governs the life of man, and reward or punishment is distributed commensurate with the compliance with these directives. In Latin we have the word lex -- a derivative of legere -- which means "to read," for laws are read to the subjects and are displayed in order to be read. It can also be a derivative of ligare, which means "to obligate" -- for the law obligates to obedience. "Law" in our language may be a derivative from "to know" [Note: This is probably only true in the Dutch language, as there seems to be a relationship between "wet" (law) and "weten" (to know).] because the knowledge of God‘s law has been impressed upon man‘s nature, and God has more clearly made it known to His church in order that they "might know them" (Psalms 78:6). Thus by virtue of the etymology of the word we can say that the law is a known and binding rule of conduct. The word "law" is used in various ways. It means 1) the law of nature (Romans 2:14-15); 2) the corruption of human nature which dominates in the unconverted, and frequently overpowers the converted (Romans 7:23); 3) the entire Word of God (Psalms 19:7-8); 4) the books of Moses (Luke 24:44); 5) the gospel (Romans 3:27; Isaiah 2:3); 6) the civil laws (John 19:7); 7) the ceremonial laws (Hebrews 10:1); and 8) the moral law, comprehended in the ten commandments (Matthew 22:36-38). The law in this latter connotation is the subject of our discussion here. The law is the rule of life given to man by God, the only Lawgiver, to govern the disposition of his heart, thoughts, words, and conduct thereby.
If we view the law as a condition of the covenant of works, it carries with it the threat of death to transgressors and the promise of life to those who observe it perfectly. If, however, we view it in the context of the circumstances and the objective with which it was declared at Mount Sinai, then the true partakers of the covenant can indeed perceive what their transgressions do merit and what the consequences of perfect obedience would be. The punishment due upon them has been taken away by the Surety, however, and by their continual commission of offenses they readily perceive that they cannot perfectly keep the law nor obtain salvation by the law, but only through the Surety, Jesus Christ. They also understand that upon their transgressions God chastises them as a Father and that He graciously rewards their sincere efforts. The Giver of the Law The Lawgiver is God who is the Creator and Preserver of all things and the Lord of His church -- His property. The act of legislating consists of several aspects. There must be 1) one who is superior to another in majesty and excellency; 2) proper subordination of the recipient of the law under the lawgiver; 3) the obligation of the subject to the superior to obey the laws which have been issued; and 4) laws themselves as they relate to conduct.
God alone, by virtue of His nature, is the majestic and exalted One. He gives life to man and by His influence preserves his being. The Lord Himself is worthy of being obeyed. He has the authority to issue commands, even if there were no creature. The existence of the creature presupposes its origin in Him, and therefore the creature is subject to Him in his existence and functioning. The creature is furthermore obligated to render all obedience to his Maker. Even if the intelligent creature did not have an express command, he is nevertheless, from the first moment of his existence, obligated to obey God as the only Lawgiver in all that He has impressed upon his nature and in all that He would either command or prohibit relative to a variety of matters. This obligation is even impressed upon the conscience of man so that he is acquainted with and approves of both his obligation toward, and the will of, this Lawgiver, and obligates himself to obey Him. This disposition renders man fit to know God, the Lawgiver, by His works and to perceive and experience this binding relationship in a more lively manner. Man, in the state of perfection, had all this perfectly impressed upon his nature, and after the fall this impression remained in all men, although imperfectly. This is generally referred to as the Law of Nature, which we have discussed in chapter one. After the covenant of works had been broken, the Lord established the covenant of grace. When God had confined His people to Abraham‘s seed, and had separated them from other nations, He then pronounced the law with an audible voice from Mount Sinai and inscribed it in two tables of stone. This is generally referred to as The Law of the Ten Commandments. Of both the law of nature as well as the law of Scripture God is the author and giver (Romans 2:14-15). When God pronounced the law from Sinai, He began with, "I am the Lord thy God" (Exodus 20:2); "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12). The Son of God stood in a relationship to the church as her Mediator and King from the very outset of the covenant of grace. The giving of the law is attributed to Him by reason of that relationship.
He is called "the angel," that is, the messenger, because He was appointed by the Father as Mediator and also because the Father executes everything that pertains to the church by Him. "...He shall ... suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger [Note: The Statenvertaling reads: the angel of the covenant.] of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1). He is the angel who has the name Jehovah in His bosom (Exodus 23:20-21); this was the Angel Jehovah who appeared unto Abraham (Genesis 18:1); this was the Angel who appeared unto Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2
Secondly, the law was given by inscription upon two tables of stone. First the Lord Himself made two tables of stone, engraved the law upon them, and gave them to Moses. "And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables" (Exodus 32:19). When Moses came down from the mountain, however, and became aware of the making and serving of the golden calf and the breaking of the law (which had been declared to them so very recently), he broke these two tables of stone in holy zeal (Exodus 32:19). Subsequent to this, the Lord commanded Moses to make two other tables of stone and to bring them to Him. This occurred, and the Lord by renewal wrote the law on the tables made by Moses, giving them to Moses who carried them to the people and laid them in a container or ark prepared for them (Deuteronomy 10:1
It cannot be satisfactorily resolved why the law was not written upon paper or parchment, nor in silver or gold. We may, however, turn with this to the human heart, which is as hard as a stone so that no one but God Himself can inscribe His laws there (Ezekiel 36:26-27). We may thus also reflect upon the eternal duration of the law, which would not be abolished in the Old or New Testament. Neither can it be satisfactorily resolved why the law was not written with letters placed upon the stone rather than by engraven letters. One may, however, conjecture that it is not sufficient to observe and perform the law externally, but rather that it must be engraved in the heart (Jeremiah 31:33). The fact that the tables were inscribed on both sides may also support the suggestion that the law is the rule for all actions, and must govern man wherever he may go or turn, both in body and in soul, with all his faculties, and can neither add to nor subtract from it. Moreover, if someone asks why the law was not written upon one, but upon two tables, we answer that the law pertains to two objects: God and one‘s neighbor, as the Lord Jesus shows in Matthew 22:37
It was a mountain in desolate Arabia -- a barren location where there was nothing to eat or drink and where nothing attractive or delightful was to be found. They had to seek and have their delight only in God and had to live alone out of His maintaining hand. They therefore had to endeavor diligently to retain the Lord‘s presence by obeying and being dependent upon Him. The Law of God and its Relationship to the Covenant of Grace
Many things are to be considered concerning this law, and in doing so the nature and the purpose of the law will be the more evident. By way of preface it should be noted:
First, that a covenant was made between God and Israel, the church at Horeb, prior to the giving of the law. This is recorded in Exodus 19:1-25.
(1) God‘s requirement is stated in verse 5: "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant." 2) The promise is: "Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me ... and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6). The nation acquiesces in verse 8: "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do."
Secondly, that this covenant made at Horeb (or solemnly renewed, as they were already in it prior to this) is the covenant of grace. This is evident since,
(1) the covenant made with Israel at Horeb is the same covenant which God had established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- which without contradiction was the covenant of grace. "Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers" (Deuteronomy 7:12); "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into His oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: that He may establish thee to day for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob" (Deuteronomy 29:9-10
(2) The covenant at Horeb contains all the promises of the covenant of grace: 1) I shall be a God unto you and "... ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people" (Exodus 19:6); "I am the Lord thy God" (Exodus 20:2); "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God ... and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people" (Deuteronomy 26:17-18). It is obvious that this is a promise of the covenant of grace (cf. Genesis 17:8; Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 6:16). 2) They are promised that they will be a priestly kingdom. "And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6). That this is a promise of the covenant of grace is evident in the following passages: "Ye also ... are built up ... an holy priesthood ... but ye are ... a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9); "And hath made us kings and priests unto God" (Revelation 1:6). These two include all other promises.
(3) They had the same sacraments: circumcision and the sacrifices. Thirdly, that the entire nation of Israel entered the covenant of grace at the same time (Exodus 19:8). However, the majority did it only externally and not in truth; that is, not with knowledge, faith, and love. Thus, by reason of this external entry there was also an external relationship between God and the people, and upon living an ungodly life they are said to be unfaithful to this covenant (Psalms 78:37). "But with many of them God was not well pleased" (1 Corinthians 10:5).
Fourthly, that no unconverted persons are in the covenant of grace, even though they have entered externally. Rather, they are truly and factually in the covenant of works as all the heathen are. Although the covenant made in Adam has been broken by transgression and the law has thus been made weak by the flesh to justify man and to grant him life, men nevertheless remain under the same obligation, and, as often as they sin, they break the covenant. This is like a woman who, having committed adultery, is thereby not free from the law of her husband, but time and again commits adultery. Such is also the case here. When an unconverted person sins, he repeatedly breaks the covenant of works in which he is. Having entered the covenant of grace in an external sense and yet not walking in faith, he thus despises Christ and rejects the offered covenant of grace.
Fifthly, that one must indeed make a distinction between the covenant made at Horeb prior to the giving of the law (Exodus 19:1-25), and the law which was declared subsequent to it (Exodus 20:1-26). The law of the ten commandments was not the covenant, for the covenant had been made prior to this. The law is, so to speak, an appendix to the covenant already made, being a rule for the partakers of the covenant. Therefore the covenant and the law are expressly distinguished from each other -- which we shall discuss more comprehensively later.
Sixthly, that one must make a distinction between the contents or substance of the law, and the purpose for which it was given. The contents or substance is identical to the demands of the covenant of works established with Adam, for:
(1) There is but one holiness, and therefore there can also be but one rule of holiness. The requirement held before Adam was perfection, and this is likewise the requirement of the law of the ten commandments.
(2) The requirement of the covenant of works is impressed upon man‘s nature (Romans 2:14-15). However, the law which is impressed upon man‘s nature, is identical to the ten commandments, even though they are not equal in clarity. Thus, the requirements of the covenant of works and the ten commandments are identical.
(3) Eternal life was promised to Adam upon perfect obedience, which would also be the result upon the perfect observance of the ten commandments. "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Romans 10:5). The purpose for the giving of the law of the ten commandments is, however, entirely different from the purpose for which God gave the law to Adam. The law was given to Adam in order thereby to obtain life, but the law of the ten commandments was not given to that end, since no one is capable of fulfilling it.
