An Interpretation of Sin Coming Alive in Romans 7:9

Romans 7 has often been interpreted by Protestants as if it is talking about our inability as Christians to keep God’s law. I have argued elsewhere (see “The Significance of the Law in Romans 7”) that this is a wrong interpretation for three main reasons:

(1) the law that is being talked about in Rom 7 is the law of Moses, not the law of God in general;

(2) in Paul’s thinking, God’s people in the new covenant age are no longer under the law, but have been set free from the law (Rom 7:4, 6; see also 6:14);

(3) Paul’s concern in Rom 7 is to argue that the historical function of the law of Moses was to bring about the death of carnal Israel (Rom 7:14) as a way of compounding the death of humanity in Adam (Rom 7:8-11, 13; 5:20) in a manner consistent with the Old Testament prophets’ view of the primary historical function of the Mosaic covenant in salvation history.

The idea that the law in Rom 7 is specifically the law of Moses is confirmed by a small but intriguing detail in Rom 7:9. This verse is translated in the NIV as follows: “Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” The ESV has the following: “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”

There are a couple of interpretive issues to be resolved in relation to this verse. Firstly, what does it mean that Paul was once alive apart from the law? Secondly, what does Paul mean when he says that the commandment came? And thirdly, what does he mean when he says that sin came alive?

Resolving these interpretive issues centers on our understanding of the small and intriguing detail which is the Greek word ἀνέζησεν. This word is a third person, aorist active indicative form of the verb ἀναζάω. The verb ἀναζάω basically means to return to life or to live again. Used in connection with sin, it implies that sin was once alive and then died, before coming to life again when the commandment came.

Sin was alive, then dead, then alive again. How is this pattern to be explained? The common psychological interpretation of Rom 7 as being Paul struggling with sin as a Christian does not fit neatly with this pattern. Perhaps the best that we can say (following this interpretation) is that Paul was dead in sin as a non-Christian, then liberated from sin at his conversion, but then his struggle with God’s law led to sin coming to life again in the sense that its power to control him reasserted itself. But this explanation is rather strained.

The explanation that makes better sense of ἀνέζησεν understands the sin alive, dead, alive pattern as fitting in with the flow of salvation history as summarized by Paul previously in Rom 5:12–21, especially vv. 12–14. In Rom 5:12–14 Paul speaks about how sin came into the world through the sin of Adam, and how death reigned over humanity from the time of Adam until the time of Moses even though that was a time during which sin was not reckoned. During this period of time, “sin was in the world; but sin was not reckoned, because the law was not present” (Rom 5:13). In other words, the time from Adam’s sin to the giving of the law at Sinai was a time during which sin was effectively dead. Sin was around; but because the law of Moses had not yet been promulgated, there was no explicit legal structure that regulated God’s standards of morality in a formal way.

Paul’s teaching in Rom 5:12–14 helps us understand, therefore, how it is that sin could come alive again for carnal Israel. Sin, which had formally speaking lain dormant from the time of the expulsion of Adam until Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai, came alive with the giving of the law of Moses. The old covenant mediated by Moses set up a legal structure through which the sin of God’s people would result in death in a formal and legally-binding way as a result of covenant rebellion.

We can now explain the three interpretive issues identified above. Paul, as a representative of carnal Israel, was once alive apart from the law in the sense that Israel experienced life prior to the coming of the commandment, which equates to the giving of the law at Sinai. Prior to the giving of the law at Sinai, Israel’s relationship with God was loosely regulated through the Abrahamic covenant and ad-hoc laws. There was no strict promulgation and regulation of covenant stipulations. There was no formally regulated sense of the possibility of the covenant curse of death coming down upon God’s people. But with the giving of the law at Sinai, this changed. A strict accounting of covenant response in relation to covenant law would now begin, and the prospects of success were not great from the beginning (as the incident of the sin of the golden calf serves to highlight). The giving of the law at Sinai opened up the possibility—or the reality in God’s plan in salvation history—of Israel sinning “according to likeness of the trespass of Adam” (as per Rom 5:14), i.e., of Israel rebelling against God’s formally promulgated law in like manner to Adam.

The point of Rom 7:9 is to help Paul’s Jewish opponents and Christian audience understand that the giving of the Mosaic covenant served in God’s purposes in salvation history to intensify the problem of human sin. Far from liberating Israel from sin and death, the law (in God’s plan) actually made things worse! The primary historical function of the Mosaic covenant was to render Israel guilty before God (Rom 3:19), and to bring the curse of covenant death down against the nation (Rom 7:10), in order to intensify the trespass of humanity in Adam, as a backdrop for the salvation of Jew and Gentile through the super-abounding grace of God in the new covenant of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:20).

Two Ways to Live in Romans 6

The objection of Paul’s Jewish opponents, that Christianity was lawless or anomian (Rom 6:1, 15), failed to understand that Christianity maintained the two way ethical system of the Old Testament.

The Hebrew Bible (i.e, the Old Testament) clearly teaches that there are two possible ways of living.

Two Ways to Live

One is the way of life; the other is the way of death. The righteous walk on the road of life, whereas the wicked walk on the road of death. This two way theology is particularly prominent in Psalms and Proverbs. Psalm 1 describes the righteous as abstaining from walking in “the way of sinners” (Ps 1:1). It concludes by saying that “Yahweh knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:6). The way of life is pursued by the righteous, who walk in “the paths of justice” and “the way of [Yahweh's] saints” (Prov 2:8), who “walk in the way of the good, and keep to the paths of the righteous” (Prov 2:20). The way of life is “the way of wisdom” (Prov 4:11). Contrasting with the way of life is the way of death, which is the pathway that the wicked follow, to their detriment: “the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble” (Prov 4:19).

Paul’s Jewish opponents, common to the orthodox Jews of the day, understood (following the teaching of the Hebrew Bible) that the way of life was the way of obedience to torah. As Prov 6:23 says: “the commandment (מצוה) is a lamp, and the teaching (תורה) a light; and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life.” The author of Ps 119 also describes the way of life in terms of following torah. Thus, the way is described as being “the way of [Yahweh’s] testimonies” (Ps 119:14), “the way of [Yahweh’s] precepts” (Ps 119:27), “the way of [Yahweh’s] commandments” (Ps 119:32), “the way of [Yahweh’s] statutes” (Ps 119:33), or more simply “the way of faith (אמונה)” (Ps 119:30). The Old Testament way of faith was the way of obedience to Mosaic torah.

But in teaching that people could be righteous before God through faith in Christ rather than the torah faith of Moses, Paul’s Jewish opponents believed that orthodox Christianity had effectively destroyed the “two way” theology taught in the Hebrew Bible. Hence their insinuation that Christianity was a license to sin (Rom 6:1, 15).

But the Christianity of Paul and the early Christians did not abandon the “two way” ethical structure of the Old Testament. In asserting a greater lawgiver who proclaimed a greater law than the law of Moses, the early Christians redefined the “two way” theology of the Old Testament. They still believed that there was only one way of life and one contrary way of death, but the way of life in the new covenant age was no longer considered to be the way of Mosaic torah but the way of Messianic torah. Hence Jesus’ statement—controversial in a Jewish context—that he himself is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6); and Paul’s teaching (as per Rom 6) that one can either be a slave of God, through obedience to the gospel (Rom 6:17), which results in life (Rom 6:22); or a slave of sin, which leads to death (Rom 6:21). Paul’s gospel retained the “two way” theology of the Old Testament, but redefined “the way” in terms of Jesus Christ.

The Two States of Servitude in Rom 6

Thus, in the crossover from the old to the new, the way of Moses has become the way of Christ.

Christ Came to Enable Obedience

Paul’s Jewish opponents did not really understand the nature of the Christian gospel. They heard Paul preaching grace instead of the law, but they concluded on the basis of this that Christianity was lawless or anomian, that it was anti-torah (Rom 6:1, 15). But this was to fail to understand the way in which the early Christians firmly saw the gospel as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the new covenant, at the heart of which was the idea that God would enable the covenant obedience of his people as part of the new covenant.

By way of example:

“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, so that you might live” (Deut 30:6);

“But the word will be very near you. It will be in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Deut 30:14);

“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” (Jer 31:33);

“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek 36:26–27).

Hence, Paul’s teaching in Rom 6 that union with Christ involves the believer becoming a slave to righteousness. In other words, Christ enables the obedience of God’s people. Paul understood that the law of Moses was given historically in order to bind Israel under sin, intensifying the consequences of the trespass of Adam; “but where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom 5:20). And with this increase of grace, Christians “have been set free from sin, and have become slaves to God”; and the end result of the sanctification that comes with such obedience is eternal life (Rom 6:22).

Christ came not only to make full atonement for sin, but also to enable the covenant obedience of God’s people. Far from being a license to sin, grace in Christ includes the Spirit-enabled obedience of God’s people.

The Baptism of Jesus in Water and the Spirit in Luke 3:21–22

The story of Jesus being baptised by John the Baptist frequently raises questions for some Christians. Many have asked the question: if the baptism that John the Baptist performed was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (as per Luke 3:3), then why would Jesus be baptised by John if he was, as Christians believe, totally without sin?

It is true that the baptism that John the Baptist performed was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but it is also true that Jesus didn’t have any sins that he needed to repent of. What then is going on here?

The baptism that John the Baptist performed was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but the deeper significance of John’s baptism was that it marked a formal commitment to obedience. In other words, John’s baptism was also a sign of offering oneself in proper service to God, a sign of one’s commitment to walk in obedience to God’s commands.

And this was the significance of Jesus’ baptism in water by John. Jesus was baptised as a sign of his commitment to walk in the way of obedience to his Father’s commands. Jesus was baptised as a sign that he had come not to do his own will but the will of his Father in heaven. And this will required that Jesus would suffer and serve as the promised Messiah. This is indicated by fact that after Jesus was baptised, a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22b). Jesus was the beloved Son of God. In Jewish thinking, the title the Son of God (following Ps 2) designated the Messiah. This heavenly voice was God the Father identifying Jesus as the promised Savior King. And according to God’s words here, Jesus was fully obedient to his Father. Jesus fully pleased his Father.

The presence of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism helps us to see that Jesus’ baptism marked the point in his life when his Messianic ministry officially began. We are told in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was “about 30 years of age” when he began his ministry. It is clear from this statement that Luke viewed Jesus’ baptism as marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in his official capacity as the Christ, the Son of God.

But Jesus’ baptism not only marked the official commencement of his ministry. It is also evident that his baptism in water by John corresponded to the point in time when when God baptised Jesus with the Holy Spirit: “when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove” (Luke 3:21–22a).

But what does it mean that the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus like this? Christians sometimes wonder about the idea of Jesus being baptised in the Holy Spirit. Does that imply that Jesus didn’t have the Spirit prior to his baptism? The answer is “no and yes.” Prior to his baptism Jesus was filled with the Spirit. He had God’s word written on his heart, and he lived an obedient life. Jesus had the Spirit present in his heart, but he hadn’t yet received the new covenant outpouring of the Spirit. He hadn’t yet received the outpouring of the Spirit that was associated with the Messianic age, which was the outpouring of the Spirit that would also equip him in his offical role as the Messiah. So the outpouring of the Spirit at the time of Jesus’ baptism was in reality the beginning of the end-time outpouring of the Spirit that the Old Testament prophets had prophesied about.

In order to understand the significance of Jesus being baptised with the Holy Spirit, we need to understand what the role of the Holy Spirit is according to the Bible. The Holy Spirit has many functions. One of the key functions of the Holy Spirit is his function as being the invisible presence of God throughout the universe. Being the invisible presence of God, the Holy Spirit is God. Christians traditionally talk about him as being the third person of the Trinity. But being the invisible presence of God, the Holy Spirit is also described in the Scriptures as being an agent of God’s power. Indeed, one of the key functions of the Holy Spirit is his function of providing power.

The Holy Spirit can be thought of as being like an electric current that empowers everything in the universe. On a general level, God’s Spirit empowers all living things. This is clear, for example, from Ps 104:27–30. The psalmist praying to God says: “all [the animals] look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.”

Psalm 104:30 teaches that it is God’s Spirit who gives life to the animals, and who renews the surface of the earth by making plants and trees grow upon the ground. The flowers that grow in a person’s garden only do so because of the energy of God’s Spirit that gives them the power to live and grow.

Back in 2005 I remember being amazed to see pictures of the surface of Planet Mars that had been taken by the Mars Rover. Those pictures helped draw attention to the stark difference between Earth and Mars. Earth is green and blue, so full of life; but Mars is red and dry, beautiful in its way, but barren and devoid of life.

But why are these two planets so different? The scientists have their theories, and some want to think that maybe once upon a time there was life on Mars; but the Bible’s more theological answer is a little different yet quite simple. Why are Mars and Earth different? Because God has focused the life-giving power of his Spirit on Planet Earth. Out of all of the planets in the solar system, God’s focus is Planet Earth, and this planet is where his Spirit is most active. Life currently exists on Planet Earth, but not on Mars, because ultimately God’s Spirit is focused on Planet Earth, providing the power necessary for life on the planet that we inhabit.

This life is the life-force evident in every human being. Each of us commenced life as a tiny embryo in our mother’s womb. We began as a little speck, growing bigger and bigger until the day when we were born into the world; and after that, we’ve gradually grown up and matured. We—indeed all people, all living things, the cats and dogs and goldfish—we all have life thanks to God’s Spirit who gives us the necessary life-force. All living things experience the physical life that God’s Spirit gives to all living things generally.

But the Holy Spirit not only gives physical life; he also gives spiritual life. What theologians call the special operations of the Holy Spirit (in distinction from the common operations of the Holy Spirit) involves God’s Spirit empowering specific individuals whom God will use in some way in his plan of salvation, either in a specific way or else in a general way. The Old Testament, for example, identifies particular individuals who were empowered by the Holy Spirit for particular tasks. The Spirit came upon Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, and the prophets, empowering them to lead God’s people, to teach them, even to deliver them. And more generally, the Holy Spirit was also active in a special way during the Old Testament age, writing God’s word on the hearts of a faithful remnant, leading them in the way of righteousness.

Whether specific or general, the special operations of the Holy Spirit have in common the providence of power, a special power which can be called new life power. The climax of this new life power is seen in Jesus’ resurrection. The power that was evident on Easter Sunday, the power that raised Jesus from the dead, this is the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit: resurrection power.

This power can be distinguished from the general life-force experienced by all living things. The general life-force that we currently experience in this world fades over time as we get older and weaker, and it eventually disappears when we die. The power of death is actually greater than the power of life in this world, but the power of death is no match for the power of God’s Spirit. Jesus’ resurrection is proof of this. New life power or resurrection power is the power of the kingdom of God. The special power of God’s Spirit is not the power of this world, but the power of the world to come. It’s a power that doesn’t grow weaker with time, but which continues at great strength forever. In fact, the full extent of that power has not yet been revealed, although we have seen a small glimpse of it in the resurrection of Jesus.

When Jesus was baptised, he was energised with this special power. Having been baptised with the Spirit, God’s Spirit would now direct Jesus’ every step in his ministry. The Spirit would strengthen Jesus, and enable him to teach and prophesy, and to perform miracles.

But did you notice how the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus? Was it with blinking neon lights or with a blaring horn? No, the Spirit descended “in bodily form, like a dove” (Luke 3:22)! This seems a little strange perhaps. Why the form of a dove? The form of an elephant would have been a little easier to notice, if potentially a little dangerous; but why the dove?

Normally when people today think of a dove, they think of peace. The dove is particularly common as a symbol in anti-war demonstrations. It’s common at such demonstrations to see banners with a white dove holding a small olive branch in its beak. Some may not realise, but this image is taken from the Bible, from Genesis in the story of Noah and the flood. After Noah had been in the ark for ten months, he released a dove which eventually flew back to the ark with an olive branch in its beak (Gen 8:11).

So does the dove with the olive branch symbolise peace in this story? Yes, but it’s more than simply the idea of peace thought of as being the absence of war. This dove and the olive branch actually symbolise peace in the sense of new life returning to the world after a period of God’s judgment. The dove and the olive branch symbolise more than anything else … new life. The green olive branch in the dove’s beak meant that life had returned to Planet Earth after the devastation of the flood. The dove, therefore, is a symbol of new life after death.

In the light of this, the significance of the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus in the form of a dove is clear. The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in this way in order for us to understand the significance of that event by understanding the significance of the symbolism of the dove. There on the day of Jesus’ baptism the Holy Spirit was himself proclaiming: This man is the new ark of salvation; this is the man who will bring new life to God’s world through the power of God’s Spirit. This is completely consistent with the Old Testament teaching that the Holy Spirit is the Giver of life in general, but especially the Giver of new life in the context of death.

It was this Holy Spirit who would empower Jesus in a ministry whose purpose was to bring new life into a world dominated by death. With the Holy Spirit coming down upon him in the form of a dove, Jesus was in effect being presented as being a new Noah’s ark. Just like the ark, Jesus would pass through the stormy seas of God’s judgment against sin. And just like the ark, Jesus would be the vehicle through whom life would be preserved in the world.

Being filled with the Spirit, Jesus was able to do the work of his ministry of bringing new life to the world. Luke records in ch. 4:1 that it was the Spirit that led Jesus from the Jordan River into the wilderness to be tempted for forty days. Afterwards we read that Jesus “returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee” (Luke 4:14). These two details show that Jesus’ whole ministry was conducted under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is thanks to the Holy Spirit that Jesus was able to complete his mission of bringing new life to the world. Christians celebrate this victory of Jesus over sin and death, the victory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit co-operating to bring peace to our world.

Luke’s account of the baptism of Jesus provides a wonderful picture of the Trinity co-operating. Here is the Trinity working together so that Jesus might fulfill his ministry of salvation. God the Father sends God the Spirit to empower God the Son. And because the Trinity was a unity in the ministry of Jesus, Christians can experience the power of new life even in the midst of the decadence of the world around us by participating in the power of the Holy Spirit.

But to participate in the power of the Holy Spirit, we, like Jesus, need to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. In fact, one of the questions that everyone living on this planet needs to ask is: How can I be baptised with such power? How can I have the power of eternal life running through my veins?

In answer to this question, Christianity proclaims that Jesus is the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit, and that he freely baptises those who come to him acknowledging that he is the Christ, the promised Savior King. Because Jesus has been filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit, he is able to baptise us with the Spirit. As John the Baptist proclaimed: “I baptise you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming … he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16).

This baptism in the Holy Spirit is the baptism that Christians receive at conversion. Christians have various opinions on this issue, but I take it that the normative situation for Christians generally is the same as that which was taught by the Apostle Peter in his famous Pentecost sermon. Peter called upon the people moved by his preaching, saying: “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). The normative situation in the early church regarding baptism in the Spirit saw the official reception of the Spirit by a believer as being closely tied in with water baptism. In fact, the very reason why water is used in baptism is because water (the free-flowing source of life) is a wonderful symbol of the Holy Spirit.

In this way, Jesus’ baptism follows the standard model. Jesus’ baptism is recorded in Scripture, not only because it helps us to understand more about Jesus’ identity as the Spirit-filled Son of God, but also because it functions as a model for what typically happens at the baptism of a Christian. Jesus’ baptism was a baptism of water and the Spirit. There was a conjunction of water and Spirit for Jesus, and it is similar for Christians today. The water which surrounds the body of the baptisand is a symbol of how God’s Spirit is poured upon believers in an official and formal way as we submit to Jesus as Lord.

This is why Christian baptism is significant. It marks our formal union with Christ, and the official beginning of our participation in the life-giving power of the Spirit. It links us to Jesus, and to the new covenant outpouring of the Spirit that commenced with the baptism of Jesus, the obedient Son of God.

John the Baptist’s Teaching concerning Baptism and Fruitfulness in Luke 3:7–17

I don’t know what you normally think of when you think about baptism; but baptism is a rather strange custom. When we think of baptism, we think of contact with water. Depending on the mode of baptism employed, this contact can either be like jumping into a swimming pool, or jumping in and out of the shower after a couple of seconds. But why does Christianity have this rite?

Baptism is a part of Christianity because Jesus taught it that way. In the Great Commission, Jesus spoke about how disciples are made, and he linked that with baptism: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Baptism is the first step to becoming in an official sense a disciple of the Lord Jesus. Through baptism, we officially become disciples of the Lord Jesus. Through baptism, as we confess our faith in Jesus as Lord, we officially become united to Christ, and officially begin to share in the eternal life which has been his since the time of his resurrection.

Baptism is a sign that we officially belong to Jesus, that we are officially one of his disciples. This means that baptism is a privilege. It is a wonderful privilege to be baptized, and to belong to Christ; but, like anything in life, with wonderful privilege also comes important responsibilities. And this is where John the Baptist’s teaching in Luke 3 comes in. John’s warnings function to remind us of some of the responsibilities that go together with baptism.

John the Baptist was called by God to go and preach “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sons.” John did his job well. Crowds flocked to hear his preaching, and they responded by submitting themselves to baptism in the Jordan River. This is something which is recorded not only in the Bible, but the famous Jewish historian called Josephus, who wrote a history of the Jewish people in the first century A.D., wrote about John, saying: “many people came like a crowd surrounding John, because when they heard his preaching, they were greatly moved.” Being moved by his preaching, the people responded by being baptized.

This is a pattern that we see in the early church. The apostles went out telling people about Jesus, and those who responded were baptized. For example, the Apostle Peter at the time of the Feast of Pentecost preached to a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem. We read in Acts 2 how his message also cut people to the heart, and Peter called on them to “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Baptism is a sign of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins.

Here we need to be clear what repentance is. What does it mean to repent? In the Bible to repent basically means to change direction. It means to turn away from our sinful way of life in order to follow God. It means to turn away from following the way of the world to start follow God’s way, to start living the way he would have us live. Baptism is important as a sign of repentance, but it’s only the beginning of a life which is to be lived out in the spirit of repentance.

This is something about which John the Baptist strongly warned the crowds who were coming to him to be baptized. John was not one of your touchy-feely types. Seeing the crowds who were coming to him to baptized, he could have praised God for the wonderful response to his ministry. I’m sure that he was praising God for the effectiveness of his ministry, but at the same time he was aware that baptism was only the beginning. Seeing the crowds coming out to be baptized, John warned them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance!” (Luke 3:7–8). Baptism is a wonderful privilege, but it is only a beginning. When we are baptized, it is like being planted as a fruit tree in God’s orchard. It is great being a fruit tree in God’s orchard, but our job as fruit trees is to bear fruit for God.

John understood that some of the people coming out to him to be baptized had probably not fully understood the significance of baptism as being a sign of repentance. Those being baptized were primarily, if not exclusively, Jewish. So John warned them, saying: “Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Luke 3:8). Being a physical descendant of Abraham was not enough for a person to be right with God. Belonging to Israel was not enough to a person to be right with God. Being right with God demands true repentance.

John was warning his audience that baptism in and of itself was not enough to make a person right with God. To put it in another way, if baptism is a sign of repentance, then we all have need of a constant attitude of repentance throughout our lives. Martin Luther, the famous Reformer of the church, once said: “Baptism signifies that the old Adam in us is to be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and perish with all sins and evil lusts; and that the new man should daily come forth again and rise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.”

To what extent have we been seeking to do that lately? Have you been seeking to put to death the old self with its selfish desires, and to please God instead, in everything that you do? Having been baptized, our whole life is meant to be characterized by repentance.

In fact, if our lives are not characterized by repentance, if we’re not seeking to live lives that please God, then there are serious consequences. In v. 9, John warned his audience by giving an illustration of fruit trees about to be cut down and destroyed: “Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:9).

A fruitless fruit tree is basically a waste of space, and will eventually be removed and destroyed. In a similar way, an unrepentant baptized person, an unrepentant Christian, someone who is not bearing fruit for God’s kingdom will eventually be removed from God’s kingdom and destroyed. Such is the great responsibility of those who have been baptized: to honor the meaning of their baptism in their daily lives.

Baptism is somewhat like a marriage. During the wedding ceremony the man and the woman become husband and wife. The wedding ceremony is a special occasion, but it is only a beginning. What significance would the wedding have if after the wedding the husband or the wife went on living as if they weren’t married. Being married, you’re married! You can’t go on acting as if you’re not! If fact, the significance of the wedding and the marriage vows would effectively be lost if the husband or the wife did not commit themselves to the exclusive faithfulness that the marriage relationship demands.

