John G. Reisinger

I love to teach God's truth. In teaching, I have always used carefully worded questions as a means of getting people to think. I would rather have someone disagree with my position, and know why he disagreed with me, than I would have someone agree with me who did not understand what I was really saying. The later are the really dangerous people. Sincere friends who really do not understand you often get you into real problems. Luther said, "Lord, deliver me from my friends, I can take care of my enemies."

In using questions as a teaching method, I very quickly learned that most people never really study the Word of God nor do they actually use the Word of God as the foundation for their basic theological convictions. They use cliches and theological terms but rarely an actual text of Scripture, and when they do quote Scripture, the particular text usually does not prove the point they are trying to establish. I am reminded of the story of the Anglican minister who challenged Spurgeon to a debate on infant baptism. The man said, "We will each give one verse proving our point, and then proceed to each give another verse. I will go first." The man then quoted Matthew 19:14, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." Spurgeon quoted Job 1:1, "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job." The Anglican minister said, "What does that verse have to do with infant baptism?" Spurgeon said, "The same thing that Matthew 19:14 has to do with infant baptism–nothing!"

Sound of Grace now has a theological chat room which is free to subscribers of Sound of Grace. It is a wonderful opportunity to discuss and learn from each other. However, as J.C. Ryle, said, "You cannot have great good without it being abused." The chat room also gives anyone with an ax to grind a platform. Some, pretending to agree with our goals, use very flattering words while attempting to refute everything we teach. However, this also gives an opportunity to both set forth the truth and expose error.

At times it seems the discussions go nowhere except in a circle. This is because the writers are not discussing basic presuppositions. People will use a cliche or theological term as if it were a verse of Scripture. It is like talking with an evolutionist who uses all his "facts" to show how stupid we are. We totally waste our time arguing with such a person on the basis of his "facts" simply because those same things are not facts to us. The only basis on which we can have an intelligent discussion with such a person is by discussing whether evolution itself is true of false. If evolution is true than all the man's "evidences" are true and valid and he wins the argument. However, if evolution is only an unproven theory then not a single one of his so-called "facts" is true and therefore they all prove absolutely nothing.

The same thing is true with Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Arminianism, Calvinism, Reconstructionism, etc. Each and every one of these systems have some basic presuppositions and everything in the whole system is determined by the rightness or wrongness of those basic presuppositions. For instance, if the wedding of church and state, called sacralism, as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith is correct, then Calvin was absolutely correct when he had Servetus burned to death at the stake. In fact, if Calvin sincerely believed it was the magistrate's duty to punish people who contradicted the Scriptures, then he would have been a hypocrite if he would not have had Servetus put to death. If John Cotton, in Theonomic New England, sincerely believed the sacralism of the WCF then he would have been searing his conscience if he would not have had Baptists whipped so badly they could not sit or lay down on either their backs or stomachs. If the New England puritans would not have used the magistrates to force "Sabbath" attendance at church and repress any and every form of sports or other entertainment on Sunday, they would have been dishonest men who preached one thing and practiced another.

Everything depends on your presuppositions and how you define the terms you use. Terms stand for whole concepts and sometimes a whole doctrine. Let me discuss one term and how its use makes it absolutely impossible for two Christians to even seriously communicate with each other on the subject of the law until they first define the terms they are using, or possibly misusing. When the average preacher, or Christian, discussing biblical doctrine mentions Matthew 22:34-40, they nearly always say, "Jesus is here summarizing the moral law." Here is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism uses these verses as a "proof text" for its position on "the moral law":

Question #39. What is the duty which God requireth of man? Answer: The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

Question #40. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience? Answer: The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience, was the moral law.

Question #41. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? Answer: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.

Question #42. What is the sum of the Ten Commandments? Answer: The sum of the Ten Commandments is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our neighbor as ourselves.

If these questions are legitimate and the answers given are true, then the foundation of what we call "New Covenant Theology" is proven to be false. However, the reverse is also true as it concerns Covenant Theology's view of law and grace. That view, which is built on the foundation of the above questions and answers, is false if the questions and answers are wrong. This is not a minor point of difference. This is one of the building blocks of any system of theology. Exactly what is "the Law," and what is its place and function in the history of redemption?

We must ask, "Exactly what are these four questions and answers in the Catechism assuming as 'facts' without even questioning whether they are true or false?" They are assuming (1) that there is such a thing a revealed code of eternal, unchanging moral law; (2) the ten commandments are that one eternal, unchanging code; and (3) the two commandments of love in Matthew 22:34-40 are a summary statement of the ten commandments. None of these three things are taught in the Scripture. There are many moral laws, but there is no one unchanging code of moral law. The ten commandments are never set forth as the summary of an "eternal and unchanging moral law." Matthew 22:34-40 is not summarizing the ten commandments.

