Moses in Moab, Grace, and Works

March 13, 2024 at 5:15 pm (Law, Mosaic Law, Westminster Confession, Westminster Larger Catechism)

posted by R. Fowler White

Introduction. Though Moses was a believer, his faith in the Lord as his surety (cf. Gen 15:6–21) did not qualify him for life in Canaan (Deut 34:1-5). Moses was appointed to die in Moab, and we know why: he broke faith with the Lord in the midst of the sons of Israel at the waters of Meribah-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin, and he did not treat the Lord as holy in the midst of the sons of Israel (Deut 32:51). Let’s press the issue, however: since the Lord had justified Moses by faith, why did He bar him from entering Canaan? To sharpen the point even more, why was the exile of Moses in Moab later writ large in the exile of even believing Judahites (like Daniel) in Babylon? Why did justification by faith not irreversibly qualify Moses and other believers for life in Canaan? As I see it, justification by faith did not guarantee residency in the land because the law, which governed life in Canaan, was not of faith. In what follows I’ll elaborate on this response, taking the Scriptures as interpreted by the Westminster Standards as my frame of reference.

Heavenly homeland secured, earthly homeland denied. We may start our reflections by observing that, having examined himself in the light of the law, Moses came to understand that justification and life were due only to the law-keeper (which Moses was not), and that condemnation and death were due to every law-breaker (which Moses was). The law having exposed his need for a surety, Moses followed in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith and found his surety in the Lord himself (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:12; cf. WLC 71). Justified by faith, Moses was “not under the law as a covenant of works” (WCF 19.6). We are not to imagine, however, that his justification infused him with righteousness (WCF 11.1; WLC 77) so as to exempt him in this world from blame and reproof in God’s eyes (WCF 16.6). To the contrary, the law was “the rule of [his] obedience” (WLC 97; cf. WCF 19.2, 6), and it continued to instruct him in the character and conduct that pleased and displeased God, specifying the consequences of each. In this light, we can understand that God, viewing Moses as justified and not under the law as a covenant of works, secured for him the irrevocable heavenly benefits of His suretyship (cf. WLC 57-58; 65; 153). We can also appreciate that God, viewing Moses as justified and subject to the law as the rule of obedience, applied to him revocable earthly rewards and chastisements for his character and conduct (cf. WCF 14.2; 16.4, 6; WLC 28). These two divine perspectives lead us to conclude, then, that though Moses was assured of life in a heavenly homeland with Abraham (cf. Heb 11:13-16) on account of his surety’s righteousness credited to him, he was denied life in the earthly homeland of Canaan on account of his own unrighteousness.

Justified and liable. From the preceding comments on Moses and the law, it comes into view that, whether God administered the law as a covenant of works or as a rule of obedience, His message remained the same: the law was not of faith. That is, in God’s reckoning, it was to the law-keeper alone that Abraham’s blessings belonged. Only the law-keeping seed would qualify, by his own righteousness, to be the one true heir of God. Furthermore, only that seed would qualify to be the surety whom God provided for all others who would be heirs of God with Abraham (cf. Gen 22:18; 49:10; Gal 3:8, 16). Until that unique law-keeper arrived, the law disqualified everyone as the law-breakers they were. Yet, at the same time, no one needed to despair of ever being qualified. No, like Moses, they needed only to follow in the footsteps of Abraham (Rom 4:12b). As Abraham had done (Gen 15:6), they too, by faith, could receive and rest upon a righteousness better than their own in the Lord their surety. They too, by faith, could lay hold of an inheritance better than Canaan in a heavenly homeland (Heb 11:13-16). Indeed, they too, by faith, could be assured of all the eternal heavenly benefits of the Lord’s suretyship, including life in the eternal heavenly homeland. Again, however, we dare not say that the justification of these others by faith infused them with righteousness so that they were exempt in this life from blame or reproof in God’s sight. Quite the contrary. For them, as for Moses, the law was “the rule of their obedience” (WLC 97), rewarding and correcting them according to their character and conduct in this life. Therefore, even though justified by faith as Moses was, they too were liable to be disqualified for life in the earthly homeland on account of their unrighteousness.

Heard differently, administered differently. Returning to our opening question, we reply that justifying faith did not qualify Moses or other believers for life in Canaan because the law, whether administered as a covenant of works or as a rule of obedience, was not of faith. Unexpectedly, this observation anticipates the chief concerns expressed in the two competing approaches to the administration of the law (especially though not exclusively as it was issued at Sinai). Some hold (with Meredith Kline) that God administered the law as a covenant of works, meaning that He was dealing with sinful man on the basis of the principle of works. Others maintain (with John Murray) that God administered the law as a rule of obedience, meaning that He was dealing with sinful man on the basis of the principle of grace. Which of these competing approaches are we to choose?[1] Let me suggest another question: are we required to choose between them? We can hardly consider all the factors relating to such questions here. For now, let’s focus on the fact that the Westminster Standards describe the law’s administration both as a covenant of works and as a rule of obedience. Why are there two descriptions of the law’s administration, and how do they differ? From their context in the Standards, the why and how of the difference between the two descriptions is reasonably clear. The law was administered differently depending on how its hearers examined themselves in its light—or better, how God examined them in its light. That is, the difference turns on whether the law was heard with or without faith in the Lord as their surety. The following comments may clarify the point being made.

Hearing the law without faith. When heard without faith in His suretyship, the Lord would administer the law in keeping with the works principle, and the hearers’ obedience (or lack thereof) would function as the ground of their recompense in this life and the life to come. To hear the law without faith would mean that the hearers deemed it a separate covenant—a covenant of works by which they would seek to establish their own righteousness—in contrast to the covenant of grace. Administered as a covenant of works, then, the law would leave the hearers without excuse and under its curse, continuing in the state and way of sin, neither awakened to flee the wrath to come nor driven to the Lord as their surety (cf. WLC 96).

Hearing the law with faith. When heard with faith in His suretyship, however, the Lord would administer the law in keeping with the grace principle (WCF 19.7), and the hearers’ obedience would function as the indispensable fruit of saving grace. To hear the law with faith would mean that the hearers had recognized it, in accord with its proper purpose, as an integral part of—“the rule of their obedience” in—the covenant of grace. Administered as a rule of obedience, then, the law would show the hearers how much they owed to the Divine Surety for revealing His righteousness and imputing it to them and for bearing the law’s curse in their place and for their good (cf. Gen 15:6-18). In addition, the law spurred them on to more gratitude expressed in greater care to conform themselves to the law as “the rule of their obedience” (cf. WLC 97). Strikingly, in this respect, those who heard the law with faith would again be following in Abraham’s footsteps, for he himself had recognized circumcision, not as a separate covenant, but as one of the commandments—a rule of obedience—for him and his seed to keep in the covenant of grace (cf. Gen 17:10; 18:19; 21:4; 22:18; 26:5).

Two principles with a common message for a mixed multitude. That the law was heard and administered according to both works and grace should not surprise or confuse us. The distinction fits the realities we see in Scripture. On the one hand, there is the reality that divine demands for human obedience appear both in covenants of works and in covenants of grace. On the other hand, there is the reality that the covenant people, to whom the law was given, were a mixed company of those without faith and those with faith (i.e., those who are of the law [Rom 4:14; cf. Gal 3:10] and those who are of faith [Gal 3:7, 9]). If in fact these were the realities in effect, then the two competing approaches mentioned above actually present us with a false choice. The spiritually mixed multitude to whom God administered the law required a twofold approach in keeping with both the works principle and the grace principle, rooted in their common message that the law was not of faith. Among the multitude who heard the law was the remnant of faith. Justified by faith, they were not under the law as a covenant of works, dealt with according to the works principle. They were, instead, subject to the law as the rule of their obedience, dealt with according to the grace principle. As such, the justified remnant was like Moses: qualified for life in the heavenly homeland of Abraham and his co-heirs on account of their surety’s righteousness, but on account of their own unrighteousness liable to be disqualified for life in the earthly homeland of Canaan.

[1] Perhaps an observation should be added about the approaches of Kline and Murray. From where I sit, each approach can be a help or a hindrance. Kline is a help when he argues that God administered the law as a covenant of works dealing with unbelieving sinners in Israel according to the works principle. Murray is a help when he argues that God administered the law as a rule of obedience dealing with believing sinners in Israel according to the grace principle. As I read Kline and Murray, however, they can both be a hindrance if their insight constrains us to lock our attention on to only unbelievers or only believers and on to only the law’s function (use) for one of the two groups. If, however, Israel was in reality a mixture of unbelievers and believers, and if God addressed that reality in the ways He administered the law, then affirming one insight does not require us to deny the other.