Issues to Consider about the Second/Third Commandment

One hard text to understand is the following part of the Second/Third Commandment in Exodus 20:5-6:

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Roderick Lawson of Maybole (1863-1897) reprinted the Westminster Shorter Catechism along with his own explanatory notes and review questions for each Shorter Catechism question. Lawson's comment on question and answer 56 is very helpful:

Comment: The special warning here held out to us is, that although men may permit us to break this commandment with impunity, yet God will assuredly not do so. He will not fail to judge us.

Lawson makes this commandment very personal. Both the Larger and Shorter Catechism do not deal directly with verses 5-6.

In Martin Luther's Large Catechism he explained the words of the third Commandment in his concluding section about the Ten Commandments. Luther numbered the third commandment the second commandment. The following quote are marked as paragraphs 319-326:

In conclusion, however, we must repeat the text which belongs here, of which we have treated already in the First Commandment, in order that we may learn what pains God requires to the end we may learn to inculcate and practise the Ten Commandments: For I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments. Although (as we have heard above) this appendix was primarily attached to the First Commandment, it was nevertheless [we cannot deny that it was] laid down for the sake of all the commandments, as all of them are to be referred and directed to it. Therefore I have said that this, too, should be presented to and inculcated upon the young, that they may learn and remember it, in order to see what is to urge and compel us to keep these Ten Commandments. And it is to be regarded as though this part were specially added to each, so that it inheres in, and pervades, them all. Now, there is comprehended in these words (as said before) both an angry word of threatening and a friendly promise to terrify and warn us, and, moreover, to induce and encourage us to receive and highly esteem His Word as a matter of divine earnestness, because He Himself declares how much He is concerned about it, and how rigidly He will enforce it, namely, that He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments; and again, how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good. Just this is also the meaning and true interpretation of the first and chief commandment, from which all the others must flow and proceed, so that this word: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, in its simplest meaning states nothing else than this demand: Thou shalt fear, love, and trust in Me as thine only true God. For where there is a heart thus disposed towards God, the same has fulfilled this and all the other commandments. On the other hand, whoever fears and loves anything else in heaven and upon earth will keep neither this nor any. 325] Thus the entire Scriptures have everywhere preached and inculcated this commandment, aiming always at these two things: fear of God and trust in Him. And especially the prophet David throughout the Psalms, as when he says [Ps. 147:11]: The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy. As if the entire commandment were explained by one verse, as much as to say: The Lord taketh pleasure in those who have no other gods. Thus the First Commandment is to shine and impart its splendor to all the others. Therefore you must let this declaration run through all the commandments, like a hoop in a wreath, joining the end to the beginning and holding them all together, that it be continually repeated and not forgotten; as, namely, in the Second Commandment, that we fear God and do not take His name in vain for cursing, lying, deceiving, and other modes of leading men astray, or rascality, but make proper and good use of it by calling upon Him in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, derived from love and trust according to the First Commandment. In like manner such fear, love, and trust is to urge and force us not to despise His Word, but gladly to learn, hear, and esteem it holy, and honor it.

Since we are talking about trying to understand a particular command of the moral law another good resource to look at is the Prophetic books of the Old Testament. The Prophets gave the word of the Lord to the nation of Israel during a long time of disobedience towards God, and so much of their prophesies are targeted towards how the covenant nation of Judah and the uncovenanted nation of Samaria (Willson, 64-67) were in an active state of breaking and twisting God's moral law. The tasks of the Prophets were to correctly interpret God's ten words given on Sinai so that the people's comfortable lifestyles were correctly understood as actually being uncomfortable to God. Their lives were a mess, because they have lowered God's standard so that "It's not their fault."

Three specific passages can help us understand Luther's appendix to every commandment. Jeremiah 16:10-13, Ezekiel 18, and 33:7-20. The most helpful passage is spoken through Jeremiah and says:

And when you tell this people all these words, and they say to you, "Why has the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity? What is the sin that we have committed against the Lord our God?" then you shall say to them: "Because your fathers have forsaken me, declares the Lord, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn, evil will, refusing to listen to me. Therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor."