It was given:
(1) To convict the unconverted of sin, of the continual breaking of the covenant of works, and of the curse and worthiness of condemnation due to transgression.
(2) To cause the unconverted, who have been made acquainted with the covenant of grace, to look away from the covenant of works as not being able to give life, and to urge them to truly enter into the covenant of grace and to receive Christ by true faith unto justification. This is the purpose for the multiple repetitions of the demands of the covenant of works and the dreadful circumstances accompanying the giving of the law. In this respect the law is a schoolmaster, guide, teacher, and director to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
(3) With the objective of being a steadfast rule of life for the partakers of the covenant of grace, to show them the way in all its purity, and to stir them up to enter into and persevere in this way, and to guide them in this way. "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to Thy word" (Psalms 119:9). In reference to this the law is called: the way of the Lord, pathway, and path (Psalms 119:1-176).
Seventhly, that one must make a distinction between the end and purpose of the giving of the law, and the opinion of the unconverted concerning it. The unconverted Israelites considered the ten commandments to be a requirement of the covenant of works, in the observance of which they had to seek life. They also viewed the ceremonial laws as such and intermingled it with the moral law. And thus, by the external observance of those laws -- the ceremonial as well as the moral laws -- they sought to be justified (cf. Romans 9:31-32; Romans 10:3; Galatians 5:3-4).
Eighthly, that one must also make a distinction between the commandment and the incentives given for observance. Incentives for observance are expressed with the second, third, fourth, and fifth commandments, setting forth that which is harmful to transgressors, as well as that which is profitable for those who observe the law. The commandments remain unchanged, but the incentives are presented from various aspects. Having said this by way of introduction, we shall now answer several questions. The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not a Covenant of Works
Question Is the law of the ten commandments a covenant of works? Answer: No; we shall demonstrate this to be so for the following reasons: First, God‘s righteousness cannot permit a sinner to enter into a covenant of friendship without a Surety who bears the punishment of the broken covenant on behalf of the sinner. However, the Israelites were sinners, and the covenant of works is without a Surety. Thus, the law cannot be a covenant of works.
Secondly, the person with whom God would establish a covenant of works, ought to be able to satisfy the demands of the covenant of works, and to obtain life in consequence thereof, for God‘s holiness, righteousness, and truth will not permit the establishment of a true covenant upon the basis of a dishonest promise of man. These attributes also will not permit, as a condition for salvation, that man be required to perform that which he cannot perform. These attributes will not allow perfection to be again set before the impotent sinner as a condition for salvation, and thus establish a second covenant of works, even though God, by virtue of man‘s original condition when he was included in the covenant of works, may righteously demand perfect obedience from man who wilfully deprived himself of his own power. After the fall man is not able to perfectly satisfy the demands of a covenant of works, and therefore a new covenant of works cannot be established with man, and the law can consequently not be a covenant of works.
Thirdly, if the law were a covenant of works, then Israel, and all believers of the New Testament (for they are all under obligation to the law), would simultaneously be in two opposite covenants. They were under the covenant of grace, or else no one could have been saved. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20). And if the law were a covenant of works, they would be simultaneously under the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. This is impossible, however, for the one disannuls the other. If they would have been obligated to seek salvation by works, there would have been no room for the covenant of grace; and if they would have been obligated to seek salvation by the covenant of grace, there would have been no room for the covenant of works, as the apostle clearly demonstrates in Romans 11:6. Furthermore, if the law were a covenant of works, it would destroy the promises. The law did, however, not disannul the promises (Galatians 3:17-18). The law is therefore not a covenant of works.
Fourthly, if the law were a covenant of works, man would have had to seek salvation by works, for it is thus declared: "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Romans 10:5). This, however, one may not do, for it is not to be obtained in this manner. "For they being ignorant of God‘s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" (Romans 10:3); that is, they are not partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and thus also not of salvation. The law is therefore not a covenant of works.
Fifthly, there can be no manifestation of mercy in the covenant of works; however, there is room for mercy in the law of the ten commandments. "And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments" (Exodus 20:6). Thus, the law is not the covenant of works.
Objection #1: The law, which has as its contents perfect personal obedience, is called a covenant. "... for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel" (Exodus 34:27); "And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deuteronomy 4:13). The tables are called the tables of the covenant (Deuteronomy 9:11).
Answer (1) The word covenant has various meanings, so that from a single use of this word one cannot draw the conclusion that it refers to a literal covenant established by mutual agreement. It refers here to an immutable promise (Genesis 9:9-10), a steadfast ordinance (Jeremiah 33:20), and a singular command. "I made a covenant with your fathers ... saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother" (Jeremiah 34:13-14).
(2) The covenant at Horeb was made prior to the giving of the law, and thus the law cannot be the covenant itself.
(3) It is a figurative manner of speech, and the appendix frequently (and thus also here) bears the name of that to which it is appended. The covenant of grace having been established, the law was appended thereto as a rule of conduct for the partakers of the covenant.
Objection #2: Since the law is continually contrasted with grace, it therefore follows that the law is the covenant of works. This is to be observed in the following passages: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17); "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise" (Galatians 3:18; cf. Romans 4:14; Romans 10:5-6).
Answer (1) A distinction must be made between the substance and contents of the law, and the purpose for which it has been given. The purpose for the giving of the law is that it be a rule of life. As such the law is not contrasted with grace; rather, it is grace that a steadfast rule of life has been given to the partakers of the covenant. However, the law as far as its demands are concerned, and the contents of the covenant of works made with Adam, is contrasted with grace. The law was not given for that purpose, however, and it can thus not be concluded that it is equivalent to the covenant of works.
(2) The Jews corrupted the true purpose for which both the moral and ceremonial laws had been given. They considered it to be a covenant of works and sought for their righteousness in this covenant -- as many who are Christians only in name still do. These misconceptions are identified and rebuked in the texts mentioned above.
(3) Scripture states very clearly that the law is not contrary to the promise. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Romans 10:4); "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid" (Galatians 3:21). It is thus evident in which manner the law is and is not contrary to the promise, and that the law of the ten commandments is not a covenant of works. The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not the Covenant of Grace
Question Is the law of the ten commandments equivalent to the covenant of grace, or is it a compendium of this covenant?
Answer: The covenant established at Horeb prior to the giving of the law is truly the covenant of grace; however, we deny that the law of the ten commandments is the covenant of grace or its compendium. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, the entire contents of the law of the ten commandments was perfectly impressed upon the nature of Adam, and this law would have, if his transgression had not interfered, been passed on perfectly to his descendants. After the fall, the law is yet impressed upon the hearts of the heathen, although imperfectly (cf. Romans 1:19-20; Romans 2:14-15). If, however, the law were a compendium of the covenant of grace and equivalent to the covenant of grace itself, it would already have existed prior to the fall, and the covenant of grace would have been naturally known to the heathen apart from the gospel. This is absurd, and thus also that the law is equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Secondly, the law is the requirement and condition of the covenant of works, life being promised upon personal obedience to the law: "Do this and thou shalt live." Whatever is identical to the covenant of works in its demands and contents cannot be equivalent to the covenant of grace. For where the law says: "Do this and thou shalt live," the covenant of grace says: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." These two covenants are too distinct from each other, and the one covenant negates the other (Romans 10:5-6
Thirdly, Christ is the Surety of the covenant of grace who therefore must be included in a description of this covenant; it cannot be understood apart from the knowledge of Christ. However, in the law there is not a word regarding a Surety, or regarding faith in the Surety, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the law is not equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Fourthly, the covenant of grace is efficacious unto the regeneration, justification, and salvation of man; however, the law is not efficacious unto regeneration, justification, and salvation. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Galatians 3:21); "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise" (Galatians 3:18); "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). Yes, those who are under the law are under the curse (Galatians 3:10); the law is therefore not equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Fifthly, the covenant of grace only makes promises -- also the inscription of the law in the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26-27). The law, however, only demands and has no promise, except upon the condition of perfect, personal obedience -- a promise which cannot be fulfilled by anyone after the fall as no one is able to fulfill the condition. The law demands but does not promise any efficacy. The law is therefore not equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Objection #1: Since Christ, as Mediator and King of His church, has given his church the law of the ten commandments, it thus follows that the law of the ten commandments is equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) We deny the conclusion. If, however, this conclusion were correct, then Christ, as Mediator and King of His church, has given His people a rule of life. If this is true, it must thus follow that the law of the ten commandments is a rule according to which the partakers of the covenant must live. The rule of life for the partakers of the covenant is to be distinguished from the covenant itself.
(2) The covenant had already been made prior to the giving of the law, which proves that the law is the rule which Christ has given to His partakers of the covenant.
Objection #2: The preamble, I am the Lord thy God, shows clearly that the law is equivalent to the covenant of grace, for that expression is the essential expression of the covenant of grace.
Answer: This phrase is not always expressive of the covenant of grace. This is evident in Isaiah 28:26, where we read, "For his God doth instruct him to discretion," namely, to cultivate the land. Nevertheless, we admit that from the preamble and the occasional addition of an incentive to a commandment it is to be observed that there must be a covenant of grace. It therefore does not follow, however, that the law itself is the covenant of grace, for the expression I am the Lord thy God is frequently added to commands and warnings which, as all agree, are not equivalent to the covenant of grace (cf. Leviticus 18:30; Judges 6:10, and many others). The preamble manifests the authority of the One who commands, and the obligation of the people to obey Him -- not only because He is God and they are His creatures, but also because they had entered into a covenant of grace with God. There is therefore as much a distinction between the preamble and the law, as there is between the One who commands and the command.
Objection #3: Mercy is mentioned in the law. "I will show mercy," etc. The mercy of God can, however, not be manifested to a sinner except by way of the covenant of grace. Therefore, the law is equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Answer: One must make a distinction between the command and the incentive. Simply because an incentive is taken from the covenant of grace, it does not follow that the law, for the observance of which the incentive is used, is the covenant of grace itself. Rather, it proves the contrary: This duty is not equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Objection #4: The law is a covenant; however, it is not the covenant of works. Therefore it must be the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) It has already been demonstrated above that the law is not the covenant of works, as well as that whatever bears the name "covenant" is not necessarily the covenant itself. Circumcision is also denominated as a "covenant" (Genesis 17:10).
