NO CONDEMNATION

NO CONDEMNATION

A Theology of Assurance

of Salvation

Michael A. Eaton

Copyright © Michael Eaton 2011. The moral right of Michael Eaton to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

This second, revised edition published in Great Britain by Piquant Editions in 2011

PO Box 83, Carlisle, CA3 9GR, UK

www.piquanteditions.com

ISBN 978-1-903689-72-1

First edition published as A Theology of Encouragement (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) / No Condemnation: A New Theology of Assurance (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997)

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Eaton, Michael A., 1942-

No condemnation : a theology of assurance of salvation. --

2nd rev. ed.

1. Assurance (Theology) 2. Salvation--Christianity.

3. Grace (Theology) 4. Law and gospel. 5. Liberty--

Religious aspects--Christianity.

I. Title

234-dc22

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licences are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.

Cover design by ProjectLuz

Typeset by www.2at.com

FOREWORD BY

DR R.T. KENDALL

Those of us who are committed to Reformed theology but have been uneasy with its failure to give consistent encouragement and robust assurance will welcome this book. Although this particular volume will appeal largely to the more serious reader, the theology that emerges from it will, when grasped, give incredible relief to any Christian, whatever their background. Every minister and church leader should read and digest its content, then simplify it by teaching those who want to believe the good news of salvation but are afraid it’s not true. The author is capable of writing very simply indeed, as his other books demonstrate; but this kind of work is needed to anticipate questions and objections that come from the highest critical level.

And yet the book is written simply! It is merely that the author has delved deeply into the original biblical languages and interacted with scholars the average Christian has never heard of. This kind of treatise is therefore most necessary before ministers and serious Christians feel they can truly treat its arguments. This will take time, but I suspect that this crucial study will influence Christianity in the 21st century more than any book like it that has been written in recent years.

Dr Michael Eaton ministers in Nairobi, Kenya. He and his wife Jenny are members of Westminster Chapel. He turned up in Westminster Chapel on Friday evenings, early in my ministry, when we were inching our way through Galatians. He is rather shy and self-effacing and, to be honest, I hardly took notice of his presence. But over the years he was to turn out to be one of my greatest encouragers and supporters. When I would go out on a theological limb, taking positions I had not heard of, it was Michael who would come alongside to say, ‘You’ve got that right’.

He kindly states that my own Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 helped him on his way. I used to dream of filling out that book myself and answering my own critics. Perhaps not too unlike Jude who wanted to write a soteriological treatise but was compelled to take a different direction (Jud.3), my present ministry has been almost entirely preaching and pastoral so that someone else would have to carry the torch of ‘encouraging Calvinism’ to the world. Dr Eaton has done that.

And yet I was not prepared for this book. He has moved beyond me and has come to conclusions I had not envisaged, possibly because he has more courage and most certainly because he has had greater insight and a better mind. He has few peers in the world in terms of learning and quality of intellect. Better still, he is a godly man and loves the Lord Jesus with a passion that, when all is said and done, should be the chief reason why readers will take Michael seriously.

There are two categories of people who, I predict, will eventually modify their views after reading this book. Firstly, the traditional Calvinist. There are thousands of Reformed people with integrity who have assumed that there is only one way to think when it comes to the doctrines of grace. Some of them who have had access to the manuscript of this book already, or to Michael’s doctoral thesis (from which this monograph is derived), have testified to the new freedom it gave them. To those who are truly open and have no axe to grind, even if they have published views they have felt obliged to defend, this work will be like a breath of fresh air from the Throne of Grace. Secondly, to the person holding Arminian views there will be one awesome awakening after another. It would not surprise me if many come to espouse views they had thought they must oppose.

I appeal to the reader to read this book carefully, as though on one’s knees before God, to see if, just maybe, there is in it a life-changing word from the Lord.

R.T. Kendall

Minister of Westminster Chapel, London (1976–2001)

PREFACE

This work is a revision of its 1995 version which was itself a revision of my doctoral thesis, presented to the University of South Africa in 1989 under the title A Theology of Encouragement: Towards a Non-Legalistic Soteriology. The 1995 version involved the abridgement of the main text, the addition of some material on eternal security, the omission of chapters on James and 1 John, and a severe reduction of footnotes. Since that time the interpretations of James and 1 John which I suggested in the thesis have come out in a more popular form in James (Preaching Through the Bible; Sovereign World, 2004) and 1,2,3 John (Focus on the Bible; Christian Focus, 1996). Also material on the Sermon on the Mount,[1] Romans[2] and the doctrine of sanctification[3] might have clarified a few things for those who have read them. In addition some expositions on the law have been made available since 1995. My 60 sermons on the Ten Commandments in the context of Exodus 19–24 were published by Paternoster.[4] And some books on Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—abridgements of much preaching—are already written and might one day be published. I rather think I have done a lot of ‘preaching the law’ in my own way. For we learn from the Mosaic law without being ‘under the law’ in Paul’s sense of the phrase.

I deliberately published some books on sanctification before this one, in the hope that those who want to know how the theology of assurance is ‘balanced’ by the doctrine of sanctification might have some ideas as to how I think the balance should be viewed. But still, I am conscious of many gaps in this study. It covers a vast field. Old Testament studies, New Testament studies, theology and theological history are all relevant and find some place in this work. However, a pastor is a general practitioner, not a specialist. I am a preacher-pastor first and foremost and cannot specialize too narrowly as I would if I were a scholar in a university. For many years I have tried to be a scholar in the pulpit—Luther in the Wittenberg parish church is a model—doing academic work directly for the churches. For the purpose of this particular book (and its underlying dissertation) I chose to confine my expositions to selected areas of Scripture. My plans to see through the press further works that might answer questions arising from this one have been partly fulfilled—but the books on Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and a few more books on Romans, are still to come, plus a series of works on Hebrews.[5]

My original work expressed gratitude to Professor Adrio König of the University of South Africa for his help and guidance during the original research on which this work is based. Without implicating him in any of my opinions I still count it a privilege to have been able to learn from Professor König’s questions, his friendly criticisms, and his encouragement. Dr R.T.Kendall resolved some difficulties I had in the early stages of my explorations into the matter of law and grace. For his continued encouragement I am most grateful. However, I have ploughed my own furrow and not all my opinions can be blamed on him!

This minor revision of the 1995 edition updates references to the commentaries and adds material that has to do with the ‘new look’ on Paul and its movement towards a more rather than less legalistic soteriology. I continue to be grateful to my wife and family for their consistent encouragement over the years of preaching and writing for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks too to Pieter Kwant for his friendship and help over many years.

Michael Eaton, Nairobi, 2010

1 M.A.Eaton, The Way That Leads to Life: Preaching Through the Sermon on the Mount (Christian Focus, 1999).

2 M.A.Eaton, Return to Glory: Preaching Through Romans (3:22 – 5:21) (Paternoster 1999); Living Under Grace: Preaching Through Romans 6–7 (original, 1999; reissued 2009, ASL, Pietermaritzburg, 2009); Everlasting Assurance: Preaching Through Romans 8 (2009, ASL, Pietermaritzburg, 2009); Predestination and Israel: Preaching Through Romans 9–11 (forthcoming, Pretoria, South Africa); The Christian and the State: Preaching Through Romans 12–13 (forthcoming, ASL, Pietermaritzburg).

3 M.A.Eaton, How to Live a Godly Life: The Biblical Doctrine of Sanctification (Sovereign World, 1993).

4 Applying God’s Law (1999). This was intended to give fuller material than that provided in the two books on Exodus in the Preaching Through the Bible series (Sovereign World, 2002, 2004).

5 Already available are M.A.Eaton, Hebrews (Preaching Through the Bible, IBTB, 2009), and the more detailed works, Jesus God’s Last Word [Hebrews 1:1 – 2:4]; Jesus Cares [Hebrews 2:5 – 3:11]; Entering into God’s Rest [Hebrews 3:11 – 4:13] (Frontier, Mumbai, 2002, 2005, 2007).

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR: Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AB: Anchor Bible

AG: W.F.Arndt & F.W.Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon.

An Bib: Analecta Biblica

ANET: Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J.B.Pritchard

ASNU: Acts Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis

AUSS: Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA: Biblical Archaeologist

BAGD: W.Bauer, W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BDB: F.Brown, S.R.Driver & C.A.Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

BDF: F.Blass & A.Debrunner, ed. R.W.Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 1961

BETL: Bibliotheca Ephemerides Theologicarum Lovaniensum

BEvT: Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie

Bib Sac: Bibliotheca Sacra

Bib: Biblica

BJRL: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BKAT: Biblische Kommmentar Altes Testament

BKC: Bible Knowledge Commentary

BNTC: Black’s New Testament Commentary

BSC: Bible Student’s Commentary

BThB: Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZ: Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ: Catholic Bible Quarterly

CBS: Cambridge Bible for Schools

CD: K.Barth, Church Dogmatics

CNT: Commentaire du Nouveau Testament

COT: Commentaar op het Oude Testament

CTJ: Calvin Theological Journal

DMLW: D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritisch Gesamtausgabe

DSB: Daily Study Bible

DTTML: M.Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tarqumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 1971 ed.

EB: English Bible [as opposed to Hebrew versification]

EJ: Evangelical Journal

EQ: Evangelical Quarterly

ESV: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001

ET: English Translation, English Translator

EvTh: Evangelische Theologie

ExT: Expository Times

FGR: Free Grace Record

FRLANT: Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GK: E.Kautsch & A.E.Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrews Grammar, 2nd ed., 1910. (Numerals and letters signify sections.)

GNB: Good News Bible: Today’s English Version (1976 ed).

GP: R.T.France & D.Wenham (eds), Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, 1980ff.

HI: Hibbert Journal

HThR: Harvard Theological Review

HTKNT: Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

HUCA: Hebrew Union College Annual

HZ: Historische Zeitschrift

IB: Interpreter’s Bible (ed. G.A.Buttrick)

IBD: Illustrated Bible Dictionary

ICC: International-Critical Commentary

IDB: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IEJ: Israel Exploration Journal

Inst: J.Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

INTB: International Teaching Books

Inter: Interpretation

Intro: Introduction

ISBE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (revised ed)

ITQ: Irish Theological Quarterly

JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society

JB: Jerusalem Bible

JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JJS: Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JR: Journal of Religion

JSNT: Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTS: JSNT Supplementary series

JSOT: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JThCh: Journal for Theology and Church

JThSA: Journal of Theology for Southern Africa

JTS: Journal of Theological Studies

KAT: Kommentar zum Alten Testament

Ke Do: Kerugma Und Dogma

KKNT: Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

KV: Korte Verklaring

LCC: Library of Christian Classics

LCL: Loeb Classical Library

LH: Laws of Hammurabi

LS: Liddell & Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon, rev. H.S.Jones, et al. (1940)

LW: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (ed. J.J.Pelikan and others; electronic edition, Fortress Press/Concordia Publishing House)

LXX: The Septuagint

MM: J.H.Moulton & G.Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1952. Original ed. 1930

MNTC: Moffatt New Testament Commentary

MPG: Ed.J.P.Migne. Patrologia Graeca, 162 vols. Paris, 1857–66

MPL: Ed. J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, 221 vols. Paris, 1844–64

MT: Massoretic Text

NA,26: Nestle, Eberhard & Nestle, Erwin. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelstiftung, 1979

NAC: New American Commentary

NASV: New American Standard Version

NBD: New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. D.R.W.Wood (IVP, 1996). Electronic ed.

NCB: New Century Bible Commentary

NDT: New Dictionary of Theology, Ed. S.B.Ferguson & D.F.Wright (Leicester: IVP, 1988). xix, 738pp.

NEB: New English Bible

NGTT: Nederlands Gereformeerde Theologisch Tijdschrift

NICNT: New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT: New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDNTT: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vols.1–3. ed.C.Brown (Exeter: Paternoster, 1975–78)

NIV: New International Version

NKZ: Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift

NovT: Novum Testamentum

NS: New series

NSHERK: New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge

NTH: New Testament Message

NTS: New Testament Studies

ODCC: Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. F.L.Cross, E.A.Livingstone (Oxford: OUP, 1974)

OTL: Old Testament Library

OTS: Oudtestamentstudien

PRSC: Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference

PTR: Princeton Theological Review

PTTB: Preaching Through the Bible

RB: Revue Bibligue

RefR: Reformed Review

RGG: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart

RSR: Recherches de Science Religieuse

RSV: Revised Standard Version

RTR: Reformed Theological Review

SANT: Studies zum Alten Testament und Neuen Testament

SBET: Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology

SBLDS: Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBS: Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien

SBT: Studies in Biblical Theology

SJT: Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTS: Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

ST: Studia Theologica

StrB: H.Strack and P.Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash

TB: Tyndale Bulletin

TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed G.Kittel G.Friedrich. Vols.1–9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74)

TDOT: Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.J.Botterweck & H.Ringren

THB: Tyndale House Bulletin

Them: Themelios

Theol: Theology

ThEv: Theologica Evangelica

THNT: Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

ThTod: Theology Today

ThZ: Theologische Zeitung

TJT: Toronto Journal of Theology

TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TOTC: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TRu: Theologische Rundschau

TSK: Theologische Studien und Kritiken

TZ: Theologische Zeitschrift

VE: Vox Evangelica

VT: Vetus Testament

WCF: Westminster Confession of Faith

VTS: Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC: Word Bible Commentary

WMANT: Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten Testament und Neuen Testament

WR: Westminster Record

WTJ: Westminster Theological Journal

ZATW: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZKT: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ZNTW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

PART 1

A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

1

THE QUEST FOR AN ENCOURAGING THEOLOGY

‘The most that I have ventured to say respecting myself is, that I think it possible I may get to heaven.’[6] So said Asahel Nettleton, a powerful evangelical preacher in nineteenth-century America. His understanding of the Bible was influenced by the Protestant Reformers, the greatest of whom was John Calvin. As a ‘Calvinist’ Nettleton believed that he was saved totally by the grace of God, ‘justified’ through faith in Jesus. He believed that the salvation of every Christian cannot possibly be lost because the grace of God is sure to keep them safe. Nettleton however had a problem. He was sure that salvation could not be lost but not so sure that he personally was ‘saved’. If he was genuinely saved he could be sure he was permanently saved, but he was not sure he was genuinely saved.

Consider another famous preacher. In the eighteenth century John Fletcher, a friend of John Wesley, held a rather different view. He thought it was quite wrong to think that ‘faith alone turns the scale of justifying evidence at the bar of God’ and spoke of ‘evangelical legality’.[7] Despite his background of the Protestant doctrine of grace, Fletcher often presented his teaching in a way that made ‘good works’ so tightly and inexorably a part of salvation, he was virtually urging that the Christian has to work for their salvation. In 1770 Fletcher argued that the Christian was ‘working for life’; ‘every believer, till he comes to glory, works for, as well as from life’. ‘We have received it as a maxim that “A man is to do nothing, in order to justification.” Nothing can be more false.’ Every person, taught Fletcher, must perform good works ‘in order to find favour with God’. In consequence, Fletcher spoke of ‘conditional perseverance’ in salvation. He contrasted this with the Calvinist doctrine of ‘unconditional perseverance’. If the Christian did not pursue holiness, then, Fletcher believed, loss of salvation would follow.[8]

These great men exemplify a theological problem that has troubled evangelical churches and preachers since the seventeenth century, and even before. On the one hand, Nettleton’s doubts related to the genuineness of salvation. On the other, Fletcher said no Christian could be absolutely sure about the permanence of their salvation. Nettleton’s teaching has been popularly summarized in the phrase ‘Once saved, always saved’—but he was not quite sure that he was even once saved! John Fletcher taught ‘Once saved, maybe lost’! I find neither doctrine very encouraging. In fact, both seem rather terrifying. My certainty of salvation is Jesus. My trust is in him. But am I to believe, with Nettleton, that my salvation may not be genuine, and that what I think is my salvation may turn out delusive? If so, I shall spend all my life wondering whether I am really saved or not. Or am I to believe, with Fletcher, that my salvation may not be permanent and I have to work hard at keeping it? If so, I shall live my life in the fear that perhaps I shall not keep going.

A personal experience

It may help clarify the issue if I describe how it came home to me in a personal way many years ago. The first time I ever seriously read the New Testament was in my teens. As a schoolboy interested in languages I tried to teach myself Classical Greek and found in a book called Teach Yourself Greek[9] a section of the Greek New Testament for translation. I had never before read the Bible voluntarily and my interest was linguistic rather than spiritual, but I enjoyed reading from John 10 about ‘the Good Shepherd’ in Greek. I had never listened to any Christian preaching or attended any Christian worship but, despite my neo-pagan background some time after my dabblings in Greek, I was persuaded by a friend to go along to a Christian youth group at an Anglican church in north London. Within a few weeks I had trusted Jesus as my Saviour. I knew that Jesus had died for me, that I was on my way to heaven, that I would never be the same again.

About eighteen months later I spent a Saturday morning walking from my parents’ home in east-central London to Wigmore Street in west-central London, where I had been told there was a large Christian bookshop. There I bought my first Christian book, one of J.C.Ryle’s volumes on John’s Gospel. Over the next few weeks I spent my treasured pocket-money on Christian books. My interests were Puritan and Reformed. Early acquisitions were an exposition of Jude by the Puritan Thomas Manton and William Hendriksen’s commentary on 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. On Christmas Eve that year I bought Robert Haldane’s Romans, which I eagerly devoured through the Christmas break. However, my ideas about the Bible—picked up from insatiable reading in various local libraries—would have horrified many Christians. When I casually mentioned what I knew of biblical criticism to the curate of the church I had begun to attend, he looked aghast and urged me to read a book that had not long been published, J.I.Packer’s ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God. I found the book quite devastating; it changed a number of my ideas about ‘fundamentalism’ and brought me to a firm belief in the reliability of the Bible.

One Thursday afternoon I found a second-hand copy of volume 3 of Hodge’s Systematic Theology on sale for a pittance. At the same time I wanted to tell everyone of the things that I was discovering and started a Christian Union at school. I conducted virtually every meeting, the first one, I recall, being a 75-minute regurgitation of Luther on Galatians 1:1–5! Just before my eighteenth birthday I preached my first more formal sermon (in a village called Yelling!) on Romans 10:8,9. In this way, throughout the two years from the time I bought my first Christian book to the time I went up to study theology at Tyndale Hall, Bristol, my interest in Christian teaching grew steadily. My mother’s sympathy and generosity enabled me to acquire about 300 volumes of theology. My constant companions were Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, John Owen’s The Death of Death with its introduction by J.I.Packer, and Charles Hodge’s three-volume Systematic Theology. I also discovered Charles Higham’s second-hand bookshop, at that time housed in a basement within walking distance of my home. There I bought works by Goodwin, Owen, Sibbes and others, and sets of the complete works of Stephen Charnock, Thomas Goodwin and John Owen became my favourites.

While I studied at school for ‘A’ level examinations, I attended evening classes in New Testament Greek at the London Bible College, at that time in central London. By the time I was eighteen I was able to read the New Testament in Greek, was beginning Hebrew, and was becoming familiar with seventeenth-century theology. A friend recommended the preaching of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whom I first went to hear during his series of sermons on ‘Revival’. From that time on I went whenever I could to hear Dr Lloyd-Jones’s famous sermons on Romans preached on Friday evenings at Westminster Chapel. Within a few years I owned a thousand books, most of them Reformed. This set the direction of my thinking and had an effect upon my Christian experience for many years. I gained a degree in theology, spent a year in Old Testament research at Tyndale House, Cambridge, was an Anglican curate for a year and married my wife! Ten months later, Jenny and I moved to Africa where I started the Christian Union in the University of Zambia, later affiliated to the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. At the same time I worked for the Zambian Ministry of Education. We were members at Lusaka Baptist Church where some years later—much to my surprise—I became the pastor. A constant theme of my preaching was—and still is—what are sometimes called ‘the doctrines of grace’.

It was my experience as an elder and pastor at Lusaka Baptist Church that drew my attention to something that forced a change in my thinking. I began to feel very dissatisfied with some aspects of the ‘Reformed’ teaching which I knew so well and with which I had lived for so many years. As I looked at myself and at some of my friends, our ‘Calvinism’ did not seem to be the genuine article. Many things made me wonder. My preaching seemed to be producing converts who were narrow-minded, introspective and pharisaical. How could it be that the preaching of God’s grace could produce such resemblance not to New Testament Christians but to the New Testament description of the Pharisees!

I was beginning to think along these lines when suddenly my father had a heart attack. It turned out that the day after one of my children was born, I had to leave wife and child in the care of friends in Zambia. Within a matter of hours I was by my father’s bedside in London. When I arrived I found that my mother was dying of cancer but neither of my parents realized how rapidly she was declining. It was a very traumatic time and it reinforced my conviction that many Christians I knew were somehow removed from the New Testament.

I was alone in London for some time, my wife and children far away in Africa. On Sundays I went to various ‘Reformed’ churches, some of them famous for their preaching. I found them cold, formal and legalistic. Even when their purpose was evangelistic they seemed so uninterested in people that I could not imagine anyone being saved by their testimony. I went to a famous Reformed church to hear a man who was well known for his preaching. Although his exposition of Hosea 14 was accurate, well prepared and delivered in a way that held my attention, no one in the fellowship seemed to have the slightest interest in an ‘outsider’ like me. Homesick for Africa and its friendliness, I was amazed that no one said a word to me. I decided I would simply stand at the back of the church and wait. Surely someone would say something to me. Slowly the worshippers drifted off. It was a cold, rainy night and I had nowhere to go to except a twenty-mile journey to dying parents. Finally there were just two of us left on the steps of the church—me and the preacher, who had apparently been left to lock up the building. He put on his raincoat, stepped out into the rain, and, as he walked away from me, shouted over his shoulder, ‘Goodnight!’ I stood in front of the church building for some minutes with the wind blowing the rain in my face. Was this, I asked myself, really Christianity? Or had I lost my way?

I was distressed at what seemed to be a kind of legalistic harshness in the ‘Reformed’ people I knew. But worst of all I knew that some of that hard legalism was present in my own life and I possessed neither the assurance nor the spiritual power I had had as a teenager. I didn’t even like my own converts, people I had led to the Lord or who I knew admired my preaching. Why was it that the Reformed tradition seemed to consist of an ossified legalism, a crippling introspection, and a harshness of spirit that seemed nothing like the Jesus of the Bible?

Feeling that something was wrong somewhere, I asked the Lord to show me what it was. I determined to go back to the Bible and start all over again. I knew that Galatians had delivered people from bondage before and remembered how I had loved Luther on Galatians in my teenage years. I sensed that if only the Holy Spirit would show me what Galatians was all about I would be all right. I felt sure the answer was theological. My Christian friends in Zambia were very legalistic yet I felt that it was I who had made them that way and what was wrong with them was wrong with me. If I could find out what they needed I would help myself in the process! I began reading everything I could on Galatians and, after doing everything possible for my parents, went back to my family in Zambia with boxes of books following me as unaccompanied baggage.

There followed years of theological pilgrimage. I worked through Galatians clause by clause, writing dozens of pages of notes. Three years later I was still dissatisfied with everything I had read on Galatians but was slowly coming to see that the epistle was saying more than I had ever realized. I discovered that many commentaries on Galatians seemed somehow to draw back from following Paul. ‘Liberal’ commentators who did not feel obliged to accept what Paul taught seemed in some respects to be more accurate and honest than those who, holding a ‘high’ doctrine of Scripture, were anxious to subscribe to Paul’s teaching. These evangelical commentators seemed to offer freedom with one hand, only to take it back with the other. Having liberated the believer with wonderful expositions of grace, they then took everything back again with dark mutterings about temporary faith and works confirming salvation and talk about self-examination. The bottom line always seemed to be that after the law had been dismissed through one door it came back through another, and in the end stayed with dark threats and heavy frown. I could see I was going to end up taking Galatians more seriously than ever.

My years in Zambia came to a sudden end and I found myself in London enjoying what turned out to be a ten months’ sabbatical leave. I had time on my hands and in between sessions of Old Testament writing continued to read everything I could on law and grace. During the next few months the theological pilgrimage which had started in Zambia gathered momentum. I saw that the message of Galatians really was more radical than the teaching I had been used to and more liberating than anything I had dreamed of. I borrowed R.T.Kendall’s doctoral thesis on Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, which explained much that had perplexed me in Reformed theological history. During the hours I spent reading in the British Museum and the Evangelical Library it increasingly came home to me that the story of Reformed history was one of decline rather than development. I recall reading alongside each other the commentaries on Galatians by Luther and William Perkins and being struck by the contrast. Perkins was struggling with the problem of introspection but was unable to resolve it. The best he could do to help the introspective Christian was to reduce faith to an act of the will. In Galatians 2:20 Paul speaks of having been crucified with Christ and of living ‘by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’. For Perkins: ‘if there bee [sic] also a will and endeavour to believe’ one could then make the words of Galatians 2:20 one’s own. ‘God accepts the true and earnest will to believe, for faith.’ Luther’s bold, confident invitations to assurance of faith were far different. Surely the ‘Reformed faith’ had gone backwards not forwards! Luther was liberating, Perkins intimidating. I loved Luther but was not so sure about Perkins.

On one occasion the mistake of a British Museum librarian meant that instead of the works of Tobias Crisp I found myself reading about the death-bed experiences of seventeenth-century Puritans. I was shattered to discover that their assurance of salvation at such a time was not what I would have expected. Then I came across the remark of Asahel Nettleton, quoted above, which expressed the very essence of everything I felt was wrong with the approach to grace that I had grown up with: ‘The most that I have ventured to say respecting myself is, that I think it possible I may get to heaven.’

Surely, I thought to myself, there is more joy and assurance in the New Testament than that! Yet I knew only too well that such introspection and doubt was widespread in the Reformed circles I knew. The life-changing assurance of salvation that I experienced when I first believed in Jesus had been eroded rather than enlarged by my theological reading. Soon I had gone through a theological and spiritual revolution and had entered into a deeper liberty in the Holy Spirit than I had known for some years. But not only was I a new man; those who listened to my preaching seemed to change too, and I saw assurance and joy on the faces of others as I preached my new discoveries. What made me absolutely sure that I had found a goldmine was the joy and peace my new preaching brought to others. Sometimes I would stay awake into the early hours of the morning preaching Galatians to my wife. Never did I preach with more liberty than in those days when I had a congregation of one! I was now ready for my next pastorate (at Nairobi Baptist Church) and knew what my first series of sermons would be based on: Galatians!

As I continued to think about these matters I slowly discovered that freedom from Mosaism had repercussions in many areas of theology. It correlated with what I had long believed concerning the Holy Spirit. Since my earliest days as a Christian I had believed in distinct and conscious workings of the Holy Spirit, and I had experienced what I believed in. I can only regret it took me so long to accept Galatians 5:18 in its totality. I had believed in the first half—that Christians ‘are led by the Spirit’—but had not seen the full implications of the second half: that ‘you are not under law’.

Developed Calvinism and evangelical Arminianism

Over the years of Christian history evangelical theology has experienced controversies about ‘law and grace’ without reaching any satisfactory conclusion. Two main branches of evangelical theology have arisen. What I am calling ‘developed Calvinism’ is a theology that derived from the sixteenth-century Reformation in Europe, and received some distinctive emphases and changes from Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor in Geneva, and the Puritan preachers of seventeenth-century Britain. ‘Arminianism’—deriving from the name of Jacobus Arminius—appeared in the last decade of the sixteenth century. It was a reaction to what seemed to be a strand of fatalism in the teaching of Beza. In the English-speaking world Arminianism was supported and also underwent some changes in the teaching of the eighteenth-century evangelist John Wesley, and his supporter John Fletcher of Madeley.

The controversy between developed Calvinism and evangelical Arminianism revolved largely around predestination and the place of works in salvation. The role of the law of God was not very much at dispute between them. Yet it seems that this was a major omission from the debate. For the evangelical Arminianism and the kind of Calvinism that developed in English-speaking evangelicalism after the end of the sixteenth century have, I believe, both been legalistic but in somewhat different ways. Developed Calvinism has exhibited, I suggest, strongly introspective tendencies. Yet both of these two major forms of evangelical theology have been concerned with Christian godliness.

‘The law’

The doctrine concerning ‘the law’ has been a major ingredient in the legalism and introspection of much Christian tradition. The term itself is used in a quite confusing manner. In evangelical theology, ‘the law’ does not refer, as it ought, to the totality of the Mosaic legislation given by God through Moses to Israel. It refers instead to a code of morality and spirituality heavily influenced by the teaching of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century AD and further developed by the Reformers of the sixteenth century and the Puritans of the seventeenth.

This is a serious impediment to cool and calm discussion! If in a discussion one half of the people using the word ‘law’ mean ‘the Mosaic system’, ‘the totality of thirteenth-century BC legislation’, but the other half mean the principles of righteousness arising from the holy character of God, especially as Thomas Aquinas and the Puritans expounded it—then one half of the people will get angry when you say ‘We’ve died to the law’ and the other half of the people will get angry when you talk glowingly about ‘the eternal law of God’ in which you delight so much! We had best keep our definitions clear!

In the Bible ‘the law’ mainly means ‘the totality of what God gave to Israel in the thirteenth century BC through Moses’. The different usages are crucial to clarity of thought. It is quite amusing to read in one evangelical book that someone might keep the fourth commandment by gathering round a cosy fire on the Sabbath (i.e. Sunday) to read John Bunyan[10]—when one knows that what the fourth commandment really stipulated for gathering around a fire on the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday) was the death penalty (Exod.31:15; 35:2f.)!

In evangelical thinking ‘the law’ (understood in this Thomist-Reformed-Puritan way) has been regarded as a guide to Christian sanctification, as a means of ‘convicting of sin’, and as a means of testing true salvation. All obedience has been considered law-obedience. Whenever the word ‘command’ is used in Scripture it has been taken for granted that the Thomist-Reformed-Puritan idea of ‘the law’ is in view. The thought that there could be ‘obedience’ that has no relationship to the Mosaic law code has scarcely been considered, in spite of examples such as that of Philip in Acts 8:26–27. ‘Sin is the transgression of the law’ is a widespread translation of 1 John 3:4, though in point of fact John never mentions ‘the law’. ‘Sin is lawlessness’—living in an unprincipled manner—is the more accurate translation. ‘The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,’ says Galatians 3:24—but modern translations say ‘until Christ came’, a much better translation. I shall argue in this work that the time has come to reconsider the traditional evangelical view of ‘the law’ in its relation to salvation and assurance. I doubt whether the concept of ‘preaching the law before the gospel’ is correct (though I have no problems with making sinners feel they are sinners and am quite certain that ‘conviction of sin’ has to come in somewhere in Christian conversion; it simply is not produced by Mosaic law). Nor is it right, I believe, to define repentance as ‘turning from all known sin’ and then insist that repentance precedes faith or that repentance and faith together are the way of salvation. Nor do I think it biblical to encourage introspection with regard to ‘the law’ with a view to determining or confirming one’s salvation. The most awful introspection follows if this is seriously attempted. Examining the relation between the Abraham stories and the presentation of the giving of the law in the book of Exodus reveals a strong platform for a radical doctrine of freedom from Mosaic law, and the epistle to the Galatians is radical in its doctrine of freedom from legalism. Although other parts of Scripture have often been thought to pull in a different direction, it seems to me that the New Testament is a less introspective book than fellow evangelical expositors often make it to be.

I must emphasize that my dislike of this misuse of the Mosaic law concerns the doctrine of salvation more than theological ethics. The distinction I draw between morality and godliness implies an analogous distinction between ‘ethics’ (which I see as involving the political task of bringing Christian thinking to bear in a fallen world so as to bring about a measure of morality) and ‘spirituality’, which outstrips public morality. If Mosaism is an epoch in salvation history which has now terminated, the Christian’s interest in public morality may derive wisdom from it, but will not directly apply the Mosaic covenant to modern society. My study has implications for a Christian view of ethics and the relationship between church and state. Yet my work does not tackle these issues directly and deals rather with what I conceive of as a starting point further back: soteriology including the Christian’s assurance of salvation and obedience to the Spirit. Modern legislators may learn from the Mosaic covenant. Yet the statement in 1 Timothy 1:9 that ‘the law is not for the righteous man but for the sinner’ must also be weighed. It is the relationship—or the lack of it—between the law and the righteous person that I pursue in the following pages. I would not be surprised if the Christian politician or social reformer were to be hostile to what I write here. Such hostility would arise from their particular concern for society. Agreed, ‘the law is … for the sinner’. I have no dispute with that! However, the relevance of the law to culturally mixed society is one matter; the irrelevance of the law to justification, assurance of salvation and Christian spirituality is another. ‘The law is not for the righteous man.’ The law, by which I mean the legislation given by God to Israel in the thirteenth century BC, is, I suggest, irrelevant to the doctrine of salvation, not because Christian spirituality accepts anything lower than the law, but because it aims at something higher. ‘The law’ is not brushed aside by Christ; it is fulfilled by Christ.

The point is made clear if we think of the animal sacrifices. Christians do not offer animal sacrifices, because the greater Sacrifice has come; the sacrifice of Jesus fulfils and utterly transcends for ever the system of animal sacrifice. Every Christian agrees with that! In a precisely parallel way, the Christian does not live under the law because the greater gift, the Spirit, has been given. The Spirit fulfils and utterly transcends for ever the system of living under the law of the Mosaic epoch. Those who believe in Jesus fulfil the animal sacrifices accidentally. Those who walk in the Spirit fulfil the law accidentally. Those who believe in Jesus are not under a system of animal sacrifices because they do not have to be. Those who walk in the Spirit are not under the Mosaic law because they do not have to be. Animal sacrifices typify the great Sacrifice but must not be identified with the great Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Similarly the law-obedience of the Mosaic covenant typifies Christian obedience but actually Christian obedience outstrips it vastly. Even for society the Mosaic law is too low a standard for a nation influenced by the Christian gospel. Would William Wilberforce have worked to abolish slavery if he had been implementing the Mosaic law?

It is a commonplace of evangelical theology to understand much of the law typologically. ‘Typology’ is the phenomenon in which one event is analogous but not identical to another event. Animal sacrifice is typological of the sacrifice of Jesus. The Passover festival of the Old Testament is typological of his death upon the cross. The entry into Canaan is typological of the Christian’s entering into a spiritual inheritance in Christ. The work of the high-priest in the tabernacle of early Old Testament days is typological of Jesus’ presentation of his sacrifice to the Father. Yet an essential element in typology is that analogy is not identity. Animal sacrifices are not identical to the death of Jesus upon the cross. The law is only a shadow of the good things to come; it is not the good things themselves (Heb.10:1).

All of this is widely accepted, yet the possibility does not seem to have been adequately considered that even the moral principles of the law given by God through Moses are also typological of Christian spirituality, and that Christian spirituality itself is something greater and more exuberant and joyful.

The following chapters make a start in proposing a more encouraging theology of salvation. Its starting-point is a reconsideration of the place of the Mosaic law in Christian theology. I propose to consider what I think to be the weakness of the two major alternatives current in the evangelical Christian world. Over against those weaknesses I will put forward a somewhat revised evangelical theology. Some aspects of the matter I have discussed in other books. This present book will argue that the Christian is released from the law and that Christian godliness is a matter of walking in the Spirit upon the basis of complete assurance of present and final salvation. On this view, the righteousness of the law is not lost in the Christian but is embraced in something altogether greater. Christians ‘fulfil’ the law without being ‘under’ the law. They walk in the Spirit deliberately and so fulfil the law accidentally. Only by a radical freedom from legalism may there be a theology which avoids the snares of both legalism and introspection.

‘Antinomianism’

Over the course of Christian history any theology which is sharply non-Mosaic is likely to be treated as if it is hostile to any and every kind of godliness. In the history of the Christian church the term ‘antinomianism’ has generally been used with overtones of disparagement, even in connection with people whose godliness is quite indisputable. The term arose in Luther’s conflict with Agricola and was used by Lutheranism to denigrate what was felt to be Agricola’s heresy. Similarly in seventeenth-century England and America ‘antinomianism’ designated what mainstream Puritanism viewed as the ‘heretical’ party in the debate concerning the law of God. ‘Antinomian’ was always an insult, never a compliment.

It is arguable however that from the earliest days in the history of the Christian church Christians have too easily disparaged ‘antinomians’ and have often themselves lapsed into moralism, legalism or introspection. If love is the supreme trait in Christian godliness then it is the ‘Mosaic’ Christians who have often been licentious, perhaps more so than those they accuse of antinomianism! It was to the Galatians that Paul gave the warning, ‘Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another’. ‘But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.’ The Galatians’ love of the law made them very antinomian—though they would have called Paul antinomian!

T.F.Torrance points out that the earliest Christian writers had an insufficiently radical view of grace. For the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Shepherd and the author of 2 Clement,

What took precedence was God’s call to a new life in obedience to revealed truth. Grace, so far as it was grasped, was subsidiary to that. And so religion was thought of primarily in terms of man’s acts toward God, in the striving toward justification, much less in terms of God’s acts for man which put him right with God once and for all.[11]

Torrance attributes this moralism partly to the influence of Judaism and partly to the influence of Greek naturalistic thought:

‘The converts of the first few generations had difficulty in apprehending the distinctive aspects of the Gospel, as for example the doctrine of grace.’[12] ‘Their theology represents a corrosion of the faith both from the side of Judaism and from the side of Hellenism, because the basic significance of grace was not grasped … The most astonishing feature was the failure to grasp the significance of the death of Christ.’[13]

From an altogether different (Roman Catholic) standpoint Guy Bourgeault surveys the early use of the decalogue from about AD 60 to AD 220. Unlike Torrance, he writes with greater approval of early Christian moral teaching. But the general conclusion is much the same. His survey of the Didache, Barnabas, the Shepherd, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus and other less significant writers reveals that all of them made use of the decalogue. Their usage is radicalized and spiritualized in ways that resemble the Sermon on the Mount, and so they do not speak of being under the law with regard to the details of the ‘ceremonial’ law. Yet the Christianized version of the law ‘does not abrogate the decalogue and does not annul the requirements of the natural law’.[14] Similarly Hugo Röthlisberger speaks of ‘the journey of the Church to Sinai’, saying that ‘Christ was viewed in the second century not as a Mediator but only as a Lawgiver’.[15]

It is not only in the first generation that we find this tendency. A similar slide into moralism is noticeable after the Reformation. C.F.Allison’s survey of the proclamation of the gospel in Britain between Hooker (1554–1600) and Baxter (1615–1691) follows an analogous pattern. After the solafidian doctrine of the early Caroline divines (such as Hooker, George Downame, Joseph Hall, James Ussher, John Donne, Lancelot Andrewes) a steady decline into a moralist soteriology is observable.[16] It has affected British evangelical Christianity ever since. Both the Anglican and the nonconformist theologies have their roots in this period of British evangelical theology. Puritanism also had its legalistic aspects and in the end British evangelical theology was riddled with legalism and moralism of this kind.[17]

Over against this tendency in the church I shall argue that there is a valid emancipation from the Mosaic law, and a grasp of such emancipation is essential to a vibrant doctrine of assurance. The apostle Paul was certainly vulnerable to accusations of licentiousness as the arguments of Romans and Galatians make plain (Rom.3:8; 6:1; Gal.2:17). My thesis is that the Christian is totally free from the Mosaic covenant, that it is a mistake in theology to take the law as recorded in the decalogue as a ‘rule of life’[18] or as a needful tool in bringing about conviction of sin,[19] that the Sinai covenant is in radical antithesis to the movement in history that began with Abraham, that it was an intrusion into the history of redemption, was innovative, unnecessary, exclusively an interim measure and therefore is now of no direct relevance to the Christian. Because of this release from condemnation Christian godliness may proceed upon the basis of a high level of assurance of salvation. The positive side of this negative contention is that Christ and the gift of the Spirit are sufficient to justify, to sanctify, to glorify. Christ alone ‘without the law’ is the ground of justification. Christ alone ‘without the law’ is amply adequate to guide and to sanctify. Christian faith is directed towards the sufficiency of Jesus in revelation, justification, sanctification and glorification, without the law. Christian obedience is ‘obedience of faith’ unmediated by the Sinai-law of God, sustained by fellowship with Jesus Christ, illuminated by the Spirit, checked by one’s total understanding of Scripture, fulfilling the law of God ‘accidentally’ yet surpassing the law of God as recorded in the Pentateuch and leading to a level of godliness that puts the Mosaic law into eclipse.

In all of this I am not referring to any kind of licentiousness but to a style of living that in complete independence of the Mosaic covenant seeks to glorify God. A Christian who walks by the Spirit deliberately fulfils the Mosaic law accidentally. The Christian is moral and more-than-moral; he or she does ‘fulfil’ the law but is not ‘under’ it.

In the history of the Christian church it has often happened that those against whom there is no suspicion of a sinful lifestyle have been called ‘antinomian’. One thinks of Johannes Agricola,[20] John Cotton,[21] certain English Puritans,[22] the early ‘Plymouth brethren’[23] and individuals such as the nineteenth-century preacher Cesar Malan.[24] Yet no one could easily accuse these people of moral laxity. Agricola’s behaviour in the sixteenth century was not inferior to Luther’s.[25] ‘Antinomian’ was a theological term of disparagement often used against godly believers who held a particular theological position regarding law and grace.[26] Such ‘theological swear-words’ are well known. The earliest was ‘Christian’![27] The ‘antinomianism’ which was propounded by Agricola, Cotton and others ought to be given an entirely different label from that of immoral cults who have taught that morality is in no way needful. Drawing such a distinction would contribute to clear thinking and Christian charity. The point of the ‘antinomianism’ of Agricola and Cotton was not to question whether the Christian should be moral but how such morality could be attained and how assurance of salvation could be enjoyed in liaison with striving after godliness. From the seventeenth-century descriptions of ‘antinomians’ by Samuel Rutherford (1600?–1661) one would think them wholly evil. But Alexander Whyte comments on Rutherford’s bitter spirit: ‘it is with … distress that we read some of Rutherford’s polemical works’; ‘controversy … embittered Rutherford’s sweet and gracious spirit’. Towards the end of his life Rutherford would not share the Lord’s Supper with his fellow Puritans David Dickson and Robert Blair.[28] It seems that saintly men who fear antinomianism can be very antinomian at times, if biting and devouring is regarded as sin!

A lot of this misrepresentation was (and is) part of the mechanics of controversy more than a realistic appraisal of their lifestyle. On the other hand Charles Spurgeon said of Tobias Crisp and the seventeenth-century controversy concerning him, ‘He was called an Antinomian, but the term was misapplied ... There need not have been such an outcry.’[29] It is pleasant to find Charles Spurgeon disagreeing with Tobias Crisp but insisting that Crisp was a godly man. Similarly the pioneer of seventeenth-century English ‘antinomianism’, John Eaton (my namesake, but not so far as I know my relative!) wrote The Discovery of the Most Dangerous Dead Faith (1642) in which he spoke of ‘the horrible filthinesse of sin before God’. He was not in any way licentious and could be quite legalistic. He believed in preaching the law, the main points of which, he said, should ‘be clearly and diligently pressed upon sleeping consciences … until the most upright, honest, yea, and most sanctified man in works may feel himselfe slaine by the law, especially the tenth commandment’. Eaton tended however to hold the doctrine of justification in such a way as to maintain that God sees no sin in his people.[30] In The Honey-combe of Free Justification by Christ Alone (1642) it is clear that Eaton’s main concern was assurance of salvation.[31] No one reading the Honey-Combe could conceive of John Eaton’s having any sympathy with any kind of licentiousness. In the seventeenth-century copy belonging to the British Library, there is a scribbled note evidently going back to a contemporary. It spoke of his zeal, patience and piety, saying that he was ‘exceedingly admired in the neighbourhood where he lived, and strangely valued for many years after his death’.

There is room for a ‘non-legalistic’ theology that will also hold to a doctrine of justification by ‘faith-only’ more radically than is customary. Such a teaching is found supremely in the writings of the apostle Paul, but is consistent with the whole Bible, if due allowance is made for the interim character of the Mosaic covenant. It is charismatic in that it lays stress on the direct work of the Spirit, evangelical in that it bases such a position upon the Bible, incidentally moral in that it holds that the Mosaic law is incidentally fulfilled, and godly in that it looks for a level of godliness that outstrips mere morality and has likeness to Jesus as its major goal.

6 B.Tyler & A.A.Bennett, The Life and Labours of Asahel Nettleton (repr. Banner of Truth, 1975), p.30.

7 D.R.Smith, ‘John Fletcher: an Arminian Upholder of Holiness’, in The Manifold Grace of God: Papers read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1968 (London: PRSC, 1969), p.73; J.Fletcher, The Works of John Fletcher, vol.1, 1829 (Salem: Schmul, 1974), vol.1, pp.170–171; p.95.

8 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, pp.117f.

9 F.K.Smith & T.W.Mellish, Teach Yourself Greek (EUP, 1947), pp.153f.

10 E.Schaeffer, Lifelines: The Ten Commandments for Today (Hodder, 1978), pp.97,99.

11 T.F.Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Oliver & Boyd, 1948), p.133.

12 Torrance, Grace, p.136.

13 Torrance, Grace, p.137. Italics are original.

14 G.Bourgeault, Decalogue et Morale Chrétienne (Paris: Desclées, 1970), p.417. The conclusions regarding patristic evidence are summarized on pp.405–418.

15 H.Röthlisberger, Das Weg der Kirche am Sinai (Zwingli, 1965), p.50.

16 C.F.Allison, The Rise of Moralism (Morehouse Barlow, 1966), passim.

17 R.T.Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (OUP, 1979), passim.

18 The phrase is traditional in English-speaking Reformed theology and is found, e.g., in ch.19, section 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. See for example the WCF statements in The Confession of Faith; The Larger and Shorter Catechism (Inverness: Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1976), p.82.

19 See WCF, ch.9, cited above. A neo-Puritan exposition of the same viewpoint is found in W.Chantry, Today’s Gospel (Banner of Truth, 1970), esp.ch.2. Chantry thinks that sustained preaching of the decalogue is a primary tool of evangelism (pp.35–46). P.Helm also speaks of ‘the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the priority of the preaching of the law over against the preaching of the gospel’ (The Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion, Banner of Truth, 1986, p.103).

20 See G.Kawerau, Johannes Agricola von Eislehen (Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1881); J.Rogge, Johannes Agricolas Lutherverständnis, 1960.

21 D.Hall, The Antinomian Controversy, 1636–1638 (Wesleyan University, 1968), esp.pp.3–20; E.Emerson, Puritanism in America 1620–1750 (Boston: Twayne, 1977), pp.72–79; L.Ziff, The Career of John Cotton (Princeton, 1962), pp.106–148; R.T.Kendall, ‘John Cotton—First English Calvinist?’ in The Puritan Experiment in the New World; Papers read at the 1976 Conference (Huntingdon: Westminster Conference, 1977), pp.38–50.

22 See E.F.Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology (Carey Kingsgate, 1963, repr. 1976); K.M.Campbell, ‘Living the Christian Life: The Antinomian Controversies of the 17th Century’, in Living the Christian Life: Papers read at the 1974 Westminster Conference (Huntingdon: Westminster Conference, 1975), pp.61–81.

23 R.Dabney, ‘Theology of the Plymouth Brethren’, in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, vol.1 (Banner of Truth, 1967), pp.169–228.

24 Malan was accused of being ‘an unprincipled antinomian’ because of his teaching concerning faith and justification. His godly character and evangelistic zeal were conceded and admired. See C.Malan, Theogenes, or A Plain and Scriptural Answer to the Solemn Question, Am I, or Am I Not, a Child of God (Nisbet, 1828); Malan (one of Cesar Malan’s sons; name unidentified), The Life, Labours and Writings of Caesar Malan (Nisbet, 1869); C.Malan, The True Cross (Nisbet, 1848).

25 See the account of the two men, Luther and Agricola, in J.Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation (4 vols, London, 1925–30), vol.4, pp.161–179.

26 F.Heal points out that even the ‘familists’, the seventeenth-century sect that sprang from the ‘revelations’ of Henry Niclaes, ‘rarely seem to have deserved the epithet “libertine” which was often applied to them, and Niclaes stressed that his revelations fulfilled the law rather than overthrowing it’ (‘The Family of Love and the Diocese of Ely’ in Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest (CUP, 1972), p.214.

27 See I.H.Marshall, Acts (IVP, 1980), p.203.

28 See Samuel Rutherford’s Survey. I no longer have access to it, but see Alexander Whyte, Samuel Rutherford and Some of His Correspondents (London, 1894), p.11.

29 ‘The Downgrade’, in Sword and Trowel, March 1887, p.124.

30 See Eaton, Discovery, pp.89,108,39 respectively.

31 See Eaton, Discovery, esp.p.15.

2

DEVELOPED CALVINISM

In the history of evangelical theology since the Reformation controversies concerning grace have revolved largely around such issues as election and justification. In the English-speaking world a major divide came in the eighteenth century when the ‘methodist’ movement, which emphasized experience of God, divided into Calvinist and Arminian sections. It may be suggested that neither side satisfactorily handled the issue of the place of the law in the Christian life. Both theologies resulted in legalism, but the Calvinist often bore the added burden of introspection. At this point I survey a few of the concerns of these two classic forms of evangelicalism, focusing especially on the English-speaking scene. Later I shall present a similar outline of a theology of grace which does not exactly follow the contours of either theology outlined here.

In evangelical theology, freedom from Mosaism has been treated with suspicion, generally evoking the fear of licentiousness. Recent writings suggesting a less legalistic approach to the doctrine of perseverance have received hostile reviews from fellow Calvinists.[32] But are such fears justified? Classical high Calvinism has taught a doctrine of ‘final perseverance’ which, despite its apparently encouraging intentions, actually includes strongly introspective and discouraging elements. Much modern theology follows what has historically been known as ‘Arminianism’, accepting the possibility that salvation may be lost. The viewpoint I shall present differs from both, though it is more in accord with Augustinianism and Reformation-teaching than with Arminianism.

I am assuming that there is such a thing as ‘developed’ or ‘scholastic’ Calvinism, a theology which differs in numerous ways from the teaching of Calvin himself. This is now widely accepted, and I have touched upon the matter in a previous book.[33] There are a number of distinctive emphases in scholastic Calvinism.

Limited atonement

Scholastic Calvinism has held to what has been called ‘limited atonement’ or ‘particular redemption’. The atonement of Christ is correlated with the doctrine of election so as to produce the logically extended doctrine that Jesus did not die or atone for all humankind.

The doctrine has early roots. A ‘limited atonement’ has sometimes been distinguished in the teaching of Augustine.[34] Isidore (bishop of Seville in the early seventh century) said, ‘Predestination is two-fold, either of the elect to [heavenly] rest, or of the wicked to death.’[35] Similar teaching was maintained energetically by Gottschalk, the German-born monk and scholar, in the ninth century.[36]

Peter Lombard’s formula for denoting the extent of the atonement was: ‘sufficient for all men and efficient for the elect’.[37] This was accepted by Calvin although he did not think it entirely adequate.[38] Luther and Calvin did not discuss the matter very explicitly. The matter had been raised by Gottschalk and Calvin’s allusion to Lombard shows that he was conscious of the question. To think, as some do, that Calvin was unaware of the discussion is nonsense. He cannot have been unaware of the predestinarian conflicts that surrounded Gottschalk. Luther’s view of ‘the many’ in Romans 5:15 was reminiscent of the Augustinian view. He interprets ‘the many’ as ‘believers’ and in the glosses on Romans 5:20 comments, ‘He says “Many” and not “All”.’[39] Calvin admired Luther so much that he was quiet and gentle in his disagreements with him, but he explicitly took a different view of Romans 5:15 from that of Luther. When Calvin says things like ‘He says many meaning all, as in Rom.5:15’ he is gently disagreeing with Luther and explicitly teaching a universal atonement.[40] Calvin did not tightly weave together election and atonement after the manner of later Calvinists. Although the matter has been debated, my view is that Calvin should be classed with those who hold to universal atonement. In later Calvinism, Beza, Perkins and late-English Puritanism held to a limited atonement, but there were always Calvinists who held to a universal atonement. G.M.Thomas has provided a history of the subject in his The Extent of the Atonement.[41]

There is more than one way in which a doctrine of unconditional election can be correlated with the doctrine of atonement so as to deduce a doctrine of limited atonement. In a brief article Hywel Roberts has drawn attention to three ways in which the teaching was presented among Welsh-speaking preachers.[42] The matter was discussed more in Wales than in anywhere else in the world! The Baptist preacher Christmas Evans argued that the death of Christ was not of infinite worth but was exactly equivalent to the sins of the elect. The Congregationalist John Roberts held that the atonement had a general purpose which gave rise to temporal blessings as well as a particular purpose in which Christ designed to save only the elect. The Calvinistic Methodist Thomas Jones of Denbigh argued that Christ’s death was of infinite worth, yet was intended only for those whom God had given to his Son.

Roberts went on to urge that the third of the views summarized is the correct one and was held by the Reformers, the Puritans, the leaders of Calvinistic Methodism, as well as by Andrew Fuller, Daniel Rowlands, Howell Harris and William Williams.[43] Our concern at present is to draw attention to the significance of the doctrine in relation to an evangelical view of assurance of salvation and freedom from legal condemnation. It has, I suggest, at least the following implications.

(i) Firstly, it depersonalizes the ‘free offer’ of the gospel. The ‘limited atonement’ theorist cannot and generally does not say to anyone, ‘Christ died for you’. A nineteenth-century advocate of universal redemption thought that even the ‘sufficient for all’ formula is inadequate.

If the inhabitants of a city were perishing by famine what would it avail to be informed that a store of provisions had arrived amply sufficient, and more than sufficient, to satisfy the wants of all, if at the same time they were told that the provision was actually designed only for a few? Would not the attention of the starving multitude be immediately withdrawn from the amplitude of the supply, to the more nearly interesting inquiry whether or not they individually were included in the favoured number?[44]

The limited atonement theorist is in difficulty, because a salvation offered to a particular man or woman seems to imply a salvation already provided for that very person. At this point the particular redemptionist must draw back. The most they can say is, in generalized terms, that Christ died for sinners. They cannot personalize the gospel offer. In practice the particular redemptionist gives the impression that Christ died for the individual non-Christian but avoids saying so.

(ii) Limited atonement presents a threat to a genuine free offer of salvation. Outsiders initially get the impression that Christ died for them, when that outsider or newcomer does not notice that the preacher or evangelist holds back from personalizing their message. The uninitiated non-Christian may not know of ‘limited atonement’ and may get the impression that Christ died for them whether they are elect or not! The Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon could be mentioned in this connection. He believed in limited atonement and had a sermon preached on the subject at the opening of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in the 1850s.[45] Yet anyone who reads his 62 volumes of sermons constantly receives a strong impression that Christ died for everyone, elect or non-elect.

However, the doctrine of limited atonement also becomes a threat to assurance of salvation. It correlates atonement with election in such a way that it is not possible to look directly at the cross of Jesus to get assurance of salvation. If a would-be believer is familiar with such teaching, threatening thoughts will cross their mind when they look at the cross. It will occur to them that the work of Jesus might not be for them. To talk of trusting Christ without knowing definitely whether what Christ did on the cross relates to oneself is in practice rather difficult. In conjunction with other aspects of developed Calvinism it becomes impossible.

(iii) It is characteristic of scholastic Calvinism that it has difficulty with statements in Scripture concerning the objectivity and universality of the work of Jesus. Statements that Jesus died ‘for all’ or for ‘the world’ or that he ‘tasted death for every person’ do not fit easily with an approach that tightly links election and atonement. Probably only a scholastic Calvinist could say, ‘The term world as used in John 3:16 presents a serious difficulty of exegesis.’[46]

(iv) It is somewhat difficult for the limited atonement theorist to give real significance to faith. Admittedly, scholastic Calvinists want to give significance to faith. Yet they say, ‘The Cross makes certain the salvation of all those for whom Christ died.’[47] ‘It is not the possibility of salvation, not simply the opportunity of salvation. What is offered is salvation.’[48] On such a view the cross purchases faith. As John Owen put it, ‘Faith ... is itself procured by the death of Christ.’[49] But this makes it difficult to see how faith has any independent significance. If the cross applies its own benefits and is God’s only saving instrumentality, what place does faith have? In scholastic Calvinist thinking it ‘is the duty of all men everywhere to believe’.[50] But to believe what? To believe in Jesus, the Saviour, without knowing whether what he did was for you! It is not to believe that Christ died for me. Such a statement is thought to be without warrant and no part of the gospel. The individual must believe in the person of Jesus without having any assurance that what Christ did is for them? Apparently this is what the scholastic Calvinist desires. Yet Calvin puts the problem when commenting on John 3:16: ‘Men are not easily convinced that God loves them; and so, to remove all doubt, He has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that for our sakes He did not spare even His only begotten Son.’ Calvin is clear that any introspective doubts are needless. In John 3:16 ‘whosoever’ is

a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term ‘world’ which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.[51]

(v) Limited atonement thus relegates assurance of salvation to the future and makes it the long-term goal of faith rather than an immediate possibility. For the authors of The Grace of God in the Gospel the kind of assurance Paul expressed in Galatians 2:20 is not an immediate possibility for the Christian. ‘It is the zenith, not the beginning, of faith to appropriate to oneself this verse.’ William Perkins said the same thing in the seventeenth century.[52] It is part of the logic of limited atonement that such personal assurance has to become the ‘zenith’ of Christian experience.

(vi) Limited atonement thus introduces ‘preparationism’ into the doctrine of salvation. Consider, for example, the following sentence. ‘No-one who has not first repented and trusted in Christ to save him, may legitimately believe that Christ has died for him personally.’[53] This may be contrasted with a statement of Calvin: ‘How shall we be convinced that He loves us until those sins for which He is justly angry with us have been expiated? Thus before we can have any feeling of His fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us.’[54] A consideration of the two sentences reveals that they make diametrically opposite points. In the one case, it seems one must know one has repented and know one has trusted in Christ before one can know that Christ’s death is ‘for me’. Calvin makes the opposite point. One must know Christ’s death is ‘for me’ before one can have any feeling of God’s fatherly kindness. In other words, on a universal atonement view there is nothing preparatory to certainty that Christ’s death is ‘for me’. For the authors of The Grace of God there has to be (if one takes them seriously) consideration of oneself before there can be a knowledge of Christ’s death being ‘for me’. This is the key point: there is an introspective tendency built into the very foundations of scholastic Calvinism.

Assurance of salvation

The Reformation tradition has always made much of assurance of salvation. For Luther and Calvin faith is assurance. Subsequent theological reflection drove a wedge between initial-faith which may or may not include full assurance of salvation, and developed-faith which reflects upon itself and reaches assurance of salvation. From the days of the Westminster Confession (1649) the latter has been dominant in English-speaking Reformed theology, especially among the Puritans and their successors. John Murray called initial-faith the ‘direct or primary act of faith’. He called developed-faith the ‘secondary or reflex act of faith’. The latter he thought to be ‘logically subsequent’ to the former.[55]

On this view, assurance of salvation may be much delayed in the life of the believer. Infallible assurance, says the Westminster Confession, ‘doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be a partaker of it’.

The second point I wish to emphasize here is that Reformed thought claims that a believer may have present assurance of final salvation. Yet it is vital to note that, as often presented, the high Calvinist view of final perseverance has legalistic elements. In another work Murray acknowledges that he dislikes the expression ‘the security of the believer’ and prefers the Puritan expression ‘perseverance of the saints’. The latter term ‘guards against every notion or suggestion to the effect that a believer is … secure as to his eternal salvation quite irrespective of the extent to which he may fall into sin’.[56] For Murray, assurance of salvation is not ‘without works’. Rather it is based upon the doctrine that believers do inevitably persevere; ‘it cannot be too strongly stressed that it is the perseverance of the saints’; ‘the security that is theirs is inseparable from their perseverance’; it requires ‘the most intense and concentrated devotion to those means which God has ordained for the achievement of his saving purpose’. Murray reveals his concern when he says his doctrine wishes to avoid both ‘the Arminian tenet’ concerning possible loss of salvation, and also ‘antinomian presumption’.[57]

I suggest that Murray is perhaps closer to evangelical Arminianism than he ever realized. What is the value of a doctrine of assurance with such a strongly conditional element? The evangelical Arminian says the Christian shall attain salvation as long as they persevere. Murray also says the Christian shall attain salvation as long as they persevere. Is there any difference between them? The Arminian says that, despite all the appearances of salvation, salvation may be lost. Similarly, John Murray holds to a doctrine of ‘temporary faith’ and speaks of ‘the lengths and the heights to which a temporary faith may carry those who have it’. There are (he says) ‘forces that are operative in the kingdom of God’ and ‘very uplifting, ennobling, reforming, and exhilarating experience of the power and truth of the gospel’ which fall short of salvation.[58]

It seems that Arminians must not assume the continuance of their faith, and scholastic Calvinists must not assume the reality of theirs. In the one case awareness of sin threatens the Arminian’s confidence about continuance in the faith; in the other case awareness of sin threatens confidence about the reality of salvation. Again one notes how the developed form of Reformed thinking has a tendency to introspection. A high Calvinist who does indeed come to a present assurance of salvation can have an assurance of final salvation. This is the implication of relating election to perseverance. It is extremely comforting if the person concerned does indeed reach assurance of present salvation. Yet the legalistic tendencies of this view and the doctrine of ‘temporary faith’ form a great barrier. Such a person’s doctrine is likely to be of no practical help. On the scholastic Reformed view, assurance becomes ‘the duty and privilege of assurance’. How then is the duty to be performed? It is a matter of obedience to the commandment of God; ‘obedience ... constitutes the evidence that we love God’. We must not take salvation for granted.[59] The Christian’s task includes the responsibility for self-examination. ‘There is much reason to fear’ (says Murray) ‘that the Christian church has to a large extent neglected the duty of self-examination.’ We are to ask such questions as: ‘Am I an heir of God? Do I bear the marks of the children of God? Do I have the title deeds to the resurrection of life and to the house not made with hands eternal in the heaven?’ Murray thinks this is not ‘morbid introspection’ but a necessary part of the pathway to assurance of salvation.[60]

However, I also have some questions. Is assurance of salvation represented in the New Testament as a duty? Are Christians ever invited in the New Testament to ask such questions of themselves? How many people who take such a doctrine seriously actually arrive at the kind of assurance Murray envisages? Is not such a doctrine so conditional upon passing certain tests as one looks at oneself, that doubt and insecurity are bound to be the result? May not the verses of Scripture that Murray quotes from 1 John and elsewhere be interpreted in an entirely different way? If John assures his readers of their salvation (1 Jn2:12–14) should not ‘the tests’ be interpreted in a non-introspective manner? Is it not a fact of history that the Calvinist has tended to have less assurance of salvation than the Arminian? The Arminian is at least sure of their present salvation. As the result of the high-Calvinist doctrine the Calvinist often doubts their present salvation and thus has a less contented frame of mind than their evangelical Arminian friend.

Godly living

Thirdly, the Reformation tradition has always had a concern for godliness. A sincere motive underlies the theological constructions we have been surveying. It is the fear that an extreme doctrine of grace might lead to a real licentiousness. Despite all accusations to the contrary, godliness has undoubtedly been a dominant concern in Reformed as well as in Arminian theology. We need not question the sincerity of either side. The history is well known. Luther emphasized two aspects of the Christian use of the law. It both restrained sin in society and was also of value in inducing conviction of sin and thus preparing the way for the gospel. Agricola’s main concern was apparently with the first of these uses of the law. He believed Mosaic law was primarily for the magistrates; to preach it to induce conviction of sin was needless. Calvin agreed with Luther but added a third use of the Mosaic law; it was of importance too in guiding the Christian life.

From these early Protestant origins the Reformed doctrine developed and has remained much the same until this day. Christ’s words about the law in Matthew 5:17–20 have made this a key text in Reformed thinking. Romans 6 and 7 have been interpreted as referring to freedom from law with regard to justification but not with regard to sanctification.[61]

Warnings of failure

Fourthly, the Reformed tradition has handled the warnings of Scripture in a distinctive way. The New Testament contains many warnings concerning failure of faith. There are warnings concerning forfeiture of the kingdom (1 Cor.6:9; Gal.5:21; Eph.5:5), conditional statements where some aspect of future blessing is introduced with the word ‘if’ (Rom.8:13,17; Col.1:23), statements addressed to disciples which warn of loss of grace in some manner. For example, the recipients of the Sermon on the Mount included disciples (Matt.5:2), and there is no reason to think that the warnings about Gehenna (5:22,29,30), loss of reward (6:1), judgement (7:1–2) and the broad road that leads to destruction (7:13,19) do not concern them. We find warnings about ‘enduring to the end’ (Mk13:13) and about being ‘destroyed’ by neglect of attention to one’s conscience (1 Cor.8:11; Rom.14:15). There are remarks about ‘falling from grace’ and being ‘cut off from Christ’ (Gal.5:4), and making shipwreck of the faith (1 Tim.1:19; 6:21; 2 Tim.2:18). In a category of their own come the warnings of the letter to the Hebrews. In Reformed thinking, such warnings are generally taken to refer to an unreal salvation or an appearance only of salvation. Murray quotes the ‘tests of life’ in 1 John without any indication that they could do anything other than threaten the reality of salvation[62] and interprets 2 Peter 1:10 as an invitation to diligence in cultivating assurance of salvation.[63] He thus follows a tradition going back to the days of William Perkins.[64] Calvin’s exposition was different at this point. For Calvin, 2 Peter 1:10 ‘should not ... be referred to conscience’.[65] That is to say, he did not understand 2 Peter 1:10 introspectively. The verse is positive (‘Prove you are called and elected’) not introspective (‘Conduct tests to see whether or not you are called and elected’). In 2 Peter 1:10 it is assumed that the readers know their calling and invites them to prove it. It could be discussed whether or not this is an accurate reading of the verse. It at least demonstrates that the introspective interpretation may not be assumed without discussion.

Similarly Hebrews 6:4–6, in Murray’s opinion, must make us fear that exhilarating experiences of God may turn out to be delusive.[66] At every point the warnings are taken in an introspective manner.

If one explores Calvinist biblical commentaries from the early seventeenth century onwards one discovers that the introspective approach to the warnings of Scripture dominates this tradition. There is a lengthy history that includes the large expositions of the English Puritans and their Scottish colleagues. It takes in the work of the Calvinistic Baptist John Gill, the nineteenth-century expositions of John Brown, and the expository writings of Charles Hodge and J.A.Alexander. More recently it is seen in the volumes of the New International Commentary with—in the early days of the series—its Reformed contributors. Stridently Calvinistic exposition has also been apparent in the expository writings of W.Hendriksen, S.Kistemaker, G.B.Wilson, A.W.Pink and D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Throughout these works the warnings of Scripture are taken, by and large, to refer to an unreal salvation; Christians are frequently invited to search their hearts to see whether or not they are true heirs of salvation. The documentation of this point could run to tens of pages but space forbids and it would not be useful. We shall later glance at how Reformed writers have generally taken Hebrews chapter 6 in this introspective manner. Two examples of this trend must suffice, one ancient and one modern. In the teaching of the seventeenth-century preacher and commentator George Petter, repentance is defined as ‘turning from all sin’. Petter analyses the matter in great detail. Repentance has two parts. We have to be aware of sorrow for our sin. This must be with ‘constant purpose in heart’.[67] Our turning must be from ‘all sin’. Petter has five tests for us to use to discern whether we have in fact turned from all sin in this way. One of them is that our repentance is ‘universal’ and ‘constant’; it must be from ‘all’ sin; it includes the practising of ‘every good duty’; ‘late repentance is not acceptable’; the repentance must not arise out of fear of hell. We must ‘try ourselves whether we be angry at our selves for our sins’. ‘Let every one ask his own heart,’ says Petter. Repentance leads to faith and good works and we must ‘by these marks try ourselves’ and ‘rest not in temporary faith’.[68] Only with such repentance may there be any forgiveness of sin. Throughout Petter’s pages on repentance there is a strong atmosphere of introspection. I doubt whether anyone ever came to assurance by acting on such teaching.

A modern Reformed commentator is G.B.Wilson, who has written numerous volumes of popular ‘Digests’ of Reformed comment. The fact that he is specifically offering a ‘digest of Reformed comment’ makes his works all the more significant as we consider the Reformed approach to exposition. Wilson is not as heavily introspective as his Puritan predecessors, yet he interprets the key ‘warning’ verses in much the same way. Thus the Corinthians were told to test the genuineness of their faith lest they should be ‘counterfeit Christians’.[69] No other view of 2 Corinthians 13:5 is considered. Even the apostle could turn out not to be truly Christian at all, and it would help the Corinthians to know it! Colossians 1:23, according to Wilson, contains an ‘if’ that is cautionary. The salvation of the Colossians is to be evidenced by the continuance; Paul ‘puts a question mark against their fidelity’.[70] When approaching verses like Revelation 22:18–19 (‘... God shall take away his part from the tree of life …’) Wilson takes them to refer to one who is only apparently a Christian. Such a Christian would forfeit his share of eternal life, ‘i.e. he would lose what he seemed to have by profession, though as such an act would prove, not by possession’.[71] All of this is typical of the Reformed tradition we are considering. Revelation 22:18–19 is not interpreted as referring to apostasy; rather it means that what seemed to be salvation turns out not to be salvation after all. Wilson apparently sees no way of understanding the warnings of Scripture except along introspective lines. He does not wish to go the Arminian route and teach the possibility of apostasy, so he is shut up—so it seems—to the introspective interpretations beloved of English Calvinism.

Introspection

Fifthly, arising out of these motifs, traditional late Reformed theology has a problem with introspection. I have already urged that introspection is implicit in many aspects of the Reformed doctrine of grace in late Calvinism. Now I wish to underline the fact that the most intense introspection follows if many or all of these emphases are combined. If Christ did not die for all, and if it is possible to have a sorrow for sin which is not true repentance, a faith which is not true faith, a possessing of the Spirit which falls short of true regeneration, if despite any and every ‘experience’ of the gospel there is ‘a way to Hell even from the Gates of Heaven’,[72] if Paul himself feared loss of salvation, then what remains of the Calvinist’s assurance? It has died the death of a thousand qualifications. No wonder such a great Calvinist evangelist as Nettleton could say, ‘The most that I have ventured to say respecting myself is, that I think it possible I may get to heaven.’[73] Puritanism was notoriously introspective; many Puritan preachers themselves had difficulty in the matter of assurance of their own salvation. O.R.Johnston, who was an admirer of the Puritan Thomas Shepard, nevertheless called him ‘notoriously a melancholic’ and spoke of his difficulties with depression.[74] O.C.Watkins makes similar points concerning John Bunyan, who showed great introspection in Grace Abounding, the account of his early Christian experience.[75] Elizabeth Braund records how Puritans might set aside a whole day for self-examination.[76] I.Murray notes that the preaching of the doctrine of election might be used to deliberately induce despair in the hearers; this was thought often to be a salutary experience.[77]

A characteristic of Reformed practice in this stage of English life was the time that Puritan pastors spent in counselling ‘troubled souls’. However, the question may be asked: was it their distinctive teaching that gave rise to so many ‘troubled souls’?[78] For example, Richard Greenham, pastor of Dry Drayton from 1570, gave considerable thought to ‘distressing states of mind and heart’, including especially lack of assurance of salvation.[79] P.Cook, in summarizing the teaching of Richard Greenham and Richard Rogers, says that by their standards ‘many professing Christians would fail the test of being truly Christians’, which is another way of saying that their teaching undermined assurance of salvation.[80] R.Horn refers to the ‘weight of emphasis which [Thomas] Hooker places on the law’, and criticizes him for disregarding biblical material on evangelism, for example the evangelistic sermons of Acts, because it would not fit into his scheme of ideas.[81]

In addition, Puritans often wrote books seeking to help their people into assurance of salvation, William Guthrie[82] and Thomas Brooks[83] among them. One of the few Puritan diaries that have survived is that of Oliver Heywood (1629–1702). Again one notices its introspection. W.H.Davies notes what he calls Heywood’s ‘intense self-examination’ and comments: ‘One thing is consistently to be noticed in Heywood’s life and that is his habit of continuous heart searchings.’[84]

The studies of Puritanism quoted here show that even those who admire it (as I do myself) concede that it is introspective. The danger is especially severe when all of the various aspects of developed Reformed doctrine are held in combination. The picture is as follows. Jesus died for sinners—but fuller knowledge reveals that he died for only some sinners. He makes an offer of salvation to anyone who believes in him. When he saves, he saves utterly and for ever. He is able to keep. Once one has believed in Jesus one’s salvation is secure for ever. One lives a godly life not in order to obtain salvation but as a grateful response to salvation.

So far so good. Many people—including the present writer—have come to life, joy and liberty under the influence of such a theology. Yet as knowledge of the full teaching of scholastic Calvinism is received it becomes increasingly threatening. The way for faith has to be prepared by repentance. Repentance is turning from all known sin. Was my faith preceded by repentance? Have I turned from all known sin? I fear I may not have done so! Jesus did not die for everyone. Am I perhaps one of those for whom he did not die? Is there any way of knowing? If I believe, then I may know I am indeed one of the ones for whom Jesus died. Yes, but at the moment I am questioning whether I really did believe or not. Worst of all, there is such a thing as imitation salvation. It is possible to be enlightened, to have tasted of the heavenly gift, even to have one’s life changed, and yet not be a true Christian.

The last threatening paragraph is long enough. But it could go on for ever! This is the snag of scholastic Calvinism. It leads into an abyss of ever-increasing introspection. That my description above is correct will be admitted by anyone who has much experience of developed-Calvinist circles. The more sincere the Christian the more they are haunted by these doubts. In my own ministry I think of the words of a well-known Christian leader who shared with me his anxieties: ‘all my life I have wondered whether I really am saved.’ I think of the words of a theological student I once sought to help: ‘I have always been troubled by the feeling that I am only harrowed ground and the Word has not gone into my heart.’ Reformed theology has been a great power for good in the history of Protestantism. The theology presented in the following chapters is decidedly Calvinist. Yet one needs to remember that there are subtle variations among different versions of Calvinism. The introspective variety is decidedly not totally derived from the New Testament, and its all-pervasive view of the law needs reconsidering.

32 See I.Murray, ‘Will the Unholy Be Saved?’ (review article in The Banner of Truth, no.246, March 1984), pp.1–15, esp.p.2; R.F.White, Review of The Gospel Under Siege: A Study of Faith and Works [Dallas: Redencion Via, 1981], by Z.Hodges, WTJ, 46, no.2, Feb 1984, pp.426–430.

33 See M.A.Eaton, Baptism with the Spirit (IVP, 1989), pp.51–53. See also A.McGrath’s study of the matter in P.Avis (ed), The History of Christian Theology, vol.1, ‘The Sources of Theology’ (Marshall Pickering, 1986), pp.154–164; and R.T.Kendall, ‘The Puritan Modification of Calvin’s Theology’, in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World (Zondervan, 1982), pp.199–216.

34 See the catena of citations from Augustine in J.Owen, Death of Death (repr. Banner of Truth, 1959), pp.311f.

35 Sententiae 2:6; see R.Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, vol.2 (Baker, 1956), p.31.

36 See J.Ussher (seventeenth-century Archbishop of Armagh), Gotteschalki et praedestinatione controversiae ab eo notae historia (Dublin 1631), repr. in The Whole Works of … J. Ussher (Dublin, 1848–64), pp.1–233.

37 Lombard’s words are: ‘obtulit pro omnibus, quantam ad pretii sufficientam; sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficaciem’ (Sententiarum Libri Quattuor 3:20:3, MPL, 192, col.799).

38 J.Calvin, The Gospel According to St.John ... and the First Epistle of St.John (Eerdmans, 1961), p.244.

39 LW, vol.25, Lectures on Romans, under Romans 5:19; also DMLW, vols 56, pp.53–54,318.

40 J.Calvin, Hebrews (Oliver & Boyd, 1963), p.131.

41 Paternoster, 1997.

42 H.Roberts, ‘Particular Redemption in Perspective’, in Reformation Today, no.42, Mar–Apr 1978, pp.12–18.

43 The Welsh material on which Roberts was drawing is now available in English. See Owen Thomas, The Atonement Controversy … (Banner of Truth, 2002).

44 W.Dodsworth, General Redemption and Limited Atonement (Nisbet, 1831), pp.ix,x.

45 The sermon (‘Particular Redemption’) was preached by James Spurgeon, Charles’s brother. See J.Spurgeon, ‘Particular Redemption’, in New Park Street Pulpit, vol.7, 1884, pp.313–318. James Spurgeon later changed his mind about limited atonement. Charles Spurgeon never did.

46 R.B.Kuiper, God-Centred Evangelism (Banner of Truth, 1966), p.23.

47 J.Cheeseman et al., Grace of God in the Gospel (Banner of Truth, 1972), p.79.

48 J.Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth, 1961), p.65.

49 J.Owen, The Works of John Owen (1850–1853), vol.10, p.450.

50 Cheeseman, Grace, p.89.

51 Calvin, John, vol.1, p.74.

52 Cheeseman, Grace, p.92; Perkins, Galatians, p.219.

53 Cheeseman, Grace, p.92.

54 Calvin, John, p.74.

55 J.Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol.2 (Banner of Truth, 1976), pp.264–265.

56 Murray, Redemption, p.154.

57 Murray, Redemption, pp.154–156.

58 Murray, Redemption, pp.152–153.

59 Murray, Writings, vol.2, p.267,271.

60 Murray, Writings, vol.2, p.271.

61 See the expositions of C.Hodge (Romans, repr. Banner of Truth, 1972, pp.191–220); R.Haldane (Romans, pp.237–284); J.R.W.Stott (Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5–8 (IVP, 1966), p.42). Stott explicitly reveals a fear of antinomianism (p.33) and repudiates the ‘Keswick’ interpretation of ‘dying to sin’ that relates it to sanctification (pp.37–41). See also D.N.Steele & C.C.Thomas, Romans: An Interpretive Outline (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963), pp.54–55; G.B.Wilson, Romans: A Digest of Reformed Comment (Banner of Truth, 1969), p.114.

62 See throughout the section on ‘the assurance of faith’ in Murray, Writings, vol.2, pp.264–274.

63 Murray, Writings, vol.2, p.265.

64 See Kendall, Puritan Modification, pp.205–206.

65 See Calvin, Hebrews … Peter, p.334.

66 See Murray, Redemption, 1955, p.191.

67 G.Petter, A ... Commentary Upon ... Mark (London: 1661), p.48.

68 Petter, Mark, pp.48–50,52.

69 G.B.Wilson, 2 Corinthians (Banner of Truth, 1979), p.171.

70 G.B.Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (Banner of Truth, 1980), p.38.

71 G.B.Wilson, Revelation (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1985), p.184.

72 As the Baptist radical Puritan John Bunyan wrote (The Pilgrim’s Progress, Penguin Classics 1965 ed, p.205).

73 See B.Tyler & A.A.Bonar, Nettleton and His Labours (Banner of Truth, 1975), p.30.

74 See O.R.Johnston, ‘Thomas Shepard’s “Parable of the Ten Virgins” ’ in Servants of the Word (1957 Puritan Conference Papers informally distributed), pp.25–35. Shepard wrote much on the ‘gospel hypocrite’ and the ‘knowledge of Christ which does not save’ (Johnston, ‘Shepard’s Parable’, pp.31–34).

75 ‘John Bunyan and His Experience’, in Servants of the Word, 1957, pp.36–45. It must be noted that Bunyan comes to faith in Christ at the beginning of his story. His subsequent distress is typical Puritan experience.

76 ‘Daily Life among the Puritans’, Servants, 1957, pp.59–71, esp.p.65.

77 ‘The Puritans and the Doctrine of Election’, in The Wisdom of Our Fathers (1956 Puritan Conference Papers informally distributed), pp.1–13, esp.pp.10f.

78 See G.Hemming, ‘The Puritans’ Dealing with Troubled Souls’, in The Wisdom of Our Fathers, pp.26–37. Hemming comments on the place of the law in dealing with ‘troubled souls’ (p.27).

79 O.R.Johnston, ‘Richard Greenham and the Trials of a Christian’, in The Wisdom, pp.59–69, esp.p.59.

80 P.Cook, ‘Becoming a Christian—In the Teaching of Richard Rogers and Richard Greenham’, in Becoming a Christian (1973), pp.58–67.

81 R.Horn, ‘Thomas Hooker—The Soul’s Preparation for Christ’, in The Puritan Experiment in the New World (1976), pp.19–37, esp.p.35.

82 See W.Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (repr. 1982); D.Mingard, ‘William Guthrie on the Trial of a Saving Interest in Christ’, in A Goodly Heritage (1959), pp.27–33.

83 ‘Heaven on Earth, A ... Discourse Touching ... Assurance’, in The Works of Thomas Brooks (1866), vol.2, pp.301–534.

84 W.H.Davies, ‘Oliver Heywood the Northern Puritan’, in One Steadfast High Intent (1967), pp.45–55.

3

EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM

Evangelical Arminian theology has much in common with other forms of evangelicalism: its regard for Scripture, its trinitarianism, its forensic doctrine of justification, its doctrine of new birth. In this chapter however we shall consider those aspects of evangelical Arminianism that relate to our theme of law, grace, security and introspection.

Universal atonement

Firstly, evangelical Arminianism was notable for its doctrine of universal atonement. The scholastic doctrine of ‘limited atonement’ was sharply repudiated by English-speaking Arminianism. John Wesley, who may be taken as one of the founding fathers of contemporary English-speaking Arminianism, inherited from his parents an intense and abiding dislike of any form of predestinarianism. Wesley entered into sharp conflict with his friend George Whitefield over this point, and gloried in universal atonement, even to the point of (via his brother Charles) bringing it into their hymns in a polemical manner:

O for a trumpet voice,

On all the world to call!

To bid their hearts rejoice

In Him who died for all;

For all my Lord was crucified,

For all, for all my Saviour died.[85]

In at least two ways the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement has implications for a doctrine of assurance. It connects with an assurance of availability of grace. While limited atonement theologians may teach a ‘free offer’ of grace, any doctrine of limited atonement is likely to prompt the suspicion that such an atonement is ‘not for me’. The Wesley brothers were conscious of this tendency. Having said,

The world He suffered to redeem;

For all He hath atonement made;

For those who will not come to him

The ransom of his life was paid—

the song went on to ask,

Why then, thou universal love,

Should any of thy grace despair?[86]

In addition, a doctrine of universal atonement gives significance to faith. On this view, the cross is not efficacious in itself. Here Calvin may be classified as holding an Arminian doctrine of the extent of the atonement, if the anachronism may be allowed, for he does not portray the cross as inherently efficacious and he attaches great significance to faith.

Assurance of (present) salvation

Secondly, evangelical Arminianism holds to assurance of present salvation only. On Arminian presuppositions a present assurance of final salvation is not possible. Among his Articles To Be Diligently Examined, Arminius included a section on ‘Assurance of Salvation’ in which he denied that a believer could be sure that they would not fall away from the faith. Such a conviction, he thought, engendered security, ‘a thing directly opposed to that most salutary fear with which we are commanded to work out our salvation and which is exceedingly necessary in this scene of temptation’.[87] For Arminius, the fear of God recommended in the Bible is fear of lost salvation, fear of hell.

This approach has become common in one strand of modern English-speaking evangelicalism. E.M.B.Green, writing on ‘Salvation and Perseverance’, concedes that there is teaching in Scripture to the effect that a Christian cannot be utterly lost, and concerning ‘the absolute security of the Christian’. He thinks however that there is ‘a contrary body of evidence’ also. In his discussion of the matter Hebrews 6:4–6 (understood as teaching the possibility of apostasy) is allowed to have the last word. This means that the promises of Scripture are not absolute (despite his use of that word); they are conditioned by the Christian’s ‘free will’ (a term which Green also uses). As Green explains what this means it turns out that the Christian’s assurance is only assurance of present standing. When one looks into the future such assurance is conditional. One cannot ‘fossilize God’s future’, says Green—a phrase which apparently means one has no assurance about it except one conditioned upon one’s own faithfulness. Salvation must not be regarded as a ‘possession’,[88] another term which seems to mean that I may enjoy salvation here and now but have no guarantee that I will keep it, except a guarantee that I myself must sustain. Here then is the view that, for want of a better term, I am labelling ‘Arminian’. It holds to a present assurance, but has only a conditional hope for the future, not an absolute one.

Godliness

Thirdly, evangelical Arminianism has had a concern for godliness. This indeed has been one of its notable characteristics and deepest concerns. Historically it has led into the ‘holiness movement’ of which the largest representative is the Church of the Nazarene. It is significant that when John Fletcher, the friend of John Wesley, felt it necessary to write against Calvinism, the title of his work was ‘Check to Antinomianism’.[89] Fletcher was acknowledged as a godly man by all who knew him. D.R.Smith rightly says that ‘whenever the Calvinist/Arminian controversy is discussed, the name of John Fletcher must arise … The subject of holiness … was the cornerstone of his arguments relating to the Calvinian position.’[90] He is therefore of particular interest in the present study, and we may focus on him briefly as one of the most admirable of Arminian evangelical Christians.

Wesley and Fletcher

There was considerable controversy between John Wesley and the Calvinist George Whitefield during the years 1738–1745. But from 1745 to the day of Whitefield’s death (1770) the two men agreed to differ and there was a relatively peaceful relationship between the sympathizers of the two men. However, in the minutes of the 1770 Wesleyan conference, Wesley produced an extreme statement concerning justification and works. As a result the Calvinists, no longer restrained by the pacific George Whitefield, took up the controversy once again. Fletcher wrote to defend Wesley, and vigorous controversy followed for about four years (1770–1774).

We may take Wesley and Fletcher as representatives of the theology we are considering. Three points are of importance.

(i) They regarded holiness as indispensable to salvation—as all Christians agree—but maintained their view in such a way that there was a tendency to teach what seemed to be salvation by works. Fletcher maintained that holiness is ‘the outer proof of our inner salvation’ (citing Matt.7:16–17; Gal.5:24; Jam.2:18; 1 Jn3:3) and is a preparation for heaven (citing Matt.5:8; Gal.5:19–20; Eph.5:5; Heb.12:14; Rev.11:27).[91] The works of believers contributed to their final security;[92] the Calvinist doctrine of ‘final perseverance’ Fletcher rejected.

(ii) In addition, Fletcher taught a doctrine of ‘second justification by works’. He argued from 1 Timothy 6:19 and Romans 2:6–7 that final salvation depended on ethical achievement as well as upon the atoning work of Christ. He denied that ‘faith alone turns the scale of justifying evidence at the bar of God’.[93] Fletcher thought that this doctrine of second justification by works would ‘rouse Antinomians out of their carnal security’.[94]

(iii) Fletcher also supported Wesley in his doctrine of ‘Christian perfection’. D.R.Smith thought Fletcher was ‘distracted from [Calvinist] orthodoxy by so-called Calvinists who preached a living faith in the deadest of ways’. Fletcher felt that Calvinism was promoting looseness of life within the Methodism he loved, and was alarmed at the ‘almost general Antinomianism of our congregations’.[95] Since he speaks of ‘our’ congregations it seems that his Arminianism had so far not made them holy enough in Fletcher’s view. He spoke as if Calvinism was the cause, and feared that Calvinism encouraged sin. ‘I have seen them carelessly follow the stream of corrupt nature, against which they should have manfully wrestled.’[96] Whether Fletcher was accurate in regarding Calvinistic ‘methodists’ as living looser lives in comparison with Arminian ‘methodists’ is debateable. It ought not to be taken for granted that he was right! In the controversies between them, who was more honourable, Wesley or Whitefield? I leave it to others to read the story! Fletcher certainly detested the Calvinist doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness (‘a trick of antinomian hearts’).[97]

Legalism

Fourthly, one has to note that evangelical Arminianism has been characterized by legalism. Through their overriding concern for godliness Wesley and Fletcher were responsible for leading evangelicalism into legalism. Fletcher spoke explicitly of ‘evangelical legality’, saying that ‘legality is excellent, if it is evangelical’.[98]

Fletcher taught that although dead to the ceremonial law and to the curse of the moral law, yet the Christian is obliged to keep the moral law—which he saw summarized in the Ten Commandments in the traditional fashion.[99] In this, Wesleyan Arminianism was thus in agreement with Arminius himself. For in his ‘Seventy-Nine Private Disputations’ Arminius urged the need of ‘special acts of obedience ... prescribed in the Decalogue’ and went on to expound parts of the decalogue with such conscious obedience in mind.[100] I hasten to add that I do not think it is a mistake to want to keep the Ten Commandments (though the Sabbath has always caused Protestants some difficulties and dubious interpretations). The difficulty is not that the Ten Commandments are wrong! They overlap with life in the Holy Spirit; and life in the Holy Spirit fulfils the Ten Commandments. But Jesus’ higher requirements are not simply extensions of the Ten Commandments; they are a new kind of life altogether! For the moment it must suffice to say that in its Wesleyan form Arminianism was led into a very heavy emphasis on works, often in such a way that it was easily possible for the Christian to be virtually working for salvation. In 1770 Fletcher recalled the 1744 minutes of the Wesleyan Conference (‘we have leaned too much towards Calvinism’) and argued that the Christian was ‘working for life’. ‘Every believer, till he comes to glory, works for, as well as from life.’ ‘We have received it as a maxim that “A man is to do nothing, in order to justification”. Nothing can be more false.’ A person, taught Fletcher, must perform good works ‘in order to find favour with God’. Salvation is ‘not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition’. As a result Fletcher spoke of ‘conditional perseverance’ in salvation, contrasting this with the Calvinist doctrine of ‘unconditional perseverance’. In his view salvation was lost by the Christian who did not pursue holiness.[101]

Related to this emphasis on godliness was an insistence that the Mosaic law was directly relevant to the life of the Christian. Fletcher assumed that ‘fulfilling the law’ in Galatians 3 is identical to being under the law as a moral code[102] and took for granted without discussion that the ‘law of liberty’ of the Epistle of James is the Mosaic law. On this he and his Calvinist opponents were agreed.

Arminian exposition

In the original doctoral thesis of which this book is a reduced and simplified version I argued in the footnotes that there is a very rich Reformed tradition of biblical interpretation. This material has been left out here; reading it would be like reading a telephone directory! But what of the Arminian counterpart? The answer is: a precisely comparable tradition is not found in evangelical Arminianism. I recall a critic of the first edition of this book saying my reading was somewhat one-sided at this point. I reply: I had no choice! There is simply no evangelical Arminian expository tradition as massive and as detailed as the Calvinistic works and Puritan works expounding Scripture. Where is the equivalent among Arminians of (let us say) Calvin’s five volumes of exposition of Jeremiah? Where is the equivalent among Arminians of Luther’s eight volumes of Genesis? Which Arminian has worked through Romans in the detail of Dr Lloyd-Jones’s fourteen years of preaching on Romans—and the fourteen volumes that have appeared as a result? Arminian equivalents do not exist! In my judgement, anyone who does this kind of work on Romans—or even Hebrews—is likely to end up a Calvinist!

However, in the exegetical work of John Wesley, Adam Clarke, J.Agar Beet, and late-Lutheran expositors such as R.C.H.Lenski, one comes near to a tradition of Arminian biblical exposition. One could also turn to Roman Catholic works to find comparable series of biblical commentaries but they tend not to have the depth—or at least not the length—of the Reformed commentaries mentioned above. A review of these commentaries, particularly of the way they handle the key ‘Arminian’ sections of Scripture, reveals that they invariably maintain the possibility of apostasy for the sinful Christian. Thus Lenski’s exegesis of key texts takes for granted the possibility of apostasy. Of Paul it is said, ‘The fact that he is an apostle is not yet proof to him that he will be saved.’[103] For Lenski, Judas was a believer who apostasized. Yet Lenski seems to have difficulty with John 17:12 because he wishes to say both that Judas was a believer and that, as a result of God’s foreknowledge, he was never given by the Father to Jesus. He does not face the question whether this does not remove all comfort from the notion of Jesus’ protection since anyone’s lapse might be similarly foreknown and thus the threat of forfeiture of Jesus’ protection is open for anyone.[104] Along similar lines, R.Shank lists 80 passages which he thinks teach conditional security.[105] G.Duty argues similarly,[106] as does I.H.Marshall.[107]

The Arminian viewpoint may also be said to characterize works that hold to a non-evangelical view of Scripture. In this connection the popular expository works of W.Barclay—no friend of evangelicalism despite his ‘devout’ style of writing—are notable for urging the possibility of apostasy. For him Philippians 2:13 may be translated, ‘Carry to its perfect conclusion the work of your own salvation.’[108] I need not produce extensive quotations to demonstrate the Arminian approach. It is the commonplace manner in which the warnings of Scripture are handled. It does not contain the introspective subtlety of the Reformed expositions. Whether its approach is correct is a matter to which we shall return.

The preceding chapters have supplied a brief outline of some of the distinctive points of two evangelical theological traditions, examining only their emphases concerning security, godliness and law. The question to be considered is whether either of these two approaches is right in these emphases. What is striking about the two approaches is that both sides seem to take it for granted that their style-of-interpretation is correct. The Calvinists seem never to consider any approach than their own. It is quite startling to find Calvinists taking 2 Corinthians 13:5 (ESV, ‘Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith’) as if Paul is questioning the salvation of the Corinthians—despite the fact that he addresses his letter to ‘the holy ones’ in and around Corinth (2 Cor.1:1). Are Christians never to be asked whether they are acting in faith at this moment? Surely another interpretation is at least worth mentioning and considering. Could the verse not be taken positively: Do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is indeed in you?

And surely Arminians ought to consider the possibility that the warnings of Hebrews are not about loss of new birth or justification or the sanctification through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ which is once for ever. Does not saving faith have to persist so as to inherit further promises? Are the warnings of Hebrews really about ‘staying saved’ or about the ‘further promises’? Is ‘staying saved’ a matter of reward (note Heb.10:35)? Is it final arrival in heaven which is a matter of just recompense for good works (note Heb.6:10)? Surely there are some other possibilities here which should be considered. In a later chapter I shall suggest a variant version of the Calvinist approach, which takes seriously the Pauline teaching concerning freedom from Mosaism. There are surely some other interpretations besides the introspective ones and beside the ‘final salvation by good works’ approach. Let us at least consider them.

85 A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists (1876), no.34, v.7. The Wesleys used expressions that could only have been offensive to their Calvinist opponents: ‘Will you let him die in vain?’ (Hymn 6, v.2); ‘After all his waste of love ... why will you resolve to die?’ (Hymn 8, v.l).

86 Wesley, Hymns, no.39, vv.4,5.

87 J.Arminius, Works of James Arminius, vol.2 (Longman et al., 1828), p.726.

88 The Meaning of Salvation (Hodder, 1965), pp.231,235.

89 See the fivefold work ‘First ... Second ... Fifth Check to Antinomianism’, in The Works of John Fletcher, vol.1 (1829; repr. Schmul, 1974), pp.115–445.

90 See D.R.Smith, ‘John Fletcher: An Arminian Upholder of Holiness’, in The Manifold Grace of God (PRSC, 1969), pp.62f.,67f.

91 Smith, ‘Fletcher’, p.71.

92 Smith, ‘Fletcher’, p.72.

93 Smith, ‘Fletcher’, p.73; Fletcher, Works, vol.1, pp.170–171.

94 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.174.

95 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.201.

96 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.195.

97 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.198.

98 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.95.

99 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.196.

100 See J.Arminius, Works, vol.2, p.454, also pp.456–469.

101 Fletcher, Works, vol.1, p.179.

102 Fletcher, Works, vol.2, pp.494,495.

103 R.C.H.Lenski, The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (1957), p.388.

104 R.C.H.Lenski, The Interpretation of St.John’s Gospel (1943), p.1139. See also Lenski’s comments on John 15:6 (pp.1037–1040).

105 R.Shank, Life in the Son (1961), pp.333–337. The texts are Matt.18:21–35; 24:4,5,11–13,23–26; 25:1–13; Lk.8:11–15; 11:24–28; 12:42–46; Jn6:66–71; 8:31,32; 8:51; 13:8; 15:1–6; Ac.11:21–23; 14:21–22; Rom.6:11–23; 8:12–4,17; 11:20–22; 14:15–23; 1 Cor.9:23–27; 10:1–21; 11:29–32; 15:1,2; 2 Cor.1:24; 11:2–4; 12:21 – 13:5; Gal.5:14; 6:7–9; Eph.3:17; Phil.2:12–16; 3:4 – 4:1; Col.1:21–23; 2:4–8; 2:18–19; 1 Thess.3:1–8; 1 Tim.1:3–7,18–20; 2:11–15; 4:1–16; 5:8; 5:11–15,5,6 [sic]; 6:9–12; 6:17–19; 6:20,21; 2 Tim.2:11–18; 2:22–26; 3:13–15; Heb.2:1–3; 3:6–19; 4:1–16; 5:8,9; 6:4–9; 6:10–20; 10:19–31; 10:32–39; 11:13–16; 12:1–17; 12:25–29; 13:9–14; 13:17,7 [sic]; Jam.1:12–16; 1:21–22; 2:14–26; 4:4–10; 5:19,20; 1 Pet.1:5–9,13; 2 Pet.1:5–11; 2:1–22; 3:16,17; 1 Jn1:5 – 2:11; 2:15–28; 2:29 – 3:10; 5:4,5; 5:16; 2 Jn6–9; Jud.5–12,20,21; Rev.2:7,10–11.

