In Rom 4:13–17a, Paul gives a succinct explanation as to why the promise of the blessing of life must ultimately come through faith rather than through the Mosaic faith of obedience to torah. This further strengthens his argument in Rom 4:1–12 that the example of Abraham proves that the blessing of justification comes through faith rather than through the works of the law of Moses. The fact that Abraham was right with God even before he was circumcised proves that justification is not limited solely to bona fide members of the Mosaic covenant, contrary to what Paul’s non-Christian Jewish opponents and the Christian Judaizers were advocating; but this needed further explication.
Therefore, in Rom 4:13, Paul considers the issue of how the promise that God made with Abraham (for him and all of his spiritual descendants to inherit the world) would be realized. The promise was not “through the law … but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13). It is very important to realize that the word law in Rom 4:13 refers specifically to the law of Moses. The word law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general, but specifically the law over which Paul and his Jewish opponents were arguing, i.e., the law of Moses. We need to recognize at this point that the divine promise of blessing given to Abraham in Gen 12:2–3 is grammatically, and therefore logically, dependent on the command of Gen 12:1 (see “The Inheritance of Eternal Life through Faith instead of Law in Romans 4:13” for a more detailed explanation of this). But the law of command given to Abraham in Gen 12:1 is not law in the sense of being Mosaic law. As Paul points out in Gal 3:17, the law of Moses did not arrive on the scene until 430 years afterwards. In other words, the promise of the blessing of life that God graciously made with Abraham was not subject to the Mosaic covenant when it was first made. Even though this promise would effectively come under the regulation of the Mosaic covenant after Sinai, the promise was larger than the law of Moses. The Abrahamic covenant was not a subset of the Mosaic covenant; rather, the Mosaic covenant was a subset of the Abrahamic.
The significance of the promise being realized through the righteousness of faith for Abraham in the beginning is that, if the giving of the law some 430 years later were to change that original condition, then God would have shown himself to be inconsistent and unfaithful to his word. If the giving of the Mosaic law changed the original condition regarding the realization of the promise, then this would be to render faith useless, and the covenant of promise itself would end up being annulled (Rom 4:14). Implied in Paul’s argument in Rom 4:14 is that God would not do such a thing as this. Having entered into an agreement with Abraham concerning how Abraham and his descendants would be blessed, God could not rightly change this commitment midstream.
This then prompted the question (particularly to Paul’s Jewish opponents) concerning why the Mosaic covenant was given in the first place. If the Mosaic covenant is not the ultimate regulator of the realization of the promise, then why was the Mosaic covenant made in the first place? Why save Israel out of Egypt to place the nation under the law? Paul answers this question very succinctly in Rom 4:15: “For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” What Paul is really saying here is that the primary function of the law in old covenant Israel was to bring about God’s wrath against the people. This is not to say that obedience to the law was not the way of life for the small minority of Israelites who had the law written in their hearts during the old covenant age. Paul is speaking in Rom 4:15 in terms of the broad sweep of salvation history during the old covenant age. Romans 4:15 is not an abstract theological statement, but a statement explaining the function of covenant failure in salvation history. The law of Moses, far from being the solution (as Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocating), was part of the problem. The main purpose in God giving Israel the law was so that God’s anger would be revealed against sinful Israel, i.e., that Israel would be rendered guilty before God, without excuse (Rom 3:19–20).
In Rom 4:16 Paul explains the deeper purpose behind the primarily negative purpose in God giving the law. He identifies two main reasons. Firstly, the law was given to Israel so that God’s dealing with humanity might be “according to grace.” If Israel had kept covenant with God, and received blessing as a result, that would still be the work of God; but Israel initially failing, only to be restored later on, makes for a better story in the sense that the gracious side of God’s character has an opportunity to be revealed. It is almost as if God, wanting to prove his greatness and humanity’s total dependence on him, has deliberately set things up for humanity in Adam, and Israel in Moses, to fail, “in order that every mouth might be stopped, and the whole world come under the judgment of God” (Rom 3:19–20), in order that his gracious response might be seen and appreciated. Simply put, the fact that the promise of eternal life ultimately comes through faith in Jesus rather than through submission to the Mosaic covenant serves to highlight God’s grace. Secondly, justification by faith also means that salvation is not just limited to Israel, but every believer (regardless of ethnic origin) can participate in the promise. Didn’t God say in Gen 17:5 that Abraham would be “the father of many nations” (Rom 4:17)? In fact, that is the meaning of the name Abraham! “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5).
Paul’s Jewish opponents found it hard to accept, but Paul argues strongly in Rom 4 for the primacy of the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in Moses. That, in the salvation historical purposes of God, the Mosaic covenant would be superseded by a new covenant in Christ Jesus serves to highlight God’s grace and to open up salvation to the Gentiles in fulfillment of God’s promise of Gen 12:3.
Showing posts with label promise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label promise. Show all posts
04 March 2010
The Definition of Faith in Luther and Calvin
How faith should be defined is an important theological question, and it is interesting in this regard to compare Martin Luther’s view of faith with traditional Reformed views of faith such as John Calvin’s.
Luther’s concept of faith is based on his dualistic anthropology. Just as the human person can be divided into body and soul, God’s word should be divided into commands and promises (Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 2:317). According to Luther, God’s commands demand works, which can only be performed by the outer man or flesh. Contrasting with God’s commands are the promises of God, which demand faith. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner man or soul; therefore faith cannot be a work (Luther, Works, 2:318). Faith operates only in relation to the promises, and consists of trust in the promises of God (Luther, Works, 2:417). This command/flesh/works versus promise/spirit/faith dichotomy is the basic hermeneutical axiom in Lutheran theology. But in terms of faith, the significant thing is that, in Luther’s opinion, the object of faith is the promises of God.
On the Reformed side, the object of faith has traditionally not been limited solely to God’s promises. Faith for Calvin is primarily the knowledge of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ, but it also includes an acceptance of the other parts of God’s word. Summarizing Calvin’s discussion in the Institutes 3.2.1-43, faith is defined as “a knowledge of God’s will towards us, perceived from his Word” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [LCC 20-21; ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:549 [3.2.6]). In particular, Calvin identifies God’s “benevolence or … mercy” as being the core epistemological component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:550 [3.2.7]). Faith is ultimately “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:551 [3.2.7]).
But even though the knowledge of God’s mercy or “the freely given promise of God” is the core or “the foundation of faith,” Calvin denies that the knowledge of God’s mercy is the only component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). “Faith is [also being] certain that God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). Thus, for Calvin, the object of faith is the whole word of God (not merely the promises), although the knowledge of God’s mercy in Christ as revealed through the promises is the focal point of the whole word of God, and hence the focal point of faith.
Luther’s concept of faith is based on his dualistic anthropology. Just as the human person can be divided into body and soul, God’s word should be divided into commands and promises (Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 2:317). According to Luther, God’s commands demand works, which can only be performed by the outer man or flesh. Contrasting with God’s commands are the promises of God, which demand faith. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner man or soul; therefore faith cannot be a work (Luther, Works, 2:318). Faith operates only in relation to the promises, and consists of trust in the promises of God (Luther, Works, 2:417). This command/flesh/works versus promise/spirit/faith dichotomy is the basic hermeneutical axiom in Lutheran theology. But in terms of faith, the significant thing is that, in Luther’s opinion, the object of faith is the promises of God.
On the Reformed side, the object of faith has traditionally not been limited solely to God’s promises. Faith for Calvin is primarily the knowledge of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ, but it also includes an acceptance of the other parts of God’s word. Summarizing Calvin’s discussion in the Institutes 3.2.1-43, faith is defined as “a knowledge of God’s will towards us, perceived from his Word” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [LCC 20-21; ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:549 [3.2.6]). In particular, Calvin identifies God’s “benevolence or … mercy” as being the core epistemological component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:550 [3.2.7]). Faith is ultimately “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:551 [3.2.7]).
But even though the knowledge of God’s mercy or “the freely given promise of God” is the core or “the foundation of faith,” Calvin denies that the knowledge of God’s mercy is the only component of faith (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). “Faith is [also being] certain that God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it” (Calvin, Institutes, 1:575 [3.2.29]). Thus, for Calvin, the object of faith is the whole word of God (not merely the promises), although the knowledge of God’s mercy in Christ as revealed through the promises is the focal point of the whole word of God, and hence the focal point of faith.
10 February 2010
The Concept of Faith in Hebrews
One of the verses of Scripture that on the surface seems to argue against my suggestion that Abraham’s faith in Gen 12:1-4 cannot be distinguished from his obedience is Heb 11:8:
The Apostle Paul, for example, holds that Israel was under law during the old covenant age (Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-5). He speaks of faith coming with the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-25), and he speaks of the law as being not of faith (Gal 3:12). In other words, in Paul's typical way of thinking, old covenant Israel was under the law, not under faith. The writer of Hebrews, however, views faith as something that was always operative throughout salvation history.
For Paul, faith is primarily a christological concept, as Gal 3:23-25 suggests. It centers on the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). In Paul’s thought it is a response that is directed towards Jesus (e.g., Rom 3:26; Gal 2:20; 3:26; Php 3:9; 1 Thess 1:3) more so than to God per se (although note Tit 3:8). In Paul’s usage, therefore, it was not possible for faith in this christological sense to exist prior to Jesus being revealed to Israel (Gal 3:23-25), yet faith in the gospel was nevertheless preempted in the person of Abraham (Gal 3:6, 8). Paul read the Old Testament prophets as predicting that, after the age of the law, faith would once again define righteousness, namely, in the eschatological age when the precious stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion (Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; and Isa 28:16 combined with Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:33).
But for the author of Hebrews, the term faith is used somewhat differently. Sure, faith in the new covenant age centers on Jesus; it involves the confession that Jesus is the Son of God, the great High Priest (Heb 3:1; 4:14; 13:15). But the author of Hebrews also views faith as being something that was operative (at least on the part of a remnant) throughout redemptive history (Heb 4:2; 11:2). Faith begins with the fact of the power of the word of God as revealed in the creation of the world (Heb 11:3). It was a virtue possessed by all the saints of old, from Abel until Samuel and the prophets (Heb 11:4, 32). Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith (Heb 11:7). For the writer of Hebrews, faith is connected with the idea of patience, and has to do with inheriting (i.e., experiencing the realization of) the promises (Heb 6:12). Faith in its fullness has the boldness to follow in the footsteps of Jesus into the eschatological temple to encounter God (Heb 10:22). For the author of Hebrews, therefore, faith is not an eschatological concept per se, but it possesses a strong eschatological orientation where the faithful look to God for salvation and reward at the time of the realization of God’s promise at Christ’s second coming (Heb 10:35-39; 11:6).
For the author of Hebrews, faith believes that God has the power to bring that which is not into reality (Heb 11:3). It leads to genuine sacrifice (Heb 11:4), to pleasing God (Heb 11:5-6), and to obedience (11:8). It looks forward to the eternal city of God rather than focusing on life in this world (Heb 11:10, 13-16). It includes confidence in the faithfulness of God to keep his word (Heb 11:11). Faith believes in the power of God to raise the dead (11:19). It leads to worship and understands God’s intention to bless his people (Heb 11:21). It prepares for when God will keep his promise (Heb 11:22). It acts to protect God’s people (Heb 11:23), identifies with God’s people (Heb 11:24), and chooses to suffer persecution together with God’s people (Heb 11:25-26). Faith does not fear the godless (Heb 11:27). It results in victories won (Heb 11:28-30), and brings salvation to the Gentiles (Heb 11:31). Through faith the saints of old
That is a rich concept of faith, and one worth celebrating. Nevertheless, it is the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews, which is similar yet different in various aspects from the concept of faith found in Paul and in the Old Testament. The distinctive voice of each part of Scripture needs to be noted and acknowledged.
“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance.”But in saying that the Hebrew text of Gen 12:1-4 does not in and of itself distinguish between faith and obedience, I am not saying that it is not logically possible or illegitimate for subsequent inspired interpreters of Scripture to make such a distinction. It all depends on how faith is defined by each author of Scripture. This requires us to read Scripture carefully to pick up the particular definitions and nuances of each writer.
The Apostle Paul, for example, holds that Israel was under law during the old covenant age (Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-5). He speaks of faith coming with the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-25), and he speaks of the law as being not of faith (Gal 3:12). In other words, in Paul's typical way of thinking, old covenant Israel was under the law, not under faith. The writer of Hebrews, however, views faith as something that was always operative throughout salvation history.
For Paul, faith is primarily a christological concept, as Gal 3:23-25 suggests. It centers on the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). In Paul’s thought it is a response that is directed towards Jesus (e.g., Rom 3:26; Gal 2:20; 3:26; Php 3:9; 1 Thess 1:3) more so than to God per se (although note Tit 3:8). In Paul’s usage, therefore, it was not possible for faith in this christological sense to exist prior to Jesus being revealed to Israel (Gal 3:23-25), yet faith in the gospel was nevertheless preempted in the person of Abraham (Gal 3:6, 8). Paul read the Old Testament prophets as predicting that, after the age of the law, faith would once again define righteousness, namely, in the eschatological age when the precious stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion (Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; and Isa 28:16 combined with Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:33).
But for the author of Hebrews, the term faith is used somewhat differently. Sure, faith in the new covenant age centers on Jesus; it involves the confession that Jesus is the Son of God, the great High Priest (Heb 3:1; 4:14; 13:15). But the author of Hebrews also views faith as being something that was operative (at least on the part of a remnant) throughout redemptive history (Heb 4:2; 11:2). Faith begins with the fact of the power of the word of God as revealed in the creation of the world (Heb 11:3). It was a virtue possessed by all the saints of old, from Abel until Samuel and the prophets (Heb 11:4, 32). Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith (Heb 11:7). For the writer of Hebrews, faith is connected with the idea of patience, and has to do with inheriting (i.e., experiencing the realization of) the promises (Heb 6:12). Faith in its fullness has the boldness to follow in the footsteps of Jesus into the eschatological temple to encounter God (Heb 10:22). For the author of Hebrews, therefore, faith is not an eschatological concept per se, but it possesses a strong eschatological orientation where the faithful look to God for salvation and reward at the time of the realization of God’s promise at Christ’s second coming (Heb 10:35-39; 11:6).
For the author of Hebrews, faith believes that God has the power to bring that which is not into reality (Heb 11:3). It leads to genuine sacrifice (Heb 11:4), to pleasing God (Heb 11:5-6), and to obedience (11:8). It looks forward to the eternal city of God rather than focusing on life in this world (Heb 11:10, 13-16). It includes confidence in the faithfulness of God to keep his word (Heb 11:11). Faith believes in the power of God to raise the dead (11:19). It leads to worship and understands God’s intention to bless his people (Heb 11:21). It prepares for when God will keep his promise (Heb 11:22). It acts to protect God’s people (Heb 11:23), identifies with God’s people (Heb 11:24), and chooses to suffer persecution together with God’s people (Heb 11:25-26). Faith does not fear the godless (Heb 11:27). It results in victories won (Heb 11:28-30), and brings salvation to the Gentiles (Heb 11:31). Through faith the saints of old
conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (Heb 11:33-38).In sum, the concept of faith in the book of Hebrews confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, but it also includes a strong assurance that the fullness of what God has promised will come true (Heb 11:1), which results in power to persevere despite opposition.
That is a rich concept of faith, and one worth celebrating. Nevertheless, it is the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews, which is similar yet different in various aspects from the concept of faith found in Paul and in the Old Testament. The distinctive voice of each part of Scripture needs to be noted and acknowledged.
06 February 2010
The Inheritance of Eternal Life through Faith instead of Law in Romans 4:13
In Rom 4:13 the Apostle Paul says that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” It is often concluded on the basis of this verse that Abraham would inherit eternal life solely through faith in God’s promise and not by obedience.
But this is to misunderstand Paul’s meaning. The law in question in the phrase through the law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general but specifically the law of Moses. What Paul is saying is that the revelation in which God promised life to Abraham was not the law of Moses. He is saying that God promised life to Abraham and his seed before the Mosaic law came into existence. Romans 4:13 is a shorthand form of the argument that Paul makes in Gal 3:17-18: “the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” In other words, while Abraham was still uncircumcised (i.e., still a Gentile), he was already an heir of the promise of eternal life.
Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13, therefore, that Abraham solely inherited life through faith apart from obedience. To interpret Paul in this manner is to make him contradict the plain teaching of the Old Testament. Nowhere in the Abraham narrative in Genesis do we see faith spoken of in a way that is exclusive of obedience. In fact, I will show in the next few posts that the Abraham narrative clearly states in a number of places that obedience was necessary for Abraham and his seed to inherit the blessing.
To start off with, please consider Gen 12:1-3:
The function of the sequential imperfect clause in Hebrew is most frequently to indicate purpose or result. In other words, Abraham was commanded to leave his country in order that God might bless him. Abraham had to pack up his bags and leave. The blessing would not come without Abraham obeying God.
The Hebrew clause structure of Gen 12:1-3 is clear evidence, therefore, that right from the start of God’s relationship with Abraham, obedience was necessary in order for Abraham to be blessed. How many times do we hear people say that God's blessing of Abraham was unconditional? I sometimes wonder if the people who say that have ever read Gen 12:1-3, or at least read it carefully.
Genesis 12:1-3 also clearly shows that God’s revelation of promise to Abraham was not pure promise as many Protestants are inclined to think. In terms of linguistic categorization, Gen 12:1 is command, and Gen 12:2-3 is promise. This goes to show that Paul’s use of the term promise in Rom 4 cannot be a category of linguistic or literary genre. Rather, Paul’s idea of promise is a salvation-historical category. That is to say, by the term promise Paul designates the totality of the revelation that God gave to Abraham. Paul’s promise versus law contrast is a contrast of Abrahamic revelation (promise) with Mosaic revelation (law). To interpret the term promise in Rom 4:13 as indicating pure (i.e., command-less) promise is to contradict the reality of what exists in Gen 12:1-3, where promise is linguistically and logically dependent on command.
In a similar way, to say that Paul viewed eternal life as being inherited by faith alone apart from obedience is to make Paul contradict Gen 12:1-3. On the basis of the principle of the analogy of Scripture, Paul must be understood in a manner that is consistent with what God has already revealed. God is not a God of contradiction. The Old Testament functions as the Spirit-inspired foundation and framework upon which New Testament revelation, including that of Paul, is built. The remainder of the house must be consistent with the foundation and basic framework that has already been erected.
In sum, therefore, Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13 that eternal life is inherited by faith alone as if such faith did not include obedience as part of its meaning. If that were true, then Abraham could have stayed in Ur. But because command was an integral part of the promise of God in Gen 12:1-3, Abraham’s faith necessarily included obedience as part of its meaning.
Please consider the following question: If Abraham had simply said to God: “I believe in your word of blessing” (as contained in Gen 12:2-3), but did not leave Ur, would he inherit the blessing? This is not possible in terms of the Hebrew sense of Gen 12:1-3. God told Abraham to go in order to inherit the blessing! This means he had to obey in order to inherit the blessing. Abraham going is Abraham accepting the word of God, and accepting the word of God is saying amen to the word of God, and saying amen (אמן) to the word of God is faith (אמונה). In Gen 12:4, Abraham’s faith is clearly portrayed as being the faith which obeys God’s commands and which believes his promises. Abraham’s faith was the faith of obedience.
To say that eternal life is inherited by faith apart from obedience logically requires that the Apostle Paul either did not know or did not accept the plain meaning of Gen 12:1-3. I find it difficult to accept that a Hebrew of Hebrews would have failed to understand and accept the import of the Hebrew of Gen 12:1-3.
But this is to misunderstand Paul’s meaning. The law in question in the phrase through the law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general but specifically the law of Moses. What Paul is saying is that the revelation in which God promised life to Abraham was not the law of Moses. He is saying that God promised life to Abraham and his seed before the Mosaic law came into existence. Romans 4:13 is a shorthand form of the argument that Paul makes in Gal 3:17-18: “the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” In other words, while Abraham was still uncircumcised (i.e., still a Gentile), he was already an heir of the promise of eternal life.
Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13, therefore, that Abraham solely inherited life through faith apart from obedience. To interpret Paul in this manner is to make him contradict the plain teaching of the Old Testament. Nowhere in the Abraham narrative in Genesis do we see faith spoken of in a way that is exclusive of obedience. In fact, I will show in the next few posts that the Abraham narrative clearly states in a number of places that obedience was necessary for Abraham and his seed to inherit the blessing.
To start off with, please consider Gen 12:1-3:
Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”Looking at the clause structure of the Hebrew of vv. 2-3, it is clear that v. 2 contains three sequential imperfect clauses and one sequential imperatival clause. Verse 3 contains another sequential imperfect clause, a disjunctive imperfect clause, and a modal perfect clause. These clauses are all dependent on the imperative go in v. 1.
The function of the sequential imperfect clause in Hebrew is most frequently to indicate purpose or result. In other words, Abraham was commanded to leave his country in order that God might bless him. Abraham had to pack up his bags and leave. The blessing would not come without Abraham obeying God.
The Hebrew clause structure of Gen 12:1-3 is clear evidence, therefore, that right from the start of God’s relationship with Abraham, obedience was necessary in order for Abraham to be blessed. How many times do we hear people say that God's blessing of Abraham was unconditional? I sometimes wonder if the people who say that have ever read Gen 12:1-3, or at least read it carefully.
Genesis 12:1-3 also clearly shows that God’s revelation of promise to Abraham was not pure promise as many Protestants are inclined to think. In terms of linguistic categorization, Gen 12:1 is command, and Gen 12:2-3 is promise. This goes to show that Paul’s use of the term promise in Rom 4 cannot be a category of linguistic or literary genre. Rather, Paul’s idea of promise is a salvation-historical category. That is to say, by the term promise Paul designates the totality of the revelation that God gave to Abraham. Paul’s promise versus law contrast is a contrast of Abrahamic revelation (promise) with Mosaic revelation (law). To interpret the term promise in Rom 4:13 as indicating pure (i.e., command-less) promise is to contradict the reality of what exists in Gen 12:1-3, where promise is linguistically and logically dependent on command.
In a similar way, to say that Paul viewed eternal life as being inherited by faith alone apart from obedience is to make Paul contradict Gen 12:1-3. On the basis of the principle of the analogy of Scripture, Paul must be understood in a manner that is consistent with what God has already revealed. God is not a God of contradiction. The Old Testament functions as the Spirit-inspired foundation and framework upon which New Testament revelation, including that of Paul, is built. The remainder of the house must be consistent with the foundation and basic framework that has already been erected.
In sum, therefore, Paul is not saying in Rom 4:13 that eternal life is inherited by faith alone as if such faith did not include obedience as part of its meaning. If that were true, then Abraham could have stayed in Ur. But because command was an integral part of the promise of God in Gen 12:1-3, Abraham’s faith necessarily included obedience as part of its meaning.
Please consider the following question: If Abraham had simply said to God: “I believe in your word of blessing” (as contained in Gen 12:2-3), but did not leave Ur, would he inherit the blessing? This is not possible in terms of the Hebrew sense of Gen 12:1-3. God told Abraham to go in order to inherit the blessing! This means he had to obey in order to inherit the blessing. Abraham going is Abraham accepting the word of God, and accepting the word of God is saying amen to the word of God, and saying amen (אמן) to the word of God is faith (אמונה). In Gen 12:4, Abraham’s faith is clearly portrayed as being the faith which obeys God’s commands and which believes his promises. Abraham’s faith was the faith of obedience.
To say that eternal life is inherited by faith apart from obedience logically requires that the Apostle Paul either did not know or did not accept the plain meaning of Gen 12:1-3. I find it difficult to accept that a Hebrew of Hebrews would have failed to understand and accept the import of the Hebrew of Gen 12:1-3.
07 January 2010
The Biblical Distinction of Law and Gospel
It is common in Protestant circles to contrast law with gospel, where law is understood as equating to God's commandments, and gospel refers to God's promises. But dividing the word of God into two parts is problematic from a biblical theological point of view.
Law or torah in the Old Testament is a co-relative term for the word of God, i.e., the law of God has the same referent as the word of God but describes this referent in a different way. The book of Deuteronomy teaches us this. The revelation that God delivered to Moses to pass on to the people of Israel was simply "the commandment" (e.g., Deut 1:3; 5:31) or "the law" (e.g., Deut 1:5; 4:44).
Psalm 119 also teaches us this. In v. 16, God's word parallels God's statutes. In v. 160, God's word parallels God's judgments. In v. 172, God's word parallels God's commandments. In fact, in Ps 119 God's word is co-relative with God's law, God's testimonies, God's precepts, God's decrees, God's commandments, and God's judgments. That looks like seven different terms altogether, all co-relative.
In a similar way, the law of God and the word of Yahweh are paralleled in Isa 1:10. According to Isa 2:3, the eschatological law that will emanate from Jerusalem and bring peace to the nations is the word of Yahweh.
Law is simply divine revelation. Whatever the King says is law. From a biblical theological perspective, therefore, the law is simply another name for the word of God.
Having established the above point, the biblical teaching concerning law is simple. When God's law is in your heart, you will live; but if the law merely remains an external revelation, not internalized in the heart, then you will die. If the law remains merely externalized, it is a dead letter; but when the law is internalized in the heart, it is the source of life, and effectively gospel. Therefore, the key to life, according to the Bible, is having God's law/word in your heart. Hence Moses' call in Deut 6:6, and hence the supreme importance of the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33. The law mortifies or vivifies, depending on its location outside or inside the heart.
The history of Old Testament Israel illustrates this very principle. The revelation given to Israel through Moses came from God. It was an external revelation. The external nature of Mosaic torah was symbolized by the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone. What Israel needed was for this external revelation to become internalized on the tablet of their hearts. But despite the prophetic call for Israel to internalize torah, the majority of the people did not respond in a positive way; and so the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation.
In the light of the story of old covenant Israel, the negative function of the law for Paul is simply the idea that the corpus of revelation delivered to Israel through Moses and the prophets brought death to old covenant Israel, because the majority of the people were carnal, not spiritual. In other words, the majority of old covenant Israel did not have the law of Moses in their hearts. Instead of having the Spirit of God guiding them in the way of God's word, they were left to their own devices. Without the Spirit, they were merely flesh.
But God's ultimate purpose for his law is primarily positive, not negative. Thus, a key part of the new covenant is the eschatological writing of torah in the hearts of God's people (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). Through Christ's work and the outpouring of the Spirit, torah would be written on the hearts of God's people. Through Christ and the Spirit, the Mosaic law of sin and death would be transformed into the Christian law of life. Through Christ and the Spirit, law would be transformed into gospel in the fullest sense of the word.
This, by the way, is what Paul means when he says: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). The law external to human hearts brings death, but the law written on the heart by the Spirit of God gives life.
The word of God, therefore, should not be divided into two parts, because it comes to us as a package deal. It comes with promises, warnings, and commandments all mixed together. The issue is not what part must be believed, and what part obeyed. The issue is whether this holistic word of God finds reception in our hearts. The biblical distinction of law from gospel is not a distinction of literary form or genre. It is primarily a cardiac distinction, a matter of the relation of the heart to the word of God.
Law or torah in the Old Testament is a co-relative term for the word of God, i.e., the law of God has the same referent as the word of God but describes this referent in a different way. The book of Deuteronomy teaches us this. The revelation that God delivered to Moses to pass on to the people of Israel was simply "the commandment" (e.g., Deut 1:3; 5:31) or "the law" (e.g., Deut 1:5; 4:44).
Psalm 119 also teaches us this. In v. 16, God's word parallels God's statutes. In v. 160, God's word parallels God's judgments. In v. 172, God's word parallels God's commandments. In fact, in Ps 119 God's word is co-relative with God's law, God's testimonies, God's precepts, God's decrees, God's commandments, and God's judgments. That looks like seven different terms altogether, all co-relative.
In a similar way, the law of God and the word of Yahweh are paralleled in Isa 1:10. According to Isa 2:3, the eschatological law that will emanate from Jerusalem and bring peace to the nations is the word of Yahweh.
Law is simply divine revelation. Whatever the King says is law. From a biblical theological perspective, therefore, the law is simply another name for the word of God.
Having established the above point, the biblical teaching concerning law is simple. When God's law is in your heart, you will live; but if the law merely remains an external revelation, not internalized in the heart, then you will die. If the law remains merely externalized, it is a dead letter; but when the law is internalized in the heart, it is the source of life, and effectively gospel. Therefore, the key to life, according to the Bible, is having God's law/word in your heart. Hence Moses' call in Deut 6:6, and hence the supreme importance of the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33. The law mortifies or vivifies, depending on its location outside or inside the heart.
The history of Old Testament Israel illustrates this very principle. The revelation given to Israel through Moses came from God. It was an external revelation. The external nature of Mosaic torah was symbolized by the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone. What Israel needed was for this external revelation to become internalized on the tablet of their hearts. But despite the prophetic call for Israel to internalize torah, the majority of the people did not respond in a positive way; and so the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation.
In the light of the story of old covenant Israel, the negative function of the law for Paul is simply the idea that the corpus of revelation delivered to Israel through Moses and the prophets brought death to old covenant Israel, because the majority of the people were carnal, not spiritual. In other words, the majority of old covenant Israel did not have the law of Moses in their hearts. Instead of having the Spirit of God guiding them in the way of God's word, they were left to their own devices. Without the Spirit, they were merely flesh.
But God's ultimate purpose for his law is primarily positive, not negative. Thus, a key part of the new covenant is the eschatological writing of torah in the hearts of God's people (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). Through Christ's work and the outpouring of the Spirit, torah would be written on the hearts of God's people. Through Christ and the Spirit, the Mosaic law of sin and death would be transformed into the Christian law of life. Through Christ and the Spirit, law would be transformed into gospel in the fullest sense of the word.
This, by the way, is what Paul means when he says: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). The law external to human hearts brings death, but the law written on the heart by the Spirit of God gives life.
The word of God, therefore, should not be divided into two parts, because it comes to us as a package deal. It comes with promises, warnings, and commandments all mixed together. The issue is not what part must be believed, and what part obeyed. The issue is whether this holistic word of God finds reception in our hearts. The biblical distinction of law from gospel is not a distinction of literary form or genre. It is primarily a cardiac distinction, a matter of the relation of the heart to the word of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)