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.

The Importance of the Concept of Covenant in Biblical Hermeneutics

The concept of covenant is very important for coming to an accurate understanding of the message of the Bible. The Bible has developed as the written record of God’s relationship with his people through history. The Old Testament is the written testimony to God’s relationship with Israel based on the Sinaitic covenant, also known as the old covenant. The Old Testament is simply old covenant revelation, and the covenant theology of this revelation is the theological foundation upon which the New Testament is built.

It is significant that the New Testament teaches that Christians, in a manner similar to the people of Israel, are in a covenant relationship with God. Jesus came to establish the new covenant, and Jesus’ disciples participate in the blood of the covenant (Luke 22:14–20). Paul viewed himself as being a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Paul says that non-Jewish Christians were once “strangers to the covenants of promise,” but have now been brought near in Christ (Eph 2:12–13). The writer of Hebrews teaches that Christians are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29); and have come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24). Christians, therefore, relate to God on the basis of a covenant. This covenant, however, is not the Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant, but the new covenant in Christ.

The new covenant exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as the old covenant, but the key difference between the old and new covenants is the medium of revelation. Under the old covenant, the medium of revelation was, first and foremostly, Moses; but with the coming of Jesus Christ (who is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Deut 18:15, 19 concerning the second and greater Moses) a new revelation has been given. Because Christ is the second and greater Moses, the revelation mediated through Jesus (and his apostles) takes priority.

Understanding the covenant structure of Old and New Testament revelation, and how the old and new covenants relate together, is of great importance in interpreting the overall meaning of the Bible. In fact, from a Christian point of view, if it is acknowledged that the new covenant is built upon the foundation of the old covenant and exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as those already established in the old, it follows that having a good understanding of the old covenant can greatly assist us in understanding the nature of the new covenant and what it means to be a Christian. Indeed, it can be argued that a deficient understanding of the nature of the old covenant tends to go hand in hand with a deficient understanding of the new covenant. If the Old Testament describes the basic human problem, then it makes sense to conclude that the more we understand the problem, the more we can understand and appreciate the solution that is provided through the new covenant in Christ. It is important, therefore, to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the old covenant and its purposes in God’s plan of salvation history. Doing so will greatly elucidate our understanding of the gospel.

The Perspicuity of Pauline Scripture

I get the impression that for Protestant theology generally, the epistles of Paul come very close to functioning like a canon within the canon. The Protestant Reformation was built for a large part on a fresh understanding of Paul, and ever since then this understanding has functioned as the hermeneutical and theological grid through which we understand the rest of Scripture.

But I wonder if we have created problems for ourselves in this. For it seems to me that so often when we read Paul, we do so with Protestant tradition about what Paul is saying in mind more than the teaching of the rest of Scripture. We Protestants are so quick to criticize the Roman church for following the traditions of men rather than the teaching of Scripture, but how guilty are we of doing the same thing? How guilty are we of simply following the traditions of men when reading the Apostle Paul?

So often it seems to me that Paul has been understood in isolation from the rest of Scripture, and especially Old Testament theology and prophecy. I believe that this is dangerous (theologically speaking), because the epistles of Paul should not be the controlling grid through which we understand the rest of Scripture. The epistles of Paul should not be a canon within the canon. The whole counsel of God (including the Old Testament) is the canon, and every part must be allowed to speak.

Now I imagine that that last comment may upset those who regard Paul’s letters as being the place in the Scriptures where the gospel is most clearly presented. Our assumption in all of this has been that Paul speaks with a greater clarity and gets to the heart of the gospel in a way that other authors of Scripture do not.

It is not my intention to call into question the perspicuity of Pauline Scripture, but I would like to draw attention to the advice of Scripture itself regarding the clarity of some parts of Paul’s teaching. The following words come from the Apostle Peter:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (2 Peter 3:14-18).

According to the Apostle Peter, as we wait for the unveiling of the new heavens and the new earth, we are to be diligent to pursue sanctification in our lives so as to be found by God on the day of judgment as people who are “without spot or blemish” (i.e., as people who have kept covenant with God). We may have to wait a while until the new creation begins in its fullness, but this time spent waiting is actually God’s patience towards those who are perishing. He is giving people time to repent (2 Pet 3:9). According to Peter, the Apostle Paul also wrote about these things. Paul did so with the wisdom that God had given him. But despite his wisdom (and the inspiration of the Spirit), “there are some things in [his letters] that are hard to understand” (v. 16)—and that’s the Apostle Peter speaking! Furthermore, because some aspects of Paul’s letters are difficult to understand, it is relatively easy for people to “twist” his teaching. Therefore, Peter says, knowing that Paul is difficult at times to understand, we need to be careful not to follow those who have distorted the true teaching of Paul. Peter’s mention of “the error of lawless people” in v. 17 strongly suggests that there were people in his day who had taken Paul’s teaching in an antinomian direction. Are you suggesting, Peter, that Paul’s teaching regarding the law is difficult to understand? Seems to me, that is exactly what he is suggesting; and perhaps we can take the last few decades of Protestant wrangling over the meaning of Galatians and Romans as confirmation of the veracity of Peter’s opinion.

But how does Peter’s warning fit with our Protestant methodology which is based so firmly upon the teaching of Paul as our hermeneutical foundation? To quote the Westminster Confession on the hermeneutical principle of the analogy of Scripture: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (WCF 1.9). If “difficult” Paul has become our canon within the canon, it seems to me that perhaps we have put the cart before the horse, and ignored the principle of the analogy of Scripture.

But for those of you who think you already understand Paul—and I’d like to include myself within that circle—please think seriously about the implications of Peter’s warning. There's a divine reason why 2 Pet 3:16-17 is part of Scripture. Perhaps Paul is not as easy to understand as some would lead you to believe!