Witsius on the Natural Law and the Decalogue

[frog]

I'd like help understanding this extract from Witsius's "Economy of the Covenants" (Book I, pg. 62):

It is, moreover, to be observed, that this law of nature is the same in substance with the decalogue; being what the apostle calls, [Gk. words], a commandment which was ordained to life, Rom. vii. 10. that is, that law by the performance of which, life was formerly obtainable. And indeed, the decalogue contains such precepts, "which if a man do he shall live in them", Lev. xviii 5. But those precepts are undoubtedly the law proposed to Adam, upon which the covenant of works was built. Add to this, what the apostle says, that that law, which still continues to be the rule of our actions, and whose righteousness ought to be fulfilled in us, was made weak through the flesh, that is, through sin, and that it was become impossible for it to bring us to life, Rom. viii. 3, 4. The same law therefore was in force before the entrance of sin, and, if duly observed, had the power of giving life.

I'm confused about (1) which law Paul means (natural law, Decalogue, Mosaic legislation, etc.) and (2) the import of the verses' past tense on the rewarded life.

On Rom. 7:10. Witsius says there was a law which previously held out the promise of life but no longer does. Two questions:

1. Does Paul refer to the natural or written law? If written, Decalogue or the whole Mosaic legislation?
2. Was the "promised life" hypothetical or real? Did this law once offer obtainable life that man lost due to his fall, or did it always (since Sinai) offer an unattainable reward that only hypothetically promised life?

Previously, I read the verse as "the Mosaic legislation hypothetically said you could earn eternal life, but you can't". This reading would not support inferring a pre-fall law genuinely offering life.

On Rom. 8:3-4. Witsius says the law which binds Christians was weakened by sin and could no longer bring life. And so, at one point it was not weakened and could have given life. Same questions: Is Paul talking about the natural or written law? If written, it was always weakened by the flesh and so we can't infer that at one point it could bring life. Previously I read the verse as "God has done what the Mosaic law could never do, since we're sinful ..."

 

[RamistThomist]

Does Paul refer to the natural or written law? If written, Decalogue or the whole Mosaic legislation?

Natural law = sum of the decalouge.

Was the "promised life" hypothetical or real? Did this law once offer obtainable life that man lost due to his fall, or did it always (since Sinai) offer an unattainable reward that only hypothetically promised life?

Covenant of works in the garden.

Previously, I read the verse as "the Mosaic legislation hypothetically said you could earn eternal life, but you can't". This reading would not support inferring a pre-fall law genuinely offering life.

It is not Mosaic legislation because some of the laws, such as finding a bird nest, do not really make sense with Adam in the garden.

 

[frog]

Natural law = sum of the decalouge.

I understand that is Witsius's position, but I don't understand how he derived it from Rom. 7:10; 8:3-4. How do you know Paul is referring to the natural law as the summary of the decalogue here?

Covenant of works in the garden.

I'm confused sorry how you derive that as the context for Paul's statements in Romans.

 

[frog]

To clarify, I'm confused about Witsius's exegesis in these two statements (bold mine):

a commandment which was ordained to life, Rom. vii. 10. that is, that law by the performance of which, life was formerly obtainable.

and,

Add to this, what the apostle says, that that law, which still continues to be the rule of our actions, and whose righteousness ought to be fulfilled in us, was made weak through the flesh, that is, through sin, and that it was become impossible for it to bring us to life, Rom. viii. 3, 4. The same law therefore was in force before the entrance of sin, and, if duly observed, had the power of giving life.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Witsius:

It is, moreover, to be observed, that this law of nature is the same in substance with the decalogue; being what the apostle calls, [Gk. words], a commandment which was ordained to life, Rom. vii. 10. that is, that law by the performance of which, life was formerly obtainable. And indeed, the decalogue contains such precepts, "which if a man do he shall live in them", Lev. xviii 5. But those precepts are undoubtedly the law proposed to Adam, upon which the covenant of works was built. Add to this, what the apostle says, that that law, which still continues to be the rule of our actions, and whose righteousness ought to be fulfilled in us, was made weak through the flesh, that is, through sin, and that it was become impossible for it to bring us to life, Rom. viii. 3, 4. The same law therefore was in force before the entrance of sin, and, if duly observed, had the power of giving life.

You ask: How is it (acc. to Witsius) that the Natural Law equals the moral law (i.e. summarized in the Decalogue, see Rom.13:9-10; cf. Mt.22:36-40)?

Witsius interprets Paul, who in context is making a precise reference to the 10th Commandment (10thC) at Rom.7:10 in reference of his own heart, to write in so general a way as to allow his expression to mean more, that is to apply to any element of the moral law that might convict anyone. The eternal moral law of God (which did not first come into existence at Sinai, Ex.20) is the unwaiverable standard of human conduct since creation, and was even unfallen Adam's duty. Obedience of God from love to him--heeding his commands epitomized as far back as Gen.2:17--embraces that standard.

For Adam to obey meant life and fellowship with God, hence the truism: the commandment brings life; this is the essence of that we name "the covenant of works." In the days of Moses, the principle is re-articulated by the words, "keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them:" Lev.18:5, which terms Paul makes repeated reference to, Rom.10:5; Gal.3:12. The problem, as you note yourself, is that the standard is now (since the fall) unatainable by sinners. This is why we reckon all divine promises of life on the basis of personal law-keeping "as if" promises; since everyone has been born of Adam subject to the covenant made with humanity in him (of works), in theory the promise remains in effect--and actually, its terms were satisfied by the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ. This is the doctrine to which Paul alludes, Rom.8:3-4.

(It may seems abundantly clear to some of us that universal human frailty denied the possibility of ideal law-keeping (of any other than Christ, post-fall); yet, too many people have assumed God's statement of command came with some attenuated measure for compliance by those of fallen nature. There are other views also, such as the Pelagian assumption that human nature is not "fallen." But all these consent to declare: if God gave man law, to be fair each man must be empowered to fulfill said law.)

We know Paul has in mind specifically the 10thC of the Decalogue, because he quotes it in v7. V11 goes on to speak of the deceitfulness of sin, and this language evokes the power of the Serpent to deceive our first parents, and all the generations after including the Exodus generation and Paul's NT generation (and our own). If the biblical connection comes inexorably to our minds, very likely the intertextual tie is intentional from the author. Our acquaintance with Paul's writing exposes us to his mental habits, revealing again and again that his thorough familiarity with the OT text has him regularly making theological connections across his Bible. He would have viewed all Moses' writing as the primary context for any subsection of it.

Paul writes to a church in Rome of mixed Gentile-Jew composition. He does not write to put them under the Law of Moses, or highlight his own one-time service within it as he references the 10thC, but the charge to forsake coveting is forever applicable everywhere; and there are other elements of the divine moral will that impact others. Paul found coveting was a sin he could not prevent in his own strength, even if he could resist (to his own satisfaction) falling to other temptation, and so what might have brought him life and peace instead condemned him.

To use Witsius' language, Adam before the entrance of sin was once in position to obey the law in force against coveting, but he caved to the desire for the fruit that was off-limits. Had he observed the same law we know, he would have had life. We could further conduct this exercise dealing with the rest of the 10Cs, finding in Adam's failure other violations of the moral law. Paul is content with the most obvious, as it also pertained to himself; and presumably many, many others would also relate, as they too feel the law's condemning power rather than its confirming our dutiful fulfillment.

I hope this is helpful.