Below is Steven Coxhead’s response to my critic of his 32 Theses, part one. I will be responding to this in the comments section. Enjoy!
“A Response to Dave Woolcott’s Critique of Steven Coxhead’s View of Justification: Part One
Dave Woolcott has recently posted on his blog a response to the 32 theses listed in my website article Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled. Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification, or on his blog in his post entitled A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”.Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstand my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.
Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.
It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.
Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?
The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.
But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.
Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.
I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.”
Related posts:
I want to thank Steven for being willing to discuss this topic. As we are not yet discussing the ‘guts’ of the issues I will respond very briefly to just a few things here in the comments section. I would invite others to do so too.
Steve said, “Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago”. I ‘was’, not ‘is’ a student of Steve’s. In 2003, to be precise, was the year that Steve lectured me on the topic he outlines. I guess I never cease to be a past student!
I appreciate that I probably have not fully understood Steve’s position. Hopefully this process will clarify things for me.
I said in my critique, “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.”
Steve then said, “I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate.”
I stated what I stated because I believed it to be accurate. In my year, I was confused, as was at least two other students. Because of my role in the Student Representative Counsel I fielded concerns and queries from a number of students over the following three years I was at college. I kept my finger on the pulse with some students I came in contact with after I left college. Steve is correct, some did want to know more. Some where also confused. I am sure that the reasons why some wanted to know more was varied. Usually when I am confused I seek to know more (like I am doing now).
I stand by my statement that “for a number of years students at PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching”, but I do not mean to suggest that all were confused, nor that an insignificant minority were confused. I did not conduct a poll so I cannot be more specific!
Finally, in regard to the distinction between an anthropological and covenantal use of the terms “faith” and “works”, I have investigated such ideas that Steve speaks about. I found them to be built on assumptions and “what ifs”. I am willing to give Steve a fair hearing. Perhaps he has something to bring to the table that I have not heard before. If so, then I am more than willing to consider it. It should probably be noted that my view was not what Steve would describe as anthropological. I am still unsure of what he means by covenantal so I cannot comment on that yet. I might also add that I am not overly preoccupied with the views of Luther, Calvin or the WCF. I am happy for Steve to refer to them, but I will not be defining my own understandings from their perspectives, but rather from scripture. There are several reasons for this, none of which are very exciting!
The following is the discussion Steve and I have been having at his blog http://berithroad.blogspot.com/2009/12/response-to-dave-woolcotts-critique-of.html#comments
Steven Coxhead said…
Just wondering what scholars Dave would classify as espousing a covenantal approach to Galatians and Romans, and perhaps Dave could explain his understanding of what Paul means by the terms faith and the works of the law.
December 28, 2009 9:59 PM
Dave said…
I guess you Steve, are a scholar espousing a covenantal approach to Galatians and Romans! Yes, I figure that you are a scholar!
I will come back with my understanding of faith and works shortly!
December 29, 2009 10:36 AM
Steven Coxhead said…
In my mind, a covenantal approach to Paul is different from a New Perspective approach. There aren’t many people out there that I know who advocate a covenantal or salvation-historical reading of Paul. Bill Dumbrell is one who does, and I’m interested in exploring further in that area. In my mind a covenantal approach views the works of the law as solely denoting covenantal obedience to the law of Moses. That is, the issue in Galatians and Romans is commitment to the Mosaic covenant versus commitment to the lordship of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the Christian gospel. To understand the works of the law as denoting obedience to law in general (whether divine or man-made rules) is not what Paul had in mind.
December 29, 2009 12:20 PM
Dave said…
Steve, you said, “In my mind a covenantal approach views the works of the law as solely denoting covenantal obedience to the law of Moses”.
I find it hard to see how that is the case. I cannot remember where yousaid it, but you mentioned that the “works of the law” in Romans referred to the Mosaic law? Anyway, I believe that to restrict the works of the law to only the Mosaic covenant is to restrict them too much. Obviously, in the case of Romans at least scholars have been divided over what the ‘law’ is.
I have my own theory. My exit thesis gives some details as to my view (it was on who the wretched man of Romans 7 is). To keep it brief, I guess I see some issues with your view that cause Paul’s letter to the Romans to become confusing and nonsensical if such a strict understanding of law is used.
December 29, 2009 4:36 PM
Steven Coxhead said…
Hi Dave, if you could summarize your thesis for me in a few words, that would be good.
We have to keep in mind the issue that Paul was dealing with: see Acts 15:1, 5 for a summary. This was the issue that his Galatian epistle dealt with. This is also the issue that was being played out again at Rome with large numbers of Jews returning there after being kicked out by Claudius.
Paul presents a powerful and devastating argument that the Mosaic covenant was not able to bring the fullness of salvation to Israel. In fact, it made things worse, simply compounding the problem of sin in Adam that Israel also shared in. I simply can’t see how a covenantal interpretation makes parts of Romans nonsensical, and I don’t think any of my students who I have discussed this with in my Romans classes over the years have come to that conclusion. I don’t think you’ve fully appreciated this approach so far, so I hope you’ll give me a bit of time to explain it. Please, it’s worth it. A bit like a Damascus Road experience.
December 29, 2009 6:04 PM
Steve, sorry for any confusion but I was not meaning that a covenantal view of Romans is nonsensical, but rather holding to the law in Romans being only the Mosaic law. I will try and briefly explain my view to see if it helps. By the way, I have not gven up trying to understand you yet!
My understanding of Romans (I have not looked at Galatians as closely but see many similarities) is that Paul is not just dealing with the Mosaic law, but all ‘law’. I do not believe that there is more than one covenant and follow Bill Dumbrell’s understanding of God ‘causing his covenant to stand’ rather than beginning a new covenant at each new mention of covenant. As a result, Romans is to do with circumcision, the Mosaic law, the law written on the hearts of Gentiles (all people). So when I see Paul talk about the works of the law, yes I can try and narrow it down to speak of a specific covenant or law (e.g. Romans 7:7 would appear to be Mosaic), but if I say that the truth Paul is speaking is only relevant to the Mosaic Law, then I have reduced the impact of what Paul is saying too much. After all, Romans 7:7 is an example of how any law (be it written in our hearts or on tablets of stone) when combined with our flesh leads to sin and death.
To me, this is keeping a true covenant paradigm, because wherever there has been covenant, there has been law, and what Christ has done impacts all of this covenant (or covenants according to your view).
Now, to explain my view further, I think you are right when you say, “Paul presents a powerful and devastating argument that the Mosaic covenant was not able to bring the fullness of salvation to Israel. In fact, it made things worse, simply compounding the problem of sin in Adam that Israel also shared in.” I just do not see why you limit it to the Mosaic Covenant. Has there been any covenant (in your multi-covenant view) that has not made things worse? Paul also makes statements that are true for any law (Romans 7:14-20) and makes it clear that no one has been free from the impact of ‘law’ with flesh (Romans 2:14).
Paul makes it clear in Romans that no one will ever be righteous following the law (except Jesus
) because the law, combined with our flesh only brings sin and death. I believe that the wretched man in Romans 7 is not a comment on Paul or anyone else as a believer or non believer, but rather someone in the flesh. And being in the flesh, for Paul is something that is true for believers and non believers alike. As Paul says, the law increases sin, because of our flesh. BUT – in Christ we are released from the law (it is met in Christ). We are no longer slaves to sin, because the law, with its negative influence on us is dealt with. BUT – are we free to abuse this grace? No. Rather we are to take on the new commandment, the only debt that remains outstanding (Romans 13:8-10). As it happens, this new commandment is what has been at the heart of the ‘law’ since Adam was a boy! I find it rather ironic – we could not keep the law, so Jesus released us from the law – so we could keep the law!
This is why I so strongly stress that our ‘slavery to righteousness’ comes as a result of what Christ has done. It is not helpful to say to believers that they must live out righteousness if it is not within the context of what Christ has done. To do so is to simply place them again under law, meaning that sin and death will have power again.
I also believe that my view is truly covenantal!
I would love you to explain your view as I have with mine above (I hope it was clear!). I would love to know from your perspective how you view law before and after Christ and how this interacts with living as a believer.
I hope this has been helpful!
Further to this, I think I understand what you are trying to do with your view (as I understand it). I just think you are looking for a solution where there is not one. Some issues are
*You believe there are two types of righteousness. But why does Paul not mention this in Gal 2-3? It would surely have made things simpler for him!
*Following on from above, you can say Paul is talking about circumcision only, but this is not how he comes across at all. At the very least you would have to say that what he says is true for all covenantl law (including Adamic). C.f. Gal 2:15, 3:11, 21.
*Paul makes it clear that he might be dealing with circumcision specifically, but law is law (Gal 5:3).
I will give you a chance to say something!
Below is Steve’s response to my comments as posted on his blog!
A Salvation-Historical Approach to Paul: A Response to Dave Woolcott
Thanks, Dave. I understand where you are coming from more now. But there are a few things to think about.
You say that you do not believe that there is more than one covenant (one covenant of grace, I presume you mean), so therefore you take law in Romans to be the issue of law generally. I think Galatians should help you here. Please note Paul’s argument in Gal 4:21-26. Here Paul speaks of two covenants. Now I’m assuming that for you these two covenants correspond to the covenant of works versus the covenant of grace. If I’ve understood you correctly, I can see why you might do that; but it doesn’t fit with the exegetical evidence right there in Gal 4:21-26.
Paul takes Isaac and Ishmael as symbolic of two covenants. What are these two covenants? “One is from Mount Sinai” who “corresponds to the present Jerusalem” (Gal 4:24-25). Ishmael is symbolic of the covenant made at Sinai, i.e., the Mosaic covenant, the covenant that enslaves “the present Jerusalem,” i.e., the Jews of Paul’s day in their devotion to the Mosaic covenant. Isaac symbolizes “the Jerusalem above,” the new Jerusalem of the new covenant (Gal 4:26).
Now perhaps you will say, “Oh, but the Sinai covenant is singled out here as representing the covenant of works.” But this doesn’t fit the exegetical evidence either. Have a look at Paul’s argument in Gal 3:15-19. Notice what Paul says in Gal 3:17: “the law which came 430 years afterward [i.e., after the promises given to Abraham], does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.”
Paul is contrasting law with promise, and he means by this: Mosaic covenant (law) versus Abrahamic covenant (promise). Maybe I should call my approach to Paul not simply covenantal (since you claim that your approach is too, and it is) but rather salvation-historical covenantal. Paul is interested in the various covenants of salvation history: the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the new. He wants to compare and contrast them. Why? I’ll talk about that later on below.
So your system of slicing all of the particular covenants of salvation history into two parts corresponding to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is like obliterating the Lego blocks of salvation history originally put there by God. Your system is easy to follow, easily understood intellectually, but it’s not precise, and more importantly I think it gets in the way of understanding what Paul is on about.
But anyway, back to the rest of Gal 3. I can’t see with your view how you can interpret Gal 3:18 adequately. The law talked about in Gal 3:17 is definitely the Mosaic law, and it would be unnatural to change the sense of this term in the very next verse. Paul means in Gal 3:18 that the inheritance of eternal life cannot be limited to the law of Moses (i.e., the Mosaic covenant, which is exactly what the Judaizers were doing according to Acts 15:1, 5), otherwise the promise that God made to Abraham (the same promise of the inheritance of eternal life) would made void, and God would end up contradicting himself, and be seen not to be faithful to his promise to Abraham. The issue of the day, as Acts 15:1, 5 shows, was that the non-Christian Jews and Christian Judaizers thought that salvation and righteousness could only be obtained through the Mosaic covenant. Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is directed at that specific issue. It’s a salvation-historical issue. Is the Mosaic covenant the be-all-and-end-all of God’s soteric purposes?
Getting back to Gal 3:18, Paul is arguing that the inheritance of eternal life was promised to Abraham. The subsequent channeling of the promise of inheritance through the Mosaic covenant is a temporary narrowing, not a permanent narrowing of the stream of life to just Israel such that Gentiles can’t participate in it unless they give up their Gentile citizenship to become Jews through circumcision and membership in the Mosaic covenant.
This salvation-historical approach makes sense, then, of Gal 3:19. The Jewish come back to Paul would be: okay, if God already promised life to Abraham, what’s the point of Sinai? Why the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant? Isn’t that the pinnacle of God’s purposes? No, says Paul. The law of Moses was given to Israel to increase the problem of sin, not to solve it, until the promised Messianic offspring arrived on the scene.
Jump over to Gal 3:23-29. How can you explain with your approach the fact that Paul could talk about a time before faith came except by sucking out of Paul’s words his intended sense of temporality? “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law” (Gal 3:23). The term the law here, following on from the discussion in Gal 3:15-19, is the law of Moses, not law in general. Notice also how the term faith is christologically defined in Gal 3:23-25. “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed” (Gal 3:23), which parallels “until Christ came” (Gal 4:24). The coming of Christ historically means the coming of faith (by the way, just as Hab 2:4 prophesied).
In Paul’s way of thinking faith existed while Abraham was a Gentile, but the Mosaic covenant put Israel under the works of the law, but with a view to everything reverting back to faith with the coming of the Messiah. Paul’s law/faith distinction here is not anthropological, but salvation-historical. The law of Moses was “our guardian,” i.e., a guardian over Israel, “until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24). “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal 3:25). Paul is not talking about abstract theological concepts, but the flow of the covenants in the salvation-historical time-space continuum.
You say that every covenant has law. That is true as a theological statement. But we need to understand Paul on his own terms. His use of terms such as law, faith, works, grace, promise, etc., is typical of a Jewish rabbi who would take a key word in a passage of Scripture to designate the whole of that section of Scripture or a particular epoch in salvation history. You say faith always exists through history, that law always exists. That is true theologically, but not true of Paul’s usage. For Paul promise solely designates the Abrahamic covenant (even though theologically and in terms of literary genre God’s revelation to Abraham contains elements of both promise and law). In a similar way law stands for the Mosaic covenant. Grace stands for the new covenant age. Faith is the appropriate response in the ages of promise and grace. Theologically speaking faith also existed in the age of law, but Paul in his Jewish rabbinical way doesn’t use his language that way. For him, works (i.e., Mosaic faith) are the appropriate response to law. He is actually taking key terms from Scripture to designate by them the salvation-historical epochs in which they occur.
Please also consider Rom 5:12-21. On your view, how can you say that “sin was in the world before the law was given” (Rom 5:13)? For you law has always been around, but that is not Paul’s usage. Clearly in Rom 5:13, the law in question is the Mosaic law. The period where there was sin but no law corresponds in Rom 5:14 with the period from post-fall Adam to Moses at Sinai. Notice how Paul is interested in the epochs of salvation history.
Please understand Rom 5:20. This is a key verse: “the law came in to increase the trespass” in order that grace might abound. The term the law here must be defined in the context of the law in Rom 5:13. In other words, the law is the law of Moses. The trespass in the context is the trespass of the one man, Adam. Paul’s meaning is this: the Mosaic law was given to Israel in order to compound the fall of Adam, in order to highlight the grace of God revealed in Christ. It’s a salvation-historical argument.
I limit Paul’s use of the law to the Mosaic law in the vast majority of instances because the exegetical evidence points that way, as does the historical evidence of Acts 15:1, 5. Romans 7 is about fleshly Israel, i.e., old covenant Israel. Romans 8 is about how enslaved Israel (and the Gentiles) can be set free (the Gentiles set free from sin in Adam) by the new covenant in Christ. That is true to Paul’s own personal experience. The law of Moses that he was serving, which he thought was the way of life, actually “deceived” him and led him to oppose Christ. He thought he was serving God, but was doing the exact opposite. But then finally he saw the risen Lord Jesus, and realized that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the Jewish zeal for the law of Moses was leading the Jews astray.
Paul is primarily talking about the law of Moses, not law in general. But there is a connection between the two—somewhat. For Paul, there is a connection between the law and the commandment. For Paul the commandment (at least in Rom 5:12-21) stands for the law given to Adam. Paul in effect argues in Rom 5:20 and Rom 7:7-11 that the Mosaic law replicates and compounds the effect of Adamic law, so there is a connection, but we have to see the salvation-historical connections before we get to that point, otherwise we are not doing justice to Paul’s use of language and his teaching.
Why is Paul interested in comparing the various covenantal epochs of salvation history? Because Jewish devotion to the Mosaic covenant was getting in the way of them receiving Christ, and getting in the way of his ministry to Gentiles. More significantly, by sticking to Moses, the lordship of Christ, God’s word, and God’s sovereignty in having the right to structure salvation history in the manner of his choosing, were being denied. The problem that Paul was dealing with in Galatians and Romans is primarily the problem of Jewish zeal for the law of Moses: see Rom 10:2 and Acts 21:20.
