Blogs

It took a while, but my big essay on Paul is finally available as an honest to goodness paperback. These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law is available at Create Space (sentence is a link). (In a few days, it should also be available from Amazon’s main store, but unless you have other stuff to put in your Amazon cart, please purchase from CreateSpace if you can – the commission structure is a lot more generous for me.)

For more info on this book, you can take a peek at its page at pactumbooks.com, my site for Pactum Reformanda Publishing (that I formed back in 2002 to publish Feed My Lambs). I’ll be revamping and updating the Pactum site over the next couple of days – presently, it doesn’t even have a link to the CreateSpace store page, which just went live. (Will correct that shortly.)

A lot of discussion in Pauline exegesis over the past couple of decades is whether this common phrase in Galatians (Greek: pistis Christou) is subjective (“faith of Christ”) or objective (“faith in Christ”).

“Faith of Christ” is the older translation found in e.g. the King James Version, although the translators probably were just being woodenly literal rather than making a judgment call. Most newer translations make the interpretation for us and just have it “faith in Christ.”

For reasons I won’t get into here, several years ago while studying Romans, I became quite convinced of the subjective genitive position. That is, what is in view in the phrase as such is the pistis (faith or faithfulness) of Christ Himself. This pistis of Christ in turn calls forth our responsive faith – hence the gospel is from faith (i.e. Christ’s) to faith (i.e. ours), according to a literal reading of Romans 1.17.

At any rate, while the exact pistis Christou phrase is not used in this instance, it occurs to me that a comparison of Gal 5.6 and 2.20 appears to lend further support to the subjective genitive. In 5.6, Paul says that what counts is not circumcision, but faith working through love, while in 2.20, he has written that the life he now lives in the flesh he lives by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. The proper understanding of Paul’s exhortations regarding faith and love in chapter 5 seems to have to do with entering into a participation in Christ. And so just as the faith of Christ worked itself out in the greatest embodiment of love – His self-giving unto death – so the believer’s faith is to be worked out through loving service to others (cf 5.13).

In mulling over the matter of how AD 70 relates to the final judgment, I think I would go so far as to suggest that Jerusalem was in some senses the capital of the old kosmos (usually translated “world” but often having a strong eschatological sense in Paul, approaching something like “this present age”), and that in certain definitive ways that world was brought to judgment in AD 70.

Remember that in Galatians, Paul speaks of Torah as one of the stoicheia (“elements”) of the kosmos, parallel to idolatry etc. Thus I don’t think it is a stretch to say that the judgment on Jerusalem signifies a wider judgment.

But it is utterly wrong to think that wider judgment was simply accomplished en toto in AD 70. To the contrary, what we learn from Galatians about the stoicheia points in a very different direction. Torah stands alongside idolatry and other “elements” of the world (see e.g. Gal 4.8-10).

And while it is true that AD 70 started a chain of events that abolished idolatry in a lot of places… it didn’t end it. It destroyed Jerusalem… but it didn’t destroy all the other kosmos-cities that resist the rule of the Son.

There was a definitive judgment on the stoicheia in AD 70. Well, there was a definitive judgment on the stoicheia at the cross and resurrection too… but the stoicheia of the old kosmos still remain. The new heavens and new earth which we may enjoy today (for those in Christ, there is a new creation, 2 Cor 5.17) is a tiny earnest/down payment, and is only enjoyed in the midst of the old heavens and old earth. (Cf Rom 8 in context: we’ve been redeemed, but we still await the redemption of the body.)

And therefore, to take AD 70 as the be-all and end-all is to miss the whole point. AD 70 is a real and truly significant event in salvation history. But it is a very small part for a much larger whole that even to this day has not come. The full coming of the new covenant is not completed until all the enemies have been put down – including the last enemy, Death (1 Cor 15.26).

AD 70 is a marker that points directly to the final judgment and consummation.

At long last, my extensive essay on Paul and the law, These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law, is available!

I was sort of commissioned to write this piece back in 2004, but the book in which it was to appear fell on hard times and was not published. I later had a contract with another publisher to have it released on its own, but it fell victim to cutbacks. Knowing that I do not have present resources to publish in paperback as I did with Feed My Lambs, I decided on my first ebook-only (PDF) release.

