The Law given to Adam is the same as the 10 commandments??? WCF 19.1 & 19.2, 1689 2LBC

[Matt Ryan]

My question is about the following chapters/paragraphs in the WCF and the 1689. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm wrestling with these concepts and trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

Chapter XIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God

19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

19.2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
_________________

Chapter XIX of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God

19.1. God gave to Adam a Law of universal obedience, written in his Heart, and a particular precept of not eating the Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal entire exact and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatned death upon the breach of it; and indued him with power and ability to keep it.

19.2. The same Law that was first written in the heart of man, continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness after the fall; & was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and written in two Tables; the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.

I prefer the language of the 1689 in 19.1. It seems to me to explain what the authors of the WCF probably meant. We don't find in the scriptures an account of God giving Adam a specific Law. We find that God wrote his law on Adams heart and then gave him specific precepts (concerning which fruit he could eat, and perhaps the cultural mandate).

My question comes in with 19.2. How can anyone prove that the law of God, written on man's heart in Adam, is the one and the same law as the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments were a covenant given to Israel. The 4th commandment in particular, being given only there in Exodus 20 / Deut 5. What biblical evidence is there that the 4th commandment was written on Adam's heart and given to all his posterity as a positive moral command? There seems to be a leap being made from 19.1 to 19.2.

Some have said that the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law of God and account for the leap that way. But if that is the case, they would have to be irreducible, founded upon no deeper principle. True enough for some (the first commandment) but not for others (the 5th commandment). The 2 great commandments upon which the 2 tables of the Law are founded are eternal moral precepts, irreducible, applicable to all moral creatures in any and every context. This is not the case for the 5th commandment. That law is given in a human context where the family structure has been instituted by God. There is a deeper eternal principle behind it. The same is true of 7th commandment. It was given in a human context in which God gave the institution of marriage. It too has a deeper eternal principle behind it. Furthermore, these 2 would not apply to angels (who have neither father or mother and who are neither married nor given in marriage. So it is incorrect to say that the 10 commandments ARE the eternal moral law of God, the most we could say is that they are the simplest expression of God's eternal moral law of God given to man in the context of creation.

But then that brings us back to the covenantal nature of these Laws, the context in which they were given, and the lack of evidence that these 10 were written in the heart of man from the beginning.

 

[JD]

I'd reccomend Getting the Garden Right by Richard Barcellos and From the Finger of God by Phillip Ross for reading on this topic. Both are excellent.

I think Romans 2 makes it clear that the law written on the heart of man is one and the same with the Law given at Sinai. Ross demonstrates satisfactorily (in my opinion) that the morality of each commandment can be observed in Genesis.

Specific to the 4th commandment, evidence might be seen in one example in Genesis 4:3 "In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground..." (ESV). I am given to understand that the Hebrew reads "It came to pass at the end of days that Cain..." Cain knew there was a set time on which to worship God, specifically the end of the days, following the pattern God had established in creation.

Nehemiah 9:13-14 says "You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant." (ESV) implying that the Sabbath already existed when the Law was given.

 

[beloved7]

In regard to the Fourth Commandment, God the Father’s words to Moses were “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”. The word remember clearly shows it already existed before theocratic Israel. It’s a creation ordinance.

As for the law written in their hearts (all image bearers) this is not only explicitly laid out in Romans 2, it’s also evident in the very next generation after Adam; when Cain murdered Abel, how was it sin?

That was long before the Ten Commandments. Sin is the transgression of God’s law. Where was the Sixth Commandment? Written on his heart.

The truth of the Moral Law is actually what finally pushed me into being a full blown confessional Baptist.

 

[Polanus1561]

Adam must have had that work-rest cycle written on his heart. To know that rest was needed.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

WCF 21 "7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God..."

LBC 22 "7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God..."

The original confession and its Baptist derivation both state that nature by itself contains a witness to the essential duty of divine devotion, which same is summarized or expanded by inclusion in the Decalogue as the 4th or Sabbath commandment.

The question: What was included in the law-of-the-heart? possessed by Adam could be summarized as Apostle Paul did, in a single word, "Love," Gal.5:14, cf. Rom.13:8,10; Jas.2:8. The "law of love" is expandable in Jesus' witness to the two great commandments, Love God and Love Your Neighbor (Mt.22:26-40). The Decalogue with a degree of deceptive simplicity can be "divided" into those with emphasis on the first or second of those two. In like manner, the truth is also in the obverse; namely, that if one should break the (moral) law at but one singular point, he is guilty of breaking all of it, Jas.2:10.

It is the moral law Paul appeals to in Rom.2:15, when he uses its presence to condemn even the Gentiles who do not have the written law revealed in ten statutes (Dt.5:22), or expanded upon in the whole Jewish legal constitution. Yet, their hearts condemn them, because what they know of God's moral will they still break, preferring their own will and desire.

We say that the 10C are a summary of the moral law, not an abstraction of perfect words that hang on the wall of heaven (like they have in some earthly courtrooms); or if the soul of Adam or any man like a computer with a printer, capable of generating a "readout" on demand, should type forth from his bosom those ten words exactly.

Once those were handed down to men through Moses, it seems foolish and probably evasive to come up with a better summary that marginalizes God's ideal. We're better off clinging to the revealed 10C as the best combination of clarity and comprehensiveness with simplicity. These ten were the moral cornerstone of all the rest of the Law of Moses (as covenant to Israel), set off from the rest by design.