According to Jeremiah the people were correct to say that God was not judging them based on the actions of their fathers, but Jeremiah's message went further to say that the present generation of the nation of Israel had exceeded their fathers in their sinful acts.

My pastor, Dave Long, helpfully pointed out the Jeremiah passage many years ago while preaching on the Westminster Larger Catechism.

Is Christ as the 'last Adam' a Theological Peccadillo?

Even though it's not apparent on the comments section of my previous post about Jesus Christ being the 'last Adam' as opposed to the 'second Adam' my Google+ post has generated some comments that basically ask if the distinction is so obscure that it really has little or no actual meaning.

While I'm not going to post that entire discussion in the current post, I though that a few additional comments that came out of that discussion would be helpful on this matter.

First, Professor Donnelly's statement that I quoted in the previous post is a conclusion to Donnelly writing about Paul's use of the term 'one man' in Romans 5:12-21. The statement I quoted from is on page 20, and the actual topic begins on page 17 and ends on page 20. It maybe helpful to highlight some of Donnelly's teaching up to his concluding statements.

Donnelly writes on page 20, explaining Romans 5:

Everything that Adam, the 'one man', did is counted as having been done also by everyone he represents. His relationship with God is counted, or 'reckoned', as being their relationship. In the same way, everything that Christ, the 'one man', did is counted to the credit of those he represents, and all that was in his obedience and purity is regarded as theirs.

In the above quote, Donnelly is setting up the idea of two covenantal heads (representatives) for all of humanity. A few good questions are, where does the Bible teach this idea? In addition, is it an explicit teaching of the Bible, or an implicit teaching of the Bible? If it is an implicit teaching that doesn't necessarily disqualify it, because all Christians who subscribe to the Westminster Standards ought to confess, in the words of the Confession I.6:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: ...

Doctrines like the Trinity, infant baptism, and even Jesus' example to the Sadducees of the bodily  resurrection being taught in the Old Testament (Matt. 22:32) are just three examples of implicit teaching that are recognized by the Confession as part of "[t]he whole counsel of God ...". It might be worth having a separate post about "by good and necessary consequence" because while all Christians believe in the Trinity and bodily resurrection, many Christians don't believe that infants should be baptized. Regardless of that point, right now, the fact is that the Bible uses logical consequences to inform what we believe, and not merely direct statements.

The idea of two covenantal heads, however, is not a implicit teaching, but is an explicit teaching of Paul in Romans 5. Here's a sampling of Paul's teaching in eight verses where our relationship to the first Adam is explicitly made seven times:

sin came into the world through one man . . . many died through one man's trespass . . . the result of that one man's sin . . . the judgment following one trespass . . . because of one man's trespass, death reigned . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.
              (verses 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

It is because of Paul's teaching in Romans 5 that the Shorter Catechism question and answer 16 says:

all mankind, descending from him [Adam] by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Donnelly concludes, writing about the first Adam and us, in the following words on page 18:

Sin is the universal human condition because of our union with Adam.

What is the solution that Paul goes on to explain in his letter to us losing favor with God on account of our covenantal head? We gain God's favor through another covenant head—'through one man'.  Paul's words in verse 14 are very important to understanding Donnelly's conclusion:

Adam . . . was a type of the one who was to come.

Beginning in verse 15, Paul, stresses the same truth about 'one man' that was applied to Adam, but now applies it towards Jesus Christ:

the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many . . . reign in life through the one man . . . one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men . . . by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
               (verses 15, 17, 18, 19)

Donnelly concludes his exegesis on Romans 5 in the following words on page 19:

We are saved in the same way as we were lost. Our redemption, though infinitely greater than our ruin, is in this respect parallel to it. In Adam we sinned. In Adam we fell. In Adam we were condemned. In Adam we died. And then in Christ we obeyed. In Christ we lived a perfect life. In Christ we paid for sin. In Christ we have been raised. In Christ we live for ever. All that he is is counted as ours. All that he suffered is counted as ours. All that he achieved is counted as ours.

Donnelly, then, moves on to 1 Corinthians 15:22 and draws the conclusion that we die or live depending on our representative head before God. As a result, when Paul calls the Saviour 'the last Adam . . . the second man' Paul is writing that Jesus is the head [last Adam] of a new humanity [second man]. This new species of men and women are in a new relationship with God and are being dealt with on an entirely new basis. All Christians are joined to 'the second man'. Jesus is 'second' because there are many more new men and women to come—millions of them, 'a great multitude that no one could number' (Rev. 7:9).

Therefore, on the basis of this teaching, Professor Donnelly then briefly addresses why calling Christ the second Adam is a category mistake. I've already posted Donnelly's argument before, revisit that post if want to see what Donnelly says.

Secondly, the reason that the phrase 'second Adam' is an example of category confusion is because Paul uses 'Adam' to mean both the literal first man that God created, and to teaches that Adam is our representative between every person who is a physical descendant of Adam and our Creator God. Adam broke the covenant of works, and therefore, we, because Adam was our representative have inherited the curse of our head breaking the covenant of works. In the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 7.2, we, as the RPCNA, say:

By this principle of covenant headship the guilt and penalty of sin come upon all men by Adam’s one sin; and by the obedience of Christ, the second covenant head, righteousness and life come upon all men who believe.
Rom. 5:12-21.

Furthermore, in 7.3, we confess that

The Covenant of Works has not been revoked. All men remain under its requirement of perfect obedience and will have to give account according to it at the last judgment. In the Covenant of Grace Jesus Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Covenant of Works for His people. By His death Christ secured the delay of the full penalty of death for sin (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15) for all men. They therefore may enjoy the creation and have some fruitful toil in it for God’s glory, even though they be rebellious against Him. This is usually called common grace.
Heb. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10, 21; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gen. 4:20-24; Ps. 76:10.

Paul, by saying that Adam was a type (Romans 5:15), is teaching that 'the first man' (1 Corinthians 15:45) is/was our representative. Jesus as 'the last Adam' was 'the one who was to come' (Romans 5:14). Paul, by using this typology is addressing the representative roles that both Adam and Christ uniquely had in human history. Noah and David could have also have been understood as Adams in their own day, because even though they were sinners they occupied unique positions in redemptive history in their own times, but Jesus is the last Adam who has accomplished salvation.

In addition, to the representative nature of Adam and Christ, however, Paul calls Jesus 'the second man'. Does Paul mean the same thing as he meant when he called Christ the 'last Adam'? I don't believe so. I believe that Paul is calling Jesus 'the second man' because unlike 'the first man', Noah, or David when this second covenant representative is joined to men and women these other men and women become new men and women of the last Adam.

Finally, I want to address the matter of why this issue is important under two issues. The first issue is simply, and most importantly, a matter of using biblical words according to how the Bible uses them, and then my second issue is to recognize that we have seen examples in church history of groups denying either our representation "in Adam" before God, or the completeness of Jesus work on our behalf before God.

Under the first issue about trying to use biblical words/phrases as close as possible to the ways the biblical authors use them, assuming a faithful translation is being used. Professor John Murray, in a 1953 address delivered in Selwyn College, Cambridge, as the Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture spoke about how Biblical covenants should be understood throughout the entire Bible. This lecture was then published in 1954 as the booklet The Covenant of Grace, which is also available online to read.

Early on in the lecture (pg. 8), Professor Murray, after explaining how Reformed Theologians have used the term 'covenant', considers how the term is used in the Bible by using the following criteria:

As we study the biblical evidence bearing upon the nature of divine covenant we shall discover that the emphasis in these theologians upon God’s grace and promise is one thoroughly in accord with the relevant biblical data. ... The question is simply whether biblico-theological study will disclose that, in the usage of Scripture, covenant (berith in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek) may properly be interpreted in terms of a mutual pact or agreement.

Professor Murray is starting with a definition of 'covenant' and asking if that definition matches the results of a biblico-theological study which is a valid starting question when investigating a topic.

