Theology Quiz
Yesterday via Twitter, we asked our followers to answer the following theological question: “True or False, the role of God’s law is fundamentally the same for Christians and non-Christians.” We got a lot of responses—thank you!—and the results are in: 75% said “True” and 25% said “False.”
Everyone seemed to agree on two basic points: 1) God’s law, epitomized in the Ten Commandments and summarized in the double-command to love God and neighbor, is good. 2) God’s good law should be preached to both non-Christians and Christians. This is an encouraging starting point because, historically speaking, it is those who argue that the law should not be preached to Christians who have worn the label “Antinomians.”
But if there was broad agreement that God’s law should be preached to both Christians and non-Christians, there was disagreement whether the function of the law is the same for the Christian and the non-Christian. So here’s the question: What does the law do and who is it for?
In the history of theology the discussion about the “uses” or “usefulness” of the law typically centers on Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 1:8-9. Paul, in Galatians, asks the basic question: “Why then the law?” His answer is revealing: “It was added because of transgressions.” 1 Timothy says something similar: “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane.” So, according to Paul, the law has its place and purpose because of sin and for the sinful.
This, of course, does not mean that the law should not be preached to Christians. That was the mistake of John Agricola and all antinomians. You can only do away with the law if you can fully and finally banish sin and death. The Christian, remember, is simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously right and sinner”), and the ministry of the Word is therefore always the proclamation of God’s two words, law and gospel. But what Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 1:8-9 do suggest is that “the law,” as Oswald Bayer puts it, “should not be preached to Christians insofar as they are justified… it should be preached to them insofar as they are sinners and still belong to the old world” (Living By Faith, 67). The law, as 1 Tim 1:9 says explicitly, is for the “sinner” because the function of the law, as Paul details it in Romans, is to reveal sin (Rom 3:20) and convict and kill the sinner (Rom 3:19; 7.11).
So the same law should be preached to Christians and non-Christians for the same reason: God’s good law accuses sinners, exposing and ultimately putting to death the old creature so that God’s second word, the gospel, can speak into the darkness of death and create new life. Because Christians and non-Christians are both sinful, all people need to hear the law. Because Christians and non-Christians are both sinful, all people need to hear the gospel.
Filed under: Blogs, Contributors, Theological Dictionary
Yes, the law should be preached to believers and non-believers. But the law has a different function for a child of God. For non-believers, the law condemns.
For regenerated children of God, the law has been kept fully for those “in Christ”. The law is an expression of the will of God for his children.
So, your Twitter question and this answer seems incomplete and misleading.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for your comment. I can see there’s lots we agree about: the law should be preached to Christians and non-Christians; the Christian has fulfilled the law in Christ by imputation.
When you said that for Christians the “law is an expression of the will of God” did you mean to suggest that this not the case for non-Christians? Would you not say that the reason and way the law condemns is by speaking God’s demand and thereby revealing to people that they are sinners — that God is God and they are not?
Thanks again for interacting with the post.
Jono
i am confused by this post. It seems to deviate from the pure grace teaching that I have grown fond of on this site. I thought the purpose of the law was to show us our need for a Savior. Once Jesus’ blood sacrifice is applied to our life we are perfected forever. Sanctification happens by grace not by law. When my identity is “I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus”, my behavior starts to fall in line with that belief.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for this. It’s precisely because we at LIBERATE care so deeply about speaking the gospel clearly that we are constantly engaged in what Luther called the art of distinguishing law and gospel. As one theologian put it, the failure to distinguish law and gospel always results in the elimination of the gospel. So it’s because we want to proclaim the message of grace that you say you’ve come to appreciate hearing here that we try to be clear about what the law is and what it does and what the gospel is and what it does. And because the Christian is still sinful, because they struggle with unbelief, the law needs to be spoken to them, remind them of their constant and continued need for Jesus so that the gospel can announce again and again the good news, as you put it, they are “the righteousness of God in Christ.”
thank you. though it doesn’t seem to convey the whole beauty of it all. God has breathed all scripture-profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16 ). The creator of the universe has chosen to be our Father! He is not clobbering us over the head with harsh ‘law’ but is lovingly teaching and training us in righteousness unto sonship. How terrible not to be disciplined, for then we are not sons and how confusing to be disciplined, if thinking there was no basis. He gives us joy too in the proving of our trust, as Christ in us continues to show the world He loves His Father and is making His name known (John17:26). BTW, one day soon, won’t the world see how truly terrible lawlessness is. So, I am praying for more and more clarity about His great plan!
Heb 12 4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,“ My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him 6 for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines and He scourges every son whom He receives.”7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
Jono,
I don’t know if LIBERATE claims to have a Reformed hermenuetic but it seems, at least to me, that this post is inaccurate in light of the Westminster Larger Catechism Qs 93-97. You have reduced the law to a single use, and that’s not the case. Yes, it does reveal our sinfulness and our need for Christ, but it also binds the regenerate and unregenerate to obedience. Further, you said, ” You can only do away with the law if you can fully and finally banish sin and death.” This is also an inaccurate statement because it’s not sin that makes the law. The law predates sin, else it would have been impossible for Adam in his original creation, to sin since sin is the transgression of the law. The Reformed have always understood the law as a reflection of God’s holy nature. So long as God “is” so too is his moral will. The final eradication of sin and death will not “do away with the law” rather, it will put God’s saints into a state where we joyfully, perpetually, and perfectly keep the law of God (so much better than the state of Adam who was mutable!). I appreciate you trying to distance yourself from Antinomians, and I don’t think you are one, but the things said here definitely tend towards that direction.
Every Blessing in Christ Jesus,
KyB
Hi Kyle,
Thanks for your comment. You’re right that my citations from Romans 3 and 7 focus on the “theological use” of the law. However, to say that the law is for sinners is not to reduce it to one use. The “political use” of the law is about God’s constraint of sin and preservation of order in a sinful world. Similarly, the “third use” of the law in its confessional context is about God’s word rather than self chosen works norming worship and works of love, a necessity because the old Adam is a “stubborn, recalcitrant donkey.”
Also, while I certainly agree that “God’s moral will” is unchanging, to say that the law as the speaking of God’s righteous demand will be unnecessary in the new creation is not to suggest that God and his will are gone; it is to say that when sin is forever eliminated God’s will won’t need to be demanded because it will be done.This is what Luther was pointing towards when his said, “The Decalogue is eternal, but not as law.”
Thanks again,
Jono
Jono,
Thank you for your kind response. Perhaps I didn’t clarify my concern with your post. I feel as though it was unbalanced, which has been, and continues to be my concern with much of what comes out of Liberate and Tullian’s writings. For instance you end the post by saying that the law should be preached to regenerate and unregenerate for the purpose of exposing our sinfulness. I agree with the pedagogical use of the law, but this is not the exclusive use of the law. In fact, Calvin would argue it’s not even the normative use (one of the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed position). So in addition to preaching the law to expose our sinfulness, it ALSO needs to be preached to inform us what God’s will is concerning our conduct.
Also, can I further probe? From what I gather you define law as the “speaking of God’s righteous demand.” You then hint at (if I’m reading you right), that in new creation “law” is unnecessary because God’s will shall need no demand. Perhaps I’m troubled because we define things differently, but I’ll hear your Luther and raise you a Westminster Divine or two (see WCF 19.5). The moral law forever binds, here and in new creation. It’s interesting that Jeremiah doesn’t distinguish between the Decalogue and law, but speaks of the new heart as having the “law” written upon it. Perhaps you’re comfortable breaking with the Standards, perhaps you don’t and I misunderstand you…or perhaps I’m the one who has broken with them! I’d be interested in your response.
Much Grace,
Kyle
Kyle,
I could be wrong but after reading Jono’s post I believe that when he says “Law” he is referring to the 10 commandments. The reason why I think he is referring to the 10 commandments is because then he quotes from the book of Galatians and 1 Timothy where Paul is referring to the 10 commandments.
The Law that you are referring to in Genesis with Adam is in fact a law but is not “the Law”. Not to diminish God’s command in Genesis but you cannot say they are the same Law because the function of the two are different. The Law in Genesis to Adam was put in place as a means to obey God and have fulfillment in a way to worship God. AKA – A means of Grace. The Law of Moses had a function that was to reveal to us our inabilities to reach God through our efforts.
Genesis Law – Have a way to worship / obey God (naming the animals, do not eat of the Tree)
Law of Moses – Revelation of our inability to reach God
Also I believe that Jono’s post is not talking about the only use of the Law but he is actually talking about the primary use of the law. And he is saying that the primary use of the Law is the same for the Christian and the Non Christian. (To point us to Jesus and to show us that we cannot reach God but He can only reach down to us.)
My interpretation only. Jono please correct if I have misrepresented you.
Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts.
You want to distinguish between the law given to Adam and the law as delivered on Sinai. Are these two substantially different, formally different, or both?
Grace,
Kyle
Kyle,
Thanks again for your comments, and the tone here is great — a real conversation!
As I acknowledged in my first reply, my post did focus on the theological use of the law (a phrase I prefer to pedagogical use, but that’s another post!). Also, you’re right to note that while Luther calls the theological use the “chief and proper” use, Calvin uses this language to talk about the third use. But the point of my post was simply this: the law needs to be preached to Christians, like non-Christians, because of sin. This is true of the third use too.
Recall that it was Melanchthon who coined the term “third use of the law” in 1534 and worked it out in his subsequent editions of the Loci Communes, beginning with the 1535 edition. As is clear from these writings, right through the 1559 edition and echoed in Article VI of the Formula of Concord, the “Law must be preached to the regenerate to inform them of certain works in which God wills that we practice obedience.” This is very similar to what you wrote: “[The law] needs to be preached to inform us what God’s will is concerning our conduct.” The question is why do we need this information? The confessional answer from the breadth of the Reformation is that we need this because, as I said in my first response, as sinful we are prone to self-chosen works and so need to hear the word that norms worship and works of love.
As I’m reading you we’re not too far apart here, I’m just wanting to ask why Christians need to hear the law and am suggesting that it’s because, as the Lutheran confessions put it, “the old Adam is a stubborn, recalcitrant donkey.” Whatever we say, we need to answer the question of Galatians 3:19a in a manner consistent with Paul’s answer in 3:19b: Why the law? Sin.
I don’t want to make too much of the difference implied in your second question. We both certainly believe that God is eternal and so his will is perpetual. I just wonder if it’s helpful to equate the law and God’s unchanging will in a one to one way. WCF 19.5 has already created some distance between the law as given and the lex aeterna (“eternal law”) by specifying that it is “the moral law” that binds forever. This presupposes a distinction within the Mosaic legislation between civil and ceremonial law on the one hand and moral law on the other. So here, “law” does not mean simply what Moses gave.
Perhaps we could reach a form of agreement in spite of our differing terminological preferences with this statement: In the new creation the unchanging moral will of God (“moral law”) remains, is fulfilled, and yet does not need to be spoken.
Thoughts?
Jono,
Also appreciate (and was never opposed) that the law needs to be preached “theologically” to both regenerate and unregenerate alike (though I prefer “usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus”…only kidding!). But help me out here because Bayer’s quote still seems confusing (my Lutheran studies don’t go far beyond Luther and Chemnitz). Am I to understand your endorsement of him as being narrowly restricted to the second use, so as to have an addendum, “[the second use of the law] should not be preached to Christians insofar as they are justified… it should be preached to them insofar as they are sinners and still belong to the old world.” Surely, the law (in its third use) is preached even to the justified vis a vis WCF 19.5 (sorry for being so obtuse!). 
I appreciate this as well, I’m grateful that you’re entertaining my questions, and for your cordiality.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll blame it on my nearsightedness in reading
Every Blessing in Christ,
Kyle
Hi Kyle,
Thanks for helping me clarify the Bayer quote. What he means is that the law should be preached to Christians because they are still sinful. This applies to any and all uses of the law, as Bayer sees it. So the law, in all its uses, is preached to the justified (WCF 19.5), but it is preached to them because while they are fully righteous in Christ (iustus) they remain, in themselves, sinners (peccator).
In the new creation, when sin and death are fully and finally banished, what the law demands will be forever fulfilled, but it will not need to be *preached.* It is *preached* to Christians and non-Christians in the present time because of sin.
The Law as I understand it has two distinct purposes, one for the unbeliever, and one for the believer. For the unbeliever (through the work of the Spirit) it exposes his sin and leads him to repentance, and his need of a (perfectly righteous) Savior. For the believer it is a road map, God’s “how to attain life to the full”. Is this inaccurate or too simple?
For the believer the The road you speak of is the narrow road .And as Christians we follow Christ on it Knowing that He has attained for us eternal life.And only in this we can say that we really have life in all its fullness by our Penalty which he paid for us but also by that Righteous and Lawfully fulfilled life which he lived before His Father on our behalf and which is gracefully imputed to us