Eternal Life Promised in the First Covenant...

Scottish minister and theologian John Colquhoun (1748-1827) writes:

That eternal life in heaven, was promised to mankind, in the first covenant, may be evinced by the following arguments:

1. The life, which the second Adam, by his surety-righteousness, merited for his spiritual seed, is the same that the first Adam had forfeited, by his disobedience. Now that was life eternal. If "he who believeth, hath eternal life," and, if "the just shall live" an eternal life "by faith," "The man which doeth those things, shall live by them" (Rom. 10.5); that is, shall also live the same eternal life. Hence too, are these words of the apostle Paul : "That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but the man that doeth them, shall live in them" (Gal. 3.11-12). That eternal life, then, which is received by faith, is here represented, as in substance the same with this, which, by the law, is connected with the perfect fulfillment of all its demands.

2. Our blessed Lord, when proposing the covenant of works, to a young man who was a legalist, told him, that he should have eternal life, as the performance of the promise of it, upon his fulfilling of the condition. "Behold one came and said unto him, good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, — If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments (Matt. 19.16-17). On another occasion, he returned a similar answer to a lawyer, who put a similar question to him: "He said unto him, thou hast answered right; this do and thou shalt live "(Luke 10.28), that is,— shalt live an eternal life. It was eternal life, then, which, in that covenant, was promised to Adam, upon condition of his perfect obedience to the law.

3. If for the breach of that covenant, Adam and all his natural posterity in him, were condemned to eternal death (Rom. 6.23; Matt. 25.46); it is requisite, according to the rules of remunerative justice, and the infinite equity of the Divine procedure, that if the condition of life had been fulfilled, they should have been adjudged to eternal life. Was the penalty of death eternal in the infernal world, annexed to the transgression even of a positive precept ? We may warrantably conclude, that life everlasting in the heavenly world, was included in the promise.

4. Reason also suggests, that, his all-bountiful Lord would promise to the man, as the reward of his obedience, a better life, than that which he already possessed; — that, as the earthly paradise, was adapted principally to promote the happiness of his body, there would be another, and a future state and place, fitted to afford such spiritual felicity, as should chiefly correspond to the spiritual, and heavenly, nature of his soul; — and that, after his present state of service and of trial, there would very likely be a future one, of reward and of enjoyment.

5. The divine appointment of the tree of life, as a symbol and seal of that covenant, plainly hinted that the promise of it, was a promise of a better, and even of an eternal life. — The tree of life signified and sealed to Adam, that upon the ground of his finished obedience, he should be confirmed in life, and should live for ever. It appears from the following words, that he so understood the design of it: "And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever;  therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden. And he planted at the east of the garden of Eden, Cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3.22-24).

6. Christ the second Adam, by his unsmiling obedience, merited for his spiritual offspring, that very life, which the law could not, because of the sinfulness of their nature, afford to them .— " For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rom. 8.3-4), &c. The law or commandment, under the form of a covenant of works, "was," we are told, "ordained to life;" ordained, to confer on them who should keep it, eternal life in heaven. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19.17). The inability of the law, therefore, to afford eternal life now, arises merely from the sinner's inability, to afford that perfect obedience, which it originally required, and still requires as the ground of a title to life. If sin had not been committed, the law as a covenant of works, could have still conducted men to that everlasting life, which Christ the last Adam, confers upon his children.

7. In the last place, Though justification, in which men are confessedly declared righteous, and entitled to eternal life, is, in the sacred records, affirmed to be altogether impossible now, by the works of the law; yet, it is nowhere suggested, that this proceeds from any other cause, than the sinner's own inability, to answer the just demands of the violated law (Rom. 3.19-20). It is nowhere hinted, that the reason why a man cannot be justified, or procure a title to eternal life, by the deeds of the law, is, that the law never had a promise of eternal life; but, that — "by the law, is the knowledge of sin;" and, that —  "all the world have become guilty before God." Thus it is manifest, that eternal life, was promised in the covenant of works.
[emphasis in the original]

Treatise of the Covenant of Works, John Colquhoun, pages 73-76 
_________________________________________________________

The Law-Gospel Hermeneutic: Two Different Words...

