I like the bit about covenant renewal as basis for driving out enemies from Israel. That's a really good insight. I don't really see how that sheds light on circumcision in any particular way, or how it connects to Romans 9-11.
Also, is all human action "works"? If so, how can we affirm the "obedience of faith" that Dr. Green has so instilled into us? I'm afraid you're buying into this canned, Lutheran Law-gospel nonsense that's tilting with the windmills of Jeremy Taylor and Origen. You've clearly shown how Wright goes off the deep end (or at least did) in a conference. Great. Now what?
This article seemed to rehash the standard line on circumcision as defended by everyone in the Reformed tradition, without taking into account the motivation for why the Taylors and Wrights of the world have interacted with it and found it wanting.
I am deeply concerned by your pointing us to Zahl as a solution. He is no way forward. He is a ecclesially compromised, political anabaptist who will uphold the status quo until his dying day. He has no scholarly or pious insight into Scripture, and he does not seem to me to be a careful reader of the text. He does not have any concept of holiness or discipline coming from a lively faith in and love for God.
I'm looking forward to part two because I feel like this has just been a rehashing of almost everything that we've all heard every Sunday growing up, but without the clear application necessary to making circumcision of the heart a lively and personal thing. I'd like to see how this affects us, affects our families, and affects our nation.
Thank you very much for your comment. The law/gospel distinction is right at the heart of the New Testament, particularly in Paul:
Acts 13:38-39: “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
Romans 3:19-22: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Romans 8:3-4: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Galatians 2:15-16: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 3:24: Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
There is a distinction between these two things and they accomplish two different things. Both are the word of God, yes; but neither accomplishes on its own, at least in teaching, what the other can do. This is why the New Testament maintains its view that the law is a school teacher, intended to help train us up in the way we should go but which could not make us walk in that way, not because of a defect in it but because of a defect in us. There are other ways to preach & teach, and there are other paradigms for helping make sense of the Bible, but law/gospel is one of those ways which is particularly helpful for this project. It is legitimate through its use in the Protestant tradition and therefore should not be quickly abandoned.
I'm no raving fan of David Zahl, but his point in the book is basically correct. Even after you "are saved," you don't become able to keep the law. In fact, the requirements become more difficult, as Paul says in Romans 13: "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." And "we love because he first loved us." We fulfill the law only by our participation in the one who has perfectly fulfilled the law: "Yet not I, but through Christ who lives in me." The "obedience of faith," as you helpfully point out, is important; but it is equally important to say that even after your justification in this life you do not have to then earn God's good favor. The obedience of faith does not justify but is love which naturally outpours from faith. Faith does not generate obedience to the law, but it does generate love. And since love is the fulfillment of the law, then in some sense you have fulfilled the law when you love.
It's really important to try and make sense of what the New Perspective on Paul says. They have said that it's all grace, yes; but then that our present justification is by faith, and our future justification is by works. In other words, you "get in" the family of God by faith but "stay in" by works. This is just rehashing the Medieval Roman view and needs to be rejected outright because it is antithetical to the gospel. When you get around to reading Paul and the Faithfulness of God, I think you'll see this. It is an unspeakable comfort to hear what our Lord Jesus Christ says: "Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you." It is Christ at work in us and through us. In some sense, and we'll get into this a bit in the second part, there are two natures in us: ourselves, the "I" of "I do not do what I want to do but the thing I hate," and Christ, the "not I" of "yet not I, but through Christ in me." Until the I is totally transformed by the not-I, then it is incapable of fulfilling all the demands of the law.
In some sense, the two errors that are easy to fall into are antinomianism and legalism. It seems that your concern is antinomianism, which is a fair position. My concern is legalism, because I actually think it is far more insidious: "For freedom Christ has set you free." In preaching, it's easy to make either error, and I think you were blessed to receive the good news of the gospel every week when you went to church. I don't think everyone else is so lucky, especially when you think that a typical sermon has "three points" and then "some application." If you listen closely, you'll see that the structure is actually gospel-law, which is not even the structure of the Bible! The law comes first, as a teacher; then the gospel comes with Jesus Christ, who preached "the gospel of repentance."
I hope that part two addresses some of your concerns, particularly on the points about the relationship between these passages and about application, and I am incredibly grateful for your feedback. If I have written anything which is incorrect, then please say as much. Peace be with you.
A tour de force!
Jacob,
I like the bit about covenant renewal as basis for driving out enemies from Israel. That's a really good insight. I don't really see how that sheds light on circumcision in any particular way, or how it connects to Romans 9-11.
Also, is all human action "works"? If so, how can we affirm the "obedience of faith" that Dr. Green has so instilled into us? I'm afraid you're buying into this canned, Lutheran Law-gospel nonsense that's tilting with the windmills of Jeremy Taylor and Origen. You've clearly shown how Wright goes off the deep end (or at least did) in a conference. