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.
Showing posts with label works. Show all posts
Showing posts with label works. Show all posts
25 February 2010
The False Logic of an Anthropological Definition of Faith as a Solution to Legalism and Boasting
It has come time to point out the fundamental illogicality of the anthropological distinction between faith and works as a way of escaping from the possibility of legalism and boasting. I have been prompted to do this as a result of the interesting discussion that has been taking place at Euangelion after Mike Bird picked up my post “The Significance of Romans 1–2: When Jews Are Gentiles, and Gentiles Are Jews.” For those who are interested, you can find the discussion on Mike’s blog in his post entitled “The Unity of Romans 1-2.”
The first thing we need to establish is that there is a condition for salvation. Evangelicals are agreed that faith is necessary in order to human beings to be accepted by God. This means that salvation is not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then presumably everyone would be saved. If we need faith in order to be saved, then faith is a condition for salvation.
The next question we need to consider is the humanness of faith: Is faith something that human beings do? Is faith a human activity, or does the human self not do anything when a person believes? When Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord (Acts 18:8), who did the believing? The answer is obvious: Crispus did the believing. Yes, such faith was the gift of God, but it was something that God worked in Crispus for him to be able to do. When people believe, there is not an alien inside of them that does the believing for them. An alien faith is certainly is not Luther’s position. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner person or soul, and therefore not a work (as far as he is concerned), but is it nonetheless an action of the soul.
If faith is a human activity, it is something we do. Faith is the gift of God, but it is still a human action. It is, for all intents and purposes, according to the normal way that we use the English language, a work. But even if you do not want to call it a work, faith is nevertheless a human activity.
The implication of the fact that faith is a human activity is very significant. The fact that faith is a human activity means that, even in the Lutheran system, human action is present in the process of salvation. In fact, without the human activity of faith we cannot be saved. So, salvation actually hinges (to some important extent) on human activity.
One of the arguments that is frequently heard in Protestant circles regarding the issue of faith and works is that Paul distinguishes clearly between faith and works in order to deal with the problem of legalism. The argument goes that lots of Jews back then mistakingly thought that they could be saved by their own efforts, so Paul linked justification to faith apart from works in order to preclude such people from boasting in their own efforts to make themselves acceptable to God. But the problem is that whilesoever faith is a human action, such an anthropological distinction between faith and works is not sufficient to deal fundamentally with the problem of human legalism and boasting.
You see, if faith is a human activity (which Luther acknowledges it is), then what is to stop me from boasting in my faith as that which makes me right before God? It may not be right for me to boast in my faith, but since faith is something that I do, theoretically I can boast in it, unless faith is taken to exclude boasting by definition. But if faith excludes boasting by definition, why can’t we say the same thing for the obedience of walking humbly with one’s God (Mic 6:8)? Furthermore, if faith is something that God has commanded (see Acts 16:31), then what is to stop me from thinking that I need to fulfill the command to believe in order to be saved? In fact, isn’t that true? We do need to obey the gospel command to believe, in order to be saved. Isn’t this a form of legalism?
The only kind of faith that precludes human boasting is an alien faith, a faith that is no longer human, a faith that has no connection with me as a person. And the only kind of faith that precludes legalism, is a faith that God has not commanded. Do you see the problem?
Those who reckon that Paul’s anthropological distinction between faith and works bursts the bubble of human pride and solves the problem of legalism need to recognize the illogicality of their position. The only way you can stop human boasting is by removing every skerrick of human involvement in the process of salvation, and you can only do that by asserting an alien faith, a kind of faith that is totally impersonal. An anthropological distinction between faith and works as the solution to human boasting and legalism is simply illogical.
Paul obviously distinguishes between faith and works. But surely his distinction must be logical. So, if an anthropological distinction does not work in terms of the normal standards of logic, then it makes sense to search for some other kind of explanation for that distinction. To me, the distinction that makes for the best sense in terms of logic, as well as being consistent with the biblical evidence, is a salvation-historical or covenantal distinction.
The historical issue of the day was fundamentally a Jewish one: Do we need to do the works of the Mosaic law (i.e., to obey the Mosaic covenant) in order to be saved? Paul’s answer was: “No! Being right with God in the new covenant age has to do with submission to Jesus as Messiah (faith). It is no longer a matter of submission to the law of Moses (the works of the law).”
You may not agree with this suggestion, but however you explain Paul it should at least be logical.
The first thing we need to establish is that there is a condition for salvation. Evangelicals are agreed that faith is necessary in order to human beings to be accepted by God. This means that salvation is not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then presumably everyone would be saved. If we need faith in order to be saved, then faith is a condition for salvation.
