Distinction between Law and Gospel: Fact or Fiction? Matters Much or Little? (Part 1)

Due to all the recent controversy about sanctification, it seems that the law and gospel distinction has become a vital part of this discussion. It seems that some think that this is the key to solving our sanctification conversation while others believe that it is the error that diminishes and or negates sanctification. Some think this is an invention imposed on the bible to cater to wrong views while others feel as if it is nothing less than what scripture teaches. In this two-part series, I would like to make a biblical case for the law and gospel distinction as biblical, clarifying what it is and what it is not, and also state its significance as a clarifier in all the justification/sanctification conversations. Let us begin this journey into the law and gospel distinction conversation by asserting this prime point:

Law is always administered in a covenantal framework.

Often times when we talk about law we talk about it in ways like this: The Old Testament is law and the New Testament is gospel. Or we say things like “Jesus is all about grace and not law and Moses is all about law and not grace.” Or “Jesus and Moses are both about grace and law.” Let me state clearly that law is in both testaments and that law is administered under Moses and under Christ. The new testament is full of law (Romans 13:8-13), and the Old Testament is full of law (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 4). The new covenant in which Christ is the mediator is full of law and the Mosaic covenant in which Moses is the mediator is full of law (1 Corinthians 9:21, Deuteronomy 28). However, simply because the law is in all the bible from cover to cover does not mean that the law is administered in the same way in all the bible and it does not mean that all the bible is law.

The Administration of the Law is different depending on Convenant
Let me show you how in a few places law is administered differently due to it being in a particular kind of covenant. In creation Adam is given law and he was told that he must keep the law perfectly in order to enter into the ultimate Sabbath rest that is described in Revelation 22. He is told that if he fails to keep the law, he would be cursed and exiled (Genesis 2:15-17). So, here we have law administered in a particular covenantal arrangement with stipulations, blessings and curses amongst two parties where law is the causal condition to earn the glory of the future. The law here is the means by which one merits and earns ultimate end time life and or one merits and earns damnation and death (Romans 5:15-17). This is not a legalistic view of the law (aka wrong view). The law here is said to about meeting legal terms to earn and merit the benefits of meeting the terms. So the law in a “covenant of works” means that our obedience to law earns us the right to obtain our ultimate and final status before God (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).

Let’s go somewhere else where this can be seen. Please open up Deuteronomy 28 and read the whole chapter and note that we have the same covenantal framework for law seen in creation with Adam. Israel did not earn the promise land, but like Adam was placed into it by God's free actions. However, like Adam their ability to keep their place in the promised land and enter into God's ultimate end-time rest (Hebrews 4:1-10) was dependent on their ability to obey the law of God and, like Adam, their failure to obey the law would result in condemnation, judgment and exile. Again, we see the law administered here (in this kind of covenant arrangement/pact) as the basis by which one earns and merits ultimate end-time life with God and/or earns the opposite. Take a look at how Paul comments on the law as it is administered through Moses in the Mosaic covenant:

Galatians 3:10 “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed. 11 Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. 12 But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them.”

Notice a few things about how the law works under this covenant arrangement. First, you must obey it perfectly with no exceptions in order to maintain the relationship and obtain the blessings. Second, it is not based on faith or grace, but on the doing of the law. The law under the covenant of works as it is published originally in creation and then republished in and through Moses demands perfect obedience as the causal basis to merit favor and or merit condemnation. This is why Hosea compares the failure of keeping the law under the Adamic and Mosaic covenant as being essentially the same issue (Hosea 6:7). The law in the covenant framework of works is about doing the works in a perfect manner which earns and merits—in a causal sense—ultimate end-time life and glory and or earns and merits damnation and exile for not doing the requirements in a perfect manner. Your keeping of the law here either justifies you or condemns you in this covenant arrangement.

The Covenant with Abraham
Let's look at how the same law is seen in a different kind of covenant arrangement. In Genesis 12:1-3, God establishes a covenantal relationship with Abraham where the conditions are set by God Himself for Abraham. Note the extent of the “I will's” that are unto blessing and note the lack of Abraham's “I will's”. Their is no conditional commentary on Abraham's part in a causal sense. If you move further to chapter 15 we have more development of this covenant arrangement. Abraham asks God how will this covenant relationship be realized and God then proceeds to put Abraham to sleep while God fulfills the covenant ceremony to establish and confirm the bond. God walks through the carcasses while Abraham sleeps thus showing that in this covenant arrangement it is God's works alone which establish and keep the bond and the subsequent blessings. Let's move quickly to Genesis 17. Genesis 17:1 “When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him, saying, ‘I am God Almighty. Live in My presence and be blameless. 2 I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you greatly.” Notice something very important here. Abraham is called to live in obedience and be holy, but God says He is the one who will establish the covenantal bond and be the sole cause of blessing. It does not say that if Abraham is blameless then God consequently will do His part to keep the relationship intact, it simply says that God is responsible for the covenant bond's establishment while Abraham worries Himself with keeping the will of God, but not as the basis of the bond. Abraham's obedience is not the cause or means or basis of the bond or its consequent, ultimate end-time blessings.Abraham's obedience is not the cause or means or basis of the bond or its consequent, ultimate end-time blessings. Abraham's obedience to law here has nothing to do with grounding or founding or creating the covenantal relationship here even though it is demanded and required here. We cannot simply see law here as it pertains to Abraham and assume that it is the cause to either keep or sustain the relationship. We must see how Abraham's law-keeping is logically explained. So, here we have the law of God for the believer seen in a different way. It is not the cause, either initially or subsequently, for earning God's favor and end-time ultimate blessings. When Abraham fails to keep the law he does not forfeit the saving relationships and end time blessings. We see the law of God differently here.

Paul's Description of Salvation
Let's see this somewhere else. In Romans 4:4-6, we see that the saving bond between man and God with Abraham as the example, as not being based on law-keeping, but rather on Christ's works which are credited to us through faith. As a matter of fact, Paul says that we obtain our redemptive status as those who are ungodly! Meaning that our godly change and behavior has no causal connection to our right status (even though regeneration renews us). Later, in Romans 5:15ff, we see that Christ, the last Adam, earned our status and end-time rest due to His representative obedience for us. Then, look what happens in Romans chapter 12 (Ro 12) where we have a significant amount of laws and commands. Never do we get the impression that the law—in this arrangement—is the cause for justifying righteousness and end-time life, and/or the cause for potential damnation and exile for failure. So here we have law, but it is being administered differently than we see in the Adamic and Mosaic arrangements. Law keeping here is not the condition by which one earns or maintains any kind of status or end-time rest, rather it is the standards given to those who already have earned the righteousness of the law and ultimate end-time rest (Romans 3:21-26, Romans 5:1-21; 8:28-30).

So where does this leave us in the whole law and gospel distinction conversation? First, God's law that flows from His character is always administered in a certain kind of covenant arrangement; it is not some sort of informal standard that hangs throughout time in the same way. Second, our view of God's law depends on which kind of covenant it is administered under. The question is not do we keep the law as believers (that is not a subject for debate), but what kind of covenant arrangement are we seeing the law under. Are we seeing and keeping the law under the covenant of works, to all in creation or to Israel under Moses, or are we seeing and keeping the law under the Abrahamic covenant which finds its end-time administration in the New Covenant? Law is in the whole bible at all times and is binding on us at all times, but it is not administered in the same way and we are not bound to it in the same way at all times. Instead of having all the various scuffles about us being under law or not, what we need to clarify is what covenant are we operating under as we are under God's law; it makes all the difference. The conversation about law and gospel distinction is then truthfully a conversation about the differences between conditional covenants of law and unconditional covenants of grace because law is distinguished by what kind of covenant it is under.