sign in sign up
<<
Home , Law and Gospel, Systematic theology

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth1: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Mark A. Seifrid

Mark A. Seifrid is Ernest and Mildred Introduction the more, get involved with Hogan Professor of As evangelical Christians, we profess to the 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 Evangelical Divinity School. afresh if 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 had died for our , and none of us would ever argue that we Christ Our : 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. 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 , 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 , 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 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 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 ? 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 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 ’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 ,” 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 ’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 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. Unhappily, our sinfulness some- human being in my heart! Out of his times expresses itself in fraud, embezzle- own particular theological perspective, ment, robbery, murder, and other crimes. Luther’s fellow-Reformer, Philip Melanch- Obviously, the criminalization of such thon came to speak of a “third use of the behavior is intended to induce conformity Law,” the use of the Law as instruction to the norm through the threat of punish- and as a pattern of life for the regener- ment. Nevertheless, some persons in some ate.11 This category, although extraneous situations cannot keep themselves from to Luther’s understanding of Law and acting in such ways. That does not nor- Gospel, nevertheless can be encompassed mally hinder the development of law. It within it, so long as it is recognized that would hardly be appropriate, for example, the “third use of the Law” in the end is to exempt alcoholics from drunk-driving nothing other than the fi rst and second laws because they may lack the ability uses of the Law at work in the life of the to keep themselves from drinking and believer.12 driving. The Law of God likewise was given because it is right and good: more The Condemning Function on this point in a moment. Secondly, when of the Law a police offi cer has pulled over a driver In the relation of the Law to the Gos- who is obviously intoxicated, the offi cer 58 nevertheless administers certain tests to order to work our healing. that driver. Why should the offi cer ask the person to walk a straight line or attempt The Hermeneutical Signifi cance of to touch their fi nger to their nose, if they the Law/Gospel Distinction can see from the start that the person is For Luther, the distinction between not able to do so? They do so because it Law and Gospel was of such a funda- has to be established openly and publicly mental nature that the ability to draw that the person is intoxicated. The Law the distinction between them determined has the same function. The Lord’s gift of whether or not one was a “theologian,” the Law to Israel, which held the offer of i.e., whether or not one was a Christian: life and blessing to Israel, if Israel would Therefore whoever knows well how only obey it, served to expose Israel’s need to distinguish the Gospel from the for the Lord to make its heart new, so that Law should give thanks to God and Israel would love the Lord, as the Law know that he is a real theologian. I admit that in the time of temptation requires it to do. Yet from the very start, I myself do not know how to do this Israel’s conduct in the wilderness antici- as I should.13 pated its disobedience once it received the Elsewhere he in fact speaks of the commandments (Deut 8:2, 9:7; 29:2-4; 30:1- ability to distinguish between Law and 5). According to Deuteronomy, the Lord Gospel as an “art” which the (and, for that matter, Moses, too) knows alone can work.14 As Luther himself points that Israel is a “stiff-necked” people that out, at the theoretical level, the distinction will rebel against the Lord and his good between demand and gift is not at all Law (Deut 9:6-7). But it was necessary to diffi cult to grasp. But Luther has in view establish the matter openly, so that Israel the practical distinction between God’s itself comes to know its condition: that is one demand and God’s gift that we must of the fundamental lessons of Israel’s his- make in the temptations and trials of life. tory of repeated rebellion, punishment, Although we unfortunately do not have and . Along with Israel, the space to pursue the matter here, the her- Law addresses all human beings with meneutical implications are large. Luther the good and benefi cial demands of God understands the distinction between the Creator, even though we are unable Law and Gospel to be fundamental to to yield the obedience that they require Scripture, so that God speaks to human from us. Our sinfulness is so radical, so beings concerning salvation in the words fundamental to our person, that we are in of Scripture in these two distinct ways. a state of blindness, a sort of drunkenness God’s