You can get more information and learn how to purchase by going to my Pactum Reformanda Publishing web site.

I have recently been engaging in a discussion regarding the importance of recovering the biblical meaning of terms like “law” and “gospel.” We Protestants have inherited a rather dominant tradition of using these terms in a rather abstract sense something along the lines of “law = any requirement God lays upon man.” “Gospel” has become virtually a technical term for forgiveness of sins apart from works. (Just as an aside: just as there is a typical Protestant use of these terms, there are also Roman Catholic uses that no doubt could be criticized. My aim here is not to say we Protestants are wrong, and Rome is right, after all; it is rather to engage in critique from within, so that we can correct things we ought to correct.)

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. (more…)

I have just posted “Sabbath and Sunday: A Brief Biblical-Theological Consideration” at my biblicalstudiescenter.org site.

The essay includes treatment of Paul’s comments about “days and months and seasons and years” in Gal 4.10, as well as discussion of “the Lord of the Sabbath” passage (Mk 2.23-28) and a variety of related material.

This has really been a paper that I probably should have worked on long ago, given how often the subject comes up and I get involved in protracted discussions, but anyway… judging from the sorts of issues that have come up in conversations/debates I’ve been involved in, I think I’ve covered the major bases necessary. See what you think….

Well, it’s been a long time coming, and with schedules in the publishing world, it could be well over another year yet, but….

Canon Press informed me today that they would like to publish my little book. The full title is These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law. It was originally intended as a chapter (an admittedly long one) in an Athanasius Press book which ultimately did not get published. I prepared it in 2004, although I did some minor touchups last year when I decided I needed to release it as a standalone book. Thus most of the work done on this is a few years old, and it’s relatively short (probably somewhere around 100 pages), but those who helped me vet the manuscript seemed to indicate that they found it a very helpful treatment of Paul’s view of the law. So although some time in the far distant future, I’d like to do a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, I’m very much looking forward to seeing this essay finally come to print.

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog June 16 2007]

I recall that when I first started writing sermons, I was given to lengthiness. I suppose I saw those sermons as short – my Dad used to preach anywhere from an hour (on the very short end) to 3-4 hours (!).

When I was pastoring in Montana, I was in a local church context where the people really weren’t accustomed to long sermons, and I suppose I was kind of already going in the direction of shorter ones, anyway. I suspect my average sermon clocked in somewhere around 22-25 minutes by the time I left.

I find I’m going back up a bit. I hope that doesn’t mean that I’m just becoming more wordy and difficult; the truth is that while I still retain a very high view of preaching, I now recognize that it does not carry the full weight of the liturgy. God speaks to His people throughout the service, and not just in the sermon.

Anyway, I’ve just completed my sermon draft for tomorrow. It’s up in the 3300 word range; most of my Montana sermon drafts were around 2300-2600. But I don’t feel bad…. I guess I feel safe, since I think my sermons are usually shorter than my fellow preachers in the rotation. :p

But the real issue is doing justice to the text. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by Galatians 3.6-9, since this is a chapter I’ve devoted extensive study to. I honestly didn’t really think it would be easy to come up with enough material for a sermon, but once again, I’ve not only come up with a rather long sermon, I haven’t managed to even go over every phrase directly.

So what’s so special about this passage?

At first, it looks fairly straightforward: Paul is telling the Galatians that justification is by faith; Abraham was justified by faith, as borne witness by Gen 15.6.

But a closer look uncovers rather a lot more. For starters, consider a couple of questions:

1. The immediate link in the text is between the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit and the counting of Abraham as righteous through faith. (This has led some people to pretty much equate the gift of the Spirit with justification.) What’s the nature of the link?

2. Genesis 15.6 occurs, not at the outset of Abraham’s walk with Yahweh, but several years in. But wait: Isn’t justification something that happens once, at the beginning?

(more…)

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog Nov 25 2006]

I’m working on finalizing tomorrow’s sermon on Gal 2.15-16. One of the things that I am arguing is that Paul is drawing upon an Isaianic context within which justification is seen as an eschatological event. This is based upon three Isaianic pillars: justification is in Yahweh (Is 45.25); the Servant will be justified (Is 50.8); and the Servant in turn will justify many (Is 53.11). Thus there is a justification that arises with the advent of the Servant.

Today, it occurs to me further that the biblical relationship between covenant and righteousness confirms this.

N. T. Wright has correctly identified Romans 4.11 as a gloss on Genesis 17.11. Whereas Genesis says that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, Paul says that God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision, epexegetically articulated as “a seal of the righteousness of the faith” Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Which all indicates that the justification-righteousness word complex – despite their disparity in English, these words are cognate in both Hebrew and Greek – is essentially covenantal in nature. (This, of course, is not to deny in any sense that justification is a forensic – legal, courtroom – term; it is only to clarify that the legal cast derives from the covenant. Hence the frequent observation by the commentators that the prophetic writings largely consist of “covenant lawsuits” by Yahweh over against His people, with the prophets acting in His stead somewhat along the lines of prosecuting attorneys.)

Now, the point with regard to the eschatological nature of justification is quite simple, and it assists us in seeing how it can be that there was both justification under the old covenant ; and yet, that the old covenant does not provide the justification which interests Paul. That Pauline justification draws upon the eschatology anticipated by the prophets, an eschatology which was inescapably concerned with the matter of justification.

On the one hand, the Servant in His individual manifestation (I qualify thus, because Isaiah shifts back and forth between individual and corporate senses) is only anticipated under the old covenant; thus the justification involving Him does not arrive until He arrives.

But then, also, the prophets identify the anticipated day as a new covenant (Jer 31.31-34). And if, as is suggested above, justification is covenantal, that would imply, quite by the nature of the case, that a new covenant would entail a new justification. (Indeed, Jer 31.34 itself speaks of a future forgiveness of sins in connection with the new covenant, even though there was clearly an individual forgiveness of sins already available at the time.)

When Paul says, therefore, that justification does not come through works of Torah (Gal 2.16), he is not merely saying that one cannot earn one’s own salvation by good works. That’s true enough; but it simply wasn’t an issue in context. Peter was neither thinking such nor implying such by his actions when he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles, which is the issue in context (Gal 2.12).

Withdrawing from table fellowship is not a matter of merit legalism; it is a covenantal matter. Otherwise, Paul himself would be a merit legalist when he tells the Corinthians not to have table fellowship with those who are called brothers but are impenitent fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners (1 Cor 5.11). The clear implication of that instruction is that those who practice such things are not covenantally faithful: they are unrighteous.

Thus, Peter’s fault is in no way oriented toward merit legalism; nor is it that he withdraws from table fellowship generally. Such withdrawal was mandated by Paul himself. The issue here is the covenantal basis of the withdrawal.

When Peter withdraws from table fellowship with believing Gentiles, he is identifying them as covenantally unrighteous. But of course, that judgment is not a valid judgment in terms of the new covenant, which has brought about a new justification apart from Torah; and in fact, Peter’s action places him – rather than the Gentiles whom he implicitly, even if unintentionally, judges – as condemned (Gal 2.11; the versions that render this “he was to be blamed” or “he was self-condemned” weaken the force of the original, which simply says that he was condemned). Christ has vindicated a community of Jew and Gentile, and by cutting himself off from that vindicated community, Peter was, in effect, cutting himself off from new covenant vindication itself. (My observation here is not intended to speak to Peter’s eternal standing – “If he died that day, he would have gone to hell!” I am simply pointing out the text’s own connections between condemnation in 2.12 and justification in 2.16, in terms of the argumentative context and biblical background.)

In sum, the expectation of what would happen to the Isaianic Servant (justification, which He in turn would share with others), as well as the expectation of a new covenant (and thus, a new justification), help us find our way in understanding the Pauline doctrine of justification. This doctrine does not countenance merit legalism, but neither is it raised within the context of that particular discussion. Rather, Paul is concerned to defend the definitive act which God has accomplished in vindicating His Servant, Jesus Christ, the Just One, and thus effecting an eschatological vindication for those in Him – a vindication of Jew and Gentile, and thus a vindication apart from Torah, which separated the two as a dividing wall.