(2) Those who make this objection maintain that, in addition to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, there is yet another covenant. This they call an external and exemplary covenant. Their conclusion that because the law is not the covenant of works it is therefore the covenant of grace, is then negated. They themselves would then have to answer that there is a third covenant.
(3) And just because the law is not the covenant of works, it therefore does not follow that it is the covenant of grace. It therefore suffices that it is a rule for the partakers of the covenant of grace.
Objection #5: Whatever is confirmed by blood -- typifying the blood of Christ -- is the covenant of grace; however, the law has been confirmed with typical blood. "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people" (Hebrews 9:19). The law is thus equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) If one would have to draw such a conclusion from this proposition, then the people would be equivalent to the covenant, for they were also sprinkled with blood. The latter is absurd and thus also the first. If one wishes to draw the conclusion that whatever was sprinkled with typical blood belongs to the covenant of grace, there is no objection; and if one then furthermore wishes to conclude that the law of the ten commandments therefore belongs to the covenant of grace, we also do not object, as long as it is considered to be a rule for the partakers of the covenant.
(2) It is nowhere stated, however, that the two tables of stone upon which the law was written were confirmed and sprinkled with blood. This would have to be demonstrated for the conclusion to be of any value.
(3) Moses sprinkled the book in which the entire ceremonial worship -- typifying Christ -- was recorded, which irrefutably belongs to the covenant of grace.
Objection #6: The ceremonial laws belong to the law of the ten commandments, namely, to the second commandment, giving command to serve God in a manner commanded by Him. It is obvious, however, that the ceremonial laws belong to the covenant of grace. Therefore the law of the ten commandments is the covenant of grace itself.
Answer (1) There is a further conclusion to be made from this presupposition. This ought to be: thus the law also belongs to the covenant of grace. We concur with this, it being a rule for the partakers of the covenant.
(2) Also the civil laws belong to the moral law -- to the second table. Should one thus also be permitted to conclude (the argumentation is identical) that therefore the ten commandments are a political or civil covenant? By no means, and one also cannot therefore conclude that it is equivalent to the covenant of grace.
(3) We deny that the law of the ten commandments prescribes the ceremonial laws; this neither occurs in the second nor in any other commandment. The basis for all service of God -- in the covenant of works as well as in the covenant of grace, and in the Old as well as the New Testament -- is indeed to be found in the words of the second commandment, the contents of which are to serve God in a manner prescribed by Him. However, no mention is made at all of the ceremonial service. To conclude from this common foundation -- from which issues forth the service of God in the state of perfection and in the New Testament, as well as in the ceremonial service -- that this commandment is ceremonial and that the law is therefore equivalent to the covenant of grace, is no more valid than to conclude thereby that the law is a covenant of works because it points out how man is to conduct himself in the covenant of works toward God and His service.
Objection #7: The covenant of grace obligates all partakers of the covenant to the keeping of the law; thus the law belongs to the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) The thrust of the argument is the same. The covenant of works obligates all men to the keeping of the law; thus the law belongs to the covenant of works. The fallacy of the conclusion is thus evident, for the law obligates all men.
(2) All that belongs to the covenant of grace is not the covenant of grace itself. Holy Baptism and the Lord‘s Supper belong to the covenant of grace; nevertheless, they are not the covenant itself. We agree that the law belongs to the covenant of grace in regard to the purpose for its issuance, and in regard to the demand that it be a rule for partakers of the covenant. What basis is there in this for constructing a covenant of grace from the law?
Objection #8: The law demands faith, and faith belongs to the covenant of grace; the law is thus equivalent to the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) The covenant of works demands faith in God, and then, according to that argument, the law is the covenant of works -- and if it is the covenant of works, then it is not the covenant of grace.
(2) Faith in Christ belongs to the covenant of grace; however, this is not required by the law. Christ is not revealed in the law.
Objection #9: The fifth commandment promises the land of Canaan, and Canaan was the earnest of all the promises of the covenant of grace; the law is thus the compendium of the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) One must make a distinction between the law and its incentives -- they do not change the nature of the commandment, nor do they make the commandment of the same nature as the source of these incentives. These incentives at times are derived, however, from the nature of God, and at other times from His works and from a given promise. This transpires in the covenant of works as well as in the covenant of grace. One therefore may not conclude from the promise of Canaan that the law is equivalent to the covenant of grace.
(2) No reference is made to Canaan in the fifth commandment; however, the children of Israel could logically deduce this, just as Paul concludes that it refers to all countries where God has decreed one‘s residence to be. "That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:3).
(3) We deny that Canaan was an earnest of all the promises of the covenant of grace and of heaven. One will never be able to demonstrate this, and thus the conclusion is at once nullified. The Covenant Made at Horeb: Not a Mixture of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
Question Is the covenant made at Horeb a mixed covenant, consisting partially of the covenant of works and partially of the covenant of grace? Some call this covenant a national covenant, and consider it to be thus. They maintain that God would be satisfied and would bless them, even though they did not live in perfect conformity to the law, if they but had a sincere intent and earnestly endeavored to be obedient and practice true godliness -- and if they furthermore believed in the Messiah, being the fulfillment of what was lacking in them.
Answer (1) The word "national" does not suggest that there is another covenant besides the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. It only indicates that God established the covenant of grace with the nation of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that it would be confined to that nation until the coming of the Messiah.
(2) Christ alone is the cause of justification, and the works of man play no role in justification at all. God is, however, pleased with the sincere efforts of believers and rewards them graciously.
(3) We do deny, however, that the covenant made at Horeb is a mixed covenant, distinguished from the covenant of works and the covenant of grace -- as if a "hybrid" covenant had been composed from both. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, it is clear from all that we have proven in the above; namely, that the law, as far as the purpose of its issuance was concerned, is not equivalent to the covenant of works, and that a covenant of works cannot be established anew with the sinner. This cannot be done in its entirety, but then also not partially. It has already been shown that the law is not equivalent to the covenant of grace. If the law is neither the one nor the other, then a mixed covenant cannot be composed from both of them.
Secondly, Paul shows in Romans 11:6 that one of the two must function, and that they cannot be mixed together. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." The way of the covenant of grace and the way of the covenant of works are so far removed from each other -- yes, are so entirely contradictory -- that a mixture of the two is not possible. It is therefore impossible to make a third covenant from those two.
Thirdly, if works and faith, the righteousness of man and Christ, were to coalesce, one would acquire righteousness partially by works and partially by faith, contrary to Romans 9:30-32. Then Christ would not be a perfect Savior, for man would himself add something to his justification, contrary to Romans 3:24
Objection: Holiness is required as a condition for the covenant at Horeb. "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me" (Exodus 19:8); "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8). On the other hand, mercy is promised to those that are upright. "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments" (Exodus 20:6). Since obedience as a condition and mercy proceeding from free grace are joined together, there is a mixed covenant, consisting partially of the covenant of works and partially of the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) Here two matters are conjoined which are distinct from each other. In Exodus 19:1-25 mention is made of the covenant of grace, and in Exodus 20:1-26 the law is declared as a rule for the partakers of the covenant, with mercy added as an incentive.
(2) In Exodus 19:1-25 the covenant of grace is solemnly established as we have shown in the above. Obedience and faithfulness to this covenant are not demanded as a condition of the covenant, for God can neither make demands upon a sinner by way of a new covenant nor issue promises upon that condition, as was shown earlier. Rather, it is required as a duty, test, and demonstration of their sincerity -- both upon entering into, as well as living in the covenant of grace. The promise which, among others, God makes in the covenant of grace is that He will sanctify them. Thus, no one can enter into this covenant unless he has a desire for holiness, and one can neither assure himself nor pretend to be in the covenant of grace unless he is a partaker of holiness. "Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18). When holiness is required in the covenant of grace, it is not required as a condition, but as a token of sincerity. True and false partakers of the covenant are hereby distinguished from each other, and by this they are identified. Those who do not obey nor keep His covenant, are no partakers of it, and do not belong to God. However, those who do obey and keep His covenant show that they are partakers of the covenant and belong to God. When the people accepted God‘s proposal, most did so only with the mouth, and not with an illuminated, willing, and sincere heart. True believers gave expression to the obligation which was theirs, and with delight approved of it. They gave expression to their sincerity in their transaction with God, as well as to their willingness and heartfelt inclination to obey God, knowing that the execution thereof was not possible in their strength, but in the power of God who made them willing. When they heard that God promised that He would do so to all who truly entered into covenant with Him, they willingly surrendered to that covenant and declared this to be so. The Law of the Ten Commandments: Of Eternal Duration and Binding to the New Testament Believer
Question: Is the law of the ten commandments a rule of eternal duration, which all true believers in the New Testament are also obligated to observe?
Prior to answering this question, the following matters must first be noted by way of preface. First, the law of the ten commandments as declared from Sinai does not place under obligation the heathen who have never had this law. "For as many as have sinned without the law ..." (Romans 2:12). The law of nature is a law unto them. However, the moral law pertains to all who are in the church, have the Word of God, and who have ever heard the law. To them the law is declared and they are under obligation to it, commensurate with the manner in which it is given.
Secondly, the foundation for being obligated to the law is not because reason teaches that something is either good or evil; for then it would not be the law of God, but a rational statement. What reason would show to be good to one, another -- also by virtue of reason (which is corrupt in man) -- would judge to be evil. Rather, the foundation for such obligation is the command of God, the revelation of God‘s will, and the fact that God has commanded one thing and forbidden the other. Thus, the obligation is related to the authority of the Lawgiver and His will. To this man subjects himself, and thus his good deeds constitute obedience and his evil deeds disobedience.
Thirdly, a distinction must be made between the commandments themselves as far as substance, words, and meaning are concerned, and the incentives by which they are motivated. The incentives are taken from circumstances which pertained to the Jews only, such as, "... which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," and "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt." The promise concerning Canaan, and similar promises, do not pertain to us in our circumstances as such, but only insofar that we must be stirred up to obedience by divine blessings. However, even if the incentives as relating to those circumstances do not pertain to us, the commandments nevertheless remain in force and place us under obligation.
Fourthly, since the law was not given as a covenant of works, it also has no such purpose today. As the unconverted were then under the covenant of works, however, and consequently under the law, being representative of the contents of the covenant of works, all the unconverted are also presently under the covenant of works and thus also subject to the law in said manner. As the law condemned them then, it does so likewise today. Similarly, as the law was then given to partakers of the covenant as a rule for life, this is likewise true today. And as partakers of the covenant, upon transgression, brought guilt upon themselves, making themselves worthy of punishment -- even though the Surety had taken this from them and upon Himself -- the law is likewise a rule of life for partakers of the covenant at present. Upon transgression they also make themselves guilty and worthy of punishment, even though Christ, the Surety, has already taken this from them upon Himself and made satisfaction. Upon every transgression the law declares them guilty and worthy of punishment, even though Christ has made them free from the guilt and punishment incurred.
Fifthly, as the law was not given to partakers of the covenant at that time in order to be justified thereby, it likewise is not given for that purpose today, for it has been made weak by the flesh (Romans 8:3).
Sixthly, the law is as rigorous and strict today as it was in the Old Testament. Law is law, and justice is justice; nothing can be overlooked here. We are no less free from the rigor and strictness of the law than they were. The sincere godliness of the godly in the Old Testament was as pleasing to God and had as gracious a reward as is now true in the New Testament.
Seventhly, the believers of the Old Testament, upon transgression of the law, were convicted, had sorrow and pangs of conscience, experienced estrangement from God, prayed for forgiveness, and sought reconciliation until the Lord spoke peace to them again. The godly of the New Testament are no more free from all those emotions engendered by transgression than were they of the Old Testament.
Eighthly, to be obligated means that man is bound by the law-giving authority of God to be obedient, and that upon transgression he is subject to bear the punishment.
Ninthly, abrogation occurs when 1) the obligation terminates, since the law was only given for a specific time, and subsequently would no longer be a law -- and therefore would also not be in force anymore. Such was true for the ceremonial laws, which were in force until Christ (the embodiment of the shadows) came, and no longer; 2) the Lawgiver nullifies or rescinds such laws which had been issued without any time limitation; or 3) by the giving of laws which are directly opposite to the other laws and thus cannot coexist with the previous laws. The Socinians reject the law entirely, adhere to the law of nature, and add to this the law which Christ has given to the Christians, which in their opinion is a new law differing from the one given on Sinai. The Papists erase the second commandment. Others reject the fourth commandment. Antinomians also reject the entire law. Such individuals are either loose or ungodly men who despise all godliness, using Christian liberty as a pretense for all manner of licentiousness; or they are those who are proponents of godliness. The latter maintain that it is not lawful to conduct themselves contrary to what the law has either commanded or forbidden, and that everyone is obligated to practice the virtues which are commanded in the law. Their motive for this, however, is not that it is either forbidden or commanded in the law; in their opinion, this law was only given to Israel and is not binding at all in the New Testament. They maintain that one must now refrain from all sin and practice all virtue only out of love for God, doing so by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who teaches believers all things and works in them all things that are pleasing to Him -- all of this apart from the law as having any binding force. It thus appears as if we agree in essence; however, these propositions give license to the ungodly for their ungodliness, and lead to fanaticism. It engenders the absence of true holiness, for what the one considers lawful the other considers unlawful, while all imagine to have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is contrary to the Word, which calls sin anomia (= lawlessness), and teaches the practice of virtue by the binding force of the law, the content of which is love. In addition to this you will rarely find such an Antinomian who also does not adhere to various other errors. We shall first confirm the truth and then refute those errors. The Eternal Duration of the Law of the Ten Commandments That the law is and remains a rule of eternal duration is evident for the following reasons: First, the law of nature remains in force and puts all men under obligation (Romans 2:14-15). The law of the ten commandments is, however, identical to the law of nature as far as contents are concerned (not in the manner in which it was given), and thus the law of the ten commandments also remains in force and is binding in the days of the New Testament.
Secondly, the law was solemnly given to the church without any limitation of time. This law has never been rescinded, neither has a counter law ever been given to negate the other. Thus, the law remains in force as long as there is a church to whom it is declared.
Thirdly, the Lord Jesus declares that the law of the ten commandments has not been abrogated, but that it remains a binding rule for all times. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19-19). It is evident that the reference here is not to the ceremonial law, since Christ, being its embodiment, has abrogated it and the apostles have preached it as having been abrogated. Neither is he who maintains this abrogation the least, nor is he superior who now teaches and practices it. Christ here speaks of the moral law of the ten commandments, which is evident from both what is said and from what follows. For Christ quotes several of these commandments, gives the correct exposition, and purifies them from the false exposition of "them of old." Christ has fulfilled this law. This does not imply that He, having fulfilled it by His active obedience, has abrogated this law, or that He has improved that which was imperfect in the law, having given a more perfect law instead; rather, to fulfil means to do. "Whosoever shall do them ..." (Matthew 5:19); "He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8); "... and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). In this manner Paul "fully preached the gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:19), and fulfilled the Word of God (Colossians 1:25). Of this law Christ says that He will not destroy it, that not one jot or tittle shall pass from this law until heaven and earth shall pass away, and that he who will break and reject the least commandment (in contrast to the greatest commandment in Matthew 22:38) will be the least in the kingdom of heaven. This means that he will not be in it, which is also the meaning of being the least (cf. Matthew 20:16; Luke 13:30). It thus proves to be irrefutably true that the law of the ten commandments is a rule of eternal duration.
Fourthly, the Lord Jesus commands the performance of that which is good since the law requires this. Thus, the law remains a binding law. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
Fifthly, the keeping of the moral law is proposed and urged everywhere in the New Testament. The text references are numerous, but we shall only present some.
(1) "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31). The apostle had said in verses 24 and 28 that we are freely justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and that man is justified by faith without the works of the law. On the basis of this he proposes an objection: "Do we then make void the law through faith?" Does the law then no longer pertain to us? Do we no longer have any dealings with it? Has it been abrogated? No one can object that the apostle here speaks of the ceremonial laws, since no mention is made of them in the entire chapter, nor in the subsequent chapter in which he discusses the justification of Abraham. Furthermore, the apostle shows by his answer "God forbid," etc., that he is speaking of a law to which we are obligated, which can be none other than the moral law of the ten commandments, since we are completely free from the ceremonial laws. He declares that this law is not made void, rejected, and abrogated through faith unto justification without the deeds of the law; but we establish it; that is, we declare and approve that we are under obligation to it -- not to be justified thereby, but as a rule of life to give us direction in sanctification which goes together with justification.
(2) "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ... therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). The established duty for Christians is love, the reason being that this is required by the law. Which law? -- the law of the ten commandments, which forbids adultery, murder, theft, the bearing of false witness, and coveting. Thus, Christians are under obligation to the ten commandments as being a rule of life.
(3) "By love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Galatians 5:13-14). Here one is again urged to exercise love because the law demands it, it being shown that it is the law which requires love to one‘s neighbor as himself. It is evident from Matthew 22:39 that this is the law of the ten commandments, where the Lord Jesus, upon the question, which is the great commandment of the law, comprehends the law in two commands, the second here being quoted by the apostle.
(4) "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:1-3). If children are under obligation to obey their parents, they must be motivated to this because the fifth commandment requires it with a promise being added to it. The law thus remains in force as a rule for our life.
(5) "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: For whosoever will keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:8
(6) All sins committed by believers are transgressions of the law. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4); "... for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Believers in the New Testament, however, sin daily (cf. 1 John 1:8
Answer: The law of Christ is identical to the law of the ten commandments. Christ did not give another law; Christ gave that law of the ten commandments. To this law He subjected Himself and has perfectly lived according to it, leaving us an example therein. He Himself is also a living law. Christ has never given liberty to transgress any of the ten commandments, be it those that pertain to murder, adultery, or theft, etc. Thus, the law of Christ is the law of the ten commandments.
Evasive Argument #2: To sin is to conduct one‘s self contrary to the love of Christ.
Answer (1) To sin against the love of Christ, the love of God, and the law, is one and the same thing, for the law requires love to God and our neighbor.
(2) Believers of the Old Testament also sinned against the love of God and Christ who is the same yesterday and today. Their faith was identical to our faith, which "worketh by love," and their sins were committed contrary to their faith and love, which demanded holiness. Furthermore, love is also an incentive not to sin but to live holily -- which is a living according to the law.
Objection #1: There is agreement in this, since both insist upon sanctification. Regardless of whether one does so from different motives than another person, one must be tolerant of another.
Answer (1) This is the ancient language of all heretics. They reason as follows: It is already an old issue, and there is agreement as far as the matter itself is concerned, that is, holiness. We both insist on this, and therefore, be tolerant, be tolerant. This has an appearance of excellency, for those who propose moderation are the men of peace, but those who stand in the breach for the truth are deemed to be stubborn. By means of this wonderful illusion they seek to promote their errors all the more forcefully, and upon gaining the upper hand they can no longer tolerate sound doctrine. Instead, they will chase faithful ministers from the pulpit and out of town. This was the result of the toleration of the Arminians.
(2) The basis upon which, and the manner in which, sanctification functions, determines its respectability and essence. If one does not agree as to what the foundation and manifestation of sanctification are, there is no common ground whatsoever. Papists and Socinians also boast of works and holiness, but nevertheless follow the institutions of men, and reflect upon virtue in a natural manner; that is, apart from Christ and apart from true faith in Christ. Ought this then also to be called good?
(3) If the love to Christ is set forth as a law, one lays the groundwork for confusion in doctrine and life. What the one believes he must do out of love to Christ, the other will think he must refrain from out of love to Christ. The love to Christ will motivate the one to this and the other to something else, for love is imperfect here. Furthermore, one‘s own meaning can be very subtly mixed in with this, so that with some it results in fanaticism. It is evident from all this that one, prior to establishing ecclesiastical ties with such persons, must very earnestly endeavor to ascertain what the basis for sanctification is, as well as the manner in which it functions -- both in reference to ourselves and to others. If someone is weak in this area, but yet willing to learn, one can and must tolerate such a person according to the circumstances. The Moral Law: The Rule of Life for New Testament Believers
Objection #2: There are many texts which declare that believers in the New Testament are not under the law, the following being the most prominent: Romans 6:14; Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:23-25; Galatians 5:18
Answer: To these and similar texts we shall first respond in general and then explain each text. First, in general it must be noted that Paul had to deal with individuals who combined the moral and ceremonial laws, seeking their righteousness and justification in the performance of those laws, not being able to harmonize the shadows with their embodiment. When the apostle then declares that believers are not under the law, he at times speaks of the ceremonial laws due to Christ having come, and at times of the moral law as a condition of the covenant of works -- this being the manner in which such individuals view the law. Thus, there is nothing in these texts from which one could conclude that believers of the New Testament are not under obligation to the moral law as a rule of life.
Secondly, one must view the law either in regard to its demands, or in reference to the objective for which it was given upon Sinai. Since the image of God is but one, there is also but one holiness. Thus, the law which proposes perfect holiness is identical in its demand to the law which Adam had before the fall in the state of perfection as a condition of the covenant of works. The objective for the issuance of the moral law, however, was not that it be a condition of the covenant of works, but a rule of life for the partakers of the covenant of grace, who, on the basis of Christ‘s satisfaction, are justified and the recipients of salvation. In respect to the first, believers are not under the law; however, they are in reference to the latter. To have the law is a privilege to them and it is a joy to them that they have such a steadfast and delightful rule of life. And since they have not in this respect been relieved from their obligation to the law, they also have no desire to be relieved from it. They love the law and it is their delight. However, all the unconverted, also in the New Testament (although they are free from the ceremonial laws) are nevertheless under the covenant of works and subject to the demands of the law as a condition of this covenant. Since the law is weak through the flesh, they are all under the curse from which Christ has delivered believers.
Thirdly, the believers of the Old Testament were subject to the ceremonial law, not as a judgment upon sin, but as a loving guide and schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, so that believers greatly rejoiced in this, thanked the Lord for it, and observed it with great delight. They were, however, not under the demands of the law as a condition of the covenant of works, for they were under the covenant of grace. They had Christ, who is the same yesterday and today, as their justification, and they had the same faith, the same Spirit, and the same sanctification for which the law was their delightful rule of life -- as is also true today. The texts which have been advanced do not establish a contradiction between the Old and New Testaments, but a contrast which is relational in nature and is common to believers in both eras. They were not under the law as to its demands, be rather as a rule of life.
If you apply these answers to every text in question, it will be satisfactory. We shall now consider each text individually.
A. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14).
Answer (1) There is no contrast here between the Old and New Testaments, for all the ungodly are also now not under the old dispensation, but under the new. There is also no contrast between believers of the Old and New Testaments, for then, according to this text, believers of the Old Testament must all have been under the dominion of sin; this our opposition will not admit. This of necessity nullifies the argument, for the entire proposition rests upon the fact that believers in the New Testament dispensation are free from the law. If they wish to include believers of the Old Testament here by maintaining that all believers of all times have been under grace, and thus were not under the law, then all believers of the Old Testament have likewise not been under the law. They would thus unravel their own proposition, for they will not admit this to be so for Old Testament believers.
(2) The contrast is here between the converted and the unconverted. The unconverted are under the law as consisting of the demands of the covenant of works, and are thus under the curse. Believers, however, are under the covenant of grace in which they are freely justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. They are the objects of unconditional and free grace, so that they are free from the curse, bondage, and dominion of sin. Christ has made them free from the condemning power of the law, and those whom He justifies He also sanctifies. He regenerates them, and that life has dominion over death. Thus, not to be under the law is equivalent to not being under the covenant of works, not to be under the condemning power of the law, and not to be under the demands of the law as a condition upon which salvation is to be acquired. There is neither a connection here, nor can it be deduced that those who are not under the covenant of works -- and thus not under the demands of the law as being its condition -- are therefore also free from the law as a rule according to which one lives a life of holiness.
B. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
Answer: For the same reasons given in reference to Romans 6:14, there is here also no contrast between the Old and New Testaments nor between believers from each era. The covenant of works is the first husband under which believers were prior to their conversion. However, Christ has delivered them from their obligation to their first husband (the covenant of works), and having been translated into the covenant of grace they have died to this former husband, and he no longer has power to condemn them.
They are now under a different husband, Christ, having received Him by faith. Having thus been set free, however, they now (by reason of a new spiritual principle) serve in newness of spirit, in true holiness -- and not in the oldness of the letter, in the old manner; that is, as unconverted, under the covenant of works, and motivated to external religion by fear for damnation. Thus, to die to the law does not set one free from the law as a rule of life, but obligates one to live according to it in newness of Spirit.
C. "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:23-25). It is expressly stated here that those who believe are no longer under the law as a schoolmaster.
Answer (1) It must first be determined whether the apostle understood "schoolmaster" to refer to the moral law, for otherwise the entire argument falls apart. We deny this, for the moral law, when considered independently, makes no mention of Christ whatsoever. It does not reveal Christ and thus it can also not lead to Christ; its language is: "Do this." The apostle specifically has the ceremonial laws in view which the Jews intermingled with the moral law, as if they were of one and the same nature. They sought to be justified by observing it. They, now having been converted to Christ and acknowledging Him as the Messiah, nevertheless wanted to return to the ceremonies -- to circumcision and the feast days -- in order to be justified thereby. This is evident throughout the entire letter. The apostle deals with them in reference to their views and demonstrates that one cannot be justified by the works of the law, but that justification is through Christ.
(2) In regard to these verses, the apostle wishes to say thereby that prior to Christ the Jews needed the ceremonial laws to lead them to Christ (whom the ceremonies typified) and to cause them to believe in Him. Christ having come, however, we no longer need the ceremonies since we now have the embodiment of these shadows. Therefore, Galatians, you behave yourselves foolishly by again returning to the ceremonies.
"But before faith came" -- this does not refer to the act of faith whereby Christ is received, for faith was also exercised in the Old Testament. Rather, it refers to the object of faith, Christ, as coming in the flesh. "We were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith"; that is, not as being in a prison, or in a pit to prevent escape, and as if they were in an evil and wretched condition, but rather as in a safe place being occupied with a good garrison, capable of casting out the enemy. Observe how this word is translated in the following passages: "And the peace of God ... shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Php 4:7); "Who are kept by the power of God" (1 Peter 1:5). Therefore "to be kept" is a blessing and a blessed condition. They were in this condition until "the faith which should afterwards be revealed," that is, until the coming of Christ. Prior to this time the law has been "our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." A schoolmaster is not a jail-warden, a keeper of a house of correction, or a guard who gets compliance by hitting, shoving, and the use of violence -- thus implying that Old Testament believers were in a most wretched condition. Rather, the word schoolmaster is a delightful word. It is a derivative of pais, paidos (= a child), and of ago (= I guide, or instruction). This is derived from agogae (= education), and agogos (= leader or guide) and paidagogos, which is a keeper, teacher, and director of children. This is expressive of very kind and gentle treatment, consistent with the manner in which one treats children. The law is a schoolmaster or guide to bring us to Christ -- not the moral law when considered independently. The moral law does not reveal Christ and does not deal tenderly with men as one would lead children, but it says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things" (Galatians 3:10). When the gospel is offered to someone who is under the covenant of works, then the law can indeed be the reason that someone, being terrified by the law, flees from it, and that the gospel, intercepting such a person, leads him to Christ. However, it was the task of the ceremonies, as belonging to the gospel, to lead to Christ; they led the sinner to faith in Christ. Thus the ceremonial law was a guide, a teacher, and a director of God‘s children, leading them to Christ who would come "that we might be justified by faith." That was the sweet manner in which believers were led at that time. "But after that faith is come," that is, when Christ (to whom the ceremonies pointed) has been revealed in the flesh, "we are no longer under a schoolmaster," that is, a tender guide unto Christ. For the ceremonies are then no longer necessary, since we have the matter itself. Therefore, whoever wishes to be guided by the ceremonies again acts foolishly.
We have dealt with this more comprehensively, since it can yield further insight into many matters. It is thus evident that these words "we are no longer under a schoolmaster" do not imply that the moral law is no longer a rule of life for us, but rather that we are no longer under the ceremonial law.
D. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:18
Answer: To be under the law is to be under the covenant of works; that is, to seek justification by the works of the law -- which is not to be obtained in that manner, the law being weak through the flesh. Therefore, those who are under the law are under the curse (Galatians 3:10). Thus, believers in the Old Testament were no more under the law than we are in the New Testament. They who are led by the Spirit of God are partakers of Christ and are thus free from the covenant of works and the curse. The law is not against such persons and cannot condemn them. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). It is therefore without foundation to conclude from these words, "not under the law," and "against such there is no law," that one must not live according to the law and that one ought not to deem it to be a rule of life. Yes, those who are led by the Spirit have the law written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:3; Jeremiah 31:33). The Spirit thus causes them to live according to the law. It is therefore far from the truth that they ought not to live according to the law as a rule of life.
E. "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient," etc. (1 Timothy 1:9).
Answer: The apostle contrasts the righteous and the unrighteous. He says that the law has been made for the unrighteous; that is, made to condemn and terrify them. The righteous, however, being in the covenant of grace, are free from the condemning power and the curse of the law. The following conclusion is therefore incorrect: "For those for whom the law has not been designated to be a curse and to be unto condemnation, the law is also not a rule of life." Instead, the latter remains in force and the first has been taken away by Christ.
Christ: The End of the Law and not the Abrogation of the Law
Objection #3: The law came to an end with Christ, and it therefore cannot place us under obligation. "For Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4).