address to us in these two ways on our own pride (and, sometimes too, in the Scriptures, moreover, is direct. The despair). We cannot see, feel or know our promise of Isa 54:13, that “all your sons sin without a voice from without which will be taught of the Lord” is fulfi lled exposes us for what we are. That is the in the words of Scripture themselves.15 function of the Law, not only at the begin- Interpretation and application cannot ning of the Christian life, but throughout be separated from one another into two our entire earthly journey. God’s Law is distinct acts, but remain together in the like the knife in the hand of the surgeon single act of faith, which grasps what God with which he fi rst must wound us in has done for us in Christ in its signifi cance 59 for the present moment of our life. Other- the pattern that Luther commends to us. wise, the interpretation of Scripture and We begin with prayerful entrance into preaching almost inevitably become the Scripture, continue in meditation on the presentation of ideal (or a warning drawn words of Scripture, and experience the from a pattern of disobedience) that we testing of the Gospel in us, in the trials then are encouraged to follow (or avoid), and temptations of our life.17 As those an image of truth which we are to bring to who believe and therefore already have reality. Naturally, we generally are urged been interpreted by the word of God, to do so “by the power of the Spirit,” and and driven by our trials, we enter into not in our own strength. Nevertheless, Scripture praying that God will open us as the disappointed evangelical sadly to the Scripture and the Scripture to us.18 observed in the citation above, the cruci- That prayer continues through the whole fi ed and risen Christ is now strikingly task of interpretation. absent from such preaching.16 As Christ is absent, so too is the work of the Law, Calvin and the Law/Gospel which calls us to account and judges us, Distinction so that we might know freedom from our We have mentioned already that while sins. Preaching which takes this form the distinction between Law and Gospel does nothing to further Christian living. is present within Reformed thought, it In fact, in so far as it furthers the illusion does not play the same role there as it does that we are basically good and merely in a Lutheran framework. The difference weak, it is detrimental. on this matter goes back to Calvin himself. Needless to say, this approach to Calvin is able to speak of the condemning Scripture calls for a radical revision of function of the Law with the same vigor our usual pattern of thought, according as Luther himself (e.g., Institutes 2.7.1-7). to which we fi rst complete our Yet in his eagerness to resolve the ques- and then seek to apply it to life. Without tion of the unity of Scripture, he speaks in any way calling into question the need of the Law as functioning within a larger for careful, methodical study of the text, of grace that comes to its fulfi ll- we may ask if the model to which we gen- ment in Jesus Christ.19 Apart from grace erally are accustomed properly acknowl- the Law brings death (nuda lex), but seen edges the way in which the Scriptures within its larger setting, in its witness to interpret us before we interpret them. To Christ, the Law does not bring death but imagine that we can sit down with a text serves another purpose (totus lex). Accord- of Scripture, employing certain rules of ing to this perspective, Law and Gospel do study and using the linguistic tools at our not address the believing human being in disposal, determine the meaning of the radically different ways, but only in dif- text and then go on to apply it prayerfully fering degrees according to the measures is to deceive ourselves: we imagine that of “grace” present within them. Within we master the text, when in fact it dis- the Reformed tradition, then, a kind of closes its meaning only as it masters us. If “salvation-history” became the funda- the reformational affi rmation is true that mental paradigm by which to explain Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (“Scripture the difference between Law and Gospel, interprets itself”), then we must follow a “difference” that could become either 60 large or small. Either continuity or discon- have been; tinuity between the Law and the Gospel Only the Gospel can express Forgiving love and cleansing could be stressed. There were times in grace. which the Reformed tradition could approach the Lutheran paradigm, but What curses doth the Law denounce rarely, if ever, do Law and Gospel appear Against the man that fails but there as “words” which are irreconcilable once! But in the Gospel Christ appears this side of glory.20 The embedding of the Pard’ning the guilt of num’rous Law within grace qualifi es its demands: years. while the Law works the death of sinners, My soul, no more attempt to draw it has a different effect on the righteous. Thy life and comfort from the Law; For them the Law is no longer a “hard Fly to the hope the Gospel gives; taskmaster,” who exacts full payment. It The man that trusts the promise lives. rather urges believers on to the goal of their lives, exciting them to obedience. Yet, especially in the wake of the devel- In describing how the