106 See G.Duty, If Ye Continue (Bethany, 1966), passim.

107 See Marshall, Kept (1969), passim.

108 W.Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians (rev.ed., St Andrews, 1975), p.40.

4

A CHALLENGE TO TRADITION

Why have so many Christians been so threatened, as we have seen, by legalism and introspection? The answer to this question should take account of at least the following elements:

(i) the tendency within the church to make excessive and simplistic use of the Mosaic covenant in expounding Christian theology;

(ii) the difficulty the Christian church has always had in interpreting Hebrews 6;

(iii) the way the concept of repentance has tended to clash with the concept of faith and to become a form of working for salvation both in medieval times (with its concept of ‘penance’) and in the Puritan theology (with its concept of ‘turning from all known sin’).

All these aspects of the matter need to be explored in the totality of Scripture, in the history of theology and in the story of the church. Not all of this can be tackled within one book. The present work aims simply to survey the two main options and give an overview of some major aspects of a different approach.

For any who are familiar with Scripture or are theologically informed, to raise the possibility of a Christian’s being radically free from the Mosaic law stimulates an explosion of questions and protests. What about the demands for good works? What about the warnings concerning apostasy? Does not Matthew 5:17–20 say the law is not abolished? Is not obedience to ‘commandments’ the test of salvation according to 1 John? There are questions concerning spiritual guidance (‘Is love to be unguided by anything propositional?’) and motivation (‘Is Christian obedience without sanctions or warnings?’). Any teaching concerning a reign or lordship of grace will invariably lead to the question, sometimes with a splutter of protest or hostility, ‘What shall we say then? Shall we sin that grace may abound?’

In other words, to seek to expound a non-legalistic soteriology along Pauline lines immediately raises, in evangelical circles, questions concerning Scripture. Evangelical theology has generally held to the principle that ‘Scripture is its own interpreter’. Thus a radically non-legalistic theology raises questions concerning one’s harmonistic hermeneutic. Did Paul adequately understand the Torah? Or did he develop an ‘antinomian’ theology that lost touch with the realities of a straightforward reading of the Torah? How does Jesus’ message fit with Paul’s? Does Matthean ‘legalism’ (if that is a correct way of putting it) cohere with Pauline antinomianism? Is James at odds with Paul? A non-legalistic emphasis on the Spirit alone will lead into questions concerning relationships within the Old Testament (Abraham, Moses), across the Testaments (Torah, new covenant), and within the New Testament (Jesus versus Paul, Paul versus James).

Hermeneutical pre-understanding

It has rightly been said that ‘every theology stands or falls as a hermeneutic and every hermeneutic stands or falls as a theology’.[109] Every theologian has a ‘hermeneutical circle’. This expression has come to be associated with Rudolf Bultmann, yet it is worthy of wider use. Everyone comes to Scripture with some kind of ‘pre-understanding’ whether it be a Heideggerian anthropology (as with Bultmann), a Christomonist ontology (as with Barth) or radical scepticism (as with many critics of traditional Christianity). Calvinists and Arminians tend to read every warning as having to do with unreal salvation or lost salvation. Other possibilities are not even considered! Sheer neutrality is a myth. All students of the Bible have their ‘hermeneutical circle’, just as everyone, consciously or unconsciously, has a systematic theology. The evangelical comes to Scripture with certain basic commitments. One basic ingredient of an evangelical hermeneutic is that it will be progressive, in that traditional formulations will be challenged as the exegetical and expository task proceeds.

I have used the model of a ‘circle’, yet there is much to be said for speaking instead of a spiral. For the ‘pre-understanding’ which takes evangelicals to Scripture to look for God’s mind in the minds of God’s men will constantly lead to discoveries that challenge or even refute what they have hitherto taken for granted. They will find themselves moving round the circle (so to speak) at a higher level. The circle will become a spiral and as they come back to what they thought they knew they will find themselves in a higher position. They will meet with disruptions in the circle of their ideas about God. To be explicit: an evangelical view of Scripture ought to lead to the challenging of traditional formulations. The danger is that one will view Scripture through the eyes of one’s denominational, confessional, theological or academic confreres. I can imagine no better way of expressing this point than to make parabolic use of Luther’s famous story concerning his ‘Reformation break-through’. Let Luther himself tell the story.[110]

I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardour for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1, ‘In it the righteousness of God is revealed’, that stood in my way. For I hated that word ‘righteousness of God’, which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punished the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punished sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, ‘In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” ’ There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which a merciful God justifies us by faith ... Here I felt I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally new face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.

Here is a man who has a traditional theology. He is used to reading his Bible through the eyes of late-Augustinian theology. He has a ‘circle’ of long-established, time-honoured ideas. But now, because of his new responsibilities as exegete in the newly founded university of Wittenberg, he is wrestling with Scripture for himself. He stumbles upon something that will not fit into the circle of his ideas. He can find no way in which the righteousness of God can possibly be good news. Eventually he looks at it in a new way and is lifted to a higher plane. He still has a ‘circle’ of ideas. He still believes there is a coherent teaching in the Scriptures, yet he has been through the experience of changing his mind, allowing new insights to break through. His faith in the harmony of Scripture has kept him seeking to discern the relevance of Scripture for one seeking a gracious God. The process has to continue. A decade or so after Luther a new tradition had been set up and there were theologians looking at Scripture no longer through the eyes of Augustinian traditionalism but through the eyes of Lutheran traditionalism!

Is it possible that evangelical theology has to take a step forward in its view of law and grace? Could it be that there is scope for a slightly readjusted evangelical synthesis which takes more seriously than ever before the possibility of a radical freedom from the Mosaic system, even from a direct subservience to the decalogue? Such an approach will leave one highly vulnerable, but were not Jesus and Paul vulnerable to (unjust) accusations of licentiousness?

We must find a more satisfying approach to law, grace, security, admonition, obedience and the nature of Christian spirituality. Such a theology will need to be a harmony. Until the nineteenth century it was traditional in the Christian church to regard the canonical scriptures as a harmonious unity. Expositors and theologians within the church generally regarded themselves as duty-bound to show the harmony and consistency of scriptural teaching. Scripture in their view (i) possessed normative content, (ii) showed internal coherence, (iii) was open to multiple application, and (iv) was viewed in terms of the divine legislator who has issued his law.[111]

The contemporary emphasis, by contrast, majors on the diversity of Scripture. It stresses (i) conceptual variety, both diachronic and synchronic, (ii) comprehensiveness in the historical canon (that is, the idea that conflicting teaching can be happily accommodated), (iii) one-sidedness and selectiveness in all biblical expositors, who inevitably work with a ‘canon within a canon’, for doctrinal insights. J.I.Packer has challenged evangelical theologians about this. He urges that the Reformers’ viewpoint ‘will only appear viable or credible if it can be shown that a unitive biblical exegesis … is actually plausible’.[112] Clearly if Paul is interpreted as having a radical doctrine of grace and other parts of Scripture are thought to be in disagreement with or even in radical antithesis to Pauline teaching, as even Luther thought,[113] a harmonistic hermeneutic is severely threatened. It might be thought that to show a consistent theological position regarding law and grace is a difficult enough task when considering Paul alone. More than one expositor has thought his teaching incoherent.[114] Yet the task of seeking the harmony of Scripture should not be lightly abandoned.

109 J.I.Packer, ‘Infallible Scripture and the Role of Hermeneutics’, in Scripture and Truth, ed. D.A.Carson & J.D.Woodbridge (IVP, 1983), p.325.

110 See the ‘Preface to the Complete ... Latin Writings’, 1545, in LW, vol.34, pp.323–338, esp.pp.336–337.

111 J.I.Packer, ‘Upholding the Unity of Scripture Today’, JETS, 25, 1982, pp.409f.

112 See J.I.Packer, ‘Sola Scriptura in History and Today’, in God’s Inerrant Word (ed. J.W.Montgomery, Bethany, 1973), pp.59f.

113 Luther queried the canonicity of James, because of the disagreement he perceived between Paul and James. See N.B.Stonehouse, ‘Luther and the New Testament’, in Paul Before the Areopagus (Tyndale, 1957), pp.186–197. If Luther’s ‘Table Talk’ is trustworthy, then as late as 1542 he argued that ‘We should throw the epistle of James out of this school for it doesn’t amount to much ... The ancients ... didn’t acknowledge this letter’ (LW, vol.54, 1967, pp.424–425). Luther was quite clear that James ‘is flatly against St.Paul and all the rest of Scripture’ (LW, vol.35, 1960, p.396).

114 See e.g. H.Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Mohr, 1983); E.P.Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Fortress, 1983); H.Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Clark, 1984).

PART 2

TOWARDS A DEEPER APPRECIATION OF GRACE

5

A FRESH APPROACH TO GRACE

The relationship between grace and obedience, especially obedience to the Mosaic law, has never been clearly settled. Neither of the two evangelical approaches is satisfactory. Emphasis on a moral system extrapolated from the ‘Ten Commandments’ has produced theologies which are legalistic. Yet an altogether different approach is possible, one which is more gracious and more encouraging, and yet which still does justice to the serious admonitions of the New Testament. Over against scholastic Calvinism and evangelical Arminianism I wish to present some features of such a non-legalistic theology. As I see it, the Christian position is one of invincible assurance of salvation combined with awesome warnings concerning the forfeiture of blessing (but not of salvation itself). There are both reassuring and admonitory aspects. Freedom from Mosaic law is one of the reassuring features but this needs to be put into a wider context and related to the warnings of Scripture. Among other reassuring aspects are at least the following: objective and universal atonement, the faith of Christ, transfer to a realm of grace, eternal security. Among the admonitory aspects of New Testament teaching are: the possibility of loss of experience of the kingdom, ‘falling’ (parapipto, paraptoma, a possibility that I do not identify with loss of salvation), salvation ‘by fire’, eternal loss of reward. Some of these matters are likely to be contentious. As should be the case with any expositor or theologian, my statements may need to be modified as more is discovered in days to come. No doubt I shall have made some exegetical mistakes, but he who never made a mistake never made anything. The following pages seek to unfold this New Testament paradox of great assurance plus earnest warning.

‘Shall we continue in sin?’

A major factor in these matters is the fear of licentiousness, and (such is the fear we have of others’ opinions) vulnerability to accusation concerning licentiousness. Sometimes it seems we are more troubled about accusation concerning licentiousness than we are about actual licentiousness. We fall easily into the mistake of wanting our gospel to be respectable, and are afraid to be ‘fools for Christ’s sake’. There is an understandable anxiety lest talk of ‘freedom from the law’ might actually lead to sheer immorality or licentiousness. Yet according to the New Testament, Jesus and Paul themselves faced this same reaction. Paul evidently expected his readers to ask, ‘What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?’ Arguably, therefore, unless one’s theology leads to a similar response it cannot be said to approach that of Paul. Paul’s theology was vulnerable to the charge of licentiousness, just as his doctrine of sanctification was vulnerable to the charge of perfectionism, and his doctrine of election vulnerable to the charge of injustice (see Rom.9:14). If our theology claims to be Pauline but is not vulnerable to these accusations, is it Pauline after all? Dr Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel used to say that ‘if our preaching does not expose us to that charge [the charge of licentiousness] and to that misunderstanding, it is because we are not really preaching the gospel’. ‘There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation.’[115] Whatever Paul’s teaching was in fact, it was clearly rumoured that he was teaching, ‘Let us do evil that good may come.’ If Paul’s emphasis on grace was so great that he was vulnerable to this kind of rumour, it is fair to ask whether a theology so moralistic that no one could conceivably misunderstand it to be licentious, does resemble Pauline teaching? Not all theologians are concerned to conform to Paul, but I have in mind largely those whose doctrine of Scripture is such that they do wish to subscribe to Pauline teaching, just as they do to the whole of Scripture.

A theology of motivation

In order to ensure a sense of direction in the following sections, it may be helpful if I outline the theology of motivation that I wish to unfold. Arminian theology takes the warnings of Scripture as relating to salvation (by which I mean justification-new birth-sonship) and as warning against apostasy or forfeiture of salvation (by which I mean loss of justification-new birth-sonship). Final salvation hinges upon the Christian’s good works. Calvinism likewise has also taken the warnings of Scripture as relating to salvation. If a high Augustinian doctrine of perseverance is maintained, then the Calvinist sees the warnings of Scripture as addressed to the danger of pseudo-salvation. Thus an introspective note is introduced. Real salvation is so inseparably tied to good works that they constitute a test of genuine salvation, a test which is meant to be used by the Christian in self-examination.

In some respects these two theologies are similar. Both assume that salvation and good works are tightly tied together. In the one case salvation requires good works; in the other salvation inexorably and irresistibly produces good works. In both theologies salvation and good works stand and fall together.

The essence of the theology which I wish to explore is that salvation and good works are not quite so tightly and inexorably tied together. They are associated, since salvation should be thought of as preparing the way for good works, making good works possible. Good works do appear in the end; salvation is powerful! Yet salvation and good works are not so rigidly tied together that they are two sides of a coin at any one particular point of time in the Christian life. There may be inconsistency in the Christian. I draw a clear distinction between salvation and reward. The biblical doctrine of the Christian’s security relates to salvation, justification, a secure position in grace, freedom from condemnation, eternal membership of God’s people. I do not believe the admonitions of Scripture addressed to Christians relate in any way to gaining or losing justification-new birth-sonship. Salvation is so wholly of grace that, to one who has already believed, admonition concerning losing or gaining justification-new birth-sonship is entirely unnecessary and is not found in Scripture at all. The admonitions of the New Testament rather relate to present experience of the blessings of God’s kingdom, to reward in this life and beyond, to usefulness in God’s kingdom. Whereas Arminianism and scholastic Calvinism have thought of these two matters (salvation, reward) as so closely tied together as to make them virtually one category of thought, I conceive of them as decidedly two categories of thought. In 1 Corinthians 3:15 this is put in a nutshell: ‘he shall suffer loss ... he shall be saved.’[116] Reward may be lost, although salvation is retained. Thus they should be thought of as two categories, although in life and experience they should come together! The reassuring aspects of New Testament teaching concern justification. The admonitory aspects of New Testament teaching concern not justification or its loss, but reward and the possibility of loss of reward. The two matters may and must be kept distinct in our thinking. The following pages consider first the reassuring aspects of the Christian salvation and then the admonitory aspects of New Testament teaching, especially the most severe warnings of the New Testament, Hebrews 6:3–6.

Hebrews 10:26–39 says everything that I wish to say (so long as the word ‘reward’ is noted). ‘If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment ... Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you [who are already Christians] have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised [the rewards of God; the ‘fulfilment’ of salvation] ... But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.’

‘Encouraging Calvinism’

In my judgement none of the three theologies I mention (Arminianism, scholastic Calvinism, encouraging Calvinism) intends to lead to scandalous living, but Arminianism leads to extreme self-righteousness, scholastic Calvinism leads to what might be called ‘moral antinomianism’ (R.T.Kendall’s phrase), and it is ‘encouraging Calvinism’ that leads to the famous agape-love of 1 Corinthians 13. The reasons for this are subtle but I hope I can make them clear. In scholastic Calvinism faith secures godliness immediately, inexorably, irresistibly, infallibly. The great emphasis is on making sure of your salvation—a difficult task. If salvation is made sure godliness is sure to follow. If godliness does not follow there was no salvation, because salvation irresistibly compels godliness from the very first moment! But this (unintentionally) implies that if salvation is sure, godliness takes care of itself! If the connection between salvation and godliness is tight and inexorable and irresistible—then you do not need to bother about sanctification because it simply arises irresistibly. Sanctification is one of the chain of ‘tight links’ in the progress of salvation. (Actually it is glorification that is part of the ‘tight link’—Rom.8:30!) If sanctification does not ‘take care of itself’ then the connection between salvation and sanctification was not so tight and inexorable and irresistible!

The true spirituality is what I could call ‘encouraging Calvinism’. If the connection between salvation and godliness is not so irresistible—then sanctification does not ‘take care of itself’ and you have to give it separate attention! This is what we find in Ephesians. Paul spends three chapters arguing out the exceeding greatness of our salvation and praying that we might grasp its greatness. In Ephesians 4:1 he does not say, ‘Therefore you have your sanctification’—and close his letter. He says, ‘I ... urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called’, and goes on for another three chapters, in our Bibles, to plead for the life of godliness. He gives it distinct and separate attention. It does not ‘take care of itself’. The connection between Ephesians 1–3 and Ephesians 4–6 is not so tight and inexorable and irresistible that Ephesians 4–6 is not needed; and if the Ephesian Christian turns out to be not so godly you do not say to him [as a scholastic Calvinist], ‘You never were a child of God’.

Actually, without undermining Ephesians 1–3, Paul proceeds to Ephesians 4–6 because he needs to do so! Sanctification does not take care of itself. Also, the Christian needs some warning! Inheritance-reward could be lost (Eph.5:5)! The wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. If the Christian is associated with the sins of the wicked they will be hurt by the fiery judgement that is on its way, and be saved ‘through fire’ (Eph.5:6–7). You were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light ... (5:8). Nothing in Ephesians 4–6 is taking back what Paul said in Ephesians 1–3! Loss of sonship is not on Paul’s mind. But sanctification is getting distinct and separate attention. It does not take care of itself.

If this point is not understood it leads to moral antinomianism. The Galatians—yes, the law-obsessed Galatians!—were told, ‘The whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.’ The Mosaic law did not forbid ‘biting and devouring’; think of what it said about slaughtering Canaanites! But the life of the Holy Spirit will forbid it! Moral antinomianism has a lot of ‘biting and devouring’ in it! Accusing others of antinomianism—as the intruders in Galatia accused Paul—is itself antinomianism; it is ‘biting and devouring’. But there is an encouraging version of the doctrines of grace which fulfils the law by walking in the Spirit and it does not lead to this ‘biting and devouring’.

But I am running ahead of myself! Let us look at what I could call ‘encouraging Calvinism’; it begins with objective and universal atonement.

115 D.M.Lloyd-Jones, New Man (1972), pp.9–10.

116 See G.D.Fee, I Corinthians (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1987), pp.142–145. The full weight of this verse needs to be explored.

6

OBJECTIVE AND UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

For Calvin, faith is assurance. When one looks at the death of Jesus Christ one does not need to ask such introspective questions as: ‘Is this for me?’ or ‘Am I elect?’ The death of Jesus Christ is for everyone unconditionally.

Within traditional Reformed theology the doctrine of limited atonement has been deduced from a doctrine of election.[117] The doctrine is often presented more as a matter of logic than of direct scriptural testimony. Serious appeal is made to two central passages only, John 10:15 and Ephesians 5:25.[118] Scriptural testimony, on the other hand, points in the direction of objective universal atonement. In evangelical theology the matter is of considerable importance. The following paragraphs summarize the biblical data concerning universal atonement.

Synoptic gospels

In the synoptic gospels a doctrine of atonement is not highly articulated. Only Matthew 20:28; 26:28; Mark 10:45; 14:24 relate to the extent of the atonement. Protagonists of limited atonement generally see special significance in the term ‘many’ (polloi) rather than ‘all’.[119] Others urge that the atonement is universal but that ‘many’ implies a limitation of salvation because faith is needful and not all believe. Craig Blomberg says, ‘ “Many” refers to all who will accept Jesus’ offer.’[120] Others feel that to make deductions from these verses concerning the efficacy of the atonement is unwarranted.[121] However, as Calvin noted, ‘many’ denotes all![122] Polloi may denote ‘the multitude’ or ‘people in general’ and so come to mean virtually ‘everyone’. Where Mark 3:10 has ‘he healed many’, Matthew 12:15 has ‘he healed them all’. ‘Many spread their cloaks’ (Mk11:8) appears as ‘The very large crowd spread their cloaks’ in Matthew 21:8. In Matthew 4:16; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:40 ‘all’, ‘many’ and ‘each one’ are equivalents. The usage is a Hebraism and while Hebrew has a unitary word for the totality of a group (kol, ‘all’) it does not possess an individualizing word ‘everyone’.[123] ‘The many’ (rabbîm) is an individualizing way of saying ‘everyone’. Certainly these verses of Scripture cannot be used in the interests of limited atonement.

John

There is a strongly universalist strand of thought in the Johannine literature. Here the term kosmos refers to the objects of God’s grace (Jn1:29; 3:16–17; 4:42; 1 Jn2:2); the ‘bread of life’ is given (‘my father gives you ...’, Jn6:32) whether faith is present or not (‘yet you do not believe’, Jn6:36). Scholastic Calvinism seeks to urge that kosmos means the total number of the elect or the elect of every nation or man in his ethically ‘worldly’ character,[124] yet by far the most natural way of taking kosmos in the Johannine writings is to refer it (with Calvin) to ‘the human race’ or to ‘all without exception’.[125]

A passage where a weakened sense of ‘all men’ is plausible is John 12:31–36. Yet a closer scrutiny is illuminating. Jesus’ death will draw ‘all men’ to himself. Though it no doubt alludes to the widening scope of Jesus’ mission to all nations, it cannot be weakened to mean ‘all types of men’. Earlier in the account certain individuals had come seeking Jesus (Jn12:20–21); the later section of the chapter is surely related to this and is intended to provide encouragement not only to Greeks at large but to any individuals (Hellēnes, tines, Jn12:20) from amongst the Greeks who might seek Jesus. No questions concerning election need be raised; at this point Jesus is said to be lifted up for ‘all’ (v.32). It is noteworthy that in the following verses (Jn12:35–36) the ‘light’ is said to be the possession (echete) of the contemporary Jews whether they believe or not. It is for them; they have it (echete); they are urged to believe. In this chapter we are far from any doctrine of limited atonement.

Paul

It is perhaps the Pauline writings that most clearly teach a universal atonement. In Romans 5, when Paul says ‘sin entered the world’ (Rom.5:12) and immediately goes on to deduce that ‘death spread to all men because all men sinned’, it is clear that ‘world’, ‘all men’ and ‘all’ (kosmon, pantas anthrōpois, pantes) are referring to the same group. When a few lines later Paul says ‘the many died’ there has been no change in the group of people being referred to; ‘the many’ are clearly those denoted by ‘world’, ‘all men’ and ‘all’. This reference to the grace of God as abounding ‘to the many’ concerns the same group that has been referred to all along—the entire human race. Similarly there is no natural way of changing the meaning of ‘all people’ when it is used twice in Romans 5:18. ‘All people’ are condemned; ‘all people’ have ‘justification of life’ in Christ provided for them.

The outstanding proof that ‘many’ in Romans 5:12–21 refers to the entire human race is Romans 5:19. In Paul’s teaching the entire human race are constituted sinners; likewise by Christ’s obedience the same group—hoi polloi, the human race—are constituted righteous in Christ. Whatever questions this may raise in our minds there can be little doubt that hoi polloi has not changed its meaning and that, according to Paul, there is an objective provision of grace for the human race.

The same point appears in 2 Corinthians 5. When Paul says that ‘one died for all’ (v.14) it is difficult to see how this could refer to a limited or elect number. The whole point of the passage is that on God’s side nothing more need be done: ‘Be reconciled to God.’ The basis of the appeal is the fact that on God’s side reconciliation has already taken place. If this is a correct understanding of the argument, then ‘all’ (v.14) and ‘world’ (v.19) refer to the entire human race. Verse 14 will mean that objectively the entire human race was put into a different position because of the death of Christ. The human race has ‘died’ to what it was; God is reconciled. One thing remains: response to the appeal ‘Be reconciled to God’.

Much the same teaching is evident in 1 Timothy 2:4–5. If speaking of ‘God, who wishes all people to be saved’ does not express universal grace, what other phrase in Hellenistic Greek could express the point? How could one say in Hellenistic Greek ‘God wishes all people to be saved’, meaning the entire human race, in any way other than in the words used by Paul? The passage goes on to assert that Christ is the mediator between God and people (anthrōpous). Paul could easily have made it clear if Christ’s mediatorial work was for a limited or designed group. He could have spoken of ‘one mediator between God and his people’ or ‘between God and those who believe’ (heis mesitēs theou kai laou autou or heis mesitēs theou kai tōn pisteouōn). But Christ’s mediatorial work was suspended, according to 1 Timothy 2:5, neither upon faith nor upon election, but upon man’s existence as man. The objective work of Christ is never presented as preconditioned by election.

Titus 2:11 has been translated, ‘the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men’ (NIV). A more likely translation is: ‘the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men’ (RSV). Six Greek words intervene between ‘has appeared’ and ‘to all people’ but ‘saving’ and ‘all people’ are alongside one another. The natural interpretation is to take ‘saving all people’ as a coherent phrase.[126]

Hebrews

The same teaching is found in the letter to the Hebrews, where the Son of God is said to have made a ‘cleansing of sins’ (katharismon tōn hamartiōn, Heb.1:3). The absence of any genitival expression (such as ‘of our sins’) plus the aorist tense of the participle point to an accomplished objective event that makes a provision for the sins of the race.[127] Later in his work the writer explicitly takes up the question of who were the ones for whom Christ died. It was not angels because Psalm 8 asks, ‘What is man that you are mindful of him?’ (Heb.2:6). The author goes on to say that Jesus did not taste death for angels; he tasted death for ‘everyone’ (pantas). Limited atonement theorists have tried to understand this in the light of verse 10 where ‘many sons’ are mentioned. The ‘many’ then refers to the ‘many sons’. The difficulty with this interpretation is that at Hebrews 2:9 the writer had not yet mentioned the ‘many sons’. If the writer expected us to read his letter in order, ‘many’ could refer only to the entire human race just mentioned in Hebrews 2:6–8.

In Hebrews 9:28 we find another reference to the ‘many’ for whom Christ died. Again inclusive and exclusive interpretations of the phrase have been debated. It would take us far afield to explore the theology of Hebrews but it seems to the present writer that there is a difference in Hebrews between (on the one hand) the death of Jesus, which, in the imagery of the tabernacle, takes place in the open courtyard of this world, and (on the other hand) the presentation of blood, which takes place in the heavenly sanctuary and secures atonement. There is a difference in Hebrews between a promise being available and a promise being received (see Heb.6:12). When Hebrews speaks of the heavenly ministry of Jesus it uses limiting phrases (we have a high-priest in the sanctuary; we have a hope behind the curtain; he lives to make intercession for them[128]). When Hebrews speaks of the death of Jesus on earth there are no limiting phrases (he made a cleansing of sins; he tasted death for every man; he dies to deliver all from lifelong bondage; he dies for the sins of the people[129]). There is a difference between public death and open availability on the one hand, and hidden application of the blood of Christ and intercession behind the veil on the other hand. If this is a correct observation it corresponds to the usage of ‘the world’ in John’s Gospel, where Christ dies for the world (Jn3:16) but does not pray for the world (Jn17).

2 Peter

Another verse that has been much discussed in connection with limited atonement is 2 Peter 2:1. Of all that we have considered thus far this is the text that causes the greatest concern to those who believe in ‘limited atonement’. The ‘false teachers’ of this verse are described as ‘denying the Master who bought them’. Clearly, the writer is envisaging persons who do not believe yet who have been bought by Christ. Owen argued that ‘Master’ refers to God the Father, not to Jesus; that the ‘purchasing’ refers to deliverance from trouble, not spiritual redemption; and that the writer speaks according to the heretics’ claims rather than according to the real situation.[130] In the course of a full discussion, A.D.Chang points out that 2 Peter 2:1 is similar to Jude 4 and refers to Jesus, arguing that ‘Master’ refers to a change of ownership on the basis of redemption, and noting that the non-mention of the price of redemption is irrelevant (it is not mentioned in Rev.13:3–4 either but the context is soteriological). His conclusion must, I think, be allowed to stand: ‘The main thrust of this verse is the change of ownership as a result of redemption.’[131] The idea that ‘Master’ is never used of Jesus is falsified by Jude 4 (so long as one does not follow the inferior texts behind the King James Version of the Bible).

The ground of assurance

The universal atonement of Christ is one aspect of the ground of Christian assurance of salvation. I have also suggested that the doctrine of limited atonement is a partial cause of introspection. A person seeking salvation, who is also deeply persuaded of a correlation between a doctrine of election and a particular and inherently effective atonement, will be hindered from looking directly at Christ. If there is no guarantee that the work of Christ is ‘for me’, apart from the personal conviction that I am ‘elect’, then there is no possibility of my receiving any encouragement as a result of looking at the cross. Election is a highly threatening concept if viewed directly. Calvin understood the problem and constantly warned against viewing election in such a way. ‘What revelation do you have of your election?’ he asks. Calvin says that the thought of election, if approached directly, ‘overwhelms and unsettles the conscience from its peace and tranquillity towards God’; ‘we must carefully avoid this rock, against which no one is ever dashed without destruction’.[132] There is only one remedy, thinks Calvin, and that is to look directly to Christ and come at election afterwards and via the ‘mirror’ of Christ.[133] These illustrations were very natural for the sixteenth-century people who knew the Greek stories from antiquity. They knew about Ariadne being lost in a labyrinth, and the monster who froze you to stone when you looked at it and was killed by Perseus by the use of a mirror so that he did not need to look at it directly. This kind of imagery is used by Calvin in connection with predestination. It is possible to grasp hold of election without its being a labyrinth in which one loses assurance of salvation, without being frozen to stone.

But—and here is the vital point—if one correlates a limited atonement with a limited election then nothing to bring assurance can be found by looking directly at the cross, just as nothing to bring assurance can be found by looking directly at election.

Calvin had an answer to his own question ‘What revelation do you have of your election?’ If one could see, with assurance, that Christ was the pledge of God’s love, that in itself was the proof of the sealing (that is, regenerating, illuminating) work of the Spirit in one’s life, proof of one’s election. This is what lies behind Calvin’s remark, ‘If Pighius asks how I know I am elect, I answer that Christ is more than a thousand testimonies to me.’[134]

One notes here the difference between Calvin and Beza. According to Beza, when one has doubts concerning election, one cannot look directly at the cross (because the cross and limited atonement are correlated). Where then should one look for assurance? Beza’s answer was that one should look at oneself! ‘When Satan putteth us in doubte of our election, we maye not searche first the resolution in the eternall counsell of God whose majesty we cannot comprehende …’ So far, so good. Beza follows Calvin at this point. Then he adds ‘... but on the contrary we must beginne at the sanctification which we feele in ourselves ...’[135] This is a disastrous move. It is what Calvin would never have said, and it is almost the opposite of the reply Calvin said he would make to Pighius: ‘I shall not oppose to him the feelings which the faithful experience.’[136] Christ—said Calvin—spoke the way he did ‘to divert men’s eyes from themselves to the mercy of God alone’.[137]

Limited atonement is a cul-de-sac. Assurance comes by not correlating atonement and election. Scripture puts things in such a way ‘that no doubt may be left’. ‘The heavenly Father does not wish the human race that He loves to perish.’ ‘Before we can have any feeling of His fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us.’[138]

117 The classic exposition is John Owen’s magisterial work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 1647 (Owen’s Works, vol.10, pp.139–428). Modern statements are found in J.Murray, The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel, in Writings, 1 (1976), pp.59–85, esp.pp.74–80; R.B.Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Baker, 1959). The early history of the doctrine is surveyed in W.R.Godfrey, ‘Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement’, WTJ, 37, 1974–1975, pp.133–171. We have also G.Michael Thomas’s history, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster, 1997).

118 See E.H.Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Guardian, 1972), pp.43–50. Subsidiary appeal to others that are ‘less useful as “proof texts” ’ (e.g. Matt.1:21; Rom.8:32). Only Jn10:10–29 and Eph.5:25–27 are positively expounded by Murray (Writings, 1, pp.74–78). Other texts that might be cited are Isa.5:11; Matt.1:21; 15:24; 20:28; Mk10:45; Jn17:9; Ac.20:28; Rom.8:31–39; Gal.3:13; Heb.9:28.

None of these really amounts to much. (i) Texts which speak of ‘us’ or God’s people being saved do not deny that an objective provision was made for everyone. Christ died for all to win some. (ii) The term ‘many’ cannot be used to introduce a restriction for the atonement. That it may be a Hebraism for ‘everyone’ is indisputable. (iii) Deductions from the doctrine of election are precisely that: deductions and no more. (iv) Both Eph.5:25 and Jn10:15 contain strong metaphors (sheep/shepherds; marriage) which necessarily focus on the sheep or upon the bride. To use them to cancel out passages with a more universal emphasis is surely to over-press them in the interests of a logic which is more Aristotelian than biblical. See J.B.Torrance, ‘The Incarnation and “Limited Atonement” ’, SBET, no.2, 1984, pp.32–40.

119 W.Hendriksen, Matthew (Baker, 1973), pp.750,911; Mark (Baker, 1975), pp.415f.,575.

120 Matthew, NAC, p.308; Jerome (‘id est pro his qui credere voluerint’, cited by A.H.McNeile, Matthew (Macmillan, 1965, orig.1915), p.290.

121 McNeile, Matthew, pp.290–291.

122 J.Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels (1555 repr. St.Andrews, 1972), vol.2, pp.277.

123 Matt.20:28; 26:28; Mk10:45; 14:24 echo Isa.53; polloi is the equivalent of rabbîm in Isa.53:11–12 (see Cranfield, Mark, CUP, 1966, p.444); R.T.France, Jesus and the Old Testament (IVP, 1971), pp.116–121. See also J.Jeremias, polloi, in TDNT, 6, pp.536–545, esp.p.536, nn.3,4. Further data is provided by Jeremias from gospel parallels and Old Testament usage.

124 B.B.Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1952), pp.505–522.

125 Calvin, John, pp.73f.

126 See C.Spicq, Epitres Pastorales (Gabalda, 1969), vol.2, p.637.

127 The present tense of the Vulgate and other translations goes back to a weakly attested variant.

128 Heb.4:15; 6:20; 7:25.

129 Heb.1:3; 2:9,14; 7:27.

130 Owen, Works, vol.10, pp.362–368.

131 A.D.Chang, ‘Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement’, Bib Sac, 142, 1985, pp.52–63.

132 Institutes 3:24:4.

133 ‘Christ ... is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election’ (Inst. 3:24:5).

134 Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, ET (1961), p.130.

135 T.Beza, A Briefe and Pithie Summe of the Christian Faith (1565), pp.36a,37, quoted by R.T.Kendall, John Cotton, p.40.

136 Predestination, p.130.

137 John, p.73. My italics.

138 John, pp.73f.

7

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW (THE ABRAHAM STORIES)

According to Galatians 3:19, ‘the law was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary’. According to one understanding of this verse, the law of God is a punitive, subsidiary and temporary institution in the history of redemption. Via a harmonistic hermeneutic this leads to many questions concerning our understanding of other parts of the Bible. For our present purpose we need to ask whether this provisional understanding of Galatians 3:19 is confirmed by the exegesis of the Torah itself? In this book I examine the stories of Abraham, the Book of Exodus, Matthew’s Gospel and Galatians. The original thesis upon which this work is based considered also James and 1 John but I have made that available elsewhere in more popular form. Deuteronomy and 2 Corinthians 3 need to be considered, and I have written expositions of them, but I leave them aside here. Work on Romans is also relevant, and much of that has been published, beginning with the vital sixth and seventh chapters.[139] Other expositions are also in the pipeline, but here I set myself some manageable limits. The present chapter concerning the Abraham stories assumes that the first five books of the Bible are a unity, whatever may be the story of editorial work behind them.

Structure of the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch in its present form may be regarded as a unity; it has first an introduction dealing with origins and primeval history (Genesis), next a large central core revolving around the theme of the exodus (Exodus–Numbers) and finally a sermonic recapitulation (Deuteronomy). The whole work bears indications of deliberate structure, which may be schematically analysed as follows.

Origins and Prehistory of Israel’s Redemption (Genesis)

Primeval History (1:1 – 2:3)

The Succession of Heaven and Earth (2:4 – 4:26)

The ‘Book’ of the Succession of Adam (5:1 – 6:8)

The Succession of the Sons of Noah (10:1 – 11:9)

The Succession of Shem (11:10–26)

The Succession of Terah (11:27 – 25:11)

The Succession of Ishmael (25:12–18)

The Succession of Isaac (25:19 – 35:29)

The Succession of Edom (36:1–43)

The Succession of Jacob (37:1 – 50:26)

The Redemption of Israel (Exodus–Numbers)

Redemption by the Blood of a Lamb (Exod.1:1 – 15:21)

The Flight of the People (1:1–22)

Preparation of a Mediator (2:1 – 4:31)

Conflict with Pharaoh (5:1 – 7:7)

Miracles without Redemption (7:8 – 10:29)

The Redemption (11:1 – 14:31)

The Song of Redemption (15:1–21)

Establishment of Israel as the People of God (Exod.15:22 – 40:38)

Events of the Journey (15:22 – 17:7)

Two Gentile Reactions (17:8 – 18:27)

The Covenant (19:1 – 24:11)

The Tabernacle (24:12 – 31:8)

The Rebellion (32:1 – 34:35)

Again: The Tabernacle (35:1 – 40:38)

Law and Ordinances of the Sinai-Covenant (Leviticus)

The Offerings (1:1 – 7:38)

Inauguration of the Priesthood (8:1 – 10:20)

Rules and Rites for Clean and Unclean (11 – 15:33)

The Day of Atonement (16:1–34)

Injunctions upon People and Priests (17:1 – 25:55)

Blessings and Curses; Vows (26:1 – 27:34)

Journeying from Sinai to Moab (Numbers)

Preparation for Leaving Sinai (1:1 – 10:10)

Journey to the Plains of Moab (10:11 – 21:35)

Events in the Plains of Moab (22:1 – 36:13)

Sermonic Recapitulation (Deuteronomy)

Preamble (1:1–5)

Historical Prologue (1:6 – 4:49)

From Horeb to Hormah (1:6 – 2:1)

Advance to Arnon (2:2–23)

Conquest of Transjordania (2:24 – 3:29)

Summary of the Covenant (4:1–49)

Stipulations: Covenant Life (5:1 – 26:19)

The Great Commandments (5:1 – 11:32)

Ancillary Commandments (12:1 – 26:19)

Sanctions and Covenant Ratification (27:1 – 30:20)

Arrangements for the Future (31:1 – 34:20)

Law in the Pentateuch

It is in this setting that we must consider the legislation of the Pentateuch. This material is primarily narrative in format. Its legal material is presented within the setting of a story telling the origins first of the earth, then of the family of Abraham, then of the nation of Israel. Its dominant notes before Exodus 15:22 are those of creation, election and redemption. Exodus 15:22–27 makes mention of ‘a decree and a law’ (ḥōq ûmišpāṭ) and thereafter (Exod.15:22–Deut.34:12) there is frequent mention of the Sinai legislation. Within the narrative setting of Exodus 15:22–Deuteronomy 34:12 the outlines of Israel’s laws are given. The Pentateuch as a whole is neither ‘law-code’ nor ‘constitution’ of Israel;[140] those of later ages who wished to use it as a constitution found it necessary to supplement it with oral law. Omissions may be noticed when Pentateuchal laws are compared with other collections of the ancient Near East.[141]

Where does one find the first biblical reference to God’s law? Genesis contains allusions to the laws of surrounding peoples (e.g. Gen.23:3–20).[142] There are also mandates for dominion, procreation, geographical extension (Gen.l:26,28) and labour (Gen.2:15). But there is no record of any law given by God to his people before Sinai. Within the story of life in Eden we find the single command of Genesis 2:16–17. The ordinance of marriage (in Gen.2:24) has a law-like ring. Yet none of these really amounts to ‘law’ unless we define law in such a way as to make the term include any and every command. I discuss this a few sections below. The nearest to a collection of law is the Noahic mandate in Genesis 9:2–7.

The introduction of ‘the law’ occurs at and after Sinai. It is difficult to decide which portions should be accorded the status of legal text; even the narrative should be viewed as illuminating the law. Under the influence of form criticism certain sections have been considered in isolation: the decalogue (Exod.20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod.20:23 – 23:19), the commands of Exodus 34:11–26, the ‘Holiness Code’ of Leviticus 17–26, and Deuteronomy, with the latter considered as having its own character and identity.

The first presentation of the law

In the Pentateuch as its final editors have presented it to us, there are two presentations of Sinai law. Exodus 15:22–Numbers 10:10 tells the story of the approach to and the events at Sinai; Numbers 10:11 – 36:13 completes the story. Interspersed throughout the narrative itself, after Exodus 15:22—chosen because it is a dividing line according to the analysis above—we see the introduction of Sinai law. The precise point at which Mosaic law comes in must be remembered when we come to New Testament phrases speaking of times ‘before the law was given’ (Rom.5:13) or the law ‘coming in’ (Rom.5:20) or the law ‘coming’ at a certain point of history (Gal.3:17) or being ‘added’ at a certain point in the story of Israel (Gal.3:19).

Much of Exodus consists of sheer narrative. Instructions concerning the Passover, the festival of unleavened bread and the consecration of the firstborn, are presented as given while the people of Israel are still in Egypt (Exod.12:1–11,14–20,24–27,43–49; 13:1–13). These verses have a law-like ring about them and are intended to function as law concerning these institutions. Exodus 15 and 16 contain further allusions to laws and decrees before Sinai. Exodus 15:25b–26 presents itself as a single principle concerning obedience and health. Exodus 16 introduces us to a single text concerning the obedience of the nation. At this point the Sabbath is presented as testing whether the people will obey Yahweh. It is not yet integrated into the Sinai covenant. Yet as it is later made part of the Sinai laws, and as Exodus 16:33 especially looks forward to the arrangements for the tabernacle, it is best to consider the key legal verses (Exod.16:4–5,23,25–26,28,33) as part of the direct legislation of the Pentateuch.[143] Other directly legal sections are found in 20:1–17,22–26; 21:1 – 23:33; 25:1 – 31:17; 34:11–26; 35:1–3.

Almost the whole of Leviticus consists of further legislation, continuous with Exodus. The narrative is entirely stationary; the people remain at the foot of Sinai throughout the book. There are only a few snippets of narrative (Lev.8:1 – 10:20; 24:10–23).

Numbers continues the account. At this point it is more difficult than before to disentangle sheer legislation from narrative designed to exhibit legislation. Although the people move from Sinai at Numbers 10:11, legislation continues to be given to them until the end of the book. It is best to regard the whole of Exodus 15:22 – Numbers 36:13 as one presentation of Sinai-law, combining sheer legislation with narrated or exhibited legislation. Although differences of opinion are natural in deciding which texts to label direct legislation, the sections may be identified thus: Exodus 12:1–11,14–20,24–27,43–49; 13:1–13; 16:4–5,23,25–26,28,33; 20:1–17,22–26; 21:1 – 23:33; 25:1 – 31:17; 34:11–26; 35:13; Leviticus 1:1 – 7:34; 11:1 – 24:9; 25:1 – 27:34; Numbers 3:5–10,25–26,28b,31,36; 4:4–33; 5:1 – 6:21; 15:1–41; 18:1 – 19:22; 28:1 – 30:16; 35:1–34.

The law in Deuteronomy

A second presentation of Israel’s law is found in Deuteronomy, which presents itself as a farewell address—or series of addresses—given by Moses on the plains of Moab. Apparently Deuteronomy is analogous to a treaty document attesting in written form the covenant between Yahweh and Israel. Because of its treaty structure it contains a major section (5:1 – 26:19) of stipulations concerning covenant life. Within this section there is a division. Deuteronomy 5:1 – 11:32 deals with the main stipulations governing the people; 12:1 – 26:19 (beginning ‘These are the statutes ...’, 12:1) presents the detailed ancillary commandments. What strikes one’s attention as one surveys this large body of material is how little of it would be thought of as ‘the law’ by Christians today. The central demands for morality that the modern Christian tends to think of as coming from ‘the law’ in actuality centre only on the decalogue. Of the verses listed above, only the 33 verses that comprise the decalogue are dominant in modern ethical discussion. Apart from the ‘theonomy’ school in American evangelicalism, evangelical discussion of ‘the sanctity of God’s law’ almost invariably confines its attention to the decalogue. We shall do well to remember that this does not reflect the proportional balance of the Pentateuch itself.

Paul himself observed that God gave to his people no law before Sinai (Rom.5:20; Gal.3:19); he makes so much of Abraham that his theology of salvation could be called his theology of the life of Abraham. Hebrews and James also make use of the life of Abraham and relate it to their distinctive doctrines of salvation and Christian spirituality.

Abraham

What was it in the Genesis account of the life of Abraham that attracted New Testament writers to use it as a source of their theologies? The stories about Abraham reveal a number of distinct stages. We must consider Abraham’s salvation (Gen.12; 15), the covenant with Abraham (Gen.15; 17) and the event of Genesis 22.

Consider first the nature of Abraham’s salvation. Paul regarded Abraham as a model of the way in which a person experiences the salvation[144] of God and saw Genesis 15:6 as a definitive statement of his gospel. Several features of the narrative that leads up to Genesis 15:6 merit attention.

Firstly, we note the absence of any statement concerning Abraham’s worthiness. Admittedly, arguments from silence are notoriously insecure. Yet if one is looking for the origins and the causes of Abraham’s salvation one cannot but notice what is absent from the text. Abraham—or Abram as he is called during the early parts of the story—appears abruptly in the narrative. He is passingly mentioned in Genesis 11:27,29,31. Here his family are said to originate from Ur, a town whose principal deity is known to have been Nannar, a god also worshipped at Haran.[145] There are no indications of Yahweh-worship in that locality, and Joshua records a tradition that Terah and Nahor ‘worshipped other gods’ (24:2,14). The same passage confirms our sense of the abruptness of the introduction of Abraham when God says, ‘I took your father Abraham from the land’ (Jos.24:3).[146]

The first introduction to any relationship between God and Abraham shows God speaking to Abraham, apparently without any precedent, and giving to him a series of promises (‘I will show ... I will make ... I will bless ... and make ... I will bless ...’, Gen.12:1–3). At this stage no ethical demands are made on Abraham that would clear the way for God’s activity in his life. On Abraham’s side only one thing is said. Promise was met by response. Abraham left. The text makes it clear that this was a response to God’s word to Abraham; Abraham left as the Lord had told him.

The response is followed by further divine promise. Yahweh appears and repeats the promise, now defining where the land is located (‘To your seed I will give this land’, Gen.12:7). Again Abraham responds, this time with worship (‘and he built there an altar’, 12:7).

We note the absence of any statement of worthiness on Abraham’s side. No hint is given as to any reason why God should have spoken to Abraham. Here surely is the root of Paul’s doctrine of election. So far as the text indicates God simply steps into Abraham’s life. Neither worthiness nor unworthiness is considered. The obedience with which Abraham responds is what Paul would later call the obedience of faith (Rom.1:5; 16:26). Abraham responds to God’s word, believes God’s promises. His leaving Haran is his response to the promises put before him.

In the following chapter, in accordance with the command to leave family (12:1) Abraham and Lot separate (13:8–12), and the promise is renewed (13:14–17). There is still no mention of any kind of worthiness. (I leave aside Gen.14; it is a unit on its own and detailed consideration would demand too much space.)

Secondly, we may note the total absence from these chapters of any reference to law. Abraham is not in any way responding to a decalogue or to anything comparable to it. God is viewed as speaking directly to Abraham, whose response of faith and obedience is presented as his response to the direct voice of God. Neither law nor anything approaching explicit law appears at any point.

Defining ‘law’

To clarify this point we must consider what is meant by ‘law’. In the history of the Christian church any kind of obedience is often thought of as responsiveness to law. Yet not all ‘obedience’ is law-obedience, and not every command must be conceived of as law. It is helpful to distinguish different kinds of directive.

‘Law’, as I am using the term, is characterized by:

(i) codification in written or memorized form;

(ii) inflexibility (because any directive written or memorized in set form is thereby inflexible);

(iii) distinctness or precision (law that is vague, open to a wide variety of interpretations, or is so general as to create doubt in specific situations, is to that extent unable to function as law);

(iv) accompaniment by penalty for default (a command which may be totally ignored with no consequences has become ‘advice’ not ‘law’).

‘Principle’ is similar to law but (in the way I am using the term) is more general and allows varied actions in different situations. The principle of love is not exactly a law.

A ‘discipline’ I think of as something that is not mandatory in every situation but is self-imposed or imposed upon another simply to give structure to one’s life. An item of ‘discipline’ is not thought of as morally obligatory but as a piece of wisdom imposed, perhaps only temporarily, for practical purposes.

A ‘specific directive’ ought to be viewed as a distinct category. There may be a situation where a single command or a small number of commands are given, yet where one should not think of such directives as being ‘law’. The English Puritans often regarded the command given to Adam (Gen.2:16) as ‘law’.[147] Yet it is doubtful whether a single directive such as that in Genesis 2:16–17 ought to be thought of as a ‘law’. Admittedly it has a number of characteristics in common with law (obligation, precision), yet it should be viewed distinctly. The instruction in Acts 8:29 (‘Go to that chariot’) is a similar case. It is a specific directive, invested with angelic authority, yet it can hardly be called ‘law’.

In the case of Abraham, there are guidelines to his life (the responsiveness of faith, heeding God’s voice, obedience to specific commands), yet none of them is called ‘law’. There is no legal system resembling that in the Sinai narrative. The demand for Abraham to leave his country is directive but not law. The instruction is not written; it did not have to be memorized for future occasions; it was not a standing command concerning ethical matters. The divine words of Genesis 12:1–3 consist of promises and revelations of God’s will for Abraham’s life. Abraham responds to these in faith; his faith leads him to leave land, tribe and family.

Thirdly, Genesis 15:6 draws attention to Abraham’s faith. Nothing else is mentioned. No obedience to law contributed to Abraham’s being righteous in God’s reckoning.

Faith in Genesis 15:6

Genesis 15:6 is so prominent in the New Testament as to call for closer study. It says, ‘And he believed on Yahweh; and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.’ The precise force of the Hebrew hiphil, ‘and he believed on Yahweh’, has been debated. Jepsen is surely right in urging that usage must be the primary way of determining its significance.[148] Apart from Genesis 15:6, there are 22 occurrences of the verb (h’mn) with ‘on’ (Hebrew b). The other occurrences reveal that the expression normally denotes trust in a person, especially when there is reason to regard the object of trust as trustworthy. In the usage of the verb this latter point is prominent. Normally the surrounding context stresses the credibility of the one who is to be the object of trust.

Thus Exodus 14:31 speaks of the people who believed God and Moses; Exodus 14:1–30 has set forth the ground of trust. Exodus 19:9 emphasizes the ‘thick cloud’ and then explains that this is ‘so that the people may ... believe in you for ever’. In negative statements the evil of unbelief is underlined when there is ground for trust yet trust is not shown. Numbers 14:11 speaks of unbelief despite signs. Deuteronomy 1:32 speaks of unbelief despite God’s word. Jeremiah 12:6 speaks of lack of faith despite fair words (see also Prov.26:25). Psalm 78:34 speaks of unbelief despite God’s wonders. In these passages it is noticeable that the ground for credibility is mentioned. Job 4:18 and 15:15 speak of God’s not trusting his angels. The point is that God does not trust even his angels, who might be thought to be objects worthy of trust.

‘God reckoned it’

Thus, despite some uncertainties regarding the precise force of the hiphil, the general meaning of h’mn is clear; it speaks of a trust in a person or in his words because the person is thought to be trustworthy. In ‘and he reckoned it’ (wayyaḥšebeha) we have an imperfect qal of ḥ-š-b, with a third person singular suffix. The subject is clearly God.[149] The suffix refers back to the whole previous statement (‘Abraham believed God’) as in the Hebrew of Exodus 10:1 and Job 38:18. The qal of ḥ-š-b (‘reckon’) occurs 75 times in the Massoretic text. Many of these instances do not resemble our verse and therefore do not illuminate it. The participial form may refer to what is ‘skilful’. The verb may speak of one’s intentions (Gen.50:20), one’s opinions (Jb35:2), one’s regard or approval of someone (Isa.33:8), one’s inventiveness (Am.6:5). More important for comparison with Genesis 15:6 are those instances where the verb has a double object and refers to what one person considers or counts another to be: Genesis 38:16 (‘he thought her to be a harlot’); 1 Samuel 1:13 (Eli ‘considered her a drunken woman’); Job 13:24 (‘Why ... count me your enemy?’) and others (Jb19:11,15; 33:10). The nearest linguistic parallel to our verse is Psalm 106:31, ‘It was reckoned to him for righteousness’. In that instance however it was a righteous deed that was credited for righteousness; in Genesis 15:6 it is faith that is credited for righteousness. Despite the absence of a precise parallel, the meaning of the phrase is clear. The suffix is a case where the feminine singular stands for what in many languages would be a neuter, and refers to Abraham’s believing. ‘[God] reckoned it’ means that God reckoned Abraham’s believing for righteousness.

Here then is a definitive statement of the nature of Abraham’s salvation. In the unfolding of the narrative any mention of law is significantly absent. Faith results in obedience but the obedience concerned is not mediated by law. Rather it is ‘obedience of faith’. One could also call it ‘charismatic’ obedience since God’s word apparently comes to Abraham in direct form, not via the instrumentality of any ‘Scripture’ or written document.

The purpose of Abraham’s call

Genesis 15 introduces us to the first stage of the covenant with Abraham. Immediately after the statement that Abraham’s faith has been reckoned as righteousness, we are told that Abraham is again informed of the main purpose of his call (‘I ... brought you out ... to give you this land’, Gen.15:17).

Abraham’s salvation is thus said to contain a further purpose. Lying behind faith (15:6) and election (‘I brought you out’, 15:7) is God’s purpose concerning the land of Israel, as it later came to be called. What follows is an expression of anxiety on Abraham’s part: ‘How can I know that I will gain possession of it?’ (15:8). It is thus in the context of a present uncertainty concerning a future inheritance that we have the story of God’s making a covenant with Abraham. A ceremony is described, promises are given, and this is said (15:18) to be God’s making a covenant with Abraham.

Covenant, grace, promise, law

At this point we must face certain questions that arise concerning covenant, grace, promise and law. I will argue later that there are three kinds of covenant, or that numerous differentiations among covenants fall into three groups. There are (i) parity-covenants between two equal partners, (ii) covenants of grant in which the emphasis falls upon the beneficence of the senior partner and in which the oath is taken and the promises made by the senior partner, and (iii) treaties or covenants of law in which the emphasis falls upon the obligation of the junior partner and in which the junior partner takes the oath. It is (as I shall argue) the different position of the oath that signally differentiates the three types of covenant.

At this point we shall examine only the covenant described in Genesis 15, a covenant which falls into the second of the categories just mentioned. The following points are worthy of note.

(i) The covenant is related to assurance. The promise of the land has been given before (12:1,7). What comes in distinctively at this point (15:18) is Abraham’s request for deeper assurance concerning God’s promise. The covenant is introduced in reply to the question ‘How can I know ...?’

(ii) The covenant is preceded by election and faith. On God’s side there has been election (‘I ... brought you out’, 15:7). On Abraham’s side there has been faith (15:6).

(iii) The covenant is related to neither a request for obedience nor any statement of obedience. There has indeed been the ‘obedience of faith’. Abraham’s conviction of the truth of God’s promise led him to venture into what was initially unknown. Thus obedience has been implicit in Abraham’s faith. But nothing is made of this and it is not brought into relationship with the covenant. Later in the narrative one finds a request for obedience (17:1) and later still an emphatic statement of Abraham’s obedience (22:12). At this point obedience has not been mentioned as the ground of the covenant.

Equally Abraham’s lapses are not mentioned, and apparently do not hinder the covenant. For despite the call to go to Canaan, Abraham has at one point left Canaan (12:10) and returned to it only in circumstances of disgrace (12:10 – 13:4). Despite the call to leave family (12:1), Abraham has only slowly disentangled himself from proximity to Lot (13:1–13). The renewed promise of Genesis 13:14–17 is explicitly said to have been given after Lot had parted from him. Abraham has had doubts concerning his lack of reward (‘I am your salary’, śākār, Gen.15:1, after the generosity of 14:20 and the deprivation of 14:21–24). He has had doubts concerning his safety (‘I am your shield’, Gen.15:1, after the battle of 14:13–16). He has had doubts concerning his childlessness (15:2) and his landlessness (15:8). The covenant comes in at the point where Abraham has shown faith but is not entirely free from doubt. It also comes in at a point before obedience has been invited (17:1), before it has been tested (22:1), and before it has been confirmed (22:12, ‘Now I know ...’). It is for this reason that one must say that, while Abraham has exhibited the ‘obedience of faith’, yet the covenant is not built on Abraham’s obedience.

(iv) Central in the covenant is sacrifice. The sacrifice is required for God. Although its arrangements are managed by Abraham, the sacrifice has a God-ward orientation. God both requires it and provides it. ‘Take for me a heifer ...’ is the divine command (15:9). As J.A.Motyer puts it: ‘Sacrifice is not a technique whereby man twists the arm of God; sacrifice is God’s own provision.’[150]

(v) Central in the covenant is the taking of an oath. Here the oath-taking is entirely on God’s side. The ceremony in Genesis 15:17 is clearly a form of oath-taking. Passing between the animals is apparently a way of saying, ‘So be it done to me if I do not keep my word’.[151] In this ceremony God is the sole agent. Not only does Abraham not pass between the pieces, he is also put into a deep sleep and the oath-taking takes place in circumstances in which Abraham had been explicitly prevented from taking part. Few things could emphasize Abraham’s passivity at this point more strikingly. ‘He is immobilised’, writes Motyer, ‘in order that God might be the only one active in this situation ... God takes upon himself the total obligation of the covenant.’[152]

(vi) Accompanying the covenant is predictive prophecy. Abraham is to know for a certainty the outline of history for the following four centuries. The delay before inheritance (15:13), the enslavement of Israel (15:13), the punishment of the enslaving nation (whose name is not mentioned, 15:14), the prosperous beginnings of the nation (‘with great possessions’, 15:14), the fact that the inheritance of the land is beyond Abraham’s lifetime, the persistence in sin that will characterize the Canaanites (15:16)—all is given to Abraham in predictive outline. Revelation consists in a predictive word which is subsequently confirmed by a deed.

(vii) Abraham functions as a covenant mediator. Just as God speaks to Noah of ‘my covenant which I make with you [singular] and all flesh’ (Gen.9:17), so he says to Abraham, ‘In you [singular] shall all the families of the earth be blessed’ (Gen.12:3). The narrative of Genesis 15 stresses the centrality of Abraham. God’s people will be ‘Abraham’s seed’ (15:5). The predictions relate to Abraham’s descendants (15:13f.). Although it concerns a people as numerous as the stars (15:5) yet the covenant is made with Abraham himself: ‘Yahweh made a covenant with Abraham’ (15:18). Abraham may therefore legitimately be called the mediator of this particular covenant. His descendants will inherit the land because of promises made to Abraham himself.[153]

(viii) In its origins, as with its continuance, the covenant with Abraham is characterized by the absence of law. It was this that would mean so much to Paul in the argument of Galatians. Abraham was elected without law, came to faith without law, was told of a ‘seed’ and of a land and of reward, received prophecy—all without the involvement or even the presence of law.

So far then the Abraham-narrative has almost exclusively pointed to God’s grace. The obedience of Abraham has been responsiveness to God’s promises, in the context of directly experienced fellowship with God. It has been a fellowship in which God speaks to Abraham and Abraham speaks to God, with no involvement of any law-code. Failures in obedience (the matter of separation from family, and disgrace in Egypt) have not abrogated God’s purpose.

Genesis 17

A major step forward in the story of Abraham comes in Genesis 17. The events of that chapter are clearly intended by the final redactor of the book to be thought of as taking place many years after the events of the previous chapters. The events of Genesis 16 in which Abraham takes Hagar as a slave-wife and begets Ishmael are to be viewed as Abraham’s attempt to get the promise of a ‘seed’ fulfilled in view of the long delay since the promise was given. The time-reference in 17:1 indicates that yet further years have gone by, so much so that by any human reckoning the birth of a child to Abraham and his elderly wife would seem impossible. Thirteen years have elapsed since the birth of Ishmael (see 16:16; 17:1). In this context God speaks again of his covenant with Abraham, but now several additional elements are added.

El Shaddai

(i) God draws attention to his sufficiency in enabling fulfilment of the promises. The statement in Genesis 17:1–2 relates three matters together: the name of God as El Shaddai, the request for loyalty, and the confirmation of the covenant that has already been made.

Although the etymology and meaning of El Shaddai as a word are uncertain,[154] there is good reason for thinking that the name was especially used in contexts of human helplessness. In the patriarchal narratives the usage is fairly consistent. It occurs in contexts of human desperation. In Genesis 17 it comes immediately after the failure of Abraham to get the ‘seed’ born (Gen.17:1). In Genesis 28:3 it again occurs in a situation of human helplessness, immediately after a signal failure in Jacob’s life (27:41–44). In Genesis 35:11 it again occurs in a situation of need (as 35:7 indicates) and explicitly recalls the ‘day of distress’ (35:3) when ‘El Shaddai’ had appeared. In Genesis 43:14 it occurs at the distressing stage in patriarchal family history when Jacob is (seemingly) for the second time about to lose a favourite son. In Genesis 48:3 the dying Jacob recalls the desperate plight he had been in when ‘El Shaddai’ had revealed himself. In Genesis 49:25 El Shaddai is the one who rescued Joseph when ‘with bitterness archers attacked him’ (49:23).

Thus El Shaddai is consistently used in Genesis to speak of God’s ability to transform human incapacity. J.A.Motyer notes that in passages that use the term El Shaddai there is also a consistency as to the manner of working;[155] we shall return to this below.

Obedience

(ii) For the first time in the Abraham stories God requires that Abraham should walk before God and be perfect. This is the first explicit demand for Abraham’s obedience. It has been implicit from the beginning, but nothing in the text before chapter 17 implies that God’s grace was in any way based upon Abraham’s obedience.[156]

Like the Akkadian alaku, Hebrew hālak is used metaphorically of one’s behaviour or lifestyle.[157] The precise phraseology (an imperative of hiṯhalēk, walk, in combination with lipℯnei, before) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, yet there are a number of occasions when hith-halek and lipℯnei are found. The combination may speak of divine leadership (Exod.13:21; 14:19; Nu.14:14; Deut.1:30; 31:8; Isa.52:12) or royal leadership (1 Sa.12:2). On other occasions it seems to denote service, as when Goliath’s shield-bearer ‘went before’ him (1 Sa.17:7) or Ahio ‘goes before’ the ark (2 Sa.6:4) or as when the priest ‘goes before’ the Lord’s anointed.

More important for understanding Genesis 17:1 are a series of allusions to the Davidic king who is to ‘walk before’ God. Thus Solomon speaks of God’s servants who ‘walk before you with all their heart’ (2 Chr.6:14). The expression is combined with phrases such as ‘in faithfulness, with all their heart and all their soul’ (1 Ki.2:4), ‘with all their heart’ (1 Ki.8:23), ‘in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you’ (1 Ki.3:6), ‘with integrity of heart and uprightness’ (1 Ki.9:4), ‘doing according to all that I have commanded you’ (2 Chr.7:17), ‘in faithfulness and with a whole heart’ (2 Ki.20:3; Isa.38:3).[158]

Three times such phraseology occurs in Genesis. Apart from 17:1, we discover that Abraham’s servant claims to ‘walk before’ Yahweh (24:40) and Jacob speaks of Abraham and Isaac who ‘walked before God’ (48:15). In the light of such usage it seems that 17:1 concerns Abraham’s loyalty, service and openness to God.

Abraham is also asked to be perfect (tāmîm). The term has cultic associations. In 51 of its 91 occurrences in the Massoretic text, it is used of the required health and soundness in animals to be offered in sacrifice, and means ‘without discernible defect’. On six occasions it is best translated by such terms as ‘whole’ (Lev.3:9; Jos.10:13; Prov.1:12) or ‘complete’ (Lev.23:13; Ezk.15:5) or ‘full’ (Lev.25:30). It is found in 1 Samuel 14:41, where the text is apparently corrupt.[159] Four times it is used of God’s activities (Deut.32:4; Ps.18:30; 2 Sa.22:31; Ps.19:7) and twice of completeness of knowledge (Jb36:4; 37:16). A survey of the 28 occurrences which are closer in usage to Genesis 17:1 reveals that tāmîm combines the idea of sincerity and absence of pretence with that of absence of visible defect. Sometimes the emphasis is on blamelessness, the difficulty which others will have in pointing to obvious defects. Thus Noah is said to be tāmîm among his contemporaries (Gen.6:9). When Israel is required to be tāmîm in Deuteronomy 18:12 the allusion is to the absence of the obvious ugly sins mentioned in 18:10–12. When in Joshua 24:14 the people are to be tāmîm the reference is to the absence of the worship of other gods. At other points the emphasis is on basic genuineness. We read of the integrity of the people who made Abimelech king (Jdg.9:16,19), who acted ‘in truth and in tāmîm’; elsewhere we have mention of ‘straight’ talk (Am.5:10). Sometimes David is portrayed as claiming such blamelessness (2 Sa.22:24; Ps.18:23,32), as also is Job (Jb12:14). Such ‘blamelessness’ is thought of as being possible. On numerous occasions it is taken for granted that it is possible to live without obvious defects, having the various areas of one’s life as they ought to be (2 Sa.22:26,33; Ps.15:2; 18:25; 37:18; 84:11; 101:2,6; 119:1; Prov.2:21; 11:5,20; 28:10,18; Ezk.28:15). That both inward and outer aspects of sincerity are involved is clear from the fact that we have references to both the blameless ‘way’ and the blameless ‘heart’. (Ps.119:1,80 have both within the same psalm.)

Such claims are not sheer self-righteousness. God himself uses similar language of Job (Jbl:8; 42:8) without implying total sinlessness. The claim is not to sinlessness but to basic straightforwardness, absence of duplicity. The righteous man may search his heart and be sure that he is not deceiving himself or others (2 Cor.1:12). As Kidner comments on Psalm 5:4–6, the psalmist acknowledged ‘that if God were to try his character instead of his case, he would be undone’. When people use such language, ‘they know they are in the right vis-à-vis their opponents, as disputants in, so to speak, a civil court; and in general relation to God and his law their heart is “perfect”; they are totally committed’.[160]

It is this kind of commitment that is asked of Abraham. God is not demanding utter sinlessness, a moral faultlessness like that of God himself. Rather what is required is all-round integrity, absence of duplicity, a sincerity that is obvious to men and pleasing to God.

It is likely that the second imperative in Genesis 17:1 is dependent on the first, and means ‘Walk before me and so be perfect’.[161]

In the context of this assurance of God’s aid (‘I am El Shaddai’) and the demand for Abraham’s obedience (‘Walk before me ...’), the covenant is again announced and further features are added. First (17:3–8) we have the promises given to Abraham; Abraham himself is prostrate and therefore again passive before Yahweh. Then in 17:9–14 demands are made of Abraham (‘You shall keep my covenant … This is my covenant which you shall keep … every male shall be circumcised’). Uncircumcision in any member of the family of Abraham is to be punished by the offender’s being ‘cut off from his people’, that is, from the people of Abraham. In a further section (17:15–21) God addresses Sarah, promising her a new name/nature, as he had Abraham. The seed will come through her, and the covenant will continue through Isaac. The prayer concerning Ishmael is heard, but the covenant line will go through Isaac not Ishmael.

(iii) As mentioned above, the ability of God to transform human incapacity follows a consistent method in the patriarchal narratives. Human frailty is met with God’s bestowing a new name, speaking of a new ability to meet God’s demands. In the ‘El Shaddai’ passages three patriarchal figures are renamed. El Shaddai renames Abram, who cannot produce the seed, and designates him ‘father of a multitude’. He renames Sarai, the wife through whom the true seed will come (17:5,15,19). Again it is immediately after the renaming of Jacob that God is called ‘El Shaddai’ in the Jacob-narrative (Gen.35:l0f.). It is also in connection with the name El Shaddai that the promises of the land are given to the patriarchs despite their obvious weakness. As Motyer says, ‘It was the claim of El Shaddai to be powerful where man was weakest.’[162]

Thus the renaming of the key figures emphasizes that the God of the patriarchs is one who works in the lives of those to whom he speaks, transforming their natural incapacity so as to enable them to receive by continuing faith-and-obedience the promises that have been put before them. Evidently the promises are not simply and automatically inherited. Ongoing faith is required; transformation of character is needed. Only in this way will the promises be inherited. However, the demand for obedience is followed by enablement for obedience. A child had been promised many years previously. Ishmael had been born but Abram had gone on waiting for at least thirteen more years. At the time when God draws attention to his character as El Shaddai a new name is given to Abraham, emphasizing, at this juncture, that Abram will be enabled to be what the promise had always said he would be—the father of a multitude. God’s power comes ‘to make the man into a new man, to make Abram what he was not before—Abraham—to give him capacities which he did not possess before, to make the childless man a father on a colossal scale’.[163]

Circumcision

(iv) Circumcision is incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant. In Genesis 17:4–8 God says he will establish his covenant. Since what is found at that point is a series of promises it appears that the covenant is here viewed as consisting in promises. In 17:9–14 we have a fresh unit (‘And God said to Abraham ...’, v.9) in which the covenant is defined in terms of the sign of circumcision. Abraham must ‘keep’ the covenant. Keeping the covenant, at this point, consists in circumcising every male within the family. The promises are personal (‘between me and you [sing.]’) and family-based (‘I will make you [sing.] fruitful’), but will eventually become international (‘father of many nations’) and territorial (‘all the land’).

It is important to note the setting and context in which circumcision is introduced. It comes in connection with the new name, speaking of the new nature and power that Abraham has received to enable him to father many nations. Circumcision could be said to be the sign of regeneration, if one may be allowed to use a New Testament term in elucidating the Abraham story.[164] Circumcision comes many years after Abraham’s salvation and so may be said to ‘seal’ Abraham’s salvation, ratifying what has gone before and signifying the capability of God in empowerment and enablement with a view to the receiving of the promises. Put in modern Christian language, circumcision ‘seals’ Abraham’s salvation and signifies the regeneration which will enable the promises to be received.

There is no reason to think that circumcision sealed the salvation of anyone other than Abraham. Paul later protested against regarding circumcision as a general seal and as a certification of the salvation of whoever possessed it in Abraham’s line. It was Abraham’s faith which circumcision sealed, pointing to faith as the only way to continue in Abraham’s line. Those in Abraham’s line who possessed the sign but did not follow in Abraham’s faith had nothing. This point is, in my opinion, insufficiently recognized, although it is found in some evangelical circles.[165] To deal with the matter fully would require a thorough study of the term ‘seal’. In my understanding the term always has the notion of an irrevocable and infallible guarantee. For this reason I am unhappy with the Reformed custom of calling the sacraments ‘seals’. G.C.Berkouwer maintains that to call the sacraments seals ‘does not mean that these signs and seals can in themselves perform the miracle of strengthening our faith’.[166] But this is to weaken the meaning of ‘seal’. A ‘seal’ does in itself perform the miracle of strengthening faith. I agree in this matter with Alexander Carson: ‘That baptism and the Lord’s Supper are seals of the new covenant, is a doctrine so common, and a phraseology so established, that it is received without question as a first principle … I strongly protest against it as unscriptural.’[167] G.R.Beasley-Murray[168] and J.D.G.Dunn[169] are surely right in relating circumcision to the baptism with the Spirit—and it should be understood experientially not sacramentally. If it be said ‘But this makes circumcision have a different meaning for Abraham compared with the meaning it has for his descendants’, I reply, ‘On the contrary, circumcision retains the same meaning for Abraham and for his descendants. It told Abraham that his way of salvation was the way of salvation; it told his descendants that Abraham’s way (not their own way) of salvation was the way of salvation.’ The meaning stays the same. It points to Abraham’s being justified by faith. But this means that the term ‘seal’ (infallible guarantee) is appropriate to Abraham only. It seals Abraham’s faith and calls all others to follow in his steps. The only entity that infallibly ‘seals’ believers in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that the New Testament applies the term sphragis to the circumcision of Abraham and to the work of the Spirit. They are in my opinion exactly analogous.

Circumcision thus pointed to Abraham as the model of salvation. It was later incorporated into Mosaic legislation and became part of obedience to Mosaic law. Yet circumcision did not originate with Moses, according to the Genesis story. It pointed to faith and regeneration rather than to legal obedience, although at a later stage legal obedience involved the keeping of the sign of faith. Jesus was making a theological point when, according to the Johannine testimony, he said, ‘Moses gave you circumcision’ but added, ‘Not that it is from Moses but from the patriarchs’ (Jn7:22).

The possibility of breaking the covenant is mentioned in Genesis 17:14. Anyone who will not identify with Abraham’s way of relating to God, and with the purpose of God through Abraham’s seed, is thereby no part of Abraham’s seed and is to be cut off from it.

If the interpretation above is correct it means that circumcision seals justification by faith, symbolizes regeneration and summons Abraham to obedience. When given to the physical descendants of Abraham it recalls the story of Abraham and summons the seed of Abraham to follow in his steps. If I am right in seeing significance in the stages in which the life-story of Abraham unfolds, it is also significant that circumcision comes in not at the point of faith, nor at one of the earlier announcements of promise, but at the point where demands are laid on Abraham in order for the covenant-promises to be fulfilled. The covenant sign spoke of covenant-promises. Yet it also spoke of those promises being given to Abraham at a time when demands were made on him. When Abraham saw the marks of circumcision on his own body he could say to himself, ‘I am a man to whom promises have been given’; he would also have to say (for the two aspects came at the same time), ‘I am a man upon whom demands have been laid’.

(v) Nowhere in the narrative is there any demand for obedience to law. At this point it is important to keep in mind the analysis of the term ‘law’ which appears above. If any kind of obedience implies ‘law’, then law must be thought to be present in the Abraham story, for certainly obedience is demanded of Abraham. But it is confusing to use the term ‘law’ in this way. J.A.Motyer, whose work I admire and have quoted above, is confusing at this point. He says that ‘the covenant man is a man under the law of God’. If he had said ‘under God’s demand of obedience’, I would have agreed. But by using the term ‘law’, he makes us think of the Mosaic system, and that is precisely what Abraham is not under. Motyer continues,

At the very moment when the promises light upon a man, he is turned into an obedient man. At the very moment when God gives him the promises, the obligations will be arising, and these two things cannot be sundered. As soon as Abraham marks his body with [the] knife of circumcision, he glories in the promises and is summoned to obedience.[170]

I agree with this entirely, but I could wish that the term ‘law’ had not been used in this connection. The obedience to which Abraham is summoned is a direct obedience, unmediated by any ‘law’. It may seem only a matter of words whether or not this should be called obedience to law. Yet if the New Testament interpretation of Genesis is to be understood and one is to align oneself with the total biblical interpretation of Abraham, it would seem helpful to use Paul’s terminology and view ‘law’ as something that comes in only at Sinai. Paul would have said that it was the Spirit that was leading Abraham, and would call the gift of the Spirit ‘the blessing of Abraham’ (Gal.3:14).

In Genesis 17:9 Abraham is asked to ‘keep’ (š-m-r) the covenant. The verb has a wide range of meanings but in this context the usage is similar to references to ‘keeping’ a festival (Exod.23:15), keeping the Sabbath (Deut.5:12), a vow (Deut.23:15) and commands (Jer.35:18) and ‘keeping’ a covenant (Ezk.17:14). Again the lateness of this demand within the Abraham stories should be noticed. There was nothing to ‘keep’ in Genesis 12, and no mention of ‘keeping’ the covenant when it was first introduced in Genesis 15. In 17:9 ‘keeping’ the covenant refers to maintaining the relationship already in existence, and to obeying the particular requirement that circumcision should be maintained as the sign of the way of salvation to which Abraham had been introduced. Genesis 17 is the point where the demand for obedience is introduced in intense form in Abraham’s life-story. Implicit in the promises of Genesis 12, it becomes explicit only at this later stage of the story. It is a demand for obedience yet does not involve law. No vows or promises are asked of Abraham. He does not have to say he will be obedient. It is characteristic of the Mosaic law that prior pledges are involved (as in Exod.19:8). Vows are part of the Mosaic system but not part of the relationship between Abraham and God. Rather than say he ‘will be’ obedient, Abraham ‘has to be’ obedient. His relationship with God operates by direct contact and involves response to God’s promises and direct obedience to the voice of God.

Genesis 22

The event of Genesis 22 is clearly of crucial significance. It is no accident that a New Testament writer will pinpoint this as the occasion when Abraham was justified by works. The record of Genesis 12–21 shows a steady progress in Abraham’s obedience. Chapter 12 offers a glimpse of Abraham’s first faith in responding to God’s voice by departing from home, family and country. Chapter 13 reveals a greater disentanglement from kindred in the separation from Lot. The departure to Egypt seems to have been a lapse of faith. God does not speak to Abraham there. The incident is a lapse in the movement of the narrative towards Canaan. Only when Abraham returns there does God speak to him again. Chapter 14 shows Abraham trusting God with regard to material possessions. Chapter 15 is the occasion of the covenant. Chapter 16 discloses another lapse of faith, as Abraham turns to what Paul would call ‘the flesh’. Chapter 17 presents for the first time God’s demand for obedience. The following chapters portray Abraham as a godly man, leading his family into ways of righteousness (18:19), able to share the secrets of God (18:17), an intercessor (18:23–33). A further lapse of faith in Genesis 20 does not abrogate God’s purposes, and Isaac is born. Thus chapters 12–21 show Abraham living in the obedience of faith, subject to lapses, but nevertheless on close terms with God.

The phrase ‘After these things’ which opens the story (22:1) pinpoints a specific event that takes the narrative of Abraham’s life a step further. No challenge such as this had yet occurred. The text is well known and we need not look at it in detail. The important points are that it calls for great faith and great obedience, involves much self-abasement and is an apparent threat to all of Abraham’s hopes. Abraham is obedient; he passes the test. As a result of his obedience a number of fresh elements are introduced into his relationship with God. Key verses which require fuller consideration are Genesis 22:12 and the oath of Genesis 22:16. Again the details may be itemized in several points.

(i) Abraham’s obedience reaches an unprecedented height. The introductory sentences of this section disclose a climactic test. Genesis 22:12 lets us know that the test was passed and Abraham was commended. The commendation is explicitly stated and linked to a specific occasion. God says, ‘At this time I know.’[171] Abraham’s obedience has reached an unprecedented height; he has passed a supreme test.

(ii) Abraham’s relationship to God is taken a stage further. The particle ‘attȃ—‘now’ (22:12) may be a note of time (‘At this time’) or, less likely, a note of inference (‘In the light of what you have done’). Either way it explicitly relates the obedience of Genesis 22 to a development in the relationship between God and Abraham. James 2:21 describes it as ‘justification by works’. (‘Was not Abraham ... justified by works when he offered up Isaac?’) The relationship between God and Abraham is not static and predetermined. The phrase ‘attȃ yādaʼti points to a real change and improvement.

God’s oath

(iii) As the result of the new level of obedience God swears by himself when renewing the promises to Abraham. What is an ‘oath’ of God?[172] It is closely related to the question of whether or not God changes his mind. In classical Christian orthodoxy, influenced by Greek thinking, the doctrine of God’s immutability was so influential that statements concerning a change in God were played down. God ‘could not’ change his mind. Yet the Bible portrays God as changing his mind on a number of occasions.[173] God is represented as able on the one hand to withdraw his promises and on the other to abandon his threats. According to Jonah 3:4 Nineveh was told that judgement would fall upon it in forty days’ time. No conditions were set; no possibility of change was mentioned. Yet after the king of Nineveh had said to his people ‘Who knows whether God will not … repent?’ and had summoned them to amend their ways, ‘God repented’ (3:10). Saul, by contrast, although he was chosen to be the head of a lineage of kings, had the kingdom removed from him because he sinned (1 Sa.15:28). God would have established his kingdom for ever but the point came where Samuel could say, ‘But now your kingdom shall not continue’ (1 Sa.13:13–14). Clearly the biblical representation is that God may amend his purpose. Whether this is sheer anthropomorphism (as I believe) or something more literal (as ‘open theists’ believe) is something we need not discuss. Either way we are meant to think of God in a moment-by-moment manner in which real interaction takes place. The oath of God relates to this; the oath is the point after which God will not change his mind. Thus after God decides to reject Saul it is said that God ‘is not a man that he should repent’ (1 Sa.16:29). The rejection occurs after Saul has persistently failed in obedience and God has ‘made up his mind’ about the king. There is a correlation between God’s ‘making up his mind’ and his oath. Thus Psalm 110:4 says of the priest after the order of Melchizedek: ‘Yahweh has sworn, and will not repent ...’. The oath is the point at which a decision is made as to whether the promises will in fact be inherited, or whether the threats will in fact be executed.

One can see this usage of the oath-language in Genesis 22. Promises have been given to Abraham for many years; they have to be inherited by faith and patience. Obedience is required if they are to come to full fruition. They conceivably could have been aborted, as in the case of Saul. Then comes a decisive test (Gen.22:1); Abraham passes the test by responding in supreme faith and obedience. At that point God takes the oath concerning the promises. God has ‘made up his mind’ about Abraham. From now on the purposes of God are immutably fixed with regard to the ‘seed of Abraham’. The promised ‘seed’ will bring international blessing through Abraham’s line. The land of Canaan will indeed be given to Abraham’s people.

It is notable that in books of the Old Testament that refer to later times (regardless of whether or not their editing really was later) the incident referred to as the crucial occasion of Abraham’s life—the occasion when the land was pledged—is not Genesis 12 or 15 or 17, but Genesis 22 (see Jer.11:5 with its explicit mention of ‘the oath which I swore to your fathers’). Similarly the Song of Zechariah mentions, not ‘the promise which he gave to Abraham’, which could refer to Genesis 12, but ‘the oath which he swore to Abraham’, which refers to Genesis 22. The occasion of the oath is the decisive one after which God would not change his mind. It is to this that Hebrews 6 refers when it mentions Abraham’s inheriting the promises by faith and patience (Heb.6:12), and when it speaks of heroes of faith who ‘obtained promises’ (Heb.11:33). In Hebrews there is a difference between ‘having’ and ‘obtaining’ a promise. Obtaining the promise correlates not with initial-faith, but with faith and patience; it occurs when one’s faith has been tested and has been proved to be an abiding faith. Only at such a point does God take an oath and say, ‘Now I know ...’. At this point and not before, the promise is immutably secure. It is to this that James 2:21 refers. James calls it ‘justification by works’.[174]

‘Testing’ is part of the sequence: provisional promise—delay—supreme test—oath. The promises of God could have been aborted by disobedience. A time gap is present that requires ‘faith and patience’ (cf.Heb.6:12) for the promise to be inherited. The delay is itself a test of faith. At the end of the painful delay comes an even greater test of faith. When the test is passed it leads to God’s oath.

Something similar is found in the threats of God towards Israel, and with the disobedience of God’s people in Exodus–Numbers, where the Israelites exhibit repeated waywardness and unbelief. Delay in getting to Canaan is a painful test. When the people test God, God is testing them, at Massah (Hebrew nissah is ‘to test’). The oath in Numbers 14:22,28 is a turning point. After that they cannot enter Canaan. ‘Testing’ is of the essence of the life of faith. It is a central ingredient in the pilgrimage towards inheriting or not inheriting what is promised.

There are four major occasions in the Old Testament when God takes an oath: the oath to Abraham (Gen.22:16), the oath taken in anger concerning the forfeiting of the land of Israel for the first generation of Israel (Nu.14:20–23), God’s oath to the Davidic dynasty (Ps.89:19–37), and his oath concerning the Messianic priest-king (Ps.110:1–4).

While the oath may receive only brief treatment here it clearly is a matter of major significance. It connects with questions concerning God’s immutability and ‘repenting’; it relates to a doctrine of ‘justification by works’. It is of key significance in the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6 (which surely refers to the point at which God ‘makes up his mind’ and ‘entering into rest’ is no longer a possibility for the Christian).

The introduction of the covenant in Genesis 15 and 17 and the oath in Genesis 22 imply that there are various levels of promise. One may distinguish casual promise (in which a promise is made but there is no legal commitment) from legal promise (in which the promise is bound by covenant). Within covenant-making one may distinguish the introduction of the covenant (Gen.15:17) and the consummation of the covenant-making in the giving of the oath. Concerning the oath in the life of Abraham one notes: (a) it takes place after Abraham’s initial experience of salvation, (b) it is a certifying word from God that Abraham has acted in great obedience, (c) it introduces reward into Abraham’s life, for it is based upon his acting in obedience, and (d) it introduces the actual acquirement of that which has been promised to him, his ‘obtaining’ the promise.

Covenant and oath

An important question, touched upon in the previous paragraph, is: what is the relationship between covenant and oath? They are virtually identical! What makes the matter important is that oath is embodied in covenant. There is no covenant without oath-taking.[175] How then is it possible that the covenant should have been made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17, yet the oath is given after the crucial event of Genesis 22? The identity of covenant and oath is plain from many parts of the Bible and in all types of covenant. Thus in the parity-covenant between Abimelech and Isaac, Abimelech’s men say, ‘Let there be an oath now between us ... and let us cut a covenant with you’ (Gen.26:28). In the parity-covenant between Abram and Abimelech the two themes are side-by-side (‘the two men made a covenant … the two men swore an oath’, Gen.21:27,31). In the covenant between Laban and Jacob the two terms, covenant and oath, are identified (‘Come now, let us make a covenant … so Jacob took an oath’, Genesis 31:44,53). Likewise in the case of the covenant between David and Jonathan we read, ‘So Jonathan cut a covenant ... Jonathan made David reaffirm his oath’ (1 Sa.20:16–17). Similar links between oaths and covenant in parity-covenants are found in Hosea 10:4, Ezekiel 16:8 and other instances.

Every covenant involved an oath, and the oath was ‘the formality which made the covenant valid’.[176] It is impossible to draw any distinction between the two. To ‘make a covenant’ and ‘to swear’ are synonymous. One term replaces the other in the synonymous parallelism of Psalm 89:34f.: ‘My covenant will I not break, Not alter the thing that has gone out of my lips. Once for ever have I sworn by my holiness I will not lie ...’ How then is it possible that there should be such a disjunction between covenant and oath in Genesis 15, 17 and 22? Genesis 15:8–11 is an oath-taking ceremony. So why was the oath not thought of as given then? The answer is that the covenant of Genesis 15 and 17 was not entirely completed. Promises were indeed given (15:18–21; 17:4–8) yet at that point God did not swear by his holiness. One swears by someone greater as guarantor (as Heb.6:13 points out); this did not take place in Genesis 15 or 17. In Genesis 22 however, after the faith-obedience of Abraham has been tested and confirmed, God completes the oath and swears not by someone who is greater but by his own life (Gen.22:16). As sure as he is God, the promise will indeed be fulfilled.

This means that the covenant and oath of Genesis 15,17 and 22 belong together and all make one covenant taken over the course of many years. In the early stages the covenant had something missing; it was open-ended and could have been aborted by unbelief and disobedience. Oath-taking procedure had commenced yet the swearing by someone greater had been omitted. The covenant was ‘on offer’ yet not completed. The completion would not come until Abraham’s obedience had been confirmed. Thus the covenant-making procedure was not entirely finished until Genesis 22. Just as Genesis 15 and 17 were part of one covenant yet separated by a time-gap, so Genesis 22 was still a continuation of covenant-making with a further time-gap between the elements of the one covenant.

(iv) Abraham was allowed to know that he pleased God and that the inheriting of the promise had been secured. It is conceivable that God could have taken a decision entirely within himself and not revealed to Abraham that it had been taken. He could have said to himself, ‘Now I know that Abraham fears me.’ However, what we are in fact told is that Abraham was informed that he had passed the test, that God himself accepted and vindicated his piety. On a previous occasion God debated within himself whether or not he would reveal his purpose to Abraham (Gen.18:17); a hidden purpose is conceivable. There too God revealed his secret to Abraham (Gen.18:19–21). In Genesis 22 God’s secret purpose is revealed, and Abraham is informed that the seed of Abraham will continue, and that the purpose through the seed of Abraham will go forward and is henceforth entirely secure. This too must be understood in direct or mystical terms. Abraham is evidently portrayed as knowing God’s mind as the result of direct fellowship between himself and God.

We come then to an interim conclusion. Our exposition of the highlights of the story of Abraham has been given with a view to looking for the place of the law (if any) and of obedience and ‘good works’ in the life of Abraham. This, in summary, is what we have seen:

(i) The narratives reveal the dominance and priority of grace. Abraham’s life of obedience began in election and faith. No explicit call for obedience is found before Genesis 17:1. Grace is first; the call for obedience second. There is a time gap between the giving of the promise and the call for obedience.

(ii) The knowledge of God’s will is not mediated through anything written or legal. It is directly communicated knowledge.

(iii) Thus Abraham’s obedience is obedience to God’s will in the context of direct fellowship with him.

(iv) The narratives are conspicuous for the total absence of law-code—a point which will be developed in the next chapter.

139 See M.A.Eaton, James (PTTB, Sovereign World, 2004); 1,2,3 John (Christian Focus, 1996), mentioned in my preface; also Living Under Grace: Romans 6:1 – 7:25 (Nelson Word, 1994; repr. ASL Pietermaritzburg, 2009).

140 D.J.Wiseman points out that ‘there has been a growing awareness that the collections of ancient laws from Mesopotamia are not “codes” of laws, but case-laws or decisions based on the facts of isolated and particular cases’. ‘It is certain that among the whole corpus of legal literature from the ancient Near East we have no “code” of laws in our modern sense’ (‘Law and Order in the Old Testament’, VE, 8, 1973, pp.9f.

141 Omissions may be noted when the Torah is compared with the Law of Eshnunna, in R.Yaron, The Law of Eshnunna (Magnes, 1969), p.136. B.S.Jackson points out that ‘Biblical law does not deal with theft of slaves, unlike the Ancient Near Eastern corpora’ (Theft in Early Jewish Law (OUP, 1972), p.118).

142 Many writers point to what on a prima facie reading of the old Testament is pre-Mosaic legislation and use it as evidence for Israel’s legislation (e.g. H.McKeating, ‘The Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel’, VT, 25, 1975, pp.46–49, concerning the rape of Dinah). One must remember however that allusion to local pre-Mosaic law does not mean that such law has any divine sanction.

143 Hyatt says the chapter ‘presupposes the law of the Sabbath promulgated at Sinai’ (J.P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Grand Rapids, rev.1980), p.178). I prefer to think that it anticipates and prepares for the Sinaitic fourth commandment. The anarthrous construction in Exod.16:23,25 may signify the innovative nature of the Sabbath command at this point (see H.P.H.Dressler, ‘The Sabbath in the Old Testament’, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (ed. D.A.Carson, Zondervan, 1982), pp.24–26,37).

144 If ‘justification’ is the foundational element in the Christian life, as I think it is, and if Abraham is the classic model of justification, as Paul maintained, then I think it is correct to use the term ‘salvation’, as long as one bears in mind that the New Testament treats pre-Christian believers as seeing the promises ‘from afar’ (Heb.11:13). See J.S.Feinberg, ‘Salvation in the Old Testament’, in Tradition and Testament (1981), pp.39–77; G.W.Grogan, ‘The Experience of Salvation in the Old and New Testaments’, VE, 1967, pp.4–26.

145 D.J.Wiseman, ‘Ur of the Chaldees’, NBD, p.1305.

146 See also Gen.24:7 (‘Yahweh ... who took me from the house of my father’). ‘Take’ (lāqaḥ) is also used as a verb of election in Deut.4:20. If Gen.15:7 and Ne.9:7 (also Philo, De Abrahamo, 71; Josephus, Antiquities, 1:7) bear witness to a call of Abraham from Ur, then Abraham’s disentanglement from reliance on his family went through several stages, according to the biblical witness. E.Haenchen points out (Acts, Blackwell, 1971, p.278) that the words ‘from your father’s house’ are omitted from Ac.7:2, which seems to refer to an earlier call than the one mentioned in Gen.12:1. Perhaps we are meant to think of Abraham’s discovering progressively that a break from his ‘father’s house’ would mean more than he initially realized.

147 In Puritan thinking ‘the moral Law is so closely bound up with the rational nature of which man is possessed, it is sometimes spoken of as the Law of nature’ (E.F.Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology, Carey Kingsgate, 1963, p.54). John Lightfoot in 1629 wrote that ‘Adam heard as much in the garden, as Israel did at Sinai, but only in fewer words and without thunder’ (Erubhin: or Miscellenies Christian and Judicial, London, 1629, p.182, cited in Kevan, Grace, p.60). See also WCF, sections VII and XIX (‘God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works’). For this viewpoint in the significant Puritan thinker William Ames, see L.W.Gibbs, ‘The Puritan Natural Law Theory of William Ames’, HThR, 64, 1971, pp.37–57.

148 A.Jepsen, ’āman, in TDOT, 1, pp.292–293.

149 It is possible to take Abraham as the subject as was done by the thirteenth-century Spanish rabbi Nachmanides (see Rambam (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah: Genesis (Shiloh, 1971), p.197). Van Selms holds a similar view (Genesis, vol.1, Callenbach, 1984, p.215). But on that view there is no antecedent of the suffix.

150 J.A.Motyer, ‘Covenant and Promise’, Evangel, vol.1, pt.1, 1983, p.4.

151 The consensus of opinion has viewed the passage in the light of Jer.34:18–19 and treated the dismemberment of the animals as a self-imprecation in the event of the covenant’s being broken. Although there are differences between Gen.15:7–21 and Jer.34:18–19 and no precise extra-biblical parallel is known, it is clear that the rite inaugurates a treaty and involves self-malediction upon the potential treaty-breaker (see fully Hasel, ‘The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15’, JSOT, 19, 1981, pp.61–78).

152 Motyer, ‘Covenant’, p.4.

153 The promise to Abraham concerned ‘a land that I will show (ʼarʼeh) you’ but ‘unto your seed’ I will give (ʼettēn) this land’. The difference in wording in Gen.12:1,7 (‘show’ versus ‘give’) is significant. I owe this observation to the rather eccentric writer A.W.Pink. Even eccentricity does not prevent the observation of some basic data! See A.W.Pink, The Divine Covenants (Baker, 1973), p.103. As I understand the relation of Gen.22 to the rest of salvation-history, the modern Christian depends on the oath given to Abraham. An oath is irrevocable. It is the fact that blessings to believers flow from Abraham’s obedience that warrants the term ‘mediator’.

154 The philological ‘meaning’ of the vocables ʼl šdy remains obscure, as is emphasized by many, e.g. W.F.Albright, ‘The Names Shaddai and Abram’, JBL, 54, 1935, pp.180–193. Examining usage is preferable to exploring etymologies.

155 J.A.Motyer, Revelation of the Divine Name (Tyndale, 1959), p.29.

156 O.P.Robertson believes that the lateness of the statement in Gen.15:6 (in ch.15 rather than ch.12) is intended to underline the fact that after the faith of ch.12 ‘nothing has been added to faith as the way to righteousness’ (‘Genesis 15:6: New Covenant Expositions of an Old Covenant Text’, WTJ, 42, 1979–80, p.267). In this he follows Calvin (Genesis, repr. Banner of Truth, 1975, p.409).

157 See F.J.Helfmeyer, [hālak], TDOT, 3, p.388.

158 Weinfeld points to the similarity of the Abrahamic and the ‘grant’ type of covenant (see more on this in the next chapter of mine). The ‘grant’ of land would be given to one who ‘walked in perfection’ and ‘kept the charge of my kingship’ (see M.Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, OUP, 1972, pp.75f.).

159 See P.K.McCarter, 1 Samuel (Doubleday, AB, 1980), pp.247f.

160 F.D.Kidner, Psalms (IVP, 1973), pp.58f.

161 See GK 110(f); cf. Gen.42:18 (‘this do and live’), Am.5:4,6.

162 Motyer, Revelation, p.29.

163 Motyer, ‘Covenant’, p.4.

164 Much depends on how the term ‘regeneration’ is used. If one thinks of it as identical to the New Testament gift of the Spirit, the statement in the text is not warranted. However, I distinguish between a work of the Spirit which initiates new life and a work of the Spirit sealing new life. Abraham is portrayed as already a man of faith. On my definition he is already ‘regenerate’. Circumcision ‘seals’ what has already happened to him. See G.W.Grogan, ‘Experience’, VE, 5, 1967, pp.4–26; J.Rea, ‘The Personal Relationship of Old Testament Believers to the Holy Spirit’, in Essays on Apostolic Themes (1985), pp.92–103; L.J.Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (Zondervan, 1976), pp.105f.

165 See A.W.Pink, Divine Covenants (Baker, 1973), p.103; F.P.Moller, ‘Objections to Infant Baptism’, in Infant Baptism (UNISA, 1984), p.80.

166 The Sacraments (Eerdmans, 1969), p.135.

167 Baptism, Its Mode and Its Subjects, National Foundation for Christian Education (USA), 1969 (orig. 19th century), p.234.

168 Baptism in the New Testament (Paternoster, 1962), pp.171–177.

169 Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SCM, 1970), pp.131–134,156.

170 I quote from p.8 of the informal notes issued by the Theological Students’ Fellowship, London, of J.A.Motyer’s lectures on ‘Old Testament Covenant Theology’ (1972–73). The published version (see ‘Covenant and Promise’, p.4) is slightly less emphatic but makes the same point.

171 I translate the text in this way because the English word ‘now’ is often merely an otiose introductory particle. But ˛attȃ must be given its full weight, ‘at this time’, as in Exod.18:11; Jdg.17:3; 1 Ki.17:24; Ps.20:7(Heb). The weak use of ‘now’ does not seem to exist in Hebrew.

172 On the linguistics of oath-language, see H.S.Gehman, ‘The Oath in the Old Testament: Its Vocabulary, Idiom and Syntax in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint’, in Grace Upon Grace (Eerdmans, 1975), pp.51–63. Gehman does not reflect on the connection between oath-taking and the end of any possible change of mind, but comes close to doing so when alluding to Ps.110:4: ‘the oath was final, and he would not change his mind’ (pp.51f.). M.R.Lehmann surveys biblical oath-formulae in the light of ancient near Eastern practice, in ‘Biblical Oaths’, ZATW, 81, 1969, pp.74–92.

173 See A.König’s comment on Jer.4:28 in Here Am I (Eerdmans/Marshall, 1982), p.66 (‘This assurance presupposes that there might well be decisions which he can go back on and over which he might repent’). R.T.Kendall’s sermonic treatment of the same theme is stimulating (‘Does God Change His Mind?’ in Jonah (Hodder, 1978), pp.201–210). H.Berkhof points to the opposite tendency in much modern theology and comments, ‘In its doctrine of God, theology will always drift about between Aristotle and Hegel’ (i.e. between the static and the changeable). See ‘The (Un)Changeability of God’, in Grace Upon Grace (Eerdmans, 1975), p.25.

174 W.Brueggemann discusses the theological significance of God’s testing. ‘In our sophistication’, he writes, ‘we may find the notion of “testing” primitive’ (Genesis, p.190; see more generally pp.18–194).

175 G.E.Mendenhall, ‘Covenant’, in IDB, 1, p.714.

176 Mendhenhall, Covenant, p.720. See further G.M.Tucker, ‘Covenant Forms and Contract Forms’, VT, 15, 1965, pp.488–490. Tucker concludes that ‘the extrabiblical and the biblical evidence for the name of the contract form speak with one voice: Covenants ... are also called oaths’ (p.490).

8

THE LAW OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

In Galatians 3 Paul draws a sharp distinction between Moses and Abraham. It is appropriate then to move from the Abraham stories to the narratives concerning Sinai and the Sinai covenant, to see whether a review of the Sinai narratives does indeed reveal such a great contrast. It will also help in considering whether the contrast Paul draws between Abraham and Moses resides in the Old Testament narratives themselves or whether (as is often asserted) Paul is referring not so much to the law as to a particular interpretation of the law given by his theological enemies.

We begin by noting the absence of the law before Sinai. Legislation for God’s people comes in as a somewhat dramatic innovation in the stories of the Pentateuch. Paul asserts (Gal.3:19) that the law was ‘added’ (prosetethē) to the gospel, and thus was an intrusion into what had originally been given to Abraham. Paul’s language gives the impression that he regarded the Mosaic covenant, with the decalogue at its heart, as no part of God’s original plan; God had at a certain point departed from a previous approach and ‘added’ the Mosaic covenant. A study of the Exodus account gives much the same impression and there is therefore every reason to think that it was Paul’s reflection upon the Exodus story which brought him to the conviction expressed in Galatians 3:19.

Law and the covenant

J.A.Motyer lists eight main words in the vocabulary surrounding law: ‘ēdâ, tôrâ, dābār, ḥoq, mišpāṭ, miṣwȃ, piqqȗd and derek.[177] We may agree with him that these eight terms pinpoint eight different aspects of the law. ‘Testimony’ (‘ēdâ) speaks of the revealed-ness of the law; it is God speaking from his own mind. ‘Teaching’ (tôrâ) speaks of its impact upon man, its purpose to inform his mind and shape his life. ‘Word’ (dābār) speaks of that which is intelligible, a deposit of information to be pondered. ‘Statute’ (ḥoq) speaks of permanency. ‘Judgement’ (mišpāṭ) speaks of royal authority, authoritative decision. ‘Commandment’ (mişwȃ) reminds us of authority and the right of a command to be considered as mandatory. ‘Precept’ (piqqȗd) reminds us that the law is to be broken up into specifics. ‘Way’ (derek) tells us of the path of characteristic behaviour that results from obedience to the law.

Where does this legal language commence within the Pentateuch? When did legislation begin to occupy a role in the relationship between God and his people? The answer is that this terminology appears in the pages of the Pentateuch almost exclusively in connection with the Sinai covenant.

Legal vocabulary in Genesis

Before ‘ēdâ is used of the Mosaic law in Deuteronomy, Joshua and Psalms the word occurs only in Genesis 21:30 and 31:52. In neither of these verses does it refer to anything written or codified; ‘ēdâ is thus not used of any law prior to Sinai.

The word tôrâ occurs seven times before Exodus 24:12. Its first occurrence (Gen.26:5) comes a considerable way through the Abraham stories. God’s charge (mišmeret), God’s commands (miṣwȏt), statutes (ḥūqqôt) and instruction (tôrâ) refer to the various directives that have been given to Abraham without the utilization of any written document or law-code. Leupold believes that the reference is to the command to leave family, the instructions concerning the sacrifice of Isaac and to similar instructions given by God directly to Abraham.[178] The reference to ḥūqqôt is more difficult since the background of the word gives the impression not of anything occasional but of something permanent. It probably refers to the instructions of Genesis 17:2 and the command concerning circumcision. Only at this point do we have an instance of tôrâ that refers to any kind of pre-Mosaic instruction. (I have in mind the date of the time referred to, not the date of any source.) The instances of the term at Exodus 12:49; 13:9; 16:4,28; 18:16,20 are found shortly before the story of Sinai, and receive comment below.

Dābār occurs about 60 times in Genesis. On three occasions it refers to God’s word (15:1,4; 30:34) but on none of these occasions is the reference to any kind of law comparable to Sinai. Before the Sinai stories, ḥōq occurs only in Genesis 26:5, mentioned already in connection with the use of tôrâ in the same verse. The term also occurs in connection with the Egyptians’ laws in Genesis 47:22,26 and Exodus 5:14.

Mišpāṭ is used on three occasions in Genesis (18:19,25; 40:13) but never in connection with law. It is used in Exodus 15:25; 21:1 (and often thereafter) of aspects of the Sinai legislation.

We find miṣwȃ only in Genesis 26:5, mentioned already. Then it appears in Exodus 15:26; 16:28 in incidents that take place as Sinai is approached.

The word piqqûd has no pre-Mosaic usage. It is used only in Psalms, where it refers to the Sinai legislation.

Derek is found 31 times in Genesis. On several occasions it refers to the godly life. Thus in Genesis 18:19 we have reference to the ‘way of Yahweh’. In that case it clearly refers to the godly living that flows from an intimate relationship with God. As we have seen, no law-code is involved.

To conclude: legal language can scarcely be said to exist in the patriarchal stories. Such language occurs only spasmodically and then has no connection with legislation such as we discover in the Sinai law-codes.

Legal language after Sinai

On the other hand, legal language commences in abundance in the narratives telling of the approach of the people to Sinai, and in the remainder of the Torah. After its isolated use in Genesis 26:5, tôrâ first occurs in connection with the Passover (Exod.12:49). Since at Exodus 12:49 no reference to any laws has yet been made it is likely that at this point the ongoing ceremony of Passover is envisaged as a permanent requirement. However, the incorporation of this into a larger legal code is not initially mentioned. Exodus envisages the people as settled in the land with an alien population among them. Exodus 13:9 envisages the Passover as a permanent requirement. Then tôrâ is also used in connection with the Sabbath in Exodus 16:4,28, thus anticipating the decalogue.

The word ḥōq is used in much the same way of the Passover (Exod.12:14,17,43; 13:10). We find ‘ēdâ used of Mosaic legislation in Deuteronomy 4:45 onwards, and dābār is found frequently of items of legislation. The Ten Commandments are introduced as hdbrym h¸lh (‘these words’). In Exodus 15:25–26, where ḥōq, miṣwȃ and mišpāṭ are found, the ‘law’ envisaged refers to the people’s obedience to specific directives and the consequent promise of freedom from Egyptian diseases. It probably envisages the approaching Sinai covenant.

Perhaps law may exist without precise legal language. Yet the fact that legal language first appears only in Exodus 12 is a confirmation of what has already been noted in the Abraham stories. The people of God before the days of Moses were not in any way under codified legislation. There are references to local law, but these have no special divine mandate. The first hints of divinely mandated legislation come in events preparatory to Sinai. Ordinances are introduced at the time of the redemption of the nation. First mentioned is the directive concerning Passover (Exod.12:14,17,23,43,49) and the feast of unleavened bread (13:10). Later we find a hint of the many demands of obedience that are to come (15:25–26) and a rule concerning the Sabbath (16:4,28). The Pentateuch presents a picture of a large amount of legislation upon arrival at the mountain. Whatever one may conclude about how far every legal clause of the Pentateuch actually originated at this time, the representation is clearly that much detailed legislation originated at this point which had not characterized the relationship of God with his people before the Exodus events. The law was ‘added’.

The nature of the covenant

This leads us to a second matter: the nature of the Sinai covenant. In Exodus 19:5 the relationship between Yahweh and Israel established at Sinai is designated by the term bᵉrîṯ, usually translated ‘covenant’.[179] In the order of events presented in the finally edited Pentateuch, this is the third ‘covenant’ between God and man explicitly mentioned, the previous two being those connected with Noah and Abraham. This prompts several questions: what is the nature of the Sinai covenant? What is the connection between what happens in Exodus 19 and the covenant mentioned in Genesis 15 and 17?[180]

A major break-through in biblical studies occurred in 1954, when G.E.Mendenhall published in the Biblical Archaeologist his studies of covenant forms. He urged that a study of the covenant forms known in ancient documents would throw light on Israelite religion. He pointed out that records of international treaties, known especially from the Hittite empire around 1450–1200 BC but deriving ultimately from Mesopotamian sources and being the common property of many cultures in the second millennium, showed resemblances to biblical covenants and could be used to illuminate their background and interpretation.[181] He distinguished between suzerainty treaties and parity treaties. In a suzerainty treaty the junior partner took an oath of obedience as stipulated by the senior partner. By contrast, in a parity treaty both partners were equally bound by oath to identical obligations.

Mendenhall urged that at least three collections of material, in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua, are linked with this legal tradition, and that ‘innumerable incidents and ideas in the entire history of Israel can be adequately understood only from this complex of covenant patterns of thought’.[182]

Since 1954 an immense body of literature has come into being. The six-fold structure of second-millennium treaties (preamble, prologue, stipulations, provision for reading, witnesses, curses and blessings) has been frequently rehearsed.[183] Many have accepted Mendenhall’s view that the decalogue is to be viewed as having treaty-like structure and background. Many aspects of Old Testament thought and religion have been reviewed in the light of new discoveries concerning treaty and covenant. Yet not all of Mendenhall’s views won approval and his ‘covenant-formulation’ interpretation of Exodus was especially criticized. Furthermore, not all have agreed with Mendenhall’s drawing a distinction between first- and second-millennium covenants, and his Mosaic dating of the decalogue.

Although I believe that Mendenhall’s work remains basically valid there is no need at this point for detailed involvement in the debates concerning Hittite and Assyrian covenants. Three matters however are important for our purpose. Firstly, it must be remembered that what we have in the Old Testament are not themselves covenant documents but are one or more steps away from the events they narrate. They describe the giving of the covenant and its various renewals, but are not themselves covenant documents. Exodus 19–24 might still bear the marks of a treaty, without being itself a treaty document. The nearest document to a treaty would be Deuteronomy, but even there it is arguable that Deuteronomy reflects rather than consists of treaty.[184]

Secondly, there can be no doubt that the treaty form (known to us from Hittite sources but of wider Mesopotamian origins) is still visible in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua. Consider the following table (based upon the work of K.A.Kitchen[185]). Kitchen wishes to add traces of oath-taking and solemn ceremony (Exod.24:1–11; Deut.24; fulfilled Jos.8:30–35) and the threat of sanctions (the rib motif starting from Deut.32 and continuing throughout the Old Testament).

Treaty

Exodus

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Title or preamble

Exod.20:1

Deut.1–5

Jos.24:1f.

Historical prologue

Exod.20:2

Deut.1:6 – 3:29

Jos.24:2–13

Stipulations, basic and detailed

Exod.20:3–17,22–26 +21–23,25–31 (law) & Lev.1–25 (ritual)

Deut.4, 5–11 + 12–26

Jos.24:14f. + 16–25

Deposit of text

Exod.25:16, cf.34:1,28,29 (cf. retrospect in Deut.10:1–5)

Deut.31:9,24–26

Jos.24:26

Public reading

—

Deut.31:10–13

— (but see 8:34)

Witnesses

Exod.24:4 (cf.Jos.24:27)

Deut.31:16–30, esp. v.26; 32:1–47

Jos.24:22

Blessing

Lev.26:3–13

Deut.28:1–14

Implicit in 24:19f.

Cursing

Lev.24:14–33

Deut.28:15–68

However disputed certain sections might be, it seems incontrovertible that enough of the treaty form shines through all three sections of the Old Testament (Exodus–Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Jos.24) for it to be possible to make use of the fact in theological exposition.

Thirdly, it is important to let the biblical material speak for itself. Although our knowledge of the ancient world might make us notice aspects of Scripture that otherwise would have been overlooked, in the final analysis it is the biblical documents themselves that must be allowed to speak. One must always be sensitive to the possibility that amidst general similarities to the culture of the ancient world there may be modifications and contradictions. For example, while the gods of paganism might be invoked as witnesses in Hittite treaties, something else has to function as witness in the faith of Israel. Instead of pagan gods we read of memorial stones (Exod.24:4; Jos.24:27) or a song to be memorized (Deut.32:1–47) or the deposition of a document (Deut.31:26) or the people themselves as witnesses (Jos.24:22). Thus we shall not be surprised to find many resemblances to the ancient cultures, but we shall keep our minds open to the possibility of modification or disagreement.

In 1970 M.Weinfeld drew attention to another type of covenant in addition to the parity-covenants and treaties that had already been widely investigated.[186] Weinfeld pointed to the royal grant, classically found in the Babylonian kudurru documents (boundary stones).[187] Although the royal grant is very similar to the treaty the obligations are in direct contrast. In the treaty the vassal owed allegiance to his master; in the royal grant the overlord pledges himself to bestow some favour. Weinfeld pointed to the similarity of the ‘covenant of grant’ and the covenants with Abraham and David: the grants to Abraham, Caleb, David, Aaron and the Levites have much in common with the grants from Alalakh, Nuzi, the Hittites, Ugarit, and Middle-Babylonian kudurrus, i.e. mainly in documents from the second half of the second millennium BC.

Biblical usage

Again one must emphasize that the biblical documents must be allowed to speak for themselves. Yet the work done on covenant in the ancient world has drawn attention to variations in the use of the word bᵉrîṯ in Scripture. There is good reason to think that biblical examples of covenant fall into three categories which must be radically differentiated. The three must be studied within their own framework and the resemblances to extra-biblical material must not be used so as to distort the biblical material itself. Despite this caveat, it can be seen that the three categories strikingly correspond to treaties, parity-covenants and covenants of grant. A brief survey of the biblical material will help our interpretation in the following pages of this study.

The term ‘covenant’ occurs 284 times in the Old Testament (as bᵉrîṯ) and 33 times in the New Testament (as diathēkē). As suggested above, these occurrences fall into three groups which I may designate parity-covenants, law-covenants and generosity-covenants. Each of the three is found in human relationships but only the last two are used metaphorically of the relationship between God and his people. We also find bᵉrîṯ used figuratively of relationship to non-personal entities. Ignoring the last-mentioned figurative uses, we have five groups to consider.

(i) Parity-covenants in human relationships. The Old Testament contains at least eleven examples of explicit secular[188] parity-covenants. These are the covenants between Abram and his allies[189] (Gen.14:13), and between Abram and Abimelech (Gen.21:27,32), Isaac and Abimelech (Gen.26:28), Jacob and Laban (Gen.31:44). Such agreements may take place between kings. There were mutual treaties of peace between Asa and Ben-Hadad I of Aram (1 Ki.15:19; 2 Chr.16:2), as there had been between Asa’s father, Abijah, and the father of Ben-Hadad (1 Ki.15:19; 2 Chr.16:3). There was such a pact also between Ben-Hadad I and Baasha of Israel (1 Ki.15:19; 2 Chr.16:3). We have mention of a covenant-brotherhood between David and Jonathan (1 Sa.18:3; 20:8; 23:18).[190] We have the covenant between David and Abner of the house of Saul (2 Sa.3:12–13), between Solomon and Hiram (1 Ki.5:12), between Asa and Ben-Hadad I (1 Ki.15:19), and between Ahab and Ben-Hadad II (1 Ki.20:34; 2 Chr.16:3). Others are alluded to. Thus one is said to be profaned (Ps.55:20), and one maliciously intended against God (Ps.83:5). Isaiah refers to covenants of peace being broken (Isa.33:8). It is also possible that the ‘prince of a covenant’ in Daniel 11:22 refers to a prince who had been in covenant relationship with Antiochus.[191] Hosea 10:4 (‘swearing falsely in cutting a covenant’) is possibly a general allusion to disloyalty in parity-covenants. Marriage is such a mutual contract according to Proverbs 2:17; Ezekiel 16:8; Malachi 2:14. Amos 1:9 and Obadiah 7 seem to refer to political parity-covenants between two brother nations.

(ii) The covenant of grant within human relationships. There seems to be only one Old Testament reference to a ‘covenant of grant’ among human relationships where the term bᵉrîṯ is actually used, and that is Jeremiah 34:8–22.[192] The allusion here is to a covenanted proclamation of emancipation for slaves (Jer.34:8,10,15). This is compared with God’s covenant in keeping the Sinai covenant. Such a comparison prevents one from entirely dissevering the different kinds of covenant; they have something in common.

(iii) Covenants of imposed obligation in human relationships. When the Israelites are forbidden to make covenants with surrounding nations what is in view is especially a covenant of imposed obligation. Israel must not prescribe lenient terms for the Canaanites, imposing on them oaths of loyalty and submission. ‘You shall not make a covenant with them,’ said the Mosaic law (Exod.23:32; see also 34:12,15; Deut.7:2; Jdg.2:2). It is clear that in the envisaged covenant Israel would have been the senior partner, prescribing conditions of relationship and showing mercy to a defeated enemy (Deut.7:2). This is what happens in the deception of the Gibeonites where the note of Gibeonite inferiority is clear and the Israelites are tricked into making a covenant with them (Jos.9:6,7,11,15,16). The Gibeonites come as those seeking protection, putting themselves under Israel as overlord. The relation of junior and senior partner is clear also when the citizens of Jabesh say to Saul, ‘Make a treaty with us and we will be subject to you.’[193]

This kind of treaty was also made when a king received an oath of allegiance from subjects. When Abner’s kingdom was insecure he sought such a covenant with David (2 Sa.3:21). It was eventually ratified at Hebron (2 Sa.5:3; 1 Chr.11:3). Similarly Jehoiada is recorded as making such a covenant (2 Ki.11:17; 2 Chr.23:3). This kind of covenant might be made between a king and his soldiers, as in the case of Jehoiada (2 Ki.11:4; 2 Chr.23:1). The king of Babylon imposed such a covenant upon the royal seed of Israel according to Ezekiel 17:13–16,18, and possibly verse 19 also. (However v.19 could refer to Sinai.[194]) It is possible, although not certain, that the oath taken by the priests in Nehemiah 13:29 relates to a covenant of imposed obligation. Fensham argues that ‘the covenant of priesthood’ is a sworn promise not to marry foreign women.[195] A preferable view is that the covenant here is the ‘covenant with Levi’.[196] Hosea 12:1 seems to be another allusion to such a covenant, in this case one in which Israel submits to the demands of Assyria.

It is noticeable that in each of these instances the covenant is imposed by the senior partner or entered into by way of voluntary submission on the part of the junior. The oath-taking is performed by the junior partner.

(iv) The Sinai covenant. In the instances mentioned so far both partners are human beings; if God is mentioned at all it is as a witness. But bᵉrîṯ is also used metaphorically to denote relationships between God and men. Such a metaphorical use of the term appears unique to Israel. In cases where bᵉrîṯ is used to denote God’s relationship to men, which type of covenant is being metaphorically transferred?

There appears to be no example where a parity-covenant is envisaged as existing between God and men. The nearest to this would be instances where the marriage relationship denotes metaphorically God’s relationship with his people. However, although marriage is used this way it is not clear that the term ‘covenant’ is used in this connection, despite its use with reference to marriage on the ordinary level (Prov.2:17; Ezk.16:8; Mal.2:14).

My view is that the Sinai covenant (and its renewals) closely resembles the format of a typical covenant of imposed obligation, but all other covenants in which God is involved follow the analogy of the covenant of grant.[197] The Sinai covenant is, in terms of verbal statistics, the covenant most frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. Although covenants with Abraham and David might outstrip it in ultimate importance, yet it is the Sinai covenant which receives the most frequent mention of all covenants in the Old Testament. It is mentioned for the first time in Exodus 19:5. From its earliest inception the notes of human obligation are heavily underscored. The people respond to it with promises of obedience (Exod.19:8). After the rebellion of the people, the covenant is taken up again (Exod.34:10). Frequently its conditionality is underlined (e.g. Deut.7:12). God will look on the people with favour (Lev.26:9) only if the people will listen and carry out his commands (Lev.26:14). There are threats for disobedience (Lev.26:15). If the people disobey, the ‘vengeance of the covenant’ will be executed (Lev.26:25).

The covenant at Sinai involved documentation from its inception. A ‘book of the covenant’ is coeval with the covenant itself (Exod.24:7; 2 Ki.23:2,21). Sacrifice is also involved, hence the phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ (Exod.24:8; Zc.9:11). As with any covenant of imposed obligation, there is heavy emphasis on what is required by the senior partner, in this case Yahweh. After the statements of God’s prevenient graciousness in redeeming Israel and bringing the nation to Sinai (Exod.19:1–4), the covenant is introduced (Exod.19:5,6) and its conditionality is forthwith announced: ‘… if you will indeed hear my voice and keep my covenant you shall be to me a special possession above [or amongst] all peoples, for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ Three privileges are promised to the nation: special possession by God, priestly ministry,[198] and ‘life … commensurate with the holiness of the covenant God’.[199] They are dependent on obedience to the covenant, which as Exodus 19–24 unfolds, is shown to be obedience to codified law. One notes the contrasts with the Abraham story. The demand for obedience is not at all a later development within a covenant relationship. Rather it is of the essence of the Sinai covenant from its earliest mention. There is no equivalent to the divinely induced sleep which put Abraham into a position of sheer passivity. Instead, from the earliest mention of the Mosaic covenant the people are summoned to obedience and the oath of allegiance is demanded of them.

Thus there is a very close connection between the Sinai covenant and law.[200] Often covenant and law are identified (Ps.78:10; 103:18; Jer.11:8) but this is never the case with any covenant other than Sinai. God tells Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant’ (Exod.34:27). One notices the close connection of law, covenant and codification. At times law and covenant are totally identified. Deuteronomy 4:13 speaks of ‘his covenant, his ten words’. To disobey the commands is to forget the covenant (Deut.4:23; see also 2 Ki.17:35,38). To recite the law is to take the covenant on one’s lips (Ps.50:16). The ten words are the ‘words of the covenant’ (Exod.34:28) and the tablets of stone are sometimes called ‘the covenant’ (1 Ki.8:2; 2 Chr.6:11; see also Deut.29:1,9; 2 Ki.23:3). The law was kept in the ark (and the ark is therefore known as the ‘box of the covenant’[201]). We have reference to the ‘tablets’ of the covenant (Deut.9:9,11,15). Such a covenant of law is distinguished from that of the patriarchs. It is said at Sinai, ‘Yahweh made not this covenant with our fathers’ (Deut.5:3).

Obedience to commands results in the covenant’s being ‘established’ (Deut.8:18). Disobedience results in the people’s perishing (Deut.8:19f.). Breaking a command is called ‘transgressing the covenant’ (Deut.29:25; Jer.22:9) or ‘breaking the covenant’ (Deut.31:16,20; Jer.11:10; 31:32 (x2)). To break the covenant commandments is to ignore God’s wrath and the curses (Deut.29:1) or penalties (Jer.11:8).

Although the people may break the Sinai covenant, there are statements to the effect that God keeps his covenant (Jdg.2:1; Dn.9:4). However, conditionality is still in view when it is said, ‘God keeps covenant … with your servants that walk before you’ (1 Ki.8:23). There are also references to ‘keeping [or not keeping] the covenant’, where it is the people who are in view, and their obeying the law (Ps.25:10; 44:17) or disobeying it (Ps.78:10,37). Observing God’s word and keeping his command are identical (Deut.33:9). The point is made that God keeps his side of the covenant relationship (Ne.9:32 and Ps.111:5,9, where one notes the reference to ‘precepts’ in 111:7). Yet the implied conditionality remains in qualifying statements (see 2 Chr.6:14; Ne.1:5).

A covenant to seek God or put away pagan wives (as in Ezr.10:3) may come in a different category, yet it is similar to law-covenant, for the junior partner in the relationship gives promises to the overlord.

God’s response in keeping the covenant (for which see Ps.25:14) may be made a matter of prayer. A psalmist prays that God will have regard for his covenant (Ps.74:20). Psalm 106:45 speaks of God’s hearing such a prayer. These passages refer to the promise in the Sinai covenant that where repentance is shown God will respond with deliverance (see also 1 Ki.8:50–53).

It is the Sinai covenant that is in view when mention is made of the ‘salt of the covenant’ (Lev.2:13; Nu.18:19) and the bread before Yahweh is an ‘everlasting covenant’ according to Leviticus 24:8.[202] The Sabbath also plays a significant part in the Sinai covenant. It is given as an ‘everlasting covenant’.[203]

There are times when the Sinai covenant and the covenant with Abraham are mentioned together. The contextual background to Deuteronomy 7:9 is that of the Sinai covenant. Deuteronomy 7:12 makes this clear (‘Because you keep these judgements ... God shall keep the mercy that he swore ...’). Yet we have reference here also to the oath to Abraham (Deut.7:22; cf.Gen.22:16, cited also in Exod.32:13). The argument linking the two covenants is that God did not choose Israel because of inherent merit (Deut.7:7); rather he was keeping the oath to Abraham (Deut.7:8). The Israelites must learn of God’s ability to keep a covenant. God will keep the Sinai covenant if they are obedient (Deut.7:9, referring to the Sinai covenant). If they are obedient God will keep with that particular generation the promise to Abraham which will in any case be kept with one generation or another. The oath to Abraham will be kept. The generation which keeps the Mosaic covenant will find that it enjoys the land, the fruit of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus Deuteronomy 7 weaves together themes that derive from the two covenants.

(v) Covenants of grant given by God to individuals. Other covenants involving God’s relationship towards individuals are not covenants of law but rather covenants of grant. The explicitly mentioned covenants of this nature are as follows. There is the covenant with Noah (Gen.6:18; 9:9,11–17) which is unilateral, universal and requires no duties on Noah’s side to be fulfilled. The covenant with Abraham and the patriarchs (Gen.15:18; 17:2,4,7(x2),9–11,13(x2),14,19(x2),21) is said sometimes to be with Abraham but also with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod.2:24; 6:4–5). It is mentioned in 1 Kings 13:23 and (as though it were three covenants) in Leviticus 26:44–45. It is explicitly mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:31; 1 Chronicles 16:15,17; Nehemiah 9:8; Psalm 105:8,10; Ezekiel 30:5.

Third, there is evidently a covenant with Phineas (Nu.25:12f.) and, fourth, with David (2 Sa.23:5; 2 Chr.13:5; 21:7; Ps.89:3,28,34,39; 132:12; Isa.55:3; Jer.33:21).[204] A fifth individual covenant is that embodied in the Servant of the Lord (Isa.42:6; 49:8) which is compared with the covenant with Noah (Isa.54:10) and with the Davidic covenant (Isa.55:3). It is related to the gift of the Spirit in Isaiah 59:21. Leupold[205] thinks that Isaiah 61:8 refers to Sinai but I prefer to link it with the previous Isaianic references to a new covenant.[206] Sixth, a new covenant is on the horizon of thinking in Jeremiah 31:31,33; 32:40; 50:5; Ezekiel 16:60–62; 34:25; 37:26; Daniel 9:27; and Hosea 2:18.

Seventh, a covenant with Levi is mentioned in Malachi 2:4,5,8 and possibly in Nehemiah 13:29; it is presupposed in Jeremiah 33:21. This is never mentioned explicitly in Exodus 32:26–29; Deuteronomy 33:8–11.

In none of these seven ‘covenants of grant’ is there the impression of imposed command that we have noted in connection with Sinai.[207]

A vital matter, and one which points to at least two radically divergent types of covenant, is the question of who takes the oath. In the Sinai covenant the oath is taken by the people (Exod.24); in the other covenants, by God. M.Kline emphasizes this: ‘Notice must be taken of a feature which law and promise covenants have in common but which, nevertheless, being more closely analysed, serves to distinguish between the two ... It is the swearing of the ratificatory oath that provides an identification mark …’[208] This can scarcely be emphasized too much! It is this crucial fact that warrants our treating the Sinai covenant as a different kind of covenant compared with all other covenants involving Yahweh as a participant. Mendenhall remarks, ‘the covenant with Abraham (and Noah) is of completely different form ... it is Yahweh himself who swears to certain promises to be carried out in the future. It is not often enough seen that no obligations are imposed upon Abraham ... The covenant of Moses, on the other hand, is about the exact opposite.’[209]

The Abrahamic and Sinai covenants contrasted

These radical divergences between Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants have considerable implications. An innovative note was struck when the Sinai covenant was introduced. It was a covenant that had law within it from its earliest mention. When Abraham was in covenant with God, it was God who swore to bring about its potential and Abraham’s needful obedience was only slowly made explicit. By contrast, the relationship between God and Israel at Sinai was such that the vow of obedience was coeval with the covenant itself and constituted its central ingredient. The auto-imprecation (self-curse) for breach of oath in Genesis 15 could not materialize because God would not fail in faithfulness to his oath, once it was sworn (i.e. after the occasion of Gen.22). The situation was very different in the case of the Sinai covenant. Its central element was always explicit, codified, national, law. The curse could fall at any time the people were disobedient to their sworn loyalty. The story of failure (Exod.32:1–8) and threatened curse (Exod.32:9–10) follows immediately upon the first mention of the giving of the covenant (Exod.19–24), and its worship (Exod.25–31). The conjunction of Exodus 31:18 and the next sentences in Exodus 32:1 points to the immediate breach of the covenant, immediate liability to wrath.

One may thus also contrast the types of obedience required by the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants. The obedience required from Abraham was that of person-to-person response to God, who had promised to bless Abraham. Instructions came in the context of one-to-one fellowship with God. The relationship of God and Abraham was not totally suspended upon obedience, for Abraham had long been in fellowship with God without there being any mention of required obedience. True, the Sinai covenant is rooted in God’s kindness, and in an established relationship as a result of redemption from Egypt. There was never any question of redemption being achieved by obedience! Yet the obedience subsequently required is national, external, secured by threat of curses. It is good within its own framework of reference, but one can see why Paul regarded it as an interim measure, and why he regarded the Abraham level of relationship with God as higher than the Sinaitic mode of relating to God, and why he viewed Abraham not Moses as the model for the Christian.

Defects of the Sinai covenant

Another major issue is the relationship between Mosaic law and nationhood. In addition to the comparatively late origin of the Mosaic law within the history of redemption, and its treaty-like nature, certain other characteristics of the Sinai covenant are important for the argument that is being developed. One of them is the connection between the law and the origin of the nation of Israel. The Pentateuch represents the law as coming in at the point where Israel becomes a distinct nation, outside of the domination of Egypt, and responsible for its own national life. God takes a nation to himself, redeems them from bondage and takes steps to bring them to their own territory. At such a time they are given the law.[210] Several aspects of this may be emphasized.

(i) The law was given to Israel alone.[211] In Christian theology the law—especially the approximately one per cent of it that constitutes the decalogue—has often been generalized and turned into eternal principles for the guidance of the Christian. This however requires more exegetical and theological argumentation than is normally given. The Old Testament shows the Torah as being given to Israel alone of the nations and specific reasons are required if one is to justify universalizing it. In the Old Testament the nations are accused on grounds of conscience (to use a modern term) rather than on grounds of law. This is conspicuous in Amos 1:1 – 2:16.[212] When Amos addresses the nations (Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Ammon, Moab) he accuses them without reference to the law, which is never mentioned. Yet when he turns to Judah the law is immediately referred to (2:4). Similarly when he addresses Israel (2:6–16) the institutions (2:11–12) and the history (2:9) of the nation are mentioned and allusion is made to the law (2:8; cf.Exod.22:25–26). The Old Testament makes much of the point that Israel alone was redeemed, Israel alone was chosen, of all the nations of the earth (Am.3:2). To Israel alone God gave a covenant of law, a point emphasized by the opening words of the decalogue itself (Exod.20:2).

(ii) The law exhibits nationalistic and discriminatory elements. The giving of the law introduced nationalistic and discriminatory elements into the Old Testament that were not present in God’s promise to Abraham. The theme of the Abrahamic promise was that ‘all nations’ would be blessed through Abraham’s seed. But the law was not for ‘all nations’; it was for Israel alone. In this respect it was a divergent trend compared with what had preceded it. There was in it an element of discrimination. Conversely to Paul’s statement in Galatians, there was distinction between slave and free, Israelite and gentile, between male and female.

(iii) Large segments of the law function as criminal code. A.Phillips claims indeed that even the decalogue was no more than Israel’s criminal code.[213] I shall argue that the tenth commandment is an exception in this respect. Furthermore, some sections of the law are clearly not related to crime, such as the tabernacle arrangements. Yet many aspects of the legislation of Israel do function as criminal code for the protection of societal life. C.J.H.Wright disagrees with Phillips, yet he also sees the decalogue as ‘very deeply rooted in the concrete circumstances of Israel—social, economic and political’. He contends that the fifth, seventh, eighth and tenth commandments should be seen as designed to protect the household-plus-land units upon which the covenant relationship, humanly speaking, rested.[214] Many expositions of the decalogue move from crime to ‘deeper applications’. Under various headings of the decalogue, they discuss personality cults within Christendom, excessive veneration of church buildings, indulgence in bad language, care for one’s health by taking a day’s rest per week, honouring those who led us to faith (our ‘spiritual fathers and spiritual mothers’), controlling one’s temper, the ‘look that springs from lust’, helping the underprivileged, careless criticism of others, and so on. But it must be remembered that the decalogue itself did not deal with such matters (and they are not the kind of spirituality that could be monitored by lawyers or magistrates). We need not discuss at this point whether ‘spiritualization’ of the law is justified, but we certainly must notice the way Jesus took authority away from the decalogue and on to himself. The higher ‘fulfilment’ of the law proceeds from a relationship with Jesus that is not mediated by the Sinai arrangements.

All the commands except the tenth relate to society, to external visible morality, to cultic arrangements, or to crime. Much of the legislation of Israel seems to exercise the same function in the Hebrew world that the similar laws did in surrounding cultures. One need only review (for example) the Old Babylonian Laws of Eshnunna (early second millennium BC) to see regulations similar to those of the Old Testament, such as compensation for injury, regulations concerning marriage and the rights of slaves.[215] The same areas of life are touched upon in much of Exodus–Deuteronomy, especially the ‘Covenant Code’. One sees similarities also in the Middle Assyrian laws (late second millennium) edited by Driver and Miles.[216] When Resnick compares Akkadian codes, not only with the Old Testament but also with the Quran, he finds ‘striking resemblances of terminology and wording’.[217] The significant point here is a simple one: the Old Testament legislation, like that of all ancient near Eastern legal collections, deals in public life, as befits legislation for a nation. Its main concerns are regulation of public matters: property, ownership, contract, barter, debt, distress, partnerships, hire, the father’s house, matrilocal marriage, concubinage, polygyny, endogamy, widowhood, nuptials, divorce, patris potestas, adoption, legal succession and the like.[218] Since the Torah provided a standard of national morality, to be kept by individuals but with the interests of the nation in view, and since such a law was administered by public officials, it is appropriate that externality and concreteness should characterize the legislation. Inward purity of heart cannot easily be the subject of legislation and cannot be regulated by magistrates. It was largely left alone by the Pentateuchal requirements.

We have not yet reached the exposition of any sections of the New Testament. Yet already one may begin to ask: are aspects of Israel’s law which function as criminal code adequate to guide and rule Christians who possess the Spirit in post-Pentecostal fulness? Will it not be too low a standard for them to live by?

(iv) The law and the hardness of the heart. The law takes into account the hardness of people’s hearts. It will be obvious that such an observation stems from Matthew 19:8; yet it is a point that could have been deduced from the movement from the Abraham-type to the Sinai-type of relationship to God. One observes the happy relationship between God and Abraham, with its trustful responsiveness to God (Gen.12:4), its magnanimity (Gen.13:8), its spontaneous generosity (Gen.14:20), its prayerfulness and concern for the righteous (Gen.18), its willingness to go to any lengths in pleasing God (Gen.22). Then we observe that even after the nation’s redemption Israel is characterized by bitter complaining (Exod.15:23f.), once (Exod.15:21–27) and again (Exod.16:1–36) and again (Exod.17:1–7). One observes discontent (Exod.15:23), rejection of God’s leader (Exod.15:24; 16:2), self-pity, concern for physical comfort, longing to abandon God and return to Egypt (Exod.16:3), continued disobedience despite explicit instructions (Exod.16:26–28), testing God’s goodness (Exod.17:2), violent hostility to Moses (Exod.17:4), large numbers of internal complaints and quarrels (Exod.18:13–18). In asking Paul’s question ‘Why then the law?’ the narrative itself suggests Paul’s answer: ‘On account of transgressions’ or, ‘Because of their hardness of heart’.

Again one may be forgiven for jumping ahead and asking: are the standards of the Torah adequate for the individual Christian? In view of its nationalistic elements, one might also ask: are its standards adequate for Christians who wish their faith to be brought to bear upon their nation? Even here one has doubts. Should the Old Testament view of divorce be regulative for a nation heavily influenced by Christian people or making a national claim to Christian faith? Should slavery be tolerated, even encouraged in such a nation, given certain provisos to make it humane? Should the death penalty be mandatory for at least five areas of crime? The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for murder (Nu.35:16ff.), various sexual offences (Deut.22; Lev.28), kidnapping (Deut.24:7), defiance of parents (Deut.21:18–21), blasphemy or incitement to apostasy (Lev.24:16; Deut.13).[219]

(v) The law makes use of fear as a mode of control. This is another aspect of its use at a national level. C.R.Williams points out that ‘penological philosophy has been shaped by one or more of the following four purposes: retribution, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation’. He goes on to consider the ‘teleology’ of Mosaic law. He suggests four reasons why God’s expectation (Deut.13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 31:31) concerning ‘crime prevention through fear of punishment’ is comparatively rare in modern penological literature. He surmises that it may be because the penalties of Mosaic law were more unpleasant, more public, swifter and more certain than those of modern penal institutions.[220] What Williams does not discuss, presumably because it is so conspicuous that it hardly needs discussion, is the assumption that fear of punishment was indeed a mode of control and demotivation in Mosaic legislation.

Certainly the introduction of the Sinai covenant was awe-inspiring. The people must not approach the mountain (Exod.19:14) nor even its edge (Exod.19:14). On the crucial third day thunder, lightning and cloud emphasize the unapproachability of God. The remedy for the people’s terror was the mediatorship of Moses (Exod.20:19). Under the law, the people have no direct access to God. His unapproachability is embodied in the structure of the tabernacle where the people have no way into his presence and the only contact with God is via mediators, the priests. Even the mediators are denied full access to God. The once-a-year entry into God’s presence by the one-and-only high-priest serves to emphasize the continued inaccessibility of God throughout the duration of the Sinai covenant—a point made by the author of Hebrews (Heb.9:8–9). The effect in the narrative is to heighten the awe and terror. Later mention of the ‘fear of God ... to keep you from sinning’ (Exod.20:20) seems to refer back to the terrors of the Sinai-event (Exod.19:7–25). There the ‘fear of God’ involved the inaccessibility of God via the law-covenant.

Of course the theme of the ‘fear of God’ is found throughout the Bible. Yet there are different kinds of fear. There is the ‘creaturely awe which made the very seraphim hide their faces’, seen in the immense reverence with which Abraham confesses himself ‘dust and ashes’ as he prays (Gen.18:27). Even under the new covenant one has the expression ‘the fear of Christ’. The New Testament intensifies this motif when it warns of the ‘worse punishment’ (as compared with Sinaitic penalties) that falls upon one who profanes the blood of the covenant (Heb.10:29). Yet as one considers the Sinai covenant there are aspects to its terrors which do not characterize the new covenant. The vision of God’s majesty so arouses terror that the people will be inclined to keep the Sinai code because of the fearful majesty of God that they have witnessed.

All this is distinctive of the introduction of the Sinai code, and is probably what the author of Hebrews had in mind when, although not dismissing fear of God altogether (Heb.4:1; 12:28), he yet could say, ‘You have not come to a mountain that may be touched … and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind’, to a covenant that provides no access to God (Heb.12:19) and where even the covenant mediator is gripped with alarm (Heb.12:21; see Deut.9:19). We must avoid a false antithesis, as if sheer fear characterized Sinai but total absence of fear characterizes the new covenant, yet there is a contrast that is rightly drawn by Hebrews 12:19–21. The ‘fear of Christ’ in the New Testament is surely fear of loss of reward, fear of chastening, fear of loss at the judgement seat of Christ. It is not the sheer terror of Exodus 19; it is certainly not fear of magisterially administered penalties.

A significant association of fear, inaccessibility and the Sinai covenant is found in Exodus 34. Paul’s midrashic exposition of the chapter is well known. However one may assess the details of Paul’s interpretation, the theme of terror is clear. Yet Paul associates this with the receiving of the law and contrasts it with the liberty of the Holy Spirit. In doing so he builds upon the Old Testament itself, for Exodus 34 portrays the resumed giving of the law after the great rebellion of Exodus 32.

(vi) The Sinai covenant was characterized by temporal penalties. I have already mentioned them. There was the death penalty for premeditated murder (Exod.21:12ff.; Nu.35; Deut.19), for kidnapping (Exod.21:16; Deut.24:7), disobedience to authorities and parents (Deut.17:12; 21:18ff.), adultery (Lev.20:10; Deut.22:22), homosexuality (Lev.20:13), one form of incest (Lev.20:11f.), false prophecy (Deut.13:1ff.), profanation of the Sabbath (Nu.15:32ff.), blasphemy (Lev.24:13ff.), idolatry (Lev.20:2ff.), magic and divination (Exod.22:18). In some respects the requirements were not as severe as those of the laws of Mesopotamia. Crimes against property did not attract the death penalty; rather the death penalty was required for crimes against life and against the structure of the family.[221]

Another threat was that of the offender’s being ‘cut off’ (Exod.30:33; Lev.7:20ff.; 20:17ff.). This has generally been taken to mean that God directly punishes the offender with premature death.[222] Others think the phrase is another way of referring to the death penalty[223] or that it means expulsion from the nation.[224]

A third type of penalty was corporal punishment for certain offences, such as a fight between two persons (Deut.25:1–3; see also 22:18). It was apparently administered by striking the culprit’s back with a stick (Prov.10:13; 19:29, etc).

A fourth type of punishment was compulsory restitution. This was required in cases of theft or misappropriation. If penitent the thief had to restore the goods stolen plus a fifth (Lev.6:15). A thief caught still in possession of the property would have to repay double. If the goods had been disposed of, their restoration would have to be fourfold or fivefold.[225]

There are also the ‘curses of the covenant’, described by Wenham as ‘a horrendous list of curses containing some of the most spine-chilling passages in the whole Old Testament’.[226] These are explicitly said to be designed to motivate by fear (‘If you do not obey … these curses shall come upon you’, Deut.28:15).

(vii) Sacrifices had limited efficacy. The sins for which sacrificial expiation was available were relatively insignificant. Provision was made for the expiation of certain sins, but it must be noted that there is no reason to think that any sin could be expiated by sacrifice. T.H.Gaster thinks the sins that could be expiated were contact with impurity, physical or moral, infringement of taboos, violating of cultic laws, refusing to testify, the ‘contagion’ of childbirth, and ‘leprosy’.[227] There is no reason to think that serious moral faults, such as breach of the decalogue, could be expiated. Rowley comments, ‘Much is said in the law of unwitting sin in connection with the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, and it would seem that only unwitting sins were capable of being cleansed by sacrifice.’[228] The fact that sins could be punishable by death or by being ‘cut off’ means that there was a limitation upon the sins affected by this merciful provision. Also we find mention of sins committed ‘with a high hand’. It is not easy to see precisely what this phrase means. Leviticus 6:1–7 allows sacrificial atonement in the case of deliberate sin, if the sinner confesses his fault and makes restitution. Allusions to sinning with a high hand in Exodus 4:8; Numbers 15:27–31,32–36; 33:3 suggest that advance planning was involved. Whether a man is killed bišᵉgagâ or not distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Rowley is correct in saying, ‘For murder and adultery the Law provided no means of atonement, and only demanded the execution of the murderer.’[229] It is surely with these limited Mosaic provisions in mind that the author of Hebrews can say that the priestly system catered for the ‘ignorant and wayward’ (only!). Only with the new covenant did he see provision for sin and iniquity being ‘remembered no more’ (Heb.5:2; 8:12). Likewise it is a step beyond the Mosaic covenant for the gospels to say, ‘All sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven the sons of men’ (Mk3:28; cf.Matt.12:31).

(viii) The law was linked to magistracy. There is a connection between the law and magistracy. It is in accord with the points made above that the Torah is specifically tailor-made for judges. This is characteristic of all ancient Near Eastern laws. M.R.Lehmann rightly says of the ancient near east, ‘The existence of legal order on earth was entrusted to human judges and their judicial systems, but the right and power to supervise man’s strict compliance with his commandments and obligations was retained by the divine powers.’[230] In the composition of Exodus the introduction of the law follows immediately after the introduction of the eldership. The latter is brought in to assist Moses’ handling ‘cases’ of dispute or crime. At certain points one can see that the law was designed for elders. Within the decalogue itself, ‘You shall not bear false witness’ is not a statement about general truth-telling. Rather its setting is that of a law-court.

In the ancient near east ‘judges’ over civic life are known from great antiquity. The sapitum (equivalent to the Hebrew šōpēṭ is now known in texts from Ebla dating to ca. 2300 BC. The texts from Mari (ca. 1800 BC) also give glimpses of ‘governors’ or ‘judges’ maintaining social order. In Israelite society the judge appears as the one who dispenses justice, punishes the evil-doer and vindicates the innocent. According to the biblical testimony Moses was a ‘judge’ of Israel and ‘cases’ were brought to him. Thus the ‘judges’ of Israel were initially Moses’ deputies (Exod. 18:13–27; Deut.1:9–18). Although a distinct meaning of the term šōpēṯ operates in Judges (where the meaning ‘saviour’ prevails rather than ‘judicial official’) the old meaning evidently continued into the post-exilic period, for Ezra is portrayed as setting up judges to administer justice in his day (Ezr.7:25). This is of significance in one’s understanding of the Christian and their relationship to the Torah. The law was designed for a nation and was therefore administered by the magistracy for the purpose of maintaining social order, religious conformity and national stability. Although it had to be kept by the individual Israelite it was not designed to be central in a one-to-one personal relationship to God, a relationship of faith, guided by the Spirit.

Again it is natural, in view of the points previously made, that the law should be codified. Indeed in the representation of Exodus 24, there never was a Mosaic covenant without codified law. The ‘book of the law’ is written and is used in the very origin of the covenant; codification is of its essence. In this respect the late origin of the New Testament within the new-covenant-community forms a striking contrast to the Mosaic covenant. In the Mosaic covenant the written word of law was the covenant. This forms a contrast to the Abraham stories where, as has been seen, the commands of God that came to Abraham came mystically, ‘in the Spirit’, and without codification.

We have already referred to the relatively late origins of legal language in the unfolding story of the Bible. It is Mosaic not patriarchal. The same is true of the vocabulary of writing. Although writing was well established as a hallmark of civilization from 3500 BC onwards, long before any conceivable date for the patriarchal period, and masses of siprim (books, documents, writings) are known from the fourth millennium onwards, yet the verb kāṯab never occurs in connection with the patriarchs. It first occurs in an isolated incident recorded in Exodus 17, and thereafter is used supremely in connection with the law (Exod.24:4,12, etc.). After the clearly editorial reference to sēper (book) in Genesis 5:1 (dating a document rather than the events it narrates), and the solitary mention of sēper in Exodus 17:14, the first mention of a ‘book’ is Exodus 24:7 with its reference to the ‘book of the covenant’. It was in the Mosaic covenant that the principles of righteousness were first codified. There are numerous references to Moses’ recording the Torah. He ‘wrote the words of this law in a book’ (Deut.31:24) which was deposited (31:26) in Israel’s sanctuary. Provision is made for its periodical reading (Deut.31:11). The king should possess a copy (Deut.17:18f.). As a result documented law would be available as the object of meditation (Jos.1:8).[231] E.J.Young believed that these statements refer to the whole Pentateuch.[232] Yet Deuteronomy has a character of its own and is a distinct unity; the commands concerning writing within Deuteronomy need not refer to the whole Pentateuch but rather to the matters mentioned in Deuteronomy. However, in the Exodus account also we find repeated emphasis on the documentation of the parts of the Torah. Moses must write ‘all the words of Yahweh’ (Exod.24:4, referring to Exod.21:2 – 23:33 and possibly to Exod.19 and 20 also). The ‘second’ law (Exod.34:10–26) is also the subject of commands concerning documentation. It is to be noted that nothing like this characterized either the patriarchal period or the ministry of Jesus. The origin of the new covenant is connected with the Christ event, not with anything written or codified initially. Although there may have been records from earliest days, these receive no central position in the new covenant. Although the apostolate had crucial significance, the ‘apostles’ teaching’ of Acts 2:42 was initially living oral ministry. It took some years before anything written had ‘canonical’ significance. The Mosaic covenant was immediately codified; the codified law was the covenant. But in this respect there is a disjunction between covenant and writing in the new covenant.

The sanctity of the law

In spite of everything that has been written above, the entire Mosaic law is holy, righteous and good! The preceding pages may seem to present a highly negative approach to the law as it appears in Exodus. Certainly what emerges from these narratives will mean that I must be somewhat hostile to a misuse of the law, and that I must conceive of it as an interim measure in God’s purpose. However, it must be emphasized that the Old Testament does not present the law as in any way evil or demonic. When Paul says that the law is ‘holy, righteous and good’ he is entirely in accord with the impression given by the Old Testament itself. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it even implied that the law comes from any source other than God himself. Some have interpreted Paul as implying a demonic origin for the law, and as holding a view of the law approximating to those of later gnosticism and Marcionism. Whatever Paul may have believed, no hint of demonic origin for the law is found in the Old Testament. Nor is the law ever presented as evil.

The reader may be wondering how I can highly value the law and preach on its text in considerable detail (as my dozens of sermons on Exodus–Deuteronomy and forty sermons on the Sinai-story show[233]) yet still use the negative language that appears in previous pages. The answer is that negative language (as found not only above but also in Galatians) is appropriate when considering the matter from the viewpoint of the new covenant and the person-to-person relationship that the Christian has with God. The law is not for the righteous person. It does not control the Christian’s person-to-person relationship with God. It does not justify (cf.Rom.3:20). It does not sanctify or enable any kind of fruitfulness (cf.Rom.7:4). It does not regenerate or give life (cf.Gal.3:21). Yet, taken upon its own terms and in its particular location in salvation-history, the law is entirely good, entirely beneficent, and in no way against the promises of God (cf.Gal.3:21). Its weakness arises from sinful human nature (cf. ‘through the flesh’, Rom.8:3) not from its own inherent evil. Its abolition—as we shall see—comes not by negation but by its fulfilment. For the ungodly it retains relevance (cf.1 Tim.1:9). In such a way it may be ‘used lawfully’ (cf.1 Tim.1:8).

In the previous two paragraphs it has been necessary to adopt prematurely a New Testament standpoint. So far as the Old Testament itself is concerned we merely note that nowhere is the law described as evil. Even the angelic mediation of the law mentioned in Acts 7, Galatians 3, and Hebrews 2 is not heavily underlined, although the presence of theophany (that is, angels in manifestation[234]) in Exodus 19–24 is noticeable. Several aspects of this holy character of the law may be noted.

(i) The law is given in an atmosphere of sanctity. The precepts of God are altogether good. Despite the impression of inadequacy which one may glean from the Old Testament and which has been highlighted in previous sections, the law is never portrayed in any terms other than good ones. It is inherently good; its purpose is altogether beneficent.

(ii) The law is God’s law. Although it is ‘Mosaic’ (the term has here been used rather frequently as a protest against generalizing concepts of the ‘moral law’), yet within the Pentateuch its divine origin is emphasized.

(iii) The law is ‘good’ for what it is designed to do. Although the New Testament criticizes its use in certain respects, it may be ‘used lawfully’ in accordance with its divine purpose.

(iv) The law is ‘sacred’. Its origin in the setting of purification and theophanic manifestation suggests its sacredness in nature and in content. There seems to be no occasion in the Old Testament when the Mosaic law is directly criticized. Even the new-covenant promises of Jeremiah find fault with the people of Israel rather than with the old covenant itself (‘which covenant ... they broke’, Jer.31:32).[235] It must be remembered however that when one describes the law as ‘holy, righteous and good’ what is in mind is the totality of the Mosaic covenant. This includes the ceremonial, punitive and ritual aspects of the law. Often defences of the sanctity of the Mosaic law have in mind primarily or even exclusively the moral element. I am not however making such a restriction. The whole law is presented as divine.

Old Testament criticisms of the law

The nearest approach the Old Testament makes to criticism of the Mosaic covenant is found in certain statements which have often been thought to reflect adversely upon the sacrificial system: Psalm 40:6–8; Jeremiah 7:22; Amos 5:21. However, one may interpret these statements not as indicating disapproval of the sacrificial system but as disapproval of its use by insincere worshippers, and my published exposition of Amos takes the Amos text in that manner.[236] Certainly the Old Testament contains no hint of an origin of the law other than in the will of God, and these adverse reflections upon the sacrificial system do not contradict this fact. Yet it must be said that even though these verses reflect more upon the misuse of the sacrificial system than the system itself, this is not really important. For if the system is capable of being misused and does not have spiritual power, then its inadequacy is revealed. This is the point of Hebrews 8:8 and 10:5–10.

A more striking anomaly is the fact that God can be portrayed as hating a particular provision found within the Torah. In some translations Malachi portrays God as saying ‘I hate divorce’. Actually it is hardly possible for the Hebrew to have such a meaning. The words are: kî śānē˒ šallaḥ (‘For/surely—hating [a verbal adjective]—to send away [piel infinitive]’). A little later we have: wᵉkissa ḥāmās ‘al lᵉbûšȏ (‘and-he-covered/covers—violence—upon—his-garment’). It must mean Surely to divorce is hateful, says Yahweh God of Israel, and the man who divorces has violence as his clothing, says Yahweh the Almighty. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be unfaithful (2:16). Divorce is hateful to God. A divorcing spirit is a violent spirit. It is a sign of pushing and demanding one’s own will, a sign of perfectionist aggressiveness. A violent spirit is like clothing to such a man.

Here something which the Mosaic law permitted, divorce (Deut.24:1–4), in divergence from the ideal in Genesis 2 (as Jesus said in Matt.19:8) is said to be hateful to God. A few verses later Malachi—or his editor—brings the work to a close with a section in which he urges his readers to ‘Remember the Torah ... its statutes and judgements’ (Mal.4:4; Heb.3:22). Here a tension exists between something entirely divine (‘the Torah of Moses … which I commanded’) and something within it which God hates. One can draw no conclusion except that in the circumstances of its origin the Torah is thought to be wholly of God and wholly good, yet it is at points recognized as less than ideal and its necessity arises not because it is a perfect expression of God’s will for all time but because taken as a whole it is an accommodating expression of God’s will. However nothing in the Old Testament itself would justify a neo-Marcionistic approach, in which the law comes from an inferior God or from demons. Paul at his most critical never says such a thing (despite what Marcion says,[237] what modern Marcionites say,[238] and what at least one biblical scholar thinks Paul said in Galatians 3:19[239]). Yet one can see how the guardedly negative statements of Paul and the positive assessment of Romans 7:12 can both have justification.

Keeping the law

Not only is the law good in itself, the records of the origin of the Mosaic law constantly assume that the law may be kept. In Christian theology, especially in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, one is used to the idea that it is quite impossible to keep the Mosaic law. This concept owes much to the tenth commandment, which will be considered below. Yet if one leaves aside the tenth commandment, the law constantly postulates that it may be kept. Blessing follows when it is obeyed: ‘the man who obeys them will live by them’ (Lev.18:5; cf.Ezk.20:11,21; Ne.9:29). Although the ‘life’ that is promised must not be equated with the ‘eternal life’ of the New Testament and refers more to national stability, longevity and prosperity than to the fulness of the Spirit and the expectation of heaven, nevertheless blessing is promised through the keeping of the law. Only by concentrating on the tenth commandment is there introduced an element of radicalization and internalization such that it becomes impossible to keep the law.

To put the same point in New Testament language: an unregenerate person without faith may keep the law to a certain extent. This seems to be the point of Paul’s remark in Philippians 3:6. Paul, before his Damascus road experience, kept the law. Reflecting upon his Pharisaic experience does not make him speak of his inability to keep the law; rather he speaks of his ability to keep the law. One notices in this connection the absence of any ‘change of name’ motif in the Sinai stories. While too much weight cannot be placed upon an omission, yet it is noticeable that whereas Abram, Jacob and Sarai have to become new people with new names in order with the help of ‘El Shaddai’ to receive the promises, no such enabling is involved in the Mosaic covenant. All of this means that the law may be kept without faith. ‘The law is not of faith,’ says Paul.

The tenth commandment

Among the verses of direct legislation mentioned in Exodus, there seems to be not a single verse which focuses on purity of heart other than the tenth commandment. (Deuteronomy is a different matter but one must remember that Deuteronomy claims to be a Mosaic exhortation based upon the law rather than the law itself; I have dealt with this matter briefly elsewhere.[240])

In Exodus the tenth commandment reads, ‘You shall not covet your neighbour’s house … wife … male or female slave … ox … ass … or anything that is your neighbour’s.’ The version in Deuteronomy is virtually the same but reverses the order of ‘house’ and ‘wife’, and uses the verb tiṯ‘awweh in addition to taḥmôḏ. The form of the tenth commandment has features which distinguish it from all the preceding commandments. The repetition of the verb (‘You shall not covet ... You shall not covet … ’) is without precedent in the previous nine commands. There is an overlapping of categories, for the tenth command touches upon the sexual category (‘your neighbour’s wife’) mentioned in the seventh command, and upon the sanctity of property (‘anything that is his’) mentioned in the eighth command.

A crucial matter, if it be allowed, is that the tenth command also looks inward to the desire rather than to the external sins mentioned in the previous nine. The latter point is not undisputed; it has been argued that ḥāmaḏ refers to a deed as well as to an emotion and thus, like the previous nine commands, refers to an externally evident crime. The point is an important one and warrants further consideration. In 1927 J.Herrmann argued that the verb ḥāmaḏ referred not only to an inward appetite but also to an action.[241] If his argument is correct, it would add further weight to the points made above. It would intensify the contrast between law and grace which forms the bulk of the present work. Yet in my opinion it is more likely that the tenth command is the single exception to the point argued above and, unlike every other part of the Pentateuchal legislation, only considers the heart.

Herrmann argued that in such passages as Exodus 34:24 and Psalm 68:16 the verb included an act as well as an emotion. The verb may be translated covet or desire. Alt based a similar thesis on the presence of ḥ-m-ḏ in the Karetepe inscriptions.[242] The arguments of Herrmann and Alt were accepted by Koehler and Stamm.[243] They were opposed by Proksch and Colz, and were severely criticized by W.Moran.[244] Moran pointed to occasions when the verb does not seem to refer to any deed, and urged that it was a mistake to see any contrast between the verbs ḥ-m-ḏ and the hiphil of ‘-w-h.

For the following reasons I reject Herrmann’s thesis and follow Moran.

(i) The verb ḥ-m-ḏ is closely linked with ḥemdâ which clearly means ‘desirable thing’ and not ‘desired-and-appropriated thing’. The noun focuses upon an appetite not a deed. The same is true of ḥemeḏ in Isaiah 32:12; Ezekiel 23:6,12,23; Amos 5:11 (leaving aside Isa.27:2). The Ugaritic ḥmd is also linked with pleasurableness and the beauty that stimulates desire.[245]

(ii) The niphal of the verb seems to mean ‘pleasing’ or ‘desirable’ (Gen.2:9; 3:6; Ps.19:10(11); Prov.21:20). It is difficult to see anything other than stimulated desire in the verses that use it.

(iii) In several passages where ḥāmaḏ is used, there seems to be a distinction between the desire and the deed. Thus Micah 2:2 reads ‘They desire houses and seize them’. There would be no need to say ‘and seize them’ if ḥāmaḏ itself included the idea of such seizure. A similar phenomenon is even more evident in Joshua 7:21 where the three verbs wā ʼēreh ... wā ’eḥmᵉḏēm ... wā ’eqqāḥēm give a clear sequence. What can they mean but ‘I saw ... I desired … I took’? There may be an allusion to Deuteronomy 7:21: ‘Do not desire and do not take.’ In these passages there seems to be a very clear distinction between desire and deed.

(iv) In Exodus 20:17 there is a repetition of the same verb (ḥāmaḏ ... ḥāmaḏ). In Deuteronomy 5:21 there is a repetition using a similar verb (tiṯʼawweh ... ḥāmaḏ). Whatever the critical history of the two recensions it seems unlikely that an intensifying repetition in the one case should (as Herrmann implies) become a contrast in a variant recension. As in two other closely parallel passages (Ps.68:19; 132:13–14) the two verbs are surely used interchangeably.

(v) In Proverbs 6:25 the reference to the heart is surely implicit. The whole surrounding context gives the impression of stimulation of desire, in this case sexual appetite. The link between beauty and desire is also present in Isaiah 53:2.

(vi) In three places (Jb20:20; Ps.19:10; Prov.21:20) where the qal participle is used, the idea seems to be that of desirable beauty. The single use of the piel in Canticles 2:3 again makes good sense if it speaks of great desire or delight.

(vii) In only two passages (Ps.68:17; Exod.34:24), upon which Herrmann leans heavily, the drift of the sense would be more forceful if a deed is included rather than a desire only. Yet in view of the total usage it is unlikely that the central denotation of ḥāmaḏ refers to deed and desire rather than desire only. It is surely more likely that Psalm 68:17 and Exodus 34:24 are cases where there is a pregnant usage of the verb. One might compare zākar (‘remember’, cf. zikkārôn, ‘remembrance’) where generally a simple act of memory is in view, but where (as I have argued elsewhere[246]) the verb may be extended and mean ‘remember and so act’. The fact that such verbs may receive extension of meaning on certain occasions does not mean that they always or primarily denote acts rather than mental–emotional states. In the case of ḥāmaḏ the bulk of evidence favours the central meaning ‘desire’. To read its occasional wider sense back into Exodus 20:17 would in my opinion be a mistake.

I have discussed ḥāmaḏ since our primary focus is on Genesis and Exodus. It is however universally agreed that the verb in Deuteronomy 5:21, tiṯʼawweh, undoubtedly refers to the craving of the appetite. It has not been suggested that the hithpael of ‘-w-h refers to a deed. The point would still stand that there is a deeper probing into the inner life in the tenth commandment. This means that the tenth commandment is not a mere repetition of the eighth as has sometimes been suggested. It is rather a deliberate deepening of requirement in the final lines of the decalogue.

The covenants contrasted

The exegetical conclusions must by now be obvious. There is a striking contrast between the two covenants, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, in at least the following respects: (i) the implementing party (i.e. the one who swears to undertake fulfilment), (ii) personal promise versus national promise, (iii) orientation to crime, public worship, national stability versus orientation to a ‘seed’ for Abraham, (iv) requirement of faith versus the possible absence of faith, (v) personal renovation versus human ability.

Although influenced by Galatians, I am not seeking to draw heavily upon Galatians at this stage. As one reflects upon the Torah itself one cannot but remember the statements of Romans and Galatians. The law itself reveals its inadequacy when considered in detail. It is not of faith. It focuses very largely on nationhood. We would not discern human need from the decalogue if it were not for the tenth commandment. The stage is set for a radical rejection of Mosaism, because although good in itself it is inadequate for the Christian. It is weak and useless (one might suggest) not because of any evil within itself but because of the ‘weakness of the flesh’ (Rom.8:3). If it is to be ‘fulfilled’ the mode of its ‘fulfilment’ will not come from the law itself. The question of conditionality and unconditionality, and unilaterality and bilaterality, has often been discussed. These terms have been avoided here, since they encourage too simplistic views of the covenants. A simple contrast (conditional versus unconditional) is too unsophisticated. It is better to think of two altogether different types of covenant, both in some sense conditional. Yet the conditionality comes in in a different way. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional in its beginnings and unconditional in its security, yet it does not come to complete fruition till it meets in Abraham a response of radical obedience. Although rooted in God’s initiative and goodness, the Sinai covenant is conditional at every point from the moment of its inauguration.

177 J.A.Motyer, Law and Life: A Study of the Meaning of Law in the Old Testament (Lawyers Christian Fellowship, 1978), pp.5–6.

178 H.C.Leupold, Genesis (Baker, 1963–64), p.720.

179 Some argue that ‘obligation’ (Verpflichtung) is a better translation (see E.Kutsch, ‘Gesetz und Gnade’, ZATW, 79,1967, pp.18–35; E.Kutsch, ‘Der Begriff [berith] in vordeuteronomischer Zeit’, in Das Ferne und Nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonard Rost, BZAW, 105, 1967, pp.133–143; W.Eichrodt dismisses views that regard covenant as contract as ‘long-obsolete argumentation of Kratzschmar, from the year 1896 ... revived with no new support’ (‘Covenant and Law: Thoughts on Recent Discussion’, Inter, 20, 1966, pp.302–321, esp.p.304). A survey of the linguistic data concerning bℯrîṭ is found in P.Buis, La Notion d’Alliance dans L’Ancien Testament (Cerf, 1976). Older discussions are summarized by F.R.VanDevelder, Form and History, pp.12–35.

180 Covenant terminology is not to be found in Genesis chapter 3. For interpretations of Ho.6:7, see H.W.Wolff, Hosea (Fortress, 1974), pp.105,121f.; J.L.Mays, Hosea (SCM, 1969), pp.99–100; W.Rudolph, Hosea, KAT, 1966, pp.l41–142, who emend to b’d’dmm instead of k’dm. F.I.Andersen, Hosea, AB, 1980, pp.438f.; and M.Eaton, Hosea (Christian Focus, 1996) do not emend the text but still think Adam is a place name.

181 The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol.3, 1970, pp.25–53, reprinted Mendenhall’s articles, ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition’ (BA, 17, 1954, pp.50–76); ‘Ancient Orient and Biblical Law’ (BA, 17, 1954, pp.26–46).

182 Mendenhall, Archaeologist Reader, 3, p.31. Independently of Mendenhall, K.Baltzer came to similar conclusions in Das Bundesformular, 1964 (see ET, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Oxford: Blackwell, 1971).

183 Among dozens of examples see D.J.McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant (Blackwell, 1972), p.12; K.A.Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (IVP, 1996), pp.92–93; D.R.Hillers, Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea (Johns Hopkins, 1969), pp.29–37.

184 See K.A.Kitchen, The Bible in its World (Paternoster, 1977), p.81.

185 See Kitchen, Ancient, pp.96–97.

186 M.Weinfeld, ‘The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East’, JAOS, 90, 1970, pp.184–203; also his Deuteronomy, pp.75–76.

187 Weinfeld, Covenant of Grant, p.202.

188 By ‘secular’ I mean that God is not one of the parties involved in giving or receiving the oath. All covenants were closely linked with religious faith.

189 On ‘alliance of defence’, see Wiseman, ‘Abraham the Prince’, pp.229–230, and the Assyrian secular parallel in Wiseman, Vassal-Treaties, p.41 (lines 162–168).

190 McCarter suggests that more than friendship is involved and that 1 Sa.18:3 records Jonathan’s transfer of his position as heir apparent; see 1 Samuel, pp.305,340f.

191 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Eerdmans, 1949), p.242.

192 Mendenhall in 1962 spoke of four types of secular covenant: parity, suzerainty, patron and promissory (‘Covenant’, IDB, vol.1, pp.716–717). I put ‘patron’ and ‘promissory’ covenants together as basically of one kind. I do not believe that the covenants of 2 Ki.23:3; Ne.10:28–29; Ezr.10:3 belong to the same type as that in Jer.34:8–22 (pace Mendenhall, ‘Covenant’, p.717). These seem to be law-covenants voluntarily entered into. The people ‘took a curse and oath to follow the law of God’ (Ne.10:30, EB 10:29). They are renewals of a suzerainty type of covenant (see Fensham, Ezra, Nehemiah, NICOT, 1982, p.134; Baltzer, Covenant, pp.47–48; J.B.Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, AB, 1965, p.83). As Mendenhall suggests Ne.5:11–13 is possibly to be seen as a promissory covenant, despite the absence of the term (Mendenhall, Covenant, p.717). Fensham rightly says, ‘Curse (׳ala) is sometimes so closely related to covenant that it functions as a synonym for covenant’ (Ezra, Nehemiah, p.238; see also Craigie, Deuteronomy, p.359).

193 See McCarter, 1 Samuel, pp.202–203.

194 The major commentators however agree in referring v.19 to the oath of loyalty to Babylon, taken by the Israelite king (see W.Zimmerli, Ezekiel (Fortress, 1969), pp.365f.; G.C.Aalders, Ezechiël, COT, vol.1, 1955, p.288; M.Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB, p.315; J.W.Wevers, Ezekiel, NCB, p.107). The oath is God’s oath because it is made before God and required by God (see W.Eichrodt, Ezekiel, SCM, 1970, p.227).

195 Fensham, Ezra, Nehemiah, p.268.

196 See C.F.Keil, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Eerdmans, n.d.), p.245.

197 M.Weinfeld comments, ‘The covenant with Abraham, like the covenant with David, belongs to the “grant” type which differs from the “vassal” type of covenant’ (Deuteronomy, p.74). On renewals of the Sinai-covenant, see D.J.McCarthy, ‘Compact and Kingship: Stimuli for Hebrew Covenant Thinking’, Studies in the Period of David and Solomon … (Eisenbrauns, 1982), pp.75–92; D.J.McCarthy, ‘Covenant and Law in Chronicles–Nehemiah’, CBQ, 44, 1982, pp.41–43.

198 In interpreting ‘kingdom of priests’ two guidelines seem important: (i) the parallel expressions khnym mmlkt and gwy qds suggest that mmlkt is the main noun and that khnym has qualifying and adjectival force (so W.L.Moran, ‘A Kingdom of Priests’, in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (Herder, 1962), p.7; R.B.Y.Scott, ‘A Kingdom of Priests, Exod.xix.6’, OTS, 8, 1950, p.216). (ii) The parallelism of the two expressions suggests that the whole nation is envisaged as having a priestly ministry to the world. (If Moran is correct in his argument that mmlkt means ‘kings’ rather than ‘kingdom’, it would still be the whole nation that is in view.) Although some Israelites would function as a particular priesthood, the central point is emphasizing what the whole nation would be (see Hyatt, Exodus, p.200).

199 B.S.Childs, The Book of Exodus OTL (Westminster/SCM, 1974), p.367. The corporateness of this covenant is emphasized also by J.B.Bauer, ‘Könige und Priester, ein heiligesVolk (Exod.19,6)’, BZ, 2,1958, pp.283–286.

200 This is frequently observed. D.J.McCarthy can even say of late usage of diathēkē in the LXX that often ‘rules’ would come closer to the feel of the word (‘Covenant in Narratives from Late OT Times’, in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (Eisenbrauns, 1982), p.81).

201 Nu.10:33; 14:44; Deut.10:8; 31:9,25,26; Jos.3:3,6(x2),8,11,14,17; 4:7,9,18; 6:6,8; 8:33; Jdg.20:27; 1 Sa.4:3,4(x2),5; 2 Sa.15:24; 1 Ki.3:15; 6:19; 8:1,6; 1 Chr.15:25,26,28,29; 16:6,37; 17:1; 22:11; 28:2,18; 2 Chr.5:2,7; Jer.3:16.

202 See J.E.Latham, The Religious Symbolism of Salt (Duchesne, 1982), esp.p.62, for salt as symbolism of covenant.

203 Other explicit mentions of the Sinai-covenant are Ps.50:15, recalling Exod.24:3–8 (see F.D.Kidner, Psalms 1–72, TOTC, IVP, 1973, p.86), Jer.34:13,18(x2) (see J.A.Thompson, Jeremiah, NICOT, 1973, p.343); Ezk.16:59 referring back to Deut.29:11,12; Ezk.16:60,61 referring to Lev.26:42,45 (see C.F.Keil, Ezekiel, vol.1, repr. Eerdmans, 1966, p.230).

204 See the helpful survey in M.Weinfeld, ‘Covenant, Davidic’, IDB Suppl.Vol., p.188. Weinfeld points to the ‘analogous typology’ between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (p.189), to its being modelled on the royal grant (p.189), and to its unconditionality (pp.189,191). He comments, ‘The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are then a promissory type, while the Mosaic covenant is an obligatory type’ (p.189).

205 H.C.Leupold, Isaiah, 2 (Evangelical Press, 1974), p.325.

206 See J.A.Motyer, Isaiah (IVP, 1993), pp.503–504.

207 In the survey above I have not mentioned figurative uses of bᵉrîṯ in Jb5:23; 31:1; 41:4; Isa.28:15,18; Jer.33:20(x2),25. In the interests of space I have largely kept myself to passages of the Old Testament where mention of bᵉrîṯ is explicit. The material would have been much enlarged if other terms (‘eduth, ‘alah, etc) had been taken into consideration. See Fensham, ‘Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties ...’ ZATW, 75, 1963, pp.155–175, for links between covenant and malediction. Even considering these terms would not exhaust the matter, so pervasive is covenant language and metaphor in the Old Testament. See M.Fox, ‘Tob as Covenant Terminology’, BASOR, 209, 1973, pp.41f.; H.B.Huffmon, ‘The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yadac’’, BASOR, 181, 1966, pp.31–37; W.L.Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy’, CBQ, 25, 1963, pp.75–87. See also J.Hempel, ‘Bund’, in RGG, col. 1514, for other covenant terms.

208 Law ‘Covenant’, WTJ, 27, 1964–65, p.3; see also By Oath Consigned, p.16. My italics.

209 ‘Law and Covenant’, pp.35f. Others who see antithesis between Abraham-type and Sinai-type of covenants include W.Zimmerli, ‘Sinai-bund and Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift’, TZ, 16, 1960, pp.268–280.

210 The question of the origins of the people of Israel is much disputed. See F.D.Kidner, ‘The Origins of Israel’, TSF Bulletin (British), no.57, Summer 1970, pp.3–12. The date, origin and unity of the decalogue are also a matter of dispute. But some scholars recognize its antiquity. See surveys in J.J.Stamm, ‘Dreissig Jahre Dekalogsforschung’, TRu, 17, 1961, pp.189–239; H.G.Reventlow, Gebot und Predigt im Dekalog, 1962; J.Schreiner, Die Zehn Gebote im Leben des Gottesvolkes, 1966; J.J.Stamm & M.E.Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, 1967; E.Nielsen, The Ten Commandments in New Perspective, 1968.

211 The Israel-centred aspect of the giving of the law must be asserted despite widespread assumptions to the contrary. R.Stewart asks the question, ‘For whom was the Decalogue intended?’ and answers, ‘For all mankind, in potential’ (‘Ancient Israel: A Model for Today?’ SBET, 3, 1985, p.33). This seems to be an inaccurate reading of the text of the Torah itself, and neglects Paul’s distinction between those who do and those who do not have the law (Rom.2). It runs into special difficulties in the case of the Sabbath. Stewart says the fourth commandment ‘binds the Christian also’ but clearly would not want the Sabbath law to be literally applied to the Christian as he himself hints (p.29).

212 See J.A.Motyer, Day of the Lion (IVP, 1974), pp.35–37, who argues that it is similar to Romans 2.

213 See Phillips, Criminal Law (Blackwell, 1970). R.L.Wilson says that ‘the Decalogue cannot itself be considered law in a strict sense because it lacks prescriptions for communal action against offenders’ (‘Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in Early Israel’, in The Quest for the Kingdom of God, 1983, p.59). This is the case only if one isolates the decalogue from its context in Exodus 19–24, and from the Torah as a whole.

214 C.J.H.Wright, ‘The Israelite Household and the Decalogue: The Social Background and Significance of Some of the Commandments,’ TB, 30, 1979, pp.101–124, esp.p.102.

215 See A.Goetze, ‘The Laws of Eshnunna’, AASOR, 31, 1951–52 (published 1956), pp.24ff.

216 See G.R.Driver & J.C.Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 1935.

217 M.Resnick, Punishment in Civil Delicts According to the Old Testament Akkadian Codes and the Qur’an, unpublished M.A. thesis (Pretoria: UNISA, Semitics Dept, 1979), p.259.

218 Z.W.Falk, Hebrew Law, chs.5–10. S.Amsler’s survey of motivation in Deuteronomy reveals the nationalistic emphasis of the motivation-clauses (see ‘La Motivation de l’Ethique dans la Parenese du Deuteronome’, in Beitrage zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, 1977, pp.11–22, esp.p.19). Much the same point is revealed in C.M.Carmichael’s The Laws of Deuteronomy, 1974; see also S.M.Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, VTS, 18, 1970.

219 See F.D.Kidner, The Death Penalty, 1963, pp.10–11. Rushdoony gives a fuller list (Institutes, p.77).

220 Williams, ‘Penology’, Bib Sac, 133, 1976, pp.43,45–49.

221 See G.Wenham, in Kaye, Law, Morality and the Bible (IVP, 1978), p.39. Theft of booty in holy war was an exception. A survey of penalties for theft is provided by B.S.Jackson, Theft, pp.130–199.

222 G.Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, p.241.

223 See J.Milgrom, ‘Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11’, JBL, 90, 1971, pp.154–156.

224 This receives support from LH 154, compared with Lev.20:17.

225 Kaye & Wenham, Law, p.44; Jackson, Theft, pp.154ff. Fines other than compensation, and imprisonment, were not modes of punishment in the Torah.

226 Wenham, in Kaye and Wenham, Law, p.12.

227 T.H.Gaster, ‘Sacrifice’, IDB, vol.4, pp.147–159, esp.pp.151–152.

228 H.H.Rowley, ‘The Meaning of Sacrifice in the Old Testament’, in From Moses to Qumran, 1963, pp.92–93.

229 Rowley, ‘Meaning of Sacrifice’, p.94.

230 Lehmann, ‘Oaths’, ZATW, vol.81, 1969, p.74.

231 See G.J.Wenham, ‘The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua’, JBL, 90, 1971, pp.146–148, concerning the law in Joshua.

232 E.J.Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Tyndale, 1964), p.43.

233 See M.A.Eaton, Exodus 1–20 (Sovereign World, 2002); Exodus 21–40 (Sovereign World, 2004); Applying God’s Law [Exodus 19–24] (Paternoster 1999). My expositions of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy are scheduled to be published.

234 Theophany is God’s being made visible but the ‘stuff’ that is seen is angelic. ‘He makes his ministers a flame of fire’ (Heb.1:7). God is not seen directly.

235 See Heb.8:8 (‘finding fault with them’—assuming that the text should read autous rather than autois attached to legei). See also W.C.Kaiser, ‘The Old Promise and the New Covenant in Jer.31, 31–34’, JETS, 15, 1972, pp.11–23, esp.p.17.

236 M.A.Eaton, Joel, Amos (Preaching Through the Bible, Sovereign World, 1998), pp.101–104.

237 See Tertullian’s critique of Marcion in Adversus Marcionem ...; also P.Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Electronic edition, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.), vol.2, §127.

238 See for example C.S.Cowles in Show Them No Mercy (ed. S.N.Gundry, Zondervan, 2003) who contrasts ‘The God portrayed in the Old Testament’ with ‘the God incarnate in Jesus’. Cowles seems to want to be considered an evangelical, but speaks of serious ‘misunderstanding’ in the Old Testament writers and effectively demonizes and decanonizes three-quarters of the Bible (pp.28,41,47).

239 H.Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Clark, 1984).

240 See M.A.Eaton, Living Under Grace, pp.175–177.

241 J.Herrmann, ‘Das Zehnte Gebot’, in Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palestinas, 1927, pp.69–82.

242 See A.Alt, Kleine Schriften, vol.1, p.334, n.1. The line in Phoenician is ׳m ׳p ychmd ׳[y]t h grt z (see H.Donner & W.Rollig, Kanaanische und Aramäische Inschriften, Band 1, 1971, p.6, Text no.26, CIV 16–17.

243 L.Koehler, Hebrew Man, 1956; Stamm & Andrew, Ten Commandments, 1971. I have not had access to the works of Proksch and Volz.

244 See Moran, ‘The Conclusion of the Decalogue (Exod.20,17 = Deut.5,21)’, CBQ, 29, 1967, pp.543–554.

245 C.Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, p.397.

246 Eaton, Ecclesiastes, p.61.

9

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW IN THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

The contrast between the story of Abraham and the inauguration of the covenant with Israel via Moses is taken up by the apostle Paul and powerfully argued in the epistle to the Galatians.[247] The Galatians did not have the advantage of reading Romans alongside their own letter but had to take it as it was presented to them as a statement of Paul’s teaching. There would be other things that Paul could have said but we must take it that he would regard Galatians as in and of itself not a confusing statement of his view of the Mosaic law. At any rate there is a limit to what can be presented within the limits of one book and I choose to focus on Galatians. My exposition of Romans is being presented elsewhere; it includes a study of ‘the law’ in Romans 7.[248] A steady-paced exposition of Galatians has been published also,[249] but here I concentrate on a narrower range of topics.

To discuss in detail the historical-critical questions that surround the epistle would require a monograph.[250] All that is possible here is to state the presuppositions that form the basis of the following pages.

The earliest gentiles to become ‘new covenant Christians’, so far as we know, were Cornelius and his friends (Ac.10–11); they were already worshippers of the God of Israel. Even in those ‘early days’ (Ac.15:7) their receiving the Holy Spirit raised difficulties with Jewish Christians (Ac.11:2). Not long afterwards (AD 45?)[251] large numbers of gentiles began to profess faith in Antioch where there were also a large number of Jews. The news reached Jerusalem (Ac.11:22) and Barnabas was sent to Antioch (AD 45/46?). Under his influence there were further evangelistic successes (Ac.11:24). Barnabas knew Saul of Tarsus and his early preaching (Ac.9:20) and perhaps in AD 46 went to Tarsus to find him and involve him in the work. They returned together and spent a year preaching in Antioch (Ac.11:26, AD 46–47?). After a prophetic prediction of famine, the Antiochene Christians sent a gift to the Jerusalem church, asking Paul and Barnabas to take it (Ac.11:30). It is likely that Galatians 2:1–10 tells of a meeting that Paul had with the Jerusalem leaders at this time (AD 47?).[252] A serious rift could have arisen if their approach to gentile Christians were the subject of disagreement. In the event, despite conservative complaints (Gal.2:4), all went well and Paul and Barnabas were commended. It was recognized that gentiles could become Christians without becoming Jews first.

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and then after a while set out on their first missionary expedition, in which churches were founded in Cyprus and southern Galatia (summer AD 47?). Either just before or just after this mission Peter paid a visit to Antioch as recorded in Galatians 2:11–14. For a while he had free fellowship with the gentile Christians. However, the news of Peter’s behaviour was causing a strong reaction from the conservative Christians at Jerusalem. Peter’s well-known about-turn took place and Paul rebuked Peter in words summarized in Galatians 2:11–14. We do not know precisely how Peter responded but the wording of Acts 15:10–11 is very Pauline and may suggest that Peter took Paul’s point. Certainly he did eventually as the friendly remarks in 2 Peter 3:15 indicate. At about this time (AD 48?) the conservatives at Jerusalem began to agitate more than ever.

They had reached southern Galatia and were troubling the churches that had been founded only a year previously. The successes of the gentile mission were scandalizing the conservative quasi-Christian Jews, and they were visiting gentile Christians to propagate their teaching. The Galatians had listened and had become suspicious of Paul, doubting his apostleship and suspecting that he was (as the Judaizers said) a corrupter of the original Jerusalem gospel. So in about AD 48 or early 49 Paul writes Galatians and in conjunction with the church at Antioch goes with others to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles concerning the matter. The result is the well-known decisions of Acts 15:19–21.

The one major theological enemy that Paul confronted was the Judaizers. It is likely that they were ultra-conservative Jewish Christians whose Pharisaic background made it difficult for them to allow any laxity with regard to the keeping of the Torah. It would be helpful if we were able to totally reconstruct the argument of Paul’s critics and enemies. Yet the only source of information concerning them derives from Paul’s words; they are all we have to use as a basis for reconstruction. It is possible that major aspects of his critics’ arguments received no comment from Paul. ‘Mirror reading’ [reconstructing the history by deduction from the replies to it] rests on the assumption that Paul’s autobiographical remarks are invariably defensive. Paul’s autobiographical section in Galatians resembles the practice of autobiography in antiquity and sets forth a positive view of the nature and origin of his gospel.[253] We must therefore be wary not to simply invert every statement Paul makes. However, if we proceed with due caution we may still detect something of the charges of his enemies. The threefold structure of the letter, suggested below, indicates that the three key issues were (i) apostolic authority, (ii) the truthfulness of his gospel, and (iii) the danger of his gospel, as insufficiently securing the life of godliness. Despite Lyons’s warning, the negative emphasis of Paul’s remarks (‘not from men’, Gal.1:1) suggests that the Judaizers were arguing that Paul’s apostleship was merely derived from Jerusalem. He had not been an original follower of Jesus and was altogether a late arrival on the scene of what had been a Jerusalem-based Christianity. It is likely that he was regarded as a corrupter of the original gospel.

A number of personal accusations are overheard in the letter. Paul had been a persecutor of Christians. It is possible that this was used by Paul’s opponents to discredit him. The defensive tone of Galatians 1:10 and 2:17 suggests that he was accused of having a loose attitude towards sin. It could be urged that his converts no longer trusted him (4:15). Apparently he was accused of contradicting what he secretly knew to be true, for it was said that he had actually practised circumcision but had reduced the message of Jerusalem-Christianity in order to ingratiate himself with gentile converts. Is this the point of Galatians 5:11? Above all the Judaizers obviously had a different gospel in which the keeping of the Mosaic law was essential for salvation (see 2:16), for fellowship (see 2:11–14) and for maturity (being ‘perfected’, 3:1).

The fact that Paul found it necessary to outline the moral implications of the gospel in Galatians 5:13 – 6:10 seems to imply that critics of Paul urged that his view of the law was dangerous and would lead to licentiousness. We may assume that actual charges lay behind the exposition of 5:13 – 6:10.

It appears also that although the Judaizers and their sympathizers were eager to impose many aspects of Mosaism, including the keeping of days (4:10) and submission to circumcision (5:2), there was some carelessness about the law of love. If we may judge from passing statements, those influenced by the Judaizers were fearful and insincere (2:12–13), lacking straightforwardness (2:14). They had become hostile to Paul himself (4:16). The Judaizers themselves had devious motives (4:17). Paul hints at conceit and mutual provocation amidst the controversial situation at Galatia (5:26). Apparently some had been ‘overtaken’ in a sin (6:1). Paul felt it necessary to speak concerning pride (6:3) and neglect of Christian zeal (6:9–10). Apparently the insurgence of Mosaism had in no way heightened love among the Galatian Christians.

An overview of Galatians

After a preliminary greeting (Gal.1:1–5) and protest (1:6–10), the letter to the Galatians falls into three main sections, which take up three main problems. Galatians 1:11 – 2:21 is largely concerned with a statement of Paul’s apostolic authority. Galatians 3:1 – 5:12 restates his gospel in the light of the current controversy. Galatians 5:13 – 6:10 takes up the question of the implications of his teaching, with reference to life and godliness.

We now consider the main argument of Galatians, seeking to bring out Paul’s teaching with regard to the law.

In Galatians 1:1–5 Paul’s introductory remarks touch upon the same three issues. After a strong statement of his apostolic authority (‘Paul an apostle ...’), he states the heart of his gospel concerning Christ (‘who gave himself for us ...’), but expands his statement in order to indicate the consequences of the death of Jesus for Christian living (‘in order to rescue us ...’). Paul has thus already touched upon the three issues that will be clarified: authority, atonement and sanctification. These are the three central matters in 1:11 – 2:21; 3:1 – 5:12; and 5:13 – 6:10 respectively.

In Galatians 1:6–10 Paul omits his customary thanksgiving and plunges into the theme of his letter. His opponents’ ‘gospel’ is no gospel at all; Paul severely announces the judgement of God against it. Verse 10 is probably a comment on the language of verses 6–9. What is it that makes Paul use such strong language? Is he persuading God? Does he have his eye on a group whom he is seeking to please by using such strong language? He replies that he is not seeking to persuade God nor to please men; he is seeking to persuade men; he is seeking to please God.

In Galatians 1:11 – 2:14 Paul affirms his apostolic authority. He feels a need simply to state the facts as he sees them. His message is not human (1:11) but divine (1:12). He has not corrupted an original gospel which he had picked up in Jerusalem. In fact in his early post-conversion years he had little contact with Jerusalem. He admits he was a persecutor of Christians but that was in his pre-Christian years when he was himself a Judaizer. He knows where his enemies are coming from. He has been there himself. But God turned his life around. He certainly did not get his message from the apostles during the early years of his Christian faith (1:13–14). His conversion was independent of the apostles (1:15–16a); nor did he consult any apostle at the time (1:16b–17). It was not until the third year after his conversion that he finally met the Jerusalem leaders. At that time he became personally acquainted with Cephas and met James but he did not derive the main shape of his message from them (1:18–20). At the time he was comparatively little known and had received no commission from Jerusalem, but he was already preaching and the basic content of his message was settled—independently of Jerusalem (1:21–24).

If Galatians 2:1–10 is to be linked with Acts 11, then Paul proceeds to tell of the next occasion he visited Jerusalem. If, on the other hand, Galatians 2:1–10 links with Acts 15 then a major change in the nature of his argument takes place. Galatians 1 had told the story up to the point where it was known what he was preaching; Galatians 2:1–10 jumps to another matter altogether. I prefer the former of these options, but Paul’s teaching is the same either way. On this second visit to Jerusalem, Paul did see the apostles. He went to secure first-hand confirmation that the apostles approved of what he was doing. There was a danger that his ministry among gentiles should be needlessly damaged by rumours of Paul’s disagreement with the earlier apostles who were ministering to Jewish people. He took Titus as a test case (Gal.2:1f.). All went well for Paul’s work. Titus was not circumcised (2:3). Later on that occasion however pseudo-Christians pressed for the circumcision of Titus, but the apostles would not yield. Verses 3–5 may be literalistically translated:[254]

But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek [phrase of concession], was not under pressure[255] to be circumcised—but [this matter arose] on account of the infiltrated false brethren who slipped in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that they might enslave us—to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.[256]

Intruders came into the meeting. Paul’s word here (pareisaktos, associated with pareisagō) makes it clear that the people concerned insinuated themselves into a meeting where they did not really belong. They are at work in a community whose faith is quite different from what they believe, but they have wormed their way in.[257]

No one yielded to ‘false brethren’. Paul was accepted by the apostles. Their spheres of ministry differed but not the central message (2:6–8). Paul was welcomed as in fellowship with Jerusalem-based Christianity (2:9). The one request concerning the poor he had already acceded to (2:10).

Galatians 2:11–14 describes the occasion of Paul’s conflict with Peter. It did not arise out of disagreement concerning the teaching of the gospel but from Peter’s not practising the gospel he believed in, out of fear of Judaizers (a word that strictly means ‘become Jewish’ but which we often use to mean ‘make others Jewish’). Peter acted insincerely and Paul rebuked him publicly. It is at Galatians 2:15 that Paul plunges into a defence of his gospel and thus into the matters that more directly concern us.

Galatians 2:15–21 is a bridge between the section dealing with independent apostolic authority (1:11 – 2:14) and the restatement of his gospel (3:1 – 5:12). What Paul said then to Peter is what Paul wishes to say now to the Galatians. Paul nowhere describes Peter’s response to his rebuke. The Galatians knew the outcome and the ‘bridge section’ in 2:15–21 leads Paul simply to proceed with the theological argumentation with the Galatian Christians.

In verses 15–16 Paul distinguishes between ‘Jews’ and ‘sinners’. Clearly ‘sinners’ is being used relatively to refer to the degradation of the gentile world. Yet he says (v.16) that even Jewish Christians know they are not justified by works of the law, but by the faith(fulness) of Christ. They have put their faith in Christ so as to be justified by the faith(fulness) of Christ. Justification by the law is impossible.

Several matters are of importance here: the meaning of ‘works of the law’, the ‘faith of Christ’ and ‘justification’. The ‘faith of Christ’ is considered below, where it is argued that the translation here assumed is indeed correct. Similarly I assume the correctness of a forensic interpretation of dikaioō and the basic correctness of the Lutheran-Protestant doctrine of justification. (Some modifications will be presented later.) The linguistic evidence concerning dikaioō seems clear.[258] Radical reinterpretations—such as that of Tom Wright that ‘justification’ means ‘be given covenant membership’[259] are linguistically indefensible, whatever other arguments may be presented.[260] The point here (in connection with 2:16) is that a person’s standing before God is settled by faith alone.

J.D.G.Dunn’s view is that Galatians 2:16 asserts that Jewish believers are justified by covenantal nomism on the proviso that they have faith in Jesus the Messiah.[261] This neglects the fact that ei mē or ean mē ‘is sometimes used to introduce an exception to something more general than that which has actually been mentioned’.[262] For example, Matthew 12:4 is to be translated ‘David entered the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him. However, it was lawful for the priests.’ (The word does not mean ‘except’. The priests were not with David.) Luke 4:25–26 is to be translated ‘There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah ... Elijah was sent to none of them. However, he was sent to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon.’ The word here does not mean ‘except’. Zarephath was not in Israel at all. Galatians 1:6–7 should be translated ‘I marvel that you are so quickly moving away from him that called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel. It is not another gospel. However, there are some that trouble you ...’ It would not be right to translate it as ‘There is not another gospel except there are some that trouble you’. Revelation 21:27 should be translated, ‘Nothing unclean will ever come into it. However, those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will enter in.’ The translation ‘Nothing unclean will ever come into it except those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will enter in’ would imply the residents of glory are unclean—which is not the point! John 17:12 has the same kind of usage of ei mē. It may be translated ‘I kept them in your name ... I guarded them ... Not one of them has perished. However, the son of perdition has perished’ (17:12).

Paul must not be interpreted in a way that contradicts what he says elsewhere. Galatians 2:16 says, ‘A person is not justified by the works of the law. He is only justified through the faith[fulness] of Jesus Christ.’ It would be quite wrong to translate it as ‘A person is not justified by the works of the law except through the faith[fulness] of Jesus Christ’. That would imply that we are justified by the law—which is not Paul’s teaching at all. Though we are not to read Romans totally in the light of Galatians, still Romans 3:28 was written by the same person: ‘we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.’ There is no hint that he anywhere means to say ‘we are justified by faith in connection with some aspects of the law’! Dunn’s view makes Paul begin by saying, ‘We are not justified by the works of the law except through faith ...’[263] only to end by saying, ‘We are justified by faith and not by works of the law’. Paul’s thought may have developed but he surely did not leave a contradiction within one sentence. It would also mean that Ephesians 2:8–10 is a radical departure from Paul’s words in Galatians. Even if Ephesians is not by Paul it at least shows how a close disciple understood him. And if Ephesians is indeed authored by Paul the apostle, it surely may be used to help us understand how Paul understood himself!

The vital question at this point is: what is the meaning of ‘works of the law’? Three possibilities merit consideration.

(i) For some the phrase refers to the ‘ceremonial law’. This is the basis of E.D.Burton’s major commentary,[264] and it has recently been adopted by J.D.G.Dunn.[265] Gordon Fee says something similar and insists the phrase ‘works of the law’ does not mean ‘doing good works in order to gain salvation’.[266]

(ii) For D.Fuller, C.H.Cosgrove, C.E.B.Cranfield, C.F.D.Moule and others, nomos in this phrase and elsewhere in Galatians refers not to the Torah but to the wrong use of the Torah, and ta erga tou nomou refers to a legalistic use of the Torah rather than the Torah itself.[267]

(iii) The older view is that the phrase refers to sincere keeping of the Torah. This last-mentioned approach seems to be warranted by the evidence. (Other interpretations will be assessed after we have considered Gal.3:1–14.) There are several reasons why ta erga tou nomou must be taken to refer to works which conscientiously seek to obey the demands of the Torah.

