Now, of course, God does lay requirements upon man, and God does grant forgiveness of sins apart from works. But the Bible’s use of the terms “gospel” and “law,” particularly in Paul’s writings, where Protestant discussion on these subjects tends to centre around, is very different from these definitions.

Paul always uses nomos (“law”) to refer to Torah, whether in the sense of “the Mosaic covenant” (by far his most frequent usage) or in the more general sense of “the five books of Moses.” In the second sense, his focus is on Torah as Scripture, as e.g. the Genesis narratives concerning Abraham are referred to as nomos in Galatians 4.24 and, given the immediately following context, likely in Romans 3.31 as well.

Similarly – and not surprisingly, given the content of the books we call Gospels – the term “gospel” is a very concrete term with definite historical connections (after all, it means “good news“). While free forgiveness of sins has always been God’s way of dealing with sinners, the term “gospel” is tied to God’s concrete and dateable historical actions related to what some scholars call “the Christ event,” with Christ’s death and resurrection at the center (see e.g. 1 Cor 15.1-4).

I have become increasingly convinced of the importance of abandoning the abstract usage of these terms, not because the general theological point is wrong; it is not. God saved us, out of His own sovereign mercy, not because of works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3.5). But the problem with using the specific terms law and gospel in the way that we do means that inevitably those “synthetic” meanings get read into all the biblical texts where the terms appear. And that is not a good thing.

What follows is a lightly modified version of a private post I made on this subject. I have tried to clean up the style slightly, as well as eliminate points that were really germane only to a narrower discussion. To aid clarity, I have also added a couple of brief statements that distill thoughts I had made in the more extended discussion.  I trust making this public will prove somewhat helpful in terms of clarifying the importance of the fight for biblical language.

Nobody in my sphere denies that one’s acceptance with God is not dependent upon anything they do, but rather God’s love in Christ. Not only do we not deny it, I doubt that anyone of us are the slightest bit unclear on it either.

That is not at all the point of my tirades regarding the terminology of law and gospel. My point is that by using the terms “law” and “gospel” to give this assurance (and ubiquitously, as people prone to use the terms generally do), the possibility of reading the texts correctly is effectively destroyed. And that does far more harm than anyone can imagine.

Now, taking Galatians as a sort of example. If we go to what Paul is actually talking about, where will we derive application? Is it really such a big deal that we skip the circumcision issue and jump right to “the heart of the matter”?

It’s all well and good to say that we don’t face the circumcision issue in our churches. But just because we need to make an extra step in application doesn’t mean that understanding the text properly to begin with is unimportant. To the contrary, the applications that would be much closer to the heart of the issue are completely lost because certain preachers think that all those Pauline texts are harangues about law and gospel, defined in their traditional Protestant terms.

There are all sorts of issues much closer to the surface application than dealing with some supposed merit theology that dwells in every man’s Pelagian heart. Frankly, paedocommunion and “close communion” are a lot more relevant to Galatians than is merit theology. Does paedocommunion have to do with assurance? Absolutely, but it’s a lot more practical and on the ground than the gospel-law treatment ever makes possible.

The whole matter of Jew and Gentile, which Paul broadens out explicitly into barbarian, Scythian etc – these are the immediate implications of the gospel, and if the churches had been preaching what Paul actually says rather than hammering on a pet doctrine, racism could never have taken hold anywhere.

Then too the use of “gospel” and “law” with a different, extrabiblical meaning and then reading that meaning into Scripture not only buries the native and should-be obvious applications. People express concern about the fine distinctions which systematic theology makes. Some of those distinctions are valid. Fine. But I worry about the distinctions that Scripture itself makes, distinctions which become not merely unaccented but unallowable because systematic theology’s forcible takeover of the key terms cannot allow the texts like James to say what they actually do say. They do not allow the texts like Galatians 5.4 to say what they actually do say. They do not allow the texts like Galatians 6.7-9 to say what they actually do say. Ad infinitum.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are all sorts of implications that hardly anyone has even begun to think about. How does it affect the church that while the NT is all about Israel, it wouldn’t make a difference to most preaching if Jesus were born in Quebec?

I preach free grace clearly and quite consistently as well. I have no problem with that. But I will not bow to this confusion that has been wrought by distorting the biblical terminology. It has done more damage than we can possibly know.

Frankly, I increasingly think the ubiquitous law-gospel thing is a crutch. I wonder if where it’s preached most strongly is in fact where it least needs to be preached – where folks are much more prone to feel secure when they ought not, because they believe “the right thing” about justification.

In his new book Deep Exegesis, Peter Leithart warns about treating the actual words of Scripture as “husk” which we can safely discard as long as we have what’s really important, the “meaning.” (And all too often, “meaning” is boiled down even further, so that it is not even merely a summary of the text, but a systematic statement of the supposed “doctrine” we are to take from the text.)

If we actually understand the text, we can revisit in every generation and every situation and come back with a fitting application. But if we boil all the meat off and say it’s all about free grace in the abstract, we will lose any particular witness (or at least, the most biblically-relevant) on the ground to what the gospel is about.

The battles in the early church over the law were not about theological theorems. Every last one of them were battles over practical issues of
fellowship and exclusion, and if we learned those lessons, church life would be much different than it is in conservative Reformed-dom. The exclusivism of conservative Reformed and Lutheran churches bears eloquent witness to the fact that their law-gospel construct is a monumental hindrance to actually living by the letters that Paul really wrote.

Yesterday, William Hill of the online Covenant Radio did an interview with Venema on the subject. The audio is available here.

In turn, I’ve written this response. Enjoy.

In our previous post, we examined the sundry texts from which Paul quotes in his great catena of quotations in Rom 3.10-18. But the thought unit is not yet complete; Paul makes his assessment of the implications in 3.19-20. This followup makes Paul’s intent clearer, although it is frequently misread (verse 19, in particular; I think this is likely also the case with verse 20, but my understanding of the verse is still being formed).

Gentiles Under the Law?

Verse 19 offers this perspective on the catena: “Now we know that whatever the law says, to those in the law it speaks, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become guilty/liable to God.”

Some misread this statement to mean that Paul thinks that “all the world” is “in the law.” This, however, is not possible. In 2.12, Paul contrasts those who sin “in the law” (identical terminology to 3.19) to those who sin anomos (“apart from the law;” on the analogy of “in the law,” the understanding is “outside the law”). The clear assumption on Paul’s part is that Torah is for Israel, not for Gentiles, who are outside the law’s polity.

When approaching 3.19, it must be recalled that Paul’s imaginary interlocutor is a Jew. The assumption common to Paul and his ostensible argument partner is that Gentiles on the whole are subject to judgment; he does not need the catena in order to demonstrate that. Rather, Paul’s concern has been to show (mostly from the Psalms) that there is no “king’s X” exempting Israel from judgment.

Liability to Judgment

This is crucial to Paul’s argument, because as we have seen, he has already demonstrated in 3.1-8 that Israel as a whole is guilty; but it has been his aim to show that this guilt is not simply to be overlooked. This is why the passages from which he quotes are so consonant with the sort of guilt he has established in the preceding passage: his kinsmen have sinned against God Himself by disbelieving His promises, rejecting His Messiah, and indeed, becoming guilty of His blood. And as it happens, the Psalms from which Paul quotes are all Davidic, and the wicked are defined over against him, just as the righteous are defined in relation to him. Thus we can infer a sort of “how much more” argument: If the wicked were those who opposed David – himself a sinner – and they were held responsible and judged on that account, how much more is it the case with those who oppose the Son of David, the promised Messiah Himself: they are liable for their guilt. (Actually, the “how much more” goes further, as we’ll see in considering v 20a.)

“Liable” is thus likely the sense of hupodikos here, although not a lot rests on that, as Paul’s point involves the guilt involved in the liability. While this is the only appearance in the Bible, BADG identifies liability or answerability as the normal meaning of the term, based on comparisons to Philo and Josephus – despite the fact that English translations of Romans 3.19 often render it “guilty.”

Paul’s Use of Psalm 143: Covenant Lawsuit

This brings us to verse 20, which at first glance appears to put things back into the framework of general lawbreaking: “Because from works of Torah no flesh shall be justified before Him, for through Torah is the knowledge of Sin.”

The first part of verse 20 is a modified allusion to Psalm 143.2 (142.2 LXX). Paul’s text reads, “from works of Torah no flesh shall be justified before Him.” In the LXX, the verse as a whole reads, “And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, because no one living shall be justified before You.” (The LXX sticks very close to the Hebrew in this case.) The latter part of this allusion is nearly identical, except that Paul has substituted “no one living” with “no flesh.” This fits, not only with Paul’s widespread use of flesh in Romans, but also with the connection he makes between flesh and death. Without contradicting the original intention of Psalm 143, Paul wants to say that in a real sense those who are in the flesh are not really living.

As for the rest of Paul’s statement, he has substituted the idea of Yahweh entering into judgment with humans with his own theme phrase “works of Torah.” (One question this raises is whether he is simply bringing Ps 143.2b into the context of his own discussion of works of Torah, or whether in fact works of Torah is in some sense intended to be epexegetical of Yahweh’s entering into judgment with men. We’ll leave this to one side, although it’s fascinating and bears further investigation.) Men will not be justified from works of Torah before Yahweh.

More on that in a moment, but first let’s backtrack.

Psalm 143, as it turns out, is yet another text which mentions (wait for it) the divine righteousness: “Hear my prayer, Yahweh, hearken to my supplications in Your steadfastness; answer in Your righteousness” (Ps 143.1; note also v 11: “For the sake of Your name, Yahweh, preserve me; in Your righteousness bring my soul out of distress”). By my count, that’s now six of eight Old Testament texts referenced in this chapter so far which deal with the righteousness of God in the context. Still think that Paul’s usage of the phrase is independent?

Amazingly enough, given how God’s righteousness is frequently spoken of, the pleas of Psalm 143.1 and 2 contrast two scenarios: one in which Yahweh answers according to His righteousness, and one in which He enters into judgment with His servant. And yet, in association with this latter case, David says that before Yahweh no one living is righteous.

What we find, then, is that the tendency to associate divine judgment with a perfect standard is not utterly wrong. David himself confesses that if Yahweh enters into judgment with anyone, that person is ruined, for before Yahweh, no one living is righteous.

But how can we fit these two sides of the story together?

Let’s start by recognizing what is widely overlooked regarding the nature of judgment in biblical terms. Note what “entering into judgment” entails. It does not simply mean that God is sitting as an impartial judge. To “enter into judgment” with someone means to take opposing sides in a case: prosecutor and accused.

Thus it is not at all inconsistent of David to appeal to Yahweh, “Judge me according to Your righteousness” – or even, “judge me according to my righteousness” (Ps 7.8) when he is seeking aid over against his enemies and his afflictions. Because David knows that Yahweh has covenanted Himself to His people, and He judges in their favour.

But it is an utterly different story if God makes a covenant lawsuit against His own people; then there is no longer a mediary to whom to appeal (cf 1 Sam 2.25). All disputes involve at least one unrighteous party; in any dispute between Yahweh and men, it is certain that no man living can possibly be righteous. (For a biblical instance of a “covenant lawsuit” between Yahweh and His people, see e.g. Micah 6.1-5.)

For whatever reason, then, Paul places “from works of Torah” in place of “entering into judgment.” Whatever that reason is, one thing is clear: the scenario which he is addressing has man in contention – legal dispute – with God Himself. And Paul says that if Yahweh has entered into dispute with men, being an observant Jew isn’t going to cut it.

This again comports well with our reading 3.1-8: Israel has quite literally entered into judgment with Yahweh by prosecuting the Messiah, who in fact is Himself Yahweh. Again, no amount of devotion to works of Torah is going to save them in such a contention.

The second part of 3.20, intended in some way to ground the statement of 3.20a (“for”), sounds somewhat like chapter 7, where Paul says that the law became an occasion of sin for the flesh – like the commandment itself became a temptation (“rules are made to be broken”).

The frequent understanding of the statement in 20b is that the law identifies sins – yet, even given the factors of chapter 7, it’s hard to think that understanding the argument in that fashion does not produce a non sequitur.

But there is a further problem: Paul does not say that through the law is the knowledge of sins (plural), but sin (singular). This is why I have capitalized Sin in my translation above. As we progress through Romans, we find that Sin is not simply an abstraction of individual misdeeds (although it certainly is reflected in such misdeeds); it is a power which rules over all men in Adam (e.g. 5.12), a power broken only by union with Christ who conquered it in His death (6.6ff).

“Knowledge” here probably doesn’t simply refer to an intellectual apprehension of something; Paul seems to be using the term in the more full-orbed biblical sense that entails experiencing something from the inside out. The fullest experience of Sin, the power, is discovered within the context of Torah. This is true, in part, because it specifies commandments and prohibitions, just as the tree was specifically prohibited to Adam. Thus one’s experience under the law involves awareness that is not the case outside of it.

However, there still seems to be more involved than that. Paul writes, not merely that Torah identifies sins, as we’ve mentioned; he says that “the law came in to increase the trespass, but where Sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (5.20). Sin comes to be “accounted” in the context of Torah (5.13), to the effect that Torah brings wrath, while where there is no Torah there is no transgression (4.15).

Verse 3.20b is likely a summary statement of what Paul says later, then. The statements of chapter 7 are certainly related to this, but if anything, this verse is closer to the more foundational thoughts in chapter 5, particularly 5.20: the law entered in order to increase the trespass.

Whatever else we may say regarding 3.20b (and 5.20 etc), one thing should be clear. Being under Torah – indeed, being devoted to Torah’s works – is not itself the deliverance of Israel. Rather, in some way Torah has provoked Israel’s rebellion to the degree that she has disbelieved and entered into judgment against her Messiah and her God – all in the name of the law itself. This reveals the extent of Israel’s trouble. She is under Sin, and under judgment; she has entered into a court dispute with Yahweh Himself, where no flesh will be justified.