regenerate experi- opment of , there was ence the Law, Calvin appeals directly to also a tendency to take up the other side the Scripture psalms, Ps 19 and Ps 119, to of Calvin’s thought, and that in ways of which we shall return below. In itself, of which he would not have approved. The course, the Law is able to impart nothing. conjoining of grace and Law in a single Charged with grace, however, the Law “covenant of grace,” led, for example, to is “of utility to the regenerate” (Institutes the notion within the Church of Scot- 2.7.12-13). Consequently, in his own way land in the late seventeenth and early Calvin takes up Melanchthon’s “third use eighteenth centuries that and of the Law” and makes it the “principal holiness were conditions of the covenant use.” In a manner distinctly different of grace.21 The attempt by the “Marrow from the later , the men” to correct this error led to consid- Law serves fi rst and foremost to instruct erable controversy, including the charge the regenerate. against them of “.”22 As a result, there is a certain instabil- Although it has larger dimensions, the ity within the Reformed tradition on the “,” has been most question of the relationship between fiercely debated within the Reformed Law and Gospel. A few brief examples tradition: here, one might suggest, those will have to suffi ce for illustration. There who see an extreme continuity between are some who draw a sharp distinction the Law and grace have been opposed by between them, as does, for example, Isaac those who recognize a clear distinction Watts in the following hymn: between them (at least with respect to the The Law commands and makes us unregenerate). know Returning to Luther and Calvin, we What duties to our God we owe; may say that there are at least two fun- But ‘tis the Gospel must reveal Where lies our strength to do His damental differences between them on will. the relation of Law and Gospel. In the fi rst place, they differ on the question The Law discovers guilt and sin, And shows how vile our hearts as to where the unity of Scripture is to 61 be found, a question that is profoundly sequently, we require the exhortation and related to God’s identity. Calvin seeks to urging of the Law’s commands, which maintain the unity of Scripture through no longer condemn us but show us God’s a covenantal structure by which the Law goal and purpose for us (Institutes 2.7.12). is encompassed within grace. Although Luther, on the other hand, fi nds within there certainly is a mystery of God’s grace Scripture, especially within the letters of for Calvin, for him the fi nal unity of Scrip- Paul, a radically different picture of the ture is perceptible and rationally available human being. In such passages as Gal to us already on this side of glory. Luther, 5:17-26, “fl esh” and Spirit” do not appear in contrast, while certainly affi rming the there as capacities or qualities of a uni- unity of Scripture, especially as it is mani- fied human person, but two different fest to us in the crucifi ed and risen Christ, descriptions of the whole person. The old, leaves the fi nal resolution of the relation fallen human being in exists along between Law and Gospel hidden in God. with the new creation that God has made The affi rmation of the unity of Scripture us to be in Jesus Christ. We must hasten is a matter of faith, not of sight. These to add that the relationship between the differing approaches to Scripture entail, two is unequal. Our sinful self, which is at least tendentially, differing conceptions incapable of faith and obedience to God, of God. Does grace fi nally serve Law, so has been crucifi ed with Christ (see, e.g., that in the last analysis God appears as Gal 5:24-26; Rom 8:7-8). Although our the Law-giver who in the mystery of elec- fallen person, “the fl esh,” remains pres- tion grants grace in Christ? Or does the ent until the end of our earthly life (Rom Law serve the Gospel, so that in the last 7:24), that fallen existence is present now analysis God appears as absolute Giver, only as a conquered reality. Luther employs who through the “strange” work of the a number of images in order to commu- Law opens the way to his “proper” work nicate this rather diffi cult concept, none in the Gospel, by which he communicates of which captures it fully: we now stand his self-giving love to me, his fallen and at the dawning of the day, so that from condemned creature? Does the mercy of one perspective we stand in the light, yet God point us beyond itself, so that we from another the darkness is still with us; learn to contemplate on God’s majesty? the new life is like Israel’s conquest of the Or does the mercy of God teach us to see, Land, the battle already has been won, yet fi nd, and know the majesty of God only as we must enter in to possess that which it is revealed to us in that mercy? is already ours; the old Adam is like an Luther and Calvin correspondingly outlaw, who once roamed freely wreaking differ in their conception of the human havoc, but now has been placed in chains; being, particularly the regenerate human we have a mortal illness, yet so long as we being, who believes in Christ. As is appar- trust our Physician and remain under his ent from his understanding of the “third care, the illness shall be healed. Underly- use