Salt&Light series

The moral law

Its place in Scripture and its relevance today

JOHN L. MACKAY
 Salt&Light series

The moral law

Its place in Scripture and its relevance today

JOHN L. MACKAY
This publication is based on two lectures delivered by the author for
The Christian Institute’s Autumn Lecture series in November 2003 at
St Stephen’s Church, Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Copyright © The Christian Institute 2023

The author has asserted his right under Section 77 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents
Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

First printed in October 2004

Reprinted in June 2010, February 2014, March 2017 and January 2023

ISBN 978-1-901086-27-0

Published by The Christian Institute

Wilberforce House, 4 Park Road, Gosforth Business Park,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12 8DG

All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted, in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Christian Institute.

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English
Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good
News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Christian Institute is a Company Limited by Guarantee, registered in England as a charity.

Company No. 263 4440, Charity No. 100 4774. A charity registered in Scotland. Charity No.
SC039220
Contents

5 Foreword

9 Introduction

11 The Old Testament evidence

17 The moral law

25 The Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic Law

29 The application of the other laws

35 The law as a covenant of works

39 Jesus and the law

45 The law and love

49 Paul and the law

57 The law of liberty

61 The moral law in today’s world

Foreword

Many Christians are very confused today about the relationship

between the Old and New Testaments. In the 1960s it became
fashionable to believe that Christ replaced Law with love. Some
say that we can dispense with the moral law because “we are not
under law but under grace”. In this publication Professor John L.
Mackay of the Free Church College, shows how this view cannot
be squared with the teaching of the Bible.
John Mackay shows that the Bible teaches that the moral law still
applies and is bound up with God’s glory, His nature, His salvation
purposes and with the preservation of ordered life following the
Fall.
Throughout Church history there have been those who opposed
this view – those who say that the moral law is no longer binding
on Christians. They are antinomian – which means literally in
Greek ‘against’ (anti) ‘law’ (nomos). This teaching is not new. The
Apostle Paul tackled it in his letter to the Romans. The Puritans
also tackled antinomianism in their day, indeed it was they who
first labelled this false teaching as ‘antinomianism’.
Today a quiet and subtle brand of antinomianism, in all but
name, has tiptoed into too many of our evangelical churches arm-in-
arm with a twisted view of love, grace and liberty. Such confusion
and compromise in the church is bound to have a disastrous effect
on the world as the salt loses its saltiness. Professor Mackay rightly
points out that perhaps never before has there been such a basic
rejection of the Ten Commandments.
It is vitally important that Christians think through the
relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. Many are
under the impression that Old Testament believers were saved by
works through keeping the law. John Mackay shows how wrong

Foreword | 5
this view is – they, like us, are saved by grace through faith. Having
been justified by faith we, like believers in the Old Testament
Church, need the moral law to show us how to live.
As Samuel Bolton put it, “the law sends us to the Gospel, that
we may be justified, and the Gospel sends us to the law againe to
enquire what is our dutie being justified.”1
Theologians down the ages, and especially the Reformers, have
made the very helpful distinction that the Bible contains three types
of law: the moral, the civil and the ceremonial. The ceremonial
laws have been fulfilled in Christ. The sacrifices no longer need
to be made as Christ has offered himself on the cross in our place.
The civil laws of Israel are not necessarily binding on people and
nations today. But the moral law has not been done away with.
It is still in force and binding on everyone whether a believer or
unbeliever.
This ‘threefold division’ of the law was taught by Aquinas but
clearly it has roots that go back even further. Augustine taught that
the law was not uniform and the moral and symbolical parts of
the law must be clearly distinguished.2 The threefold division was
also one of the touchstones of the Reformation about which all the
Reformers agreed. Article VII of the Thirty Nine Articles of the
Church of England (1571) states:

“ Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching

Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the
Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in
any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man
whatsoever is free from the obedience to the Commandments
”
which are called Moral .

In other words, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ

and are no longer binding, the civil laws of Old Testament Israel are
not necessarily applicable in the nation state (or commonwealth),
but the moral law still applies.

6 | THE MORAL LAW

 Similarly, chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith
(1643-46) teaches that:

“ The moral law doth for ever bind all”; the “ceremonial
laws are now abrogated under the New Testament”; and the
“sundry judicial” (or civil) laws of Israel “expired together
with the state of that people, not obliging any other now,
”
further than the general equity thereof may require .3

Not only did the Reformers teach about the three types of law,
but they also taught that there were three purposes of the law: to
restrain sin (the civil or political use), to teach that man is guilty
before God and in need of a saviour (the pedagogic use) and to
show Christians how to live (the normative use).
As the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1576) states:

“ It is established that the Law of God was given to men for

three causes: first, that a certain external discipline might be
preserved, and wild and intractable men might be restrained,
as it were by certain barriers; secondly, that by the Law men
might be brought to an acknowledgement of their sins; thirdly,
that regenerate men, to all of whom, nevertheless, much of the
flesh still cleaves, for that very reason may have some certain
”
rule after which they ought to shape their life . Article VI

In 1944 T C Hammond, the author of In Understanding Be Men,

pointed out that “The Reformation Leaders (1500-1600) brought to
the Church as great an ethical as doctrinal deliverance. This fact
has not always been fully appreciated by Christian people.”4 How
we need such an ethical and doctrinal deliverance today!
We need to regain a biblical view of the moral law. There is
an urgent need for evangelicals to understand what the Bible says
about it. There needs to be teaching – teaching that is clear, logical,
powerful and biblical. Christians need to know not just what the

Foreword | 7
law says, but why the law says it. In the Autumn of 2003 Professor
Mackay delivered two outstanding lectures for The Christian
Institute. Both lectures examined the Ten Commandments, showing
their place in Scripture and their relevance today. This publication
is based on those lectures.
I urge you to read Professor Mackay’s booklet. Then read it
again. Then teach it to others.

Colin Hart
Director, The Christian Institute (1990-2024)
August 2004

1
Bolton, S, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (1645) quoted in Kevan, E,
The Grace of Law, Soli Deo Gloria, 1997 (2nd ed), pages 175-176
2
Bayes, J, Reformation Today, September – October 2000, 177, pages 3-10
3
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, paras III, IV and V
4
Hammond, T C, Perfect Freedom, IVF, undated edition (originally published in
1938), page 35

8 | THE MORAL LAW

Introduction

It is arguably the case that the Ten Commandments are more

neglected in Britain today than they have been for centuries. Given
that is so, it is not unreasonable to probe why this has come about.
Obviously a root cause for the absence of the Ten Commandments
from our national life is general abandonment of Christianity. This
aversion to biblical religion is compounded by prevailing contempt
for authority in any form. Since the beginning of the Enlightenment
in the eighteenth century respect for norms and standards has been
steadily undermined. The scepticism of Enlightenment thinkers first
became evident in their argument that it is not possible for mankind
to use divine law as an external standard for judging human laws
and conduct. Initially there was an attempt to substitute some other
basis for discerning what constitutes a universal natural law. Their
aim was to establish an objective criterion for determining what is
right and what is wrong. However, that too has been abandoned.
The prevailing consensus is that there is no external norm which
sets out the principles to which human laws and conduct ought to
conform. All that matters is what the majority or the most powerful
group in a society wants. The fundamental criterion has been taken
to be man, and all standards are relativised. The strident notes of the
rebel are heard at every level of society: “We are free to do our own
thing, and who are you to tell us otherwise?” Fyodor Dostoyevsky
put it this way: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
What is more lamentable is that the same focus on mankind
as determining moral norms has increasingly pervaded Christian
thinking. Indeed, it may be argued that in large measure it was
within the Church that abandonment of the absolute standards of
God’s Word (the Bible) in fact arose. Although the Church itself

Introduction | 9
often seemed astonishingly unaware of it, others were quick to spot
the hypocrisy of a body urging moral standards upon society as
a whole when it had itself so largely come to disbelieve the Bible
from which those standards are derived. The Church has no more
moral authority than any other group in society if it fails to ground
its beliefs, practices and standards in the Word of God. We are
living in an age when the Christian Church is largely ineffective
because its attitude to the norms of God’s Word has brought it
under the judgment of God. It is as if he is saying to us: “You
thought you could undermine and set aside my Word and still be
effective as my church witnessing in this world. Well, I will let you
experience what happens when you spurn my way. I will let you
see just how persuasive and compelling you can be on the basis of
your own ideas.”
The fundamental predicament is the age-long problem of
authority. Mankind is in rebellion against God, and rebels repudiate
God’s authority over them. The spirit of rebellion and antinomianism
(lawlessness) has infiltrated the Church. It was not a difficult task
as the moral flaw in our nature is such that each of us naturally
wants to go our own way and determine appropriate parameters
for our own conduct. Our inherent predisposition towards such
an attitude has been compounded by the lack of certainty within
the Church about the place and role of God’s law. Are not the Ten
Commandments Old Testament teaching, a relic from a former age,
and no longer of relevance? Are they not negative and gloomy, and
should not New Testament religion be joyful and positive? Does not
the New Testament clearly say, “We are not under law but under
grace”? Surely Christian conduct is to be determined by the norms
of love, not by innumerable petty restrictions?
My aim in this booklet is to address such questions and to show
the role that the moral standards of God’s Word should have not only
in the life of the Christian Church, individually and collectively,
but also in the development of national policy and in providing
norms for personal conduct throughout society.

10 | THE MORAL LAW

The Old Testament
evidence

I make no apology for beginning by turning to the Old Testament

for our basic orientation on the role of law. We do, of course, go
to the Old Testament as Christians. It is our privilege to read its
promises and the development of them in the light of their fulfilment
in Jesus Christ. However, to come to a full appreciation of what is
in the New Testament we must follow the example of the Early
Church and view the epochal transformation brought about by the
life and ministry of Jesus Christ against the background of the
Old Testament promises which he fulfilled. The same procedure
is equally relevant to our consideration of law. We must begin at
the beginning.
In looking back at the place of law in the Old Testament, it is
natural to focus on the Ten Commandments. These are to be found
in Exodus 20. The setting is Mount Sinai. There God instituted his
covenant with the Israelites whom, under the guidance of Moses,
he had brought out of the oppression and slavery of Egypt. The
Ten Commandments were then revealed as God’s standards for the
ongoing life of his people.
But that on its own is not enough to locate the Ten Commandments
theologically. We need to set the Mosaic covenant instituted at Sinai
in terms of the whole sweep of divine dealings with humanity.
Since the Fall of mankind, alienation and estrangement have
characterised the relationship between God and man. No longer is
there the close and continuous fellowship which had been enjoyed
in Eden. Mankind was expelled from the garden, and though God

The Old Testament evidence | 11

was not silent, he no longer talked freely or continuously with those
he had created in his image and likeness. Certainly the human race
was not utterly abandoned; God revealed himself to a chosen few
here and there over the ages. But things are not as they once were.
Even though there has been material advance, the course of human
history is characterised by spiritual corruption and violence.
The early period of God’s dealings with mankind climaxed in
the call of Abraham. Unnoticed by the world at large, something
new was inaugurated. The way forward in God’s dealings with
humanity would no longer be with the human race as a whole.
Revelation would be associated with a special people — Abraham
and his descendants. By divine determination the way of salvation
was graciously made known to them. The promise was given that
God would be their God and provide for them — “And I will
establish my covenant … to be God to you and to your offspring
after you” (Genesis 17:7). And God would also provide through
them — “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”
(Genesis 12:3). Abraham the man of faith accepted God at his
word — “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as
righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). He put his trust in the promise of
divine provision.
Now it is significant that the focus of Abraham’s faith was
particularly in the divine promise regarding ‘offspring’ or ‘seed’
(Genesis 15:5). That is not simply a matter of the existence of
progeny for Abraham, nor indeed of how numerous they would
be. Ever since mention was made in Genesis 3:15 of ‘the seed of
the woman’ through whom God would bring deliverance to fallen
humanity, ‘seed’/‘offspring’ had been virtually a technical term
relating to divinely promised salvation from sin and evil. The
content of the promise grew and was clarified over time. But it was
in God’s promised deliverance that the faith of the Old Testament
Church rested. That is why Abraham’s attitude of trust was
accepted by God as putting Abraham in a right relationship with
him. He took God at his word and looked forward to the promised

12 | THE MORAL LAW

deliverance. That is why he is the father of the faithful in every age
(Romans 4:16). His relationship with God was not on the basis of
what Abraham had personally accomplished (‘works’), but on the
basis of trust in the revealed promise of God (‘faith’).
Furthermore, we may note that, though the focus of revelation
and salvation had been narrowed to one man and one family line,
the universal scope of divine blessing was not thereby negated. It
was narrowed down so that it might in due time effectively spread
out. “Through your offspring all nations on the earth will be
blessed” (Genesis 22:18).
But then in God’s providence the family of covenant blessing
is brought down to Egypt and for 400 years there is divine silence.
It is not, however, the case that the promise is in abeyance. The
family increases in size; they become a nation. But they are a nation
oppressed and enslaved until the time came in God’s plan for his
purpose to move forwards once more.
Again we must note that, as in the case of Abraham, the basis
of divine action is grace, not reward. Remember the historical
situation. By the time of Moses many powerful empires had
emerged in the ancient world. In Egypt, in Mesopotamia and among
the Hittites there were nations that had military might, commercial
enterprises, art and literature, splendid architecture — and pagan
darkness. The nations had lost sight of the one true God. They were
dazzled by their own achievements. They were in thraldom to the
powers of spiritual darkness.
And was the situation any different among the people with the
covenant promise, held in servitude in Egypt? Alas, no! They too
had largely forgotten the God of their fathers and were worshipping
idols. The bondage imposed on Israel in Egypt was the penalty
for their own sin. There is repeated Scriptural testimony that in
Egypt the Israelites became involved in the practices of Egypt,
losing sight of the promises given to the fathers. “Put away the
gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and
in Egypt” (Joshua 24:14). “They shall no more offer their sacrifices

The Old Testament evidence | 13

to demons, after whom they have played the prostitute” (Leviticus
17:7). “They committed prostitution in Egypt, they committed
prostitution in their youth” (Ezekiel 23:3). “But they rebelled
against me and would not obey me. They did not cast away the
abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake
the idols of Egypt” (Ezekiel 20:8).
Perhaps more than anything else the setting up of the golden
calf at the foot of Sinai (Exodus 32) is the clearest indication of
the inner heart inclination of the Israelites. Apart from divine
intervention, they were no better than any other people. However,
God did not give them the law in Egypt so that they might reform
themselves and in some way earn their salvation. No; the covenant
with Abraham still stood. Salvation was, as it has always been,
by faith, not by works. He saved them and then gave them the
law. Outwardly, all who passed through the Red Sea experienced
the salvation of the Lord; but inwardly, only those who were true
children of Abraham and who put their trust in the promise-word
of the Lord were the recipients of eternal salvation.
But if in respect of spiritual fundamentals the situation at
Sinai was the same as it had been with Abraham, why was there
a Mosaic covenant at all? The time had arrived in terms of God’s
eternal counsel to manifest in visible form the eternal kingdom of
God in the midst of a hostile world. “If you will indeed obey my
voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession
among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to
me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). In a
world living in alienation from God and opposition to him, Israel
as the special, chosen people, were to fulfil their collective destiny
by maintaining as a ‘holy people’ the standards of divine truth.
As they lived lives in conformity with the norms that the Lord
set before them, the promised line of ‘offspring’/‘seed’ would be
preserved until the climactic revelation in Jesus Christ. Israel as a
nation, set apart in service to the Lord, would testify among the
other nations of the world as to the standards of divine revelation

14 | THE MORAL LAW

and the reality of God’s saving grace. They were to be a beacon of
light in pagan darkness proclaiming God’s purpose for mankind
so that all nations might know why they existed and to whom they
were answerable.
But Israel could not function in this way if they did not
know God and what conduct he wished them to exhibit. Their
acknowledgement of God in fealty and loyalty could only be
expressed if they knew something of his character and wishes. It
was one thing to recognise the fact of the Lord’s action in saving
them from Egypt. That would undoubtedly engender feelings of
gratitude and the desire to respond appropriately to the one who
had redeemed them. The motivation to respond was present and
that was a healthy reaction. But it is quite another thing for the
impulse to gratitude to be correctly translated into action. That
requires knowledge. Exodus 32 shows us clearly what happens
when gratitude displays itself without knowledge, or displays
itself in defiance of knowledge. Moses is on the mountaintop, and
down below the golden calf has been fabricated, and Aaron says,
“These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the
land of Egypt!” This was a gross caricature and deformation of
the response of obedience and gratitude that was required. It was
to avoid such a misconceived response that the law was given. The
Israelites had been rescued from the spiritual darkness of Egypt
as much as from the oppression and bondage of Egypt. The Lord
at Sinai presented them with the standards of conduct he requires.
He reeducated the family of promise. It became a nation with the
promise. The people were taught how God wanted them to live so
that they might fulfil their destiny. The Ten Commandments are
part of the divine educational syllabus for the people of God.

The Old Testament evidence | 15

The moral law

Now, if you like to probe and ask searching questions, you might at
this point say to me, “Well, even accepting what you say regarding
the Israelites at Sinai, there are still significant matters you have not
established. I can see why you say that God had saved Israel, and
that the Ten Commandments are part of God’s instruction regarding
the way in which their gratitude might be adequately structured.
However, that does not show why the Ten Commandments are also
for all people. How can they function as moral imperatives for the
world in general?”
To answer that sort of question we need to note that the giving
of the Ten Commandments at Sinai did not constitute the first
revelation of God’s requirements for human behaviour. Consider
Genesis 26:5 where the Lord says to Isaac, “Abraham obeyed my
voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and
my laws.” Or again we might mention Exodus 16:28 where the
Lord says to Moses regarding Israel, “How long will you refuse
to keep my commandments and my laws?” Both texts relate to
circumstances that existed before the Israelites came to Sinai,
and both passages speak of commandments and laws as already
existing. Critical scholars explain away these passages as confusion
in the sources and a lapse from total consistency on the part of
a later storyteller. But such explanations will not satisfy one who
believes in the inspiration of Scripture and the authenticity of the
narrative. The commandments and laws (in some sense) existed
before Sinai.
To see how that could be we must begin our historical résumé
earlier than the Fall of mankind. We need to consider the situation
that prevailed in Eden. God created mankind in his image, after

The moral law | 17

his likeness, so that they might have dominion over the realm he
had willed into existence (Genesis 1:26). The terms ‘image’ and
‘likeness’ are not employed to indicate some physical resemblance
between mankind and God. God is spirit, and any notion of
corporeal similarity is quite misplaced in thinking about him.
However, the Creator is the sovereign Lord of all that he made,
and by constituting mankind in (or ‘as’) his image and likeness he
delegated to them the right to rule over the created realm on his
behalf. As the consummation of the creation process, mankind was
divinely placed as God’s representatives on earth with subordinate
authority to rule over the realm that he had made.
But while being made in (or as) the image and likeness of
God indicated the role mankind was designated to fulfil on earth,
their function of ruling as God’s deputies also implies that they
were divinely endowed so as to fulfil that role adequately and
responsibly. God equipped mankind with a knowledge of what he
wanted them to do and of how he required them to behave as ruling
on his behalf over the world he had created. What has to be grasped
is that, in terms of the moral and spiritual constitution of humanity,
God gave knowledge of his will. He did not leave mankind in a
vacuum or with an empty sheet as regards the policies and conduct
that would please him. At creation such knowledge was impressed
on the moral being and capacities of Adam and Eve. Perhaps we
might more accurately say that such knowledge was ‘concreated’
with mankind. Human beings were created as answerable to God
because there was implanted in the essence of their beings an
inherent knowledge of how God wanted them to live and behave.
That standard was not arbitrary, but reflected the character and
disposition of God himself. He created mankind after his likeness
to live and rule over his creation in a way that was patterned after
the norms of heaven.
Of course, the situation that initially prevailed in Eden was lost
at the Fall. But even though humanity has lost its original moral
integrity, there can still be traced a remaining consciousness of

18 | THE MORAL LAW

those terms and standards with which mankind was endowed
by God. There is a sense of right and wrong implanted within
each one of us. We call it conscience, and it points back to the
original constitution of unfallen mankind. It is to the operation of
conscience that Paul refers when he says in Romans 2:14-15, “For
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the
law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do
not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on
their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their
conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” Now Paul uses
the word ‘law’ in various ways, but here we see him saying that quite
apart from the prescriptions of Sinai there is a sense in which law is
written on the hearts even of those who had no direct knowledge of
the revealed standards of the covenant community. He is affirming
that conscience bears witness within each individual member of
the human race to an inner awareness of moral standards.
However, mankind has fallen. Our moral faculties no longer
operate flawlessly. While the testimony of conscience attests that
there is a moral law, it cannot reliably or fully inform us as to what
the requirements of that law are. We are influenced by the standards
and practices of the society within which we live, and our moral
perception is easily warped. Our own wrong desires can twist our
understanding of what is right and wrong. Indeed the voice of
conscience may be silenced by overexposure to malpractice or by
the strength of corrupt desires within a person. Conscience, though
real and perhaps active with uncomfortable frequency, is no longer
a reliable guide as to what comprises the demands of God’s moral
law.
How, then, are we to ascertain what constitutes the moral law?
At one level, instruction as to what God requires of mankind can
be ascertained by reading the narratives of Scripture and drawing
inferences from them. Genesis 1 and 2 describe specific duties
and obligations placed on mankind before the Fall. Known as the
Creation Ordinances, these include requirements such as to have

The moral law | 19

offspring, to fill the earth and garner its resources, to live lives
patterned after the divine paradigm of a seven-day cycle, to engage
in work, and to have the family as the basic unit in society cemented
in terms of the marriage bond. These ordinances were over and
above the innate moral sensitivity with which Adam and Eve were
endowed. In many respects they are applications of the moral law,
or supplements to it. But their Edenic origin shows that they too are
universal in their scope. Also, information regarding fundamental
divine requirements may be found in the terms the Lord specified
in the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9). Further, from specific incidents
narrated in Genesis we can derive instruction regarding what type
of conduct met with divine approval and what type did not.
Another approach to ascertaining the constituents of the moral
law is presented in terms of natural law. This attempts to derive
norms by a process of reasoning from what can be ascertained in
the moral consciousness of mankind. We have already argued that
the moral consciousness of mankind is no longer a reliable guide
in such matters. Furthermore, natural law approaches to ethics are
liable to fall into what is called the naturalistic fallacy. Namely,
in arguing from what is perceived to exist, it is easy to attribute
normativity to what exists. It is by no means the case that what
is should be identified with what ought to be. Nonetheless, it is
possible to modify a natural law approach into a form of creation
ethics that starts from the infinite, personal God who willed all that
is into existence and whose structure and purpose for his creation
ought to be respected. Proceeding in this way may not be to enter
a cul-de-sac.
However, the obvious Scriptural way to ascertain what
constitutes the moral law is to consider what is found in the Ten
Commandments. When the Lord took account of the moral and
spiritual ignorance of the covenant people whom he had redeemed
from Egypt, and when he considered the role he wished them to
play in the furtherance of his covenant purposes, he did not leave
them to establish the norms for their conduct by inference from

20 | THE MORAL LAW

what they knew of the past or by general reasoning from what they
perceived of their own constitution. He was pleased to deal with the
situation directly. He informed them once more of his moral law. It
is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments, which are
also known as the Decalogue.
Now, it can be confusing to equate precisely the moral law and
the Decalogue, although we often use the Ten Commandments as
theological shorthand for the moral law. It is more illuminating to
speak of the Ten Commandments as an edition of the moral law.
In saying that I do not suppose that the terms of the moral law are
subject to change. The requirements of the moral law express the
unchanging will of the Creator. But the expression of the moral
law may vary. It was not the case that the Ten Commandments as
recorded in Exodus were given in those precise words to Adam.
However, the same set of principles was made known to him in
terms suited to his circumstances. Furthermore, the Decalogue
given at Sinai was an edition of the moral law conditioned by the
stage then prevailing in the development of God’s saving purposes
(for example, in the reference to ‘the land that the Lord your God is
giving you’, Exodus 20:12) and by the existing economic and social
situation of the Israelites (for example, references to male and female
servants, and to oxen and donkeys, Exodus 20:17). Interpretation of
Scripture must make due allowance for such developmental and
cultural specifics present in the imperatives of the Decalogue. But,
being derived from the character of God himself, the principles of
moral law predate Sinai. They were revealed to mankind at creation.
Equally, the principles of the moral law postdate Moses. However,
there is now a fundamental difference. Neither the Christian nor
the non-Christian receives the moral law from the hand of Moses,
the mediator of the Sinai covenant. As we shall see, the Christian
receives the moral law from the hand of Christ, the mediator of
the new covenant, and the precepts of the law are reinforced by
the living example of Christ. For the non-Christian the moral law
remains as the standard the Creator requires of mankind.

The moral law | 21

 That introduces another strand of thought. In writing to
Timothy, Paul said, “Now we know that the law is good, if one
uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down
for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly
and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their
fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who
practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever
else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious
gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” (1
Timothy 1:8-11). It might then be said, “Yes, I can see the relevance
of the moral law for the lawless and disobedient. It sets before them
the standards God the Creator requires of them. But precisely how
does that law relate to the believer? Does not Paul say, ‘the law is
not laid down for the just’?”
One must not assume that there is only one purpose for the moral
law; that there is only one way in which it may be legitimately used.
Theology traditionally has set out a threefold distinction regarding
the use of the law.
There is the civil or political use of the law. It is given to restrain
sin and to promote good conduct. In this it serves the purposes of
common grace, preserving order in society while God works to
bring to completion his saving purpose for his church.
There is the pedagogic use of the law. The law brings
individuals under conviction of sin, and convinces them of their
inability to meet the demands of the law. The law teaches or
instructs (‘pedagogy’). It serves to show need for redemption. The
law is “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24 – Authorised Version).
There is the didactic or normative use of the law, often termed
the third use of the law, in which it functions as the rule of life
for believers. Lutherans stress the second use of the law. In their
thinking the third use of the law exists only because of remaining
sin in a believer. Since that is being progressively eliminated, they
consider that the didactic function of the law is of only transient

22 | THE MORAL LAW

significance. However, Reformed thinkers accord a far greater role
to the third use of the law. They see it as providing a rule of life
which informs and shapes the gratitude of those who have been
saved. It is, then, primarily in terms of that third use of the law that
the moral law impinges on the life of the believer.

The moral law | 23

The Decalogue and the
rest of the Mosaic Law

There are a great many serious-minded, thinking Christians

who have difficulty with identifying the Ten Commandments as
the moral law and with accepting that the Commandments have
ongoing validity. They bring forward a number of arguments to
support their position, some of them based on what is said in the New
Testament. I will consider these later. But there is one argument,
derived from the Old Testament, which ought to be considered
here. It is an argument that seems plausible. It denies that there is
any exegetical warrant for dividing up the various requirements of
the Mosaic covenant, and asserts that the Ten Commandments no
longer apply because the New Testament teaches that believers are
no longer under the law of Moses. It is pointed out that Paul wrote
in Galatians 3:29, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s
offspring, heirs according to promise”, and not “… then you are
Moses’ offspring, bound to the law”. This being so, it is contended
that it is illegitimate to curtail the freedom of the believer by
exempting one aspect of the Mosaic Law from abrogation. The
fundamental fallacy is identified as the introduction into the Old
Testament of an unwarranted division within the requirements of
the Mosaic Law. God did not just give the Ten Commandments to
the Israelites; he gave the whole of the Mosaic Law. No Israelite
was ever free to say, “I will abide by these Ten Commandments,
but as for that sacrificial, ritual, ceremonial or judicial law, I will
not be regulated by it.” The Mosaic covenant was a unity, and
the law that expressed its demands was a unity. So, it is argued,

The Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic Law | 25

obedience to the Mosaic covenant had to be total; there were no
optional requirements in it. In its entirety it has been done away
with in Christ. Therefore, it is hermeneutically flawed to isolate one
part of the integral structure of the law, label it the moral law, and
argue that it alone is exempt from obsolescence.
I am not sure that I agree with the presupposition that it is
illegitimate to read from the New Testament back into the Old. I
find that there are, for instance, many Messianic promises in the
Old Testament that can only be adequately understood in the light
of their fulfilment. But leaving that aside, I would wish to argue
that right from the start the Israelites knew there was something
distinctive about the Ten Commandments. It is the evident
testimony of Scripture that they had a different status from the
other regulations of the Mosaic covenant.

• First of all, they were delivered in a special way —

spoken immediately by the voice of God (Exodus
20:18-19; Deuteronomy 5:4; 18:16), whereas the others
were communicated privately to Moses and then
announced by him to the people. The theophanic
display of the majesty and greatness of the Lord
seems to have been reserved for the deliverance of
these Commandments.

• Also, their number, ten, is a symbol of completeness.

Much of what is written regarding Scriptural numerics
is fanciful and incapable of proof, but in all that has
been established as certain we find the symbolic
import of ten as being completeness. ‘Ten’ signifies a
definite whole, in which nothing is lacking, and this
marks the Commandments as having a unity that
requires them to be considered together.

26 | THE MORAL LAW

 • The Commandments were written by the finger of God
on two tablets of stone — on both sides (Exodus 31:18;
32:15-16). There was no room for future additions to
what had been written, and the use of stone pointed to
the lasting and imperishable nature of what had to be
preserved.

• The Commandments were laid up inside the

Tabernacle, the divinely commissioned structure
that was to be the focus of the divine presence as he
dwelled in the midst of his people. Indeed, the stone
tablets, known as ‘the testimony’, were placed in the
box-like receptacle known as the ark (Exodus 25:
16; 40:20), and the ark itself was covered over by the
Mercy Seat or the Cover of Propitiation. The status
accorded the Commandments was completely revealed
when in the inmost chamber of the Tabernacle the
Lord was pleased to presence himself over the ark
within which lay the tablets of the law.

We must also notice how this fits in with the prevailing practice in
ancient Near Eastern treaty arrangements which were the literary
form the Lord condescended to use in setting out his covenant
prescriptions for his people. In these documents, the overlord or
Great King first set out the general terms and policy he expected
his subject people to follow, and then he enumerated the detailed
stipulations they were to observe. This sequence of general
requirements followed by detailed stipulations matches precisely
the sequence of Ten Commandments followed by the other aspects
of the Mosaic Law. (Indeed there are scholars who argue that in
the book of Deuteronomy the material is thematically ordered first
by the basic stipulations of Deuteronomy 5 followed by elaboration
and application of them in chapters 6-26.) The order of the covenant
prescriptions was, therefore, one that the Israelites at Sinai would

The Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic Law | 27

have been able to understand against the prevailing usage of the
times. The Lord first set before his covenant people the policy he
wished to impose on their life as the basic value structure and goals
of the community. Then he delivered the specific procedures by
which that policy could be worked out in their particular culture
and environment.
In fact the Old Testament term is not the Ten Commandments,
but “the words of the covenant, the ten words” (Exodus 34:28). That
is why Decalogue, literally ‘ten words’, is arguably a better term.
While they are commandments, they are not ‘law’ in our narrower,
modern sense. There are no penalties stated. What human tribunal
would ever be able to enforce “Thou shalt not covet”? These are the
words of the covenant king, setting out his stipulations that are the
essential features of the moral law.
The Decalogue represents the fundamental principles of divine
direction for human living; this is God’s policy document. As such it
corresponds to the policy that God originally enunciated to Adam.
What God requires from mankind is not arbitrary. It flows from
the essential nature of what God is in himself and, therefore, what
he requires and expects from those he has created in his image and
likeness. Because it is a reflection of the divine nature, it does not
change. There is not one policy for human behaviour before the Fall
and another afterwards, though the extent to which any individual
may achieve that standard has inevitably changed. The potential of
the human race for obedience has been corrupted and undermined,
but the standard remains the same. The ideal is not departed from,
and it is the same ideal that the Lord presented to Israel at Sinai in
a way in which they would readily have appreciated the difference
between the fundamental principles stated and the subordinate
regulations that applied those principles in a more detailed way.

28 | THE MORAL LAW

The application of the
other laws

In the Decalogue we have God’s policy prescriptions for human

behaviour. These are the essential principles which are to inform
human conduct and also the conduct of his people. But the principles
themselves are very general statements. These goals have to be
translated into far more specific policies if we are to implement
them in daily life. One way to move from the general terms of the
Decalogue to more particular moral norms is to proceed by logical
deduction, that is, by ascertaining what may be validly inferred
from the general statements. For instance, if a duty is commanded,
then the opposite behaviour may be taken as forbidden. If one
type of conduct is commended, then similar actions will also be
approved. In this way a comprehensive set of moral norms might
be validly established.
However, God went further than leaving the ancient Israelites to
bring logic to bear on the general principles he had given them. He
also provided them with authoritative examples worked for their
particular environment and circumstances. The examples were not
comprehensive; not every aspect of the life of the community was
covered. Some areas were dealt with in greater detail than others.
But God, in essence, said to Israel, “This is the way you are to live
as my people.”
These specific directives are to be found throughout the books
of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and they contain
divine instruction for the Israelites of old and for future generations
as well. But the way in which the other Mosaic laws still function

The application of the other laws | 29

has been a matter of considerable controversy in Reformed circles
in recent years. I do not want to give a blow-by-blow account of
what has been said, but simply to indicate a way of approaching the
matter that I believe is helpful.
Because we are not living in the same cultural or sociological
environment as ancient Israel and, more especially, because we are
not living at the same stage in the unfolding of the divine plan of
salvation, we may not simply take the other laws and say they apply
still. The Church in the post New Testament era operates in a more
mature environment. The injunctions and examples of old are to be
thought through and their general principles applied.
Let us begin with one simple instance about which there is
general agreement. The laws concerning sacrifice, the festivals, the
priesthood and the sanctuary. They were designed to teach Israel
about the atoning work of the Great High Priest who would come.
They are not discarded by Christ but fulfilled by and in him. They
are no longer applicable. It is not that they are devoid of teaching,
but rather we are to appreciate this is how God taught his people
when they were in the equivalent of the primary or elementary
class at school. It is still profitable to trace out the pattern of Christ
and his work in the ordinances of old.
Then there are the food and dietary obligations. These
were decisively set aside by Christ (Mark 7:19). Many of these
regulations did not directly involve abiding ethical principles.
This can be clearly seen in Deuteronomy 14:21, “You shall not eat
anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner
who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a
foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.” Israel
was permitted to give or sell such food to aliens and foreigners, an
odd qualification if eating such things was morally wrong. Rather
it was the case that certain special regulations applied to Israel that
did not apply to other people. Many of the restrictions that were
imposed on them were designed to remind them of their special
status as a people consecrated to God.

30 | THE MORAL LAW

 The same applies to restrictions such as, “You shall not wear
cloth of wool and linen mixed together. You shall make yourself
tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover
yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). I don’t think it is totally flippant
to say that is almost equivalent to a requirement to wear school
uniform. Every day when they got dressed and ventured into the
wider community, the Israelites were reminded that they stood
apart from the world around them. Thus, they were instructed to
identify with one another as a community with shared practices
that pointed to their common dedication to the Lord. Although
the ‘childish’ way in which the duty was presented to them has
passed away, there is a basic principle that still applies. The people
of God should not be conformed to the way of the world, but
transformed into those who are spiritually different in the way God
wants. “What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has
Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an
unbeliever? … Go out from their midst, and be separate from them”
(2 Corinthians 6:14-15, 17). It is not now a matter of outward signs
and symbols or outward restrictions, but of inner heart dedication
evidenced in God-honouring living.
What procedure is followed in that example just given? As we
look at any particular injunction of the Old Testament law, we are
to ask what principle is involved in this requirement. What aspect
of the Decalogue was God teaching the Israelites about? What
spiritual truth received particular embodiment in this legislation?
Then we ask how that general principle applies now: not just
now in terms of our culture and society, but in terms of where
we are located after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Various
authors use different terms to describe this process of inference.
The Westminster Confession talked about the general equity of the
law1, meaning the law maker’s intention in giving them. Others talk
about deriving intermediate axioms from the Old Testament laws.
Others present the approach in terms of derived moral principles.
Care must be taken not to absolutise these intermediate principles.

The application of the other laws | 31

Authority does not inhere in them. Rather, it lies in the Scriptures
from which they are drawn. The derived principles are the product
of the sanctified reflection of God’s people on his revelation, but
here on earth the sanctified are not yet glorified. Because we are
not yet made perfect in holiness, there is always the possibility of
error, and especially there is the possibility of incompleteness. New
circumstances may arise in which the previous formulation of the
underlying paradigm is less than adequate. So these axioms have
to be constantly subjected to scrutiny and potential revision in the
light of the biblical text itself.
This is the sort of process Paul himself set out. In 1 Corinthians
9:9 he cited Deuteronomy 25:4 (“Do not muzzle an ox while it is
treading out the grain”) in defending his right to receive material
support from the Corinthians. It is not a ceremonial law as such,
but pertains more to the socio-political laws that were to govern
Israel’s behaviour in ordinary life. Paul was not contending that
the maintenance of gospel preachers was directly in view in
Deuteronomy, but that there is a basic principle involved in the
law namely, that effort is to be appropriately rewarded. As the
underlying principle can be applied to situations other than that
of its initial setting, the apostle was warranted in using this law
paradigmatically or analogically. The particular example illustrated
a general principle which itself was an application of the eighth
commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15).
Consider also the well-known example of Deuteronomy 22:8.
“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your
roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house,
if anyone should fall from it.” I have heard a story that one of the
spokesmen for theonomy (which argues for the abiding validity of
the law in all its detail) was once challenged regarding this law.
He was asked, “Does the roof of your house have a parapet round
it?” He was forced to concede that it had not. However, he added,
“But my outdoor swimming pool has a fence round it.” In saying
that he effectively undermined his whole point of view. He was no

32 | THE MORAL LAW

longer arguing for the abiding validity of the law in all its detail
(that would have required a parapet round his roof). However, he
had quite properly asked what is the principle that lies behind this
law. It is an application of the sixth commandment, “You shall
not commit murder” (Exodus 20:13). The roof tops of houses in
Palestine were used in evenings as places to have a meal and to
meet with family and friends. Whoever built a house had to give
consideration to the future safety of others who might inadvertently
slip and fall. This might well provide a Scriptural basis for building
control regulations. It was certainly the case that putting a safety
fence round a swimming pool was complying with the underlying
principle of the law, while at the same time setting to one side the
detail of the Old Testament regulation.
Or again, one might think of Leviticus 19:36, “You shall have
just balances, just weights, a just ephah and a just hin.” That could
be taken as the biblical basis for weights and standards regulations
and for trading standards legislation in general. It again applies the
stipulation of the moral law, “You shall not steal”, in the realm of
the market place.
One might also reflect on the injunction not to charge interest
on loans: “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother,
interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent
for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not
charge your brother interest” (Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Again the
fact that interest could be charged to a foreigner shows that there
is no absolute moral prohibition here. Also we have to read that
command in the context of a world where economic advance was
limited. Modern business corporations did not exist nor were there
elaborate financial institutions. What sort of loan was being asked
for? One to enable another person and his family to survive. What
was being forbidden? The exploitation of one who had fallen on
hard times. Such counsel regarding the economically disadvantaged
may well have implications for loans and aid given to third world
countries.

