Following Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) took the final purpose of law to be the universal happiness of persons as they existed in community with each other. In order to achieve that end, laws advanced the common good. Aquinas divided law into four categories—eternal, divine, natural, and human. Eternal law was the basis for order in the universe. Divine law, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, pointed humans to fulfill their eternal destinies as divine image bearers. Natural law is that which directs humans to their inherent inclination, which is the rational principle of doing what is good and shunning what is evil. Human law is that which is designed by governments to oblige their people to do good and shun evil in specific instances. Human laws are necessary, since sinful humans can use their power of reason to do evil as well as good.
Aquinas regarded the Mosaic law, articulated in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), as part of the divine law. The Mosaic law, most especially the Ten Commandments, consisted of God’s specific commands regarding the proper form of divine worship as well as the appropriate ways for people to relate to each other. The ultimate telos for humans, according to this divine law, was that they love God supremely and love their neighbors as themselves. The divine law, that aspect of the eternal law that God spoke in special revelation, serves as the basis for human law. Just human laws, therefore, derive from eternal and divine law. Thus, living under the rule of the law is essential to human eudaimonia.
One of the most enduring questions of the Christian faith concerns the meaning of the law of Moses and its proper application in the Christian era. What exactly is the Mosaic law? What function does it serve? What role does it play in the life of the believer? Although these questions have been asked and answered in various ways down through the centuries, they still present challenges to the present-day Christian. Martin Luther and John Calvin presented important answers and insights into these questions. There is wide agreement on the meaning, use, and role of the Old Testament law in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, mainly in that it drives people to Christ, and thus to the grace and mercy of God. However, there are some important differences.
Fundamentally, Luther’s teaching on the law is less developed than Calvin’s. While Luther explicitly taught that the law’s functions included the restraint of general wickedness and the revealing of individual sin, Calvin’s Institutes offered a more systematic and expanded discussion. Specifically, Calvin provided one important element that Luther only implicitly acknowledged: the use of the law as a guide for the believer as he lived to glorify God. Calvin so stressed this “third use of the law” as to call it the “principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law.” This argument is an important point of departure between Luther and Calvin.
This study will appraise the teachings of Luther and Calvin on the meaning, function, and role of the law in the life of the Christian. This appraisal will contrast their teachings and will show that, while Luther has much to offer, Calvin’s fuller discussion of the use of the law—his description of a third use of the law as a means of sanctification—represents a fuller, more mature, and more theologically and practically valuable perspective on the law of Moses.
Luther on the Meaning of the Law
We commit a serious error when we confuse the meaning of the law with the function of the law. Both Luther and Calvin drew a distinction between these. Luther divided the law into three categories, the imperial, the ceremonial, and the moral. The imperial, or civil, law concerned the governing of the society. Luther described this law as entailing the prevention of public wickedness. He wrote, “such laws are for prevention rather than for instruction, as when Moses commands that a wife be dismissed with a bill of divorce (Deut. 24:1).” The ceremonial law pertained to the form of temple worship. The books of Leviticus and Numbers deal especially with this kind of law. Of the book of Numbers, Luther wrote, “This book is a notable example of how vacuous it is to make people righteous with laws. . . .” Finally, there is the moral law, the law found in the book of Deuteronomy. The moral law comprises, according to Luther, the guarding “against everything that might destroy faith in God. . . .” This third category is the most important of the three, and the greater part of Luther’s teaching on the law of Moses is in reference to this third category.
Luther noted that the moral law, specifically found in the Ten Commandments, was consistent with natural law, that is, the law “that is implanted in me by nature.” According to Luther, God gave the ceremonial law to the Jews only, but since the moral law is consistent with natural law, it is binding on the hearts and consciences of all. Referring to the ceremonial law, Luther wrote, “Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. . . . If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff.” A bit later, Luther referred to the moral law, saying, “Therefore it is natural to honor God, not steal, not commit adultery, not bear false witness, not murder; and what Moses commands is nothing new. For what God has given the Jews from heaven, he has also written in the hearts of all men. Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature, etc.” Paul Althaus wrote describing Luther’s teaching, “The law of Moses is not a new law; it only reminds us of the natural law and expresses it in a way that has never been equaled.” For Luther, all aspects of the ceremonial law are abrogated in Christ and do not concern the Christian. The moral law, that which is found in the Ten Commandments, is still binding because it is consistent with natural law. According to Heinrich Bornkamm, “For Luther, natural law encompasses the two customary basic traits: first, the duty of worshipping God, known to all men” and “[s]econd, consideration for one another, according to Matt. 7:12, which Luther explicitly equated with the love of neighbor. . . .” In other words, the natural law and the law of Moses coincide with the first and second tables of the Decalogue, as well as with the greatest commandment defined by Christ in the New Testament as the whole love of God and love for neighbor as oneself. Luther himself wrote, “We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver—unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law.”
Luther on the Function of the Law
Luther defined the meaning of law by dividing it into three categories, but he gave most of his consideration to the third category, the moral law. The moral law, the content of which is evident in the whole love for God and love for neighbor as well as that natural law which is inherent in every person, has two main functions. The first function is meant to serve as a restraint to sin. This is important in the governance of society, for it bridles the passions of people and creates a healthy and safe environment in which to live. Luther wrote, “For in that I do not kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or in that I abstain from other sins, I do it not willingly, or for the love of virtue, for I fear the prison, the sword, and the hangman. These restrain me that I sin not, as bonds and chains do restrain a lion, or a bear, that he tear and devour not all that he meets.” Furthermore, authorities have been established by God to enforce civil law to restrain wickedness, authorities in the public square and in the home.
The second and primary use of the law, according to Luther, is to reveal both sin and the holiness of God to the individual conscience. The knowledge of sin is not given as an end in itself, but as an impetus to drive people to Christ. Randall Zachman summarized Luther on this point: “The law of God is revealed to disclose our own need and distress so that we long for and seek after the grace that God has revealed in Christ.” The knowledge of sin thus prepares the sinner to receive grace and mercy from God. According to Luther, this knowledge of sin would cause the believer to “yearn for Christ” for “[t]his is the true office of Moses and the very nature of the law.” Luther further explained that the law “is a mirror that shows a man he is a sinner, guilty of death, and worthy of God’s indignation and wrath. To what end serves this humbling and bruising? To the end that we have an entrance into grace.” Thus, the law serves an essential use here. Without the law, the person could not be prepared to receive grace and would not be in a position to repent and be saved.
So, clearly for Luther, the primary function of the law is to reveal sin to the heart of the sinner in order that he might despair of his own merit and seek the grace and mercy Christ alone can give. Luther taught that this is the primary and most valuable use of the law for the believer. It is still limited in its scope, however, because it is subordinated to the gospel. For Luther, there is a time and a place for the law to do its work. It has an important function, in that it serves to reveal the helplessness of the sinner before the wrath of God and prepare him to repent and receive grace. Herman Preus wrote that for Luther, this function of the law was the “opus alienum (alien work), which is to convict of sin, to make man aware that he is lost. . . .” But the function of the gospel is far superior to that of the law. Luther called the work of the gospel the opus proprium, the proper work of God. Through the gospel, God saves the repentant sinner. Preus summarized Luther’s distinction between law and gospel saying, “So the Gospel has the last word. It is there the sinner flees for refuge and forgiveness. He must not let the Law drive him to despair, but let it do its work and bring him to see his sin and his need of help.”
Luther on the Role of the Law for the Christian
Luther sought to exercise care in discouraging antinomianism in his teachings on the law. In his treatise How Christians Should Regard Moses, Luther gave three reasons why the Christian ought to “keep Moses and not sweep him under the rug.” First, the law of Moses is consistent with natural law. For Luther, whatever in the law of Moses which was consistent with natural law was binding upon the conscience and must be obeyed. Persons do not exercise this obedience from a motivation to warrant merit but as an act of neighbor love. Second, the law provides the Christian with promises concerning Christ. Luther stated, “God has promised, for example, that his Son should be born in the flesh. This is what the gospel proclaims. It is not commandments. And it is the most important thing in Moses which pertains to us.” Third, the law of Moses provides the Christian with excellent examples of both faith and unbelief. Luther cited Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses as examples of faith, while he cited Cain, Esau, and Ishmael as examples of unbelief. Luther wrote regarding this reason, “Nowhere else do we find such fine examples of both faith and unfaith. Therefore, we should not sweep Moses under the rug.”
In 1520, Spalatin encouraged Luther to write on the subject of good works, and Luther did so. The Treatise on Good Works was the result of that labor, and therein, Luther took each of the Ten Commandments and gave reasons why all should be obeyed. Chief among those reasons was that good works, i.e., obedience to the law, would naturally be the result of faith. Thus, if a person is truly a believer in Christ, he will obey the law as a matter of course. Luther wrote, “Thus a Christian man who lives in this confidence toward God knows all things, can do all things, ventures everything that needs to be done, and does everything gladly and willingly, not that he may gather merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for him to please God in doing these things.” Thus, the obedience of the Christian will not stem from any desire to be saved through personal merit. Obedience will be spurred on by faith and confidence in the love of God for the Christian.
To summarize, Luther taught that one should understand the law in terms of the historic threefold division: imperial (civil)/ceremonial/moral. Since the death and resurrection of Christ, the only form of the law that concerns the Christian is the moral law, expressed most clearly in the Decalogue and in Jesus’s teachings on the greatest commandment. The law’s two functions are restraint and the imparting of knowledge of sin that spurs the conscience on to repentance (the emphasis being on the second function). Obedience to the moral law is required, not as an act toward merit but as a natural outgrowth of faith and confidence in the love of God. Here we see that Luther introduced the concept of a third use of the law but without a theological or practical development of the concept in comparison to Calvin.
Calvin on the Meaning of the Law
As I stated previously, Luther taught that the three divisions of the law were the imperial, the ceremonial, and the moral. Of these three, the moral law (the Ten Commandments) was for Luther the most relevant for the Christian. Similarly, Calvin recognized a distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral law. He taught that the civil and ceremonial laws found in Leviticus were supplemental to the moral law found in the Ten Commandments. Unlike Luther, however, Calvin did not seek to do away with the civil and ceremonial laws and focus solely on the moral law. Rather, he wrote that “I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God to Moses.” Thus, Calvin understood that the law was significant in its entirety, since it was the representation of the covenant handed down from God to the Jewish people. For Calvin, the law of Moses is foundational to the whole structure of the Christian faith. Zachman stated, “This means that Calvin, in contrast to Luther, forces us to understand the Ten Commandments not as prior to, but as already contained within, the self-revelation of God the Father in Jesus Christ.” Understanding the law in this broader sense means that the law is, as Zachman stated, “both rooted in and bearing witness to the covenant of adoption fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”
Calvin’s view of the role of Christ in the law cannot be underemphasized. To be sure, Luther stressed the role of Christ in the law as well, but in his view, the ceremonial law was abrogated by the work of Christ and thus did not have any relevance for the Christian. It was the moral law that was meant to drive the sinner to Him. Luther did stress the Christocentric importance of the five books of Moses, but he focused mainly on the promises of God related to the hope of Christ rather than on the larger context of the covenant. For Calvin, the purpose of the law was to serve as a basis used by God in judgment, and since Christ submitted Himself not only to perfect obedience to the law but also to the judgment of the law, the Christian’s attitude toward the law must necessarily be Christocentric. Wilhelm Niesel wrote concerning this, “In Him the law has completed its function of judging and punishing, and this has effected the final fulfillment of the law and of the will of God which it represents. For our sakes, and in the sight of God, Jesus Christ walked in the way prescribed by the law; and now we must allow the law to invite us simply to follow in His footsteps.”
As important as the law is to the believer, Calvin, like Luther, taught that it is most certainly to be distinguished from the gospel. While Christ came to fulfill the law, the curse of law has been taken away through His work. Calvin wrote, “Now the gospel differs from the law in that it does not link righteousness to works but lodges it solely in God’s mercy.” The requirements of the law are harsh and extreme, and the punishment for disobedience to the law is eternal separation from God. The law should no longer be seen as a cruel taskmaster, because Christ’s redemption removes the law’s curse from mankind.
Calvin on the Function of the Law
In interpreting the meaning and function of the Mosaic law, Calvin saw his task as twofold. He sought to show that the various legal systems of nations was from God and also to present the essence of the Mosaic law as binding in the life of the Christian, rather than abolished. Calvin did emphasize the role of the law in justification, as vigorously as Luther did. But he also stressed the sanctifying role of the law to a much greater extent than Luther, and herein lies an important difference in their teachings. I. John Hesselink wrote that, for Calvin, “[t]he blessing of the forgiveness of sins would be a passing thing if God did not at the same time keep us in subjection to his law.” This emphasis Calvin placed on sanctification is crucial to Calvin’s view of the law’s functions as well as to the notion of the Christian’s responsibility to it.
Calvin wrote of the three functions of the law in Book II.vii.6–13 of the Institutes. The first use of the law, the usus elenchticus, refers to the pedagogical function that the law fulfills. This first use reveals the depth of sin to the sinner, shows sin to the conscience for what it is, and drives the sinner to seek and find grace in Christ. Calvin wrote, “The first part is this: while it shows God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone acceptable to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness.” When teaching on the usus elenchticus, a favorite metaphor of Calvin’s is the mirror. He wrote, “The law is like a mirror. In it, we contemplate our weakness, then the iniquity arising from this, and finally the curse coming from both—just as a mirror show us the spots on our face.” When this knowledge is revealed to the conscience of the sinner, the severity of the law weighs heavily, but the sweetness of the gospel is shown in all its fullness.
The second function of the law Calvin called the usus politicus. This refers to the function which serves as a restraint against wickedness in the broader community. Calvin wrote, “at least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law.”
Up to this point, Luther and Calvin present similar views on the functions of the law. For Calvin, however, the primary use of the law for the Christian is neither the usus elenchticus nor the usus politicus. The third and primary use of the law is the usus renatis. Herein, the Holy Spirit does His work of guiding the Christian into renewal of spirit and conformity with the will of God using the law. Calvin wrote, “Again, because we need not only teaching but also exhortation, the servant of God will also avail himself of this benefit of the law: by frequent meditation upon it to be aroused to obedience, be strengthened in it, and be drawn back from the slippery path of transgression. . . . The law is to the flesh like a whip to an idle and balky ass, to arouse it to work. Even for a spiritual man not yet free of the weight of the flesh the law remains a constant sting that will not let him stand still.” The role of the law in justification is important to Calvin, indeed it is central. In his discussion on the three uses of the law, Calvin carefully shows how valuable the law is in driving the sinner to Christ. Yet his emphasis on the value of the law in sanctification is found in his discussion on the third use of the law. For Calvin, the usus elenchticus and the usus renatis occur simultaneously, because the sinner must know God both as Judge and as Father in order to benefit from grace. Recall that Calvin viewed the law as the foundation of the whole Christian faith. Calvin wrote, “Moses was not made a lawgiver to wipe out the blessing promised to the race of Abraham. Rather, we see him repeatedly reminding the Jews of that freely given covenant made with their fathers of which they were the heirs.” Thus, according to Calvin, the law is an integral part of God’s covenant of grace, and because of this, the law is most beneficial to those who are adopted as children of God.
Calvin on the Role of the Law for the Christian
Because Calvin stressed the third use of the law so strongly in his teachings, he could potentially be accused of being legalistic. In contrast to Luther, who wrote his Treatise on Good Works in order to avoid the charge of antinomianism, Calvin sought to underscore the use of the law as a guide for the believer. The reason why any charge of legalism in Calvin’s teachings is unfounded is because he understood the law strictly in terms of the covenant of grace in Christ. For Calvin, the law must be viewed in this context. Hesselink summarized Calvin’s view stating that when the law “is seen in the light of the new covenant where it is written on the heart by the Holy Spirit, then the law should be welcomed by the believer and used in gratitude for the gift already received.” Obedience to the law is required, because in following it, the Christian is encouraged and strengthened in moral purity and conformity to the will of God. Obedience to the law is not salvific in any way but is evidence of conversion and is an expression of love and gratitude toward the God who rescues. The Christian is released from the condemnation of the law but not its leadership into righteousness. Calvin wrote, “For the law is not now acting toward us as a rigorous enforcement officer who is not satisfied unless the requirements are met. But in this perfection to which it exhorts us, the law points out the goal toward which throughout life we are to strive.”
It is important to note a point of similarity between Luther and Calvin on the issue of obedience to the law. Both reformers taught that any obedience to the law must be done in faith and love for God, otherwise it is not true obedience. Calvin, in his discussion of the Ten Commandments in the Institutes, wrote, “From this is confirmed that interpretation of the law which seeks and finds in the commandments of the law all the duties of piety and love. For those who follow only dry and bare rudiments—as if the law taught them only half of God’s will—do not at all understand its purpose. . . .” This is consistent with what Luther taught. Luther wrote concerning obedience to the first commandment, that “a Christian man who lives in this confidence toward God knows all things, can do all things, ventures everything that needs to be done, and does everything gladly and willingly, not that he may gather merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for him to please God in doing these things.” Furthermore, while Luther did not explicitly include any third use of the law in his teachings, he did indeed speak of the law as a guide in the life of the Christian. Good works done as the application of faith are done out of neighbor love and thus are acts of imitation of Christ. Luther looked to the Augustinian Christus exemplum and understood it to be a natural outworking of faith in the work of Christ. Dietmar Lage wrote, the Christus exemplum “is a corollary which, although providing exemplary guidance and ‘instruction,’ is contingent upon faith in the primary work of the Christus sacramentum.” So, while Luther did not explicitly include a third use of the law in his teachings, he did not deny the value of the law as a guide in the Christian’s imitation of Christ.
Still, Calvin went much further than Luther in showing how the law served the Christian as a guide to conformity with the will of God. Luther viewed the Ten Commandments in a much stricter soteriological context than Calvin, and because of this, he came to the conclusion that there were only two uses of the law. Since Calvin saw the law in a broader context, that of God’s covenant of adoption, he could champion the law as the tool of the Holy Spirit as He led the Christian to glorify God. While Luther had been urged by Spalatin to address the concerns that he was drifting into antinomianism, Calvin’s views of the law could have seemed legalistic, because he allowed for a more active role of the law in the Christian’s life. François Wendel stated, “We can hardly deny that there is a certain legalism about this, tending to efface the antinomy between the Law and the Gospel upon which Luther had been so insistent. But in reality, this is only from . . . the standpoint of the unbeliever. To the believer . . . the Gospel, far from being in any sense reduced to the Law, assimilates the latter to itself.”
Evaluation of Luther and Calvin on the Law
For Luther, the primary use of the law was to reveal to the sinner the weight of his sin and drive him to the mercy and grace of Christ. For Calvin, the law certainly carried out this function, but with one important and explicit addition: to guide the believer into conformity with the character and will of God. Both Luther and Calvin are to be held in the highest esteem by Christians, because both men show how the law prepares the sinner for the grace and mercy of God in Christ. To Luther’s credit, he wrote his Treatise on Good Works in order to demonstrate the importance of obedience to the law, obedience that is not performed from a sense of fear, or from a desire to accumulate merit, but from a sense of love, gratitude, and above all, faith in the redeeming work of Christ. But where Luther seemed merely to imply a third use of the law, Calvin explicitly taught it. Calvin went further in his analysis of the law’s role in the life of the believer and sheds more light on why the Christian is responsible to keep the law. Calvin clarified for the Christian the value that the law revealed in scripture has, both as an impetus that drives the sinner to Christ and as a guide used of the Spirit to spur the Christian on to glorify God. Benjamin W. Farley, in his introduction to John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments, summarized the contrast between Luther and Calvin in this way: “Calvin’s purpose in the sermons was not to hail the removal of the Law’s curse, as Luther so powerfully did in his Lectures on Galatians; rather, it was to persuade men that God’s Law is ‘the true and eternal rule of righteousness,’ even for Christian believers.”
It is for this reason that Calvin’s treatment gives the Christian a more practical perspective on the law than Luther’s treatment. The law is still applicable, still binding to the believer. For Calvin, the law is not binding upon the Christian in the sense that he must dread the condemnation of the law. Rather, the law is binding in the process of sanctification, in that the Christian becomes more like Christ. Calvin wrote, “Therefore through Christ the teaching of the law remains inviolable; by teaching, admonishing, reproving, and correcting, it forms us and prepares us for every good work.”
John D. Wilsey is Assistant Professor of History and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
 See Peter Kreeft, A Summa of the “Summa”: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” Edited and Explained for Beginners (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990), 500–32.
 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), II.vii.12.
 A concise historical sketch of the development of the Christian understanding of the law is found in Ford Lewis Battles, Interpreting John Calvin, ed. Robert Benedetto (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 309. Starting in the first century, the church began wrestling with the concept of law and its binding force on the conscience of the Christian. By the time of the Reformation, the Christian understanding of the Mosaic law had become threefold: 1) the moral law, centered in the Ten Commandments and found in natural law; 2) the ceremonial law which served in a typological role; and 3) the civil law which was used to govern Israelite society. The discussion of the use, or function, of the law was one that related specifically to the moral law, since the ceremonial law had been abrogated by Christ and the civil law fit into the particular context of Old Testament Israel.
 Martin Luther, Preface to the Old Testament, in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull, with a foreword by Jaroslav Pelikan (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 123.
 Ibid., 121.
 Ibid., 122.
 Luther treated the moral law extensively in his Treatise on Good Works.
 Martin Luther, How Christians Should Regard Moses, in Basic Theological Writings, 142.
 Ibid., 138.
 Ibid., 142.
 Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 27–8.
 Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, ed. Victor I. Gruhn, trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 124‒25.
 Luther, Moses, 139.
 Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, Modern-English ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 202.
 Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 50.
 Luther, Moses, 128.
 Luther, Galatians, 206.
 Herman A. Preus, A Theology to Live By: The Practical Luther for the Practicing Christian (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), 79.
 Ibid., 81.
 Luther, Moses, 140.
 Ibid., 143.
 Ibid., 147.
 Martin Luther, Treatise on Good Works, in Luther’s Works, vol. 44.1, The Christian in Society, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and James Atkinson, trans. W. A. Lambert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 27.
 Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.1.
 Zachman, Assurance, 144.
 Ibid., 145.
 Calvin also believed that the ceremonial law was abrogated by the work of Christ. Still, there was an important difference even here for Calvin: “The ceremonies are a different matter: they have been abrogated not in effect but only in use. Christ by his coming has terminated them, but has not deprived them of anything of their sanctity” (Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.15).
 Such as “in Deuteronomy 18 Moses says, ‘the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you. . . . Mandy are these texts in the Old Testament, which the holy apostles quoted and drew upon” (Luther, Moses, 143).
 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans Harold Knight (London: Lutterworth, 1956), 97.
 Calvin, Institutes, III.xi.18.
 Battles, Interpreting John Calvin, 309.
 I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 30, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1992), 252.
 Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.6.
 Ibid., II.vii.10.
 Ibid., II.vii.12.
 Ibid., II.vii.1.
 “The Calvinistic conception . . . can develop into a servile legalism” (Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 257). Hesselink made this statement to introduce the point of how this is a misunderstanding of Calvin.
 Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 255.
 Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.13.
 Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.51.
 Luther, Treatise on Good Works, 27.
 Luther made reference to Augustine’s sacramentum et exemplum Christology in his 1519 commentary on Gal. 2:20. Christus sacramentum referred to the death of sin in the Christian as he is crucified with Christ, while the Christus exemplum referred to the Christian’s imitation of Christ in his death and life. A good discussion of this is found in Dietmar Lage, Martin Luther’s Christology and Ethics, Texts and Studies in Religion (Lampeter, Dyfed, Wales: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 99.
 Lage, Martin Luther’s Christology and Ethics, 109.
 François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans Philip Mairet (New York: Harper and Row, 1950), 205.
 Benjamin W. Farley, ed., John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments, with a foreword by Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 26.
 Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.14.