3 Reasons the Law/Gospel Distinction is Not a Law.

Jesse Johnson continues the topic of the Law/Gospel distinction and outlines 3 areas of concern.

Yesterday I reviewed the basics of the Law/Gospel distinction central to covenantal hermeneutics, and I noted a few reasons why I generally find it a helpful distinction to make. But today I want to explain why—although I often find the Law/Gospel approach to scripture useful—I do not adopt this approach as a hermeneutical principle that can be applied to every passage.

I have three reasons why I don’t see the Law/Gospel distinction as foundational to hermeneutics:  

1. To force all passages of Scripture into either the category of Law or Gospel goes beyond what is written

While the distinction between Law/Gospel (or imperative/indicative) is helpful conceptually, there are simply too many passages of Scripture that don’t neatly fit into one category or the other, and the system can quickly become imposed on the text rather than come from the text. It’s unclear to me, for example, if prophecy would be considered Law or Gospel. In what sense does historical narrative fit this grid? Does Manasseh’s life show the punishment that awaits those that fail to keep God’s law (Law), or does it show the forgiveness that God gives based on faith alone (Gospel)? Which part is which? What about the death of Ananias and Sapphira? God did that, right there in a gospel-centered church and everything. Which column does that get placed in?

In other words, not every passage fits into one or the other category. I appreciate the principle, but in practice the attempt to apply the principle to every passage presents an artificial burden that simply wasn’t intended by the original author. The Law/Gospel distinction is helpful precisely because it constantly reminds you that you cannot keep the commands of the Bible perfectly, and God does not expect you to. Instead, he forgives your failures. That is true and helpful. But then to go beyond that principle and insist that the first step to interpreting any passage is to categorize it as either Law or Gospel takes the concept too far, and makes the distinction more of a hindrance than a help.

2. Some passages turn the Law/Gospel concept on its head.

Here I’m thinking of Moses on the mountain and the Law he brought down with him. The gathering at the base of the mountain, the fear, the trembling, the thunder, the whirlwind, and the earth quake are all indicatives, but are they Gospel? “Indeed, so terrifying was the voice that spoke that even Moses trembled with fear.” This certainly was not received as goodnews.

But then Moses got the Law. God ended the ambiguity of how Israel was to live, and for the first time in recorded history, God revealed in written form exactly what he required of his people. This is all Law, yet it is also good news. But if there is ever Law that is simultaneously Gospel, this system stops having any kind of universal effect.

Two more examples are pertinent to me. What about the sacrificial laws in the Torah? Certainly they are all imperatives, and should be categorized as Law. But they all so obviously point to Jesus, that even in those commands are the good news of the gospel. In the NT, the similar problem exists with baptism. It is a command, but it is also a glaring reminder of the gospel. In all these examples, the laws are so flagrantly Gospel, and the indicatives are so obviously bad news, that the distinction becomes convoluted.

I have interacted with many who hold to the Law/Gospel distinction who have a difficult time saying “how happy are those who live according to Yahweh’s law” (Psalm 119:1). They have to give lots of disclaimers before they would ever say something like, “Open my eyes so that I may behold wonderful things in your law” (v. 18). If you ever trick them into saying “I will always keep your law, forever and ever” (v. 44), they immediately follow it with an explanation about how that is actually referring to the gospel, because nobody can keep God’s law. And when I look confused about how a verse that uses the word law is actuallyGospel, and not Law at all, they imply that the problem is with me, rather than with their system.

This works the opposite way as well. In the NT, preaching the gospel is intricately connected to the call of repentance. What the Gospel authors call “the gospel” is often expressly linked to imperatives (eg. Mark 1:1-3), and thus the distinction between indicatives as Gospel and imperatives as Law seems contrived. Moreover, if the consequences for disobedience fall under the category of “Law,” what of verses like Romans 2:16, which describes “the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus”? So there are places in the OT where the word “Law” is used and it is connected to forgiveness and indicatives, and there are places in the NT where the word “gospel” is used, and it is connected to judgment and coupled with imperatives. At the very least, those kind of examples (and there are many) demonstrate that the Law/Gospel distinction is not as absolute as its proponents make it sound.

