The Concept of Blamelessness in 1 Corinthians 1:8

In 1 Cor 1:8, the Apostle Paul speaks of how Jesus keeps believers firm in the faith until the end in order that they might be “blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The word translated as blameless or guiltless is the Greek adjective ἀνέγκλητος, which means not accused or without reproach.

The translation of ἀνέγκλητος into English as blameless or guiltless is potentially problematic if the word is understood by the English reader as conveying the idea of absolute moral perfection on the day of judgment. In 1 Cor 1:8, Paul does not have the absolute moral perfection of the believer in mind. Nor does he have the absolute moral perfection of Christ imputed to the believer in mind. The blamelessness in view at this point is rather a legal status on the level of covenant obedience. The covenant obedience in mind is perseverance in faith, i.e., faithfulness to the new covenant.

An examination of the use of ἀνέγκλητος elsewhere in the New Testament illustrates this. In the four other uses of this term in the New Testament (all by Paul), three of them are clearly not talking about absolute moral perfection. In 1 Tim 3:10, being ἀνέγκλητος is a moral quality that is required to be shown by a new deacon under probation. In Tit 1:6–7, being ἀνέγκλητος is a moral quality required for ordination as an elder. Elders and deacons (before the return of Christ) will never be absolutely free of personal sin; but high moral standards, and practice consistent with these standards, are required for them to be leaders in the church of Christ. The use of ἀνέγκλητος in Col 1:22 is more difficult to adjudicate. Here Paul speaks about how God has brought about our reconciliation with himself through the death of Christ “to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him.” Paul could have the gift of being covered in the absolute moral perfection of Christ in view at this point, however the condition of continuation in the faith that is mentioned immediately following (i.e., in Col 1:23) gives cause for considering that Paul probably has the covenant righteousness of the believer in view in Col 1:22. Surprisingly perhaps, ἀνέγκλητος does not occur in the LXX; however the use of ἀνέγκλητος in 3 Macc 5:31 by King Ptolemy IV Philopator as a description of the Jews who had been fully loyal to his ancestors is a good extrabiblical instance of ἀνέγκλητος denoting general moral goodness or loyalty.

To interpret 1 Cor 1:8 and possibly Col 1:22 as Paul expressing the need for believers to present themselves before Christ on the day of judgment as personally holy (i.e., as people who have persevered in the faith) is consistent with Paul’s teaching in Phil 1:10–11, where he prays that the Philippian Christians might know what is morally good, so as to be “pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness.” It is also consistent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 3:12–13, where he links abounding in love for others with God establishing “your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.” It is also consistent with Paul’s blessing in 1 Thess 5:23, where God sanctifying the believers completely is linked with the full preservation of our spirit, soul, and body “blamelessly at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul’s teaching in these passages is also consistent with Peter’s teaching in 2 Pet 3:14, where, in the context of a discussion about the end of the current state of the world, Peter encourages his readers to “be diligent to be found by [God] without spot or blemish” while waiting for the new heaven and new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

The goal of the process of sanctification is cleansing with a view to the church, and all the members thereof, being made “holy and without blemish,” in order to be presented to Christ “in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Eph 5:26–27). The process of sanctification can be viewed as Christ preparing his bride for the eternal marriage that will take place on the day that he arrives. Paul’s understanding is that every Christian should be morally beautiful and pleasing to the Lord on the day that he returns on analogy with the way that a bride makes herself beautiful before meeting her husband on the day of their wedding. The moral beauty of personal righteousness, cultivated through the power of God’s word and Spirit, is the blamelessness which Paul desires that all Christians will display before the Lord on the day of Christ’s return. This is the proper conceptual framework for understanding Paul’s use of ἀνέγκλητος in 1 Cor 1:8.

Jesus’ Description of Nathanael as a True Israelite in John 1:47

Jesus’ interaction with Nathanael in John 1:47–50 is rather enigmatic until Jewish cultural and theological concerns are considered as part of the assumed knowledge relevant to the communicative context of this incident. In John 1:47, after Nathanael had been invited by Philip to go and see Jesus for himself, Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, “Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!”

Jesus seeing Nathanael coming and then speaking about him follows the pattern of John the Baptist in John 1:29, 36; and also Jesus himself previously in John 1:42. Seeing and saying are significant motifs in John 1 (see 1:18, 33, 34, 39, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51; and 1:15, 21, 22, 26, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 respectively). This highlights the concern with testimony in John 1. People testify about Jesus’ Messianic status, and Jesus also testifies about true righteousness. That Jesus’ assessment of Nathanael commences with the word ἴδε (behold or look) recalls the use of the same word by John the Baptist in 1:29, 36.

Jesus’ testimony identifying Nathanael as being “truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” is significant. According to Jesus, Nathanael is a true Israelite. In what sense he is a true Israelite is unpacked in the rest of John 1:47–49. The expression in whom there is no δόλος deceit is effectively a conceptual play on the name Jacob, which literally means heel grabber, meaning supplanter, usurper, hence deceiver. Indeed the word δόλος in used by Isaac in reference to Jacob’s deception when stealing Esau’s blessing in Gen 27:35 in the LXX, to which Esau replies, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob?” (Gen 27:36). The teaching in Ps 32:2, that the person whose sin is forgiven, and in whose spirit there is no deceit, is blessed (see also Ps 10:7; 24:4; 34:13; 35:20; 36:3; 52:2) is also relevant to Jesus’ description of Nathanael.

Putting all of this together, it is clear that, through the example of Nathanael, Jesus was testifying to the nature of true covenant righteousness now that the new covenant age had dawned. Nathanael stands as a righteous or covenant-keeping Israelite in contrast to the default situation in old covenant Israel, where the majority were covenant breakers. Jesus’ identification of Nathanael as being a true Israelite is highly significant, particularly in relation to Nathanael’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah in John 1:49, and introduces what is a significant theme in the context of the Jewish argument of John’s Gospel, that the true (i.e., righteous) Jew will recognize and receive the Messiah when he comes (e.g., John 3:21; 10:3–4, 25–27), in accordance with the teaching of the law of Moses itself as per Deut 18:15–19 (see Acts 3:22–23; 7:37, 52–53). At the heart of the new covenant restoration of Israel stands the confession of faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

Not under Law But under Grace: An Exposition of Romans 6:15–23

“Christians are under grace, not law!” This is a slogan that Christians, following the Apostle Paul, have frequently parroted. The problem is: have we understood what Paul meant by this slogan? Protestants typically interpret law in the phrase for you are not under the law but under grace to mean law in general, but this is to take Paul’s teaching out of its historical context, and to apply it in an illegitimate way.

