How significant is the difference between saying the decalogue CONTAINS the moral law but is not equivalent to it vs the decalogue IS the moral law?

5Solas5Points

Puritan Board Freshman
What are the various positions on this topic? I know there is variation but what are all the possible views one could have on this and still be true to the reformed confessions?
 
The Decalogue is the moral law of God. But it does not exhaust the moral law of God. It serves as a summary of the moral law of God (WCF 19). Every biblical expression of the moral law of God thus ties in with one of the Ten Commandments (as it fleshes out, e.g., murder and adultery in the cases of the 6th and 7th commandments).

We can also, rightly, per WCF 19, speak of the judicial and ceremonial laws of God.

I think that a careful perusal of this chapter, together with the Scripture proofs, should help you see more clearly what I am saying here.

Peace,
Alan
 
Neither statement is precisely the dominant Confessional position as codified for orthodox Protestantism in the 16th-17th centuries.

The moral law is summarized variously in the NT:
Rom.13:8, 10; Gal.5:14--according to the Apostle Paul, in one word: Love.
Mt.22:37-40--according to Christ Jesus the Lord, in two great commandments: Love to God and Love to Neighbor

From such commentary, and passages like 1Tim.1:8-10, we are directed back to the Decalogue for the "classic" summary of the moral law, the cornerstone of the Israelite national covenant. At the "steps" of increasing clarity (from one to two, from two to ten) we find answer to the questions, "OK, Love... what might that look like?" and "OK, Love God and my neighbor... what might that look like?" Loving and submitting to God, whether as an OT Israelite or a NT Christian, means obedience from the heart to know and to do everything as our Lord wills for his pleasure (Lk.6:46; Mt.7:21).

If someone desired to play a verbal fencing-match, he might attack the couplet (is) that declares the moral law equals the 10C. He might suggest there were matters of morality that are not bracketed (allegedly) or not clearly so by the bound of the 10C. Conversely, he might say the 10C are more than moral (by some definition) and therefore an appeal to them imposes false burden on men and their consciences.

By recognizing the 10C summarize the moral law rather than defining it, one debate straitjacket may be avoided.
 
I think Johannes G. Vos's commentary on the WLC question #98 is also helpful:

WLC:
Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.


Vos's commentary:
Are the Ten Commandments a complete statement of the moral law of God?
The Ten Commandments are not a complete statement in detail of the moral law, but rather a summary of the moral law. Rightly interpreted, they include every moral duty enjoined by God. However, the more detailed statements of God's will are needed for a right interpretation and application of the Ten Commandments. For example, the eighth commandment forbids stealing, but only by a study of other parts of the Bible can we learn what "stealing" includes and frame a correct definition of it.
 
Neither statement is precisely the dominant Confessional position as codified for orthodox Protestantism in the 16th-17th centuries.

The moral law is summarized variously in the NT:
Rom.13:8, 10; Gal.5:14--according to the Apostle Paul, in one word: Love.
Mt.22:37-40--according to Christ Jesus the Lord, in two great commandments: Love to God and Love to Neighbor

From such commentary, and passages like 1Tim.1:8-10, we are directed back to the Decalogue for the "classic" summary of the moral law, the cornerstone of the Israelite national covenant. At the "steps" of increasing clarity (from one to two, from two to ten) we find answer to the questions, "OK, Love... what might that look like?" and "OK, Love God and my neighbor... what might that look like?" Loving and submitting to God, whether as an OT Israelite or a NT Christian, means obedience from the heart to know and to do everything as our Lord wills for his pleasure (Lk.6:46; Mt.7:21).

If someone desired to play a verbal fencing-match, he might attack the couplet (is) that declares the moral law equals the 10C. He might suggest there were matters of morality that are not bracketed (allegedly) or not clearly so by the bound of the 10C. Conversely, he might say the 10C are more than moral (by some definition) and therefore an appeal to them imposes false burden on men and their consciences.