Before we consider the evidence it must be said that there is some confusion here that arises from the difference between what is demanded and what is denied. What is demanded by the intruders in Galatia is that holy days, circumcision and kosher food are needed as the basis of acceptance by God and the basis of further continuation in fellowship with God and his people. What is denied by the apostle Paul is that any works of the law are needed for the status of being a ‘justified’ person in the sight of God or as the direct method of self-sanctification.

Let me put it in a modern form. Suppose someone [call him Mr A] says to me, ‘You need to speak Kikuyu fluently, be a member of the ruling political party, and have a black skin to be acceptable as a Kenyan and remain a Kenyan.’ I [as Mr B] might reply, ‘If you have a Kenyan birth certificate or identity card you are a Kenyan and that is all there is to it! There are no other qualifications.’ There is a difference between the two sides of the discussion. Mr A is demanding three items. Mr B is demanding a different one—and no others!

If the Mr A I have mentioned says, ‘You need three works of law-keeping, “holy days, kosher food and circumcision”, to be a member of the people of God’, Mr B might reply, ‘You need no works of the law at all. You need one thing—Christ and him crucified!’ It can be seen that for one side of the discussion ‘works of the law’ despite being a general term might nevertheless have three special items in mind. But Paul who is writing Galatians is saying something altogether more radical and sweeping. The Christian needs no works of the law at all! Abraham was justified without the law at all. The Spirit was given without the law at all! Abraham had faith in God’s promise at the crucial point (Gen.15:6) without circumcision, without holy days, without kosher food, without Bible, without church, without Sabbath-keeping, without any religious holy building—without anything at all that can be called any kind of ‘work of the law’. Whatever ‘works of the law’ might have meant for the intruders for Paul it was a sweepingly large expression. If it is true that ‘every man who accepts circumcision ... is obligated to keep the whole law’, then ‘works of the law’ must be not only circumcision but any other obligation that comes with it—the whole law.

For an example, no one in Galatia was saying to gentiles, ‘You gentiles have to build a tabernacle in order to be a member of the people of God’, but Paul might well have felt free to say, ‘You don’t need to build a tabernacle to be a Christian—nor put yourself under any other part of the law.’ What is being affirmed is one thing; what is being denied is another. Paul is denying that ‘good works’ of any kind are necessary for status as an entrance-qualification and a foundation-for-progress among God’s people. Good works come into it as the result of salvation and the proof of salvation to other people, but they do not justify, and they are not the direct method of sanctification. The law is fulfilled (Paul will tell us later) but not by a directly Mosaic-covenant kind of obedience.

‘Works of the law’ is a vast phrase for Paul. It includes anything that is distinctively part of the Mosaic system in which God related to Israel.

(i) First there is the phrase itself. As Paul uses the term, ‘works of the law’ is never given a limitation. Even if some particular things are in mind, still the phrase in itself could only mean ‘particular works as examples of any works of the law’. One must insist that ‘works of the law’ cannot mean ‘Only some works of the law’.

(ii) The Hebrew equivalent occurs in the Dead Sea Scroll from cave 4, commonly labelled 4QFlor 1:7, where ma 'ªśāio battôrâ clearly refers to sincere obedience to the Torah as a totality. Closely similar phrases occur in 1QS 5:21; 6:18 (ma 'ªśāio battôrâ), 1QH 1:26; 4:31 (ma 'ªśei haṣᵉdāqâ) and ‘works of the commandments’ in 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 57:2 (where the Hebrew is lacking). In these occurrences it is clear from the surrounding contexts—and is widely agreed—that these phrases refer to conscientious law-keeping and miṣwoṯ refers to concrete demands of the Torah. To take one example, ma 'ªśāio battôrâ in 1QS 5:21 simply alludes to the rule that the scroll has just mentioned that members of the community ‘cling to all his commandments according to his will’ (1QS 5:1) and ‘return with all his heart and soul to the law of Moses, according to all that he has commanded’ (1QS 5:8). Paul’s phrase participates in the usage of his day and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary should be interpreted similarly.[268] ‘Works of the law’ refer to any obedience to the will of God as expressed in any part of the Mosaic system.

(iii) It is worth noting that when Paul addresses Jews or those influenced by Judaizers he speaks of the ‘works of the law’, but when he (or his disciples) is referring to pre-Mosaic times or to gentiles the word used is ‘works’ (see Rom.4 and 9:4–10 referring to pre-Mosaic times, and Eph.2:9; 2 Tim.1:9; Tit.3:5 where gentiles are being considered). Moo points out the essential similarity in the way ta erga tou nomou (‘works of the law’) and simply erga (‘works’) are used.[269] When addressing the Romans directly (3:20,28) Paul uses the phrase ‘works of the law’. When making the same points from the story of Abraham (Rom.4) it would be inappropriate and contrary to Paul’s thought to refer precisely to the law and he uses simply ‘works’. This suggests the essential identity of the two terms and suggests also that ta erga tou nomou refers to works done in sincere obedience.

(iv) Although the intruders were very concerned with the issue of circumcision and table-fellowship and holy days, Paul explicitly makes the point in Galatians 5:3 that one cannot pick and choose between parts of the Mosaic covenant. One must take it that the Christians’ relationship to the ‘whole law’ has been in mind all along. There may be some uncertainty about the main concern of the Judaizers but what concerns Paul is the ‘whole law’.

(v) Paul puts the matter in epochal terms. In Galatians 4:21 he explicitly refers to the whole covenant of Moses. In the light of 4:21–31 one must say that in Galatians nomos refers primarily to the entire arrangement that came into the world through Moses.

In Galatians 2:17–21 Paul develops what he has said in Galatians 2:15–16. Six points are noteworthy:

(i) Freedom from the law may lead to the charge of antinomianism (2:17). Verse 17 is difficult. The question deals, as Paul’s uniform use of mē genoito indicates, with a false conclusion from correct premises.[270] Paul’s teaching (‘seeking to be justified in Christ’) involves the discovery that one’s status before God is no different from that of the gentiles (‘we ourselves ... no less than the gentiles’). If the law is not brought in as a mode of justification and as a rule of life, is that not acknowledging sin, tolerating it and sinking to the level of the gentiles? Is not Christ, in that case, a minister of sin?[271] Although there are other interpretations,[272] yet on most exegeses it is the charge of serious antinomianism that is being raised. I understand Paul to mean that restoring the law is transgression. This gives excellent sense to the following verse (see the paragraph below). Not to abandon the law is itself to transgress the law. This is not always understood and a true doctrine of justification leads to the charge of antinomianism. It is this charge Paul considers in verse 17.

(ii) Returning to Mosaism leads to transgression (2:18).[273] I take it that verse 18 explains the end of verse 17. Christ is not a minister of sin, because if I build up again what I broke down (subservience to Mosaism), I show myself a transgressor because it is not God’s will that the law should be rebuilt. (A subsidiary thought might be that inevitably the law will be broken and ‘transgression’ occur in another way.) Restoring the law is the transgression Paul mentions in verse 18. This interpretation gives excellent sense to the line of thought as it moves into the following verse: ‘because I through the law died to the law’. If it is through the law that one dies to the law, then to resist dying to the law is itself a transgression of the law.

(iii) It is the law itself that leads to the Christian’s dying to the law (2:19). As before this phrase has been interpreted in several main ways. Is it that Paul’s experience of despair under the law leads him to abandon the attempt to find peace by its means? This might be involved but it seems too psychologizing, and reflects a psychologizing interpretation of Romans 7. A better interpretation is that objectively Christ has fulfilled the law and objectively has met its demands. The believer is therefore legally released from its curse. The thought is compact but statements concerning the law in Galatians 3:13 and 4:4 suggest that it should be taken in this way.

(iv) Freedom from the law leads to living unto God (2:19). It is important to note that Galatians 2:19 deals with godliness not with imputed righteousness. This is often overlooked. C.K.Barrett can write, ‘The law is not dead ... as a means of justification it is dead, but as a guide to the life of obedience it is not.’[274] But Paul is dealing here with the charge of antinomianism. His concern is the life of obedience and it is in such a context that he says, ‘I died to the law’ not ‘in order to be justified’ (although he could have said that) but ‘in order to live unto God’. Barrett’s remarks reflect the longstanding Reformation theology in which the law is null with regard to justification but not with regard to sanctification. But Paul’s statement is more radical. Release from the Torah enables sanctification—‘living unto God’.

(v) Justification coheres with union with Christ (2:20). This is Paul’s refutation of the antinomian charge. Justification is not identified with sanctification but it is an aspect of union with Christ and so leads to the godly life. Admittedly, justification does not violently force sanctification but it does correlate with it and enable it. Justification is an aspect of a wider union with Christ which secures that the godly life is possible.

(vi) Paul’s view of justification without the works of the law coheres with grace and does not nullify grace (2:21). It is in fact the Judaizers’ moralism and nationalism that nullifies grace.

At Galatians 3:1 Paul’s main points have been stated. The remainder of his letter will work out and confirm what he has said from many angles.

Galatians 3:1–5 draws attention to the circumstances in which the Galatian Christians had received the Spirit. Paul had ‘placarded’ Jesus’ death and, as they had trusted Jesus, the Spirit had been given. The appeal is to vibrant experience. Paul refers to ‘manifestations’ of the Spirit. C.Osiek believes he has in mind ‘external manifestations of prophecy, tongues, and other spiritual gifts’.[275] Ramsay (from a South Galatian viewpoint) refers to the striking events mentioned in Acts 13:52; 14:3,9; 15:8f.,12.[276] Paul thinks the experiential argument in itself is sufficient to prove his point (‘This only …’). Apparently he refers to an occasion when the Spirit was received experientially, corporately, and in connection with simple preaching about Jesus. What was being preached on the occasion when the Galatians received the Spirit and thereafter experienced so much blessing,[277] including miraculous manifestations (3:5), was a message concerning Jesus and his death and had nothing to do with the Torah. Paul argues from this that a doctrine of justification by simple faith in Jesus without Mosaism is implied by their past experience.

A significant matter is the question of the meaning of akoēs pisteōs. Since akoē has two main meanings and pistis may be taken in more than one way, there are four possibilities. Does it refer to (i) the message of the faith,[278] (ii) the message about faith,[279] (iii) hearing the faith[280] or (iv) hearing with faith? I think the last-mentioned is the most likely.[281] It would seem that human faith is here contrasted with human works. This would mean that trust is in view rather than ‘the’ faith, and this coheres with Paul’s argument as a whole. He is concerned about the reality of faith rather than its formal articulation. Whichever interpretation is adopted there is emphasis on faith (for even if ‘faith’ means the ‘message’ it is still the message-believed).[282]

Until recent decades many scholars wrote about Galatians as though the only issue concerned initial salvation or one’s status before God. Thus Schmithals discusses the law as ‘the ground of salvation’ or as ‘necessary to salvation’.[283] Popular evangelicalism has taken a similar approach ever since Reformation times; many have said that Paul resists the idea of justification by the law but is happy with ‘the law’ as a rule of life in Christian sanctification. Gordon Fee, on the other hand, says that at issue throughout Galatians is not the question ‘How are people saved?’ but ‘whether people who are already “saved” also need to practise specific aspects of the Jewish law’.[284] Basically this is obviously a correct observation. Certainly Galatians is not concerned with initial-salvation only. It is also about practical godliness. It refers to ‘being completed’ (epiteleisthe, present tense, 3:3) and the ongoing experience of freedom (5:1). It is concerned with the continuing easy burden of love instead of the heavy burden of the Torah (5:1). It refers to service (5:13) and continuing in love (5:14). It focuses upon spiritual admonition (5:25) and the actual life we live (5:26; 6:2–6). These matters clearly lie in the area of sanctification rather than justification. The Galatians have already received the Spirit, but they are turning to the Torah as an aid to godliness. Paul explicitly refers to how they are ‘being completed’. With regard to godliness as well as justification (to use the Protestant distinction) the Christian must be free from the Torah in order to live unto God.

However, one must not make this point in too extreme a manner. It is true that Galatians is not only about the question ‘How are people saved?’ but is more about how to go on to maturity by the Spirit not by the law. But it is not necessary to make a sharp contrast. The Galatians were toying with the law as a needful ingredient in maintaining acceptable status before God, as well as regarding it as necessary for progress in godliness. In the same way the people of Acts 15:1 were saying that without circumcision there is no salvation—not no ‘perfection’—and the intruders of Acts 15:1 and the intruders in Galatia are the same kind of people. At the Jerusalem meeting the apostles and elders spoke of how ‘through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved’ (Acts 15:11). Initial-salvation was certainly involved in the Galatians controversy. The intruders were not saying, ‘You are justified with the law but for further progress you need the law.’ Their teaching was saying in effect, ‘You are on the way to being saved perhaps, but if you really want to reach salvation you need the Mosaic law in your lives. If the men do not submit to circumcision your whole position [justification, sanctification, glorification—whatever!] is invalidated.’ Being ‘perfected’ was indeed the main issue (as Gal.3:3 says) but it was not the totality of debate. The controversy clearly involved the total overall position of gentile believers in the sight of God, including the justification which is a basic and initial status in the Christian life, as well as ongoing progress towards perfection. Paul’s reply to the intruders does deal with ‘justification’ quite explicitly. Fee, who constantly makes the point that Paul’s concern ‘is not with how they became believers but with how they live as believers’,[285] actually does not give any exposition of ‘justification’ in the verses that explicitly mention it (Gal.2:16–17; 3:8,11,24). This approach seems to neglect the point that sanctification is built on justification in Paul’s thinking. You have to be sure of initial-salvation in order to ‘work out’ the salvation that you are sure that you have. You go on as you began. You have full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ. Then, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so you walk in him and live the life of the Holy Spirit’s power. But justification and the gift of the Spirit—the origins of the Christian’s relationship with God—are the basis of the Christian’s ongoing experience of the Spirit. Even in the very passage that speaks of being perfected not by law but by the Spirit (Gal.3:3), Paul goes back to how they received the Spirit in the first place—by the initial hearing of the gospel and their initial receiving of the Spirit (3:2). So it is not quite correct to say that the concern in Galatians ‘is not with how they became believers but with how they live as believers’. It would be more accurate to say Galatians is concerned with how they live as believers upon the basis of how they became believers and received the Spirit in the first place. Luther was not mistaken in expounding Galatians to answer the question ‘How can I find a gracious God?’ For the answer to such a question is indeed to be found in Galatians. No one can walk in the Spirit who has not ‘begun by the Spirit’, and no one can begin with the Spirit unless they become a believer in Jesus, the one who removed condemnation by Mosaic law. Fee’s statements can almost be stated in reverse: the concern of Galatians is not only with how we live as believers; it is also concerned with how we become believers in the first place.

Galatians 3:6–9 presents a fresh argument, this time from the Old Testament. How was Abraham justified? Jewish scholars of Paul’s day were accustomed to the idea that Abraham kept the Torah.[286] Such a viewpoint goes back at least to the days of Sirach which says, ‘Abraham ... kept the law of the Most High’ (Sir.44:19–21). Paul however disjoins Abraham from the Torah. ‘He denies the existence of the Torah at the time of Abraham on the ground that the Torah was revealed only 430 years later’ (Gal.3:17).[287] Arguing from Genesis 15:6, Paul points to the fact that in the early stages of the story of Abraham we have only promises given to Abraham (Gen.12:1–3; 13:15–17; 15:4f.) and a statement of Abraham’s faith (Gen.15:6). No mention of any kind of torah is found in the account of Abraham’s ‘righteousness’ mentioned in Genesis 15. Circumcision does not come into it; Israelite nationality does not come into it (Gen.15 is before the origin of Israel). Justification is open to gentiles (nothing distinctively Israelite is found at this stage of Abraham’s life). Simple faith led to Abraham’s being justified without his having any of the qualifications and conditions the Judaizers are pressing upon the Galatians. If Abraham is the prototype for all believers then simple faith is the way of salvation. Gentiles such as the Galatians need no further qualifications or preparations for justification.

Galatians 3:10–14 apparently depends—in one of its aspects—on a missing but understood sentence (‘Cursed is everyone who does not obey the Torah’; no one obeys the Torah; therefore all are cursed). This would imply a spiritual interpretation of the Torah (parallel to Rom.7:7 rather than to Phil.3:6). Paul expounds (rather than simply quotes) Deuteronomy 27:26 in an expanded version. The LXX had expanded the MT by twice adding pas (‘all’). Paul further expands the LXX by adding tois gegrammenois (‘by the things written’). It would not be difficult to defend the expansions.[288] The additions emphasize (i) the totality of obedience required in all the nation, (ii) the totality of obedience for all the commands, and (iii) the written (as opposed to oral?) nature of the law that must be obeyed.

The missing sentence (no one obeys the Torah) is understood rather than stated. This is sometimes thought to be immensely significant. Fee makes much of it saying Paul does not even ‘remotely hint at people’s inability to keep the whole law’. He disagrees with Lightfoot, who maintained non-fulfilment lays us under a curse and says, ‘It utters an anathema against all who fail to fulfill every single ordinance.’[289] I reply again: there is no need to draw such a sharp antithesis. The omission of the precise wording, ‘no one obeys the Torah’, makes the point that God never did want his people to be under Mosaic law—whether the law is obeyed or not! The idea that God wants law-keeping by a religious nation instead of faith is itself worthy of Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:7–9.

But the thought that the law cannot be kept with a 100 per cent obedience is surely also present. The reason why Paul adds the word ‘all’ is because general and partial obedience of the law is not good enough. All the law has to be kept. Fee himself quotes Galatians 5:3; any Christian man who takes the crucial step (circumcision) down the pathway of becoming a Mosaic law-keeping ‘Jewish’ Christian is obligated to keep the whole law! Everything has to be kept, including love of neighbour, including the tenth commandment—even including having a Jewish king (Deut.17:14–15). Surely Paul’s word ‘all’ is making the point that no one can do this. Paul may have been ‘as to righteousness, blameless under the law’ in his own eyes and in the eyes of on-lookers (Phil.3:6) but here he surely has in mind the thought that there are deeper aspects of the law that cannot be kept. Galatians does not expound the tenth commandment; Romans 7:7–25 has no exact parallel in Galatians. But surely we have here the seed-thought that would be developed at length in Paul’s later epistle.

Verses 11–12 go on to contrast the principle of Deuteronomy 27:26 (Gal.3:10) with that of Habakkuk 2:4. On most interpretations[290] faith is contrasted with doing. What is involved in faith is trusting and waiting for God’s action. The law does not require faith (v.12a, a striking assertion!). Life was gained by obedience whether such obedience arose from faith or not. Paul uses Leviticus 18:5b to make his point. The ‘living’ refers to continued national prosperity. It is probably a mistake to think the promise of life is hypothetical (as in traditional Reformed thinking following Calvin[291]) or a way of salvation valid for a dispensation of salvation-by-law.[292] Bruce is right to say that ‘the promise of life is a genuine promise’.[293] It is at this point that the ‘new perspective’ on Paul makes a valid point—although exaggerated and misused. Since Stendahl’s article on ‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience’ (originally delivered as a paper in 1961),[294] it has been increasingly argued that Paul’s doctrine of justification does not concern introspection or ‘seeking a gracious God’. The background to Paul’s doctrine—it is said—is a societal matter rather than a matter of personal assurance of salvation. Dunn treats Paul wholly along these lines.[295] Yet there is no need to posit an antithesis between personal justification and its societal implications. The two are connected; one generates the other. Paul’s doctrine of justification includes individual justification. For Abraham the prototype believer was—in Paul’s reading of the Old Testament—an individual. To have the kind of faith he had is to become his seed. The ‘seed of Abraham’ is not generated by membership of the earthly nation of Israel (Paul’s point in Rom.9:6–13). The fact that justification is by faith only and is the solution to one’s quest for a gracious God implies that justification is not by nationality, not even the nationality of those ‘to whom were entrusted the oracles of God’ (Rom.3:1f.). So Paul’s view of justification has societal implications. If salvation is by faith there can ultimately be ‘neither Jew nor gentile’. Issues of national identity were at stake at Antioch, as Dunn argues.

Although (in my judgement) Dunn and others have gone too far in interpreting Paul exclusively along these lines, it is true that the social/nationalistic aspect of the matter is prominent in Paul’s thinking and is part of his law/gospel contrast (as Gal.3:28, ‘neither Jew nor Greek’, suggests). It is for this reason that one can understand Paul’s dissatisfaction with Leviticus 18:5 as a mode of personal justification. Leviticus 18:5 was part of regulation for a nation. It was largely administered by magistrates. It gave ‘life’. But the kind of ‘life’ that Paul is interested in is not conveyed by the law. The law brought a certain measure of blessing for Israel; Paul is not denying it. However the ‘living’ mentioned in the fifth commandment was explicitly ‘living long in the land’. This was not an adequate principle for Paul’s preaching to gentiles. Whatever ‘life’ was promised by the law, it was not eternal life since it did not necessitate faith. Of course the law can be interpreted as calling for faith—or at least for a new heart. But the magisterial aspects of the law render it inadequate as a personal way of salvation. Paul will shortly explain (3:19) that it was ‘added’ on account of Israel’s transgression and was quite distinct from the earlier example of faith seen in Abraham.

Verse 13 speaks of the removal of the ‘curse of the law’ by the death of Jesus. The Spirit is received by such faith in Jesus not by obedience to the Torah (v.14). Much of this is widely acknowledged as a correct exposition of Galatians. The only point which differs from the commonplace evangelical exposition is the view of ‘life’ adopted here.

‘The law’

There are several writers who do not see in Galatians a radical rejection of Mosaic law, since they think nomos has an altogether different nuance. Thus D.Fuller argues that, since in Galatians 3:10 the statements as traditionally interpreted hinge upon a clause which is not present but which is understood, the traditional interpretation is unlikely. He prefers to treat nomos as referring not to the Mosaic law but to a legalistic interpretation of it. Ex ergōn nomou (‘from works of law’) then refers to something sinful but not to the law itself. Paul is not opposed (thinks Fuller) to a faithful law-keeping but only to works of self-confident law-keeping.[296] Others argue similarly, notably C.E.B.Cranfield and F.Flückiger.[297]

Yet there are major objections to this approach. It is true that Paul’s use of the term nomos has various nuances. Nevertheless there are objections to viewing nomos in Galatians 3:10 or anywhere else as meaning ‘legalism’.

(i) Fuller and Cranfield seem not to take seriously the attested meaning of the phrase outside of the New Testament. We have mentioned this matter above.

(ii) Fuller and Cranfield neglect the flow of thought in Galatians. For the term nomos first occurs in Galatians in Galatians 2:15–21. By that stage of the letter Paul has already said a good deal, so that the contextual flow of the argument reveals what he means by erga nomou when he first uses the term. He has referred to Jewish institutions, mentioning life in Judaism (1:13f.), the ‘traditions of my fathers’ (1:14), circumcision (2:3), Jewish food-laws (2:12). In the sentence preceding Galatians 2:15–16 Paul has used the phrase Ioudikōs zē(i)s (‘live Jewishly’) and Ioudaizein (‘Judaize, become Jewish’, 2:14). In the flow of argument then, ergōn nomou (‘works of the law’) must allude to the totality of Mosaic institutions. It is this meaning that is demanded by the references to the law in 1:13–14; 2:3,12,14. The reference in 2:15–21 must surely retain this meaning. When Paul says that righteousness cannot be attained dia nomou (‘through the law’), why should we now take nomos (‘law’) to refer to anything other than what he has been referring to all along? There is nothing in Galatians 1:1 – 2:14 to suggest any duality in the use of nomos. While it is possible to impose this meaning on nomos, nothing requires us to take it this way.

Paul sets up a contrast between ergōn nomou and akouē pisteōs (‘hearing of faith’). What exactly is the nature of the contrast? It is about law-keeping versus hearing concerning Christ. It is not a contrast between two different ways of keeping the law. It is not (to coin some terms Paul could have used) ergōn nomou en pistei (‘works of the law in faith’) versus ergōn nomou en sarki (‘works of the law in the flesh’). He is discussing whether or not ergōn nomou should be rejected altogether. The fact that it is easily possible to coin such phrases as ergōn nomou en pistei (‘from the works of the law in faith’) versus ergōn nomou en sarki (‘from the works of the law in the flesh’) in good Pauline language is itself a refutation of the idea that there was no convenient phrase Paul could use to designate legalism.

(iii) Such arguments neglect the use that Paul makes of Abraham. The point in Galatians 4:17 is that Abraham was justified and lived a godly life in the total absence of Mosaic institutions. Abraham is not a model of one who keeps the Mosaic law in the right spirit, but a model of one who was justified without the law at all.

(iv) Fuller especially struggles with Galatians 3:18, and has an extra note to deal with it. It is clear that in 3:17 ‘the law’ refers to everything that was introduced into Israel through Moses. Does the meaning change when in the next verse ‘law’ and ‘promise’ are contrasted? Surely verse 18 continues to use the word as in verse 17. It is difficult to see a contrast between nomos, the law, and nomos, legalism, in the movement from one verse to the next. Fuller has two arguments against this. One is that the Judaizers would never have agreed to a contrast between Abraham and Moses, and would have argued that Abraham was righteous on the basis of keeping the law before it was given. Paul must therefore (argues Fuller) be using nomos in the Judaizers’ sense in verse 17. But against this surely Paul is disputing the Judaizers’ viewpoint by insisting that there is epochal significance in the fact that there was a lengthy period in which the law had not been given. He is not so much arguing from particular texts as arguing from epochs of time in Old Testament history. To see a change in meaning in the movement between verse 17 and verse 18 would require at least a definite indication that such a change is required. No such indication is to be found.

Fuller also argues that 3:21 prevents us from seeing a sharp contrast between law and promise. However, if it is true that 3:18 must not contradict 3:21, it is also true that 3:21 must not contradict 3:18! It is true that ultimately the introduction of the Mosaic epoch does not militate against the Abrahamic promise but rather contributes to it. The question is: how does the law aid the gospel? In Fuller’s view it is because there is really no contrast between them at all; the contrast is simply between the misuse and the true use of the law. Galatians 3:21 could mean this if taken in isolation, but this does not do justice to 3:17–18 or to the total thrust of Galatians. It is preferable to view 3:21 as asserting that in restraining Israel’s sinfulness by the imposition of the law, the Mosaic institutions were protecting Israel and thus securing the arrival of Jesus, the seed of Abraham. The two verses, 3:18 and 3:21, must be given full weight and neither should be allowed to cancel out the other. Galatians 3:21 cannot be used to negate the natural reading of 3:17–18.

It ought to be noticed that in speaking of ‘the Law’, Fuller and others are in effect taking the word ‘law’ to refer to the ‘moral law’ familiar in Western theology. It was Thomas Aquinas, especially, who popularized in theological circles the habit of using the phrase ‘the law’ to designate a moral code extrapolated from the Ten Commandments.[298] Paul’s use of nomos generally keeps in view the totality of Mosaic institutions. When Cranfield, for example, defends the law, he is defending not Mosaism but ‘the Law’ in the modern sense of a code extrapolated from the decalogue. It is doubtful whether this is at all legitimate; it certainly would require stronger argument before ‘the law’ could be viewed in this way in Galatians.

We have seen already that another way in which the force of Paul’s thesis has been reduced is to argue that the ergōn nomou (works of law) refers only to the ceremonial aspects of the law. This is a stronger argument than the previous one since it is true that Paul has mentioned largely ritualistic aspects of the law (circumcision, food-laws, the traditions of the fathers), rather than the decalogue. In the particular situation in Galatia these clearly were at issue. Even so, to reduce ergōn nomou to something entirely ceremonial cannot be justified. When Paul does turn to the love-command and the need of godliness (5:12 – 6:10) he does not revert to the decalogue. He rather says that walking in the Spirit releases from Mosaism (5:18). In Galatians 3:17–18 he thinks in terms of epochs of time. So again it must be insisted that what he has in mind is the totality of the Mosaic epoch. Although in this particular conflict heavy emphasis was being placed on the distinctively national and cultural aspects of the law, yet the term nomos (‘law’) denotes a total epoch of time and a total system, including the decalogue. The decalogue receives no special treatment in Galatians (although it does in Rom.13:8–10) because it does not seem to have been the subject of dispute as much as the cultural aspects of the law, notably circumcision. Yet Paul’s dismissal of the law in the interests of life in the Spirit evidently involved an end to direct preoccupation with the decalogue. He expects that the decalogue—with the whole law—will be indirectly fulfilled by walking in the Spirit.

I conclude then that ergōn nomou (works of law) meant for Paul precisely what it meant in contemporary usage: it refers to a sincere attempt to live a righteous life by obedience to all of the institutions of the Torah. The best interpretation of Galatians 3:10–14 is (pace Fuller) to take it that there is indeed a thought which is taken for granted (‘No one can keep the law with regard to seeking a righteous standing before God’). Deuteronomy 27:26 referred to public life in Israel but the principle cannot be applied to personal relationship to God. The argument is compressed but it is the understood clause that provides the missing link between 3:10a and 3:10b. The link is not altogether missing because it is provided by Galatians 3:11–12. Habakkuk spoke of the individual pursuing a relationship with God by faith (Gal.3:11). Leviticus 18 spoke of ‘living’ at a national level by obedience. With regard to justification before God it is the former not the latter that applies.

An important question concerns the precise identity of the first person plural pronoun Paul uses in Galatians 3:13–14,23–25. The ‘we’ is generally taken to include Jewish and gentile Christians.[299] Yet there are indications that this is an exclusive ‘we’ and refers only to the people of Israel. In Galatians 2:15 Paul used emphatic language: ‘We, being by nature Jews …’. This indicates that it is at least possible he is using exclusive first person plural pronouns in 3:13–14,23–25 also. Fung argues that, since the statement ‘We are no longer under a custodian’ (v.25b) is explained by ‘you are all sons of God’ (v.26), the ‘we’ must include the ‘you’.[300] But Fung’s argument is weak. The two statements are not identical. Galatians contains some first person pronouns which are clearly exclusive (2:15) and some that are clearly inclusive (e.g. 1:3–5). T.L.Donaldson shows[301] that among the various statements in Galatians 3–4 there are four stages in the statements concerning redemption. Following Donaldson we may lay them out as follows. There is reference to:

1. The group (‘We’) and its plight

‘We’ were under the curse of the law (3:10,13).

‘We’ were confined under law; the law was ‘our’ pedagogue (3:23–24).

‘We’ were under law, slaves of the stoicheia (4:3,5).

2. Identification of Christ with the plight of the group

Jesus became a curse for ‘us’ (3:13).

Faith/Christ came (3:23–25).

Jesus was born under the law (4:4).

3. Redemption of the group

Christ redeemed ‘us’.

Now that faith has come ‘we’ are no longer under a guardian (3:25).

‘To redeem those under the law’ (4:3).

4. Saving blessings for all believers

‘So that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the gentiles ... so that we [Jews and gentiles] might receive the promise of the Spirit’ (3:14).

‘For in Christ Jesus you are all [Jews and gentiles] sons of God through faith’ (3:26).

‘So that we [Jews and gentiles] might receive adoption’ (4:5).

Paul’s argument deals with how the gentiles come to be included in God’s people. The passages referred to all conclude with a reference to blessings available to all Christians. But the shifts in the pronouns are surely significant. The ‘we’ in 2:15 is emphatically stated over against the ‘Gentile sinners’, and leads into the ‘no one’ of 2:16. (‘Even we know ... for no one is justified ...’). It cannot be accidental that Paul moves from ‘us’ to ‘gentiles’ in 3:13–14, and then moves from ‘us’ to ‘you’ in 3:23–29. It cannot be coincidental that he consistently uses first person plural pronouns when speaking of those who are under the law. This corresponds to Romans 2:12,14; 7:1; 9:4; and 1 Corinthians 9:20 where the giving of the law is related only to Israel. A crucial preliminary in blessing coming to gentiles was the removing of the barrier of the law. The argument in Galatians 3:1–14 is reminiscent of Ephesians 2:11–22. Redemption from the law that was Israel’s distinctive had to be achieved before the gentiles could be ‘fellow citizens with the saints’. Donaldson rightly puts the point: ‘Due to the very nature of Israel’s special role, the redemption of Israel is at the same time and on the same terms the redemption of the Gentiles.’[302]

Galatians 3:15–18 puts the same point in terms of an illustration. It is an illustration more than an argument. Paul compares the two covenants (Abrahamic and Sinaitic) to two similar human arrangements in law. First a general principle is adduced. Once ratified, a covenant is not lightly abrogated. Then the principle is applied. Genesis relates a covenant concerning the coming of a ‘seed’ to Abraham. Torah was not involved.[303] ‘Seed’ is a conveniently ambiguous term which may be singular or collective.[304] If Genesis had used the plural it would not have been possible to refer it to Jesus. The fact that the term used is singular or collective means that the word may be applied to Christ. The ‘seed’ of Abraham is Jesus. Only by being incorporated in Christ are others part of the ‘seed’.[305] All this was promised to Abraham, to be sought by faith.

Four centuries later a further covenant was brought into being, with the nation of Israel via Moses. The fact that an addition was made cannot nullify or abrogate the original promise of universal blessing for all nations through the seed of Abraham. Abraham received blessing without the law. Abraham was the model for justification. How could the Mosaic law be needful for justification if it had not been given in the days of the prototype believer, Abraham?

God came to Abraham with sheer promise (Gen.12; 15). Abraham was said to be justified (Gen.15:6) when he had done no more than depend on God’s mere word. No Torah had been given. When 430 years later the law was added it was not sheer promise. What Paul has said has made the law totally irrelevant. The inevitable question is already looming up in the reader’s mind. Verse 19 follows inevitably from verses 15–18. If one’s interpretation of 3:6–18 does not inevitably give rise to the question, ‘Why then the law?’ the correct line of thought has not been found. Galatians 3:6–18, as understood above, implies that the law is entirely irrelevant to salvation. It thus leads naturally to the next question: why then the law?

Galatians 3:19a takes up the questions that arise. The law is not a means of justification (2:16); it is not a means of sanctification (2:17–19). What then was the law designed for? Paul’s answer is that it is an interim measure. In this, he implicitly disagrees with those writers of his day who maintained that the law was eternal;[306] rather, its functions were temporary. Paul’s phrase ‘added ... until’ is to be interpreted as designating an epoch of time during which the law functioned. The point that the law is transitory is made five times in Galatians 3:19–25 (vv.19c, 23a and c, 24a, 25). It was given ‘because of transgressions’.

The majority view concerning this phrase takes it to express purpose (‘for the purpose of’), not antecedent cause (‘on account of’).[307] The word charin in itself could be taken either way. The majority view is heavily influenced by Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:13,20; 7:5; and 1 Corinthians 15:56.[308] Yet within the context of Galatians there is something to be said for taking it differently.

(i) The view that charin expresses antecedent cause is much simpler. It is not immediately apparent in Galatians what ‘for the purpose of transgression’ means. It requires the introduction of passages from Romans to give it meaning.

(ii) On the other hand Paul is about to speak of the law’s having a restraining effect (3:23) and of being a paidagōgos (supervisor, 3:24–25) with the Galatians compared to children under guardians and stewards (epitropoi, oikonomoi, 4:2). The idea that Israel’s transgression had been so great that the Torah was needed to restrain them until the fulness of the gospel was introduced fits perfectly with the flow of argument. The point is not so subtle as those made in Romans. This means that the Torah was added to an already adequate gospel-of-promise because the greatness of Israel’s sin required restraint. When it is remembered that the law was magisterially administered, it is all the more likely that this is what is in Paul’s mind. The Mosaic system was an interim measure, given to keep Israel moral by means of fear of punishment until ‘the seed’ should come.

Galatians 3:19b–20 is difficult to interpret but would seem to imply (as in the similar reference to angels in Ac.7:53 and Heb.2:3) that angelic mediation of the law implies its inferiority. The phenomena of Exodus 19–24 are interpreted as produced by angels, as in various Jewish writings.[309] God sent angels to bring in the Mosaic epoch; he sent Jesus to provide salvation. The point seems to be that two mediatorial stages were involved in the giving of the law. Far from coming directly from God, the law came through a line of transmission: God–angels–Moses–people. The enigmatic sentence ho de mesitēs henos ouk estin, ho de theos heis estin is said to have over 300 interpretations.[310] If (as seems likely) the ‘one’s of the two parts of the sentence both refer to God, then the mediator Paul refers to is not God’s mediator. Whose mediator is he, and who is he? Bruce and Vanhoye are likely to be right in saying the mediator is Moses and he was mediating for the people in receiving the law from the angels.[311] It is brought in to the argument to underline the inferiority of the law.

Galatians 3:21–22 argues that the law is therefore in harmony with the promise. It keeps Israel in existence and so paves the way for the coming of ‘the seed’. Though it could not ‘give life’ (3:21b) yet it encloses the world under the judgement of sin, leaving only one door open, the door for the coming of Jesus.[312] Since Paul has so far referred to the law only as given to Israel, one might ask why he mentions the world at this point. In line with the contrast of 2:15, the point seems to be that if the Jews are condemned by the law, gentiles are equally condemned for they are in a worse state than Israel.

Galatians 3:23 – 4:7 consistently emphasizes a clear time-contrast. We read of the time from ‘before this faith ... until faith’ (3:23). We have the time-phrase ‘Now that faith has come’ (3:25). We see a contrast between infancy and maturity (4:1) and between two epochs: ‘when we were children’ and ‘when the time had fully come’ (4:3–4). We read of what ‘we were’ and of what is ‘no longer’ (4:7). The contrast that flows through this section refers to epochs of world history before and after the coming of Jesus. The law is an interim measure until the coming of Jesus.

Again a crucial question is: who exactly are ‘we’ in Galatians 3:23ff.? The pronoun seems to refer to Israel. We note that:

(i) Paul makes an explicit distinction between ‘we who are Jews by birth’ as opposed to ‘gentile sinners’. The ‘we’ of 3:23 – 4:7 corresponds to the ‘we’ of 2:15.

(ii) Paul refers to Mosaic institutions including circumcision (5:2) and Jewish festivals (4:10). There is no reason to think that gentiles were ever placed under these obligations in pre-Christian times. ‘We’ must refer to Jews.

(iii) Throughout 3:23 – 4:7 ‘we’ is used at points that refer to Israel; ‘you’ at points where full sonship of Jews and gentiles is in view.[313] When Paul says that ‘we’ were redeemed from being under the law he is referring to the passing of the old-covenant believers into full maturity. Gentiles receive that full sonship without going through the period of infancy that Israel experienced. For Paul the law is only an interim measure and the total Mosaic covenant is abrogated. The Christian church is in a state of adulthood and full multi-national maturity over against the infancy of the pre-Christian people of God, Israel.

In Galatians 4:8–20 Paul expresses his distress at the change among the Galatians (4:8–11), reminds them of the past in which they had been so happy (4:12–16) and warns them against current Judaistic influences (4:17–21).

The sub-unit in Galatians 4:21 – 5:1 is often disparaged. Even Calvin judged that ‘as an argument it is not very strong’.[314] Paul takes the story of Abraham and Hagar and draws from it a principle which he applies to the Galatians. The fact that Abraham’s inheritance went to his circumcised son could be used against Paul’s gospel. Paul replies, ‘But Abraham had two sons, one of whom did not get the inheritance—the one born in accord with the mere human resources and not according to faith.’

Verse 21 seems to mean two things: (i) The legalists have never seen what the law demands. If the Galatians could see the law truly they would never want to be under it. People who think they can be Christians by the law have never seen what the law says. (ii) Paul is about to quote from Genesis. The Torah contains other things beside legislation. Paul says, ‘I want to put something else to you, also from the law.’[315]

Verse 22 recalls the story. God gave Abraham the promise of a ‘seed’. The inheriting of the promise was to come about through persistent faith. After long delay Abraham made a major mistake. He took Hagar and ‘got’ (eschen—aorist) a child through her. He was seeking to get the promise fulfilled himself and thus Ishmael was ‘acquired’. But the Genesis account does not portray this as the right way to achieve fulfilment of the promise. It was an expression of unbelief. Paul is about to use the story as an illustration. Turning to Hagar will illustrate turning to the law.

The birth of Isaac (v.23) was a step forward in the fulfilment of the promise. Isaac was a wonder-child. His birth aroused amazed incredulity. Whereas Ishmael was born kata sarka (‘in the course of nature’, NAB) Isaac’s birth came from the Spirit’s working (although of course involving normal conception) as Abraham was again relying on the promises. In the former instance Abraham had lapsed from faith, turning to a human expedient in seeking to get the promises fulfilled. Paul is repeating the argument of Galatians 3:3. To turn from faith to law-keeping is to move from the Spirit to the flesh. It is relying on human ability and adopting an unbelieving expedient. In verse 24 Paul maintains that this analogously expresses[316] the same principle that is at work in two covenants—for he regards the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic faith as two covenants. He does not, in the manner of Calvin,[317] integrate them into one overarching covenant under different administrations.

Verse 25 is beset with problems of interpretation. The longer reading (To de Hagar Sina oros estin en tē(i) Arabia(i)) is probably preferable.[318] It is a statement that has to do with the interpretation of Genesis. In the illustration that Paul uses, Hagar ‘is’ Mount Sinai and all it stands for.

Paul reminds his readers of the consequences of the lapse of faith. Hagar ‘corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she serves as a slave with her children’ (v.25). Since Hagar was a slave her child was a slave also (as was generally the case in the ancient world). This illustrates the working of the Sinai covenant and the new covenant. This illustrates what happens when the Galatians turn to the law. To turn to the law only produces more bondage. Slavery begets slavery. Present-day Jerusalem (the Judaizers claiming Jerusalem as their authority), says Paul, only bears children for slavery—the Judaized converts. To turn to the law will always lead to bondage and reliance on the flesh. It means thinking that simple faith in Jesus is inadequate to justify, inadequate to sanctify. One turns to a system rather than to a person, and the result is always bondage.

What are Paul’s governing principles here? (i) Faith in Jesus is adequate for the living of the Christian life without submission to Mosaism. (ii) Turning to the law is really a form of panic. Abraham was momentarily fearful that merely by trusting the promise concerning the seed, the seed would not come. Something similar happens when one turns to the law. It means turning away from a simple trust in Jesus to self-justification and self-sanctification by the flesh. (iii) To turn to the law can only produce bondage. Ishmael was not one of the children of the house. He was only a servant-child. But, says Paul (v.26), the Jerusalem above is free. ‘Jerusalem above’ is not the church but the heavenly metropolis from which the life of the church comes.[319] The Judaizers wish to bind the church to the Torah coming from an earthly Jerusalem. They are preoccupied with the authority of what they conceive to be an original Jerusalem-based lawbound gospel. But Paul thinks of another capital city: the Jerusalem above. In the Old Testament Jerusalem was the centre of God’s people, but there is also a heavenly metropolis. The Jerusalem above is what counts. No one gains life by listening to the instructions from the Jerusalem below. Life comes from heaven. C.H.Cosgrove points out that Paul’s argument here deals not with status (justification, sonship) but with whether life in the Spirit depends on law-keeping.[320] The earthly centre of legalism will never help. The heavenly seat of power will help with life and freedom. She is our mother. Spiritual life is not by the keeping of the Torah but by life from above. It is God’s giving new life by the Spirit in response to faith. Galatians 4:27 quotes Isaiah 54:1, where the new heavenly Jerusalem is blessed with many children. The numerical increase of gentile believers is due to the power of the Spirit coming from heaven. At the same time Paul alludes to the barren Sarah. Abraham had to go on believing despite the impossibility to human sight of any fulfilment. He had to go on believing God, not trusting to human resources. He did so and (despite the lapse in connection with Hagar) the promise came to pass and Isaac was born. This is the way of life for the Christian.

Verse 28 bluntly states the similarity of the situations. Believers in Galatia are like the miracle-child; they are not to be like the product of fleshly resort to human expedients. An extremely negative view of the law is visible here.

Verse 29 recalls the fact that in the Genesis account, according to one interpretation of Genesis 21:9,[321] Ishmael ‘persecuted’ Isaac; so it is now. The Judaizers want to impose law. They do not like simple faith. They will attack; they will criticize; they will slander.

Verse 30 recalls the instruction of Genesis 21:10: ‘Get rid of the slave woman. The slave will not inherit.’ In Paul’s terms this means ‘Get rid of legalism. Eschew bondage. Reject the teaching of the Judaizers. Rely upon Jesus with a simple faith.’

Verse 31 concludes Paul’s argumentation. The Galatian Christians should think of themselves as successors to Isaac, and the Jerusalem-based visitors as successors to Ishmael.

Several conclusions may be adduced at this point.

(i) Evidently for Paul the law given at Sinai and the Abrahamic gospel represent two covenants not one. Systematic theologies are often centred around ‘the covenant’ (Barth, H.Berkhof and others) but Paul speaks of covenants in the plural (Rom.9:4; Eph.2:12); and never of ‘the covenant’ as an entity overarching and including the Mosaic epoch. There is a contrast between Moses and Abraham. The language of biblical theology and the language of systematic theology sometimes diverge and it is not necessarily wrong for them to do so. Yet the very extensive use of the singular has overshadowed the significance of Paul’s use of the plural. While the Mosaic covenant is a forward step in the sense of carrying forward the purpose of God which moves towards the seed of Abraham, yet it is also an intrusive step. The two covenants are not assimilated.

(ii) The thrust of the argument throughout Galatians 4:21 – 5:1 is that turning back to Mosaism rather than sheer recourse to God’s promise is to make the same mistake that Abraham made in having recourse to Hagar in order to bring about the purpose of God. Abraham had been given the promise of a ‘seed’ but the extreme delay led to his turning to ‘the flesh’ to promote the arrival of the seed. Similarly the Galatians are eager to see the promises of God fulfilled in their lives. They have rejoiced in the experience of the Spirit and wish to continue to do so. Yet they are having recourse to Mosaism to bring about the fulfilment of the promises of God.

(iii) A consideration of Galatians 3:19 alongside Galatians 4:21 – 5:1 makes one realize that for Paul the law should not have been needed at all. It is only the sin of Israel that necessitated it in the first place. After the coming of Jesus it is ‘no longer’ needed as a guardian and pedagogue. To have recourse to it is trusting to the ability of the flesh to bring God’s will to fruition. In all of this Paul never suggests that it is a misinterpreted Torah that he has in mind. Within this section his first mention of ‘the law’ (4:21) referred to the Torah not to a perverted version or use of it. The Torah itself is no longer the ‘guardian’ of God’s Israel, the international Christian community.

Galatians 5:1 completes 4:21–31 and calls upon the Galatians to stand in the freedom Christ has given them. The ‘freedom’ Paul has in mind is freedom from Mosaic ritual, freedom from loss of blessedness (4:15), from bondage to nationalistic ambitions expressed in the rite of circumcision, from bondage to a system-centred mode of growth in ‘grace’—which Paul would not call growth in ‘grace’ at all!

Galatians 5:2–12 begins with a warning: to receive circumcision implies lack of faith in Christ’s sufficiency and therefore amounts to turning from Christ (5:2). It implies an acceptance of the total Mosaic covenant (5:3). It will negate the Christian’s experience of grace (5:4). Verse 5 is difficult to interpret and could be taken in two ways according to whether the emphasis is on hope or upon righteousness. If the emphasis is on ‘hope of righteousness’ it will mean that our eschatological vindication comes not by Mosaism but by the Spirit. If the emphasis is on ‘righteousness’, understood as day-by-day ethical righteousness, it will mean that godly living is not produced by law but by the Spirit.

At verse 6, for the first time in the letter, the focus is on love. It is notable that the contrast between law and Spirit that Paul has been sketching corresponds to a contrast between preoccupation with circumcision (either for or against) over against love. If the Mosaic covenant (represented in the Judaizers’ eyes by circumcision) is not the answer, then neither is hostility to the law! The law is relatively insignificant; what matters is love. Paul contrasts love as much with uncircumcision as with circumcision. Religious habits are not themselves the key to life, but nor are irreligious habits! The key is a faith in the Lord Jesus Christ which works itself out as love of God and love of people.

Verses 7–12 show Paul remonstrating with the Galatians and denouncing the Judaizers.

Galatians 5:13 – 6:10

At Galatians 5:13 Paul sounds a new note. He repeats his summons to freedom but now for the first time adds that it is not ‘freedom for an opportunity for the flesh’ (mē tēn eleutherian eis aphormēn tē(i) sarki). Why does Paul turn to a different aspect of the matter at this point? Is it because there is an ‘antinomian’ party at Galatia? Or have some Christians taken his doctrine of freedom from Mosaism so seriously that major moral breaches have occurred? Or are some Galatians legalists in some respects but antinomian in others? There seem to be two reasons why Paul introduces another aspect of his teaching here. Firstly, he needs to reply to accusations concerning moral licentiousness; Galatians 2:17 seems to imply that there were such accusations. We have no glimpses, in this section, of any specific group of opponents who are infiltrating the Galatian Christians. Paul does not speak of any false teachers with the same kind of explicitness that we have in earlier chapters of Galatians. He does not speak of confronting anyone (as in 2:11–14) or ask ‘Who has bewitched you?’ It is likely therefore that Paul turns to the matter of godly living—secondly—not because he is facing a party of libertines but because he must as a good teacher give the ‘other side of the coin’ in respect of the teaching given so far. He must show that his doctrine of freedom is not libertinism, that freedom from Mosaism does in fact lead to fulfilment of Mosaic law. This is why he now warns against the ‘flesh’ and points to general requirements of service in love, which are not a matter of legislation (5:13). This love, which evidently has no need of Mosaic guidance, in fact ‘fulfils’ all that the law was pointing to. Thus the law is ‘fulfilled’ without legalism (5:14).

Paradoxically the law-obsessed Galatians show little love. This in itself should be a hint that recourse to Mosaism carries no guarantee of love. The Judaizers evidently believe that Mosaism will restrain the flesh. Paul, who regards the law as an adjunct of ‘flesh’ (3:3), says it is the Spirit who restrains the flesh (5:16). There is, he says, a battle between the Spirit and the flesh so that believers do not do completely what they want in either direction (5:17). But if the Spirit is thus present, the very fact of his leading is one aspect of and a proof of the fact that the believer is in a new realm altogether and has finished with a direct relationship to the law (5:18).

One might ask: how does the believer receive guidance concerning the life of the flesh? How, in the absence of Mosaism, can one know what is sin? Paul replies that ‘the works of the flesh are phanera’—‘obvious’. He believes that the presence of the Spirit ought to make one immediately and directly aware that sins such as are mentioned in 5:19–21a are indeed works of the flesh. It is unnecessary to consult the Torah to discover whether a fit of rage (for example) is a work of the flesh. Nor would it be helpful to be looking up references in Mosaic law, for many of the items in these verses receive no treatment in the Torah. If the Christian indulges in such sins they will forfeit their inheritance of the kingdom (5:21b). This ‘inheritance’ is not ‘justification’, for the two are distinct. One leads to the other (as the story of Abraham shows and as is suggested in the dia, ‘through’, in Romans 4:13).

As is clear in at least one place,[322] ‘inheritance’ has both present and future dimensions. The warning of Galatians 5:21 means either that one’s present experience of God’s blessing is lost or that one is in danger of being ‘saved through fire’ (Paul’s phrase in 1 Cor.3:15). The flow of thought suggests that this life is what Paul has in mind. For the kind of love Paul has in mind will lead to God’s blessings in this life as well as beyond. The fruit of the Spirit (5:22f.) has love as its first aspect. If one focuses on love the remaining aspects of the (unitary) fruit of the Spirit will follow. ‘Against such there is no law’ is a litotes comparable to Acts 21:39 (‘not a citizen of an unimportant city’) and Romans 1:16 (‘not ashamed of the gospel’). It is an emphatic way of saying: this fulfils all that Mosaism required. A person free of the sins of 5:19–21a and characterized by the traits of 5:22–23 has fulfilled the Torah. Those who are in fellowship with Christ (hoi ... tou Christou) are in such fellowship because they have resisted their sinful inclinations.

It is generally thought that verse 24 refers to all Christians. If so, it will mean that a transfer from the kingdom of darkness has taken place (see Rom.5:12–21; Col.1:13) such that in principle the power of sin is broken. However, since not all Christians actually and inexorably crucify sin (see Gal.6:1) it is possible that hoi ... tou Christou refers to those who are actually and currently in living fellowship with Jesus. The first part of the sentence then refers to a section of the Christian community, not all of it. The latter part of the sentence refers to the result: they alone actually mortify sin.

Paul appeals to the Christians to obey the Spirit (5:25) and itemizes some aspects of what this will mean. It will involve avoiding mutual provocation (5:26)—a sin evidently rife among the Galatian Christians despite their attachment to the law. It will involve restoration of the fallen (6:1), bearing the burdens of others (6:2). Here, in an almost casual manner, Paul uses the phrase ‘law of Christ’. His meaning must be taken from the total thrust of all that he has said in Galatians, especially 5:13 – 6:1. This ‘law’ refers not to the sayings of Jesus (which are not mentioned in Galatians), nor to a spiritualized version of the Mosaic law (this would militate against everything he has said) but to the two things Paul has mentioned thus far: the primacy of love and deliberate step-by-step obedience to the Spirit (5:25). One aspect will be burden-bearing. This is the law of Christ. The phrase is ironical. It is as though Paul were saying: ‘Do you want to be under a law? I will give you one: practise love and keep in step with the Spirit. This is the law—of Christ and not of the Mosaic covenant.’ In the light of the total thrust of Galatians the force of the phrase must be in antithesis to Mosaic law.[323]

Paul continues to focus on ‘life in the Spirit’ when he comments briefly on one’s attitude to oneself (6:3–5) and to the needs of the ‘instructor’ (6:6). Verses 6:7–8 are important. The Christian must sow to the Spirit. Their concern is not so much with the Torah but with the direct leading of the Spirit in the pathway of love. The Spirit’s leading will always be along the pathway of love. His leading will not contradict the moral aspects of the Torah although it will go beyond them. Much depends on whether or not the Christian will ‘sow’ to the Spirit or to the flesh. ‘Reaping eternal life’ refers to the actual enjoyment of the powers of the kingdom (compare 5:21). ‘Destruction’ is Paul’s term for forfeiting the enjoyment of the kingdom (5:21) and (it may be suggested) for the loss that takes place at the judgement seat of Christ when such a Christian is ‘saved through fire’ (1 Cor.3:15). This interpretation differs from the usual interpretation of Galatians 6:8. Its justification depends on the whole line of interpretation of the letter thus far. There is a hermeneutical circle here. If one consistently confines oneself to interpreting the warnings of Scripture as references to apostasy or proven non-genuineness of salvation then one will follow the same line here. But the thesis of this work is that a third approach is possible, and that the warnings of Scripture may be taken to refer to lack of reward (near and far, this-life and beyond-this-life). One’s overall approach to this matter will determine how one reads passages such as these. Certainly Paul is addressing Christians here. Tracing the thread of argument in the various warning passages will inevitably follow one of the three routes I mention. The most likely understanding is that Paul does not refer to apostasy, does not invite introspection, but warns nevertheless against severe loss here and hereafter. Two concluding exhortations (6:9–10) bring this section to a close.

Galatians 6:11–18 need not detain us overmuch. Paul takes up the pen himself (6:11) as he brings his letter to a close. He still cannot resist resuming his central concern. Still he must warn against the Judaizers. He points to the outwardness of circumcision (6:12). Does verse 13 refer to gross sins of the Judaizers or to the fact that the law cannot be perfectly and internally fulfilled when it is directly approached? If this letter were Romans the latter would be a correct interpretation. In Galatians one cannot be sure that the thought is always running parallel to Romans, yet probably the reasoning here is comparable to that in Romans 2:21–29 and 7:7–25. In Galatians 6:13b Paul is still concerned with Mosaism versus the ‘law of Christ’. The legalist is inclined to boast of an external obedience (6:13b, see Lk.18:9,11f.). Paul will boast only in Christ (6:14). The ‘new creation’ of God in the heart, the result of the direct work of God, is all that matters to him (6:15). It is only this ‘rule’—again the word is ironical—that receives his benediction (6:16). He hopes his letter will deal with those who think otherwise, and that he will receive no further distraction (6:17). Upon this note his letter closes with a final benediction (6:18).

Conclusion: the law in Galatians

We may summarize Paul’s view of the law as it appears in Galatians in a number of propositions.

(i) Paul’s concern in Galatians is with the entire corpus of Mosaic institutions. His argument generally implies this. There are references to circumcision (2:3; 5:2–3,6,11; 6:12–13), to food-laws (2:12), calendrical regulations (4:10). Yet the ritual and ceremonial aspects of the law are not his only concerns. ‘Works of the law’ refers to the totality of Mosaic institutions. The word nomos also generally refers in Paul to the totality of Mosaism. This is clear when he uses the term in speaking of an epoch of time (Gal.3:17,23,24) or when he speaks of the whole law (5:3,14). I have argued that it is what is in view when he speaks of the ‘works of the law’ (2:16; 3:2,5,10). In Galatians 3:10 the ‘book of the law’ clearly refers to written Torah with its many institutions. Other uses of the term in the same contexts generally retain the same meaning and refer to the totality of Mosaic institutions looked at as a whole (2:19,21; 3:11–12,18–19,21; 4:4–5,21; 5:4,18). In one instance (4:21) reflection on the Torah includes the book of Genesis. In Galatians 5:23 we have a negative statement (‘against such there is no law’) which reflects upon the Torah. The ‘law of Christ’ is mentioned only in Galatians 6:2 and here there is antithesis to the law of Moses. Thus in virtually every instance in Galatians nomos directly refers to or reflects upon the totality of Mosaic institutions. When Galatians 3:10 cites Deuteronomy 27 the moral element is included, for the twelve curses of Deuteronomy 27:15–26 mention such matters as idolatry (27:15), dishonouring parents (27:16), fraud (27:17). The curses are not confined to ceremonial matters.

(ii) Paul maintains that Mosaism fails as a means of justification or of sanctification. It does not help in justification (2:16; 3:11). It fails to sanctify (2:19). It fails to give righteousness (3:21). It fails to give the Spirit (3:2–5). It cannot lead to inheritance (3:18). It cannot give life (3:21). It cannot give freedom (4:21–31) but only brings bondage (4:21 – 5:1).

(iii) Paul asserts the total abolition of the law for the Christian. He does not envisage that such an abrogation will result in a consequent diminishing of godliness. He denounces licentiousness but the righteousness he envisages for the Christian is not derived from the Torah although it fulfils the Torah. Paul’s assertion of freedom from the Torah is radical. Salvation neither begins with nor continues by any part of the Mosaic law. Justification functions without the law. The law should not be brought back in for the purposes of sanctification. The Spirit is received without the law. The Galatian Christians must radically reject those who would re-impose Mosaism. The Hagar allegory implies that when recourse is had to the law it is only the ‘flesh’ that is at work. Just as Ishmael was the product not of Abraham’s faith but of his temporary disbelief in the promise, so the law (which is ‘not of faith’) was brought into salvation history on account of the sins and disbelief of Israel. It was thus an interim measure. It tyrannized over the nation during the period between Moses and Jesus. It has now however been removed and the Christian should need no direct recourse to it. It is ignored in justification (2:16); it must not be turned back to for sanctification (being ‘perfected’, 3:1); the ‘hope of righteousness’ similarly is unrelated to the Mosaic law.

(iv) Recourse to the law results only in diminished spirituality. This fact is not directly asserted by Paul but it is implied in his descriptions of events. In Paul’s view the Judaizers were guilty of much sin despite their legalism. They perverted the gospel (1:8–9) and spied out liberty (2:4). This could be a matter of simple conviction. Yet Paul also portrays the life of the Judaizers as characterized by insincerity (4:17) and avoidance of suffering (6:12). Paul describes his own pre-Christian life in similar terms (1:13). Under the influence of the Judaizers even the greatest of Christians became infected with fear (2:12). Thus Barnabas allowed a breach of fellowship (2:13) and was inconsistent in his living out the gospel (2:14). The Galatian Christians lost their joy (4:15). Christ needed to be formed in them again (4:19). Paul hints at loss of love among the Galatians (5:6) and damage to their fellowship (5:9,26; 6:1). Evidently in his view increased preoccupation with Mosaism did not heighten spirituality but lessened it.

(v) The Mosaic law was intended to restrain sin in Israel and so further God’s saving purpose. For the apostle the Torah is no longer a ‘rule of life’ for the Christian. Nor does it persuade of sinfulness.

(vi) Paul uses a number of different arguments to support his position. His arguments may be listed as: (a) Scriptural—3:10–14; 4:21 – 5:1, (b) Scriptural-historical—3:6–9,15, (c) Pragmatic-expediential—3:28–29, (d) Christological—Christ replaces Torah, 2:16, (e) Personal—4:11,12–20; 5:10–12, (f) Practical—law fails, 2:16, (g) Experiential—freedom from the law yields positive results, 3:1–5; 4:6–7; submission to the law induces bondage, 4:8–10; 4:15; 5:1,4.

(vii) Paul’s teaching concerning freedom from Mosaism correlates with a high doctrine of the Spirit. In Galatians 3:1–5 Paul speaks of an experiential ‘receiving’ of the Spirit which could be recalled as a memorable event. In 5:19 the works of the flesh are not said to be ‘revealed’ by the law; rather they are ‘obvious’. One who ‘walks in the Spirit’ should not need Mosaism to detect immorality, impurity, licentiousness and so on. Meditation upon a codified document is unnecessary. The characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit do not include any reintroduction of the law. In the Torah the love-requirement is found amidst lists of ritual requirements; yet the Spirit will lead into love as a first priority. Paul puts love first in the list of the various aspects of the fruit of the Spirit. The remainder of the list involve aspects of the life of the Spirit that will follow once Christian love is practised. By living in such a way the Christian ‘fulfils the law’ without directly focusing upon the law. When one does focus on Mosaism this does not lead to the fulfilling of the law. Rather, legalists lose their joy (4:15), struggle to find sanctification by the flesh (3:1–5), forget the way they received the Spirit (3:6–9), fall into bondage and produce only slaves as converts (4:21–31). They cease to run well (5:7). Life becomes burdensome and the ‘easy burden’ of love is forgotten (6:2).

(viii) The alternative to righteousness by law is righteousness by the Spirit. The Spirit is present in the Christian. He enables love. It is through love that faith serves God. God requires the obedience of ‘sowing to the Spirit’. The works of the flesh are (presumably again through the Spirit) obvious to the Christian. The Christian ‘keeps in step with’ the Spirit and thus fulfils the law. This kind of life is freedom. It motivates the Christian because it is presently and eschatologically rewarding.

(ix) The law is fulfilled indirectly by walking in the Spirit and the practice of Christian love. There is striking paradox at this point. Although not ‘under’ the law, the Christian fulfils it. Looking solely to the power of the Spirit, believers thus fulfil that which they were not attending to, the Mosaic law. By focusing on the Spirit they keep and more-than-keep the lower level, the Torah, the original purpose of which was to restrain the sins of Israel. The Christian fulfils the Torah, but not by being ‘under’ it. To ‘fulfil’ the law means to more-than-keep it. It is to live at such a level that the Mosaic law is outclassed.

Paul, the law and legalism

It will be seen that I am not wholly convinced by the ‘paradigm shift’[324] that has taken place in recent years, largely due to the work of H.Räisänen and E.P.Sanders.[325] The two have a good deal in common (and each had access to the other’s manuscript). Both work with only six letters of the Pauline corpus (Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Phil. and 1 Thess.). Both build on Stendahl’s 1963 article, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience ...’. Both consciously oppose what is often called the ‘Lutheran orthodox’ approach to Paul’s view of the law. Sanders’s earlier work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, had urged that Paul was not struggling to ‘find a gracious God’; in the contemporary setting Paul would see the Israelite’s good works as the response by one already in covenant with God, maintaining his position within the covenant relationship. Räisänen and Sanders argue that Paul does not have a unified and coherent view of the law. Räisänen points to five areas in which he believes Paul says conflicting things concerning the law. (i) Paul is said to work with differing concepts of the law at different points. Thus while he generally believes that the law was given to Israel alone, at other points he argues that the gentiles also come within its embrace. Also while he sometimes seems to postulate no divisions within the law yet in practice he focuses upon its ethical aspects. (ii) While Paul seems at times to abrogate the law he elsewhere seems to envisage a continuing role for it. (iii) Paul both argues that the law can be fulfilled yet also teaches that to do so is impossible. (iv) At some points Paul denies that the law can ‘give life’ while saying elsewhere that it has a life-giving purpose (Rom.7:10). (v) Paul utterly denies that the law is a gateway to salvation yet in Romans 9–11 refers to Israel’s continuing significance as an elect nation. Sanders maintains much the same viewpoint with regard to the first, second and fourth items mentioned.

There is not space to survey all the issues involved or offer a detailed reply. Brief comments must suffice.

(i) Sanders is surely right to see that Paul’s view of justification involves not only a rejection of legalism but also a rejection of the Mosaic covenant. The arguments of Galatians 3:15 – 4:7 and 2 Corinthians 3 imply as much.

(ii) I think Räisänen is right to argue that in Romans 9–11 Paul sees a future for the nation of Israel (although in the light of 9:6 not all would agree), and that this may be in tension with Galatians 3–4. Yet the tension is not as great as Räisänen suggests. The argument in Romans 9–11 does not generally (outside 9:4) go back to Moses; rather it goes back to ‘the fathers’. Paul views Israel as having a hope based not on the Torah but on God’s faithfulness to Abraham.

(iii) Räisänen contends (against Sanders) that Paul assumes a more ‘legalistic’ religion than is visible in the Jewish documents of the same period. One may question however whether popular religion of Paul’s day was as free from legalism as the written works of the age. Is Paul’s polemic aimed at erudite, intelligent, contemporary theology? Paul’s polemic targets sin in whatever form it comes. If his life’s work involved popular evangelism, his written works were likely to be countering something popular rather than something academically respected by the rabbis. It is arguable that by Paul’s standards contemporary Judaism was legalistic, as indeed is every religion in human history, including some deviant versions of the Christian faith, which Paul would have regarded as ‘another gospel’. ‘Covenantal nomism’ is still a form of religion that Paul would have called ‘being perfected by the flesh’.

(iv) A major question concerns the exegesis of Romans 2:12–16,25–29. Räisänen thinks non-Christian gentiles are in view. Possibly, yet there is much to be said for the alternative view that the focus is on Christian gentiles. If Räisänen’s exegesis of Romans 2 is not correct the problem of Paul’s consistency is not so great.

(v) My own view is that Paul’s statements concerning freedom from, yet fulfilment of, the Torah are consistent. The Christian who walks in the Spirit deliberately fulfils the Torah accidentally. A consideration of this proposition will go far to resolve the tensions in Paul’s statements concerning the law. The law is ‘established’ but not by the Christian’s being under it. Paul seems to have antinomian leanings in that he teaches the abolition of the Mosaic covenant, but then he has a surprising twist of thought in which the law is fulfilled, despite its abolition, by the Christian’s walking in the Spirit.

(vi) The tensions that Räisänen and Sanders point to would perhaps be resolved if it were accepted that Paul can view the law on two levels. He can look at it simplistically. Viewed thus, the law restrained sin by means of fear of punishment. It was tagged on to the gospel, but was no part of the gospel. It was never ‘of faith’ but was given to define visible, public sin and so restrain it until ‘the Seed’ should come. Yet (in Romans) the last of the Ten Commandments suggested a deeper way of viewing the law. Thus there can be a duality in Paul’s view of the law. Looked at simplistically the law held no terrors for him. He had been a moral, upright Pharisee. No one could ‘blame’ him for any transgression. Yet he knew also of a deeper way of looking at it.

(vii) One matter seems to be of special importance. When discussing Paul’s view of the law, Reformation traditionalists—and many others also—assume that Paul is arguing against justification by law-keeping. However, it seems that too little consideration has been given to the fact that many of Paul’s statements concerning the law are linked not with his doctrine of justification but with his doctrine concerning godliness. In Romans 7:5–6 (for example) freedom from the law results in fruitfulness. Philippians 3 is concerned not simply with justification but with experiencing Christ’s power, reaching the exanastasis (the high-level of resurrection-glory?), receiving the prize for one’s labours. Paul focuses as much if not more on life over the course of many years than upon the mode of entry into the Christian community. This suggests that Paul takes freedom from the law much more seriously than some think, and leans in a direction that could be misunderstood as ‘antinomian’. For him, Mosaism hinders not only justification but every aspect of the Christian life. This radical combination of apparent-but-not-real antinomianism, combined with fulfilment of the law indirectly, is an insufficiently explored paradox in Paul’s teaching. While Sanders’s and Räisänen’s works contain much interesting exegesis, it appears that they have not grasped Paul’s view of freedom from the law in all of its aspects. R.H.Gundry makes a similar point. Where Sanders thinks the subject of Galatians is the condition on which gentiles enter the people of God and not how one stays in the people of God, Gundry takes a contrary view and rightly says that ‘the question of staying in is the issue, at least the primary one in Galatians’.[326] These brief and sketchy comments are not intended as a complete statement of my position concerning Romans and other Pauline material, but as a hint that suggests the task of finding harmony in Paul has perhaps not been carried forward as far as it could in the works of Sanders and Räisänen.

Our interpretation above has confined itself largely to Galatians, and these barest hints concerning a wider perspective must suffice.

Some objections considered

Since I have assumed that Paul’s view is to be taken as a norm for the Christian, it is well that some objections to Paul’s view, or at least to my exposition of his views, be considered. One obvious question is: does not Christian godliness require definition and content? What will define the nature of Christian godliness if not the Mosaic law or an ethical code derived from it? Is not ‘obedience to the Spirit’ altogether too vague a concept? Might not the Mosaic law define what that obedience actually is? J.B.Webster comments, ‘Any talk about human obligation remains very abstract and formal if it does not actually specify the shape that human life takes in entering into God’s revealed purpose.’[327] One might answer as follows:

(i) However troubled one might be about the ‘vagueness’ in the concept of ‘obedience to the Spirit’, it is a problem which Paul did not seem to have. Paul did believe that the Spirit’s ministry is adequate to lead and to motivate. He did not make much use of Mosaic law in giving structure to Christian godliness.

(ii) This does not mean however that Christian godliness is beyond verbal discussion. One can put into words the way the Spirit leads, as the admonitory passages of the New Testament make clear.

(iii) On the other hand it is doubtful whether decisions concerning particular problems may be resolved by casuistry. L.B.Smedes asks us to

consider an armed man trapped in a bank. He takes everyone in the bank hostage and threatens to kill them all. You tell him that he will be allowed to go free if he puts down his guns and surrenders. You lie, you know he will be arrested.

Smedes goes on to say that this is a case of ‘justified lying’.[328] But where in this is there room for the direct leading of the Spirit? A simple moralistic decision concerning whether or not a lie is justified in this situation ignores the possibility that ‘at that time you be given what to say’. I do not suggest that the moral issue is unimportant; I merely observe that Smedes gives no scope for the leading of the Spirit. Yet it is precisely this unusual help that was promised the disciples in a critical situation (Matt.10:19). Smedes is concerned about casuistry. The New Testament makes more of the direct help of the Spirit. This leads to another question: might not different Christians be led differently amidst the crises of life? Might not the same Christian be led differently in different but similar situations? This would not be the case if it were simply a matter of finding the correct sub-sub-section of a moral code to apply (which might in any case be difficult in the life situation that Smedes envisages).

(iv) The fact that the leading of the Spirit transcends the Torah does not mean that the leading of the Spirit produces anything less than the morality of the Torah. There is therefore an a posteriori check on anything claimed to be the leading of the Spirit. If the morality of the Torah was breached, then the leading of the Spirit was not being followed. In the last analysis the righteousness of the law is fulfilled. Paul dies to the law in order to live unto God by the Spirit. But living unto God by the power of the Spirit will fulfil the law—and a posteriori may be seen to have done so.

(v) No doubt it will be said that there may be much self-deception about the leading of the Spirit. Agreed! But there is also much self-deception concerning obedience to the law! One only has to consider the New Testament presentation concerning the scribes and Pharisees to note that high legalism may be combined with self-deception. For example, amidst the hatred and deceit involved in the trials of Jesus his enemies stay outside the palace of Pontius Pilate to ensure they keep the regulations concerning ceremonial uncleanness (Jn18:28)! Here surely is moral antinomianism, law-abiding sin. Why should it be thought that only a doctrine of ‘obedience to the Spirit’ leads to self-deception but that the law will do otherwise? Is it not the most grotesque self-deception when men say of Jesus ‘we have a law and by that law he ought to die’?

(vi) It may be suggested that Paul does use the law in exhortation. The fact however is that such a paraenetic use is rare. Of course much depends on what one means by ‘the law’. One finds a variety of contradictory statements about this. I.H.Marshall writes, ‘with unwearying and almost tiresome insistence he is constantly inveighing against the idea that any law or code (i.e. any external control), even though it be what he devoutly regarded as the divinely given Law of the Old Testament, is inadequate to the ethical needs of man’.[329] On the other hand H.N.Ridderbos discusses whether Paul holds to a ‘tertius usus legis’ (third use of the law);[330] Ridderbos holds that Paul ‘time and again harks back to the law ... when he wishes to define the content of the new obedience’.[331] What is happening here is that Ridderbos is treating any kind of call to obedience as a reference to law. We have seen this many times but it is a non sequitur. A closer look at the texts he cites reveals that they are general references to God’s right to command (1 Cor.7:19) or to the statement that love fulfils the law (Rom.13:8–10; Gal.5:14) or to the fact that Paul is ennomos tō(i) Christō(i) (1 Cor.9:21; Gal.6:2). None of this really amounts to using specific citations of the Torah as a guide to godliness. The only text which actually includes reference to the specific content of the law seems to be Ephesians 6:1–4. Here Paul shows that life in the Spirit (Eph.5:18–20) is fulfilled in various relationships and coheres with the commandment concerning honouring parents. I have no objection to citation of the decalogue (although the Sabbath requires radical alteration to be workable!) but the method of approach to it is, in my opinion, an indirect one. Nine of the ten commandments are fulfilled virtually to the letter by walking in the Spirit; over two thousand verses of legislation are also fulfilled—but not to the letter—by walking in the Spirit. The fact that Paul can refer to some of the commands of the decalogue does not negate the fact that he makes minimal use of the Torah in his exhortations to Christian godliness.[332]

C.F.H.Henry thinks for example that ‘The first commandment is everywhere interwoven in the New Testament’ and goes through each command of the decalogue seeking to show its presence in the New Testament.[333] Other writers can maintain that the decalogue is conspicuously not present in the New Testament! How can there be such a vast contradiction? Determining whether the New Testament does or does not use the decalogue should surely be a simple matter. The reason for the disagreement is failure to note how the content of the decalogue overlaps with the righteousness of the New Testament without any citation of the decalogue. If the God of the Mosaic law and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same, and if the Torah was leading Israel in the direction of new-covenant godliness, we would expect there to be a large measure of overlap, without implying that life under Torah and life in the Spirit are the same. In fact there are not many of the two thousand or so rulings of the Torah which are directly relevant to the Christian. Henry succeeds in demonstrating an overlapping of content in the commands of the New Testament and the decalogue. He is weak however in his comments concerning the Sabbath, where an overlapping of content is difficult to find. But to accept that there is an overlapping of content and to assert that the decalogue is cited, expounded or urged are two different things. The righteousness of the New Testament fulfils the Torah. One may therefore expect the admonitions and discussions concerning obedience to overlap in content with the decalogue. With the exception of the Sabbath this is precisely what one finds and one may in this sense accept all that Henry writes. Yet he does not seem to notice that of the many references he cites in five compactly written pages[334] few are in any way citations of the decalogue. In other words he demonstrates an overlapping of content, a proof that New Testament righteousness fulfils the decalogue. But he does not show that the New Testament urges the direct authority of the decalogue. The only significant reference out of almost fifty is Ephesians 6:1–4 (already mentioned above in connection with Ridderbos).

When we examine seven Pauline epistles (although nothing different is found in the other six) we find that explicit use of the Pentateuch in this way is conspicuous by its absence. Romans contains an appeal for presentation of one’s faculties to God (6:12–13,19), mystical union with Jesus in order to become fruitful for God (7:4), appeals to resist the flesh (8:12–13), to walk by the Spirit (8:13–14), to be sensitive to the demands of love (14:15). There are statements to the effect that the leading of the Spirit will lead to the fulfilment of the law (13:8–10). It is precisely by virtue of having died to the law that this is made possible. Yet there is no direct application of Pentateuchal demands in this. Where is the law cited in the many admonitions of Romans 12:1 – 15:13?

In 1 Corinthians we find direct rebuke of the pride of the Corinthians and their glorying in wisdom, but the law is not brought in. One half expects citation of the law in the case of the immorality handled in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 but it is not mentioned here, nor in chapters 6 and 7, concerning marriage. One would not be surprised to find mention of the first three commandments in the section dealing with things offered to idols but they are absent. In the middle of the section Paul instead seems to treat the Mosaic law as an adiaphoron, and says (9:21) he is ennomos to(i) Iesou. I do not think this is a reference to any Pentateuchal demand.

Nor is Mosaism found in 2 Corinthians. The section in 2 Corinthians 6:14 – 7:1 might well have mentioned the first three commandments but does not.

In Galatians the works of the flesh are ‘obvious’ (phanera), not specially identified by meditating upon the Torah. Paul does not think it requires a codified document for us to know what ‘love’ is; he appears to believe that this primary requirement speaks for itself. One recalls Matthew 7:12 where love means no more—and no less—than imaginatively reversing one’s position in one’s relationship to others and acting accordingly. Of course Paul’s letters contain discussions of conduct. Love is capable of being discussed in propositional terms.

In 1 Thessalonians Paul has to comment on weaknesses and misdemeanours among the Thessalonians. He refers to sexual immorality (4:3), fraudulence (4:6), and idleness (4:11). One almost expects him to cite ‘Six days you shall labour’, but he prefers to appeal to the Thessalonians directly, taking it for granted that they know he is right in what he says. In the past his words—not Pentateuchal words—had come to them ‘with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction’ (1:5). He expects that his direct exhortations, still without specific reference to the law, will carry the same kind of authority, conveyed by the Spirit.

We find much the same in Philippians. Where are the Pentateuchal citations here? They do not exist. There is rivalry and disunity at Philippi, but Paul handles the matter directly and appeals to the story of Jesus without pressing the law upon them.

In point of fact there are very few references to the law in Paul’s appeals for Christian godliness. The most important—and solitary?—passage in this connection is in Ephesians (6:1–4). In this case the total flow of argument must be noted. A turn of thought begins at 5:18 or perhaps even earlier. Paul appeals first for the fulness of the Spirit (5:18), then in a series of participial clauses describes the lordship of the Spirit. It will involve song (5:19) and fellowship (5:19), heartfelt thankfulness (5:20) and mutual submission (5:21). From this point—without even using a main verb in 5:22—Paul flows into a section concerning three different sets of relationship (5:22–33; 6:1–4,5–9). In this context the law is mentioned (6:2). Is the apostle doing anything more than arguing that to be filled with the Spirit will lead to the fulfilling of the law? Here too however he does approach the matter of the law directly but via the mention of the fulness of the Spirit. Is this at all different from Romans 8:1–4 (‘What the law could not do ... God did …. in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled’)? To be sure, Paul mentions the law: in the long run the Ten Commandments are fulfilled by those who obey the Spirit. The question is: how does this come about? Not, apparently, by putting oneself directly under the law but by being full of the Spirit. If one walks by the Spirit deliberately one fulfils the law accidentally. Paul scarcely mentions the Torah. When he does so in Ephesians 6:2 it is in the context of Ephesians 5:18 – 6:9. It is linked to the outworking of life in the Holy Spirit.

Our conclusions stand. For Paul, Mosaism fails whether as a means of justification or of sanctification. While he does not envisage a diminished spirituality he asserts the abolition of the law as the focus for the Christian. Recourse to the law results only in diminished spirituality. The law was a temporary measure to restrain sin. In the post-Pentecostal epoch a greater measure of the experience of the Spirit has replaced the function of the law in the life of God’s people. The Spirit will lead into love as a first priority. The law is fulfilled indirectly by walking in the Spirit.

247 J.W.Drane (Paul Libertine or Legalist? SPCK, 1975) sees development in Paul’s thinking. Others see incoherence (see E.P.Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Fortress, 1983); H.Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Mohr, 1983); H.Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Clark, 1984).

248 M.A.Eaton, Return to Glory [Romans 3:22 – 5:21] (Paternoster, 1999); Living Under Grace [Romans 6–7] (Nelson Word, 1994; repr. ASL Pietermaritzburg, 2009); Everlasting Assurance [Romans 8] (ASL Pietermaritzburg, 2009); Predestination and Israel [Romans 9–11] (scheduled Pretoria, 2011).

249 M.A.Eaton, Galatians (Preaching Through the Bible, Sovereign World, 2005).

250 It has been debated whether Paul addresses himself to two enemies, legalists and libertines (so W.Lutgert, Gesetz und Geist (Gütersloh, 1919); H.J.Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge, USA, 1929)) or to only one, the Judaizers (so most commentators; see J.B.Lightfoot, Galatians, 1896 (10th edition), pp.27–35 and throughout; H.D.Betz, ‘Geist, Freiheit und Gesetz: Die Botschaft des Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien’, ZTK, 71, 1974, pp.78–93). The precise identity of ‘Galatia’ has been contested especially since the days of Ramsay (see W.M.Ramsay, Historical Commentary on ... Galatians, 1899, repr. 1978). In modern times F.F.Bruce has been the most notable supporter of Ramsay’s views (see his Galatians, NIGTC, Paternoster, 1982; Acts: Greek Text, Tyndale Press 1951, pp.240f.; Paul Apostle of the Free Spirit, Paternoster, 1980, pp.148–159, and other works by Bruce. See also R.P.Martin, ‘The Setting of 2 Corinthians’, TB, 37, 1986, pp.4–6; C.J.Hemer, ‘Acts and Galatians Reconsidered’, Them., 2, 1976–77, pp.81–88). I regard it as fairly certain that Galatians was sent to south Galatia as all archaeologists of the area seem to agree (see B.Witherington, Grace in Galatians (Eerdmans, 1998), pp.2–8). The place of Galatians in the sequence of Paul’s letter and the relationship between Galatians 2:1–10 and the different incidents in Acts have been matters of varied opinion (see references a few footnotes below). The precise nature of the literature we call Galatians has been discussed (see H.D.Betz, ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, NTS, 21, 1974–75, pp.353–374) with special interest taken in its rhetoric (on which see also J.D.Hester, ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11 – 2:14’, JBL, 103, 1984, pp.223–233). It has been questioned not only whether ‘justification by faith’ is the centre of the New Testament (see C.K.Barrett, ‘The Centre of the New Testament and the Canon’, in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments, Vandenhoeck, 1983, pp.5–21, esp.pp.15–16), and whether it is the centre of Paul (see the survey by R.Y.K.Fung, ‘The Status of Justification by Faith in Paul’s Thought’, Them., 6:3, April 1981, pp.4–11; J.D.G.Dunn, ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL, 65, 1983, pp.95–122), but also whether it is the centre of Galatians (see C.H.Buck, ‘The Date of Galatians’, JBL, 70, 1951, pp.121f.). Given that Paul’s main opponents are Judaistic, the precise nature of the Judaizing Christianity has been a matter of debate. Is it orthodox Pharisaism (so H.J.Schoeps, Paul, 1961, pp.74–76)? Is it Jewish gnosticism (W.Schmithals, ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, ZNTW, 47, 1956, pp.26–67)? Or are we dealing with Judaizing gentile Christians (J.Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, SCM, 1959, pp.87–89)? Yet it is likely that Gal.6:13 refers to gentile Christians who have succumbed to Jewish pressure. The ultimate foe could still be Jewish. Other possibilities have been canvassed (J.B.Tyson, ‘Paul’s Opponents in Galatia’, NovT, 10, 1968, pp.241–254; R.Crownfield, ‘The Singular Problem of the Dual Galatians’, JBL, 63, 1945, pp.491–500; R.Jewett, ‘The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation’, NTS, 17, 1970–71, pp.198–212). For the view that there was a substantial law-observant mission to gentiles in Galatia, see J.L.Martyn, ‘A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles ...’, SJT, 38, pp.307–324.

251 The chronology of these times as best as one can see might be as follows:

Death of Jesus

AD 33, April

Day of Pentecost

AD 33, May

Events of Acts 2–9

Mid-33 to mid-34

Conversion of Paul

Summer 34

First visit to Jerusalem

Summer 36

Paul in Tarsus

AD 36–46

Evangelistic success among gentiles

AD 45

Barnabas is sent from Jerusalem

AD 45/46

Paul comes from Tarsus to Antioch

AD 46

A year’s ministry in Antioch

AD 46–47

Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem

AD 47 (14 years after AD 34 reckoned inclusively)

Paul and Barnabas in Galatia

Spring–Autumn AD 47

Events of Galatians 2:11–14

Early AD 48

Bad news from Galatia

AD 48

The epistle to the Galatians written

AD 48

The consultation at Jerusalem

Early AD 49

Of course the chronology of Acts and of Paul’s life is a difficult matter. This chronology accepts the basic reliability of Acts and Galatians, and links Gal.2:1–10 with Acts 11:27–29. I am aware of certain difficulties in this reconstruction (Acts 2–9 seem to include many events in a short time) yet I think that, all things considered, this is a likely chronology with which to work as a hypothesis.

A totally different approach to Pauline chronology is found in R.Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, 1979; J.Knox, ‘Fourteen Years Later, A Note on Pauline Chronology’, JR, 16, 1936, pp.341–349; J.Knox, ‘The Pauline Chronology’, JBL, 58, 1939, pp.15–40; and G.Liidemann, Paul Apostle to the Gentiles, SCM, 1984. These works assume Acts has deficiencies as a dependable source. See A.J.M.Wedderburn, ‘Some Recent Pauline Chronologies’, ExT, 92, 1980–81, pp.l03–108.

252 See Kümmel, Introduction, pp.301–304. Some regard Acts 11 and Acts 15 as duplicate accounts (see Haenchen, Acts, pp.455–472; D.R.Catchpole, ‘Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree’, NTS, 1977, pp.435f.). A radical and speculative reconstruction is offered by J.Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (Black, 1954), pp.74–88. Many British scholars, notably F.F.Bruce and his pupils, follow Ramsay in linking Ac.11 and Gal.2. See Bruce, Acts: Greek Text, pp.31f.; E.E.Ellis, Paul and His Interpreters (Eerdmans, 1961), pp.16f.; R.N.Longenecker, Acts in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol.9 (Zondervan, 1981), pp.404f.; R.N.Longenecker, Galatians (Word, 1993), pp.lxi–lxx, lxxvii–lxxxiii; C.S.C.Williams, Acts (Black, 1957), pp.22ff. This has the advantage of explaining why Paul should make no mention of the famine visit of Acts 11 if the majority view is correct. It also accounts for the non-mention of the public Jerusalem consultation and non-mention of the Jerusalem decisions. It makes it easier to understand Peter’s defection mentioned in Gal.2:11–14. (P.J.Achtemeier from a less conservative standpoint also thinks Gal.2:1–10 has ‘its clearest echo’ in Acts 11; see ‘An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church’, CBQ, 48, 1986, pp.1–6, esp.p.17.) True, it is somewhat difficult chronologically, especially if Jesus’ death is dated in AD 33. But see W.B.Decker, ‘The Early Date of Galatians’, Restoration Quarterly, 2, pp.132–138; C.J.Hemer, ‘Observations on Pauline Chronology’, in Pauline Studies (Paternoster, 1980), pp.3–18. On any view Acts 15 and Gal.2 refer to two meetings. Acts 15 was public; Gal.2 was private. The whole matter is discussed fully by D.Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Tyndale, 1970), pp.85–86; Witherington, Grace …, pp.13–20.

253 See G.Lyons, Pauline Autobiography (Scholars, 1985), ch.3, esp.pp.170–176. J.M.G.Barclay, ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT, 31, 1987, pp.73–93, surveys the issues involved.

254 One view of this matter is that the incident concerning Titus took place at the Jerusalem meeting. There are difficulties with this view (see R.Y.K.Fung, Galatians, Eerdmans, 1988, p.91).

A second approach (see G.S.Duncan, Galatians, Hodder, 1934, p.42) follows the Western text (omitting ois oude) in which case it would mean Paul was not compelled to circumcise Titus but yielded to the need of the occasion. Perhaps Paul felt he should not offend anyone in a matter of indifference (cf. 1 Cor.7:19; 10:32).

A third view suggests the question was raised later by sham Christians. Vv.3–5 are parenthetical, and vv.4f. are a digression within the parenthesis. B.Orchard especially has argued this (see ‘A New Solution of the Galatians Problem’, BJRL, 28, 1944, pp.154–174; ‘A Note on the Meaning of Galatians ii.3–5’, JTS, 43, 1942, pp.173–177; ‘The Ellipsis between Gal.2,3 and 2,4, Bib., 54, 1973, pp.469–481; ‘Once Again the Ellipsis between Gal.2,3 and 2,4’, Bib., 57, 1976, pp.254–255. He suggests the words ‘… the liberty of the gentiles is now in danger’ or ‘this question has now arisen’ should be assumed.

I am suggesting that the false brethren slipped in shortly after the discussion, not at an altogether different occasion. This has three advantages. It fits the impression we have that Paul is dealing with one occasion not with two entirely different incidents. It explains the fact that Paul first says Titus was not circumcised, but then feels he has to explain something. The two things are that Titus was not circumcised but then that false disciples, not as participants in the meeting but shortly afterwards, came in to see and to subvert the freedom given. The assumed ellipsis, ‘this matter arose’, is a very simple one, more natural than that suggested by Orchard. Compare Longenecker’s ‘Now this happened ...’ (Galatians, p.50).

255 Anankazo has a range of meanings which takes in everything from friendly pressure to forceful compulsion. See TDNT, 1, p.345.

256 Or ‘for your benefit’. See G.Fee, Galatians (Deo, UK, 2007), p.63.

257 See pareisag, pareisaktos, in TDNT, 5, pp.823–825.

258 The work of L.Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Tyndale, 1965), pp.251–298, has not been superceded. See also J.Murray, Romans, vol.1 (Eerdmans, 1968), pp.336–362; C.E.B.Cranfield, Romans, vol.1 (Clark, 1975), pp.92–95. His statement ‘This conclusion is surely forced upon us by the linguistic evidence’ (p.95) seems correct.

259 T.Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (SPCK, 2002), p.39.

260 See further below, Chapters 11 – 13.

261 ‘Perspective’, pp.103–118, esp.p.112; J.D.G.Dunn, Galatians (Black, 1993), p.137.

262 J.H.Skilton, Machen’s Notes on Galatians (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p.77; Bruce, Galatians, p.138.

263 ‘The linking conjunction is exceptive and not adversative’ (J.D.G.Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Black, 1993, p.137).

264 E.D.Burton, Galatians (Clark, 1920).

265 Dunn, ‘Perspective’, BJRL, 65, 1983, pp.93–122, esp.pp.107,111.

266 Galatians, p.84.

267 D.Fuller, ‘Paul and the “Works of the Law” ’, WTJ, 38, 1975–76, pp.31–33; D.Fuller, Gospel and Law (Eerdmans, 1980), pp.90–99,199–204; C.H.Cosgrove, ‘The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith ... ’ WTJ, 39, 1976–77, pp.153–158; C.E.B.Cranfield, ‘St.Paul and the Law’, SJT, 17, 1964, pp.43–68; Cranfield, Romans, vol.2, 1979, pp.845–862; C.F.D.Moule, Obligation in the Ethic of Paul … (CUP, 1967), pp.392–398.

268 See D.J.Moo, ‘Law’, p.91; G.Bertram, art.[ergon ktl.], TDNT, 6, pp.645–647.

269 Moo, ‘Law’, p.94.

270 The other possibility is that Paul is dealing with a logical conclusion from correct premises (see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp.116–117; Burton, Galatians, pp.127–130; Fung, Galatians, p.119). Yet, as Fung points out (Galatians, p.120), mē genoito is used by Paul only to negate a false conclusion from premises taken for granted.

271 Some interpretations of hamartia and hamartōlo in vv.15,17 (twice) involve referring only to breaches of ceremonial law (see J.Lambrecht, ‘The Line of Thought in Gal.2.14b–21’, NTS, 24, 1978, p.485). This makes sense for the interpreters concerned. For if law at this point only refers to ceremonial matters, then ‘sin’ must be given an appropriately lowered definition. But then what should we make of Galatians 5:13 – 6:18, where clearly Paul’s concern is not to bring the Galatians to a kind of ‘covenantal nomism’ but to a walking in the Spirit which involves freedom from the law altogether?

272 The verse has also been taken (i) as a warning against sin after experience of grace (mentioned by H.Olshausen but without agreement, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Thessalonians, Clark, 1864, p.50); (ii) as a refutation of a false premise, the Judaizers’ approach to justification (D.Guthrie, Galatians, Oliphants, 1974, p.88; Hendriksen, Galatians, Banner of Truth, 1969, p.100); (iii) as a protest in the mouth of opponents (so C.F.D.Moule, ‘A Note on Galatians ii.17,18’, ExT, 56, 1944–45, p.223) giving a different accentuation to ara. Other views are mentioned by Hendriksen, Galatians, p.100; Burton, Galatians, pp.128f.; and a further view is maintained by W.Macdonald, Galatians, Illinois: Emmaus, n.d., p.23 (Christ is a minister of sin in failing to fulfil his promises, on Judaizers’ presuppositions).

273 J.Lambrecht deals with different ways of tracing the thought. (i) V.18 may be regarded as a parenthesis. So G.Klein, ‘Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus’, EvTh, 24, 1964, pp.132f. In which case v.19 either explains v.18 (so F.Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, Herder, 1974, p.179) or the end of v.17 (so Klein, loc.cit.). (ii) A smoother line of thought is followed if v.18 explains mē genoito—the approach I have followed. (iii) Moule’s view, cited above, takes v.18 as the voice of an objector. (iv) Lambrecht himself sees the gar as not explanatory but continuative (‘But ...’) and introducing a slightly new line of thought. I prefer to see the gar as authentically explanatory of v.17, and the gar of v.19 as authentically explanatory of v.18.

274 Barrett, Freedom, p.20.

275 Osiek, Galatians (Dublin: Veritas, 1980), p.30.

276 Ramsay, Galatians, p.327.

277 This is stated in v.5 regardless of the meaning of pascho which could refer to general Christian experience (see RSV, NEB) or to suffering (so Guthrie, Galatians, p.93; Koehler, Galatians, p.73).

278 So Betz, Galatians, p.128, n.3.

279 This is favoured by R.B.Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Scholars, 1983), p.147.

280 So J.Bligh, Galatians (St Paul, 1969), p.225.

281 So Lightfoot, Galatians, p.134; Burton, Galatians, p.147; Lagrange, Galates, p.59; Ridderbos, Galatia, p.113; Guthrie, Galatians, pp.92f.

282 Hays, Faith, pp.143–149.

283 Schmithals, Paul, p.47.

284 G.Fee, Galatians (Deo, 2007), p.1.

285 Fee, Galatians, p.120.

286 See Betz, Galatians, pp.139f. and sources cited there.

287 Betz, Galatians, p.139.

288 See Fung, Galatians, pp.141–143; F.F.Bruce, ‘The Curse of the Law’, in Paul and Paulinism (ed. M.D.Hooker & S.G.Wilson, SPCK, 1982), pp.28–29; M.Noth, ‘For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse’, The Laws in the Pentateuch (Oliver & Boyd, 1966), p.131. In addition, one notes the ‘all’ of Deut.28:1 and the words hktbym bspr hzh in Deut.28:25, both of which Paul draws upon.

289 Lightfoot, Galatians, p.138.

290 Lightfoot, Galatians, p.139. Interpretations are (i) ‘The righteous shall live by his (own) faith’. See C.C.Cavallin ‘The Righteous Shall Live By Faith ..., ST, 32, 1978, pp.33–43; (ii) ‘The righteous shall live by His (Jesus’) faith’; cf. LXX mou referring to God. (iii) ‘The righteous-by-faith shall live’ (Fung, Galatians, p.143); (iv) ‘The Righteous One (Jesus) shall live by faith’ (A.T.Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique, 1974, p.47; Hays, Faith, 1983, pp.151–154; Cranfield, Romans, p.521). The MT is also ambiguous.

291 Calvin, Romans, p.223; Calvin, Galatians, pp.55,198.

292 The Scofield Reference Bible of 1917 spoke of ‘legal obedience as the condition of salvation’ (in connection with Jn1:17).

293 Bruce, Galatians, p.163.

294 Reprinted in K.Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (SCM, 1977), pp.78–96; also see J.M.Espy, ‘Paul’s “Robust Conscience” Re-Examined’, NTS, 31, 1985, pp.161–188.

295 J.D.G.Dunn, ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal.2:11–18)’, JSNT, 18, 1983, pp.3–57; Dunn, ‘Perspective’, BJRL, 65, 1983, pp.93–122; J.D.G.Dunn, ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10–14)’, NTS, 31, 1985, pp.523–542.

