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.

The Meaning of Justification by Faith versus Justification by the Works of the Law in the Historical Context of the Early Church

One of the problems in dealing with the Apostle Paul’s teaching on justification by faith versus justification by works is the common assumption that Paul was talking about works and law in general. But this is to ignore the historical particularity in which the epistles to the Galatians and the Romans were written.

The wider historical and theological context in which Paul functioned was dominated by Jewish views about justification and the Jewish response to Jesus. There is clear evidence from the New Testament that the main theological issue that the early church had to grapple with was the place of the law of Moses in God’s purposes of salvation. There is also clear evidence from the New Testament that the orthodox Jewish view about salvation at the time was that people were saved by keeping the Mosaic covenant. This is the covenant that God had entered into with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, which was renewed and expanded on the plains of Moab before Israel entered the promised land. Following the teaching of Moses in Deut 6:25, the orthodox Jews of the first century understood that obedience to the law of Moses constituted their individual and national righteousness before God. In other words, a right covenant response led to the enjoyment of a status of covenant righteousness. The key to understanding Paul’s teaching in Galatians and Romans lies in understanding that this orthodox Jewish belief about righteousness was known in Jewish circles as justification by the works of the law.

Justification proper denotes a judicial pronouncement that the defendant before the court is innocent of wrongdoing, that he or she is in the right as far as the law of the court is concerned. From this emerges a related sense of the term justification which focuses on the resultant legal status of the person in question. Being justified by the judge, the defendant enjoys the legal status of righteousness. Justification can also denote, therefore, the state of being justified; and this is the primary sense of the term in the way that it was used in the early church. The issue of the day was: how can people be right with God; how do we need to respond to God today in order to be right with God (i.e., to hear his public verdict of justification) on the day of judgment? The debate in the early church about justification was ultimately, therefore, a debate about how people can be in a right relationship with God.

Given the orthodox Jewish view of justification, it is not surprising that a significant number of early Christians (primarily of Jewish origin) also believed that justification came through keeping the law of Moses. In believing this, they were being consistent with the orthodox Jewish tradition with which they were familiar; and this was the primary motivation behind the push on the part of the Christian Judaizers, that Gentile converts needed to become Jews and to follow the law of Moses to be saved. The summary of the content of the teaching of Paul’s Judaizing opponents in Acts 15:1, 5 is clear evidence for this. But as the decision of the Jerusalem Council clearly delineated, the apostolic belief of the early church was that, following the coming of Jesus and the commencement of the new covenant, the means of justification in the new covenant age is faith in Jesus rather than obedience to the law of Moses. This orthodox Christian belief came to be known as justification by faith by way of contrast to the traditional Jewish view of justification by the works of the law. Failing to understand the meaning of these terms in their historical context will distort our interpretation of Paul.

A Critique of Douglas Moo on Justification

On 11 August 2011 Douglas Moo delivered a lecture entitled Justification in the Crosshairs (see “Douglas Moo on Justification”). I found Moo’s lecture to be very stimulating. He expressed himself clearly, and was easy to follow.

In terms of a critique of the content of his views on justification, the major weakness with his presentation was that it presupposed a particular concept of faith and works from the beginning. The terms faith and works were not defined. I assume that Moo’s definition of these terms would be similar to Martin Luther’s anthropological definition. The question needs to be asked, however: what is the biblical concept of faith? In particular, what is the Old Testament concept of emunah (אמונה), and is Paul’s use of faith language consistent with the Old Testament use of emunah? The issue at this point is: is faith (following Luther) a positive response of the human spirit solely to divine promise, or (following the Old Testament) the proper covenant response to the totality of divine revelation? A lot of Protestant discussions of justification assume a Lutheran faith versus works distinction from the outset, and fail to critique these inherited presuppositions in the light of Scripture.

I agree with Moo’s opinion of what justification in the realm of salvation is. Justification in the realm of salvation is the divine declaration by God in his function as Judge that a particular individual is legally in the right, assessed from God’s standard of righteousness. In other words, justification is the divine declaration that a particular person has lived up to (for whatever reason) God’s standard of righteousness. I also agree, as Moo stated contra Tom Wright, that belonging to God’s people is not justification, but a necessary consequence thereof.

In terms of how justification occurs, Moo’s discussion focused on absolute justification, and failed to acknowledge that the Bible also speaks about justification on the level of covenant responsibilities. Absolute justification is concerned with absolute moral perfection. On this level, Moo correctly pointed out that double imputation occurs in the substitutionary function of Christ as the perfect sacrifice that brings forgiveness to his people. Imputation itself (in terms of how systematic theology uses the term) is not justification per se, but justification in Christ on the level of absolute righteousness does presuppose double imputation. It is hard to avoid using the language of imputation at this point, given its usage as a technical term in Christian theology; but at the same time, it is important to notice that imputation in Scripture (i.e, the usage of חשב and λογίζω) has to do with the judicial reckoning of someone as righteous or wicked. Imputation in its scriptural usage is an integral part of the act of judicial justification; but in its systematic theological usage imputation has to do with how the righteous status of Christ is transferred to the believer, thereby enabling the divine judicial pronouncement (which is justification proper) to be made. Even though there are problems with the overlap of similar terms between biblical theology and systematics at this point, I nevertheless believe that the doctrine of double imputation can be derived from Scripture from the way in which atonement took place in the tabernacle. On the Day of Atonement, the priest placed his hand on the head of the goat, symbolizing the transfer of the sins of the people onto the scapegoat (Lev 16:20–22). The death of the other goat, which had to be a perfect specimen (like all sacrificial animals), also meant that the blood of the perfect sacrificial victim could cleanse the sins of the people represented (Lev 16:17–19). This requirement of “perfection” on the part of the animal sacrificial victims was a foreshadowing of Christ, who also had to be perfect or “without blemish” (see Heb 9:13–14). Hence, Christ’s active obedience to the will of God was necessary for his absolute righteousness to be established in order that he might be able to perfect the people of God absolutely through his offering of himself as a sacrifice of atonement.

I also agree with Moo that the phrase the works of the law is more than what James Dunn and Tom Wright have allowed for. Paul’s problem with the works of the law extended to the totality of the law, not just the boundary markers of circumcision, the food laws, and the Sabbath. Moo is correct, therefore, to state that the works of the law denotes obedience to Mosaic torah. The phrase the works of the law is Jewish code for doing the law, i.e., being faithful to the torah of Moses. I believe, however, that Moo is incorrect to assert that the works of the law were viewed by Paul as being a subset of works (i.e., obedience) in general. The logical convenience of this a fortiori argument by Moo is that the common Lutheran anthropological distinction between faith and works can stand. Moo’s a fortiori argument is valid, as long as it is applied to the domain of absolute righteousness. I suspect, however, that Moo does not limit the application of his a fortiori argument in this way. The lack of a concept of covenant righteousness in Moo’s system means that he fails to ask the question of whether or not the issue of justification that was being debated in the early church functioned primarily on the level of covenantal justification rather than on the level of absolute righteousness. The role of Christ in providing perfect atonement was not a point of debate between between Paul and the Christian Judaizers. The point of debate was how people benefit from Christ and everything that he has done: by following the law of Moses (the works of the law), or by following the gospel of Christ (faith)? If Moo’s larger set of works includes Christian obedience such that good works or evangelical obedience have no role in relation to justification on the level of covenant responsibilities, then Moo has effectively excised those parts of the New Testament which link good works or obedience in with justification and salvation (e.g., Matt 7:21; 25:14–46; John 14:21, 23–24; 15:2, 6, 10; Rom 2:6–11, 13; Gal 6:7–9)? I know that Moo acknowledges that works have some part to play in relation to the future aspect of justification, but his lack of a concept of covenant righteousness muddies the water at this point. Adopting the classic Calvinist concept of double justification could bring clarity to his argument.

In regard to the phrase the faith of Christ and variants of this, I agree with Moo that the issue of the day was how people benefit from the salvation that Christ has come to bring. In the light of this broader context, it would make sense that the default meaning of the phrase the faith of Christ would be the faith that a believer has in Christ. Obviously more specific contextual issues are involved in particular instances of this phrase; but where there is no immediate contextual argument to the contrary, then the phrase the faith of Christ and its equivalents should be taken in the default sense.

In discussing the time at which justification takes place, Moo correctly states that initial justification occurs at the point of conversion. If justification is “in Christ,” then justification is one of the benefits of being a member of Christ’s body. Moo did not mention that conversion in the early church ordinarily also involved a formal confession of faith in the context of baptism, but to link initial justification in with conversion is nevertheless correct. Moo also did not speak of a state of justification that the believer abides in (thanks to his or her union with Christ), yet I think that it would have been worthwhile to mention this in passing. Moo emphasized that there is also a future aspect to justification; and he is to be commended for doing so, despite the controversial nature of this to some Protestants. He noted that works have some role to play in this future aspect of justification, but he said that he was unsure of how this could be fully reconciled with the idea of justification by faith alone. He said that there is a biblical tension here that we have to acknowledge. This is where a concept of covenantal justification could have been cited to great effect. On the last day believers will also be judged according to their works. That is to say, there will be a judgment for believers in accordance with how they have lived up to their responsibilities before God on the level of the covenant. On that day believers will hear Christ the Judge say, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” or words to that effect. The expression well done, good and faithful servant is by definition a justification. It is a legal pronouncement acknowledging that one has fulfilled one’s covenant responsibilities before God (in the context of the absolute righteousness of Christ). This justification operates on the level of covenant responsibilities. It is, therefore, wrong to effectively confuse this justification with the absolute justification that comes through Christ. There is definitely a linkage between the two, but they operate on separate conceptual levels. From a biblical point of view, the only people who benefit from the atoning power of the covenant sacrifice(s) are the covenantally righteous as opposed to the wicked. By not distinguishing the absolute and covenantal types of justification from each other from the outset, Moo has effectively had to take cover behind the idea of “biblical tension” at this point in a manner which is unnecessary and a little vague.

In speaking of how the biblical view of justification leads to assurance without presumption on the part of the believer, I find myself in thorough agreement with Moo. Yet Moo views a believer’s striving for holiness as being separate from faith. Could it be that faith on the level of the covenant includes a believer’s striving for holiness? This possibility was not entertained, neither was the question of what happens to justification if a believer commits apostasy and is cut off from Christ, nor the question of how it is that a believer can know that they have been justified in the first place. In regard to the knowledge of one’s individual justification, Moo’s presentation of the doctrine of justification could benefit from a consideration of chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession where the assurance (i.e., the knowledge) of grace and salvation (including the truth of individual justification) is something about which only those “as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him” can be assured (WCF 18.1). In other words, a knowledge of one’s justification is deduced from the experiential reality of a believer’s union with Christ, and it is contingent on being (and remaining) in Christ. In the words of the Westminster Confession, the assurance of being “in the state of grace” is “founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, [and] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God … without extraordinary revelation” (WCF 18.1–3).

I would, therefore, have preferred for Moo to speak about initial justification on the level of the covenant, which assumes (subject to a believer’s perseverance) the application of absolute justification in Christ, and also about a state of justification in which one abides in Christ, along with justification on the final day on both the covenantal and absolute levels.

Overall, I think that Moo has tried to be balanced and to grapple honestly with the biblical teaching on justification; but so much of the New Testament teaching on justification presupposes Old Testament covenantal categories. To the extent that Moo did not allow the Old Testament conceptual background on justification to impact his interpretation of Paul, the snapshot of justification presented in the lecture was deficient. But it was good to stimulated by a humble, thoughtful Christian scholar on this important issue; and I pray God’s blessing upon him and his work in the future.

Douglas Moo on Justification

On 11 August 2011 Douglas Moo, an influential New Testament scholar, delivered the Eliza Ferrie Public Lecture at the Audrey Keown Theatre at the Presbyterian Ladies College in Croydon, New South Wales, Australia. The lecture was entitled Justification in the Crosshairs.

Introduction

Douglas Moo

Moo began by identifying himself as a child of the Reformation committed to the principles of semper reformanda and sola scriptura. He then noted that the doctrine of justification has moved firmly into the center of theological discussion in recent years, due to the influence of the New Perspective on Paul, the desire for ecumenical unity, a general cultural distaste for doctrine, and an emphasis on practical Christianity.

The major part of the lecture focused on what Moo regards as the key issues of justification: (1) what is justification; (2) how does justification happen; and (3) when does justification occur?

What is Justification?

Moo identified three main opinions regarding justification. He contrasted justification as total transformation (i.e., a right legal status before God plus moral renewal) with the purely forensic view of justification advocated by the Reformers, where justification is simply the declaration of the status of being legally in the right before God. The third influential view identified by Moo was the idea of Tom Wright that justification is God’s declaration that we belong to his people, i.e., that Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God with the same status before God as the Jews.

Moo sided with the second view, stating that the relevant Greek words focus on legal standing. He dismissed the objection against this view that it makes justification into a legal fiction. Justification is a legal decision that has important and real consequences. Justification concerns the individual’s personal relationship before God. This vertical dimension is primary. Contra Tom Wright, belonging to God’s people is not justification, but a necessary result of justification.

How Does Justification Occur?

Moo followed John Calvin’s idea that justification and sanctification are two of the important benefits experienced by those united to Christ by faith. While noting that a belief in imputation was not ascribed to universally among the Reformers, Moo argued that double imputation (i.e., the idea that through union with Christ our sin is imputed to him, and his righteousness is imputed to us) is “a reasonable and appropriate deduction” from Scripture. Moo agrees with Luther’s idea of Christ’s righteousness as being an alien righteousness, and he spoke of Christ’s active and passive righteousness as being involved in the righteousness imputed to believers.

Regarding the meaning of the phrase the works of the law, Moo distinguished between torah faithfulness and doing torah. He cited James Dunn as a representative of the first view, where the phrase the works of the law is taken as denoting faithfulness to the Mosaic law torah with a view to maintaining Israel’s special status before God, distinct from Gentiles. This narrow definition of the works of the law allows the advocates of this position to distinguish the works of the law from works in general. Disagreeing with the idea that the phrase the works of the law denotes an exclusively Jewish torah faithfulness, Moo nevertheless expressed his opinion that this phrase specifically denotes obedience to Mosaic torah. At the same time, however, Moo stated that the works of the law should be considered to be a subset of works generally. Using a kind of a fortiori argument, his application of the Pauline teaching about faith and works is: if doing the torah of Moses was unable to save Israel, then doing any “lesser” kinds of works must be even more deficient.

On the issue of the meaning of the phrase the faith of Christ in Pauline usage, Moo is of the opinion that the wider context of Galatians supports the idea that the faith of Christ denotes the believer’s faith in Christ rather than the faithfulness of Christ himself.

When Does Justification Occur?

Moo began this section of his lecture by stating that certain forms of Protestant theology have an unbalanced view of certain aspects of justification. Citing Rom 5:1, 9, Moo stated that justification is talked about in the New Testament as being a definitive event in the present. In other words, justification is settled at the point of conversion. Justification leads to a holy life which in turn leads to salvation on the final day.

But this is not all there is to justification. Moo also stressed that there exists a future aspect to justification, an idea to which mainstream Protestant theology has given little attention. He upheld the NIV’s translation of Gal 5:5 as an example of justification in the future. The issue in Galatians is not initial justification, but justification understood as vindication in the future on the last day. Moo stressed that it is incorrect to speak of two justifications, but being faithful to Scripture does lead us to speak of two aspects of justification. There is “a biblical tension at this point” that should be acknowledged. While expressing that he was not totally sure how these two aspects of justification could be reconciled, Moo suggested that the future aspect of justification is probably to be understood in terms of being a public confirmation on the last day of the initial justification that has already taken place in the life of a believer.

Moo linked this second aspect of justification in with the biblical doctrine of judgment according to works. Disagreeing with the common Protestant view that views works as merely evidential, Moo argued that works contribute to final salvation “in some way,” yet it must be understood that these works are those that God enables the believer to perform. Moo contrasted the zero sum model that views divine agency and human agency as operating in competition with each other with the biblical tension model that views divine agency and human agency working together, the divine agency being primary, and human agency secondary.

The Practical Implications of Justification

Moo stated that justification, understood within the biblical tension of the present and future aspects of the concept, leads to assurance without presumption. We are justified fully by faith, yet at the same time we need to earnestly strive for holiness.

Summary

Moo concluded his lecture by stating that the ultimate cause of justification is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, whereas the instrumental cause is faith alone, yet this is a faith that goes together with works (Jas 2:14–25; Gal 5:6).

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).

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.

The Apostle Paul's Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Law

I believe that the key to understanding Paul’s teaching on law and gospel is actually found in the Old Testament. In particular, what does the Old Testament say about the role of old covenant law, eschatological law, and the gospel? Sadly, these questions have not been asked by the majority of those who have sought to interpret Paul’s teaching in Galatians and Romans. The key to understanding the debate concerning justification by the works of the law in the early church actually lies in understanding that the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant in which present and future grace was conditional upon works, i.e., upon obedience to the covenant performed in the context of grace. In other words, the Mosaic covenant is at one and the same time a covenant of grace and a covenant of works.

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 law:

“While it is definitely true that Christ is the only person who has kept God’s law perfectly and that his perfect righteousness must cover a person’s iniquity in order that he or she might be able to live in the presence of the most holy God, it is to overlook the gracious nature of the Mosaic law to keep on talking of the Mosaic law as if it required the absolute perfection of the people of Israel per se and to ignore the Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness. Rather, the truth of the matter is that it is precisely because no ordinary Israelite could keep God’s requirements absolutely that God in his grace provided a means of atonement for the people through the sacrificial system, which was an integral part of the Mosaic law. Significantly, the fact that the grace of the forgiveness of sins was built into the Mosaic law is the very thing that made it possible for some Israelites to keep the Mosaic law in the divinely intended covenantal sense” (p. 124).

“Understanding the gracious nature of the Mosaic law and how this establishes a valid doctrine of justification by the works of the Mosaic law is also the key to understanding the dual function that the Mosaic law had under the old covenant. To summarize this dual function, the Mosaic law had, on the one hand, a justifying and vivifying function, and on the other hand, a condemnatory and mortifying function. The law justified and vivified those who covenantally kept the law (Deut 6:25; 30:15-16, 19-20; Ps 19:7; 119:93, 156), but it condemned and mortified those who did not keep it in the required covenantal sense (Deut 30:15, 18-19)” (pp. 125–6).

“It will be argued below that Paul understood this dual function of covenant law in the Old Testament, and that his teaching in Galatians and Romans reflects this dual function of torah. Paul’s teaching in these epistles should not be interpreted in a way that makes him contradict the Old Testament teaching on the justifying and vivifying function of the Mosaic law for those among old covenant Israel who had the law of God written on their hearts by his Spirit” (p. 126).

It is to be noted that I am arguing in a manner consistent with orthodox Judaism that justification by covenantal obedience to the Mosaic law (what Paul and his Jewish opponents called justification by the works of the law) is a legitimate Mosaic (or Old Testament) doctrine as Deut 6:25 clearly posits:

“and righteousness will be ours, if we observe to do all this commandment before Yahweh our God, as he has commanded us” (Deut 6:25).

To quote from John Davies’s study on Deut 6: “It is inescapable from a reading of Deuteronomy 6 that central to God’s covenant with Israel is the call to love him unreservedly, with all that this entails. Without such love, Israel cannot expect to be ‘right’ with God, or to enjoy any of the previously promised blessings. To put it bluntly, salvation necessitates loving obedience as its sine qua non” (John Davies, “Love for God—A Neglected Theological Locus,” in An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell [Reformed Theological Review Supplement Series 4; eds. John A. Davies and Allan Harman; Doncaster: Reformed Theological Review, 2010], 151).

In the light of Deut 6:25, the question is: does the Old Testament record anyone as having kept torah, and in particular the torah of Moses?

“The Old Testament speaks of God’s torah as something that was indeed kept, albeit by only a small number of people in the Old Testament age. This fact needs to be acknowledged and integrated into our Protestant systematic theologies. Abraham, for example, is described by God as being a person who ‘obeyed [Yahweh’s] voice and kept [his] charge, [his] commandments … statutes … and … laws’ (Gen 26:5). David is also acknowledged by God in 1 Kings 14:8 as being someone ‘who kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes.’ From the Old Testament perspective, therefore, torah is doable. Both Abraham and David were keepers of torah” (Coxhead, "Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm," 123), although it should be noted that the torah kept by Abraham was not the torah of Moses.

But the fact that Mosaic torah was doable means that the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant. Furthermore, if Mosaic torah is actually doable, then it logically follows that justification by the works of the law is a legitimate Old Testament concept. But it was legitimate only for a time. As Paul will argue, justification by the works of the Mosaic law is a doctrine (1) that excludes the Gentiles, (2) that “failed” (according to God’s plan) to bring justification to Israel as a whole, and (3) that does not apply in the new covenant age.

The Significance of Romans 1–2: When Jews Are Gentiles, and Gentiles Are Jews

There is a popular understanding of Rom 1–2 which says that in Rom 1:18–32 Paul convicts Gentiles of sin, and in Rom 2 he convicts Jews of sin. But this view is too simplistic.

Romans 1:18–32 should actually be viewed as forming a section with 2:1–29. This is evident from the fact that the language of Rom 2:1–3 refers back to the content of Rom 1:18–32. The word therefore in 2:1 links the beginning of the chapter in very closely with what has gone before. The phrases the very same things (2:1) and such things (2:2–3) do likewise.

So, Rom 1:18–2:29 should be treated as a common section, in which Paul is concerned to develop his first line of argument against his diatribal opponent. Paul's line of argument is developed over two stages, which then corresponds to the two main sub-sections of this section: 1:18–32 and 2:1–29.

In 1:18–32, Paul paints a picture of God’s wrath revealed from heaven against all instances of sin. This wrath is a pre-eschatological expression of God’s wrath that is pan-ethnic in nature. Even though the content of this sub-section is often thought of as being a description of God’s wrath directed against Gentiles, this is to misunderstand the nature of Paul’s argument. Even though some of the major sins enumerated here (such as idolatry and homosexual sin) were particularly associated in the Jewish mind with Gentiles rather than Jews, it should be noted that Paul does not use ethnic labels in 1:18–32. Instead, he employs the universal language of humanity (1:18). Then in 2:1 he applies this divine wrath to the unbelieving Jew of his day. The argument in 1:18–32 is, therefore, preparatory to that found in 2:1–29.

It is almost as if Paul has set his Jewish opponents a trap. In 1:18–32 he draws them in. "Yes, what else would you expect from Gentile sinners!" you can almost hear his Jewish opponents saying. But then in 2:1–5, 17-24 he turns the tables on his Jewish opponents, accusing them of the very same sins for which they had despised the Gentiles. "Got you!" says Paul. So, Rom 1:18–32 is actually preparatory to the main part of the first-line of his argument, which is given in 2:1–29.

In the second sub-section (2:1–29), Paul applies God’s wrath particularly to his non-Christian Jewish opponents, and in doing so he asserts the principle of a universal judgment according to works (2:6). The main function of the argument in this sub-section is to apply the principle of a universal judgment according to works to both Jew and Gentile in an attempt to destroy the fence of covenant righteousness that the Jewish covenantal exclusivists had built around themselves. On the one hand, he assumes that his Jewish opponents are sinners in need of repentance (2:4–5); and on the other hand, he asserts the possibility of Gentiles keeping the law (2:14–15, 26–27).

Paul engages his Jewish opponents in a virtual way through the use of diatribe. The rhetorical device of diatribe involves a writer or speaker taking on the persona of a debater conducting an argument against an opponent. It is characterized by direct address of one's opponent and the use of second person pronouns (e.g., 2:1–5, 17–19, 21–25), and by the extensive use of questions that embody the argument of one's opponents, which the rhetorician then bounces off to argue his case further (e.g., 3:1, 5, 9, 27, 31).

It is clear from 2:17–20 that Paul was conducting this diatribe with an orthodox Jew who is an advocate of traditional Jewish covenant theology. Paul applies the pre-eschatological revelation of God’s wrath mentioned in 1:18–32 to his Jewish opponents, and extends it by speaking of the wrath of God in its eschatological form, which unrepentant Jews will also have to face (2:1–5). In fact, on the day of judgment, the law-keeping Gentile will judge the law-breaking Jew (2:26–27).

In Rom 2 Paul is concerned to destroy the fence of Jewish covenantal particularism by asserting the principle of a universal judgment according to works (2:6–11) and by opening up the possibility of law-keeping and covenant righteousness on the part of the Gentiles (2:14–16, 26–27). Through the work of God’s Spirit writing the law and circumcising Gentile hearts (2:14–15, 29), Gentiles can now (i.e., in the new covenant age) participate on an equal footing with Jews in covenant righteousness (2:14, 26) and receive eternal life (2:7), glory and honor and peace (2:10), and even praise from God (2:29), as a result. Paul is not talking about the noble pagan in chapter 2. He is talking about Gentile Christians.

Paul's Jewish opponents believed that righteousness and salvation could only be attained by means of physical circumcision and a commitment to doing the law of Moses. But Paul had come to understand that the new covenant truths of Deut 30:6, 11–14; Jer 31:33; and Ezek 36:26-27 also applied to Gentiles through faith in Christ. That is to say, Paul had come to see how justification by faith in Christ had effectively opened up justification by the works of the law to Gentiles (as per the logic of 2:13) through the grace of the Spiritual circumcision of the heart that Christ had come to achieve as a key element of the new covenant!

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.

Faith and Justification in the Old Testament

The following is in response to comments 3-5 from John Thomson to my post entitled “Justification by the Works of the Law in Pauline Perspective.” Because of the length of the response, it is placed here as a post.

Thanks, John. You are definitely thinking a lot about his. Keep up the good work to honor God in your understanding of Scripture, and thank you for your challenge for me to do the same.

Maybe where we differ is that you seem to limit faith to belief in promise. You do so on the basis of a certain understanding of Paul, but my suggestion has been that Paul’s faith/promise distinction is not a linguistic or literary generic distinction, but primarily a salvation-historical one. We need to explore that further over time.

I feel strongly that the evidence from the Old Testament itself leads to the conclusion that the Old Testament concept of faith is not limited merely to promise. It is directed to the totality of whatever it is that God reveals. Faith is not a matter of picking and choosing what part of God’s revelation that you will accept; it is accepting the whole counsel of God. This is a key point. This means that the faith of the Old Testament saints was not directed solely to the Messiah as if he stood independent of the rest of old covenant revelation. How did Israel know about the Messiah? He was revealed to them through Moses and the prophets, and with greater clarity over time. The prophecies concerning the Messiah and the new covenant that are present in the Old Testament are part of the torah of Moses and prophets. In other words, the gospel was revealed to Israel through the law and the prophets. Therefore, the gospel in prophetic form was actually a subset of old covenant law. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and 30:1-14 are classic examples of this. This means that Israel’s faith in torah included faith in the gospel. Faith in the Old Testament cannot be limited solely to faith in the gospel. Consider the author of Ps 119. He says in v. 66: “I believe in your commandments.” His faith was clearly directed to torah. Torah functioned for him as a proleptic gospel as he responded to it in faith, and this faith in torah also included faith in the full substance of the gospel that would come in Christ as revealed to him through torah by way of prophecy.

This seems to be consistent with Paul's understanding when he says: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it" (Rom 3:21; note also 1:16-17). The gospel was mediated to old covenant Israel through torah (i.e., Old Testament torah testified to the saving righteousness of God in Christ); but once the Messiah has come, law and gospel can be spoken of as being distinct revelations (i.e., the saving righteousness of God in Christ is revealed apart from the law of Moses).

I agree that we need to have an Old Testament study on the nature of faith. That will help to solve this issue. My doctorate is concerned with this, so hopefully I’ll be able to contribute more to this in the future, but I’ll seek to post things every so often as they are relevant and as I have time. The key, I believe, is studying the idea of faith in the Abraham narrative.

You also keep saying that no one back then could keep covenant with God. This is not consistent with the Old Testament presentation of the matter. We can explore this further in my next post on Ps 119.

I would argue that Rom 9:33, which is a quotation of Isa 28:16 merged with Isa 8:14, is an eschatological text. You are taking it as if it were applicable throughout salvation history. But Isa 28:16 occurs in an eschatological context, and I would argue that this is exactly how Paul has taken it, as a prophecy of his own day and the Gentile period of the new covenant age. The laying of the stumbling stone in Zion is a prophecy about how the Israelites would reject the Messiah when he came to them in person.

In suggesting that Paul was talking about the fullness of justification, I am not saying that justification by the works of the law was less than 100% justification as far as being a judgment that an individual Israelite had met his or her covenant obligation before God. But justification under the Mosaic covenant was not full justification in the sense that full vindication and blessing could not come for the Old Testament saints during the old covenant age. In the end, the eschatological justification of the individual goes together with the justification of the whole people of God. The finger cannot be fully justified in a realized eschatological sense without the justification of the whole body of which it is a part. Furthermore, being limited to Israel, justification by the works of the law was not a justification that all flesh could participate in. As individual believers we are justified in Christ, who is the body. Maybe I need to talk of old covenant justification by the works of the law as being non-eschatological, and Paul’s concept of justification by faith as being primarily eschatological. I do admit that finding language to describe these things is difficult at times.

Having the law in the heart is not solely a new covenant privilege. I believe it is wrong to interpret Jer 31:33 as if it were saying that. The Holy Spirit was also at work in the old covenant age, but his work was limited to the faithful remnant. What Jeremiah is saying (when read in the context of the rest of the Old Testament) is that this work which was limited during the Mosaic age will become much more comprehensive under the new covenant as the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh.

I agree with the perspective of Heb 7:18, looking at the law of Moses from the vantage point of the new covenant; but Heb 7:18 still needs to read in such a way that it is consistent with Ps 119. The author of Ps 119 viewed the law of Moses (the “former commandment”) as primarily positive. The question is: How do we reconcile Ps 119 with Hebrews? Keep an eye out for my next post on Ps 119.

Justification by the Works of the Law in Pauline Perspective

A number of times commentators on this blog have raised the question of how Paul’s negative view of works of the law fits in with my suggestion that a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law existed as part of the Mosaic covenant.

Upon the established of the covenant at Sinai, the Abrahamic promise regarding blessing for Israel was channeled through the Mosaic covenant. In this way, Israel’s response to the Mosaic covenant would not only be her response to the word of God as revealed through Moses, but would also constitute her response to the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As Israel responded positively to the Mosaic covenant, she would be judged by God as acting rightly under the terms of the covenant. Acting rightly for Israel was faith, an acceptance of the word of God; but because the word of God revealed to Israel dealt with all sorts of things, Israel’s faith was by definition holistic in nature. Hence, the typical Mosaic description of Israel’s covenant obligation as being that of obeying God’s voice and keeping his covenant (Exod 19:5). Furthermore, as Israel responded rightly, God's judgment that she had been acting rightly would result in her being declared righteous under the terms of the covenant (Deut 6:25). In other words, a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law applied to Israel under the Mosaic covenant. Being adjudged by God to be covenantally righteous on the basis of this holistic faith (i.e., through a positive response to the law of Moses), all the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, would follow as a consequence of God’s promise of blessing to the righteous.

The idea that there was a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law during the old covenant age obviously contradicts the common Protestant interpretation of Paul which says that no one (apart from Christ) can ever be justified by the works of the law. But this common understanding of Paul is the result of reading Paul in isolation from the theology of the Old Testament, for the Old Testament teaches that justification by the works of the law was a reality during the old covenant age. Contrary to the common Protestant assumption that no one (apart from Christ) can keep the law or keep covenant with God, the Old Testament teaches that the law could be kept, and that it was indeed kept by some Israelites. This is evident in the Old Testament teaching that a righteous minority in Israel had the law written on their hearts (Ps 37:31; 119:11, 69), and in the claim of a number of godly Israelites that they had kept covenant with God (Ps 44:17-18; 119:56). Those Israelites who had the law of Moses written on their heart and who consequently kept covenant with God were the faithful remnant. By God’s grace, David was an example of such a person (1 Kgs 14:8; Ps 18:20-24). That the law could be kept, and was kept by a faithful minority in Israel, is due to the fact that the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant. Keeping the law was not a matter of absolute perfection, but being committed to the covenant in the context of grace.

Now if a doctrine of justification by the works of the law applied to old covenant Israel, how did they go? Ever since the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, the Old Testament has been interested in this issue. So how did Israel go in her covenant relationship with God? Terribly is the answer. But it is not as if all were as equally as bad as each other. To be precise, the Old Testament teaches that the faithful minority kept covenant with God, but the disobedient majority broke covenant with God. And here is the important point: because the majority of Israel broke covenant with God, the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation as a whole (see Ps 44:4-22). In other words, even though the faithful remnant were covenantally righteous, the blessings that God had promised to the righteous could not be realized for them in full under the Mosaic covenant. Even after the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon, sin was still a problem in Israel. Thus, the Old Testament record of the constant problem of covenant disobedience in Israel leads to the conclusion that the Mosaic covenant was not able to bring in righteousness and the fullness of blessing for the nation. Justification by the works of the law was not able to bring the fullness of justification or blessing to Israel, let alone to all the families of the earth, the other nations being excluded from membership in the Mosaic covenant by definition.

This impotency of the Mosaic covenant to achieve full justification and blessing led the Old Testament prophets to look forward to a new covenant, which would be characterized by a more powerful work of God in the hearts of his people (Deut 30:6; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26), which would move them to covenant obedience (Deut 30:14; Ezek 36:27), in order that the promised blessings might finally be realized (Deut 30:1-10; Ezek 36:28-30). The failure of the Mosaic covenant also led the faithful remnant to place their hope in the righteousness of God that would be revealed in the future (Ps 98:1-3; Isa 51:4-6; 59:15b-20), when God would act to bring in the fullness of salvation and the realization of all that he had promised. This righteousness of God would be revealed in the sight of the nations (Ps 98:2), and torah observance, and hence covenant righteousness, would be opened up to the nations as a result (Isa 2:1-4; 42:1-4; 49:6).

Hence Paul’s reading of the Old Testament is correct: justification by the works of the law was not and is not able to bring the fullness of justification and the blessing of Abraham to all flesh. This would only be achieved through the eschatological revelation of the righteousness of God apart from the law of Moses (Rom 3:21) in the person and work of the Messiah, to which all people (regardless of nationality; Rom 3:29-30) can respond positively, by faith in the Messiah and his message, the gospel (Rom 3:22). Hence the new covenant doctrine of justification by faith in Christ (Rom 3:28), and Paul’s polemic that it was a wrong for the orthodox Jews and Christian Judaizers of his day to think that adherence to the Mosaic covenant could solve the problem of human sin.

A Response to Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification: Part Two

This post intends to respond to points 1-3 in Dave Woolcott's critique of my view of justification. Dave's critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled “Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification,” or on his blog in his post entitled “A response to Steven Coxhead’s ‘Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled.’”

In point no. 1, Dave states that I believe that "there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam." Yes, that is what I believe. God's law as revealed to Adam (before he was kicked out of the garden) effectively contained two laws that we know of: (1) the law permitting him to eat food from all plants and trees with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 1:29; 2:16-17); and (2) the creation mandate (Gen 1:28). There was also no provision built into these laws for the forgiveness of sin. The law of Moses on the other hand contained many laws (most of Exod 20–Deut 30), and a large number of these laws had to do with the sacrificial system that offered the forgiveness of sins to the people (e.g., Lev 1-7).

Dave states that I am seeking to reconcile God's covenant with Adam and the law of Moses, but that is not correct. The point of the 32 theses is to reconcile the Old Testament teaching concerning absolute righteousness and covenant righteousness, not the Adamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant. The focus is on the Mosaic covenant, and the two strands of righteousness that emerge there. The question that I am addressing in the 32 theses is: How does the need for the absolute righteousness provided through sacrifice fit in with the divine requirement for covenant commitment on the part of Israel?

The reason I distinguish between God's law in the garden and God's law to Israel is because many people fail to see the way in which grace was inbuilt into the Mosaic law as seen in the laws regarding sacrifice and atonement. Or to put things in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, our (i.e., Presbyterian Church of Australia) confessional standard: the Mosaic covenant belongs to the administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. The Confession teaches that "perfect and personal obedience" was required of Adam in the covenant of works (WCF 7.2), which contrasts with the requirement of faith under the covenant of grace. In other words, the Confession teaches that absolute obedience was required by Adam, which implies that there was no inherent provision for the forgiveness of sins under the covenant of works, otherwise the requirement would have been something other than absolute obedience.

Dave has understood me correctly in his point no. 2. The covenant with Adam did not contain provisions to deal with sin. That is why it is called a covenant of works (WCF 7.2). But the Mosaic covenant did contain provisions for the forgiveness of sin. That is why the Confession groups the Mosaic administration as part of the covenant of grace (see WCF 7.5). The Confession includes the laws that make provision for sin within the category of ceremonial laws: "God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ... ceremonial laws ... prefiguring Christ" (WCF 19.3). Notice that the Confession states that such laws were given to (old covenant) Israel. The Confession also acknowledges that grace was offered to Israel through the sacrificial system (and through other things, such as promises and prophecies), and that all of these were "sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit" for the "full remission of sins, and eternal salvation," because they foresignified Christ (WCF 7.5). In speaking of Mosaic law as including atoning grace to the extent that the sacrificial system prefigures Christ, and in distinguishing this from Adamic law, I believe I am being completely consistent with our confessional standard.

I also have to disagree with Dave's interpretation of Ps 40:6 and Hos 6:6. The Old Testament doctrine of obedience rather than sacrifice was used by the Old Testament prophets not to devalue the need for sacrifice, but to point out that offering ritual sacrifice without covenant obedience is hypocrisy. Concerning Heb 10:1-10, my response is: Yes and no to Dave's suggestion that the Mosaic sacrificial system couldn't deal with sin. In and of itself the blood of bulls and goats cannot bring about the forgiveness of sins, but (as the Confession teaches) to the extent that the sacrifices were a proleptic presentation or prefiguring of Christ to the people of Israel, the sacrifices were "sufficient and efficacious" for atonement. The only sacrifice that counts is the perfect sacrifice of Christ, but the benefits of that were genuinely offered to old covenant Israel through the Mosaic sacrificial system.

Regarding the issue of immediate death for Adam, what I am referring to there is what God says in Gen 2:17: that in the day when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he would die. The death referred to there by God was primarily the spiritual death of separation from God. This death took place when Adam was kicked out of the garden, which happened almost immediately upon his being convicted of sin (Gen 3:21-24).

Regarding Dave's argument in his point no. 3, I think Dave is referring to thesis 16 when he says that "Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law ... but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied." I think further thinking is required on Dave's part here. He is using his either-or (more Lutheran-type) thinking to critique my (more Reformed) both-and type system. From the beginning of the Reformation, the Reformed side of Protestantism (as against the Lutheran side) has always acknowledged that there is a kind of righteousness that comes from obeying God's law in a genuine but imperfect way in the context of covenant grace. Calvin, for example, holds that after being justified by faith, when God considers our works he does so through the prism of Christ, and God's work of sanctification in us through the Holy Spirit, such that "the good works which are done by believers are deemed righteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness" (see Institutes 3.17.8). Calvin could actually speak of the imputation of good works as righteousness! I invite people to look it up for themselves if they don't believe it.

For anyone further interested in what is called Calvin's doctrine of double justification, you can read my two articles on the righteousness of works in Calvin's system: “John Calvin’s Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 303–16; and “John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine of Justification by Works,” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 1–19; or else read Mark Garcia's book Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin's Theology. I am also working on a third article on Calvin's doctrine of double justification, and I'll let you know when and where that may be published.

Regarding Dave's comments on Paul's use of Abraham in Rom 4, I think that the salvation-historical or covenantal interpretation of Paul makes a lot of sense here. If Paul's argument here is salvation-historical, his point is that Abraham is an example of a person who was right with God before anything like the works of the law (i.e., a faith response to the Mosaic revelation) was on the scene. In other words, in Gen 15 Abraham was right with God when he was a Gentile! If Gentiles could be right with God before the Mosaic covenant existed (or anything approximating it, circumcision being the key identifier), then what is to stop Gentiles being right with God now that the Messiah has come? Covenant righteousness (i.e., the right response to God) in the new covenant age effectively reverts back to the kind of righteousness that Gentile Abraham showed as he responded positively to God's (non-Mosaic) revelation. The righteousness of a positive response to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law) is, therefore, seen to be a temporary kind of righteousness, a possibility that applied only as long as the Mosaic covenant was operative. What once was gain—notice that Paul claims in Phil 3:6 that he possessed a blameless righteousness according to the Mosaic law, and he describes such righteousness as gain in Phil 3:7, i.e., it was a true form of righteousness as long as the Mosaic covenant was in operation—what once was gain is, after the coming of the new covenant in Christ, then seen to be loss in comparison with the righteousness that we can possess through faith in Christ. Paul came to understand that the new covenant righteousness of faith in Christ far surpasses the righteousness that Moses was on about in Deut 6:25.

But even if you don't go for a covenantal interpretation of Rom 4, it is wrong to take verses such as Rom 3:10, 20 and make them contradict Rom 10:5, Deut 6:25, and Ezek 18:5-9. Please look at how Calvin interpreted Ezek 18. Calvin doesn't go for the covenantal interpretation of Paul, but he doesn't go for a Lutheran interpretation either. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that after justification by faith has been established, a legitimate form of justification or righteousness on the level of works also exists.

All in all, we who claim to be Reformed really need to understand that the Reformed side of the Reformation has a more nuanced or balanced view on righteousness than exists on the Lutheran side of the Reformation. Luther, for example, acknowledged the righteousness of faith, whereas Calvin acknowledges the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works in a subordinate sense. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that righteousness language is used in the Bible of the covenant obedience of believers. Think about the righteousness of Noah (Gen 6:9), the righteousness of David (Ps 18:20-24), the righteousness of the author of Ps 119 (Ps 119:30, 56), the righteousness of Zecharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). In Calvin's system, this is the righteousness of obedience, the righteousness of people who responded genuinely and positively, albeit imperfectly, to God's word in the context of grace, where the righteousness of faith is already presupposed. If we claim to be Reformed, we seriously need to make sure that we understand Calvin's doctrine of double justification before suggesting that someone's view of justification is deficient simply because it links righteousness with the good works of believers.

Calvin could speak of justification by faith alone and of the imputation of the good works of believers as righteousness. When Dave suggests, therefore, that I have forgotten that Jesus is the only one to whom the righteousness of works applies (because I admit that there a legitimate form of law righteousness under the Mosaic covenant to those who had torah written in their heart by the Holy Spirit), to be fair he should also accuse Calvin of having a deficient view of justification as well. In fact, Calvin doesn't just limit law righteousness as applying solely under the Mosaic covenant (which I think is Paul's preferred way of thinking), but he sees law righteousness as applying across salvation history!

Now if Dave really means to say in his point no. 3 that the righteousness of absolute obedience only applies to Christ, I thoroughly agree with him. But this does not rule out the fact that, in the Bible, covenant obedience (which is a genuine, albeit imperfect, positive response to the word of God that is worked in believers by the Spirit of God) is also called righteousness. Jesus came not only to be our righteousness, but also to make us righteous; and both of these types of righteousness are mentioned in the Scriptures.

A Response to Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification: Part One

Dave Woolcott has recently posted on his blog a response to the 32 theses listed in my website article “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled.” Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled “Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification,” or on his blog in his post entitled “A response to Steven Coxhead’s ‘Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled.’”

Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstood my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.

Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.

It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.

Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?

The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.

But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.

Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.

I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.

Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification

Dave Woolcott has recently offered a critique of how he understands my view of justification, and has suggested that we publish each others posts on this issue. So, the text below (in gray) is a copy of the relevant post from Dave Woolcott's blog: A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”. My response to Dave's critique will follow in the next few posts.

Now for something completely different! This is a bit heavy, I guess, but I believe important to discuss.

Steven Coxhead has posted on his website these 32 Theses regarding what is essentially his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Steven is a lecturer at our theological college, the PTC, and a link to Steven’s website can be found at the PTC Blog. For a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching, and I appreciate his attempt to publicise what he believes so that is can be weighed against scripture. You might like to read Steven’s Theses before reading my response, otherwise it will not make much sense!

My Response!

In his introduction Steven claims that he is not denying that justification is by faith alone. This is because he is using the terms “faith” and “works” covenantly, rather than anthropologically. The question needs to be asked though, “Is there a difference?” In my view, what Steven writes does undermine justification by faith alone, no matter how he claims to be using the terms “faith” and “works”, especially because he has not clarified the difference that this ‘covenant’ view has to the ‘anthropological’ when Paul does not appear to make such distinctions.

I believe there are a number of errors in Steven’s thinking. The major flaws are outlined below.

1 – Steven claims that there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam (pt 3). In many ways, this difference is at the heart of what Steven is trying to reconcile, but is there anything to reconcile? As we continue hopefully we will see that what Steven tries to reconcile is the same thing.

2 – The main difference that Steven is referring to is that the covenant with Adam did not deal with sin, but that the sacrificial system under the law of Moses did. The problem with this thinking is that the sacrificial system never dealt with sin (c.f. Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6, Hebrews 10:1-5). It should be noted that death was the result of sin for Adam, and Paul reminds us in Romans that the wages of sin are still death. At the same time, the Covenant with Adam did not refer to “immediate” death as claimed by Steven (pt 3).

3 – Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law (pt 6), but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied (pt 2). Paul himself uses Abram as an example against this very thinking. Abram, before the law of Moses (and after Adam), was considered righteous by God because he believed God (Genesis 15:6).

4 – Steven believes that there is more than one type of justification and more than one type of righteousness that need to be reconciled (pt 7). This is due to the difference Steven sees in the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic law (pt 3, 4, 5). As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the difference he claims is there, and in the same way I believe that Steven is mistaken if he believes there is more than one type of justification or righteousness. It is difficult for me to prove that something does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on Steven to produce evidence for this. My understanding of Scripture is that we are either absolutely of the light or absolutely of the darkness. We cannot be partially justified.

5 – Steven speaks as though it is our relationship with the covenant that is important in the OT (pt 8, 9, 10). In actual fact it is our relationship with God that is important. The covenant simply defines to some degree what the relationship is. It is a covenant relationship.

6 – Steven is under the impression that works of the law come before “absolute justification/righteousness” (pt 12, 22). Scripture gives a different understanding. Biblically it is always as a result of salvation that good works are performed. God certainly appears to work from this understanding in Exodus 20:2, when before the 10 commandments are given God reminds Israel that he is the God who has saved them. In Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the church in Rome to be living sacrifices in view of God’s mercy.

7 – No one has ever kept covenant with God. Even Moses failed to enter the promised land. In point 19 Steven suggests that the key difference between the old covenant and the new is that the mediator was Moses in the old, and is Jesus in the new. Moses, however, was a failed leader, an unworthy mediator. Jesus is the perfect prophet, priest and king, and ultimately the prophet, priest and king that Israel, even Moses, was waiting for.

8 – It is not an issue of correctly balancing two types of justification/righteousness, or for that matter, balancing the right combination of works and faith in Christ (pt 32). Even if you say that greater weight should be given to righteousness through faith in Christ, it is not about a balancing act. Rather it is about one coming before the other (though in the reverse order to what Steven claims in pt 28). It is through what God has done in Christ that believers are empowered to do good works – to become slaves to righteousness. John reminds us that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). In Christ we are taught how to love – how to fulfil the law (1 Thessalonians 4:9). With regards to the law, Paul says in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Through Ezekiel God made it clear that he would work in our heart with a new Spirit and that this would incline our hearts to follow his commands (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

9 – Steven does not realise that being under the law increases sin. Steven is working with a paradigm that suggests that being under the law will increase good works and even play a part in the process of salvation. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:7-11. When the law is combined with our flesh, sin and death are the result. How can Steven say that the law will bring the opposite BEFORE salvation? As a result, there is no good pastoral reason to point people towards works completely outside of the context of grace (pt 30, 31, 32).

10 – Under the ‘system’ that Steven proposes I wonder who it is that judges the correct balance between faith in Christ and works of the law. How does one know if they have the balance right? What assurance is there when it is not simply salvation/righteousness/justification through faith in Christ alone? I ask the question from both a covenantal and anthropological perspective.

In Conclusion, if I have misunderstood Steven or been unfair to him I would love to be corrected. I believe that this whole topic is central to our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and well worth discussing!