The next question we need to consider is the humanness of faith: Is faith something that human beings do? Is faith a human activity, or does the human self not do anything when a person believes? When Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord (Acts 18:8), who did the believing? The answer is obvious: Crispus did the believing. Yes, such faith was the gift of God, but it was something that God worked in Crispus for him to be able to do. When people believe, there is not an alien inside of them that does the believing for them. An alien faith is certainly is not Luther’s position. For Luther, faith is an action of the inner person or soul, and therefore not a work (as far as he is concerned), but is it nonetheless an action of the soul.
If faith is a human activity, it is something we do. Faith is the gift of God, but it is still a human action. It is, for all intents and purposes, according to the normal way that we use the English language, a work. But even if you do not want to call it a work, faith is nevertheless a human activity.
The implication of the fact that faith is a human activity is very significant. The fact that faith is a human activity means that, even in the Lutheran system, human action is present in the process of salvation. In fact, without the human activity of faith we cannot be saved. So, salvation actually hinges (to some important extent) on human activity.
One of the arguments that is frequently heard in Protestant circles regarding the issue of faith and works is that Paul distinguishes clearly between faith and works in order to deal with the problem of legalism. The argument goes that lots of Jews back then mistakingly thought that they could be saved by their own efforts, so Paul linked justification to faith apart from works in order to preclude such people from boasting in their own efforts to make themselves acceptable to God. But the problem is that whilesoever faith is a human action, such an anthropological distinction between faith and works is not sufficient to deal fundamentally with the problem of human legalism and boasting.
You see, if faith is a human activity (which Luther acknowledges it is), then what is to stop me from boasting in my faith as that which makes me right before God? It may not be right for me to boast in my faith, but since faith is something that I do, theoretically I can boast in it, unless faith is taken to exclude boasting by definition. But if faith excludes boasting by definition, why can’t we say the same thing for the obedience of walking humbly with one’s God (Mic 6:8)? Furthermore, if faith is something that God has commanded (see Acts 16:31), then what is to stop me from thinking that I need to fulfill the command to believe in order to be saved? In fact, isn’t that true? We do need to obey the gospel command to believe, in order to be saved. Isn’t this a form of legalism?
The only kind of faith that precludes human boasting is an alien faith, a faith that is no longer human, a faith that has no connection with me as a person. And the only kind of faith that precludes legalism, is a faith that God has not commanded. Do you see the problem?
Those who reckon that Paul’s anthropological distinction between faith and works bursts the bubble of human pride and solves the problem of legalism need to recognize the illogicality of their position. The only way you can stop human boasting is by removing every skerrick of human involvement in the process of salvation, and you can only do that by asserting an alien faith, a kind of faith that is totally impersonal. An anthropological distinction between faith and works as the solution to human boasting and legalism is simply illogical.
Paul obviously distinguishes between faith and works. But surely his distinction must be logical. So, if an anthropological distinction does not work in terms of the normal standards of logic, then it makes sense to search for some other kind of explanation for that distinction. To me, the distinction that makes for the best sense in terms of logic, as well as being consistent with the biblical evidence, is a salvation-historical or covenantal distinction.
The historical issue of the day was fundamentally a Jewish one: Do we need to do the works of the Mosaic law (i.e., to obey the Mosaic covenant) in order to be saved? Paul’s answer was: “No! Being right with God in the new covenant age has to do with submission to Jesus as Messiah (faith). It is no longer a matter of submission to the law of Moses (the works of the law).”
You may not agree with this suggestion, but however you explain Paul it should at least be logical.
31 January 2010
The Apostle Paul's Law versus Gospel Contrast: A Response to John Thomson
This is a response to comments made by John Thomson to my post entitled “The Gospel of Paul and the Old Testament Prophets.”
Thanks, John. Very good comments.
“Does the OT preach the gospel?” Yes, definitely, and most Reformed folks do believe that it was through faith in this gospel promised beforehand that Old Testament believers were justified. I’m not suggesting that they don’t believe that. We need to keep in mind though that the Old Testament gospel was communicated to the Old Testament saints through the torah of Moses and the prophets. As the saints of old oriented themselves positively with respect to torah, they were positively oriented to the gospel promised in torah.
Yes, you are right to point out that the gospel for Paul, as evidenced from Rom 1:3-4, centers on the enthronement of Jesus as the Christ. I don’t think, however, that Paul is limiting the gospel to just the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah. I think that in his view the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah lies at the heart of the gospel prophesied in the Old Testament; but at the same time I find it hard to believe that Paul would not have accepted the full Old Testament view of the gospel, which includes the consequences of the work of the Messiah for God’s people and the world as an important part of the gospel.
