ERT(2012) 36:2, 143-160

Law and Gospel: TheHermeneutical/Homiletical Key toReformation Theology and Ethics

Thomas K.Johnson

KEY WORDS: Reformation, MartinLuther, John Calvin, hermeneutics,homiletics, ethics, natural moral law

EVANGELICALS SHOULD actively appropri-ate one of the most important centralthemes from the Protestant Reforma-tion to provide a urfied structure forfaith. Ufe, and proclamation: the nu-anced relation between law and gos-pel. A largely unified (but not wooderyidentical) perspective can be learnedfrom a comparison of Martin Lutherwith John Calvin. The significantsnarity on these questions estab-Ushed patterns for quality teaching andpreachig in the Protestant tradition.The relationship between law and gos-pel is a hermeneutical/hometical keyto Reformation theology and ethics,both historically to understand the Ref-ormation itself and normatively, settinga pattern to appropriate today. Thiscomplementarity offers evangelicalsa proven tool for understanding theBible, proclamation i church and so-

ciety, balanced and authentic pastoralcare, and relatig the Christian faith toquestions of culture and poUtics.

I Luther and Calvin ComparedThere were theological differencesbetween Luther and Calvin, but d-ferences of Uterary style and person-aUty seem larger. Calvi laboiu-ed forelegance of expression and an orderlyarrangement. The Table of Contents ofhis Institutes of the Christian Religion of-fers an overview of how he connectedthe various themes in Christian proc-lamation. Calvin found repetition inele-gant; 1 his commentaries he refers thereader to a previous book if he has al-ready given a satisfactory exposition ofa text or theme. He also distiguishedtheology from bibUcal exegesis, repre-senting the Renaissance care for pre-cision in dealing with historical texts.To get Calvin's total perspective on atopic, one must read his Institutes, notory his commentaries.

Prof. Thomas K. Johnson, PhD, is Vice President for Research oftvlartin Bucer Seminary, Director of theComenius Institute (Prague); Professor ofTheolo^, Philosophy, and Public Policy (International Institute forChristian Studies), and Doctoral Professor ofTheolo^ and Interdisciplinary Studies (Olivet University). Hehas taught theolo^ and philosophy in several universities and theological schools in various countries and hasserved as a pastor and church planter. Email: Johnson. thomas.k@gmail. com.

144 Thomas K.Johnson

Luther did not clearly distinguishexegesis from theology. In his Lectureson Galatians he often digressed fromthe text of Galatians to other textsand generally told his students all theyshould know relative to the themesbefore him. His Lectures on Galatiansdescribe faith and life in hght of Gala-tians, not merely exegeting the Paiinebook. Luther had a tremendously sys-tematic mind, but his love of the gospelconstantiy breaks his orderly presen-tation. This makes Luther repetitivethough never monotonous.

Behind the difference in hterarystyle between Luther and Calvin lay adifference in personality so great thatone can mistake it for a difference incore theology. Lewis Spitz commented:

Calvin and Luther were tem-peramentally qtte different. Theyounger man was shy to the pointof diffidence, precise and restrained,except for sudden fiashes of anger.He was severe, but scmpulouslyjust and tmthfi, self-containedand somewhat aloof. He had manyacquaintances but few intimatefriends. The older man was sociableto the point of volubility, free andopen, warm and cordial with peopleof all stations of hfe. But in spiteof their differences in personality,Calvin and Luther retained a mutualrespect for each other that was root-ed in their confessional agreement.'A 'confessional agreement' deeper

than their disagreements is what wefind on law and gospel, though it is

1 Lewis W. Spitz, The Renaissance and Refor-mation Movements, 2 volumes (St. Louis: Con-cordia Pubhshing House, 1971), vol. 2, TheReformation, 412.

disguised by differences in terminol-ogy. Luther and Calvin had remarkablysimar convictions, especially that therelationship between law and gospel iscentral. Luther's key text is his 1535Lectures on Galatians. Calvin's 1548Galatians Commentary is convenient forcomparison; it must be supplementedby his Institutes because of Ms hterarymethod.

II The Centrality of the Law/Gospel Relationship

For Luther the relationship betweenlaw and gospel is the centre of tmeChristianity; the abity to distinguishproperly between law and gospel qucdi-fies a theologian. 'Therefore, whoeverknows well how to distinguish the gos-pel from the law should give thanks toGod and know that he is a real theolo-gian'.^

The real problem in theologythrough Luther's time was the faureto articulate this distinction:

You will not find anything about thisdistinction between the law and thegospel in the books of the monks,the canonists, and the recent andancient theologians. Augustinetaught and expressed it to someextent. Jerome and others like himknew nothing at all about it. In otherwords, for many centuries there hasbeen a remarkable sence about thisin all the schools and churches. Thissituation has produced a very dan-gerous condition for consciences.'

2 Martin Luther, iufAer;sW&rfc,ed. and trans.Jaroslav Pelikan, assoc. ed. Walter A. Hansen,vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535 (St. Louis:Concordia Pubhshing House, 1963), 115.3 Luther, Galatians, 313.

Law and Gospel 145

This distinction was no mere theo-retical abstraction: it was an existen-tial reahty of the highest import; it wasthe heart of the Christian faith; it wasthe key to keeping the gospel pure anddistinguishing authentic Christian-ity from distorted faiths and reHgions.'Let every Christian learn digently todistinguish between the law and thegospel.'^ Without this distinction peo-ple either fall into despair, finding theycannot earn God's favour by law keep-ing, or they fall into false confidence,presuming they can eam God's favour.

However, the proper distinctionis not a matter of memorizing properterms or using certain words; it ismore an art than a science. It must bemade in the midst of hfe experience. 'Iadmit that in the time of temptation Imyself do not know how to do this asI should.'=

Calvhi appropriated a clear dis-tinction between law and gospel fromLuther, but he understood it to comereally from the Bible: '[Paul] is con-tinually employed in contrasting therighteousness of the law with the freeacceptance which God is pleased tobestow.'* Because Calvin avoided rep-etition, one such statement suffices toshow that Calvin saw this contrast ascentral to the faith. But he thought itprominent hi the entire Bible.

