Jonathan Edwards
CONDEMNED YET ACCEPTED (Cont’d)
SECOND ARGUMENT: Holy Scriptures supports and proves that faith alone justifies. In Scripture, God reveals His mind and will. Even through these revelations, we will never know how those who have offended God can come to be accepted of Him and justified in His sight. The apostle Paul is abundant in teaching that “we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law” (Romans 3:28, 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:8; 3:11; 3:24). There is no other doctrine that he covers more completely or handles more distinctly. Paul explains, gives reasons, and answers objections.
Here the apostle expressly asserts that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. But some think that his teaching is open to interpretation. Without benefit of sitting with Paul and hearing him speak clearly from his heart, one interpretation could be that when he writes of justification without the works of law, he is referring to the whole law of God. Perhaps he makes reference only to the rule that God has given to mankind to walk by. Or perhaps all he intends is to exclude the ceremonial law.
Some who oppose this doctrine say that the apostle sometimes means that it is by faith that people are admitted into a justified state. And by “faith” he means a healthy embrace of the gospel in its first act only, without any preceding holy life. They say that it is by persevering in obedience that they are continued in a justified state, and it is by this that they are finally justified. But this is the same thing as saying that when a man first embraces the gospel, he is conditionally justified and pardoned. To pardon sin is to free the sinner from the punishment of it — eternal misery. Therefore, if a person is pardoned or freed from this misery when he first embraces the gospel, but yet not finally freed, his actual freedom still depends on some condition yet to be performed. It is inconceivable that he can be pardoned any way other than conditionally. In other words, he is not properly, actually pardoned and freed from punishment. He only has God’s promise that he will be pardoned on future conditions. At the time, God promises them that if he persevere in obedience, he will be finally pardoned or actually freed from hell.
This theory completely discounts all of the apostle’s great doctrine of justification by faith alone. Such a conditional pardon is no pardon or justification at all. It is no more than all we already have, whether we embrace the gospel or not. For they all have a promise of final justification on the condition of sincere obedience in the future and in accordance to the extent that they embrace the gospel. Without disputing this, we will suppose that something happens when the sinner first embraces the gospel.
This “something” might properly be called justification or pardon, but still yet that final justification, real freedom from the punishment of sin, is suspended on conditions unfulfilled. Yet they, who believe that sinners are thus justified on embracing the gospel, assume that this justifies them. They assume it is a leading act of obedience, or at least virtue and moral goodness in them. They would be excluded if they interpret the apostle to mean “moral law” when he excludes works of the law. And therefore, if that point is yielded, if the apostle does, in fact, mean “moral,” and not only the ceremonial law, their whole scheme falls to the ground.
DISTINGUISHING MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW
Because the issue of the whole argument from those texts in Saint Paul’s epistles depends on the determination of this point, I would be particular in the discussion of it. Some of our opponents to this doctrine of justification deny that by “law,” the apostle means the “moral law” or the “whole rule of life which God has given to mankind.” They seem to think that the apostle only intends the Mosaic dispensation (simply obedience of the law instead of trusting Christ). But this assumption is identical to thinking that the apostle only means to exclude works of ceremonial law. When they interpret Paul’s words to mean that we are not justified by the works of the Mosaic dispensation, they must conclude that we are not justified by attending and observing what is Mosaic in that dispensation. We are not justified by what is specific to it, and its differences from the Christian dispensation, which is ceremonial and positive. Christian dispensation is not moral in that administration.
I must disprove that when the apostle speaks of works of the law in this affair, he means only works of the ceremonial law, or those observances that were specific to the Mosaic administration.
Here I must note that no one debates with the religious clerics on whether or not the works of the ceremonial law are included, or that the apostle does not particularly argue against justification by circumcision and other ceremonial observances. The only points to dispute are if, when he denies justification by works of the law, he means only ceremonial law is not also implied or intended. Those arguments to prove that the apostle meant the ceremonial law contribute nothing to the purpose unless they prove that the apostle meant ceremonial law only.