While I do prefer Murray's starting principle, I don't agree, by the way, with Murray on his particular application of this principle to 'covenant' because one of his main points about a biblical covenant is that it is always "a dispensation of grace to men" (pg. 15). My objection to this point is that it does not account for the pre-fall relationship between Adam and God being a covenant (Hos. 6:7) that promised an eternal life of confirmed holiness to Adam, on the condition of obedience. The obedience Adam owed to God was not special, but, the reward for obedience was special because God was/is Adam's Creator and therefore God was not obligated to give Adam a reward for what Adam ought to do. Murray wanted to call the arrangement before the Fall 'the Adamic Administration', but didn't adequately explain how this 'administration' was actually different than a 'covenant'.

For more information about this teaching of Professor Murray's read T. David Gordon's essay "Reflections on Auburn Theology" in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification on especially pages 118-124, and Dr. Robert B. Strimple's syllabus for his second systematic theology class titled, Christ our Savior pages 13-14, and 77-78. For a few helpful resources on more generally understanding the pre-Fall state of Adam as a covenant see Richard C. Barcellos's "A Typical Objection to the Covenant of Works", and Edward Fisher's work The Marrow of Modern Divinity along with Thomas Boston's notes in Chapter 1, Section 1. If you are looking at the edition published in 2009 by the Christian Heritage imprint the discussion on page 53 is addressing this issue of terminology.

The second issue is what can we learn from church history about groups that deny either our federal relationship to Adam 'the first man' or Christ 'the last Adam'. On the heretical side of historical theology it is important to note that both Mormons and Muslims deny our relationship to the first man. The Mormons have a document by Joseph Smith that describe their fundamental beliefs in 13 statements. Article two, states:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

While the Muslims do not have as clear a statement in the Qur'an as the Mormons about their denial of Adam's sin and its relation to us, I have found some very clear teaching about original sin on Islamcan, and IslamBasics. Here's a little bit of the conclusion from the article on IslamBasics, which tries to argue from the Bible that Adam's representative role is in contradiction with the entire Bible:

    Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth. Sin, it says, is not inherited, but it is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should not do and not doing what he should do.
    Rationally considered also, it would be the height of injustice to condemn the entire human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents. Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie only on the person who has committed it, and not on his children.
    Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.
    It is the height of misanthropy and cynicism to consider children to be sinful at birth. How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are doomed to burn eternally in the fire of Hell. Till recently, the unbaptised infants were not buried in consecrated grounds in Christendom, because they were believed to have died in the Original Sin.

However, it's not only present day heretical groups, who deny our relationship to Adam, but this was the main issue between an African Bishop named Augustine and a British monk name Pelagius that began around A.D. 411 or A.D. 412. For a brief overview. read Dr. R.C. Sproul's short article Augustine and Pelagius, and/or B.B. Warfield's longer treatment Augustine and Pelagian Controversy. It is my belief that it is quite appropriate to make the connection between Islamic teaching, Mormon teaching, and Pelagius' teaching. Therefore, any possible sharing of the Gospel with a person either in one of these three religions, or with a background in these circles, must deal with correctly explaining the doctrine of Original Sin to help the person understand Jesus' work. Even a Presbyterian minister, Charles Finney, denied any kind of connection between us and Adam in his Lectures on Systematic Theology, pages 296-297 in the following words:

    Sin or disobedience to moral law does not imply in any instance a sinful nature; or a constitution in itself sinful.  Adam and Eve sinned.  Holy angels sinned.  Certainly in their case sin or disobedience did not imply a sinful nature or constitution.  Adam and Eve, certainly, and holy angels also, must have sinned by yielding to temptation. The constitutional desire being excited by the perception of their correlated objects, they consented to prefer their own gratification to obedience to God, in other words, to make their gratification an end.  This was their sin.  But in this there was no sin in their constitutions, and no other tendency to sin than this, that these desires, when strongly excited, are a temptation to unlawful indulgence.
    It has been strangely and absurdly assumed that sin in action implies a sinful nature. But this is contrary to fact and to sound philosophy, as well as contrary to the Bible, which we shall see in its proper place.
    As it was with Adam and Eve, so it is with every sinner.  There is not, there can not be sin in the nature or the constitution.  But there are constitutional appetites and passions, and when these are strongly excited, they are a strong temptation or inducement to the will to seek their gratification as an ultimate end.  This, as I have said, is sin, and nothing else is or can be sin.  It is selfishness.  Under its appropriate head, I shall show that the nature or constitution of sinners has become physically depraved or diseased, and that as a consequence, the appetites and passions are more easily excited, and are more clamorous and despotic in their demands; and that, therefore, the constitution of man in its present state, tends more strongly than it otherwise would, to sin.  But to affirm that the constitution is in itself sinful, is to talk mere nonsense.

