The Marrow, Romans 3, and multiple Laws?

On the night of March the 5th, the Wednesday night bible study that I am a part of took up Romans chapter 3. Quite separately also I have been rereading The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher first written in 1645 then updated in 1648 with a second part and finally in 1726 Thomas Boston added extensive explanatory notes to the volume to increase its helpfulness to the church of Scotland in his day, and as I hope to demonstrate in this post Boston's notes can also help the church today. The text has been helpfully reformatted by Christian Focus Publications in 2009, or can be read and downloaded through the Chapel Library for free. The note I am summering is found on pages 48 - 50 of the Christian Focus Publications edition.

What follows are my notes so that I could helpfully bring some issues that Paul deals with in Romans 3 to my bible study group.

Notes on Thomas Boston's Note about "the Law of Works", "the Law of Faith", and "the Law of Christ".

Relevant texts: Romans 3:27 ("law of works", "law of faith"); 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2 ("law of Christ").

Meaning of the terms under consideration: Boston gives the following definitions for the three phrase under consideration according to their biblical and systematic usage throughout the Bible:

• Law of Works - The law of the Ten Commandments, as the Covenant of Works.
• Law of Faith - The gospel, or the covenant of grace.
• Law of Christ - The same law of the Ten Commandments, but as a rule of life.

Now that we have our terms down, all from the two biblical texts by the way, and that we have some definitions of these three terms we should ask how they relate to each other and how do they differ from each other. This is one way that Boston, and Fisher, really help.

The use of the term "law".

The term "law" is not used by Paul in these two passages in the same sense in all three instance where the term "law" is used. The "law of faith" is not used in the sense of a law to be obeyed. The "law of faith" is not a properly a preceptive - meaning "instructive" - law. Boston argues the Paul uses the phrase only in imitation of the Jews manner of speaking, who had the law continually in their mouths.

The term "law" as used in the phrases "law of works" and "law of Christ" is used in both phrases to mean preceptive law, but their is a difference, but the terms "law" is used in the same sense with both of these laws.

"The law of Works" vs. "the Law of Faith".

Paul says in Romans 3:27:

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

From this statement by Paul, Boston concludes that in the case of Romans 3 where Paul is speaking of his hearers justification before God, Paul states these two laws in opposition to each other.

Boston's Proof: Paul says that the "law of works" says that anyone who keeps it can boast of their ability to keep it; but, the "law of grace" does not allow for any boasting, because by the "law of grace" the sinner is justified before God.

The "law of works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; whereas, the "law of faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved.

Similarity between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith".

Boston really doesn't address any similarities between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith" in his note, but I can think of one: they both come from God.

"The law of Works" and "the law of Christ".

"The law of works" and "the law of Christ" are in substance one law. That shared substance is called "the moral law". The phrase "moral law" is defined in  all three documents that make up the Westminster Standards in the following places: the Westminster Confession 19.3; the Westminster Shorter Catechism questions 40 - 41; and in the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 92 - 98. For the purposes of this post, I will only quote the question and answer for question 93 of the Larger Catechism, which says,

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

According to Boston, "the law of Christ" is not a new, proper, preceptive law, but the old (a.k.a. moral), proper preceptive law, which was from the beginning, under a new accidental form. The word "accidental" is being used by Boston in a philosophical Aristotelian sense and means that the form of 'the law of Christ' is not the same as the nature of the law.

Therefore, Boston is teaching that the moral law is the nature of the one law that God has given to his creatures. However, from this one law (or property) there are two accidental forms. One form is known in Scripture as "the law of works". The other accidental form is known as "the law of Christ". These two forms point back to the moral law, which is the same property.

Regardless of the form that moral law takes the following points are in common:

• The law is perfect.
• Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the moral law.
• All commands of God are comprehended under the one moral law, particularly:
• The command to repent is common to all including pagans to turn from sin to God.
• The command to believe in Christ.

The obligation of the law of the Ten Commandments is not weakened by the believer's taking the moral law as "the law of Christ", and not as "the law of works". The sovereign authority of God the Creator in whatever means He uses to give the moral law unto humanity is not weakened by the difference in the forms.

This understanding is in direct conflict with the movement known as the New Covenant Theology movement, which teach that "the law of works" and "the law of Christ" are not only different in their forms, but also different in their substance. In this regard, Boston and Fisher are also very important to 21st-century Covenant Theology.

"The law of Works" vs. "the law of Christ".

"The law of Works" is a covenant of works. Whereas, "the law of Christ" is a rule of life to believers. The law stands under different forms to those who are in a state of union with Christ by faith, and those who are not united with Christ by faith who are still under the covenant of works.

As a result, the following points can be said of those are believers by their union with Christ, which cannot be said of those under the covenant of works by not being united with Christ:

1. Believers are dead to the law of works.
2. "The law of Christ" is an "easy yoke", and a "light burden".

Boston says that the distinction, relating to the moral law (or Ten Commandments), is that as "the law of works" the Ten Commandments came from an absolute God out of Christ unto sinners. Whereas, "the law of Christ" is the Ten Commandments coming from an absolute God in Christ unto sinners.

"The law of Christ" vs. "the law of Faith".

The distinction between "the law of Faith" and "the law of Christ" is that "the law of Christ" severs "the law of Faith".

Relating these three "laws" to each other

In conclusion, "the law of Works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; "the law of Faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved; "the law of Christ" is the law of the Savior, binding His saved people to acts of obedience (Gal. 3:12; Acts 16:31).

Every person is under "the law of works" by nature; but by taking the benefit of "the law of faith", by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, they are set free from "the law of works", and brought under "the law of Christ" (Matt. 11:28-29).