White Horse Inn Blog

Know what you believe and why you believe it

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Is the Law Gracious?

Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 276
  • 12 Comments
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Is the law gracious? Like many important questions, this one is thorny. There are lots of ways to prick yourself if you're not careful.


First of all, it's beyond dispute that God is gracious and that the law is an expression of his character—as well as the norm for what it means to have loving relationships to him and to each other. In other words, the God whose law it is, is gracious.


Second, God uses the law for gracious purposes. Even pagan cultures are indebted to God's common grace in writing his law on the conscience, so that even where his written law is not known his moral law is enshrined (in varying degrees) in human constitutions. However these laws are distorted, much less unenforced, at least in theory they secure the vulnerable from injustice. In saving grace, God uses his law graciously to drive sinners to Christ and to guide them in Christ. It is essential to know God's moral will, first to become guilty before God and so recognize our need for a Savior but also to live in a way that glorifies God and serves the needs of our neighbors. Love and law go hand-in-hand. In fact, the whole law is summarized in the sentence, "Love God and your neighbor." So not only is the God who gives the law gracious; the law is loving and it stipulates what it means to love.


Third, it's crucial to distinguish the nuda lex (the bare law summarized in the Ten Commandments) from the totus lex (the law in its totality as a covenant of works). Obligations and commands for loving God and neighbor are given in the new covenant as well as the old, in the Sinai covenant as well as the Abrahamic covenant that we enjoy in Abraham's seed (Christ). The difference is how "law" functions. In a covenant based on law, the law functions as the basis for the continuing relationship: "Do this and you shall live."


This is how law functioned in Paradise. Adam and Eve did not deserve their existence; it was a pure gift of God's love—but not a gift of grace or mercy, since they were not yet fallen. Furthermore, Adam was given a promise of life, for himself and his posterity, on the condition of full, perpetual, and personal obedience as the covenant head. Israel did not merit the land; it was a gift—in this case, a gift of grace, as we see in Deuteronomy 6-8. However, it was a gift to win or lost. Flourishing in the land—long life, temporal security and peace, national righteousness and blessing—depended on Israel's obedience: "Do this and you shall live." The promise was temporal blessing rather than everlasting life, but this national prosperity depended strictly on faithfulness to the stipulations of the law.


In a covenant of works, personal fulfillment of the law's commands is the condition for inheritance; in a covenant of grace, Christ's personal fulfillment merits our right-standing and now the only role the law can have is to direct—it cannot condemn us. If law were intrinsically antithetical to grace, it would be exempt from the covenant of grace. Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly reasserts and extrapolates the moral law for the life of believers. The gospel does not remove the obligation to obedience. Far from it! It is only because we are justified and given a new heart, with the law written on it by the finger of God, that we are able to love God's moral will and follow it. Yes, and follow it. We fall and fail. Nevertheless, we do follow Christ—and anyone who doesn't is not a believer. There is that great wisdom in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. But can those converted to God obey these commands perfectly? A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Neverthelesss, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some of God's commandments.
In other words, just as we believe the whole gospel, we embrace the whole law—all of the commands that Jesus summarized as loving God and neighbor. Even when we fail to keep them, we don't pick and choose which have authority to direct us. Even though we do not trust in them to save us, we embrace them to guide us.


But is the law itself gracious? Though subtle, there is a world of difference between saying, on one hand, that the Law-giver is gracious and uses the law for gracious purposes and saying, on the other, that the law itself is gracious. Our parents may have been gracious in giving us a curfew, but at least in my home the curfew was not gracious. It was "be home at 10—no ifs, ands, or buts."


In order for the law itself to be gracious, it would have to offer promises to sinners apart from their personal performance. In other words, it would have to give relief to those who stand in a condition of violating it. This the law manifestly does not and cannot do. The law tells us God's demands; it simply does not have anything to give as far as assistance and leniency. The law does not budge or bend. If God relaxed his moral law at a single point, he would himself be unlawful; he would violate his own character, which his law manifests.


The law isn't intrinsically judgmental; it's simply just. It "calls 'em as it sees 'em." We're the unjust ones, whom God must size up as such simply because of who he is. The law is God's revelation of his unchanging moral character and will. The law is not gracious even in a covenant of grace, but it is also not ungracious. It is simply not the character of the law to extend mercy, because that is not its job description. The law can only stipulate what obedience is, issuing approval or disapproval. It stops and goes no further. The God who speaks his law is gracious to his people in revealing his moral will, but only his word of promise in Christ delivers God's grace and mercy.


The law and the gospel therefore do different things. Or better, God does different things with his law and his gospel. Neither is bad. Both are necessary. However, they have different job descriptions. The law is not gracious. It commands, "Do this and you shall live." It promises reward for obedience and threatens judgment for disobedience. It tells us what God requires of us. If we seek our life in the law, it kills us—it's "the ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7). If we seek our life in Christ, the law is not the ministry of death. In any case, it never becomes the ministry of life (Gal 3:21-22; cf. 2:21), but the ministry of direction for that life that we have in Christ alone.