JUDIAZING CHRISTIANS AND CEREMONIAL LAW
One insistent theory is that the apostle wrote against justification by the works of the law based on the Judaizing of Christians, who were fond of circumcision and other ceremonies of the law, and depended so much on them. But suppose that their trusting in works of the ceremonial law was the sole occasion of the apostle’s writing (which there is not yet reason to allow). Suppose their trusting in a particular work of righteousness was all that gave occasion to the apostle to write. Then why did Paul not write again trusting in all works of righteousness whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the apostle might take occasion from observing some to trust in a certain work or any works of righteousness at all? After all, it was a very proper occasion. It would have been unavoidable for the apostle to argue against trusting in a specific work of righteousness without arguing against trusting in works of righteousness in general.
Suppose it had been some other particular sort of works that prompted the apostle to write. For instance, he might have been making reference to works of charity. If the apostle had written to them, telling them not to trust in their works, could they have understood the apostle’s admonishment to include other works besides charity? Would it have been absurd to understand him as writing against trusting in any work at all, because it was their trusting in a particular work, circumcision, that prompted him to write?
Another argument alleged as evidence that the apostle means only the “ceremonial law” when he says that we cannot be justified by the works of the law, is that he uses this argument to prove it. The law of which he speaks was given long after the covenant with Abraham. In Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul.” But, clerics argue that it was only the Mosaic administration, and not the covenant of works, that was given so long after the covenant.
The apostle’s argument seems manifestly flawed by their thinking. The apostle does not speak of a law that began its existence four hundred and thirty years after the covenant. If he did, there would be some force behind the religious clerics’ objection. But he is actually referring to a certain solemn transaction, well known among the Jews as “the giving of the law” at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,20). With a terrible voice, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, the moral law on tablets of stone. The Jews misinterpreted this transaction in the apostle’s time. They looked upon it as God’s establishing that law as a fule of justification. To correct this conceit, the apostle brought this invincible argument: that God would never annul His covenant with Abraham.
That covenant was plainly one of grace, one that would last, and upon which transactions could be built. It was a covenant of grace that He had established long ago with Abraham and his offspring (who are often mentioned as the ground of God’s people). God would not overthrow it by establishing a covenant of works with them at Mount Sinai, as the Jews and Judaizing Christians supposed.
THE APOSTLE PAUL AND MORAL LAW
The apostle does not mean only “works of the ceremonial law” when he excludes works of the law in justification. He also means the moral law, and all works of obedience, virtue, and righteousness that may appear by the following things.
- The apostle does not only say that we are not justified by the works of the law, but that we are not justified by works, using a general term. In his Scripture, he writes, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth,” and in the 6th verse, “God imputeth righteousness without works.” In Romans 11:6, “And if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.” So, Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, not of works.” Overwhelmingly clearly, the apostle does not refer to any other than works in general, good works, or works of virtue and righteousness that would correlate to a reward.
The apostle says we are justified or saved not by works. He does not qualify the works or elaborate in detail. What right does anyone have to determine that the apostle meant to confine works to a particular law or institution, excluding others? Are not observances of other divine laws works, as well? It seems that religious clergy in the Arminian scheme take liberties in their interpretations of several of those texts. (Editor’s Note: Arminians believe in free will and that Christ died for everyone’s sins, not just those of a select elite.) Where the apostle only mentions works, without any addition, they assume that he means our own good works in general. But then they say he merely means to exclude any proper merit in those works. But it is unreasonable to say the apostle means one thing when he declares that we are not justified by works, and another thing entirely when he says that we are not justified by the works of the law. We find the expressions mixed and used in the same discourse, when the apostle is evidently upon the same argument. To misinterpret is to dodge and fly from Scripture, rather than open and yield to its teachings. - In the third chapter of Romans, the apostle explains that all were guilty of breaches of the moral law, and consequently could not be justified by the works in the Old Testament: “There is none righteous, no not one: their throat is as an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit: their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; and their feet swift to shed blood.” And so he goes on, mentioning only those things that are breaches of the moral law. And then he concludes in the 19th and 20th verses, “Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” This is most evidently his argument, because all had sinned (as he said in the verse 9), and been guilty of those breaches of the moral law that he had mentioned (as he repeated in verse 23), “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Therefore none at all can be justified by the deeds of the law.