Answer: The apostle declares that the Jews neither knew nor sought the way unto justification. They therefore sought to establish their own righteousness, and did not attain to the righteousness of God. Subsequently, he shows what the righteousness of God is whereby one can obtain the righteousness which can abide before God, namely, Christ. The apostle does not say that the law was terminated, abrogated, and rescinded with the coming of Christ. Far be it from me to suggest such a thing; rather, he says that Christ is the end of the law. End here means: fulfillment or completion. The law demands perfect righteousness, and judgment upon transgressors. Since man now is not able to fulfill the law and thus be justified by it, but is subject to eternal death due to transgression, Christ came and bore the punishment threatened by the law and satisfied the demands of the law. Christ placed Himself under the law and fulfilled it by active obedience, so that the law in all its demands and threats ends in Christ as having been fulfilled by Him on behalf of all the elect "for righteousness to every one that believeth." The word endis also understood as perfection in 1 Timothy 1:5, "Now the end of the commandment is charity." Simply because the law with its demands and threats ends in Christ, the fulfillment, it therefore does not follow that the law ceases to be a rule of life for those who are justified.
Objection #4: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). The law was given to Israel by Moses; this pertained to them. However, Christ reveals grace and truth; this pertains to us, so that we have no dealings with the law.
Answer: If we understand law to refer to the ceremonial law, it is indeed true that it does not pertain to us. It was only for Israel and could not give them the matter itself. It pointed to Christ who brings forth the grace and truth which were foreshadowed in the ceremonies. If we understand law to refer to the moral law, the meaning is as follows: Moses has given the law of the ten commandments; that is, he was the means by which the tables of the law were handed to Israel. By that law, however, no one can be justified. It does not engender grace; only Christ does this by His passive and active obedience. Thus, we do not have a contradiction here between the Old and New Testaments, but it states that which the law of Moses could not give and all that Christ does give, for Old Testament believers also had grace and truth through Christ. It is thus evident that there is not one word in the New Testament about the abrogation of the law as a rule of life.
Objection #5: Believers are now not in need of a rule of life since the Holy Spirit teaches them all things. "But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him" (1 John 2:27).
(1) Believers in the Old Testament also had the Holy Spirit and were taught and led by Him (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:14; Psalms 143:10). Nevertheless the law was a rule of life to them (Psalms 119:98-100). Thus, to be taught by the Spirit does not exclude being led according to a rule of life.
(2) There being no need of instruction does not exclude the need for a rule of life; at most it implies that one can become acquainted with that rule by one‘s self.
(3) Neither does it imply that they were absolutely lacking any need of instruction anymore, for then they no longer would have any need for the entire Word of God. Why was John then so busy teaching them so many things in this letter? Rather, it means that by the anointing of the Spirit they would be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, and would not have to rely upon the views of another. What does this have to do with rejection of the law?
Objection #6: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Php 2:13); "Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20). One can thus conclude as follows: God works all things in men, and if Christ lives in them, they are not in need of a rule according to which they ought to live. If we do not need to work, we also are not in need of a rule according to which we must work.
Answer (1) God, and thus Christ, did all this in true believers in the Old Testament, and yet the law was a rule unto them. It would then also not be a privilege in the New Testament.
(2) According to the view of opposing parties it would have to follow that one would now not even be in need of the rule of Christ. If, however, one needs the law of Christ in spite of the fact that He works all things in us, it does not necessarily follow that he is then not in need of the rule of the law.
(3) The apostle is speaking of the operative cause who enables to will and work, and grants life itself, not of the rule according to which one must will, work, and live. The one does not exclude the other -- yes, because God works in us to will and to do, one must therefore "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12).
Objection #7: "... the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious. ... For if that which is done away was glorious" (2 Corinthians 3:6-7
Answer: The apostle does not make a distinction here between the Old and New Testaments, for also in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit regenerated the elect, and there was a ministry of the Spirit, which was the gospel. They also had the law inscribed upon the fleshly tables of the heart, apart from which they would neither have been regenerate nor be partakers of sanctification (cf. Psalms 116:1-19). Rather, the apostle makes a distinction between the law (both moral and ceremonial) in an external sense as having been written with letters and administered externally, and the internal spiritual disposition and motions of the heart in faith, hope, and love. He maintains that the entire external service, unless imbued by the Spirit, is but a dead letter which killed those who went no further than the external and physical activity and were satisfied with this. This was true then, and is also true today, for what does the sound of the words of the gospel, holy baptism, and the Lord‘s Supper themselves avail if the Spirit does not operate by means of them? Are they then not also a dead and killing letter? Over against the external ministration as such, the apostle places the ministration imbued by the Spirit and made efficacious by Him. This also occurred in the Old Testament where the Spirit, be it more infrequently, also was active in granting illumination and conversion, causing sinners to embrace Christ (the soul of the ministry of shadows) by faith. This ministration of shadows has been done away with at the coming of Christ. Neither here nor elsewhere is this stated concerning the moral law as a rule of life. It remains in force and the Spirit still writes it upon the heart and in the understanding of the elect.
Objection #8: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). We are thus under no obligation to the law whatsoever, for if one were still under obligation to the law, he would still be subject to the yoke of bondage. Then his activity would still be of a forced and compulsory nature. One is now free, however, and everything is performed out of love.
Answer (1) The Spirit was also present in the Old Testament, and thus there was also liberty at that time. Liberty is therefore not a privilege of the New Testament.
(2) Freedom is not Belial, that is, to be without a yoke, for then you would be free from the law of Christ; then freedom would mean to live according to your own wishes and to be left to fend for yourself. Instead, freedom here means to be free from the covenant of works, the curse, the condemning power of the law, and a state of slavery. In such a condition they once were, and all still are, who are without the Spirit. To have liberty is to be free from the ceremonial law. To do something out of love and at the same time according to the law is not contradictory. The yoke of Christ is light and His burden is delightful, because the believer greatly desires it. They love the law which demands love, and it is therefore their meditation all the day. The law is a law of liberty; it is freedom to live according to that law. Even a pagan says: "Only that is true freedom when one is obedient to the authorities and the law." Freedom is thus to live according to the law out of love and to be delivered from the dominion of sin. The Law of the Ten Commandments: A Perfect and Complete Rule
Question: Is the law of the ten commandments a perfect rule, or did Christ improve upon and enlarge this law, it being imperfect? The Papists claim that Christ has improved the law by the addition of evangelical commandments and directives, and they in turn add their traditions to it. The Socinians and Anabaptists in essence reject the entire law, although at times they express themselves somewhat more moderately and maintain that Christ has improved and spiritualized the law, having added three other commandments to it: 1) self-denial, 2) cross-bearing, and 3) the imitation of Christ. We maintain that the law is a perfect rule in every respect.
First, this is evident from such texts which declare expressly that the law is perfect. "The law of the Lord is perfect" (Psalms 19:7); "I have seen an end of all perfection: but Thy commandment is exceeding broad" (Psalms 119:96). Therefore the psalmist prayed, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18). When Scripture declares the law to be perfect, who would then have the audacity to say: "This is not so; the law is not perfect, but has been improved upon and enlarged; it is insufficient and the traditions of the church need to be added to it"?
Evasive Argument: "Perfect" must be translated as "undefiled." And furthermore, each commandment stands on its own, for "law" is written here in the singular. It can thus not be concluded that the ten commandments are sufficient. The word "perfect" is also understood to mean "upright," even though much may yet be lacking (Php 3:15).
Answer (1) The literal meaning of the word in the original text is "perfect," that is, not lacking in anything. The popish translators themselves translate the word as "perfect" here. The correctness of the translation is evident from that which is added: "... converting the soul: ...making wise the simple." Thus, the law is a perfect rule.
(2) To apply this to an individual commandment of the law simply because it is stated in the singular, and thus to conclude that the law is not regulative while making room for tradition instead, is without foundation. The psalmist does not have a single commandment in mind, but rather the law in general, which can also be expressed in the singular. The apostle also uses it in this way in Romans 7:10 : "And the commandment, which was ordained to life"; he frequently uses it as such. The psalmist also uses the words "law" and "commandment" in the plural: "The statutes of the Lord ... the judgments of the Lord" (Psalms 19:8-9).
(3) Even if the word "perfect" is at times applied to a person who is upright, but in whom much is lacking, it is placed in such a context that one can observe that it is stated by way of comparison and used in reference to the measure of uprightness. It can never be proven, however, that it is thus to be understood in reference to the law. Scripture speaks in an absolute sense of the word in regard to the law.
Secondly, this will be evident from such texts in which God forbids to either subtract or add anything. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. Deuteronomy 12:32); "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). From Deuteronomy 4:10-13 it is evident that Moses is speaking of the moral law. In forbidding any type of addition he not only includes such traditions which are diametrically opposed to the law of God, but at the same time all those traditions which one would add to the law. It would be an addition, and one is here commanded not to add. He not only forbids the addition of what one would deem to be the laws of God, but he forbids all additions by whatever name they may be called, the reason for this prohibition being that the law of God is perfect. His prohibition to either add or subtract is not only issued to the Jewish church, but also to the Christian church -- as Christ Himself does in Matthew 5:19. This furthermore is proven in the answer given to the previous question, namely, whether the law is binding in the New Testament.
Thirdly, this is evident from Matthew 22:36-40. The Lord Jesus states the contents of the law to be its requirement of perfect love to God and one‘s neighbor with the whole heart, soul, and mind. Perfection beyond this does not exist. He does not only make mention of the superior and inferior object, but also of the purest and most perfect effort and activity of man in reference to these objects, the reason being that God has commanded it in His law.
Fourthly, it is evident from such texts in which eternal life is promised to those who keep the law. "The man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Romans 10:5); "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ...keep the commandments. ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Matthew 19:16-18); "What shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law ... this do, and thou shalt live" (Luke 10:25-26
Fifthly, the obedience of Christ is, without controversy, characterized by utmost perfection; however, Christ‘s obedience consists of the keeping of the law as Surety for the elect, by which they obtain a perfect righteousness with which they can abide the righteous judgment of God, the righteous Judge. This is to be observed in the following passages: "For what the law could not do ... God sending His own Son ... that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Romans 8:3-4); "God sent forth His Son ... made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5); "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17); "So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). From all this it is evident that the law is a perfect rule.
Objection #1: Christ has commanded many matters in Matthew 5:1-48 which are not commanded in the law of the ten commandments. Yes, he expressly contradicts them by saying, "Thou hast heard ...but I say unto thee ..."
Answer: Christ does not reject anything here which was commanded in the law, nor does He add anything. He also does not give a meaning to the law which departs from the meaning of the words themselves. Rather, Christ refutes the distortions of the law of which the Jews were guilty, and demonstrates what the correct meaning is. This is evident:
(1) in verse 20 where He shows that He was opposed to the righteousness of the Pharisees -- not that of the law;
(2) from the declaration of the Lord Jesus: "Thou hast heard -- not what God has said in the law -- but what has been said by them of old (or to them of old); that is, the old distorted traditions which had made the commandment of God of none effect (Matthew 15:6).
(3) In Matthew 5:43 we read, "Hate thine enemy." This was not commanded in the law, but rather forbidden (cf. Leviticus 19:18; Exodus 23:4-5; Proverbs 25:21-22). It is this the Lord Jesus demonstrates: The meaning of the law was to love one‘s enemies (Matthew 5:44). The leaving of one‘s wife was not commanded in the law, but it was permitted due to the hardness of their hearts, and the parameters were well-defined.
Christ does show, however, that it was not so from the beginning, and that it may not occur, except by reason of adultery (Matthew 5:32).
Objection #2: Christ has given a new commandment: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another" (John 13:34).
Answer: Love was commanded in the law (Matthew 22:39). One must love in the New Testament because it has been commanded in the law (cf. Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). It is thus evident that "a new commandment" does not refer here to a commandment that did not exist previously but rather which was renewed, that is, presented and insisted upon anew.
Objection #3: Christ has commanded various matters which were not commanded in the law.
(1) He commands faith in Christ. Answer: The law demands that one must have God as his God, which includes believing all that God says and trusting in Him in the way He prescribes. The matter is commanded in the law, but the object is revealed in the gospel, and one is commanded to believe in that object, which is Christ (Psalms 2:12).
(2) He commands self-denial.
Answer: The law requires that we love God above all, be fully subject to Him, and obey Him. This necessarily includes self-denial. This self-denial was practiced in the Old Testament by Abraham in the sacrificing of his son; by Moses and the Levites, who did not spare their own fathers and brothers; and by Daniel and many others who forsook their own will in order to do the will of God.
(3) He commands cross-bearing. Answer: This was included in having God as one‘s portion and in being subject to Him. This was likewise practiced in the Old testament by Job in his patience, and by David in tolerating Shimei‘s curse and enduring other afflictions (Psalms 39:9). It was practiced by the church (cf. Lamentations 3:27-28; Micah 7:9) and it is also commanded (Proverbs 3:11).
(4) He commands that we imitate Him.
Answer: The law requires that we follow after God both in holiness and in the keeping of the Sabbath. Christ, in His obedience to the law, has given us an example for imitation. It is thus one and the same thing to obey the law and to imitate Christ in holiness. This matter has been commanded in the law, although the object of imitation is revealed in the gospel -- as well in the Old as the New Testament. "Beware of Him, and obey His voice" (Exodus 23:21).
(5) The law does not require repentance. Answer: The law requires perfect love and holiness. This obligates everyone, who by transgression has deviated from holiness, to repent. The Papists destroy the law of God by their institutions, doing so under the pretense of giving evangelical directives. These, they claim, are indeed not commanded, but are nevertheless implied and ought to be embraced. Thus, he who does not adhere to them does not sin; however, he who does adhere to them practices holiness in a manner which exceeds the holiness resulting from the doing of the law, and he thus performs surplus works. These are: 1) celibacy, 2) blind obedience, 3) voluntary poverty, 4) life in a monastery, etc. We, on the contrary, do admit that there are indeed matters of which the performance is a matter of indifference. However, once you either do or not do it, it is no longer a matter of indifference, but one must do them in the manner and for the purpose prescribed in the law. Doing such things is neither more holy than not doing them, nor is there greater holiness implied than doing other matters which are expressly commanded or prohibited in the law. We entirely reject the notion, however, that something would have been added to the law, such as evangelical directives, which would not pertain to matters of indifference, but rather to moral issues, the performance of which would constitute a greater measure of holiness, and would merit a greater measure of glory. There are no such things as evangelical directives.
For, first of all, as there is no transgression where there is no law, there likewise is no virtue in the absence of a command. If one does things for which there is no command, they are institutions of men, of which it is said, "But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9).
Secondly, the law is perfect (as has been shown) and demands perfection of the purest sort (Matthew 22:37). Therefore, there can neither be virtue nor vice, unless either commanded or prohibited.
Thirdly, some matters, which they refer to as "evangelical directives," are indeed expressly commanded, such as 1) loving their enemies, 2) the bearing of the cross, 3) patience in enduring maltreatment, 4) purity, 5) the forsaking of all and the suffering of poverty for the name of Christ, and 6) obedience and subjection to each other -- each according to his station and rank. Other matters which they recommend as evangelical directives are expressly forbidden, such as:
(1) Blind obedience to men; for one may not be subject to anyone except it be in the Lord and in harmony with the revealed will of God. In doing so one will serve the Lord. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:21); "With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men" (Ephesians 6:7); "... be not ye the servants of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23).
(2) Celibacy. God has not given the gift of abstinence to all men (cf. Matthew 19:11; 1 Corinthians 7:36. Those who do not have the gift of abstinence are commanded to marry (1 Corinthians 7:36), and one, whether married or not, must be pure (1 Thessalonians 4:4).
(3) Voluntary poverty. It is contrary to God‘s will to squander one‘s goods, cast them away without reason, or give alms in such a manner that one must live of alms himself. The apostle exhorts that everyone ought to work, and thus eat his own bread, rather than bread obtained through begging (2 Thessalonians 3:12). If confessing Christ means that one must forsake his belongings, it is his duty to forsake everything for the sake of Christ (Matthew 10:37). We have thus observed that all their evangelical directives are either no directives but commandments, or are nothing but willworship and contrary to God‘s law.
Objection #1: To abstain from marriage is not commanded in the law; instead it is recommended by way of an evangelical directive. "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment" (1 Corinthians 7:25
Answer: In verse 7 Paul wishes that under those circumstances, that is, a time of persecution, all believers would be as he was; namely, that they would have the gift of abstinence and would not be compelled to marry -- being able to either do so or not do so according to the dictates of the moment. He gives as a reason the imminence of great persecution. To be married at such a time results in many concerns and temptations as far as spouse and children are concerned. By being unmarried, one was free from all this. He therefore advised to remain unmarried if one has the gift of abstinence -- not because the one state was more holy than the other, but because it would be more convenient during the present distress. "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress; nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh" (1 Corinthians 7:26
Objection #2: The apostles were unmarried.
Answer: What does this prove? Must all men therefore remain unmarried? Ought all daughters not to marry, and must ministers then remain unmarried? Or ought they to leave their wives even though God hates this (Malachi 2:16) and even though they who are married are not to seek for dissolution (1 Corinthians 7:27)? Who can tie all this together? Furthermore, all apostles were not unmarried. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Corinthians 9:5). The Lord Jesus healed Peter‘s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14).
Objection #3: "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven‘s sake" (Matthew 19:12).
Answer: The Lord Jesus speaks of those who have the gift of abstinence and have the intent not to marry as long as they have the gift of abstinence in order that they may serve God more freely and be less restricted during times of persecution -- which is evident from Matthew 19:11-12. What support does this lend to their monastic vows?
Objection #4: "Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:3-5). A glorious promise is made here to eunuchs. In order to be the recipient of these glorious promises one must remain unmarried.
Answer: The text speaks of those who were robbed of their masculinity contrary to their will, and thus were not able to have children -- all of which is not a special blessing. The blessing is not pronounced upon them because they were eunuchs. Rather, if they would serve the Lord, they would not be despised by the Lord as they were despised of men, and not permitted to enter into the congregation (Deuteronomy 23:1).
Objection #5: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Matthew 19:21). This proves that voluntary poverty constitutes a high level of perfection.
Answer: Christ does not say that this constitutes perfection; rather, He addresses the young man who imagined that he was perfect. Christ, having the authority to issue a command, ordered him to do so. He should have known that Christ was the Messiah, and thus God. He therefore should have obeyed. This was therefore not an evangelical directive, but rather a command. This was not a command for all men, but a specific command to this man in order to convince him that, instead of being perfect, he idolized his belongings. When it is said in Mark 10:21 that Jesus loved him, this was not because he sold everything, for this he did not do. Rather, He loved him for his sincere desire to be saved, even though he did not know the way, for it was said, "One thing thou lackest." This does not imply that he was perfect, except for that; rather, he presupposed this in his imagination, and it needed to be shown to him that he yet lacked everything: obedience and faith in Christ.
Perfect Compliance with the Law Not Attainable in This Life
Question: Can man perfectly obey the law of God? The Papists answer in the affirmative, and in addition to this perform superfluous works. The Socinians also answer in the affirmative. We, on the contrary, answer negatively. This is first of all evident from express textual references. "There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings 8:46);
"Who can understand his errors" (Psalms 19:12); "In thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Psalms 143:2); "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin" (Proverbs 20:9)? "For in many things we offend all" (James 3:2); "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). In these texts the saints speak both of God‘s people and of themselves, declaring that no one is perfect, but all sin daily.
Evasive Argument: Motivated by humility, these texts make use of an elevated and lofty manner of speech, speaking of small sins and small offenses which ought not to be reckoned. Or else the saints are speaking in this way of the unconverted -- whom they personify for the moment -- and of the common lot of men. However, this neither implies that one cannot be perfect, nor that many are not perfect.
Answer: Such talk is nothing but untruth; it says what it says. The texts themselves, however, rebuke them. Sins are sins, regardless of whether they are great or small. He who offends in one is guilty of all; Scripture knows of no excusable sins.
