#ernest kevan

[confessingbaptist]

From Reformation Heritage Books:

Get it!

-

See some of our previous post on Ernest Kevan

[confessingbaptist]

This is just a friendly reminder that there is, has been, and will be a variety of views of Covenant Theology until our Lord comes. The following is submitted not with the purpose of promoting one view over another [we here at CB seek to bring out all orthodox views on any given topic within the bounds of our Confession] but simply for the purpose of exposing the kaleidoscope that is Covenant Theology.

-

Ernest Kevan, “The Grace of Law“, p. 113

There have been many attempts to expound the covenants of God, and, in particular, to find a place for the Mosaic Covenant within God’s saving purposes for mankind. The outward appearance of the Mosaic Covenant, however, seems not at first sight to be compatible with such saving purposes, and the demands of the Law, with the severity attaching to them, approximate more to the likeness of a Covenant of Works. This semblance of a covenant of Works receives some support from the passages of Scripture in which the Law and Gospel are compared or even contrasted, and, conspicuously in the Prologue to the fourth Gospel, where Moses and Christ are represented as the opposite poles of revelation. There is, without a doubt, a great difference between the manifestation of God in Christ and that earlier manifestation by Moses [See II Corinthians iii:6-18 and Hebrews ix and x], although it is possible falsely to magnify the difference. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a wide variety of thought among the Puritans about the exact nature of the Mosaic Covenant.

  An outline of the ways in which the Mosaic Covenant was regarded by the Puritans is provided by Anthony Burgess in Vindiciae Legis,

  In expressing this Covenant there is difference amoung the Learned; some make the Law a Covenant of works, and upon that ground that it is abrogated; others call it a subservient covenant tot he covenant of grace, and make it only occasionally, as it were, introduced, to put more luster and splendour upon grace; Others call it a mixt covenant of works and grace; but that is hardly to be understood as possible, much lesse as true. I therefore think that opinion true … that the Law given by Moses was a Covenant of grace.

  It is not possible to make an accurate classification of the Puritans on the basis of their views about the Mosaic Covenant, because many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.

  Ernest Kevan, “Moral Law“, pp. 54-55

The change that comes about through the grace of God is not a change in the Law, but a change in the sinner towards the Law.

  Closer attention, however, has still to be paid to the concept of the Law as a covenant. The Covenant of Law is now ended, but the rule of Law is eternal. there is some difference of judgment among expositors about the nature of the Covenant of Law. Some make the Law a Covenant of Works and hold that is is upon the ground that its covenant aspect is ended; others call it a subservient covenant to the Covenant of Grace, and regard it as introduced only to enhance the glory of God’s grace; there is a third group who call the Covenant of law a mixed Covenant of Works and Grace, but this can scarcely be comprehended as possible, much less as true. The view which seems most likely to be correct is the one which understands that since the Fall God never entered into covenant with man on any other basis than that of grace, and that therefore the Law given by Moses was itself part of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Law, even as an expression of the Covenant of Grace, is brought to an end because though the essence of the former covenant and that of the one that replaced it are the same, yet the administration of the former is altogether outmoded [This appears from Heb. 7:18-19 and 8:7-8]. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that whoever looks to the Law for life and justification abuses the Law and turns it into a man-made Covenant of Works.

-

  The description of variegated Covenant Theology was true not only for Anthony Burgess but is repeated by Francis Turretin. I quote it here as corroboration.

  Francis Turretin, “Elenctic Theology“, II:262

Twelfth Question: Whether the Sinaitic legal covenant, made by Moses with the people of Israel on Mount Sinai, was a certain third covenant distinct in species from the covenant of nature and the covenant of grace. We deny.

  I. The opinions of theologians vary on this subject. Some maintain that the Sinaitic covenant was a covenant of works; others that it was a mixture of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; others that it was properly neither a covenant of nature nor of grace, but a third covenant distinct from both in its whole species and was instituted to minister to the covenant of grace (and for this reason properly called “subservient”). Finally others (with whom we agree) say that it was a covenant of grace, but promulgated with the law and lying under it (which was sanctioned in the unusual manner of terror and servitude, in accordance with the state of the Israelite people and the age of the church at that time).

[confessingbaptist]

It cannot be said too often that law-keeping can never be the means of sanctification, but it will certainly be the result… The new life of the believer, expressed in a new and active obedience, is itself freedom. “For freedom did Christ set us free.” “Oh how I love Thy law,” cries the Christian. Love now binds him in a manner that legalism never could; but this “bondage” is liberty itself. Love obligates him to an obedience to the will of God from which he has no desire to be released, and this is perfect freedom. As the liberty of a railway train is that it should keep to the track, and to jump the rails would bring nothing but disaster, so the believer, constrained by the love of God will run in the way of his commandments (Psalm 119:32). The Christian now does as he likes, but he has such a new and powerful set of likes that he is held to his Lord and Master in mightier ways than ever he had been held in his slavery to sin. His spiritual freedom is such as the musician experiences when the scales and exercises have become easy, and work has turned to play. The rules are lost in the delight of musical satisfaction.

by Ernest Kevan via Paul Brown author of Ernest Kevan: Leader in Twentieth Century British Evangelicalism

Giant Steps by John Coltrane

[confessingbaptist]

By Dr. Ernest F. Kevan (via Third Millennium Ministries)

The basic question of the historic antinomian controversy was whether or not the moral Law of God is abrogated in the Gospel; and it was the assertion that it is thus abrogated which gave Antinomianism its name. This issue is presenting itself again in connection with some of the current and popular expositions of the doctrine of sanctification.

The answer to the question about the abrogation of the Law is given categorically by Paul when he writes, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans iii. 31). In the preceding verses he lays down the nature of justification so exactly that all the causes — efficient, meritorious, formal, instrumental, and final — are clearly described, as also is the consequent of this truth, namely, the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what a man does. He then draws a conclusion which he states both positively and negatively (Romans iii. 28). The positive statement is that justification is “by faith”; the negative statement is that it is “without the deeds of the law”. When all this is said, the apostle brings forward an objection in order to refute the charge that he was destroying the Law. He asks, “Do we make void the Law?” [The word employed by the apostle was previously used by him in ver. 3 and means to make "empty" and of "no effect".]  The only reply which the apostle makes to this is an ejaculation of abhorrence, “God forbid”, by which strong expression it is clear how intolerable such a doctrine ought to be. Paul not only repudiates the insinuation that he is destroying the Law, but substitutes an assertion in its place. He adds, “Yea, we establish the law”, using a metaphor from the strengthening of some structure that was likely to fall.

Many interpreters have been perplexed that Paul can thus say that he establishes the Law, especially considering those many places in his epistles which seem to abrogate it. One suggestion is that Paul means no more than that the Law is now established in the sense that the truth to which it bore witness has now come to pass. (See ver. 21.) This interpretation, however, is plainly insufficient. Another suggestion, based on the view that these words refer to the ceremonial Law, finds their meaning in the fact that the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Christ. This, again, is not quite adequate, for when the apostle speaks about the Law in this place he most certainly includes the Moral Law.

The Law is established by the Gospel in three ways.

Firstly, in respect of its penalties: this aspect was established in Christ, who satisfied the justice of God.

Secondly, in respect of its requirement of perfect obedience: this also was fulfilled in Christ. [It is a question worth pursuing, whether the righteousness by which a believer is justified is in any way the righteousness of the Law. Within the right understanding of the terms employed there can be no hesitation in affirming that this is so. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer is beyond all doubt an establishing of the Law in this manner.]

Thirdly, and what seems to be Paul’s chief purpose in this passage, the Law is established by the Gospel because the believer obtains grace in some measure to fulfil the Law.

The believer thus still keeps the Law in its preceptive part, and by faith in Christ is helped to a life of obedience to it. The truth which emerges from a right understanding of Paul’s words in this passage is, therefore, that the doctrine of grace, when seen at its highest and fullest, does not overthrow the Law, but rather establishes it.

There is, nevertheless, a further question to be discussed, namely, whether Christ, having established the Law in the manner already observed, then abrogated it so far as its authority over the believer is concerned. It would seem at first as if the Scripture contains some contradictions on this subject. For example, in the passage under examination Paul denies that his teachings “make void the law”; yet in another passage he expressly uses the word [The word is katargéo.] which is here denied and speaks of the Law as “that which is done away” (II Corinthians iii. 1).

There is no abrogation of the Law in the Gospel. A careful distinction must be made between the abrogation of a law and its relaxation. Relaxation supposes a law still standing in force, but abrogation means that a law is totally taken away. Such abrogation arises sometimes from the original constitution of the law, which limited and prescribed the time for which it should continue; and sometimes it arises from an explicit revocation of the law by that authority which made it. It may be easily proved that there has been an abrogation of the ceremonial and judicial laws; but there is no such abrogation of the moral Law. It is true, of course, that there is some mitigation of the severe application of the Law in respect of the person of the believer; but this is not an abrogation of the Law, for Christ vindicated the Law on the sinner’s behalf and bore its curse as the sinner’s Surety. The change that comes about through the grace of God is not a change in the Law, but a change in the sinner towards the Law.

Closer attention, however, has still to be paid to the concept of the Law as a covenant. The covenant of Law is now ended, but the rule of Law is eternal. There is some difference of judgment among expositors about the nature of the covenant of Law. Some make the Law a Covenant of Works and hold that it is upon the ground that its covenant aspect is ended; others call it a subservient covenant to the Covenant of Grace, and regard it as introduced only to enhance the glory of God’s grace; there is a third group who call the covenant of Law a mixed covenant of works and grace, but this can scarcely be comprehended as possible, much less as true. The view which seems most likely to be correct is the one which understands that since the Fall God never entered into covenant with man on any other basis than that of grace, and that therefore the Law given by Moses was itself part of the Covenant of Grace. The covenant of Law, even as an expression of the Covenant of Grace, is brought to an end because though the essence of the former covenant and that of the one that replaced it are the same, yet the administration of the former is altogether outmoded. [This appears from Hebrews vii. 18,19 and viii. 7,8.]  It is perfectly clear, therefore, that whoever looks to the Law for life and justification abuses the Law and turns it into a man made covenant of works.

One of the attempts to expel the Law of God from the life of the believer is based upon the illogical assertion that the Law as such is abolished but its substance remains obligatory. But how can obligation be present without the presence also of that which is essentially law? Law and obligation imply each other. For if the continuing substance of the Law carries obligation with it, then when a believer does not walk according to his duty he sins. Not to comply with the obligation is not to comply with the Law. Again, to say that the matter of the Law binds, but yet not as a law, is a contradiction in terms; for what is a law if it is not something laid down by the command and will of a superior? If this be pressed to a particular application, it may be asked whether love for God, which is the substance of the Law, is not also the will of God. It would seem to be illogical to assert that love to God should bind believers merely because the matter itself is good, but that it should not on any account bind them because God wills them to love Him. Furthermore, views which deprecate the Law of God must necessarily deny not only the obligatory nature of the Law, but even the will of God in requiring believers to love Him; for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver.

The premise which asserts the abrogation of the Law to the believer quickly leads to an impossible conclusion, for if the Law is abrogated to believers under the New Covenant it must be regarded as equally abrogated to believers under the Old. There is no halfway position in this argument, for either it must be denied that there were any believers under the Old Covenant, or, if there were, then they were freed from the Law as much as believers are now. If the Law be taken for the entire administration of the Old Covenant then, of course, believers under the Gospel are free from it in such a way that believers of earlier times were not: but if the Law be understood in respect of its essential parts in directing and commanding, then these things are either still equally in force, or else equally abrogated to all believers, whether under the Old Covenant or the New. The arguments against the subjection of believers to the Law under the New Covenant are equally as strong against the subjection of those who were under the Old.

From some points of view it is possible to make what might be called concessions to the idea of the abrogation of the Law, but it cannot be insisted upon too strongly that in the proper sense of the word there is no abrogation whatsoever. The concession may be made in a purely verbal respect because so many reformed theologians have spoken of the abrogation of the Law, though not with that erroneous meaning attaching to the word which is here being refuted. In a loose way of speaking it may also be conceded that there is an abrogation of the Law to believers in respect of justification, but, strictly the Law was never designed by God to be an instrument of justification, and so it is not properly relevant to speak even of the mitigation of the Law. In fact, in all aspects of salvation, if the Law is “established” as the apostle says, then there can be no talk of its “abrogation”. The far better word, therefore, is mitigation.

It is when the believer’s walk with God is considered that some mitigation of the Law may be acknowledged. The believer is freed, for example, from the burdensomeness of a rigid obedience, though there must be no misunderstanding here, for the deliverance of Christ is not of such a sort that the believer is no longer under obligation to render a perfect obedience. It must be maintained that for the believer not to obey the Law of God to its utmost perfection is a sin, and that every believer sins in this respect; nevertheless, such is the mercy of God in Christ that the believer’s obedience to the Law, which is but inchoate and imperfect, is accepted by God through the merits of Christ. This is a mitigation which arises solely from the fact of grace in Christ, for the Law, strictly taken, would still condemn the sinner.

This mitigation may also be seen in respect of the way in which the Law no longer provokes sin in the believer as it does in the unbeliever. In the Epistle to the Romans the apostle complained that the Law of God had the bitter effect of making him the worse (Romans vii. 8). The more spiritual and supernatural the Law was, the more his carnal and corrupt heart resented it: so that the more the Law would dam up the torrent of sinful lusts, the higher they rose. But this painful experience is not to be ascribed to the Law, but to Paul’s corruption. It is not the brightness of light that dims the sight or blinds the eyes, for light was especially created by God for them, but the infirmity and weakness of the eyes, which are not able to endure such brightness. The experience of the Law in the heart of the believer may be illustrated from nature. As the thorns that are cut down sprout again even more abundantly, so do corruptions while cut off by the Law, because they remain fixed and rooted in the sinner’s heart. In the godly, however, because there is a new nature and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God created within him, his corruption does not increase and grow by the Law but is rather subdued and quelled. The provocative power of the Law is thus mitigated by the effect of grace within the heart. [In the experience of the wholly unregenerate, it should be noted, it is not only the commandment of the Law that stirs up evil in his heart, but also the promises of the Gospel. The difference of effect depends, therefore, on the difference in the persons.]

Although the Law is mitigated or relaxed in relation to believers in the ways now noticed, it must nevertheless be affirmed that the Law perpetually continues as a rule of life to them. In support of this it must be observed, first of all, that the different phrases that the Scripture uses concerning the ceremonial Law and its abrogation [See Ephesians ii. 14,15; Hebrews vii. 12,18 and viii. 13.] are nowhere applied to the moral Law. It has never been said of the moral Law, that it is changed, or becomes old, or is abrogated, which expressions denote a change in the Law; but when the Scripture speaks of the moral Law it says that the believer is “dead” to it and that he is “redeemed” from the curse of it, which phrases imply that the change is in the believer and not in the Law.

A second consideration is that the holiness required of the believer is nothing but conformity to the Law. It is perfectly clear that when the apostle spoke against the Law, he was not speaking of it as the rule which obliges the believer to its obedience. For example, in writing to the Galatians, he plainly warns those who desire to be justified by the Law of their hopeless condition (Galatians v. 4), but he immediately proceeds to urge them not to use the liberty which Christ gives as an occasion to the flesh, and he gives this reason, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Galatians v. 14). Is the apostle contradicting himself in the same chapter? Is he urging them to obey the Law and yet at the same time reproving them for desiring to be under it? Certainly not; the circumstances were different. When they desire to seek justification by the Law, then he warns them; but when they are neglectful of their obligation to obey the Law, then he rebukes them.

Further, disobedience to the Law is still a sin in the believer. If there is sin there must also be Law, for sin is transgression of a law (l John iii. 4). When David commits adultery, or when Peter denies Christ, are not these sins in them? If so, is not David’s adultery a sin because it is against a particular commandment? It is an evasion to say that it is a sin only against the love of Christ, for then there would be no sins but sins of unkindness or unthankfulness. Christ’s love may indeed be the supreme reason for obeying the commands of God, but that does not hinder the command itself from binding the believer as the expression of the will of the Law-giver.

Finally, it is obvious that there are many reasons why the ceremonial Law should be abrogated which can in no way apply to the moral. In the first place the object of the ceremonial Law was not something perpetual, nor was it in itself true holiness. To circumcise and to offer sacrifices were not in themselves holy and good, nor is the leaving of them a sin; whereas the matter of the moral Law is perpetually good, and failure to perform it is necessarily a sin. Can it be thought that it was all the same to God whether a man was an adulterer or chaste, as it was whether a man was circumcised or not circumcised? Again, the ceremonial Law was typical and foreshadowed Christ who was to come; but now that He is come there is no use for these ceremonies. Lastly, the Jews and the Gentiles were to be joined into one body, with no difference between them; and to effect this it was necessary that the partition-wall of ceremonies should be pulled down; but no such circumstance affects the permanence of the moral Law.

It is necessary to pay some attention to those Scriptures which seem to indicate that the moral Law was to endure for a limited time only and in the same manner as the ceremonial Law. The first of these for consideration is the statement, “The law and the prophets were until John,” [Luke xvi. 16, and see also Matthew xi. 13.] words which are sometimes understood to mean that the Law was to continue only until John’s time. This passage, of course, provides no proof at all that the Law was to be abrogated when John the Baptist came; for, lest any should misunderstand His words in such a way the Lord immediately adds, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke xvi. 17). The meaning, therefore, is that the Law was to cease in so far as it prefigured Christ, that is to say, in its ceremonial and typical aspect. For this reason the Law and the prophets are put together, as agreeing in one general thing, namely, to foretell of Christ and to typify Him.

The next Scripture to be considered is that well-known sentence so much used in this controversy, which reads, “For ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans vi. 14). For the exposition of these words it must be asked in what sense Paul is arguing against the Law and what is the proper subject under discussion. This inquiry runs back to the question raised by some believing Pharisees in Jerusalem who so pressed the necessity of circumcision that they joined Moses and Christ together (Acts xv). It seems that in spite of the decision of the council which condemned that opinion, there were nevertheless many who persisted in requiring circumcision, and this, in turn, necessitated the refutation by the apostle of such a false view of the Gospel. As has been observed in an earlier chapter in this discussion, although the keeping of the ceremonial Law was the occasion of the controversy in the first place, yet Paul now extends his arguments to include the moral Law, because of the widespread assumption among the Jews that the observance of the moral Law without Christ was enough for their salvation. It is plain, however, that the apostle is arguing against the Law not in its own nature and glory, but only in the Jewish abuse of it. The argument transferred itself, as it were, from the ceremonial Law to the moral Law because of the false reasoning of the Jews. If the Jews could persuade themselves that the external performance of the ceremonial Law was enough to make them acceptable with God, even though they lived in gross disobedience to the moral Law, how much more would they deceive themselves about their acceptance with God when they lived a life externally conformable to the moral Law! It is in a context of this kind that the apostle seems to speak things derogatory to the Law, because the Jews took it without Christ; just as he likewise calls the ceremonies beggarly elements, when he knew, of course, that they were signs of an evangelical grace.

It is extremely important to observe that the apostle uses the word “law” in different senses, because failure to discern these differences has been the occasion of much misunderstanding. In most of the passages where the Law seems to be abolished, it is taken in one of two senses. Sometimes it is used synecdochically, in which the whole is put for part, that is to say, the word Law has been used for only that part which condemns. An example of this is the passage where the apostle says, “Against such there is no law” (Galatians v. 23), and speaks as if there were nothing in a law but condemnation. On other occasions the word “law” is put for the ministry of Moses, as a dispensation that was far inferior to the ministry of the Gospel (See Galatians iv. 25, v. 1-4). Before any conclusions are drawn, therefore, about Paul’s view of the abolition of the Law, the first task is that of defining the sense in which the term is being employed.

Another important task in this respect is to determine the different meanings of such phrases as, “without the law”, “in the law”, “of the law”, and “under the law”. “Without the law” is to be understood in two ways: first, a man is “without the law”, in the sense of being without the knowledge of it; thus the Gentiles are “without the law” (Romans ii. 12); and second, a man is “without the law” when he is without the experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law (Romans vii. 9). Opposite to the phrase “without the law”, is the expression “in the law” (Romans ii. 12), and in this passage it signifies those who possess the knowledge of the Law and yet sin against it. Much to the same purpose is the phrase “of the law” (Romans iv. 14) which sometimes is equivalent to “of the circumcision” (Colossians iv. 11; Titus i. 10), namely, those who are initiated into the ministry of Moses. The apostle uses also another phrase, “by the law” (Galatians ii. 21), meaning by works done in conformity to the Law; and it is in this sense that the apostle urges that righteousness is not “by the law”. All the difficulty in the present controversy, however, is about the phrase, “under the law”, and it is to this that special attention has to be given.

It is, of course, possible for a believer to put himself “under the law” in a voluntary manner. Christ put Himself under the Law in this way, and so also did Paul. The apostle refers to this when he says that he become to some “asunder the law” (I Corinthians ix. 20), though in this case it was the ceremonial Law under which he was prepared to place himself. Paul also describes himself as “in the law to Christ” (énnomos), for though a godly man is not properly “under the Law” (hupó nómon), he is nevertheless “in the law” (énnomos), and he adds the words “to Christ”, however, so that none should think that he spoke of the whole Law, including the ceremonial part of it which was abolished by Christ. In this well explained sense, then a godly man may be said to be under the Law.

How far may the phrase “not under the law” and “not under the curse” be equated? There is one sense in which they might appear to have the same meaning, as in the question, “Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?” (Romans vi. 15) Because Paul is here speaking of sanctification, however, both in this chapter and the chapter following, it seems preferable to make the phrase “under the law” to mean the same thing as the phrase “under sin”; for the apostle, speaking of himself as carnal, says that the Law wrought in him all manner of evil (Romans vii. 8). This, indeed, is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man; so that the more the Law is applied to him the more does his corruption break out. The apostle’s argument, then, is this: “Let not sin reign in you, for now you are not under the Law stirring up sin and provoking it in you, but under sanctifying and healing grace”.

The third passage that seems to teach that the moral Law was to endure for a limited time only is that in which Paul says, “Ye also are become dead to the law” (Romans vii. 4). The apostle explains what it is to be under the Law by an analogy from a married woman who is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but who, when her husband dies, is free. In the exposition of this analogy there is some difference among commentators, but the following seems to be the meaning. The former “husband” whom the soul had was not the moral Law, but sin — which by means of the Law is provocative of evil corruptions within the soul. When the believer is regenerated, then the soul is married to another, that is, to Christ. It is important also to observe that in working out the application of this analogy, the apostle does not say, the Law is dead, but that the believers have “become dead”; for, indeed, the Law is never so much alive as in the godly who constantly obey it and live according to it. Farther on in this passage Paul turns the thought around and speaks of “that being dead wherein we were held” (Romans vii. 6). The thing which is here referred to as having died is interpreted by many commentators as being sin. Sin having been put to death — by Christ — the condemning and enslaving power of the Law is at an end, and the believer becomes “married” to another.

There is nothing in the Scripture, therefore, to give ground for the assumption that believers have no obligation and relation to the Law of God. The entire representation of the Christian life in the epistles proves the contrary and calls for the believer’s loving obedience to that holy Law.

[confessingbaptist]

By Ernest F. Kevan (via Third Millennium Ministries)

The controversy about the relation of the moral Law to believers centers in the Law given by God through the ministry of Moses to the people of Israel. What relation have believers to this Law of Moses? To answer this question it is first of all necessary to determine in what sense the word “law” is being used in such an expression as “the Law of Moses”. Sometimes it is used in a wide sense and sometimes with a narrower meaning. It may be taken either for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the commandments, moral, judicial and ceremonial; or it may be employed more strictly for that part which is called the moral Law, together with the preface and the promises which are added to it; or it may be understood most strictly of all for that which consists in mere commandments, without any promise whatever. Most of the views which are held about the difference between the Law and the Gospel take the word Law in this last and strictest sense. But it is clear that if all the commandments and threatenings scattered up and down in the Scripture are taken to be properly the Law, and if all the gracious promises, wheresoever they are found, are then taken to be the Gospel, it will not be surprising that many hard things are said about the Law.

It has been customary to divide the body of the Mosaic laws into moral, ceremonial and judicial respectively, and though questions have been raised about this division, they are not of particular consequence, and the grouping may be safely accepted. The portion of the Law of God with which the present study is concerned is the moral Law.