The implications of what the Mormons, Muslims, Pelagius, and Finney taught and/or teach are quite simply that Christ was not the last Adam, because nothing changed when Adam sinned. Likewise, all of these different shades of heresy also teach a different view of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't really die for sins completely, if he even died on the cross. He did his part, and the debate between these different groups is how we should do our part.

In conclusion, while I am under no illusion that the use of the phrase "second Adam" will fade into the dustbin of historical theology anytime soon, as current theological books/journals demonstrate, I hope that I have shown from the Bible that the terms "second man" and "last Adam" have two distinctly different meanings about the person and work of Christ and that this mixing adjectives in front of different nouns is not faithful to the Scriptures. I have furthermore endeavored to demonstrate from church history some possible outcomes of believing that this issue can be a matter of indifference, or is an obscure point of theology. While I would not question the orthodoxy of Brothers and Sisters in Christ on this issue alone, I would encourage those Brothers and Sisters to consider the Apostle Paul's teaching and use of words in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Unlike the term "trinity", Paul has, through the Holy Spirit, given us these terms to make to teach us two different lessons about Jesus. All that is needed to be done, on this matter, is to follow Paul's exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13, which would have been written after the letters to the churches in Rome and Corinth:

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 7 - Sabbath Extracts

In part six, we concluded the main argument that Ross makes in his lecture and his book for why the threefold division of the should be continue to be the church's ongoing testimony of understanding the law of God.

Ross ended that part by looking at Ephesians 6:1 - 3 in light of some commentators who try to argue that Paul is not issuing an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment, but issuing a call from some other source for children to obey their parents. Ross ended the lecture by reaffirming that the moral law shapes our understanding of Christ's penal substitution on the cross, and by exhorting his listeners and readers that we must hold on to this doctrine to understand the Gospel.

However, I left out Ross' main two defenses of understanding Sabbath as still being the moral law, and I want to now include those sections of Ross' argument separate from the other six posts for a few reasons. The main reason being that I view Ross' examples of Christians arguing for or against the abiding validity of the Sabbath as a demonstration of the confusion that exists within the Reformed churches and the broader Christian church about how to understand all the laws that God gave in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. For me, the biggest contribution of Ross' research is about explaining that the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws are the only possible way to understand the whole of Scripture without having to sacrifice the parts of Scripture that don't fit. Therefore, defenses of any one particular commandment, while helpful, are in my opinion raising flags to get people to pay attention.

A number of Christians, however, today have trouble with how to understand the Sabbath, and furthermore, because of that problem will not consider Ross' book in the first place because of Ross' defense of the Sabbath throughout the book and in the lecture. Phil Johnson, who pastors with John MacArthur, while reviewing Ross' book cannot get past Ross' defense throughout his book of the Sabbath because of his dispensationalism and as a result the review becomes very difficult to follow and largely unhelpful. More generally, while Tom Shreiner believes that the threefold division is biblical, the presence of a commandment about the Sabbath raises questions in his mind about how to understand the division; Justin Taylor, while commending the threefold division, nevertheless does not think it "fully works" because of the commandment about the Sabbath. My point in separating the substance (problem) from the demonstration of the problem is that the argument for the division needs to be considered before some people will consider rather or not the Sabbath applies to belevers today or it does not.

There are other books which defend the Reformed position on the Sabbath, but none of them currently include much of a defense of the threefold division, but Ross' book does both because Ross believes, and I agree, that the rejection of the Sabbath and the threefold division are linked together. Just because, however, the link exists does not mean there is only one way to defend both truths. Ross chooses to lead out his defense of the threefold division by showing where the most heat against the doctrine is currently being generated. I, however, think it might be more helpful to lay out the doctrine then show how it practically affects other doctrines. I think it is more helpful because, as has been shown, the threefold division has had many different attacks from other angles in the past, that do not only originate with a rejection or acceptance of the Sabbath.

Despite whatever differences I might have with Ross about the structure of his presentation, I do agree with Ross about the abiding validity of the Sabbath for the Christian.

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

I will break this up into two parts in my one post and note where in the lecture the two different sections the extracts are from in the lecture. The first part is from the Introduction in the lecture.

----------------

According to Tim Keller, nearly all presbyters in the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 'with only the most minor exceptions (the only common one being with regard to the Sabbath).' (pg. 5)

If, however, such an exception amounts to a wholesale rejection of the Confession's approach to the Sabbath, then Ross suspects the Westminster Divines might have thought that to call it minor was probably understatement. (pg. 5)

If the WCF were a garment, you would not want to pull this thread, unless you wanted to be altogether defrocked. (pg, 5)

Ross wonders if the reason why some people pull at this thread is because they regard the Confession as more of a straightjacket than a garment. (pg. 5)

Unbuckle the Sabbath, and as far as Reformed Theology is concerned you are well on the way to mastering theological escapology. (pg. 5)

If this sounds like overstatement to rival Keller's understatement, Ross wants to remind his listeners that biblical law, with its Sabbath, is not an easily dispensable part of our doctrinal infrastructure. (pgs. 5, 6)

You cannot perform a precision strike on the Sabbath without producing an embarrassing amount of collateral damage. (pg. 6)

You cannot strike out the Sabbath without shattering the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it. (pg. 6)

If the Shorter Catechism represents Westminster theology in its most practical form, it would seem that any expurgation of biblical law from the theological framework it expounds, should lead to its complete unraveling. (pg. 6)

----------------

The next part is from the section titled Jesus and the Gospels

----------------

One thing that does not appear in Matthew 5 is anything about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath.

It's often assumed that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath and that the Gospel writers conveyed that.

But Ross thinks Géza Vermes is right, if the evangelists were seeking to do that 'they did a pitiful job'. (pg. 173)

Even the authors of From Sabbath to Lord's Day have to agree that Jesus did not brake the Sabbath. (pg. 167)

Ross think there is little point in going into detail with the book because of their conclusion in a summary written by Andrew Lincoln for the book (pgs. 171 - 172):

The veiled nature of Jesus' ministry accounts for the slight ambiguity in regard to His relation to the Sabbath and for the fact that for a time in the early church there were those who continued Sabbath observance while the full implications of the entry to the new age accomplished by Christ were being worked out.

Ross contends that Lincoln's conclusion makes little sense. In fact, it is inexplicable considering the dates for the Gospels range from A.D. 50 - 150. How much tome did they need to work things out? (pg. 172)

If Mark clearly understood that Jesus had declared all foods clean, why did He choose to leave his readers in the dark over so fundamental an issue as the Sabbath? (pg. 172)

Until someone does better than raise the anti-Sabbatarian case from the Gospels from the 'pitifil' to the ambiguous there is little to gain be engaging in this discussion.

The evangelists represent Jesus as a Sabbath-keeper, who does not undermine the ordnance by word, action, or yet-to-be-understood personal claims. (pg. 173)

----------------

While in this section Ross does not specifically deal with the Colossians 2:14 - 15 passage which both are the given reason for Taylor and Dr. Schreiner's caveat about the threefold division Ross did address the Colossian text in part five. Since I don't want to make in seem like I'm only picking on the Gospel Coalition or Baptists, I need to also include the Lutherans' Dr. John Theodore Mueller and Dr. Francis Pieper. Both men wrote very popular and still used works on Christian Dogmatics. Near the bottom of page 213, Dr. Mueller rests his entire case on the Ten Commandments not being identified with the moral law on the sole argument of the Sabbath commandment being the ceremonial feature of the Ten Commandments. Since Dr. Mueller's one-volume work is based on Dr. Pieper's four-volume work I assume that both men agree on this argument, but have not yet verified Dr. Pieper's position in print.