From chapter 3, The Source of Theology: Revelation of Dr. Michael Horton's sytematic theology:

Both Testaments include both commands and promises. When we speak of the distinction between law and gospel, therefore, we are referring to different illocutionary stances that run throughout all of the Scriptures— everything in both Testaments that is in the form of either an obligatory command or a saving promise in Christ. “Hence,” wrote Luther, “whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between the law and the gospel, him we place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture.”

Calvin and his Reformed colleagues and theological heirs underscored this point as well. Wilhelm Niesel observes, “Reformed theology recognizes the contrast between law and gospel, in a way similar to Lutheranism. We read in the Second Helvetic Confession: ‘The gospel is indeed opposed to the law. For the law works wrath and pronounces a curse, whereas the gospel preaches grace and blessing.’” Ursinus, chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, called it “the chief division of Holy Scripture,” and Beza insisted in his catechism that “ignorance of this distinction is one of the causes of the many abuses in the church” throughout history. The great Elizabethan Puritan William Perkins taught that it was the first principle for preachers to learn in interpreting and applying passages. More recently, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof have observed the significance of this distinction for the whole Christian system of faith and practice. J. Van Bruggen adds more recently, “The [Heidelberg] Catechism, thus, mentions the gospel and deliberately does not speak of ‘the Word of God,’ because the law does not work faith. The law (law and gospel are the two parts of the Word which may be distinguished) judges; it does not call a person to God and does not work trust in him. The gospel does that.”

Horton, Michael S. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way 

Seeing Christ Through The Law - Gospel Lens...

The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism

4. Christ is the substance and ground of the entire Scriptures. But the doctrine contained in the law and gospel is necessary to lead us to a knowledge of Christ and his benefits: for the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, constraining us to fly to him, and showing us what that righteousness is, which he has wrought out, and now offers unto us. But the gospel, professedly, treats of the person, office, and benefits of Christ. Therefore we have, in the law and gospel, the whole of the Scriptures, comprehending the doctrine revealed from heaven for our salvation. 

The principal differences between these two parts of the doctrine of the church, consists in these three things: 

1. In the subject, or general character of the doctrine, peculiar to each. The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ. 

2. In the manner of the revelation peculiar to each. The law is known from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed. 

3. In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience. Hereafter, however, more will be said upon this subject in the proper place.

Musings on Sin, the Blood, and Obedience...

Some thoughts rumbling around in my brain this morning...

The woman caught in adultery:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” John 8:3-11

As a sinner, am I the Pharisee in this story or the prostitute? Something tells me I'm both...

John Owen wrote, "Where sanctification is enjoined us as our duty, it is prescribed under this notion of cleansing ourselves from sin." (Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit)

“Wash you, make you clean,” Isaiah 1:16. 

“O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved,” Jeremiah 4:14. 

“Having therefore these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” 2 Corinthians 7:1

I find that I do poorly at reforming myself. The same sins of yesterday are more or less still with me. Jesus's call is not to reform myself but to come to him, the "fountain filled with blood..." He died for me in order to cleanse me of my sin, not to enable me to reform myself. I don't graduate from that in this life.

There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains. (William Cowper)

Where does obedience come in? Gratitude indeed. Thankful that he bore my sin and forgives me. My obedience is gratefully stumbling along in the direction of holiness, falling way short, not in order to make myself better - a fool's errand. I will become better after "the body of this death" dies and then resurrected I see him.

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 1 John 3:2

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." Titus 2:11-14

Here is William Cowper's hymn in its entirety. It is said that it was one of the first hymns he wrote after his first major bout of depression:

There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood by William Cowper

There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.

Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;

And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.

The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.

Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.

E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.

When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
I’ll sing Thy power to save,I’ll sing Thy power to save,
Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,

Lord, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be,
For me a blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!
’Tis strung and tuned for endless years, and formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father’s ears no other name but Thine.

As many of you as have been baptized...

From John Calvin's commentary on Galatians 3:27. 

"The greater and loftier the privilege is of being the children of God, the farther is it removed from our senses, and the more difficult to obtain belief. He therefore explains, in a few words, what is implied in our being united, or rather, made one with the Son of God; so as to remove all doubt, that what belongs to him is communicated to us. He employs the metaphor of a garment, when he says that the Galatians have put on Christ; but he means that they are so closely united to him, that, in the presence of God, they bear the name and character of Christ, and are viewed in him rather than in themselves. This metaphor or similitude, taken from garments, occurs frequently, and has been treated by us in other places.

"But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement? I answer, it is customary with Paul to treat of the sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces, in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truth -- which they represent. In this case, he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.

"But perhaps some person will ask, Is it then possible that, through the fault of men, a sacrament shall cease to bear a figurative meaning? The reply is easy. Though wicked men may derive no advantage from the sacraments, they still retain undiminished their nature and force. The sacraments present, both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they exhibit of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament. With strict propriety, then, does Paul, in addressing believers, say, that when they were baptized, they "put on Christ;" just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says,

"that we have been planted together into his death, so as to be also partakers of his resurrection."(Romans 6:5.)

"In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions; and we are reminded with what base ingratitude they are chargeable, who, by abusing the precious ordinances of God, not only render them unprofitable to themselves, but turn them to their own destruction!"

Every Word Out of the Mouth of God...

Reading David VanDrunen's latest book, Divine Covenants and Moral Order, got me to thinking about Adam's temptation in the garden and the temptation that Jesus faced many millennia later. VanDrunen posits that the natural law was given covenantally to man as part of the image of God woven into his being at his creation.

By their image-bearing nature human beings were morally obligated before God, and by their image-bearing nature they were destined for eschatological life.  The absence of any covenant-making ceremony and of the word ברית in Genesis 1-2 may be explained by the fact that humanity's very creation established a covenantal relationship requiring no further establishment or confirmation. p. 85

In other words, the righteousness of the moral law written on Adam's heart requiring obedience had a view to an end - a fulfillment, or as the Divines wrote, a "fruition of him as their blessedness and reward " (WCF 7.1). Thus the creation of man was itself a covenantal, "voluntary condescension" of God due to the hope of eschatological blessedness.

Taking that view, the prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil upon penalty of death that came later to Adam, as VanDrunen writes, can then be understood

not as supplementing Adam's natural obligation but as focusing it. As I argued earlier in this chapter, the command to work and to guard the Garden served as a concrete test of Adam's general and natural obligation to subdue the earth. Likewise, the command to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would become a concrete test of his general and natural obligation to exercise dominion over the creatures. The commands of 2:15-17 did reveal something that Adam could not have know simply by his image-bearing nature... pp. 85-86

God put Adam in the garden to "guard it" and to exercise dominion (rule with justice) over all including the serpent. The tree prohibition was a concentrated test of Adam's faithful obedience to God's creation mandate, moral law, and God himself. And it was particularly focused for the reason that the prohibition was a positive command that came from without. The command to not eat of the forbidden tree wasn't directly found in the natural law directly given at Adam's creation. There wasn't anything inherently wrong with eating that fruit that could be understood from the moral law. Yet it was God's command. In the upcoming test Adam had only God's outward spoken command to lean on. In other words, the prohibition to not eat of the forbidden tree wasn't inherently known by Adam, an image bearer of God. Obedience was required to a command that in and of itself that one could say seemed arbitrary and morally neutral. And yet being God's spoken word it wasn't neutral. It was indeed both morally right to obey and morally wrong to disobey.

The point I'm focusing on is simply that God's law-command regarding the tree was a outward one apart from the moral law written inwardly on Adam's heart. So in that sense it was a command extrinsic to him, i.e. not subjective or inherent to him. His obedience would lean solely on the outward word - "Thus God said..."

That being said, for Adam to bow to the serpent and disobey the outward command to not eat of that tree was indeed a violation of the moral law, especially in light of the first commandment.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me."

And to violate just one command of God is to be guilty of all the law (James 2:10).

When challenged on the outward command to not eat Adam fell from his original righteousness, bowing before the serpent. Adam disobeyed the command that came not from the law written inwardly on his heart but that came outwardly from the mouth of God.

Turning to the New Testament we see a similar scene played out in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus had just completed forty days of fasting. Satan's presents the first of three temptations to Jesus and upon first blush it hardly seems like the temptation has anything that has to do with a moral right and wrong. Is there a moral law against nourishing oneself after a fast? Or turning a stone to bread to do so? We know later in a different circumstance Jesus does perform a food miracle by multiplying five loaves of bread and two fish in order to feed a multitude of people and we presume himself.  So Satan was working from that same old play book he used in the garden with Adam.

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

The Spirit of God had led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted and the divine lead up to that test was forty days of fasting. Though starving, one could infer that Jesus knew that as man it was not his to take up his own judgment and efforts to end that divine mandated fasting. For Jesus to rule justly and exercise dominion as a man required his absolute obedience to and reliance on his Father. So it is of no small coincidence that as the Second Adam Jesus replied with words that echoed the battle that took place long ago in the garden of Eden concerning God's original outward command to Adam.

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”  

Jesus had been given by the Spirit of God a wilderness test that included coming to near starvation and three temptations. The fasting wasn't to be over until the final temptation was over.

Upon Satan's third temptation, Jesus as a man in obedience to his Father judged the tempter with righteousness and authority by quoting God's word:

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

It was at that point, when the Jesus's temptation had ended, that nourishment and relief were given to him from above.

Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

A man, the Second Adam, once again had righteous dominion over all creation, including over the serpent.

The Law as a Covenant of Works at Sinai...

A View of the Covenant of Works by Thomas Boston

18             The Covenant of Works           Part I. 

1. Here is a concurrence of all that is necessary to constitute a true and proper covenant of works: The parties contracting, God and man; God requiring obedience as the condition of life; a penalty fixed in case of breaking; and man acquiescing in the proposal. The force of this cannot be evaded, by comparing it with the consent of subjects to the laws of' an absolute prince- For such a law proposed by a prince, promising a reward upon obedience to it, is indeed the proposing of a covenant, the which the subject consenting to for himself and his, and taking on him to obey, does indeed enter into a covenant with the prince, and having obeyed the law, may claim the reward by virtue of paction. And so the covenant of works is ordinarily in Scripture called the law, being in its own nature a pactional law. 

2. It is expressly called a covenant in Scripture, Gal, iv. 24. For there are the two covenants, the one from the mount Sinai, &c. This covenant from mount Sinai was the covenant of works*, as being opposed to the covenant of grace, namely, the law of the ten commandments, with promise and sanction, as before expressed. At Sinai it was renewed indeed, but that was not its first appearance the world. For there being but two ways of life to be found in Scripture, one by works, the other by grace; the latter hath no place, but where the first is rendered ineffectual: therefore the covenant of works was before - the covenant of grace in the world; yet the covenant of grace was promulgated quickly after Adam's fall; therefore the covenant of works behoved to have been made with him before. And how can one imagine a covenant of works set before poor impotent sinners, if there had not been such a covenant

* That the covenant of works was, For special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on mount Sinai, our author has proved in his notes on the Marrow of modern divinity, chap. ii. sect. ii.3. The reader may also consult Witsius's Economy of the covenants, book iv. chp. 4. 47. &c.
___________________________________________

19               a proper covenant.

with man in his state of integrity?  Hos. vi.7. But as for them, like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant. Our translators set the word Adam on the margin. But in Job xxxi. 33. they translate the very same word, as Adam. This word occurs but three times in Scripture, and still in the same sense. - Job xxxi. 3 3. If I covered my transgressions as Adam. Psalm lxxxii. 7. But ye shall die like Adam. Compare ver. 6. I have said, Ye are gods,- and all of you are children of the Most High; compared with Luke iii. 33.- Adam, which was the son of God. And also here, Hos. vi. 7. While Adam's hiding his sin, and his death are made an example, how natural is it that his transgression, that led the way to all, be made so too? This is the proper and literal sense of the words: it is so read by several, and is certainly the meaning of it.
_____________________________________________

Thomas Boston's notes in the Marrow of Modern Divinity noted in the above footnote:

[8] The transaction at Sinai or Horeb [for they are but one mountain] was a mixed dispensation; there was the promise or covenant of grace, and also the law; the one a covenant to be believed, the other a covenant to be done, and thus the apostle states, the difference betwixt these two, (Gal 3:12), "And the law is not of faith, but the man that DOETH them shall live in them." As to the former, viz: the covenant to be believed, it was given to their fathers as well as to them. Of the latter, viz: the covenant to be done, Moses speaks expressly, (Deut 4:12,13), "The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire, and he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to PERFORM [or DO] even ten commandments." And (5:3), he tells the people no less expressly, that "the Lord made not THIS COVENANT with their fathers."

I'll Fly Away...

Making a little music with my friends...



"I'll Fly Away", is a song written in 1929 by Albert E. Brumley and first published in 1932. It's an old gospel favorite recorded by many artists over the years, such as Willie Nelson. Here's our down-home addition to the tradition...

Vocals: Roxylee, Richard Schletty, Jack Miller
Mixing by Rich-Sir-Mix-a-Lot and Jack.
Guitar and harmonica by me.

A View of the Covenant of Works by Thomas Boston

A View of the Covenant of Works by Thomas Boston

It [the Covenant of Works] commands without any promise of strength at all to perform. There is no such promise to be found in all the Bible, belonging to that covenant. It shews what is to be done, and with all severity exacts the task; but furnishes not anything whereof it is to be made. So the case of men under that covenant is represented by Israel’s case in Egypt, Exod. v. 18, “God therefore now and work,” said Pharaoh to that people; “for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.

Under the covenant of grace, duty is required, but strength is promised too, Ezek. xxxvi. 27, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” And the commands in the hands of the Mediator are turned into promises, as appears from Deut. x. 16, “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” Compare chap. xxx. 6, “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” Yea, the Mediator’s calls and commands to his people bear a promise of help; Prov. x. 29, “The way of the Lord is strength to the upright.

But there is no such thing in the covenant of works; the work must be performed in the strength that was given; they must trade with the stock that mankind was set up with at first: but that strength is gone, that stock is wasted; howbeit the law can neither make it up again, nor yet abate of its demands...” (p. 132-133)

The holiness of God gave out the holy commandment in the covenant, justice annexed the threatening of death to the breach of it, truth secures the accomplishment of the threatening, and so lays the  sinner under justice, without relief. So that there is no parting of them, till the utmost farthing be paid (2 Thess. i. 9. punished with Gr. justice or vengeance, everlasting destruction) by the sinner himself, or a cautioner. (p. 162)

Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works,

Law and Gospel in the Old and New Covenants

Simply to say, there is law and there is gospel in both the Old and New Covenants. In the Old, "Do this and live" (law) stood as God's righteous demand upon Israel and all men for perfect holiness, pointing to eternal life through perfect obedience. And it was a judgment unto condemnation against sinners, all who disobeyed in Adam. The righteousness of the law gave no power to the elect to fulfill its demands. Rather, serving God's redemptive plan it drove and guided the elect to seek through faith the refuge of salvation found in God's mercy and forgiveness in Christ as offered in the promises, ceremonies, and sacrifices (gospel).

In the New Testament, Christ born under the law fulfills the promise given in the Old and meets for his people the "Do this and live" demand of the law through his obedient holy life and his sacrificial death on the cross for sin. For those who believe, the law is still law but its requirements are now fulfilled and established by Jesus Christ for their salvation which they receive through faith by the hearing of this gospel. "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Rom. 3:31)

As to the so-called third use of the law for believers, it is still law. The threats of the law as given in the covenant of works no longer put the believer in jeapordy, but rather humble and inform him of what would be due his sins if not for Christ's debt payment on his behalf. In Christ this serves only to urge him toward a more thankful obedience in faith (WLC 97). Jesus Christ has fulfilled God's law for his people and yet as with all men created in God's image, they are still obliged to obey, but no longer out of fear of failure and condemnation as sinners in Adam, but willingly (though not without struggles against their ever present sin) in the assurance of God's love for them as his chosen children for whom Christ died.

So then in the New and Old covenants there is both law and gospel. But the righteousness that saves doesn't, and cannot, come to sinners through the law. As Paul writes , "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3.12). The righteousness that saves only comes through faith in Christ (Phil. 3.9). The law cannot give that righteousness. It only comes through faith in Christ the law-keeper and sin-bearer, who has established and fulfilled it unto salvation for all who believe in him (Rom. 8.4; 10.4).