Not all the questions are answered, however, by the elimination of these other aspects of the Law of Moses, for the word “moral” has itself been used in a variety of senses. These different meanings have, in turn, provoked a number of further problems, not only in the exposition of the Law, but also in other aspects of Christian doctrine. The question demanding an answer therefore is what it is that makes a law moral. Although there is nothing in the connotation of the term to imply an obligation that is permanent, yet this is the meaning which belongs to the idea of moral Law; and it is this permanence of obligation which distinguishes that which is moral from those other obligations which are in other categories.

It is widely assumed that the Law of nature and the moral Law are identical; but this is a mistake, for there are at least two important differences between them. First of all, the moral Law given by God brings about a new obligation from the fact that it is formally commanded. Thus, although the substance of the Law of Nature and of the moral Law agree in many things, yet the man who breaks the Ten Commandments in their promulgated form is guilty of sinning more heinously than the man who has never received them. Secondly, although the moral Law requires many things which are also contained in the Law of nature, it also has far more in it than ever could be in that earlier Law. An example of this is to be found in the confession of Paul that he had not known lust to be sin unless the Law had said so, although he had the Law of nature to convince him of sin.

The moral Law was given to the people of Israel when they were in the wilderness at Mount Sinai, and there may perhaps be two reasons why at this time, rather than sooner or later, God gave this Law. The first reason was that the people of Israel had fallen into idolatry, and so the Law was given in order to restrain their idolatry and suppress their rebellion. This would appear to be the meaning of the statement that the law “was added because of transgressions” (Galatians iii. 19). The other, and perhaps the most important, reason why God gave the Law at this time, rather than another, was that the Israelites were now becoming a nation. They were about to enter into Canaan and to develop a settled life, so God made laws for them; for He was their King in a special manner, insomuch that all their laws, even political, were Divine.

It is a mistake to think of the moral Law as something new, for it is as original as the natural Law. The moral Law existed long before the administration of it by Moses. Murder was a sin from the very beginning, as appears by God’s words to Cain; indeed, so also was the very anger itself that precedes murder. Men, therefore, were never without the Law, nor ever shall be, and there is a sense in which it may truly be said that the Decalogue belongs to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Christ, to the Apostles, as well as to Moses. As has been noticed above, there was, of course, a historical reason why in the time of Moses there should be a special promulgation and solemn repetition of it, but even so the Law was perpetually heard among men even from the very beginning. This consideration will greatly contribute to a right estimate of the worth of the Law, it being the constant instrument of God for the definition of man’s duty, for conviction of sin and for exhortation to holiness. To reject the use of the Law, therefore, is to reject the universal way of God in both the Old and the New Testaments.

The gift of the Law to Israel was an act of God’s infinite mercy and grace. In the addresses of Moses to the people (Deuteronomy vii. and ix.), God impresses on the Israelites the greatness of His love in giving them His commandments. He emphasises again and again that it was not for their sakes, or because of any merit in them, but purely because He loved them. The psalmist takes up this goodness of God in the giving of the Law by saying, “He hath not dealt so with any nation” (Psalm cxlvii. 20), and Hosea likewise stresses this mercy in the words, “I have written to him the great things of my law” (Hosea viii. 12). All the benefits that psalmists and prophets regard as coming by the Law of God are thus to be traced back to the grace and mercy of God in giving the Law, and it is evidence of a deep misconception of God’s ways when the Law of God is deprecated in any manner at all.

There is no disputing that, in the Gospel, God has granted greater expressions of His love to man, but this does not mean any diminishing of the grace that is in the Law. The Law belongs to believers in the present for the same evangelical ends as it was originally given to the Israelites. Not one commandment can be read in its spiritual meaning — which is its true meaning — without finding some cause to praise God. It is not enough, therefore, that the believer should not despise or neglect the Law: he must the rather thank God that His Law is read and expounded. Well may the godly man delight to have that purity commanded which will make him loathe himself, which will make him prize Christ and grace the more, and which will be a quick goad to all holiness. Besides all this, it is false thinking even to contemplate a severance of the Law from the Gospel, for when taken together they mutually put a fresh relish and taste upon each other.

A consideration of the majestic accompaniments of the promulgation of the moral Law will serve to exhibit its outstanding dignity. These accompaniments reveal that God put great glory on it; and although the New Testament points out that the Gospel ministration of grace is to be esteemed more highly than the Mosaic ministration of it, yet absolutely and in itself, the Law was greatly honoured by God. It would be right to conclude that God gave the Law in this solemn and impressive manner in order that its authority and majesty might be the more readily recognised. This dignity belongs peculiarly to the moral Law, in distinction from the judicial and ceremonial; for although the judicial and ceremonial Laws were given at the same time as the moral Law, there is nevertheless a great difference between them. It is recognised, of course, that these three kinds of laws agree in many particulars. They agree in their common efficient cause, which was God; they agree in the minister or mediator, who was Moses; they agree in the subject, which was the people of Israel; they agree also in their common effects, which were to bind the people to obedience and to punish those who offended. But the moral Law is pre-eminent, and this is seen firstly, in that it is the foundation of the other Laws, and they are reduceable to it; secondly, in that it is to abide always, whereas the others were not; and thirdly, in that the moral Law is distinguished from the others in having been written by God, and in the command that it should be kept in the ark.

