Lux Lucet

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

The first chapter of John is a gold mine of theological insight. To paraphrase the apostle himself, if all that could be written on the chapter actually were written, one supposes that the whole earth could not contain the books.

And while it is not the intention of this writer to attempt anything like a comprehensive review of all that John has to tell us, it seems that a look at one small portion of the chapter is not too daunting a task.

In verse 17, John draws an important distinction for us, namely the distinction between Moses and Jesus Christ. The law, John tells us, was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

This brief statement is loaded with implications, a few of which, Lord willing, I will endeavor to point out over the next two weeks.

The Law – Two Wrong Views

“The Law” is not a term that in our day is particularly popular with the public. It’s redolent of authority, and we do not like authority. The law says to us “Thou shalt not,” and we live in an age that says “No one tells me what to do!”

Even among Christians, there is, in some circles, a tendency to shy away from preaching the law. “We’re not under law; we’re under grace,” is the thinking here. For a fuller discussion of this line of thought, see Timothy Kauffman’s Sanctification, Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the “Grace” Movement.

In his comments about the so-called “Grace Movement,” Kauffman makes the point that it “frequently conflates justification and sanctification, asserting of the latter what is declared in the former, and thus denigrates intentional obedience as it manifests in the lives of believers.”

On the other hand, there are those, even in Reformed circles, who teach that law keeping is necessary for salvation. This school of thought is represented by the teaching of Norman Shepherd. Shepherd professes that salvation is by faith alone, but defines faith in such a way that includes works.

Sean Gerety provided a helpful glimpse into this erroneous line of thinking in recent Trinity Review titled Faith Alive. There, he relates a few details of a debate between false teach Doug Wilson and Lane Keister, in particular their discussion about the nature of saving faith.

In Gerety’s analysis – and I’m persuaded that he’s right – Keister lost the debate, in part because of his tacit agreement with Wilson “that faith can be either ‘alive’ or ‘dead.’ ” In both cases, the individual is said to have faith, but one has a dead faith, meaning it produces no works, whereas the man with the living faith keeps the law.

But this misses the point of James, who uses the metaphor “dead faith” to refer to an individual who has no faith at all. Further, neither Scripture nor the Westminster Confession ever denote faith as being “alive.” This is an invention of those who would redefine faith as something other than the intellectual act of belief – belief in the Biblical sense is comprised of understanding and assent (agreement), works play not part in it – alone.

The Law According to Westminster

So far, we’ve looked at two erroneous views of the law, one in which the law appears to play not part at all, and another that requires our obedience as a condition of salvation.

Standing opposed to this is the Biblical view of the role of the law in the New Covenant. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is helpful here. According to the WCF Chapter 19, there is a threefold division of the law: the ceremonial, the judicial, and the moral.

The ceremonial law refers to those statues that regulated temple worship under the Old Covenant. This refers to the sacrifices, the keeping of the various feasts, etc.

Next, the judicial law was the case law of ancient Israel. If there was a case of theft or murder or adultery in the land, what constituted proof of wrongdoing and what should be the punishment. These were the questions addressed by the judicial law.

Both the ceremonial law and the judicial law expired with Old Testament Israel. The WCF describes them as being abrogated. As an important aside, the WCF does add that the judicial laws of the Old Covenant can teach us about proper criminal justice – what is proper due process, what crimes to punish and what punishments are just – adding that modern nations are bound to observe the “general equity” of the judicial laws.

Finally, the WCF says of the moral law “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof.”

It is important to note that the Bible defines sin in connection with the moral law. As John put it in his First Epistle “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.”

Sin is the breaking of the moral law. According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.”

Proper Application of the Law

What, then, is the Christian to do with the law given through Moses?

For starters, we are to avoid the twin errors outlined above. This means, in the first place, we must not look at the law as having nothing to do with the Christian life.

John Calvin famously distinguished three uses of the moral law which can be found in his Institutes beginning at Book II, Chapter VII, Section 6. The three uses are:

1. To show the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man.
   
2. To restrain wrongdoing among unbelievers.
   
3. To guide believers in how to please God.
   

Sinful man is tempted to see the law as an evil force, punishing him just for going about his business. But that’s not the Bible’s view. Paul tells us the law is holy, and that its holiness exposes our sin.

As creatures born in sin, none of us wants our evil thoughts and deeds to be exposed or judged. Thus it’s tempting to see that law which serves this purpose as itself evil. But that it to get it exactly backward. It is we who have the problem, not the law.

As to restraining wrongdoing among unbelievers, many would scoff at this notion as it appears to be naive to think that an unbeliever could be held back from wrongdoing by the law of God whom he professes not to know.

But man, being a creature of God whose mind is lighted with the light of Christ, has an innate knowledge of the truth. This innate knowledge includes an understanding of the moral law.

Now unbelievers suppress this innate knowledge. Scripture clearly teaches this. Nevertheless that knowledge is there. And confronting the malefactor with the law of God can have the effect of bringing to the surface of his conscious what he would prefer to bury deep.

Third, and most important for the Christian, is that the moral law teaches us how to please God. If we love someone, it follows that we would seek to do what is pleasing to, or in the best interests of, that person and avoid what brings grief.

If we say we love our father or mother or husband or wife, but behave in ways that harm that individual, what sort of love is that.

In like manner, if we say we love God but care nothing about obeying his law, or even go out of our way to flout it, what sort of love is that?

Concern for God’s law is not the basis of our justification. Our justification is by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. Our works add precisely nothing to it.

But a desire to please God, to avoid what he has prohibited and to do what he has commanded, this is not legalism, it is the proper response of a grateful heart to the grace of God, who gives us not what we deserve, but eternal life in his Son.