As for the Sabbath specifically in its moral and natural ordination; it can hardly be doubted that the Sabbath is a "creation ordinance," since it is set apart in the beginning. The original Sabbath Day was Adam and Eve's first full day of life, the previous being the day when after other works God at last culminated in forming his image-bearers and placing them in the garden. The creation account of Gen.1:1-2:3 ends with the Sabbath as the ultimate goal or purpose of creation. The idea that the Sabbath is then (being made, as Jesus said, for man) but man doesn't know about it or participate in it--to say the least it misses the point of the text.

Finally, the clearest evidence (among several lines) that the Sabbath was in some way already known to Israel before Sinai comes in Exodus 16, when the people are given manna. They are obliged to gather twice as much on the sixth day, vv22-23, because it is the Sabbath. When v29 reads, "The Lord has given you the Sabbath," we shouldn't take those words as if they implied it was just then given. Even if the information was new to some ignorant person at that time (and there were plenty of Gentiles mixed in with Israel, and Israel itself was waxed ignorant through years in Egypt and enslaved), yet Genesis 2 tells us it was not new.

Our confessions teach that the essence and principle of the duty to acknowledge God through commitment of a "due proportion" of our time is natural. You don't need more than the light of natural revelation to understand that, even if you suppress that understanding and refuse to think on the subject. The human reasoning process might not get one to the conclusion of one-day-in-seven, but it is not impossible; but more important than an exact suitable percentage (like a tenth) is the sense that we are creatures, we are not our own ultimate masters, and have an obligation to serve the Creator--and post fall our Redeemer--with our/his time. This is the moral duty of man.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Finally, the clearest evidence (among several lines) that the Sabbath was in some way already known to Israel before Sinai comes in Exodus 16, when the people are given manna. They are obliged to gather twice as much on the sixth day, vv22-23, because it is the Sabbath. When v29 reads, "The Lord has given you the Sabbath," we shouldn't take those words as if they implied it was just then given. Even if the information was new to some ignorant person at that time (and there were plenty of Gentiles mixed in with Israel, and Israel itself was waxed ignorant through years in Egypt and enslaved), yet Genesis 2 tells us it was not new.

A modern example of this: the Sabbath was a widely known, and to greater and lesser degrees kept, ordinance in our own societies within living memory. We have forgotten it. It is not surprising the Lord had to remind the Israelites.

 

[hammondjones]

This is from the Marrow, a Lightfoot quote at the end there.

 

[RamistThomist]

How can anyone prove that the law of God, written on man's heart in Adam, is the one and the same law as the 10 commandments?

The substance is the same, not the particulars. The particulars between Exodus 20 and Deut 5 don't even match up, but the substance does.

 

[TylerRay]

My question is about the following chapters/paragraphs in the WCF and the 1689. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm wrestling with these concepts and trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

Chapter XIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God

19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

19.2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
_________________

Chapter XIX of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:
Of the Law of God

19.1. God gave to Adam a Law of universal obedience, written in his Heart, and a particular precept of not eating the Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal entire exact and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatned death upon the breach of it; and indued him with power and ability to keep it.

19.2. The same Law that was first written in the heart of man, continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness after the fall; & was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and written in two Tables; the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.

I prefer the language of the 1689 in 19.1. It seems to me to explain what the authors of the WCF probably meant. We don't find in the scriptures an account of God giving Adam a specific Law. We find that God wrote his law on Adams heart and then gave him specific precepts (concerning which fruit he could eat, and perhaps the cultural mandate).

My question comes in with 19.2. How can anyone prove that the law of God, written on man's heart in Adam, is the one and the same law as the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments were a covenant given to Israel. The 4th commandment in particular, being given only there in Exodus 20 / Deut 5. What biblical evidence is there that the 4th commandment was written on Adam's heart and given to all his posterity as a positive moral command? There seems to be a leap being made from 19.1 to 19.2.

Some have said that the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law of God and account for the leap that way. But if that is the case, they would have to be irreducible, founded upon no deeper principle. True enough for some (the first commandment) but not for others (the 5th commandment). The 2 great commandments upon which the 2 tables of the Law are founded are eternal moral precepts, irreducible, applicable to all moral creatures in any and every context. This is not the case for the 5th commandment. That law is given in a human context where the family structure has been instituted by God. There is a deeper eternal principle behind it. The same is true of 7th commandment. It was given in a human context in which God gave the institution of marriage. It too has a deeper eternal principle behind it. Furthermore, these 2 would not apply to angels (who have neither father or mother and who are neither married nor given in marriage. So it is incorrect to say that the 10 commandments ARE the eternal moral law of God, the most we could say is that they are the simplest expression of God's eternal moral law of God given to man in the context of creation.

But then that brings us back to the covenantal nature of these Laws, the context in which they were given, and the lack of evidence that these 10 were written in the heart of man from the beginning.

One piece that I think you're missing:

The moral law is not only founded on irreducible and abstract moral principles; insofar as it is for man (Adam, Moses, or you), it has reference to the constitution of man as God has designed him. That includes the ordinance of the family. Adam needed the 5th and 7th commandments just as much as Moses did (and just as much as you do).