If the apostle meant only that we are not justified by the deeds of the ceremonial law, what kind of argument would that be? “Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood.” Therefore, they cannot be justified by the deeds of the Mosaic administration. They are guilty of the breaches of the moral law, and consequently cannot be justified by the deeds of the ceremonial law! Doubtlessly, the apostle’s argument is that the very same law they had broken, could not have justified them, even if they had obeyed it, because every law necessarily condemns it violators. And therefore, our breaches of the moral law cannot be argued, because we cannot be justified by that law we have broken.
The apostle’s argument is the same as that I have already used: that as long as we are in ourselves and out of Christ, we are under the condemnation of that original law or constitution that God established with mankind. And therefore it will never be fitting that anything we do or any virtue or obedience of ours will be accepted. Further, we will never be accepted because of it. - In all preceding parts of this epistle, wherever the apostle uses the term, the law, he evidently refers principally to the moral law. As in the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter: “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law.” It is evidently the written moral law the apostle means in all the subsequent verses but one, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law;” that is, the moral law that the Gentiles have by nature. And in the next verse, “Which show the work of the law written in their hearts.” It is the moral law that the Gentiles have by nature. And in the next verse, “Which show the work of the law written in their hearts.” It is the moral law and not the ceremonial that is written in the hearts of those who are destitute of divine revelation. And in the 18th verse, “Thou approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” It is the moral law that shows us the nature of things, and teaches us what is excellent. In the 20th verse, “Thou hast a form of knowledge and truth in the law.” It is the moral law, as is evident by what follows. In verses 22-23, “Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy bost of the law, through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God?” Adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege surely break the moral, not the ceremonial, law. In the 27th verse, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, wjho by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” To better understand, consider the Gentiles, whom you despised because they are not uncircumcised. In spite of that, they live moral and holy lives. In obedience to the moral law, they condemn you, even though you are circumcised.
There is not one place in all the preceding parts of the epistle where the apostle writes of the law, but he most certainly refers to the moral law. And yet later in the same discourse, when the apostle tells us that we cannot be justified by the works of the law, he means only the ceremonial law. All this discourse on the moral law, demonstrating that both the Jews and Gentiles have violated it, is evidently preparatory and introductory to that doctrine, Romans 3:20, “That no flesh” (that is, none of mankind, neither Jews nor Gentiles) “can be justified by the works of the law.” - It is evident that when the apostle says we cannot be justified by the works of the law, he means the moral as well as ceremonial law. He gives this reason for it: “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” In Romans 3:20, “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Now that law by which we come to the knowlege of sin.” Now that by which we come to the knowledge of sin is chiefly and primarily moral law. If this argument of the apostle is valid, “that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the law, because it is by the law that we come to the knowledge of sin;” then it proves that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the moral law or by the precepts of Christianity. Indeed, by them is the knowledge of sin. If the reason is good, then where the reason holds, so does the truth. It is a miserable shift and a violent force put upon the words to interpret their meaning as “by the law of circumcision is the knowledge of sin,” because circumcision, signifying the taking away of sin, puts men in mind of sin. The plain meaning of the apostle is that when the law most strictly forbids sin, it tends to convince us of sin and brings our own consciences to condemn us. It does not justify us.
The use of the law is to point out our own guilt and unworthiness, the reverse of justifying and approving of us as virtuous or worthy. This is the apostle’s meaning if we will allow him to be his own expositor. For in this very epistle, he, himself, explains to us that having the law gives us knowledge of sin by expressly forbidding it. Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said. Thou shalt not covet.” The apostle determines two things. First, the way in which “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” is by the law’s forbidding sin. Second and more directly to his purpose, he determines that it is the moral law by which we come to the knowledge of sin. “For,” he says, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” It is the moral, and not the ceremonial law, that says, “Thou shalt not covet.” Therefore, the apostle argues that by the deeds of th elaw, no person will be justified, because by the law a person gains knowledge of sin. Unless he underestimated the force of his argument, he proves that we cannot be justified by the deeds of the moral law. - It is evident that the apostle does not mean only the ceremonial law, because he explains that we have righteousness and a title to the privilege of God’s children not by the law, but by faith, “that the law worketh wrath.” Romans 4:13-16, “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through righteousness by faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” By the apostle’s own account, the way in which the law works wrath is by forbidding sin, and aggravating the guilt of the transgression. “For,” he says, “where no law is, there is no transgression.” And so, Romans 7:13, “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” If the reasoning of the apostle is sound, it is much stronger against justification by the moral law than the ceremonial law. For it is chiefly from transgressions of the moral law that wrath comes, because these transgressions are most strictly forbidden and most terribly threatened.