of the Law,” Calvin regards the Law ing all of these images, and distinct from as addressing the believer as a regenerate Calvin’s perspective, is the understand- person. This “” is not fully ing that God deals with sin in the human effective in us, but weak and impeded being, even the regenerate human being, by the “sluggishness” of the fl esh. Con- not by removing sin from the human 62 being, but by removing the human being Luther on the distinction between Law from sin. The Christian life consists in our and Gospel now becomes quite clear. “putting to death” our former self by our Calvin regards regeneration to effect a new self, present in the Spirit who dwells new state within the human being, which in us (Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-17). is partially present and active. The “fl esh” As is the case with Scripture and our likewise is present as a power that exerts understanding of God, so it is with us partial infl uence on us. His conception of for Luther: the unity of our person lies the “third use of the Law” and the primacy outside of us in Jesus Christ. We grasp it that he assigns to it are bound up with this now by faith, but it is only in the resur- understanding of the human being. The rection that it shall become visible.23 Until most important function of the Law lies then, we still live within the experience of in its speaking to us as regenerate persons, the wretched person of Rom 7:24. At the urging us onward to the goal that lies same time, in faith, like Paul, in the same before us. In speaking to the regenerate, breath we joyfully offer to God the shout the Law has lost its condemning function: of thanksgiving found in Rom 7:25: he has it no longer works our death, but only fur- delivered us from our old self “through thers the new life which is partially pres- Jesus Christ, our Lord.” In so far as we are ent in us already. Luther, as we have seen, led by the Spirit, we no longer need Law fi nds a radically different anthropology in or instruction: the Spirit produces fruit in Scripture. The old, fallen creature exists as us, just as a healthy tree produces its fruit a whole alongside the new creature, who without any commandments or instruc- is likewise a whole. The picture of the tion. That is the sense of Paul’s description human being is either darkness or light, of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Gal 5:22-23: without any shading of tones. There is no “against such things, there is no Law!” It “intermediate state” in which we receive is of critical importance, of course, that we instruction but escape condemnation. In do not imagine that we have rid ourselves so far as the Law deals with our salvation of “the fl esh” or that it is even possible to (and does not merely guide our outward do so in this life. We cannot remove sin conduct), it pronounces our condemna- from our hearts, we must learn to daily tion. The Law speaks to us, even to us who overcome it by the Gospel. That means, are regenerate, as fallen human beings. Being of course, that we must also hear God’s a Christian means again and again, in all demands in all their force, so that they the trials and temptations of life, hearing expose not merely our sin and guilt (as if and believing the Gospel which over- they were extrinsic to us), but us in our sin comes the condemnation pronounced on and guilt. Only in this painful yet neces- us by the Law and by our own consciences sary look in the mirror of the Law do we in which that Law is written. In so far as see ourselves in such a way that we grasp we are grasped by the Gospel and live by the Gospel.24 The Law remains absolutely faith, we live beyond the Law. essential to the Christian life, even though properly speaking it operates outside the Three Objections to Luther’s new life that is given to us in Christ. Understanding of the Especially with respect to the human Law/Gospel Relation being, the difference between Calvin and There are at least three fundamental 63 questions—or, really, objections—which the moment, it is useful to glance briefl y at Luther’s understanding of Law and Gospel the Scripture psalms, which seem to many regularly raises. First, is this understand- interpreters to be at odds with Paul’s own ing of Law and Gospel, which appears experience of the Law as he describes it most directly with the apostle Paul, in Rom 7, at least if we understand him to confi rmed or undermined by the rest of speak of an aspect of his life as a believer. Scripture? Does it allow for progress and But is that the case? Psalm 119 strikingly growth in the Christian life, or are we not ends on the same note as Rom 7:24: “I left in a sort of ethical paralysis? Must not have gone astray like a lost sheep. Seek preaching which follows this paradigm your servant! For I do not forget your become repetitive and mechanical, so that word” (Ps 119:176). The whole psalm is it becomes a bit like an exercise-wheel on summarized in this closing statement. which a hamster runs? Obviously, the fi rst The one who delights in the Law of God, question in particular requires a much who recounts it, meditates on it day and lengthier answer than we can supply here. night, and clings to it, nevertheless does But perhaps we can trace a few lines of not yet know