Exception is sometimes taken to the relevance of any discussion about the Law given by Moses, and it is asked: Is the Christian a Jew? Does the Law of Moses belong to believers? Has not Christ abolished the Law? Is not Moses, with his ministry, now at an end? These are questions that are often raised, and so it is worth enquiring whether the Ten Commandments as given by Moses belong now to Christians or not.

It is needful, first of all, to investigate the sense in which it is said that the Law binds the believer in its Mosaic form. This is sometimes understood to mean that the Law binds because of Moses, so that whatever belongs to the Mosaic administration belongs also to the Christian. But such a view is false and is quite contrary to the whole current of Scripture; for then not only the moral Law, but also the ceremonial, would bind the Christian. Another way of understanding the relation to Moses is to say that it is purely on account of his having been the inspired writer. This, of course, cannot well be denied by any who hold that the Old Testament belongs to Christians; for why should not the books of Moses belong to them, as well as the books of the prophets? But there is a further way of understanding this relation of the believer to the Law of Moses. When God gave the Ten Commandments by Moses to the people of Israel, though they were the people to whom He then spoke, yet He intended the obligation to keep these commandments to fall not only upon the Israelites, but also upon all other peoples who in due time would be brought to a knowledge of Himself. The proper state of the question, then, is not whether Moses was a minister to Christians as well as to Israel (for that is clearly incorrect), but whether, when God delivered the Ten Commandments by the hand of Moses, He had in mind only the Israelites, or whether all other true worshippers of God were foreseen as included within their authority. This latter alternative is the true one, and at the same time defines the sense in which the Law binds the believer in its Mosaic form.

That this may be made more clear, it must be observed that the moral Law binds in two ways.

It binds, first of all, in respect of its substance. To the extent that much of this substance is found also in the Law of Nature it applies universally, and so was binding on the Israelites even before the promulgation of it on Mount Sinai.

Secondly, it binds in respect of the authority and command which are put upon it; for when a Law is promulgated by a proclamation, then an additional obligation comes upon it.

Thus when Moses as the servant of God delivered this Law to Israel he thereby brought a further obligation upon them. The main question to be answered, however, is whether this obligation was temporary or perpetual.

The chief problem is that of the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law, and some light is given on this by the fact of the revocation of that part of the Mosaic Law which was purely ceremonial. It is obvious that the obligatoriness of this ceremonial Law would not have ceased unless the Law itself had been revoked; and so, by the same argument, the moral Law given by Moses must still be binding unless it can be shown that it is repealed.

Further, the ceremonial Law ceased, because it contained but the shadows of the real, and when Christ came there was no longer any need for the shadows; similarly, the judicial Law ceased, because when the state of Israel came to an end there was no more reason for the Laws. These Laws became obsolete by their very nature. No such thing can be affirmed about the moral Law, however, for the substance of that is perpetual, and there are no places of Scripture which abrogate it.

The perpetuity of the Mosaic Law can be demonstrated by a number of arguments, the first of which is an answer to an objection raised in connection with the abolition of the ceremonial Law. It was the apostolic opinion that, if the forms of ceremonial worship were necessary for justification, this would, in effect, either exclude Christ altogether, or join Him together with the ceremonial Law. (See Acts xv. 5,10,19,20,24,28,29.) It is true that when the apostles demolish this error they quite clearly show, not only that the works of the ceremonial Law have no power to justify, but also that the works of the moral Law are equally unable to do this; but in acknowledging this fact, it must be remembered that when the apostles bring the moral Law into the dispute, they do it only in respect of justification, and not in respect of obligation.

The second argument for the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law is from the fact that the Scripture urges the obligation of the moral Law upon converted Gentiles, and that this obligation is said to have come down to them from their fathers, thus looking upon Israelites and believing Gentiles as one people. When Paul writes to the Romans he tells them that, “Love is the fulfilling of the Law” (Romans xiii. 8,9); and thereupon sums up the commandments which were given by Moses. Similarly, when he writes to the Gentile Ephesians, he urges children to honour their father and mother because it is the first commandment with promise: a commandment, of course, which was entirely Mosaic in its source (Ephesians vi. 2). This is further evident from the epistle of James, which is to converted Gentiles as well as to Jews. The words, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture” (James ii. 8), are an allusion, of course, to the Law of Moses, where the second table contains love to one’s neighbour; and in the words, “He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill” (James ii. 11), the argument is drawn, not from the substance of the Law, but from its Author, the God who spoke by Moses. The reason why these commandments extend to the believing Gentiles is that the Jews and believing Gentiles are looked upon as one people. (See I Corinthians x. 1-2.)

The third argument is from the obligation upon the Christian to keep the Sabbath day, an argument that seems completely to confirm that the moral Law given by Moses is binding upon Christians. If the Sabbath day is a perpetual ordinance, and it is based upon the fourth commandment, it cannot fail to be seen that the commandments, as given by Moses, are binding upon believers. The distinction sometimes advanced concerning laws that bind “by reason of the matter” and laws that bind “by reason of the ministry” will not hold in this instance; for the seventh day cannot bind from the matter of it, there being nothing in nature why the seventh rather than the fifth should oblige, but only from the mere command of God for that day. If the Law of Moses is disregarded in this respect, then, of course the inference has to be made that Christians keep the Sabbath day on New Testament grounds alone, and not at all from the fourth commandment. This, however, is at variance with the general consensus of Christian thought, for all churches have honoured the moral Law, together with its Preface, and have it in their catechisms. It is not difficult, therefore, to see that the distinction which affirms that the moral Law binds as the Law of Nature, but not as the Law of Moses, is untenable; for the Sabbath Law, as it stands, cannot arise from the Law of Nature, but has its morality and perpetuity from the mere positive commandment of God.

The fourth argument is from reason, namely, that it is incongruous to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetual duty. It is wholly improbable that God, when giving the Law by Moses, should have intended that Law to be only temporary in its obligation, when the subject matter is in itself perpetual. It is not a very reasonable supposition that the true effect of the commandments should read, “You shall have no other gods until after the time of Moses”, or, “You shall not murder or commit adultery while his ministry lasts, and then that obligation must cease and a new obligation come upon you”. Why should it be thought that, when the substance of the Law is necessary and perpetual, God would alter and change the nature of the obligation? Indeed, it is impossible to give even a remotely probable reason for any such alteration.

The fifth argument for the perpetuity of the authority of the moral Law is that if the Law by the hand of Moses does not bind the believer, then the later books of the Old Testament do not belong to him either, for they are basically — especially in their moral teaching — nothing but expositions of the moral Law. The rejection of the authority of the Mosaic Law would carry with it the rejection of the entire Old Testament.

There can be no flight from the claims of the moral Law. Its demands belong to the very constitution of man as man, and are heightened by the mercy of God that has reiterated His holy Law for the salvation of sinners

[confessingbaptist]

Dr. Ernest Kevan (1903-1965) was a Strict Baptist Minister, and Founder and Principle of London Bible College (now London School of Theology). He is best known for his often referenced PhD thesis, “The Grace of Law” which is a study of the Puritan’s understanding of The Moral Law. What follows is Pastor Guy Davies’ (Ebenezer Baptist Church, West Lavington, Wiltshire, England)  review of this work.

A confession. I’m something of a chronological snob. Not a full blown one, mind you. I count Augustine, Calvin, Owen and Bavinck among my favourite authors. But I’m a chronological snob none the less. Unless it’s stuff that’s over, say, a hundred years old, I have difficulty in reading anything other than recent publications. This year’s titles and last year’s, yes. The year before that, maybe. But anything before 2009 is so out of date. It’s an unfortunate quirk, I know, but there we are.

What to do, then with a book originally published in the 1960′s and reprinted in 1993. That’s neither decently old or fresh and up to date. Best leave it gathering dust on the shelf. But then I was sent a copy of the author’s biography to review, Ernest Kevan: Leader in Twentieth Century Evangelicals, by Paul E. Brown (Banner of Truth, 2012) . How could I do a proper review of the subject’s life if I wasn’t acquainted with his key book? Time to crucify my chronological snobbery, swallow hard and dust off The Grace of Law. Glad I did too.

In their historical context the Puritans had to engage with three divergent, yet erroneous views on law of God. They had to avoid the Scylla of the legalists, who taught salvation by law and the Charybdis of the antinomians, who rejected the law as a rule of life for believers. To make things more complicated, they also had to resist the Siren voices of the neonomians, who turned the gospel into a new, easier-to-keep version of the law. That all sounds very seventeenth century. But like the poor, legalists and antinomians are always with us in one form or another. And there is more than a passing resemblance between Richard Baxter’s neonomian conception of the law and the position advocated by Tom Wright and his ‘new perspective’ fellow-travellers. The Puritans provide us with the theological resources to respond to contemporary versions of the heterodox views on the law with which they had to battle.

Kevan ransacked the works of the Puritans in order to recover their thinking on the law of God. He provides a richly detailed and nuanced study of the Puritan view of the law as an expression of God’s commanding authority. Amongst other things he discuses the law and sin, the place of the law in the covenant purposes of God, the law and justification, and grace-enabled Christian law keeping. The Puritans did not regard the law of God as a burden on the believer. Rather, they taught that the joyful keeping of the law is the authentic expression of Christian liberty from the bondage of sin. In the words of William Perkins, “The more we are bound to obedience, the freer we are: because the service of God is not bondage, but perfect libertie.” (Cited on p. 247-248).

The Grace of Law, Kevan’s Phd thesis makes for a demanding, yet rewarding read. If nothing else, his work has helped liberate me from my chronological snobbery against books that either aren’t new enough or old enough to warrant my usual attention. Now I’m ready to make a start on the author’s biography.