3. Some proponents of the system have a difficult time being clear when it comes to how Law affects believers.

I’ve heard and read several proponents of this distinction argue that pastors shouldn’t call people to obey straightforward biblical commands (aka “Law”), and that rather than calling people to obedience, pastors should call Christians to realize they can’t obey. They argue that preachers need to realize challenging people to obey imperatives will cause them to trust in their own strength for sanctification and ultimately turn them into a Pharisee. Instead, the key to sanctification is to simply trust more in the gospel. Which, in one sense, is absolutely true. But in another sense, can be very confusing.

Let me illustrate with a simple, practical, real world example: Imagine a Christian who is tempted to look at sinful things on-line. Now pretend you are allowed to talk to him in his moment of struggle. Do you say to him, “flee sexual immorality! Are you crazy? Run Away! God tells you to, and he wants what is best for you, so RUN!”

Or do you say, “you need to recognize that you are unable to flee from sexual immorality, so instead think about what Jesus did for you: he fled from sexual immorality perfectly, and your failure to do so was placed on him. Now through faith His Spirit dwells with you, and so your contentment is in Christ, and thus acting on your temptation would show a lack of appreciation for and a lack of contemplation of the substitutionary death of Jesus. Think about it.”

I have talked to many people who hold this Law/Gospel distinction as if it were, well…law, and it has often struck me how unwilling they are to encourage people to obey God simply because God commands them to. Instead, their pleas for sanctification often get very complex and convoluted, to the point where it seems they are simply unable to call Christians to flee from sin like the Bible commands them to. They ironically become very man-centered, and search for the key to sanctification internally (realizing what God has done for you) rather than as an overflow of simple obedience to the creator of the universe.

The thing is, there are different kinds of people, and both of those above approaches have their place, depending on the person, and the amount of time you have for the conversation. In the above example, both of those responses are true, and both can be helpful. But I insist that the first of those two responses is quite clear, does not lead to someone becoming a works-righteous Pharisee who trusts in his own strength for sanctification; rather, it is a biblical and loving thing to say to someone at that moment. Further, if you find yourself unable to look a brother in the eye and say “flee from sexual immorality” because your hermeneutical grid is giving you problems, it is probably time to take a step back from your copy of Berkhof.

Finally…

In considering these three concerns with the Law/Gospel system (it goes beyond what is written, some passages turn the distinction on its head, and it can lead to confusion about sanctification), I conclude that the Law/Gospel distinction is not absolute, and cannot be applied as a hermeneutical grid to all passages in a consistent way. This does not mean that I reject the system in its entirety. As I pointed out, I find much that is helpful with it, and when it is understood in a balanced way, this division is quite helpful in our fight against sin. But when a system has to push and shove passages to get them to fit, it is a warning that it has gone too far.

And that is probably the best lesson to take from this discussion; when any hermeneutical principle becomes a rule that does not jibe with the point of a particular passage, the rule has outlived its usefulness. That doesn’t mean the rule was misguided. Rather, it is a reminder that all hermeneutics are limited by their effectiveness. Hermeneutics serve the passage, and the temptation is ever present to reverse that relationship.

What is the Law/Gospel Distinction?

Jesse Johnson over at The Cripplegate has some good thoughts on this. I will post, later, his concerns about trying to squeeze every verse into this mold. He clarifies what it meas, fairly well, I think.

At the center of covenantal hermeneutics is the distinction between Law and Gospel. If a dispensationalist cannot explain his hermeneutics without using the phrase “literal, historical, and grammatical,” a covenentalist cannot explain his hermeneutics without describing the Law/Gospel distinction.

These two hermeneutical grids are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, both are largely true. This post is not going to pit them against each other, as much as it will explain what is meant by the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Understanding this approach to scripture is extremely beneficial, because at its core is a constant reminder about the power of the gospel. When the Law/Gospel distinction is appreciated, it is a powerful aide to sanctification.    

This hermeneutical approach begins by essentially splitting all scripture into one of two categories: Law or Gospel. It is at this point that many dispensationalists get confused. When we hear the word “law” we can’t help ourselves: we immediately interrupt and ask: “Which Law? The Law of Moses? The law on our hearts? The Law of Christ? What law are we talking about here?” And when we hear the word gospel,  we think of Jesus’ sinless life, substitutionary death, and victorious resurrection.

Check those definitions at the door—you can pick them back up again when you leave. For the sake of the Law/Gospel hermeneutic, Law refers to the commands of the Bible. The imperatives. When the scriptures command you to do something, that is Law. In both the Old and New Testaments, any imperative is understood as Law. Meanwhile, any description of what God has done is Gospel. Those are the indicatives.

Rod Rosenbalt (a theology prof at Concordia—yes, they have those there—and a co-host with Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn) defines Law as anytime “God gives orders and tells us what will happen if we fail to obey those orders perfectly.” All the imperatives of the Torah are obviously Law. But so are commands concerning baptism, being unequally yoked, showing partiality toward the rich, and all the rest. Those are the imperatives. Paul commanding Timothy to bring him his winter coat? Law.

And of course Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection are properly referred to as Gospel. But so are any statements about what God has done. Jesus walking on the water? Gospel. Peter healing the beggar? Gospel. Any indicative—anything that has happened—that is Gospel. Timothy arriving with previously aforementioned coat? Gospel.

This system helps sanctification by continually reminding you that you can’t keep the Law. God’s commands were not given to you so that you could earn favor with him by doing them, but were instead given to you to show you how to live, and to remind you of your sin. Conversely, everything God has done, he has done with the aim of reconciling sinners to himself in Christ. He forgives us through the gospel for our failure to keep his law. Rightly understood, even passages of law become encouragement to the soul, not because they are burdensome, but rather because they are continual reminders of the forgiveness we have in Christ.

Together, the concepts of Law/Gospel are easy enough to understand. Where it becomes a hermeneutical system is when you realize that in covenantal hermeneutics, all scripture fits into one of these two categories. Theodore Beza famously wrote:

 “We divide this word into two principle parts: the one is called the Law, the other theGospel. For all the rest can be gathered under the one or the other of these two headings.”

Ursinus (the main architect of the Heidelberg Catechism) wrote that the Law/Gospel distinction is “the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures…and the chief and general divisions of the Holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein.”

It is important to recognize that for those holding this hermeneutic, the distinction is absolute. Calvin, Luther, Beza, Ursinus, and others all repeatedly warn of the errors of confusing passages of Law with passages of Gospel. Calvin says that preaching that does not make this distinction will confuse listeners, and would be unable to give rest to the consciences of the congregants. Spurgeon (who also appears to have held to this distinction), wrote:

“There is no place on which men make greater mistakes then on the relations which exists between the law and the gospel…A certain class maintains that the law and gospel are mixed. These men understand not the truth and are false teachers” (You can read that entire sermon here).

Understanding the Law/Gospel distinction is not academic. Rather, it is a powerful aide in sanctification. There are far too many inside of churches who prove Spurgeon’s words true. They failed to be crushed by the law, and so they fail to see the greatness of the gospel. Also, I’ve found that the best counsel I can give a Christian who is overly introspective (the person who is continually doubting their salvation because they don’t think they have been changedenough, or they don’t think they are holy enough) is to walk them through this distinction. It is enormously freeing to remember that the commands of the Bible are not given to save us, and that if we trust in our obedience for our salvation we are destined for failure and disappointment.  It is foolish to trust in obedience to God’s law to save us, and it is equally foolish to trust in it after our conversion.

And this is exactly the strength of this approach. It helps us understand the greatness of the gospel by constantly reminding us of the centrality of what God has done for us. Today, there is gospel-centered everything (parenting, sports, missions, church, music, etc.). Well, this is gospel-centered hermeneutics. It puts at the core of Bible study the basic question: “does this verse teach me something I can’t do perfectly and have been forgiven for failing to keep, or does this verse show me what God has done to save me from my sins?”

The other aspect of the Law/Gospel distinction that I find helpful: it articulates my objections to all the other gospel-centered advice. Horton, who is the most able defender of the Law/Gospel distinction today, writes this:

“We often hear calls to ‘live the Gospel,’ and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to ‘live the Gospel.’ Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God’s favor from the one and God’s guidance from the other.”

So, I hope its clear that I appreciate the Law/Gospel distinction, and I find it quite helpful in my personal battle against sin and in helping others in their fight as well.

Tomorrow I’ll post some of my concerns with this system. I’ll explain where I see it falling short, and why I ultimately do not end up persuaded that it is a distinction that should be on the ground-floor of one’s hermeneutics. If you want to do some more reading on this, I suggest Michael Horton’s explanation of the hermenutic here, and it pairs nicely with Frank Turk’s open letter to Horton here.

The Law/Gospel Rant

by Michael Spencer
From July 2009

NOTE: Despite the fact that this post is law, you should still read it 

I want to talk about a specific problem in preaching and teaching: the problem of preferring law over Gospel.

I consider the primary problem with preaching and teaching in my Southern Baptist tradition these days to be an obsession with (or addiction to?) preaching the “law.” To put it mildly, it’s brutal out there. In many churches and ministries, you’re getting clubbed into putty with the law and hearing slightly less Gospel than what you’d get in fifteen minutes of country music, all courtesy of a preacher who has no excuse not to know better.

I’m using the simple Lutheran “law/Gospel” division here: all of scripture is either what God commands/demands under penalty or what he promises/provides freely by grace. This is law and Gospel. “Do” or “Done.” Moses or Jesus. God the accountant older brother or God the Father of the Prodigal. Advice or announcement. Sinai or the cross. Threat or comfort. Blessing or curse. You do it or else. God did and praise.

If you get this, Luther said, you are a theologian even without the degree. So if you don’t know this, learn it, and if ou learn it, use it. Go to New Reformation Press and get you some Rod Rosenbladt or, if you’re up for it, the book by Walther. (Lutherans can make suggestions for the rest of us on this.)

There’s a lot to discuss with this topic, because I believe genuine discipleship, which has aspects of law to it, grows out of and lives in the Gospel, not the law. (Think of Gospel as soil and law as fence. How does your garden grow?) The Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the King has a moral law. So I’m not simplistic. I sometimes hear people that I really respect do things with the Law-Gospel distinction that makes my skin crawl and that sounds like weird dispensationalism.

But let’s get this clear: I’m going to err on the side of the Gospel, not on the side of the law, so just expect that and understand it’s why I love Capon and Zahl. And don’t think it’s an easy thing for me to be consistently Gospel centered in my own life. God has really humbled me on this one through events in my own family. I have so much law stuffed in me from growing up Baptist that sometimes I’m useless. I could preach a great “beat-you-around-the-ears” law sermon in my sleep. When I hear preachers pummeling their people with the law and acting like the Gospel isn’t in existence anywhere in scripture, I understand how you can know better, but still get to that point.

For one thing, most of us have heard so much law preaching that we’re drowning in it. Most Baptists love it, too, or say they do. “You really told them today, preacher. You let ‘em have it” or my fave as a young preacher-boy “You really stepped on our toes today.” I must not have done it right then, because the law KILLS you, not annoys you, so you can be resurrected, not corrected.

I could name preachers all day who made their reputations on being law preachers, and they are popular because we love to hear someone preach our congregation or youth group right into the ground. When our people sleep and our youth group doesn’t care, we love to hear someone come in with the big stick and humble those uncaring sheep. Right?

Law preaching is powerful. It feels powerful. Even when it’s done poorly and just amounts to nagging, it makes the preacher feel like he/she is doing something. That’s one reason it’s so popular- you’re telling them what to do. You’re like Moses hitting the rock. Look what I did, you bunch of stubborn yokels. And joined with invitationalism and revivalism, it works. It fills the altar with crying students. I brings people down to get baptized for the 5th time and really mean it this time.

The Gospel, on the other hand, takes the power out of your hands. It’s the announcement of what God has done. You aren’t powerful at all. You’re one loser telling a bunch of other losers that they are going to be treated like winners. Bread for the thieves. Pardon for the unquestionably guilty. Love for rebels. You’re announcing that everyone gets paid the same. You’re issuing banquet seats to people who have no right to a ticket because they are dirty and sinful. You’re telling sinners that the lamb of God has paid the bill and it’s not going to appear on their charge anywhere.

You are telling people it is too good to be true, but it is too good and completely true, and it changes everything.

Apparently this must not be very exciting to a lot of preachers, because they just don’t enjoy preaching it (and often enjoy saying why they despise free grace.) I’m not saying they never say “Jesus died for you,” but it’s not a finished salvation given as a gift to sinners with nothing put empty hands. It is, as I usually hear it, something Jesus did that made salvation “possible.” Possible. If salvation is just “possible,” I’m toast. Burned on both sides.