Now having said all that, I strongly agree with you, however, concerning how we as Christians are made to be slaves of righteousness through Christ and the Spirit. Paul obviously believed that the promise of Jer 31:33 was fulfilled in Christians. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (eschatological torah, i.e., the gospel) has set you (Jews) free from the (Mosaic) law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). Just as Jer 31:31-33 prophecies, the law of Moses (which brought about the sin and death of Israel, which compounds the problem of sin in Adam) has been transformed by Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit, that with the (eschatological) law (of the gospel) written in our hearts, we have been set free to serve God as slaves of righteousness. And the same applies to the Gentiles in Adam.
It’s ironic that, in some ways, the situation for the Jews was worse than that of the Gentiles. The Gentiles were bound up in sin through Adam, but the Jews doubly bound: in Adam and also through the law of Moses! But “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ,” who sets us free from the commandment of sin and death in Adam, as well as the law of sin and death in Moses. Gentile and Jew, both equally set free through the new covenant in Christ!
A couple of points of clarification. Yes, one covenant of grace…two all up! Sorry for that – my bad!
I was saying that I believe that when the law is mentioned in Romans it might sometimes be in reference to a specific law, but the concept is illustrative or true for all aspects of law. This is why Romans 5:13 is not that much of a drama for me with my system.
Now, onto your interesting comments!
I have read your comments and your post on “Paul’s Understanding of Salvation History”. I have read it and considered what you have said. I agree with some of it, and some of it I think, ok I do not agree but you can believe it if you want, no biggie. I am thinking more of your table with Paul’s use of ‘faith’ and ‘works of the law’ etc. But then I think about how much of it does not gel with my reading of Paul, even after reading your thoughts and revisiting Paul. Let me explain.
*You seem to move from two covenants in Gal 4:21-26 to three covenants in Gal 315-19, but Paul does not seem to follow you! He actually ties the Mosaic Law and the Abrahamic promises together when he says, “the law which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” He certainly does not refer to them as separate covenants. It appears as though one builds on the other. He outlines the purposes for this, as indeed do you in your post.
*You suggest that law is all about Mosaic law in Gal and Rom and one reason you state for this is what is happening in Acts 15:1,5. Yet circumcision was a sign of the covenant that was instituted through Abraham, not Moses. To me this goes some way towards explaining what Paul says in Gal and shows these ‘two’ covenants as very closely linked.
*You say Paul in Gal 3 is contrasting law with promise. This appears to go against what Paul himself says in Gal 3:21, “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not!” You say, “Paul is interested in the various covenants of salvation history: the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the new.” I certainly see a covenant of works VERSUS the covenant of Grace, but I cannot see where you get the idea that Paul is weighing the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in comparison with each other. I think he is outlining the continuity between the two.
*I think you have applied more than is needed to Gal 3:18. After all, the promise to Abraham was only ever going to be kept through Christ. It was never going to come through the law. I think you, Paul and I are all agreed with why the law was given. I think that for you covenants work in periods of time, hence why you have a historical view of covenant. Yet, the promise was only ever going to be met through Christ. Indeed, after the fall the only hope Adam and Eve had of salvation would ultimately be through Christ (Gen 3:15). There are two covenants, and they have both been running through salvation history. One is a wide way, the other is narrow. I am sure this point will lead to more questions
*The issue in Gal and Romans is not “is the Mosaic covenant the be-all-and-end-all of God’s soteric purposes?” It is about how no one can keep the law, so no one can be saved by it. The only way to be saved is to let go of the law and have faith in the work of Christ. This is because Paul not only gives a big ‘NO’ to the Mosaic covenant, but because he also gives a big ‘YES’ to Jesus. What evidence does Paul have to give for salvation through faith in Jesus? God’s promises through Abraham.
*My view also makes sense of Gal 3:19!
*With regards to Gal 3:23…as we have already discussed in Phil 3, there was a time for Paul when he did not work by faith, but was under the law. Surely this is what he is referring to in regard to the time before faith, when “we were held captive under law’. It is true for all of us outside of Christ, even today! Yes, I agree the faith is Christological, but I am not sure why you think it is difficult for my understanding/paradigm.
*You seem to think that with the covenant of Moses that there was no faith/promise. What happened to the promised land?! Can I ask Steve, if Moses was saved (the transfiguration on the mountain suggest he has been saved!), how was he saved? Through works of the law? Paul and yourself make it clear that only Christ kept the law. How were the Israelites who were bitten by the snakes saved? By faith when they looked at the bronze serpent. The writer of Hebrews 11 seems to think that faith in God’s ability to save/promises was what caused all the heroes of the faith to receive the commendation – including Moses! You have split Paul’s thinking but I see no evidence for it, but only evidence to the contrary.
*Paul is speaking to largely gentile audiences who have been influenced by confused Jewish/Christian teaching about circumcision. You seem to think he is then going to talk to these Gentiles in the way that a Jewish Rabbi would write. This does not seem to fit in with the ‘missional’ Paul who works hard to approach people where they are at. Surely he would have made it clear for them so that it would be clear for me too. He has to go into details about the covenants because he has to undo the work of the circumcision group through reasoning. He has to show why circumcision is no longer applicable in Christ. You have stated that Paul uses words differently to how I am using them, yet you have failed to show evidence of this (I know you think you have, but I have not found it to be persuasive).
*Even with all said and done you say, “I limit Paul’s use of the law to the Mosaic law in the vast majority of instances”. The vast majority…but not all? Is Paul really this confusing?
Finally in closing, there is much I agree with you on Steve. One thing I love about this discussion is that it has become more and more obvious to me that we both desire to understand scripture correctly. This is cool! But, and perhaps I am jumping the gun, I do not have the slightest idea from this discussion so far how you come to believe that there are two types of righteousness/justification, and why you believe that works are a necessary foundation to faith. Could you briefly (shorter than you 5 page post!!) sketch how you come to these conclusions!
“Steven Coxhead said…
Hi Dave, this is my response to the first half of your comment no. 6.
The “covenant previously ratified by God” in Gal 3:17 is the Abrahamic one. You could argue that the Mosaic law might be a codicil to that covenant, but the fact Paul speaks of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant in its own right in Gal 4 strongly suggests that in Gal 3:15-18 Paul is pointing out the historical priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic one. This is exactly how his argument would have been understood in a Jewish context, hence the scandal of his opinion, and a key reason why he was persecuted.
This just goes to prove that Paul had a historical approach to the covenants, like the Jews generally, and like myself. The fact that you don’t have a historical approach but a more abstract one means that there is a mismatch between your system and Paul’s, which means that you’ll struggle to understand Paul at various points.
Regarding your comment on Gal 3:18, you need to understand that Paul’s opponents (as per Judaism generally at that time) believed that the inheritance of life was regulated by the Mosaic covenant (which, by the way, was true for Israel during the old covenant age), which is why Paul is arguing against the false belief that that situation still applied in salvation history after Christ’s ascension.
January 2, 2010 8:21 AM”
Steve, I believe that I need to think through some of my understanding of the cevenants. I will continue to do this.
I believe that you have some difficulties though with your understanding of Galatians.
We agree that Gal 3:17 is referring to the Abrahamic covenant.
I agree that if we have a historical approach to covenant then Gal 4 must be suggesting that in Gal 3:15-18 the Abrahamic covenant must have priority over the Mosaic one.
Now, I do not agree that I struggle to understand Paul at various points. Perhaps I am in denial! The problem I still have though is that you do not do justice to Paul’s words in Gal 4.
In Gal 4 Paul is speaking allegorically. He is clear on this. So he sets up two covenants that happen at approximately the same time (through Sarah and Hagar). The covenant through Hagar is linked to the Mosaic covenant – but it starts some 430 years earlier! Even at the time of the Abrahamic covenant of promise there was a covenant of slavery. Go figure – sounds like what I was saying!
I fully agree that the promises through Abraham have priority, over both the attempt to fulfill them through Hagar (works basically), and through the Mosaic law that came later, that really built on what Abraham and Sarah tried to achieve through Hagar (basically works). To me, all this goes towards undermining your position, not strengthening it. The law does not nullify the promise, i.e. the only way we have life is through the promise of what God will do, not through what we can do.
“Steven Coxhead said…
Why were the Judaizers forcing Christian Gentiles to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved? Primarily because they believed (on the basis of Moses’ teaching in the Pentateuch) that the Mosaic covenant regulated the inheritance of eternal life. As Paul says in Rom 2:19-20, they saw themselves and the law of Moses as being a light to the Gentiles who were living in darkness.
Dave, you seem to think that the problem was that no one can be saved through keeping law. I’ll deal with the issue of keeping the law in a separate post; but if what you say was the case, why argue that the law was given 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant? Why argue in Rom 2:26-27 using the illustration of a Gentile who keeps the law? Why argue that God is God of the Gentiles just as much as God of the Jews in the midst of his discourse on justification by faith (Rom 3:29)? Why the strong need to explain the purposes of God for Israel in salvation history (Rom 9-11)?
Regarding your other points, I’ll do a post on the works of the law in the Old Testament. There was promise and faith involved in the Mosaic covenant. I have suggested that Paul’s use of certain key terms is salvation-historical, but that is not to deny the existence of promise, faith, or even law as psychological or generic realities in other salvation-historical epochs.
Regarding the influence of rabbinical logic on Paul, Galatians was written in large part as a direct challenge to the Judaizers, so Jewish arguments would be expected to be made. Most of Rom 1-11 is a diatribe against a Jewish opponent, as if Paul is giving the Christians in Rome a model for how to deal with the Judaizing problem that they were being troubled by. The Gentiles who were caught up in that issue may not always have understood the intricacies of Paul’s succinct Jewish rabbibical logic or certain aspects of Jewish exegesis—that’s a challenge for us too at times; just think Rom 10:5-8—but they would have understood what Paul was on about, and the import of the great majority of his argument. As for Paul’s Jewish audience, no problems there.
I’ll do a separate post on law in Romans.
January 2, 2010 8:59 AM”
Steve, I agree with your first paragraph. They thought that the Mosaic covenant regulated the inheritance of eternal life. Of course they were wrong. After all, no one can be saved through keeping the law. As i said in my previous comment, the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the promise. It was only ever by God’s promise that we were and are saved.
I will await your post on keeping the law.
“Steven Coxhead said…
Hi Dave, interesting thoughts about Gal 4.
I don’t think Paul is suggesting that there was actually a covenant with Hagar—if anything God gave her a promise (Gen 21:17-18)! It seems to me that the point of the allegory here is saying that the promise versus flesh dynamic was at work at the time of Abraham, and that that was symbolic of the situation of Paul’s day.
The real point of the allegory is found in Gal 4:29-30. In the story of Isaac and Ishmael, the son acquired through the flesh persecuted the son acquired through promise. This is symbolic of Paul’s day, where the application is that fleshy (Mosaic) Israel (which emphasized circumcision) was causing trouble for free (Christian) Israel. Verse 30 may even imply that the Judaizers should be kicked out of the churches.
So I don’t think Paul is suggesting that any literal covenant was made with Hagar, or that she somehow participated in the Sinaitic covenant in a pre-emptive way. But you’re right to see a fleshly principle at work back then, and therefore a symbolic connection between the incident of Ishmael and how old covenant Israel reacted to God.
Faith responds positively to the promise of God; not to do so is to act according to the flesh, and that was a possible reaction to God’s promise in the time of Abraham. If you want to talk about a covenant of works in Adam operating then, I have no trouble with that. In fact, my view is that the Adamic covenant still continues—so there is a similarity between us after all! The problem comes in when people want to connect the covenant of works to Sinai, and say that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works (which some people do). We actually need to keep the covenants distinct, before we can understand the connections between them. And just because I take a historical approach to the covenants is not to say that they don’t continue on through time or that they don’t overlap, but I think that calls for a new post.
I think I’ll do a post on the covenants, then look at faith and obedience in relation to Abraham, then look at the works of the law under the Mosaic covenant.
January 2, 2010 10:16 PM”
The allegory is that the two women ARE two covenants (Gal 4:24). So you are correct, Paul is not saying there is a covenant with Hagar (though the promise language in Gen 21:17-18 sounds a lot like the covenant with Abraham). But as you say, we seem to have more in common than we first thought!
Praise God!
With regards to Moses being a covenant of works, how do you deal with the link that Paul makes between Hagar, Sinai and slavery? Is not the slavery aspect of the allegory works, and the promise/freedom grace? Don’t get me wrong, the law (of Moses, and any other law given) was given so as to increase the problem of sin, and therefore highlight the need for grace (and the need to rely on the promise). But is Paul’s point that they were never meant to rely on the law over and above the promise to Abraham, but rather rely on the promise even more, i.e. rely on God’s grace/love (Gal 3:21-22)?
That was genuine question…I would like to know!!