296 Fuller, Gospel, pp.88–105; D.P.Fuller, ‘Paul ... ‘, WTJ, 38, 1975–76, pp.28–42, esp.pp.37–40.

297 See C.E.B.Cranfield, ‘St.Paul and the Law’, SJT, 17, 1964, p.55; C.F.D.Moule, ‘Obligation’, 1967, pp.392f.; F.Flückiger, ‘Christus und des Gesetzes telos’, ThZ, 11, 1955, pp.153–157, esp.p.154.

298 See D.Bourke (ed), Summa Theologiae, vol.29 (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1969), passim.

299 See E.P.Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Fortress, 1983), pp.72,81; Bruce, Galatians, pp.166f.; Bonnard, Galates, pp.68f.; and others.

300 Fung, Galatians, p.67.

301 T.L.Donaldson, ‘The “Curse of the Law” and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3:13–14’, NTS, 32, 1986, pp.94–112.

302 Donaldson, ‘Curse’, p.106.

303 J.J. Hughes points to the strong likelihood that ‘covenant’ not ‘testament’ is in mind here. See J.J.Hughes, ‘Hebrews IX 15ff and Galatians III 15ff’, NovT, 21, 1979, pp.66–92. A central point in his argument is the fact that all ‘wills’—whether Hellenistic, Egyptian or Roman—could be changed, added to or modified. But once an oath has been taken a covenant cannot be changed; it can only be broken. Ramsay was mistaken in wanting to see the heavy influence of Greek law here. See Bruce, Galatians, p.171; Ramsay, Galatians, pp.349–374. Hughes thinks the ‘ratification’ refers to Genesis 15 but it has to be Genesis 22, at the point when the oath was taken.

304 Two quite distinct types of exegesis of ‘the seed’ occur in early Jewish literature (M.Wilcox, ‘The Promise of “The Seed” in the New Testament and the Targumim’, JSNT, 5, 1972, pp.2–20).

305 The incorporative aspect of the idea is emphasized by A.König, Die Doop As Kinderdoop en Grootdoop (Pretoria: NGKB, 1986), p.119.

306 See D.I.Lull, ‘The Law was Our Pedagogue: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25’, JBL, 105, 1986, p.482.

307 See BAGD, charin. BAGD themselves list Gal.3:19 under ‘goal’ rather than ‘reason’.

308 The interpretations of Romans also vary; see Lull, ‘Law’, pp.483–485.

309 Jubilees 2:2; 1 Enoch 60:11–24; LXX Deut.33:2; LXX Ps.67:18 and elsewhere. See T.Callan, ‘Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Gal 3:19b’, JBL, 99, 1980, pp.551–554.

310 Bruce, Galatians, p.179.

311 Bruce, Galatians, p.179; A.Vanhoye, ‘Un mediteur des anges en Ga 3,19–29’, Bib., 59, 1978, pp.403–411. See also Longenecker, Galatians, p.140.

312 Belleville discusses the positive, negative and neutral senses of sugkleiō (‘Under Law’, p.56). The neuter plural panta refers to an all-pervasive state of affairs (see Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp.56,80f., section 138:1).

313 Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp.59–62; G.B.Caird, Principalities and Powers (OUP, 1956), p.41. The stoicheia have been interpreted as elemental forces of flesh and law (A.J.Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, Kok, 1964) or as planetary bodies, or the phrase is thought to refer to angelic powers. Most likely it refers to elementary principles of law instinctively followed by all.

314 Galatians, p.84.

315 As P.Bonnard observes, ‘akouō signifie ici comprendre’ (Galates, p.95). Betz thinks that nomos is deliberately used ambiguously here (Galatians, p.241).

316 A.T.Hanson (Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 1974, pp.91–94) shows that the verb in hatina estin allegoroumena (3:24) means ‘to be expressed symbolically’ not ‘to be understood symbolically’. We translate: ‘these things express a deeper meaning’. The Antiochene exegetes observed that Paul’s use of allēgoroumena does not have to refer to ‘allegory’ in the way in which the later church used the term (see Bligh, Galatians, p.393; R.J.Kepple, ‘An Analysis of Antiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4:24–26’, WTJ, 39, 1976–77, pp.239–249).

317 See Inst.11:10:2; A.J.Bandstra, ‘Law and Gospel in Calvin and Paul’, Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin (Baker, 1976), pp.21–31.

318 See B.M.Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 1971), p.596. Although gar may not be original, C.H.Cosgrove points to Wis.11:25 as proof that de may still indicate logical subordination (‘The Law Has Given Sarah No Children (Gal.4:21–30)’), NovT, 1987, p.227, n.33.

319 So Betz, Galatians, p.248. Others identify the heavenly Jerusalem with the church (Schlier, Galater, p.223; L.Goppelt, Typos, p.139). Isa.54:1 was used similarly at Qumran (see Bruce, Galatians, p.222) and in 4 Baruch 5:35 (see Cosgrove, ‘The Law’, pp.230–231).

320 See Cosgrove, ‘The Law’, p.234.

321 In Jewish haggadah, Gen.21:9 was interpreted as malicious attack. See Betz, Galatians, p.249.

322 Mk10:30: ‘now in this age ... and in the age to come’ (following the use of ‘inherit’ in Mk10:17).

323 B.Wintle thinks Paul used the term ‘law’ in order to avoid the charge of antinomianism (‘Paul’s Conception of the Law of Christ and Its Relation to the Law of Moses’, RTR, 38, 2979, pp.42–50, esp.p.49).

324 The term is that of D.Moo, ‘Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years’, SJT, 40, pp.287–307, esp.p.287.

325 See Räisänen, Paul, 1983; ‘Paul’s Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law’, NTS, 33, 1987, pp.404–419; Sanders, Paul, 1983. Even severer views of Paul’s incoherence are maintained by Hübner, Law, 1984. See discussions of these works in A.J.M.Wedderburn, ‘Paul and the Law’, SJT, 38, pp.613–622 (reviewing Sanders’s work); T.R.Schreiner, ‘Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P.Sanders’, WTJ, 47, 1985, pp.245–278; T.Duidun, ‘E.P.Sanders: An Assessment of Two Recent Works’, HJ, 17, 1986, pp.43–52; W.D.Davies, ‘Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation’, in Paul and Paulinism (ed M.D.Hooker & S.G.Wilson, SPCK, 1982), pp.4–16; J.M.G.Barclay, ‘Paul and the Law: Observations on Some Recent Debates’, Them., 12, pt.1, Sept 1986, pp.5–15; D. Moo, ‘Paul and the Law’. T.R. Schreiner’s The Law and its Fulfillment (Baker, 1993) responds to the trend of the 1990s.

326 See R.H.Gundry, ‘Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul’, Bib., 66, 1968, p.8.

327 J.B.Webster, ‘The Imitation of Christ’, TB, 37, 1986, p.105.

328 L.B.Smedes, Mere Morality (Eerdmans, 1983), p.234.

329 The Challenge of New Testament Ethics (Macmillan, 1966), pp.224–232.

330 Paul (Eerdmans, 1975), pp.278–288.

331 Paul, p.279.

332 See also J.Barclay, Obeying the Truth (Clark, 1988), p.234.

333 C.F.H.Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (Baker, 1957), pp.330–334.

334 In the order in which they are quoted the references are: 1 Cor.8:4ff., Rom.1:23; Ac.17:29; Jn1:18; 4:24; Rom.2:24; 1 Tim.6:1; Jam.2:7; Tit.2:13; 2 Cor.4:4; Col.1:15; Mk2:28; Mk2:23; Jn9:14; 5:9; 9:7; 7:22f.; Col.2:16; Ac.20:7; 1 Cor.16:2; Eph.6:1ff.; Col.3:20; 1 Tim.5:4; 2 Cor.12:14; Col.3:21; Rom.1:30; Rom.13:8ff.; 1 Pet.4:5; 1 Jn3:15; Jam.4:1f.; Rom.2:21f.; Eph.4:25ff.; 1 Cor.15:15; 1 Jn2:22f.,27; 1 Cor.12:31; Rom.7:7; Eph.5:3ff.; Heb.13:5; 1 Cor.5:10f.; 6:10; Rom.1:29; 2 Cor.9:5; Eph.5:3; Col.3:5; 1 Thess.2:5; 1 Tim.6:10.

10

THE FAITH OF CHRIST

There are three reasons for including a consideration of the ‘faith of Christ’ at this point. (i) Historically, it has been regarded as important by some of those who emphasize security in grace,[335] and so it is part of my theme. (ii) I think the theological ‘antinomians’ who took such a view were insightful. Such a theme is indeed part of the basis of the Christian’s assurance. (iii) I am now seeking to outline the contours of a revised ‘Reformed’ theology, and this would be a major aspect of it.

It is worth pondering the New Testament data. There are eleven occasions in the New Testament where the term ‘faith’ is followed by a genitive referring to Jesus (Rom.3:22,26; Gal.2:16,16,20; 3:22; Eph.3:12; Phil.3:9; Jam.2:1; Rev.2;13; 14:12). Their interpretation is disputed. Does ‘the faith of Jesus’ refer to faith in Jesus exercised by those who trust in him, or possibly the faith about Jesus which they hold (the so-called ‘objective genitive’)? Or does it refer to the faith that Jesus himself exercised (the so-called ‘subjective genitive’)? Apart from these allusions to the ‘faith of Jesus’, Jesus is clearly presented as a man of faith, one who depended on his Father and upon the Old Testament scriptures. In Hebrews 2, where the writer is unfolding the theme of Jesus’ humanity and ability to sympathize with humankind since he too is flesh and blood, part of his humanity is his exercising faith. He is portrayed as saying of the Father, ‘I will put my trust in him’. The miracle of the cursing of the fig-tree is attributed to Jesus’ faith.

The first scholar in post-Reformation times to have seriously urged that pistis christou refers to Jesus’ personal faith was apparently J.Hausleiter of Greifswald.[336] The suggestion appears not to have been taken seriously, but in 1955 A.G.Hebert also argued that the phrase was a subjective genitive[337] and something similar was maintained by T.F.Torrance in 1957 and received support from Barth and others.[338] Some replies were issued.[339] Debate has continued however and recent writers have been more open to the possibility that pistis christou in the New Testament at least includes ideas involved in a subjective genitive.[340]

In my judgement there are reasons for thinking that the New Testament pistis christou, and the like, refers to the faith of Christ.

(i) No indisputable case of pistis with an objective genitive exists. No example is cited in the ninth edition of Liddell and Scott’s Dictionary (two mentioned in the eighth edition were reclassified in the ninth edition). Nor is any example mentioned by Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary.[341] Thus the natural first reading of pistis Iesou is ‘faith that Jesus has’. It is this reading of the phrase that is suggested by the vast majority of occasions where pistis is found with a genitive.

(ii) Several statements in the New Testament are tautologous if translated as an objective genitive. Is it likely that Paul meant to say, ‘Knowing that a man is justified through faith in Jesus even we have put faith in Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Jesus’ (Gal.2:16)? Surely this is repetitive and tautologous.[342] Is it likely that Paul meant to refer to the righteousness ‘through belief in Jesus Christ upon all who believe’ (Rom.3:22)? Is the repetition not rather odd? Another curious repetition is Galatians 3:22: ‘the promise by belief in Jesus Christ to those who believe’. A similar double reference is found in Philippians 3:9. Paul might use the occasional odd expression, but here are four occasions where there is (on an objective-genitive view) a rather eccentric double reference to faith. It is more likely that the expressions concerned should mean, ‘We have put faith in Jesus to be justified by the faith of Jesus’ (Gal.2:16) and ‘... righteousness through the faith of Jesus for all who have faith’ (Rom.3:22) and so on.

(iii) The phrase for ‘faith in Christ’ is pistin eis (Ac.20:21, etc.), pistis en (Rom.3:25, etc.) and pistis epi (Heb.6:1, etc.). In such cases, where the expression used indisputably refers to faith in Christ, there is never a double reference to faith (as in Rom.3:22; Gal.2:16; 3:22; Phil.3:9).

(iv) Then there is the matter of New Testament usage. Leaving aside some debatable occurrences, there are 60 places in the Greek New Testament where the noun pistis is clearly followed by a genitive. In at least 44 of them the genitive is clearly subjective.[343] In the remaining sixteen instances the interpretation of the genitive is more open to discussion.[344] It could indeed be argued that no example of an objective genitive with pistis exists in the New Testament. Mark 11:22 could refer to the ‘faithfulness of God’; Acts 3:16 could mean ‘the faith that his name inspires’; there may be good reasons for taking Romans 3:22,26; Galatians 2:16,16,20; 3:22; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 3:9; James 2:1; Revelation 2:13; and 14:12 to refer to the personal faith of Jesus. Philippians 1:27 may refer to the ‘faith that the gospel inspires’ rather than ‘faith in the gospel’. Colossians 2:7 may refer to the ‘faith wrought by the working of God’ rather than faith ‘in’ the working of God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we could have reference to faith inspired by the truth or brought about by the truth. Thus there is no indisputable objective genitive using pistis anywhere in the New Testament. These observations accord with those of G.Howard, who observes that of the 24 instances of pistis followed by a genitive of a person in the Pauline corpus (ignoring the disputed references to Christ), on twenty occasions the faith refers to that of a Christian, one refers to the faithfulness of God (Rom.3:3), two to the faith of Abraham (Rom.4:12,16), and one to anyone who has their faith reckoned to them as righteousness (Rom.4:5). Thus in all cases the faith referred to is the faith of a person not faith in a person.[345]

(v) Then there is the phenomenon of identical constructions in Romans 3:22,26; and 4:16. There is a noticeable similarity between the phrase ek pisteos Abraam (Rom.4:16) and the phrase ton ek pisteos Iesou (Rom.3:26). Why should one be translated as an objective genitive and the other as a subjective genitive? The natural assumption is that if one refers to the faith(fulness) of Abraham, and another to the faith(fulness) of God, then the third will refer to the faith(fulness) of Jesus. Robinson rightly says that Paul ‘is confusing his readers unless he intends the same grammatical construction’.[346]

(vi) In some texts the genitive looks more subjective than objective. It seems less likely that Ephesians 3:12 bases our assurance of access in prayer upon our faith than upon his faith (or faithfulness). Paul surely bases boldness upon something in Jesus, rather than in the human believer? Philippians 3:9 refers to ‘a righteousness not my own’. Is it not more likely that Paul will go on to refer to Jesus’ faith(fulness) rather than to something which is my own, i.e. my faith? In Revelation 2:13 the risen Christ refers to ‘my name’ and ‘my faith’. Is not the mou in to onoma mou ... tēn pistin mou likely to be the same kind of genitive on both occasions? If the former is possessive, can the latter be anything but possessive? Are not the genitives of Revelation 14:12 (tas entolas tou theou kai tēn pistin Iesou) likely to be of the same nature?

In short, there is good reason to think that several if not all of the allusions to a pistis Iesou include reference to Jesus’ personal faith, and that there is considerable significance in the fact that the Christian’s faith is anchored to Jesus’ faith. The phrase pistis christou considered in itself could be taken in many ways.(i) It may mean the faith that Jesus had. (ii) It is conceivable that it could mean ‘faith in Jesus’, although this is not as natural a way of taking it as is often supposed.

(iii) It could mean ‘faithfulness of Jesus’. (iv) Conceivably it could mean ‘faithfulness towards Jesus’. Yet other possibilities have been canvassed.

At the very least a subjective genitive is included in the meaning of the expression and the New Testament relates the personal faith of Jesus to his humanity, his sympathy and his substitutionary work as a Saviour.

In Reformed theology the work of Jesus has often been portrayed as substitutionary sin-bearing. A second aspect of Jesus’ work has been his positively fulfilling the law and living a godly life. This has caused more controversy: in Arminian circles the ‘active obedience’ of Christ has generally held less significance. In fact, many who have been happy to say that Jesus died for them have been less happy to say that he lived for them.[347] Yet there is biblical ground for the idea of Christ’s righteousness being given to us.[348] Christ’s obedience was ‘for us’ just as his death was ‘for us’. We are ‘righteous’ in Christ as well as forgiven.

But the substitutionary work of Christ has a significant third aspect. Jesus not only lived for us and died for us but also believed for us. (This does not dispense with the need for individual faith any more than Christ’s righteousness dispenses with the need for individual righteousness.) This also relates to the theme of freedom from condemnation and assurance of salvation.

(i) If a person faces judgement because of their sins and the inadequacy of their life, do they not face judgement also because of the inadequacy of their faith? Human faith is never perfect. We do not exercise faith in every situation. Even the greatest Christian knows lapses of faith. The writer to the Hebrews warns believers against unbelief. The disciples can be asked, ‘Where is your faith?’ as though they had misplaced their faith in a crisis (Lk.8:25).

(ii) Just as Jesus’ death may be viewed as substitutionary sin-bearing, and just as Jesus’ life and resurrection may be viewed as substitutionary righteousness, so Jesus’ faith may be viewed as substitutionary faith. Part of human godliness is the practice of faith in every situation. Unbelief is treated as reprehensible and incurs judgement. If Jesus is to be viewed as sinless he must be viewed as a man of faith. The temptations in the wilderness were, amongst other things, temptations to unbelief (‘If you are the Son of God …’). His being tempted at all points includes temptation to doubt. His sinless life includes his exhibiting a life of faith. If both his sin-bearing death and his sinless life relate to human need, so also does his perfect faith relate to human need.

(iii) Faith has as its object the person of Jesus (Ac.16:31), the name of Jesus (Ac.3:16), the blood of Jesus (Rom.3:25, assuming that the ‘faith’ is the believer’s faith). Galatians 2:16 and comparable texts show that it also has as its object the faith of Jesus.

A particular point of interest is the way in which the faith of Christ relates to assurance of salvation. It is not unusual for Christians to have anxieties concerning their sins. In such a situation pastoral counsel may offer assurance by pointing to Jesus as sin-bearer, the one who has achieved what they cannot achieve: perfect compensation for sin, perfect righteousness. If a Christian feels the inadequacy of their life they may be comforted by the thought of being ‘righteous in Christ’. Luther advised a monk in distress: ‘Learn to know Christ … and say “Lord Jesus Christ, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not, that I might become what I was not” ’.[349] As Toplady wrote,

My Saviour’s obedience and blood

Hide all my transgression from view.

This highlights the twin themes in evangelical substitutionary theology: ‘obedience and blood’. But there is a third locus of anxiety which may be the most destructive of all: doubt about the adequacy of one’s faith. It is the adequacy of Jesus’ faith which provides assurance at this point also. This is the point of Paul’s referring to ‘putting faith in Jesus’ faith(fulness)’. Our sins are expiated by Jesus’ blood; failures in life are covered by Jesus’ obedience; lapses in faith are covered in that our faith is anchored to Jesus’ perfect faith. Just as Jesus was ‘not spared’ (Rom.8:32) anything of the agony of the cross, and was totally righteous in his life, so he was totally believing, totally faith-full. Paul says, ‘I live by the faith of Christ.’ Few things take us totally out of ourselves, out of our self-concern, out of every doubt and fear, as does the knowledge that the faith of Jesus was and is at work on our behalf. If Paul says ‘I live by the faith of Christ’ should not Christians today say the same?

The words ‘I believe; help my unbelief’ (Mk9:24) express a feeling widespread among Christians. Is there no objective ground of assurance by which we may know that our weaknesses of faith need not cause despair and condemnation? Freedom from the law could be viewed as a negative matter. Is there nothing positive which might be both liberating and exhilarating? There is: the fact that our faith is faith in Jesus’ faith.

Somebody may ask whether the Christian really needs more ‘assurance’. Do we need to think of more as having been ‘earned’ for us by Christ? I reply: (i) If the New Testament does indeed point to the ‘faith of Christ’ as a significant theme it is the pathway of faith to incorporate it into our theological thinking. (ii) There can be no doubt that some Christians are just as concerned about the inadequacy of their faith as they are by their sinfulness and their sense of a low level of godliness. A Christian may feel that a sin that once characterized their life is now long forgotten but a perennial sense of weakness of faith cannot (at least by some Christians) be dismissed so easily. (iii) If personal experience may be brought into the matter, then my own experience of having lived for some years with this theme of the ‘faith of Christ’ suggests that it is par excellence the remedy to introspection. I am not surprised that it excites the opposition of more law-centred Christians. It virtually prevents introspection altogether. Those who wish to encourage more self-examination are right (from their own standpoint) to be hostile to the theme of the faith of Christ. But if the theme has a New Testament basis, what shall we say of such introspection? Our faith may be small and defective. Jesus’ faith is all-embracing. If our faith looks to his great faith, how can we fail?

335 In the seventeenth century John Eaton, the so–called ‘antinomian’, and Anne Hutchinson (of the ‘antinomian controversy’ in New England) refer to the ‘faith of Christ’.

336 J.Hausleiter, ‘Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube’, NKZ, 2, 1891, pp.109–145,205–230.

337 A.G.Hebert, ‘ “Faithfulness” and “Faith” ’, Theol, 58, 1955, pp.373–379.

338 T.F.Torrance, ‘One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith’, ExT, 68, 1956–57, pp.111f.; K.Barth, Romans, 6th ed (ET, 1933 repr. OUP, 1977), pp.91,104, also pp.41,96; G.Kittel, ‘[pistis Iesou Christou] bei Paulus’, TSK, 79, 1906, pp.419–436; Edwin R. Goodenough & A.T.Krabel, ‘Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity’, in Religions in Antiquity (Brill, 1967), ‘Studies in the History of Religions’, Supplements to Numen, vol.15, pp.35–80; M.Barth, ‘The Faith of the Messiah’, HJ, 10, 1963, pp.363–370.

339 C.F.D.Moule, ‘The Biblical Conception of Faith’, ExT, 68, 1956–57, p.157, with Torrance’s reply (p.221) and further comment (p.222); Murray, Romans, pp.362–374; J.Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (OUP, 1961), ch.7. A.J.Hultgren has a number of objections: Paul does not use the phrase he pistis tou Christou; when Paul uses a subjective genitive with pistis the article is invariably present; syntactical observations do not suggest a subjective genitive (‘The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul’, NovT, 22, 1980, pp.248–263). L.T.Johnson replied to the theological arguments of Hultgren (‘Romans 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus’, CBQ, 44, 1982, pp.77–90) and S.K.Williams replied to the syntactical arguments (‘Again Pistis Christou’, CBQ, 49, 1987, pp.431–447).

340 See H.Ljungman, Pistis (Gleerup, 1964), pp.38–40,44,47; G.M.Taylor, ‘The Function of [PlSTlS CHRlSTOU] in Galatians’, JBL, 85, 1966, pp.58–76; G.Howard, ‘On the “Faith of Christ” ’, HThR, 60, 1967, pp.459–465; J.Bligh, ‘Did Jesus Live By Faith?’, HJ, 9, 1968, pp.418f.; Bligh, Galatians (St.Paul, 1969), pp.203–205; G.Howard, ‘Romans 3:21–31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles’, HThR, 63, 1970, pp.228–231; D.W.B.Robinson, ‘ “Faith of Jesus Christ”—a New Testament Debate’, RTR, 29, 1970, pp.71–81; G.Howard, ‘The “Faith of Christ” ’, ExT, 85, 1973–74, pp.212–214; R.N.Longenecker, ‘The Obedience of Christ in the Theology of the Early Church’ in Reconciliation and Hope (ed R.J.Banks, Paternoster, 1974), pp.142–152, esp.p.145–148; R.B.Hays, ‘Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3’, JBL, 99, 1980, pp.107–115; S.K.Williams, ‘The Righteousness of God in Romans’, JBL, 99, 1980, pp.241–290, esp.pp.272–277. A.J.Hultgren reviewed scholarly writings on the subject in 1980 (‘The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul’, NovT, 22, 1980, pp.248–263).

341 LS, p.1408; MM, 515.

342 See R.B.Hays, ‘Jesus’ Faith and Ours: A Re-Reading of Galatians 3’, TSF Bulletin (American), vol.7, no.l, Sep–Oct 1983, pp.2–6, esp.p.3.

343 Matt.9:2,22,29; 15:28; Mk2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Lk.5:20; 7:50; 8:25,48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom.1:8,12; 3:3; 4:5,12,16; 1 Cor.2:5; 15:14,17; 2 Cor.1:24; 10:15; Phil.2:17; Col.1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess.1:8; 3:2,5,7,10; 2 Thess.1:3; 2 Tim.2:18; Tit. 1:2; Jam.2:18(x2); 1 Pet.1:7,21; 2 Pet.l:5; 1 Jn5:4; Jud.20; Rev.13:10.

344 Mk11:22; Ac.3:16; Rom.3:22,26; Gal.2:16,16,20; 3:22; Eph.3:12; Phil.1:27; 3:9; Col.2:7; 2 Thess.2:13; Jam.2:1; Rev.2:13; 14:12.

345 See G.Howard, ‘On the “Faith of Christ” ’, HThR, 60, 1967, pp.459–465.

346 Robinson, ‘Faith’, p.74.

347 Richard Watson (1781–1833) thought of it as part of a ‘gross corruption of christian faith’ (see ed R.S.Taylor, Leading Wesleyan Thinkers, vol.3 (Beacon Hill, 1985), pp.23–49, esp.p.42. This hostility goes back to John Fletcher who spoke of the ‘bare-faced Antinomian, who expects to be justified in the great day by Christ’s imputed righteousness without works’ (Works, 1, p.303). Less forcefully Wesley also rejected the idea (see P.Toon, Justification, pp.105–106).

348 See J.Murray, Writings, 2, pp.212–214; Hughes, Second Corinthians, p.212; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, pp.281–282; Stott, Cross, p.200. The idea has roots in Calvin who said, ‘We hold that Christ is their only righteousness ... By His obedience he has wiped off our transgressions’ (see Calvin’s ‘Reply to Sadoleto’, in J.C.Olin (ed), A Reformation Debate (Baker, 1976), p.67).

349 Luther, Letters of Spiritual Counsel, p.110. (My attention was drawn to this letter by Stott, Cross, p.200.)

PART 3

JUSTIFICATION AS COVENANT-MEMBERSHIP?

11

JUSTIFICATION AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

We still have not finished with Galatians! According to the New Testament the basis of assurance is faith in the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ, a faith which (in Christ) is reckoned to us for righteousness. Having believed the gospel, our salvation is sealed to us by the Holy Spirit who is himself a foretaste of final glory before we reach final glory. Our lives are powerfully transformed and our salvation is confirmed in a subsidiary manner by the life of obedience to the love-commands of Jesus. I have written about the sealing of the Spirit and ‘subsidiary’ assurance elsewhere.[350] Here my concern is with the solid rock on which it all stands: justification only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But I cannot be in too much of a hurry because the traditional doctrine (from a Protestant viewpoint) is much debated nowadays. It always has been. Lloyd-Jones complained it was disappearing from view in the 1950s.[351] The charismatic movement—with its concern for the subjective—has generally not had much room for a clear doctrine of justification, although there are exceptions and in the circles in which I move there seems to be a new hunger for clear objective theology with which to test and evaluate our experiences and our preaching.

I believe I should consider just one of the developments away from the traditional teaching. Amongst the various writers within the ‘new perspective’ on the apostle Paul, one of the strongest downgradings of justification by faith comes in the teaching of Tom Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham in Britain, whose work like that of a few others arises out of the strand of thought commenced by Stendahl’s 1961 paper already mentioned (‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience’) and Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism.[352] For Wright justification is mainly a matter of ‘covenant-membership’ and has nothing to do with righteousness being ‘imputed’ to the believer, in Christ. Wright is one of a number of ‘post-evangelicals’ who, while paying a few compliments to Luther, effectively remove the New Testament doctrine of justification from evangelicalism as largely false and without interest to modern people (‘Most of my folk ... are not bothered about the doctrine of justification at all’[353]). Since I regard the doctrine of justification as the source of joy and power I must inevitably be interested in a writer who says it is not much more than a statement that you do not have to be a Jew to enjoy salvation.

Nicholas Thomas Wright has written a lot and it would take volumes to do justice to it all. His work in connection with ‘the question of the historical Jesus’ and his belief in the resurrection of Christ is of great interest to Bible-believing Christians, but my concern here is with his view of justification. Since both my work and his work have a strong focus on Galatians and justification, I choose to interact largely with his comments on Galatians in Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians and in his Justification. The fact that the first of these is a popular work ‘for everyone’, like my own Galatians in the ‘Preaching Through the Bible’ series, is an advantage. In such books designed for ordinary people one might hope that the message will be exceptionally clear, and that we shall see with great lucidity what Wright’s view of the Christian faith is.

However, it is sometimes quite difficult to follow precisely how Wright gets his points from the biblical text. His positive points concerning his own teaching are clear enough. What is difficult to follow is how he gets the interpretations from Scripture! This itself is troubling. Wright maintains that such a capable theologian as John Piper has not understood him. Though Wright says first-century Christianity ‘was never intended for either a religious or intellectual elite’ and that this is still true today,[354] yet highly qualified theologians with doctoral degrees find Wright difficult, it seems, and at least one of them has proven so unable to follow Wright’s thought as to resemble a pre-Copernican ignoramus! To James Dunn, Wright’s question is, ‘Why couldn’t you hear what I was trying to tell you?’ For even Dunn has ‘never been able to see what I am talking about’.[355] Thirty years ago, in a symposium by evangelical Anglicans called The Great Acquittal, Wright was maintaining that justification is ‘status within the covenant’ but the other contributors, more orthodox evangelicals, did not seem to notice that one contributor was out of step with them, and even with the title of the symposium![356]

It takes time to see what Wright is saying. In discussing Roman Catholicism, Lloyd-Jones said that the great characteristic of the evangelical is that they are plain and unambiguous in stating the gospel. ‘The effect of becoming an evangelical is always to simplify and to make things clear. The evangelical is a clear thinker. The Catholic is never a clear thinker; he is involved, he is difficult, he is subtle. You find great trouble in following him because of his involved method of argumentation.’[357] The gospel is not tailor-made for the wise and the learned, and our theology must be suspect if it cannot be put before ordinary people.

It also has to be said that Wright and his colleagues—the proponents of the ‘new perspective’—do not hold any unified interpretation of Paul except at the point of denying the Protestant doctrine of justification as it was maintained, with varying degrees of clarity, from about 1517 till today, and (with less clarity) even before.[358] Wright seems to positively delight in their disagreements! He and Ed Sanders gave lectures next door to each other at Oxford, teaching contradictory points and creating ripples of laughter as a result.[359] There is ‘a lot of clear water’ to divide them. Similarly Jimmy Dunn disagrees with his friend Tom Wright.[360] At points ‘the new perspective falls apart!’ says Wright.[361] But no one with any pastoral heart can be happy with this. Must we wait a century or so until the scholars agree before we can preach the gospel?

What then is Wright’s teaching? It is this. The ‘works of the law’ in Romans and Galatians have nothing to do with general good living (‘moral good deeds’).[362] Rather they are certain aspects of the Mosaic law (circumcision, holy days, food-laws, especially) which kept God’s people divided and hindered the ‘healing of creation’[363] which has been God’s purpose ever since the days of Abraham. A division between Jews and gentiles made some sense before the time of Jesus, but it makes no sense now. We have died to the law (circumcision, holy days, food-laws) and now can be ‘declared to be God’s covenant-people’ (justification is really nothing more than this) by our faith in the faithfulness of Jesus the fulfiller of Israel’s history.

This sounds somewhat different from the usual run of Christian preaching. Wright says that some might say of his view of justification compared with the Reformation view, ‘It sounds pretty much the same to me’,[364] but he insists his teaching is different from the Reformation view. It is indeed! It turns out to be in one respect a movement back to the enemy of Luther, Cardinal Eck, the Catholic prelate, who taught that the ‘works of the law’ are only circumcision, holy days, food-laws, and the like![365] Indeed this is what most expositors have to say if they wish to avoid Paul’s teaching of justification by faith without any kind of salvation-obtaining obedience to any part of the Mosaic law. To make ‘works of the law’ refer to a few ceremonies and rituals is to make such a move away from a justification-by-faith-only doctrine. Gresham Machen complained back in 1922 about Edward De Witt Burton’s treatment of Galatians as directed against ceremonialism and externality. ‘There is ... a certain measure of truth in this opinion,’ thought Machen, but the thrust of Galatians cannot be wholly explained away along these lines.[366] Augustine and Jerome took similarly different sides, with Augustine seeing ‘the law’ in Galatians as the total law but Jerome holding what I consider to be the weaker position.[367]

Wright’s basic thesis is that justification is a matter of covenant-membership; its essence is that we do not have to keep Jewish food-laws, be circumcised or keep Jewish holy days to have status as the people of God. Our identity and covenant-membership-status is given to us entirely through our union with Christ and his faithfulness to the purposes of God in and through the story of Israel. In this teaching there is minimal mention of justification as traditionally understood; he gives faint allegiance occasionally but only as ‘the right answers to the wrong questions’.[368] He makes no clear mention of individual new birth, and there is no doctrine of assurance at all. Indeed we are not encouraged to be bothered about personal salvation. If I may be allowed to put it as simply as I can, the gospel according to Tom Wright is: Don’t worry about individual salvation. Join the universal church, the covenant-community, by faith in Jesus, and you are part of God’s one-and-only people, God’s Israel. But you don’t have to be a Jew.

But I believe the New Testament goes much further than this and has a doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justification (as I see it) leads to covenant-membership (which itself is not such a major theme in the New Testament outside Hebrews) but justification is not itself covenant-membership. In replacing the Protestant doctrine of justification with a more communal covenant-emphasis Wright has lost a needed New Testament emphasis in connection with the salvation of the individual.

The older, more long-standing evangelical doctrine is fairly clear. I am restating it here with small improvements (as I see it!) which do not affect the heart of the matter agreed by all evangelicals worthy of the name. At bottom all true evangelicals—old-style evangelicals as opposed to those who come from evangelicalism sociologically but have abandoned some of its distinctives—have a fairly agreed doctrine of justification. Justification is a change in a person’s relation or standing before God. It is a change from guilt and condemnation to acquittal and acceptance. It is the judicial act of God by which those who put faith in Christ are declared righteous in God’s sight and free from guilt and punishment. Some evangelicals add the point that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned as covering or put to the account of all who believe. Justification takes place not by good works but through grace alone, received by faith alone, on one basis only: what Christ’s sin-bearing did upon the cross. It is accompanied by new birth and demonstrated by practical newness of life. One evangelical work says we are justified judicially by God (Rom.8:33); meritoriously by Christ (Isa.53:11); mediately by faith (Rom.5:1); and evidentially by works (Jam.2:14,18–24).[369]

Wright disapproves of this teaching and wants to radically reshape it. Certainly our doctrine of justification has many ramifications. No doubt justification is not the whole of salvation. As I have stated it, it is only one aspect of the initial stages of salvation. No doubt much more could be said about working out salvation and the final ‘vindication’ in the day of judgement, about the social side-effects of justification, about its place in the renewal of the cosmos, and much more besides. More could be said—but not less! The evangelical doctrine of justification as just stated is at the very least one aspect of salvation, and one that gives the individual Christian great assurance.

Let us stay with Galatians. The Galatians’ error—thinks Wright—is that they are trying to find a new basis for their identity. They are part of Messiah’s family[370] but are trying to find an identity in becoming the physical family of Israel, marked out by circumcision.[371] They want to become Jews and prefer a religion with ‘ethnic and territorial membership’ rather than membership in Messiah’s new family;[372] they want an ‘ethnic, physically marked membership’[373] to be characteristic of the people of God. In all of this the Mosaic law is central, focusing, as the intruders think, on sabbaths, on refusing certain foods, notably pork, and on circumcision.[374] Much of this exposition by Wright is obviously correct, but the question is: does Paul’s reply confine itself to food, holy days and circumcision? Or does Paul reply by putting things into a much greater context?

For Wright the dominant theme in first-century Jewish thinking was the hope that deliverance from the Romans would soon come to Israel.[375] They still thought of themselves as being in exile.[376] They were not thinking about their personal relationship with God but about what God would do to fulfil his promise to rescue Israel.[377] Daniel 9 (which has the word ‘covenant’ in verse 4) was in their minds. God’s righteousness is God’s commitment to rescue Israel and ultimately creation itself.[378]

Wright is dogmatic about all of this, as if he alone is being objective and it is other people who are superimposing upon Scripture theories culled from elsewhere.[379] He has soaked himself in the Bible. He does exegesis. It is others who see the Scriptures through distorted thought-forms[380]—as if post-Stendahl New Testament scholarship or ‘covenantal justification’ could not possibly contain any distorted thought-forms! Wright reckons he has ‘an eye trained in scripture and Jewish tradition’; others ‘wear late mediaeval blinkers’[381] (as if the 21st century has no blinkers!).

Wright says at one point, ‘theologians can easily become so affable, so “nice” to everybody that we fail to confront head-on false teachings that can do lasting damage to churches and individual Christians’.[382] Indeed! Paul challenged Peter because his behaviour denied justification by faith. So what shall we say about Wright himself? Are we so sure that the evangelicals over the centuries have been so wrong?

Some comments on ‘covenant’

I have ten comments on Wright’s work: four about covenant (this chapter), four about justification and Wright’s theological method (ch.12), and two positive, though guarded, words of appreciation (ch.13). In commenting on other people’s behaviour and opinions, one normally puts commendation first (as Jesus did in the letters to the seven churches) and this leaves the criticism as the main point at the end, but in this connection I prefer the opposite emphasis. Space forbids a fully adequate discussion but my comments are as follows.

(i) The covenant-theme must not be over-worked; it is not so central in the New Testament. Within Paul’s writings there is scarcely (if at all) any place where the word ‘covenant’ is used in the way that Wright uses it. In Paul’s writings the word is mentioned nine times. Mostly the passages of Scripture concerned are discussing the contrasts in the covenants (plural). Passing reference without full discussion is made to ‘the covenants’ (plural) in Romans 9:4 and Ephesians 2:12. The contrasts between covenants is discussed in 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 3–4, but none of this has anything like Wright’s emphasis on ‘the covenant’, which is simply not biblical language, although much loved by theologians.

In only two verses in Paul’s letters is there significant mention of one covenant. The singular word occurs in 1 Corinthians 11:25 and this underlines the fact that the death of Jesus was a covenant-sacrifice. It comes again in Romans 11:27: ‘this will be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’ The conversion of Israel is an aspect of the eventual fulfilment of the new covenant, which is itself a fulfilment of God’s covenant-oath to Abraham. None of this amounts to much and I must conclude that ‘the covenant’ (and the history-of-Israel-beyond-the-exile which the word is thought to express) is an over-used expression in Wright’s writings.

I realize that the language of theology and the language of the Bible are not always the same. I once asked Adrio König, my much-respected Doktorvater and the foremost Reformed theologian of South Africa, why Reformed infant baptists are so much more concerned about covenant (singular) than about contrasting ‘covenants’ (plural). He replied, ‘ “Covenant” (singular) is a theological idea by which we read the whole Bible, but the language itself is not specially close to biblical usage.’ Yes, indeed. I agree. We have to use words like ‘trinity’ and so on, and sometimes we make Bible terms into the jargon of our theological discussions. But should we not try to get our use of theological language as close to Scripture as we can—especially if the words themselves are found in Scripture? Wright himself makes this very point about ‘justify’ where Scripture has a looser usage than is found in the history of theology. I make the same point about his favourite word, ‘covenant’. In addition I believe the Reformation’s use of ‘justify’ is much closer to Scripture than Wright’s use of ‘covenant’. Should not theological language clarify rather than obscure Scripture?

Wright is eager to find covenant everywhere and it is possible to read it into the New Testament at many points. But this is like a writer on baptism I once read,[383] who thought that water-baptism is really the theme in Romans 8 but it is ‘accidental’ that Paul did not say so. Is it really unbiased interpretation to think Paul could be writing about baptism but accidentally forget to say so? What sort of interpreting is this? Similarly covenant can be read into the New Testament easily, but if you come to Scripture in a simple and straightforward manner, where in the New Testament passages concerning justification would you be compelled to mention covenant? To my knowledge, nowhere! On the other hand, that God gives us a covering righteousness that is not our own is a key point in the biblical teaching. Wright says in response to Jim Packer: ‘if imputed righteousness is so utterly central ... isn’t it strange that Paul never came straight out and said it?’[384] Yet if Wright is right about justification being ‘in Christ’ (as he is), and if righteousness is ‘imputed’ to Abraham (logizomai could be translated ‘impute’, and the word ‘imputation’ in theology comes from the occasional Latin Vulgate translation of logizomai as imputo), then the imputed righteousness of Christ is involved in justification! But can the same be said about ‘covenant’ in justification? One could respond to Wright: ‘if covenant as part and parcel of justification is so utterly central ... isn’t it strange that Paul never came straight out and said it?’

Is there any chapter in the New Testament where the word ‘covenant’ is found (such as Matt.26; Mk14; Lk.1,22; Ac.3,7; Heb.7,10) and where at the same time there is mention of justification or righteousness from God? And is there any chapter of the New Testament where righteousness or justification is mentioned and covenant is found in connection with that precise theme? In the massive exposition of sin and justification in Romans 3–8 the word ‘covenant’ never appears; in the exposition of justification in Romans 10, the word ‘covenant’ does not appear. In the central statement of justification in Galatians 2:16–22 there is no mention of covenant. Where in the New Testament is there any interweaving of covenant and justification? It is hardly to be found! Hebrews 12:34 maybe—but one has to search hard! Only in 2 Corinthians 3 is there any connecting of ‘righteousness’ and covenant but even there Wright’s precise points are not being made by Paul. The new covenant is not identical to the covenant with Abraham. When justifying righteousness is mentioned two chapters later (2 Cor.5:21) covenant is not mentioned.

In Galatians the covenants are contrasted and grace in Abraham is not nullified or cancelled when ‘Israel’ and the Mosaic covenant come along. The covenant of law is ‘added’ and is not part and parcel with justification. So where in the New Testament is there an interweaving of covenant and justification? I simply cannot find it. I can understand why, in a denomination that tends to use the Israel set-up to establish infant baptism and a Constantinian type of state church, ‘covenant’ (singular) is an important theme. An Anglican bishop in a ‘state church’ might be expected to talk this way. But Paul likes to use the plural (Rom.9:4; Gal.4:24; Eph.2:12)! Covenant does not connect with justification in the way Wright suggests, and one must protest at the very idea that there is some immense single overarching covenant throughout salvation history. Romans contains the greatest exposition of justification, but if, as Wright says, ‘even the bare verbal statistics will tell you that Romans is a book about God’,[385] then it is also true to say ‘even the bare verbal statistics will tell you that Romans has little to say about covenant’.

To take the New Testament teaching concerning one covenant which vastly outstrips another covenant (‘what once had glory has come to have no glory at all’) and then speak of one overarching covenant does not seem to be right at all. The two places in 2 Corinthians where the word ‘covenant’ occurs (3:6,14) place the new covenant in contrast to the Mosaic covenant—the letter that kills. I simply cannot find Wright’s idea of covenant in the New Testament.

Tom Wright says of John Piper something similar to what he says of Packer: ‘If imputed righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church important ... isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?’ But this is the pot calling the kettle black! In justification righteousness is ‘reckoned’. The verb is chashab in Hebrew and logizomi in Greek, and many a dictionary will tell us that imputation is central in its meaning.

Imputed righteousness is all over the Bible, beginning with Genesis 15:6 if not before. It is the meaning of the word ‘justify’. The Hebrew lexicon by Gesenius gives ‘impute’ as the meaning of chashab in Genesis 15:6! So does James Swanson’s Dictionary of Biblical Languages. So do the Brown–Driver–Briggs lexicon and Strong’s lexicon. The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament of Timothy and Barbara Friberg gives it as the meaning of dikaioo in Romans 3:24. The Complete Word Study Dictionary of Spiros Zodhiates gives it as the meaning of logizomai and explicitly mentions the ‘imputation of righteousness whose correlative is freedom from guilt’. The Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint compiled by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, and published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, does something similar. So do the more classical dictionaries, such as the ‘Intermediate’ smaller version of the famous work by Liddel and Scott, citing the New Testament and the verb eklogeo. Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the Old Testament has a chapter on the subject. At least seven volumes of the ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament have material on the subject including such reference to ‘imputed or forensically ascribed justification’ as ‘an effective living power’.[386] Wright’s question about imputed righteousness is not so powerful after all! And even he at points agrees that ‘justify’ is closely associated with ‘vindicate’.[387] They are virtually synonymous; to say ‘justify and vindicate’ is to say the same thing twice. ‘Vindicate’ is not different from ‘declare righteous’. But Wright’s desired meaning (‘be accepted in a community’) simply will not work.

Imputed righteousness is well established in the lexica, but where in the lexica is ‘justification as covenant-membership’? If the idea that ‘covenant-membership’ equals justification is so utterly central, why does no Greek dictionary have it as at least one of the meanings of the relevant words?

(ii) We must give adequate weight to differences across the covenants. Wright fails to adequately distinguish the covenants. He reckons ‘justification’ is membership of ‘the covenant’. The Christian’s status as a covenant-member no longer needs ‘the law’ (particularly circumcision, food, holy days). We no longer need a circumcision-rule or food-laws or holy days to be in covenant with God. But to say this is to say that we no longer need what the Old Testament calls ‘the covenant’!

In the Old Testament, Mosaic law is ‘the covenant’! Of the roughly 270 verses in the Old Testament that use the word ‘covenant’, about half of them (more than 130) refer to the Mosaic covenant. The remaining half refer to many different kinds of covenant. If anything in the long centuries of Israel’s history deserves to be called ‘the covenant’ it is the Mosaic law! Jeremiah has to explicitly make the point that what is coming in the gospel is ‘not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt’ (Jer.31:32). Even in Wright’s key text—Daniel 9—‘the covenant’ in Daniel 9:4 is the Mosaic law (‘who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments’). To make justification (in which we ‘die’ to the Mosaic law) part and parcel of ‘the covenant’ makes no sense at all if we are thinking in biblical terminology.

(iii) Wright gives little attention to the ancient near Eastern background to covenant. This is strange because Wright makes much of ‘studying the background’ in biblical interpretation. Certainly, if theology is to make progress, newly discovered themes in the Scriptures must be studied. The way in which ‘historical background’ comes into this must be carefully considered. It is a basic principle of interpretation that historical context comes into biblical exegesis and we must be keeping an eye on historical context as we do our work. But the way in which this is done requires care and caution.

I have mentioned already that major aspects of ‘the covenants’ have been researched by theologians since the work of V.Korošec in the early 1930s. The results ought to have made us all reconsider our ideas about covenant and should have given help to our theologies. Korošec wrote a book on Hittite covenants but it soon became obvious that covenant-oaths, covenant-curses and so on were very important in all ancient Near Eastern law. Korošec’s work was noticed by G.Mendenhall[388] who observed that everything that was said about Hittite covenants was observable in the second millennium BC Mosaic law-covenant in the biblical story (in which the junior participant takes the oath). In speaking to his people God obviously made use of the widespread and universal custom of making covenants. A little later (1970) it was noticed and mentioned by Weinfeld that ancient land-grants by covenant were very close in style to the generosity-covenants of the Bible (in which the senior participant takes the oath).

Wright should surely take more notice of this ancient Near Eastern background than he has. I would be the first to insist that no specialist knowledge of history is needed to understand the Bible (otherwise only the experts could read it) but sometimes outside knowledge draws our attention to something in the Bible that we should have noticed without the outside knowledge. For example, in Acts 2 Peter made use of the non-biblical knowledge that David’s tomb was down the road in Jerusalem; that fact affects the exposition of Psalm 16! Psalm 16 says what it says before anyone thinks about David’s tomb, but noticing David’s tomb gives us a little outside help in interpreting Psalm 16. This is a good example of a principle of interpretation. In Galatians 3:1–5 Paul does the same with an ‘experience’ of the Spirit which is independent of the biblical text. His argument is from experience; it is not sheer exegesis, a fact which B.B.Warfield noted[389] (and it makes us know that we also can be sure of Paul’s doctrine of justification by our experience of the Spirit). Everything needed to be known about covenants can be found in the Bible on its own. We are to believe on the sufficiency of Scripture. But knowledge of ancient near Eastern covenants definitely speeds up and clarifies our interpretation of the Bible.

Although the study of background must be done, there are some difficulties in using a controversial reconstructed history (as Wright does) as a controlling theory in any piece of biblical interpretation. The reconstructions are themselves intensely debated by biblical scholars and the manuscripts upon which they are built are variously interpreted (think of the ‘new perspective’ and the debated interpretation of the phrase ‘works of the law’ in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls). So if we are not careful theories of biblical interpretation are built upon dubious reconstructions of history. One theory lasts a generation and then the scholars pass on to a new theory. We start interpreting the plain and obvious (Paul at his best) by means of the obscure (the passing fashions of historical reconstruction). Amidst the vast quantity of evidence that such a method takes for granted, expositors have to find what is relevant and what is not. We remember how once New Testament theology explained everything in terms of ancient ‘mystery religions’!

In addition expositors doing their historical investigation in this way tend to assume that a biblical writer can never try to write in general principles for his Christian people. He must always have some very specific situation in view. But perhaps this can be exaggerated and the Bible is a little more general than is thought. When I as a pastor am brought specific problems and am asked to give advice, I tend to reply by expounding general principles! The biblical writers did something similar.

Wright was once asked in an interview,[390] ‘Does one have to read John Piper’s book to appreciate yours?’ He replied, ‘even if they have never heard of John Piper, they would still be able to read this book and see the subject laid out.’ So why can something similar not be true of Paul? In the same way, if I am asked, ‘Does anyone have to read Tom Wright to understand what you are saying about him?’ I shall reply, ‘No, I have said all you need to know to understand this particular point I am making.’

Is Paul so different? What if Paul is asked, ‘Does anyone need to know all about first-century Judaism to understand your Galatians?’ Or even more difficult: ‘Does anyone need to know all about one possible reconstruction of first-century Judaism and one possible reconstruction of what was on your mind but you did not mention in order to understand your Galatians?’ Paul might reply, ‘You know the main points. Galatian Christians want to adopt the Jewish style of living as much as possible, beginning with circumcision and reducing their social contact with other people. I said all I needed to say. Now that full Christian faith has come the entire Mosaic system is abolished. Your justification, your sanctification, your glorification—they all come without involvement in the Mosaic system. This particular controversy leads me to expound the whole general truth revolving around this particular matter. In that way I can help the Galatians and everyone else who ever reads my letter! Jesus gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. All worldly and law-centred ways of relating to God are finished for ever. Abraham believed God and that—plus nothing—was imputed to him for righteousness. To God alone be glory for ever and ever.’

Wright always has circumcision, food-laws and sabbaths on his mind when he speaks of ‘the law in Galatians’. But surely the moral aspects of the law must also be involved in what Paul says about ‘the law’. Wright himself says at one point, ‘If you get circumcised, you are committing yourself to keeping the whole law, the entire Jewish Torah.’[391] Although the Galatians and the intruders were no doubt much bothered by food-laws, sabbaths, circumcision and the like, still the moral aspect must be included in ‘the law’. Even though it is less than one per cent of the text (for the Ten Commandments in their two versions are only 32 verses) the Jew could hardly claim to be in the covenant-community only by ritual requirements. The Jew surely thought that obedience to moral requirements was part of what maintained their status before God (‘covenantal nomism’!). If some ‘Reformed’ people forget that ‘the law’ is more than the Ten Commandments, Wright forgets that it is more than food-laws and sabbaths and circumcision. How can Paul not take this into account? Even if the Galatians and the intruders were obsessed with food-laws, sabbaths, circumcision and the like, Paul’s reply must surely be wider and fuller. He must surely deal with the entire law—moral, calendrical, agricultural, ritual, the restraining aspect, the punishing aspect, the sacrifices, national rulings about kings and tribes, economic procedures, food-laws, and rules about health, hygiene, skin-diseases and houses—everything, including the tenth commandment! This is the very point Paul makes in Galatians 5:3. Every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law. But this implies that justification is without any part of the law—although it is witnessed by the law. Paul cannot leave out what must be a major part of what is at issue.

Paul’s reply to the intruders goes back to Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith and that—that only—was reckoned to him as righteousness. No part of the Mosaic law existed. If Paul builds his case on Abraham—as he does—then the issues that are involved on Paul’s side are more than food-laws and sabbaths and circumcision. If justification is not by the law, it is not only that food-laws and sabbaths and circumcision must not be the test of fellowship; the entire law has been replaced by the person of Jesus. The law—all of it—fails to justify, fails to regenerate, fails to sanctify, fails to give fellowship. Occasionally Wright says as much! But then almost immediately he says things such as, ‘the whole law’ means ‘the full discipline of the Jewish synagogue’![392] But this is surely a feeble interpretation.

The Galatians are entrenched in particulars, but Paul gives them a general full-orbed outline of what they need to know: Paul’s apostolic authority (1:11 – 2:14), the way of salvation (2:15 – 5:12) and the results of salvation in the life of the Holy Spirit (5:13 – 6:18).

Take the case of legalism or no legalism in first-century Judaism. What if there were a general and universal tendency of all people everywhere (including New Testament scholars) to think they can save themselves by their own morality and law-filled background, and even their nationality and its ‘badges of membership’? It would mean that, although there may be very specific things happening in Galatia, Paul might reply to them by expounding the truth of God that is relevant everywhere. Was Jewish ‘covenantal nomism’ so full of a doctrine of grace? Or could it be that even covenantal nomism was still very confident in its own ability to sanctify itself and do so by staying within Israel’s Mosaic covenant of law?

‘Background’ is important but it must not be over-emphasized to the point of making all Scripture totally incomprehensible with lots of theoretical historical reconstruction. The biblical writers were capable of making themselves clear, background or no background.

But Wright is actually weak in his use of the background to covenant-teaching! After the work of Korošec and the Old Testament specialists, evangelical scholars noticed what was going on and began to correct their ideas and interpretations about ‘covenant’. One of the greatest in this connection was the Reformed scholar Meredith Kline. His work on Deuteronomy in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary,[393] also published as Treaty of the Great King,[394] and his various works on covenants should be studied by anyone who wants to expound ideas about ‘covenant’ in connection with theological statement. Kenneth A. Kitchen, Egyptologist at Liverpool University, has also written vital material (already mentioned in an earlier chapter) from an evangelical viewpoint.

Wright seems to think a massive overhaul of Protestant theology is needed and that he, standing almost alone, is the new Luther to correct Protestant traditions. Like Luther against Catholicism he must resist the Pipers and Packers who are the old traditionalists—as hidebound as pre-Copernicans after Copernicus! He insists against John Piper that the Bible must be studied in its historical context, and is severe in his criticism of Piper in this connection. Why look so much to the sixteenth-century Reformation instead of the first century? Good point! But one may add that the first century AD does not go back far enough! Biblical covenants are not initially rooted in the thinking of Josephus and the Rabbinic writings but in the second millennium BC if not earlier still! The first covenant in the Bible is with Noah![395] Let us interpret Scripture within its historical context, says Wright. Yes, so be it! Let us study the historical context, beginning with Noah and then the second millennium BC and then Abraham—long before we get to Josephus and the rabbis!

It must be remembered that ‘the historical background’ can be used to twist Scripture as well as to expound it. Many a theologian or preacher radically reinterprets and twists Scripture. When someone protests he replies, ‘Ah, but you must pay attention to the historical background ...’ and he proceeds to pervert Scripture so as to drag up some old heresy (for there are not many new heresies). I know of good people who have such an extreme doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that they say that the Christian never has to confess their sins! When asked, ‘But what about 1 John 1:9?’ the answer comes back, ‘Ah, but you must pay attention to the historical background. That was only for the Gnostics ...’ I doubt whether Tom Wright would agree with that, but his method is not so different. There are tens of thousands of pages of ‘historical background’ that we might read alongside the Old Testament and the New Testament, and some of us try to read them and have the Pseudepigrapha and the Mishnah and the Hebrew text of the main Dead Sea Scrolls—and a lot more—on our bookshelves! But we are in danger of picking and choosing what ‘background’ we want to use in order to make the point that is our current theory. The ‘new perspective’ wants us to think that the ‘background’ of first-century Judaism was not as legalistic as one might think. But any Tom, Dick or Harry—scholar or ignoramus—can read Danby’s The Mishnah (whose rulings are late but are reckoned to continue much that was typical of New Testament times) and tell us how full of grace was ‘covenantal nomism’!

The main historical background to any passage of Scripture is the historical background within Scripture. Then we can indeed expand what we find as the explicitly mentioned background within Scripture by reference to the wider world that is known to us. But let us be wary of dragging in ‘background’ to change the message of Scripture when that ‘background’ is not explicitly mentioned in the relevant Scripture at all.

A true ‘covenant theology’

(iv) It is easy to talk glowingly about covenant without noticing the actual ‘theology of covenant’ to be found in Scripture. Covenant is oath! ‘Jehoiada ... made a covenant with them and put them under oath ...’ (2 Ki.11:4). Ezekiel 16:59 speaks of ‘you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant’. Ezekiel 17:13 speaks of the king of Babylon who ‘took one of the royal offspring and made a covenant with him, putting him under oath ...’. Despising an oath and breaking a covenant are the same thing (Ezk.17:16,18). ‘My oath ... he despised, ... my covenant ... he broke’ (Ezk.17:19). Covenant is promise made doubly certain by the taking of an oath.

Abraham is the model of how a covenant of generosity works. Abraham is at first justified (Gen.15:6). Then he is given promises. The promises are not justification; he is already justified. Then Abraham asks how he can be certain that the promises will come to pass. In Genesis 15:8 he asks, ‘How am I to know that I shall inherit it?’ At that point God commences covenant-procedure but no oath is yet given to Abraham! Covenant-fulfilment is inheritance. The inheritance is ‘obtained’ when the oath is given! It is secure and irrevocable at the point of the oath but not before. Psalm 89 is an extended meditation on that very point—in connection with the promise to David. Saul lost the kingdom but David could not lose it because of a covenant-oath! Nor would his descendants lose it. A son of David would inherit the kingdom and nothing could prevent history from going forward in that direction. Similarly the Levitical priesthood would cease but the priesthood of Melchizedek could not cease or be lost because it was bound by a covenant-oath!

Many theologians, scholarly and not so scholarly, make major use of the covenant-theme. But some ancient near Eastern study would help if we are to expound ‘covenant-theology’. Covenant is 100 per cent identical with oath. Oath and covenant are synonyms in the Bible.

But we can find out about ‘covenant’ without reading Hittite! In Nehemiah chapter 5, the difference between promise and oath is made clear. Nehemiah complains that the Jews are ill-treating their poorer fellow Jews. He is angry (Ne.5:6) and calls a meeting in which he condemns them sharply for what they have done. The upper classes of Judea promise to restore the heavy interest they have taken when giving loans to their poorer brothers and sisters. They give a promise: ‘We will restore everything and we shall demand nothing more from them’ (Ne.5:12). But Nehemiah wants something more. He sends for the priests and makes the people take an oath. This is a covenant! A covenant is a promise that has been made secure by the taking of an oath. He leads them through a ceremony (Ne.5:13) and gets them to swear that they will do as they have said. Once an oath is taken you—or even God—are legally committed.

It is important always to note what kind of covenant is in view whenever the word ‘covenant’ is found. Noah’s covenant was a covenant of generosity. The covenant made with Israel via Moses on Mount Sinai was a law-covenant and we are no longer under it. There are other covenants of generosity as well as that through Noah. Later in the Bible we have mention of covenants made out in favour of Abraham, in favour of David, and a new covenant through the blood of Jesus offering the ‘obtaining’ of covenant-promises to God’s people.

Our eternal security is based on God’s covenant-oath to Abraham, and on God’s covenant-oath to Jesus, our Melchizekian high-priest. It is not based on any oath given to us. Abraham and Melchizedek cannot lose their people! True, we can have an oath given to us—the oath of the new covenant in which we ‘obtain’ promises! But that is not assurance of salvation. We have that already! We distinguish between our eternal security (via the oaths to Abraham and Jesus our Melchizedek) and our own personal experiencing of the oath of God. One is given to us at our regeneration; the other is perhaps yet to be inherited!

For Abraham the oath has already been given. He has his ‘seed’, his people. He will lose none of them. We look at the oath given to Abraham and we say to ourselves, ‘I cannot be lost because Abraham cannot lose his reward.’ God gave an oath to Abraham to show ‘the unchangeable character of his purpose’. My salvation is unchangeable. I have run to Jesus for safety, and God gave an oath to Abraham so that by two unchangeable things in both of which it is impossible for God to lie I might have total and absolute assurance of my everlasting safety. Jesus is like an anchor. ‘We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, an anchor which is firm and secure. It enters into the innermost room behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has already entered. He has become a high priest for ever in the order of Melchizedek’. When an anchor is thrown into the sea it becomes invisible, yet it is fixed to the bottom of the sea. Those on the boat know it is there although they cannot see it. So with Jesus. He has gone, not down into the sea but ‘up’ into heaven, or ‘through’ into the heavenly holy-of-holies. We cannot see him but we know he is there. He is fixed in heaven and we are tied by God’s faithfulness to him. So we cannot totally drift away because we are anchored to heaven by our Lord Jesus Christ who is already there. (Hebrews 6:19–20).

But there is more! There are yet further promises to be ‘obtained’ in a way that cannot be lost. Jesus is our forerunner. He is in heaven and we are tied to him. He has got to his reward and so we are safe. But now Jesus wants to draw us in after him so that we get to our reward also! He wants us to be brought to the glory of our reward (not our justification, our reward, inheriting the promises upon our lives). Our being tied to Jesus is fixed; we do not have to worry about that. But we must persist in faith, knowing that Jesus is interceding for us as our great high-priest, until God says ‘Well done’ to us and we reach a high level of heavenly glory. We can have a taste of it even before we get there, when we ‘enter into rest’—that is, when we reach the assurance that our reward is as good as given to us already.

We are relying on an oath to Abraham, and that is the way in which we can have total assurance of eternal and indestructible salvation. But we may also experience God’s giving an oath to us and so reach total assurance of our inheritance. We have promises upon our lives. Every Christian has ‘good works which God has prepared beforehand’ for them to walk in them (Eph.2:10). We have something to do for God, as did each of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. We have Jesus as ‘an anchor for the soul’, but we are also wanting to reach the full and deep conviction that we have already laid up treasure in heaven, that it has been sworn to us, and that it now cannot be lost. Jesus is bringing many sons to glory and making it possible for us to reach high levels of honour. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, they will receive a reward. The foundation will certainly survive. Will the work survive also? Through the intercessory work of Jesus there is no reason why we should not reach what I call ‘high levels of glory’. We may ‘obtain the new covenant promises’ of inheritance, here and hereafter, in such a way that they cannot be lost.

Needless to say nothing like this is to be found in Wright’s exposition of covenant—but this is what covenant theology is all about!

350 M.A.Eaton, Baptism with the Spirit: The Teaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones (IVP, 1989); The Gift of Prophetic Preaching (New Wine, 2008); 1,2,3 John (Christian Focus, 1996).

351 D.M. Lloyd-Jones, God the Holy Spirit (Great Doctrines series, II; Hodder and Stoughton, 1997), p.167.

352 E.P.Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (SCM, 1977).

353 N.T.Wright, ‘Interview on Justification ...’ (http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/wright_qa.pdf), p.10.

354 Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (SPCK, 2002), p. ix.

355 Tom Wright, Justification (SPCK, 2009), p.43.

356 G.Reid (ed), The Great Acquittal (Fount, 1980).

357 D.M.Lloyd-Jones, ‘What is an Evangelical?’ in Knowing the Times (Banner of Truth, 1989), p.331.

358 See J.Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (repr. Banner of Truth, 1961), lecture 3, for prefigurations of the Protestant doctrine, especially in connection with Anselm and Bernard of Clairvaux.

359 Wright, Justification, pp.12–13.

360 Wright, Justification, p.43; see also Wright’s dedication of Justification to his ‘sparring partner’ James Dunn (p.xi).

361 Justification, p.43.

362 Justification, p.148.

363 Justification, p.148.

364 N.T.Wright, ‘Interview on Justification ...’ p.4.

365 See John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces: Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, 1529 (ET F.L.Battles, Baker, 1979), pp.98–99.

366 J.G.Machen, Notes on Galatians (ed J.H.Skilton; Solid Ground, 2006), p.227.

367 See E.Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians (OUP, 2003).

368 Wright, ‘Interview on Justification …’, p.16.

369 W.Evans & S.M.Coder, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (electronic edition, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1998; orig. edition, Chicago: Moody).

370 Wright, Galatians, p.28.

371 Galatians, p.29.

372 Galatians, p.49.

373 Galatians, p.54.

374 Galatians, p.32.

375 Wright, Justification, p.39.

376 Justification, p.41.

377 Justification, pp.42–43.

378 Justification, p.46.

379 Justification, p.6.

380 Justification, pp.28–29.

381 Justification, p.155.

382 Wright, Galatians, p.67.

383 W.F.Flemington’s book, produced half-a-century ago, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (SPCK, 1953).

384 Wright, Justification, p.30.

385 Justification, p.156.

386 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (eds G.Kittel, G.Friedrich, 1964–1974) (electronic edition, Logos Research Systems, 1997; 2nd ed, 2001), vol.7, p.791, n.118.

387 Wright, Justification, p.63.

388 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955).

389 ‘St.Paul’s Use of the Argument from Experience’, in B.B.Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings (ed J.E.Meeter; Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), pp.142–151.

390 Wright, ‘Interview on Justification’.

391 Galatians, p.62.

392 Galatians, p.62.

393 M.G.Kline, ‘Deuteronomy’, in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Oliphants, 1962), pp.155–204.

394 Eerdmans, 1963.

395 Some would say with Adam but I deny that there is any oath-taking (the heart of covenant) before Genesis 6.

12

JUSTIFICATION AND EXEGETICAL METHOD

I have argued that the covenant-theme is not well handled in Wright’s exposition of justification. Another matter is that the themes of forensic justification and personal salvation are all but banished from the life of the church.

In The Cross and the Colliery (SPCK, 2007) there is no message of atonement for sin or reconciliation with God. The needs of the community are to be met with sympathy and perhaps the Christians will push for a new recreation centre in town and some new affordable housing. By ‘taking bereavement to the cross’ we plant some seeds of hope and maybe God’s plan to ‘make new creation happen’ will go forward. Wright’s basic evangelistic message seems to be a matter of expressing sympathy with suffering communities. We are to do some practical stuff like building recreation centres and providing affordable housing and then planet earth will be a nicer place. This seems to be the totality of Wright’s ‘evangelistic message’. As he says, he has no conspicuous interest in personal salvation.

(i) No theology is adequate that disparages personal salvation. The ‘new perspective’ in general and Wright in particular have a needless hostility to individual relationship to God. Wright dislikes talk about the personal side of salvation; justification is not about ‘me and my salvation’.[396] This is surprising. It is a blunt way of putting the matter and not many people would like this precise phraseology (for ‘me and my salvation’ sounds as if we lack concern for the glory of God) yet it may be argued that salvation in the New Testament is indeed about ‘me and my salvation’. If Wright had said, ‘Salvation is not only about me and my salvation’ I would have agreed, but it seems he is saying, ‘Salvation is not at all about me and my salvation’. This is a denial of the gospel. ‘Me and my salvation’ do come into the subject! For Wright, apparently, Paul’s talk about Jesus loving ‘me and giving his life for me’ was a mistake! Justification is not about seeking a gracious God; Luther made a mistake in using such language, thinks Wright. No one should be inquiring, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ The Philippian gaoler should not have asked! For Wright, salvation is an altogether bigger matter (yes, we agree, but is personal salvation absent?). It is cosmic (yes, we agree, but—again—is personal salvation absent?). It is eschatological (yes, we agree, but is personal salvation not here right now? Is eschatology not realized at least a little?). The closing scenes of Revelation are not about going to heaven. It is true! But perhaps they are about going into intimate and close relationship with God (for a bride and her lover have a close relationship). The idea that salvation is not about ‘me and my salvation’ sounds very self-effacing, but are we to learn nothing from all the miracle stories where someone asks, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean’ or ‘Lord, save me’ or ‘Have mercy on me, O Lord’ or ‘Lord, help me’ or ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me’? Apparently—if Wright is right—the tax-collector who beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’—and went home justified—should not have spoken in such a way, for justification is not about ‘me and my salvation’. Paul should not have spoken about Christ’s coming into the world to save sinners, ‘of whom I am the foremost’—for salvation is not about ‘me and my salvation’.

Again and again in Wright’s expositions it is the community that is emphasized. The faith of the believer ‘is the sign that this person, no matter what their ethnic background, is a full and complete member of God’s family’.[397] One might have expected Wright to say, the faith of the believer ‘is the sign that this person, no matter what their ethnic background, is fully reconciled to God’—but this is not Wright’s emphasis. The believer’s being reconciled to God might sound like talk about ‘me and my salvation’ and this Wright does not want. It is the covenant-community that has to be mentioned.

Surely all of this is simply of little use to the Christian church. The downgrading of individual salvation will inevitably skew the New Testament account of the gospel. For Wright being ‘in Christ’ is not ‘a spiritual state resulting from, or consisting in, a certain type of inner experience’. It is surprising that a bishop of the church should be telling us that being ‘in Christ’ does not involve spiritual experience! Rather it is ‘a matter of belonging to a particular community’.[398] But surely this endless contrasting of community with the individual is unwarranted. Being ‘in Christ’ does result in personal experience! On the Day of Pentecost the entire Jerusalem church was baptized with the Spirit. True, it was a community experience, yet the biblical text also says that ‘tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them’ (Ac.2:3). The individual was not lost in the community. In Galatians Paul describes his very personal experience and talks about the occasion when God ‘called me’ and was pleased to reveal his Son to me’ (Gal.1:15,16). He talks about whether ‘a person’ (anthropos—singular) is justified by works of the law or through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (2:16). A person! The individual’s salvation is involved. He says, ‘I died to the law … I live to God. I have been crucified with Christ … Christ who lives in me … The life I now live … I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me …’. What could be more intensely personal? Paul’s model of justification is Abraham—an individual. Paul often uses the word ‘I’ when talking about salvation. ‘I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose’ (Gal.2:21). Wright insists the gospel is not about how anyone ‘gets saved’, but this contradicts the New Testament which speaks of ‘the gospel ... by which you are being saved’ (1 Cor.15:1–2). The New Testament is full of individuals ‘getting saved’.

In another place[399] Wright does not want people asking questions like, ‘What is my relationship with God?’ but instead they must ask about ‘what God is going to do to sort out his world and his people’. But why the contrast between these two things? Why should asking about ‘what God is going to do to sort out his world’ exclude asking ‘What is my relationship with God?’ Does not the New Testament include both ingredients all the time? Paul can say, ‘Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers’ (1 Tim.4:16). Why can we not ask, ‘What is my relationship with God?’ and ask about ‘what God is going to do to sort out his world and his people’? But Wright wants to downgrade the personal aspect. As for ‘religious feelings’, he seems still to think they are a ‘pastoral disaster’.[400] Personally I think it is more pastorally disastrous when there are no ‘religious feelings’. ‘Joy unspeakable and full of glory’ is a religious feeling! We perhaps remember the first chapter of Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections where he begins by insisting that the Christian life has a lot to do with ‘religious affections’ and cites the New Testament at length to prove the point.[401]

The constantly missing words in Wright’s writings are ‘not only’. When Wright says salvation is not about individuals but about the grand purposes of God, he is surely stating the matter wrongly. Salvation is not only about individuals; it is part and parcel of the grand purposes of God. The words ‘not only’ are vital. Wright is constantly making everything corporate! It is extraordinary that he should say that even Ephesians 2:8–10 is only about ‘the public face of the church in the world’.[402] Is Ephesians 2:1–10, all of it, not true of each person as well as of all persons in the body of Christ, the church? Surely this kind of argumentation is the high-road to a ‘churchianity’ without personal knowledge of God.

(ii) Care is needed in the use of first-century Jewish history. Wright spends much space on what he reckons is the ‘background’ to the letters of Paul, more than he does on detailed exegesis of the text itself in the context of the biblical background. Our knowledge of the wider background should itself take its start from the biblical text. To bring in material that the original readers did not have in the text is problematic, because there is so much of such material, and it is all so contradictory. One can prove anything by bringing in the appropriate bit of non-biblical ‘background’. Of course every kind of context is important in interpreting Scripture—historical, geographical, situational, literary and so on. Meaning is determined by context. But the most trustworthy kind of interpretive ‘background’ is that which can be demonstrated, at least initially, from the text itself. Exile as a theme in Paul’s writings cannot be demonstrated.

If this is not true, the ordinary Christian has lost their Bible! They are in the hands of scholars who must tell them what the background is. A new controlling priesthood comes into the church with the Bible locked up—if not in priestly Catholic Latin, then in research libraries where you study history to find out whether you can be covered by the righteousness of Christ! For Cardinal Eck it was ‘what Holy Mother Church defines or accepts’ that was to have authority.[403] Ordinary Christians cannot cope with the Bible! For New Testament scholars who make too much of historical reconstruction as the key to reading the New Testament we could say it is ‘what Holy Mother University defines or accepts’ that is to have authority.

The truth is that ‘background’ research is helpful and illuminating. But if the biblical text does not itself mention the background the Christian is as likely to be deceived by an aspect of ‘history’ as they were a millennium ago by a text locked up in Latin. The New Testament teaching about justification is rooted in Genesis 15:6; in Isaiah’s ‘suffering Servant’, who as the righteous ‘shall ... make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities’; in Jesus’ use of the word ‘justified’ in Luke 18:14 (Luke the friend of Paul, who must surely have told Paul this story); and in the flow of thought within each entire book of the Bible. No amount of historical reconstruction from elsewhere can overthrow this ‘canonical’ context which is vastly more important than any scholar’s history of first-century Judaism! Outside information can draw our attention to what is in the text. One could wish that Wright paid more attention to outside information about ancient near Eastern covenants! But outside information cannot overthrow what is in the text! First-century Judaism cannot overthrow Paul’s teaching concerning justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

What are the themes of Galatians? Sin and judgement and slavery to sin, atonement and reconciliation to God, the ‘reckoned’ righteousness of God given to us—these themes do not get much mention if any in Wright’s exposition of Galatians. But he does see the story of Israel everywhere. Exile, Passover, exodus, the slaying of Egypt’s firstborn, Pharaoh,[404] the personal name YHWH,[405] wilderness wanderings,[406] the swift departure of Israel[407]—these are all reckoned to be very visible in Galatians. Of course none of these aspects of Israel’s history is explicit in Galatians. It is possible to read them into the lines of Galatians as Wright shows, but whether this is justified is doubtful at best. No doubt the whole Old Testament is the background to Paul’s thinking. The exodus-story helps us understand justification (all have sinned, Egyptians and Israelites; judgement is coming; the blood of the lamb intervenes; the people are not punished as sinners after all; the Passover lamb has borne the judgement—all this is the classic doctrine of justification). But whether these matters are immediately in Paul’s mind as he writes Galatians, and whether faithfulness to Israel’s history is an explicit point in Galatians—this surely requires greater demonstration than Wright gives. The fact that it can be read into Galatians is not a proof that it is central in what Paul is seeking to say.

(iii) Exegetical method must not use paraphrase in the interests of eisegesis. ‘Eisegesis’ (the opposite of ‘exegesis’ or ‘careful interpretation’) is reading into a text something you want to be there, forcing the Bible to mean something that fits your prior belief. Wright’s overall expertise in history is admirable. We surely admire his work in connection with the ‘quest of the historical Jesus’, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of word-by-word exegesis, I am not so impressed.

Let us consider the examples in Galatians. When, for example, Wright translates the word ‘justify’ as ‘declared “righteous” ’ the inverted commas around ‘righteous’ are a device Wright uses to signal that he does not wish us to understand ‘righteous’ in reference to status as a person innocent in the sight of God—and certainly not as covered with the righteousness of Christ! Paul’s word ‘righteous’—thinks Wright—means ‘acceptable as a covenant-member whether you keep Jewish ethnic rules or not’. This is included in what Paul is saying; Christians are accepted in God’s church (the term Paul uses is ‘church’ not ‘covenant’). But is it the main point? Is justified-status-as-if-100%-obedient-to-God excluded as having nothing to do with the subject in hand? For Wright the big problem is not sin (something Wright scarcely mentions; presumably he does not want any ‘introspective conscience’); it is ethnic rivalry.[408] The gospel is about ethnic rivalry far more than about personal salvation. So ‘justify’ is reinterpreted as ‘accepted as a covenant-member’. But what sort of exegesis is this?

Interestingly Wright has occasionally to abandon his translation. In connection with Galatians 5:6 for example justification is ‘future vindication’. But if this is so we are back to the traditional translation. ‘Justify’ means ‘declare to be right’, to ‘vindicate’. Yes indeed, but in one way or another this is what it means all the time!

I want to ask what Wright thinks Paul’s view of sin is. In Galatians 2:17 his interpretation takes ‘sin’ as ethnic misbehaviour, but is this all it is? In Galatians 3:22 when Paul says, ‘the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe’, the salvation of Christ seems to be dealing not simply with food and fellowship with the wrong people but with something altogether greater. Wright does say that ‘the human race as a whole is sinful’[409] but does not often make his point with regard to the individual sinner. Presumably ‘the human race as a whole is sinful’ does not mean ‘the human race as a whole is under temporary breakings of food-and-fellowship regulations’. Wright allows a more customary definition of sin in this sentence.

Despite all his claims to the contrary Wright does not actually do much exegesis! Much of the time he uses rather a paraphrasing-style of interpretation in which he reads his view of history into the text. Such a style of interpretation is sometimes necessary in popular works, and much of my own ‘Preaching Through the Bible’ series does something similar. This method of writing gives expositions of what we think the text finally means theologically, without precisely arguing in detail the technicalities of exegesis that show that the text means what we say it means. But if we use this method, to be fair to our readers, the translation we follow has to be a literalistic one. If we do a lot of exposition without reference to the details of the text and we do our work by using paraphrase, in order to put our exposition into our translation, the reader never gets a chance to see whether the paraphrase-and-exposition is justified! (This is very easy to do and I wonder how often I have done it myself. But certainly we must not do this.) It is surprising to find Wright claiming that his translations ‘try to keep close to the original’[410] because this is very far from being the case! When matters of high controversy are involved, to get rid of a classic doctrine by means of paraphrase and endless ‘background’ without the word-by-word exegesis is not acceptable.

A striking example of this paraphrasing method in which Wright reads in his view of first-century history is found in his periphrastic-translation of Galatians 3:24—‘so that we might be given covenant membership on the basis of faithfulness’;[411] the same paraphrase is given elsewhere in connection with 2 Corinthians 5:21.[412] Yet no Greek dictionary ever translates dikaioo as ‘to be given covenant membership’, so Wright’s ‘exegesis’ (which is not exegesis at all) simply arises from his overall theology. There is no reason to think that this is what Galatians 3:24 says! I have no objection to paraphrases and I use them myself but—like F.F.Bruce’s Expanded Paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul, produced in 1965—a paraphrase has to be set alongside a more literal translation so that we can see that the paraphrase is simply the interpreter’s final conclusion as to what the text means. Otherwise we are left at the mercy of the paraphraser’s idiosyncratic interpretations. What Wright is surely doing in Galatians 3:24 is reading his overall historical reconstruction of what was going on in the first century back into the text of Galatians—but in such a way that Paul’s actual doctrine of justification by faith without works disappears! Even the word ‘justify’ has disappeared from view! We may agree (as I do myself) with a lot of Wright’s historical reconstruction concerning God’s creating a single church-family (though in Ephesians where this point is being made Paul uses the word ‘church’ rather than refer to a single ‘covenant’). But our partial agreement does not extend to calmly watching the doctrine of justification disappear into freedom from food-regulations!

Wright says his interpretations ‘are not the superimposition upon scripture of theories culled from elsewhere’.[413] I disagree. The interpretations stand upon the rejection of forensic justification and that itself has arisen from a new scholarly tradition beginning with the teaching of Stendahl and Sanders. This is then read into the text of Galatians and Romans. But the entire tradition from Stendahl onwards is faulty. No doubt Luther expounded Romans and Galatians without knowing much about first-century Judaism, but he knew the human heart, and he knew his Bible! Everyone everywhere is averse to salvation by grace—including New Testament scholars! We are born that way until God calls us by his grace and is pleased to reveal his Son to us. Then we are given a righteousness that is not our own.

Another little piece of eisegesis is found in the study of the word ‘Christ’. Wright says that when we see the word ‘Christ’ ‘not only does he mean “Messiah”, but he also means that the Messiah is the one who sums Israel up in himself’.[414] This is said with no proof and it is surely a way of smuggling in Wright’s view of the importance of Israel’s story in the doctrine of justification. I am sure it is true in itself that ‘the Messiah is the one who sums Israel up in himself’; ‘the remnant’ is finally reduced to one! But I doubt whether we are to have this precise thought in mind every time we see the word ‘Christ’. ‘Christ’ speaks more of a divine person empowered by the Holy Spirit so as to do God’s will in utter obedience than it speaks of Israel’s history.

Then consider Wright’s view of the word ‘seed’. ‘Abraham is to have a single world-wide family, defined in terms not of parentage or ethnicity but of faith’.[415] The singular ‘seed’ of Galatians 3:16,19,29 is reckoned to be a family or community. This works in Galatians 3:29 because it is what the text says, but in 3:16,19 ‘the seed’ is surely Christ. It is the ‘family’ in 3:29 because God’s people are in Christ, but the reference in 3:16,19 has not yet reached that point. ‘Until the seed comes’ clearly means ‘Until Christ comes’.

The exile theme is surely also a piece of eisegesis. There was a time when Wright could say, ‘sins are dealt with on the cross ... the way to deal with sin is to punish it’.[416] But he does not use that language today. Nowadays, for Wright the curse of the law is not in any way other-worldly; it does not have to do with loss of fellowship with God; it is the curse of exile.[417] On the cross Jesus took the curse of the law (exile!). Israelites—Wright tells us—continually thought of themselves as still in exile. I can believe this, but it surely does not receive the kind of emphasis in the New Testament that Wright reckons he has found. I have written about 2.5 million words of biblical exposition covering every book of the Bible—about a third of it published—and I found the exile theme once (without any awareness that Wright was making such a point of it!). This theme is obviously the key to interpreting the rather unusual citation in Matthew 2:17–18. When God’s people fall into sin, God is determined to get them to listen. He sent them into exile to make them feel the seriousness of their sins. In Jeremiah 31 the prophet is dealing with this chastening. The people walking to exile in Babylon would pass Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem. Jeremiah pictures Rachel weeping for her children as they walk by. It is picture language. Matthew 2:17–18 sees the chastening as still going on! Israel is still suffering because the nation is refusing to accept Jesus. Jesus has been born but has not been received. Rachel is still weeping in her tomb. The tragedy of Israel goes on—until they receive Jesus. Again a voice is heard in Ramah (where Bethlehem is) and Rachel weeps over her children.

Here indeed is the theme of continuing exile, but you can hardly call it a common theme, and there is not the slightest hard evidence that Paul had it in mind. It is easy to say, ‘First-century Israelites were thinking about it all the time.’ Maybe they were but if it is to be the key for gentile people listening to Galatians being read to them while sitting in the towns of Galatia, Paul had better say something about it. If he does not say it explicitly it is hard to imagine how the Galatians might guess what he had in mind! I can find imputed righteousness in Paul’s letter—easily; I have difficulty finding any reference to atonement as the end of exile, or justification as covenant-membership.

(iv) The removal of the evangelical doctrine of justification is tragic. A major objection to the entire ‘new perspective’ agenda is that the texts in Ephesians 2:8–9, 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 3:5 are not allowed to have much weight. They seem entirely unrelated to the ceremonial aspects of ‘works of the law’. Sometimes it is simply admitted that these texts support the traditional view—as it is by James Dunn—but they are thought not to be relevant since they are thought not to be written by Paul.[418] This itself is rather startling. For even if Ephesians and the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul (although I believe they were), still they must be thought to come from Paul’s closest friends or successors. This means that Dunn apparently feels he is able to interpret Paul more skilfully than Paul’s contemporaries or immediate successors who surely knew first-century Judaism better than any modern scholar! Here again is Dunn’s doctrine of the very great fallibility of Scripture!

But I am focusing on Tom Wright’s work. Wright loses sight of justification by assimilating justification and covenant-community. In fact justification is the basis of inheritance; the two are not identical. If inheritance comes through justification (Rom.4:13) then the two are not the same. But inheritance is the obtaining, by God’s oath, of the covenant-promises. Again I say: covenant and justification are distinct themes.

What then is the relation between covenant and justification? Let us look again at some covenant-theology. The new-covenant-promises are partly listed in Hebrews 8:10–11. They include (in the mind) a progressive understanding and (in the heart) a progressive inclination to know God’s teaching (‘law’ in its most fatherly sense as in Gal.6:2; Ps.1 and elsewhere). The promises also involve an assurance of God’s presence, a power to be his representative, the arising of a community where every individual knows God. The promises are progressive because Jesus continually rules and intercedes to bring them about, changing us ‘from glory to glory’. But all this, mentioned in Hebrews 8, is surely only the beginning. God’s promises include experience of the kingdom, a calling into particular pre-ordained good works (like the callings of the people in Heb.11), enablement and provision to fulfil that calling, the promise of personal blessing at the same time as being a blessing to others, the laying up of treasure in heaven, even finally inheriting the earth!

The initial-covenant-relationship is fixed and cannot be lost but we are looking for the day when the covenant-oath is given to us and we gain personal achievement which also cannot be lost! Once Abraham received the oath the promise of a ‘Seed’ could not be lost. Once we ‘enter into rest’—experiencing the covenant-oath of God—the promises given to us cannot be lost.

Conditionality and unconditionality in covenants of grace are more complex than in covenants of law. A covenant of law is always conditional at every point—and there is nothing more to be said. A grace-covenant relationship with God is fixed in that God will not leave us, but the oath is not given until we please God. Without persistent faith it is impossible to please God, but by persistent faith it is possible to please God. Enoch was commended as having pleased God (Heb.11:5). Again and again we are told to please God by what we do (Eph.5:10; Phil.4:18; Col.1:10; 1 Tim.2:3; 5:4; Heb.13:16,21)—as Jesus did (Jn8:29).

We are expected to get to a high level of faith-obedience towards God before the covenant-oath is given. Abraham was already acceptable to God when God told him, ‘Walk before me, and be blameless, in order that I generously bring into effect [Hebrew nathan] my covenant ...’ The covenant-oath was not given until one last test of faith-obedience was placed upon him (Gen.22:1–2). Genesis 22:18 says the promise was finally made a matter of oath ‘because you have obeyed my voice’. The relationship was fixed but the promises (of inheritance, not salvation) could have been lost if Abraham had not been obedient. After the oath has been taken the promise can never be lost. The promised inheritance can be irretrievably lost if an oath of anger is taken (Heb.6!).

Hebrews 4:1 says, ‘while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it’ or (as I prefer to translate, ‘think that he has missed his chance’). There is a difference between a promise still standing—still being available—and a promise having been reached. Promises may be known but then they have to be inherited (Heb.6:12). One has to patiently wait for them (Heb.6:15). Abraham ‘had’ the promises (Heb.7:6). He had received the promises (Heb.11:17). But when Hebrews 11:33 says the heroes of faith ‘obtained promises’, it is something different. It means that they actually got them fulfilled. Promises have to be ‘fulfilled’ (2 Pet.3:9). One has to exercise patient faith to obtain them.

The many warnings in Scripture are not about loss of salvation (justification-new birth-sonship); they are mainly about loss of inheritance. It is possible to ‘suffer loss’ and yet still be saved (1 Cor.3:15).

The covenants to Abraham and Melchizedek give us a secure position. But our own experience of covenant-rest gives us a secure inheritance. The climax of our covenant-relationship is the point in our lives when God says something like, ‘Because of the faith-obedience you have shown, I will surely bless you. I swear it. It will never be lost’ (compare Gen.22:16,17). Thereafter the covenant-blessings are unconditionally ours. If anything deserves to be called ‘entering into rest’, this is it! We have to walk before God and pass a few tests before we are likely to know it. It is not justification by works; it is inheritance by persistence in works of faith—the climax of the covenant-relationship.

The ‘grace of God’ teaching of the Bible can be exaggerated in at least three ways.

(i) There is the teaching of ‘eternal justification’[419]—that justification was ours even before we were born (not taught by anyone I know nowadays and definitely unscriptural).

(ii) There is the idea that God can never get angry with his people; it is true in regards to fixed-relationship but not true with regard to every aspect of our behaviour. ‘Pleasing God’ is something we go after. Jesus can say to us, ‘I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.’ He can tell a church to repent and threaten that it might lose its testimony. He can threaten to come and make war against us until we repent. He can commend us and yet still say, ‘Wake up, and strengthen what remains ... I have not found your works complete ... Repent ...’ The doctrine of justifying grace must not be pushed so far as to imply that God does not rebuke us. ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline ...’

(iii) There is the idea that just because we are in covenant with God and the oath is on offer, therefore the oath cannot be missed. This is a mistake. Wright himself seems to think that the mere offer of promises is covenant. ‘The promises made to Abraham were a covenant’, he says.[420] But to state it this way is to miss the distinction between covenant-offer and covenant-oath. The ancient near Eastern evidence should have speeded up the discovery of this all over the Bible. The oath comes after testing and persistent faith! The covenant is not in place until oath is given.

In summary: Christians are in covenant with God. Oaths are on offer. Mosaic law does not come into it. The position is yours for ever—it is fixed and cannot be lost. The covenant-inheritance has to be gone after by faith and patience. High obedience has to be reached—but it is not Mosaic obedience! When you experience the oath you enter into rest. The goal of your life is reached. You say, ‘Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me ...’

But covenant and covenant-inheritance is something that is built upon justification by faith. In Genesis 15—Wright’s key chapter—Wright has caught a tiger by the tail! Wright reckons Paul’s doctrine of justification is all about the covenant, ‘the covenant God made with Abraham, the covenant whose purpose was from the beginning the saving call of a worldwide family’. But Abraham was justified before there was any mention of a covenant to be made with him. Genesis 15:6 is a statement of Abraham’s justification; the covenant given to Abraham begins immediately afterwards and the covenant-oath in which Abraham ‘obtained the promise’ takes place only in Genesis 22. Genesis 15:6 is a complete statement of justification. Justification is Abraham’s being there and then ‘reckoned righteous’. There was nothing communal about it. He was an individual.

So covenant and justification are distinct themes. One leads into the other. Justification leads to covenant-relationship. Obedience leads to covenant-oath. But one cannot simply say ‘justify’ equals ‘enter covenant’. And the Christian’s covenant-relationship in the ‘new covenant’ is distinct yet again. It is not itself the covenant with Abraham.

A far-reaching debate

The issue that we are considering is surely immensely important and far-reaching. If Wright is right, evangelicals have never preached the gospel accurately in their entire history from Luther to Billy Graham—or, Wright might say, from Luther to Piper! The Thirty-Nine Articles of Wright’s own Anglican communion (‘We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings’) was always disastrously in error—if Wright is right. The preaching of Latimer, the marvellous prayers of Cranmer (‘we do not presume to come to this thy table trusting in our own righteousness’)—all were misguided. The powerful evangelism of the great Anglicans, George Whitefield and John Wesley, who kept the gospel alive in Britain in the eighteenth century, and the great tracts of Bishop John Charles Ryle on justification were altogether wrong, if Wright is right. The powerful ministries of Charles Simeon in Cambridge, the modern evangelicals, Packer and Stott, the charismatic Anglicans like David Watson—all these people were disastrously astray in teaching that we are reckoned righteous in the eyes of God through our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ—plus nothing!

But not only are the evangelicals of his own denomination in error, every other kind of evangelical is in error also—if Wright is right. All the Reformation confessions of faith, all the Reforming leaders in Germany, Switzerland, France and Britain were mistaken; the vast majority of the English Puritans,[421] including the magnificent expositions of justification by Robert Trail[422] and John Owen,[423] and the powerful evangelism of John Bunyan and men like Rogers of Dedham (about 1570–1636)—all were mistaken if Wright is right. The preachers of the ‘great awakening’ which transformed America were misguided—if Wright is right. Jonathan Edwards, whose sermons on justification gave rise to the ‘surprising conversions’ which became so famous, must be treated as being used by God to bring revival by means of false doctrine! Charles Spurgeon, the preacher who kept the Baptist denomination alive almost single-handedly in the mid-nineteenth century, Robert Haldane, whose expositions of Romans[424] in the classic manner led to ‘Haldane’s revival’ in early nineteenth-century Switzerland, the pioneers of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship, which raised up the evangelicalism of the mid-twentieth century, D.L.Moody and the Billy Sundays and Billy Grahams of America—all these people made a lot of mistakes in mentioning covenant so little and talking so much about ‘me and my salvation’[425] and helping those asking ‘How can I enter a right relationship with God?’ All these men preached a false gospel—if Wright is right. He writes as a pastor, he says,[426] but he believes that the vast majority of the pastor-preachers of the evangelical movement of the last 500 years have all been wrong in thinking that justification does have quite a lot to do (amongst other things) with ‘me and my salvation’. According to Wright, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ ‘How can I find a gracious God?’ ‘How can I enter a right relationship with God’—all are somewhat misguided questions with little connection with Romans or Galatians.

This is surely a serious matter. It is not that theological statement can never be improved; I am myself trying to do some ‘improving’ of the doctrine of assurance. But any evangelical—and I reckon that the main highways of post-Reformation evangelicalism are at least heading in the right direction—must surely keep in mind Paul’s warning, ‘If in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained’ (Phil.3:15–16). The basic evangelical doctrine of justification is something we have ‘attained’. Wright’s different teaching is more than tinkering with details. The greatness of what is involved here must not be missed. Despite Wright’s somewhat scornful dismissal of the replies of his evangelical critics as ‘worried and anxious ripostes’[427] (rather than as expressions of genuine pastoral and evangelistic concern), there can be no playing down the immensity of what is at issue here.

Wright denies that the Reformation tradition is under attack in his work[428] but it is obvious that he dissents immensely from the Reformation tradition, in both its Calvinist form and its Arminian offshoot. For with varying degrees of clarity and consistency the Protestant doctrine had been held by people who are far from calling themselves ‘Reformed’ in the way the word is used today. In One Faith—the book of doctrinal statements summarizing the evangelical consensus, edited by the Calvinist J.I.Packer and the Wesleyan Thomas Oden—the section on justification does not contain the word ‘covenant’ but presents the doctrine that is held by virtually all evangelicals, Arminians, Calvinists and Pentecostals. The documents come from more than one school of evangelical thinking but are agreed in the doctrine of justification in its main outline.

Wright’s dislike of classic evangelicalism is plain. No evangelical receives much approval from Wright. Don Carson is tendentious and misleading;[429] Packer is questionable.[430] Piper is like someone who thinks the sun goes round the earth.[431] Stephen Westerholm leaves two-thirds of the jigsaw puzzles in the box[432]—and so on. All these evangelicals went astray, ‘everyone from Luther to Piper’.[433] On the other hand Wright speaks highly of the various participants in ‘the new perspective on Paul’ such as James Dunn, known for his severe criticisms of the evangelical view of Scripture[434] and for his conviction that the New Testament has disagreeing and contrasting theologies—among which ‘incarnation’ is the invention of John’s Gospel. Dunn has also written work repudiating the classic evangelical understanding of justification.[435] Wright speaks approvingly of Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)[436] who thought Christ was a deluded man who disastrously expected and predicted the imminent end of the world. William Wrede (1859–1906) gets some approving words.[437] He thought that Jesus without Paul would be nothing but a minor Jewish sect. He was surely right in that, except that Paul said of his message, ‘I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.’

Wright has an answer to the complaint that he has abandoned the gospel. It is typical of conservatives—he says—to appeal to great traditions and say to the Luthers of this world, ‘Are you the first person ever to discover this?’ ‘Are you the only one to understand the gospel?’ But if we take him seriously even this reply is effectively claiming that Piper and Packer and company are now the traditionalists and Wright is the new Luther, leading us into the promised land of ‘covenantal justification’. The ‘new perspective’ likes to speak admiringly of Luther before attacking him, but the bottom line is clear. The evangelicals of the previous 500 years now resemble the pre-Luther Catholics and are as much to be resisted as they were. Wright is the ‘new Luther’ defying conservatives. But is Wright the new Luther or the new Cardinal Eck, once again getting rid of justification by faith by arguing that the ‘works of the law’ are only ceremonial–cultural matters—as ‘Catholics’ have always said?

396 Wright, Justification, p.7.

397 Justification, p.7.

398 Wright, Galatians, p.41.

399 Wright, Justification, pp.42–43.

400 Great Acquittal, p.33.

401 See J.Edwards, The Religious Affections (1746), in numerous reprints especially The Works of Jonathan Edwards (ed Edward Hickman), 1834.

402 Wright, Justification, p.147.

403 John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces: Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church (Baker, 1979, p.10).

404 Wright, Galatians, p.45.

405 Galatians, p.47.

406 Galatians, p.48.

407 Galatians, p.65.

408 Galatians, p.6.

409 Galatians, p.37.

410 Galatians, p.x.

411 Galatians, p.39.

412 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK, 2003), p.305.

413 Wright, Galatians, p.6.

414 Galatians, p.41.

415 Galatians, p.36.

416 The Great Acquittal, p.16.

417 Wright, Galatians, p.33.

418 J.Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), p.361.

419 This was known amongst English Puritans but seems to have been especially popular in Holland. See H.Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol.3 (ET, Baker, 2006), pp.590–591.

