Matt Ryan
Puritan Board Freshman
My question is about the following chapters/paragraphs in the WCF and the 1689. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm wrestling with these concepts and trying to understand the reasoning behind them.
Chapter XIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God
19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
19.2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
_________________
Chapter XIX of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God
19.1. God gave to Adam a Law of universal obedience, written in his Heart, and a particular precept of not eating the Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal entire exact and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatned death upon the breach of it; and indued him with power and ability to keep it.
19.2. The same Law that was first written in the heart of man, continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness after the fall; & was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and written in two Tables; the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.
I prefer the language of the 1689 in 19.1. It seems to me to explain what the authors of the WCF probably meant. We don't find in the scriptures an account of God giving Adam a specific Law. We find that God wrote his law on Adams heart and then gave him specific precepts (concerning which fruit he could eat, and perhaps the cultural mandate).
My question comes in with 19.2. How can anyone prove that the law of God, written on man's heart in Adam, is the one and the same law as the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments were a covenant given to Israel. The 4th commandment in particular, being given only there in Exodus 20 / Deut 5. What biblical evidence is there that the 4th commandment was written on Adam's heart and given to all his posterity as a positive moral command? There seems to be a leap being made from 19.1 to 19.2.
Some have said that the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law of God and account for the leap that way. But if that is the case, they would have to be irreducible, founded upon no deeper principle. True enough for some (the first commandment) but not for others (the 5th commandment). The 2 great commandments upon which the 2 tables of the Law are founded are eternal moral precepts, irreducible, applicable to all moral creatures in any and every context. This is not the case for the 5th commandment. That law is given in a human context where the family structure has been instituted by God. There is a deeper eternal principle behind it. The same is true of 7th commandment. It was given in a human context in which God gave the institution of marriage. It too has a deeper eternal principle behind it. Furthermore, these 2 would not apply to angels (who have neither father or mother and who are neither married nor given in marriage. So it is incorrect to say that the 10 commandments ARE the eternal moral law of God, the most we could say is that they are the simplest expression of God's eternal moral law of God given to man in the context of creation.
But then that brings us back to the covenantal nature of these Laws, the context in which they were given, and the lack of evidence that these 10 were written in the heart of man from the beginning.
Chapter XIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God
19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
19.2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
_________________
Chapter XIX of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God
19.1. God gave to Adam a Law of universal obedience, written in his Heart, and a particular precept of not eating the Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal entire exact and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatned death upon the breach of it; and indued him with power and ability to keep it.
19.2. The same Law that was first written in the heart of man, continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness after the fall; & was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and written in two Tables; the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.
I prefer the language of the 1689 in 19.1. It seems to me to explain what the authors of the WCF probably meant. We don't find in the scriptures an account of God giving Adam a specific Law. We find that God wrote his law on Adams heart and then gave him specific precepts (concerning which fruit he could eat, and perhaps the cultural mandate).
My question comes in with 19.2. How can anyone prove that the law of God, written on man's heart in Adam, is the one and the same law as the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments were a covenant given to Israel. The 4th commandment in particular, being given only there in Exodus 20 / Deut 5. What biblical evidence is there that the 4th commandment was written on Adam's heart and given to all his posterity as a positive moral command? There seems to be a leap being made from 19.1 to 19.2.
Some have said that the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law of God and account for the leap that way. But if that is the case, they would have to be irreducible, founded upon no deeper principle. True enough for some (the first commandment) but not for others (the 5th commandment). The 2 great commandments upon which the 2 tables of the Law are founded are eternal moral precepts, irreducible, applicable to all moral creatures in any and every context. This is not the case for the 5th commandment. That law is given in a human context where the family structure has been instituted by God. There is a deeper eternal principle behind it. The same is true of 7th commandment. It was given in a human context in which God gave the institution of marriage. It too has a deeper eternal principle behind it. Furthermore, these 2 would not apply to angels (who have neither father or mother and who are neither married nor given in marriage. So it is incorrect to say that the 10 commandments ARE the eternal moral law of God, the most we could say is that they are the simplest expression of God's eternal moral law of God given to man in the context of creation.
But then that brings us back to the covenantal nature of these Laws, the context in which they were given, and the lack of evidence that these 10 were written in the heart of man from the beginning.