The Law and the Covenant
The unique feature of the covenant with Israel was the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. In volume III, issues 11-19, we discussed the subject of the law in detail. Here we wish to consider the relationship between the law and the covenant.
Fundamental to understanding this relationship is Galatians 3:17-21. This passage teaches, first, that the covenant with Abraham, established four hundred years before the giving of the law, is the covenant “confirmed before of God in Christ” (Gal. 3:17), that is, the one everlasting covenant of God. Secondly, it teaches that the giving of the law could not disannul that covenant (17), indeed, that the law is not against the covenant at all (21).
Exodus 24:7 even calls the law “the book of the covenant,” that is, the book in which God makes known His covenant with His people. If the covenant to which the law belonged is the covenant confirmed in Christ—the same covenant to which believers belong today—then the law remains the book of the covenant, though much has since been added to that revelation.
According to Galatians 3:19, the written law was added “because of transgressions,” until Christ should come—that is, to reveal sin and show man his need for Christ. In that sense it was “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24).
Romans 10:4 teaches the same truth. Christ is the “end” of the law, not in the sense that He abolishes it, but in the sense that He is its goal and purpose. The law was given with Christ as its end, and it accomplishes that purpose when, by revealing sin, it leads men to see their need for Christ and for justification through faith in Him.
That the law still has this function is evident from Romans 7:7: “I had not known sin, but by the law.” Galatians 3 likewise shows that the law was not only the Jews’ schoolmaster, but ours also (Gal. 3:24).
There is therefore no difficulty in saying that the law was and remains part of the covenant. It certainly belonged to the covenant in the Old Testament, for Galatians 3:19 says that it was “added” to it. That it still belongs is evident from the fact that it continues to serve the same purpose for believers today. What has changed is not the place of the law within the covenant, but the believer’s relationship to the law within the covenant—a subject treated in Galatians 4:1-7.
The point is that there is only one covenant: a covenant to which the law has always belonged, a covenant to which both believers and the true Israel belong, a covenant of grace in Christ. The law was not, is not, and never will be against that covenant. Rev. Ron Hanko
Christ, Every Man’s Light? (2)
“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9).
(This article continues the discussion begun in issue 21 [of volume IV] of the News. Owing to lack of space, the previous article could not be completed there. The point under discussion was that the “light” spoken of in John 1:9 is the so-called “natural light,” distinguished from “spiritual light.”)
The Reformed confessions also speak of this natural light.
The Belgic Confession, speaking of the effects of sin, says that man, having become wicked and corrupt in all his ways, “hath lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse …” (Article 14).
Does this mean that man is able to do good? Not at all. The article continues: “… for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not: where St. John calleth men darkness.”
The Canons of Dordt likewise teach that “there remain, however, in man since the fall the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment ….” (III/IV:4).
Does this mean that fallen man can do good? Again, no. The same article continues: “… But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
Some have argued that man’s “continued existence as a rational and moral creature” is evidence of “common grace.” According to this view, had it not been for common grace, man would have become either an animal or a devil. It is then added that “because man did not become an animal or a devil, he remains capable of doing some good, though not saving good.”
But this idea is without scriptural foundation.
In the first place, nowhere does Scripture teach that man would have become an animal or a devil apart from common grace. Such a notion is mere human speculation.
In the second place, from one point of view it would have been better for man to become an animal, for animals do not go to hell. Men do. It can hardly be called “grace” that man remained liable to everlasting punishment.
In the third place, the dreadful reality of the fall is precisely that man remained man. He still thinks, wills, speaks and acts as a rational and moral creature. Because he remains man, he is able to curse God, deny His truth, oppose His cause and use the creation itself in rebellion against Him. He is totally depraved as a man, not as a beast.
Yet it is also as man that he is saved. Christ became man like unto us in all things except sin (Heb. 4:15). Through faith in Him, believers receive a salvation that not only restores what was lost in Adam, but also raises them to a glory far higher than Adam ever possessed, for in Christ they are brought into heaven itself to dwell with God for ever (Heb. 9:24; Rev. 21:3). Prof. Herman Hanko
The Lord’s Supper, How Often?
One question remains concerning the Lord’s Supper: How often should it be celebrated? It is this question that we wish to address here.
Some hold that the Lord’s Supper ought to be administered every Lord’s Day. Others celebrate it far less frequently, in some cases only once or twice a year. The question, therefore, is whether Scripture itself lays down a rule concerning the frequency of the Supper.
If Scripture commands a certain frequency, then the church has no choice but to obey. If it does not, then the church is free, within the bounds of decency and good order (I Cor. 14:40), to determine what is most profitable for the spiritual welfare of believers and for the edification of the congregation.
Those who advocate weekly communion often appeal to I Corinthians 11:25: “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” Emphasis is placed upon the word “oft,” as though the passage required frequent observance. Yet the text says only “as oft,” meaning that however often the Supper is celebrated—whether weekly, monthly, or yearly—it must always be done in remembrance of Christ. The passage itself says nothing concerning frequency.
More significant are several passages in Acts which appear to indicate that the apostolic church observed the Supper frequently (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11). Especially important are Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7.
Acts 2:46 says: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house …” Some understand this to mean that the apostolic church celebrated the Lord’s Supper daily or at least every Lord’s Day. Yet the text does not say this. The word “daily” refers to their continuing in the temple, not necessarily to the breaking of bread. Nor does the phrase “from house to house” require the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper was administered every week.
Acts 20:7 is likewise cited: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread …” Some conclude from this that the first day of the week was regularly set apart for the Lord’s Supper. Yet the passage simply records what took place on that occasion. It does not establish a fixed weekly practice.
For these reasons we do not believe that Scripture commands any specific frequency for the Lord’s Supper. Without condemning those churches that celebrate it weekly, we would prefer less frequent observance for two reasons.
First, weekly celebration may tend to elevate the sacrament to a place of undue prominence alongside—or even above—the preaching of the word, much as Rome does.
Secondly, more spiritual profit may be gained when the church uses the preceding Lord’s Day and the intervening week for careful self-examination and preparation, as commanded in I Corinthians 11:28-29. In this way the Supper is less likely to become a mere matter of routine or superstition.
In any case, however often it is administered, the Lord’s Supper must always be celebrated in remembrance of Christ. Rev. Ron Hanko