Now I'm really done with the whole lecture, but I do want to ofter a bit more coverage of Ross' book in relation to some other controversies in the Reformed world. One of, which, is about a claim made by a few Westminster California professors about the application of the first four commandments to the other nations than Israel in the time of the Old Testament.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 1 - Introduction

In November of 2010, Christian Focus Publications released a book by Philip S. Ross titled From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. It is 426 pages long and is a treasure to read if you have ever tried to defend the Westminster Confession of Faith's 19th chapter (WCF) which explains God's Law as containing a tri-partite division of the law. Ross' book goes through the entire Bible (Biblical Theology) to show that the way our Father's in the Faith understood the Law of God was a careful reflection of Scripture, instead of a imposition on Scripture (Systematic Theology).

Before the book was released, however, in March of 2010 Mr. Ross gave an address to Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales (EPCEW) on the same topic which is about an hour long. I discovered the book because I was reading through the Marrow of Modern Divinity and actually dealing with this exact issue in my church with a Theonomist who was leading a Sunday School class where he made it very clear that WCF 19.4 was wrong to teach:

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

At the time I hadn't discovered Professor McKay's book or his brilliant footnote on this topic. Therefore, I 'dug in my heals' and ordered the book and proceeded to read it, along with my pastor. What we found was great, well-researched material, that provided more than what we needed along with a whole lot of other material that addressed other contemporary issues about the Law of God, but in a different way than either of us had expected. Which, in hindsight, is a good experience even through at first it was a bit disappointing for my part.

As I was working through the book I also was trying to dig up other materials (press interviews, reviews, etc.) to see what other people were thinking about the book and to maybe find a more compact way to present 426 pages of research in a shorter time span, and that's how I found the lecture.

I haven't directly spoken with this dear Brother in Christ about Ross' book, but I'm slowly working up to addressing the matter in another forum. The great part about the address is that Ross covers his entire book in an abbreviated form with a slightly different structure. I have spent the last few months returning to the lecture for the purpose of jotting down notes and doing dictation of the lecture, so that I could make the fruits of Ross' study more accessible.

I have chosen to break up those notes into six main parts with one additional part on Ross' thoughts on the Sabbath. I think Ross' arguments for the Sabbath are good and I understand why he spends time in both the book and the lecture to address the issue; nevertheless, the key point being discussed in the first six posts the primary concerned to present Ross' arguments for the Threefold Division of the Law. I will in the final post explain my reasons for separating these closely related issues. This post will be updated as I post additional parts. The parts are:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

The posts will follow the general format of a statement that Ross makes in his lecture/my thoughts about how to express that statement and the relevant page numbers in Ross' book where Ross either makes a similar statements. As I found out, the address can provide some insight in the differences between writing a book and presenting a speech. Without further ado, here's Ross' introduction.

----------------

The threefold division is the division of biblical law into (pg.2):

1. Moral - The Ten Commandments
2. Civil (or Judicial) - Those laws that were given for civil government
3. Ceremonial - The laws that governed sacrifice

Do people consider the confession a garment or a straightjacket?

Nearly half of the Shorter Catechism's 107 questions deal with the demands and consequences of ever binding moral law. (pg. 6)

From the beginning law was was written on the heart of man. (pg. 6)

Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of any law of God given as a rule to the reasonable creature. (pg. 6)

The Westminster doctrine of the threefold division of the law is a reiteration of catholic doctrine. It's not uniquely Eastern or Western; Catholic or Protestant; conservative or liberal; Patristic or Puritan; Thomist or Calvinist, or anything else. It has been expounded, maintained, and defended by some of the most prominent theologians in the history of the church. (pg. 1)

Having subjected the threefold division of the law to biblical scrutiny like any other doctrine, it is remarkable how simplistic the dismissals of the threefold division are. (pgs. 5, 7)

Two examples are Tom Wells and Jason Meyer.

Tom Wells in his book (co-authored with Fred Zaspel) New Covenant Theology on page 72 writes that biblical evidence to support the Puritan approach to the Decalogue 'was always wanting'. He goes on to write the following on page 74 (pg. 8):

As evidence for the wider sweeping conclusion that everything moral is comprehended is one of these ten commands, both the Larger and Smaller [sic] Catechism offer just three verses, Matthew 19:17, 18, 19. This is, surely, much too narrow a base from which to draw such a comprehensive conclusion. Further than that, assuming that Matthew 19 contains the best evidence for this opinion, we must note that it was not available to OT [Old Testament] believers at all.