When discussing Abraham he noted,'For faith,so far as it embraces the

4 Luther, Galatians, 120.5 Luther, Galatians, 115.6 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles ofPaul to the Galatians andEphesians, trans. Wil-liam Pringle, (Edinburgh: The Calvin TVansla-tion Society, 1854. Reprinted Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1979), 67. Modernized spellingand punctuation.

undeserved goodness of God, Christwith all his benefits, the testimonyof our adoption which is contained inthe gospel,is universally contrastedwith the law, with the merit of works,and with human excellence.'' He ech-oes Luther: 'We see then that thesmaHest part of justification cannot beattributed to the law without renounc-ing Christ and his grace.'*

Ill What is The Gospel?For Luther, justification by faith alone(not faith plus anything else) is thecentre of the gospel. By faith a personis united with Christ and received byChrist so that Christ's righteousnessbecomes one's own and the behever isdeclared righteous by God. WMle thelegal status of being justified is an en-during condition in relation to God, aperson's faith remains d3mamic; onemaybe aware of the status of justifica-tion only to the extent one trusts thegospel.

If it is true faith, it is a sure trustand firm acceptance in the heart. Ittakes hold of Christ in such a waythat Christ is the object of faith, orrather not the object of faith but, soto speak, the one who is present inthe faith itself.'But the work of Christ, properlyspeaking, is this: to embrace theone whom the law has made a shi-ner and pronounced guty, and toabsolve him from his shis if he be-Heves the gospel. 'For Christ is theend of the law, that everyone who

7 Calvin, Galatians, 85.8 Calvin, Galatians, 151.9 Luther, Galatians, 129.

146 Thomas K.Johnson

has fciitii may be justified' (Rom.10:4)."Calvin's used sUghtiy different lan-

guage. Salvation was accompUshedsolely by the work of Christ; salvationis received solely by faith. About Gala-tians 2:15-16, Calvin observed:

Since the Jews themselves, with aUthe- advantages, were forced tobetake themselves to the faith ofChrist, how much more necessarywas it that the Gentes should lookfor salvation through faith? Paul'smearng therefore is: 'We... havefound no method of obtaining salva-tion, but by beUeving in Christ: why,then, should we prescribe anothermethod to the Gentes?... We mustseek justification by the faith ofChrist, because we cannot be justi-fied by works.'"The reformers understood the gos-

pel 1 contrast to the law. BeUevingthe gospel is the opposite of seekingto achieve a proper relationship withGod by foUowing the law or perfonnig'works'.

IV Faith and WorksFrom the start of the Reformation,Luther was misunderstood to say that people do not need to eam their eter-nal salvation by doing good works,then people are free from aU moral re-straint and free to sin. This antinomianmisunderstanding threatened to con-tribute to the widespread social chaosof the time, an outcome Luther feared.In his 1520 treatise. The Freedom of the

Christian, Luther rejected antinomian-ism with his ear-catching irony that, inaddition to beig a perfectiy free lordof aU, each Christian is also a perfectiydutiful servant of aU.

Luther claimed tme faith i Christmoves people to love and serve withinthe everyday social stmctures withoutany rejection of the moral law. Faithleads to good works, and if real faith ispresent, good works can be expected.

Therefore we, too, say that faithwithout works is worthless and use-less. The papists and the fanaticstake this to mean that faith withoutworks does not justify, or that faith does not have works, it is of noava, no matter how tme it is. Thatis false. But faith without worksthat is, a fantastic idea and merevarty and a dream of the heartisa false faith and does not justify.'^Luther interpreted the representa-

tives of the Roman CathoUc Church tosay that works were necessary i or-der to be justified; this was the centralproblem of 'the papists'. Luther alsothought that the 'fanatics', his termfor some Anabaptists, foUowed thepapists at this cmcial pointa claimnot always noticed. Luther taught goodworks would always foUow any justifi-cation that is authentic, but such goodworks do not contribute to justifica-tion.

In addition to holding a differentview of the relation between faith andworks, Luther also claimed to teach adferent view of an appropriate 'goodwork'. As a papist he had done worksthat were expUciy religious i nature;

10 Luther, Galatians, 143.11 Calvin, Galatians, 66, 67. 12 Luther, Galatians, 155.

Law and Gospel 147

he had entered a monastery, fasted,taken pgrimages, and spent longhours confessing sins." After comingto the Reformation faith, he taughtthat good works are primarily in theeveryday world:

For such great blindness used toprevail in the world that we sup-posed that the works which menhad invented not only without butagainst the commandment of Godwere much better than those whicha magistrate, the head of a house-hold, a teacher, a child, a servant,etc., did in accordance with God'scommand."The good works resulting from jus-

tification by faith are those commandedby God in the Word within the everydaycreated orders:

Surely we shoid have leamed fromthe Word of God that the reHgiousorders of the papists, which alonethey call holy are wicked, sincethere exists no commandment ofGod or testimony in Sacred Scrip-ture about them; and, on the otherhand, that other ways of Hfe, whichdo have the word and command-ment of God, are holy and divinelyinstituted..., on the basis of theWord of God we pronounce the sureconviction that ie way of Hfe of aservant, which is extremely vue inthe sight of the world, is far moreacceptable to God than all the or-ders of monks. For God approves,commends, and adoms the status of

13 This is what later scholars often call 'ex-tra-mundane asceticism' in contrast with the'intra-mundane asceticism' taught by Lutherand Calvin.14 Luther, Galatians, 212.

servants with his Word, but not thatof the monks.'^For Luther, works do not contribute

to justification before God. One is jus-tified by faith alone, meaning nothingone does contributes to justification.But real justifying faith necessarilyleads to obedience to God's commandin the Word.

Calvin's doctrine of faith and worksresembles Luther's. Though some havemisperceived Calvin to be a stem le-galist, in his time the French speak-ing Reformation was perceived to beantinomian in a manner that contrib-uted to social chaos and wanton vice.This was simar to Luther's problem,a result of saying that good works andthe moral law do not contribute to oursalvation. From the 'Prefatory Addressto King Francis' in the Institutes, it isclear that Calvin clarified his doctrineof the relation of faith to good workspartiy to teach his people but partly asan apologetic response to this continu-ing negation against the Reformation.

Using Galatians 5:6, Calvin definedmatters:

It is not our doctrine that the faithwhich justifies is alone; we maintainthat it is invariably accompanied bygood works; only we contend thatfaith alone is sufficient for justifica-tion."From Luther to Calvin there is a

small development in the terminologyof good works. Whereas Luther talkedabout loving service within the createdorders of everyday Hfe in obedience to

15 Luther, Galatians, 213. For Luther, the factof these biblical commands indicates that be-ing a servant is a proper way of serving God.16 Calvin, Galatians, 152.

148 Thomas K.Johnson

the command of God, Calvin usuallytalks about obedience to the law of Godas the standard for good works. This isa tiny change in terminology, not a sub-stantial development i content. LeLuther, Calvin describes good works aslove for others within the framework ofeveryday life.

But we must ique ito the reasonwhy all the precepts of the law areicluded under love. The law con-sists of two tables, the first of whichistructs us concerning the worshipof God and the duties of piety, andthe second instructs us concerningthe love of neighbour;... Piety toGod, I acknowledge, rcinks higherthan love of the brethren; and there-fore the observance of the first tableis more valuable in the sight of Godthan the observance of the second.But as God himself is ivisible, sopiety is a thing hidden from the eyesof man....God therefore chooses tomake trial of our love to himself bythat love of our brother, which heenjoins us to cultivate."Calvin used the term 'law' to describe

the function of Holy Scripture i guidingthe Ufe of gratitude and good works,whereas Luther used the term 'com-mandment'. This difference i terms isbased on a deep agreementreal faithleads to good works that are practised1 everyday Ufe accordig to the com-mands or law of God i Scripture.

VThe Gospel and the OldTestament

Throughout Christian history, a recur-

17 Calvin, Oalatians, 159,160.

ring issue is the relationship betweenthe two testaments. Some, such as thegroup that disturbed the churches inGalatia, mirmize any transition fromthe Old to the New Testament. Others,such as Marcion in the second century,minimize any continuity between thetestaments, thirng the Old Testa-ment contains ory law while the NewTestament preaches ory the gospel.Against such extremes, with smalldifferences, Luther and Calvin funda-mentally agreed on seeing both lawand gospel in both the Old and the NewTestament. Neither obUterates all dis-tinctions between the two testaments;both saw substantial continuity.

Luther loved to describe Moses asthe preacher of righteousness by law:

Moses does not reveal the Son ofGod; he discloses the law, sin, theconscience, death, the wrath andjudgment of God, and heU.... There-fore only the gospel reveals the Sonof God. Oh, if only one coid distin-g^ uish carefully here cind not look forthe law in the gospel but keep it asseparate from the law as heaven isdistant from earth."Representig the apostle Paul,

Luther writes, 'You have not heard meteach the righteousness of the law orof works; for this belongs to Moses, notto me.'''

If this were all Luther said, onemight imagine an absolute antithesisbetween the two testaments. However,with no sense of self-contradiction,Luther said, 'the patriarchs and allthe Old Testament saints were free inthe- conscience and were justified by

18 Luther, Galatians, 72.19 Luther, Galatians, 73.

Law and Gospel 149

faith, not by circumcision or the law'.^"It is tme that 'Moses, the minister ofthe law, has the ministry of law, whichhe [the apostie Paul] calls a ministryof sin, wrath, death, and damnation',^'yet Moses preached justification byfaith alone.

The gospel in the Old Testament,Luther claims, is also about JesusChrist. The faith of the patriarchs wasa faith that looked to the future acts ofGod for their salvation. 'The sound ofthe promise to Abraham brings Christ;and when he has been grasped by faith,then the Holy Spirit is granted onChrist's behalf.'22

Though the promises related to thegospel were especially given to Abra-ham, these promises were also ava-able to whoever beheved. In discussinghow the Roman centurion (Acts 9) wasrighteous before he heard the gospelfrom Peter, Luther claimed:

Comehus was a righteous and holyman in accordance with the Old Tes-tament on account of his faith in thecoming Christ, just as all the patri-archs, prophets, and devout kingswere righteous, having received theHoly Spirit secrey on account oftheir faith in the coming Christ."The main contrast between the

gospel in the Old Testament and inthe New Testament is that 'the faithof the patriarchs was attached to theChrist who was to come, just as oursis attached to the One who has already

20 Luther, Galatians, 85. With the term 'freein their conscience' Luther means awarenessof a status of fuU acceptance before God.21 Luther, Galatians, 147.22 Luther, Galatians, 255.23 Luther, Galatians, 210.

come'.2* Indeed, the book of Genesiswas primary a book of gospel:

In Jewish fashion Pai usually callsthe first book of Moses 'law' Eventhough it has no law except thatwhich deals with circumcision, butchiefly teaches faith and testifiesthat the patriarchs were pleasing toGod on account of their faith, stillthe Jews called Genesis togetherwith the other books of Moses 'law'because of that one law of circumci-sion."Just as Luther claims the Old Testa-

ment is full of gospel, so he finds lawin the New Testament, though the NewTestament is pre-eminentiy gospel:

The gospel, however, is a proclama-tion about Christ: that he forgivessins, grants grace, justifies, andsaves sinners. Although there arecommandments in the gospel, theyare not the gospel; they are exposi-tions of the law and appendices tothe gospel.^ *Calvin's distinction between the

testaments was simar to Luther. Atthe beginning of his Galatians com-mentary he complains that the falseaposties disttu'bing the churches re-moved the distinction between the twotestaments, which is the distinctionbetween law and gospel. 'It is no smallev to quench the hght of the gospel,to lay a snare for consciences, and toremove the distinction between the Oldand the New Testament.'"

