The First Use Of The Law, Again

Thanks for the discussion of the First Use of the Law the other day. It really helped clarify things for me. Here is how I see it now: There is only one Law. Any time I am “curbed” from overtly committing a sin, it’s working on me. Some things I won’t do because, in my thinking, “it’s just wrong!” That’s the first use. “Thou shalt not kill” has that effect on me. When I read that commandment, though, it also forces me to recognize that, as Christ says, being angry with someone can involve killing him “in my heart,” so I stand guilty of violating that commandment even though I haven’t actually killed anyone and need Christ’s forgiveness (2nd use of the Law). I also need Christ to change my hatred of my enemy into love of my neighbor, and the Gospel motivates me to do this (3rd use).

The first use of the Law is concerned with external behavior, not internal attitudes. The state’s interest is also with external behavior, though the state’s “human laws” are not the same as the “divine laws” (Thank you Nemo and Thomas Aquinas). The state is interested only in “curbing” particular kinds of anti-social behavior. Some of the Commandments have legal correlatives: homicide is outlawed, as is robbery. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” manifests itself in perjury laws, but the state does not punish most other kinds of lying about a person, much less gossip. The state has no interest in Commandments that are solely about inner attitudes–“honoring” one’s father and mother; coveting.

As for “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” it would seem that the state SHOULD be concerned with this one, since the family is the basis of every culture and society. Used to, the state did enforce marriage laws very strictly. It was difficulty to get a divorce, and adultery was, in fact, a crime (which is still on the books in some jurisdictions, though never enforced anymore). Now the state considers marriage and sexual matters mainly private concerns.

Attacks on the first use of the law are just attacks on the law itself, in all of its uses. Today in contemporary culture, the sense when it comes to sexual transgressions of every kind is that “there is nothing wrong with it.” When that message dominates, there is no first use to curb such behavior; there is no second use to make one feel guilty about it; and there is no third use for many nominal Christians who feel no compulsion to obey God in these matters.

Nevertheless, the Law of God–along with His judgments and the consequences He decrees– stands.

Does this get it right?