it in his heart and experi- thought that may prove helpful. ence, and repeatedly appeals to the Lord Does the distinction between Law and to teach him. As he implicitly confesses Gospel run through Scripture? One might in the opening of the psalm, his ways begin in Gen 1, where both human exis- are not yet “established” in keeping the tence and the entire creation (including Lord’s statutes. He still is ashamed when the commandment concerning the tree of he considers them (Ps 119:5-8). In view the knowledge of good and evil) appear of these petitions and the closing of the as unmerited gifts of God the Creator, psalm, there is good reason, contrary to and the will of God later expressed in the usual practice, to render the whole of Ps Law is already present within the heart of 119:9 as a question: “How shall a young the human being: the Gospel opens the man purify his way? How shall he keep door to paradise again, so that we know, it according to your word?” This petition see, and give thanks to the Creator for recurs in varying forms, as the psalmist his gifts.25 We might then turn, as Paul looks beyond the Law to the Lord, whom does, to the saving work of the Creator in he asks to teach, instruct, and revive him his unconditioned promise to Abraham, (e.g., Ps 119:12, 18, 25-26, 29, etc.). The con- which not only came before the Sinai dition of the psalmist is not essentially covenant, but in its unconditionality, different from that of the believing Paul, stands apart from it as distinct. Or we who likewise delights in the Law of God, might turn to the , in but fi nds a different Law at work in him which Jesus simultaneously sharpens the that makes him a prisoner of sin. What demands of the Law and announces its the psalmist sought from the Lord (and fulfi llment in his own person. This latter undoubtedly in faith received) is found, text is of particular relevance, since here it Paul with joy announces, in the crucifi ed becomes clear, as Luther recognized, that and risen Christ (Rom 7:25). In Ps 19, too, the does not abrogate the the psalmist, even after his exalted praise Law, but brings it to fulfi llment outside of of the Law which “refreshes the soul” us in Jesus Christ. Yet for our purposes at (i.e., brings refreshment and delight to 64 the heart; Ps 19:7), confesses that a saving ine, and fi nally consist in the desire to do work of God beyond the Law is necessary in away with God and to possess that which his heart: “Who can discern (their) errors? properly belongs to our neighbor. This Make me innocent of hidden sins. . . . Then sin, in all its various forms, repeatedly I shall be blameless and innocent of great requires the mirror of the Law to expose transgression” (Ps 19:11-13). Admittedly, it. It is this encounter with the command- Ps 1 lacks this element of confession. But ment of God that brings Paul to see the the shadow of the cross lies across this awful truth about himself, and which he psalm: who among us can claim to be that describes in Rom 7. In the hand of God, person here and now? As the psalm itself the Law exposes our sin not in order that suggests in its promise that “his leaf does we might despair, but in order that we not wither,” the path of the righteous one see and believe what he has done for us whom it describes leads through testing in Christ, as, again, Paul himself does in and trial on its way to the “season” of Rom 7:25. Without in the least detracting fruit (Ps 1:1-6). These brief refl ections by from our conversion, we must not imag- no means answer the larger question as ine that the turn from unbelief to faith is to how the distinction between Law and behind us and complete. It lies before us Gospel fi ts the whole of Scripture. But at every moment. perhaps they provide some hints. But where does progress lie in this Second, does the distinction between encounter with the Law? Admittedly, Law and Gospel represent a sort of this perspective robs “progress” of its defeatism that leads to laxity in Christian ultimacy. The goal and end of the Chris- living? Undoubtedly, when it is loosed tian life is given to us already at its begin- from its biblical moorings, it can lead to ning in Jesus Christ. But this displacing this result, as Luther himself was aware. of “progress” from its place of primacy Yet the alternative, which supposes that prevents us from taking upon ourselves the regenerate merely need instruction burdens that we were never meant to bear. in their sluggishness and not the radical We “progress” in that we progress into remedy of the Gospel is the more danger- that which already is given and done for ous thought. Here it is appropriate to point us by God in Christ. That is the sense, for yet again to Rom 7. We fail miserably to example, of Paul’s image of being clothed understand Paul if we imagine him to be with Christ. Christ has become ours (and telling us that we should simply surrender we his) at the start of the Christian life in to our sins and wallow in the misery of faith and (Gal 3:27-29). Yet Paul them. That is not how the deceptiveness also exhorts mature believers to “put on of sin works. We generally are insensate the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14). He is to the sins operating in our hearts and not playing some strange mental