Like Luther, Calvin regarded the

24 Luther, Galatians, 239.25 Luther, Galatians, 433.26 Luther, Galatians, 150.27 Calvin, Galatians, 14,15.

150 Thomas K.Johnson

Old Testament as largely law, whereasthe New Testament is largely gospel:

That office which was peciiar toMoses consisted in laying downa rule of life and ceremonies to beobserved in the worship of God, andin afterwards adding promises andthreatenings. Many promises, nodoubt, relating to the free mercy ofGod and of Christ, are to be found inhis writings; and these promises be-long to faith. But this is to be viewedas accidental.^*Though Calvin agrees with Luther

that Moses is primarily a writer of law,yet Calvin's statements about Mosesare more positive than Luther's state-ments about Moses. Calvin genuinelyloved the Law of Moses and wrote amulti-volume study on the last fourbooks of the Pentateuch. Luther choseto write more on the book of Genesisthan the other Mosaic books, probablybecause he saw Genesis as containingmore gospel.

For Calvin, the way of salvation wasthe same under the old covenant as un-der the new, justification by faith alone:

Abraham was justified by beheving,because, when he received from Goda promise of fatherly kindness, heembraced it as certain. Faith, there-fore, has a relation and a respect tosuch a divine promise as may enablemen to place their trust and confi-dence in God."Calvin explained why Moses added

the law so many years later if the gos-pel was already given to Abraham.His comment would have pleased

Lutherto show people theh- sin andneed for the gospel. 'He means thatthe law was pubHshed in order to makeknown transgressions, and in this wayto compel men to acknowledge theirgut.... This is the true preparation forChrist.'^ c

Luce Luther, Calvin heard the gospelthroughout the Old Testament, makingthe difference between the two testa-ments one of degree and place in thehistory of redemption:

The doctrine of faith, in short, is at-tested by Moses and all the proph-ets: but, as faith was not then clear-ly manifested, so the time of faith[Galatians 3:23] is an appeHationhere given, not in an absolute, butin a comparative sense, to the timeof the New Testament.^'Indeed, the Old Testament ceremo-

nies spoke of Christ and served as aschoolmaster to lead to the comingChrist:

Beyond all doubt, ceremonies ac-compHshed their object, not merelyby alarming and humbling the con-science, but by exciting them to thefaith of the coming Redeemer....The law... was nothing else thanan immense variety of exercises, inwhich the worshippers were led bythe hand to Christ.'^The reformers agree in seeing con-

tinuity with development from the OldTestament to the New Testament. OldTestament behevers looked forwardto the redemption in Christ, whereasNew Testament behevers look back to

28 Calvin, Galatians, 99.29 Calvin, Galatians, 84.

30 Calvin, Galatians, 100.31 Calvin, Galatians, 107.32 Calvin, Galatians, 109.

Law and Gospel 151

Christ, but aU beUevers are justified byfaith alone in the promise of the gos-pel. WMle the New Testament is pre-eminentiy a book of gospel, that gospelis properly understood ory i relationto the moral law contained in both tes-taments.

Whether i the time of the OldTestament or of the New Testament,Luther and Calvin saw the bibUcalmessage as always having two distinctbut inseparable dimensions: commandand promise, law and gospel. This isthe continuous stmcture of the bibUcaldivine-human encounter.

VI Reason and Law'Reason cannot think correctiy ahoutGod; only faith can do so.'" Such state-ments gave Luther the reputation forbeing opposed to reason. Some viewhim as irrational. Calvin is sometimespresented as an ureeling rationaUst.Neither interpretation is accurate be-cause they assume no dferentiation1 terms of the object to which reasonmust be appUed. Both Reformers sawreason as properly pertaining to thelaw; when reason is used within thisrealm, it is a tremendous gift of God.But when reason exceeds its properbounds, goig into the realm of gospel,then reason becomes an enemy of faith.

For Luther, the primary problemwith reason is that it continuouslyclaims people can be justified by worksof the law, rejecting tiie gospel:

Human reason and wisdom do notunderstand this doctrine [the gos-pel]. Therefore they always teachthe opposite: 'If you want to Uve to

33 Luther, Galatians, 238.

God, you must observe the law; for is vmtten (Matthew 19:17) 'If youwould enter Ufe, keep the command-

Let reason be far away, that enemyof faith, which, in the temptationsof sin and death, reUes not on therighteousness of faith or Christianrighteousness, of which it is com-pletely ignorant, but on its ownrighteousness or, at most, on therighteousness of the law. As soon asreason and the law are joied, faithimmediately loses its virgirty. Fornothing is more hostile to faith thanthe law and reason."For Luther, faith is not merely af-

firmig reUgious propositions, thoughLuther accepted such classical Chris-tian creedal statements as the Apos-ties' and Nicene Creeds. Faith ispersonal reUance on the gospel. Butduring assaults on the soul (German:Anfechtungen), temptations to doubtGod's grace, beUevers are prone tomove from tmsting in the gospel totmsting in obedience to the law, andsinful reason supports this tendency.During spitual assaults, faUen reasonconfuses law and gospel, so beUev-ers either faU into despa" of pleasigGod or else faU into false corifidence,assumig they please God without thegospel:

When it comes to experience, youwiU find the gospel a rare guest butthe law a constant guest i yourconscience, which is habituated tothe law and the sense of sin; reasontoo supports this

34 Luther, Galatians, 156.35 Luther, Galatians, 113.36 Luther, Galatians, 117.

152 Thomas K.Johnson

Reason rarely overcomes the ten-dency to forget the gospel and rely onthe law. Luther did not think peopleshould become irrational. The solutionis to employ reason to its fullest in itsproper realm: everyday, practical af-fairs. Reason is properly appHed in therealm of the 'orders'-the realm of theciv use of the law. Discussing a popu-lar proverb, 'God does not require ofany man that he do more than he reallycan', Luther's tightiy connects reasonto everyday affairs:

