Chapter VII
CHAPTER VII: WHETHER CHRIST IS THE NEW LAWGIVER
§ 64. In regard to the second distinction, which claims that Moses was only a lawgiver but that Christ was a Lawgiver and Redeemer, it remains for us to investigate if and in what sense Christ was and can be called a Lawgiver.
** The Council of Trent (sess. 6, canon 21) says, “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given to mankind as the Redeemer to be believed but not also as a Lawgiver to be obeyed, let him be anathema.” Barradius (Comm. in conc. evang., bk. 2, ch. 10): “If Moses was the lawgiver, why should the title of ‘Lawgiver’ be taken away from the Messiah? Indeed, a much greater honor belonged to the Messiah than to Moses in this respect, for Moses received God’s Law by the intervention of the angels and gave it to only one people while the Messiah gave the Law, which He founded, not to one people but to the whole world.” **
It is certain that the Son of God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, implanted the Law in the hearts of human beings in the first creation, that He made known the commandment about not eating the fruit of the forbidden tree [Gen. 2:17], and that He was present on Mount Sinai at the solemn promulgation of the Law. It is also certain that in His preaching ministry Christ declared not only the Gospel of the free forgiveness of sins to His hearers but also the Law, and that He freed the Law from Pharisaic corruptions and restored it to its original splendor. But the Papists are not asking about this when they argue that Christ was a Lawgiver. Rather, they claim that this name is proper to Him in this way and respect: that He published some new laws and made the Law of Moses more perfect.
But we show the contrary using the following foundations: (1) “For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came to us through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Here the ministry of Moses is distinguished from the office of Christ. Surely Moses does hand down the Commandments and does add the promise of life, but under the condition of perfect fulfillment. But since our nature, corrupted by sin, does not have the ability to provide perfect obedience, since Moses does not give that ability, “the Law works wrath” (Rom. 4:15) and is “the ministry of death” (2 Cor. 3:7). Thus there was need for another Mediator—namely, Christ—through whom grace and truth would come to us. Indeed, He declared the teaching of grace and truth, that is, the Gospel. In fact, grace and truth was not just preached by Christ, it also was done (ἐγένετο) [by Him], because with His Passion He acquired and earned heavenly goods. Through the Gospel of grace He Himself also actually distributes grace to the faithful and shares grace with them. These [points are from] Chemnitz (Harm. evang., bk. 2, ch. 20, p. 61). Suppose that Christ was a new Lawgiver in His mediating office—the contrast given by the evangelist or by John the Baptist will come to naught.
(2) Nothing can be added to that which is perfect. The Law is the absolutely perfect rule of good works since it requires love for God with the whole heart [Deut. 6:5]; since it requires the wholeness of the entire nature [cf. Deut. 10:12]; since it requires the conformity of every action, word, and thought with the norm of righteousness [cf. Lev. 19:2]. Therefore Christ added nothing to the Law. Augustine (Contra Faust., bk. 17, last chapter): “The Law of God is given so perfectly that nothing should be added to it or taken from it.” Nor does this statement: “The Law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7:19), hinder our argument. For the meaning of these words is not that the moral Law is imperfect and is taught insufficiently in the writings of Moses. Instead, the apostle is considering in part this fact: although the Law is of itself holy and perfect and commands works so pious and just that works more pious and just cannot be prescribed, nevertheless in its commanding it does not provide the powers to do those works. However, he is also considering in part, and most of all here, the ceremonial Law. In fact, he here refutes the Jewish opinion that the blood of oxen and goats has cleansed our sins in the presence of God [cf. Heb. 10:4].
(3) Every lawgiver is a minister of sin insofar as he provides an occasion for sin through the Law. “Then is the Law sin? By no means! Yet I did not know sin except through the Law. But sin, finding an occasion in the commandment, worked every concupiscence in me. For apart from the Law sin was dead. For sin, finding an occasion in the commandment, deceived me, and it killed me through it” (Rom. 7:7–8, 11). But Christ was not the minister of sin. “If in seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Certainly not!” (Gal. 2:17). But Moses alone is the minister of sin because, in seeking to be justified by the Law, we are found to be sinners. Therefore Moses is a lawgiver, but Christ is not a lawgiver in His office as Mediator.
(4) Christ came into the world for this end: to free us “from the curse and condemnation of the Law” (Gal. 3:13; 4:5), that we might no longer be “under the Law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Therefore He did not come to promulgate new laws.
(5) In His mediating office Christ is the τέλος (“end” and fulfillment) “of the Law for the righteousness of every believer” (Matt. 5:17; Rom. 10:4). It is He who pays the debt of utterly perfect obedience which was demanded from us by the Law. Therefore to this extent He is not a lawgiver whose function is to demand obedience and fulfillment of the Law.
(6) Christ “did not come to condemn the world” (John 3:17) nor to accuse it before the Father, since “Moses had already accused it” earlier (John 5:45). Therefore He did not come to give new laws. Certainly every lawgiver requires perfect obedience; and, when he does not find it, he declares and inflicts a just punishment.