Unregenerate People and the Moral Law

An unregenerate man cannot do anything that is morally good, for every moral action must have the glory of God as its end, and at this the natural man does not aim.  The distinction that is sometimes made between what is morally good and what is theologically good cannot be substantiated, for every moral good ought to be theological; that is to say, it must be good not only in what is done, but in why it is done; not only in its matter but in its motive.  Because the unregenerate man fails in the qualifying motive, he must be said to be unable to do any work that is morally good.  It is also clear that, in saying that these external acts of lawkeeping were done “by nature,” the apostle means that they were performed by the natural light of conscience.

From: Moral Law by Ernest F. Kevan (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, n.d., but probably before 1963), p. 29.

Ernest F. Kevan (1903-1965), after serving in two pastorates, was associated with London Bible College from 1946 until his death.

 

Jesus and the Law

In any complex legal system, some laws eventually take precedence over others.  First-century rabbis distinguished between “light” and “heavy” laws; Jesus Himself, elsewhere, makes a similar distinction in the relative importance of laws when He say, in effect, that matters having to do with justice and mercy take precedence over the code on tithing (Matthew 23:23) or when He says that the law mandating the circumcision of a male child on the eighth day takes precedence over the Sabbath (John 7:22-23).  But, if distinctions must be made as to which laws are “lighter” or “heavier,” it will not be long before someone asks which law is the “heaviest” of all, the most important.

Here, the rabbis differed.  Some said it was the command to love God; others said it was the command to obey one’s parents; the great Rabbi Akiba said that the command to love one’s neighbor was “the greatest principle in the law.”  Yet, Jesus’s linking of the commandment to love God and the commandment to love one’s neighbor exercised a unique power in the formation of the ethical structures of His followers.  In part, this was because only Jesus wielded the kind of moral authority, in both His teaching and His example, that compelled followers to build their ethics around a single theme; in part, it was because, as we shall see, Jesus was doing something more than merely classifying what was most important.  One of the great themes of His ministry was that love, rightly understood and practiced, actually fulfilled Old Testament law.  In other words, His teaching on this subject was deeply enmeshed in His insistence that a new age was dawning, and the eschaton, the long-awaited final state, was already quite astonishingly being inaugurated.

From: Love in Hard Places by D. A. Carson (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), p. 19.  This book is the sequel to his previous volume, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000).

 

Law and Grace

No subject is more intimately bound up with the nature of the gospel than that of law and grace.  In the degree to which error is entertained at this point, in the same degree is our conception of the gospel perverted.  An erroneous conception of the function of law can be of such a character that it completely vitiates our view of the gospel; and an erroneous conception of the antithesis between law and grace can be of such a character that it demolishes both the substructure and the superstructure of grace. 

Nothing could advertise this more than that two of the major Epistles of the New Testament, and the two most polemic, have this subject as their theme.  Our attention is irresistibly drawn to the gravity of the issue with which the apostle is concerned in his Epistle to the Galatians, when we read at the outset, “But, even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we have said before, so now again I say, if anyone preach any gospel to you other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8-9).  And, we are no less startled when we read, in the same apostle’s Epistle to the Romans, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.  For, I could wish that I, myself, were anathema from Christ on behalf of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3). 

What was the question that aroused the apostle to such passionate zeal and holy indignation, indignation that has its kinship with the imprecatory utterances of the Old Testament?  In a word, it was the relation of law and gospel.  “I do not make void the grace of God: for, if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).  “For, if a law had been given which could make alive - verily, from the law, righteousness would have been” (Galatians 3:21).  “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20).

The simple truth is, that, if law is conceived of as contributing, in the least degree, towards our acceptance with God and our justification by Him, then the gospel of grace is a nullity.  And the issue is so sharply and incisively drawn that, if we rely, in any respect, upon compliance with law for our acceptance with God, then Christ will profit nothing.  “Ye have been discharged from Christ, whosoever of you are justified by law; ye have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:4).  But, lest we should think that the whole question of the relation of law and grace is, thereby, resolved, we must be reminded that Paul says also, in this polemic, “Do we, then, make void the law through faith?  God forbid - yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31). 

We are compelled, therefore, to recognize that the subject of law and grace is not simply concerned with the antithesis that there is between law and grace but, also, with law as that which makes grace necessary and with grace as establishing and confirming law.  It is not only the doctrine of grace that must be jealously guarded against distortion by works of the law, but it is, also, the doctrine of law that must be preserved against the distortions of a spurious concept of grace.  This is just saying that we are but echoing the total witness of the apostle of the Gentiles as the champion of the gospel of grace when we say that we must guard grace from the adulteration of legalism and we must guard law from the depradations of antinomianism.

In relation to the topic with which we are concerned now, it is the latter that must claim our attention.  What is the place of law in the economy of grace? 

From: Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics by John Murray (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), pp. 181-182.  This book began life as Murray’s Payton Lectures for 1955, delivered at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, in March of that year.  This book – a considerable expansion of his lectures – is one of the most important books on Christian ethics ever published.

John Murray (1898-1975), a Scotsman, taught systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1930-1966).  He is probably best remembered for his two volume commentary on the Book of Romans (1959, 1965).

 

The Law of God

The law was first given from Sinai 2,513 years after the creation.  It is now (1864) 3,355 years since this code was delivered to mankind in writing.  To those living previous to the time of Moses, many of its precepts seem to have been pretty clearly taught by the light of nature as, indeed, they are to all men.  Paul says, “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law” (Romans 2:12).  Speaking of the heathen, he adds that “the work of the law is written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” to it (Romans 2:15).  Doubtless also, much of the divine will was known to Eastern nations by revelations with which they were made acquainted from time to time, before and during the existence of the theocracy.  Melchisidek, Job, and the wise men who brought their gifts to the Savior are illustrations of what is here meant.  It has always been true that “in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him” (Acts 10:35)…

The law of God is unbending, uncompliant.  This is the nature of all law.  The law of gravitation in nature yields nothing to circumstances.  The good man and the bad man, alike, feel its force in the prosecution of their benevolent or nefarious designs.  A law that would yield to the caprices of men would be of no service either to direct them or to set forth the character of the lawgiver.  The divine law may be broken, but it will not bend.  We could have no confidence in the unchangeable character of God if we found His law varying from time to time.  He is a Rock, and His work is perfect.  “I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).  Domat: “There are no natural and immutable laws but those which come from God.”

The law of God is one and not many.  There is no conflict between its several precepts.  The same authority enacts, the same benevolence pervades, the same sanctions attend each commandment…

From: The Law of God, as Contained in the Ten Commandments, Explained and Enforced by William S. Plumer (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864), pp. 19, 25.  Republished: Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1996.

William Swan Plumer (1802-1880) was a Presbyterian minister, educator, and author.  After serving as a pastor of several congregations (1831-1866), he was a professor at Columbia Theological Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina (1867-1880).  He was the author of many books, including commentaries on the Psalms (1867), Romans (1870), and Hebrews (1872).

NB: I won’t vouch for Plumer’s numbers in the first two sentences of the first paragraph.