This is actually a good statement,but in its proper place, that is, in po-Htical, domestic, and natural affairs.For example, if I, who exist in therealm of reason, rule a famy, buda house, or carry on a govemmentoffice, and I do as much as I can orwhat Hes within me, I am excused.'^With this understanding of the

proper realm of reason, Luther couldpraise Greek poHtical philosophy andRoman law, though he also describesreason and philosophy very negatively.Of itself reason knows nothing aboutthe gospel and tends to confuse lawand gospel; nevertheless, reason canknow much about the moral law andits appHcation in everyday Hfe. In thisrealm reason must be treasured. Theknowledge of the moral law possessedby reason is the result of God's revela-tion through creation. Because of sinand unbeHef, this reasonable knowl-edge of the moral law will need to becorrected by the command of God inthe Scriptures; nevertheless, reasoncan know the law. Therefore, by rea-son, civ righteousness is possible for

37 Luther, Galatians, 173, 174. Emphasisadded.

many who do not know the gospel:The sophists, as well as anyone elsewho does not grasp the doctrine ofjustification, do not know of anyother righteousness than civ right-eousness or the righteousness ofthe law, which are known in somemeasure even to the heathen.^'Calvin's doctrine of reason is simar

to Luther's with a subtie shift. Aftercelebrating the abity of human reasonin the natural realm, the result of God'sgeneral grace and general revelation,Calvin asked what reason knows ofGod:

We must now analyze what humanreason can discem with regard toGod's Kingdom and to spiritual in-sight. This spiritual insight consistschiefly in three things: (1) knowingGod; (2) knowing his fatherly favourin our behalf, in which our salvationconsists; (3) knowing how to frameour Hfe according to the rule of hislaw. In the two first pointsand es-pecially in the secondthe greatestgeniuses are bHnder than moles!''Calvin distinguishes knowing what

God is Hke (No. 1) from knowing howGod relates to man in the gospel (No.2). Though reason is not always com-pletely wrong about God's Being, state-ments on this topic by phosophers'always show a certain giddy imagina-tion'.^" But unaided reason is 'blinderthan a mole' in regard to understand-

38 Luther, Galatians, 261.39 John Calvin, Institiites of the Christian Re-ligion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford LewisBattles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,1960), II, , 18.40 Calvin, Inst. II, ii, 18.

Law and Gospel 153

ing God's fatherly care and the gospel.To trust properly i God's fatherly care,the gospel, scripture, and the itemaltestnony of the Holy Spirit are needed.

Though reason is worthless in therealm of the gospel, Calvin emphasizedreason in area No. 3, 'how to frame oiu:life according to the rule of his law'.This is the realm of the civ use ofGod's moral law, the natural moral law,and civ righteousness.

There remains the third aspect ofspitual isight, that of kiiowingthe rule for the right conduct of Ufe.This we correctly call the 'knowl-edge of the works of righteous-ness.' The human mind sometnesseems more acute in this than ihigher things. For the apostle tes-tifies: 'When Gentes, who do nothave the law, do the works of thelaw, they are a law to themselves...and show that the work of the lawis written on their hearts, whuethe conscience also bears witness,and their thoughts accuse themamong themselves or excuse thembefore God's judgment' [Rom. 2:14-15]. If Gentes by nature have lawrighteousness engraved upon the-mids, we surely carmot say theyare utterly blind as to the conduct ofUfe. There is nothing more commonthan for a man to be sufficiently in-structed in a right standard of con-duct by natural law.*'Reason often knows right and wrong

based on the natiu-al (God-given) morallaw, and this knowledge can provide 'aright standard of conduct'. Calvin nev-er suggests that this knowledge eqmpspeople to earn God's favour. Even

though people often know the goodand cure able to attain civ righteous-ness, they are stul siful; the naturalknowledge of right and wrong receivedby reason renders people blameworthybefore God.

Calvin carefully qualifies what rea-son knows about the moral law. Sidarkens our knowing process. Wedo not always in fact know what weshould in principle know by reason.The written moral law is extremely n-portant:

Now that iward law [the natu-ral law], which we have above de-scribed as written, even engraved,upon the hearts of all, i a senseasserts the very same things thatare to be learned from the two Ta-bles [the Ten Commandments]. Foroiu: conscience does not allow us tosleep a perpetual insensible sleepwithout beig an inner witness andmortor of what we owe to God,without holding before us the dif-ference between good and ev andthus accusing us when we fa in oin-duty. But man is so shrouded in thedarkness of errors that he hardlybegins' to grasp through this natu-ral law what worship is acceptableto God.... Accordingly (because it isnecessary both for our dilness andfor our arrogance), the Lord has pro-vided us with a written law to giveus clearer witness of what was tooobscure i the natural law, shakeoff our Ustlessness, and strike morevigorously our mind and memory.*^There is a difference between how

Luther and Calvin understand the in-uence of sin on oiu: perception of the

41 Calvin,7nsf. II,, 22. 42 Calvin, Asf. II, vi,l .

154 Thomas K.Johnson

natural moral law. Calvin emphasizesthe way in which the content of ourknowledge is darkened, whe Lutheremphasizes the way in which peoplemisuse this knowledge to eam God'sfavour. They agree there is knowledgeof God's natural moral law avaableto reason that allows people to knowright and wrong, but unaided reasoncannot know how to relate properly toGod. And the Bible is needed to knowmore fuy what kinds of good worksshoid foUow faith.

VII The Uses of the LawSome see a large difference betweenLuther and Calvin regarding the properuses of the law. The evidence showsa difference in terminology, Hterarystyle, and personahty driven reactionsto the moral law within a substantiallysimar perspective. Calvin may havetaken Luther's doctrine and refined theterminology, though Luther might havebeen dissatisfied with some aspects ofthis development.

If the moral law is not to be used toeam God's favour, what are its properuses or fimctions? Luther spoke of twoproper uses of the law, the civic and thetheological, with the theological usebeing primary. Whe discussing Gala-tians 3:19 Luther claimed:

One must know that there is a dou-ble use of the law. One is the civicuse. God has ordained civic laws,indeed all laws, to restrain trans-gressions. Therefore, every law wasgiven to hinder sins. Does this meanthat when the law restrains sins, itjustifies? Not at all. When I refrainfrom killing or from committingadultery or from stealing, or when Iabstain from other sins, I do not do

this voluntarily or from the love ofvirtue but because I am afraid of thesword and of the executioner. Thisprevents me, as the ropes or chainsprevent a hon or a bear from ravag-ing something that comes along....The first understanding and use ofthe law is to restrain the wicked....This is why God has ordained mag-istrates, parents, teachers, laws,shackles, and all civic ordinances."Though the civic use of the law is

important to make civic righteousnesspossible, it is not the most importantuse of the law. The ultimate use of thelaw is to show us our sin and need forthe gospel:

The other use of the law is thetheological or spiritual one, whichserves to increase transgres-sions.... Therefore the tme func-tion and the chief and proper use ofthe law is to reveal to man his sin,blindness, misery, wickedness, ig-norance, hate, and contempt of God,death, hell, judgment, and the welldeserved wrath of God."At this point Luther waxes eloquent

about the value of God's law, but hispoint is clear t^here are two uses ofthe law that must be distinguishedfrom each other. In the civic use, thelaw restrains sin to make civilizationpossible, whether the law comes di-rectiy from God or indirectiy throughhuman laws, civic authorities, or otherhumane influences. The theological useleads a person to despair and preparesone for hearing the gospel. Becauseof its close relation to the gospel, thetheological use of the law is primary.

43 Luther, Galatians, 308, 309.44 Luther, Galatians, 309.

Law and Gospel 155

Calvin spoke about three uses of thelaw, but he did not discuss aH threeuses in relation to Galatians becausehe did not think Pai discussed allthree uses there. In discussig Gala-tians 3:19, Calvin offered a rare criti-cism of Luther:

For many, I find, have fallen into themistake of acknowledging no otheradvantage belonging to the law,but what is expressed here. Paulhimself elsewhere speaks of theprecepts of the law as profitable fordoctrine and exhortations (2 Tim.3:16). The defirtion here given ofthe use of the law is not complete,and those who refuse to make anyother acknowledgment in favour ofthe law do wrong. *^Calvin agrees that Galatians teach-

es Luther's two proper uses of the law.Calvin insists the rest of the Bibleteaches a third use.

Calvin's first use of the law he caHsthe 'primitive' function of the law, simi-lar to Luther's theological use:

Let us survey briefiy the functionand use of what is called the 'morallaw' Now, so far as I understand it,it consists of three parts.The first part is this: whe it showsGod's righteousness, that is therighteousness alone acceptable toGod, it warns, informs, convicts,and lastly condemns, every man ofhis own unrighteousness. For man,blinded and drunk with self-love,must be compelled to know and toconfess his own feebleness and im-purity.^ *

Calvin compares the law with amirror; as it shows the spots on one'sface, so the law shows sin, though withdifferent results among behevers andunbeHevers. UnbeHevers are terrified;beHevers flee to God's mercy in Christ.Calvin and Luther used different lan-guage to describe this use, reflectingdifferences in personaHty.

Luther seems to have gone througha two-step process, dropping hito de-spair before turning away from the lawand toward the gospel. With continuingassaults on his soul, the law repeat-edly drove Luther to despair, which isechoed in his language about the law.Calvhi seems to have gone through aone-step process, of immediately turn-ing from the law to the gospel withoutintermediate despair; his languageabout the law does not usually containechoes of terror.

Calvin's second use of the law isLuther's first usethe civic or pohti-cal use:

The second function of the law isthis: at least by fear of punishmentto restrain certain men who areuntouched by any care for what isjust and right uress compeHed byhearing the dire threats hi the law.But they are restrained not becausetheir inner mind is stirred or affect-ed, but because, behig bridled, so tospeak, they keep theh- hands fromoutward activity, and hold inside thedepravity that otherwise they wouldwantonly have idiged."The differences between Luther

and Calvin are small but noteworthy.Luther understood the moral law in its

45 Calvin, Galatians, 99,100.46 Calvin, Inst. H, vu, 6. 47 Calvin, Inst. II, vii, 10.

156 Thomas K.Johnson

civic use as largely mediated throughsocietal orders, whether the state,the famy, the school, or the church.Calvin conceives of the civ use of thelaw as beig largely unmediated, i thedirect encounter of an idividual withGod. Of course, Calvin thought theciv magistrate had to prevent societalchaos, which he regarded as the worstof evs. But when he tumed his midto his second use of the law, he firstconsiders each person's drect encoun-ter with God.

Calvin said the third use of the lawis primary:

The third and principal use, whichpertains more closely to the properuse of the law, finds its place amongbeUevers i whose hearts the Spiritof God already Uves and reigns. Foreven though tiiey have the law writ-ten and engraved upon the: heartsby tiie finger of God Qer. 31:33; Heb.10:16), that is, have been so movedand quickened through the d-ectingof the Spirit that they long to obeyGod, they still profit by the law intwo ways.**Calvin's two ways in which the law

helps beUevers are teaching the wl ofGod, which beUevers deske to foUow,and exhorting beUevers to continuedobedience. Though Calvi does not usethis terminology, they could be caUed'Use 3A' and 'Use 3B'. Concerning Use3A Calvin claims the law 'is the bestinstmment for them to leam morethoroughly each day the nature of theLord's wiU to which they aspke, and toconfirm them in the understanding ofit'.^' He uses vivid language about Use

3B: 'by frequent meditation upon it tobe aroused to obedience, be strength-ened in it, and be drawn back from thesUppery path of transgression'.^"

Lest one think the deskes of beUev-ers are aU negative, he explains:

For the law is not now acting to-ward us as a rigorous enforcementofficer who is not satisfied unlessthe reqirements are met. But inthis perfection to which it exhortsus, the law poits out the goal to-ward which throughout life we areto strive."For Calvin, the law is a friend i

a way Luther did not imagine. Calvinknew, Uke Luther, that the law alwaysaccuses beUevers, but for Calvin thisaccusation is in Ught of a deep, contin-uing assurance of God's fatherly care,so the threats and harshness can beremoved from the heUever's experienceof the law. Lie Luther, Calvin fuUy af-firmed the principle of simul Justus etpeccator, that the beUever is snulta-neously justified and siful; therefore,the beUever needs the law of God asa guide to life. But the new obedienceto the law is an expression of gratitudefor the gospel without any hint of usigthe moral law as a tool for self-justifi-cation.

Was Calvi's gentle criticism ofLuther correct, assuming the vaUdityof Calvin's three-fold use? The answeris 'probably not', because Luther'sview of the uses of the law is closerto Calvin's than Calvin may have rec-ognized, even though Luther did notuse the word 'third use'. The rea-son for this claim is that the content

48 Calvin,/nsf. n,vi, 12.49 Calvin,/nsi. H,vi, 12.

50 Calvin, Inst. H, vi, 12.51 Calvin,/nif, H, vi, 13.

Law and Gospel 157

of Calvin's Use 3B, that beHevers 'bedrawn back from the sHppery path oftransgression', is included in Luther'scivic use of the law, restraining sin.Luther and Calvin both thought the sinof beHevers needs to be restrained. Thedifference in terminology is only wherethis theme appears i the outline.

Then the question of knowing thewl of God, to which beHevers shouldaspire: Calvin caHed this third use ofthe law 'primary', which Luther didnot. However, for Calvin this use of themoral law was 'primary' in an idealsense if God's people were all walk-ing by faith and merely questioningwhat they should do. In practice Calvinmakes tiie theological, condemninguse of the law very important.

In his Institutes, the insightful dis-cussion of the Decalogue is includedin the section analyzing the humanpredicament, prior to his discussion ofthe gospel. Calvin is using the law inits theological function to show sin. IfCalvin had only emphasized the 'third'use of the law, then he would have dis-cussed the law only after his discus-sion of Christology and justification. Inpractice Calvin's use of the law is closeto Luther's recommendations aboutwhich use is primary.

At the same time, Luther's notion ofthe 'Command of God' found in scrip-ture as the norm for the Christian Hferesembles Calvin's Use 3A, showinghow Christians should Hve in gratitudefor the gospel. The first problem withthe works Luther had done as a monkwas that they were intended to deserveor eam God's favour; the second prob-lem was that his works were the wrongworks. True good works had to be donein obedience to God's word in the Scrip-tures and flow from faith in the gospel.

not substitute for faith in the gospel.This teaching of Luther approximatesto Calvin's Use 3A.

Luther made negative statementsabout the law. In the 'Preface' to hisstudy on Galatians, he claimed:

The highest act and wisdom ofChristians is not to know the law,to ignore works and all active right-eousness, just as outside the peo-ple of God the highest wisdom is toknow and study the law, works andactive righteousness.^^Nevertheless, Luther also said, 'the

works of the law must be performedeither before justification or after jus-tification'."

When outward duties must be per-formed, then, whether you are apreacher, a magistrate, a husband, ateacher, a pup, etc., this is not timeto Hsten to the gospel. You must Hs-ten to the law and foHow your voca-tion."Luther taught that the works of obe-

dience to the moral law not only foowjustification in a chronological manner;obedience to the law is a fruit of faith:

Anyone who wants to exert himselftoward righteousness must firstexpert himself in Hstening to thegospel. Now when he has heard andaccepted this, let him joj^ fuHy givethanks to God, and theu let him ex-ert himself in good works that arecommanded in the law; thus the lawand works will foHow hearing withfaith. Then he wl be able to walksafely in the Hght that is Christ; to

52 Luther, Galatians, 6.53 Luther, Galatians, 123.54 Luther, Galatians, 117.

158 Thomas K.Johnson

be certain about choosing and do-ing works that are not hypocriticalbut truly good, pleasig to God,and commanded by him; and to re-ject all the mummery of self-chosen

After contrasting the righteousnessof the law with the righteousness offaith, Luther declares:

When he [Christ] has been graspedby faith, then the Holy Spirit is grant-ed on Christ's account. Then God andneighbour are loved, good works areperformed, and the cross is bome.This is really keeping the law;...Hence it is impossible for us to keepthe law without the promise."Luther elaborates:Moses, together with Paul, neces-sarily drives us to Christ, throughwhom we become doers of the lawand are accounted guty of no trans-gression. How? Fust, through theforgiveness of sins and the imputa-tion of righteousness, on accountof faith in Christ; secondly, throughthe gift of the Holy Spirit, who cre-ates a new life and new impulses inus, so that we may keep the law."Luther taught that law-keeping

by beUevers had three important pur-poses:

What is the purpose of keeping it[the law] if it does not justy? Thefinal cause of the obedience of thelaw by the righteous is not right-eousness in the sight of God, whichis received by faith alone, but thepeace of the world, gratitude toward

55 Luther, Galatians, 214, 215.56 Luther, Galatians, 255.57 Luther, Galatians, 260.

God, and a good example by whichothers are ivited to beUeve thegospel.^'Like Calvin, Luther taught that

keepig the moral law of God was theproper expression of gratitude for thegospel. There were differences in ter-miology regarding the proper uses ofthe law, with differences of personaUtybehind those differences in terminolo-gy, but the massive agreement betweenLuther and Calvin set a standard fordiscussions of the use of God's law.