We need this measure of God's holy will—not only so we will give up on our own righteousness and flee to Christ, but so that we will know what we are to do as those who have been justified and released from the dominion of sin and death. However, the law never bleeds into the gospel's job description. Where the law pronounces us all "guilty before God" (Rom 3:19-20), the gospel announces "God's gift of righteousness through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (vv 21-31). The law is unyielding. It commands, but doesn't give. The law says, "Do!", but the gospel says, "Done!" At the same time, Jesus fulfills rather than abolishing the law. In fact, if Jesus had set the law aside or downplayed its authority, then his active obedience and self-offering in fulfillment of the law would not have been necessary.


Opposing the law to Christ in an abstract way is just another way of justifying ourselves: I'm good—the problem is laws and rules. Set those aside and have a grace-based freedom! But this fatally misses the point.


That's the problem when people say "I'm spiritual, not religious"; "Jesus came preaching love, not a bunch of rules." Actually, Jesus summarized the whole law as love, so the two are actually identical. The law merely stipulates what it means to love. No, the gospel is opposed to legalism, the attempt to justify ourselves by our obedience—including our love. If it's self-righteous to say we've kept the whole law, then are we any less so when we say that we've set aside the law but have loved God and our neighbor? If I set the law aside, I don't realize that crucial fact and I will trust in my own righteousness because I don't know what God's righteousness really means. Many professing Christians today sound like antinomians (rejecting "religion" and "rules"), while nevertheless trusting in their own righteousness (love and graciousness).


The gospel is only opposed to the law when we are seeking life by the latter. The problem is not the law. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin" (Rom 7:14). So I'm the problem. I need to be saved from the law's condemnation, not from the law's prescriptions. It is right to say that the law, in the hands of its Triune giver, is employed to gracious ends. However, it is dangerously wrong to say that the law itself is gracious. Its terms are anything but. That is why we need—always need—the gospel.

0
Tagged in: Covenant grace law

Overall Rating (0)

0 out of 5 stars

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.

People in this conversation

Load Previous Comments
  • Guest - Ramath-lehi

    Thanks for this. I consider myself a recovering non-denominational Christian; only recently learning what I always wanted was to be Reformed.

    I grew up in the church and never really learned to delineate between law and grace and it became so muddied I became what was a fantasically great legalist. That said, the last paragraph is so important. It must be taught the difference between the two, that the gospel is not just a way to be good; not just moralism. My emotions run high when I sing of salvation from sin, but my heart soars when I sing of deliverance from the law through the gospel.

    Between learning about how the gospel is something outside of me and also the distinction between law and grace, in the last 6 months this program has brought so much truth into my life, it is trully a blessing.

    Thanks,
    Mike

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Sjoerd de Boer

    Dr. Horton,

    How very important is it that we have the right understanding of the functions of the law. You point exactly where the problems are: with us!!
    Any rejection of Antinomians (even when it comes to only one commandment; in the US especially the fourth!) under the pretence of appealing to grace and masquerading its problem with legalism, which seems in this country to defeat its tenthousands, comes simply down to this,"I 'allow'God's will for my life to here and no further!"
    You mentioned the wisdom of the HC in Q&A 114. I would like to add Q&A 115 for an even better understanding of Law and Gospel,

    "Question: Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

    Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come."

    My fear is that many preachers, even within Reformed denominations, are afraid to "strictly" preach the ten (not nine!!) commandments out of fear to be labeled legalist (which would be completely out of place, considering this answer 115)!

    May the Lord work a true Reformation in this land. I am convinced that this right understanding of the law would have a determinative influence on such a reformation.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Peter

    Thank You for the helpful article on the Law/Gospel distinction. Do you know of any good books that teach about the Law and Gospel that would be at the level of a lay person (such as myself) to read? Or of any other articles which teach what the law and gospel are?

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Here's a good, an article by Dr. Horton:
    http://www.whitehorseinn.org/free-articles/the-law-the-gospel-by-michael-horton.html

    Also, Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians is a good place to start.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Clay Shelor

    For old books on the subject of law/gospel, I found Edward Fisher's "the Marrow of Modern Divinity" with footnotes by Thomas Boston extremely helpful. Sinclair Ferguson's lectures on the Marrow Controversy are also very helpful. http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=the%20marrow%20controversy

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Ryan

    "However, the law never bleeds into the gospel’s job description. "

    Pun intended? Either way, I like this line.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • “I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have given me life.” (Psalm 119:93)

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • [...] Is the Law Gracious? – White Horse Inn Blog [...]

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Steve Fuchs

    Though there may be an element of glory AND graciousness in the temporary provision of a nanny, she has neither by comparison to the real husband. We cannot be married to both.
    The righteous husband has been written in Spirit, not letters, on the believer's heart to *cause* (quoting Ezek)the Father's children to walk in his righteous ways.

    His righteousness does not contradict the vague perfection reflected in the nanny's words, but like any shadow she was less than the living person she foretold.

    Thus the INcarnation.
    Thus the INdwelling.
    Thus the death of the old and betrothel to a NEW husband.
    Thus the NEW covenant.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • [...] Read the rest here. [...]

    Like 0 Short URL: