God is the Supreme Being in all of reality. He is eternal and all-powerful. He created everything in the universe, including us human beings. The first human beings originally lived in a holy garden in the presence of God, but they were responsible to obey God’s commandments in order to continue in the blessing of life until the fullness of eternal life came upon them.
But the first human beings rebelled against God, and fell into sin. God, who is holy and pure, expelled sinful humanity from his presence. The consequence of this is that the human race lost the blessing of life, and must now live in a chaotic and dangerous world that is under God’s curse.
But God, because of his love for the world that he has made, had a plan to restore the blessing of life to the world and to save sinful humanity. According to this plan, just over 2,000 years ago God himself entered into the world in the person of the Lord Jesus. While in the world, the Lord Jesus taught the truth and accomplished salvation, rescuing humanity from sin and eternal death. Jesus accomplished this salvation by sacrificing his sinless life through his death on the cross, in order to pay for our sins. On the third day after his death, the Lord Jesus came back to life from the dead, and appeared to his disciples during forty days, after which he ascended into heaven. Thanks to his ascension into heaven, humanity, with Jesus as our leader, is finally able to return into the presence of God and to experience the blessing of eternal life.
In the light of what God has done through Jesus, God now calls upon every person to receive salvation by submitting to the lordship of Jesus. Those who submit to Jesus receive the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, who enables them to experience the blessing of eternal life.
God has appointed a day when the Lord Jesus will return to earth in order to judge every person. Those among Jesus’ disciples who have been faithful will then enter into the fullness of the blessing of eternal life, whereas those disciples who have been unfaithful to Jesus, along with everyone else who has been in rebellion against God, will experience eternal punishment in hell.
In order to avoid eternal punishment, we need to receive salvation by submitting to the lordship of Jesus. Submitting to Jesus’ lordship can be summarized as involving three things: faith, repentance, and baptism.
(1) Faith is accepting the truth about Jesus in God’s plan of salvation as revealed in God’s word, the Bible (as summarized above).
(2) Repentance is acknowledging our sins before God, and endeavoring in his strength to abandon our sinful way of life, in order to live in a way that pleases God through obedience to his commandments.
(3) Baptism is the Christian rite of initiation. Through baptism, a person confesses one’s belief that Jesus is the King of the universe, and receives the salvation that Jesus has come to give. Through baptism, a person officially becomes a disciple of the Lord Jesus and a member of the Christian church. Baptism is ordinarily performed by a designated leader in the Christian community. After confessing one’s faith in Jesus as Lord, the person being baptized is immersed in water, or has water poured or sprinkled over one’s head, as a symbol of cleansing from sin, of the reception of the Holy Spirit, and new life.
Having submitted to Jesus as Lord through faith, repentance, and baptism, all Christians need to live as faithful disciples of Jesus. This involves persevering in faith and repentance until the end of one’s life. On the day of judgment those who have lived as faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus will receive their eternal resurrection bodies, and experience the fullness of life in the presence of God forever.
Showing posts with label gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gospel. Show all posts
19 December 2010
A Balanced Protestant Biblical Hermeneutic on Law and Gospel
Understanding the teaching of the Apostle Paul regarding law and gospel in the light of Old Testament theology and prophecy suggests that Protestant exegetes of Paul have frequently overemphasized the condemnatory power of the law, resulting in an overly-rigid law versus gospel hermeneutic.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the need for a balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel in Paul:
“Traditional Protestant exegesis has exhibited a strong tendency to understand the righteousness terminology of the Bible, and of Paul in particular, in absolute terms, which in turn means that the condemnatory function of the law is emphasized with no place left for the justifying and vivifying function of the law when written on the human heart by the Holy Spirit” (pp. 141–2);
“A more balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel would ... pay attention to the Old Testament teaching on the gospel as including the concept of the Holy Spirit writing God’s law on the hearts of his people. The biblical position is that where the Spirit is present writing divine law on human hearts, law is effectively gospel, and gospel effectively law” (p. 143);
“the Old Testament view of the gospel, which speaks of the triumph of the justifying and vivifying function of (eschatological) torah over the condemnatory and mortifying function of (Mosaic) torah, is the correct perspective to bring to our reading of Paul in Galatians and Romans” (p. 143).
My view is that Paul’s law versus gospel distinction should to be understood as being Paul’s way of distinguishing old covenant revelation from new covenant revelation. In other words, Paul’s law versus gospel distinction is primarily a salvation-historical distinction rather than being a distinction of linguistic form wherein command is strictly opposed to promise.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the need for a balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel in Paul:
“Traditional Protestant exegesis has exhibited a strong tendency to understand the righteousness terminology of the Bible, and of Paul in particular, in absolute terms, which in turn means that the condemnatory function of the law is emphasized with no place left for the justifying and vivifying function of the law when written on the human heart by the Holy Spirit” (pp. 141–2);
“A more balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel would ... pay attention to the Old Testament teaching on the gospel as including the concept of the Holy Spirit writing God’s law on the hearts of his people. The biblical position is that where the Spirit is present writing divine law on human hearts, law is effectively gospel, and gospel effectively law” (p. 143);
“the Old Testament view of the gospel, which speaks of the triumph of the justifying and vivifying function of (eschatological) torah over the condemnatory and mortifying function of (Mosaic) torah, is the correct perspective to bring to our reading of Paul in Galatians and Romans” (p. 143).