game. lives: “The heart is desperately perverse We have Christ, and yet we must more and incurably ill, who can understand fully enter into the experience of having him: it?” (Jer 17:9). The sins of which we are the word of God has be tested in our heart aware, dangerous though they may be, and lives. We must taste it. As Paul tells are not the most dangerous ones. These the Philippians, progress in the Christian hidden faults are more deeply rooted in life is progress in faith, in which we more our person and being than we can imag- fully grasp that which is already given to 65 us (Phil 1:25; 3:8-11). That progress in faith us. While form and order of presentation is a turning again and again away from may vary, the preaching of the Law would unbelief and to God in faith as he gives be incomplete and perverted without the himself to us in the Gospel. Our progress clear announcement of the Gospel, God’s is not progress away from the cross and unconditioned gift of himself to us in resurrection of Christ, as common think- Jesus Christ. As Luther underscored, the ing about sanctifi cation would lead us to preaching of the Gospel is not merely the think (as if we were working ourselves preaching of Christ in a general way, but away from needing Christ), our progress the preaching of Christ for you and for me. is progress into the cross and resurrection If we are to avoid useless abstraction and of Christ. We enter more deeply into the generalities, this “for you and for me” beginning of our Christian life rather than must also be quite specifi c: it must, so to becoming ever more distant from it. Is it speak, name us as those persons whom the any wonder that Christians, especially Scriptures confronts with their sins here older, more mature Christians never tire and now, in our concrete circumstances. of singing about the cross? As Nathan once confronted David, it must That brings us fi nally to the question say to us, “You are the one!” (2 Sam 12:7). of preaching Law and Gospel. If Luther is Then, as those whom the Law concretely right, as I think he is, we will never mas- and defi nitely condemns, we may hear ter this art here on earth. We desperately the Gospel afresh that gives us life and need the Holy Spirit to teach us how to makes us new creatures. Then, faith in “rightly divide the word of truth.” One the Gospel means quite concrete acts in matter is certain: this preaching cannot our hearts and lives, that only the Holy rest with mere abstractions or doctrinal Spirit, not the preacher, can communicate formulas. Those who gather as a church to us. Then, we must ask, as Paul himself for worship often (but not always!) did, “Who is suffi cient for these things?” already know and confess that they are And then, finally, we may echo Paul’s “sinners” in need of grace. What they confi dent answer. need, and what those need who do not feel themselves to be sinners, is the careful, ENDNOTES gentle, yet direct exposure of their sins, 1The expression (“show yourself a corporately and individually: not merely worker”) orthotomounta ton logon tēs the faults of our society or problems in alētheias describes the proper ministry of our culture, not merely sinful activities, the divine word, i.e., not merely exegesis although now more than ever pastors or interpretation, picturing it as walking have to confront churches with what or cutting a straight path in the face of the Scriptures teach about our created useless, yet popular distractions and sexuality, but fi nally the root sins of self- heresies (cf. LXX Prov 3:6; 11:5). In con- seeking, pride, lust, envy, greed by which text, this “word of truth,” the “word of we deny God and mistreat one another. God” is clearly equivalent to the gospel The “practical atheism” which infects our of the crucifi ed and risen Christ, who is daily lives without our seeing it must be the seed of David (2 Tim 2:8-13). exposed and judged so that we see afresh 2The distinction is implicit in the words precisely what it is that Christ has done for of the risen Christ to the disciples on 66 the Emmaus road (Luke 24:25-27) and the one without the other. Therefore, on the evening of the day of the resur- what Emser calls the letter and death is, in reality, nothing but the veil, rection (Luke 24:44-49). The whole of the harmful misunderstanding of the Scripture is fulfi lled in his suffering the letter, and the damnable fl ight from this blessed death. and resurrection, to which the Law of Moses indeed bears witness, but from See , Luther’s Works, Vol. 39: which it is distinguished as a body of Church and Ministry I (ed. J. Pelikan, H. requirements (e.g., Luke 2:2:22; 16:19; Oswald and H. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Acts 13:38-39; 15:1-21). Fortress, 1999, c1970), 185. 