A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.

When we left off last time, we ran out of time for Brakel’s list of reasons why the moral law continues and then a word about why the ceremonial and civil do not. So, first, Brakel gives five reasons for the perpetuity of the moral law:

“First, the law of nature remains in force … The law of the ten commandments is, however, identical to the law of nature as far as contents are concerned …

Secondly, the law was given to the church without any limitation in time. This law has never been rescinded, neither has a counter law been given to negate the other …

Thirdly, the Lord Jesus declares that the law of the ten commandments has not been abrogated, but that it remains a binding rule for all times … [he cites Mat. 5:17-19]

Fourthly, the Lord Jesus commands the performance of that which is good since the law requires this. Thus, the law remains a binding law, ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets’ (Mat. 7:12) …

Fifthly, the keeping of the moral law is proposed and urged everywhere in the New Testament.”1

Junius explains the continuance of the moral law in one more way: “For to the extent that we may be Christians, we do not cease being humans, but we are Christian human beings … For grace perfects nature; grace does not, however, abolish it.”2 Once we have that down, by contrast, the author of Hebrews says about the whole ceremony of priests and sacrifices and temple: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (7:12). And if anyone wants a marker for the fulfillment of the theocratic rule in Christ, I would begin at Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, which (as I mentioned in earlier weeks) was a coronation ceremony. What did Christ ascend to as Christ? Peter tells us.

“Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:33-36).

The Ten Commandments as a “Summary” of Moral Law

This has led to confusion. SUMMARILY COMPREHENDED contains two concepts. First, the Ten Commandments summarize the moral law. That is, the Decalogue reduces moral action under heads. But secondly, the Ten Commandments comprehend the moral law. All that is in morality, in one way or another has to answer to these. There is a right way and a wrong way to mean that. So, let’s take each of these concepts in turn. 

Speaking of summaries, why are they even called the Ten Commandments—are we sure that’s even accurate? Yes. 

“And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire son the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me” (Deut. 10:4).

The other proof text that the Catechism answer uses comes from Jesus’ encounter with the Rich Young Ruler: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). There we see the first (evangelical) use of the law utilizing the moral law. But what about the other uses? Brakel says this,

“Since the image of God is but one, there is also but one holiness. Thus, the law which proposes perfect holiness is identical in its demand to the law which Adam had before the fall in the state of perfection as a condition of the covenant of works. The objective for the issuance of the moral law, however, was not that it be a condition of the covenant of works, but a rule of life for the partakers of the covenant of grace, who, on the basis of Christ’s satisfaction, are justified and the recipients of salvation.”3

Here Brakel shows the third (directive) use of the law with the moral law. But this strikes at the heart of both Antinomianism and what is sometimes called Republicationism—which is a minority view among the Reformed of the last century. It holds that the Mosaic law was a republication of the covenant of works, a conditional covenant for that typological people, Israel. Now when we discover that those who hold to republicationism are in the same circle as those who hold to the Radical Two Kingdom view in ethics, it becomes plainer that Antinomianism about the civil realm is a motivating factor in the Republicationist view.

But to be clear, Brakel is not saying in that statement that the moral law is equal to the covenant of works. That would be the position of the fully consistent Republicationists. What Brakel (and the majority Reformed are saying) is that the moral law is the Mosaic substance of the natural law—which was, as Question 40 already said, “at first.” It is an aspect of Adam’s constitution. It is not equal to that covenant he was under. The whole point is that redeemed man in Christ is still man (just as Adam was). Even while freed from the curse of that first covenant, the purposes of the image of God as a moral actor make up a nature that is now being perfected by grace.

The Ten Commandments as a “Comprehension” of Moral Law

This one especially is misunderstood. By “comprehend” here, it does not mean “exhausted.” It is not a comprehensive list of all that is moral in God’s universe. The word “comprehend” can mean several things, but for our purposes, it does not mean to exhaust. If we say that it “surrounds” or “But while most people can see that, others have said that everything can—in one way or another—be placed under one of these categories of the Ten Commandments. Let me give an example of a problem that emerges when we make “comprehend” mean “exhaust.”

Here again, we see the problem of biblicism. Now there is a biblicist doctrine of the law (ironic, since a fully consistent biblicist would not believe in a “doctrine” of anything!). Not only can one not “show” the division of moral, civil, and ceremonial by some express word formula, much less can one hope to show all that is meant by idolatry (which word is not used anyway) or coveting, or false witness or adultery. These are words that cover a whole range of violence against either the one true God, or else his image in man. But the words only form this “range” by an idea forming in the mind. It must function as a universal to which particular instances conform.

Another dimension of the moral law being “comprehended” in something like these Ten Commandments are is a kind of reasoning that searches out the spirit of the law. And here I am not so much talking about Paul’s contrast between the Spirit and the letter in 2 Corinthians 3. Although that is related to this. By the “spirit of the law” I am speaking of its intent: its essential meaning that, if you get it, you can start to apply it to a broader set of circumstances. This will be important when the question is asked about the moral law principles that exist even within the civil law of Israel. For example, 

“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Ex. 21:28-32).

In the Reformed tradition there is what is called the General Equity Principle. The Confession states it in this way: “To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require” (WCF, XIX.4). What exactly does that mean? The German Reformed theologian Johannes Piscator (1546—1625) gave a helpful summary:

“the magistrate is obliged to those judicial laws which teach concerning matters which are immutable and universally applicable to all nations, but not to those which teach concerning matters which are mutable and peculiar to the Jewish or Israelite nations for the times when those governments remained in existence.”4

So the same fulfillment of Israel’s civil law is assumed, yet it is also assumed that the spirit of the moral law courses through that unique civil code.

The Ten Commandments as Inclusive of “Mixed Precepts”

One division we have not introduced, but which is indispensible when explaining various nuances about the law is that between natural law and positive law. It is often said that in natural law there is a reason and in positive law it is a mere matter of will. So Turretin said,

“one natural, founded in the perfectly just and holy nature of God; the other positive, depending on the will of God alone in which he also shows his own liberty.”5

Of course, that is exactly right. However, this is often taken in a way that is too simple, and that over-simplification can come to tell a falsehood. While we may not know God’s rationale for shellfish, for example, to suggest that there is none in God’s mind is to travel a road too far. It is better to say that while the unchangeableness of the moral law reflects that law of nature—something about God is reflected in the nature of things in a way that reason can see—we would call a law “positive” if God may lay it down and alter it, not because it says nothing, but because it says something about what is changing. If these are types and shadows of Christ—shadows are not “nothing,” but are first sketches of the Substance to come. But the “will element” in positive law is still correct, as God was under no obligation to create, or to save, and therefore to set forth laws that symbolized that salvation.

Another place that this helps us in the Decalogue itself. So Turretin gives yet one more distinction: 

“We must distinguish between simple precepts (i.e., merely moral) belonging to natural right and mixed precepts (moral and ceremonial, partly of natural and partly of positive right; as the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath, which is moral as to the genus of public worship, but ceremonial as to the circumstance of the defined time; and the fifth, which is moral as to the prescribed duty and the promise of longevity, but ceremonial as to the appended promise of the land of Canaan).”6

In other words, a commandment can have a dimension that is given to man because of the nature of man per se. In the case of the Sabbath, man needs to worship and to rest. However, man does not need to rest on Saturday versus Sunday. No doubt the seventh-day Sabbatarian will interject his arguments at this point. We will answer those and give other positive demonstrations when we get to the fourth commandment. But just understand that this distinction is wholly intelligible. To rest is human, so that to not rest is inhuman. But whether man’s rest is on Saturday or Sunday does not make him non-human or less than human.

______________________

1. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III:55, 56.

2. Junius, The Mosaic Polity, 38.

3. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III:60.

4. Johannes Piscator, Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses (Braselton, GA: American Vision, 2015), 4-5.

5. Turretin, Institutes, II.11.1.4

6. Turretin, Institutes, II.11.2.3