By recognizing the 10C summarize the moral law rather than defining it, one debate straitjacket may be avoided.
Thank you for the detailed and informative answer. My main question is where I've read reformed theologians say the 10C is actually the moral law written on the heart. From my understanding of the passages you cited it seems at it's heart the moral law is more fundamental than the ten. It seems that the law written on the heart would be love God and neighbor and everything else such as the ten would be the natural outworking of those two. Are you familiar with Kline's view on this and is what I've said about that two greatest commandments being written on the heart outside of the reformed tradition? Also, in what way is the law written on the heart of an unbeliever vs the believer? Why does Paul seem to suggest he was ignorant of what coveting was prior to special revelation? I know I've been going on about this particular subject but I'm really trying to understand this.
 
Thank you for the detailed and informative answer. My main question is where I've read reformed theologians say the 10C is actually the moral law written on the heart. From my understanding of the passages you cited it seems at it's heart the moral law is more fundamental than the ten. It seems that the law written on the heart would be love God and neighbor and everything else such as the ten would be the natural outworking of those two. Are you familiar with Kline's view on this and is what I've said about that two greatest commandments being written on the heart outside of the reformed tradition? Also, in what way is the law written on the heart of an unbeliever vs the believer? Why does Paul seem to suggest he was ignorant of what coveting was prior to special revelation? I know I've been going on about this particular subject but I'm really trying to understand this.
I am not that familiar--probably to my detriment--with MGKline. Therefore, I cannot comment on his opinion regarding the substance of that which is graven on the heart, either originally with man in creation or re-inscribed on believer's hearts when they are restored to covenant fellowship through the Mediator. MGK comes in for various criticisms, some valid, others less so. As a seminary professor and author, he helped form many faithful ministers for the church, in spite of any idiosyncrasies and errors (and no one is error-free).

I think MGK performed his most important service to his students and readers--and through them to the church--by maintaining and defending the doctrine of the Covenant of Works during the 20th century, when it was increasingly unpopular to do so. MGK was a covenant theologian in the classic mold, however daring his unique exegetical directions. By insisting on the Covenant of Works, he defended the Decalogue as exhibiting some kind of moral, legal expression.

Unbelievers have experienced the destruction and corruption of their original constitution, making them unable to "read" (as if from an internal compass) and know the moral law. Yet, indelibly stamped into them remains the relics of that constitution; it is a presence Paul can appeal to as the work of the law. Imagine the stone tablets Moses cast down and smashed--that's the picture of the law as written originally in man's heart. Pick up the pieces and what can you tell was written there? Hardly anything; but still the engraving shows itself in the rubble.

I firmly believe Paul professed "ignorance" not because his parents and rabbis failed to train him to recite the 10C from the time he was a child (and hence must have known the 10th Commandment); but because it was not until he had that commandment enforced on his conscience as never before that he heard it as if for the first time. We actually have something like this happening to someone else (not identified as Paul) in the Gospels, when Jesus presses the Rich Young Ruler with the commandment against coveting.

That man went from smug self-righteousness, boasting that he had kept all the commandments since he was a youth, to going away sorrowful because he had much wealth, his heart being suddenly exposed; when before all he paid attention to was his formal conformity to the visible pattern of religion. The 10th is all about the heart, and God looks on the heart. Jesus looked at his heart, loved him, and told him the truth about his heart. The same law and Spirit had the same or similar effect on Paul, possibly by some preacher (like Stephen?); and when he finally felt its demand, he immediately knew himself not righteous at all, but beset by this most insidious sin. He began to see and experience coveting like never before.

What specific moral failure actuates this man or that man's conscience--even prior to the faithful word coming to bear (if it does)--is the product of many factors. The point of conviction is not the specific sin, but that the sinner is worried. He cannot find rest, be he coveting, lusting, thieving, swearing, etc. He may be pricked in conscience by a "sin" falsely so-called; Paul points out that the heathen don't live up to their own socially reconstructed standards. All that is necessary for God to find the man guilty on Judgment Day is to take one of that man's "laws" that actually conforms to God's law, and ignoring all the other issues convict the man by his own conscience.
 
Back
Top