My view is that Paul’s law versus gospel distinction should to be understood as being Paul’s way of distinguishing old covenant revelation from new covenant revelation. In other words, Paul’s law versus gospel distinction is primarily a salvation-historical distinction rather than being a distinction of linguistic form wherein command is strictly opposed to promise.
08 December 2010
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.
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.
30 November 2010
The Apostle Paul's Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Gospel
I make the point again: the key to understanding Paul’s teaching on law and gospel is found in the Old Testament. Paul makes the claim in Rom 1:1–2 that his gospel was “the gospel of God that [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” As far as Paul was concerned, his gospel was nothing other than the gospel proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets. But what exactly did the Old Testament prophets prophesy concerning the gospel?
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the Old Testament view of the gospel:
“[T]he failure of Israel to keep her covenantal obligation before God led to the emergence of the Old Testament prophetic hope, which looked forward to the time when Israel would finally be enabled by God to keep her side of the covenant arrangement, in order that the promised covenant blessing of eternal life might finally be realized. Thus, in the light of the historic failure of Israel under the Mosaic covenant, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to the time of the new covenant, when God would transform and circumcise the hearts of his people (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26) and place his law within (Jer 31:33), thereby enabling his people to keep covenant with him (Jer 31:31-32) through obedience to the law (Deut 30:6, 8, 10-14; Ezek 36:27), in order that they might finally receive the fullness of the covenant blessing that God had promised to the righteous of Israel back in the beginning (Lev 26:3-13) and to those among the nations who would be blessed through Abraham (Gen 12:3) by coming in submission to Israel’s Messiah (Ps 2:10-12)” (p. 129).
In other words, the gospel according to the Old Testament centers on the idea that God would enable Israel and the nations (through the work of Christ and the Spirit) to return in covenant obedience to himself.
“If the gospel according to the Old Testament speaks of God enabling the covenant obedience of his people such that they will keep covenant with him and receive the blessing of the covenant as a result, then surely it is wrong to interpret Paul in such a way that he is made to contradict this Old Testament understanding of the gospel” (p. 129).
“To teach or to give the impression that the gospel is only about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as if there no longer remains any place for the covenant righteousness of the believer in the process of justification under the new covenant is actually a simplification and distortion of the gospel as ‘promised beforehand’ in the Old Testament” (p. 130).
In other words, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to the time when the law would be written on the hearts of the chosen from Israel and the nations, in order that they might be obedient to God, and consequently receive justification on the level of the covenant through the divine judicial declaration (to be proclaimed in a public way ultimately on the day of judgment but preempted today in the gospel ministry of the church) that believers have fulfilled their covenant obligations of faithful service to God (in the context of divine grace) through their submission to the Messiah Jesus (which the early church called faith). Those who are righteous on the level of the covenant have the privilege of sharing in the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice, their sins being covered by his perfection.
The law may have been primarily negative for old covenant Israel, but the Old Testament prophets viewed new covenant law as gospel! That is to say, for the Old Testament prophets, the function of torah in the new covenant age is primarily positive. Therefore, to interpret Paul through a black-and-white law versus gospel theological grid makes Paul not only contradict the Old Testament prophets, but also his own claim in Rom 1:1–2 that his gospel was “the gospel of God that he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” Law and gospel are not rightly divided by keeping them apart; they are rightly divided by proclaiming their unity in Christ. As the eternal Word of God, Christ is the embodiment of evangelical torah.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the Old Testament view of the gospel:
“[T]he failure of Israel to keep her covenantal obligation before God led to the emergence of the Old Testament prophetic hope, which looked forward to the time when Israel would finally be enabled by God to keep her side of the covenant arrangement, in order that the promised covenant blessing of eternal life might finally be realized. Thus, in the light of the historic failure of Israel under the Mosaic covenant, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to the time of the new covenant, when God would transform and circumcise the hearts of his people (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26) and place his law within (Jer 31:33), thereby enabling his people to keep covenant with him (Jer 31:31-32) through obedience to the law (Deut 30:6, 8, 10-14; Ezek 36:27), in order that they might finally receive the fullness of the covenant blessing that God had promised to the righteous of Israel back in the beginning (Lev 26:3-13) and to those among the nations who would be blessed through Abraham (Gen 12:3) by coming in submission to Israel’s Messiah (Ps 2:10-12)” (p. 129).
In other words, the gospel according to the Old Testament centers on the idea that God would enable Israel and the nations (through the work of Christ and the Spirit) to return in covenant obedience to himself.
“If the gospel according to the Old Testament speaks of God enabling the covenant obedience of his people such that they will keep covenant with him and receive the blessing of the covenant as a result, then surely it is wrong to interpret Paul in such a way that he is made to contradict this Old Testament understanding of the gospel” (p. 129).
“To teach or to give the impression that the gospel is only about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as if there no longer remains any place for the covenant righteousness of the believer in the process of justification under the new covenant is actually a simplification and distortion of the gospel as ‘promised beforehand’ in the Old Testament” (p. 130).
In other words, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to the time when the law would be written on the hearts of the chosen from Israel and the nations, in order that they might be obedient to God, and consequently receive justification on the level of the covenant through the divine judicial declaration (to be proclaimed in a public way ultimately on the day of judgment but preempted today in the gospel ministry of the church) that believers have fulfilled their covenant obligations of faithful service to God (in the context of divine grace) through their submission to the Messiah Jesus (which the early church called faith). Those who are righteous on the level of the covenant have the privilege of sharing in the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice, their sins being covered by his perfection.
The law may have been primarily negative for old covenant Israel, but the Old Testament prophets viewed new covenant law as gospel! That is to say, for the Old Testament prophets, the function of torah in the new covenant age is primarily positive. Therefore, to interpret Paul through a black-and-white law versus gospel theological grid makes Paul not only contradict the Old Testament prophets, but also his own claim in Rom 1:1–2 that his gospel was “the gospel of God that he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” Law and gospel are not rightly divided by keeping them apart; they are rightly divided by proclaiming their unity in Christ. As the eternal Word of God, Christ is the embodiment of evangelical torah.
01 July 2010
The Gospel as Eschatological Torah
Luke-Acts records Jesus as teaching that Jerusalem would be the starting point from which the preaching of the gospel would emanate. In Luke 24:46-47 Jesus tells his disciples that “it is written … that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” This idea is also reflected in Acts 1:8 when Jesus says that his disciples will be his witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The starting point for the preaching of the gospel of the risen Christ is Jerusalem. But where in particular is this written in the Old Testament Scriptures?
The answer seems to be … in Isa 2:2-3.
The intertextuality between Isa 2:2-3 and Luke 24:46-47 shows that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah finds its fulfillment in the gospel!
The answer seems to be … in Isa 2:2-3.
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.
The intertextuality between Isa 2:2-3 and Luke 24:46-47 shows that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah finds its fulfillment in the gospel!
12 May 2010
The Concept of Eschatological Torah in Pauline Theology
I have argued recently in the posts entitled “The Importance of the Old Testament Concept of Eschatological Torah for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law,” “The Concept of Eschatological Torah in Deuteronomy 18:15-19,” and “The Significance of Eschatological Torah according to the Old Testament” that the Old Testament puts forward a concept of eschatological torah. The question that I want to explore in this post is: Was the Apostle Paul aware of the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah? The answer, I believe, is that Paul was clearly aware of this concept.
Paul’s view is that with the coming of the new covenant in Christ, adherence to the Mosaic covenant (which was required by God and Moses during the old covenant age) has been superseded by adherence to Christ. This is consistent with Deut 18:15-19, which speaks of an eschatological revelation, given by a second prophet like Moses, that would supersede the revelation delivered to Israel by Moses. Moses knew that Mosaic torah would be superseded by a greater torah in the future, the torah of the Messiah; and Paul came to understand this too. Isaiah 2:1-4; 42:4; 51:4-5 all teach that eschatological law would be Gentile-friendly. Messianic torah, therefore, opens up the possibility of law-keeping (i.e., a positive response to God’s word), and hence covenant righteousness, to the Gentiles; and Paul came to understand this as well, hence his teaching concerning justification by faith for all who believe rather than justification solely for Israel by obedience to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law).
It is evident that Paul understood the Old Testament teaching concerning eschatological torah, because it is reflected in key parts of his teaching about the law. The Gentiles in Rom 2 (who do not have the law, but who keep it) do not have the Mosaic law, because they are not Jews; but through their acceptance of the gospel, Paul understood that they had become keepers of torah, thanks to the fact that the Spirit had written the eschatological torah of the gospel on their heart as per Jer 31:33 (note the wording of Rom 2:15), and in fulfillment of the torah prophecies of Isaiah.
Looking at the bigger picture, eschatological law is simply the revelation of Christ, who is the Word or Torah of God incarnate. This is a key theme in John’s Gospel, but the concept of eschatological torah also appears in the epistles of Paul. Paul calls eschatological law the law of faith as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of works (Rom 3:27). He calls it the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). He calls it the law of Christ as opposed to the [Mosaic] law (1 Cor 9:20-21), or simply the law when he is not concerned to distinguish eschatological law from Mosaic law (Rom 2:26). The eschatological law of Deut 30:11-14 is the word of faith that we preach (Rom 10:8) and the standard of teaching to which you were committed (Rom 6:17). That is to say, in Paul’s thinking, eschatological torah was understood to be nothing other than the gospel.
Understanding the biblical-theological connection between eschatological torah and the gospel means that simply trotting out the standard Protestant slogans that the law is negative, that it kills and cannot give life, is not good enough from a biblical-theological point of view. Such slogans do not present the full story regarding torah. They are a simplification of biblical truth and sloppy exegesis, because as far as Paul was concerned the gospel is eschatological torah. If the gospel is eschatological torah, it then follows that obedience to torah (eschatological torah, not Mosaic torah ... at least in the new covenant age) is the way of life and salvation. So, whenever we make pronouncements concerning the law, we need to be clear about what torah we are talking about, as well as what epoch of salvation history we are referring to!
Paul’s view is that with the coming of the new covenant in Christ, adherence to the Mosaic covenant (which was required by God and Moses during the old covenant age) has been superseded by adherence to Christ. This is consistent with Deut 18:15-19, which speaks of an eschatological revelation, given by a second prophet like Moses, that would supersede the revelation delivered to Israel by Moses. Moses knew that Mosaic torah would be superseded by a greater torah in the future, the torah of the Messiah; and Paul came to understand this too. Isaiah 2:1-4; 42:4; 51:4-5 all teach that eschatological law would be Gentile-friendly. Messianic torah, therefore, opens up the possibility of law-keeping (i.e., a positive response to God’s word), and hence covenant righteousness, to the Gentiles; and Paul came to understand this as well, hence his teaching concerning justification by faith for all who believe rather than justification solely for Israel by obedience to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law).
It is evident that Paul understood the Old Testament teaching concerning eschatological torah, because it is reflected in key parts of his teaching about the law. The Gentiles in Rom 2 (who do not have the law, but who keep it) do not have the Mosaic law, because they are not Jews; but through their acceptance of the gospel, Paul understood that they had become keepers of torah, thanks to the fact that the Spirit had written the eschatological torah of the gospel on their heart as per Jer 31:33 (note the wording of Rom 2:15), and in fulfillment of the torah prophecies of Isaiah.
Looking at the bigger picture, eschatological law is simply the revelation of Christ, who is the Word or Torah of God incarnate. This is a key theme in John’s Gospel, but the concept of eschatological torah also appears in the epistles of Paul. Paul calls eschatological law the law of faith as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of works (Rom 3:27). He calls it the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). He calls it the law of Christ as opposed to the [Mosaic] law (1 Cor 9:20-21), or simply the law when he is not concerned to distinguish eschatological law from Mosaic law (Rom 2:26). The eschatological law of Deut 30:11-14 is the word of faith that we preach (Rom 10:8) and the standard of teaching to which you were committed (Rom 6:17). That is to say, in Paul’s thinking, eschatological torah was understood to be nothing other than the gospel.
Understanding the biblical-theological connection between eschatological torah and the gospel means that simply trotting out the standard Protestant slogans that the law is negative, that it kills and cannot give life, is not good enough from a biblical-theological point of view. Such slogans do not present the full story regarding torah. They are a simplification of biblical truth and sloppy exegesis, because as far as Paul was concerned the gospel is eschatological torah. If the gospel is eschatological torah, it then follows that obedience to torah (eschatological torah, not Mosaic torah ... at least in the new covenant age) is the way of life and salvation. So, whenever we make pronouncements concerning the law, we need to be clear about what torah we are talking about, as well as what epoch of salvation history we are referring to!
16 February 2010
The Saving Power of the Gospel in Romans 1:16
Romans 1:16-17 states the fundamental theme of the book of Romans that undergirds the rest of Paul's teaching in this epistle. In v. 16 Paul states that he was not ashamed of the gospel. Implied within this statement is that Paul’s opponents, the Christian Judaizers, were ashamed of the gospel. By insisting on circumcision and keeping the law of Moses as part of the gospel (such as we see in Acts 15:1, 5), the Judaizers were effectively trying to make the gospel kosher by Judaizing it, by trying to force Jesus and the gospel into the traditional framework of the Mosaic covenant. Their motivation in doing this was to try and make Christianity look acceptable to orthodox Jewish sensibilities. The Judaizers compromised the gospel in the face of social pressure.
But Paul (after his conversion) would have none of that. He was not ashamed of the gospel, because he understood that it is the powerful word of God that brings the fullness of salvation “to everyone who believes, both to the Jew first and to the Greek.” This verse contains the first use in Romans of the pan-ethnic all (translated here as everyone), which is derived from the phrase all the nations in Rom 1:5.
Paul understood that the gospel has a pan-ethnic relevance and application. By making the point that the gospel brings salvation to everyone who believes, Paul was opposing the position of the Judaizers, whose understanding of the gospel limited salvation to one nation (i.e., the nation of Israel), whose national boundary was marked by circumcision, and whose way of life was the law of Moses. Paul understood that the gospel had opened the door of salvation to all nations. This was a truth of which he was not ashamed, a truth that he was prepared to defend no matter what the personal cost.
But Paul (after his conversion) would have none of that. He was not ashamed of the gospel, because he understood that it is the powerful word of God that brings the fullness of salvation “to everyone who believes, both to the Jew first and to the Greek.” This verse contains the first use in Romans of the pan-ethnic all (translated here as everyone), which is derived from the phrase all the nations in Rom 1:5.
Paul understood that the gospel has a pan-ethnic relevance and application. By making the point that the gospel brings salvation to everyone who believes, Paul was opposing the position of the Judaizers, whose understanding of the gospel limited salvation to one nation (i.e., the nation of Israel), whose national boundary was marked by circumcision, and whose way of life was the law of Moses. Paul understood that the gospel had opened the door of salvation to all nations. This was a truth of which he was not ashamed, a truth that he was prepared to defend no matter what the personal cost.
06 February 2010
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:
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.
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.
31 January 2010
The Apostle Paul's Law versus Gospel Contrast: A Response to John Thomson
This is a response to comments made by John Thomson to my post entitled “The Gospel of Paul and the Old Testament Prophets.”
Thanks, John. Very good comments.
“Does the OT preach the gospel?” Yes, definitely, and most Reformed folks do believe that it was through faith in this gospel promised beforehand that Old Testament believers were justified. I’m not suggesting that they don’t believe that. We need to keep in mind though that the Old Testament gospel was communicated to the Old Testament saints through the torah of Moses and the prophets. As the saints of old oriented themselves positively with respect to torah, they were positively oriented to the gospel promised in torah.
Yes, you are right to point out that the gospel for Paul, as evidenced from Rom 1:3-4, centers on the enthronement of Jesus as the Christ. I don’t think, however, that Paul is limiting the gospel to just the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah. I think that in his view the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah lies at the heart of the gospel prophesied in the Old Testament; but at the same time I find it hard to believe that Paul would not have accepted the full Old Testament view of the gospel, which includes the consequences of the work of the Messiah for God’s people and the world as an important part of the gospel.
I agree that the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament is one of both continuity and discontinuity. Indeed, I am suggesting to my Presbyterian and Reformed brothers that we need to think more about the discontinuity that exists between the Old and New Testaments. I’m actually saying that Paul was arguing about the discontinuity between the old covenant in Moses and the new covenant in Christ. But I do not find the discontinuity in an anthropological distinction of law/works versus gospel/faith, but in the difference of the medium and the content of old covenant versus new covenant revelation.
I agree wholeheartedly that the gospel is the divinely-authorized message that proclaims the righteousness of God, which is the eschatological righteousness that God would accomplish through the Messiah. Your comments regarding the righteousness of God are very good in my view.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is discontinuity with the coming of the righteousness of God. The nuni de of Rom 3:21 is definitely an eschatological but now. With the resurrection of Christ, the age of the new covenant has begun. It is possible, therefore, to talk about the old covenant age as one of law, and the new covenant age as one of gospel. So I liked most of your list of contrasts: the old age contrasts with the new age, law with gospel, condemnation with justification, death with life. However, I would not contrast human righteousness with God’s righteousness, but rather human unrighteousness with God's righteousness. I would also not contrast works with faith in an anthropological way, but rather (the) works (of the Mosaic law) with faith (in Christ) in a salvation-historical, covenantal way.
But in saying that there is a law versus gospel contrast, we need to understand that that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah is fulfilled in the gospel. From the Old Testament perspective, the law continues into the new covenant age, and the righteousness of God involves Christ pouring out his Spirit to bring God’s people back to a true keeping of torah. Paul understood this, as Rom 2:14-15, 26-29; 6:17-18; 7:6; 8:2-8 show. The righteousness of God is not just what God did in Christ in isolation from what Christ is doing in his people. From the Old Testament perspective, what God has done and is doing in Christ includes the circumcision of the heart of his people and the new obedience that follows as a result.
Paul’s contrast, therefore, is a covenantal contrast, not an anthropological one. The works of the law versus faith contrast in Paul is old covenant (un)righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Moses versus new covenant righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Messiah. To say that Paul is introducing an anthropological distinction between faith and works (which is a distinction that is foreign to the Old Testament) ends up making him contradict the Old Testament. Furthermore, the historical issue of the day was not legalism, but a zeal for the law of Moses that did not recognize the lordship of Jesus, which brought the age of the Mosaic law to an end (Rom 10:2-4), i.e., the historical issue of the day was the orthodox Jewish and Christian Judaizers' zeal for the Mosaic covenant instead of the new covenant in Christ.
Thanks, John. Very good comments.
“Does the OT preach the gospel?” Yes, definitely, and most Reformed folks do believe that it was through faith in this gospel promised beforehand that Old Testament believers were justified. I’m not suggesting that they don’t believe that. We need to keep in mind though that the Old Testament gospel was communicated to the Old Testament saints through the torah of Moses and the prophets. As the saints of old oriented themselves positively with respect to torah, they were positively oriented to the gospel promised in torah.
Yes, you are right to point out that the gospel for Paul, as evidenced from Rom 1:3-4, centers on the enthronement of Jesus as the Christ. I don’t think, however, that Paul is limiting the gospel to just the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah. I think that in his view the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah lies at the heart of the gospel prophesied in the Old Testament; but at the same time I find it hard to believe that Paul would not have accepted the full Old Testament view of the gospel, which includes the consequences of the work of the Messiah for God’s people and the world as an important part of the gospel.
I agree that the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament is one of both continuity and discontinuity. Indeed, I am suggesting to my Presbyterian and Reformed brothers that we need to think more about the discontinuity that exists between the Old and New Testaments. I’m actually saying that Paul was arguing about the discontinuity between the old covenant in Moses and the new covenant in Christ. But I do not find the discontinuity in an anthropological distinction of law/works versus gospel/faith, but in the difference of the medium and the content of old covenant versus new covenant revelation.
I agree wholeheartedly that the gospel is the divinely-authorized message that proclaims the righteousness of God, which is the eschatological righteousness that God would accomplish through the Messiah. Your comments regarding the righteousness of God are very good in my view.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is discontinuity with the coming of the righteousness of God. The nuni de of Rom 3:21 is definitely an eschatological but now. With the resurrection of Christ, the age of the new covenant has begun. It is possible, therefore, to talk about the old covenant age as one of law, and the new covenant age as one of gospel. So I liked most of your list of contrasts: the old age contrasts with the new age, law with gospel, condemnation with justification, death with life. However, I would not contrast human righteousness with God’s righteousness, but rather human unrighteousness with God's righteousness. I would also not contrast works with faith in an anthropological way, but rather (the) works (of the Mosaic law) with faith (in Christ) in a salvation-historical, covenantal way.
But in saying that there is a law versus gospel contrast, we need to understand that that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah is fulfilled in the gospel. From the Old Testament perspective, the law continues into the new covenant age, and the righteousness of God involves Christ pouring out his Spirit to bring God’s people back to a true keeping of torah. Paul understood this, as Rom 2:14-15, 26-29; 6:17-18; 7:6; 8:2-8 show. The righteousness of God is not just what God did in Christ in isolation from what Christ is doing in his people. From the Old Testament perspective, what God has done and is doing in Christ includes the circumcision of the heart of his people and the new obedience that follows as a result.
Paul’s contrast, therefore, is a covenantal contrast, not an anthropological one. The works of the law versus faith contrast in Paul is old covenant (un)righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Moses versus new covenant righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Messiah. To say that Paul is introducing an anthropological distinction between faith and works (which is a distinction that is foreign to the Old Testament) ends up making him contradict the Old Testament. Furthermore, the historical issue of the day was not legalism, but a zeal for the law of Moses that did not recognize the lordship of Jesus, which brought the age of the Mosaic law to an end (Rom 10:2-4), i.e., the historical issue of the day was the orthodox Jewish and Christian Judaizers' zeal for the Mosaic covenant instead of the new covenant in Christ.
30 January 2010
The Gospel of Paul and the Old Testament Prophets
The Apostle Paul claims in Rom 1:1 that he had been called by the Messiah to be an apostle of the “the gospel of God.” Then in Rom 1:2 he says that this gospel that he had been called to proclaim was the gospel “which [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” In other words, Paul claimed that the gospel which he preached was the same gospel as the gospel foreshadowed by the Old Testament prophets in Scripture.
These verses stand at the beginning of the epistle of Romans as a great, flashing hermeneutical beacon, warning us that we need to have the Old Testament understanding of the gospel in mind as we seek to understand Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel. The hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 is that Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel and God’s plan of salvation needs to be understood in the light of the gospel that was prophesied beforehand in the Old Testament, and also that the gospel that Paul preached must be understood in a way that is consistent with what had previously been revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
There are three questions that emerge from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2.
Firstly, how many of us are actually aware of the gospel that was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets when we read Galatians or Romans? I get the feeling that much interpretation of Paul is done by people who are more familiar with the New Testament than the Old. The common division in biblical scholarship between Old Testament studies and New Testament studies has tended to exacerbate this problem.
Secondly, how many of us have studied the Old Testament prophets in sufficient depth so as to be crystal clear about what the Old Testament gospel is? As someone who has taught the Old Testament prophets since 2002 (although not this year for political reasons), I say with sadness that the gospel preached by many today seems narrow and anemic in comparison with the gospel of the Old Testament prophets.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. How often do we hear Christians speaking of the law as something negative, something from which we need to be freed? The Old Testament prophets, however, viewed the heart of the new covenant as involving the inscription of God’s law on human hearts (Deut 30:6, 14; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). For them, the law was something that was ultimately positive; and yet many of us continue to interpret Paul as if he did not believe this Old Testament teaching.
And how many times today are we told that the obedience of God’s people is not part of the gospel, that the fruit of the gospel must not be mixed with the root which is Christ and his obedience? Sure, Christ’s obedience can and should be distinguished from that of his people, but the Old Testament prophets viewed the eschatological obedience of Israel and the nations as an integral part of the gospel (Deut 30:1-14; Isa 2:2-3; 40:9-11; 42:1-4; 49:6; 61:11; Ezek 36:26-27; 37:23-24; Hos 2:16-17, 19-20). To say that the obedience that Christ works in us through the power of his Spirit is not part of the gospel contradicts the gospel that was “promised beforehand” by God through the Old Testament prophets.
The third question that arises from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 involves Paul’s doctrine of justification. I agree that justification was a core component of the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul. It makes sense, therefore, in the light of Rom 1:1-2, to hold that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith was something about which the Old Testament prophets must also have prophesied.
The question is, therefore: How does the Old Testament prophetic teaching concerning justification match up with the common Protestant understanding that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith involves a definition of faith that is exclusive of works? Given the common view which says that Paul was at pains to argue for faith as the sole instrument of justification rather than works, you would think that such a distinction would also have been a clear concern of the Old Testament prophets. But is it? I invite people who hold to the traditional Protestant view to show me from the Old Testament where Moses or the prophets taught that the eschatological salvation that they looked forward to would be experienced by means of a faith that excludes faithfulness or obedience as part of its meaning. This is an honest invitation. Please show me where the Old Testament speaks of this distinction.
The gospel that Paul preached was “the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). I hope that the gospel that you preach is consistent with the gospel that was promised beforehand by the Old Testament prophets.
These verses stand at the beginning of the epistle of Romans as a great, flashing hermeneutical beacon, warning us that we need to have the Old Testament understanding of the gospel in mind as we seek to understand Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel. The hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 is that Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel and God’s plan of salvation needs to be understood in the light of the gospel that was prophesied beforehand in the Old Testament, and also that the gospel that Paul preached must be understood in a way that is consistent with what had previously been revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
There are three questions that emerge from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2.
Firstly, how many of us are actually aware of the gospel that was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets when we read Galatians or Romans? I get the feeling that much interpretation of Paul is done by people who are more familiar with the New Testament than the Old. The common division in biblical scholarship between Old Testament studies and New Testament studies has tended to exacerbate this problem.
Secondly, how many of us have studied the Old Testament prophets in sufficient depth so as to be crystal clear about what the Old Testament gospel is? As someone who has taught the Old Testament prophets since 2002 (although not this year for political reasons), I say with sadness that the gospel preached by many today seems narrow and anemic in comparison with the gospel of the Old Testament prophets.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. How often do we hear Christians speaking of the law as something negative, something from which we need to be freed? The Old Testament prophets, however, viewed the heart of the new covenant as involving the inscription of God’s law on human hearts (Deut 30:6, 14; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). For them, the law was something that was ultimately positive; and yet many of us continue to interpret Paul as if he did not believe this Old Testament teaching.
And how many times today are we told that the obedience of God’s people is not part of the gospel, that the fruit of the gospel must not be mixed with the root which is Christ and his obedience? Sure, Christ’s obedience can and should be distinguished from that of his people, but the Old Testament prophets viewed the eschatological obedience of Israel and the nations as an integral part of the gospel (Deut 30:1-14; Isa 2:2-3; 40:9-11; 42:1-4; 49:6; 61:11; Ezek 36:26-27; 37:23-24; Hos 2:16-17, 19-20). To say that the obedience that Christ works in us through the power of his Spirit is not part of the gospel contradicts the gospel that was “promised beforehand” by God through the Old Testament prophets.
The third question that arises from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 involves Paul’s doctrine of justification. I agree that justification was a core component of the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul. It makes sense, therefore, in the light of Rom 1:1-2, to hold that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith was something about which the Old Testament prophets must also have prophesied.
The question is, therefore: How does the Old Testament prophetic teaching concerning justification match up with the common Protestant understanding that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith involves a definition of faith that is exclusive of works? Given the common view which says that Paul was at pains to argue for faith as the sole instrument of justification rather than works, you would think that such a distinction would also have been a clear concern of the Old Testament prophets. But is it? I invite people who hold to the traditional Protestant view to show me from the Old Testament where Moses or the prophets taught that the eschatological salvation that they looked forward to would be experienced by means of a faith that excludes faithfulness or obedience as part of its meaning. This is an honest invitation. Please show me where the Old Testament speaks of this distinction.
The gospel that Paul preached was “the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). I hope that the gospel that you preach is consistent with the gospel that was promised beforehand by the Old Testament prophets.
07 January 2010
The Biblical Distinction of Law and Gospel
It is common in Protestant circles to contrast law with gospel, where law is understood as equating to God's commandments, and gospel refers to God's promises. But dividing the word of God into two parts is problematic from a biblical theological point of view.
Law or torah in the Old Testament is a co-relative term for the word of God, i.e., the law of God has the same referent as the word of God but describes this referent in a different way. The book of Deuteronomy teaches us this. The revelation that God delivered to Moses to pass on to the people of Israel was simply "the commandment" (e.g., Deut 1:3; 5:31) or "the law" (e.g., Deut 1:5; 4:44).
Psalm 119 also teaches us this. In v. 16, God's word parallels God's statutes. In v. 160, God's word parallels God's judgments. In v. 172, God's word parallels God's commandments. In fact, in Ps 119 God's word is co-relative with God's law, God's testimonies, God's precepts, God's decrees, God's commandments, and God's judgments. That looks like seven different terms altogether, all co-relative.
In a similar way, the law of God and the word of Yahweh are paralleled in Isa 1:10. According to Isa 2:3, the eschatological law that will emanate from Jerusalem and bring peace to the nations is the word of Yahweh.
Law is simply divine revelation. Whatever the King says is law. From a biblical theological perspective, therefore, the law is simply another name for the word of God.
Having established the above point, the biblical teaching concerning law is simple. When God's law is in your heart, you will live; but if the law merely remains an external revelation, not internalized in the heart, then you will die. If the law remains merely externalized, it is a dead letter; but when the law is internalized in the heart, it is the source of life, and effectively gospel. Therefore, the key to life, according to the Bible, is having God's law/word in your heart. Hence Moses' call in Deut 6:6, and hence the supreme importance of the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33. The law mortifies or vivifies, depending on its location outside or inside the heart.
The history of Old Testament Israel illustrates this very principle. The revelation given to Israel through Moses came from God. It was an external revelation. The external nature of Mosaic torah was symbolized by the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone. What Israel needed was for this external revelation to become internalized on the tablet of their hearts. But despite the prophetic call for Israel to internalize torah, the majority of the people did not respond in a positive way; and so the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation.
In the light of the story of old covenant Israel, the negative function of the law for Paul is simply the idea that the corpus of revelation delivered to Israel through Moses and the prophets brought death to old covenant Israel, because the majority of the people were carnal, not spiritual. In other words, the majority of old covenant Israel did not have the law of Moses in their hearts. Instead of having the Spirit of God guiding them in the way of God's word, they were left to their own devices. Without the Spirit, they were merely flesh.
But God's ultimate purpose for his law is primarily positive, not negative. Thus, a key part of the new covenant is the eschatological writing of torah in the hearts of God's people (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). Through Christ's work and the outpouring of the Spirit, torah would be written on the hearts of God's people. Through Christ and the Spirit, the Mosaic law of sin and death would be transformed into the Christian law of life. Through Christ and the Spirit, law would be transformed into gospel in the fullest sense of the word.
This, by the way, is what Paul means when he says: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). The law external to human hearts brings death, but the law written on the heart by the Spirit of God gives life.
The word of God, therefore, should not be divided into two parts, because it comes to us as a package deal. It comes with promises, warnings, and commandments all mixed together. The issue is not what part must be believed, and what part obeyed. The issue is whether this holistic word of God finds reception in our hearts. The biblical distinction of law from gospel is not a distinction of literary form or genre. It is primarily a cardiac distinction, a matter of the relation of the heart to the word of God.
Law or torah in the Old Testament is a co-relative term for the word of God, i.e., the law of God has the same referent as the word of God but describes this referent in a different way. The book of Deuteronomy teaches us this. The revelation that God delivered to Moses to pass on to the people of Israel was simply "the commandment" (e.g., Deut 1:3; 5:31) or "the law" (e.g., Deut 1:5; 4:44).
Psalm 119 also teaches us this. In v. 16, God's word parallels God's statutes. In v. 160, God's word parallels God's judgments. In v. 172, God's word parallels God's commandments. In fact, in Ps 119 God's word is co-relative with God's law, God's testimonies, God's precepts, God's decrees, God's commandments, and God's judgments. That looks like seven different terms altogether, all co-relative.
In a similar way, the law of God and the word of Yahweh are paralleled in Isa 1:10. According to Isa 2:3, the eschatological law that will emanate from Jerusalem and bring peace to the nations is the word of Yahweh.
Law is simply divine revelation. Whatever the King says is law. From a biblical theological perspective, therefore, the law is simply another name for the word of God.
Having established the above point, the biblical teaching concerning law is simple. When God's law is in your heart, you will live; but if the law merely remains an external revelation, not internalized in the heart, then you will die. If the law remains merely externalized, it is a dead letter; but when the law is internalized in the heart, it is the source of life, and effectively gospel. Therefore, the key to life, according to the Bible, is having God's law/word in your heart. Hence Moses' call in Deut 6:6, and hence the supreme importance of the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33. The law mortifies or vivifies, depending on its location outside or inside the heart.
The history of Old Testament Israel illustrates this very principle. The revelation given to Israel through Moses came from God. It was an external revelation. The external nature of Mosaic torah was symbolized by the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone. What Israel needed was for this external revelation to become internalized on the tablet of their hearts. But despite the prophetic call for Israel to internalize torah, the majority of the people did not respond in a positive way; and so the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation.
In the light of the story of old covenant Israel, the negative function of the law for Paul is simply the idea that the corpus of revelation delivered to Israel through Moses and the prophets brought death to old covenant Israel, because the majority of the people were carnal, not spiritual. In other words, the majority of old covenant Israel did not have the law of Moses in their hearts. Instead of having the Spirit of God guiding them in the way of God's word, they were left to their own devices. Without the Spirit, they were merely flesh.
But God's ultimate purpose for his law is primarily positive, not negative. Thus, a key part of the new covenant is the eschatological writing of torah in the hearts of God's people (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). Through Christ's work and the outpouring of the Spirit, torah would be written on the hearts of God's people. Through Christ and the Spirit, the Mosaic law of sin and death would be transformed into the Christian law of life. Through Christ and the Spirit, law would be transformed into gospel in the fullest sense of the word.
This, by the way, is what Paul means when he says: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). The law external to human hearts brings death, but the law written on the heart by the Spirit of God gives life.
The word of God, therefore, should not be divided into two parts, because it comes to us as a package deal. It comes with promises, warnings, and commandments all mixed together. The issue is not what part must be believed, and what part obeyed. The issue is whether this holistic word of God finds reception in our hearts. The biblical distinction of law from gospel is not a distinction of literary form or genre. It is primarily a cardiac distinction, a matter of the relation of the heart to the word of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)