First of all, I think all true Christians will agree with both the question and answer set forth in number 39. Man's whole duty to God is set forth in "his revealed will." To reject that is to be a pure antinomian and make some thing in man himself be his rule of life. Man is not an autonomous creature nor has God left man to choose for himself what he is to do and not do. The Bible gives a clear, objective revelation of God himself and his will for his creatures. All men are "without excuse" both intellectually and morally (Romans 1:18-29; 2:15) simply because God has clearly revealed himself and his will. Anyone who accuses us of believing or teaching that believers are not responsible to obey the objective commandments that our Lord and his Apostles have laid on us is woefully ignorant of what we believe or deliberately malicious in lying about us. We emphatically endorse both question 39 and the answer of the Catechism. Our disagreement is only on exactly where in Scripture God's will for a new covenant believer is found. We insist it is found in the Law of Christ in the new covenant Scriptures and not from Mount Sinai and the covenant God made with Israel.

Question # 40 is a different matter. The Catechism will now introduce us to a theological term that has no basis whatever in Scripture. If this term is allowed to stand and be used with the same authority as a text of Scripture to "logically prove other doctrines," then we will indeed be "proven" to be "antinomians" because we reject "moral law." In reality we are rejecting covenant theology's non-biblical definition of "the moral law." The question and answer assume that there is such a thing as "The, [meaning 'the one eternal, unchanging'] moral law of God" revealed and codified in Scripture. The words "at first" means this law was given to Adam in the garden. Question 41 will state that this "one unchanging moral law" is "summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments," and question 42 will further show that Jesus, in Matthew 22:34-40, gave a summary of the ten commandments in his statement to the Pharisee concerning the greatest commandment. Are all of the above things "facts" or are they all theological assumptions, established by logic alone, that are not valid?

First of all, we believe that God's will for man is revealed progressively and not in a "once for all code." We simply do not believe there is such a thing as "The eternal, unchanging moral law" set forth in any one code. We do not believe the ten commandments are either the highest, or an unchanging moral code of law in the Bible. We do believe the ten commandments was the highest moral code ever given up to that point in history, but our Lord has given us a much higher standard. To make the tables of stone to be "The eternal, unchanging moral law of God" and deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was a new Lawgiver who (1) added higher laws to that list; who (2) eliminated at least one law from that list; and who, (3) raised some of those commandments to a higher moral and spiritual level, is nothing less than making Christ to be a mere rubber stamp of Moses. The bottom line is the final and full authority of Christ as new Lawgiver. That is what the Catechism is openly denying. The catechism is making Moses to be the full and final moral lawgiver and Christ to be merely the great and true interpreter of Moses.

The presupposition that is essential in Covenant Theology's view of law, as illustrated by the Catechism, is the insistence that the Law of Moses can be divided up into three distinct codes of law, namely, the ceremonial, the judicial, and the moral, or ten commandments. The first two codes are fulfilled in Christ, but the "eternal, unchanging moral law," the ten commandments, are still in force as the rule of life for a Christian. Once this idea is accepted, it is impossible to understand Paul's view of law and grace. As I hope to show in a moment, that division is totally foreign to the writers of Scriptures both in the old and new testaments. It is a pure theological invention and does not grow out of a biblical exegesis.

We are not at all suggesting that there are not specific laws in the OTS that are clearly ceremonial in nature and other laws which are clearly moral in nature. What we are insisting is that there are not different codes of law, that is, a ceremonial code, a civil code, and a moral code, where two codes are fulfilled in Christ but the other code is still in force. The "law" in the mind of the writers of Scripture is one single law that is either all in force or else it is all totally fulfilled and done away. This was the struggle in Galatia and is the struggle today. Dividing up the Law into different codes is the only way to get the tables of stone into the church as her rule of life. That is why the ten commandments must be called, and treated as, the "one unchanging, moral law of God" by covenant theologians. This is why they must adamantly resist any notion that Christ gave a higher moral standard in the Sermon on the Mount. Such a notion upsets the whole system.

Let me quote from a widely used workbook on the Westminster Shorter Catechism by G.I. Williamson. These are his comments on questions 39 through 43 printed above. All the brackets and italics are his. He is expressing classical covenant theology.

According to the Catechism this will of God for man was first revealed to man in the moral law. Then the Catechism goes on to say that we have this moral law "summarily comprehended" in the Ten Commandments, with these ten commandments themselves being summed up in the two great commandments of love (Q.42 and Matt.22:37-40). Now let's try to get this teaching clearly within our view. God's revealed will is the moral law. The moral law is (another name for) the ten commandments. And the ten commandments are (the same thing as) the two commandments of Christ. So, just as 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10, while 5 + 5 = 10 also; likewise, the moral law (which God gave to Adam) = the ten commandments, while the two commandments of Christ also = the ten commandments. Or in other words: the moral law which Adam had as the rule of his obedience at the beginning of the world was essentially the same as the ten commandments that we now have in our Bible, and essentially the same as the two great commandments of love. G.I Williamson, The Shorter Catechism, Volume II, Questions 39-107, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1972

It is imperative that you realize that there is not a shred of biblical evidence for anything Mr. Williamson has said. He does not even pretend to prove any of the above statements from texts of Scripture. He assumes it all as fact. His opening sentence is the constant method used by covenant theologians. "According to the Catechism" is the sum total of proof for what Mr. Williamson has said. Quoting the Catechism or the WCF is equal to quoting a text of Scripture. The WCF does the same thing. It says, "God gave Adam a law . . . this law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule . . . was delivered at Sinai . . . . in ten commandments . . . besides this law, commonly called moral. . . . The moral law doth forever bind all . . . neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation." WCF, Article 19:1, 2, 3, 5. Every single thing that Williamson says is presented as a fact simply because the WCF says, ". . . . besides this law [the ten commandments] commonly called moral." The ten commandments are the moral law simply because the WCF says so. It is true that Mr. Williamson, and all other covenant theologians, commonly call the ten commandments the moral law of God, but let us be clear that not one single writer of Holy Scripture was ever moved by the Holy Spirit to say, or infer, the same thing! That is a fact beyond dispute. You need only produce a text of Scripture to the contrary. The Word of God, in both the Old and New Testaments, presents the "Law of God" given to Moses as one unified whole that, in its entirety, has been done away in Christ. This is not referring to just the ceremonial and judicial parts of the law, but to the entire Law of God, including the so-called moral law, given to Moses.

Let us take a careful look at Matthew 22:34-40. These verses represent the clearest proof in the Bible as to exactly how both the Jews and our Lord understood the meaning of the word "Law."

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(1) Exactly what did the Pharisee mean by "the Law?" Did he understand "the Law" to be the ten commandments or the entire Law, either the Pentateuch or the whole Old Testament?

(2) If the Pharisee understood the Law to mean the ten commandments, then Jesus never answered his question. If the ten commandments are the "unchanging moral law of God," you would never know it from this passage. Jesus quoted a text from Deut. 6 and another from Lev. 19. He did not mention the ten commandments in any way. This proves that neither Jesus nor the Pharisee thought of "the Law" in terms of the ten commandments but in terms of the whole law. Neither Jesus nor the Jew divided the Law up into three codes. Such an idea is impossible in this dialogue.

(3) Jesus did not, as the Catechism states and most people believe, "summarize the ten commandments" with these two laws drawn from Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The texts in Matthew 22 nowhere say, nor do they in any way infer such a thing. To the contrary, Jesus says that the ten commandments, along with all other Scripture, "hang on," or are "suspended from" these two great laws based on love to God and love to man. When something "hangs on" something else, the thing that is hanging cannot be raised above the thing from which it is hanging. A man's pants hang from his suspenders. Who would suggest that his pants are supporting his suspenders? Jesus is not summarizing the ten commandments, but he is summarizing man's whole duty to God. He is not elevating the ten commandments to the top of the heap and then putting these two laws under the ten laws as merely a summary. The suspenders are the two laws summarizing man's whole duty to God, and the pants being supported are the ten commandments as well as "all" other moral laws. It is not the other way around. The ten words, like the rest of the whole Scripture, help us understand these two great duties upon which all duty rests. When Jesus said, "All the Law and the Prophets," He was including all of the laws in both, including the ten commandments.

One final word about this passage. The two commandments Jesus gave stand together as the final and full summary statement of man's whole duty to God.

The first without the second is intrinsically impossible (cf. I John 4:20), and the second cannot stand without the first–even theoretically–because disciplined altruism is not love. Love in the truest sense demands abandonment of self to God, and God alone is the adequate incentive for such abandonment. Dr. D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Zondervan, p. 464.

Jesus is not pitting law against love nor is Christ contrasting the old and new covenants. Remember he draws his two laws out of the old covenant Scriptures. He is talking about the absolute necessity of love even within the law itself. He is emphasizing the necessity of "heart religion." Even the greatest objective law in either the Old or New Testament is useless without being motivated by love. The two commandments Jesus gave are the greatest because all Scripture "hangs" on them. Nothing in all of Scripture, whether in the old or new covenants, can be truly obeyed without a heartfelt observation of the two commandments. Carson correctly observes, "The entire biblical revelation demands heart religion marked by total allegiance to God, loving him and loving one's neighbor. Without these two commandments the Bible is sterile" (Ibid. p. 465). Douglas Moo is just as correct when he says, "Love is the greatest commandment, but it is not the only one; and the validity and applicability of other commandments cannot be decided by appeal to its paramount demands" (Ibid. p. 465).

In one sense, this dialogue in Matthew 22 has nothing to do with either carrying the ten commandments over into the new covenant or discarding them as fulfilled. It is teaching the great lesson that all is futile without heartfelt love to my neighbor which is only possible by first experiencing God's redemptive love to me. However, the passage does have everything to do with demonstrating how totally false the idea is that teaches Jesus is supposedly reaffirming the validity of the so-called moral law by "summarizing the ten commandments." I doubt if it is possible to blunt the edge of the truth Jesus is teaching anymore effectively than by trying to get the ten commandments into this passage.

Is it not amazing that one of the most important "law" passages in the whole Bible, a passage where our Lord himself is specifically asked to clarify the subject of law, never refers to, or considers in any way, the so-called "moral law of God?" He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger