1689 LBC on the Law

(footnotes as they appear in Sam Waldron's Modern Exposition)

From chapter 19 of the Second London Baptist Confession.

Paragraph 1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart. Agreed. The LBC
refers to Gen 1:27; Eccles 7:29; Rom 2:12a, 14-15 for this statement. The first two passages talk about
man being made in God's image and upright; Romans reveals the law given to all men – Gentiles who
were not given the Mosaic Covenant. This law given to Adam must be the moral law of God.

Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of
righteousness after the fall. Agreed. We see this at work beginning in Gen 3, continuing throughout
biblical and world history. This law must be the that same law referred to above, in Romans 2, because
the confession says, “the same law”. Yet the Scriptures referenced in footnote 1 point to various places
where the Mosaic Law is written in Scripture, not Adam's heart. Herein is a conflict within the
confession. The balance of this paragraph declares that the Ten Words given on Sinai are the same law
as written on Adam's heart – citing (footnote 2) the same passage from Romans which reveals the law
at work in Gentiles who do not have the law of Moses.

How can the law given Adam be the law of the Gentiles, who are without the law of Moses, then be
described as the Ten Words which were given to Moses as law that the Jews had possession of? And
how does using Romans 2:12a & 14-15 as the proof text prove that? Other versions of the 1689 refer to
Deut 10 – which describes the tablets but does not indicate that they are the same law as given to
Adam. This is conjecture, not exegesis. And it conflicts with itself regardless of which footnotes are
used in a given version of the confession.

Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral … There is no proof text for this assertion, that
the ten words are the moral law. It appears that the previous reference to the ten words given on Sinai is
“this law” being here mentioned. What is the biblical defense for the Decalogue being called the moral
law? Are there not ceremonial and/or civil law within it, varying to a small degree between the two
records of the Decalogue? Where in Scripture is the Decalogue declared to be the law written in the
heart of man? There is no argument that the Decalogue contains the moral law, but it contains more –
specific instructions and commands that are part of the Mosaic covenant with national Israel and no
other nation or people. Rather than being the moral law of God, it would seem that the Decalogue is a
particular application of the moral law to the Jews.

Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience
thereof. We cannot understand the meaning of this statement without knowing what was meant by the
word, “bind”. Which of these definitions (from a modern dictionary, but in alignment with Webster's
1828 dictionary) applies to the law of Moses and the Christian?

a : to make secure by tying

b : to confine, restrain, or restrict as if with bonds
c : to put under an obligation <binds himself with an oath>
d : to constrain with legal authority

I do not see the law of Moses performing any of these functions for the Christian, though the last
definition certainly applies the moral law to all persons not justified in Christ.
The footnotes for this assertion mention a Jew trying to keep the law of Moses (Matt 19:16-22); the
same Romans passage as above – having to do with Gentiles without the law of Moses; Jews who are
condemned by the of Moses (Rom 3:19-20); Christians who now “serve in the new way of the Spirit
and not in the old way of the written code.” (Rom 7:6) – what else could this “written code” be if not
the law of Moses? Next is a verse attesting to the victory we have in God (Rom 8:3); and Paul's
statement that the law is good if used lawfully (1 Tim 1:8-11) – is “using the law lawfully” the same as
“binding all people” with it?

If Christians are freed from the condemnation of the law, and live in the new way of the Spirit, then
lawful use of the law (and it does appear Paul means the law of Moses) is to be used to restrain and
punish the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners, and myriad others who engage in gross
sin. This does not say the law of Moses is used to bind all people to the obedience thereof – it is to bind
those who are not in Christ or rebellious against God; those are the people this text tells us the law is
for.

The next citation has Paul summing up the second table of the law of Moses as doing no wrong to a
neighbor, which is proper love for one another (Rom 13:8-10); then we see the law of Moses held up as
the perfect standard of obedience (1 Cor 7:19) – which is possible only for the Lord Jesus; and then we
are referred to two statements in which circumcision (often a summary of the law of Moses) is
described as nothing, but faith in Christ as the only thing that matters (Gal 5:6 & 6:15). Then we have a
large section of Ephesians (4:25 – 6:4) which does not mention the law of Moses but does show the
demands of the moral law; and James 2:11-12 – which shows us the condemnation of the law of Moses
contrasted with “the law of liberty” under which Christian shall be judged. Christians are not bound by
the law of Moses, we are informed by it. We are bound by and judged by the law of liberty, which only
comes by being set free from the penalty of sin by being made a new creature in Christ.

This paragraph ends with, neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this
obligation; meaning the obligation and binding of the Mosaic law is greater for the Christian. Matt
5:17-19 is cited, which refers to the totality of the Old Covenant law which the Jewish leaders were to
teach and live – it does not seem to bind Christians to obedience to the law of Moses. Then we are led
to Rom 3:31, where man's inability to keep the law of Moses and the prophets is said by Paul to
establish the law – confirm it as God's covenant that must be kept and was kept by Christ alone. The
law – in total – stands as vindication of man's inability to justify himself, opposing the Jews and the
Gentiles.

Paragraph 6 sums up a very defensible perspective on the law and the Christian (apart from the word,
“bind”). It would be most useful if the term “the law” were defined. Assuming the Decalogue to be thus
is something that warrants careful support from Scripture, not presupposition based on what the
paedobaptists have written.

In summary, I believe the 1689 LBC suffers from paedobaptist influence in its perception of The Law,
resulting in unavoidable conflicts within itself. Baptists ought not to embrace this unless we embrace
their view of the covenants as well, for therein lies the basis for the view espoused in this chapter.