Ross contends that Wells' seems to imagine that the divines took a very simple approach to proof texting. (pg. 8)

The Westminster Divines were, however, more sophisticated than grasping for texts that might prove their point. This is why the first edition of the Confession contained no proof texts. The reluctant Assembly was not concerned about 'being unable to support the proposition of the Confession by Scripture' but because they realized 'that a complete presentation of Scripture proof would have required a volume'. In this case, it is Wells' approach that is most obviously wanting. (pg. 8)

Jason Meyer in his book The End of the Law on page 282 writes (pgs. 8 - 9):

The NT [New Testament] itself does not make these three distinctions, and no one living under the law of Moses seriously thought they could pick which parts were binding and which were optional. God's law comes as a set with no substitutions. Therefore, exegetes should not read the three distinctions into NT texts that speak of the law as a singular entity. Furthermore, one will find it challenging to divide all laws into three neat, watertight compartments.

Meyer's takes the orthodox view for two thousand years and writes it off in seventy-five words. However, Meyer's comments should make one question if he has ever read the confessional explanations of the threefold division. (pg. 9)

The Confession's teaching in 19.3 shows the the oft-repeated claim that the threefold division divides 'all laws into three watertight compartments' is false. The section says, of the ceremonial laws, that they contain 'several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ ... and partly of divers instructions of moral duties'. (pg. 9)

Many who reject the threefold division do so because they do not believe it to be biblical. But what does it mean to be 'biblical'? (pg. 37)

For some, the meaning 'to be biblical' might be rooted in certain presuppositions of biblical theology (BT) as an academic discipline.

Whatever they - professor, pastor, etc. - claim BT is and wherever they make those claims, BT is almost universally occupied with the task of being a descriptive discipline. (pg. 46)

Telling us what biblical passages supposedly meant within a predetermined, literary, or canonical context never moving beyond some conjectured historical setting, and never saying anything to the present. (pgs. 46 - 47)

From the perspective of BT, Meyer's theology appears silent when he says 'that no one living under the law of Moses seriously thought they could pick which parts were binding and which were optional'.

That sounds, continues Ross, like an accurate description of how things were for those living under the Mosaic law; a description that tells us what it meant. But it's a superficial analysis.

Ross contends that it's a superficial analysis because Meyer would have to try to persuade Amos, Jeremiah, or Isaiah of the truth of his [Meyer's] claim that there were not distinctions in the law delivered through Moses.

It is a hopeless enterprise to come to any historical doctrine and to expect the doctrine to comply with the self-authenticating scriptures of academic BT.

Should a Christian interpreter actually come to the Pentateuch or the Prophets without ever thinking about the Trinity or Jesus Christ, as two distinct natures in one person forever, they are probably more ignorant than brilliant; we simply cannot reformat our brains and come to any conclusions through that way, and nor should we. There is a pattern of sound words to which we should hold fast. (pgs. 48 - 49)

This is not the only problem with critiquing the threefold division from an exclusively BT paradigm. To do so is also anachronistic. Even if we allow that BT was brought forth by J.P. Gabler in 1787 this still leaves almost 1800 years of theological study and biblical interpretation that did not operate with a clinical dichotomy between systematic and biblical theology, or 'what the scriptures meant' and 'what the scriptures mean'. (pgs. 35, 41, 49 - 50)

Engaging in any meaningful consideration of this doctrine means we cannot ignore the way that its exponents down through the centuries read the Bible. The field of this type of study is known as the history of exegesis. (pgs. 34 - 35)

At a basic level this means we assume what was an unsurprising dogma for the early church - that is, the unity and inerrancy of the text. (pg. 40)

For Justin Martyr the word of God was infallible and immutable. (pg. 35)

Ross will provide some of the reasons why we may have confidence that the framework for biblical law found in chapter 19 of our Confession is derived from the Scripture as opposed to Meyer's claim that the division is read into the Scripture.

Ross intends to deal with the basic categories of moral, ceremonial and judicial law.

----------------

Next time we will look at the Five OT presuppositions that shape the NTs understanding of law.

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).