Historically, Reformational theology recognized three different uses for the law. The order is different between Lutherans and Reformed, but it comes down to this: the first use is the law as a pedagogue, to show us our sinfulness and lead us to Christ; the second, the civil use of the law; and the third, the law as a rule of faith and life.
In the Heidelberg Catechism the way this all plays out is through the scheme: guilt, grace, and gratitude. The first use of the law convicts us of our sin–guilt. In light of the greatness of our guilt we turn to the gospel of Christ in repentance, and embrace his righteousness through faith–grace. Finally, in light of the fact that Christ has accomplished all things for us, we respond with joyful obedience to God’s law–gratitude.
The Problem:
Unfortunately, some have taken and twisted this scheme. Rather than guilt, grace, gratitude, some would rather be out with grace and jump from guilt straight to gratitude. The logic behind this goes something like this: Christians already know the gospel and to preach it repeatedly is redundant, impractical, and will likely end up comforting sinners. To preach the gospel occasionally is one thing, but who needs to hear it every week?
Perhaps if Paul had not written that he “decided to know nothing among [the Corinthians] except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) there would be no problem. After all, if anyone needed to hear the law more and the gospel less, one is inclined to think that it was the Corinthians. But no, Paul did not go the route of legalism, but preached Christ. Is this foolish? Paul knew that people would think so, but this didn’t stop him. From the get go Paul refers to the Corinthian church as “sanctified in Christ Jesus,” and he calls them “saints.” Not only this, but the epistle is sprinkled with indicatives of what Christ has done. Paul tells them that they are “in Christ Jesus,” (1:30) that they “are Christ’s,” (3:23) that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed,” (5:7) that they are “washed, . . . sanctified, . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God,” (6:11) that their bodies are “members of Christ,” (6:15) “the body of Christ,” (12:27) that “Christ died for our sins,” (15:3) and so on.
If Paul’s epistle to the “carnal” Corinthians is so full of the gospel, does it make any sense not to preach the gospel every week to sinful believers?
Objections:
The objection is raised: what about comforting people who are sinful, those who sin repeatedly? To begin, who isn’t sinful? Are only the less sinful people “worthy enough” for the gospel? Didn’t Christ come to heal the sick? Christ already answered the question as to how to deal with people who sin again and again. Peter asks, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” What does Christ say? He doesn’t tell Peter to only forgive those who are worthy of forgiveness. No! Christ responds, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” For those who come to Christ seeking forgiveness, the preacher must not wait until they are “worthy enough” to hear the gospel! The preacher who does that is not doing his job! There’s a reason the Canons of Dort tell us that the gospel “ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.” [emphasis mine]
For the sake of the argument let’s say that there are hypocrites who don’t care about Christ. Is it okay to exhort them with the law only? Well, if we are able to discern their hearts and if we think that the law has any power to change people, maybe. But for those of us who believe that it is the preaching of the gospel that saves, not our own wisdom, we ought to trust that God’s word will accomplish what He wills.
What about reading Christ into Scripture? Well, if we’re preaching from the New Testament there shouldn’t be any problems with preaching the gospel every sermon (though some have trouble with this). And the Old Testament? Isn’t it eisogesis (fancy word that means reading something into the text that’s not really there) to preach the gospel from every text of the OT? It’s actually quite simple here as well. We follow the example of the New Testament writers. They didn’t seem to have all the difficulty we do (mainly because they weren’t holding extra-biblical presuppositions). Some will retort, saying that it’s impossible and will necessarily result in allegory or “spiritualizing” the text. And to prove this they’ll quote a sentence or short paragraph from the OT and ask how it is that Christ can be preached from it. Now this is just stupid. No one is saying that we ought to preach Christ from individual sentences stripped of their redemptive-historical context. Let’s keep the context, but look past the shadows and types of the OT (as we are instructed to do in the book of Hebrews and as we see in the rest of the NT) and read it like Christians rather than second-temple Jews.
Scripture tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not the law! To preach imperatives week after week, assuming that everyone already knows the gospel, is to overestimate the fact that we are all prone to works-righteousness. At heart, we are all pharisees, and the only way to kill a pharisee is not to give him a bigger list of things to do, but to show him that he can’t do anything! And from there it’s the gospel–again and again–not mere law! Paul said that the law is the pedagogue leading us to Christ, yet so many seem to think that Christ is the pedagogue who leads us to the law. Preach the gospel promiscuously, please.
Tags: Law and Gospel, Preaching