I agree that the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament is one of both continuity and discontinuity. Indeed, I am suggesting to my Presbyterian and Reformed brothers that we need to think more about the discontinuity that exists between the Old and New Testaments. I’m actually saying that Paul was arguing about the discontinuity between the old covenant in Moses and the new covenant in Christ. But I do not find the discontinuity in an anthropological distinction of law/works versus gospel/faith, but in the difference of the medium and the content of old covenant versus new covenant revelation.
I agree wholeheartedly that the gospel is the divinely-authorized message that proclaims the righteousness of God, which is the eschatological righteousness that God would accomplish through the Messiah. Your comments regarding the righteousness of God are very good in my view.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is discontinuity with the coming of the righteousness of God. The nuni de of Rom 3:21 is definitely an eschatological but now. With the resurrection of Christ, the age of the new covenant has begun. It is possible, therefore, to talk about the old covenant age as one of law, and the new covenant age as one of gospel. So I liked most of your list of contrasts: the old age contrasts with the new age, law with gospel, condemnation with justification, death with life. However, I would not contrast human righteousness with God’s righteousness, but rather human unrighteousness with God's righteousness. I would also not contrast works with faith in an anthropological way, but rather (the) works (of the Mosaic law) with faith (in Christ) in a salvation-historical, covenantal way.
But in saying that there is a law versus gospel contrast, we need to understand that that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah is fulfilled in the gospel. From the Old Testament perspective, the law continues into the new covenant age, and the righteousness of God involves Christ pouring out his Spirit to bring God’s people back to a true keeping of torah. Paul understood this, as Rom 2:14-15, 26-29; 6:17-18; 7:6; 8:2-8 show. The righteousness of God is not just what God did in Christ in isolation from what Christ is doing in his people. From the Old Testament perspective, what God has done and is doing in Christ includes the circumcision of the heart of his people and the new obedience that follows as a result.
Paul’s contrast, therefore, is a covenantal contrast, not an anthropological one. The works of the law versus faith contrast in Paul is old covenant (un)righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Moses versus new covenant righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Messiah. To say that Paul is introducing an anthropological distinction between faith and works (which is a distinction that is foreign to the Old Testament) ends up making him contradict the Old Testament. Furthermore, the historical issue of the day was not legalism, but a zeal for the law of Moses that did not recognize the lordship of Jesus, which brought the age of the Mosaic law to an end (Rom 10:2-4), i.e., the historical issue of the day was the orthodox Jewish and Christian Judaizers' zeal for the Mosaic covenant instead of the new covenant in Christ.
Thanks, John. Very good comments.
“Does the OT preach the gospel?” Yes, definitely, and most Reformed folks do believe that it was through faith in this gospel promised beforehand that Old Testament believers were justified. I’m not suggesting that they don’t believe that. We need to keep in mind though that the Old Testament gospel was communicated to the Old Testament saints through the torah of Moses and the prophets. As the saints of old oriented themselves positively with respect to torah, they were positively oriented to the gospel promised in torah.
Yes, you are right to point out that the gospel for Paul, as evidenced from Rom 1:3-4, centers on the enthronement of Jesus as the Christ. I don’t think, however, that Paul is limiting the gospel to just the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah. I think that in his view the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah lies at the heart of the gospel prophesied in the Old Testament; but at the same time I find it hard to believe that Paul would not have accepted the full Old Testament view of the gospel, which includes the consequences of the work of the Messiah for God’s people and the world as an important part of the gospel.
I agree that the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament is one of both continuity and discontinuity. Indeed, I am suggesting to my Presbyterian and Reformed brothers that we need to think more about the discontinuity that exists between the Old and New Testaments. I’m actually saying that Paul was arguing about the discontinuity between the old covenant in Moses and the new covenant in Christ. But I do not find the discontinuity in an anthropological distinction of law/works versus gospel/faith, but in the difference of the medium and the content of old covenant versus new covenant revelation.
I agree wholeheartedly that the gospel is the divinely-authorized message that proclaims the righteousness of God, which is the eschatological righteousness that God would accomplish through the Messiah. Your comments regarding the righteousness of God are very good in my view.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is discontinuity with the coming of the righteousness of God. The nuni de of Rom 3:21 is definitely an eschatological but now. With the resurrection of Christ, the age of the new covenant has begun. It is possible, therefore, to talk about the old covenant age as one of law, and the new covenant age as one of gospel. So I liked most of your list of contrasts: the old age contrasts with the new age, law with gospel, condemnation with justification, death with life. However, I would not contrast human righteousness with God’s righteousness, but rather human unrighteousness with God's righteousness. I would also not contrast works with faith in an anthropological way, but rather (the) works (of the Mosaic law) with faith (in Christ) in a salvation-historical, covenantal way.
But in saying that there is a law versus gospel contrast, we need to understand that that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah is fulfilled in the gospel. From the Old Testament perspective, the law continues into the new covenant age, and the righteousness of God involves Christ pouring out his Spirit to bring God’s people back to a true keeping of torah. Paul understood this, as Rom 2:14-15, 26-29; 6:17-18; 7:6; 8:2-8 show. The righteousness of God is not just what God did in Christ in isolation from what Christ is doing in his people. From the Old Testament perspective, what God has done and is doing in Christ includes the circumcision of the heart of his people and the new obedience that follows as a result.
Paul’s contrast, therefore, is a covenantal contrast, not an anthropological one. The works of the law versus faith contrast in Paul is old covenant (un)righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Moses versus new covenant righteousness defined in terms of faithfulness to Messiah. To say that Paul is introducing an anthropological distinction between faith and works (which is a distinction that is foreign to the Old Testament) ends up making him contradict the Old Testament. Furthermore, the historical issue of the day was not legalism, but a zeal for the law of Moses that did not recognize the lordship of Jesus, which brought the age of the Mosaic law to an end (Rom 10:2-4), i.e., the historical issue of the day was the orthodox Jewish and Christian Judaizers' zeal for the Mosaic covenant instead of the new covenant in Christ.
30 January 2010
The Gospel of Paul and the Old Testament Prophets
The Apostle Paul claims in Rom 1:1 that he had been called by the Messiah to be an apostle of the “the gospel of God.” Then in Rom 1:2 he says that this gospel that he had been called to proclaim was the gospel “which [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” In other words, Paul claimed that the gospel which he preached was the same gospel as the gospel foreshadowed by the Old Testament prophets in Scripture.
These verses stand at the beginning of the epistle of Romans as a great, flashing hermeneutical beacon, warning us that we need to have the Old Testament understanding of the gospel in mind as we seek to understand Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel. The hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 is that Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel and God’s plan of salvation needs to be understood in the light of the gospel that was prophesied beforehand in the Old Testament, and also that the gospel that Paul preached must be understood in a way that is consistent with what had previously been revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
There are three questions that emerge from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2.
Firstly, how many of us are actually aware of the gospel that was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets when we read Galatians or Romans? I get the feeling that much interpretation of Paul is done by people who are more familiar with the New Testament than the Old. The common division in biblical scholarship between Old Testament studies and New Testament studies has tended to exacerbate this problem.
Secondly, how many of us have studied the Old Testament prophets in sufficient depth so as to be crystal clear about what the Old Testament gospel is? As someone who has taught the Old Testament prophets since 2002 (although not this year for political reasons), I say with sadness that the gospel preached by many today seems narrow and anemic in comparison with the gospel of the Old Testament prophets.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. How often do we hear Christians speaking of the law as something negative, something from which we need to be freed? The Old Testament prophets, however, viewed the heart of the new covenant as involving the inscription of God’s law on human hearts (Deut 30:6, 14; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). For them, the law was something that was ultimately positive; and yet many of us continue to interpret Paul as if he did not believe this Old Testament teaching.
And how many times today are we told that the obedience of God’s people is not part of the gospel, that the fruit of the gospel must not be mixed with the root which is Christ and his obedience? Sure, Christ’s obedience can and should be distinguished from that of his people, but the Old Testament prophets viewed the eschatological obedience of Israel and the nations as an integral part of the gospel (Deut 30:1-14; Isa 2:2-3; 40:9-11; 42:1-4; 49:6; 61:11; Ezek 36:26-27; 37:23-24; Hos 2:16-17, 19-20). To say that the obedience that Christ works in us through the power of his Spirit is not part of the gospel contradicts the gospel that was “promised beforehand” by God through the Old Testament prophets.
The third question that arises from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 involves Paul’s doctrine of justification. I agree that justification was a core component of the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul. It makes sense, therefore, in the light of Rom 1:1-2, to hold that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith was something about which the Old Testament prophets must also have prophesied.
The question is, therefore: How does the Old Testament prophetic teaching concerning justification match up with the common Protestant understanding that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith involves a definition of faith that is exclusive of works? Given the common view which says that Paul was at pains to argue for faith as the sole instrument of justification rather than works, you would think that such a distinction would also have been a clear concern of the Old Testament prophets. But is it? I invite people who hold to the traditional Protestant view to show me from the Old Testament where Moses or the prophets taught that the eschatological salvation that they looked forward to would be experienced by means of a faith that excludes faithfulness or obedience as part of its meaning. This is an honest invitation. Please show me where the Old Testament speaks of this distinction.
The gospel that Paul preached was “the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). I hope that the gospel that you preach is consistent with the gospel that was promised beforehand by the Old Testament prophets.
These verses stand at the beginning of the epistle of Romans as a great, flashing hermeneutical beacon, warning us that we need to have the Old Testament understanding of the gospel in mind as we seek to understand Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel. The hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 is that Paul’s teaching regarding the gospel and God’s plan of salvation needs to be understood in the light of the gospel that was prophesied beforehand in the Old Testament, and also that the gospel that Paul preached must be understood in a way that is consistent with what had previously been revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
There are three questions that emerge from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2.
Firstly, how many of us are actually aware of the gospel that was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets when we read Galatians or Romans? I get the feeling that much interpretation of Paul is done by people who are more familiar with the New Testament than the Old. The common division in biblical scholarship between Old Testament studies and New Testament studies has tended to exacerbate this problem.
Secondly, how many of us have studied the Old Testament prophets in sufficient depth so as to be crystal clear about what the Old Testament gospel is? As someone who has taught the Old Testament prophets since 2002 (although not this year for political reasons), I say with sadness that the gospel preached by many today seems narrow and anemic in comparison with the gospel of the Old Testament prophets.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. How often do we hear Christians speaking of the law as something negative, something from which we need to be freed? The Old Testament prophets, however, viewed the heart of the new covenant as involving the inscription of God’s law on human hearts (Deut 30:6, 14; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26-27). For them, the law was something that was ultimately positive; and yet many of us continue to interpret Paul as if he did not believe this Old Testament teaching.
And how many times today are we told that the obedience of God’s people is not part of the gospel, that the fruit of the gospel must not be mixed with the root which is Christ and his obedience? Sure, Christ’s obedience can and should be distinguished from that of his people, but the Old Testament prophets viewed the eschatological obedience of Israel and the nations as an integral part of the gospel (Deut 30:1-14; Isa 2:2-3; 40:9-11; 42:1-4; 49:6; 61:11; Ezek 36:26-27; 37:23-24; Hos 2:16-17, 19-20). To say that the obedience that Christ works in us through the power of his Spirit is not part of the gospel contradicts the gospel that was “promised beforehand” by God through the Old Testament prophets.
The third question that arises from the hermeneutical significance of Rom 1:1-2 involves Paul’s doctrine of justification. I agree that justification was a core component of the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul. It makes sense, therefore, in the light of Rom 1:1-2, to hold that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith was something about which the Old Testament prophets must also have prophesied.
The question is, therefore: How does the Old Testament prophetic teaching concerning justification match up with the common Protestant understanding that Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith involves a definition of faith that is exclusive of works? Given the common view which says that Paul was at pains to argue for faith as the sole instrument of justification rather than works, you would think that such a distinction would also have been a clear concern of the Old Testament prophets. But is it? I invite people who hold to the traditional Protestant view to show me from the Old Testament where Moses or the prophets taught that the eschatological salvation that they looked forward to would be experienced by means of a faith that excludes faithfulness or obedience as part of its meaning. This is an honest invitation. Please show me where the Old Testament speaks of this distinction.
The gospel that Paul preached was “the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). I hope that the gospel that you preach is consistent with the gospel that was promised beforehand by the Old Testament prophets.
16 January 2010
Faith and Justification in the Old Testament
The following is in response to comments 3-5 from John Thomson to my post entitled “Justification by the Works of the Law in Pauline Perspective.” Because of the length of the response, it is placed here as a post.
Thanks, John. You are definitely thinking a lot about his. Keep up the good work to honor God in your understanding of Scripture, and thank you for your challenge for me to do the same.
Maybe where we differ is that you seem to limit faith to belief in promise. You do so on the basis of a certain understanding of Paul, but my suggestion has been that Paul’s faith/promise distinction is not a linguistic or literary generic distinction, but primarily a salvation-historical one. We need to explore that further over time.
I feel strongly that the evidence from the Old Testament itself leads to the conclusion that the Old Testament concept of faith is not limited merely to promise. It is directed to the totality of whatever it is that God reveals. Faith is not a matter of picking and choosing what part of God’s revelation that you will accept; it is accepting the whole counsel of God. This is a key point. This means that the faith of the Old Testament saints was not directed solely to the Messiah as if he stood independent of the rest of old covenant revelation. How did Israel know about the Messiah? He was revealed to them through Moses and the prophets, and with greater clarity over time. The prophecies concerning the Messiah and the new covenant that are present in the Old Testament are part of the torah of Moses and prophets. In other words, the gospel was revealed to Israel through the law and the prophets. Therefore, the gospel in prophetic form was actually a subset of old covenant law. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and 30:1-14 are classic examples of this. This means that Israel’s faith in torah included faith in the gospel. Faith in the Old Testament cannot be limited solely to faith in the gospel. Consider the author of Ps 119. He says in v. 66: “I believe in your commandments.” His faith was clearly directed to torah. Torah functioned for him as a proleptic gospel as he responded to it in faith, and this faith in torah also included faith in the full substance of the gospel that would come in Christ as revealed to him through torah by way of prophecy.
This seems to be consistent with Paul's understanding when he says: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it" (Rom 3:21; note also 1:16-17). The gospel was mediated to old covenant Israel through torah (i.e., Old Testament torah testified to the saving righteousness of God in Christ); but once the Messiah has come, law and gospel can be spoken of as being distinct revelations (i.e., the saving righteousness of God in Christ is revealed apart from the law of Moses).
I agree that we need to have an Old Testament study on the nature of faith. That will help to solve this issue. My doctorate is concerned with this, so hopefully I’ll be able to contribute more to this in the future, but I’ll seek to post things every so often as they are relevant and as I have time. The key, I believe, is studying the idea of faith in the Abraham narrative.
You also keep saying that no one back then could keep covenant with God. This is not consistent with the Old Testament presentation of the matter. We can explore this further in my next post on Ps 119.
I would argue that Rom 9:33, which is a quotation of Isa 28:16 merged with Isa 8:14, is an eschatological text. You are taking it as if it were applicable throughout salvation history. But Isa 28:16 occurs in an eschatological context, and I would argue that this is exactly how Paul has taken it, as a prophecy of his own day and the Gentile period of the new covenant age. The laying of the stumbling stone in Zion is a prophecy about how the Israelites would reject the Messiah when he came to them in person.
In suggesting that Paul was talking about the fullness of justification, I am not saying that justification by the works of the law was less than 100% justification as far as being a judgment that an individual Israelite had met his or her covenant obligation before God. But justification under the Mosaic covenant was not full justification in the sense that full vindication and blessing could not come for the Old Testament saints during the old covenant age. In the end, the eschatological justification of the individual goes together with the justification of the whole people of God. The finger cannot be fully justified in a realized eschatological sense without the justification of the whole body of which it is a part. Furthermore, being limited to Israel, justification by the works of the law was not a justification that all flesh could participate in. As individual believers we are justified in Christ, who is the body. Maybe I need to talk of old covenant justification by the works of the law as being non-eschatological, and Paul’s concept of justification by faith as being primarily eschatological. I do admit that finding language to describe these things is difficult at times.
Having the law in the heart is not solely a new covenant privilege. I believe it is wrong to interpret Jer 31:33 as if it were saying that. The Holy Spirit was also at work in the old covenant age, but his work was limited to the faithful remnant. What Jeremiah is saying (when read in the context of the rest of the Old Testament) is that this work which was limited during the Mosaic age will become much more comprehensive under the new covenant as the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh.
I agree with the perspective of Heb 7:18, looking at the law of Moses from the vantage point of the new covenant; but Heb 7:18 still needs to read in such a way that it is consistent with Ps 119. The author of Ps 119 viewed the law of Moses (the “former commandment”) as primarily positive. The question is: How do we reconcile Ps 119 with Hebrews? Keep an eye out for my next post on Ps 119.
Thanks, John. You are definitely thinking a lot about his. Keep up the good work to honor God in your understanding of Scripture, and thank you for your challenge for me to do the same.
Maybe where we differ is that you seem to limit faith to belief in promise. You do so on the basis of a certain understanding of Paul, but my suggestion has been that Paul’s faith/promise distinction is not a linguistic or literary generic distinction, but primarily a salvation-historical one. We need to explore that further over time.
I feel strongly that the evidence from the Old Testament itself leads to the conclusion that the Old Testament concept of faith is not limited merely to promise. It is directed to the totality of whatever it is that God reveals. Faith is not a matter of picking and choosing what part of God’s revelation that you will accept; it is accepting the whole counsel of God. This is a key point. This means that the faith of the Old Testament saints was not directed solely to the Messiah as if he stood independent of the rest of old covenant revelation. How did Israel know about the Messiah? He was revealed to them through Moses and the prophets, and with greater clarity over time. The prophecies concerning the Messiah and the new covenant that are present in the Old Testament are part of the torah of Moses and prophets. In other words, the gospel was revealed to Israel through the law and the prophets. Therefore, the gospel in prophetic form was actually a subset of old covenant law. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and 30:1-14 are classic examples of this. This means that Israel’s faith in torah included faith in the gospel. Faith in the Old Testament cannot be limited solely to faith in the gospel. Consider the author of Ps 119. He says in v. 66: “I believe in your commandments.” His faith was clearly directed to torah. Torah functioned for him as a proleptic gospel as he responded to it in faith, and this faith in torah also included faith in the full substance of the gospel that would come in Christ as revealed to him through torah by way of prophecy.
This seems to be consistent with Paul's understanding when he says: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it" (Rom 3:21; note also 1:16-17). The gospel was mediated to old covenant Israel through torah (i.e., Old Testament torah testified to the saving righteousness of God in Christ); but once the Messiah has come, law and gospel can be spoken of as being distinct revelations (i.e., the saving righteousness of God in Christ is revealed apart from the law of Moses).
I agree that we need to have an Old Testament study on the nature of faith. That will help to solve this issue. My doctorate is concerned with this, so hopefully I’ll be able to contribute more to this in the future, but I’ll seek to post things every so often as they are relevant and as I have time. The key, I believe, is studying the idea of faith in the Abraham narrative.
You also keep saying that no one back then could keep covenant with God. This is not consistent with the Old Testament presentation of the matter. We can explore this further in my next post on Ps 119.
I would argue that Rom 9:33, which is a quotation of Isa 28:16 merged with Isa 8:14, is an eschatological text. You are taking it as if it were applicable throughout salvation history. But Isa 28:16 occurs in an eschatological context, and I would argue that this is exactly how Paul has taken it, as a prophecy of his own day and the Gentile period of the new covenant age. The laying of the stumbling stone in Zion is a prophecy about how the Israelites would reject the Messiah when he came to them in person.
In suggesting that Paul was talking about the fullness of justification, I am not saying that justification by the works of the law was less than 100% justification as far as being a judgment that an individual Israelite had met his or her covenant obligation before God. But justification under the Mosaic covenant was not full justification in the sense that full vindication and blessing could not come for the Old Testament saints during the old covenant age. In the end, the eschatological justification of the individual goes together with the justification of the whole people of God. The finger cannot be fully justified in a realized eschatological sense without the justification of the whole body of which it is a part. Furthermore, being limited to Israel, justification by the works of the law was not a justification that all flesh could participate in. As individual believers we are justified in Christ, who is the body. Maybe I need to talk of old covenant justification by the works of the law as being non-eschatological, and Paul’s concept of justification by faith as being primarily eschatological. I do admit that finding language to describe these things is difficult at times.
Having the law in the heart is not solely a new covenant privilege. I believe it is wrong to interpret Jer 31:33 as if it were saying that. The Holy Spirit was also at work in the old covenant age, but his work was limited to the faithful remnant. What Jeremiah is saying (when read in the context of the rest of the Old Testament) is that this work which was limited during the Mosaic age will become much more comprehensive under the new covenant as the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh.
I agree with the perspective of Heb 7:18, looking at the law of Moses from the vantage point of the new covenant; but Heb 7:18 still needs to read in such a way that it is consistent with Ps 119. The author of Ps 119 viewed the law of Moses (the “former commandment”) as primarily positive. The question is: How do we reconcile Ps 119 with Hebrews? Keep an eye out for my next post on Ps 119.
30 December 2009
A Summary of Paul's Understanding of Salvation History
The table below is a summary of the major epochs in salvation history according to the Apostle Paul, and how he characteristically described the key soteriological aspects related to these epochs.
A salvation-historical covenantal approach to Paul suggests that Paul used different terms to describe the word of God, and the required response of covenant faith, in different salvation-historical epochs; but that underlying the differing terminology, salvation has always been through faith, i.e., through the reception of God’s word into the heart thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit.
In effect, Paul has reserved the language of faith solely to the faith of “Gentile” Abraham (on the basis of Gen 15:6) and to faith in the new covenant proclamation of the gospel (on the basis of Isa 28:16 and Hab 2:4). For the faith of godly people under the Mosaic covenant, he uses the term the works of the law instead of faith. He does this, reflecting the predominant way in which faith was denoted in the Pentateuch (i.e., it was spoken of in a holistic way as doing torah), in order to highlight how Mosaic faith was a temporary stage in salvation history, and that salvation in the new covenant age is opened up to the Gentiles, the implication being that it is not right for non-Christian Jews to reject Jesus Christ in the name of faithfulness to Moses, nor for Christian Judaizers to force Christian Gentiles to be circumcised (if male) and to keep the law of Moses, as if only Jews could be saved.
The point of Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is that the Mosaic covenant compounds the problem of sin and death in Adam, but the fullness of blessing and life is made available only in the new covenant in Christ. The faith response in the new covenant age mirrors that of Gentile Abraham, meaning that in the new covenant age Gentiles can participate in salvation as part of the people of God, just as Gentile Abraham could. In other words, the new covenant doctrine of justification by faith means that the Mosaic doctrine of justification by the works of the law no longer applies. This means that salvation in the new covenant has nothing to do with following Moses, but with submission to the lordship of Christ.
The pattern of salvation history according to Paul is basically:
where C = the cross of Christ.
A salvation-historical covenantal approach to Paul suggests that Paul used different terms to describe the word of God, and the required response of covenant faith, in different salvation-historical epochs; but that underlying the differing terminology, salvation has always been through faith, i.e., through the reception of God’s word into the heart thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit.
In effect, Paul has reserved the language of faith solely to the faith of “Gentile” Abraham (on the basis of Gen 15:6) and to faith in the new covenant proclamation of the gospel (on the basis of Isa 28:16 and Hab 2:4). For the faith of godly people under the Mosaic covenant, he uses the term the works of the law instead of faith. He does this, reflecting the predominant way in which faith was denoted in the Pentateuch (i.e., it was spoken of in a holistic way as doing torah), in order to highlight how Mosaic faith was a temporary stage in salvation history, and that salvation in the new covenant age is opened up to the Gentiles, the implication being that it is not right for non-Christian Jews to reject Jesus Christ in the name of faithfulness to Moses, nor for Christian Judaizers to force Christian Gentiles to be circumcised (if male) and to keep the law of Moses, as if only Jews could be saved.
The point of Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is that the Mosaic covenant compounds the problem of sin and death in Adam, but the fullness of blessing and life is made available only in the new covenant in Christ. The faith response in the new covenant age mirrors that of Gentile Abraham, meaning that in the new covenant age Gentiles can participate in salvation as part of the people of God, just as Gentile Abraham could. In other words, the new covenant doctrine of justification by faith means that the Mosaic doctrine of justification by the works of the law no longer applies. This means that salvation in the new covenant has nothing to do with following Moses, but with submission to the lordship of Christ.
The pattern of salvation history according to Paul is basically:
abAB
where a = disobedience and death through Adam, b = obedience and life through Abraham, A = disobedience and death through the old covenant, and B = obedience and life through the new covenant.
It also needs to be pointed out that abA has been turned into B only through the righteousness and obedience of the one man, Jesus Christ (Rom 5:18-19), so perhaps the pattern of salvation history is best written as:
where a = disobedience and death through Adam, b = obedience and life through Abraham, A = disobedience and death through the old covenant, and B = obedience and life through the new covenant.
It also needs to be pointed out that abA has been turned into B only through the righteousness and obedience of the one man, Jesus Christ (Rom 5:18-19), so perhaps the pattern of salvation history is best written as:
abACB
where C = the cross of Christ.
SALVATION-HISTORICAL EPOCH | PAULINE TERM FOR THE WORD OF GOD | PAULINE TERM FOR FAITH RESPONSE | HISTORICAL RESPONSE | HISTORICAL RESULT |
| Adam in the garden | the commandment | obedience | disobedience | death for Adam and for all humanity born of Adam |
| “Gentile” Abraham | promise | faith | faith | inaugurated partial blessing |
| Israel | the law | the works of the law | disobedience on the part of Israel as a whole | death for the nation as a whole |
| the church under grace | the gospel | faith | faith on the part of mainly Gentiles but more Jews after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in | inaugurated fullness of blessing and life now leading to consummated fullness of blessing and life for believers at the return of Christ |
27 December 2009
A Response to Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification: Part One
Dave Woolcott has recently posted on his blog a response to the 32 theses listed in my website article “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled.” Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled “Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification,” or on his blog in his post entitled “A response to Steven Coxhead’s ‘Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled.’”
Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstood my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.
Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.
It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.
Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?
The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.
But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.
Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.
I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.
Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstood my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.
Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.
It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.
Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?
The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.
But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.
Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.
I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)