If I can go to hell, I will. It’s that simple. (Sorry Catholic friends, but that’s what happens when you keep reading a thread like this. You should have turned back the first time I said “Luther.”) If Jesus closed hell by taking it upon himself for me and anyone else who believes, if hell has been conquered and sin/death defeated by the resurrected/reigning Jesus, then I can be saved. Because God does it and God promises it. (I’m enjoying the fact that I’m irritating some readers right now. See, the Gospel can be fun.)

What I hear in the pulpit is a lot of phrases like “get your priorities and values straight” or “do what pleases God.” This kind of talk can make some sense once we’ve been to the cross and understand the Gospel, but it is deadly if you put your hope in such efforts.

Remember this: Discipleship will put you in despair without the Gospel. Discipleship that’s rooted in law will just drive you into despair or Pharisaism. Discipleship needs to grow out of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit magnifying Jesus and the love of God.

You can recognize law preaching because it’s always full of references to the Bible being a “handbook for life,” full of principles for a successful life. If your Bible is just a handbook for life, throw it away.

The Bible is the story that delivers us the Gospel. It’s point is to get you to Jesus, the one mediator between God and man. It’s a big book to get you to a short message. You buy the whole field, but the treasure is the Gospel, not the book of Judges or financial principles from Proverbs. Once you have the Gospel right and you know what preaching is all about, then you can read and preach Leviticus or Malachi or whatever you want, as long as Jesus is in his proper place and the message is the Gospel, not the law, or the old covenant, or this week’s good advice.

I really think we have an army of preachers who think that people ought to come hear them “preach” about various life questions and issues. How to have a great family. How to get along at work. How to use money. How to discipline kids.

Why would I want a preacher to tell me anything about these things? Why are preachers talking about sex, politics and what Jesus wants you to eat? Can anyone admit that the preacher’s ego is often inflated to dangerous level when we let his/her advice about politics or parenting become legitimate material for preaching.
Preach the Gospel, brother. Then sit down, be quiet and let’s do something else. We can pray, sing or go eat. All good.

The Bible is about the Gospel. You are about the Gospel. Give me enough of the law to make the Gospel good news, though I’ll admit I’m not one of those people convinced that we need to try and recreate Bunyan’s conversion. I’m with Spurgeon on that one. Our job is to keep the Good News out there.

Law preaching demotes the preacher, often abuses the congregation, denies them the Gospel and offers a false hope in things like “getting serious about pleasing God.”

Law youth ministry is a waste of your time. If all you’re doing is trying to make kids behave, make good choices and buy into the church as a place to hang out, then by all means, get another job. Or be honest and just say you’re a moralistic therapeutic babysitter carrying out the wishes of the church to not have any kids make bad decisions.

What is ministry? Get them to the Gospel and Jesus, sister. Let Jesus decide if they need to be in jail or not.

In other words, it’s an unmitigated disaster unless the Gospel is heard louder, longer and much clearer than anything else.

I’d really like to apologize to anyone- and there are a lot of these people- who ever showed up at church and heard the “good news” that if they would take their talent and use it for the Lord, they’d be blessed. Or if they surrender their all to Jesus, they’ll be happy no matter what happens. Or if they will stop making excuses and get serious about following Jesus, they can please God.

Really, I apologize. We’ve got better news than that.

We’ve got the news that if everything sucks, asteroids hit the earth, you die, the economy tanks, no one at work likes you, Christians are jailed, your computer breaks and your kid turns out to be a lawyer, you still can’t stop the Good News of what God has done for you.

We’ve got the news that God has declared religion out of business. We’ve got the news that the church has nothing to offer or say except the Gospel, so that should simplify your search for a church. We’ve got the news that at the end of the world, there’s going to be a party for you and me, where we’re going to be embraced, loved and taken to the new heaven and the new earth completely on the free grace of God in Jesus.

We’ve got the news that the law has been satisfied and love is what remains. Faith, Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love, because we know who he is. Death has become resurrection. A world of hurt has become a new heaven and a new earth….in the GOSPEL.

Can we preach this please? My soul needs it and I am not alone.