420 Wright, Justification, p.111.

421 John Goodwin and Richard Baxter were exceptions, but their theologies have not been followed at this point.

422 Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification (1692).

423 The Doctrine of Justification By Faith (1677).

424 See his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (1842, with various editions and reprints).

425 Justification, p.7.

426 Justification, p.11.

427 Justification, p.vii.

428 Justification, p.vii.

429 Justification, pp.55,211.

430 Justification, p.15.

431 Justification, pp.3–4.

432 Justification, p.16.

433 Justification, p.135.

434 See J.D.G.Dunn, ‘The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture’, Churchman, 96, 1982, pp.104–122,201–225.

435 See J.D.G.Dunn & A.M.Suggate, The Justice of God (Paternoster, 1993). The closing pages relate Dunn’s version of ‘justification’ to Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and Margaret Thatcher’s Britain. Luther is thought to be corrupting Paul by forcing his own experiences into his reading of Galatians. But it seems acceptable to do the same thing with regard to modern international politics!

436 Justification, pp.63–64,171.

437 Justification, pp.63–64,171.

13

SOME LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

Despite my criticisms of Tom Wright, I believe there are some good points in what he says which should be taken seriously. For if the ‘new perspective’ has made the Galatians-message too societal, it has some attractions because the evangelical expositions of the past have themselves had some weaknesses and have made ‘the law’ too narrow, as if it deals only with Thomas Aquinas’ ‘moral law’. A weakness in one direction has produced a reaction in the other. When this takes place we would do well not to react too speedily; it would be better for us to double-check our expositions. The ‘new perspectivalists’ should not lead us into ‘a different gospel which is really no gospel at all’, but on the other hand we must take to heart the points where they are right. The evangelical doctrine must be rooted in exegesis not eisegesis, and there are undoubtedly points where the Reformation traditions can be improved.

Points of appreciation

It may be said of the ‘new perspective’ generally that it is not their affirmations about the law’s ethnic aspects that are to be disputed; it is their denials. Wright has lost sight of justification-only-by-faith altogether! There is a saying in English idiom about ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. In this case there were two babies in the bathtub and a lot of messy bathwater. The little baby named ‘Freedom from ethnicity’ survived, but, alas, his twin brother ‘Justification by faith’ was tragically lost when the bathwater was thrown away.

Wright is mistaken (in my opinion) in what he denies but he is surely correct in many of his affirmations. The ‘new perspective’—as I see it—has, in forsaking the biblical doctrine of justification, made wrong use of correct observations.

We can profit from what Wright says positively (that justification needs presentation in the light of wider issues, cosmic salvation, social relationships and the like) but in my view he must be repudiated in regard to what he denies. The rule of Philippians 3:15–16 applies. If there is something new to be learned, God will show it to us—only let us hold true to what we have attained. To lose justification in the interests of communal-covenant-eschatological salvation combined with justification-by-works and no personal assurance would be a disaster to the future of the gospel. To think that ‘justification by faith’ is directly and particularly designed to speak to us about such matters as the politics of Nazi Germany or militarist Japan or Thatcherite Britain but not about personal salvation is surely a delusion. Yet these are the themes of Dunn and Suggate’s The Justice of God, and Wright similarly implies that equality in the church despite varied ethnic backgrounds is what is needed instead of (not ‘as the outworking of’) an assurance-giving, salvation-centred doctrine of justification by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The wider benefits of ‘justification by faith’ only come about when the base is secure. This is of much interest to me for quite personal reasons. For five years I pastored a multi-racial congregation in the old apartheid days in inner-city Johannesburg and I began my doctoral studies in ‘assurance of salvation’ for practical-pastoral purposes. I did not find that ‘ethnic integration’—which was hard to find in old South Africa—led to salvation or constituted salvation, but I did find that the classic message of justification, assurance of salvation, new birth, sonship in relation to God, experienced by men and women one by one (first) and in community (second), led to ‘ethnic integration’. Which is the root and which is the fruit? Today I am a pastor in what must be one of the world’s neediest communities, Kibera slum-suburb (with its 700,000? people) in Nairobi. I know of nothing that overcomes tribalism better than the gospel of personal salvation, but I doubt whether a message of ethnic-equality without the message of personal salvation would do much good.

What transforms communities? Talk about ethnic-equality? Yes—but only after the message of individual salvation. Listen to Charles Spurgeon preaching two centuries ago:

Pardon takes away our filth, but then it leaves us naked; justification put a royal robe upon us. Now no rags of yours are wanted; not a stitch of yours is needed to perfect what Christ has done. He whom God the Father hath accepted as a sin-offering hath perfected for ever those who are set apart. Ye are complete in Christ. No tears of yours, no penance, no personal mortifications, nay, no good works of yours are wanted to make yourself complete and perfect. Take it as it is. O, sirs, may you have grace to take it as it is freely presented to you in the gospel. ‘He that believeth on him is not condemned.’ ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ Trust Christ; implicitly trust Christ; and all that he did shall cover you, while all that he suffered shall cleanse you.[438]

When such a message is preached in the worst and poorest and most ethnically divided communities of the world, the gospel demonstrates its power to bring together people of every tribe and language and people and nation. But take away personal salvation, and any ‘gospel-without-the-gospel’ is powerless.

My own view is that the ‘new perspective’ people generally are correct in what they affirm (justification has social, cultural, global, eschatological side-effects and implications) but disastrously mistaken in what they deny (that the classic evangelical statement of justification is basically correct in asserting that justification is by faith-only without the prior contribution of any good works of any kind). I grant that some of Wright’s points are good and important.

Wright’s main point—everywhere in his writings—is that the Christian faith is for everyone and that no cultural barriers should divide the covenant-community. We can certainly agree that this is one of Paul’s main points and that it was table-fellowship in the early church that put the doctrine of justification high on the church’s agenda! God is building a new family, with no divisions, no kind of apartheid, no apart-hate. This ‘building a new family is the gospel’. The difficulty comes in the denials that follow. The gospel ‘isn’t a system of salvation’, says Wright.[439] This is not a casual remark; it is something Wright says again and again. The gospel is a communal affair and a cosmic affair (he is right at this point) but it is not anything individualistic; it ‘isn’t a system of salvation’. The gospel is a matter of calling into existence a single worldwide family;[440] it is a concern for building a single Jesus-based family,[441] without divisions based on nationhood and race;[442] everyone in the church is equal in the sight of God.[443] Unity is a major theme of the gospel. Life in the church is like climbing a mountain and ‘Unity is the summit of the mountain’.[444] It is hard for Westerners in particular—he says—to see how serious a matter table-fellowship was in the early church.[445]

All of this we may more or less agree with. Indeed, I was rather startled when a friend told me he thought Wright and I were making similar points. I denied it but as I kept on reading Wright I saw what he meant. Wright’s affirmations are indeed similar to my own. Mosaic law is full of nationalistic ingredients and the Christian has died to the whole lot!

Wright’s work has the advantage of drawing our attention to the non-moral aspects of the law. My ‘Reformed’ friends tend to be obsessed with ‘the moral law’ or the Ten Commandments, forgetting or neglecting the fact that Paul constantly has the entire Mosaic system in view in his letters. Paul is not so preoccupied with the less-than-one-per-cent which might be called the moral law. At this point Wright is right to draw attention to the minor matters of the law which were also on the agenda in Galatia and elsewhere. The words ‘the law’ in Paul generally mean the entire Mosaic system. When we say ‘we have died to the law’ we do not mean ‘we have died to morality’; we mean ‘we have died to the Mosaic system’. Ethnicity in the church is to return to Mosaism. Now the law has gone, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. So far, so good!

Another particular point of Wright’s work deserves our support. Pistis Christou is indeed to be translated ‘faith or faithfulness of Christ’. Wright wants it to be ‘faithfulness’ all the time. At least that is better than the translation ‘faith in Christ’. We are missing something if we do not see that our faith is faith in everything that there is in the Lord Jesus Christ—including his faith-and-faithfulness.

Wright’s conclusion that the Spirit entirely replaces the Mosaic law[446] is a needed emphasis in the church. We fear the Holy Spirit more than we should. Wright’s playing down personal experience of God and yet wanting emphasis on the Holy Spirit is an odd combination, for the Holy Spirit is the giver of spiritual experience! And the loss of a forensic doctrine of justification by a reckoned (or ‘imputed’) righteousness is tragic. Having believed the gospel we are sealed by the Spirit—a powerful, experiential foretaste of the glory of heaven (Eph.1:13–14). Wright’s view of the Holy Spirit replacing the Mosaic system is surely correct, but the ‘having believed the gospel’ part is necessary also as the foundation for the gift of the Spirit. Wright thinks John Piper does not stress the Spirit enough.[447] Maybe he is right. But Wright himself has lost the base for the gift of the Spirit. We receive the Spirit by hearing with faith—just as Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Justification by an imputed righteousness is the foundation for the gift of the Spirit.

Romans 2:25–29 and 10:6–9 are for Wright ‘absolutely crucial’.[448] Certainly Romans 10 is a crucial chapter and I believe Wright is correct in saying Romans 2:26 is about Christian gentiles;[449] and so are 2:14,15!

Wright is eager to remind us that justification is not the whole of the gospel. We knew it already but the reminder is a good one. From time to time we need it! Luther’s emphasis on justification needed the later ‘pietist’ emphasis on the new birth. Evangelicalism at its best has always seen the need of combining a doctrine of regeneration with the doctrine of justification. From time to time a preacher leans more to one than the other. Billy Graham’s Peace with God has a chapter on new birth but no chapter on justification. Charles Hodge’s Way of Life (1841) has a chapter on justification but no chapter on new birth. George Whitefield preached initially only on new birth and Wesley the Arminian had to draw his attention to the doctrine of justification (so the doctrine is not always so Calvinist!). Lloyd-Jones’s early sermons had a doctrine of new birth but no doctrine of justification. He corrected himself but always emphasized new birth more than justification. He could start a sermon by saying, ‘I’ll not be dealing with justification by faith. I am going to take that for granted. Many of us have been prone to identify the whole of Christianity with just that one doctrine ... God forbid that we should imagine that that is the whole of Christianity.’[450] He delighted to preach on new birth and the experience of salvation.

But evangelicalism at its best has maintained the balance. Piper writes on new birth as well as on justification. I myself deliberately published Living the Godly Life and Living Under Grace (Rom.6–7) before I published A Theology of Encouragement, and I hoped (naively!) that those who feared antinomianism might read all three. The great Puritan books on justification by Bunyan, Owen, Trail and William Bridge are balanced by equally great expositions of new birth by Charnock, Goodwin, Sibbes and Swinnock. Bishop Ryle preached rather more on regeneration than on justification, but his magnificent chapter on justification is a companion to his equally great sermons on regeneration.[451] The stalwart B.B.Warfield wrote on both justification[452] and regeneration.[453] Quite why Wright felt it so necessary to make the obvious point that justification is not the whole of salvation I am not sure. On the whole evangelicals have stressed new birth more than justification; they still do. Lloyd-Jones complained decades ago that the doctrine of justification was being lost; it is even more lost today! But still Wright’s point is a good one. Let new birth be preached as well as justification and assurance of salvation. But still the balance has not yet been fully found for there is need of much more work on our sonship, our relationship to God as his children. The Christian’s being justified and the Christian’s being born again come together in the Christian’s being a child of God in status and new nature. A third strand—sonship in addition to justification and new birth—will accommodate Wright’s appeal that we should involve the doctrine of the Spirit. He says we should involve the doctrine of the Spirit in justification. This is odd because justification is objective; it is not an ‘experience’; it is the Holy Spirit who is supremely the giver of spiritual experience. Justification is non-experiential because it takes place in God’s court, not in the human heart. Forgiveness is experiential; justification is not. It would be better to say we should bring the doctrine of the Spirit into a more strongly emphasized doctrine of sonship. ‘Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ’

Wright’s eagerness to remind us that justification has social, cosmic and eschatological aspects is a good one. Perhaps evangelicals have not been so expert in these aspects of the matter as they ought to have been. Galatians certainly makes much of the social aspects of justification. It is because our status in God involves the righteousness of Christ plus nothing that social divisions are at that point obliterated (Gal.3:28); fellowship between Jews and gentiles is maintained; barriers are broken down; and so on. Wright makes much of this and at that point I have no complaints about his affirmation, only about his denial.

Final eschatological vindication could well be emphasized more than it is by evangelicals. This will mean a fresh interpretation of Romans 2 which has much to say about the eschatological implications of justification by faith—so long as we understand Paul to be speaking of Christians and so long as we realize dikaioō can mean ‘vindicate’. Wright labours over it more than is necessary, in my judgement. He would be the first to say that ‘justify’ is not always used with the strictness in which it is found in evangelical theology and he is correct. Paul’s use of the term in Romans 2 to mean ‘vindicate’ is not exactly the same as his use of the term in Romans 3; and Romans 6:7 has perhaps yet another use.

Wright’s challenge concerning evangelism—not so common in his writings—is worth thinking about. ‘How are we going to evangelize?’ Wright asks—but he is vague about the answer! Apparently we do not have to ‘seek a gracious God’;[454] this is just a late-medieval question![455] Salvation has more to do with joining the covenant-community and with ‘ethnic integration’.[456]

Wright says that people are not interested in justification in the classic sense. ‘Most of my folk ... are not bothered about the doctrine of justification at all.’[457] I am sure he is right! How many people are bothered about the gospel at all? But then when Paul, wanting to come to Rome, said ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel’, he was not thinking that the people in Rome would be rushing to hear his preaching! Whatever he meant by ‘the righteousness of God’ being revealed, he was not expecting the average Roman to be very interested in it. Nor would they be interested in ‘covenant’ which I take to be something different and which is not mentioned by Paul at all in his opening remarks to the Romans (1:1–17). Wright thinks people are ‘no longer saying, “How can I be sure I’m saved?” ’[458] Much of the time they never were saying it! But I find when God’s Holy Spirit is at work, people become very concerned with that precise question. Assurance was a major theme of Calvin’s ministry; it was a major theme of the Puritans’ theology; it was the very essence of the methodist revival in both its Calvinistic and Arminian forms. In the nineteenth century assurance was a major theme in Spurgeon’s ministry. In the 1950s Billy Graham wrote, ‘Every week I receive scores of letters from those who say they have doubts and uncertainties concerning the Christian life. Many come from genuine Christians who seem to have none of the joy of Christian faith, or the assurance ...’ Responses to my own writing and preaching on assurance do not lead me to think the situation has changed so very much. When the Holy Spirit is at work ‘How can I be sure I’m saved?’ becomes a living question. Wright’s challenge is a bit vague but still it is a good one: what is the gospel message? What is the evangelistic message? If we do not know we had best find out fast!

First-century Judaism had its questions but they are not the gospel—only the setting in which Jesus spoke. The Pharisee and the publican in Jesus’ parable were most certainly thinking about their personal relationship with God. One thought he was saved because he thought he was ‘in covenant’ with God; he prayed to himself (pros heauton). The other had no assurance of being accepted by God at all. Which one was ‘justified’, and what did his justification consist of? Do we not have a man ‘seeking a gracious God’ here? We had best help him with a clear answer. Talk about Israel and the ‘covenant-community’ might not help him so much.

The question one would like to ask—a question which Wright hardly seems interested in—is ‘How does one become a Christian?’ According to Wright, water-baptism has something to do with it (‘the new royal family ... is entered through baptism’;[459] water-baptism is the ‘doorway through which one passes into membership in the single family’). But most of the time Wright mentions only faith. ‘What matters ... is faith,’ he says.[460] It has to be ‘a faith that works—but not with “the works of the law” ’.[461]

For the purposes of this work we can leave aside the question of baptism. I am far from wanting water-baptism to become a big issue and am quite happy to ‘live and let live’ in baptismal controversies. On the other hand, if water is a channel of salvation, it has become a big issue whether I like it or not. For on both infant-baptist and (even more) on believers’-baptist presuppositions there are plenty of Christians around who were never baptized!

In a rare mention of an individual Wright says ‘someone’ comes ‘through faith and baptism, into the community of the Messiah’;[462] ‘membership in the Messiah’s people involves them in a movement through death to new life’.[463]

Actually there is nowhere in the New Testament where one is baptized into the church (despite what is often said). This could only be maintained from the pages of the New Testament if one read 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a reference to water-baptism, but there the baptism is explicitly ‘by the Spirit’. The midnight baptism of the Philippian gaoler and the lonely baptism of the Nubian of Acts 8 should warn us away from linking baptism and church as tightly as is usually done. If one believes in ‘believers’ baptism’ the problem is even greater since so many on that viewpoint were not baptized at all—not even Luther, Calvin or Tom Wright! And what shall we say of those who are unbaptized (members of the Salvation Army, the Quakers)? But we leave these problems aside for the moment.

Wright does not say how baptism and faith relate but it seems the crucial thing is faith; we have to believe that the crucified Jesus is the Messiah.[464] Faith is the badge of membership in a community.[465] It is faith that makes us the Messiah’s people.[466] It gives us a new identity as the Messiah’s people. We are ‘righteous’ but this term in Wright’s writings does not seem to have to do with status as sinless people in the eyes of God or with moral character; rather ‘it speaks of the family identity, the status of covenant membership’.[467] Righteousness, justification, covenant-membership—these are synonymous terms[468]—says Wright. I have argued that they are not synonymous at all. We must be glad that Wright is concerned about the evangelistic message; whether we are agreed with what it is, is less certain.

An appeal that we can agree with

The greatest words that Wright uses are his appeals for us to go back to Scripture. My complaint is that he has not done that adequately, but the appeal itself is a good one. We are grateful that he seems to have some respect for Scripture. His much-admired colleagues, Sanders and Dunn, believe in a Bible which has no clear and uniform teaching and both seem to think that they know more than the apostle Paul. They do not seem to study Paul with the idea of submitting to what he says as a revelation from God. Anyone writing within such a school of thought is not likely to come up with a deeper understanding of God’s revelation to the world concerning his Son.

But Wright does not speak scornfully of Scripture and for this we are grateful. He wants us to engage in exegesis—biblical interpretation. He says of his critics, ‘they appeal to exegesis and to exegesis we shall go.’ Wonderful! Any evangelical worthy of the name will be delighted! We are very happy with ‘the Reformers’ method of questioning all traditions in the light of Scripture’. ‘Only let us hold true to what we have attained’ (Phil.3:15–16).

Wright’s insistence on exegesis is to be welcomed. Whether Wright lives up to his own challenge is debateable; I have questioned it. But still we are grateful for the call. ‘Back to the sources’ is a Reformation slogan and I for one love it! In my judgement ‘theology is what we believe after lots of biblical exposition’. Many would disagree (notably Barth[469]) but I like König’s words: ‘I shall probably never be able to do Systematic Theology in any other way than in the form of exegesis and biblical theology.’[470] Theology has to be done by exegesis.

I rather think that the greatest expositions of Scripture have come from Reformation-people. Calvin’s great expositions and expository lectures (some of them lost for ever), Luther’s many, many volumes, Lloyd-Jones’s fourteen volumes on Romans and eight volumes on Ephesians, the great expositions by Manton (James; Ps.119; 2 Cor.5) and Goodwin (Eph.1:1 – 2:10—unfinished) and Gouge’s thirty years on Hebrews!—these have no equivalents outside the circle of those who admire the Reformation. But we should take nothing for granted. Much more expository work is still to be done. There is a style of exposition in which you already have your doctrines in mind and you hurriedly and superficially rush through books of the Bible finding your teaching there. Wright does it from a ‘new perspective’ viewpoint. William Barclay did it from a ‘pious liberal’ viewpoint. Wesley did his work on the New Testament from an Arminian viewpoint. But none of these live up to the thoroughness with which the Reformation tradition did its work of biblical exposition. Not that I give uncritical deference to everything the Reformers and their successors say. In this book itself I express some reservations about the Puritan tradition. But still Wright’s call is a good one. If he has not done so well as might be hoped, let others do better with thoroughness and accuracy! It will not result in a slavish following of ‘the Reformed’, but the tradition that comes out of the Reformation is better than any other at this point. There is more light to break forth from God’s word. The Reformed tradition is not infallible and needs improving at points—we can be sure about that!—but it is a good starting-point. We shall do well to stand on their shoulders and try to see a little further.

438 C.H.Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 10, sermon 561 [electronic edition, Logos Library System; Albany, OR: Ages Software].

439 Wright, Galatians, p.6.

440 Galatians, pp.6,16.

441 Galatians, p.6.

442 Galatians, p.16.

443 Galatians, p.18.

444 Galatians, p.18.

445 Galatians, p.21.

446 Galatians, p.70.

447 Wright, Justification, p.viii.

448 Justification, p.15.

449 Justification, p.166.

450 D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Miracle of Grace (Baker, 1986), p.8.

451 See ‘Questions About Regeneration’, in The Upper Room (1888, repr. Banner of Truth, 1970), pp.350–364; ‘Regeneration’, chs.2–4, in The Christian Race (1900), repr. as The True Christian (Baker, 1978); ‘Regeneration’ in Knots Untied (1885 edition; repr. Charles Nolan, Moscow, USA), pp.113–132; ‘Prayer Book Statements About Regeneration’ in Knots Untied, pp.133–167.

452 ‘Justification By Faith, Out of Date’, Selected Shorter Writings, 1 (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), pp.283–284.

453 ‘Regeneration’, Selected Shorter Writings, 2 (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), pp.321–324.

454 Wright, ‘Interview on Justification’.

455 ‘Interview on Justification’.

456 ‘Interview on Justification’.

457 ‘Interview on Justification’.

458 ‘Interview on Justification’.

459 Galatians, p.41.

460 Galatians, p.63.

461 Galatians, p.63.

462 Galatians, p.72.

463 Galatians, p.72.

464 Galatians, p.26.

465 Galatians, p.31.

466 Galatians, p.26.

467 Galatians, p.26.

468 Galatians, p.27.

469 ‘The task of dogmatics is ... not merely the combination, repetition, and transcription of a number of already present “truths of revelation” ’ (K.Barth, CD, 1:1, p.15).

470 A.König, New and Greater Things, 1988, p.177 (original in Hy Kan Weer en Meer, 1982, p.228).

PART 4

JAMES, JOHN, MATTHEW—AND PAUL

14

MATTHEW’S GOSPEL AND THE MOSAIC LAW

We have digressed a little but we must keep in mind where we are going! In the New Testament, assurance of salvation is not a sin nor a duty, but a fact! However, often our theologies have undermined what was the obvious characteristic of early Christians, their joy which was ‘unspeakable and full of glory’. We are to be children of Abraham not children of Moses. The law was an interim measure in Israel’s story. It created a lot of fear and it was designed to do so, but it was not designed to permanently spoil the joys of the children of Abraham. We have considered the problem (in my chs.1–6) and its biblical context in the Abraham stories (ch.7) and the account of the giving of the law (ch.8). We have looked at Paul’s interpretation of the whole matter in his letter to the Galatians (chs.9–10) and some discussions which tend to undermine personal salvation altogether (chs.11–13).

James? 1 John? Matthew?

Now the question arises: could it be that other parts of the New Testament are less reassuring than Paul? For example James and Paul are often contrasted and, despite the many attempts down the years to insist that there is no contradiction between them, the rumour that they disagree does not seem to go away. Luther was so sure they disagreed he virtually threw the letter of James out of the Bible, and no attempts by his friend Melanchthon could convince him otherwise. Yet in James 2:23, James uses the same verse (Gen.15:6) to make precisely the same point as Paul. Only he is more concerned about the ‘fulfilment’ of faith many years later in the life of Abraham. The only real difficulty is James 2:14. But if James always uses ‘save’ as a transitive verb (save others) not as a semi-reflexive verb (save oneself) the problem disappears and we are left with what James calls ‘the law of liberty’, which is certainly not Mosaic legislation.[471] ‘Saving’ the poor and ‘saving’ the one who wanders from the truth is James’s main concern. He is not working at undermining Christian assurance. His people are ‘moral backsliders’ but their salvation and their general morality are not in dispute.

The ‘tests of life’ in 1 John are also often interpreted introspectively. But it is a tradition which also needs reconsideration. The ‘tests’ of 1 John surely have to do with true fellowship with God. The tests are positive not questioning. We do know we have passed from death to life because we do love the brothers and sisters. John is not inviting introspective questions. His concern is with the gnostics who claim an elitist fellowship with God but do not believe in the facts of the gospel, do not produce love in the fellowship of the Christians, and who love the world. John’s children may have been damaged by the people who recently left off troubling the Christians (2:19); they are now full of uncertainties about fellowship and hearing the voice of God, but John does not reckon they lost their salvation. The assurances in 1 John 2:12–14 are surely designed to block anyone moving in that direction! What stronger assurance could there be than to have John himself tell you he is sure your sins are forgiven, you do know Jesus, you have overcome the evil one, you are strong, and you have overcome Satan? Their faith has conquered the world!

I have dealt with some of these matters elsewhere.[472] For the moment let us face one of the larger of these allegedly more ‘legalistic’ books of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew. His is the gospel where Jesus says, ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law ...’ Let us find out how he handles these matters.

Approaching Matthew

I am inclined to date Matthew’s Gospel in the AD 60s and I assume that it was redacted in a situation of sensitivity to the break between Israel and the church. I think it likely that Matthew’s milieu is Palestinian and that the gospel does in fact go back to the apostle Matthew, either as being himself the editor–author of the tradition, or as a main contributor to it.

More important is the question of whether Matthew is writing against a background of antinomianism. Some have thought that (in R.H.Smith’s words) ‘he was deeply disturbed by a permissive or antinomian trend apparent among some charismatics’.[473] Others disagree.[474] My view, the basis of which will appear, is that Matthew is arguing on two fronts. He is concerned about licentiousness. Yet the kind of righteousness he looks for is not legalist, far less is it Pharisaic legalism. If we find him taking a balanced position which is neither licentious nor legalist we shall know he was aware of the two dangers.

The question of historical authenticity seriously affects our interpretation. If, for example, Jesus’ words concerning flight on a Sabbath (Matt.24:20) reflect something that Jesus himself actually said or something in the ministry of Jesus, there is no need to see at that point a reflection of the sabbatarianism of the Matthean church. Travel on the Sabbath would be restricted in the time of Jesus. If however this saying is exclusively a Matthean invention then we are seeing Matthew’s view of the law rather than a glimpse of the days of Jesus’ ministry. J.P.Meier can say that the anti-Jewish statements in Matthew ‘are aimed at possible abuse within the church’.[475] This approach may lead us to interpret Matthew as more legalistic than he really is. The question is a large one. I believe Matthew has compiled his own material in his own way but the traditional material he is using is basically reliable. This means that the picture of Jesus’ ministry around AD 30 is not merely a reflection of the ‘Matthean church’.

In stating any thesis with regard to the teaching of any of the gospels, as Meier says, it is easy for a slanted approach to be maintained ‘if the author is free to choose which sections of the gospel will be treated to verify his point’.[476] I shall heed Meier’s warning by considering the unfolding of the gospel. My presentation differs in this respect from that of scholars such as G.Bornkamm.[477]

Matthew 1:1 – 4:11

Here Matthew presents the royal Messiah.[478] Jesus is the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham and David (1:1–17), miraculously introduced into the world by virginal conception, also in fulfilment of Davidic promises (1:18–25). Chapter 2 also revolves around the theme of the kingship of Jesus (2:2). The unresponsiveness of Israel is revealed, for although the Jerusalem leaders are well informed (2:4–6) their ruler is hostile towards Jesus. Instead, gentiles are present to welcome him (2:1–2,9–12).

The next theme is the kingly rule of the Davidic messiah. John preaches the imminent arrival of the kingdom (3:1–6), revealing that membership of the kingdom comes not through Abrahamic descent (3:9) but through the fruit that befits repentance and the bestowal of the Spirit by Jesus (3:1–12). Membership of the nation does not suffice for experience of the kingdom. In 3:13–17 Jesus submits to John’s baptism, which is needed if he is ‘to fulfil all righteousness’. He receives the endowment of the Spirit and the voice from heaven (combining Ps.42 with Isa.42) reaffirms his sonship and commissions him to be the suffering servant of Isaiah 40–66.

Jesus’ sonship is the object of Satanic temptation (‘If you are the Son ... If you are the Son ...’, Matt.4:3,6), inciting Jesus to proceed to glory without fulfilling the call to suffering that was implicit in 3:17.

Thus five themes have been introduced in Matt.1:1 – 4:11: (i) the Davidic messiahship, (ii) Jesus’ sonship in relation to God, (iii) fulfilment of the Old Testament, (iv) the attainment of glory only through suffering, (v) reception of Jesus by gentiles rather than by Israel. Although Matthew wished to adopt a particular stance with regard to the Torah, yet the Torah is not central in his opening and programmatic section.

Matthew 4:12 – 9:34

This section describes Jesus’ preaching at Nazareth (4:12–17) and the call of the disciples (4:18–22). Matthew adds a summary statement concerning Jesus’ public ministry (4:23–25), a sample of Jesus’ teaching (5:1 – 8:1), and a section that revolves almost entirely around Jesus’ miracles (8:2 – 9:34).

The main focus is on Jesus’ relation to the kingdom. His preaching is the gospel of the kingdom (4:23). His teaching (5:1 – 8:1) unfolds around the same theme. Jesus first describes the characteristics of the members of the kingdom (5:1–12); their effect on the world will be to preserve (5:13) and illuminate (5:14–16).

Matthew 5:17–20 (considered more fully below) is primarily concerned with the mission of Jesus. In relation to the Old Testament the purpose is not destructive but consummatory. No status or prestige in his kingdom comes to anyone who does not act and teach in accordance with such a Messianic mission.

Matthew 5:21–48 takes up the point of 5:17–20. In the six well-known antitheses we find Jesus relating to the Torah as expounded by the rabbinical thought of his day. Matthew 5:21 (liability to the council) and 5:43 (hating one’s enemy) allude to developments of the law. Jesus radicalizes the law (or should one say, replaces the law with something more radical?), interpreting murder as anger (5:21–26), lust as something that begins in the heart (5:27–30), divorce as something that generally should not occur at all (5:31–32), vows as something to be left aside because the disciples’ speech is to be characterized by simplicity and truthfulness (5:33–37). The magisterial instructions concerning revenge are replaced by the requirement of humble non-vindictive kindness towards personal enemies (5:38–42) and the qualified love of the rabbis is replaced by the unqualified love of Jesus, a love which is called ‘perfection’ (5:43–48).

Matthew 6:1–34 is about the practical and religious side of life. Ostentation is to be shunned, else reward will be lost (6:1). This principle is elucidated in three contexts (6:2–4; 6:5–15; 6:16–18). The member of the kingdom is to be characterized neither by covetousness (6:19–24) nor anxiety (6:25–34). The kingdom is involved in all these. The model prayer includes prayer for the kingdom (6:10); the cure for both covetousness and anxiety is the seeking of the kingdom (6:33).

Matthew 7:1 – 8:1 introduces the theme of judgement. One kind of judgement is to be avoided (7:1–5), another is to be practised (7:6). Any needs within the kingdom may be sought by asking, knocking, seeking. God will give all that is needed (7:7–11). The basic rule is to treat others by reversing positions and seeing how one would wish oneself to be treated. This puts in a nutshell the gist of 5:3 – 7:11. This is the fulfilling of the Old Testament.

This sub-section of Matthew concludes with an appeal to enter such a kingdom (7:13–14), and a warning against those who would deceive (7:15–20) and who are not concerned to do God’s will (7:21–23). The parable about heeding or not heeding Jesus’ words comes in here (7:24–27), and the section concludes with a note concerning the crowd’s reaction (7:28–29) and the departure of the disciples with Jesus (8:1). Matthew 8:2 – 9:34 is part of the larger unit in 4:12 – 9:34. Having made a summary statement concerning teaching and the working of miracles (4:23–25) Matthew gives samples of teaching (5:1 – 8:1) and the working of miracles (8:2 – 9:34).

Not to destroy but to fulfil (5:17–20)

Matthew 5:17–20 is of the first importance in any study of Jesus’ attitude to the law. The verses deserve to be studied as a whole but have often been regarded as a series of distinct units, each of which may be studied with a view to discerning its ‘setting in life’.[479] Matthew however presents this material with connecting words. ‘Therefore’ (5:19) looks back to verses 17–18; ‘for’ (5:20) brings the small unit to a conclusion.

In Matthew 5:17 the opening words, ‘Do not suppose ... ’, seem to envisage that the mission of Jesus might be misunderstood. The aorist has the force of ‘Do not begin to think ...’. Jesus’ friendship with ‘sinners’ could give rise to misunderstanding. To understand the phrase as mere rhetoric is surely a weak interpretation. The two occurrences of the phrase in this gospel (5:17; 10:34) reflect the possibility that the nature of Jesus’ mission might be misunderstood. It has been debated whether ton nomon hē tous prophētas (‘the law or the prophets’) is to be understood conjunctively (referring to the totality of Scripture) or disjunctively (referring to the Torah on the one hand and the prophetic expectation or interpretation on the other). Nothing much hinges on the difference. Our main concern must be with the precise force of the antithesis between ‘destroy’ (katalusai) and ‘fulfil’ (plēroō).

(i) It has been taken as pointing to a contrast between abrogating the law in its totality and continuing the law in its totality. A.M.Honeyman speaks of ‘unqualified acceptance and approval … The Law is eternal and its most minute prescriptions retain its validity.’[480] C.S.Keener thinks Matthew 5:17 reflects the view of ‘the Matthean community’ and that ‘fulfil’ simply means confirm by obedience.[481] He gives no hint that there might be any exceptions; it is not clear whether he thought Matthew’s community felt obliged to impose circumcision on its men and sent them to Jerusalem three times a year and campaigned for the sacrificial system to be continued in the church. Keener also speaks of the ‘eternality’ of the law.

(ii) G.Bahnsen thinks it refers to ‘the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail’.[482] However, he in fact allows for some parts of the law to be abrogated.

(iii) R.Alderson apparently thinks it implies that the moral law continues to be a rule of life.[483] Michael Green holds the same view.[484]

(iv) Others understand plēroō to mean ‘supplements’; Jesus enlarges or ‘fills out’ the moral law.[485]

(v) Some think the two contrasting verbs focus mainly on Jesus’ obedience.[486]

(vi) E.Kevan believed the main point was that Jesus came to expound the law in a deeper way.[487] D.A.Hagner also thinks ‘fulfil’ means ‘bring to its intended meaning’, ‘to present a definitive interpretation’.[488]

(vii) J.A.Alexander and B.B.Warfield thought the main point was that Jesus would cause the law to be kept.[489]

(viii) R.T.France speaks of Jesus’ role of bringing into being that to which the law and the prophets pointed and carrying them into a new era of fulfilment.[490] This would involve bringing into being a new epoch in which events take place which the Old Testament implicitly predicted. This approach accords with Matthew’s emphasis on the fulfilment of Scripture. For France, the Old Testament Scripture retains its status as the Word of God but its application is now governed and modified by the teaching of Jesus.

The possibilities I mention are not at all a complete list. There are others which we need not pursue in minute detail. But a convincing exegesis must satisfy several conditions.

(i) The meanings attributed to katalusai and plēroō must be adequately attested.

(ii) The interpretation of pleroō must be applicable both to the law and to the prophets.

(iii) Any view that finds Jesus asserting the normativity of only a part of the Torah is suspect.

(iv) Our interpretation should conform to the whole thrust of Matthew’s Gospel. The programmatic statement in 5:17–20 must cohere with verses 21–48 and Matthew’s Gospel in its totality.

(v) We must accept H.Ljungman’s evidence that plērosai (fulfil) is not necessarily the equivalent of Hebrew qum (establish, raise up) and that there may at times be a difference between plērosai (where the emphasis may at times be on utter completeness) and telein or teleioun (which often means ‘terminate’ without the note of distinctive completeness). In other words the matter cannot be dismissed simply by equating plērosai and telein / qum.[491]

The central emphasis of Matthew 5:17 is likely, in my opinion, to focus on Jesus’ personal keeping of the law, in fulfilment of the forward-looking character of the Torah and the prophets.

Other interpretations seem less convincing. The first opinion mentioned above does not seem to take seriously the indications within Matthew that the law, although upheld and fulfilled, is fulfilled not by mere continuation of its traditional force but by some reorientation in the light of the coming of Jesus. However, this approach is to be much commended in that it does take seriously the fact that Matthew is referring to every part and every aspect of the Torah.

The second and third do not take seriously the fact that it is the whole Torah that is in view. It is not possible to leave out the ritual element (pace Bahnsen) and it is not possible to leave out both the ceremonial and the civil aspects (pace Wenham, Alderson and others). Although some distinction is made within the law (compare Matt.5:19; 22:38),[492] the tripartite division into ceremonial, civil and moral law characteristic of Thomas’s Summa Theologiae cannot be used to restrict the meaning of ‘the law ... one yodh ... one projection’.

The fourth view takes plēroō in a way that does not correspond to the use of the verb in Matthew’s Gospel, and neglects the fact that Jesus came to ‘fulfil ... the prophets’. Although it might be argued that Jesus ‘supplements’ the prophets yet that is not the way the verb is used in the well-known ‘fulfilment quotations’ of this gospel.[493]

Kevan’s view, the sixth of those mentioned, is inadequate in that the verb plēroō does not mean ‘expound’. Nor has Kevan done justice to the Christ-centred nature of the instructions in Matthew 5:21–48.

It seems that the most satisfactory way of understanding Matthew 5:17 is to take it to refer to Jesus’ personal keeping of the law, in fulfilment of the forward-looking character of the Torah and the prophets, for the following reasons:

(i) It takes plērosai in the sense that is common throughout Matthew’s Gospel. It is well known that one of the distinctives of the first gospel is its concern for the fulfilment of the Old Testament. It is likely that plerosai will have the meaning in 5:17 that it has constantly throughout the first gospel.

(ii) It allows plērosai to have the same meaning with reference to both the law and the prophets.

(iii) Such a meaning of plērosai is well attested.

(iv) It coheres with the exposition of Matthew as a whole, as we shall see. If Matthew’s teaching is not coherent the interpretation of Matthew 5:17 must remain largely a matter of guesswork. Matthew must be allowed to show us what he means.

In Matthew 5:18 the two time references, both of which commence with heos, imply that the law has a task to perform, and that the law will continue, more stable than the fabric of the world, until its task is completed.

Do ‘until heaven and earth pass away’ and ‘until all things come to pass’ refer to the same time when the law reaches its terminus? Or is ‘until all things come to pass’ an open-ended phrase suggesting that the requirements of the law might come to pass at some stage within world history, but without suggesting that the eschaton is the occasion of such fulfilment? Could it be that different aspects of the law might come to be fulfilled at different times and that emphasis is to be placed upon panta? In which case could it be that some things might ‘come to pass’ before the eschaton but ‘all things’ will not be fulfilled before the end of the age?

There are thus three possibilities concerning the terminus of the law.

(i) Jesus himself is the occasion of its being fulfilled.

(ii) The eschaton or end of the age (see Matt.28:20) is the terminus of the law.

(iii) Some aspects of the law could be fulfilled at the coming of Jesus, but not until the end of the age are ‘all things’ fulfilled.

The last-mentioned possibility is itself capable of being taken in more than one way. Is it that some parts of the law are fulfilled but the whole is not fulfilled until the end? Or is it that the law is totally fulfilled by Jesus but it will continue until ‘all things’ are fulfilled, i.e. until disciples fulfil it and the law-breakers or law-disparagers (see v.19) are judged by it? If the former is the case this leaves us with a further question: what are the aspects that are fulfilled or unfulfilled at any given point?

A satisfying exegesis of 5:17 is more likely if it avoids contradiction with 5:21–48. No one who studies the careful composition of 5:17–20 can imagine that Matthew’s view of the law has not been thought through. Any interpretation that allows no modification in the law at all is unlikely in view of 5:21–48 where, at the very least, there is a change in viewpoint between what ‘you have heard’ and what ‘I [Jesus] say unto you’.

Verse 18a uses the language of strong affirmation in explanation of verse 17. The verse has four parts: amēn gar legō humin, / heōs an parelthē(i) ho ouranos kai he ge / iōta hen e mia keraia ou me parelthe(i) apo tou nomou / heōs an panta genētai. Verse 18a is evidently explaining why the law must not be disparaged but must be fulfilled. It is unsatisfactory to give a weakened meaning to ‘For’. Particles and seams are important in interpretation. The introductory formula gives christological heightening and prepares the way for the ‘I say unto you’ of 5:21–48. Jesus draws attention to himself as well as making a statement concerning the Old Testament scriptures.

In verse 18b the associations of the verb in the Bible (Ps.148:6 LXX; Matt.24:35; Mk13:31; Lk.16:17), in rabbinic writings,[494] and elsewhere (1 Clement 27:5) all suggest that the eschaton is in view. Verse 18c shows that every minute part of the law is involved. This warns the modern Christian off any interpretations of 5:17–20 which see only the ‘moral’ parts of the law being affirmed.

Verse 18c is the crucial clause (‘until all things take place’). Two time clauses (5:18a, 18d) occur alongside one another. There is a parallel in Matthew 24:34–35 where a further allusion to heaven and earth (24:35) immediately follows a time clause when the time involved is not the eschaton but takes place within a generation. (I assume here the exegesis of Matt.24 presented below.) This should caution us that the interpretation of verse 18c is not determined by verse 18b.

The natural meaning of ginomai is ‘happen’. This coheres with plērosai (‘fulfil’) in verse 17. It resembles the usage elsewhere in Matthew (1:22; 21:4; 26:54,56). Apparently we once again have a statement that the law—every minute part of it—has a destiny to fulfil. The fulfilment of its destiny is certain, more settled than the fabric of the universe. If ginomai means ‘happen’, ta panta (‘all things’) must refer to events. There is no antecedent to the phrase. When do ‘all things ... happen’? The very structure and proportioning of the gospel puts heavy emphasis on the events of Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem, his death and resurrection. Yet it becomes clear that the death and resurrection of Jesus do not immediately usher in the end of the epoch. Jesus will be with his disciples until the ‘end of the age’. ‘All things’ must refer to events that Matthew envisages must take place before ‘the end’ comes. This will involve at least the following: the fulfilment of predictions concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection (Matt.16:21; 17:9,12,22f.; 20:17–19; 20:28), the removal of the kingdom of God from the leaders of Israel (21:43), the fall of Jerusalem (21:44; 24:2) and at that time the fulfilment of Daniel 7[495]—the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ (24:36 – 25:46)—as well as the climactic events of Matthew 26–28. Matthew is referring to events that must happen. The ‘all things’ must surely refer to the totality of the events that he has in view.

What then is the total impact of Matthew 5:18? Its phrasing is probably intended to be enigmatic. It strongly affirms the validity of the law, as part of the Scriptures, until the end of the epoch and subject to the further qualification ‘until all things happen’. Matthew does not use simply heōs (‘until’), which could imply that the terminus is fixed and known, but heōs an (‘until whenever’), which implies that the terminus is dependent on some circumstance or condition.[496] It could be translated ‘until whatever time’. If ‘the end’ comes in stages the fulfilment of the law may come in stages also. If verse 17 has referred to the personal fulfilment of the law by Jesus it will also focus on the gospel events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet the reference to the end of the eschaton (as it seems to be) suggests that a fuller fulfilment of the law is yet to come.

The fact that the text moves from verses 17–18 into verses 19–20, with the disciples in view, suggests that the law is initially fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus (cf.v.17) but will be further fulfilled by Jesus’ disciples. The law will abide ‘until whatever time all things happen’—a phrase that allows for variation in the time that things happen. The fact that the disciples ‘fulfil’ the law does not necessarily mean (and 5:21–48 will suggest it does not mean) that they are simplistically ‘under’ the Torah. Rather it means that a posteriori their manner of living will be seen to have fulfilled the Torah. Their righteousness will outstrip that of scribes and Pharisees. Then at the eschaton the law will cease altogether.

Matthew 5:19 brings a change of viewpoint. In verse 17 the emphasis was on Jesus himself (‘I have come to fulfil’). In verse 18 the emphasis was on the details of the law but the solemn affirmation of Jesus (‘Truly I say to you’) kept the person of Jesus in view. Now verse 19 builds upon what has been said (‘Whoever therefore’) and focuses not upon Jesus’ fulfilling of the law but upon the disciple and the Christian teacher, who must not disparage or loosen any detail of the law, but rather honour it. The word therefore indicates the connection between Jesus’ honouring the law and the honour accorded it by others. Again what is in view is the totality of the law. Even the least command must not be disparaged. Also in view is the Christian teacher; anyone who slackens (lusē(i)) the law in their personal life or Christian ministry will suffer a reduced status in the kingdom. Conversely the person who practises the total law and recommends such in their teaching will gain a position of eminence in the kingdom. There is a ‘dispensational’ element in this; before the law has been fulfilled it retains total validity.

Matthew 5:20 brings the sayings in 5:17–20 to a climax. The opening words, ‘I say to you’, sound like a conclusion. The introductory particle gar (‘for’) shows that the verse continues to explain what has been asserted in verses 17–19. At this point three questions tease the expositor: (i) What is the implied ‘righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees’ that is being excelled?(ii) In what way does Matthew envisage its being excelled? (iii) What is it to ‘enter the kingdom’?

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees

The ‘scribes’ are the prestigious students of theological and juridical knowledge, held in high esteem by the majority of the people. In Matthew’s Gospel they appear as closely allied with the priesthood (Matt.2:4; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15; 26:3), with the elders (the other ‘lay’ members of the Sanhedrin, Matt.16:21; 26:57) and with the Pharisees (Matt.5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:1–29).

The scribes are mentioned 24 times in this gospel. They are portrayed as well informed concerning the birth-place of the Messiah (2:4). Matthew 5:20 implies that they are righteous in some sense. Their manner of teaching lacks authority (7:29). One scribe is portrayed as zealous in his support of Jesus and yet unaware of the suffering involved (8:1–20). The clause following Matthew 8:1–20 (‘another of the disciples’, 8:21) implies that this scribe was a disciple of Jesus.

More often the scribes are depicted as hostile to Jesus. Some of them are shown inwardly accusing Jesus of blasphemy (9:3). They are associated with the Pharisees in 12:38, where they crave an external proof of Messiahship, a craving which Jesus condemns as ‘evil and adulterous’ (12:38f.). Yet Matthew is not invariably hostile to the scribes, and can envisage some as disciples of the kingdom of heaven (12:52).

Matthew 15:1 is important as showing how Matthew envisages their ‘righteousness’. This includes zeal for the traditions of the elders, yet may be combined with evasion of greater matters of obedience (fulfilment of the fifth commandment) and is portrayed by Jesus as external (‘their heart is far away’) and of human origin (‘precepts of men’) only. Their ‘righteousness’ is compatible with non-recognition of Jesus and the perpetration of the injustice of Jesus’ trial (16:21). In 17:10 they are again (see 2:4) viewed as erudite in the text of the Old Testament yet unaware of its significance and fulfilment (17:11f.). Matthew 20:18–19 is similar to 16:2 but goes further in defining the precise mode of suffering imposed by scribes and their associates. The preliminary mental (‘mock’) and physical (‘scourge’) cruelty is also mentioned.

In the Matthean description of the events of Palm Sunday the scribes appear as hostile to the authority Jesus has claimed and the adulation he has received (21:15). The fullest treatment of the scribes in Matthew occurs at Matthew 23:1–39. There they are presented as expositors—even as accurate expositors—of the law (23:2f.) yet as living in a manner inconsistent with their own expository gifts (v.3), imposing a strain on the common people (v.4a), lacking compassion (v.4b), concerned to receive praise (v.12), and about externalities (v.5), and about prestigious titles (vv.23–24). They are zealous, yet their zeal is not the fruit of compassion but self-oriented proselytism (v.15). They are casuists, expert in subtle but evasive distinctions (vv.16–22). Thus the ‘righteousness’ of the scribes appears as involving intense loyalty to the minutiae of the Torah, yet relating to external matters only (‘the outside of the cup’). It involved gross inconsistency (‘You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel’). Matthew 23:28 defines the ‘righteousness of the scribes’; they are ‘outwardly righteous’.

References to the scribes in Matthew’s passion narrative accord with the description of the scribes earlier in the gospel. They participate in Jesus’ arrest (26:57) and join the chief priests and elders in mocking him (27:41).

So Matthew presents the ‘righteousness’ of the scribes as marked by three characteristics: externality; scriptural expertise combined with spiritual unperceptiveness; and lack of compassion despite external legality.

The association of ‘scribes and Pharisees’ in Matthew 5:20 tells us that in Matthew’s view the two groups were closely allied. The Pharisees are mentioned 30 times in Matthew’s Gospel. In eleven instances they appear in association with the scribes and share the portrayal considered above. In the remaining nineteen instances we learn more. We are introduced to them when Matthew mentions their response to the ministry of John the Baptist. They are eager to participate in the new movement (3:7) but unwilling to bring forth ethical fruit (3:8), and rely on their ancestry for acceptance with God (3:9). Along with the Sadducees (see 3:7; 16:1), they face the imminent judgement of God (3:10–12). They object to Jesus’ sympathy with ruthless tax-collectors and outcast ‘sinners’. The latter would include not only those living a flagrantly immoral life (murderers, robbers, deceivers, etc.), but also the common people who did not endorse the Pharisaic interpretation of the law, and who might follow a disapproved vocation.

A significant statement concerning the Pharisees occurs in 21:45, where the imminent judgement of God is predicted and the Pharisees rightly perceive that Jesus includes them among those whose destruction is near.

At one point in Matthew 23:1–39 the Pharisees are singled out for combining external righteousness with inner impurity (23:36). Matthew’s last mention of them shows them maintaining their malice towards Jesus after his death (27:62). The ‘righteousness’ of the Pharisees is a term that can only be used with sarcasm.

In what way then should the righteousness of the scribe and Pharisee be exceeded? The immediate context (5:21–48) and the wider context (Matt.1–28) would suggest that Matthew saw this in terms of (i) internality as opposed to externality, and (ii) orientation to Jesus as opposed to orientation to the Mosaic law in itself. The sixfold ‘I say unto you’ of 5:21–48, together with other occasions when Jesus directed attention to himself, require us to see the greater righteousness as focusing on Jesus directly. Thus within the Sermon on the Mount Jesus speaks of suffering not for the law’s sake but for his sake (5:11). Matthew 5:17–20 itself primarily draws attention to Jesus (‘I came to fulfil ... I say to you’). Later Jesus will present himself as the one who speaks authoritatively concerning reward (‘I say … They have their reward’, 6:2,5,16), and concerning anxiety (6:25,29). More forcefully still, Jesus is the one who determines judgement. Jesus says to some, ‘I never knew you’ and allocates final sentence (7:23). It is this radical change in orientation that enables us to say that in Matthew’s view the Christian fulfils the law but does so not by focusing on the law but by focusing on Jesus directly. The point is not that the Christian does not keep the law but that their central interest is direct obedience to Jesus himself.

(iii) Another aspect of the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees must be sought in the love-command. The crucial deficiency in scribes and Pharisees was that despite familiarity with the law they conspicuously lacked compassion.

Our third question—mentioned some pages above—concerning Matthew 5:20 must be: what does it mean to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’? (i) It may refer, in McNeile’s words, to ‘attaining to final bliss’.[497] (ii) It is possible to interpret the phrase as signifying initial experience of salvation.[498] (iii) A third and preferable view takes the phrase to refer to one’s ongoing experience of the powers of the kingdom of God. On this view it concerns something continuing and progressive.

Without jumping to final conclusions about Matthew’s Gospel, we may say that five points are highlighted here. (i) The law is greatly honoured. Every minute detail of the entire Torah is treated with reverence. On the basis of Matthew 5:17–20 no reader could possibly say that Jesus wished to disparage the law or neglect the question of its fulfilment. (ii) Every minute part of the law is revered. The Matthean Jesus honours the ritual of the law, the Sabbath observances, the festivals. The Jesus of this pericope would have tithed dill and cummin. (iii) The law has a task to fulfil in the history of the world. Through the law something had to ‘happen’ (ginomai). Like the prophetic ministry of the Old Testament, it has a forward look. (iv) The events for which the law is designed and to which it points will be fulfilled. It will accomplish its goal. (v) In some undefined manner the law is to be fulfilled in such a way that its most ardent supporters (scribes and Pharisees) will find their ‘righteousness’ exceeded.

‘… but I say’ (5:21–48)

The six units of this section lead us to ask: how is the Mosaic law being handled here? Is it being intensified so that the Mosaic requirement stands but is taken further? Is it being negated at any point? Is it being internalized? How do the requirements of Matthew 5:21–48 compare with those of the Torah?

The first antithesis deals with murder versus the Spirit of reconciliation. Here the first part of the contrast combines a prohibition from the decalogue with an added phrase (‘liable to the council’) which summarizes judicial proceedings in the Old Testament (see Nu.35:12; Deut.17:8–13).[499]

In Jesus’ counter-statement the law is radicalized, internalized, and reorientated to Jesus himself. It is radicalized in that much more is required of the disciple than merely abstaining from the crime of murder; also the judgement is heightened. It is internalized in that what it requires alludes to words, memory and attitudes as well as to the actual deed of murder. It is reorientated in that Jesus’ requirement mentions only himself. It does not involve abrogation in every respect; permission for murder is not given!

The second antithesis, which deals with adultery versus inner purity, also contains a prohibition from the decalogue. Jesus’ counter-statement again radicalizes, internalizes and reorientates the command. It is radicalized in that the requirement goes further than the decalogue. It is heightened in that the judgement mentioned is Gehenna. It is internalized in that what it requires concerns the ‘heart’ rather than the magistrates. It is again reorientated to Jesus alone.

The third antithesis, which contrasts the permission of divorce in the Torah with Jesus’ approach to marriage, contains a citation from Deuteronomy. It modifies the Torah in that a permission conceded in what was allowed as part of a civic code for Israel is altogether withdrawn. The focus of the passage is not on divorce as such but upon a subsequent remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 treats divorce as a practice already known and permits its continuance. The main point of the legislation is that a divorced woman who has contracted a second marriage must never remarry her first husband. The second marriage is regarded as legal. Contrary to some exegetical opinion, the reason for prohibiting remarrying the first partner seems to be that the first marriage set up a relationship that still exists and it would be a kind of ‘incest’ to go back to it after a second marriage. The first divorce does not put the partners back into their pre-marriage situation. Over against the Torah, Jesus withdraws the regulation altogether. The exceptive clause is interpreted in widely different ways. I myself have moved to-and-fro in trying to interpret it and apply it to modern life![500] It must suffice at this point to say I believe the teaching of Jesus in general is: no divorce among his disciples! But at least one exception is allowed and it does permit remarriage. However, the precise interpretation of the exceptive clause does not affect our particular concern. On any view the law’s requirement is changed. The law is obviously viewed as less than ideal in its implications concerning marriage. But we need not postulate a criticism of the law. Its weakness may be viewed (as in Matt.19:3–9) as arising out of human weakness rather than from any defect in the law itself. Nevertheless here is a clear instance where the Mosaic requirement is considered inadequate for the member of the kingdom of God under the rule of Jesus.

It is notable however that what Jesus requires is not less than the law but something higher than the law. In this sense one cannot say that the standard of the law is actually abrogated, as though sin were given more scope. This is a forward step, not a retrograde lessening of the standard of the Torah.

The fourth antithesis, which deals with oaths versus simplicity of speech, may contain an allusion to the third command of the decalogue but it is more likely that the allusion is to Leviticus 19:12 and to such passages as Numbers 30:2ff., Deuteronomy 23:22–24 and Psalm 50:14. Jesus calls for withdrawal of a provision of the Torah, for radicalization of the Torah and reorientation to himself. The Torah is contradicted since in it oaths are at times positively demanded. Jesus does not refer to false oaths. Although casuistry is in view (see 23:1:–26), yet the demand of Jesus does not restrict oaths to the serious oaths of the law but requires general abstention from all oaths.

The addition of the intensifying holōs (‘at all’) seems to sweep away all oaths, in the interests of simplicity of speech. This does involve alteration of the Torah. However, it seems that Matthew would not envisage an oath being refused if it was demanded, for Jesus himself responded to the request for an oath according to Matthew 26:64. Jesus’ reply is, ‘You said it.’

In the fifth antithesis, which concerns the restriction of justice as opposed to the danger of a vindictive spirit in the disciples, Jesus refers to the principle of Exodus 21:24, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Leviticus 24:20; then over against the Torah, Jesus radicalizes the requirement and again reorientates it to himself.[501]

In the sixth antithesis, which concerns selective love over against universal love, Jesus refers to an expanded version of Leviticus 19:18, where the words ‘and you shall hate your enemy’ (kai misēseis ton echthron sou) are added. Banks points out that some Old Testament passages approach the spirit of Matthew 5:43 (Deut.7:5; 20:16–18) and the command concerning the slaughter of the Canaanites may be tersely summarized in the clause concerning hatred.[502] In a number of antitheses it is difficult to know whether Jesus alludes exclusively to the Old Testament or to the Old Testament as mediated through changes of emphasis current in his own day. Since there are places in the Old Testament where kindness to an enemy is urged (Exod.23:4; Lev.19:34; Jb31:29; Prov.24:17; 25:21) it seems likely that the Old Testament is being viewed in the form of its first-century exposition. Yet it would be an exaggeration to say Jesus is rejecting only Jewish perversion of the law. The slight changes in the six antitheses point to the first-century setting, yet (unlike the Corban passages, Mark 7:11; Matthew 15:5) perversion is not in view. Jesus says nothing here about perversion of the law.

Thus in 5:21–48 (i) Jesus’ requirement at certain points intensifies the law. (ii) At certain points the intensification is also an abrogation of the precisely Mosaic form of the law. (iii) This involves a transfer of authority from the law to Jesus himself. (iv) The requirements of Jesus are seen to be internalized when compared with requirements of the Torah. (v) The placing of love and the requirement of ‘perfection’ at the end of the section seems to imply that love is the climax of all the requirements of Jesus. This impression is confirmed by 7:12b.

Matthew 7:12 puts in a nutshell the thrust of the whole of 5:3 – 7:11. We shall return to the ‘love-command’ in connection with Matthew 22:3–40. Oun (‘therefore’) has a summarizing force. The ‘higher righteousness’ of 5:11–45, the avoidance of ostentation (6:1–18), of over-concern about possessions (6:19–34), the non-judgemental (7:1–5) yet discerning (7:6) spirit that have been mentioned—all will be characteristic of the person who pursues love.

Matthew 8:2 – 9:34

Here the words of Jesus are followed by the works of Jesus. Just as in 5:1 – 8:1 Matthew presented his readers with a block of teaching, so Matthew 8:2 – 9:3 is grouped around a number of Jesus’ miracles. The first three show Jesus’ concern for those ostracized by the rabbinic community (8:2–4,5–13,14f.). Jesus puts compassion above ritual requirements in touching the leper (despite Lev.5:3). However, despite this implicit gradation of the law, Jesus shows himself willing to keep the law when the demands of compassion are not affected, for he follows the requirement of the law in telling the cleansed man to present himself to a priest in Jerusalem with the offering prescribed in such cases (Matt.8:4; see Lev.14:10ff.). From Matthew 8:11 it is apparent that Jesus envisages that one day ritual requirements will be transcended. A Jew sitting at a table with a gentile would normally contract ritual defilement but Jesus envisages that this will happen without defilement in the Messianic banquet.

This section contains comparatively little dealing directly with the Torah. One simply notes that Jesus puts compassion above ritual demands and does not scruple to break the oral developments of the law when compassion makes this necessary. His table-fellowship with the ostracized involved disregarding the rabbinic requirements.[503] Matthew relates this to Hosea 6:6, used here with a christological emphasis (for we have there an elthon saying just as in 5:17) and the introduction of the love-command, which implies a criticism of the Pharisees’ developing the Torah in such a way that mercy is excluded. Yet Jesus’ obedience to the law is seen in 8:4.

Matthew 9:35 – 16:12

Here we see the authority of Jesus in word (5:1 – 8:1) and deed (8:2 – 9:34) being extended to his disciples. The section commences with a summary statement comparable to that of 4:23–25. Again Jesus is engaged in a teaching and healing ministry. A new note is heard at 9:36–37 where compassion is shown to lie behind Jesus’ concern for a ministry to the people. This prepares the way for a lengthy discourse concerning the mission of the twelve. They are commissioned (10:1–4) and in an orderly manner Matthew shows us Jesus giving them instructions. As Jesus commends the apostles to their work, so he continues with his own (11:1).

The following sub-sections of the gospel (11:2–30; 12:1–50; 13:1–52; 13:53 – 14:36; 15:1 – 16:12) build on the basis set forth in 9:3 – 11:1. How will this nation-wide mission be received? The following sections offer a glimpse of misunderstanding and rejection (11:2–30), and of rising Pharisaic opposition (12:1–50). In Matthew 11:2–30 even the Baptist falls into doubt concerning Jesus (11:2–15), yet he receives encouragement (11:4–6) and his ministry is affirmed (11:1–15). Matthew 11:11–13 teaches that (i) the law has a forward-looking function and points to the Messianic age (ii) it is part of the corpus of the total Old Testament, and (iii) it has a terminus of some kind in the ministry of Jesus. John and Jesus are alike in being rejected (11:16–19); the theme of Jesus’ rejection forms the context of the upbraiding of the cities of Israel (11:20–24). Yet over against such rejection Jesus is thankful for those to whom the kingdom is revealed (11:25–27) and an offer is made to the weary (11:28–30). Here the ‘yoke’ is not the law (as in Sirach 51) but that of Jesus himself. Healing on the Sabbath rouses Pharisaic wrath (12:1–14). In Matthew 12:1–9 we note that Jesus sits loose to Pharisaic scrupulosity concerning the Sabbath. He is unconcerned when his disciples pick heads of grain (12:1) and interprets David as putting human need above the Torah itself (12:4). Priestly ‘breaking’ of the fourth commandment is regarded as innocent (12:5); the requirement of mercy comes above the Pharisees’ halakah (minor principles of behaviour). This seems far from any legalism. It is no accident that the pericope immediately following (12:9–14) also relates to Sabbath-breaking. Both incidents deal with the law and the Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus. The offence committed is that of harvesting and preparing food on the Sabbath. Carson rightly observes, ‘Ransack the Torah as you will, and it remains difficult to see what law was broken by the disciples.’[504] It is the Pharisaic halakah that has been transgressed.

Matthew 12:9–14 concerns the halakah (minor principles of behaviour). No part of the Torah forbade healing on the Sabbath but the Pharisees clearly place an exaggerated emphasis on inactivity as being inherently good on the Sabbath. But for Jesus inactivity is not ‘good’ in the presence of a sick man. What is ‘good’ is to heal him. The Pharisees’ halakah is disregarded. In the two units (12:1–8,9–14) no breach of the Torah is actually committed. Yet, at one point in Jesus’ reply, a negative stance even with regard to the Torah is implied. For Jesus points to a scriptural incident which reflects upon the Torah itself. By interpreting David’s action as putting human need above a ritual requirement of the Torah (12:4), he has allowed that even a requirement of the written Torah may be disregarded in a situation of need.[505]

At this point we note (i) that Jesus is indifferent to the Pharisaic halakah and (ii) that within the Torah he differentiates between the demands of compassion and the demands of ritual. The former may override the latter, notwithstanding the great authority of the Torah. Jesus has thus allowed a gradation of commands within the Torah.

Matthew now presents Jesus as withdrawing from the area where conflict has arisen in order to continue his Messianic ministry elsewhere (12:15–21). An exorcism elicits further criticism from the Pharisees (12:22–37). A request for a sign is the occasion of a statement concerning the ‘evil and adulterous’ condition of the generation whose leaders are the Pharisees and scribes (12:38–45). Over against such a generation and over against the misunderstandings even of his family, Jesus speaks of his true family, those who do the Father’s will (12:46–50).

Matthew 13:1–53, with the parables of the kingdom, is placed at this juncture. They show the varying reception accorded to the preaching of the kingdom and a significant statement in 13:52 points to a different kind of scribe. Matthew has so far portrayed ‘scribes’ as hostile to Jesus. But here those who have understood the parables (13:51a) and who know that they understand them (13:51b) are by that very fact (‘therefore’, v.52) trained for the kingdom. The new kind of scribe will have a place in the kingdom that comes in the person of Jesus. ‘What is new’ is added to his now greater understanding of the law and the prophets. The kingdom has arrived, yet comes gently, resistibly, ‘in a mystery’.

Matthew 13:53 – 14:36 contains further descriptions of misunderstanding and rejection. Jesus is rejected by Nazareth (13:53–58) and John is finally rejected by Herod (14:1–12). Despite the claim of 13:51b, the disciples are revealed as still immature. A further miracle (14:13–21) brings out a contrast between the disciples and Jesus. In view of the previous miracles, they could be expected to feed the five thousand (‘You give them to eat’, 14:16), but they are conscious only of insufficiency (14:17) and it is Jesus who feeds the crowds. Again, they might have been expected (in view of 8:24–27) no longer to fear storms, yet the incident of 14:22–33 reveals that they are still fearful. Even Peter, the leader of the twelve, is ‘a man of little faith’ (14:31). Nevertheless, the miracles of Jesus continue (14:34–36).

Matthew 15:1 – 16:12 contains a further incident of conflict. The Pharisees criticize Jesus for not obeying the traditional law; but in reply Jesus criticizes them for making void the law (15:1–20). The unit in 15:1–20 brings us to the fourth of the eight sections of Matthew where there is heavy focus upon the Christian and the Torah.[506]

The controversy arises because the disciples break the developed Torah of the Pharisees and the closely associated scribes (15:1). The specific incident giving rise to the debate (15:2) is failure of the disciples to observe ritual washing before eating. Matthew’s account discloses some distinct interests. He is concerned only about the oral tradition of the Pharisees and makes no reference to the law in its undeveloped Pentateuchal form.

Jesus responds to the question firstly by powerfully attacking Pharisaic legalism, contrasting the Scripture with their tradition. References to ‘you’ are set against the ‘command of God’ (15:3); ‘God said’ contrasts with ‘you say’ (15:4f.). Thus Jesus relates the matter to his view of Scripture. The Torah is ‘the command of God’; Pharisaic tradition arises from human opinion alone. Matthew stresses the authority of the Torah more than Mark for he has ‘God says’ where Mark 7:10 has ‘Moses said’.

Secondly, Jesus attacks the Pharisees’ hypocrisy and lack of compassion, portraying their religion as external. The tradition nullifies the Torah (15:6) and thus betrays insincerity (hupokritai, Matt.15:7).

Thirdly, Jesus maintains that the Pharisees’ legalism implies something about the nature of their worship. It is external, a matter of lip rather than heart (15:8). The attack on Pharisaic tradition leads Jesus to speak about the nature of sin. Sin derives from within; it has no relation to any food placed in the mouth. A reference to the offence caused by Jesus’ teaching (15:12–14), is followed by further development of the teaching about sin and food (15:15–20). The Pharisaic tradition is explicitly rejected: eating with unwashed hands does not make a person ‘unclean’. Thus Jesus appears as (i) strongly critical of the Pharisaic halakah, yet (ii) upholding the authority of the Torah and in no way criticizing it. Matthew 15:1–20 has thus shown Matthew’s readers more conclusively than ever how great a gulf exists between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees indeed will shortly come under divine judgement (15:12) and the disciples are to leave them alone (15:13).

Accordingly, Jesus withdraws to a largely gentile region, Tyre and Sidon (15:21) and shows his willingness to minister, although secondarily, to gentiles (15:22–28). Then he proceeds to Galilee (15:29) and works Messianic signs there (15:29–31). Despite this contact with gentiles, the concluding line is: ‘they glorified the God of Israel’ (15:31). Here, as in 2:1–12 and 8:5–13, Matthew shows that, despite opposition from the representatives of Israel (15:1–20), gentiles are open to his ministry (15:21–31).

Another feeding of the crowds (15:32–39) occasions a further request from Pharisees and Sadducees that he will perform a sign. Jesus refuses (16:1–4) and again warns the disciples, this time about the ‘leaven’ of the Pharisees’ teaching (16:5–12). Aware of the rising opposition of the Jewish authority, Matthew’s readers are now ready for a step forward in his account and the introduction of the word ‘church’.

As one surveys the multiplicity of events in this section (9:25 – 16:12), one cannot but notice the absence of any emphasis on the law. Matthew could evidently deal with numerous units of tradition while saying relatively little about the Torah.

Matthew 16:13 – 20:28

The rising opposition of the Pharisees leads to one of the turning-points of the gospel (16:13–20). In the revelation at Caesarea Philippi we discover that despite the disciples’ weaknesses and stumbling misunderstandings Peter speaks on behalf of the group as a whole[507] when he confesses his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. In this context Jesus introduces the word ‘church’ and speaks of ‘his’ church being built despite the opposition of the powers of Hades. Pharisaic opposition has mounted to a head. The evangelist presents the revelation at Caesarea Philippi as a crucial turning-point in the life of Jesus; a new section of Matthew commences here with the words, ‘From that time ...’ (16:21).

Matthew 16:21 – 20:28 continues, in narrative form, a progressive development as definite as in any Pauline epistle, though more subtle. We have seen Jesus’ basic character as the Messianic king predicted by Scripture, welcomed by gentiles but largely rejected by Israel (1:1 – 4:22). We have seen samples of his teaching and of his miraculous power (4:23 – 9:34). We have seen steadily mounting opposition from Israel and misunderstanding in the disciples (9:35 – 16:12). Yet the disciples have reached a break-through in the revelation at Caesarea Philippi and the future of Jesus’ ministry will lie with them (16:13–20). Matthew now shows Jesus concentrating on giving further instruction to his disciples. There are sections concerning the cross (16:21–23), discipleship (16:24–28) and a revelation of the glory of Jesus, which will eventually sustain and illuminate Peter, James and John after the resurrection (17:1–13).

In the story of the transfiguration it is possible that Moses and Elijah are meant to be the greatest representatives of the law and the prophets respectively. If so then one aspect of the story is the fact that both law and prophets are seen as testifying to Jesus, who, however, ultimately outstrips both. The heavenly voice does not say, ‘Listen to the law and the prophets’, but draws attention to the supremacy of Jesus (‘This is my Son’) and invites us to ‘Listen to him!’

The teaching continues, as the healing of an epileptic boy supplies an occasion for Jesus to stress the significance of faith. In Galilee Jesus again predicts his death and resurrection and teaches about the temple-tax (17:24–27) and true greatness (18:1–35). The question of the temple-tax throws light upon Jesus’ attitude to the oral law.

The temple-tax (17:24–27)

The duty of paying the temple-tax was not directly ordained in the written Torah and at the time of Jesus was a halakah-rule (minor principle of behaviour) that had arisen towards the end of or after Hasmonean times. The Sadducees were offended by it; the Qumran community paid its levy once but not regularly.[508] Jesus (i) argues that he is under no compulsion to obey this requirement (17:25b–26) but (ii) says there is no sin in paying the tax and expresses willingness to pay it (17:27). Evidently the keeping of the oral law, as opposed to the more authoritative written law, is an adiaphoron, a matter of indifference. Payment or non-payment is determined by what is expedient in the light of Jesus’ mission. To pay is expedient because not paying will cause needless stumbling among some who are not antagonistic to Jesus’ mission. (‘Them’ in 17:2 probably refers to the ‘others’ of Matt.17:25f.). The story illustrates Jesus’ ‘willingness to comply with the conventions of the society to which he belonged’.[509]

The narrative continues to move towards Jerusalem and a third prediction indicates the significance of the direction of travel (20:17–19). Jesus continues his teaching and the request by the mother of James and John (20:20–23) prompts a statement of the need for servant-like service (20:24–28) in accordance with Jesus’ own mission (20:28).

Two sections especially bear upon our theme: those concerning divorce (19:3–12) and the rich young man (19:16–26).

Divorce (19:3–12)

Scribal debates about divorce revolved around the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1–4, the main point of which was that a divorced woman who had remarried could never again return to her first husband. The school of Shammai restricted ‘some indecency’ to sexual sin authenticated by witnesses, but the dominant practice of the day, governed by the school of Hillel, is said to have understood this as any cause of complaint, even poor cooking.[510] In Matthew 19:3–12 the Pharisees seek to involve Jesus in this debate. In response, (i) Jesus points to an ideal higher than the Torah. In going back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus implicitly indicates that the Torah is—in respect of divorce—less than ideal (19:4–7). (ii) However, the Pharisees press the question of the authority of the law (19:7), which leads Jesus to bring forward a further principle. The law is less than ideal since it caters for human hardness of heart (19:8a). Again Jesus reiterates its low standard compared to the original ideal (19:8b). (iii) Going even further, he introduces his own requirement which is altogether higher than that of the Torah. Verse 9 is notoriously controversial, being similar to Matthew 5:31. The Pharisees begin (v.3) with a question. Wishing to entangle Jesus in the Herod–Herodias affair, they ask whether divorce is permitted ‘for any and every reason’.[511] We recall that (i) Qumran forbade divorce altogether, (ii) Hillel permitted a husband to divorce for trivial reasons, and (iii) Shammai permitted the husband to divorce on grounds of grave indecency. In verses 4–6 Jesus argues from the story of creation that divorce is entirely wrong. In verse 7 the Pharisees raise the question of the Mosaic law. They slightly distort it by using the word ‘command’, which is not quite the point of Deuteronomy 24. In verses 8–9 Jesus (i) speaks of permission not command, (ii) argues that this permission is grounded in man’s hardness, (iii) urges that such a permission was less than ideal and was a lapse from God’s original requirement, and (iv) bans divorce altogether for his disciples except with one proviso. (Possible interpretations of this exceptive clause have already been mentioned. My own view—and I have changed my mind since the time of the writing of my doctoral thesis—is that an exception is made on grounds of adultery and the exception allows for remarriage. However, my argument here is not affected by the precise interpretation of the exceptive clause.)

The next sub-unit (vv.10–12) has been taken to refer to the preferability of singleness[512] or to the need to remain continent after divorce (for example by Dupont[513]). The decision does not affect our enquiry.

To sum up: in this passage we note (i) presentation of a higher standard than the Mosaic law, (ii) indication of weakness in the Mosaic law, and (iii) reorientation to Jesus himself with the recurrence of the familiar phrase, ‘I say to you’.

The rich young man (19:16–26)

A common interpretation has been that Jesus used the law to ‘convict of sin’ (19:17–19). When the young man moralistically and simplistically claims to have kept the law (19:20) the commandment is intensified and radicalized so as to reveal the spiritual nature of the law in connection with covetousness (19:21). This view has predominated in the evangelical literature.[514] Yet much of the traditional exposition appears to be built on false premises. It assumes (i) that the young man was ‘seeking salvation’ in the sense that Martin Luther was ‘seeking a gracious God’, and (ii) that Jesus’ purpose in bringing in the law was to prepare for the gospel by convicting him of sin. On this view, the young man is seeking forgiveness of sins or (to use a Pauline term) justification. However, this approach is too Pauline. It is as though the young man were asking the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ in the same sense as the Philippian gaoler. There are reasons however to suggest that the issue is not justification or initial-salvation, but that it concerns something richer and fuller.

Matthew’s version shows a number of differences in comparison with Mark’s (Mk10:17–31). Three major ones are: the change in the ascription of goodness (‘What good thing?’ instead of ‘Good master’) and removal of the phrase ‘Why do you call me good?’ (Mk10:18); the addition of Leviticus 19:18 in Matthew 19:19; and the reference to perfection in 19:21. The changes seem to be motivated by (i) a desire to remove distracting christological questions; (ii) introduction of the love-command, which is one of Matthew’s special interests; (iii) a heightened emphasis on the question of the role of the law, which is another of Matthew’s special interests.

There is emphasis on the young man’s being one of the crowd (v.16). This may be intended to save the reader from thinking that the command to forsake all wealth is a generalized command. From the outset Matthew has stressed that Jesus is dealing with an individual. The group of disciples in 19:13 are explicitly not the recipients of the instruction of 19:21. The young man’s quest for ‘eternal life’ raises some important questions. The traditional Protestant interpretation is that ‘eternal life’ means conversion and initial-salvation. However, there are good reasons for thinking that the focus of the phrase ‘eternal life’ is different, referring more to reaping the blessings of salvation and its consequent reward. This is suggested by the following considerations:

(i) In the Marcan account, to some form of which Matthew probably had access, the young man uses the term ‘inherit’ (Mk10:17). The verb ‘inherit’ never refers to initial-salvation. While we are dealing with Matthew not Mark, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s ‘have’ (echo,19:16) implies anything different here. Matthew has not altered his Marcan source in this respect, and he uses the term ‘inherit’ in 19:29. ‘Inheritance’ always speaks of reward. Abraham was ‘justified’ in Genesis 12 or 15 (see 15:6) but his ‘inheritance’ was not secured until Genesis 22 when he had reached a high level of obedience. The ultimate possession of the inheritance is beyond the grave. ‘Inheritance’ language goes back to the Old Testament and is typologically analogous to Canaan. Obedience is rewarded by inheritance; disobedience results in disinheritance.

(ii) ‘Entering the kingdom’ does not in Matthew refer to initial-salvation but is generally connected to one’s regular manner of living. It comes about by poverty of spirit (5:3), enduring persecutions (5:10), living in a way that fulfils the law and outstrips the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5:19f.). It is not a matter of an initial act of faith but of seeking (6:33), of doing Jesus’ will (7:21). All this suggests that we are not dealing with ‘conversion’ in the traditional evangelical sense but with reaping the benefits of the kingdom by the way one lives. This is Matthew’s concern more than that of conversion. He deals with excelling in kingdom (18:1). Even the phrase ‘entering the kingdom’ apparently refers not to ‘conversion’ but to the experience of blessings within the kingdom.

(iii) There is no clear example in the synoptic gospels of initial conversion being referred to in terms of ‘entering the kingdom’. Matthew’s language of the kingdom either refers to ongoing daily living (as in the references cited) or (as in 8:11; 25:34) to something future.

(iv) The general thrust of the entire section in 19:1 – 20:1 clearly refers to reward. The ‘eternal life’ referred to must concern reaping the blessings of the kingdom or eschatological reward (or, quite likely, both) because Jesus refers to ‘treasure in heaven’ (19:21). The apostles’ response to Jesus’ words is, ‘Then what shall we have?’ (19:27). B.B.Warfield rightly notes that the section ‘is succeeded by the parable of the workmen in the vineyard who were surprised that their rewards were not nicely adjusted to what they deemed their relative services’.[515] The question of the young man does not refer to justification (to use the Pauline term) or initial coming to discipleship; rather it concerns the experience of eternal life and reward, an ‘inheritance’ resulting from a life of discipleship. The traditional interpretation of Matthew 19:16–22 has focused on Pauline justification instead of inheritance (although in Paul too ‘inheritance’ is reward, as Col.3:24 makes explicit). B.B.Warfield rightly complained about ‘habits of thought derived from a Lutheran inheritance’.[516]

Eternal life is more than justification–forgiveness. It is the experience of life, the ‘life of the age to come’, which is known even in this world. For the Jewish young man it would traditionally be the Torah that gave such life. (‘The Torah is great, because it gives to those who practise it life in this age and in the age to come’, Pirqe Aboth 6:7.)

Jesus questions the man concerning his view of goodness. Goodness is defined in terms of God (‘There is One who is good’). It is likeness to God that is the true mark of goodness. (One may compare Matt.5:45–48, where also likeness to God and ‘perfection’ are linked.) The Matthean wording leaves aside the christological issue but still asserts the unworthiness of humankind and the unique goodness of God alone. An exact scrutiny of the text reveals that God’s goodness is not defined in terms of the law. Matthew 19:8 is only a few lines back and has acknowledged weakness in the law. Jesus merely moves on to make use of the law.

The question concerns what the young man must do to have eternal life. He is concerned about specific good works. In verse 17 Jesus’ reply starts from where the young man is. He asked about doing. Jesus’ reply concerns doing. Yet it must be noted that Pauline interests must not be brought in at this point. The basis of first entry into God’s kingdom is not the issue. The young man is not enquiring about ‘justification’ or about initial entrance into the kingdom of God. In Matthew 9:9 Matthew’s first becoming Jesus’ disciple apparently requires no preparatory return to the law. Following Jesus is enough for salvation: ‘Levi’ was accepted immediately. Rather the passage here deals with the level of godliness that secures blessing, what may be called ‘getting eternal life’.

Jesus’ reply firstly points to the keeping of the commandments. The young man’s question, ‘Which ones?’ assumes there is a gradation within the law (v.18a). In verses 18–19 Jesus accepts that assumption and points him to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth and fifth commandments, in that order. The law is not given a spiritualized exposition. Hendriksen’s remark about ‘deeply spiritual and penetrating interpretation’[517] of the law corresponds to nothing in the text.

Why were the first, second, third, fourth and tenth omitted? Even the religious externalism of the average first-century Jew could be regarded as keeping the first three commands. The fourth concerned ritual and is not on a level with the others. The tenth is altogether in a different category. It is perhaps reflected on in the further progress of the conversation. The addition of the love-command in Matthew corresponds to the importance the evangelist attaches to this aspect of the law. Yet at the same time it must be said that even the love-command receives no detailed exposition and the young man’s claim to have kept even this command is not questioned by Jesus. Evidently he felt that he had shown love to others. Indirect refutation of the young man’s claim will come in the test of his willingness to give to the poor (Matt.19:21). Although claiming to have kept the commands (v.20), the man still feels something is missing in spite of his consciousness of total law-keeping. Now Jesus goes higher. No longer does he directly quote the law although his demand could be based on the tenth command. Instead Jesus first gives a particularized instruction. The young man says he is willing to keep the generalized laws of the Torah and even to do something (ti, 19:16) outstanding. Is he willing to follow a personal, particularized instruction from Jesus himself?

Secondly, Jesus tests his willingness to show outstanding love: if Jesus in his case and in a specific instruction requires outstanding generosity, will he follow this particular instruction?

Finally, Jesus asks the young man to join him in the radical commitment of companionship among his disciples who ‘follow’ him. The ‘following’ must not be spiritualized. It is not a reference to general loyalty to Jesus but involves literally becoming one of the team who accompany Jesus. At this point we see Jesus leaving aside all talk about the Torah and focusing on radical commitment to himself and his particularized commands to individual disciples. As in Matthew 5:20,48 and 19:16–22, a righteousness beyond that of scribes and Pharisees is needed.

Two further points deserve notice. (i) This kind of radical commitment to a life of love and obedience to Jesus’ particularized commands is called ‘perfection’. (ii) The result of such a life is reward: ‘You shall have treasure in heaven.’ We have come full circle to where the questioner started. From the very beginning he was concerned about experience of life and reward. This focus is confirmed in the following verses, where the disciples refer to what they have done and their literally accompanying Jesus (19:27). They ask, ‘What then shall we have?’ (19:27). Jesus replies by talking of reward (19:29) but the term he uses is ‘inherit’. The following parable (20:1–16) deals with the remarkable surprises of grace displayed when a householder at the end of the day allocates reward for work done. The whole section from Matthew 19:16 – 20:16 has focused upon reward.

The only possible query concerning this interpretation arises from the use of the word ‘salvation’ in 19:25. This is not a weighty objection. The young man uses the term ‘eternal life’ (19:16); Jesus similarly speaks of ‘entering life’ (19:17). In talking to the disciples Jesus later refers to the ‘kingdom of heaven’ (19:53); the term ‘inherit’ is used in 19:29. It seems likely that at some points in the New Testament ‘reward’ and ‘salvation’ are so closely linked that a futuristic usage of the word ‘salvation’ actually refers to reward.[518] In any case it should be noted that the term does not occur on the lips of Jesus in Matthew’s presentation. We could have here, as elsewhere in Matthew,[519] an error of the disciples which Jesus implicitly corrects.

What view is taken here of the Mosaic law? One notes (i) the law is not in any way disparaged. (ii) The life Jesus requires is not less than the law. (iii) Yet there is a level of godliness that outstrips the law. (iv) Jesus asks for obedience to particularized commands that may go further than the Torah. (v) Jesus requires radical reorientation to himself. He puts himself in the place of the Torah. (vi) This is called ‘perfection’ and one is encouraged to believe that the result will be an experience of eternal life now and reward hereafter.

The passage does not contain a two-tier ethic, as if the law represented a level of godliness for ‘ordinary’ disciples with ‘perfection’ available for an elite. Nor is it a two-stage way of leading a person to initial-salvation, with the law preparing the way for submission to Jesus. Rather it is a two-stage way of reaching the higher level required for all disciples. ‘Perfection’ is required of all Jesus’ disciples (see also 5:48).

Matthew 20:29 – 25:46

This resembles other sections in that miracle stories are interwoven with sections pursuing dominant themes. But the emphasis here is on Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem and upon the rejection of Israel.

The healing of the blind men (20:29–34) significantly shows them using a Messianic title (‘Son of David’). Jesus does not reject the title; the healing asked for is given. Entering Jerusalem (21:1–11), he fulfils prophecy (vv.4f.) and performs a sign that implicitly claims the temple is subject to his lordship (vv.12–17). The miracle of the cursing of the fig-tree functions as an acted parable concerning the barrenness and unproductiveness of Israel (vv.18–22). Israel’s unbelief is underscored in the question concerning authority (vv.23–27), and the parables of the two sons (vv.28–32) and of the vineyard (vv.33–41) further emphasize the same point. A programmatic statement follows (vv.42f.), concerning the rejection of Israel, and the reaction of the chief priests and Pharisees is noted (vv.45f.). A further parable on the same theme is found in Matthew 22:1–14.

In Matthew 22:15–26 the malice of Jesus’ opponents is seen in several controversies which potentially entrap Jesus. The debates concern taxation (22:15–22), resurrection (22:23–33), the greatest command (22:33–40) and Psalm 110 (22:41–45). This leads into an extended denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (23:1–39), and a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia (24:1 – 25:46). The initial emphasis on Jerusalem is followed by descriptions of judgement day. Little of this has any heavy emphasis on the Torah. However, two sections call for detailed comment.

The greatest commandment (22:34–40)

The setting is one of controversy. Matthew 22:15 sets the tone of Matthew 22:15–46. It is Jesus’ enemies who raise a question about the law, as is usually the case in Matthew (see 12:2; 15:2; 17:24; 19:7,16). When Jesus is speaking on his own initiative he rarely raises questions of Torah. In Matthew 5:17–48 he is replying to a possible misunderstanding (‘Think not ...’,5:17). At a few places he freely makes the point that he fulfils the law (Matt.7:12) and that the epoch of the law centres upon him (11:13). In Matthew 23 Jesus raises the issue of the law himself but does so immediately after 22:15–46 and in order to denounce the legalists. Thus it is Jesus’ enemies who love to raise issues—sometimes quite minor ones—concerning the Torah. Great interest in the righteousness of the law may apparently co-exist with great hostility towards Jesus. We note that preoccupation with the Torah does not lead to faith in Jesus and does not necessarily convict of sin.

The question put in 22:35 reflects contemporary attempts to reduce the law to a few items. One finds such discussions in the sayings of the rabbi Hillel (‘What is hateful to you, do not do to thy neighbour. This is the whole law’[520]). Rabbi Aqiba (fl. AD 110–135) said that Leviticus 19:18 was kelal gadol battorah (‘the great principle in the law’). Rabbi Ben Azzai, from approximately the same period, used the same phrase. A kelal is a general or basic command from which all the other commands could be deduced. Although these sources are generally somewhat later than Jesus they obviously go back to earlier days (Tobit 4:15, which echoes Hillel’s saying, goes back to pre-Christian times). It seems from Matthew 22 and its parallels that such discussions already occurred in Jesus’ day and that Jesus was invited to give his answer to such questions.

However friendly or unfriendly to Jesus the man may have been (note Mark 12:32–34), Matthew wishes to present his question as one generally asked in hostility. But that does not prevent Jesus from answering it. As with the two previous questions (Matt.22:15–22,23–33), Jesus takes the question at face value and replies.

His response links Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus 19:18. Perhaps such a linkage had been made before. (There are similar sayings, possibly pre-Christian, in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs—T.Issa.5:2; 7:6; T.Dan.5:3). Jesus’ answer again urges the need of love. The love-command is presented in its two aspects, love towards God and love towards humankind. The message to hostile Jewish questioners is that the law abides in its validity and its greatest aspects concern love. If this were all, we might think that Jesus was simply teaching a spiritualized and heightened version of the law. However, the matter is not left there and one must notice the connection between 22:15–40 and verses 41–45. Having replied to a series of hostile questions (22:15–40) Jesus asks some questions of his own (22:41–45). The hostile questions have dealt with relationship to Caesar (22:15–22), with the miraculous (22:23–33) and with the law (22:34–40). Jesus’ questions concern himself (22:41–45). This conclusion means that the protracted debate does not leave the impression that the Jews merely face the heightened morality of the love-command. Certainly the love-command is mentioned in the Torah and is its greatest aspect. Yet the matter does not stop there. A christological emphasis is also introduced. Again we meet the same twofold emphasis we have noted in 19:16–22 and elsewhere. Jesus ranks love as the greatest aspect of the Torah and all else ‘hangs’ upon the love-command. Yet the love-command is not presented in a vacuum but in the context of submission to Jesus as the Son of God. The legalists’ question in itself would have left the matter wholly in the realm of law. In verses 14–45 Jesus faces them not with a legal question but a christological challenge. Love is God’s supreme ‘law’—but can it be legislated? Can there be love if Jesus is not received as Son of God? This is the challenge left with the legalists. Matthew’s Gospel says nothing more about law. The next few verses will pronounce condemnation upon the very people who asked about the greatest command of the law.

Jesus also adds something else not mentioned by the Pharisees: ‘On these hang the law and the prophets.’ What does it mean to say that the whole Old Testament ‘hangs’ (krematai) upon the double command of love? The phrase (Matt.22:40), which is distinctive to Matthew, resembles 7:12. The verb used, like its late Hebrew equivalent (talah or tala׳), may express dependence (as in the rabbinic saying hm׳sh tlwy btlmwd w׳yn tlmwd bm׳wh, ‘Conduct depends on teaching not teaching on conduct’).[521] But what is the precise nature of the dependence? (i) Is the idea that of derivation: the law and the prophets depend on love in the sense that they derive from it?[522] (ii) Or is the idea that of summation, such that the love-command summarizes and puts in a nutshell all that the Torah and the prophets require? (The rabbinic question, ‘What is the smallest section of Scripture on which all the essential provisions of the Torah depend (tlwy)[523] uses talah when seeking to express the varied stipulations of the Torah in the smallest form.) (iii) Is the idea that of the indispensability of the love-command such that the law and the prophets have no validity unless they express or are combined with love? (iv) Is coherence the main point, such that love is the decisive expression of the Old Testament or that the commandments find their coherence in the overriding principle of the double commandment to love?

Two principles must guide us. (i) Since the saying here relates to the law and the prophets one must interpret kremannumi in a way that suits both. (ii) A convincing exegesis must understand kremannumi in a way that is attested (or that is attested for talah).

It is not likely that the idea is derivation, for it is not easy to see how the prophetic message can be wholly derived from the love-command. Nor is it likely that the thought is of love replacing the law. Replacement is not involved in kremannumi or talah. Nor does this thought make sense in the case of the prophets.

Taking account of the meaning of kremannumi and of the context it seems likely that the idea is that the law and the prophets serve the interests of love and depend on it in that they have no significance except to bring about love. (‘Love’ will of course be understood christologically and within the context of Christ’s will; Matthew does not refer to an undefined moralism.) On this understanding (i) the attested meaning of kremannumi is followed, (ii) both law and prophets contain indications that they are intended to further the cause of love,[524] (iii) the commands concerning love therefore sum up all that the law and prophets are seeking to bring about, and (iv) this view does justice to the salvation–historical perspective. As in Matthew 5:17–20, the law and the prophets are seen to have a goal within history. They depend on the principle of love in that this is the purpose that lies behind them.[525]

So is it possible that where love is operating the legislation of the Torah is no longer directly and immediately needed? E.Schweizer affirms this in an extreme manner: ‘Righteousness as a whole depends on the fulfilment of these two commands … they are the only ones that need be obeyed.’[526] However, this is not compatible with Matthew’s Gospel as a whole. Yet for Matthew the Torah is fully valid during the ministry of Jesus. ‘Matthew’ (whoever he may be) is presenting his version of the Jesus story, using the material he has at his disposal. If the redaction of Matthew exclusively reveals his church it is a rather legalistic church that we glimpse. If however Matthew is presenting historical material, as I think he is, then Matthew 22:40 says no more than that the total corpus of the Old Testament was furthering the cause of love (understood, as we have said, christologically).[527] The question must be asked in a more nuanced way: does the law directly lead to love? Does love arise by preoccupation with the law? Could it be that the law takes society a step in the direction of love but the ‘fulfilment’ of it cannot arise from law alone? Matthew 24:40 says no more than that the need of love was the underlying reason for the giving of the Torah and the total corpus of prophetic ministry. In this verse he does not say what carries the cause of love to its fulfilment. Yet the fact that he now presents a section (22:41–46) dealing with the claims of Jesus will give us a hint. The final sentence of the gospel (28:20b) will offer the possibility of fellowship with the risen Jesus. There is more than one way in which the love-commands may be ‘the only ones that need be obeyed’. It is unlikely (despite Schweizer) that they are the ‘only ones that need be obeyed’ in the sense that the Torah may be disobeyed. But in conjunction with Matthew’s last word (Matt.28:20b) it could be said that they may suffice as the Christian’s central focus (to change Schweizer’s wording). Only thus will the law be ‘fulfilled’.

What then is the view of the law taught in Matthew 22:34–40? (i) The greatest aspect of the law, it says, is found in a phrase that does not occur at all in the central aspects of the Torah. Instead of quoting words from the decalogue which might have been candidates for selection as the greatest command, Jesus goes to an obscure section of the Torah and selects a mention of love (Lev.19:18). (ii) He accepts the notion of gradations within the law. (iii) The validity of the law abides unabridged for hostile Israelites, to whom it was originally given. (iv) The unabridged validity of the law leads to questions concerning the one to whom it pointed, or the one whom it ‘prophesied’ (Matt.11:13). This leaves unanswered questions. According to Matthew, Jesus was not concerned to say everything that could have been said to these hostile Israelites. He points them to the need for love, questions them with regard to himself—and leaves the matter there.

The fact that Matthew 22:41–46 follows immediately after the section concerning the greatest command suggests that Matthew is not content to leave a statement concerning law except in connection with a statement concerning the person of Jesus.

Obeying the scribes and Pharisees (23:3)

We have already surveyed Matthew’s view of the scribes and Pharisees. At this point we must consider 23:3 more fully. The saying is rather startling when read alongside Matthew’s denunciation of the two groups. We may identify several approaches to it.

(i) At one end of the spectrum of opinion is the view that 23:3 simply indicates the high value ascribed to the Torah in Matthew’s teaching. For Bornkamm it shows that Matthew held to the ‘unabridged validity’ of the Torah.[528] This takes seriously the fact that Matthew is dealing with the whole law.

(ii) The theonomy school also draws attention to Matthew 23:3 but fails to explain how there can be any exception to the total validity of all aspects of the Torah if 23:3 is taken at face value. Bahnsen thinks that it is ‘to the extent that they legitimately sit in Moses’ seat’ that the Pharisees’ teaching should be obeyed. Yet if one takes the text at face value this does not seem precisely the distinction being made. Matthew is surely distinguishing between practice and teaching. The scribal and Pharisaic teaching is to be followed but not their practice. If one interprets the text along these lines, the scribes and Pharisees are hypocritical yet accurate expositors. Matthew 23:3 does not question their expository skills. Having taken Matthew 23:3 at face value, by what right can the theonomy school introduce any qualification or reduction of this statement?[529]

(iii) Reformed theologians commonly say that Matthew 23:3 affirms the law but seeks to limit the extent of the law envisaged. Thus N.B.Stonehouse thinks that in spite of a prima facie impression that the law is affirmed here, the contradiction with the rest of the chapter prevents us from interpreting the saying as totally approving scribal and Pharisaic teaching, since these verses ‘go to the extreme of acknowledging the authority of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees’. For Stonehouse, 23:3 means that the scribes and Pharisees ‘were to be honoured in their affirmation of the law of Moses’. What this signifies is not altogether clear; apparently that the scribes and Pharisees were to be honoured in their general affirmation of the law, but not heeded in their detailed convictions.[530]

(iv) J.P.Meier offers a ‘dispensational’ understanding.[531] Jesus’ statement affirmed the Pharisees’ and scribes’ role but not their teaching, and this affirmation extended only to the time of the resurrection. However, it is precisely their teaching (as opposed to their conduct) that Jesus does apparently affirm. Jesus has criticized contemporary Pharisaic teaching (Matt.5:21–48; 15:3f.; 16:12) and does so again in this very passage (23:16–36). He has just denounced their ignorance (22:41–46).

(v) Garland[532] is so impressed by the contradiction between 23:3 and the rest of Matthew that he discerns incoherent editorial work at this point.

(vi) Another approach is to take 23:3 as a concessive and gentle approach to Jewish law-keeping at a time when the breach between church and synagogue is not yet final.[533]

(vii) More satisfactory is the exegesis of Jeremias, France and Carson. France thinks 23:3 cannot be taken at face value; it was spoken ‘with an ironical, tongue-in-cheek tone’. D.Carson believes that what we have here is ‘biting irony, bordering on sarcasm’.[534] This is surely correct. It is quite impossible to take 23:3 as a positive or concessionary remark. For Matthew does not handle the scribes and Pharisees with gentleness. In the light of Matthew’s treatment of the scribes elsewhere (chs.5; 14; the bulk of 23) it is impossible to think that he approves of the total teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. Yet it is the total teaching including the oral developments of the law that are in view. It is possible however to go even further than Carson. What we seem to have here is an ad hominem argument. Jesus is speaking with strong irony, but with a reasoned purpose. It is as if he were saying, ‘You want to keep the law? Well, do that! Let us see you actually achieve it. Even the experts in the law cannot keep it, but you go ahead and do so!’ If this correctly reproduces the thrust of 23:3, then the argument resembles that in Galatians 4:21 and 5:3–4. Does anyone wish to keep the scribal and Pharisaic law, traditions and all? Then let them do so! But let them not imagine that even the scribes and Pharisees themselves are capable of keeping their own teaching.

It has been argued[535] that Matthew 23:23 also indicates Matthew’s conservative view of the role of the law. Although he knows there are distinctions and gradations within the law, nevertheless even the most meticulous tithing will not be abrogated in Jesus’ kingdom. The law, it is argued, will retain total validity.

Fulfilment and the eschaton

At this point I think a ‘dispensational’ element does enter. Carson points out that Jesus is not at all dealing with the relationship between the Mosaic epoch and his own reign. ‘Jesus describes what the Pharisees should have done.’[536] In Matthew we have allusions to the pre-AD 70 situation of the temple altar (23:16–22), the sacrificial system (5:23f.), and the Sabbath (24:20) without any necessary implication that such Mosaic institutions retain their validity. One need not read into this Matthew’s view of the law. The central point in Matthew 23:23 is that it would not be right for the Pharisee to brush aside the law or to disregard its requirements. He is commended for his meticulous observance of one of the details of the Torah. However, to see here a ‘rule of life’ for the post-resurrection believer is to read too much into Matthew 23:23. The last few verses of Matthew’s Gospel, as we shall see, leave us with a picture of believers under the commands of Jesus and the authority that derives from his resurrection. The law of tithing was given in the Torah (Lev.27:30; Deut.14:22). Jesus claims according to Matthew that he has come to fulfil the law, but his life is not finished and the law has not yet received its lifelong fulfilment in the life of Jesus. It would certainly not be right for Jesus to say that a Jew who is not one of his disciples should not keep the law. When addressing his disciples and the relatively sympathetic crowds (5:2; 7:28) Jesus has portrayed himself as the new authority to which disciples must submit. But it would not be right for Jesus to imply that a Jew who has not transferred allegiance from the Torah to the more-than-Torah found in Jesus’ authority is in any way released from the Torah.

What we have in Matthew 23:23 is a concession. A teacher of the law who is not a disciple of Jesus is quite right to be utterly scrupulous in submission to the Torah. Jesus is in process of fulfilling the law; at such a stage in salvation history even its smallest demands must be scrupulously observed.[537]

Chapter 24, although saying little about the Torah, requires comment because of the distinction I have drawn between an immediate ‘fulfilment’ of the Old Testament scriptures and a more distant eschaton. Matthew 24:3 introduces the disciples’ three-part request for further information concerning (i) the fall of Jerusalem, (ii) the sign of the fall of the city, and (iii) the sign of Jesus’ parousia. They take it for granted that these coincide.

Jesus’ reply initially focuses wholly on the fall of Jerusalem. Everything in 24:4–27 has local reference. There are allusions to Judea (24:16) and the restrictions of the Sabbath (24:20). A contrast is specifically drawn between ‘these things’ and ‘the end’ (24:6).

The crucial verses are 29–31. They have been interpreted of the parousia, occurring either immediately, within one generation, or after the inter-adventual period between the two comings of Christ.[538] R.T.France develops an old line of thought when he argues that they refer to the fall of Jerusalem described in apocalyptic language.[539] I basically agree, but would add one further point: the reason the verses apply parousia language to the fall of Jerusalem may be that the fall of Jerusalem is seen as a foretaste of the parousia. The language is itself appropriate to the parousia. The ‘coming’ of Daniel 7:13 is seen in the events of the fall of the city; the parousia is experienced by way of foretaste within one generation. The proof that Daniel 7:13 is fulfilled will be experienced by the disciples themselves.

It is thus the events connected with the fall of Jerusalem which are experienced within one generation. Matthew 24:36 introduces a contrast (de, ‘But ...’). ‘These things’ (24:3,34) are to take place soon, ‘but of that day no one knows the day or the hour ...’. None of this involves the Torah (except 24:20 incidentally) but it is relevant for the understanding of Matthew 5:17–20 above. One could say that a two-stage eschaton is envisaged, one prefiguring the other, one near, one undated.

Matthew 26:1 – 28:20

This section describe the death and resurrection of the Christ. We are shown certain preliminaries, the approach of the Passover (26:1–5), his prior anointing for burial (26:6–13), the plans of Judas (26:14–16). The last supper takes place with its significant symbolism and predictions (26:17–30). The Mosaic legislation regarding the Passover is to be kept, yet in the midst of a Passover-like supper it is dramatically transformed. Henceforth not the Passover laws but the institution of Jesus concerning the Lord’s Supper are to be authoritative. Peter is warned of his weakness (26:31–35). Jesus prays in Gethsemane but is disappointed by the disciples’ weakness (26:3–6). There follow the betrayal and arrest (26:47–56), the trial before Caiaphas (26:57–68), Peter’s denial (26:69–75), the deliberation next morning (27:1f.), Judas’ regrets (27:3–10), the interview with Pilate (27:11–14), the release of Barabbas (27:15–23), the condemnation of Jesus (27:24–26), the soldiers’ mockery (27:27–32), the incident concerning Simon (27:33), the details of the crucifixion (27:34–54), the involvement of the followers of Jesus (27:55f.) including Joseph of Arimathea (27:57–60), and the setting of a guard over the tomb (27:61–66).

Chapter 28 portrays the visit of Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre (28:1–8), Jesus’ meeting with the disciples (28:9–10), and the tale of the guards (28:11–15). The concluding commissioning of the disciples[540] brings the gospel to a close, mentioning the setting of the occasion (28:1–17) and Jesus’ final words (28:1–20). The closing words of the gospel again stress Jesus’ personal authority and lordship over his disciples. The requirements of the Torah have given way altogether to the requirements of Jesus. The risen Lord of the church continues to have direct authority over his disciples till the end of the age. If R.H.Smith is right in thinking that the end of the gospel explicitly addresses the issue of legalism and antinomianism[541] then it is significant that Matthew’s Gospel presents us with the risen Lord exercising authority over the church, an authority exercised in the interests of righteousness. For Matthew, no written document represents ultimate authority. The assumption is that leadership over his disciples belongs to the risen Jesus alone. Reference to the ‘end of the age’ implies the continuance of his presence and power. The authority under which the apostles will place their converts is not a law-code but that of Jesus himself, directly. Hubbard points out that in a number of commissionings in the Hebrew bible people are put under the authority of the Mosaic law (see Jos.1:7; 1 Chr.22:13). The gospel is not dominated by Mosaism. The ‘I’ of Jesus replaces the Mosaic law that is the supreme authority in the commissioning of Joshua (Jos.1:7) and Solomon (1 Chr.22:13). In the final commission law is not mentioned. Jesus alone fills the horizon.[542]

Conclusion

Finally, we are able to draw some conclusions about Matthew’s view of the law and about how his contribution might help in constructing a systematic theology.

(i) The term ‘law’ in Matthew seems always to refer to the total Torah.

(ii) Matthew does not disparage the Torah; he does not envisage that among Jesus’ disciples it will be despised or abrogated by disobedience within the lifetime of Jesus, but he does envisage that it will be in some ways up-graded, outclassed and outshone after the resurrection of the Christ.

(iii) Law is analogous to prophecy in that both point forward to events in history.

(iv) Jesus has no great concern to submit to the oral developments of the Torah. He disregards requirements that law-abiding Jews shall not eat with gentiles (9:9–13) and explicitly puts the requirement of mercy over against the Pharisaic custom (9:13, citing Ho.6:6). A similar disregard for the extension of requirements concerning the Sabbath is buttressed by the same citation (12:7, also citing Ho.6:6). The Pharisees’ query (9:11), although it does not use the word ‘law’, clearly derives from their legal tradition. Matthew’s Gospel alone has the citation of Hosea 6:6. Matthew is interested in showing that Jesus put mercy above the Pharisaic extension of the law.

The high view of the sanctity of the Mosaic law does not always include its oral developments. In 15:3ff. the teaching of the scribes is called the ‘precepts of men’ (15:6,9,14, cf.16:6,11). For Matthew the sin of the Pharisees includes content of teaching as well as hypocrisy.

Thus Matthew shows Jesus in ‘fellowship’ with ‘sinners’ (9:10) to the vexation of the Pharisees (9:11). In their eyes at least Jesus does what is ‘not lawful’ (15:2), a charge he does not deny, but dismisses their traditions as ‘of men’ (15:9) rather than commandments of God (15:3) or the word of God (15:6). His reason for paying the temple-tax was ‘lest we cause then to stumble’ (17:27); in principle ‘the sons are free’ (17:26).

(v) In interpreting the law Jesus ranked moral above ceremonial requirements. This implies a gradation in the law. Compassion outstrips ritual requirements. Jesus’ only citation of the demand of the law singles out the demand for love, and its concomitants, justice, mercy and faithfulness. This does not mean that Jesus was not concerned at all about ceremonial requirements. Matthew 8:4 suggests otherwise.

(vi) Jesus came to fulfil the law (5:17). When tempted he has recourse to Deuteronomy (4:1–11). When he cleanses a leper he is concerned that the law be observed (8:4).

(vii) The fulfilment of the law by Jesus results in a change of epoch. The law and the prophets prophesy until—and only until—John (11:13). The consequent change in the applicability of the law is defined by the coming of an epoch which takes the kingdom of God a step further than anything known in the day of John (11:11).

(viii) Implicit in the previous point is the important fact that the governing principle of the Christian life is not, simplistically, domination by the Torah.

(ix) Christian godliness, although it will not simplistically continue Mosaism, will nevertheless fulfil the law since this is fulfilled by the disciple (5:17; see also 1:19). John speaks to Herod of what is ‘not lawful’ (14:4). Stature in the kingdom is measured by the extent to which the law is fulfilled. The Christian outstrips those who live under Torah legislation.

(x) At points Matthew’s Gospel is strikingly un-Mosaic. The opening paragraphs revolve around Abraham and David but have no concern with anything distinctively Mosaic.

(xi) Becoming a Christian entails a change in one’s ‘rule of life’. This change is christologically determined and involves a transfer of dominion. The position formerly occupied by the law is now occupied by Jesus and life becomes Christ-centred not law-centred. In no place where Christ’s demand is explained is the law actually cited, except for the love-command. The law is not cited in the demands of John the Baptist (3:7–12) nor in the description of the life of the kingdom in 5:3–16, nor is the second half of the antitheses (5:21–48) concerned with it. The remainder of the Sermon on the Mount focuses on being directly beneath God’s eye (6:1–18), avoiding covetousness (6:19–24) or anxiety (6:25–34). Judgement is based on Jesus’ words (7:1–11,13–27; 7:12 concerns the indirect fulfilment of the law). The disciple’s yoke is that of Jesus (11:29). Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath (12:6) is justified because he himself is ‘greater than the temple’ (12:6).

Throughout, Jesus addresses the disciples directly, laying his demands on them without citing the Torah. This is frequent throughout the gospel (note also the Christ-centredness of 4:19–22; 5:11,21–48; 6:16,25,29; 7:22–27).

(xii) If we seek to discover Matthew’s view on the present use of the law, we shall find that he does not think like this. ‘Fulfilling’ the law is not the same as ‘using’ it. Matthew does not want Christians to be preoccupied with the law. Preoccupation with Jesus and his requirements, without the mediation of the Torah, will nurture Christian godliness. Directly, the law is not ‘used’ at all. (Whether Matthew would object to the use of a Christianized version of the Torah to promote social order in a modern state is hardly within the purview of his gospel.) Although ‘conviction of sin’ is the theme in Matthew 3, the law is not mentioned at all.

(xiii) If Matthew were asked to define the purpose of the Torah he would apparently reply: (i) to point to Jesus and (ii) to provide a temporary and somewhat defective delineation of a level of godliness needful to serve the interests of love in Israel. It was a guide to morality in Israel before the coming of Jesus.

(xiv) Christian godliness goes higher than the law. Jesus’ demand is more radical. Often the commands of Jesus do not contradict the law but heighten it. One enters the kingdom via a spirituality that is higher than the law.

(xv) Because Christian godliness goes higher than the law it dispenses with parts of the law. When the demands of Jesus are compared with those of the law there is a change at certain points. Occasionally the demands of Jesus contradict or abrogate the law, not in the interests of a lesser spirituality but to promote a heightened spirituality (e.g. 19:3–12). The legal requirement to keep the Passover is abandoned and the requirement laid upon the disciples is to observe the Lord’s Supper (Matt.26).

(xvi) Christian fulfilment of the law derives indirectly from submitting to the lordship of the risen Jesus.

(xvii) Christian godliness is numerically simpler than the complexity of the law, since love reduces commands to a ‘rule of thumb’. The ‘rule of life’ focuses on a single point. While this is summarized in the love-command of 22:34–40, even this is Jesus’ response to a question, not delivered on his own initiative.

(xviii) Righteousness consists of life under Jesus, life under the eye of God.

(xix) The command to love one’s neighbour is for Matthew the key that opens understanding of the law. It is stressed in 22:39 and added to 19:9b in Matthew’s redaction. It twice expresses Jesus’ attitude to the law (9:13; 12:7). In 24:12 ‘lawlessness’ equals lack of love. Thus love is seen to be the goal of the law and the prophets (13:39f.; 7:12). Jesus may put forward the demand of love without mentioning the Torah.

(xx) There is gradation within the law. Mercy is above sacrifice (9:13ff.; 12:7).

(xxi) Thus Mosaism is ‘swallowed up’ by the demands of Jesus. If we ask whether the Torah continues to have authority, the Matthean answer is: Yes, but only as transformed, heightened and mediated through the person of Jesus. In practice this will mean that the focus of interest is Jesus not the Torah. It is possible to incite godliness without mentioning the Torah.

(xxii) Matthew’s theology of Christian obedience is thus non-legalistic. It is person-centred, fellowship-centred. It is higher than the Torah in its Old Testament form.

(xxiii) The emphasis of Matthew’s Gospel is that the entire Old Testament, including the Mosaic law, has been fulfilled in Jesus. Matthew’s approach to the Torah is positive. He will not allow any disparagement of the law, although he does disparage those who think the law enables them to be adequately righteous. Jesus did not disparage the law; rather he fulfilled it. On the other hand Matthew does not view Christian godliness as mere law-keeping. The authority governing the Christian is Jesus.

It is in this way that the Christian ‘fulfils’ the law. Any kind of life that leads to the disparagement of Scripture will be a mark of sin, and of a lower status in the kingdom of God. Obedience to Jesus will fulfil the law.

Matthew regards this as different from being directly under the Mosaic law. The strong contrasts in the antitheses of 5:41–48 indicate a strong contrast between living under Jesus and living under the law. It is not by living under the law that one fulfils the law. For the life into which the risen Jesus would lead us (Matt.28:18–20) is a fulfilment of all that God has in mind in the ancient Scriptures.

In essence, Matthew’s teaching (i) is non-legalistic, (ii) is Christ-centred, (iii) fulfils the law, but (iv) looks for a level of godliness that goes higher than the law.

Despite the reputation for legalism attributed to Matthew in modern scholarship, and despite the differences of emphasis, Matthew and Galatians are easily compatible and are even mutually supportive. Matthew portrays a Jesus who kept the law and refuses to disparage it. Galatians portrays a Jesus who was ‘born under the law’. Despite numerous negative statements, Paul falls short of ever disparaging the law.

Although Matthew indicates that there is a way in which the law is to be fulfilled at a higher level than anything known among the Pharisees and in scribal circles, he does not define how this will come about. We are left at the end of the gospel with ongoing experience of the risen Jesus. His disciples are under the leading of his teaching and continue in fellowship with him. When we move from Matthew to Paul, we discover that Paul says much the same in terms of the Holy Spirit. Both writers insist that Christians fulfil the law. Matthew puts this in terms of fellowship with the risen Jesus, Paul in terms of the Holy Spirit. If therefore we ask, ‘What must I believe?’ and seek to incorporate into our thinking the teaching of both Matthew and Paul we may indeed be conscious of slight differences of emphasis between them but we need have no difficulty in incorporating the emphases of both into our own lives. Anyone heeding the teaching of both Matthew and Paul in thought and life will regard the law as divinely given, will not wish to disparage it, but will not feel themselves directly under it. They will seek continued fellowship with the risen Jesus. They will want to walk in the Spirit. Because they are not interested in a direct relationship with the law, they are likely to be labelled ‘antinomian’. Yet it is along such lines that they will ‘fulfil’ the law.

471 See M.A.Eaton, James (PTTB, Sovereign World, 2004); R.T.Kendall, Justification By Works (Paternoster, 2002).

472 See M.A.Eaton, James (PTTB, Sovereign World, 2004); 1,2,3 John (Christian Focus, 1996); another 1 John (IBTB, Sovereign World Trust) is expected at some stage.

473 R.H.Smith, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists (Augsburg, 1983), p.55. See G.Barth, ‘Matthew’s Understanding of the Law’, in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (SCM, 1982), pp.159–164; G.R.Hümmel, ‘Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium’, BEvT, 33,1966; C.E.Carlston, ‘The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark’, NTS, 15, 1968, pp.75–96; E.Cothenet, ‘Les Prophetes Chrétiens dans l’Evangile selon saint Matthieu’, in L’Evangile selon Matthieu (ed Didier, Duculot, 1972), pp.281–308; H.D.Betz, ‘Ein Episode im jüngsten Gericht (Mt 7,21–23)’, ZTK, 78, 1981, pp.1–30.

474 See B.W.Bacon, Studies in Matthew (Holt, 1930), p.348. W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (CUP, 1964); W.Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Mathäus-evangeliums (Kosel, 1964); J.Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (Westminster, 1968); A.Sand, ‘Die Polemik gegen “Gesetzloskeit” im Evangelium nach Matthäus und bei Paulus’, BZ, 14, 1970, pp.112–125; G.Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie Matthäus (Vandenhoeck, 1962); D.Hill, ‘False Prophets and Charismatics: Structure and Interpretation in Matthew 7,15–23’, Bib., 57, 1976, pp.327–348.

475 J.P.Meier, The Vision of Matthew (Paulist, 1979), p.161.

476 Meier, Vision, p.3. D.E.Garland (The Intention of Matthew 23, Brill, 1979) regards Matthew’s task in ch.23 as two-pronged. He thinks that Matthew is wrestling with the problem of the rejection of Jesus by Israel but that Matthew’s severe statements are also a warning to the church not to go the same route: ‘The Christian is to see himself potentially mirrored in the scribe.’ ‘Matthew would probably wish to say to Christian leaders ... “Do you not see all these things?” ’ (p.215). This is a more convincing way of handling the extreme severity of Matt.23 and does not demand rejecting the historical nature of Matthew’s material. Despite Meier’s warning he still feels free to exegete Matt.5:17–20 atomistically, commencing with v.18 (see Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 1976, p.45).

Two works that are very holistic in their approach are J.D.Kingsbury, Matthew As Story (Fortess, 1986), and D.Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary (Fortress, 1987).

477 G.Bornkamm, ‘End-Expectation and Church in Matthew’, in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (SCM, 1982).

478 For a survey of opinions concerning structure, see W.D.Davies & D.C.Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol.1 (Clark, 1988), pp.58–72.

479 H.Hübner considers Matt.5:18; 5:19; Lk.16:16–17; Matt.5:17; 5:20 in that order as five distinct sayings. This inevitably leads to neglect of any thread of argument throughout 5:17–20. One does less than justice to Matthew if one does not look at Matt.5:17–20 as a whole. The redactor clearly put in connecting links (‘therefore’, ‘for’). See H.Hübner, Das Gesetz in der Synoptischen Tradition (Luther, 1973), p.32. S.H.Brooks’s similar method in Matthew’s Community (JSNTS, 1987), frequently results in his treating nearby verses as in tension (see pp.25–30) and even as the result of conflict between Palestinian and Hellenistic communities (p.29). For a presentation of the coherence of the Sermon on the Mount as an integral part of Matthew’s Gospel, see G.N.Stanton, ‘The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount’, in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, 1987, pp.181–192.

480 A.M.Honeyman, ‘Matthew 5:18 and the Validity of the Law’, NTS, 1, 1954–55, pp.141f. See also W.J.Dumbrell, ‘The Logic of the Role of the Law in Matthew V 1–20’, NovT, 23, 1981, p.19.

481 C.S.Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999), pp.176–177.

482 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp.v,39–86. On this view plēroō means ‘confirm’, as he argues (Theonomy, pp.69–70). When facing the question ‘Are Christians required to observe the Older Testament ritual?’ Bahnsen’s answer is ‘yes and no’ (p.207). At this point Bahnsen seems to contradict himself and take another view of Matt.5:17. ‘The meaning of the ceremonial laws receive permanent validity and embodiment in Christ’ (p.207). Exactly so! Yet this is (in my opinion) true of the whole law including every jot and tittle. Bahnsen does not really maintain the present normativity of every jot and tittle as mandatory for the Christian.

483 R.Alderson, No Holiness, No Heaven (Banner of Truth, 1986), pp.19–21; see also J.I.Packer, Our Lord’s Understanding of the Law of God (Westminster Chapel, 1962), p.12; D.Wenham, Jesus and the Law, pp.92–96.

484 M.Green, The Message of Matthew (IVP, 2000), p.92.

485 A.H.McNeile, Matthew (Macmillan, 1965, orig. 1915), p.58; Bahnsen lists 13 works that take this approach (Theonomy … p.52, n.47) to which may be added O.Hanssen, ‘Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt’, in Der Ruf Jesu und Die Antwort der Gemeinde (Vandenhoeck, 1970), pp.94–111; A.Feuillet, ‘Morale Ancienne et Morale Chrétienne d’après Matt.5.17–20 ..., NTS, 17, pp.123–137, esp.p.124.

486 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (IVP, 1959,1960), vol.1, pp.185f.; H.Ljungmann, Das Gesetz Erfüllen: Matth.5,17ff. und 3,15 untersucht (Gleerup, 1954); R.C.H.Lenski, Interpretation of the New Testament: Matthew (Augsburg, 1943), p.207.

487 Kevan, Law, p.70.

488 D.A.Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WC, Word, 1993), p.106.

489 J.A.Alexander, Matthew (1873, repr. Banner of Truth), p.127 (cited by Bahnsen, Theonomy, p.53); B.B.Warfield, ‘Jesus’ Mission According to His Own Testimony’, Princeton Theological Review, 13, 1915, pp.557–559, cited by Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp.45,53.

490 R.T.France, Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, Eerdmans, 2007), pp.182–183.

491 H.Ljungman, Das Gesetz. See also D.Moo, ‘Jesus and the Mosaic Law’, JSNT, 20, 1984, p.24.

492 Deuteronomy clearly draws distinctions between ‘the great commandment’ and ancillary commandments (see Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 1963, pp.62,79) and there is gradation within the law in the teaching of Jesus.

493 C.F.D.Moule notes that promise–fulfilment language in the New Testament can refer to at least three polarities: (i) prediction–verification, (ii) initiation–termination and (iii) promise–consummation. He surveys the usage of plēroō and malē’ in the Old Testament, Qumran, other Jewish writings, secular literature, the New Testament and early Christian literature. Under the rubric (i) prediction–verification, he lists Lk.1:45; 18:31; 22:37; Jn19:38; Ac.4:28; 13:29; 2 Pet.3:2. Under (ii) initiation–termination he lists Matt.10:23; 11:13,53; 19:1; 26:1; Mk13:4; Lk.2:39,43; 4:2,13; 12:50; 14:10; Jn4:34; Ac.20:24; Rom.2:27; 13:6; 15:8; Phil.1:6; 2 Tim.4:7; Heb.7:11; 8:8; Jam.2:8; Rev.10:7; 11:7; 15:1,8; 17:17; 20:3,5,7. Under (iii) promise–consummation he lists Matt.1:21; 2:15; 4:14; 12:17; 21:4; 2:23; 7:17; 13:35; 2:17; 27:9; 3:15; 5:17; 13:14; 26:54,56; 23:32; 14:26; 19:21; Rom.8:14; 13:8,10; Gal.5:14; 6:2; Col.4:17; 1 Thess.2:16; 2 Thess.1:1; Jam.2:23. I have left out verses Moule rightly labels ‘less relevant’ and have omitted Mk15:28 where the reading is not original. See C.F.D.Moule, ‘Fulfilment Words in the New Testament’, NTS, 14, 1967–68, pp.293–320.

It could be argued that plēroō in Matt.5:17 is quite distinct from plēroō elsewhere in Matthew, that Moule’s category (iii) must not be assimilated to his category (i). The fact that he explicitly includes ‘the prophets’ surely makes it likely that plēroō in 5:17 must be related to plēroō in the fulfilment formulae.

494 See J.Schneider, [Erchomai, ktl], TDNT, 2, p.682.

495 See R.T.France, Matthew (TNTC, IVP, 1985), pp.333–349, and his Jesus and the Old Testament (Tyndale Press, 1971), pp.227–239.

496 See AG, p.48a.

497 McNeile, Matthew, p.60.

498 Lloyd-Jones, Sermon, 1, pp.199–209.

499 Whether the added phrase deals with oral law or not is debateable. See R.Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (CUP, 1975), pp.186f., where the conclusion is reached that ‘the whole of v.21 must be considered an expression of the Old Testament position’ (p.187); so also Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Eerdmans, 1982), p.84.

500 In my doctoral thesis, A Theology of Encouragement. A Step Towards a Non-Legalistic Soteriology (unpublished, UNISA, Nov 1989), I maintained the opinion that the exceptive clause allows divorce but does not permit remarriage. At the time I was impressed with the argument of W.A.Heth & G.J.Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Hodder, 1984). Since then I have changed my mind and implicitly replied to Heth & Wenham (and to my thesis!) in M.A.Eaton, The Way That Leads to Life [the Sermon on the Mount] (Christian Focus, 1999), pp.84–85.

501 Probably mē anistēnai tō(i) ponērō(i) refers to foregoing legal rights.

502 Banks, Jesus, p.200.

503 See Mishnah, Demai 2.3; Jerusalem Talmud, j.Shabb.3c.

504 See D.A.Carson, ‘Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels’, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed D.A.Carson (Zondervan, 1982), p.61. See pp.60–61,87 for other interpretations of the ‘crime’.

505 See further Hümmel, ‘Auseinandersetzung’, pp.42f.; L.Goppelt, [Peinao], TDNT, 6, p.19.

506 The eight are: (i) the Sermon on the Mount (Matt.5:17–48; 7:12); (ii) the issue of table-fellowship (9:9–13; 11:19); (iii) Sabbath-controversies (12:1–8); (iv) ritual uncleanness (15:1–20); (v) divorce (19:3–12); (vi) the young ruler (19:16–22); (vii) the greatest commandment (22:34–40); (viii) the denunciation of scribes and Pharisees (23:1–36).

507 The verb ‘you say’ in Matt.16:15 is plural.

508 See Banks, Jesus, pp.92–93; J.Liver, ‘The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature’, HThR, 56, 1963, pp.178–191.

509 See France, Matthew, TNTC, p.82.

510 Mishnah Gittin, 9:10; Josephus, Antiquities, 4:253; Josephus, Life, 426.

511 NIV. See D.A.Carson, ‘Matthew’, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol.8 (Zondervan, 1984), p.411.

512 Carson, Matthew, sub. loco.

513 J.Dupont, ‘Mariage et Divorce dans l’Evangile: Matthieu 19,3–12 et Parallèles’ (1959), cited and given detailed consideration in Heth & Wenham, Divorce, pp.56–68.

514 Early expositions are J.Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels (1555, repr. St.Andrews, 1972), vol.2, pp.252–258; D.Dickson, Matthew, 1981 ed (repr. Banner of Truth, 1981), pp.258–260. See also ‘Sermons on Mark x.17–27’ in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (repr. Maranatha, 1974(?)), vols16 (pp.409–494) and 17 (pp.3–93); and W.J.Chantry, Today’s Gospel (Banner, 1970).

515 B.B.Warfield, ‘Jesus’ Alleged Confession of Sin’, PTR, 12, 1914, pp.177–228; I quote from the reprinted version in Warfield, Person and Work of Christ (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), p.149.

516 Warfield, ‘Jesus’ ’, p.151.

517 Hendriksen, Matthew (Banner, 1973), pp.725f.

518 In Heb.1:14 the writer speaks of ‘inheriting salvation’. Yet ‘inheriting’ is a term generally associated with reward, and elsewhere ‘salvation’ and reward are distinguished. The readers of Heb.1:14 are Christians yet their reward has not yet come as Heb.10:35 makes clear. See M.A.Eaton, Jesus—God’s Last Word [Hebrews 1:1 – 2:4] (Mumbai: Frontier, pp.75–79).

519 In Matthew 24 the disciples wrongly tie together the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the age, but Jesus without initially drawing attention to the error implicitly corrects them (‘When you see these things … it is near … But no one knows of that day ...’).

520 W.C.Kaiser, ‘The Weightier and Lighter Matters of the Law: Moses, Jesus and Paul’, in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed G.F.Hawthorne, Eerdmans, 1975), p.183.

521 See G.Bertram, [kremannumi, ktl] TDNT, 3, pp.915–921, esp.pp.919f.

522 K.Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu (Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), pp.227–232, cited by Carson, Matthew, p.465.

523 Berkot 63a (ca.220 AD); see L.Sabourin, The Gospel According to St.Matthew, vol.2 (St.Paula, Bombay, 1982), p.788.

524 See Kaiser, ‘Weightier’, pp.182f.

525 D.Moo’s article ‘Jesus and the Mosaic Law’, JSNT, 20, 1984, pp.3–49, debates the question whether Jesus refers to the ‘priority of love over law’ or ‘the priority of love within the law’ (esp.p.11). Possibly it is a needless contrast. There is a priority of love within the law, but in practical day-to-day considerations this becomes a rule of thumb (see Matt.7:12) which is practically independent if it is not ‘above’ the law itself, although ‘fulfilling’ it.

526 E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (SPCK, 1975), p.425; see also G.Bornkamm, Das Doppelgebot der Liebe, Geschichte und Glaube, I (Kaiser, 1968), pp.37–45.

527 The love-command is not a ‘summary’ or the ‘essence’ of the law. See R.A. Guelich, ‘Not To Annul the Law Rather to Fulfill the Law and the Prophets’ (Dissertation, Hamburg, 1967), p.102. It is simply that despite its obscure position (in Lev.19:18), it was destined to have more significance than any other regulation in the Torah.

528 Bornkamm, End-Expectation, p.24. See also E.Haenchen, ‘Matthäus 23’, ZTK, 48, 1951, pp.38–40; G.Barth, ‘Matthew’s Understanding’, pp.71,86.

529 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp.119f.; R.J.Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Craig, 1973), p.7.

530 N.B. Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Tyndale Press, 1944), p.196.

531 Meier, Law, 1976, pp.106,119,156.

532 Garland, Matthew 23, p.20.

533 See W.Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Evangelische, 1968) p.484; Schweizer, Matthew, p.437.

534 France, Matthew, TNTC, p.324; Carson, Matthew, p.473.

535 Garland, Matthew 23, p.140.

536 Carson, Matthew, p.481; my italics.

537 Other opinions are (i) The verse exhibits legalism. (ii) The tithe is still mandatory in its Mosaic form. (iii) This concession is a foil to the remainder of the verse (‘Keep your observances if you like, but your sin is seen not in declining to tithe but in declining to …’).

538 This approach is developed by J.Murray, ‘The Interadventual Period and the Advent: Matthew 24–25’, in Writings, 2 (Banner, 1977), pp.387–400.

539 France, Matthew, pp.333–349; also R.T.France, Jesus, pp.227–239. France’s view was also presented earlier by M.Kik, Matthew Twenty-Four, 1948 (available as pp.51–173 of M.Kik, An Eschatology of Victory, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971).

540 That these words are indeed a commissioning is argued by B.J.Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (Scholars, 1974). P O’Brien agrees (‘The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20. A Missionary Mandate or Not?’, RTR, 25, 1976, pp.66–78).

541 R.H.Smith, Easter Gospels, p.77.

542 Hubbard, Apostolic Commissioning, passim.

15

JUSTIFICATION IN A NON-LEGALISTIC THEOLOGY

The first name that occurs to many people in connection with justification is that of Luther. Indeed the doctrine is often simply called ‘the Lutheran doctrine of justification’. There is good reason for this because Luther undoubtedly established a clear teaching concerning justification in much the same way that Athanasius established the deity of Christ. It has been claimed that the early church anticipated the teaching of Luther,[543] but only a few earlier statements have the clarity of Luther’s teaching concerning forensic justification.[544] After Paul and before Augustine the Christian life was generally not conceived in terms of ‘justification’. Augustine himself did not hold to a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification. A forensic doctrine of justification was slow to emerge and owes much to Melanchthon as well as Luther.[545] A clear distinction between justification and sanctification is not to be found in Luther’s early works,[546] and it seems to have been Melanchthon’s greater expertise in Greek that led to a more sharply forensic doctrine. Article IV of the Apology for the Augsburg Confession was written by Melanchthon. Luther was the pathfinder, but Melanchthon brought the matter to sharper definition. One must however also point to early developments of Lutheranism as well as Luther’s own teaching.[547]

While some might question how far Luther himself was aligned with the New Testament, most evangelical Christians would at least maintain that he was closer to the New Testament than were his predecessors. Certainly he was influenced by some elements of the contemporary situation; his teaching was an adaptation of Paul’s teaching to the needs of the sixteenth century. Luther did not claim to be expounding justification ‘in cold blood’ as a researcher into the antiquities of the first century! Paul was concerned with Jewish–gentile relationships; Luther with conscience. Luther claimed to be applying Scripture—as a Christian preacher should be doing! Sometimes we who are preachers leap through the stages of exegesis–exposition–application so swiftly and compactly that the wise and the learned who have no concern for the church of Jesus Christ think that our application is our view of the first century! We are ‘fools for Christ’s sake’! The churches do not need to be antiquarians with expert knowledge of the first century! They need to hear the voice of God today! However, when Luther’s precise work is understood and the first-/sixteenth-century differences are taken into account Luther remains—while admitting that progress must be made in exegesis—remarkably faithful to Paul, certainly as faithful as anyone applying Galatians to the ethnic tensions in the Balkans or Thatcherite economic politics in twentieth-century Britain (the concerns of the ‘new perspectivalists’)!

Intra-evangelical controversies since the sixteenth century have largely taken the Lutheran doctrine as a starting-point and have not really dissented from the central contentions of Luther’s view of justification. Evangelical studies of justification have largely been repetitions of the four-hundred-year-old tradition. Arminians have emphasized works and perseverance more than Luther did.[548] High Calvinists have correlated it with their predestinarianism.[549] ‘Antinomians’ (as they are tendentiously nicknamed) have quoted his more extreme statements.[550] Opponents of Protestant doctrine took the trouble to refute him, but sometimes did not read him well.[551] Yet all have made use of Luther. People like James Dunn, who attack Luther’s doctrine of justification, feel it necessary to praise him first![552]

Implications of non-legalism

In modern times justification has been neglected; many works of Christian doctrine ignore it altogether. However, the studies of Küng and Käsemann[553] and some intra-confessional discussions have saved it from total extinction as a topic of interest. Its neglect is the greatest weakness in the sub-sections of ‘the charismatic movement’ which began in the 1960s. My purpose here is simply to underline the distinctive emphases of a non-legalistic doctrine of justification. While taking for granted the exposition of the doctrine that has been presented by mainstream evangelicalism,[554] I shall note some distinctive implications brought about by acceptance of radical freedom from Mosaism. I also assume that the forensic and declarative force of dikaioō may be taken as more or less agreed. Although the overall interpretation of justification is by no means settled, the Lutheran interpretation of the verb dikaioō has been vindicated by further study. An emphasis on being ‘made righteous’ generally speaks of what accompanies justification rather than what the word itself entails.[555] I shall not attempt to present a fresh case for evangelical theology but to consider in what ways a non-legalistic interpretation of Scripture will modify one’s view of justification.

(i) In a non-legalistic theology the doctrine of assurance is heightened and protected. We have seen that both Arminianism and high Calvinism tended to have a weak doctrine of perseverance, the one because of its views concerning loss of salvation, the other because of its introspection. Freedom from Mosaic law will lead to a heightened doctrine of assurance. It releases the believer from doing works as a means of salvation (not of course from the doing of works altogether). It releases the believer from the need of constant self-examination with a view to assessing one’s salvation. The ground of salvation is at one and the same time the ground for assurance. Faith is an assurance about Jesus. Its immediate consequence ought to be an assurance about oneself. To counsel the doubter will involve no more than drawing out what is implicit in their assurance concerning Jesus.

(ii) A non-legalistic theology will modify the traditionally tight link between justification and sanctification. Historically, evangelical Christians have heavily emphasized the close connection between the two. At this point I am using the word ‘sanctification’ in the sense of progressive growth in godliness, becoming more and more like Jesus. J.Murray is right to note that ‘it would be … a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work’.[556] Sanctification is both indicative (‘I am sanctified’) and imperative (‘I must become sanctified’). This is an instance where systematic theological language is not as close as it might be to the vocabulary of the Bible. At present I use the term ‘sanctification’ exclusively in its progressive sense. This is an important matter when considering such topics as the ordo salutis, the ‘order of salvation’, where what is true of sanctification in one sense might not be true of sanctification in another sense.

Paul’s words ‘Is Christ divided?’ have been reapplied. The modern evangelical asks the question, ‘Can Christ as saviour be divided from Christ as sanctifier?’ and answers ‘No’.[557]

The accusation of licentiousness

Underlying this is fear of being open to the charge of licentiousness. Since the days of the Protestant Reformation this has haunted evangelical theology. J.R.W.Stott focuses on it quite explicitly. The Roman Catholic questions, he says, need to be taken seriously:

We need ... to respond to their pressures upon us. The chief might be a series of questions like the following. ‘Do you still insist that when God justifies sinners he “pronounces” but does not “make” them righteous? that justification is a legal declaration, not a moral transformation? that righteousnesss is “imputed” to us, but neither “infused” in us nor even “imparted” to us? that we put on Christ’s righteousness like a cloak, which conceals our continuing sinfulness, that justification, while changing our status, leaves our character and conduct unchanged? that every justified Christian, as the reformers taught, is simul justus et peccator … ? If so, is not justification a legal fiction, even a giant hoax, a phoney transaction external to yourself, which leaves you inwardly unrenewed? Are you not claiming to be changed when in fact you are not changed? Is not your doctrine of “justification by faith alone” a thinly disguised free licence to go on sinning?’.

Stott strongly emphasizes the inseparability of justification and regeneration. ‘Once we hold fast that the work of the Son for us and the work of the Spirit in us, that is to say, justification and regeneration, are inseparable twins, it is quite safe to go on insisting that justification is an external, legal declaration that the sinner has been put right with God, forgiven and reinstated.’[558]

What is significant about Stott’s remarks is that his statement of the inseparability of regeneration and justification is specifically a reaction to Roman Catholicism, and that he talks about ‘responding to pressure’. In this respect he is following a path trodden by many evangelical theologians since the days of Reformation conflicts.

One may agree with Stott’s remarks about the inseparability of regeneration and justification. However, I question whether evangelical traditional theology has rightly stated the inseparability of justification and sanctification. The impression is given that justification–regeneration forces inexorable and inevitable godliness. There is some truth in this. Regeneration will certainly lead powerfully in the direction of godliness. I myself have written something similar,[559] commenting on Romans 6.

The Christian has been enslaved to God. This is a very powerful and strong word. It is a very great and mighty thing that has happened to the Christian. It is a great change, a complete change. He is utterly removed from the dominion of sin and put under the dominion of grace. God’s grace has also taken up residence in his life and rules powerfully from within. It is not an ambition or something the apostle hopes will be true one day. It is already true; it has already happened. We have been poured into the mould of the gospel and are internally propelled towards righteousness (6:17); we are the servants of righteousness which governs and controls us (6:18). We are internally driven by God’s ruling and reigning grace.

Regeneration is a powerful event. It changes us radically and makes us new people. Only gross ignorance would ever make a Christian think they can lightly sin. Righteousness has enslaved us, taken hold of us with great power. One of the greatest and most moving pages that Jonathan Edwards ever wrote was his powerful lecture arguing that ‘All true grace in the heart tends to holy practise in the life’.[560] This is greatly encouraging. It tells us that we can live a godly life, and that there are powerful reasons for doing so. The grace of God is working where sin once abounded. Paul says, ‘You are the slaves of the one whom you obey’ (Rom.6:16). But none of this must be exaggerated to the point where it virtually says a Christian cannot sin at all! Or that grace ‘forces’ godliness. A non-legalistic theology will put it differently. It is not biblically or theologically correct to give the impression that justification automatically brings about godliness. In the long run it will do so, but the battles along the way are real and serious. Practical sanctification is far from being automatic and it is antinomian to suggest otherwise! Serious failures, serious inconsistencies, terrible forgetfulness encompass us all the time. One of the Bible’s main tasks is to constantly drag us back to what we already know.

In the history of theology, to tie justification and sanctification too closely invariably produces a moralistic trend. This is precisely what happened during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Within the predominant Anglicanism before 1642, Anglican theologians, influenced by continental theologians, sharply distinguished justification and sanctification; whereas after the restoration of kingship (that is, after 1660) Anglican theologians linked the two together. The result was the well-known moralism of late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century Anglicanism.[561]

Justification and sanctification

However, a number of biblical considerations ought to make us hesitate before we integrate too closely justification and sanctification (in the Protestant sense of those terms).

(i) In the New Testament Christian living is urged upon the Christian readers. Such exhortation would not be needed if godliness were inevitable.

(ii) The New Testament contains solemn warnings to the Christian who lapses from godliness. It says that if we do not mortify the flesh we shall die and that if we sow to the flesh we shall from the flesh reap corruption. It envisages a person’s so grieving their conscience that, despite being a ‘brother’, they are ruined in their relationship to God. There is surely no implication here that Christian status is inseparably and inexorably linked to the godly life as though godliness and Christian conversion were like Siamese twins.

(iii) The New Testament mentions Christians who were guilty of sin. The incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5 was apparently viewed with complacency by the Corinthians (1 Cor.5:2). Some at Thessalonica clearly were defrauding their fellow Christians and Paul has to repeat a solemn warning to the effect that God would avenge such sin (1 Thess.4:6–8). This widespread New Testament phenomenon is surely not compatible with Protestant statements concerning the inseparability of justification and sanctification.

(iv) 1 Corinthians contains a clear statement that a Christian may be ‘carnal’. This might appear a contradiction in terms. The concept is certainly incompatible with any doctrine of the inseparability of justification and sanctification since a ‘carnal’ Christian must be someone who is justified and is basically a member of the kingdom of God but whose sanctification is sadly defective at some points of practical godliness.

(v) That such inconsistency might be found in the Christian even at life’s end is made clear by 1 Corinthians 3:15—as it is by Christians who even on their death-bed have to ask pardon for sins which have persisted all their days. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Calvin ‘asked pardon … for his impatience and his temper, which was part of his nature but of which he was ashamed’.[562]

‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ The people often accused of antinomianism (Agricola, John Cotton, Tobias Crisp and the like) in fact lived lives that were not in any way inferior to those of their critics. Indeed I would be willing to argue that a kind of ‘moral antinomianism’[563] appears in the lives of those who maintain there is a tight and almost forceful connection between justification and sanctification. An over-preoccupation with the letter of the law certainly does not produce love and joy and peace. It is surely significant that it was the Galatians—of all people—who had to be told ‘If you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another … Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another’ (Gal.5:15,26). Is this not ‘moral antinomianism’? James had to say to his friends, ‘He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder”.’ The point here is that when the moral antinomian thinks about righteousness he tends to think mainly about sexual matters! Luther complained about those who ‘run away from the world into the wilderness and into the monasteries’ and ‘forbid even a glance, and have taught that all companionship between men and women should be avoided’.[564] People who discriminate against the poor are generally so super-spiritual but they act as if the only sin is sexual sin, and constantly denounce the poor for their immorality! Poverty leads to immorality! These super-spiritual people would also be immoral if they were poorer! James’s remark refers to gossip and discrimination against the poor—or against anyone—which is a form of spiritual murder!

The reason why a moral antinomianism appears in the lives of those who maintain there is a tight and almost forceful connection between justification and sanctification is this. If one thing (call it ‘A’) generates powerfully and irresistibly another thing (call it ‘B’) then you do not have to bother trying to produce ‘B’; you just produce ‘A’ and the rest will follow. If regeneration powerfully and irresistibly generates sanctification you do not have to bother with sanctification; it is simply generated by new birth! If switching on a switch turns on a light, I do not have to bother trying to get the light to shine (which might be difficult)—I just have to switch on the switch and the rest will follow!

But in the New Testament the connection between new birth and sanctification is not so tight that it takes care of itself! In Ephesians Paul spends three chapters in our Bibles speaking of the exceeding greatness of God’s power in us who believe. In Ephesians 4:1 he does not simply say, ‘Therefore you will walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.’ On the contrary, he spends another three chapters calling us with many arguments to voluntarily and attentively ‘walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called’.

It follows that the relationship between justification and sanctification needs to be restated. Justification and regeneration are indeed Siamese twins (or perhaps the same baby viewed from different angles). Where one is, the other is. The same could be said of justification and definitive sanctification. But if by ‘sanctification’ one means progressive growth in holiness and godly living, surely the right way to state the relationship is to say that one’s justified–regenerate position in Christ enables progress in godly living, demands such progress, inspires it, and has a tendency which leads powerfully in that direction. That it inexorably and invariably produces godliness however must be questioned. Although the Christian is called upon to live a godly life, the New Testament takes seriously the possibility that God’s people may be rebellious and inconsistent. Grace makes godliness possible. It is not easy to imagine a person’s becoming a Christian without its affecting their manner of life. Yet the New Testament doctrine of justification seems to take the possibility of severe sin in the Christian much more seriously than is common in the traditional doctrine of justification.

We must allow for the fact that genuine salvation may be accompanied by severe inconsistency. There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which queries the genuineness of the salvation of anyone who professes faith in Jesus. One passage that could be taken that way (Jam.2:14) and the one invitation to self-examination (2 Cor.13:5) need not be read introspectively. What we find in the New Testament is a very serious realization that genuine Christians whose salvation is not in doubt may fall badly. Much space is given to motivate them not to fall, but to work out their salvation in practical living. Their position in Christ is secure; but godliness is not an automatic by-product. Justification–regeneration–adoption are all part of the transfer to a kingdom of grace (Rom.5:12–21). The transfer should not be misused (Rom.6:1–12). After our settled and secure salvation we are called upon to work at something which is not automatic—the practicalities of Christian living. Yet the appeal is non-legalistic because it affirms that assurance of salvation is inherent in faith without and before good works. Distinct attention is given towards motivating the Christian to godliness after their salvation is sure. Justification and sanctification are connected not by being tightly integrated but by a distinction. Justification prepares for sanctification but does not (as both Arminianism and Calvinism have suggested) force sanctification.

Evangelical theologians have sometimes linked justification and godliness so tightly as to threaten assurance of salvation. At this point non-legalistic theology calls for a further step of radicalization in the traditional evangelical approach, a more-Lutheran-than-Luther realization of the freedom of salvation. Basing itself on a high assurance of salvation, it calls for godliness without legalism or introspection.

We have seen that there is indeed a link between justification and sanctification; the former produces a strong impulse in the direction of the latter. The love of Christ ‘constrains’. But it appears that justification does not inexorably secure practical godliness, that the salvation of the inconsistent Christian need not be threatened so severely. Works without faith is useless. Faith without works is useless eventually but there may be many wobbles along the way in the true Christian. Justification does no violence to the personality (a point in which all would agree, although its implication is not always noted).

It is the traditional doctrine of high Calvinism which is ‘antinomian’. For if one presses the point that justification produces sanctification inexorably, then anyone with an assurance of salvation has no need to concern themselves with their spirituality because implicit in such a doctrine is an assurance of practical sanctification! I do not know that anyone argues in this manner, but if justification–sanctification is indivisible (even though distinct) then an assurance about one is an assurance about the other. Those who do attain assurance of salvation in this manner also have assurance (if they are consistent) about their actual sanctification, like the Pharisee of Luke 18. If they doubt their actual sanctification this must challenge their assurance of salvation. The latter has happened more often than the former. But the dilemma casts doubt upon the original assumption. Justification–sanctification should not be so tightly integrated. The non-legalist view sees justification as preparing the way for a godly life, and as enabling such godly life, but insists that the life of godliness does require distinct attention. The Christian with an assurance of salvation must consciously and deliberately walk in the Spirit. If they walk in the Spirit deliberately and practise Christian love deliberately (two phrases for one reality) they will fulfil the law accidentally. Practical sanctification will have followed justification—but not quite so inexorably as has been suggested.

It follows that a non-legalistic theology will view the ‘threatening’ aspect of the New Testament in a distinctive manner. Roman Catholic and Arminian theologies associate the threats of the New Testament with loss of grace and apostasy. Christians are told to ‘work with anxious concern to achieve your salvation’ (as the Roman Catholic New American Bible translates Phil.2:13). In Calvinist theology admonitory passages of Scripture tend to be interpreted introspectively. However, in a non-legalistic theology admonitory passages of Scripture will be correlated with promises and admonitions concerning reward or loss of reward. A non-legalistic theology will allow for teaching concerning reward or loss of reward without tightly integrating such teaching with the doctrine of justification. In this Luther has already pioneered the way—although his progress is marred by the continuing influence of the pre-Reformation view of the law. Heinz’s remark is significant: ‘Luther’s unambiguous rejection of the doctrine of merit must not deceive us into thinking that the reformer does not hold fast to the biblical sayings about reward.’[565] This aspect of the matter is a major motivating force in Christian godliness.

The priority of justification-faith over practical sanctification is to be taken with great seriousness. A clear ordo salutis must be upheld at this point. The scholastic Protestant teaching concerning an ordo salutis is widely disparaged today. This is understandable since it has often become introspective and hair-splitting. Preoccupation with the stages of salvation has distracted from the way of faith. The ‘preparationism’ of the English and American Puritans is generally rejected. Yet one aspect of the matter must be maintained: the priority of faith and justification over other aspects of salvation.

It is a curious fact that, while Roman Catholic theologians may be found who affirm the distinctness of justification and sanctification and who assert the priority of the former over the latter,[566] yet some Protestant evangelicals have moved closer to the traditional Roman Catholic view. Thus P.Toon presents justification and sanctification as ‘complementary models whose truth should not be pressed into a logical or chronological relationship’.[567] Similarly, Rahner asserts that ‘according to Trent and its ordinary interpretation in Catholic theology and also according to the Scripture, one must speak of two sides of one and the same process, not of two phases one after another’.[568]

While I have no interest in constructing a complex and introspective ordo salutis yet the priority of faith (i.e. of believing the testimony of God concerning Jesus) as the entrance to all spiritual blessings is prominent in the New Testament, including, for example, Romans and Galatians.

In the structure of Romans justification is presented before the appeal for godly living, which is introduced with the word ‘therefore’ because it is built upon the doctrine of justification. The first exhortation in Romans is 6:11, which concerns only the grasping of one’s position in Christ. It is followed in 6:12 by the first exhortation concerning practical godliness. This clearly invites the Christian to build upon what has already been said in 3:21 – 6:10, a passage containing no exhortation at all. Paul is virtually saying, ‘In the light of what is true of you and your position in Christ I am asking you not to let sin rule ...’. There is a clear ordo here. The Christian’s position in Christ must be established before any ethical appeal is made. As the epistle continues to expound the believer’s position in Christ a similar pattern is followed in 8:1–13. Verses 12–13 build upon 8:1–10. A sustained ethical appeal (12:1 – 15:13) is reserved until Paul has spoken at length about the believer’s position in Christ.

Galatians shows a similar structure. Only after establishing freedom from the law does Paul commence ethical appeal (Gal.5:13ff.). It would be difficult to deny the deliberateness of all this. The basis of ethical appeal is one’s position in Christ. One implication is that justification has priority—even chronological priority—over the appeal for practical godliness. After the ‘mercies of God’ and the ‘therefore’ have been grasped, one is ready for the ‘I beseech you’ (Rom.12:1–2).[569]

Any law-centred theology is likely to integrate justification and sanctification too closely. Its doctrine of assurance is likely to be weak or non-existent. It may even regard assurance as a sinful claim. Such assurance of salvation as it may offer is likely to be based (like that of the Pharisee in Lk.18) on an assurance of the individual’s own sanctity.

543 See G.S.Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification, 1837; J.Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (1867, repr. Banner, 1961), lecture 3.

544 McGrath, ‘Justification—“Making Just” ’, p.45. Augustine’s teaching is summarized by Toon (Justification, pp.48–50).

545 See A.E.McGrath, ‘The Article by which the Church Stands or Falls’, EQ, 58, 1986, p.207; A.E.McGrath, ‘Der articulus justificationis als axiomatischer Grundsatz des christlichen Glaubens’, ZTK, 81, 1984, p.383. For a survey of Luther’s teaching concerning justification, see J.Heinz, Justification and Merit, Luther vs. Catholicism (St Andrews University, 1981), pp.13–248; P.Althaus, Theology of Martin Luther (Fortress, 1966); A.Peters, Glaube und Werk Luthers Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Heiligen Schrift (Berlin, 1967); O.H.Pesch, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas Von Aquin (Matthias-Grunewald, 1967).

546 See A.E.McGrath, ‘Forerunners of the Reformation? ... ’, HThR, 75, 1982, p.225.

547 A.E.McGrath points to occasions when Luther could regard justification as process as well as event (‘Justification—“Making Just” or “Declaring Just”?’ Churchman, 96, 1982, p.46). The stronger antithesis between forensic justification and regeneration originated with Melanchthon (McGrath, ‘Justification—“Making Just”?’ p.47).

548 See especially J.Fletcher, ‘Fourth Check to Antinomianism’, in Works, vol.1 (repr. Schmul, 1974), pp.209–331.

549 J.Gill, A Body of Divinity (repr. Sovereign Grace, 1971), p.503.

550 J.W.Baker, ‘Sola Fide, Sola Gratia: The Battle for Luther in Seventeenth Century England’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 16, 1985, pp.115–133.

551 See A.E.McGrath, ‘John Henry Newman’s “Lectures On Justification”: …’, Churchman, 97, 1983, pp.112–122.

552 In J.D.G.Dunn & A.M.Suggate, The Justifice of God (Paternoster, 1993), the opening pages speak admiringly of Luther; the remainder of the book severely criticizes and refutes him.

553 H.Küng, Justification, 1964. E.Käsemann, ‘ “The Righteousness of God” in Paul’, in New Testament Questions of Today (SCM, 1969), pp.168–183; see D.Demson, ‘ “Justification By Faith”: ...’, in TJT, 2, 1986, pp.63–78; J.Plevnil, ‘Recent Developments in the Discussion Concerning Justification by Faith’, TJT, 2, 1986, pp.47–62; A.E.McGrath, ‘Justification: Barth, Trent and Kung’, SJT, 34, 1981, pp.517–529.

554 See L.Morris, The Apostolic Preaching, chs.8,9, and A.E.McGrath, Iustitia, vol.1, pp.1–16, for a recent survey of the linguistic data. Some Catholic theologians (K.Kertelge, R.Kosters, H.Kung, M.Schmaus) acknowledge that dikaioō is a forensic term. See Heinz, Justification, 1981, pp.37–45. Kosters admits that ‘der forensische Grundcharakter der Rechtfertigung wird auf katholischer Seite mehr und mehr anerkannt’ (‘Die Lehre von der Rechtfertigung …, ZKT, 90, 1968, p.313). The evidence for the forensic interpretation of the verb is summarized by Küng, Justification, pp.201f.

This does not mean that the Protestant doctrine has been conceded. But it does perhaps give some justification for my proceeding to explore further the Protestant doctrine in a non-legalistic context.

555 H.Küng says ‘the reality of justification ... is much richer than what is directly signified by the word justification’ (p.208). This is apparently the approach of M.Schmaus (Justification and the Last Things, Sheed and Ward, 1977).

556 ‘Definitive Sanctification’, Collected Writings, 2, p.278.

557 See D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel of God (Banner of Truth, 1985), p.134.

558 Stott, Cross, pp.187–188.

559 See M.A.Eaton, Living Under Grace (1994, repr. ASL, 2009), p.97; see also M.A.Eaton, How to Live a Godly Life (Sovereign World, 1993), chs.8,9.

560 J.Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits (1852, repr. Banner of Truth, 1969), pp.221–250.

561 See C.F.Allison, The Rise of Moralism (Morehouse Barlow, 1966), passim; also A.E.McGrath, ‘The Emergence of the Anglican Tradition on Justification, 1600–1700’, Churchman, 98, 1983, pp.28–43, esp.pp.33,39.

562 T.H.L.Parker, John Calvin (Lion, 1975), p.181.

563 The term is R.T.Kendall’s. See his The Way of Wisdom (Paternoster, 2002), p.2.

564 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol.21, p.85.

565 Heinz, Justification, pp.217f.

566 See Heinz, Justification, p.73.

567 Toon, Justification, pp.141f. McGrath also thinks Toon is more generous to Newman than he ought to be (see P.Toon, ‘A Critical Review of John Henry Newman’s Doctrine of Justification’, Churchman, 94, 1980, pp.335–344; A.E.McGrath, ‘John Henry Newman’s “Lectures on Justification”: ...’, Churchman, 97, 1983, p.121).

568 Rahner, ‘Controversial Theology, or Justification’ in Theological Investigations, vol.4 (Darton, 1974), pp.189–218, esp.p.199.

569 Some confusion is introduced when the difference between biblical language and systematic theological language is overlooked. It is not difficult to show that the New Testament envisages that the Christian is objectively consecrated and sanctified ‘in Christ’ from conversion onwards. J.Murray rightly says that ‘a considerable part of New Testament teaching places sanctification in this category’ (Collected Writings, 2, pp.277–293). At this point there is no need to look for a complex ordo salutis. The idea of ‘complementary models’ is in this aspect entirely appropriate. But in the language of the church over the centuries ‘sanctification’ has generally referred to progressive growth in godly living, progressive conformity to Jesus, the deepening and growing work of the Spirit in conforming us to the image of Christ. In this sense there is priority of justification (which is objective, positional, definitive, confers an ‘alien’ righteousness and is the ground of a total security in Christ) over against ongoing sanctification (which is subjective, practical, admits of variation and inconsistency, and is entirely inadequate to being the basis of assurance of salvation).

PART 5

MOTIVATION: INHERITANCE AND ADMONITION

16

INHERITANCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Two questions arise at this point. The first is: if the Christian is so secure what is it that motivates and admonishes the believer to the godly life? The traditional Calvinist has a tendency to say ‘Gratitude alone’ but practically this seems not to work! Any pastor—any Christian examining their own heart—surely knows that gratitude is not so common as it ought to be! A second question is simply an alternative form of the first: how should we interpret the reprimands and warnings of Scripture?

A full response would be many-faceted. For the moment we concentrate on one of them: the idea of ‘inheritance’ in the Bible. The two theologies we have surveyed (evangelical Arminianism and developed Calvinism) are alike in that they tightly integrate justification and sanctification. Another aspect of this is that they tend to identify heaven and reward. To the extent that they do not totally equate heaven as itself the reward, to that extent they move in the direction of the theology I am recommending. Many ‘Reformed’ people move somewhat in this direction but not as much as I would like! J.I.Packer speaks of rewards as ‘an area in which present irresponsibility can bring permanent future loss’. For Packer the essence of the reward is intimacy with Jesus—‘more of what the Christian desires most, namely, a deepening of his or her love-relationship with the Saviour, which is the reality to which all the biblical imagery of honorific crowns and robes and feasts is pointing’.[570] Where the emphasis is the other way and no distinction is made between heaven and reward-in-heaven the theology is moving in a legalistic or introspective direction.

For many in both theologies heaven is the reward. Fletcher denounced the maxim ‘Good works shall be rewarded in heaven and eternal life, although not with eternal life and heaven’, although he had once held it himself. He labelled it an ‘antinomian error’. For the Arminian Fletcher, getting to heaven is the reward. Salvation and reward are tightly integrated.[571] Yet developed Calvinism is at this point little different, for many Calvinist expositors assume that ‘inheritance’ is ‘getting to heaven’. The very term ‘reward’ tends to be associated with ‘working for heaven’. Accordingly some Calvinist writers dislike the concept, while others are eager to stress that reward is by grace and assume that all Christians will inexorably achieve their inheritance. In responding to my doctrine of salvation, Mark Seifrid[572] goes so far as to say that God will not give us ‘security in this world’; apparently his ‘certitude of hope’ is something that does not have much certitude! Yet unquestionably Christian ‘hope’ is not doubtful optimism but is sure and certain expectation, even while in this world, of the glory that is to come. Paul can say ‘those whom he justified he also glorified’, as if the matter is fully settled and accomplished. It is sad that Seifrid does not feel that he has in this world a secure salvation (for one’s theology surely has connections with one’s personal experience). The references to inheritance in the New Testament have something to say about reaching it by good works. But Seifrid actually says that turning inheritance into reward is ‘an exegetical and theological absurdity’—without so much as a passing glance at the New Testament evidence and certainly not at Paul’s phrase ‘an inheritance … as a reward’ (Col.3:24). ‘Remember that the Lord will give you an inheritance as your reward’, says one translation (NLT). ‘You will receive the inheritance as your reward,’ says the NRSV. ‘You will receive back the just recompense which consists of the inheritance,’ says Kenneth Wuest’s ‘Expanded Translation’. But Seifrid is not convinced! Surely it must be said that anyone who regards final salvation and reward as identical is either a Pharisee (as we usually use that word—sure of their good works, sure of their reward) or reckons they have no secure salvation in this world (not so sure of works, therefore not so sure of reward–final-salvation). But in the light of the New Testament we should loosen the link a little and have greater assurance of salvation, even in this world, and even while still experiencing some Anfechtung (‘painful struggle’) about life ‘in the flesh’ and still being forced by our own weakness to live on the faithfulness of Jesus!

When sixteenth-century Roman Catholics argued against the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, they delighted to point to the Scriptures which speak about reward. Calvin replied, ‘The passages in which it is said that God will reward every man according to his works are easily disposed of.’[573] Works, he said, are the result of faith. They are not a separate way of salvation. He said, ‘Although after their manner they [the Catholics] pertinaciously urge the term reward, we can always carry them back to the declaration of Peter, that eternal life is the reward of faith (1 Pet.1:9).’ This answer led ‘the Reformed’ into saying ‘Faith saves’ but also ‘Good works are the route along which faith travels to glory’. It is true! Yet by putting it that way and saying little more there was the potential that the second statement would undermine the first. It would have been better to have said: the outcome of faith is heaven. The reward of works is treasure in heaven. In the New Testament it is not faith that is said to be rewarded. God does not exactly reward saving faith in itself (and the word ‘reward’ is not used in 1 Pet.1:9). Rewards come to works. Calvin should have separated the two a little more than he did. The Puritans tied them yet more tightly together and by introducing themes such as limited atonement, and works of preparation for faith, they ended up with a legalism Calvin could not have foreseen.

A.A.Hoekema does better in my judgement. He urges that although the sins of Christians are revealed on judgement day this gives no cause for alarm since ‘the sins and shortcomings of believers will be revealed in the judgement as forgiven sins … believers have nothing to fear from the judgement.’[574] Packer’s article on ‘heaven’ also puts the matter well (though without using the word ‘inheritance’):

There will be different degrees of blessedness and reward in heaven … As for rewards (an area in which present irresponsibility can bring permanent future loss: 1 Cor.3:10–15), two points must be grasped. The first is that when God rewards our works he is crowning his own gifts, for it was only by grace that those works were done. The second is that essence of the reward in each case will be more of what the Christian desires most, namely, a deepening of his or her love-relationship with the Savior, which is the reality to which all the biblical imagery of honorific crowns and robes and feasts is pointing. The reward is parallel to the reward of courtship, which is the enriching of the love-relationship itself through marriage.[575]

We must not fear rewards—as if they will lead us back into justification by works. It is by mercy alone that God brings his people to salvation, but he asks for works of gratitude and he encourages us by the knowledge that they will be rewarded. God’s rewards are not material (mansions in the sky!); they are largely a matter of receiving honour from Jesus, and being prepared to serve him yet more. Can it ever be wrong to want Jesus’ ‘Well done!’? Can it be wrong to want to be faithful in little so that we might have the opportunity of being faithful in much? Jesus spoke about rewards more than anyone; it was a major theme of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt.5:12,46; 6:1–2,4–6,16,18). We must not try to be more spiritual than Jesus!

I would maintain that salvation and reward are not so tightly integrated as traditional Calvinist theology tends to assume, and as Arminian theology assumes even more. The Arminian need not be so legalistic; the Calvinist need not be so secure (or insecure!) with regard to reward.

‘Inheritance’ in the Old Testament—Genesis

In the Old Testament there are at least six main words which may be translated ‘inheritance’ or ‘inherit’.[576] ‘Inheritance’ is explicitly mentioned about 650 times in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament there are 48 verses which mention being an ‘heir’ or ‘inheriting’. We may consider the biblical material in three sections.

The first biblical reference to inheritance is Genesis 15:7–8. Here the inheritance is land. ‘I brought you out … to give you this land … to inherit it,’ says God to Abraham. The inheritance is not Abraham’s justification, which he already has. The land which God wants to give as a gift will be ‘inherited’ in the future. It is natural to ask: what does its actual possession depend on?

Abraham, already justified (15:6), is offered inheritance and is reassured by the offer of God’s covenant. The covenant-making ceremony (15:9–11) brings attached promises (15:12–21); the inheritance is the land (15:18, echoing 15:7–8).

Genesis 21:10 contains a passing mention of the inheritance but the next significant mention is in 22:17, following the oath of 22:16. Abraham is told that his seed will inherit the gate (or territory) of his enemies (Canaan). Actual possession of the inheritance remains in the future. Confirmed by oath, it will be given to him by oath as a reward for the obedience of Genesis 22. Even at this early stage, inheritance is reward, given by oath, for the believer’s obedience.

When Sarah dies (23:2), Abraham, who all his life has been promised land, has nowhere to bury her! He has to go as a landless alien to a resident Hittite to plead for a small plot (23:4). By 24:1 Abraham knows he is about to die and arranges Isaac’s marriage in order to ensure that he will have a physical seed, but when he dies (25:8) he has still received no land other than a patch of burial ground. Surely it is these events—going beyond Genesis 22—that are the background to Hebrews 11:13–16. The final discovery of Abraham’s life is the realization that inheritance cannot consist merely of territory in this life and that the ‘territory’ must be beyond the grave.

‘Inheritance’ is mentioned again in 28:4. Isaac is praying for Jacob that what happened to Abraham his father might happen to Jacob his son, and that Jacob might come into the ‘blessing of Abraham’. The point seems to be that since God’s oath is irrevocable the land must be given to someone. But God did not specify in detail to whom the inheritance would come. If Jacob is blessed he will ‘take possession’. Apparently in Scripture something which is promised by oath can be lost to one person and fulfilled for someone else. The promise will be fulfilled but the question of who will benefit remains open. Exodus 13:5,11; 32:13 mention that God swore to bring the Israelites to Canaan (alluding to Gen.22:16,17) but despite the oath the first generation did not reach Canaan. Yet the fulfilment of the oath is certain. This is relevant for the interpretation of Hebrews 4:6, ‘It remains for some to enter …’). Numbers 14 mentions an oath of wrath (‘as I live’, v.21) and an oath of mercy (‘the land that I swore’, v.23). God swears that someone will get the inheritance; he swears that the first generation will not get it. All of this is surely background to Hebrews 6:4–6, to which we come below.

‘Inheritance’ under Mosaic law

During the period of Mosaic law territory was allocated to Israel, but this had to be taken. The territory was lost because of sin (the Exile) but recovered following repentance (the Restoration). These events all illustrate the principles affecting inheritance. The basic principles of inheritance continue but certain legal ingredients are ‘added’ or ‘come in alongside’ (cf.Rom.5:20; Gal.3:19). We may identify certain major principles.

(i) The inheritance is both given and taken. As Leviticus 20:24 puts it clearly, ‘You shall take their land, and I will give it to you to possess it.’ The verb (yāraš) often means ‘to take possession, especially by force’.[577] When the spies of Numbers 13 come back to Moses, Caleb says, ‘Let us go up at once and seize it’ (NAB, Nu.13:30).

(ii) This means that there is a difference between the allocation of the inheritance and the possession of the inheritance. The Mosaic law stipulated that once the inheritance was allocated it was illegal to sell the family-land. At most it could be leased for up to seven years. One could say that it was ‘predestined’, but this did not mean that every Israelite enjoyed their inheritance. One could have inheritance allocated but not get it. It could be that it was never attained because the necessary conflict was avoided. The Exile from 586 to 538 BC was the greatest example of Israel’s being disinherited because of sin.

It is this fact that gives rise to double expressions that one finds in connection with inheritance. One reason for the double expressions ‘possessing one’s possessions’ (Ob.17) and ‘the inheritance which you shall inherit’ (Deut.19:14) is that it was possible for there to be a ‘possession’ which was not ‘possessed’.

(iii) The Levites had no territorial inheritance. No portion of the land was appointed for their exclusive use (Nu.18:23; Deut.12:12). They were a standing lesson to the nation that all Israelites were to be a people utterly dependent upon and totally surrendered to God. There is such a thing as inheritance directly received from God himself without territorial acquisition. The Levites had no share or inheritance. Yahweh was their inheritance. This means (a) their material provision would come through tithes and the Levites were thus dependent on the level of godliness among the people for their material well-being, and (b) they would have the privilege others did not have of ministry in the tabernacle (Nu.18:5–7). When God said ‘I am your share and your inheritance’ (Nu.17:20), he was promising to directly bless them, independently of territorial acquisitions. The institution of the Levites thus prepared the way for an ‘inheritance’ conferred directly by God himself rather than mediated through the legislative arrangements concerning Israelite territory.

(iv) Under the law enjoying the inheritance depended on obeying the Mosaic law (Deut.4:1; 6:18). The Israelites would lose their inheritance if they were disobedient (Deut.28:58,63). They could possibly get it back if they could be renewed unto repentance (Deut.30). When the people of Judah were exiled to Babylon because of idolatry, God kept their inheritance for them. When they repented of their breach of the covenant God brought them back.

(v) There appears to be a connection between the Israelites’ having an inheritance and God’s having an inheritance in Israel. In Deuteronomy 4:20 God is said to have an inheritance in his people; then in 4:21 the land is said to be the people’s inheritance. The close juxtaposition of the two uses of the inheritance idea is striking. If the people will be an inheritance for God’s delight, he will give them their inheritance for their delight.

(vi) Getting to one’s inheritance is allied to ‘entering into rest’. Shortly before the conflict that would bring them into Canaan, Moses told the people, ‘You have not as yet come to the rest and the inheritance which Yahweh your God is in the process of giving to you’ (Deut.12:9). ‘Rest’ is the first phase of ‘inheritance’.

570 J.I.Packer, Article ‘Heaven’, in Concise Theology (electronic version; orig.Tyndale House, 1993).

571 J.Fletcher, Works, 1, p.489.

572 Christ Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (IVP, 2000), p.124.

573 John Calvin, Institutes 3:18:1–3.

574 A.A.Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Paternoster, 1978), p.259.

575 ‘Heaven’, in Concise Theology (electronic version).

576 They are the verbs nāḥal , yāraš , and the nouns ḥēleq , môrāšȃ , naḥªlâ and yᵉruššâ.

577 BDB, p.439.

17

INHERITANCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

We have considered ‘inheritance’ in the story of Abraham and under Mosaic law. Now, thirdly, we consider the New Testament material concerning inheritance. The main points include at least the following:

(i) Nowhere in the New Testament is ‘inheritance’ dependent merely on justification. It is not received by faith only. It is rather the reward for meekness (Matt.5:5), suffering in the form of ‘leaving everything’ (Matt.19:27 – 20:16), suffering with Christ (Rom.8:17). It comes by being built up by the word of grace (Ac.20:32). It is the result of diligent faith (Ac.26:18),[578] and of serving the Lord from the heart (Col.3:23–24). It is attained by faith and patience (Heb.6:12), and could be affected by the way one relates to one’s husband or wife (1 Pet.3:7). It comes by overcoming sin (Rev.21:7,8). Matthew 25:34 immediately relates inheritance to what has been done unto the least of Jesus’ brothers.

(ii) The territorial aspect of inheritance, so prominent in the Old Testament, is not found in nationalistic form. It is present as ‘the earth’ (Matt.5:5), ‘the world’ (Rom.4:3). The same theme is present in Romans 8:18–25 if one is right in linking this to verse 17.

(iii) An important point is that Jesus lived for inheritance. He is the ‘heir’ of the gospel parables (Matt.21:38; Mk12:7; Lk.20:14). The author of Hebrews introduces the theme in his opening sentence, describing Jesus as having been appointed heir—a reference to the resurrection and the reward for his obedience to the point of death. Resurrection was the occasion of reward.

(iv) Inheritance has both present and future phases. It is the enjoyment of the kingdom of God in this life. ‘Inheriting the promises’ clearly refers in Hebrews to what is achieved in this life by diligent faith. Yet there is also an eschatological aspect: one ‘inherits the kingdom’ on a judgement day (Matt.25:34). Presumably Matthew 5:5 has an eschatological reference, or at least includes it. The new heavens and new earth fulfil the territorial promise to Abraham (Rom.4:13). There is a resurrection to be ‘inherited’ which is distinct from the resurrection to condemnation of John 5:29b and Daniel 12:2b. The dual aspect is clear in Mark 10:30: ‘now in this time ... and in the world to come’.

(v) There is a connection between resurrection and reward. They are linked in Philippians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:50, which speaks of ‘inheriting’ resurrection. There is little point in verse 58 if the resurrection-reward is inexorable and automatic. How can resurrection motivate one’s labours if every Christian gets it regardless of works or their absence? I suspect that 1 Corinthians 15:41–42 means more than one may think at first sight (‘One star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection … ’) and indicates variation in level of glory. Certainly there must be differentiation within resurrection if 1 Corinthians 15:58 is to make any sense.

(vi) Abrahamic obedience is specifically contrasted with obedience to the Mosaic institutions. Territorial inheritance was attained in Israel by the law. It was external, material, physical, nationalistic, and could be attained by any Israelite, regenerate or unregenerate, who was externally obedient to the Mosaic law. There is an analogous but contrasting equivalent to this in the New Testament, where the starting-point of receiving inheritance is justification but what is required is obedience to the Spirit. Romans 4 begins by emphasizing the starting-point (justification by faith, 4:1–12), then goes on to deal with how inheritance is attained (by persistent faith, 4:13–21). Subsequently Paul will introduce an ‘if’ (Rom.8:17). A similar point is made in Galatians 3:18,29; 4:1,7,30, where (because of the particular controversy at Galatia) the subject matter is largely our standing before God. In a later section (5:12 – 6:18), where the theme is actual godliness, he warns that inheritance can be blocked (5:21).

(vii) We come now to the main point: inheritance is reward. This is the central motivating theme in the New Testament. Consider, for example, Matthew 19:29. This is part of a section that includes 19:23 – 20:16 and verses 27 and 29 show that the main point is reward. In answer to the question ‘What ... shall we have?’ Jesus speaks of inheritance. Verse 30 makes the point that there will be some surprises, and the following and connected parable continues to deal with reward (20:16 repeats 19:30). The main point is not that all rewards are equal but that the priorities (‘first ... last’) are not what would generally be regarded as ‘lawful’ (20:15). Other gospel passages make the same point.[579]

In the epistles, Colossians 1:12 and 3:24 treat inheritance as reward. Hikanōsanti means ‘qualify’ or ‘authorize’. The phrase antapodosin tēs klēronomias is a genitive of definition and means ‘recompense consisting of inheritance’.[580] Paul thinks of reward as something that is open to the Christian but is dependent on works of faith.

Romans 4:13,14; 8:17; Galatians 3:18,29; 4:1; Titus 3:7; and 1 Peter 1:4 come in sections of the epistles where the writer may be thought to be not dealing with reward so much as the Christian’s basic position. The main theme of Galatians 3–4 is how one may stand before God ‘justified’ and so be in a position to live for God. In such places reward does not receive heavy emphasis, although it is still present. In 1 Peter 1:4 the phrase ‘in order to obtain an inheritance’ (NASV is similar) refers to an inheritance ‘in’ heaven, not heaven as inheritance.[581] If one assumes that inheritance is tightly correlated to justification and conversion-initiation then it is natural to read ‘born again … to an inheritance’ as teaching an inexorable and inevitable inheritance for every Christian. But if one comes to 1 Peter with the Old Testament background in mind, no one could think of a person’s being born to the automatic and inexorable acquirement of inheritance. In this text the resurrection of Jesus is a foretaste of and a guarantee that final resurrection to reward is a reality. The NASV reads, ‘to obtain an inheritance’. This is surely legitimate. The Greek eis frequently refers to purpose. So 1 Peter 1:3–4 may read, ‘God ... who ... has caused us to be born again to a living hope … in order that we may obtain an inheritance...’. It is reserved in heaven on the assumption that we obtain it. One might compare the use of eis in Luke 5:4 where eis agran means ‘... in order that you may obtain a catch’. The structure and grammar are identical to that in 1 Peter 1:4. That a purpose clause is to be seen here (‘in order that you may obtain an inheritance’) is confirmed by 1 Peter 3:7 where husband and wife are fellow heirs of the grace of life (i.e. are both due for inheritance) but where the husband’s harshness could hinder the prayer-life that leads to inheritance. The ‘heirship’ is not irresistibly carried forward.

In Romans 4:13,14 Paul expands the land-promises given to Abraham. The fact that land-inheritance was so obviously reward in Genesis makes it likely that this is in view here. Paul is deliberately repudiating the nationalistic–legalistic approach to inheritance within the Mosaic covenant, and pointing to faith alone as the starting-point of an ongoing faith which will receive the inheritance. ‘The promise’ in Romans 4:13 does not concern justification. Our here-and-now justification is not promised in this sense; we have it already (Rom.5:1). Inheritance is ‘promised’, and in Romans 4:13 the reference is to the new heavens and earth. Inheritance comes about through righteousness-by-faith, i.e. it is open only to those who are justified by faith. This contrasts totally with inheritance by legalistic obedience.

Ephesians 1:3–14 does not stress justification but verse 11 refers to inheritance. It mentions more the possibility of inheritance than its irresistible security. I have argued elsewhere that eklērōthēmen in verse 11 should be translated ‘we have been allocated an inheritance’.[582] Ephesians 1:3–14 moves from the planning of salvation (‘He chose us … he predestined us’) to the present enjoyment of salvation (‘redemption ... forgiveness’) and then to the future possibilities of salvation (‘inheritance ... redemption of the possession’). The reference to inheritance (eklērōthēmen) in verse 11 has been taken to refer to (i) predestination (see RSV), (ii) God’s inheritance in his people (‘claimed by God as his portion’[583]), (iii) ‘heaven’ or final salvation (so Marcus Barth[584]). The three possibilities are considered by M.Barth.[585] He thinks that ‘purely philological considerations do not permit a final decision’, but opts finally for a reference to the eschatological aspect of salvation. The emphasis of the chapter is surely on the amazing possibilities of salvation. There is a predestined inheritance (1:11). Yet it is important to note that inheritance in Ephesians is not irresistibly predestined. Where human works are involved God may put a plan before his people and ask them to see that it is implemented. The latter is surely the case with inheritance. As in ancient Israel the nation were repeatedly asked to take what God planned to give, so in the life of the Christian there are good works that God has foreordained (Eph.2:10) but he has also foreordained ‘that we should walk in them’ (Eph.2:10). Ephesians 1:11 mentions this plan but it must not be thought of as irresistible in the same way that Ephesians 1:5 is irresistible. ‘Adoption as sons’ comes without works. The question of resistance does not enter into the situation in my opinion. But ‘inheritance’ is a matter of reward; the question of resistance does come in.[586]

Ephesians 1:18 proceeds to pray that the believers’ eyes will be open to the vast possibilities before them. However, the fact that the hope, the inheritance and the needful power are available does not mean that the Christian experiences them willy-nilly. What would be the point of praying in 1:18–19a and 3:14–21 for something that is inexorable and inevitable? One does not need to pray for what is already and irresistibly secured. Paul does not pray for their ‘adoption as sons’; he does pray they will reach to the heights of their inheritance. The two are distinct.

At a later stage Ephesians 3:6 makes the point that the inheritance is lined up for gentile Christians who are in a position of total equality with their Jewish Christian friends.

Romans 4

Some of the passages I have mentioned are occasionally thought to prove that reward and salvation are synonymous, so we shall look more closely at one of them.[587] Following a fearful yet realistic description of sin in Romans 1:18 to 3:20, Paul moves (‘But now!’) into an account of the gospel. Verses 21 and 22a contain his basic description of salvation. The coming of Jesus inaugurated a new epoch for the human race. Salvation consists of being given a righteousness. It is a righteousness wholly of God. It is without the law. It comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, was witnessed to by the Old Testament, has to be received by faith, and is appropriate to every member of the human race.

Now Paul begins to argue his case. He returns to his point that everyone needs this salvation (3:22b–23). He emphasizes its freedom, and explains this is so because it comes through what Jesus achieved on the cross. The cross was a propitiation, by means of Jesus’ blood, to be received in faith (3:24–26). This way of salvation excludes boasting (3:27–28), is appropriate for everyone (3:29–30) and fulfils the law (3:21).

Romans 4 Paul continues this exposition. The way of salvation he has described is precisely how both Abraham (4:1–5) and David (4:6–8) were saved (at an Old Testament level). The gospel fulfilled the Old Testament. In Romans 4:9–12 Paul shows how it relates to circumcision.

At this point we reach Paul’s mention of ‘inheritance’. The passage is often interpreted as though there were no change of thought, and some Reformed and evangelical expositors find it somewhat difficult. It is interesting that Dr Lloyd-Jones’s mammoth series of 372 sermons on Romans 1:1 – 14:17 included only two on 4:9–17, in which he takes for granted that inheritance and justification are virtually identical themes. Yet in my own thinking it has become quite certain that in 4:13 Paul develops his argument and goes on to make a slightly different point. His point is that the goal of salvation, the reward that salvation makes possible, is reached not through law-keeping but through the ‘righteousness of faith’ he has already referred to. There are at least four reasons for taking it this way.

Firstly, Paul is developing his argument from the story of Abraham where, as I have tried to show, a distinction is made between justification and inheritance. Abraham was justified at the point mentioned in Genesis 15:6, or even earlier. The inheritance is something he would receive later.

Inheritance is certainly not justification. Is inheritance ‘getting to heaven’, then? No, for in Paul’s thinking certainty of reaching glory is correlated with justification. Having been justified, we rejoice in expectation of glory (Rom.5:2) ‘those whom God justified he glorified’ (Rom.8:30). Dr Lloyd-Jones made much of this and rightly says that ‘the Apostle jumps from justification to glorification ... we should all learn to make this jump’.[588] Later (expounding 8:28–30) he urges that justification and glorification are so tightly linked that if you have the one you have the other.[589] All of this is absolutely right, but it means that if one is pursuing inheritance it is not precisely ‘glorification’ one is pursuing. That is obtained implicitly in being justified. What then is inheritance? In the case of Abraham it was land, a seed, honour, the experience of the oath of God. Justification and inheritance are distinct and it is that story Paul is explicating in Romans 4.

A second reason for distinguishing one’s status in salvation from inheritance is that they are obtained in slightly different ways. We are saved—initially justified and given the pledge of glory—by faith alone. In Romans 3 and 4 Paul persistently makes this very point (3:22,25,28; 4:3,5, etc.). He has argued it in the case of Abraham (4:1–5) and David (4:6–8), and insisted that it is not a matter of circumcision or Israelite nationality (4:9–12). Earlier (3:28) he has said it is not a matter of keeping the Mosaic law. He makes that same point again in 4:9–12 since obedience to the law is supremely indicated by obedience to the command concerning circumcision.

Nor is heaven obtained by works. That too is by faith alone and is secure for us the moment we believe. This is clear in 5:1–2. Being justified we have peace with God. If we are justified we are as good as in heaven already. We are seated in the heavenly places. Those whom God has justified he has already glorified in plan and purpose and position.

But inheritance is different. Inheritance comes not by initial-faith alone but by persistence in faith, and all that that involves by way of works of faith. Whenever inheritance is the theme—anywhere in the New Testament including Romans 4—the surrounding context always mentions persistent faith or godly character or works of faith as opposed to works of Mosaic legislation. Simple faith brings justification. Simple faith brings assurance of heaven. Persistent faith, expressed in works of faith, brings inheritance.

Thirdly, Romans 4:13 talks of righteousness and inheritance as two things, not one thing. The promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the world came (not through the law but) through the righteousness of faith. If ‘A’ comes through ‘B’ then ‘A’ and ‘B’ are different. Justification and glorification are so correlated in Paul’s thought that if ‘inheritance’ meant justification–glorification Paul would in effect be saying, ‘The promise that Abraham would get justified was not through the law but through justification’! This would not make sense. Inheritance is not justification. Rather inheritance comes through justification.

Abraham believed God and that—simply his believing—was reckoned to him for righteousness. But it was not by this initial-faith that Abraham immediately received the inheritance. He had to continue in faith for a long time before his inheritance began to come to him. It was by faith and patience that Abraham inherited the promise of Isaac. This is the language of Hebrews 6:12 but the principle is clear in Genesis, even if Hebrews had never been written. Only persistent and ongoing faith brought the birth of Isaac. Justification took no time; inheritance required time. Justification did not require patience; inheritance did.

It is true that the final phase of ‘inheritance’ is beyond the grave and Paul mentions that point by referring to ‘the world’. Yet there is a difference between ‘getting to heaven’ (to use popular language) and reward in heaven. Abraham was justified, fitted for heaven, early in the Abraham story. Inheritance in the Abraham story is the direction Abraham is moving in, the goal that he is striving for.

My fourth reason for distinguishing justification and inheritance arises out of my own experience of preaching. Over forty years ago in Lusaka, Zambia, I was occupied with a four-year series of expositions of Romans. I learnt a lot through wrestling with Paul’s great epistle. At that time I took for granted the Puritan approach to heaven-inheritance as one and the same thing. But I got into difficulties trying to build my life on it and trying to preach it to ordinary people. My problem was that Paul obviously regards Abraham’s experience, described in 4:18–21, as a great struggle. ‘Against all hope’ Abraham exercised faith (4:18). When I came to preach through these verses I found this very difficult. Is faith a great struggle? Is assurance of justification a matter of long-term endeavour, so that even after many years one may not have arrived at it? My difficulty is apparent in my two volumes of bound notes. ‘Why does Paul use this illustration of saving faith?’ I wrote—taking it for granted that it was saving faith that was being illustrated! ‘Is believing in the Lord Jesus so staggering? Why does Paul describe faith as though it were extremely difficult? Is not faith a simple and easy thing?’ Working along typical Puritan lines I could arrive at only one answer—in the 1970s. ‘The difficulty comes’, I concluded, ‘because of conviction of sin.’ As I saw it, ‘Paul is describing Abraham’s faith—the faith that saved him ... [but there were ] … tremendous difficulties in the way … specially in connection with conviction of sin.’ At that time I was trying to do justice to the great struggle Paul describes as being ‘in hope against hope’ but I assumed that the theme was assurance of heaven.

The day came when I had to reject all this and repent in sackcloth and ashes! Romans 4 makes it clear that Abraham did indeed have a struggle of faith. But the conflict was not about assurance of heaven. He was not ‘in hope against hope’ about justification! Rather the conflict concerned the birth of Isaac which was part of his promised inheritance. That matter involved an ‘if’ (as in Rom.8:17). The inheritance could involve trusting God and his word, over a long period of time, ‘without weakening in faith’, contemplating one’s weaknesses (4:19) but not collapsing in unbelief, growing strong in faith, maintaining one’s assured faith. The end-product of this process is not justification; nor is it heaven, which can be a matter of assurance immediately because it correlates with justification. Rather the end-product of this experience is inheritance, obtaining the promises concerning how God will use us in this life, experiencing God’s ‘Well done’.

So Paul argues that the goal of our salvation (‘inheritance’) is reached not through law-keeping but through this ‘righteousness of faith’ which he has referred to. He explains this in a section extending from 4:13 till about the middle of verse 17. At this point Paul begins to describe what this faith was actually like as it worked out in Abraham’s life and as he laid hold of the inheritance that God had promised him. This is his subject until the end of verse 21, where he proceeds to explain that the faith which inherited the promised seed was the very same faith which brought Abraham’s justification in the first place (4:22). It is this kind of powerful faith in a risen Jesus which brings justification (4:23–25).

As I understand it, 4:13–21 shows that saving faith, when persisted in, becomes inheriting faith, without any use of the Mosaic law. The same point appears conversely in 4:22–25. The faith that inherits without any use of the Mosaic law is not other than the faith that saved us in the first place. The difference between the two is simply a matter of persistence!

Loss of inheritance

At this point we leave Romans 4 and return to consider ‘inheritance’ more generally and in particular an eighth aspect of New Testament teaching about inheritance.

(viii) Inheritance may be lost. This is suggested by Romans 8:17, but is more explicit in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5, where Paul lists the sins that block the way to inheritance, here and hereafter, if a Christian is tolerant of them.

A difficult related question concerns the Christian’s experience of God’s wrath in the eschaton. It will already have become clear that I hold a high doctrine of the Christian’s security of salvation. Yet the temporary ‘fire’ of 1 Corinthians 3:15 that does not destroy justification–salvation demands further exploration. Ephesians 5:5, for example, comes in a section dealing with the outworking of faith, and warns that serious sins will be an impediment in the way of present-enjoyment and future-reward in the kingdom. (There appears to be a double focus here of present and future ‘inheritance’.) It also warns that God’s final wrath, although intended for the ‘sons of disobedience’, may nevertheless touch the disobedient Christian. There is little point in Paul’s words otherwise. It is possible for a Christian, although intended to be a syn-metochos (‘fellow sharer’) in inheritance (Eph.3:6, cf.5:7), to be—anomalously and grotesquely—a metochos (‘sharer’) in wrath. I do not believe this implies loss of justification, but the significance of being a ‘sharer’ in wrath must not be explained away. I concede that much of this is provocative. I can only ask however that my combination of theological points—total security combined with serious judgement of Christian sins—be seriously considered. It would at least explain matters that have given both ‘Arminians’ and ‘Calvinists’ much difficulty.

What I am urging, is represented by the following diagram:[590]

Evangelical Arminianism

Developed Calvinism

Encouraging Calvinism (M.Eaton)

Universal atonement

Limited atonement

Universal atonement

Irresistible integration of justification and sanctification

Irresistible integration of justification and sanctification

A resistible link between justification and sanctification

Integrates salvation–inheritance

Integrates salvation–inheritance

Sharply distinguishes salvation–inheritance

Disobedience = loss of salvation, loss of inheritance

Disobedience = proved unreality of salvation, so no salvation

Disobedience = loss of inheritance but in the true Christian no loss of salvation

Legalistic, in that salvation is by works

Introspective, in that proved-salvation is by works

Neither legalistic nor introspective in that justification is by faith alone

Motivating yet discouraging. Present salvation may be certain. Yet it could be lost since final salvation is by obedience

Doubly discouraging, in that assurance of salvation is conditioned by the demand that good works be adequate

Doubly encouraging in that present and future salvation is sure. Motivating in that upon a secure base one may reach for inheritance

Legalistic in that it maintains the continuing relevance of the Mosaic law

Legalistic in that it maintains the continuing relevance of the Mosaic law

Liberating in that the experience of the Spirit occupies the place once occupied by the Torah

Our theology is what we believe after lots of biblical exposition! I have presented a small portion of my own expositions here. There is much more elsewhere! What I am urging, on the basis of this biblical material, is that there is an approach to security and admonition that does not imply justification by works and yet which does not have the in-built legalism and introspection of developed Calvinism.

578 F.F.Bruce comments, ‘The inheritance is associated with sanctification rather than with forgiveness’ and compares Deut.33:3–4 where hēgiasmenos and klēronomia are linked (Acts: Greek Text, p.445).

579 Mark 10:17 is best interpreted as a question about reward. Jesus’ way of pointing to a level of spirituality that outstrips the law of Moses is to give the traditional answer (10:19) and then pointedly indicate that there is a level of spirituality that goes beyond it (10:21): uncovetousness and a direct relationship to Jesus. The result is not ‘heaven’ but ‘treasure in heaven’. There are probably a few occasions where even the word ‘salvation’ refers not to initial conversion but to final salvation with its attendant reward. Mark 10:26 uses this language. Jesus accepts such language (on the lips of disciples) but vv.29–31 make it clear that he is still speaking of reward.

In Luke 10:25 Jesus again deals with a compassion which outstripped the law, was not demanded by the law and even contravened the law (a contaminating contact with Samaritans). The parable deals with what one ‘does’ (10:37). Luke 18:18 accepts the law but then deliberately goes beyond it. It leads into questions concerning reward (18:28–30).

580 See RSV and AG, p.73.

581 See further M.A.Eaton, 1 Peter (PTTB, Sovereign World, 1999), pp.17–20. The tangled complexities of 1 Pet.1:3–4 are surveyed in O.C.Arichea & E.A.Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter From Peter (UBS, 1980), pp.13–18.

582 M.A.Eaton, Ephesians (PTTB, Sovereign World, 2002), pp.22–25.

583 F.F.Bruce, Colossians … Ephesians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p.262.

584 Ephesians 1–3 (Doubleday, 1981), pp.115–119.

585 Ephesians 1–3, pp.92–94.

586 I am not presenting here any detailed consideration of election, although much in this work leads on to it. I suspect there is a difference between irresistible predestination to salvation, and resistible predestination to inheritance. My approach then to Rom.8:28–30 and 9:6–29 is thoroughly ‘Calvinistic’ but without logical extension beyond what Paul actually says. This does not predetermine the interpretation of predestination to inheritance or the interpretation of Eph.2:10. When it speaks of ergois agathois hois proētoimasen ho theos hina en autois peripatēsomen the human factor (‘that we should walk in them’) implies we are not dealing with sheer gracious gift but with human co-operation. At this point an ‘Arminian’ exposition is more convincing (along the lines at this point of the stridently Arminian theology of C.H.Pinnock, (ed) Grace Unlimited (Bethany, 1975). There may be ‘irresistible grace’ in Eph.2:8–9, but not in Eph.2:10—a possibility that has not so far as I know been adequately considered.

587 I summarize here what is more fully expounded in my Return to Glory [Romans 3:22 – 5:21] (Paternoster, 1999).

588 D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Assurance (Banner of Truth, 1971), p.54.

589 D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans: The Final Perseverance of the Saints (Banner, 1975), pp.257–260.

590 Certain verses have been passed over in this survey. Ac.7:5 deals with the case of Abraham but points to the anomaly that the one who was promised land never received it. Jam.2:5 apparently means that God has predestined (in a manner comparable to Eph.2:10) the poor to be evangelized and that most of his elect are poor. It is notable that inheritance is not linked with ‘mere’ faith but with being ‘rich in faith’. 1 Pet.5:3 uses the term klērōn in an Old Testament usage in which God’s people are an inheritance. Rev.21:7–8 is the last use of inheritance language in the Bible. Again it explicitly connects with human effort (‘He who overcomes’) and therefore refers to reward in line with Rev.22:12. The consideration of the theme of inheritance in Hebrews is dealt with below.

18

SECURITY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF WARNINGS

I believe the New Testament teaches that a true Christian will never lose their justification, their faith, their regeneration.[591] They do not lose what God has given them, although they may lose further blessings that God wishes to give them. In this sense they cannot lose their salvation. It is true that the word ‘salvation’ may be used to refer to the reward that comes at the final stage of one’s ‘salvation’. The Christian may indeed lose ‘salvation’ in this sense.[592]

There seem to be two main reasons why many Christians find difficulty in accepting the eternal security of a Christian’s justification. Firstly, there is the phenomenon of ‘falling away’ (as it is generally called) among those who seem to have been Christians. Many of us know individuals who seemed at one time to be Christians but who have subsequently shown no sign of their former commitment. In addition to personal experience, a second reason is awareness of scriptures which seem to suggest that the Christian’s security should not be understood so unconditionally. In response to the first objection it must be acknowledged that our ability to discern who truly is regenerated by the Spirit may not be as great as we sometimes think. This is at least a partial answer. But for any Bible-believing Christian the second is the more weighty objection. A key factor in a theology of obedience and grace must be how it interprets the warnings of Scripture. The two areas of Scripture considered in this chapter (Romans and John’s Gospel) affirm Christian security. After examining them we will survey the warnings of Scripture and put forward several guiding principles of interpretation. The position outlined here differs from both developed Calvinism and evangelical Arminianism. It must first be said that there are passages of Scripture which (unless one has very good reason to take them differently) do seem to teach quite clearly and lucidly that a Christian cannot and does not lose salvation. They are not particularly obscure or difficult. They are not passages dealing with some other subject and awkwardly dragged in to prove a controversial point. There may be difficulty in believing them but there is no great problem about understanding them—and the two types of difficulty ought to be distinguished.

Security in Romans

Consider first of all the thread of argument in the letter to the Romans.[593] Early in the letter Paul argues at length that all people everywhere are sinful and need a righteousness that comes from God. He concludes, ‘Every mouth is stopped and the whole world is held guilty before God’ (Rom.1:18 – 3:20). Then he presents the way of salvation. God has put forward Jesus to be the sacrifice for our sins. Jesus is to be received by faith. He argues this extensively from the Old Testament (Rom.3:21 – 4:25). In chapters 5–8 Paul describes the results of salvation, and it is in the course of this argument that he makes clear the utter and total security of the Christian and the sheer impossibility that they could ever ‘lose salvation’, if by that phrase is meant loss of justification, loss of the imputed righteousness of Jesus, loss of regeneration. Romans 5:1–11 lists the immediate results of being justified by faith. Christians are at peace in their relationship to God (5:1). They have received (past tense) an introduction into grace in which they stand. They have not simply ‘decided for Christ’; they have been transferred into a realm of grace and have gained a ‘standing’ there. Paul does not give the slightest hint that there is anything insecure or conditional about this but immediately goes on to describe believers as rejoicing in their expectation of getting to glory. Paul does not qualify this expectation by hinting at any other possibility. Simply, believers will get to glory. Romans 5:12–21 goes further. Not only do Christians possess these immediate blessings because they are ‘justified’; having formerly been ‘in Adam’, they are now ‘in Christ’. Paul’s argument is not yet complete but already the reader might ask, ‘How can someone who is joined to Christ ever fall out of the kingdom of God? Can Christ fall out of the kingdom of God?’ Then Paul goes further. An important difference between the old position ‘in Adam’, before coming to faith, and the present position ‘in Christ’, is that grace is much stronger than sin ever was. In their pre-Christian days believers experienced sin as a powerful tyrant holding them in its grasp. But grace is so much stronger; believers are ‘in Christ’, in a kingdom of grace; grace rules over them. How can they be insecure? In chapters 6 and 7 Paul points out that Christians have ‘died’ to sin, and that sin shall not rule over them. Paul does not say they are trying to die to sin, or that they shall one day die to sin. It is an accomplished event: they have died to sin. The point is not that they can never sin again but that sin can never rule over them again. Romans 6:9 is explicit. Jesus has risen ‘never to die again’ (NASV). But we are ‘in Christ’. Just as he died and was released from this realm of sin ‘once for ever’, so we died and sin shall not have dominion over us. The powers of sin can never again get at Jesus, so sin can never establish its dominion over believers. They are under the dominion and rule of God’s grace.

All this is an expansion of what Paul has said about having acquired a standing in a kingdom of grace. He does not say that it depends in any way on how well a person’s Christian life is proceeding, or how successful they are in defeating sin. A death has taken place in the Christian, a radical and eternal transfer from one realm to another, from the dominion of sin to the dominion of grace. The point is explicitly made that Jesus does not go back to the realm of sin. Since we actually are ‘in Christ’, how can we go back to the realm of sin? The Christians at Rome may have experienced temptation and fallen to it; the strong exhortations later in the letter suggest their battle with sin is real and that there is a real possibility of falling. But before he approaches any exhortation about godly living Paul wants to make it clear that Christians do not and cannot go back to the realm and dominion of sin. The letter contains no exhortation until 6:11 and then it is not about doing something but about reckoning something. Only after his hearers have taken a firm hold on the fact of their secure position of freedom from the rule of sin will Paul produce the first command of the epistle concerning sin. His argument is: ‘Jesus has died to the realm of sin for ever. You have died to the realm of sin for ever. So therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body.’

Nowhere here does Paul take into account the possibility that any Christian might not respond to the appeal of 6:12–13. He simply says, ‘Sin shall not have dominion over you, because you are not under law but under grace.’ Later in the chapter (vv.16–23) he appeals to them to willingly and voluntarily present their members to God. The only hints of warning occur in 6:21,23. ‘The outcome of those things is death ... The wages of sin is death.’ What do these hints of warning mean? Is Paul taking back what he has said and warning that death could have dominion over the Christian after all? Verse 22 disproves any such conclusion. Here, between the two warnings of 21,23, is yet another statement that Christians have been ‘freed from sin and enslaved to God’. True, they will suffer if they turn back even to taste the shame (6:21) from which they have been delivered. Elsewhere Paul warns of how one may ‘reap’ if one sows to the flesh, and may lose reward so as to be ‘saved through fire’ (1 Cor.3:15). But nowhere does he retract the radical assertions of Romans 6 about total and eternal release from the dominion of sin. At no point does he suspend our security in the kingdom of grace upon our faithfulness.

In Romans 7 Paul applies his ‘reign of grace’ theme to the matter of ‘the law’, that is, to the Mosaic arrangements of legislation and worship given to Israel in the period following the exodus. Christians, he says, have ‘died’ to the law. How can they ever be condemned? What is there to condemn them? Since the law has once and for ever been dealt with, how could a Christian ever be condemned or sent to hell? For any Christian to lose their salvation would prove Paul wrong in everything he has said in Romans 5–7.

Romans 8 goes even higher. The Christian, Paul says, cannot be condemned. He introduces no conditions or qualifications so far as security in grace is concerned. Christians are ‘in the Spirit’. A conditional note is introduced in 8:17. We shall be ‘heirs with Christ if indeed we suffer with [him] in order that we may also be glorified with [him]’. (The word ‘him’ is not in the Greek, but the verbs mean ‘suffer-with’ and ‘be-glorified-with’. The NASV rightly adds the word ‘him’ to bring out the meaning.) The question of precisely how to interpret these warnings is discussed below; at this point it must suffice to say that there is a difference between initial-salvation and reward. When Paul is dealing with initial-salvation and our standing before God he nowhere hints at the possibility of any condition other than the saving faith which he takes for granted. He mentions union with Christ, which is already a fact, and introduces no further condition when claiming that ‘there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ’. But when Paul writes about being recompensed in glory, a condition is introduced. However, the themes of (i) justification and (ii) the rewards that accompany our being glorified are quite different. Salvation is by ‘faith only’; reward is most certainly not by ‘faith only’. Salvation is received by faith with no further condition (i.e. apart from faith); reward is suspended on how we live. It depends on the works of faith. The two matters are distinct. When a statement is conditional it is vital to take note of what it is that is conditioned.

At 8:28–30—and not until this point—Paul invokes his doctrine of predestination. He has not mentioned it when writing about sin (1:18 – 3:20) and justification (3:21 – 4:25), nor even, so far, in explaining the Christian’s position in grace (5:1 – 8:26). It appears only now, as a concluding and conclusive argument to complete the case he has been building up: that the Christian can never be condemned.

For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brothers. And those whom he predestined, he also called. And those whom he called, he also justified. And those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is not the place for a detailed exposition of 8:28–30. Paul’s argument seems to run like this: Predestination to salvation, however mysterious it may be, is a fact. The word ‘foreknow’—as is widely agreed by all shades of opinion—means to set one’s love on someone in advance.[594] Of course God ‘knows’ about every individual in the human race but this is not the point of ‘foreknow’ in 8:28, where it means to fore-love more than fore-know. It is about fore-loving the person, not fore-knowing the faith. Those whom God has ‘loved in advance’ in this way, he has predestined to be like Jesus. Those people he ‘calls’, that is, powerfully brings them to a knowledge of Jesus—those people he justifies. Those people he glorifies.

Let us imagine there are a hundred people God has ‘loved in advance’. (‘A hundred’, rather than ‘millions’, is easier to think about.) How many of them has he determined will be conformed to Jesus? One hundred! How many of them are summoned to Jesus Christ? One hundred! (The word ‘call’ always means something effective in passages in Paul concerning salvation.) How many of those called to faith in Christ are actually justified? One hundred! How many of those justified actually get to glory? One hundred! ‘Those whom he has justified he has glorified.’ It is so certain that Paul uses the past tense. It is as good as done in the mind of God. How many are lost along the way? None.

At this point Paul seems to pause and asks, ‘What then shall we say to these things? Now what do you think of all this? Do you believe it? Can you accept it? Is it too good to be true?’ He knows his readers might still be staggered at such amazing security, so he goes on to deal with the questions they might have in their minds.[595]

Might there be some force somewhere which would drag the Christian down into such sin and failure that salvation would be lost? Paul answers: ‘If God be for us—and obviously he is—who can be against us?’ What is this mysterious foe that can overthrow the Christian? Put a name to it! It does not exist.

Perhaps I may need something that I lack and I will fail as a result? Might I not fall into sin? Might God’s love to me not be diminished through my weakness and failures? Paul answers: ‘He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not, with him, also freely, give us all things?’ Every need will be met. Will we need further forgiveness? It will be given. Will we need restoration? It will be given. What will it take for us to have such needs met? They come ‘with him’. God gave us Jesus freely; he will give us everything else we need ‘also freely’.

Thirdly, is it possible that somehow the Christians at Rome could fall and be finally condemned? Paul answers the implicit query. ‘It is God who justifies. Who can condemn?’ There is no possibility of God’s decision concerning our acquittal being overthrown. Jesus has died for all sins; there is no possibility of his death being ineffective for the believer. It is Jesus who intercedes; there is no possibility of his intercession being ineffective.

There is a fourth possible anxiety: might not the trials and tribulations of life somehow overcome us? Paul answers: ‘Who can separate us from the love of Christ ...?’

Paul’s final affirmation (in this part of his letter) is comprehensive. Verses 38–39 begin, ‘I am persuaded that neither death, nor life ...’ Here Paul includes everything! Everything that happens to us is connected either to our dying or to our living. He continues, ‘nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come’. Here again—everything. Everything that we might worry about is either a present problem or is about to come. ‘... nor height, nor depth …’ also amounts to everything; everything is somewhere between the heights and the depths. ‘... nor any other created thing …’—here also, everything; everything in this universe has been created by God, including ourselves. None of these ‘... shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord’. God, says Paul, is determined to get us to glory and nothing in all creation can stop him. What stronger statement of the Christian’s absolute security could there be? It is futile to say, ‘But we ourselves could stop ourselves from getting to glory.’ Could not Paul have thought of that? Was it sheer incompetence on his part that he forgot? Are not we ourselves included in ‘all creation’? Would it not completely nullify everything Paul has said in Romans 8 if there were after all a possibility that something should separate us from God’s love to us in Jesus?

This explains why I believe that the Christian cannot lose their salvation. It will not do to argue that although nothing outside of us can overthrow our salvation we ourselves are responsible to keep ourselves from doing this by rebellion and unbelief. Paul was not so superficial that he did not think of that. When he said, ‘Nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of Christ ...’ he had surely not forgotten that we ourselves might do so. Paul was making an absolute statement. When he dealt with the fear that we might, after all, be finally condemned by some sin, was it not this very anxiety he had in mind? In any case he has already said that grace reigns over us and that sin shall not have dominion over us. How could he virtually deny in Romans 8 what he had said so clearly in Romans 5 and 6? How can he envisage a Christian who ceases to be under a reign of grace when he has already said that the Christian can never again be ruled over by sin or law or judgement?

Paul’s statements in Romans 8 are absolute: nothing in all creation is able to separate the Christians in Rome from the love of God in Christ Jesus. One might have difficulties about other verses or about Christians who seem to ‘fall away’. But if we were simply taking Romans at its face value we should surely say: the Christian cannot lose their salvation.

Security in John

Much the same conclusions arise from a study of John’s Gospel. We need not work through every detail of the gospel, but it will be helpful to note the setting of John 6, which is important for our theme.[596] At this point a steadily increasing opposition towards Jesus is gaining momentum. After the prologue (1:1–18) comes the record of seven significant days when Jesus gathered some disciples who saw his glory in his first miracle (1:19 – 2:11). There follow samples of his ministry in Jerusalem (2:13 – 3:26), Samaria (4:1–42) and Galilee (4:43–54). In chapter 5 Jesus is again in Jerusalem, where his ministry is arousing conflict. A miracle (5:1–9a) leads to controversy with the Jewish leaders (5:9b–18), and to a major discourse of Jesus’ (5:19–47). In chapter 6 two further miracles (6:1–15,16–21) lead into another major discourse, in which we find striking teaching concerning the security of the believer.

It is the day after the feeding of the five thousand (6:22). The people follow Jesus from the ‘other side of the sea’ to Capernaum (6:22–24), but when they find him (6:25), Jesus points to their wrong motive: ‘You seek me … because you ate your fill of the loaves and were filled’ (6:26). He urges them to believe in him, the one God has sent (6:29). But they want a sign (6:30). Apparently the feeding of the five thousand was not sign enough! They wanted at their demand something analogous to the manna from heaven (6:31).

In reply Jesus points out their mistake in thinking that Moses worked a sign in order to establish his credentials. Their asking Jesus to be like Moses shows they have not understood the story concerning Moses, let alone the greatness of Jesus (6:32). Actually there is ‘bread from heaven’ before their very eyes if only they could see it (6:32b–33). When they ask for this ‘bread from heaven’ (6:34), Jesus offers himself: ‘I am the bread of life.’ Anyone may come to him. Whoever does so will never hunger or thirst. When they had their ‘fill of the loaves’ it was only a sign pointing to something richer and deeper. Yet they refuse to believe. The people as a whole are characterized by unbelief. The miracle which has taken place before their very eyes has prompted eagerness to fill their stomachs rather than to trust in Jesus as the bread of life.

Yet over against their unbelief Jesus says something that is greatly encouraging; God’s purpose is going forward despite the unbelief of the majority of the crowd.

John 6:37–48

‘All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out. This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day … This is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day’ (6:37–40).

We may notice three implications in these words of Jesus.

(i) The vast majority of the crowd do not exercise faith. Despite the miracle they have witnessed they do not believe. Yet they have seen the miracle and God’s sign from heaven stands before them, Jesus himself. Such is the power of unbelief.

(ii) Despite the unbelief of many God has a people that he has ‘given’ to Jesus. However difficult it may be and however many questions we may want to ask, we clearly have here a doctrine of predestination. Some, not all, are given to Jesus by the Father. Those people will believe. Behind the ‘coming’ of those who believe is a work of God the Father, who has determined that a specific people will believe. The guarantee that those people will come to faith is found in the fact of God’s prior plan that Jesus will be given a people.

(iii) Such is the Father’s determination that these people will belong to Jesus that he has also determined that not one of them shall be lost. It is in this context that Jesus says ‘I shall never cast him out’.

It must be noted that this means more than simply that Jesus will not send away the one who comes to him. Jesus will bring the believer into the community of those who are given to him, and having done this will never cast them out. The verb also occurs in John 9:34,35. In John 9, because the man born blind defends Jesus, the authorities ‘put him out’, i.e. they remove him from the circle of synagogue adherents of which he had formed part. Jesus however comes to comfort and help him. What the Pharisees did to the blind man (9:34f.) is precisely what Jesus will never do to the one who comes to him (6:37).

Another example is found in 2:15. Here Jesus ‘drove out’ the traders who misused the temple—the very thing Jesus says he will not do to anyone of those given to him. Similarly Jesus says that in the cross the prince of this world is ‘cast out’ (12:31). The same word is used. Jesus, who ‘cast out’ the devil from his position, will never ‘cast out’ the one who has come to him.

The statement in 6:37 is clear: those who are given by the Father to Jesus will come to Jesus, and will be Jesus’ people, and having come to be Jesus’ people they will never be put out of that community. It is notable that these words of Jesus refer to the individual. Of every person who comes to Jesus it is said ‘I will raise him up at the last day’. (The resurrection involved here is clearly the resurrection to glory.)

Much the same thought recurs in John 6:44. ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.’ The unbelief of the crowd who witnessed the feeding of the five thousand is not in the least surprising but precisely what anyone who knows anything of the power of unbelief would expect. Unbelief is so engrained in humankind that no one ever would believe if there were not a people given to Jesus. Those people are drawn by the Father; those people do believe. No act of force takes place. It is simply that in a hidden and gentle way the Father wins them to faith. He does it effectively. He does not fail in his purpose. Those that the Father has given to Jesus will come to him. Such are raised up at the last day in the resurrection to glory.

The thought is repeated in 6:54–55. Whoever comes to Jesus already has eternal life. They will not be lost but will be raised to glory (6:54). The drawing of the Father has been exercised; otherwise they never would have come to Jesus (6:55). At the end of the chapter some ‘disciples’ ‘draw back’. Over against these Peter says, ‘We have come to believe.’ The ‘disciples’ who draw back might be understood as genuine believers who had become fearful of following Jesus; alternatively these ‘disciples’ were simply people who had joined the group following Jesus from place to place although they did not believe in him. The twelve have however persisted in following Jesus. Jesus comments, ‘Did I myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is [not ‘will be’] a devil?’ (v.70). One of those that Jesus has earlier chosen as disciples will be lost. Although chosen as a disciple, he is in himself—at that very moment—a devil. He will be lost because although chosen by Jesus as a disciple he was not one of those ‘given’ by the Father to Jesus.

Security in John 10

As John’s Gospel continues, the conflict between Jesus and his enemies intensifies. In chapter 7 Jesus is the centre of intense debate. This is followed in chapter 8 by a discourse about Jesus as the light of the world. Chapter 9 sees the conflict growing more acute. Jesus heals a blind man (vv.1–12) and the Pharisees complain that the healing has taken place on the Sabbath (vv.13–34). This leads Jesus to comment on their spiritual blindness: ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say “We see” your sin remains.’ There is a connection between these events and the parable in chapter 10. The one who ‘does not enter by the door’, the ‘thief and a robber’, represents the Pharisees of John 9 who have cast out the blind man. In 10:1–9 Jesus speaks of himself as a door; in verses 11–18 he is like a shepherd. Jesus secures the life of his people (v.10). He is a good shepherd (v.11). The false shepherd—the Pharisee who will ‘put out’ a healed disciple of Jesus—does not really care for the sheep (v.12), but is concerned only for himself (v.13). There is a close and intimate union between Jesus and his people (v.14), like that between a shepherd and the sheep whom he knows and who know him. He lays down his life to secure their safety (v.15). Verses 16–17 refer to the incorporation of gentiles into this ‘sheepfold’, and Jesus’ great willingness to lose his life in order to fulfil the Father’s purpose (v.18).

John 10:19–24 describes the controversy and varied reaction caused by the parable. Verses 25–30, where he takes up the matter again, are vital for our theme. ‘You do not believe because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my Father’s hand.’

The approach is identical with that in chapter 6. Referring to the fact that many do not believe, Jesus says not, ‘You are not my sheep because you do not believe’, but he puts it the other way around: ‘You do not believe because you are not of my sheep.’ It is not faith that leads to God’s election; it is God’s prior election that leads to faith. Once again we find a doctrine of predestination. We must resist the temptation to speculate beyond what is revealed in this matter. Yet however baffling our questions may be, one thing is clear. There is a doctrine of predestination here. We find the same three implications here as in chapter 6.

(i) Faith does not characterize the vast majority of people. The Pharisees do not see who Jesus is.

(ii) Despite the unbelief of many, God has a people that he has ‘given’ to Jesus. They are called here his ‘sheep’. It is some, not all, who are thus given to Jesus by the Father. Those people will believe. Behind the ‘coming’ of those who believe lies a work of God the Father, who has determined that a specific people will believe.

(iii) Not one of these will be lost from among God’s people. Jesus says, ‘I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.’ The second half of the sentence (‘they shall never perish’) throws light on what is meant by ‘I give them eternal life’. The reference is surely not only to something that happens at one’s first faith and can then be lost. When Jesus says, ‘I give them eternal life’ he is speaking of a gift, something that is theirs for ever. Because the gift is permanent Jesus can continue, ‘They shall never perish.’ The next statement goes further: ‘No one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ Here is a clear statement of the Christian’s eternal security. It will not suffice to ‘balance’ responsibility and security and say, ‘Neither is absolute, i.e. accomplished apart from man’s decision.’[597] This is not how John puts it. Human decision would, to John’s mind, always lead to apostasy. But Jesus’ sheep do hear God’s voice, they do follow. This is the nature of God’s keeping them.

The ‘balance’ is the same as that predicted by Jeremiah as an aspect of the ‘new covenant’. The promise of the ‘old covenant’ could be broken, says Jeremiah, but he goes on to contrast this covenant that could be broken with a different, unbreakable covenant. ‘I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, away from doing them good; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from me’ (Jer.32:40). God promised to bring in a more effective covenant than the covenant of law. The new covenant would be unbreakable. The Christian is in an unbreakable covenant—unlike the Sinai covenant. God will not turn away from us, and however low we sink we shall not turn away from him. At our worst we shall still know the gospel is true. We shall still have faith. John also teaches this ‘balance’ between responsibility and security. Both are true.

Jesus’ words receive varied reaction. Some wish to stone him (Jn10:31); others come to faith (10:32).

Security in John 15

The story continues with the climactic ‘sign’ of the raising of Lazarus, which becomes a major contributing factor in the plot to kill Jesus (11:45–57). Events move swiftly now: Jesus is anointed by Mary of Bethany (12:1–8) and enters Jerusalem (12:9–50). Soon John is telling us of his actions and teaching in the upper room (chs.13–14), and while walking to Gethsemane (15–16).

Two points may be made concerning 15:6. Firstly, it is part of the extended illustration depicting Jesus as the ‘true vine’, and it is doubtful interpretation to press the details of parabolic or illustrative teaching. Secondly, the chapter does not deal in any way with initial-salvation. It is concerned with fruitfulness (v.2). The disciples are already ‘clean’ with what might be called their ‘initial-salvation’. Jesus is concerned about what lies ahead and what they will do for him (v.5). Without him they cannot achieve anything. Before them is a life of fulfilling God’s will (v.5), entering into a life of love (v.12). They are chosen in order to have a lasting impact upon this world (v.16) and the Spirit will enable their future ministry. None of this refers to justification by faith or new birth or anything that could be designated ‘initial-salvation’. Rather it deals with service and ministry and achievement for God. Pressing the details in verse 6 into clear teaching about security or apostasy is a doubtful procedure. Calvinists tend to say the verse refers to false conversion. Judas had real contact with Jesus but was ‘a devil’ all along.[598] Arminians refer it to apostasy. But in the context it surely refers to the uselessness that results when a Christian does not abide in Christ. E.A.Blum[599] mentions all three possibilities but thinks it alludes to Judas. One can get more out of the passage only by relating it to other Scriptures, and this can be done along three routes as mentioned by Blum (see below).

Security in John 17

The lengthy discourse in John 14–16 flows into the prayer of chapter 17. This is followed by the account of Jesus’ death and resurrection (18–20) and the epilogue to the book (21).

John 17 is closely linked with 14–16 as verse 1 (‘After Jesus said this...’) suggests. Teaching (chs.14–16) and prayer (ch.17) are a conscious combination. The praying of Jesus was evidently intended to be overheard; we are reminded of 11:42 (‘I said this because of the people standing around’).

John 17 demands our attention because of its strongly predestinarian statements and its contribution to the teaching concerning ‘eternal security’. It is much loved by Calvinists. Jesus first prays for his own glorification (vv.1–5). The phraseology used (‘giving eternal life to all whom you have given to him’) roots the salvation of the disciples in the will of God more than in the faith of the disciples. It is not that their faith and faithfulness are needless (vv.6,8 refer to keeping and receiving) but the more ultimate truth is that of Jesus’ donation of grace to them. Jesus has authority over ‘all mankind’ (v.2) but that authority is exercised in bestowing eternal life on a group of people who are said to be ‘given’ to Jesus (v.2). Having brought about their salvation Jesus now asks that he may return to his pre-incarnational glory.

Next (vv.6–19) Jesus prays for the group of disciples who have worked with and in obedience to him. His prayer is limited to this group, who are an ‘elect’ (if one may borrow Paul’s term) given out of the world to Jesus. In some sense they—rather than the entire human race—belonged to the Father before Jesus’ ministry (‘They were yours’, v.6).

A vital statement for our present concern is found in verse 12: ‘I was keeping them … I guarded them, and not one of them has perished ei mē ho huios tēs apōleias …’ There are two ways of translating this last phrase, and the difference is vital because one translation teaches very clearly the possibility of an exception to Jesus’ keeping power. If ei mē has its meaning of ‘except’ the sense is, ‘Not one of them has perished except the son of perdition but one of them I was unable to keep’!

‘Ei mē’, ‘except’ and ‘however’

However, we have already seen in connection with Galatians 2:16 that ei mē or ean mē is sometimes used to introduce an exception to something more general than what has been previously mentioned. There are other examples.

Galatians 2:16 is not to be translated, ‘No human being is justified by the works of the law except through the faith of Jesus’—which would imply we are justified by the works of the law upon one proviso.

Matthew 12:4 is not to be translated, ‘what it was not lawful for David to eat, nor for those who were with him except for the priests’ since this would imply there were priests with David.

Galatians 1:6–7 does not speak of ‘a different gospel, which is not another except certain men trouble you’; this suggests Paul believed there is another gospel.

Luke 4:26–27 should not be translated, ‘There were many widows in Israel ... Elijah was sent to none of them except to Zarephath.’ This sounds as if Zarephath was in Israel, which is the opposite of the point Jesus is making.

Revelation 21:27 should not be translated, ‘Nothing unclean shall come into it except those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life’—which would imply that those in the book of life are unclean!

Neither is John 17:12 to be translated, ‘Not one of them has perished except the son of perdition’—which implies that one of the elect has perished.

The clearest way to express this usage of ei mē is to use a full stop and then restart the sentence. Galatians 2:16 is to be translated, ‘No human being is justified by the works of the law. They are justified only through the faith of Jesus.’

Matthew 12:4 is to be translated, ‘... what it was not lawful for David to eat, nor for those who were with him. It was lawful for the priests.’

Galatians 1:6–7 speaks of ‘a different gospel, which is not another. However, certain men are troubling you.’

Luke 4:26–27 should be translated, ‘There were many widows in Israel... Elijah was sent to none of them. He was sent to Zarephath.’

Revelation 21:27 should be translated, ‘Nothing unclean shall come into it. Those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will enter in.’

And John 17:12 is to be translated, ‘Not one of them has perished. However, the son of perdition has perished ...’

Lovingkindness will not fail

If the word in John 17:12 means ‘except’ and refers to apostasy, then it could be argued the word in Revelation 21:27 means ‘except’ and implies extreme antinomianism! Actually in both cases the word is to be expressed by a stop and a fresh start with the word ‘However’. This is the English way of expressing this usage of ei mē. Clearly ei mē may have this force. That this is the correct way of translating John 17:12 is suggested by two further points. Interpreted thus 17:12 runs parallel to what we have already seen in chapters 6 and 10. It is yet another statement of the security of the believer. This translation coheres with John 6 and 10, unlike translating by ‘except’. This interpretation agrees with the fourth gospel’s presentation of Judas. At 6:64 he is specifically placed among those who did not believe. The second sentence of 6:64 (‘For Jesus knew who they were who did not believe and who it was who would betray him’) is an exposition of the first sentence (‘There are some of you who do not believe’). Unbelievers in general and the betrayer in particular are placed in the category of ‘some ... who do not believe’. Judas was chosen as a disciple but Jesus’ knowledge that Judas ‘is’ (present tense) a devil precedes his choice of him. John 6:70 thus says that one chosen as a worker with Jesus is at that point a devil. John 13:10–11 explicitly describes the disciples as ‘clean’ with the cleanness of spiritual cleansing and new birth, and explicitly dissociates such cleansing from Judas. John 13:18 differentiates the ‘chosen’ from Judas, using ‘choose’ in a different way from John 6:70. Evidently John thinks of Judas as ‘chosen’ to ministry but not ‘chosen’ in the sense that would be determined by the thought of 17:9.

The same thought is apparent in John 9:12. Carson is right in saying—and he could have made the point even more strongly—‘Jesus’ prayer for his disciples ... excludes Judas.’[600] We need not discuss whether ‘son of perdition’ denotes character or destiny. Understood in either way, John 17:12 is a powerful statement. Jesus loses no one. His people do not perish in the sense of losing their basic and foundational possession of eternal life.

Jesus’ prayer that his disciples be kept from the evil one (17:15) prompts a further thought. Earlier in the gospel Jesus has said, ‘You hear me always’ (11:42). It is not conceivable, the gospel implies, that any prayer of Jesus’ should fail. If he prays for his people to be protected from the devil, they will be protected from the devil. It is futile to interject, ‘But they may fail to keep themselves.’ Is not their failure to keep themselves a victory for the devil? If Jesus prays it will not happen, can we say that it might?

We have said enough about John’s Gospel. It seems plain that, if it were not for the two stumbling blocks we have mentioned, anyone taking these passages at face value (and we have glanced only at Romans and John) and submitting to Scripture would say that a Christian can never lose their salvation. The oath concerning Jesus as the one who always lives to bring us to glory will be as secure as the unbreakable covenant God made with David. ‘My lovingkindness I shall keep … for ever … If his sons forsake my law … I will visit their transgression with the rod … But I will not break off my lovingkindness …’ While Psalm 89 refers not directly to Christian experience but to the covenant with the house of David, it illustrates the workings of God’s covenants of grace. Lovingkindness will not fail.

If we sin we shall fall and we shall suffer, but we shall not fall utterly. No one shall take us from his hand.

Conditionality, reward and loss

A straightforward reading of the passages we have referred to will lead the Christian to say, ‘I know I believe in Jesus. I also know that I cannot be lost.’ But the New Testament contains many severe warnings addressed to Christians; how should we integrate them with our understanding of the believer’s security? Paul warns about the loss of the prize (1 Cor.9:24–27, cf.2 Tim.2:5). There are other sayings that mention a reward and the possibility of losing it (e.g. Matt.6:2). There are warnings about the fire of God in John 15:6 and 1 Corinthians 3:15. There is implicit warning in the reference to conditional presentation before the Father in judgement (Col.1:23), conditional promises concerning seeing the Lord (Matt.5:8; Heb.12:14), promises making heirship with Christ conditional on suffering with him (Rom.8:17), conditional promises concerning reigning with Christ (2 Tim.2:12). The conditional promises of Revelation concerning overcoming are well known (Rev.2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) as are the warnings to the seven churches (Rev.2:5; 2:16,22–23; 3:3,19). Some promises are attached to exhortations about how we live (e.g. Matt.5:5); indeed, the word ‘reward’ may be used in a promise attached to a statement about how we live (Matt.5:12; 6:1,4,5,6,16,18). We find references to conditional forgiveness (Matt.18:21–35, esp.v.35; 6:12,15) and conditional promises about safety (Mk13:13).

Communities are warned they may lose their communal position in God’s kingdom if they do not continue in faith. Romans 11:20–22 is a striking example. A church may cease to have a testimony. Revelation 2:5 envisages a lampstand being removed from its place. In this connection, we mention the story of the cursing of the fig-tree (esp.Mk11:14) since it parabolically applies to Israel. Special attention needs to be given to the warnings of Hebrews (Heb.2:1–3; 3:7 – 4:13; 6:3–8; 10:26–31; 12:14–17; 12:25). There are verses that speak of one’s name being removed from the book of life (Rev.17:8; 20:12,15; 21:27) or from the tree of life, and the holy city (Rev.22:19), verses that challenge Christians with talk about Gehenna or the lake of fire (Matt.5:21–26; 5:27–30; 10:22,28,33) and seem to warn them of serious consequences that will follow if Christ is denied. Matthew 10:38 speaks of a person’s being unworthy of Jesus, and verse 39 speaks of losing one’s life. This is the opposite of reward (Matt.10:41–42; see also Matt.18:8,9; 25:41; Mk9:43–49; Rev.20:15).

Similar to such warnings are those linked with the parousia (Matt.24:35–51; 25:1–13, esp.v.13; 25:14–30, esp.29–30; 25:31–46) and warnings about great loss in the day of judgement (Matt.7:26–27). In 2 Timothy 4:1 Paul charges Timothy to fulfil his ministry in the light of judgement day. What is the point of doing this unless something can be gained or lost in the judgement day? Mark 8:35–38 mentions ‘losing one’s life’ (Mk8:35–38); the context is the second coming of Jesus. Some New Testament admonitions use the word ‘destruction’ when addressing Christians, or speak of a disciple ‘perishing’ (e.g. Matt.7:13–14). Jude 5 speaks of those who were once saved, then ‘destroyed’. Matthew 18:14 assumes the possibility (in the light of 18:7–13) of a little one perishing. Romans 14:15 uses similar language. Other Scriptures use the word ‘death’ (e.g. Rom.8:12–14). Judgement is threatened against particular sins (e.g.Matt.7:1–2) and believers may share in the judgement that will fall upon the world’s sins. (Although Mk12:40 is about a judgement that will fall upon unsaved teachers of the law, the point is that we must not share in their sins. If we do, we share their judgement.) Christians must take care to avoid experiencing God’s wrath (Eph.5:6–7). Those who are already disciples are urged to enter the kingdom (Matt.18:3; Ac.14) and not lose it (Matt.5:20; 1 Cor.6:8–11; Gal.5:21; Eph.5:5). There are warnings about loss of honour in this life (Matt.5:13) and thereafter (1 Jn2:28). Even for the Christian death is better than causing others to stumble (Matt.18:6–7; Mk9:42).

‘He that endures to the end shall be saved’ is often cited in popular discussions about ‘falling away’. Matthew 10:22 refers to the sending out of the twelve and the persecution they will experience. It is likely that it means that the person who endures in the ministry of witnessing under these difficult circumstances will be kept safe. But one notes verse 28. It might seem to be a statement that backsliding will result in loss of salvation or proof of non-salvation. (See also Matt.24:13; Mk13:13.) Other miscellaneous statements could be noted. Judas fell away from his ministry (Ac.1:25, ASV). In the parable of the sower the second type of person ‘falls away’, and the third is entangled in things that choke God’s word. The result is unfruitfulness (Matt.13; Mk4). One may be last or least in the kingdom (Matt.19:30; 5:19) and Jesus predicts that all the disciples will ‘fall away’—a term that is explained as disowning Jesus (14:27,30).

Interpreting the warnings

Enough has been said of warnings addressed to the Christian to make it plain that any theology of grace may be evaluated by the way it treats such passages. There are three main lines of interpretation. Two of them have already been touched upon, but there is another line of approach, less frequently considered.

(i) Some refer the warnings to loss of salvation. Arminius said one cannot have assurance of final salvation, and that it is better to be in fear concerning final salvation.[601]

(ii) Some take the warnings to refer to an unreal salvation. They believe that what seems to be salvation turns out not to be salvation after all. This is exceedingly introspective and totally destructive of any assurance.

(iii) A more perceptive and discriminating approach is based on the fact that the New Testament warnings are generally connected with (a) present usefulness to God, (b) experience of the powers of the kingdom, (c) inheriting God’s promises in this life, (d) experiencing reward, (e) salvation through fire.

Guidelines for interpretation

The following interpretative guidelines summarize my understanding of the admonitions of the New Testament:

(i) Warnings of apostasy that relate to communities do not touch the doctrine of perseverance. The use made of Romans 11:22–24 by Shank, Marshall, Duty[602] and others does not meet the point at issue. Romans 11 deals with the problem that the community of Israel as a whole has lapsed from a position of blessing in God’s dealings with the world. Paul responds by pointing to (a) a distinction within Israel (9:6), (b) Israel’s unbelief (ch.10), (c) the principle of the remnant and the fact that he himself is a Jew (11:1–10), and (d) the possibility that the nation as a whole will not abide in unbelief. In the story of a community an epoch may occur when the bulk of the people do not have the faith of their ancestors; this is the principle of Romans 9:6. Here Paul warns that in the march of history a people may arise who although physically descended from gentile Christians do not share their faith, and thus repeat the tragedy of Israel. In such a case, he says to the gentile Christians at Rome, they too ‘will be cut off’. None of this impinges upon the security of an individual believer.[603] A similar point could be made with regard to Revelation 2:5 where the church of Ephesus as a whole is being addressed.

(ii) The possibility should be considered that certain passages of Scripture deal neither with initial conversion nor with eschatological salvation but with present experience of salvation.

Consider Galatians 5:21 and its companion-passages in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Ephesians 5:5. Paul warns, ‘Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (hoi ta toiauta prassontes basileian theou ou klēronomēsousin). Arminians tend to cite this as proving the possibility of apostasy on the grounds of lack of godliness. Some Calvinists understand it as referring to loss of an ‘imitation’ salvation because such sin proves faith was never present. But there is a wider range of possibilities.

(a) Is the meaning that those who have ever committed such things cannot reach salvation? No one takes it that way, so far as I know, and the present tense prassontes is against it.

(b) Is it that those who commit such things once lose their salvation? Surely not.

(c) Does it mean that those who frequently commit such sins lose their salvation or are proved not to be Christians? Or—as I once thought myself—that those who are under the dominion of such sins prove themselves not truly Christian? Some rather ‘ordinary’ sins are mentioned. Paul includes thumoi, outbursts of wrath. Yet Calvin confessed shortly before his death that he was prone to impatience and bad temper which, he said, was part of his nature but concerning which he was ashamed.[604] Had he lost his salvation? Paul includes dichostasiai, dissensions, and eritheiai, rivalries. Yet A.Dallimore entitled a chapter of his biography of George Whitefield ‘Dissensions and Rivalries in England’.[605] Were Whitefield and John Wesley not Christians after all? One remembers also that Luke records a ‘sharp disagreement’ (paroxusmos) between Paul and Barnabas on one occasion (Ac.15:39). Did Paul fall prey to his own warning? Was he in danger of losing—or falsifying—his salvation?

(d) Does it mean that those who are guilty of such things but do not repent do not inherit God’s kingdom? Yet do not some Christians remain blind to their weaknesses all their lives? Was not Luther quite blind to the sinfulness of his hostility to fellow Reformers? Does not his story indicate that he never did repent of his attitude to Zwingli and others?[606] Was not Melanchthon nervous even of letting him see Calvin’s letter to him because he feared a violent reaction?[607] Is not the attitude of some Calvinists towards what they think is ‘antinomian’ itself not rather antinomian? J.Gerstner[608] maintains that ‘antinomians’ (American dispensationalist evangelicals) sing:

‘Free from the Law, O blessed condition,

I can sin as I please and still have remission.’

But Bliss’s hymn reads:

‘Free from the Law, O blessed condition,

Jesus hath bled and there is remission’

and continues:

‘Children of God’, O glorious calling,

Surely his grace will keep us from falling.’

Gerstner’s scandalous misrepresentation is typical of the hostility faced by American dispensationalists because of their view of freedom from the Torah. I am not an American dispensationalist but when their critics use this style of argumentation I have to think this is ‘moral antinomianism’ and ask which theology really leads to the fulfilment of the love-command: that which holds to release from the Mosaic covenant or the preoccupation with Torah that pervades the Reformed tradition? Is this phenomenon not itself rather antinomian? One thinks also of Luther’s behaviour[609] and the slanderous hostility of Thomas Edwards (1599–1647, author of Gangraena: or a Catalogue … of ... Errours, Heresies, Blasphemies …, published in 1646).[610]

What does this mean for our theology? Do such ‘moral antinomians’ lose—or falsify—their salvation?

There is however another way of approaching Galatians 5:21. ‘Inheriting the … kingdom’ does not have to refer either to initial conversion–justification or to eschatological ‘getting to heaven’. A more reasonable interpretation (certainly one that is pastorally practical) takes it to mean that the Christian who tolerates such sins in their life fails to experience in the here-and-now the blessings of God’s kingdom. Surely Calvin lost something at that very point of his life when he lost his temper. Surely the rivalry between Wesley and Whitefield did damage to the kingdom of God and brought blessing to neither of them at that stage of their lives. Neither Arminian apostasy nor Calvinist introspection is involved in Galatians 5:21. On this view the future tense refers to what will immediately happen in the life of any believer at the point where they tolerate ‘such things’. Other passages may be interpreted similarly.

(iii) It is important to distinguish between justification and reward. Consider for example 1 Corinthians 9:27. For G.B.Wilson it deals with ‘imitation’ salvation. ‘A preacher of salvation may yet miss it. He may show others the way to heaven, and never get thither himself.’[611] Yet in the entire section (1 Cor.9:1–27) there is no discussion of salvation. Rather what is mentioned is ministry, preaching, service to God in gaining disciples both from the Jews and from the gentiles. In 9:24–27 the point is explicitly that of ‘gaining a prize’. G.Fee’s exegesis of the passage is persuasive, and pin-points the reward-theme of these verses. Yet he seems to take it for granted that the reward is salvation. ‘Paul keeps warning and assurance in tension,’ he says.[612] But what if assurance and warning are not in tension? If there is real assurance it is difficult to take warnings of loss of salvation seriously. If there is real warning of loss of salvation it is difficult to have any real assurance for the future. This is not tension but contradiction; the two negate each other. But Paul does not equate salvation and reward; he explicitly distinguishes them in the same epistle (3:15). I suggest it is worthwhile considering the two matters distinctly. A warning concerning the one need not be a warning concerning the other.

(iv) We must take seriously the severity of loss of reward as a terminal chastening of the recalcitrant Christian. The warnings of the New Testament show that there can be very great loss for the Christian at the judgement seat of Christ. Thus it is possible to be ashamed at the parousia (1 Jn2:28ff.), to lose honour. It seems to be possible for the Christian not to reign with Christ. Yet the combination in 1 Corinthians 3:15 (‘He shall suffer loss ... he shall be saved’) should warn us not to assume lightly that loss of reward is loss of salvation. Is there a ‘ruination’ at the judgement seat which is not a removal of what one had previously been granted?

(v) We should also take seriously the absence from the New Testament of any reference to reversal of justification–regeneration. If loss of salvation in the Arminian sense of the phrase were an authentic biblical concept then one ought to find somewhere a clear statement of reversal of justification or reversal of regeneration. Yet it seems that this concept is absent from the New Testament and indeed is specifically denied.

(vi) The concept of ‘tasting Gehenna’ needs to be pondered. There are clear statements in the New Testament that warn the Christian away from Gehenna. Is it possible—I ask—that ‘Gehenna’ and similar phraseology do not always refer to what in traditional thinking is called eternal punishment? However difficult the concept may be, it seems that the New Testament teaches a very severe doctrine of eternal punishment—whether it be interpreted in Augustine’s idea as eternal suffering going on for the lost or the ‘Arnobian’ understanding of ‘not … sudden annihilation, but a destruction which comes by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment’.[613] The temporary fire of 1 Corinthians 3:15 is a theme that ought to be considered more thoroughly than has traditionally been the case. In New Testament times ‘Gehenna’ could have ‘purgatorial’ overtones.[614] I realize that 1 Corinthians 3:15 is the verse that has been cited more than any other in support of the idea of purgatory. There are major differences between what I have in mind and the Roman Catholic concept.[615] The bath water (purgatory) can be thrown out; but the baby (1 Cor.3:15) must be held tight.

591 N.M.Watson (‘Justified by Faith: Judged By Works—An Antinomy?’, NTS, 29, 1983, pp.209–221) thinks warnings are addressed to ‘Christians whose faith has degenerated to a false security ... Christians in their unbelief’ (p.220). But this is problematic. Watson does not face the question of how one knows one is not a Christian whose faith has degenerated. How can one—without self-righteousness—take the passages of assurance to oneself and feel that the warnings do not apply? Should one ever feel that the warnings do not apply? Does it help to think that two categories of Christian are in view? It seems preferable to argue that two closely related but not identical eschatological realities are in view: salvation and reward. The Christian responds to the comfort of one and the warning of the other. This is surely better than being faced with the problem of deciding which type of Christian one is, one who needs comforting or one whose ‘faith has degenerated’.

592 Sometimes final ‘salvation’ and reward are identical (e.g. Heb.1:14 and Matt.19/Mk10). The theme of inheriting (Mk10:17), which is identical with reward, is explicit (note v.2l ‘treasure in heaven’; v.30) about receiving in the present age houses and brothers, and so on; and the parallel in Matt.19:27 (‘what will there be for us?’) is similar. Yet the word ‘saved’ is used (Matt.19:25). See further M.A.Eaton, Jesus God’s Last Word: Preaching Through Hebrews 1:1 – 2:4 (Frontier, Mumbai, 2002), pp.75–79, where the material in Matthew, Romans and Hebrews is surveyed.

593 Commentators on Romans who take approximately the line of approach I am about to present here include Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians (Oliver and Boyd, 1961); C.E.B.Cranfield, Romans (Clark, 1975, 1979); R.Haldane, Romans; W.Hendriksen, Romans (Banner of Truth, 1980,1981); F.E.Hamilton, Epistle to the Romans (Baker, 1958); C.Hodge, Romans (Banner of Truth, 1972); H.P.Liddon, Romans (Longmans and Green, 1893); D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans (Banner, 1970–75,1985,1989); D.Moo, Romans (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1996); L.Morris, Romans (Eerdmans, 1988); R.H.Mounce, Romans (NAC; Broadman, 1995); J.Murray, Romans, 2 vols (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1965); H.N.Ridderbos, Aan De Romeinen (Kok, 1977); W.G.T.Shedd, Romans (1879); D.N.Steele & C.T.Curtis, Romans: An Interpretive Outline (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963); J.Stott, Romans (IVP, 1994); T.R.Schreiner, Romans (Baker, 1998); see also M.A.Eaton, Everlasting Assurance [Romans 8] (Pietermaritzburg, Africa School of Leadership, 2010).

594 See Moo, Romans, pp.568–569. The ‘Arminian’ interpreters are lamentably weak here. Writers like I.H.Marshall (see Kept By the Power of God, p.102) pay little attention to the details of Paul’s argument.

595 For the analysis of this passage as answering four underlying problems, see D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Perseverance, pp.370f.

596 Commentaries on John’s Gospel which take approximately the same line of approach as my own include Calvin, John, 1–10 (Eerdmans, 1961); John, 11–21 and 1 John (Eerdmans, 1961); D.A.Carson, John (IVP, Eerdmans, 1991); W.Hendriksen, John (Banner of Truth, 1964); G.Hutcheson, John (repr. from 1841, Banner of Truth, 1972); L.Morris, John (Eerdmans, revised 1995); A.W.Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, (3 vols, Zondervan, 1956); H.N.Ridderbos, John (Eerdmans, 1997); J.C.Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John (3 vols, Hunt, 1865).

597 G.R.Osborne, ‘Soteriology in the Gospel of John’, in C.H.Pinnock (ed), The Grace of God, The Will of Man (Zondervan, 1989), p.250.

598 See Carson, John, pp.510–519. Carson dismisses Calvinist writers who wish to translate airō in v.2 by ‘lifts up’ rather than ‘cut off’, an interpretation apparently pioneered by A.W.Pink.

599 E.A.Blum, ‘John’, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary (ed J.F.Walwoord & R.B.Zuck, Victor, 1984), pp.325f.

600 Carson, John, p.563.

601 Bangs, Arminius, pp.216–219,313,347f.

602 See Shank, Life, pp.109f.,127,171,239,335,359; Marshall, Kept, pp.103f.; G.Duty, If Ye Continue, 1966, pp.98f.

603 Rom.11:26 refers to the bulk of the nation of Israel at a certain point in the history of salvation. See Murray, Romans, 2, pp.96–100; Morris, Romans, p.341; and others. For another approach, see W.Hendriksen, Romans 9–16, pp.379–382. Those Calvinist writers who do not see the communal aspect of Paul’s argument have more difficulty with this passage. W.Hendriksen’s comments are weak (p.376). Hodge is in a stronger position when he says, ‘Paul is not speaking of the connection of individual believers ... but of the relation of communities to the church’ (Romans, p.370).

604 See T.H.L.Parker, John Calvin (Lion, 1975), p.181.

605 A.Dallimore, George Whitefield, vol.2 (Banner of Truth, 1980), ch.16.

606 See R.H.Bainton, Here I Stand (orig. Abingdon, 1950; 1978 repr.), pp.248–251.

607 See J.Calvin, Letters (Banner of Truth, 1980), p.71.

608 A Primer on Justification (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983), p.16.

609 See M.U.Edwards’s chapter ‘Against the Antinomians’ in Luther and the False Brethren, pp.156–179.

610 On the other hand it is pleasant to record Charles Spurgeon’s loving gentleness towards those with whom he had a disagreement over the Mosaic law. He disapproved of the treatment that the Puritan John Flavel accorded to Crisp’s writings. ‘Antinomianism was the term applied to the teaching of Dr. Tobias Crisp ... He was a man of strong faith, ardent zeal, holy life, and great devotion and faithfulness in his ministerial work. He was called an Antinomian but the term was misapplied’ (see C.H.Spurgeon, ‘The Down Grade’, Sword and Trowel, March 1887, pp.123f.).

611 Wilson, 1 Corinthians, p.138. (The words are a citation from Matthew Henry.)

612 G.Fee, 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1987), pp.433–441, esp.p.440.

613 Arnobius, Adversus Gentes 2:61.

614 Joachim Jeremias says, ‘It is significant that the oldest Rabbinic reference to Gehenna … tells us that the disciples of Shammai, as distinct from those of Hillel, ascribe to Gehenna a purgatorial as well as a penal character …’ Jeremias mentions in this connection ‘such passages as Mk9:49; 1 Cor.3:13–15; cf. 2 Pet.3:10’ (see [geena] in TDNT, vol.1 (Eerdmans, 1964), pp.657–658). The idea that the sufferings of some in Gehenna would be terminated by annihilation, or that the fires of Gehenna were in some cases purgatorial, is found in various Jewish writings close to the New Testament period; that gehenna can be used in this way is certain (see Rosh Hashanah 16b–17a; Baba Mezi׳a 58b; Mishnah Eduyoth 2.10). So a warning about gehenna can be a warning against being ‘saved through fire’. That this is happening in Mark 9 is implied by the fact that disciples are being threatened with God’s anger. It is parallel to Ephesians 5 and the places where Christians are warned of fiery judgement, without threatening their ultimate salvation. The picture of 1 Cor.3:15 could well have used the word ‘Gehenna’ as a synonym of ‘fire’.

615 For a recent statement, see R.Ombres, Theology of Purgatory (Dublin: Mercier, 1978). The differences between the fire of 1 Cor.3:15 and the traditional doctrine of purgatory seem to revolve around the following points: (i) its correlation or non-correlation with justification by faith only, (ii) lack of speculation concerning the time involved, (iii) no statement that it is necessary or that the majority of Christians will be ‘saved through fire’. When speculative and legalistic interpretations have been ruled out, 1 Cor.3:15 and Heb.10:29 remain.

19

‘FALLING AWAY’ IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Amongst all the warnings of the New Testament, two in Hebrews have been much quoted as supporting a doctrine of apostasy, and consequent loss of salvation. Among those who write controversially on the subject Hebrews 6:1–8 and 10:26–31 are often cited as the clearest passages of Scripture asserting the possibility of apostasy. Yet one has the impression that these passages actually present a problem to Calvinist and Arminian alike. The Calvinist dislikes the notion of ‘falling away’ but the Arminian dislikes the thought of restoration being impossible.[616]

Some interpretations of Hebrews 6:4–6

There are at least sixteen basic ways of interpreting Hebrews 6:4–6.

(i) The dominant view in modern scholarly writings sees here a reference to apostasy for which there is no forgiveness.[617]

(ii) Tertullian and others have thought the passage teaches that certain serious sins, notably adultery, are beyond forgiveness.[618]

(iii) The Shepherd of Hermas teaches that remission of serious sins may be allowed at baptism–conversion, and once more after that, but not a third time.[619] Presumably Hermas’s view rests upon Hebrews 6:6 which warns that it is impossible to renew again (palin anakainizein) the one guilty of ‘falling aside’ (parapiptōn). Although Hermas cited visionary experience he seems also to have deduced from 6:6 that one could be renewed once. This view was apparently accepted teaching in Alexandria at the beginning of the third century. After the Decian persecution both the rigorist view of Tertullian and the semi-rigorist view of Hermas lapsed altogether until modern times.[620]

(iv) Following the Decian persecution Hebrews 6:4–6 was taken to refer to the impossibility of a second baptism.[621] This remained a common view and was maintained in the middle ages.[622]

(v) Calvinists have generally understood the writer to be referring to a pseudo-christian, or (to use the language of the seventeenth century) a ‘false professor’. This view was given its classical and richest exposition by John Owen.[623] According to this line of thought the ‘enlightenment’ of 6:4–6 falls short of true Christian conversion. All who are regenerate are enlightened, but not all who are enlightened are regenerate. Enlightenment is something which happens once and for all in such a way that it is of necessity incapable of repetition, yet it does not amount to conversion. Within the visible church, the argument runs, it is impossible in the early stages to distinguish between wheat and tares. (Actually the field in Matt.13 ‘is the world’—v.38.) Such enlightenment brings salvation and life within one’s grasp, making it possible to share within the visible church in all the blessings of the gospel. Yet such a person is still not regenerate, still not a true Christian. For A.C.Custance the experience of the pseudo-christian of Hebrews 6 is ‘more like wishful thinking than firm conviction’.[624] The high Calvinist John Brine speaks in language characteristic of this style of thinking when he writes ‘On the great difference between real conversion and the mere semblance of it’. In Brine’s thinking a person may be convicted by the law, accept the doctrines of the gospel, see the guilt of their sin, take pleasure in the gospel, be conscientious and sincere, be sorry for sin, and yet not be a Christian.[625]

(vi) A variant of the previous approach is to suggest that the condition of the apostates is expressed in terms of what they claimed. The writer supposedly takes this at face value as a ‘judgement of charity’. R.Nicole thinks William Gouge adopted this approach.[626] (In my opinion Gouge ought to be classed rather with the previous option and resembles Owen in his exposition.[627] Yet such an approach is a possible one.)

(vii) A proposal rather similar to the previous two but without its introspective note is found in writers who stress the Jewishness of the readers and the fact that Hebrews relates to a period of transition from old covenant to new covenant. F.C.Synge maintains that ‘the people addressed are not Christians … they have not made the leap of faith and the abandonment of Jewry which are necessary in order to join their ranks ... They are Jews, attracted by the Gospel, but unable to make up their minds. They have, as adherents of the congregation, experienced the gifts and powers of the age to come.’[628] Similarly J.F.Strombeck takes the admonitory passages of Hebrews to be directed against ‘the unsaved within the churches’. These are ‘early groups of Jewish Christians trusting in the sufficiency of ceremonial worship and the kingdom teachings, but without a personal faith in the Saviour indispensable to salvation’.[629] This view is held with minor variations by K.S.Wuest[630] and N.Weeks.[631]

(viii) Another approach suggests that the sin described in Hebrews 6 is committed only where there is active hostility to Christ, persisted in for a long time. On this view the key factor is deliberateness. Thus W.L.Lane identifies ‘a deliberate, planned, intelligent decision to renounce publicly association with Jesus Christ’.[632] For R.Jewett, the sin is a matter of ‘rejecting relationship’ with Jesus.[633] B.F.Westcott speaks of ‘active, continuous hostility to Christ’.[634] This approach apparently seeks to avoid the introspective element in the classical Calvinist view. W.H.Thomas writes along these lines: ‘It is no ordinary or general fall, but a deliberate apostasy.’ ‘Active hostility to Christ ever persisted in cannot be a matter of restoration.’[635] Those who are not ‘actively hostile’ to Christ need have no fear.

(ix) Others believe the case is hypothetical. Although it refers to apostasy the writer does not envisage that such apostasy will actually take place. The warning itself is a means of securing that the sin will not be committed. W.Manson thus thought ‘the catastrophe predicted ... was hypothetical rather than real’.[636] T.Hewitt favours this view,[637] and A.Mugridge, who writes, ‘There seems to be no reason to deny that these five phrases describe Christians’, continues, ‘... we must assume that they fit the description up until the last item and that he is describing what would be the result for them if they were also to fit the last item.’[638]

(x) A number of interpreters relieve the severity of the warning by emphasizing particular words or aspects of the passage. Some have adopted a weaker interpretation of adunatos, taking it to mean ‘very difficult’ or ‘impossible for men and women but not impossible for God’.[639]

(xi) Others emphasize that it is not salvation but initial repentance that cannot be the subject of renewal. Solani understands that ‘the experience of metanoia is so unique that it can scarcely be re-created within the individual’; ‘an apostate cannot experience a new metanoia because he rejects the very source of repentance’.[640] Sometimes this view is held by those who do not believe in the possibility of loss of salvation. L.Morris thinks that ‘nothing in this passage says that genuine Christians may fall away’ (i.e. fall from salvation) and that ‘it is the impossibility of repentance of which he writes, not that of forgiveness’.[641] This point is stressed by J.Hering: ‘It is ... the impossibility of repenting which is being affirmed, and it is not a question of knowing whether fresh forgiveness can be obtained if one does repent … the many discussions about the possibility of renewed forgiveness are quite irrelevant to the question which is raised and resolved in this passage.’[642]

(xii) Since evangelical Arminians dislike the idea that restoration should be impossible, just as Calvinists dislike the idea that apostasy is possible, a common Arminian interpretation is to follow the English RV and RSV in reading the participle arastaurountas as a time-clause, ‘while they crucify’ (Heb.6:6).[643] This overlooks the importance in Hebrews of the idea of an ‘oath’, after which God will not ‘change his mind’. After this sin there is no renewal ever.

(xiii) V.D.Verbrugge suggested a new interpretation in emphasizing the communal aspects of the sin envisaged in Hebrews 6:4–6. The passage then resembles Revelation 2:5 in implying that a church or community may lose the effectiveness of its testimony.[644] This view is refuted, in my opinion, by the fact that Hebrews 3:12 refers to the evil heart of unbelief ‘in anyone of you’ (en tini humōn). The thought of the individual falling cannot be dismissed. Individual language is also used in 12:16 which is clearly parallel to 6:4–6.

(xiv) Some suggest that only temporal judgements are in view. Just as the Israelites in the wilderness died without reaching Canaan, and just as the wilful sin of Ananias and Sapphira resulted in their death, so there is a ‘sin unto death’ into which the Christian may fall. In such a case death follows but loss of salvation is not involved. G.H.Lang held such a view,[645] as does Z.Hodges[646] and M.De Haan.[647]

(xv) An approach which is difficult to understand and difficult to apply pastorally is found among those who see in Hebrews 6 an antinomy or dialectic. Scholars who adopt such an approach see here a reference to apostasy but maintain that it is ‘one side of the coin’ or is ‘only’ pastoral in intention and should not be taken as serious teaching. Thus J.K.Solani can write, ‘The author here was writing as a pastor of souls ... He did not intend to raise the dogmatic question.’ Evaluation of Hebrews 6 and 10 ‘must be made in keeping with the paraenetic genre in which it is expressed’. Following this line he concludes that ‘it is not necessary or even possible, for theologians to “harmonize” the doctrine of Hebrews with the penitential discipline of the Church of a century after its composition’.[648] Similarly D.A.Hagner writes, ‘Can Christians, then, fall away and lose their salvation? The answer again consists of a yes and a no … Christians can apostatise ... Yet, paradoxically, if they become true apostates, they show that they were not authentic Christians.’[649] He thus comes in the category of those who see antinomy here. Yet his view could also be categorized in the fifth of the groups listed above. R.Brown seems to follow such a line when he expounds this section as a ‘partial truth’.[650] For A.Murray, whose position is similar, ‘every truth has two sides’.[651]

Mention might be made at this point of those writers whose position is difficult to detect since they do not precisely state any at all.[652] Perhaps they too see antinomy here. Since this approach is widespread and is sometimes thought to be rather wise and discerning it may be worthy of further comment. Often in one’s understanding of Scripture one has to hold together ideas that are equally taught but seem impossible to reconcile. The reality of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is a well-known example. The ‘mystery’ of holding two incompatibles together is often stressed. Yet it must be said that some antinomies can be lived with and others cannot. It is quite possible to worship Jesus as God and yet know his great sympathy as a fellow human being, without having to resolve the enigma of Jesus’ being God as though he were not man, and man as though he were not God. This is a ‘mystery’ that can be lived with. I doubt however whether it is possible to practically hold the view that it both is and is not possible for the Christian to lose salvation. In practice the fear that it is possible will override the conviction that it is not. For those who have a low view of Scripture the ‘antinomy’ approach to Hebrews 6 and eternal security may be adequate. To those who wish to practise their faith, it is an impossible antinomy. If it is possible to lose one’s salvation, then that is the end of the matter. To believe at the same time that it is and that it is not possible to lose justification–regeneration is itself impossible! Anyone who tries it believes only one side of the antinomy and feels themselves able to lose salvation.

(xvi) I personally was taught and held for many years the fifth of the views mentioned above. But further thought on its practical consequences and the overall message of Hebrews have led me in a different direction. A sixteenth view—which I believe is basically correct—is held by a few who understand the ‘falling away’ of Hebrews 6 as referring not to apostasy but to a persistent rebelliousness comparable to the Israelites’ failure of faith in the wilderness. On such a view the ‘impossibility of restoration’ and the ‘fiery expectation of judgement’ refer to a serious chastening in which God does not permit perfection, usefulness is forfeited, and fearful chastening is experienced—but without loss of salvation. This approach is comparatively more infrequent. With minor variations it is found in works by M.R.De Haan,[653] R.G.Gromacki,[654] Z.Hodges,[655] R.T.Kendall,[656] G.H.Lang,[657] J.Vernon McGee[658] and H.A.G.Tait.[659] Some of these writers think that the judgement in view is only temporal, and thus also come in the thirteenth category above.

A holistic approach

While it is impossible to supply a thorough study of Hebrews in a few pages I propose to introduce my own view by presenting the theme of Hebrews holistically. Interpretations of the warning passages of Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7 – 4:13; 6:1–8; 10:26–31; 12:15–17,25) tend to coalesce. Most scholars (all that I know of) identify one main strand of warning as appearing intermittently throughout the letter so that interpretations of chapter 6 cohere with similar interpretations of the other passages. I do not know of any writer who takes chapter 6 in an Arminian fashion but interprets chapter 10 in a Calvinist fashion, or vice-versa.[660]

My only concern here is with the bearing of this passage on a non-legalistic theology in which the Christian is viewed as having an absolute assurance of salvation. The only ‘introductory’ question needing attention concerns the state of the readers.[661] I take it that they are Christians, but Christians in a sluggish and weary state, inclined to give way to the pressures they are experiencing. They are inclined to abandon not their initial-faith in Jesus but their bold profession of faith and their willingness to hold on to their confidence in the face of adversity. I take it that they are Jews, that they are suffering from the hostility of their compatriots, that they are tempted to dilute their Christianity in the interest of something more visibly Judaistic.

Inheritance in Hebrews

We may approach the matter first of all by considering the theme of inheritance in Hebrews—a topic that was omitted from the survey of inheritance in the pages above. According to Hebrews, Jesus, the God-man, became an heir because of his diligent obedience. When the author says (1:2) that Jesus was ‘appointed the heir’ he has the obedience of Jesus and the resurrection–ascension in mind. It was because of his obedient suffering (‘therefore’—cf.Phil.2:9) that Jesus was highly exalted. The same point is made in 1:3b–4. Having suffered, Jesus became greater than the angels. Before that time he was for a little while lower than the angels but because of the suffering of death was ‘crowned’ (2:9). Thus early in the epistle we learn that inheritance is reward.

In 1:14 we are introduced to the thought that we are to ‘inherit’ salvation. I take it that eschatological salvation is in view and that this includes reward. We have now touched upon this matter many times. I have already come to the conclusion that sometimes the language of salvation and the language of reward are kept distinct (1 Cor.3:15) but on occasion the word ‘salvation’ is used as the omnibus description of all that takes place in the eschaton. Jesus was helped by the angels to achieve his inheritance (if Lk.22:43 throws any light on Heb.1:14); the Christian is likewise helped by the angels to achieve the reward that accompanies final salvation. It must be remembered however that in the thought of Hebrews the Christian is ‘sanctified for ever’. No further help is needed to achieve that.[662]

Chapter 2 develops the theme. Humankind was designed for glory (2:5–8a) but was to achieve this through the work entrusted to it (2:7c–8a). As one looks at the human race it is apparent that it has not yet arrived at this glory (2:8b). Instead Jesus has followed the pathway that humankind should have followed; he has got to glory and honour. The only way humankind can fulfil its original destiny (mentioned in 2:5–8a) is through Jesus. He died for the human race so this way of getting to glory is ‘on offer’ for all. Hebrews 2:10 mentions ‘sons’ for the first time in this connection. Before one can attain eschatological honour one must become a ‘son’. In context, ‘getting many sons to glory’ must refer to reward. The glory that humankind was destined for but lost was a glory that would come through having served God. He was to put all things beneath his feet and by so doing attain to glory. Jesus was ‘crowned’ with glory because of his obedience. He is a sympathetic saviour who is able to bring his people after him along the route that he has already followed, and so bring them to get their ‘crown’ of glory.[663]

Hebrews 6:12 picks up the same point. God promises that those who keep an open ear to his voice (3:7), endure amidst trials (3:8) and get to know his ways (3:10) will attain an inheritance. The language of 6:12 implies that something is promised to the Christian beyond conversion-initiation, something analogous to Israel’s promised land, requiring diligent faith for its attainment. Hebrews 6:13–20 links the mention of inheritance in 6:12 with that of oath. There are two reasons for the inclusion of 6:13–20. (i) Jesus is the ‘seed’ that was promised to Abraham. Because he was the subject of the oath of Genesis 22 this part of the Christian’s encouragement is immutable. As the fulfilment of the oath to Abraham, Jesus is an ‘anchor’ that will not fail. He ‘ever’ lives (unlike the Aaronic priests who died), never sins (unlike the Levitical high priest who sinned) and cannot be the subject of any ‘change of mind’ upon the part of God (in distinction from the Levitical priesthood which was who the subject of a ‘change in the priesthood’, 7:12). (ii) A second reason for 6:13–20 is that it sets forth not only the immutability of Jesus’ priesthood but also the possibility of the same oath occurring in the life of the believer. Believers, who live on the oath to Abraham concerning his ‘seed’ (Jesus), are encouraged to seek an oath for themselves. The ‘heirs’ of 6:17 are Christians. The fact that ‘promise’, ‘heir’ and ‘oath’ occur in the same verse indicates that heirship, inheriting, promise-language and oath-language form part of one circle of ideas.

Hebrews 9:15 makes the point that because of (‘Therefore’) a radically effective atonement it is possible for the Mosaic set-up to be abolished and a radically new kind of covenant inaugurated. In the old arrangement obedience to a law-covenant could lead to Israel’s ‘living long in the land’. In the new covenant also there are promises of inheritance. Jesus administers it. He puts his will before us (we ‘hear his voice’—3:7); he looks to us to endure trials (3:8). As the believer responds Jesus ministers the promises of 8:10–12. The radically effective nature of his offering allows the Christian to pursue the inheritance without any distraction arising from guilt. This kind of covenant is virtually identical to the first-century ‘testament’ (but two other kinds of covenant have no resemblance to a testament), so the writer can briefly switch to a contemporary (i.e. first-century AD) use of the term diathēkē to illustrate his point (Heb.9:16–17).[664]

In Hebrews 11:7 the words kata pistin dikaiosunēs ... klēronomos are parallel to Titus 3:7. To translate as ‘heir of righteousness’ is misleading, although most translations use some such wording as this. The genitive is ‘immensely versatile’,[665] and the phrase surely means ‘an heir originating from righteousness by faith’. It is a genitive of origin or definition. The precise significance is rarely discussed. Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase (‘His act of faith drew a sharp line between the evil of the unbelieving world and the rightness of the believing world. As a result, Noah became intimate with God’[666]) is hard to discern in the Greek text but I like the idea that ‘inheritance’ includes intimacy with God. J.B.Phillips has: ‘This action of faith condemned the unbelief of the rest of the world, and won for Noah the righteousness before God which follows such a faith.’[667] This—like the common translations—gives the impression that being justified is by works, the very teaching Paul denounced.

The genitive is not an objective genitive (‘Noah’s work inherited justification’) which would be sheer heresy by New Testament standards. It is surely a genitive of source. ‘By means of’ would be a good way of translating it. If I were to suggest a revision of the New American Standard Version it might be: By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir by means of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Or if an ‘expanded paraphrase’ is allowed mine would go like this:

Noah, the man who had been saved by grace, persisted in faith. By his diligent and persistent faith, without seeing any evidence of what would happen, Noah simply took God at his word when he was warned about what was about to happen. As he was told to do, he prepared the ark to rescue his family—even if no one else would join them. He showed us that he had persistent faith whereas the world in its wickedness was obviously not even beginning to believe. So because of Noah’s persistent faith he became a man destined to inherit the rewards of God which come to those who are right with God and apply their faith as they hear the call of God.

Hebrews 12:17 provides an illustration of a Christian lacking interest in their ‘inheritance’. We shall return to it a few lines below.

In the light of the theme of inheritance that flows throughout Hebrews, how must the warnings of Hebrews be taken? What is the sin? What is the loss threatened? In the light of the inheritance-theme surely it is unlikely that the introspective approach is correct. The writer is not addressing ‘imitation Christians’ or merely ‘enlightened’ seekers. He is addressing those who are Christians, urging them not to throw away their confidence but to hold on in faith until they reach their reward. This is explicit in 10:35.

The warnings and inheritance

We shall consider the warnings in the light of the inheritance-theme which flows throughout the letter. In 2:3 the author urges that ‘we’—the Christians including himself—should not ‘neglect’ salvation. The verb is ameleō, which means not so much ‘reject’ as ‘neglect’, ‘show little concern’, ‘disregard’, ‘pay no attention’.[668] It suggests that the readers are Christians but are in danger of not making use of their salvation. They are in great danger if they do neglect salvation. He asks, ‘How shall we escape?’—although he does not at this point say what the penalty would be for such neglect.

The longest warning passage extends from 3:7 to 4:13. It is important to remember that when one reaches the warning of 6:3–6 a great deal has already been said in chapters 3 and 4. The sin referred to is that of the Israelites who were ‘redeemed by the blood of the lamb’ but did not press on to achieve what they were redeemed for. They did not heed God’s voice (3:7); they hardened their hearts (3:8), rebelled against God (3:8), did not learn anything from the ways of God which they observed (3:9). A crucial verse is 3:10, which refers back to the oath of Numbers 14:21–23. This is a vital point. I have already argued that the divine ‘oath’ is the point at which God ‘makes up his mind’ and marks decision that certain promises have been gained or lost. In Numbers 14 an oath is taken, following which the first generation of Israelites cannot enter Canaan, even though they try (14:39–45). They could not return to where they were before the event of 14:22. Nothing Moses said or did could renew their position so that they now could inherit Canaan. The precise nature of the loss is important; it did not involve a return to Egypt. This would have negated the event achieved by the blood of the Passover lamb. The loss consisted in God’s deciding that they should not inherit what they should have inherited, what they were redeemed for.

It is also important to note Numbers 14:20: ‘Then Yahweh said, “I have pardoned them, according to your word.” ’ The people under the oath of God’s wrath—people who could not enter Canaan the place of fulfilment—were forgiven people.

In a lengthy digression, Hebrews 5:12 – 6:12 contains the crucial warning of 6:3–6. The whole warning is really contained in 6:3. Verses 4–6 (beginning ‘For ... ’) only explain verse 3. Verse 3 is really quite clear. It implies that God may take a decision that means it is not possible for the Hebrew Christians to press on to perfection. The resemblance between 3:10 and Numbers 14 will be noticed. What then is the sin envisaged? Too much must not be read into the word parapiptō. It is unreasonable to translate it ‘commit apostasy’ as though some turning away from saving faith were envisaged. This is an interpretive and periphrastic translation which blocks the way for an English reader to see anything except apostasy here; it pre-empts any other possible interpretation in a way which is unfair to the English reader. There are clearly attested instances where the verb is used but where recovery is envisaged (although I do not suggest that recovery is envisaged in Hebrews 6).[669]

In the context of the argument of Hebrews, to ‘fall by the wayside’ (parapiptō) means to so persistently rebel (like the Israelites in the wilderness) that God takes an oath of wrath (cf.Heb.3:10) and no further progress in the Christian life is made (cf.Nu.14:39–45). It is likely that the implied subject of the verb ‘renew’ is the writer himself: ‘we have much to say ... Let us leave ... This we shall do if God permit ... For it is impossible [for me the writer] to renew again ... those who ... fall by the wayside.’

The writer is thinking of the Hebrew Christians’ achieving what they were redeemed for. He is thinking of works of diligent faith. Refusal to progress is likely to incur the displeasure of God and thus the experience of his oath. In such a case no further spiritual progress will be made. None of this asserts ‘falling away’ in the Arminian sense of the term, and the analogy of Numbers 14 to which the writer has referred is against the idea.

The illustration in Hebrews 6:7–8 shows that the writer is thinking about the fruitfulness that should come when rain (the continued ministry of Jesus) falls on ground (the Hebrews). It should produce fruit. What happens after the rain leads either to further blessing (the oath of God’s mercy, 6:15–18) or to a curse (the oath of God’s wrath, 3:10). Verses 9–12 are also important. The writer refers to God’s justice in blessing the readers’ works. The Puritan view of this passage surely receives refutation here. Is the writer saying: ‘go on in good works and then God will give you salvation’? No Puritan held such doctrine! Surely his line of thought is: ‘go on in works of faith and you will—in the justice of God—receive your reward.’[670] The themes here are works, diligent faith and reward. They contrast with lack of diligent faith, refusal to move on with God, the experience of the oath of God’s wrath—and no further progress in the Christian life. Significantly, verse 12 continues the theme when it speaks of persistent faith: they already have faith but will they persist in trying circumstances? And over against the loss of progress mentioned in verses 3–6 he speaks of ‘inheriting’ promises.

Our writer does not want his readers to think they have actually fallen in this way. If they had he would not be writing to them! ‘But even though we speak like this, beloved friends, we are persuaded of better things in your case—things that belong to salvation.’ The writer is quite certain they have not committed this sin, and he does not want them to think that they have fallen in this way. Discouragement never helps anyone! What makes him sure that they have not sinned in this way is their obvious spiritual sensitivity. He is sure they will be brought to final salvation. ‘Salvation’ here does not refer to initial-salvation but (as in 1:14) to final-salvation which is the same as final reward. There is no difference here between ‘having salvation’ (6:9) and ‘having … a reward’ (10:35) or ‘having’ heavenly treasure (Matt.19:21) or ‘having inheritance’ (Eph.5:5).

Hebrews 10:29–39 follows similar lines. The readers are Christians and their present salvation is not disputed. They have received the truth (10:29); they have been sanctified (10:29); they know God (10:30); they are his people (10:30). The danger threatening them is that they may not use the covenant-ministry of Jesus (10:29), not use the ministry of the Spirit working in their lives (10:29). Behaving thus, they are setting themselves up for a fiery judgement. This judgement has often been understood as hell, in the traditional sense. But we notice that the contrasting term the writer uses in verse 35 is reward. If they hold on they will be (not ‘saved’ but) ‘richly rewarded’. The clear implication is that the author’s theme is not salvation but reward.

By interpreting Hebrews l0 along these lines we disclose a striking similarity with 1 Corinthians 3. Both mention building on what one already has; both mention reward and loss of reward; both mention fiery judgement. That this does not involve loss of salvation is explicit in 1 Corinthians 3:15 but not so explicit in Hebrews 10. Yet in the light of statements that the sanctification that the believers possess is eternal (Heb.9:12), Hebrews 10 must be understood as exactly parallel to 1 Corinthians 3, especially verse 15.

Hebrews 12:17 provides an illustration of a Christian who lacks interest in the ‘inheritance’. By the Mosaic law (Deut.21:17) a firstborn son was lined up for a distinct inheritance. Yet it could be forfeited (cf.1 Chr.5:1,2; a pre-Mosaic case is Gen.49:3,4). Esau was an heir, due for inheritance, but explicitly said he was not interested in it (‘What profit shall the birthright do to me?’). This lack of interest was confirmed by a divine oath (Gen.25:31,33) which made the matter fixed. He found no place for a change of mind in his father (cf. ASV). G.H.Lang comments,

Of Esau himself the history gives, as a final picture, a man who has risen above his earlier hatred of his brother, welcomes him back with love, is ready to protect him and his substance (Genesis 32–33), and who at last joins him at the graveside of his father (Genesis 35:29). Thus he is the type of one of the family of God who lapses into carnality and bitterness, but years after is restored in soul, yet who nevertheless cannot regain the full position … He is the first that shall be last though still in the family.[671]

The last word of warning in the letter is Hebrews 12:25–29. It does not add to what we have already seen but again makes the point (as in 2:1–4) that judgement under the new covenant is more severe than judgement under the old covenant.

In all of this three points are worthy of note: (i) At no point does the writer query the conversion of his readers or of those who have left the fellowship. (ii) The sin in question is committed by a Christian who has hitherto had much personal experience of God. (iii) The writer does not suggest that the ‘eternal redemption’ received by these Christians or the ‘eternal sanctification’ conferred upon them has been in any way withdrawn. Since Jesus intercedes for his people and his priesthood has been the subject of an oath, it is of the very essence of the writer’s position that such saving mediation cannot be withdrawn.

What can be lost is the reward or loss for what is built—or fails to be built—on the mediation of Jesus. It is possible to be ‘redeemed by the blood of the lamb’ and yet not ‘inherit Canaan’. Yet the one who has forfeited Canaan does not therefore return to Egypt. Redemption by the blood of the lamb is secure. The people under the oath of God’s wrath could not enter the place of high reward, but they remained people redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Even in the wilderness the people of God were cared for and loved. The younger members of the nation were given Canaan forty years later—without persistent faith! Of the whole nation it is said their ‘clothing did not wear out’; ‘their foot did not swell these forty years’ (Deut.8:4). In an analogous manner it is still true for the Christian. Even in a ‘worst case scenario’ God’s people are secure. Even to rebellious Christians—who lose a lot!—Yahweh still says, ‘I have pardoned them, according to your word.’ But the word is not the word of Moses; it is the word of the greatest intercessor of all—our Lord Jesus Christ. It is this amazing grace of God that—once they see it—makes the Christian not want to lose anything!

616 R.Shank wrestles with this in a final chapter (‘Is Apostasy Without Remedy?’), Life, pp.309–329. His view is considered below.

617 E.g. G.W.Buchanan, To the Hebrews (Doubleday, 1972), p.108; E.Käsemann, The Wandering People of God (Augsburg, 1984), pp.136,189; J.Moffatt, Hebrews (Clark, 1924), pp.76–82; H.W.Montefiore, Hebrews (Black, 1964), p.109; A.Nairne, Hebrews (CUP, 1922), p.108; R.H.Smith, Hebrews (Augsburg, 1984), pp.80–82. B.Poschman thinks this view ‘very prevalent among Protestant theologians’ (Penance and Anointing for the Sick, Herder, 1964, p.7) but explicitly mentions only H.Windisch. K.E.Kirk thinks we have here a rigorism which gives no hope of restoration to the offender in case of severe sin (The Vision of God, Longmans & Green, 1932, p.160). See similar views in C.E.Carlston, ‘Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JBL, 78, 1959, esp.pp.300f.; A.Snell, New and Living Way (Faith, 1959), p.8; W.McCowan, ‘Unforgivable Sin’, Kardia: A Journal of Wesleyan Thought, 1, 1985, p.15; G.A.Turner, The New and Living Way (Bethany, 1975), pp.104–107. Also: F.Delitzsch, Hebrews, vol.1 (1871, repr. Klock & Klock, 1978), p.288. A similar view seems to have been held in the circle of the Shepherd of Hermas, although the Shepherd of Hermas itself dissents from it. See O.D.Watkins, A History of Penance (Longmans & Green, 1920), vol.1, p.16. Some emphasize that it is the writer’s eschatological outlook which leads him into such severity. There is no second conversion because the parousia is near. See H.Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief (Mohr, 1931), pp.53–54; O.Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Vandenhoek, 1966), p.424.

618 Tertullian, De Pudicitia, 20 (MPL, 2, p.1021). M.Goguel interpreted the passage similarly in L’Eglise Primitive (vol.3 of Jésus et Les Origines du Christianisme, Payot, 1947), p.519 (‘il n’y a pas de seconde répentance’). I have not had access to the fuller article by M.Goguel (‘La Doctrine de l’impossibilité de la seconde conversion dans l’Épître aux Hébreux et sa place dans l’évolution du Christianisme’, Annuaire de l'École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, 1931, pp.4–38, which presumably spells out this view in fuller detail). Novatianism (although apparently not Novatius himself) came to agree with Tertullian’s rigorist approach to capital sins. See Watkins, History, pp.213–214. See also Athanasius, Ad Serap.iv.3 (MPG, 26, pp.654f.), Jerome, Adv. Jovin. 2:3 (MPL, vol.23, pp.284f.).

619 See Watkins, History, p.48; Kirk, Vision, pp.165–171.

620 Watkins, History, p.220. It ought to be mentioned that this reading of Hermas has been disputed by Poschmann (Penance, pp.26–35).

621 See Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Heb.6:4, MPL, 63, col.79; Ambrose, De Poenitentia, bk.2, ch.2, MPL, 16, cols497–499.

622 See J.K.Solani, ‘The Problem of Metanoia in the Epistle to the Hebrews’ (DST Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1970), pp.3f.

623 See J.Owen, ‘Nature and Causes of Apostasy’, 1676, in The Works of John Owen, vol.7 (repr. Banner of Truth, 1965), pp.2–259; W.H.Davies, ‘The Puritan Doctrine of Apostasy’ (Increasing in the Knowledge of God, pp.40–46) is concerned with Owen’s view but others held a similar approach. See also W.Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (1655, repr. from 1860 ed, Kregel, 1980), pp.395–410.

624 A.C.Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed), 1979, p.217.

625 J.Brine, A Treatise on Various Subjects (James Paul, 1851), pp.62–80.

626 R.Nicole, ‘Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Doctrine of the Perseverance of God with the Saints’, in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed G.F.Hawthorne, Eerdmans, 1975), p.361.

627 See Gouge, Hebrews, pp.395–410.

628 F.C.Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (SPCK, 1959), pp.49f..

629 J.F.Strombeck, Shall Never Perish (Van Kampen, 1952), p.136; the sense would have been clearer if Strombeck had placed the word ‘Christian’ in inverted commas.

630 K.S.Wuest, Hebrews in the Greek New Testament (Eerdmans, 1947), pp.113–119.

631 N.Weeks, ‘Admonition and Error in Hebrews’, WTJ, 39, 1976–77, pp.72–80.

632 W.L.Lane, Call to Commitment: Responding to the Message of Hebrews, 1984, p.94.

633 R.Jewett, Letter To Pilgrims (Pilgrim, 1981), p.103.

634 B.F.Westcott Hebrews (4th ed, Macmillan, 1928), p.153.

635 W.H.Thomas, Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1984), p.73.

636 W.Manson, Hebrews (Hodder, 1951), p.64.

637 T.Hewitt, Hebrews (Tyndale, 1960), p.111.

638 A.Mugridge, ‘Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, RTR, 46, 1987, pp.76f.

639 See C.Spicq, LÉpître aux Hébreux, vol.2 (Lecoffre, 1953), p.173; B.Poschmann, Paenitentia Secunda: Die Kirchliche Busse im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes (Hanstein, 1940), p.41; B.Poschmann, Penance, 1964, p.13.

640 Solani, ‘Metanoia’, pp.153,155.

641 L.Morris, Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1983), p.58.

642 J.Hering, Hebrews (Epworth, 1970), p.46.

643 RV, RSV Heb.6:6; Shanks, Life, ch.19; E.M.B.Green, The Meaning of Salvation (Hodder, 1965), p.233.

644 V.D.Verbrugge, ‘Towards a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6’, CTJ, 15, 1980, pp.61–73.

645 G.H.Lang, Hebrews (Paternoster, 1951), p.196.

646 Z.Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Redencion Viva, 2nd ed, 1981), p.33.

647 M.De Haan, Hebrews (Zondervan, 1958), pp.99,117.

648 J.K.Solani, ‘Metanoia’, pp.7,153,160.

649 D.A.Hagner, Hebrews (Harper, 1983), p.73.

650 R.Brown, Christ Above All (IVP, 1982), p.115.

651 A.Murray, The Holiest of All (Nisbet, 1895), p.208.

652 E.g. W.Barclay, Hebrews (Westminster, 1976), pp.57–59.

653 Haan, Hebrews, passim.

654 R.G.Gromacki, Stand Bold in Grace: An Exposition of Hebrews (Baker, 1984), pp.107–112.

655 Z.Hodges, ‘Hebrews’, in BKC, NT (Victor, 1983), p.794.

656 R.T.Kendall, Once Saved Always Saved (Hodder & Stoughton, 1983), pp.131–134.

657 Lang, Hebrews, pp.93–110.

658 J.Vernon McGee, Hebrews (Pasadena: Thru the Bible, 1977), vol.1, 1977, pp.111–118.

659 H.A.G.Tait, ‘The Problem of Apostasy in Hebrews’, in Pulpit and People: Essays in Honour of William Still, ed Nigel M.de S.Cameron & Sinclair B.Ferguson (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986), pp.131–139.

660 C.E.Carlston rightly says, ‘These three central passages [Heb.6; 10; 12] must all be interpreted in the same way’ (‘Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JBL, 78, 1959, p.296.

661 See D.G.Peterson, ‘The Situation of the “Hebrews” (5:11–6:12)’, RTR, 35, 1976, pp.14–21.

662 See in detail M.A.Eaton, Jesus God’s Last Word: Preaching Through Hebrews 1:1 – 2:4 (Frontier, Mumbai, 2002).

663 I think it makes sense of Hebrews 2 to translate brachu ti ‘for a little while’. See AG, p.147. On the whole section see G.W.Grogan, ‘Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hebrews 2:5–18’, VE, 1969 ed, pp.54–71. See in detail M.A. Eaton, Jesus Cares: Preaching Through Hebrews 2:5 – 3:11 (Frontier, Mumbai, 2005).

664 See E.W.Smith, ‘Will (Testament)’, in ISBE, 4, p.1064.

665 C.F.D.Moule, Idiom-Book, p.37.

666 E.H.Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (NavPress, 2003).

667 J.B.Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English (Bles, 1962).

668 See AG, pp.44–45.

669 Even ekpiptō, a stronger word, need not refer to apostasy, as Rev.2:5 with its mention of repentance makes clear. Parapiptō is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It occurs in Ezk.14:13; 18:24; 20:27 (LXX) where it refers to serious sin which brings heavy chastening (the exile), which may cause physical death and which pollutes one’s relationship with God. In the LXX of Est.6:10 it means ‘neglect’ (cf. Heb.2:3). In the apocrypha it is used in Wisdom 6:9; 12:2; 2 Mace. 10:4. The word is found in Josephus Antiquities 19:285 and in various Greek papyri from NT times. In some instances it is quite clear that the word does not refer to irremediable apostasy. ‘Thou dost correct little those who fall by the wayside’ (Est.12:12). ‘They besought the Lord ... that if they fell by the wayside ... he would chasten them in mercy’ (2 Maccabees 10:4). 1 Clement 51:1 uses the term: ‘For such things in which we have fallen by the wayside … let us pray that forgiveness may be granted to us.’ These examples, which I have translated myself, make it clear that apostasy without remedy is not in the word itself.

670 I no longer emphasize the words ‘accompany salvation’ as I did in the first edition of this work. I was influenced by the English translations which translate ‘have’ more emphatically than they should.

671 Lang, Hebrews, p.253.

PART 6

CONCLUSION

20

PROSPECTS FOR A NON-LEGALISTIC THEOLOGY

We are now in a position to review the position we have reached and to draw some conclusions.

A law-centred soteriology

I have drawn attention to a theological problem, the place of law in soteriology, especially in relation to assurance of salvation. The church has repeatedly fallen into a law-centred doctrine of salvation. Since the days of Aquinas this tendency has intensified, with the result that the Christian church has been under the influence of a detailed law-code consisting of moral principles extrapolated and extended from the decalogue. Although such a law-code is indirectly fulfilled, to live under it directly is not the biblical way of salvation.

While the Reformation saw a renewed emphasis on grace, the place of the decalogue and the Mosaic covenant was not drastically reconsidered. Although Luther rejected the law as a means of salvation he still maintained it was needful in convicting of sin. Calvin went further and held the law was ‘chiefly for the righteous man’ as a guide to his life. Among all the magisterial reformers the Mosaic covenant tended to be part and parcel of the state-church system that was characteristic of the ‘christendom’ from the time of Constantine onwards. In post-Reformation Protestantism this law-centredness developed further still and a heavy emphasis on ‘the law’ came into being. Although this ‘law’ sometimes included ingredients from the whole Torah, yet in popular evangelism and Christian counselling it took the form of a heightened and spiritualized version of the decalogue. As a result the heirs of the Reformation frequently became extremely introspective. Other elements, such as an ultra-logical doctrine of limited atonement, and an interpretation of Hebrews 6, intensified the introspective theology of the heirs of the Reformation.

The eighteenth century saw the rise of Wesleyan Arminianism, building on the Arminianism of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The Arminians broke away from Calvinistic introspection but only at the cost of a heavy emphasis on ‘free-will’ and at the same time retaining the same view of the law as had been held by the Puritans. Consequently twentieth-century evangelicals have inherited a theology which remains heavily indebted to the excessively legalistic emphasis of the two major soteriologies of their forefathers.

A biblical doctrine of salvation

I have made a selective and preliminary attempt to set forth what would be the main planks of a revised soteriology to replace the introspective ones. Removing the law from its intimidating position creates an opening for some theological themes which are much more encouraging and inspiring than the traditional approaches. We have identified some richly encouraging aspects of biblical soteriology: the faith of Christ, fearless vulnerability (while pleading ‘Not guilty’ to the charge of antinomianism), a doctrine of justification that is more reassuring than its predecessors. Yet it would be natural to ask whether along with the threats of the law we may have removed every kind of sanction from the Christian life. Is there in fact any equivalent motivating factor in the revised theology outlined here? Could any similar emphases operate once the Torah has been removed from its rather central position in evangelicalism, including the demand for conviction by the Mosaic law before conversion?

We have seen that in fact motivation is not absent from such a revised theology; the theme of inheritance to be sought and achieved is a strongly motivating factor in the Christian life, although it does not at all threaten the Christian’s salvation or security. In this connection we have seen how the warnings of Scripture have a place in the Christian’s thinking about their position before God. Although these warnings are severe and sobering, yet we have seen that they need not give rise to introspective questionings, for none of them takes the form that has been generally assumed in evangelical theology. They do not demand that Christians should constantly scrutinize their conversion or doubt their past experience with God. Nor do they give rise to the terrifying possibility of a totally lost salvation.

In fact, there is a biblically rooted theology which is free both from the legalism of ‘Arminianism’ (the phenomenon is wider than the use of the name) and the introspection of the Calvinism that has prevailed between the seventeenth and twenty-first centuries.

The whole of Scripture needs to be reconsidered in the light of this approach. This study has concentrated only on certain limited areas and the picture has been painted with a large brush. The ultimate question is: what must I believe and what must I preach? There are many aspects of the matter that cry for attention and this study is, even in its second edition, severely restricted. I have written elsewhere expositions of Scripture which (simply because they are there!) often mention the themes of grace-covenants and warning and security in the Bible. In this report of some of my earlier studies I have again presented some wide-ranging sketches of a theology that does not tie together grace and law so tightly as to either terrify the sensitive or induce complacency. If it appears somewhat ‘dangerous’—is not grace itself ‘dangerous’? On the other hand, it holds out possibilities of motivation without discouragement. If law and grace are tied together, then ‘assured’ Christians—the Pharisees—may be sure of salvation but their obedience is too guaranteed to be worth worrying about. Alternatively they are unsure of salvation and work for God in order to feel that they possess it. Loosening this bond offers possibilities of a theology which is reassuring, and yet which presents a further challenge for the Christian: the challenge of obedience to the Spirit and entering into inheritance here and hereafter.

Some matters have been attended to elsewhere. It might be asked: what is the relationship between resurrection and reward? Are there variations in final glory which correlate with variations in the honour attending resurrection? What is the nature of the ‘fire’ referred to in 1 Corinthians 3:15? What are the implications of the Christian’s experiencing a ‘fire’ which is not destructive of salvation? What is the significance of the passages where Gehenna is held out as a possibility for the Christian? Is there a temporary Gehenna? What does it mean to be ‘hurt’ by the second death? What does Ephesians 5 imply when it speaks of Christians sharing in a revelation of wrath which was not designed for them? What is the nature of the Christian’s inheritance? Is it honour? Further service of God? Companionship with Jesus? What else may be involved? I have written about such things—but not here!

The Christian life

The interpretation outlined here presents the Christian life as starting in a radical and gracious acceptance by God which has not the slightest connection with ‘works’. Jesus has lived for me; Jesus has died for me; all I need is Jesus. This leaves room for sudden conversion. Can anyone with any kind of faith in the New Testament believe anything else? One is staggered by the degree of acceptance and assurance that may come with no preparation for grace at all. No wonder Calvin wrote, ‘Away with all this talk about preparation’ (Inst.2:2:27). I believe the Christian is released totally and radically from condemnation and is placed in a kingdom of grace with day-by-day access to God through Jesus. I believe in a baptism with the Holy Spirit in which the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, ‘sealing’ all that the Christian objectively possesses in Christ. Such Christians have no doubts about resurrection to glory because they feel as if they are in glory already.

A debtor to mercy alone,

Of covenant mercy I sing;

Nor fear with Thy righteousness on,

My person and offering to bring.

The terrors of law and of God

With me can have nothing to do;

My Saviour’s obedience and blood

Hide all my transgressions from view.

Is this licentiousness? I would not be surprised if anyone thought so, because any gospel that is a gospel must be vulnerable to the charge of licentiousness. But no, it is not moral licentiousness; it is grace.

Yet warnings abound in the New Testament. In respect of inheritance, the Christian’s secure status functions as qualification to receive it. Heaven is secure but there is such a thing as being saved by fire. Is Arminianism the way of the New Testament or does it not cast a legalistic shadow over the gospel? Is scholastic Calvinism the answer or does that not also cast one into the depths of introspection? Surely the New Testament balance is one of absolute freedom, an assurance that one will ‘never thirst again’, a knowledge that ‘nothing in all creation is able to separate us from the love of God in Christ’. Yet from this basis of radical assurance spring profound challenges, the challenge to accept responsibility, the challenge to work out one’s salvation, the challenge to lay up treasure in heaven, the knowledge that there is something to be ‘laid hold of’, rewards to be won. Yet all along the way there is no need to fear that I am working for my eternal salvation.

What paradoxes! Amazing grace and profound challenge; incredible assurance yet awe-inspiring responsibility; freedom to be myself yet the knowledge that Jesus achieves all in me. Here is a theology that motivates but does not discourage—a theology of encouragement. But is not this the gospel? I believe it is.

CONTENTS

A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

THE QUEST FOR AN ENCOURAGING THEOLOGY

DEVELOPED CALVINISM

EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM

A CHALLENGE TO TRADITION

TOWARDS A DEEPER APPRECIATION OF GRACE

A FRESH APPROACH TO GRACE

OBJECTIVE AND UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW (THE ABRAHAM STORIES)

THE LAW OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW IN THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

THE FAITH OF CHRIST

JUSTIFICATION AS COVENANT-MEMBERSHIP?

JUSTIFICATION AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

JUSTIFICATION AND EXEGETICAL METHOD

SOME LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

JAMES, JOHN, MATTHEW—AND PAUL

MATTHEW’S GOSPEL AND THE MOSAIC LAW

JUSTIFICATION IN A NON-LEGALISTIC THEOLOGY

MOTIVATION: INHERITANCE AND ADMONITION

INHERITANCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

INHERITANCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

SECURITY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF WARNINGS

‘FALLING AWAY’ IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

CONCLUSION

PROSPECTS FOR A NON-LEGALISTIC THEOLOGY

Table of Contents

A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

The Quest for an Encouraging Theology

Developed Calvinism

Evangelical Arminianism

A Challenge to Tradition

TOWARDS A DEEPER APPRECIATION OF GRACE

A Fresh Approach to Grace

Objective and Universal Atonement

Freedom from the Law (The Abraham Stories)

The Law of the Mosaic Covenant

Freedom from the Law in the Epistle to the Galatians

The Faith of Christ

JUSTIFICATION AS COVENANT-MEMBERSHIP?

Justification and Covenant Theology

Justification and Exegetical Method

Some Lessons to be Learned

JAMES, JOHN, MATTHEW—AND PAUL

Matthew’s Gospel and the Mosaic Law

Justification in a Non-Legalistic Theology

MOTIVATION: INHERITANCE AND ADMONITION

Inheritance in the Old Testament

Inheritance in the New Testament

Security and the Interpretation of Warnings

‘Falling Away’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews

CONCLUSION

Prospects for a Non-Legalistic Theology