Baptism is similar to a marriage. When a person is baptized, it is a special occasion, somewhat like a wedding. In the rite of baptism, we formally come under the lordship of Christ, and promise our exclusive faithfulness to Christ. It is a wonderful occasion, but like with a wedding it only marks the beginning of a life that is meant to be lived in an exclusive relationship of love with someone else. Baptism marks the beginning of the Christian life, not its end. Not to take the responsibilities associated with baptism seriously is to seriously devalue the meaning of our baptism.

Sadly the responsibilities of baptism are something that many people in the West have lost sight of. How many Westerners have been baptized? The figure seems to be dropping over time, but in some countries it is still quite high. In Australia, for example, the figure might be around 60% of the population. But how many of that 60% are genuinely seeking to live lives that honor God by being actively involved in Christ’s church? Probably not many. 20%? Even 20% seems a bit too generous. This means that there is a large proportion of Westerners who, having been baptized, need to be reminded of their responsibility before God to bear fruit for him. They need to understand the significance of baptism. Baptism is a wonderful picture of the gospel. It speaks to us about how our sins can be washed away through the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus. But the divine promise of cleansing needs to be met with us taking the promise of faithful submission to the lordship of Jesus seriously.

As John the Baptist warns us, if our lives are not characterized by repentance, then the baptism that we submitted to will not save us from the wrath of God which is going to come. This is something that all baptized people need to be told about. If baptism is a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, then have we been living out the meaning of our baptism? Have we been producing the fruit of repentance in our lives?

But what is this fruit that we are meant to produce? Basically, we can say that a repentant person will seek to trust in God’s strength to live a life that pleases God more and more as time goes on. We will seek to be more active in doing good. We will love our neighbor as ourself more, and we’ll have a different attitude to possessions and money that what we see around us today.

When John was warning the people whom he was baptizing, the people in the crowd asked: “What should we do?” (Luke 3:10). John replied: “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise” (Luke 3:11). Producing the fruits of repentance means sharing what with have with those who are in need. Producing the fruits of repentance means loving our neighbor.

Tax collectors were also baptized by John, and they asked him the same question: “What shall we do?” (Luke 3:12). And John answered: “Collect no more than you are authorized to do” (Luke 3:13). Tax collectors back in those days had to tender to get the job, and collecting more tax than was due meant greater profits for the tax collector.

Soldiers also came to John, asking the same question: “And we, what shall we do?” “Don’t extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14).

Overall, then, to summarize John’s teaching on this issue, the fruits of repentance involve us having a new attitude to our possessions, money, and power. Repentance means sharing with the needy, and being honest in all our dealings. It means making money honestly instead of dishonestly. It means not abusing the authority of our position.

To what extent have our lives been producing these kinds of fruits lately? In what ways have you been helping those less fortunate than yourself? Have you been honoring God in how you make your money? One of the areas where we can be tempted today is in relation to taxation. Perhaps not many of us work for the government taxation office. We may not be employed as tax collectors, but most of us are taxpayers in some form or other. Even here honesty is needed. No one really likes paying taxes; but as Christians, we need to see paying tax as an opportunity to serve God. By paying our taxes, we serve God by contributing to the betterment of our society, and by helping our governments help those who are most needy in our community and in communities overseas; or at least that is the ideal.

Honesty and generosity are some of the fruits of repentance that God wants us to produce in our lives. If we haven’t been seeking to live this way, then we need to confess this to God, and ask for his strength and guidance to do better in the future, to be more productive as fruit trees in his orchard.

In pointing people to the coming Messiah, John the Baptist also warned them that the Christ would bring judgment as he came. According to John the Baptist, the Christ would come with the Holy Spirit and fire (Luke 3:16). Fire here is a symbol of judgment. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:17).

The useless chaff and the useless tree will be dealt with in the day of wrath, in the coming day of judgment. This day is even closer now than when John warned his audience previously. There will be a day of judgment when every person who has ever lived on this earth will have to give an account before God of how they have lived. We need to be very clear about this. When we take our turn in God’s court on judgment day, will God see good works in your life as proof that you have taken your covenant responsibilities towards God seriously? On the day of judgment, will God find evidence in your life of the work of his Spirit?

In calling for the fruit of repentance to be evident in our lives, we need to understand that John is not speaking here of perfection. The perfect righteousness that all of us need in order to live in the presence of God can only come through Christ, but at the same time there needs to be a genuine positive response to God’s grace to us in Christ. John is talking on the level of covenantal responsibilities. Everyone who has been baptized needs to be true disciple of the Lord Jesus, following in his footsteps, walking in his way of life. This genuine positive response is what John calls repentance. Repentance is an ongoing commitment to walking in the way of the Lord, and the Bible speaks of it as being a condition for salvation.

In the fourth century there was a famous Christian called John Chrysostom. Chrysostom became the Archbishop of Constantinople, which was the second most important city in the Roman Empire after Rome at the time. His surname Chrysostom means golden-mouth, because he was famous as an eloquent and powerful speaker. Chrysostom once said: “even supposing you receive baptism, yet if you are not minded to be led by the Spirit afterwards, you lose the dignity bestowed upon you and the pre-eminence of your adoption.”

In sum: having started the journey, we need to finish the journey. And we finish the journey by persevering in the way of repentance, one step after the other, following in the footsteps of Jesus. Whatever you do, don’t throw away the benefits of your baptism! To paraphrase the words of John the Baptist: without the fruits of repentance you will have no part in the kingdom of God.

Justin Martyr: Old Covenant versus New Covenant

Justin Martyr (103–165) is a famous early Christian apologist. His understanding of the relationship between the law of Moses and the new law of Christ is very instructive. Justin argues that Jesus is the new law, eternal and final, who has replaced the old law of Moses. Approaching God in the new covenant age requires, therefore, that a person repent from idolatry and other sins, persevere in one’s confession of faith in Jesus Christ, and maintain piety.

The excerpt below is taken from ch. 11 of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (adapted from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xi.html). Trypho was a Jew who was interested in philosophy.

“There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing … but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now (for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally). Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ—has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: ‘Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?’ [Isa 51:4–5]. And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt’ [Jer 31:31–32]. If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.”

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 Key to a Father’s Happiness according to the Book of Proverbs

Every Father’s Day children wish their father “Happy Father’s Day.” But what really makes a father happy? The book of Proverbs has a fair bit to say about the role of fathers, and what makes for a happy father.

The book of Proverbs presupposes that fathers should love and take delight in their children (Prov 3:12). Parents obviously have a responsibility to provide for their children’s physical and emotional needs, but the primary role of fathers according to the book of Proverbs lies in education. Proverbs presupposes that fathers will be instructing (Prov 1:8; 4:1), commanding (Prov 6:20), and disciplining their children (Prov 3:12). Discipline actually stems from a father’s delight in his child (Prov 3:12). Just as God seeks to instruct his people by speaking his word to them, human fathers are to pass God’s instruction (i.e., torah) and wisdom on to their children, and particularly to their sons.

Proverbs 1:8–9:18 functions as a model for how fathers should instruct their children. Fathers can instruct their children about many things, but moral instruction is most important. Fathers should encourage their children to pursue wisdom, motivating them to do so by helping them to consider the supreme value of wisdom, and the desirability of the benefits that flow from it.

“Hear, my son, your father’s instruction; and forsake not your mother’s teaching; for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck” (Prov 1:8–9).

“Hear, O sons, a father's instruction; and be attentive, that you may gain insight; for I give you good precepts. Do not forsake my teaching. When I was a son with my father, tender, the only one in the sight of my mother, he ktaught me, and said to me, ‘Let your heart hold fast my words; keep my commandments, and live. Get wisdom; get insight. Do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you. The beginning of wisdom is this: get wisdom; and whatever you get, get insight. Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her. She will place on your head a graceful garland; she will bestow on you a beautiful crown’” (Prov 4:1–9).

If the father’s primary role is educating his children, then it makes sense that a father will experience happiness to the extent that his children receive and follow his instruction. It is significant that the main section of the proverbs of Solomon in the book commences with the following proverb: “A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother” (Prov 10:1). The idea that a wise son makes a glad father is repeated in Prov 15:20. Wisdom in the Old Testament is defined as hearing and doing torah. Children who follow God’s instruction bring joy to godly fathers. As Prov 23:24–25 states: “The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him. Let your father and mother be glad; let her who bore you rejoice.”

The opposite of wisdom is foolishness. Accordingly, the foolish child brings the opposite of joy to his or her parents: “He who sires a fool gets himself sorrow, and the father of a fool has no joy” (Prov 17:21); “A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her who bore him” (Prov 17:25). Foolish children cause trouble and shame for their fathers: “A foolish son is ruin to his father,” on par with a quarrelsome wife (Prov 19:13); a child who is “a companion of gluttons shames his father” (Prov 28:7); “He who loves wisdom makes his father glad, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth” (Prov 29:3).

Children should listen to their father’s instruction (Prov 1:8), and keep their father’s commandments (Prov 6:20). Listening to a father’s instruction allows a child to “gain insight” (Prov 4:1). “A wise son hears his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke” (Prov 13:1). “The one who keeps the law [i.e., instruction, torah] is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father” (Prov 28:7). “A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent” (Prov 15:5). As a means of learning wisdom, the book of Proverbs calls upon us to listen to our parents: “Listen to your father who gave you life,and do not despise your mother when she is old” (Prov 23:22). An unwillingness to listen to our parents goes together with an unwillingness to listen to God. Therefore, respect for one’s parents is important. Whoever thinks that stealing from one’s parents is okay “is a companion of a destructive man” (Prov 28:24). Cursing one’s parents leads to eternal death (Prov 20:20). “The eye that mocks a father, and scorns to obey a mother, will be picked out by the ravens of the valley, and eaten by the vultures” (Prov 30:17). Using violence against one’s parents “brings shame and reproach” (Prov 19:26).

Wise and godly children are the key to a father’s happiness. This means that fathers can promote their own happiness by teaching their children well.

