Just like Abraham

I have been seeking to get published an article on Paul’s teaching on justification and his important use of the Jewish exegetical technique of gezerah shavah in Gal 3. It has taken three years so far, but hopefully the article might be out some time in 2025.

In the meantime, here is a short video explaining Paul’s basic teaching on justification, and in particular his use of gezerah shavah to compare and contrast Gen 15:6, Lev 18:5b, and Hab 2:4b: Just like Abraham - Short Version. For a more detailed explanation, here is the longer video: Just like Abraham - Full Version.

It is a brilliant use of Jewish exegetical logic once you understand what Paul was doing with those verses, but I have not come across any scholars so far who have noticed the full salvation-historical significance of Paul’s use of gezerah shavah in Gal 3. We fail to understand the genius of Paul’s argument in Gal 3 if we overlook his use of this form of Jewish exegetical logic.

Paul’s Argument in Galatians and Romans Is Salvation-Historical, Not General in Nature

It is a big statement to make, but I believe that the vast majority of Christian interpreters of Paul’s teaching in Galatians and Romans have failed to understand Paul’s argument in the historical context of his day. The major theological issue for the early church (as the calling of the Council of Jerusalem proves) was the Judaizing issue. The issue was basically: Can Gentiles be saved as Gentiles, or do they have to come under the framework of the Mosaic covenant to be justified?

The key to understanding Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans lies in realizing that his argument is a salvation-historical argument. That is, Paul was attempting to answer the question: How are people saved now that the new covenant in Christ has come? Reflecting the covenantal particularism of the orthodox Judaism of the day, the Christian Judaizers believed that, even though the new covenant had come in Jesus Christ, the new covenant fit neatly into the framework of the Mosaic covenant, leaving the law of Moses fully intact, and thereby restricting faith participation to those who were members of Israel. This is why they put pressure on Gentile Christians to be circumcised (if male) and to follow the law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul’s argument is that the new covenant in Christ is actually co-extensive with the still yet earlier Abrahamic covenant, under which a gentilic faith response to God was possible (as proved by the faith of uncircumcised, gentilic Abraham himself).

In Galatians and Romans, Paul was concerned to contrast the requirement of faith under old covenant with the requirement of faith under the new covenant. The term law was Pauline and Jewish code for the Mosaic covenant, and the expression the works of the law was the standard Jewish way of referring to the covenant faithfulness that God required of Israel under the terms of the Mosaic covenant as per Ps 119:30, where the writer speaks of faith in terms of setting his heart on torah. Paul was primarily contrasting the old way of covenant faithfulness under the Mosaic covenant (which was required as the proper response under the old covenant, but had recently been superseded with the coming of Christ) with new (Abrahamic-type) way of covenant faithfulness to Jesus as revealed in the gospel, which Gentiles could participate in.

Paul sought to prove that the new covenant is more Abrahamic in nature than Mosaic. His main proof at this point was the evidence of word association in the Scriptures that linked the new covenant with the Abrahamic covenant. Employing a common rabbinic method of exegesis, Paul noted (as we see in Rom 1:16–17; 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, 11) that the word והאמן and he believed is used of Abraham in Gen 15:6, and the related word אמונה faith is used of the new covenant in Hab 2:4 (which is part of an eschatological prophecy). That common terminology allows us to link the Abrahamic and new covenants together, the implication being that, if Abraham could believe in God and be justified as a Gentile (i.e., before he was circumcised), then the same thing applies under the new covenant: Gentiles can be justified under the new covenant apart from submission to the law of Moses. Paul also argued that the Sinaitic covenant was just a temporary, intervening covenant (a kind of narrowing down of the Abrahamic covenant for the purpose of regulating the singular nation of Israel until the coming of Christ). Therefore, with the coming of Christ, the old covenant has been subsumed by the new covenant, thus allowing Gentiles to participate in salvation through faith in the Messiah. The new covenant is not just a continuation of the old covenant. The new covenant actually eclipses and supersedes the old, allowing righteousness to be opened up to the nations, in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 12:3).

Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is a salvation-historical argument that deals specifically with the major historical issue for the church in his day: the Judaizing problem. It is not a general argument about believing versus doing (as many Christian interpreters have traditionally taken it). We need to read and understand Paul’s argument in the historical context of his day, which also requires that we appreciate the Hebraic background of the key (Greek) terms that Paul employed. A greater sensitivity to the orthodox Hebraic concepts underpining Paul’s terminology, and a greater understanding of how the Mosaic covenant actually functioned, would greatly aid the Christian church in understanding the genius of this great apostle of faith.

The Parable of the Sower and the Danger of Temporary Faith

Without denying the truth of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., that the elect will persevere in faith and definitely be saved), it is important for Christians to know that it is possible for faith to be temporary. This is a truth that Jesus taught in the parable of the sower in Matt 13:1–9, 18–23 (see also Mark 4:1–9, 13–20; Luke 8:4–8, 11–15).

A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Satan can snatch the word of God from people’s hearts before it has time to take root (Matt 13:4, 19).

Some seed fell on rocky places, where there was not much soil. The seed sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. The seed sown among the rocky soil symbolizes those who hear God’s word and who receive it joyfully, but when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away, because the word of God has not been received deeply into their hearts (Matt 13:5–6, 20–21).

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. The seed sown among thorns symbolizes those who hear God’s word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth end up strangling the life out of them, making them unfruitful (Matt 13:7, 22).

But some seed fell on good soil, and it grew up to produce a crop, a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown (Matt 13:8).

Out of these four different types of soil, it was only the good soil that allowed the seed to produce a positive harvest. This represents the person who hears and understands the word of God (Matt 13:23).

In three out of the four soils mentioned by Jesus there was some kind of growth, some kind of response to God’s word. In three out of the four soils the seed germinated and was alive for a certain period of time. But only in one of these three situations was there enduring life and growth to maturity that resulted in the positive outcome of fruitfulness.

Because faith can be temporary, encouraging his disciples to persevere in the faith was an important part of Jesus’ ministry.

The Meaning of Jesus Not Entrusting Himself in John 2:24

Most English translations of John 2:24 do not make much sense to the average reader. Many Jews, who saw the miracles that Jesus had been performing, “believed in his name”; but Jesus either “did not commit himself” (KJV), “did not trust himself” (ASV), “did not entrust himself” (ESV), or “would not entrust himself” (NIV) to these new believers. But what does it mean that Jesus did not commit or entrust himself to others?

It is good that many people believed in Jesus as a result of the miraculous signs that he had performed. Christians know that “there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10), yet Jesus in John 2:24 does not seem to have responded to the conversion of a large number of people with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The key to making sense of Jesus’ response here is to note that the word translated as commit or entrust in John 2:24 is from the Greek verb πιστεύω, the same word that is often translated as believe. In fact, the verb πιστεύω occurs in the previous verse: “many believed [ἐπίστευσαν] in his name.” The repetition of πιστεύω in adjacent verses suggests that there is a kind of play on the word πιστεύω at this point. Many believed in Jesus, but Jesus did not believe in them! These people claimed to be followers of Jesus, but Jesus was not confident in them, and could not confide himself in them.

But why did Jesus not believe in these new converts? A large number of people being converted and coming to faith is surely a time for celebration … but only if such faith is a true faith that endures to the end. Jesus knew, however, that he would end up being rejected by the majority of the Jewish people of his day. He was cognizant of the fact that many of the people who believed in him at the start of his public ministry would end up abandoning him. Jesus knew the fickleness of people’s faith in him.

Further explanation is given in John 2:25. Jesus did not need anyone to tell him what human beings are like, because he himself knows what we are like on the inside. Jesus was well aware of the weakness of human nature, and just how fickle human commitment can be. Jesus knew that in the end he would be rejected by the majority of the Jewish nation, just as God had been rejected by the majority of Israel during the time of the Old Testament, and just as God had been rejected by Adam and the human race more generally throughout the centuries beforehand.

The Jewish rejection of the Messiah is a one of the key themes of John’s Gospel. Many Jews believed in Jesus, but only for a time. Jesus had crowds of people following him around the countryside. This reached fever pitch particularly after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Free food! Exciting preacher! Who wouldn’t want to be one of his disciples?

But when Jesus started teaching the people things that they could not readily accept, or when opposition or persecution arose, many of these believers ended up abandoning him (see John 6:60, 66). We are also told in John’s Gospel that there were many in the Jewish leadership at the time who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but sadly they were not prepared to confess this belief out of fear of being ostracized from Jewish society (John 12:42).

The Christian confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ” is a necessary cause for celebration, but true Christian faith is more than just a momentary conversion experience. The question is how genuine such faith is, and whether or not it will endure till the end.

You say that you believe in Jesus, but does Jesus believe in you?

.

What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus’ Name?

The expression to believe in [Jesus’] name occurs five times in the New Testament, all in the Johannine literature. The expression πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ to believe in his name occurs in John 1:12; 2:23; πιστεύω τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ’Iησοῦ Xριστοῦ to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ in 1 John 3:23; πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the Son of God in 1 John 5:13; and πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the unique Son of God in John 3:18. But what does it mean to believe in Jesus’ name?

When John advocates believing in the name of Jesus, it is handy to substitute the word title for name. To believe in Jesus’ name is to acknowledge Jesus’ title, to acknowledge who Jesus really is, and in particular, to acknowledge who Jesus claimed to be, i.e., to accept the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one, the Son of God, the divinely-chosen divine King of salvation.

For John, Jesus’ name or title is twofold. Firstly, Jesus is the Christ; and secondly, Jesus is the Son of God (see John 20:31). These terms are virtual synonyms in John’s usage, although the term the Son of God also implies (for John) that Jesus is divine. This twofold understanding of Jesus’ name can be seen from the terms used by John in connection with the idea of Jesus’ name. In John 1:12, believing in Jesus’ name is paralleled with receiving him. In John 2:23, many people believe in Jesus’ name after seeing the many signs that Jesus performed. The signs presumably convinced them that Jesus was the Christ. In 1 John 3:23, the terms Christ and [God’s] Son are used. In John 3:18 and 1 John 5:13, the term the Son of God is used.

Thus, to believe in Jesus’ name is to confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.

The Confession of Faith of a True Israelite

Nathanael functions in the narrative of John 1 as an example of a true, new covenant Israelite. Nathanael was surprised that Jesus could speak about him as if knowing him, without having met him previously. In response to Nathanel’s question “from where do you know me?” Jesus answered Nathanael: “Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (John 1:48).

The detail about seeing Nathanael “under the fig tree” is enigmatic until Jewish cultural presuppositions are brought into the interpretative process. Sitting under a fig tree was a common Jewish image of the ideal location for students studying torah. This metaphor was most likely derived from the Old Testament texts that use living under one’s fig tree, or eating from one’s own fig tree, as an image of a person or people experiencing God’s blessing and peace (see 1 Kgs 4:25; 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16). The concept of sitting under a fig tree here is also significant in light of the prophecies of Mic 4:4 and Zech 3:10, where peace in the new covenant age is pictured in terms of sitting under one’s vine and fig tree. By saying that he saw Nathanael sitting under the fig tree, Jesus was expressing that he knew that Nathanael was a keen student of torah. Studying torah is an important part of what it means to be a true Israelite, according to the Old Testament (see Exod 19:5–6; Deut 6:5–9, 25; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:1–3; Ezra 7:10). It was only through the study of torah that obedience to torah could be achieved.

Nathanael was impressed by Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of his character. This evidence of supernatural knowledge, along with Philip’s previous testimony about Jesus (see John 1:45), led Nathanael to faith in Jesus Christ. Nathanael’s confession of faith is found in John 1:49: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” This confession stands as the paradigmatic confession of a true Israelite. This confession acknowledges that Jesus is a rabbi, a teacher; but he is more than just that. Jesus is also “the Son of God, the king of Israel.” The terms the Son of God and the king of Israel stand in parallel, and are both Messianic designations (see Ps 2:6–7 in particular).

Jesus’ testimony about Nathanael in John 1:47–48 (for a discussion of the significance of Jesus’ testimony about Nathanael in John 1:47, see “Jesus’ Description of Nathanael as a True Israelite in John 1:47”), and Nathanael’s confession about Jesus, both function in the narrative of John’s Gospel to express the idea that true torah-keeping Israelites recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. This was a controversial idea in its day. The fundamental issue that existed between Judaism and Christianity in the first century was the issue of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. This is still the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity today.

The character of Nathanael functions, therefore, in the Gospel of John to assert the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and the idea that that all covenant-keeping Israelites in the new covenant age must necessarily acknowledge this fact. As the Apostle Paul has also argued, the true Jew is the one whose heart has been circumcised by the Holy Spirit (Rom 2:28–29), who does not stumble over the Messiah but “believes in him” (Rom 9:30–33), confessing that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9–13), which is the equivalent (in a Gentile context) of saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (in a Jewish context). The character of Nathanael, and the content of his confession, therefore, exhibit a sharp polemical edge that is as relevant today as it was back in Jesus’ day.

The Covenantal Logic and Meaning of Paul’s Argument in Romans 4:15–17a

In Rom 4:13–17a, Paul gives a succinct explanation as to why the promise of the blessing of life must ultimately come through faith rather than through the Mosaic faith of obedience to torah. This further strengthens his argument in Rom 4:1–12 that the example of Abraham proves that the blessing of justification comes through faith rather than through the works of the law of Moses. The fact that Abraham was right with God even before he was circumcised proves that justification is not limited solely to bona fide members of the Mosaic covenant, contrary to what Paul’s non-Christian Jewish opponents and the Christian Judaizers were advocating; but this needed further explication.

Therefore, in Rom 4:13, Paul considers the issue of how the promise that God made with Abraham (for him and all of his spiritual descendants to inherit the world) would be realized. The promise was not “through the law … but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13). It is very important to realize that the word law in Rom 4:13 refers specifically to the law of Moses. The word law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general, but specifically the law over which Paul and his Jewish opponents were arguing, i.e., the law of Moses. We need to recognize at this point that the divine promise of blessing given to Abraham in Gen 12:2–3 is grammatically, and therefore logically, dependent on the command of Gen 12:1 (see “The Inheritance of Eternal Life through Faith instead of Law in Romans 4:13” for a more detailed explanation of this). But the law of command given to Abraham in Gen 12:1 is not law in the sense of being Mosaic law. As Paul points out in Gal 3:17, the law of Moses did not arrive on the scene until 430 years afterwards. In other words, the promise of the blessing of life that God graciously made with Abraham was not subject to the Mosaic covenant when it was first made. Even though this promise would effectively come under the regulation of the Mosaic covenant after Sinai, the promise was larger than the law of Moses. The Abrahamic covenant was not a subset of the Mosaic covenant; rather, the Mosaic covenant was a subset of the Abrahamic.

The significance of the promise being realized through the righteousness of faith for Abraham in the beginning is that, if the giving of the law some 430 years later were to change that original condition, then God would have shown himself to be inconsistent and unfaithful to his word. If the giving of the Mosaic law changed the original condition regarding the realization of the promise, then this would be to render faith useless, and the covenant of promise itself would end up being annulled (Rom 4:14). Implied in Paul’s argument in Rom 4:14 is that God would not do such a thing as this. Having entered into an agreement with Abraham concerning how Abraham and his descendants would be blessed, God could not rightly change this commitment midstream.

This then prompted the question (particularly to Paul’s Jewish opponents) concerning why the Mosaic covenant was given in the first place. If the Mosaic covenant is not the ultimate regulator of the realization of the promise, then why was the Mosaic covenant made in the first place? Why save Israel out of Egypt to place the nation under the law? Paul answers this question very succinctly in Rom 4:15: “For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” What Paul is really saying here is that the primary function of the law in old covenant Israel was to bring about God’s wrath against the people. This is not to say that obedience to the law was not the way of life for the small minority of Israelites who had the law written in their hearts during the old covenant age. Paul is speaking in Rom 4:15 in terms of the broad sweep of salvation history during the old covenant age. Romans 4:15 is not an abstract theological statement, but a statement explaining the function of covenant failure in salvation history. The law of Moses, far from being the solution (as Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocating), was part of the problem. The main purpose in God giving Israel the law was so that God’s anger would be revealed against sinful Israel, i.e., that Israel would be rendered guilty before God, without excuse (Rom 3:19–20).

In Rom 4:16 Paul explains the deeper purpose behind the primarily negative purpose in God giving the law. He identifies two main reasons. Firstly, the law was given to Israel so that God’s dealing with humanity might be “according to grace.” If Israel had kept covenant with God, and received blessing as a result, that would still be the work of God; but Israel initially failing, only to be restored later on, makes for a better story in the sense that the gracious side of God’s character has an opportunity to be revealed. It is almost as if God, wanting to prove his greatness and humanity’s total dependence on him, has deliberately set things up for humanity in Adam, and Israel in Moses, to fail, “in order that every mouth might be stopped, and the whole world come under the judgment of God” (Rom 3:19–20), in order that his gracious response might be seen and appreciated. Simply put, the fact that the promise of eternal life ultimately comes through faith in Jesus rather than through submission to the Mosaic covenant serves to highlight God’s grace. Secondly, justification by faith also means that salvation is not just limited to Israel, but every believer (regardless of ethnic origin) can participate in the promise. Didn’t God say in Gen 17:5 that Abraham would be “the father of many nations” (Rom 4:17)? In fact, that is the meaning of the name Abraham! “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5).

Paul’s Jewish opponents found it hard to accept, but Paul argues strongly in Rom 4 for the primacy of the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in Moses. That, in the salvation historical purposes of God, the Mosaic covenant would be superseded by a new covenant in Christ Jesus serves to highlight God’s grace and to open up salvation to the Gentiles in fulfillment of God’s promise of Gen 12:3.

The Promise Not Received: The Meaning of Hebrews 11:39–40

The list of heroes of the faith in Heb 11 makes explicit reference to sixteen individual heroes of the faith. In Heb 11:4–31 there are ten individuals mentioned: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. These all receive a least a line or two from the author illustrating their faith. Then in Heb 11:32 another six individuals are named: Gideon, Barak, Sampson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. However the exploits of the faith of these believers are not explored. But Heb 11 does not just list individuals: the people of Israel are implied in v. 29 and v. 30, and the prophets are mentioned in v. 32.

In real life these heroes had their ups and downs. Commended for their faith, at times this faith was not as strong as it could have been. Yet despite their weaknesses

through faith they conquered kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some, not accepting release, were tortured, in order that they might attain a better resurrection. Others experienced mocking and flogging, and even chains and prison. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in sheep skins, in goat skins, destitute, afflicted, mistreated … wandering about in deserts and mountains and caves and the crevices of the earth (Heb 11:33–38).

Through faith these heroes of faith experienced a mixture of things: victory as well as suffering. Through faith some “obtained promises” in the sense that they saw the fulfillment of some of God’s promises to them. Yet it is clear from Heb 11:39 that none of them experienced “the promise.”

But what is meant by the promise at this point? The phrase the promise (allowing for different grammatical case) also occurs in Heb 11:9, whereas the plural form the promises appears in Heb 11:13, 17. All of these have an Abrahamic connection. Abraham was promised nationhood (Gen 12:2), fame (Gen 12:2), blessing (Gen 12:2), land (Gen 12:7), and offspring (Gen 12:7). All in all, this would seem to be the promise of life in the heavenly land, the eternal city of God (Heb 11:10, 16).

The use of the phrase the promise elsewhere in Hebrews also supports the idea that the promise in Heb 11:39 is the promise of eternal life. Hebrews 4:1 speaks of the promise of entering an eschatological Sabbath rest. In Heb 6:15, 17 the promise is the promise of blessing and many offspring that God made to Abraham (and specifically the promise in Gen 22:17). The idea of the new covenant legally established on “better promises” (Heb 8:6), and talk of “the promise of eternal inheritance” in Heb 9:15, strengthens the idea of the promise in Heb 11:39 as being related to the promises of the eternal (i.e., the new) covenant. This is the promise which is the object of the Christian’s hope (Heb 10:23), which centers on entering into the presence of God in the heavenly temple (Heb 10:19–20). It is the promise that is fulfilled for believers after endurance in doing the will of God until “the coming one” comes (Heb 11:36–37). According to Heb 12:26, it is the promise of Hag 2:6 concerning the unshakeable eschatological kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem (see Heb 12:22, 27–28).

We can conclude, therefore, that the ancient heroes of faith saw the fulfillment of some of God’s promises; but despite their faith testifying that they were people of faith, “they did not receive the promise” of eternal life realized in their lifetime (Heb 11:39). Faith is prepared to accept that there may be no reward for the faithful in this world, but that if this is the case, then the reward will definitely come in full in the heavenly country (Heb 11:6, 13–16).

In the plan of God, “God foresaw something better for us” (Heb 11:40), i.e., God had in mind that the full realization of his promise of blessing and life would be experienced by us, the new covenant believers. Hebrews 11:40 acknowledges that God’s plan of salvation is worked out in stages that lead to an eschatological climax. Believers under the old covenant by definition could not receive the fullness of blessing and salvation, because the fullness of blessing and salvation is something that was going to be achieved as part of the new covenant. It is for this reason that the ancient heroes of faith did not receive in full the promise of eternal life in their lifetime, “lest they be perfected without us” (Heb 11:40).

Through faith, and ultimately by way of resurrection, old covenant believers and new covenant believers alike will experience together the reward of faith, the fullness of the blessing of eternal life.

The Faith of Abraham in Hebrews 11

The biblical concept of emunah (אמונה) or faith (as it is explained in the Old Testament) basically means saying amen (אמן) to the word of God. Faith is an acceptance of divine revelation. Faith says yes to whatever God says, whether that word be command, promise, or warning. The concept of faith in Hebrews is consistent with this definition, but the core component of faith for the author of Hebrews is directed to God’s promise. For the author of Hebrews, faith is not mainly an eschatological concept in the sense that it is viewed as operating primarily in the eschatological age à la Paul. Rather, in Hebrews, faith is a necessary historical constant that applies throughout salvation history, but which nevertheless possesses a very strong eschatological orientation whereby the faithful look to God for salvation and reward at the time of the realization of God’s promise at Christ’s second coming (Heb 10:35-39; 11:6). I have discussed this previously in my post “The Concept of Faith in Hebrews.”

This eschatological orientation is linked by the author of Hebrews in with the concept of realization. This is particularly evident in the author’s discussion of faith in Heb 11. A number of times in this chapter, faith is spoken of as being that which believes that God can make something either out of what is not or what is not yet. “Faith is the substance of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen” (Heb 11:1). By saying that faith is the substance of what is hoped for, the author means that faith believes that what is hoped for (which emerges a response to God’s promise) will one day be realized. Likewise the idea that faith is the proof of what is not seen. Here the reality of what God has promised is viewed as being not seen, i.e., before the realization of the eschatological elements of God’s promises, we do not yet experience what will ultimately be. But faith takes what is not yet seen as certain one day to be seen. Faith is the conviction that the future will be as God has said it will be. This actually means that faith can only exist so long as God has not yet brought about the things that he has promised. By definition faith can only flourish in a hostile environment, where what God has promised has not yet come true (at least in totality).

The kind of faith that accepts that the ultimate realization of what currently is not yet is the same kind of faith that belives in a Creator God. As the author to the Hebrews writes: “by faith we discern that the world has been formed by the word of God, so that what is seen has come into being not from things visible” (Heb 11:3). Faith accepts the idea that God can create something out of nothing, that God can make the invisible visible.

The clearest example of a person with the kind of faith that believes in the ultimate realization of what is currently unrealized (at least according to the literary structure of Heb 11) is Abraham. “By faith Abraham obeyed when was called to go forth to the place that he was going to receive as an inheritance” (Heb 11:8). God’s words to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 contained command and promise. Abraham accepted both. Accepting the reality of a promised land, Abraham accepted the reality of need to set out according to God’s command. The link between faith and obedience is very strong in Heb 11:8. Faith and obedience necessarily go together. This obedience on Abraham’s part is all the more remarkable, given that “he went forth not knowing where he was going” (Heb 11:8). But for faith to be faith there cannot currently be full knowledge. For faith to be faith, there must remain an element of mystery.

Faith by definition can only operate in an environment where what has been promised has not yet been realized, and often this means that faith will be lived out in an environment where virtually the opposite of what God has promised is our current reality. This too is something that Abraham experienced. “By faith [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise as in an alien land” (Heb 11:9). Canaan was the promised land, but when Abraham arrived there it was already possessed by others (see Gen 12:6). Abraham’s land by deed of promise was currently the Cannanites land by deed of possession. Yet Abraham believed that one day all of that would be his. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were fellow heirs of God’s promise regarding the land; but the fact of the unrealized nature of the full reality of God’s promise meant that Abraham and his son and grandson lived in the land as nomads “in tents” (Heb 11:9). In the midst of this time of promise not yet fulfilled Abraham looked forward in expectation at “the city that has foundations [i.e., a city that is stable and endures] whose builder and creator is God” (Heb 11:10). In other words, the current unrealized aspects of God’s promise made Abraham look to the future for an eternal and eschatological realization of what had been promised.

The idea of faith as involving the belief that God can make the invisible visible and the impossible possible is seen in the birth of Isaac to the elderly Sarah and Abraham. Despite her inclination to disbelieve (see Gen 18:12), “by faith” Sarah “considered faithful him who had promised” (Heb 11:11). “So also from one man, and he moreover as good as dead, [descendants] were born, like the stars of heaven for multitude, and like the innumerable sand of the seashore” (Heb 11:12). Elderly Sarah and Abraham’s infertility was an important component of the “hostile environment” in which faith by definition must exist.

But the testing of Abraham’s faith did not stop with the problem of siring an heir. The testing of his faith reached its climax when God ordered him to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (see Gen 22:1–2). In calling for Abraham to do this, God was in effect telling Abraham to end the life of the one through whom the promise would be realized. It was akin to destroying the promise. Despite this, “by faith Abraham offered up Isaac … his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your seed be called’” (Heb 11:17–18). Abraham’s reasoning at that time must have been: Even though God has called upon me to destroy the promise by sacrificing my son, if he is the one through whom the promise will be fulfilled, then God will have to raise him from the dead. Hence, the words of the author in Heb 11:19 that Abraham “considered that God was able even to raise [Isaac] from the dead.” The faith that believes that God has the power to make the nonexistent existent, the invisible visible, and the unrealized realized is the same kind of faith that believes that God has the power to make the dead live. Faith believes in the possibility, indeed the future reality, of resurrection.

A Summary of the New Covenant Paradigm

My current doctoral thesis is concerned to develop something of the bigger biblical-theological flow of salvation history in the Bible under the rubric of justification. I have called the resulting model the new covenant paradigm. The model can be summarized under 15 main theses as follows:

1) The condition of justification inside the garden of Eden was perfect (holistic) faith;

2) The condition of justification outside the garden of Eden is imperfect (holistic) faith;

3) The primary dispensational distinction in the Bible is that between the old covenant and the new covenant;

4) The condition of justification for Israel under the old covenant was not perfect faith but imperfect faith, as the presence of a system of sacrificial atonement within the law proves;

5) Under the old covenant, the condition of faith, being holistic, was characteristically described in terms of doing torah;

6) Hence, a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law existed under the old covenant;

7) The old covenant is, therefore, a covenant of grace; but Israel's continuation in grace was conditional upon Israel continuing in imperfect (holistic) faith (i.e., doing torah);

8) But Israel as a nation broke the covenant by not doing torah;

9) Therefore, the Mosaic covenant of grace functioned historically primarily as a covenant of condemnation and death, compounding the original transgression of Adam;

10) The failure of the old covenant was part of God’s plan to highlight the supreme expression of the grace of God to be revealed under the new covenant in Christ;

11) Because the new covenant solves the problem of the failure of the old covenant, and is the fulfillment of the old covenant, the new covenant exhibits the same relational dynamics as the old covenant;

12) Therefore, justification under the new covenant is also justification by imperfect faith;

13) But with the coming of a new revelation in Christ, the content of faith has been redefined in terms of this new revelation (the gospel), which can be contrasted with the previous revelation that came via Moses (the law);

14) The new covenant definition of faith can be contrasted, therefore, with the definition of faith that was understood to apply under the old covenant, hence the covenantal distinction between justification by faith in Christ under the new covenant and justification by the works of the law (i.e., Mosaic faith) under the old;

15) Under the new covenant (like under the old), perseverance in faith is necessary in order to experience the fullness of salvation at the time of the consummation of the new covenant.

In other words, what I am suggesting is that, outside of the garden, justification has always been by (imperfect) faith. But because faith is typically viewed in the Old Testament in a holistic manner, justification by faith under the old covenant was typically thought of as being by way of obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant in the context of grace, what came to be known in Jewish parlance as justification by the works of the law. The New Testament works of the law versus faith in Christ distinction, therefore, is primarily a terminological distinction that expresses pragmatically the element of discontinuity between the covenants on the level of the mediator and content of revelation. In sum, if you wanted to be right with God under the old covenant, you had to follow the revelation that had been given to Israel via Moses (Deut 6:25; Rom 10:5); but if you want to be right with God under the new covenant, you need to follow the revelation that has been given to the world in Christ (John 8:31–32; Rom 10:8–13).

Paul's Understanding of the Gospel as the Fulfillment of the Prophetic Hope of the Old Testament

In my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell, after establishing Paul’s Old Testament theological context (see the posts entitled “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Law” and “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Gospel”), and after providing some key observations regarding the nature of Paul’s Jewish opponents (see “The Identity and Theology of Paul’s Jewish Opponents”), I turn to consider how we should understand the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Galatians and Romans.

As I state in the introduction to the third section of my essay, which is entitled “Understanding Paul in his Historical Context,” I believe that “an understanding of the Old Testament’s teaching about the new covenant is crucial to understanding Paul’s teaching on grace and the law” (p. 134).

Here is a quote from the sub-section that discusses Paul’s understanding of the Christian gospel as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope:

“Paul understood Jesus’ work and the outpouring of the Spirit in direct continuity with the Old Testament prophetic hope. Paul was convinced that the coming of Jesus and the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit was the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of Israel. As part of this work of restoration, Paul saw the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s main instrument in the new covenant age for bringing people, both Jew and Gentile, into a state of righteousness before God. In contrast to the old covenant age where covenant righteousness was defined in terms of commitment to the Mosaic law, Paul understood that the determining factor in the new covenant age is not a person’s commitment to the Mosaic law (i.e., the works of the law) but a person’s commitment to Jesus, the Lord of the new covenant, and to the gospel which proclaims his lordship (i.e., faith). In the new covenant age, where (according to God’s plan) righteousness is opened up to the nations, righteousness is no longer defined in terms of the Mosaic law, which was by definition mono-ethnic in its operation. The Mosaic law was a fence that divided Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:14-15). Applying to only one nation (Exod 19:5-6), the Mosaic law can no longer be used, therefore, as the determining factor of righteousness before God, for the age of the new covenant is a time when Gentiles will be included within the people of God. Therefore … the determining factor of righteousness in the new covenant age is whether a person has accepted the gospel and submitted to the lordship of Jesus in his role as Messiah” (p. 135).

My suggestion at this point to the world of Pauline scholarship is, therefore, that Paul’s concern lay not so much with defending Christ as the ground of absolute justification—the atoning value of the death of Christ was common ground between Paul and the Judaizers—but with defending faith as the instrument of justification on the level of the covenant. The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents centered around how covenant righteousness was to be defined (now that the new covenant in Christ had come). The Jews thought in covenantal categories. To interpret Paul and his opponents correctly, we need to do so too.

The Link between Righteousness and Eschatological Torah in Romans 9:30-33

A friend of mine has recently drawn my attention to Rom 9:30-32. The fact that ἔθνη (Gentiles) is anarthrous suggests to me that Paul has in mind either Gentiles viewed generally or an indefinite group of Gentiles. The characterization of these Gentiles in a classically Jewish “derogatory” way as being those who “do not pursue righteousness” (v. 30) is something that was true from the Jewish perspective of Gentiles generally. At the same time, however, Paul’s interest is mainly upon the subset of all of those ungodly Gentiles who “have attained righteousness” (v. 30). The righteousness that the Gentiles were not pursuing is not moral righteousness in a general sense, but the righteousness of a right standing before God on the basis of a commitment to his word, i.e., a righteousness akin to the righteousness that the orthodox Jews of Paul’s day were zealous to pursue through their commitment to torah. Historically how many Gentiles were keen to study the law of Moses with a view to keeping it? Not many. So this Jewish characterization of the Gentiles was generally true. But, with the coming of the new covenant, things had changed. The new covenant “surprise” (from the Jewish perspective) is that morally-lax torah-non-compliant Gentiles have attained the righteous standing before God which the orthodox Jews of the time were so zealous to attain. This right standing has come, however, not on the basis of torah-keeping but rather gospel-keeping (i.e., through faith in Christ as revealed in the gospel).

In Rom 9:31, Paul describes the flip-side of this new covenant surprise: Israel’s legitimate pursuit of righteousness by way of obedience to Mosaic torah proved in the end to be a failure, not because pursuing righteousness through the law of Moses was misguided, but simply because the people of Israel (considered as a whole) “did not attain to the law.” Israel’s not attaining the law has two elements to it. Historically, as the Old Testament is concerned to prove, Israel (as a nation) did not keep or obey the law. Israel’s lack of covenant obedience meant that justification on the basis of such obedience was non-existent. The phrase νόμον δικαιοσύνης (the law of righteousness) in v. 31 is to be understood through the prism of Deut 6:25. Moses taught Israel that “it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.” In other words, if Israel kept covenant with God, then this would be the right response on the level of her covenant obligations before God, and this right response would result in Israel enjoying the status of covenant righteousness before God. During the old covenant age, following the law (in the context of grace) was the way to be right with God and to experience blessing as a consequence (as per God’s promise to bless the righteous and to punish the wicked; see Exod 19:5; 20:5-6). But Paul has in mind more than this historical failure of Israel to attain covenant righteousness. He primarily has in mind the specific situation of his day, namely, the failure on the part of the majority of the Jews at the time to notice the change in the way in which covenant righteousness was to be defined: the old covenant doctrine of justification by the works of the law was superseded by the new covenant doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. This can be seen from Paul’s reasoning in v. 32.

In Rom 9:32, Paul clearly states the reason why the Jews of his day failed to attain such a righteous status before God. It was because they pursued such righteousness through works (where works is shorthand in the context for the works of the [Mosaic] law), and not through faith in Christ. It is important to note here that the concept of faith in view in Rom 9:30-32 (as is common in Paul) is not historically general but specifically eschatological and thoroughly christological. Faith here is specifically an acceptance of the “offensive” Messianic stone of stumbling (Isa 8:14), Jesus of Nazareth, as being (in reality) the tested, precious cornerstone, the sure foundation of salvation, for anyone who believes (Isa 28:16). In other words, Yahweh’s laying of the Messianic stone in Zion (Rom 9:32) is nothing other than the revelation of eschatological torah in Jesus, and faith (which in general is a submissive acceptance of the word of God) is specifically in this context the proper response to this supreme revelation in Jesus. By submitting to the gospel, the Gentiles had attained covenant righteousness. Submission to the gospel is the right response to eschatological torah. But for the majority of the Jews of Paul’s day, tragically, their devotion to the Mosaic way of righteousness prevented them from accepting the gospel. In sum, their “zeal” for the torah of Moses prevented them from recognizing eschatological Torah when he was revealed to Israel.

The Law Is Not of Faith: A Salvation-Historical Interpretation

I’ve been asked to explain (in the light of my previous post) what Paul meant when he said that “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12). To do that I need to offer an explanation for Gal 3:11: “But it is clear that by the law no one is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith.”

The law in question in Gal 3:11 is not law in general but specifically the law of Moses. When Paul says by the law no one is justified before God, I do not take this as being a temporally universal statement. The timeframe of the present tense of the verb translated as is justified must be determined from the context in which it is found; and in this particular context the timeframe of the verbal action is delimited by Paul’s eschatological understanding of Hab 2:4, which is quoted at the end of the verse.

Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11 is the same as in Rom 1:17. I have argued previously (see “Paul's Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: The Righteous Will Live by Faith”) that Paul understood Hab 2:4 as being a prophecy of the new covenant, which would be a time when righteousness would be defined in terms of a positive response to the eschatological revelation of the gospel instead of by means of a positive response to the Mosaic revelation (which is how righteousness was defined under the Mosaic covenant).

In other words, Paul is saying in Gal 3:11 that it is clear from Hab 2:4, which prophesied that covenant righteousness in the eschatological age would be defined in terms of faith, that in the new covenant age no one is able to be justified by a covenantal commitment or adherence to the law of Moses. In other words, Hab 2:4 effectively prophesied that a doctrine of justification by faith would apply in the new covenant age (on analogy with how righteousness was defined for Gentile Abraham).

This then leads us to Gal 3:12: “But the law is not of faith, but the one who has done these things will live by them.” Both clauses of this verse contrast with the content of Hab 2:4. Paul wants to contrast the eschatological faith spoken of in Hab 2:4 with the holistic faith response (i.e., the works of the law) required under the Mosaic covenant.

Now we need to say at this point that there is evidence that the law of Moses did require faith (see my previous post “The Paradox of Faith and Law: Is the Law of Faith or Not?”), but we also need to say that the faith that applied with respect to Mosaic torah was a Mosaic type of faith. The faith that Paul has in mind in Gal 3:12 is the faith that is defined in Hab 2:4, i.e., an eschatological type of faith. By saying that the law is not of faith, Paul is saying that the positive response to God’s revelation that was required under the Mosaic covenant was the response of saying amen to the whole of Mosaic torah, and this contrasts with the new covenant response of saying amen to eschatological, Messianic revelation, which is the gospel. As noted above, saying amen to the law of Moses is faith (in terms of how the ancient Hebrews thought of it); but being a holistic idea, this faith was characteristically talked about using the language of obedience. Paul’s quotation of Lev 18:5 shows this. Leviticus 18:5, properly understood, is simply saying that a commitment to obeying Mosaic torah was the way of blessing and eternal life for Israel according to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. The typical orthodox (Old Testament) Hebrew way of thinking was that Israel’s covenant obligation was that of obedience to the law, which was an obedience that could be performed if the law was written on the heart. This Mosaic way of thinking is encapsulated in Lev 18:5. Paul is quoting Lev 18:5 in a perfectly valid Jewish manner. Both he and his Jewish opponents accepted that covenantal obedience to torah was the way of righteousness and life under the Mosaic covenant (see also Rom 10:5).

So, by saying that the law is not of faith Paul is really trying to distinguish the required response to old covenant revelation from the required response to new covenant revelation. Old covenant revelation was the law of Moses; new covenant revelation is the gospel. The law of Moses is not the gospel. The law of Moses testifies to the gospel (Rom 3:21); but the gospel per se, and faith in this gospel, could only be proclaimed once the Messiah had been revealed to Israel (hence Paul’s reasoning in Gal 3:23-25). The gospel as the revelation of the righteousness of God is apart from the law (Rom 3:21). The law and the gospel are two interrelated, mutually consistent, but distinct revelations. Strictly speaking, the gospel could not be proclaimed until the Son of God had been revealed (Heb 1:1-2), and the Messianic victory won.

In other words, Paul’s point in Gal 3:12 is that the law of Moses and its required response of obedience is not the eschatological revelation that requires faith, about which Habakkuk prophesied. The law of Moses required obedience (a Mosaic type faith). It did not require an eschatological (Abrahamic) type faith. In effect, in Gal 3:12 Paul proves from the Hebrew Scriptures that his Jewish opponents’ teaching that the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations were still normative for salvation (even after the resurrection of Christ) is out of step with the teaching of the Old Testament prophets, who foresaw, upon the coming of Christ, a new covenant based on a new revelation, which necessarily requires a new definition of what constitutes faith or covenant obedience. The law of Moses prophesied about the Messiah, but it did not proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, for in the Mosaic age Jesus of Nazareth had not yet been born or revealed to Israel. The law of Moses is not eschatological revelation. The law of Moses is not the (eschatological) gospel. In this sense, therefore, the law is not of faith.

The Paradox of Faith and Law: Is the Law of Faith or Not?

There are some who, following Gal 3:12, say that the law was not of faith. I can say that too, but the question is what do we all mean when we say that. Some scholars understand the idea that the law is not of faith to mean that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant that operated on the basis of works, which determined solely the temporal blessing of Israel in the land; eternal blessing was to be found in the Abrahamic covenant, and was to be inherited by faith alone. There are yet other scholars who take the Mosaic covenant to be a covenant of works that demanded perfect obedience from Israel, which means that Israel inevitably could not keep the covenant with God.

I agree that the language of obedience and doing dominates in the section of the Pentateuch that deals with the Mosaic covenants (i.e., Exod 19–Deut 34). I think that we must say that the Mosaic covenant demanded the works of the law (Deut 6:25; Ezek 18:5-9; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12). But it is not as if the language of faith is not employed at all in relation to the Mosaic covenants in the Old Testament. A classic case in point is the author of Ps 119 calling obedience to the Mosaic law the way of faith (Ps 119:30). He also identifies the law of Moses as the object of his faith: “I believe in your commandments” (Ps 119:66).

The key to sorting out this issue, I believe, lies in understanding that faith was typically viewed in a holistic way by Moses and the prophets. The consequence of this is that, under the Mosaic covenants, faith and obedience end up being co-relative concepts. Paying attention to Old Testament anthropology, in particular the role of the heart as the integrating center of the human psyche, is important for understanding why a holistic concept of faith was employed by Moses and the prophets.

So, the law is not of faith, but in another sense it is. It is interesting that when Jesus forcefully critiqued the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23, he accused them of hypocrisy for being particular about the law of tithing but neglecting the weightier matters of the law: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt 23:23).

It is significant that Jesus views faith/faithfulness as being one of the important ethical truths prescribed by the law. It is also important to note in this regard that Jesus’ language does not allow the law to be bifurcated, enabling us to single out faith as operating on a level of its own, separate from the law or the commandments. Faith is spoken of here by Jesus on a par with justice and mercy as the human response required as Israel’s covenant obligation—the parallels with Mic 6:8 are intriguing. And faith, along with justice and mercy, and tithing, are equally (according to Jesus’ teaching in this verse) what the law commanded Israel to do. Jesus clearly says that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law that Israel was to do: “these it is necessary to do, while not leaving aside those.” In other words, Jesus is saying that faith was commanded as part of the law of Moses.

The law is not of faith, but … it is!

The paradox of continuity and discontinuity strikes again.

The Definition of Faith in Luther and Calvin

How faith should be defined is an important theological question, and it is interesting in this regard to compare Martin Luther’s view of faith with traditional Reformed views of faith such as John Calvin’s.

Luther’s concept of faith is based on his dualistic anthropology. Just as the human person can be divided into body and soul, God’s word should be divided into commands and promises (Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 2:317). According to Luther, God’s commands demand works, which can only be performed by the outer man or flesh. Contrasting with God’s commands are the promises of God, which demand faith. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner man or soul; therefore faith cannot be a work (Luther, Works, 2:318). Faith operates only in relation to the promises, and consists of trust in the promises of God (Luther, Works, 2:417). This command/flesh/works versus promise/spirit/faith dichotomy is the basic hermeneutical axiom in Lutheran theology. But in terms of faith, the significant thing is that, in Luther’s opinion, the object of faith is the promises of God.

On the Reformed side, the object of faith has traditionally not been limited solely to God’s promises. Faith for Calvin is primarily the knowledge of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ, but it also includes an acceptance of the other parts of God’s word. Summarizing Calvin’s discussion in the Institutes 3.2.1-43, faith is defined as “a knowledge of God’s will towards us, perceived from his Word” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [LCC 20-21; ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:549 [3.2.6]). In particular, Calvin identifies God’s “benevolence or … mercy” as being the core epistemological component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:550 [3.2.7]). Faith is ultimately “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:551 [3.2.7]).

But even though the knowledge of God’s mercy or “the freely given promise of God” is the core or “the foundation of faith,” Calvin denies that the knowledge of God’s mercy is the only component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). “Faith is [also being] certain that God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). Thus, for Calvin, the object of faith is the whole word of God (not merely the promises), although the knowledge of God’s mercy in Christ as revealed through the promises is the focal point of the whole word of God, and hence the focal point of faith.

Paul's Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: The Righteous Will Live by Faith

Habakkuk 2:4 is a key Old Testament text for understanding Paul’s theology. Paul says in Rom 1:16–17 that the saving righteousness of God is revealed through the gospel “as it is written” in Hab 2:4: “the righteous will live by faith.”

Habakkuk 2:4 has often been taken as espousing a pan-historical principle of salvation by faith, but this overlooks the fact that Hab 2:4 is a prophecy of the end times. In order to understand this better, we need to pay attention to the flow of the book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk can be divided into six sections. After the introduction in 1:1, in we have in 1:2–4 Habakkuk’s complaint about wickedness in Israel. Yahweh’s answer is given in 1:5–11. The Lord says that he will punish wickedness in Israel by sending the Babylonians to punish them. In response to this, in 1:12–2:1 Habakkuk complains a second time. How can God solve the problem of evil in Israel by using a nation of idol worshipers who is more wicked than Israel? How can God solve wickedness by wickedness? In 2:2–20 we are given Yahweh’s answer to Habakkuk’s second complaint, and this is followed by a prayer of Habakkuk in 3:1–19 in which he remembers and rejoices in the saving power of God despite the prospect of calamity.

Habakkuk 2:4 occurs in Yahweh’s answer to Habakkuk as to how he could use wicked Babylon to judge Israel. This answer is actually a vision that is to be written down (2:2). According to 2:3, it is a vision that concerns the time of the end. In other words, Hab 2:2–20 is an eschatological prophecy. The core of the vision is Hab 2:4. At the time of the end, there would be someone whose soul was puffed up and not upright. In the context, this seems to refer to Babylon in its eschatological manifestation. It is interesting in this regard that Babylon becomes a symbol in the New Testament for the enemies of God’s people (Rev 16:19; 17:5; 18:2–24). What is implied in Hab 2:4a, therefore, is that God would deal with the problem of using instruments of wickedness to solve the wickedness of Israel by bringing judgment upon those instruments.

In contrast to the arrogant enemy, at the time of the end there would also be another class of person, namely, the righteous: “the righteous will live by his faith” (2:4b). It is important to understand that the Hebrew word translated as faith in Hab 2:4 ordinarily means faithfulness, as the translators of the TNIV acknowledge. Emunah includes within its semantic domain the idea of constancy and persevering loyalty. Emunah is the idea of faith that exists within a perfect marriage (Hos 2:20). The idea that the righteous would live by his faithfulness is a truth that an orthodox old covenant Israelite would have viewed as applying under the Mosaic covenant. The author of Ps 119, for example, can describe the law of Moses as being the way of emunah (Ps 119:30). But the emunah that is spoken of in Hab 2:4, while retaining its standard meaning of faithfulness, is transformed into an eschatological concept by virtue of the context in which it is found.

Apart from the mention of the end in 2:3, Hab 2:6–19 is a series of five woe oracles that prophesy judgment against the eschatological enemy of God’s people. Associated with this judgment is the idea of the earth being “filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea” (2:14). The connection of the language of Hab 2:14 with Isa 11:9 confirms the eschatological nature of this vision. Habakkuk 2:2–20 is clearly an eschatological prophecy, and this is exactly how Paul understood it.

Paul understood Hab 2:4 as being a prophecy of the new covenant, a prophecy of the time of the end when righteousness would be defined in terms of eschatological faithfulness instead of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant (as per Deut 6:25), which was impotent to bring about righteousness for the nation of Israel, because of the hardness of the hearts of the spiritually uncircumcised majority in Israel. In Paul’s thinking, the emunah in Hab 2:4 matches with the aman root of the verb translated as believed in Gen 15:6, the implication being that the righteousness of eschatological covenant faithfulness would be something that faithful Gentiles would graciously be able to participate in (hence the idea of both Jew and Greek in Rom 1:16, and the law-keeping of the Gentiles in Rom 2:14–15, 26–27).

In conclusion, the truth of Hab 2:4 is not a general principle in its original context, but an eschatological truth that replicates the pre-Mosaic justification of (Gentile) Abraham by faith. In its original context it speaks of eschatological faithfulness rather than a kind of faith that excludes faithfulness as part of its meaning. It is this which led Paul to understand that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the eschatological torah or word of God that, written in human hearts, brings the fullness of justification, salvation, and life to Jew as well as Gentile, who, through the presence and power of the Spirit of God, are led in the paths of righteousness and faithfulness. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel that brings the righteousness of faith to the nations, because the gospel functions in this way in complete fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

The False Logic of an Anthropological Definition of Faith as a Solution to Legalism and Boasting

It has come time to point out the fundamental illogicality of the anthropological distinction between faith and works as a way of escaping from the possibility of legalism and boasting. I have been prompted to do this as a result of the interesting discussion that has been taking place at Euangelion after Mike Bird picked up my post “The Significance of Romans 1–2: When Jews Are Gentiles, and Gentiles Are Jews.” For those who are interested, you can find the discussion on Mike’s blog in his post entitled “The Unity of Romans 1-2.”

The first thing we need to establish is that there is a condition for salvation. Evangelicals are agreed that faith is necessary in order to human beings to be accepted by God. This means that salvation is not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then presumably everyone would be saved. If we need faith in order to be saved, then faith is a condition for salvation.

The next question we need to consider is the humanness of faith: Is faith something that human beings do? Is faith a human activity, or does the human self not do anything when a person believes? When Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord (Acts 18:8), who did the believing? The answer is obvious: Crispus did the believing. Yes, such faith was the gift of God, but it was something that God worked in Crispus for him to be able to do. When people believe, there is not an alien inside of them that does the believing for them. An alien faith is certainly is not Luther’s position. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner person or soul, and therefore not a work (as far as he is concerned), but is it nonetheless an action of the soul.

If faith is a human activity, it is something we do. Faith is the gift of God, but it is still a human action. It is, for all intents and purposes, according to the normal way that we use the English language, a work. But even if you do not want to call it a work, faith is nevertheless a human activity.

The implication of the fact that faith is a human activity is very significant. The fact that faith is a human activity means that, even in the Lutheran system, human action is present in the process of salvation. In fact, without the human activity of faith we cannot be saved. So, salvation actually hinges (to some important extent) on human activity.

One of the arguments that is frequently heard in Protestant circles regarding the issue of faith and works is that Paul distinguishes clearly between faith and works in order to deal with the problem of legalism. The argument goes that lots of Jews back then mistakingly thought that they could be saved by their own efforts, so Paul linked justification to faith apart from works in order to preclude such people from boasting in their own efforts to make themselves acceptable to God. But the problem is that whilesoever faith is a human action, such an anthropological distinction between faith and works is not sufficient to deal fundamentally with the problem of human legalism and boasting.

You see, if faith is a human activity (which Luther acknowledges it is), then what is to stop me from boasting in my faith as that which makes me right before God? It may not be right for me to boast in my faith, but since faith is something that I do, theoretically I can boast in it, unless faith is taken to exclude boasting by definition. But if faith excludes boasting by definition, why can’t we say the same thing for the obedience of walking humbly with one’s God (Mic 6:8)? Furthermore, if faith is something that God has commanded (see Acts 16:31), then what is to stop me from thinking that I need to fulfill the command to believe in order to be saved? In fact, isn’t that true? We do need to obey the gospel command to believe, in order to be saved. Isn’t this a form of legalism?

The only kind of faith that precludes human boasting is an alien faith, a faith that is no longer human, a faith that has no connection with me as a person. And the only kind of faith that precludes legalism, is a faith that God has not commanded. Do you see the problem?

Those who reckon that Paul’s anthropological distinction between faith and works bursts the bubble of human pride and solves the problem of legalism need to recognize the illogicality of their position. The only way you can stop human boasting is by removing every skerrick of human involvement in the process of salvation, and you can only do that by asserting an alien faith, a kind of faith that is totally impersonal. An anthropological distinction between faith and works as the solution to human boasting and legalism is simply illogical.

Paul obviously distinguishes between faith and works. But surely his distinction must be logical. So, if an anthropological distinction does not work in terms of the normal standards of logic, then it makes sense to search for some other kind of explanation for that distinction. To me, the distinction that makes for the best sense in terms of logic, as well as being consistent with the biblical evidence, is a salvation-historical or covenantal distinction.

The historical issue of the day was fundamentally a Jewish one: Do we need to do the works of the Mosaic law (i.e., to obey the Mosaic covenant) in order to be saved? Paul’s answer was: “No! Being right with God in the new covenant age has to do with submission to Jesus as Messiah (faith). It is no longer a matter of submission to the law of Moses (the works of the law).”

You may not agree with this suggestion, but however you explain Paul it should at least be logical.

Similarities in the Concept of Faith between Paul and the Author of Hebrews

In my post entitled “The Concept of Faith in Hebrews,” I suggested that the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews has both similarities and differences with that of the Apostle Paul. The suggestion was that Paul thought of faith as being particularly operative in the age of Abraham and in the age of the new covenant, and that he tended to think of old covenant Israel as being under the law rather than faith. I also suggested that this common Pauline usage contrasts with the way in which the author of Hebrews views faith as being normative throughout salvation history.

I believe that the differences that I have highlighted are there in the text, although we also need to note the similarities that exist between Paul and the author of Hebrews when it comes to faith. In the new covenant age, the concept of faith for both authors focuses on confessing Jesus as the Christ: the confession in Hebrews centers on Jesus as the Son of God (Heb 4:14), and in Paul the confession is “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). Their description of faith in the life of Abraham is also very similar. Paul describes Abraham’s faith as being one that believed in the power of God to raise the dead, and to bring that which is not into existence (Rom 4:17). This is very similar to the language found in Heb 11:3, 19. When discussing Abraham’s faith, Paul also relates this to the divine promise given to Abraham in a manner similar to the author of Hebrews (compare Rom 4:17-22 with Heb 11:8-12, 17-18).

Furthermore, even though Paul typically reserves the operation of faith to the Abrahamic and new covenant epochs, it could be argued that following the example of the Old Testament he was also able to speak of unbelief as existing in Israel during the old covenant age (assuming that he also has Israel’s old covenant rebellion in view in Rom 3:3 and Rom 11:20, 23), which in turn implies a requirement for faith during the old covenant age.

All in all, I think that the situation is that when Paul is concerned to contrast the (holistic) old covenant idea of faith in God as mediated through Moses with the new covenant idea of faith in Christ, then he speaks of the works of the law in contrast with faith. Such a contrast is not evident in Hebrews, where the author prefers to use a series of qal vahomer (i.e., a fortiori) arguments, and a number of lesser versus greater contrasts, to encourage his readers to persevere as believers of Christ (e.g., Heb 1:1-13; 2:2-3; 3:3, 5-6; 8:1-2, 5-6; 9:11-14; 10:26-29): if the saints of old believed back then, then how much more should we believe now, given that a greater revelation has come with the coming of the Son of God? The substance is greater than its shadow. So don't revert to the shadow, but stick with the substance!

The Concept of Faith in Hebrews

One of the verses of Scripture that on the surface seems to argue against my suggestion that Abraham’s faith in Gen 12:1-4 cannot be distinguished from his obedience is Heb 11:8:

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance.”

But in saying that the Hebrew text of Gen 12:1-4 does not in and of itself distinguish between faith and obedience, I am not saying that it is not logically possible or illegitimate for subsequent inspired interpreters of Scripture to make such a distinction. It all depends on how faith is defined by each author of Scripture. This requires us to read Scripture carefully to pick up the particular definitions and nuances of each writer.

The Apostle Paul, for example, holds that Israel was under law during the old covenant age (Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-5). He speaks of faith coming with the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-25), and he speaks of the law as being not of faith (Gal 3:12). In other words, in Paul's typical way of thinking, old covenant Israel was under the law, not under faith. The writer of Hebrews, however, views faith as something that was always operative throughout salvation history.

For Paul, faith is primarily a christological concept, as Gal 3:23-25 suggests. It centers on the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). In Paul’s thought it is a response that is directed towards Jesus (e.g., Rom 3:26; Gal 2:20; 3:26; Php 3:9; 1 Thess 1:3) more so than to God per se (although note Tit 3:8). In Paul’s usage, therefore, it was not possible for faith in this christological sense to exist prior to Jesus being revealed to Israel (Gal 3:23-25), yet faith in the gospel was nevertheless preempted in the person of Abraham (Gal 3:6, 8). Paul read the Old Testament prophets as predicting that, after the age of the law, faith would once again define righteousness, namely, in the eschatological age when the precious stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion (Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; and Isa 28:16 combined with Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:33).

But for the author of Hebrews, the term faith is used somewhat differently. Sure, faith in the new covenant age centers on Jesus; it involves the confession that Jesus is the Son of God, the great High Priest (Heb 3:1; 4:14; 13:15). But the author of Hebrews also views faith as being something that was operative (at least on the part of a remnant) throughout redemptive history (Heb 4:2; 11:2). Faith begins with the fact of the power of the word of God as revealed in the creation of the world (Heb 11:3). It was a virtue possessed by all the saints of old, from Abel until Samuel and the prophets (Heb 11:4, 32). Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith (Heb 11:7). For the writer of Hebrews, faith is connected with the idea of patience, and has to do with inheriting (i.e., experiencing the realization of) the promises (Heb 6:12). Faith in its fullness has the boldness to follow in the footsteps of Jesus into the eschatological temple to encounter God (Heb 10:22). For the author of Hebrews, therefore, faith is not an eschatological concept per se, but it possesses a strong eschatological orientation where the faithful look to God for salvation and reward at the time of the realization of God’s promise at Christ’s second coming (Heb 10:35-39; 11:6).

For the author of Hebrews, faith believes that God has the power to bring that which is not into reality (Heb 11:3). It leads to genuine sacrifice (Heb 11:4), to pleasing God (Heb 11:5-6), and to obedience (11:8). It looks forward to the eternal city of God rather than focusing on life in this world (Heb 11:10, 13-16). It includes confidence in the faithfulness of God to keep his word (Heb 11:11). Faith believes in the power of God to raise the dead (11:19). It leads to worship and understands God’s intention to bless his people (Heb 11:21). It prepares for when God will keep his promise (Heb 11:22). It acts to protect God’s people (Heb 11:23), identifies with God’s people (Heb 11:24), and chooses to suffer persecution together with God’s people (Heb 11:25-26). Faith does not fear the godless (Heb 11:27). It results in victories won (Heb 11:28-30), and brings salvation to the Gentiles (Heb 11:31). Through faith the saints of old

conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (Heb 11:33-38).

In sum, the concept of faith in the book of Hebrews confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, but it also includes a strong assurance that the fullness of what God has promised will come true (Heb 11:1), which results in power to persevere despite opposition.

That is a rich concept of faith, and one worth celebrating. Nevertheless, it is the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews, which is similar yet different in various aspects from the concept of faith found in Paul and in the Old Testament. The distinctive voice of each part of Scripture needs to be noted and acknowledged.

The Inheritance of Eternal Life through Faith instead of Law in Romans 4:13

In Rom 4:13 the Apostle Paul says that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” It is often concluded on the basis of this verse that Abraham would inherit eternal life solely through faith in God’s promise and not by obedience.

But this is to misunderstand Paul’s meaning. The law in question in the phrase through the law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general but specifically the law of Moses. What Paul is saying is that the revelation in which God promised life to Abraham was not the law of Moses. He is saying that God promised life to Abraham and his seed before the Mosaic law came into existence. Romans 4:13 is a shorthand form of the argument that Paul makes in Gal 3:17-18: “the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” In other words, while Abraham was still uncircumcised (i.e., still a Gentile), he was already an heir of the promise of eternal life.

Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13, therefore, that Abraham solely inherited life through faith apart from obedience. To interpret Paul in this manner is to make him contradict the plain teaching of the Old Testament. Nowhere in the Abraham narrative in Genesis do we see faith spoken of in a way that is exclusive of obedience. In fact, I will show in the next few posts that the Abraham narrative clearly states in a number of places that obedience was necessary for Abraham and his seed to inherit the blessing.

To start off with, please consider Gen 12:1-3:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Looking at the clause structure of the Hebrew of vv. 2-3, it is clear that v. 2 contains three sequential imperfect clauses and one sequential imperatival clause. Verse 3 contains another sequential imperfect clause, a disjunctive imperfect clause, and a modal perfect clause. These clauses are all dependent on the imperative go in v. 1.

The function of the sequential imperfect clause in Hebrew is most frequently to indicate purpose or result. In other words, Abraham was commanded to leave his country in order that God might bless him. Abraham had to pack up his bags and leave. The blessing would not come without Abraham obeying God.

The Hebrew clause structure of Gen 12:1-3 is clear evidence, therefore, that right from the start of God’s relationship with Abraham, obedience was necessary in order for Abraham to be blessed. How many times do we hear people say that God's blessing of Abraham was unconditional? I sometimes wonder if the people who say that have ever read Gen 12:1-3, or at least read it carefully.

Genesis 12:1-3 also clearly shows that God’s revelation of promise to Abraham was not pure promise as many Protestants are inclined to think. In terms of linguistic categorization, Gen 12:1 is command, and Gen 12:2-3 is promise. This goes to show that Paul’s use of the term promise in Rom 4 cannot be a category of linguistic or literary genre. Rather, Paul’s idea of promise is a salvation-historical category. That is to say, by the term promise Paul designates the totality of the revelation that God gave to Abraham. Paul’s promise versus law contrast is a contrast of Abrahamic revelation (promise) with Mosaic revelation (law). To interpret the term promise in Rom 4:13 as indicating pure (i.e., command-less) promise is to contradict the reality of what exists in Gen 12:1-3, where promise is linguistically and logically dependent on command.

In a similar way, to say that Paul viewed eternal life as being inherited by faith alone apart from obedience is to make Paul contradict Gen 12:1-3. On the basis of the principle of the analogy of Scripture, Paul must be understood in a manner that is consistent with what God has already revealed. God is not a God of contradiction. The Old Testament functions as the Spirit-inspired foundation and framework upon which New Testament revelation, including that of Paul, is built. The remainder of the house must be consistent with the foundation and basic framework that has already been erected.

In sum, therefore, Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13 that eternal life is inherited by faith alone as if such faith did not include obedience as part of its meaning. If that were true, then Abraham could have stayed in Ur. But because command was an integral part of the promise of God in Gen 12:1-3, Abraham’s faith necessarily included obedience as part of its meaning.

Please consider the following question: If Abraham had simply said to God: “I believe in your word of blessing” (as contained in Gen 12:2-3), but did not leave Ur, would he inherit the blessing? This is not possible in terms of the Hebrew sense of Gen 12:1-3. God told Abraham to go in order to inherit the blessing! This means he had to obey in order to inherit the blessing. Abraham going is Abraham accepting the word of God, and accepting the word of God is saying amen to the word of God, and saying amen (אמן) to the word of God is faith (אמונה). In Gen 12:4, Abraham’s faith is clearly portrayed as being the faith which obeys God’s commands and which believes his promises. Abraham’s faith was the faith of obedience.

To say that eternal life is inherited by faith apart from obedience logically requires that the Apostle Paul either did not know or did not accept the plain meaning of Gen 12:1-3. I find it difficult to accept that a Hebrew of Hebrews would have failed to understand and accept the import of the Hebrew of Gen 12:1-3.