The law that Paul was talking about in Rom 6:14 was specifically the law of Moses, not law in general whether divine or human. On the surface, the noun νόμος (law) in the phrase ὑπὸ νόμον under law looks indefinite, but it needs to be kept in mind that in New Testament Greek the definite article is frequently not used after prepositions. In the end, context needs to determine whether ὑπὸ νόμον means under law (in general) or under the law (of Moses). The big issue in the early church was whether or not Gentiles could be saved by faith in Jesus Christ apart from following the law of Moses (see Acts 15:1, 5). The orthodox Christians said “yes,” whereas the Judaizers said “no.” This is the particular historical context that argues for ὑπὸ νόμον to mean specifically under the law (of Moses). This is consistent with the rest of Paul’s argument in the epistle to the Romans, which is concerned with Jews versus Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation as foretold in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament). This Judaizing issue was being replayed in Rome after Nero’s accession to the imperial throne led to increasing numbers of Jews returning to Rome following the cessation of Claudius’s edict of expulsion. 

In Paul’s day, there were people who objected to Christianity on the basis that it was anomian or law-less. In the historical context of Paul’s day, this was a specifically Jewish objection. Paul’s Jewish opponents viewed that Christian teaching which proclaimed that being right with God was a matter of belief in (i.e., submission to) Jesus Christ rather than a matter of obedience to the law of Moses as constituting a rejection of Moses and Mosaic law, rebellion against the covenant, and disobedience to God.

In Rom 6:15 Paul picks up the objection of his Judaizing opponents to the Christian teaching that God’s people are under grace rather than law in the new covenant age. His opponents’ objection was: “Following your teaching, Paul, we should all sin, because we are not under the law but under grace.” This objection appears as a direct response to Paul’s final statement in Rom 6:14. From Paul’s opponents’ perspective, being under grace rather than law was to reject God’s standards of righteousness as defined in the law of Moses. They thought that Christianity was a license to sin, but Paul strongly strongly rejected this implication (Rom 6:15).

Consistent with Old Testament teaching, Paul understood that there are only two ways of living in the world. On the one hand, there is the way of life that leads to God; and on the other, the way of death that leads away from God. Paul captures this in Rom 6:16 by talking about two states of slavery: “Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to whom you obey, either of sin which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?” According to Paul, there are only two masters whom we can serve: sin or obedience. Serving sin is the way of death, whereas pursuing obedience is the way of righteousness and life. These two possibilities applied in the old covenant age, and Paul understood that they apply just as equally in the new covenant age. The coming of grace in Jesus does not render invalid the basic framework of the dual halakhic (i.e., the two ways of living) ethical system of the Old Testament. Paul’s opponents were wrong to think that this is what Christianity advocated.

Paul understood that Christian conversion involved a heart transformation that brought converts into slavery to righteousness (Rom 6:17–18). Paul was thankful to God that the Christians in Rome had undergone this transformation. Before conversion they had been “slaves of sin,” but since their conversion “you have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching that you received” (Rom 6:17). The phrase from the heart is a deliberate echo of the new covenant prophecies of Deut 30:6: “And Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live”; and Jer 31:33: “ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Yahweh: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Paul understood that the Old Testament prophecies about the restored (i.e., new covenant) obedience of the people of God are fulfilled through conversion to Christianity. It is also significant that the law written in the heart is equated by Paul with the standard of teaching that you received. The model of teaching received by the Roman Christians was Christian teaching. It was the Christian gospel. The gospel is the received tradition of the Christian community, passed down from Christ to his apostles, and from them to subsequent Christian teachers. Receiving this teaching into the heart is the key to freedom. The Christian gospel, the new covenant word of God, has the power to set people free from slavery to sin; but this is freedom for the sake of obedience to righteousness (Rom 6:18). There is no morally neutral territory. From the beginning of time, there has only ever been two ways of living: one a way of life, and the other a way of death.

Paul’s imagery of slavery to one of two masters was an accommodation to the weakness of the understanding of his readers (Rom 6:19). He used this illustration for the purpose of encouraging his Christian readers to pursue Christian sanctification: “just as you have presented your members [i.e., the parts of your body] as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (Rom 6:19). Divine grace is not a license to sin. The Jewish accusation that Christianity was ἀνομία lawlessness was far from the truth. Being part of the new covenant is about walking in righteousness with the law of God written in our hearts. Being a Christian is about being holy, as the gospel of Christ brings holistic transformation. It is true that Christians are under grace, not law; but this is not the same as saying that Christianity is law-less, that Christians are not bound to any law, that they are free to live without any sense of morality. If law in the phrase under law is taken as denoting all possible forms of law, then Christianity is truly anomian. But if Paul, in the light of the historical context of his day, is specifically talking about the law of Moses as the law which we are not under, then a place is left for understanding that the gospel is new covenant law, and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies (such as Deut 30:11–14; Isa 2:1–4; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26–27) that speak of the vivifying function of eschatological torah in the heart of God’s new covenant people. Paul was objecting to old covenant law. He was not denying that Christians are under new covenant law, which is the gospel, “the standard of teaching that [we] have received.”

As Jesus said, “You cannot serve two masters” (Matt 6:24). When Paul’s readers were “slaves of sin,” they were “free of righteousness” (Rom 6:20). Slavery to sin is incompatible with slavery to righteousness. Paul also reminds his readers of the consequences of their former way of living. “What fruit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death” (Rom 6:21). Serving sin leads to shame and death. It is a dead end and totally fruitless. This fruitlessness of slavery to sin contrasts markedly with the consequences of slavery to righteousness. “But now, having been set free from sin, and having become enslaved to God”—that is, after Christian conversion—“you have the fruit of sanctification, and its end eternal life” (Rom 6:22). Slavery to righteousness is equated by Paul in Rom 6:22 as being slavery to God. The two masters that we must serve in life are either sin or God. Serving sin is useless. It leads to death. But serving God, as the Old Testament consistently teaches, has great benefit. Serving God means bearing and enjoying the fruits of holiness. Furthermore, the end destination of this way of living is eternal life. It is significant here that Paul views eternal life as residing at the end of a lifelong process of sanctification. Eternal life in the presence of God is the goal of Christian halakhah.

Paul concludes his teaching concerning righteousness in Rom 6 by summing up the consequences of the two possible ways of living in the world. He shifts from the image of fruit to that of wages: “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). The concept of wages is used as a metaphor for what God “pays back” to people. There are consequences for how we live our life in the world. If we indulge in following sin, then the end result of that is God’s payback of death. “But the gracious gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” is not like the consequences of sin: “the gracious gift of God … is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). This verse is often quoted by Christians out of context, as if to say that God’s gracious gift of eternal life in Christ has no connection with the need for personal righteousness on the part of the believer. God’s gracious gift in Christ Jesus is eternal life, but this cannot be divorced from the process of sanctification that leads to eternal life. In effect, the phrase eternal life in Rom 6:23 is basically a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is used to refer to the whole. Eternal life lies at the end of a process of sanctification. The whole of this process is the gracious gift of God.

To continue in sin, therefore, because we are not under law but grace is to fail to understand the meaning of God’s new covenant grace. God’s new covenant grace not only involves God graciously sending Jesus to make full atonement for our sins, but also God graciously writing his law in our hearts, so that we might be able to obey him, and to live as a consequence of walking in the way of personal righteousness in the context of atoning grace. To say (as some have said to me in the past) that the idea that personal righteousness is necessary for salvation is inconsistent with grace is ironically to fail to understand the nature of God’s grace. People who say that have, in effect, narrowed God’s grace down to simply the imputation of Christ’s righteousness received. It is definitely true that Christ’s righteousness stands at the heart of God’s grace, but God’s grace to us Christians is more than simply the reception of an alien righteousness. God’s grace involves both the reception of an alien righteousness and its personalization in a holistic way within the believer. The extrinsic righteousness of Christ truly applied will see itself reflected in the Spirit-induced intrinsic righteousness of the believer. The extrinsic without the intrinsic is inefficacious. Being under grace instead of law, therefore, does not make us lawless.

Grace Is Not a License to Sin: An Exposition of Romans 6:1–14

Christianity is a religion of grace. The concept of grace as God’s undeserved favor to sinners is, generally speaking, strongly promulgated in evangelical Protestant theology today. But is grace a license to sin? A small minority of Christians down the years have come to that conclusion, but the Apostle Paul argues in Rom 6:1–14 that being under grace involves being set free from sin to serve and obey God. Christianity is a religion of grace, but grace actually involves God moving his people to obedience.

In Paul’s day, there were people who objected to Christianity on the basis that it was anomian or law-less. This was a specifically Jewish objection. Christianity proclaimed that being right with God was a matter of belief in (i.e., submission to) Jesus Christ rather than a matter of obedience to the law of Moses. Christianity, therefore, “devalued” the law of Moses in the sense that the law of Moses was viewed as being subordinate to the revelation of God’s will that had come through Jesus and his apostles. In effect, orthodox Christianity viewed the law of Moses as being divine revelation of second-order magnitude. But this “devaluation” of the law of Moses was viewed by orthodox Jews as being heretical. It was viewed by them as constituting a rejection of Moses and as being disobedience to God.

One of the objections of such people against Christianity was that it was anti-torah. They heard Paul speaking of being under grace instead of law, so they assumed that he and Christianity must be law-less. They also knew Paul’s teaching regarding the primary function of the Mosaic covenant in salvation history: that the purpose of Israel receiving the law from God in the first place was so that Israel would sin against it, thereby creating the opportunity for grace to abound. As Paul argues in Rom 5:20: “The law came in, in order that the transgression might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.”

Paul reflects the objection of such people in Rom 6:1. Romans 6:1 is basically a quotation of one of the objections offered against Paul and his view of the purposes of God in giving the law to Israel. The word translated as increase in Rom 6:1 is a deliberate reference to the language that Paul was using to explain God’s purpose in giving Israel the law (see Rom 5:20). Paul’s opponents were basically saying: “Well, Paul, if God gave the law to Israel, so that Israel would sin, in order that grace might increase, then following your logic, the more we sin, the more grace will increase. Let’s continue then to sin, in order that grace might increase! Your teaching here, Paul, is absurd. Your religion promotes sin, and that is obviously wrong!”

But this portrayal of Paul’s teaching was incorrect. It is true to say that Paul understood that God gave the old covenant to Israel primarily as an instrument to bring about the covenant rebellion of Israel as a backdrop for God’s gracious dealings with Israel and the nations through Jesus. It is true that the giving of the law of Moses led in the purposes of God to an increase in sin in order that grace might increase all the more. But this is not to say that God wanted Israel to sin, nor is it to say that God wants such sin to continue as part of the new covenant that Christ has come to establish.

Paul argues against this Jewish misinterpretation of his teaching by appealing to the significance of Christian baptism. Arguing his case from Christian baptism is a weak argument to use in a debate with non-Christian Jews, but the epistle to the Romans was written to Christians. The main problem for Paul was that the traditional orthodox Jewish view of the law was accepted by many (primarily Jewish) Christians. These Christian Judaizers were in turn promulgating their views in Rome. With the return of Jews to Rome after Nero’s accession to the throne had brought an end to Claudius’s edict of expulsion, the Judaizing position was growing in influence in Rome, and causing disunity within the church. Arguing from Christian baptism is a powerful argument in a Christian context.

The basic principle put forward by Paul was that we (Christians) have died to sin. Having died to sin, it is not theoretically possible to continuing living in sin (Rom 6:2). This death to sin was formally sealed and symbolized in Christian baptism. Christian baptism is a baptism “into Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:3). Through baptism, Christians formally become one with Christ, a member of his body, the church. Baptism unites us to Christ. This means that baptism also unites us to Christ’s death. Baptism also unites us to his burial. Christian baptism means that the Christian is dead and buried with regard to sin! But being dead and buried is not the end. Through baptism (whose efficacy continues as long as faith continues), the Christian also shares in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is new life. “Just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we [Christians] … walk in the newness of life” (Rom 6:4).

Being a Christian is about having new life; and having new life, also means having a new lifestyle. This life and lifestyle necessarily go together. Paul proves the truth of Christians having a new way of life, by pointing out that sharing in Christ’s death means that we Christians will (in the future) also share in Christ’s resurrection in an experiential way (Rom 6:5). This unity in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection means that our former self (i.e., the person that we were before our formal conversion at the point of baptism) has been crucified together with Christ. This has happened in order that the body of sin (i.e., our sinful nature) might be rendered inoperative, i.e., that it might be destroyed, so that we might “no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). Union with Christ means, therefore, being “set free” from slavery to sin (Rom 6:7).

“If we have died with Christ, we believe that we we will also live together with him” (Rom 6:8). Union in his death goes together with union in his life. It is a total package. And just as Christ has been raised from the dead never to die again, “death no longer rules over him” (Rom 6:9). When Christ died, he died because of the power of sin; but he did so “once and for all” (Rom 6:10). The fact that Christ was raised from the dead to live forever means that his death has dealt fully with the problem of sin. Sin, having been dealt with, Christ’s resurrection life is fully lived under the positive purposes of God. With his resurrection, Christ’s suffering ended. In effect, his resurrection means that he is free from the overbearing power of sin. The implication of all of this is that just as death no longer rules over Christ, likewise sin and death should not be allowed to rule over us Christians. Paul spells this out in Rom 6:11: “So also consider yourselves as being dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Our baptismal union with Christ means that, in a way analogous to Christ himself, Christians have been set free from the power of sin to live new lives in the service of God. To say that Christianity is law-less because it does not follow the law of Moses in every detail according to Jewish tradition is to fail to see the purpose behind the coming of the new covenant and the significance of the believer’s union with Christ.

Paul concludes his argument against this anomian objection in Rom 6:12–14. In Rom 6:12–13 he notes the ethical consequence of our baptismal union with Christ, and calls upon his Christian readers to serve God in righteousness: “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, to obey its desires” (Rom 6:12). The bodies that we currently live in are destined to die. This is the consequence of sin in the world , yet Christians have already been set free from the power of sin. We are not, therefore, to allow sin’s former reign to continue to control us. The pronoun its in the phrase its body is textually uncertain with regard to its gender, although the evidence seems to favor its referent being your mortal body. The desires of the mortal body are sinful desires, but these are not to be obeyed. Neither are Christians to “offer your members as tools of unrighteousness to sin” (Rom 6:13). The word translated as members denotes limbs or parts of the body. Christians are not to use their bodies in the service of sin to do what is not right. Rather, says Paul, “offer yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as tools of righteousness to God” (Rom 6:13). Christians have been set free in Christ to serve God rather than sin, and it is to God that we are to offer ourselves in obedient service. God is the King that we serve, not sin. Christians are to serve God, because “sin will not rule over you” (Rom 6:14). The sense of the future tense of the verb translated as will rule seems to be incorporating the time from the present into the future. This is at least the sense that emerges in the light of the present tense used in the second clause of v. 14: “for you are not under the law but under grace.” The law of Moses in the old covenant age was a historical epoch in which sin and death reigned over Israel (see Rom 5:21). In this, the covenant rebellion of Israel served to replicate and intensify the original rebellion of Adam, which brought death into the world in the first place (Rom 5:14). But Christians through their union with Christ now participate in the new covenant. We belong to the historical epoch in which grace and righteousness rule (Rom 5:21), and continuing to serve sin is incompatible with this new reality.

Being under grace does not mean, therefore, that Christians live in a moral free zone. Paul’s Jewish opponents were wrong to suggest this. Christians have been saved to serve God in righteousness. Christianity may appear to be anomian and anti-torah from the traditional Jewish perspective, but obedience and righteousness are still important. Christ came to enable the obedience of faith among all nations. Grace, therefore, is not incompatible with personal righteousness. Indeed, grace guarantees the proper service of God.

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.

Tsedeq Righteousness in Hosea

The noun צדק occurs two times in the book of Hosea, which compares with one instance each of the noun צדקה and the adjective צדיק.

The first occurance of צדק in Hosea is in Hos 2:19 [2:21 MT]. At the time of Israel’s eschatological restoration, the Baals will have been removed from Israel (Hos 2:16–17); and there will be a covenant with creation, resulting in universal peace (Hos 2:18). For Israel, who is portrayed in Hos 2 as an unfaithful wife who has been banished by her husband, it is highly significant that Yahweh promised to one day take her back. This receiving back is pictured in Hos 2:19–20 as a betrothal. The three-fold use of ארש (betroth) makes this promise emphatic: “And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness (צדק) and in justice (משפט), in kindness (חסד) and in mercy (רחמים). I will betroth you to me in faithfulness (אמונה). And you shall know Yahweh” (Hos 2:19–20).

A betrothal is a pledge to marry. ארש has connotations of a payment made, because betrothals involved the exchange of gifts. A gift would be given to the bride’s family and also to the bride. The Hebrew idiom is to betroth (ארש) someone to (ל) oneself with (ב) some kind of gift. In 2 Sam 3:14, David, for example, had to remind Saul of the agreed betrothal gift by saying that he had betrothed (ארש) Michal to (ל) himself with (ב) one hundred Philistine foreskins: ארשתי לי במאה ערלות פלשתים I have betrothed (her) to myself with one hundred foreskins of the Philistines.

Noting that the idiom ארש ב is used in Hos 2:19 [2:21 MT], we have to say that in the proposition I will betroth you to me in righteousness and justice, both righteousness and justice are portrayed metaphorically as being gifts from the bridegroom to his future wife. This suggests that, as part of God’s plan, Israel would come to possess righteousness and justice for herself. It is true that righteousness, justice, kindness, mercy, and faithfulness are all attributes of God. It is also true that these attributes of God would be revealed in God accomplishing Israel’s echatological restoration. But the idiom ארש ב suggests that, by receiving the gifts given to her by God, Israel herself would come to possess these things. In this way, Israel would come to reflect these attributes of her husband.

The pairing of צדק in Hos 2:19 [2:21 MT] with משפט—which indicates behavior that is in accordance with the legal judgments pronounced by God in his role as King—suggests that צדק should be understood in this verse in the active sense of right behavior. This pairing of צדק and משפט is similar, therefore, to the pairing of צדקה and משפט in Gen 18:19.

The second instance of צדק in the book of Hosea is found in Hos 10:12: “Sow for yourselves righteousness (צדקה); reap kindness; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek Yahweh, until he comes and rains righteousness (צדק) upon you.” Hosea 10 is an oracle of indictment and judgment that is directed primarily against the northern kingdom of Israel. Israel was indicted for having plowed iniquity and for having reaped injustice (Hos 10:13). Continuing in this way would bring the curses of the covenant down against Israel, so God called out to Israel through the prophet Hosea for them to sow צדקה instead. They were to do this in the hope that as they returned to God, so too God would return to them (as per Deut 30:1–3; Zech 1:3). In effect, Hos 10:12 is a command from God for all Israel to repent and to start walking in the way of righteousness as a precondition for Yahweh coming and raining צדק upon them. צדק here, therefore, is probably to be understood in the more global sense of a righteous status before God plus the blessing that flows from such status.

Tsedaqah Righteousness in Amos

There are three instances of צדקה in Amos, and two instances of the adjective צדיק, but no instances of צדק as a noun or verb. In all three instances of צדקה, the noun is paired with משפט (justice). For Amos, it seems that צדקה is used primarily to denote judicial righteousness, or else active righteousness that has judicial justice at its core.

The first instance of צדקה in Amos is found in Amos 5:7. This verse is has some textual and exegetical difficulties. Taking the Masoretic Text as is—ההפכים ללענה משפט וצדקה לארץ הניחו—the verse seems to translate as “you who turn justice into wormwood, and set righteousness to the earth.”

Amos 5:1–17 is the third of three discourses in the middle of the book of Amos. These discourses can be delineated thanks to the recurrent expression “hear this word” in Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1. The third discourse can be further divided into a lament over the coming military defeat of Israel (5:1–3) and a call to repentance (5:4–17). The seek me and live refrain in 5:4, 6, 14 recalls the life language of Moses in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 30:19–20), but occurs here as a call to repentance. Israel was to seek Yahweh, but not at the illegitimate centres of worship at Bethel or Gilgal, or even at the shrine in Beersheba in Judah (5:5). In this context, 5:7 seems to function basically as a vocative expression of indictment. The call in 5:10–12, 15 to “establish justice at the gate” and to stop oppressing the poor suggests that the content of v. 7 is characterizing wealthy Israelite society as abusing the legal system, turning it into an instrument of bitter oppression over the poor and needy. If this is so, then the parallel of צדקה with משפט in v. 7 suggests that צדקה here particularly denotes judicial righteousness rather than the more general idea of active righteousness. Yet judicial righteousness cannot be totally divorced from active righteousness. Judicial righteousness is an expression of active righteousness in a judicial context, as well as being that which defends and fosters active righteousness within society.

This interpretation of the Masoretic Text makes good sense, but it should be noted that the LXX translation of Amos 5:7 is rather different: “the Lord is he who makes justice on high, and he has established righteousness in the earth.” The LXX takes κύριος as the subject of the clauses in the verse, and looks to have read ללענה as למעלה (εἰς ὕψος). In the end, I reckon that the use of ללענה in combination with צדקה in Amos 6:12 (see below) supports the Masoretic Text rather than the LXX at his point.

The next occurrence of צדקה in Amos occurs in the woe oracle (5:18–27) that follows the third discourse (i.e., 5:1–17). The coming day of Yahweh would be a time of judgment against those who do evil, meaning that the day of the Yahweh would actually be a day of “darkness … and gloom” for Israel (5:18, 20). The reason for this was because God was not pleased with Israel’s cultic worship (5:21–23). Why? Because their worship (apart from being exercised at various illegal shrines around the country) was hypocritical. This is evident from the content of 5:24 when Yahweh calls upon Israel to “let justice roll like water, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” The practice of worshiping Yahweh without a genuine righteousness expressed in their way of life was to make a mockery of the cult and the relationship with Yahweh that was maintained through it. It is probably best to take צדקה here in the more general sense of active righteousness, although in the wider context—i.e., given the relative proximity of 5:24 to 5:7, and the use of ויגל (and let it roll) in 5:24 that harks back to the word play with הגלגל (Gilgal) and גלה יגלה (it will surely go into exile)—a denotation of judicial righteousness, or at least to see judicial righteousness as the primary focus of צדקה here, is also a strong possibility.

The final instance of צדקה in Amos occurs in Amos 6:12. The wording of the clauses that pair משפט and צדקה is quite similar to the reference from Amos 5:7: “Will horses run on a cliff, or will someone plow there with oxen? But you have turned justice into poison, and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood.” This verse occurs within an oath oracle (Amos 6:8–14) which speaks of the certainty of judgment upon the strongholds of Israel and “the pride of Jacob” (v. 8), which is most likely a reference to the city of Samaria. The similarity between this verse and Amos 5:7 suggests that צדקה as judicial righteousness is probably in focus, but once again the more general sense of active righteousness is not impossible.

Overall, how delimited צדקה is in these three instances in Amos is completely dependent on the context, and weighing up the context is often a משפט of probabilities.

Tsedeq Righteousness in Ezekiel

In a previous post (see “Tsedeq Righteousness in the Pentateuch”) we observed that the Hebrew noun צדק can denote what is right in a judicial context and also in business dealings. The noun צדק occurs four times in the book of Ezekiel, and it confirms the situation regarding צדק observed in the Pentateuch while adding a new sense to the word that is important in the Prophets and the Writings.

The first instance of צדק in Ezekiel occurs in Ezek 3:20 in the context of Ezekiel’s call to be a watchman over the house of Israel: “When a righteous man turns from his righteousness (מצדקו), and does iniquity, and I set a stumbling block before him, he shall die.” Turning from one’s צדק is linked here with doing עול (iniquity). Furthermore, as a result of such apostasy, “his righteous deeds (צדקתיו) which he has done shall not be remembered.” In this verse, therefore, צדק seems to denote right behavior.

In Ezek 45:10 צדק occurs three times in the one verse. In the context of the eschatological vision of Ezek 40–48 God says: “You shall have just balances, a just ephah, and a just bath.” The content of this verse is very similar to Lev 19:36: “You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin.” The effect of this is to portray the eschatological age as being one characterized by צדק. Weights and measures, and business transactions in general, will (in the age to come) reflect צדק, the quality of that which is right or correct.

Tsedaqah Righteousness in the Former Prophets

The noun צדק does not occur in the Former Prophets, but the related term צדקה occurs twelve times in this section of the Old Testament canon. Previously (see “Tsedaqah Righteousness in Genesis” and “Tsedaqah Righteousness in Deuteronomy”) we have noted that צדקה can be used to denote right behavior (active righteousness), the legal status of being in the right that flows from right behavior (stative righteousness), or the judicial act of establishing what is right (judicial righteousness or justice).

In 2 Sam 8:15 David is described in ideal terms as being a king who “does justice and righteousness for all his people.” The king also functioned as the highest judge in the land, and was required to execute justice by pronouncing legal judgments that accord with God’s standards of what is right. This verse links righteousness (צדקה) very closely with justice (משפט). By coming to correct legal decisions, David did צדקה in the sense that his judicial pronouncements defended and established what was morally and legally correct for those who sought justice from his court.

צדקה also occurs on the lips of Saul’s grandson, Mephibosheth. When David returned to Jerusalem after the rebellion of Absalom had ended, Mephibosheth went to see David, and was questioned by David as to why he had not accompanied him when he had left Jerusalem while fleeing from Absalom. In response, Mephibosheth explained how his servant Ziba had told lies about him to David, but he was prepared for David to deal with his case however David saw fit: “my lord the king is as an angel of God, so do what is good in your eyes. For all my father’s house were nothing but dead men before my lord the king, yet you have set your servant among those who eat at your own table. What right (צדקה) therefore do I have to cry out again to the king?” (2 Sam 19:27–28). Mephibosheth’s צדקה at this point is his right to call for the execution of צדקה for himself personally on the basis that צדקה was lacking in his regard (on account of the injustice of Ziba’s slander). Having received mercy previously from the hands of David, Mephibosheth felt that he was in no position to demand צדקה from David this time around.

צדקה as active righteousness occurs in 1 Kgs 3:6. Here Solomon speaks in prayer to God concerning his father, David, who is described by Solomon as being someone who walked before Yahweh “in truth (אמת) and in righteousness (צדקה) and in the uprightness of heart (ישרת לבב).” An upright heart is a morally good heart; and the heart being the integrating center of the human psyche in biblical anthropology, a right heart naturally results in right behavior. Such צדקה is אמת in the sense of being that which accords with the accepted standard of behavior, i.e., behavior that actualizes what a person has obligated oneself to do. For David, his צדקה was his covenant faithfulness to God. As a member of Israel in covenant with God, David’s walking in righteousness consisted of him living in a manner consistent with the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant.

צדקה also occurs on the lips of the Queen of Sheba. The queen on her visit to Israel acknowledged that “Yahweh … made [Solomon] king in order to do justice and righteousness” (1 Kgs 10:9). The meaning of צדקה in this verse is simlar to 2 Sam 8:15 where משפט and צדקה are paired. One of the key functions of the king in Israel was to establish judicial righteousness in his personal legal decisions and throughout the nation as a whole.

Tsedaqah Righteousness in Deuteronomy

צדקה occurs nine times in the Pentateuch, and six times in the book of Deuteronomy. The other three pentateuchal occurances of צדקה are found in the book of Genesis (see “Tsedaqah Righteousness in Genesis”).

The first use of צדקה in Deuteronomy is found in Deut 6:25. This verse is very significant for understanding how righteousness was defined under the Mosaic covenant. In this verse Moses links stative righteousness with obedience to torah: “And it will be righteousness (צדקה) for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.” Israel’s covenant responsibility before God was to keep the stipulations of the covenant, i.e., to do torah. By walking in the way of torah, Israel would keep covenant with God, and as a consequence enjoy the status of covenant righteousness before God. In a covenantal context, righteousness is a legal status that applies to those who keep their covenant responsibilities. In the context of the Mosaic covenant, righteousness was a legal status bestowed by the Lord of the covenant upon those who (due to torah being written on the heart) were obedient to the stipulations spelled out in the law of the covenant. God’s bestowal of the status of covenant righteousness upon covenant keepers (through judicial proclamation) means that a concept of justification by obedience to torah applied under the Mosaic covenantal arrangement. This came to be known in Jewish parlance as justification by the works of the law. In other words, Deut 6:25 establishes the fact that a doctrine of the justification by the works of the law applied under the terms of the old covenant.

Even though covenant righteousness was demanded of Israel, and actually required in order to possess the promised land (e.g., Deut 6:18; 8:1), the book of Deuteronomy also states that possessing the promised land would not be achieved as a result of Israel’s righteousness. In Deut 9:4–6, the term צדקה occurs three times in three verses. Here Moses warns the people against spiritual pride:

“Do not say in your heart, after Yahweh your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness (צדקה) that Yahweh has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that Yahweh is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness (צדקה) or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations Yahweh your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, therefore, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness (צדקה), for you are a stubborn people.”

On the one hand, righteousness was required for Israel to enter and possess the land; on the other hand, Israel’s righteousness would not be the cause of such entry and possession. Reconciling these two elements, Israel’s righteousness would be an instrumental cause for entry into and possession of the land, but not the immediate primary cause. The immediate primary cause for Israel’s entry into and possession of the land was God’s desire to punish the wickedness of the original inhabitants of the land, as well as God’s desire to fulfill the promise that he made with the patriarchs. It should be noted that the righteousness in view in these verses is paralleled in v. 5 with uprightness of heart. An upright heart (inscripturated with torah) leads to obedience, which results in an enjoyment of the state of righteousness on the level of the covenant. Covenant righteousness is necessary for salvation; but, given that the obedience underlying such righteousness is a gift of God (see Deut 8:18), it is out of place to boast in one’s righteousness status before God as if it were the ultimate cause of one’s salvation. True righteousness knows humility.

צדקה also occurs in Deut 24:13. The pledge of a poor debtor, which often consisted of an item of clothing, was to be restored before nightfall. Treating the poor with compassion in this way would “be righteousness for you before Yahweh your God.” This can be viewed as a particular application of the principle stated in Deut 6:25: that obedience to torah results in stative righteousness on the level of the covenant.

In Deut 33:21, the phrase צדקת יהוה the righteousness of Yahweh occurs as part of Moses’ final blessing of Israel. This phrase is paralleled with the phrase his judgments: “[Gad] came with the heads of the people; he executed the righteousness of Yahweh, and his judgments for Israel.” In this verse, doing צדקה seems to denote executing justice. Here justice can be viewed as being a form of active righteousness on the part of Yahweh in his function as King and Judge. Functioning judicially, doing right means that the King must punish evildoers and accomplish justice. Gad would play a part in accomplishing God’s justice by fighting with his brothers against the Canaanites.

Tsedaqah Righteousness in Genesis

In the post entitled “Tsedeq Righteousness in the Pentateuch”, we looked at the use of the noun צדק in the Pentateuch. But there is another word based on the צדק root that is also commonly translated into English as righteousness. This is the noun צדקה.‎ צדק is a masculine noun, whereas צדקה is grammatically feminine. In what way do these two terms differ from each other? I will attempt to answer this question over time as we investigate the use of the צדק family of words in the Old Testament. צדקה occurs nine times in the Pentateuch, and three times in the book of Genesis.

The first use of צדקה in Genesis occurs in the famous verse Gen 15:6: “And [Abram] continued to believe Yahweh, and [Yahweh] counted it to him as righteousness (צדקה).” The noun צדקה is best understood here as denoting stative righteousness, i.e., the state of being in the right with God. Abraham’s faith response to the word of God was the right response to God’s revelation. This right response led to Abraham being considered by God to be in the right in terms of his relationship with God. It should be noted that the צדקה attributed to Abraham in this specific instance was not an alien righteousness. There is no sense of the alien righteousness of Christ apparent in the narrative in Gen 15. That is not to say that the alien righteousness of Christ is not present in the wider theological context—it is always presupposed in the background in the wider canonical context of the Scriptures—but it should not be imported into the term צדקה in Gen 15:6, which speaks of the state of personal righteousness that Abraham enjoyed before God on the basis of his faith in the word of God. The Apostle Paul’s treatment of Gen 15:6 in Rom 4 and Gal 3:6 has often been interpreted in terms of the alien righteousness of Christ, but I have problems accepting that Paul would have distorted the original meaning of Gen 15:6 by importing a concept of alien righteousness into the text. That is not the focus of Gen 15:6 in its original context.

The next instance of צדקה in Genesis occurs in Gen 18:19. In Yahweh’s self-deliberation as to whether he should tell Abraham about his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, he says: “For I have known [Abram], that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of Yahweh by doing righteousness (צדקה) and justice, so that Yahweh might bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Yahweh chose to enter into an intimate covenant relationship with Abraham with a view to Abraham commanding his extended family (including future generations) to keep the way of Yahweh. Abraham and his family would keep the way of Yahweh by doing righteousness and justice. The concept of doing righteousness is a key concept in the Old Testament. To do righteousness is to do what is right, to do righteous deeds. In Gen 18:19, צדקה denotes active righteousness, i.e., righteous acts, behavior that is right from God’s perspective. צדקה is paralleled here with justice (משׁפט ), which is behavior that is in accordance with the legal judgments pronounced by God in his role as King. Significantly, Gen 18:19 speaks of doing righteousness as the way by which God would bring about the fulfillment of his promise to bless Abraham, Israel, and the families of the earth (Gen 12:2–3). Obedience or keeping the way of Yahweh has always been necessary on the part of God’s people in order for the promised blessings to be realized (see also Gen 22:16–18).

The third and final instance of צדקה in Genesis occurs in Gen 30:33. In his negotiation with Laban concerning wages to be paid for looking after Laban’s flocks, Jacob proposed that he receive the speckled sheep and goats, and black lambs, as his wages. This would make it easy for Laban to test Jacob’s righteousness. As it is recorded in Gen 30:32–33, Jacob said to Laban: “Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted sheep, and every black lamb, and the spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my wages. So my righteousness (צדקה) will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the lambs, if found with me, shall be counted stolen.” Here Jacob’s צדקה is his right behavior, in particular, his honesty in only taking the speckled and black sheep or goats as his wages. This is ironic given that Jacob will use underhanded means and selective breeding by which to swindle Laban (see Gen 30:37–42)!

Tsedeq Righteousness in the Pentateuch

The noun צדק, normally translated into English as righteousness, occurs twelve times in the Pentateuch. All but one of these instances of צדק occur in legal material.

The first use of צדק occurs in Lev 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness (צדק) shall you judge your neighbor.” Here צדק is portrayed as the right standard of legal judgment. Judging with צדק contrasts with doing עול in judgment. עול is wrongdoing or unrighteousness. צדק can denote, therefore, what is legally right or correct. It was the legal standard of justice that God required the judiciary of Israel to uphold in their courts of law.

The idea of צדק as a right standard in legal judgments is also found in the book of Deuteronomy. Moses uses the language of judging righteousness to describe the key task of the judiciary: “And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously (צדק) between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him’” (Deut 1:16). He also uses the language of judging a judgment of righteousness: “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that Yahweh your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment (משׁפט־צדק)” (Deut 16:18). Judging a righteous judgment involves not taking bribes to pervert the course of justice (Deut 16:19). Given that צדק can express a right standard in legal judgments, the word justice can be an adequate translation into English: “Justice (צדק), justice (צדק), you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that Yahweh your God is giving you” (Deut 16:20).

צדק was also to characterize business transactions, and particularly weights and measures: “You shall have just (צדק) balances, just (צדק) weights, a just (צדק) ephah, and a just (צדק) hin” (Lev 19:36). צדק here denotes the quality of that which is right or correct. This idea also occurs in Deuteronomy: “A full and correct (צדק) weight you shall have, a full and correct (צדק) measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you” (Deut 25:15). Like in Deut 16:20, the length of Israel’s inhabitation of the promised land is linked with the presence or absence of צדק in Israel.

The only other mention of צדק in the Pentateuch occurs in the expression sacrifices of righteousness (זבחי צדק) in Deut 33:19. In his final blessing of the people, Moses blesses Zebulun and Issachar, and says: “They shall call peoples to the mountain; there they will offer sacrifices of righteousness; for they will suck the abundance of the seas, and the hidden treasures of the sand.” If this is a reference to the calling of the Gentiles, then perhaps what is in mind is that the Gentiles would come to offer right sacrifices to God (as opposed to illegitimate ones offered to false gods). The phrase זבחי צדק also occurs in Ps 4:6; 51:21, where the expression seems to incorporate not only the idea that the sacrifices are rightly offered (i.e., offered in accordance with the law of the one true God), but possibly also the broader idea that they function to restore people to a right standing before God in terms of the covenant.

The Identity and Theology of Paul's Jewish Opponents

In my previous posts entitled “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Law” and “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Gospel” I have presented some thoughts regarding the first aspect of the Jewish context of the theology of the Apostle Paul, namely, the theological context of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) in which the Apostle Paul operated. The second aspect of Paul’s Jewish context is the identity of his Jewish opponents.

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 identity of Paul’s Jewish opponents:

“Paul’s Jewish opponents in general were not ignorant of the Old Testament doctrines of grace, sin, or faith. Their key characteristic was that they were fierce advocates of Mosaic covenant theology. They believed that this system of theology (which was based on the Old Testament) was still normative. Paul, however, no longer viewed Mosaic covenant theology as normative in the way that it had been previously. Since his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, he had come to view Mosaic covenant theology in effect as old covenant theology (2 Cor 3:6-14). That is to say, the system of Mosaic covenant theology, which had been valid during the old covenant age, had now been rendered obsolete through the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant, a situation that had been foreshadowed in the Mosaic law itself. Paul’s Jewish opponents had more or less correctly understood the way that things were under the old covenant, but they had failed to see how the old covenant would be surpassed or exceeded (2 Cor 3:9-10) by the new covenant in Christ. The fundamental issue for Paul, therefore, was upholding, in the face of opposition from the advocates of traditional Mosaic covenant theology, God’s new covenant arrangement in Messiah Jesus” (p. 133).

“The non-Christian Jews of Paul’s day rejected Jesus and the Christian gospel primarily in the name of faithfulness to Moses and traditional Jewish teaching (see John 5:16, 18; 7:14-24, 45-52; 9:16; 16:2; Acts 22:3; Rom 10:2), while the Christian Judaizers sought to change the universal Christian gospel (which offered salvation to Gentiles on equal footing with Jews) into a Jewish gospel, where conversion to Judaism and keeping the law of Moses were viewed as being necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). In this way, the Judaizers were attempting to make Christianity fit snugly into the framework of the Mosaic covenant” (p. 133).

In other words, I agree here with William Dumbrell’s assessment of the Antiochene Judaizers as being Jews who “probably endeavoured to fit Jesus into the Sinai compact, which they saw as continuing … By their demand for the imposition of the Mosaic Law on Christian converts, they were in fact making demands for Christian incorporation into the Mosaic and Sinaitic structure” (William J. Dumbrell, Galatians: A New Covenant Commentary [Blackwood: New Covenant, 2006], 38–39).

“The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents, therefore, fundamentally revolved around the proper interpretation of the Mosaic covenant in God’s plan of salvation. At stake between Paul and his Jewish opponents was the proper interpretation of the Old Testament” (Coxhead, “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm,” 134).

In general, Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocates of orthodox Mosaic covenant theology, which defined righteousness in terms of obedience (i.e., commitment or faithfulness) to the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations (i.e., the law of Moses) in accordance with the teaching of Deut 6:25. The Jewish nature of the theology of Paul’s Jewish opponents needs to be understood correctly before we can truly understand the significance of the Christian doctrine of justification by faith apart from the works of the law, which Paul strongly defended in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Imputation of Faith as Righteousness in Genesis 15:6

Imputation has been vigorously discussed by evangelicals in more recent years. The debate between Robert Gundry, John Piper, and Don Garlington, regarding imputation in Paul comes to mind. But something needs to be said for Gen 15:6 in the Hebrew.

The verb ויחשבה in Gen 15:6 contains a feminine singular pronominal suffix. So the second clause in Gen 15:6 literally reads: and he counted her to him as righteousness. The question is: what is the feminine pronoun referring to, and why is it feminine?

There are two options. Perhaps the pronoun is feminine because it refers to the Hebrew word for faith (אמונה), which is a feminine noun. Even though this noun does not appear in the immediate context, it could possibly be implied from Abraham's act of believing, which is recorded in the first clause in Gen 15:6.

The second option is that the feminine pronoun is being used in an abstract way to refer to a concept that has been mentioned in the preceding context. In other words, the her refers to the act of believing in the previous clause.

The difference between the two options is not great. According to option 1 the referent of the pronoun is Abraham’s faith. According to option 2 the referent is Abraham’s act of believing. But despite this, I think that linguistically speaking option 2 is the way to go.

Option 2 is to be preferred on the basis of a similarity with Ps 106:31, which also speaks of the imputation of righteousness. Verses 30–31 recount Phinehas’s zeal in spearing to death an Israelite man and his Midianite wife (see Num 25:6–8 for the gruesome details), and God’s approbation of this act. Verses 30–31 read as follows:

“Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.”

The interesting point regarding the Hebrew of v. 31 is that the verb ותחשב is a third person feminine singular verb, literally, and she was counted. Why is the verb in the feminine? Presumably because the feminine singular subject pronoun implied within the verb is being used abstractly to refer to a concept that has been mentioned in the preceding context. The use of the implied feminine singular pronoun in Ps 106:31 to refer to Phinehas’s intervention thus serves as a linguistic precedent for taking the feminine singular pronoun in Gen 15:6 as an example of an abstract use of the feminine singular pronoun in a similar context.

But either way, the Hebrew of Gen 15:6 is saying that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. That is to say, when Abraham responded positively in accepting God’s word, this was considered by God to be the right response in the context of God’s relationship with Abraham. Responding to God rightly, Abraham was considered by God to be righteous. Genesis 15:6 is talking about the imputation of Abraham's faith as Abraham’s righteousness before God.

The obvious question for the issue of imputation in Paul is: Was Paul aware of the meaning of the Hebrew of Gen 15:6? Trained as he was as a Jewish rabbi, I would find it hard to believe that he was not aware of the meaning of Gen 15:6 in the Hebrew. This obviously has implications for the current debate over the meaning of imputation in Paul.

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.