The application of the other laws | 33

 Other passages present greater challenges to the expositor. I
have already mentioned Deuteronomy 14:21 and the regulation
about animals that have fallen down dead. But the verse ends,
“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk”. That is
also found in Exodus 23:19. It forms the basis in Jewish dietary
law for not eating meat and dairy products simultaneously. Of the
many attempts to explain what is involved here the most probable
is that which sees it as a rejection of Canaanite practice, which is
illustrated in a tablet from Ugarit which describes “boiling a kid
in milk, a lamb in butter” as part of the ceremonies associated
with agricultural festivals. Although it does not specifically talk
of its mother’s milk, it may be that the element of heartless cruelty
involved in cooking the young animal in the milk that should have
sustained it made it especially objectionable. At any rate the fact
that Israel was commanded not to follow such a pagan practice
would reinforce their distinctive lifestyle as the Lord’s covenant
people.
There is still guidance to be derived from the specific examples
of the divinely given applications of God’s requirements to Israel.
This was the way in which God showed how the fundamental
principles of the moral law could be applied in a variety of
circumstances faced by Israel of old. The Church today is no
longer presented with such a detailed set of regulations, but careful
scrutiny of the divinely given paradigms still provides guidance as
to how to move from general principles to application in particular
situations.

1
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, para. IV

34 | THE MORAL LAW

The law as a covenant of
works

We have already remarked that the law was not given to Israel in
Egypt so that they might earn their salvation by obedience. That
would have been salvation by works-righteousness. But even so
there are passages such as Leviticus 18:5, “You shall therefore keep
my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by
them: I am the Lord”, which have perplexed many because they
point to an element of reward for obedience being at the core of the
Mosaic covenant.
When the moral law was given to Adam in innocence, it was
given in terms of the covenant of works. Adam was created sinless,
yet able to be tempted. If he obeyed God for a limited period and
did not yield to temptation, he would have had conferred on him
incorruptibility, which would have made him fit to appear in God’s
presence in heaven. The created order was not a static realm. It had
a dynamic. Through obedience there was a pathway to confirmed
life and uninterrupted fellowship with God in his eternal kingdom.
There was the possibility of works-righteousness for Adam in that
the reward of eternal life would have been his on the basis of his
unblemished adherence to the moral law.
However, when the moral law was reissued to Israel at Sinai, it
was not a return to the original covenant of works. There was no
possibility of Israel meriting eternal salvation by obedience. There
is a legal, works-righteousness aspect to the Mosaic covenant, but
it does not relate to individual eternal salvation. The inauguration

The law as a covenant of works | 35

of the Mosaic covenant did not supersede God’s previous gracious
provision formalised in the Abrahamic covenant. It remained the
case that the final destiny of each individual was determined by a
response of faith to the promise of God. It was a matter of faith,
not of works. But the specific role accorded Israel in the divine
purpose of salvation was to be a holy nation, and in terms of that
the Mosaic Law code was given so that their life as a nation might
typify the life of the age to come in fellowship with God. Living
by that standard they epitomised the life of harmony that would
prevail in heavenly bliss.
It is not enough to say that the Sinai covenant was a temporal
covenant merely concerned with Israel’s enjoyment of the occupation
of the land and the good things that went along with that. Like
so much else in the Mosaic dispensation, occupation of the land
was symbolic of Scriptural truth yet to be revealed in actuality.
Those who would live in fellowship with God as loyal subjects of
his kingdom are to mirror his character and conduct. “You shall be
holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:1).
Because God’s plan of redemption was not finally fulfilled in
the time of Moses, truth about it could not be stated in relation
to the facts of its consummation. Instead the message of salvation
was centred about symbols and types that indirectly pointed to the
truth, but were not themselves the final reality. They were divinely
instituted and mandated to point forward to the ultimate revelation
in Christ Jesus.
The law was given to Israel because in her role of manifesting
heaven (or the age to come) on earth she must also make clear
that holiness and heaven go hand in hand. Likewise when God
prospered his people who kept his holy law it was to prove that
heaven would be a place of happiness and blessedness. When Israel
became indifferent to God’s law and followed idols, the nation
forfeited its unique privileges and was expelled from the land
flowing with milk and honey.
God in effect promised Israel that if as a kingdom of priests

36 | THE MORAL LAW

and a holy nation it kept the law he had enjoined on it, he would
reward it with great temporal prosperity. This agreement thus took
the form of works-righteousness. It is better to avoid saying that
it took the form of a covenant of works because there are such
decided differences. Nonetheless, Israel had voluntarily undertaken
to fulfil the law, and if she did, she would enjoy the blessings of
the land, that is, in terms of Leviticus 18:5 “live” as a nation in
the land, enjoying its provision. But the Israelites were never given
to understand that this agreement had anything to do with their
individual eternal standing before God. They were never taught to
think that by fulfilling any aspect of the law they were circumventing
the Abrahamic covenant and earning eternal life. Every believing
Israelite was aware — repeatedly and vividly made aware by the
sacrificial ordinances — that his eternal salvation depended on the
atoning provision that was made graciously and sovereignly by the
Lord.

The law as a covenant of works | 37

Jesus and the law

So far we have mainly looked at the role of law in the Old Testament,
albeit we have done so with New Testament spectacles on. However,
an Old Testament orientation frequently leaves people saying in
effect, “But I am not an Israelite at the foot of Sinai. I am a Christian
living after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What has
that whole dispensation of law to do with my present situation?” I
trust that many aspects of the answer to such a question are already
evident, and that they will become even more so as we come to
examine what the New Testament says about the law.
It is indeed remarkable how much of the New Testament is taken
up with the relationship between it and the Old Testament. The place
of the law is not something that is confined to the periphery of New
Testament teaching. It is a theme that recurs through gospels and
epistles alike. For converted Jews it was a matter of intense interest
to ascertain how the divine plan of salvation had progressed and
how in the changed conditions their relationship to the law of God
had been altered by their new allegiance to Christ. For the Gentile
convert who on coming to Christ was presented with the Scriptures
of the Old Testament as the word of God, it was equally vital to
know, “How does all this relate to me?” So the problem we have to
grapple with is not the sparsity of relevant New Testament evidence
regarding the law, but the abundance of it. We can only consider
some of the texts that are involved in the matter. Even so, I hope
to be able to bring out what I consider to be the principal elements
of New Testament teaching on the matter. Let us look first at the
gospels and what we are told about Jesus’ attitude to the law.
In fact the word ‘law’ is used very rarely in the gospels. It does
not occur at all in Mark; in Matthew it is found eight times and

Jesus and the law | 39

in Luke nine times, mainly to describe the Pentateuch, the five
books of Moses. In Jesus’ teaching — indeed, throughout the
New Testament — the word ‘law’ is used in a variety of ways. In
Matthew 11:13 Jesus says that the Law and the Prophets prophesied
until John, that is, they authoritatively declared God’s word. Here
‘Law’, as distinguished from the Prophets (and so spelled with a
capital letter), indicates the revelation given through Moses. Its
significance is not so much ‘law’ as command, but rather, reflecting
the Jewish use of the term as divine instruction, it is ‘Law’ as
revelation, as Scripture. It sums up the whole covenantal disposition
that had been instituted by Moses. But a new era dawned with the
coming of John; the time of Messianic salvation had arrived. In this
new order the relationship between God and his people is no longer
mediated through the terms of the Mosaic covenant, but through
Jesus himself. The whole of the Old Testament revelation was
divinely directed towards him and found its fulfilment in him. In
this way divine law and commandment, the controlling influence
of the Old Testament word of divine revelation and command, are
everywhere present in Jesus’ teaching.
It is possible to trace this influence by looking first at the
end of Jesus’ earthly ministry when he addressed his disciples
and commissioned them for the work they were to do. He said,
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, … teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20). We
firstly notice the assertion of absolute authority. ‘Therefore’ creates
the bridge between the Lord’s authority and the task facing his
Church. Not only do they go in his name to evangelise, but they
are also directed to teach those who are converts. The Church’s
teaching is to comprise the totality of the Lord’s commands.
What commands, then, did Jesus give to his disciples? The
Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is his major address on the
ethics of the kingdom of heaven inaugurated by his coming. This
sermon, too, is pervaded by the authority with which Jesus speaks

40 | THE MORAL LAW

and by which he sets out the standards that are to prevail. “The
crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them
as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-
29). His preaching was in sharp contrast to the mode employed
by the Jewish rabbis who buttressed every tenet of their teaching
with citations of the sayings of earlier rabbis. Jesus deliberately
avoided that technique. “You have heard that it was said to those
of old” (Matthew 5:21, 33) refers not to what Moses said, but to the
teachings of the rabbis, over against which Jesus set, “But I say to
you” (Matthew 5:22, 34). He spoke with an authority that exceeded
that of the rabbis. Indeed, he also avoided the prophetic formulation,
“Thus says the Lord”. Instead Jesus said, “But I say unto you”, or
“Truly, truly (Amen, Amen, an asseveration that complete trust and
reliance could be placed in what followed) I say unto you” (John 3:3;
cf. Matthew 5:18), in which uniquely he brought the Amen to the
beginning of what he had to say, rather than using it as a response
of acceptance at the close of what another said. Jesus spoke with
authority and originality.
In his teaching Jesus showed that he possessed an authority
equal to that of the Law; indeed an authority that is above the Law.
But he did not use that authority to set aside the Law. Matthew
5:17-20 is the key passage for determining Jesus’ attitude towards
the Law. He begins by saying, “Do not think that I have come to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them
but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17). There have been many disputes
over the nature of the contrast indicated by the words ‘abolish’ and
‘fulfil’. Though it is undoubtedly true that Jesus personally kept the
Law, the idea expressed here does not seem to be that of ‘abolish’
as indicating personal flouting of adherence to the standards of
the Law and ‘fulfil’ as compliance with its demands. ‘Abolish’
would point to the abrogation and termination of the Law. Jesus
emphatically denies that is his intention. Instead he would ‘fulfil’
the Law. Undoubtedly that involved validating and confirming the
Law, but more is conveyed by ‘fulfil’ than the static maintenance

Jesus and the law | 41

of existing standards as they had always been. There is progression
and consummation. Jesus brought the Law forward to its full intent
and proper expression. He did not disparage it. He ensured that it
came to perfect realisation.
How did he do that? “I have come” (Matthew 5:17) points to the
Messianic mission of Jesus. And, with his arrival, it was inevitable
that those aspects of the Mosaic Law which had been instituted as
part of Israel’s role until the coming of the Messiah were put into
honourable retirement. They had served their God-given purpose
and were now “obsolete and growing old” (Hebrews 8:13). When
Jesus declared that a person could not be defiled by food (Mark
7:15), he thereby declared all food clean (Mark 7:19). In this he
brought to an end the ceremonial law. But supremely, by offering
himself as the sacrifice for sin, Jesus superseded the Levitical
priests of the Mosaic dispensation and also, once for all, presented
the final sacrifice that obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 8:12),
thus bringing the worship of the Temple to an end. It was not that
these regulations were annulled, but consummated. What they had
foreshadowed had now arrived.
But there was more to the Mosaic Law than the observation
of rites and ceremonies, of sacrifices, feasts, and food laws. There
were also laws regarding human conduct, in particular the moral
law of the Decalogue. “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished” (Matthew 5:18, NIV). Jesus here shows his concern
for the detail of the Law. Such an attitude is often misunderstood
as legalism, as a dead orthodoxy focusing on the minutiae of credal
or ritual observance and satisfied with stereotyped expression and
ossified forms. As this passage clearly shows, Jesus combined
scathing hostility towards the rigid externality of the religious
groups of his day with total regard for all the implications of what
God had laid down. The details were of significance and not to
be set aside. “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these

42 | THE MORAL LAW

commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches
them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew
5:19).
Even more significant in Jesus’ presentation of the law is his
insistence that the demands of the kingdom of heaven are greater
than the outward show of conformity to the standards of the law
promoted by the teachers of the law and practised by the Pharisees.
In Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus illustrates his teaching with six examples
in which he contrasts what he says, not with the Law as given
by Moses, but with the law as presented in a superficial fashion
to past and present generations by the religious teachers of the
Jews. Jesus does not just forbid the overt act of murder or that of
adultery, but also the inner feelings and thought processes that may
precipitate the outward action. The anger that leads to murder and
the lustful desire that leads to adultery are shown to be the source
of misconduct and condemned along with it. It is true that the need
for appropriate inner motivation had always been recognised. After
all, the tenth commandment says, “You shall not covet” (Exodus
20:17). But the stress on the sweeping implications of such heart
disposition is characteristic of Jesus’ moral teaching. Being a
citizen of the kingdom of heaven requires inner conformity to the
demands of the law.
Jesus did not set aside the moral law. Far from it; he warned
against diluting any of the least of its commands (Matthew 5:19).
He rejected the scribal interpretation of the law, which the Jews of
his day considered to be an intrinsic part of the law. When the rich
man wanted to know how to inherit eternal life, Jesus pointed him
to the Decalogue, quoting six of its commands and thus upholding
its continuing relevance (Mark 10:17-19). In effect he says these are
an abiding revelation of what right conduct and goodness involve.
These are God’s standards; they are still valid.
The gospel records show conclusively that Jesus regarded the
Old Testament as the inspired Word of God, and the law as the

Jesus and the law | 43

divinely given rule of life. What is more, he did not just urge others
to obey the injunctions of the law; he did so himself. Those who
disparage the moral law should remember that Christ lived perfectly
in accordance with it. Those who would truly be his disciples must
recognise and adopt the standards by which he lived. It is one of
the supreme privileges of the New Testament era that we see the
law not only revealed and commanded as at Sinai, but revealed and
perfectly lived out in Jesus Christ. It is not just a matter of precept,
but also a matter of living example.

44 | THE MORAL LAW

The law and love

There is one aspect of Christ’s teaching that still has to be examined,

namely the relationship between law and love. The question is often
posed, “If love is the fulfilment of the law, then do Christians still
need the law?”
In line with his consistent teaching regarding the significance of
correct inner motivation in meeting the demands of the law, Jesus
preeminently emphasised the significance of love. In the disputes
that took place in the Temple precincts shortly before his death,
he was asked by a teacher of the law which of the commandments
was the greatest. Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is
like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two
commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew
22:37-40). We notice here that Jesus did not reject the question as
basically flawed. There are greater and lesser matters in the law.
Elsewhere Jesus criticised the teachers of the law and the Pharisees
for having “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice
and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). But that was not to
condone an attitude of indifference to certain aspects of the law, for
he added, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the
others.” Equally we see here that Jesus maintained his respect for
the Old Testament and did not try to subvert its authority. As the
two fundamental principles of the law, he quotes two Old Testament
passages, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. It is right to be
suspicious of any teaching that seeks to drive a wedge between our
Lord’s attitude to the law and that which should characterise those
who follow him.

The law and love | 45

 Jesus points to the role that love plays in the life of the
citizen of the kingdom of heaven. He demands love with an
exclusiveness that means that all other commands lead up to it,
and all righteousness finds its norm in it. “If you love me, you
will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). “Whoever has my
commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John
14:21). Love evidences itself by keeping Christ’s commandments,
and those commandments are to be principally located in the moral
law which expresses God’s will for mankind.
There was a well-known and long-running series of television
advertisements where a variety of storylines were used to present
essentially the same plot. The hero carried out some feat of derring-
do — climbing mountains, abseiling down precipices, or whatever
— to find his beloved and present her with his gift of a box of
chocolates. The feats of endurance and bravery that he carried
out testified to the intensity of his devotion, but they would have
been profitless without information about the likes and dislikes
of the one he sought to please. What if her preference was for a
different brand of chocolates? What if she had gone on a diet and
had forsworn chocolate?
In the same way the citizen of the kingdom has totally and
unequivocally surrendered his or her life to Jesus Christ. Faith’s
grasp of what has been done by Christ as Saviour leads to a love
responsive to the supreme display of love. “In this is love, not that
we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). “We love because he
first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Divine love evokes love, and the love
of the faithful seeks to express itself in action, but that action to
be acceptable has to be informed by knowledge. John Murray
summed the matter up in a dictum that he expressed in a number
of ways: “Love does not excogitate its own norm”.1 Love requires
information about the preferences and desires of the one who is
loved. Love towards God requires that attention be paid to the
directions he has given about what pleases him.

46 | THE MORAL LAW

 Love involves basing one’s whole being in God, committing
oneself to him with unreserved confidence and leaving with him
all care and final responsibility. This new inner orientation arouses
emotional attachment and resolution of one’s will to please God.
Real obedience to God and Christ is nothing more and nothing
less than the exercise of love and the directing of it to what God
has commanded. Strictly speaking, there is no ground for the
distinction commonly made of internal and external obedience: all
true obedience is internal, consisting in the exercise of love, and
external obedience is simply the expression of the inner disposition
of the heart.
There are many today who articulate a theology of love that
they set over against law. They dismiss law and say that love is
the only criterion we need to employ. Now, if ever there was an
individual who might be reckoned competent to live on the basis
of love quite apart from law, that individual was Christ himself.
But what testimony does he bear regarding himself? “For I have
not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has
himself given me a commandment — what to say and what to
speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I
say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me” (John 12:49-50). Just
as Jesus lived out a life of love informed by his knowledge of the
Father’s commandment given to him, so those who follow him are
called on to express their love in the same way. “This is the love
of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). The core
values of God’s Old Testament revelation, the moral law, are not set
aside but reinforced, and it is made absolutely clear that it is only in
a spirit of love that the divine norms of the moral law can properly
be observed.

1
See for instance a discussion of this in Murray, J, Principles of Conduct,
The Tyndale Press, 1957, pages 23-24

The law and love | 47

Paul and the law

Having looked at Jesus’ view of the law, we now turn to the other
major body of New Testament teaching regarding law, namely
that found in the writings of the apostle Paul. While there is no
contradiction between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul as
regards the law, it must be acknowledged that their presentation is
significantly different. For instance, it is not surprising that reading
Paul’s epistles has led some to conclude that he viewed the law
as utterly obsolete and defunct, to the extent that the Christian no
longer has anything to do with it. In Romans 7:6 Paul wrote, “But
now we are released from the law, having died to that which held
us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in
the new life of the Spirit.” Has the Spirit-led life replaced the old
written law code so that it no longer has a place in the life of the
believer, who has in effect died in relation to the law? In Romans
10:4 Paul says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes”, and there are those who argue that by this
Paul means that the role of the law in God’s saving purposes has
ended absolutely with the coming of Christ. Indeed, it is contended
that the law has reached its terminus as far as providing guidance
for the conduct of the believer, for Paul also urges the church at
Rome: “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one
who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8). In place of
a life regulated by the law of God, Paul’s message, it is claimed,
presents Christians as simply controlled by love and informed by
the Spirit as to how to behave.
Undoubtedly there are many passages in which Paul writes
negatively concerning the law, but that is not the whole of his
message. It is necessary to get a balanced overview of his teaching.

Paul and the law | 49

Paul uses the Greek word for ‘law’ some 119 times. He sometimes
uses it to refer to the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g. in “the Law
and the Prophets”, Romans 3:21); sometimes as a general principle
of action (e.g. “the law of my mind … the law of sin”, Romans
7:23); but most often what he has in mind is the whole system
instituted for Israel in the Sinai covenant. Paul never uses the word
‘law’ in the plural. He characteristically thinks of law as a unity,
as a comprehensive totality in which the parameters of conduct are
set out. He certainly did not try to demonstrate the superiority of
specific Mosaic enactments by comparing them with the legislation
of other nations. What he was concerned to analyse was the impact
of the Mosaic covenant on the Judaism of his day. It is law in the
complex unity of the ordinances of Sinai that Paul had in mind
when he said that “the law came in” (Romans 5:20) or that “it was
added” (Galatians 3:19). Possession of the law was the privilege
accorded to Israel after the Exodus, and it had continued to mark
off the Jews from the rest of the world.
A number of times Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” or
simply “works” to denote observance of what the law demanded.
The apostle had no doubt that “by works of the law no one will
be justified” (Galatians 2:16; cf. also Romans 3:20, 28). Indeed,
“all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians
3:10). What Paul meant by this has been debated in much recent
scholarship on Paul, with many arguing that the expression “works
of the law” does not refer to the moral law or to the Mosaic
ordinances in general, but specifically to compliance with those
ordinances that gave the Jews their particular identity by marking
them off from other nations — circumcision, the food laws and the
observance of holy days. They argue that Paul’s vision of the gospel
encompassed all nations and could not tolerate such nationalistic
barriers that blocked the inclusion of other peoples. Paul opposed
the notion that to become a Christian one had first to become a Jew,
and so he expressed himself in sweeping negatives against those
who advocated such a message.

50 | THE MORAL LAW

 However, limiting Paul’s message to a condemnation of these
national identity markers is to conceive of his thinking in far too
narrow a fashion. As traditional Reformed exegesis correctly brings
out, Paul’s point concerns the whole of mankind. In Galatians 3:10
he does not focus simply on the Jews. He makes a point that is valid
for “all” without exception. He opposes and condemns a legalistic
conception of life wherever it is found. Why? Because such a view
promotes the idea that acceptance with God can be earned by
observance of the law. Such works-righteousness was emphatically
not what Abraham achieved. Rather, on the basis of his faith in
God’s word he was given a right standing before God and entered
into possession of the promises of the covenant (Romans 4). So to
think that salvation can be obtained on the basis of human merit is
at utter variance with the gospel of Christ. “You are severed from
Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away
from grace” (Galatians 5:4).
Though Paul decisively rejects observance of the law as the basis
of salvation, he does not on that account disparage the law. He has
no doubt that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and
righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). Its standards were absolute and
pure, and it had been given by God to act as “guardian” (Galatians
3:24) until the gospel was revealed in its fulness in Christ. The
problem with the law was not some deficiency in its standards,
but in human inability to keep those standards. “If a law had been
given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by
the law” (Galatians 3:21). However, the verdict that must be reached
is that achieving righteousness in that way is foreclosed for fallen
humanity. “By works of the law no human being will be justified
in his sight … all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
(Romans 3:20, 23). Theoretically law observance appears to be a
possible route to heaven, but in reality, because of sin, it is a closed
road for fallen humanity. The law can no longer provide for any
person access to God. We have not kept, do not keep, and cannot
keep the law.

Paul and the law | 51

 But Paul’s message is not primarily a critique of Jewish
misunderstandings of what God had revealed to them. It is a
presentation of the gospel. The ministry of Jesus Christ has brought
the previous administration of God to an end and has inaugurated “a
new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come”
(2 Corinthians 5:17). When Paul speaks of the believer not being
under law (“you are not under law but under grace”, Romans 6:14),
he is primarily saying that the believer is no longer living under the
Mosaic dispensation. Those who through faith put their trust in the
divine promise have a radically different standing before God. It is
totally dependent upon and achieved in and through Jesus Christ.
He is the one who died for the ungodly, and who has procured for
them the gift of righteousness. “As by one man’s disobedience the
many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many
will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). But where does this free
gift of righteousness and justification leave the believer in relation
to the moral law of God?
In Romans 10:4 Paul says, “Christ is the end of the Law unto
righteousness to everyone who believes.” He does not say, “Christ is
the end of the Law” full stop. Rather, he says that Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness. That is, he is the only means by which
a right standing before God may be attained. However, Paul also
says “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means!
On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). In so doing,
far from justifying righteousness rendering the authority of the law
null and void, it sustains and confirms it. Our moral obligation to
God is strengthened, not weakened, by our relationship to Jesus
Christ.
But what role, then, is left for the law in Paul’s thinking?
Though he is adamant that the law can have no place in
establishing an individual’s standing before God on the basis of
works-righteousness, Paul is clear that the abiding standards of the
divine law do define the content of the new obedience that should
characterise those in Christ. He sees in the law the expression of

52 | THE MORAL LAW

the will of God that sets the norms for the new life. “God has done
what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned
sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:3-4).
Walking according to the Spirit solves the problem that the law
on its own could not. When he wrote, “The letter kills, but the
Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6), Paul was not dismissing the
law. Even though in the same context he calls it “the ministry of
death” (2 Corinthians 3:7) and “the ministry of condemnation” (2
Corinthians 3:9), he still acknowledges that it was glorious because
it came from God. However, he views the Mosaic ordinances as
essentially external to those who received them, as was typified
by their being written on letters of stone. The letter stated God’s
standards, but could do nothing to incline the heart to obey
them. The letter stated God’s standards, and can only pronounce
condemnation on those who fail to respond to them. (The same is
still true of the letter of the gospel. “Among those who are perishing”
it proves to be “a fragrance from death to death”, 2 Corinthians 2:15-
16.) It needs inner Spirit-worked change to empower to faith and so
provide access to Christ’s remedy for those who have failed to meet
the law’s demands. This change also impels the believer to a new
obedience, not with a view to boasting in one’s own achievement,
but with a view to expressing gratitude for what one has been
given. Viewed from the perspective of the new age and the fulness
of the Holy Spirit, the law is no longer an outward written code
but, as Jeremiah predicted (Jeremiah 31:33), it is implanted within
individuals, written on their hearts. The continuing normativity of
the law has not been undermined. It is now transmuted into the new
experience of being law-bound to Christ (“not being outside the
law of God but under the law of Christ”, 1 Corinthians 9:21) and
seeking to “fulfil the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
These references that join “law” and “Christ” bring out how

Paul and the law | 53

clearly Paul realised that it needs a heart filled with love towards
Christ and mankind to enter into whole-hearted obedience to that
law. Without love the law is external, cold, heartless, a source of
condemnation. It does not motivate to obedience. It cannot recover
or restore the offender. It can only demand obedience and deliver
a verdict of guilty on the offender. But the impulse of love from a
heart suffused with gratitude and devotion to Christ for his salvation
finds its guidance in the law taught and exemplified by Christ “who
gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify
for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for
good works” (Titus 2:14).
And such zeal and love is only engendered by the inworking of
the Holy Spirit. There is no disjunction between love and keeping
the requirements of the law. There is no antithesis between walking
according to the Spirit and observing how God demands we live.
Permitting oneself to be led by the Spirit consists in learning afresh
to discern and prove the good and acceptable and perfect will of
God (Romans 12:2). Christ by his Spirit brings about a new bond to
the law in the heart of believers, not as a way of procuring one’s own
righteousness, but as the road map for a lifestyle that pleases the
Saviour whom they love. The indwelling of the Spirit produces the
desire to please Christ, the Scripture-based knowledge to imitate
him (1 Corinthians 11:1), and the power that enables that desire
shaped by knowledge to come to practical expression.
Having seen how Paul views law as functioning in the life of
the Christian, it remains for us to consider more closely what the
content of that law is. Paul speaks as a minister of a new covenant (2
Corinthians 3:6) whose blessings are extended beyond the confines
of Israel because Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing
wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and
ordinances” (Ephesians 2:14-15). He was therefore stoutly opposed
to anything that blurred or contradicted the decisive difference
between the old age and the new.
But when Paul illustrates specifically how believers ought

54 | THE MORAL LAW

to conduct themselves it is to the moral law as stated in the Ten
Commandments that he turns. “Owe no one anything, except to
love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall
not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other
commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your
neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). When Paul deals
with the ethical problems raised by the Corinthian church, it is
to the Old Testament that he goes for orientation and insight (1
Corinthians 5:13; 8:4; 10:11; 14:21). We have already looked at some
ways in which this updated application of the abiding principles of
the law may be implemented.
However, it is clear that for Paul certain aspects of the Mosaic
Law have been superseded. “For neither circumcision counts for
anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments
of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). The ceremonial aspects of the law
(indeed of the Abrahamic covenant) are not of ultimate significance.
What really counts and is of first-rate importance is “keeping the
commandments of God”, and by this Paul is pointing to the moral
law as distinct from temporary ceremonial observances. The apostle
does not use the category ceremonial law, but in Colossians 2:16-17
he echoes the teachings of Jesus in that he dismisses questions of
food and drink, or the observance of a festival or a new moon or a
Sabbath as “a shadow of the things to come”. Further, when Paul
says that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7),
it is obvious that he views the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law
as superseded and effectively ended. But still, there is a clear sense
in which law and commandment remain, and that is to be found in
the moral law that is the abiding revelation of what God is like in
himself and what he requires from everyone everywhere.

Paul and the law | 55

The law of liberty

So, then, Jesus and the apostles uphold the law. It has continuing
validity until heaven and earth disappear (Matthew 5:18). But it
is the law freed from the circumstances and conditions that had
relevance only for the Old Testament period and which are no
longer appropriate to the age of the new covenant which focuses
on the once-for-all sacrifice made by Christ and the right standing
before God which he graciously confers on those who trust in him.
There remains another style of objection to the role of the law
in the life of the Christian. It is that law is inconsistent with the
freedom the believer is to enjoy. Is it not the case that “where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17), and
that “for freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1)? Does not
James talk of “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1:25)?
Here again we are confronted by a contemporary mode of
thought that springs from the basic flaw of fallen human thinking.
The sin of mankind is basically one of rebellion against divine
authority and of seeking to supplant God’s norms with the dictates
of human nature. Being free is viewed as a condition where there
are no constraints at all on what we may do. Freedom is taken as the
lordship of self, rather than the lordship of God. The metaphor of
being free as a bird is often employed. We see a bird flying wherever
it wants in the sky, going high or low as it pleases, not having to
bother with passports or visas to cross international boundaries.
Nothing seems to hold it back from doing what it pleases. But that
is not so. The flight of the bird cannot defy the laws of gravity. How
low it swoops or how high it ascends is dictated by its physical
constitution. The life it leads and its survival cannot escape from
the demands of the ecological system of which it is part. The wild

The law of liberty | 57

bird enjoys a liberty that the caged canary does not have, but that
liberty is within the parameters set in the created realm. True
human liberty is no different.
What James means by “the law of liberty” can best be understood
by examining what he says about it a little later in his letter:

“ If you really fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture,

‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself,’ you are doing
well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are
convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the
whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for
all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said,
‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder,
you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so
act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For
judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy.
”
Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:8-13)

Here again we note that the discussion of law is conducted in

terms of the moral law as particularised in the Decalogue. The
parameters within which true love displays itself are those that
are dictated by the abiding standards of God’s moral law. But in
this passage James uses an additional term, “the royal law”. It is
unlikely that the term “royal” refers to the status of the believer as if
the injunction was one suited to the life-style of those who are truly
kings — though that is undoubtedly true. Equally it is improbable
that “royal” refers to the status of the law of love as the leading law
that is supreme over others, though again that would reflect the
message of Scripture. What James is doing is rather to employ the
covenant model of the people of God as those who serve a heavenly
king. He points to this law as coming from a king, namely Christ.
It is the law of the Great King, invested with covenantal authority
and given to shape the loyal and grateful response of his people for
all that he has done.
The lordship of Jesus Christ is a fundamental truth of

58 | THE MORAL LAW

Christianity. “Lord” in the name, the Lord Jesus Christ, is no
formality, but the recognition of an awesome fact. The response of
the heart motivated by love towards him is what the king requires
as the expression of love towards him and towards our fellows.
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have
loved you” (John 15:12). This is what constrains the living of his
subjects.
But there is also here the reminder that the lordship of Christ
will eventually be displayed in judgment. This king is the judge
of the universe. He judges both those who acknowledge his
sovereignty and those who do not. As regards those who are his
loyal subjects, they will be “judged under the law of liberty”. Where
there is no law, there is no offence and therefore no ground for
judgment. But there is God’s moral law and it will be the standard
of scrutiny on the day of Christ’s return. What then is the law of
liberty? Is it a second set of standards that God applies to those
who are his people? No, there is one standard, his moral law. That
moral law condemns all: none is righteous. But the law of liberty
does not vary the standards. It receives them as the royal law of
Christ, given not to those who are under law, seeking to work out
their own salvation, but given to those called by grace, freed from
the oppressive bondage of earning their own salvation and made
freedmen in the kingdom of Christ. They are liberated from the
thraldom of sin to serve and please him who proclaims liberty to
the captives.
True liberty is not licence to do whatever we please. It is the
opportunity and empowerment to fulfil the potential with which
our Creator has endowed us. It is the recognition that we are no
longer canaries in the cage of Satan. Rather, there is now freedom
for those loosed by the gospel from the enslavement in which we
all naturally find ourselves — freedom to achieve the goals that
God has laid down for us and freedom to do so in a way of which
he approves. True freedom is not to be found in doing what we
determine, but in doing what we ought to do, and in doing what

The law of liberty | 59

we ought to do willingly and wholeheartedly in conformity to the
moral law.
The moral law in today’s
world

On what basis, then, should the Church urge the relevance of the
Ten Commandments in modern society? Our fundamental ground
for doing so is not because God gave the Decalogue to Israel at
Mount Sinai. The standards of the Decalogue remain relevant for
all mankind because they encapsulate the moral law that is from
creation. That law is not arbitrary. It is a reflection of God himself.
It arises from the character of the Deity, and is to be reflected by
mankind created as his image and likeness. Mankind has rebelled,
but that in no way diminishes the relevance or force of the Maker’s
instructions.
Now that gives us an angle on how to respond to the individual
who says, “You are urging these standards on me, or on society as
a whole, but I do not share your Christian commitment. They are
not relevant to me. It is wrong-headed and an imposition on your
part to expect me to adopt your standards when I do not share your
faith commitment.” But we are not being inconsistent in our own
thinking. While the impulse to obey the moral law and the capacity
for doing so has been transformed for the Christian, the standards
of the moral law originated before the Fall. Its demands continue
to address humanity in general, being based on our answerability
to our Creator for our conduct. Here is the true status and dignity
of mankind. It is our individual responsibility to account for our
behaviour to God who has made known to us the norms by which
he will judge.
It is not the case that we should keep silent about our Christian

The moral law in today’s world | 61

commitment as being the basis of our advocacy of public policies
that are in accordance with the standards of God’s moral law.
Inevitably we must recognise that others will not share our
presuppositions, but that does not mean that no progress can be
made. The Christian can interact with the non-believer without
compromising his commitment to Christ.
It is possible to argue for adherence to the moral law on the
basis that its requirements make sense. Because they express the
Maker’s instructions for mankind, an individual or a society ignores
them at their peril. As the Maker’s instructions are framed for our
good they do not present a distortion of our humanity but a way
of realising its highest moral potential. It is possible to construct
rational arguments for adherence to these standards in terms of
the common good, the well-being of individuals and the welfare of
society. That may not be the highest theological ground on which to
proceed, but it is not contrary to Scripture. In the realm of common
grace, we appeal to the remnants of moral consciousness within
mankind. We know that these standards come from God. Given
the constitution of human nature and our moral nature, it does not
matter what the form of current social or political organisation
is, it does not matter what degree of scientific prowess has been
displayed or what technological progress has been achieved, our
basic nature remains the same. Departure from the Creator’s
moral standards brings social and ethical confusion, decay and
disintegration just as surely as defiance of the physical laws he has
impressed on the natural realm leads to disaster. The time scale
may not be the same, but the sequence of events may be traced,
and moral cause and consequence may be argued as cogently as
any scientific discussion. The standards of the Maker’s instructions
may be confidently urged in the public forum on the grounds of
their reasonableness and their explanatory power for understanding
social change.
Furthermore, the Christian ought not to be diffident in contending
for the standards of the moral law. We should not be hesitant. What

62 | THE MORAL LAW

we say is derived from Scripture; there is no reason to be unsure.
We have every right (as well as the responsibility) to present these
standards which are divinely set and which correspond to the way
we are constituted. There is also this that we should remember.
God has not left himself without the witness of conscience. What
is said in accordance with his word and the precepts of the moral
law can pierce human defences and bring conviction of its accuracy
and relevance.
There are starry-eyed reformers who think that they will
transform society by reason of the force of their arguments and the
obvious excellence of the goals that their policies seek to implement.
But sooner or later — generally sooner — they come up against the
hard fact of human fallenness, of the spiritual corruption of the
human heart. Those whose policy prescriptions are informed by
the standards of the moral law ought to avoid this misconception.
Acceptance of the moral law results in constant awareness that
mankind has fallen. It is not the case that people will necessarily
endorse what is evidently good; there is always the inclination to try
to turn any proposal to their own selfish advantage. The Christian
policy maker is, however, also in a position to point beyond the
letter of policy in the civil realm to the only real and lasting
solution to the problem of human fallenness that is provided in the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is possible to work hard to change external
conditions — and it is right to do so — but that is dealing with the
symptoms of the malaise rather than the fundamental condition,
which is that of the human heart.
It is, of course, the case that conforming to the moral law is
not salvation. Observance of the law does not save any individual.
Those who intervene in public debate on the basis of the moral
law are not, as such, presenting the gospel. Furthermore, in this
fallen world, we are not to suppose that any success achieved will
be permanently maintained. The fallen mind is at enmity with
the will of God, and what is gained in one area may be lost in
another. Or it may come under renewed assault with the passage of

The moral law in today’s world | 63

time. But despite all the negatives that may be mentioned, we must
never give up in our efforts to testify to God’s will for individuals
and society. Lessening the offence that human sin and rebellion
causes God is truly a Christian service. Lessening the misery and
despair caused by individuals and societies to themselves as they
act in reckless disregard of God’s law is a gospel goal. Both may
contribute through divine blessing to even greater good.

64 | THE MORAL LAW

About the Salt&Light series
The Lord Jesus commanded Christians to be salt and light to those around them
(see Matthew 5:13-16). The Salt&Light series endeavours to give believers the
tools to understand what this means in our world today.

Other books in the series include:

 Common grace (N. R. Needham)  The dignity of work (John L. Mackay)

 God’s promise plan and His gracious  The threefold division of the law
law (Walter C. Kaiser) (Jonathan F. Bayes)
 When does human life begin?  A call for Christian thinking and
(John R. Ling) action (David Holloway)
 Salt&Light series

The moral law

Its place in Scripture and its relevance today

John Wesley once said, “I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than
I can spare Christ…each is continually sending me to the other – the law to
Christ, and Christ to the law”.
There is much confusion amongst Christians over the role of the
moral law. In this excellent booklet, the late Professor John L. Mackay
shows from the Bible that the moral law still applies and is bound
up with God’s glory, his nature, his salvation purposes and with the
preservation of ordered life following the Fall.

John L. Mackay was Principal and Professor of Old

Testament Theology at the Free Church College, Edinburgh,
now Edinburgh Theological Seminary. He was a well-
respected author of several Old Testament commentaries.
In the early 1980s he was the minister of Rosskeen Free
Church of Scotland.

Listen to the
audiobook
the.ci/
morallawaudio