Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth1: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel Mark A. Seifrid Mark A. Seifrid is Ernest and Mildred Introduction the Bible more, get involved with Hogan Professor of New Testament As evangelical Christians, we profess to the church more, love my wife and kids more. Not until . some 20 Interpretation at The Southern Baptist be committed fi rst and foremost to the years later, did I understand that Theological Seminary. He has served proclamation and preservation of the my Christian life had come to center around my life, my obedience, my as Visiting Lecturer at Wheaton College Gospel. Yet it is worth asking ourselves yielding, my Bible verse memori- and at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. afresh if the Gospel truly has grasped zation, my prayers, my zeal, my Along with several dozen articles, Dr. our hearts and lives. Indeed, that is the witnessing, and my sermon appli- cation. I had advanced beyond the Seifrid is the author of Justifi cation by essence of being a Christian. Whether need to hear the cross preached to Faith: The Origin and Development of a we fi nd ourselves discouraged by failure me anymore. Of course, we all knew Central Pauline Theme (Brill, 1992) and or elated by success, we must again and that Jesus had died for our sins, and none of us would ever argue that we Christ Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theol- again grasp the word of the Law and were trying to “merit” salvation. But ogy of Justifi cation (InterVaristy, 2001). the word of the Gospel in their distinc- something had changed. God was In addition, he has also co-edited (with tion from one other. This distinction is a Father all right, but a painfully demanding one. I was supposed D. A. Carson and Peter T. O’Brien) the not a truth which may quietly rest in an to show that I had cleaned up my two-volume Justifi cation And Variegated outline of systematic theology, but bears life and was at least grateful for all the gifts that had been bestowed. Nomism (Baker 2001, 2004), and (with fundamental hermeneutical implications. The Gospel was critical for me Randall Tan) the bibliographic work The Through this distinction the Bible offers at the beginning, critical now to Pauline Writings (Baker, 2002). its own interpretation,2 and does not share with others, and still critical to get me into heaven, but it was of remain merely a book that I read, but is little other value. The “evangel” in “the book that reads me.”3 Evangelicalism was missing.4 In this light, it is worthwhile to listen to the complaint—in all its length—that Would this person’s experience have at least one disappointed Christian has been any different at any other evangeli- voiced concerning his own experience of cal church? How many of our churches an evangelical church: truly live up to the name “evangelical”? Should the Gospel be reserved only for I experienced what happens when the beginning of the Christian life, or an Law and Gospel are not under- stood and thus not distinguished. invitation at the close of the sermon? Is My Christian life, truly begun by the hymn by Charlotte Elliott, “Just As I grace, was now being “perfected” Am?” to be reserved merely for evange- on the treadmill of the Law. My pastors did not end their sermons by listic crusades? Or is it for the daily life of demanding that I recite the rosary every Christian? If this hymn and others or visit Lourdes this week in order to unleash God’s power; instead, I like it become part of our daily thought was told to yield more, pray more, and life, are we resigning ourselves to care about unbelievers more, read weakness and defeatism—an impotent 56 faith that brings no growth? in the Old Testament or the New, or writ- Before we take up these questions, a ten in the heart of the human being by the brief confession is necessary. I omitted a Creator. Yet as Luther’s own usage shows, brief, but central element of Craig Parton’s this summary category contains plenty of story: it was as, he says, he “came to the room for both the variety of biblical terms Lutheran Reformation,” that he was able that describe God’s will for human con- to see his way through the faults of the duct and for its own fulfi llment outside teaching to which he had been exposed. itself in Jesus Christ. Although it is not entirely absent from A protest often already arises at this the Reformed tradition, the insistence point, especially from Old Testament on a sharp distinction between Law scholars: “the Law was an expression of and Gospel is much more characteristic God’s grace given only after the Lord’s of Lutheran thought. As an all-to-brief deliverance of Israel in the Exodus, as a introduction to this topic, it is worth trac- gift to his people.” Apart from a neces- ing some of the historical lines of thought sary qualifi cation as to what is meant by centered upon the interpretation of Scrip- “grace” in such a protest, Luther most ture as Law and Gospel. Naturally, we can likely would have gladly agreed with only touch on the surface of matters that it—and nevertheless insisted that Law require discussion in considerable histori- and Gospel must be kept as far apart cal and theological depth. Yet perhaps it is from one another as “heaven and earth.” possible to provide a basic orientation. Although it is not without its resonance in Reformed theology, as we shall see, The Law/Gospel Distinction this protest now often represents a reac- It was Luther who not only fi rst formu- tion against a Kantian (or neo-Kantian) lated this distinction, but also associated rejection of external moral constraints.6 it with his very conversion and reforma- The protest is legitimate as such, but it tional discovery: entirely misses Luther’s point. Scholars also are prone to speak of “negative” and I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and “positive” statements about the Law in the righteousness of the gospel. I Paul’s letters. But these categories, too, lacked nothing before this except represent little other than a Kantian hang- that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded over. For Luther, as for Paul before him, both as the same thing and held that even in its strange, condemning work, the there was no difference between Law serves the proper and good purpose Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of God. For this reason, Luther speaks of perfection. But when I discovered rightly of “the blessed death” worked by the proper distinction, namely, that 7 the law is one thing and the gospel the Law. We shall return to this matter is another I broke through.5 further below. It is important to observe fi rst of all For Luther, “Law” expresses God’s that Luther, along with other Reform- demand on us in all its clarity and as a ers, recognized that the Law appears in result condemns us and delivers us over more than one “function” (or “offi ce”) to death. He uses the term “Law” as an within the Scriptures. It quickly becomes overarching description of God’s demand apparent in the Decalogue, for example, on us, whether that demand is expressed 57 that the Law reckons with the presence pel, we are fi rst and foremost concerned of evil in the human heart. Although it with the condemning function of the provides no means by which that evil may Law, much as Paul was in his letter to the be removed, it does pronounce injunc- Galatians. That condemning function, it tions by which evil may be curbed. The must be pointed out, does not at all entail commandments, “You shall not murder,” the idea that the Law is evil. Admittedly, and “You shall not commit adultery,” pre- for Luther the Law becomes the tool of suppose that hatred and lust reside in the sin and of the devil, who works sin and human heart.8 In a signifi cant measure, despair in us through it. Nevertheless, the these and other prohibitions (and threats) Law remains in God’s hand, just as sin and of the Law prevent human beings from the devil also remain ultimately in God’s acting upon those evil desires.9 While the hand. In the light of the Gospel it becomes fallen world is not thereby tamed, the Law clear that the Law has a “strange,” but serves to preserve human society and to necessary purpose. As Paul tells us, evil further its natural development as God’s lies not in the Law, but within me (Rom creation, even in its fallen condition.10 7:14-25). It is for this reason that the Law This divinely-ordained function of the condemns me. Law came to be known as the “fi rst” or Yet another objection regularly arises: “political” use of the Law (usus civilis). It “why would God give a Law that no one is not to be confused with the “second” or can fulfi ll?” We may respond with two “condemning” function of the Law, which observations on the usual function of civil serves God’s larger saving purpose (usus law. In the fi rst place, in making laws, the theologicus). Simply because I refrain from primary question is not whether human murder under threat of punishment, does beings will be able to keep those laws, but not mean that I have been forgiven and whether the laws are just and benefi cial for redeemed from the evil of hating another society.