Secondly, this is evident from the saints. If anyone attained to perfection in this life, then this must have been true of Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, James, Peter, and John. They were not perfect, however, for their failures have been recorded in Scripture. Who would dare to exalt himself above these holy men? And if perfection were to be found in popery, it ought to be found in the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. If they were perfect, however, it would be time for them to dismiss their confessors and no more soul masses ought to be performed for them -- for thereby they confess that they are not perfect.
Thirdly, this is evident from the warfare which rages between the flesh and the spirit in the best of them. "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am!" (Romans 7:23-24); "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Galatians 5:17). Wherever there is a battle, there are two parties; here we have flesh and spirit. Wherever there is flesh, there is no perfection.
Fourthly, it is evident from the necessity to pray daily for the forgiveness of sins. "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). One must pray all the petitions of the Lord‘s prayer daily -- if not with the same words, then the matters must be there. One must daily forgive his debtors, pray daily for daily bread, and thus also daily pray: "Forgive us our debts." If this must be a daily occupation, it follows that one also sins daily. Where sins are no longer present, prayer for forgiveness ceases.
Objection #1: Many are said to be perfect. "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect" (1 Corinthians 2:6); "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded" (Php 3:15); "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age" (Hebrews 5:14). Add to this the examples of those who are said to have been perfect, such as: Noah (Genesis 6:9), Job (Job 1:1), David (Psalms 119:10), Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:3), and Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:6).
Answer (1) It is evident that the persons mentioned were not perfect in every respect, for the sins of each have been recorded, so that perfection must be understood to refer to their uprightness.
(2) There is a partial perfection which is expressive of being upright in all things and as such is the opposite of not being upright and of being hypocritical. We shall readily admit that there is such perfection -- yes, he is not a believer who does not possess this, for that is the new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17), and the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). However, no one reaches the measure of perfection in this life. This has been demonstrated and is evident from the quoted examples themselves.
(3) There is a perfection in comparison to others who have not made such progress. Such is true for fathers in comparison to young men and children (1 John 2:13). Of such the apostle speaks in the quoted texts.
Objection #2: Christ‘s yoke is easy and His commandments are not grievous. "For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light" (Matthew 11:30) ; "...His commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3). It thus follows that a man can easily become perfect.
Answer (1) That which is light for a man, is indeed heavy for a child for whom it may be impossible to carry a given object. That which was easy for Adam prior to the fall, was impossible after the fall.
(2) The law in and of itself is holy, righteous, and good; there is no inherent impossibility. Rather, the difficulty is on the side of man who has brought himself into a state of impotence.
(3) The law is easy when considered from the perspective of the desire and love which the godly have for it. They are not obligated to the law against their will; rather, they rejoice that God commands them something and that they are privileged to serve God in something. The law is their delight, the rejoicing of their heart, and their song (Psalms 119:1-176). Whatever one does with delight is not difficult, even though it is not done to perfection.
(4) The law is not held before them as a condition of the covenant of works and as threatening with a curse; rather, it is a rule of love. Therefore it is not difficult, cumbersome, and grievous for them, but easy and delightful, even though they fall short in all things.
Objection #3: God demands perfection and therefore it must also be obtainable, for God does not demand that which is impossible.
Answer (1) This is required from all men, and therefore all the unconverted would then be able to keep the law perfectly; this, however, the disputants will not admit.
(2) God created the human nature perfectly and thus He may demand perfection, even though man has brought himself into a state of inability due to his blindness, wickedness, and impotence.
(3) Perfection is the goal which is held before man. God stirs His children up to strive for this. He who approximates this as much as possible is in the best condition. This however is not to suggest that man can attain to the highest level of perfection in this life. A godly person will most certainly attain to this perfection held before him -- however, not here, but after this life. Presently he speaks and acts as Paul does: "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus" (Php 3:12).
Heaven: Not Merited by Good Works but by the Finished Work of Christ
Question: Is it possible to merit heaven by keeping the law either fully or partially? Answer: The Papists generally answer in the affirmative. They disagree with each other as to the manner in which good works are meritorious. They maintain that there are two sorts of merits. First, there is a meritum congrui, that is, a merit of suitability or propriety. By this is understood that when man performs a good work purely by reason of his free will and own strength, without being assisted by divine grace, it then behooves God to infuse grace into the man who does his best. Secondly, there is a meritum condigni, that is, a merit of equivalence. This is understood to mean that when man performs a good work by the strength of his free will, being assisted by divine grace, he merits heaven by the inherent worthiness of the work, so that there is a proportionate relationship between the work and the reward. Some maintain that good works merit heaven, even if there were no promise or agreement between God and man in which God promises heaven upon good works. Others do not relate the efficacy of merits to the inherent worthiness of the work which is performed with the assistance of divine grace, but to the behavior relative to which God promises heaven upon good works. Others maintain that good works merit heaven neither in reference to the one nor to the other, but rather by reason of conjoining the two, and understand it as follows: Heaven is put on display by God as a prize, promising to those who do good works that they will attain thereto, and that man being thus engaged, due to the inherent worthiness of the work, merits heaven by reason of the righteousness of God. The Socinians speak of acceptation. This means that God accepts a part as the whole, and thus grants heaven to man due to his good works, even though he is not perfect.
We maintain on the contrary that good works are pleasing to God, and that God rewards them graciously. Man must have both of these things in view and be motivated by both to the performance of good works. We furthermore maintain that God has decreed to bring those who will be saved to this point by way of holiness and good works. Thus, man must not expect salvation as long as he is not on the way of holiness. We also maintain that God, having promised this and in accordance with His truthfulness, will give this heaven, merited by Christ, to those whom He sanctifies. And since He is faithful, it is also right and righteous that He would give it to them. We deny, however, that good works are meritorious by reason of some inherent worthiness. The proofs for this are:
First, everyone will have to agree that whatever is to be meritorious by reason of inherent worthiness, must have these qualifications:
(1) It must be something which one was not obligated to do and originated in our free will, irrespective of whether one wanted to do this or not; one would thus be able to desist therefrom without sinning.
(2) It must be one‘s own doing, for one cannot merit something from the same person from whom he receives that which is to be merited.
(3) It must be perfect and entirely without blemish.
(4) It must be consistent with the reward; if one were to receive more than the work deserves, that would be a gift and not be meritorious.
However, doing our works is not a matter of our own choice.
(1) If one neglects to do them, he will sin; and if he is under obligation to do them, he cannot merit something with them. "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10; cf. Romans 8:12).
(2) Our good works are not inherent to our nature; while in the state of nature one cannot please God (Romans 8:8). Such are dead (Ephesians 2:1), blind (1 Corinthians 2:14), evil and unwilling (Romans 8:7), impotent and unto every good work reprobate (Titus 1:16). Such a person cannot, in and of himself and by his own strength, do any good work. Therefore in order for man to do any good, it must first be given him. "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it" (1 Corinthians 4:7); "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Php 2:13); "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17); "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God" (2 Corinthians 3:5).
(3) Not one of our works is perfect. In the very best of them there are deficiencies in regard to faith, obedience, love, and zeal. It is written: "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6); "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not" (Romans 7:18). Add to this that if man fails in one aspect, even though in the most insignificant circumstance, he is guilty in all (James 2:10).
(4) There neither is nor can be an internal and truly proportional relationship between the work of man and heaven. For there is no comparison between the finite and the infinite, nor between that which is temporal and that which is eternal (Romans 8:18).
If we now consider all this together, we shall arrive at a syllogism. Whatever is to be meritorious must be something which we were under no obligation to perform. It must be our own work and be generated by our own strength. It must be perfect and be proportionate to the reward. We are, however, obligated to do good works, this obligation being all-inclusive and requiring complete perfection. However, they do not proceed from our own strength, are completely imperfect and defiled, so that our work and heaven have nothing in common. It thus follows that our good works cannot merit heaven.
Secondly, salvation is an inheritance and a gift proceeding from grace alone; it is not obtained by merit. This is to be observed in the following passages: "... inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34); "Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ" (Colossians 3:24); "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6:23). If heaven could be obtained by merits, then the contrast should be as follows: As death is the wages of sin, so heaven is the wages of good works. However, the apostle shows the distinction by referring to the one as wages and the other as the gift of God. He clearly does not say that the work upon which salvation is awarded is a gift of God. Rather, he states that salvation itself is a gift of God.
Thirdly, Christ is a perfect Savior. Christ has earned and merited salvation for His people. "And I give unto them eternal life" (John 10:28); "... but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:12
Evasive Argument: Christ has merited the meritoriousness of our works.
Answer: This does not amount to anything and does not unravel the fabric of our proof. If Christ has perfectly merited heaven, our works cannot be admitted as being meritorious -- even if Christ were to have merited the meritoriousness of their works for them. We deny expressly that Christ has merited the meritoriousness of our works. It is ludicrous to state such a thing, for it is as much as to say: Christ‘s merits beget other redeemers and saviors. It thus remains certain that works cannot merit. The following objections are brought forth against this: 1) One is justified by works; 2) God is pleased with good works; 3) man will be judged in reference to his works; 4) man receives salvation because he is worthy of it; 5) retribution is made in response to works; 6) good works merit reward; and 7) good works are beneficial. For our answer to these objections, please refer to Volume 2, chapter 34, on Justification.
Final Exhortation to Observe the Law Diligently as a Rule of Life
All that has been considered in the foregoing is not merely for the acquisition of knowledge, but is to be practiced. First, if the law is a perfect rule of life for us, then learn to understand the law in its comprehensive and spiritual nature. Let it be your prayer: "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18). Read it over and over again, and search out in the Word of God all that is comprehended under the law. Meditate and reflect continually upon the law until it be clear to you and you acquire a habitual inclination toward the law. May you thus continually focus on it in your entire conduct and permit yourself to be continually illuminated by that light.
Secondly, continually hold this law before you as being the will of God; approve of it, love it, obediently subject yourself to it, and in your entire conduct behave yourself according to this rule, and keep it in view as a carpenter does his blueprint.
Thirdly, examine yourself daily by means of this law, and ascertain which commandment you have transgressed and which commandment you have observed; this will humble you. You will thereby become more careful in the future, it will cause you to pray for the guidance of the Spirit, and Jesus will become all the more precious to you.