- It is evident that when the apostle says we are not justified by the works of the law, he excludes all our own virtue, goodness, or excellence. The reason he gives is boasting. “That boasting might be excluded.” Romans 3:26-28, “To delcare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might e just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” Now why would men want to boast, except that they esteem their own goodness or excellence? If we are not justified by works of the cermonial law, how does that exclude boasting as long as we are justified by our own excellence, virtue and goodness, or works of righteousness that we have done?
It is said that boasting is excluded, as was circumcision, in which the Jews especially took glory and by which they valued themselves above other nations. To this I answer, the Jews not only boasted of circumcision, but also were notorious for boasting of their moral righteousness. The Jews of those days were generally admirers and followers of the Pharisees, who were full of their boasts of their moral righteousness. Note the example in Luke 18 of the Pharisee whom Christ mentions as describing the general temper of that sect “Lord,” the Pharisee says, “I thank thee, that I am not as other men, an extortioner, nor unjust, nor an adulterer.”
The works of which he boasts were chiefly moral works, he depended on the works of the law for justification. And therefore, Christ tells us that the publican who renounced all his own righteousness “went down to his house justified.”
Elsewhere, we read of the Pharisees praying in the comers of the streets, and sounding a trumpet before them when they did alms. But those works about which they so vainly boasted were moral works. And not only that, but they boasted of the moral law – a transgression for which the apostle condemns the Jews in this very epistle. Romans 2:22-23, “Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, do thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God?”
The law mentioned here and about which the Jews boasted was moral law that covered breaches of adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege. So this is the boasting for which the apostle condemns them. If they were justified by the works of this law, then why did he say that their boasting is excluded? And besides, when they boasted of the rites of the ceremonial law, they assumed that observing these rites was part of their own goodness or excellence, and made them holier and more lovely than other people in the sight of God. How was their boasting excluded unless all goodness or excellence of their own was excluded? - The apostle gives the reason that we can be justified only by faith and not by the works of the law in the Galatians 3, “That they that are under the law, are under the curse.” It is evident that he does not mean only the ceremonial law. In that chapter, the apostle particuarly insists that Abraham was justified by faith only. Not through the works of the law can we be justified, by faith only. Not through the works of the law can we be justified, become the children of Abraham, and be made partakers of the blessing of Abraham. He gives this reason for it in the Galatians 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”
It is obvious that these words from Deuteronomy are spoken not only with regard to the ceremonial law, but the whole law of God to mankind and the moral law. Further, all mankind is under the curse, not only while the ceremonial law lasted, but now since that has ceased. And therefore all who are justified are redeemed from that curse by Christ’s bearing it for them. Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Even when a man ceases to do all the things that are written in the book of the law, he is cursed. This is why we cannot be justified by the works of what that law says or does not say. If it is said, then it is a good reason that we cannot be justified by the works of the moral law, and of the whole rule which God has given to mankind to walk by.
For the words are spoken of the moral, as well as the ceremonial, law, and reach every command or precept that God has given to mankind, particularly the moral precepts, which are most strictly enjoined. Those who violate these moral precepts are threatened with the most dreadful curse in both the Old and New Testaments, and in the books of Moses themselves. - The apostles also argues against our being justified by our own righteousness and against being justified by the works of the law. He uses the expressions, “of our own righteousness” and “works of the law” as signifying the same thing. It is particularly evident in Romans 10:3, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Here it is plain that he is consistent in linking the two expressions, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
warriorprincess4yeshua.blog 