The Covenantal Logic and Meaning of Paul’s Argument in Romans 4:15–17a

In Rom 4:13–17a, Paul gives a succinct explanation as to why the promise of the blessing of life must ultimately come through faith rather than through the Mosaic faith of obedience to torah. This further strengthens his argument in Rom 4:1–12 that the example of Abraham proves that the blessing of justification comes through faith rather than through the works of the law of Moses. The fact that Abraham was right with God even before he was circumcised proves that justification is not limited solely to bona fide members of the Mosaic covenant, contrary to what Paul’s non-Christian Jewish opponents and the Christian Judaizers were advocating; but this needed further explication.

Therefore, in Rom 4:13, Paul considers the issue of how the promise that God made with Abraham (for him and all of his spiritual descendants to inherit the world) would be realized. The promise was not “through the law … but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13). It is very important to realize that the word law in Rom 4:13 refers specifically to the law of Moses. The word law in Rom 4:13 is not law in general, but specifically the law over which Paul and his Jewish opponents were arguing, i.e., the law of Moses. We need to recognize at this point that the divine promise of blessing given to Abraham in Gen 12:2–3 is grammatically, and therefore logically, dependent on the command of Gen 12:1 (see “The Inheritance of Eternal Life through Faith instead of Law in Romans 4:13” for a more detailed explanation of this). But the law of command given to Abraham in Gen 12:1 is not law in the sense of being Mosaic law. As Paul points out in Gal 3:17, the law of Moses did not arrive on the scene until 430 years afterwards. In other words, the promise of the blessing of life that God graciously made with Abraham was not subject to the Mosaic covenant when it was first made. Even though this promise would effectively come under the regulation of the Mosaic covenant after Sinai, the promise was larger than the law of Moses. The Abrahamic covenant was not a subset of the Mosaic covenant; rather, the Mosaic covenant was a subset of the Abrahamic.

The significance of the promise being realized through the righteousness of faith for Abraham in the beginning is that, if the giving of the law some 430 years later were to change that original condition, then God would have shown himself to be inconsistent and unfaithful to his word. If the giving of the Mosaic law changed the original condition regarding the realization of the promise, then this would be to render faith useless, and the covenant of promise itself would end up being annulled (Rom 4:14). Implied in Paul’s argument in Rom 4:14 is that God would not do such a thing as this. Having entered into an agreement with Abraham concerning how Abraham and his descendants would be blessed, God could not rightly change this commitment midstream.

This then prompted the question (particularly to Paul’s Jewish opponents) concerning why the Mosaic covenant was given in the first place. If the Mosaic covenant is not the ultimate regulator of the realization of the promise, then why was the Mosaic covenant made in the first place? Why save Israel out of Egypt to place the nation under the law? Paul answers this question very succinctly in Rom 4:15: “For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” What Paul is really saying here is that the primary function of the law in old covenant Israel was to bring about God’s wrath against the people. This is not to say that obedience to the law was not the way of life for the small minority of Israelites who had the law written in their hearts during the old covenant age. Paul is speaking in Rom 4:15 in terms of the broad sweep of salvation history during the old covenant age. Romans 4:15 is not an abstract theological statement, but a statement explaining the function of covenant failure in salvation history. The law of Moses, far from being the solution (as Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocating), was part of the problem. The main purpose in God giving Israel the law was so that God’s anger would be revealed against sinful Israel, i.e., that Israel would be rendered guilty before God, without excuse (Rom 3:19–20).

In Rom 4:16 Paul explains the deeper purpose behind the primarily negative purpose in God giving the law. He identifies two main reasons. Firstly, the law was given to Israel so that God’s dealing with humanity might be “according to grace.” If Israel had kept covenant with God, and received blessing as a result, that would still be the work of God; but Israel initially failing, only to be restored later on, makes for a better story in the sense that the gracious side of God’s character has an opportunity to be revealed. It is almost as if God, wanting to prove his greatness and humanity’s total dependence on him, has deliberately set things up for humanity in Adam, and Israel in Moses, to fail, “in order that every mouth might be stopped, and the whole world come under the judgment of God” (Rom 3:19–20), in order that his gracious response might be seen and appreciated. Simply put, the fact that the promise of eternal life ultimately comes through faith in Jesus rather than through submission to the Mosaic covenant serves to highlight God’s grace. Secondly, justification by faith also means that salvation is not just limited to Israel, but every believer (regardless of ethnic origin) can participate in the promise. Didn’t God say in Gen 17:5 that Abraham would be “the father of many nations” (Rom 4:17)? In fact, that is the meaning of the name Abraham! “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5).

Paul’s Jewish opponents found it hard to accept, but Paul argues strongly in Rom 4 for the primacy of the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in Moses. That, in the salvation historical purposes of God, the Mosaic covenant would be superseded by a new covenant in Christ Jesus serves to highlight God’s grace and to open up salvation to the Gentiles in fulfillment of God’s promise of Gen 12:3.

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

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

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

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

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

A Critique of Douglas Moo on Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas Moo on Justification

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

Introduction

Douglas Moo

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

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

What is Justification?

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

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

How Does Justification Occur?

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

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

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

When Does Justification Occur?

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

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

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

The Practical Implications of Justification

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

Summary

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