3The words come from a woman in an 8The Law, which also enjoins love of African village, who was asked by her neighbor (Lev 19:18), thus bears an neighbors why she read only the Bible, internal tension which points forward see Hans Rudi Weber, The Book that Reads to Jesus’s teaching (e.g., Matt 5:21-26) Me (Geneva: WCC, 1995). and work. 4Craig A. Parton, The Defense Never Rests: 9The Law refl ects the that, A Lawyer’s Quest for the Gospel (St.Louis: however obscured, is already written Concordia, 2003), 18. I discovered the on the human heart (Rom 2:12-16). While citation through John T. Pless, Handling this natural law is to be understood the Word of Truth: Law and Gospel in the as universal (and not, for example, in Church Today (St. Louis: Concordia, terms of something like a nationalistic, 2004), 56. German Volksnomos), the Law given to 5The statement comes from the mature Israel retains its priority above all other Luther (1542). I have drawn it in slightly cultural expressions of natural law (Deut altered form from Martin Luther, Luther’s 4:5-8), an observation relevant to Chris- Works, Vol. 54: (ed. J. Pelikan, H. tian preaching and . Oswald and H. Lehmann; Philadelphia: 10See especially Oswald Bayer, Martin Fortress, 1999, c1967), 442. Luthers Theologie: eine Vergegenwärtigung 6Scott R. Murphy (Law, Life, and the Living (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), God: the Third Use of the Law in Modern 134-38. American [St. Louis: Concor- 11Now it is not God who uses the Law, dia, 2002]) takes up the outworkings of but the human being! See Timothy J. these sorts of debates. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Mel- 7As, for example, in Luther’s mocking anchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of reply to Emser’s interpretation Eisleben Over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: of “the Spirit” and “the letter,” which Baker, 1997). retains its validity for certain current 12The Formula of Concord, Epitome, VI readings of Paul: nicely walks a very fi ne line, preserving Therefore, it is impossible for some- Luther’s position while allowing for a one who does not fi rst hear the law certain understanding of a tertius usus and let himself be killed by the letter, to hear the gospel and let the grace legis, in the wake of the debates that had of the Spirit bring him to life. Grace broken out on the matter. is only given to those who long for 13Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: it. Life is a help only to those who are dead, grace only to sin, the Spirit Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 only to the letter. No one can have (ed. J. Pelikan, H. Oswald and H. Lehm- 67 ann; St. Louis: Concordia 1999, ture by means of temporal distinctions. tion plays a prominent role, is most c1963), 115. It may therefore be regarded as a fully accessible to English-speakers 14Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. radicalized form of the Reformed at the moment in the summarizing 54: Table Talk (ed. J. Pelikan, H. approach, despite its obvious dis- work of Mark Mattes, The Role of Oswald and H. Lehmann; Phila- tinctives. The strictly temporal Justifi cation in Contemporary Theology delphia: Fortress, 1999, c1967), 125 “solution” had to be revised because (Lutheran Quarterly Books; Grand (No. 1234). of early errors (such as the idea Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 145-73. 15See John 6:45; 1 Thess 4:9. that Old Testament were 16Bonhoeffer found only this kind saved through the Law), yet even of preaching. In part, this experi- in its revised forms this reading ence led to his agreement with the tends to separate Law and Gospel thesis of Thomas Cunning Hall (in rather than (properly) distinguishing a manner that the author did not between them. Again in this case, intend) that American the attempt to explain the unity represents “ without of Scripture fully here and now Reformation.” See Dietrich Bon- results in a hermeneutic that rests hoeffer, Barcelona, Berlin, Amerika: in a temporal scheme rather than 1928-1931 (ed. Reinhardt Staats; solely in the incarnate, crucifi ed and Werke, Vol. 10; risen Christ. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1991), 270-71, 21See James B. Torrance, “Covenant or 276-77. Contract? A Study of the Theological 17See, e.g., the well-known pref- Background of Worship in Seven- ace to the Wittenberg edition of teenth-Century Scotland,” Scottish Luther’s works (19539): Martin Journal of Theolgy 23 (1970): 51–76. Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34: Career 22The Lutheran reformation had of the Reformer IV (ed. J. Pelikan, H. already been forced to deal with Oswald and H. Lehmann: Philadel- this issue in Agricola’s controversy phia: Fortress, 1999, c1960), 282-87. with Melanchthon, and then again 18As my own pastor, Chuck Fuller, in a similar manner after Luther’s often rightly prays before preach- death. ing. 23This is the emphasis above all 19Karl Barth, who was primarily con- else of the work of Rudolf Her- cerned with itself rather mann. See his Luthers These »Gerecht than Scripture, then brings all of und Sünder Zugleich«: Eine System- God’s dealings with the created atische Untersuchung (Gütersloh: C. order within the circumference of Bertelsmann/“Der Rufer” Evange- God’s gracious dealings in Jesus lischer Verlag: Hermann Werner Christ. Nachfolger, 1930). 20Although other factors were at 24Calvin very nicely describes the work in it, , par- Law as a mirror in this sense. Yet ticularly in its early form, may be he restricts its use in this way to the regarded as an attempt to recapture unregenerate in Institutes 2.7.7. the sharp distinction between Law 25The work of Oswald Bayer, in which and Gospel that one fi nds in Scrip- the creational dimension of justifi ca- 68