VIM ImplicationsLuther and Calvin thought the relation-ship between law and gospel was cen-tral for several reasons. They saw thisrelation as central in the Bible, in boththe Old and New Testaments; in otherwords, the bibUcal interpreter has notproperly examined the Scriptures this relation between law and gospelhas not been perceived. This consider-ation must not be forgotten. Followingdirectly from this, the abiUty to clearlydistinguish and relate law and gospelwas regarded as central to recognizinga person as an evangeUcal theologian.This abiUty enables a person to applythe bibUcal message to human experi-ence in a balanced manner that flowsfrom a central structure of the bibUcalproclamation.

Closely related is the apprehensionthat the bibUcal relationship betweenlaw and gospel addresses one of thedeepest existential dynimics within

58 Luther, Galatians, 273. The term 'finalcause' was a way of talking about purposethat was inspired by the terminology of Aris-totle.

Law and Gospel 159

human beings. People will always dosomething with the moral law, whetherdespair because of inabity to keep thelaw, false confidence because of sup-posed earned righteousness, or tum-ing to the gospel. Others may tum toa deficient gospel because beheving agospel is hard to avoid. This existentialrelation to law and gospel is constantand dynamic, throughout a lifetime.For this reason, it is wise to addressthese issues continually in preachingand pastoral care. We shoid see law(in its multiple uses) and gospel astruly central to the apphcation of thebibhcal message and central to thedivine-human encounter.^ ^

Some weaknesses in evangehcal-ism can be strengthened by Reforma-tion teaching on law and gospel. Onehas been forgetting the connection be-tween the moral law and God's generalrevelation.*" Forgetting this connectioncan cause us to miss tiie way in whichpeople without the gospel alreadyencounter God's law in both its theo-logical and civic uses, weakening ourapproach to social ethics, culture, andmissions.

In social ethics, we should assumethat all people already encounter God'smoral law through creation and con-science; therefore, moral claims rootedin the Bible clarify and strengthen mor-al knowledge that people akeady have,though this knowledge is darkened ormisused.

In missions, we can expect that peo-ple wl normally have questions andanxieties arising from their encounterwith the moral law in its theologicaluse, proclaimed by God's general rev-elation; there is a correlation or ques-tion/answer relation between the gos-pel and human experience.*'

In relation to citiu-e, each of theuses of the moral law, as well as thegospel, imphes a distinct relationshipof tiie biblical message to culture. Inthis hght we can think of Christianityas having four distinct relationships toctture."

Another weakness has been a fa-tu-e to distinguish the way the morallaw relates to reason from the way thegospel relates to reason. The claimthat 'we are justified in Christ' ispxnrely a statement of faith in the gos-pel, whereas the claim that 'murder iswrong' is based on reason as well as onfaith. This leads to more differentiationin our discussions of faith and reason.This differentiation can strengthenhow we discuss integrating evangeh-cal theology and ethics with learningin the various academic fields.

A further weakness has been forget-ting the civ use of the moral law. Thismakes it more difficit for evangelicalsto develop social ethics that do not ei-ther sound hke an attempt to flee theworld (ethics of holy community) orelse sound like an attempt to take overthe world (ethics of theocratic domina-

59 The second question and answer of TheHeidelberg Catechism (1563) clearly used thisframework for preaching the Reformationfaith. See question and answer no. 2.60 Unfortunately, Karl Barth did much to pro-mote this problem by his rejection of generalrevelation.

61 It is proper to use the term 'correlation'in Reformation based theology without intend-ing everything that Paul TLUich meant by thatterm.62 I have explained this further in 'Christ andCulture', Evangelical Review of Theology 35:1,January, 2011.

160 Thomas K.Johnson

tion). There is a disnct and proper re-lation of the moral law, given by God, tohuman experience, reason, and society,which we must learn to use in our civicethics. This wiH enable us to talk andact as responsible citizens contributingto the pubHc good, being open aboutour Christian faith, without foHowing afight or flight relation to society.*'

63 I have addressed these topics in NaturalLaw Ethics: An Evangelical Proposal (Bonn:VKW, 2005) and in 'Bibhcal Principles in thePubhc Square', MBS Text 108, available atwww.bucer.eu. This forms the background formy Human Rights: A Christian Primer, WorldEvangehcal Alhance, 2008.

Therefore, it is wise to see the re-lation between law and gospel as ahermeneutical/hometical key in a two-fold sense. Historically, this is the keyto the Reformers' hermeneutics andhometics, needed to understand theReformation. Normatively, we shouldsee the relation between law and gos-pel as a hermeneutical/hometical keyto interpret, apply, and proclaim thebibhcal message hi a balanced and fuHmanner hi late modernity. This distinc-tion gives a substantial and unifiedstructure to our hermeneutics, theol-ogy, social ethics, practical theology,and hometics.

Luther as a Spiritual AdviserThe Interface of Theology and Piety in Luther's

Devotional WritingsDennis Ngien

The aim of this book is to unfold the pastoral side of Luther, drawingon the spiritual insights he offers to people of high and low estate. His

pastoral writings are devotional and catechetical in shape and intent, yetnot devoid of rich theological substance. They are the exercises of Luther's

basic calling as a theologian-pastor, and are the concrete illustrationsof the interface of theology and piety, the former being the abiding

presupposition of the latter. Ngien's work reveals Luther as a theologian ofthe cross at work in the pastoral context.

"This timely book will help to recover the pastoral theological importanceof Luther for a new generation. '

Carl R. TruemanDennis Ngien is Research Professor of Theology at Tyndale University Collegeand Seminary, and founder of the Centre for Mentorship and Theological Refl

ection, Toronto, Canada.

978-1-84227-461-31229 x 152mm 1208pp I 19.99

Paternoster, Authenticmedia Limited, 52 Presley Way,Crovmhill, Milton Keynes, MK8 OES

Copyright of Evangelical Review of Theology is the property of Paternoster Periodicals and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.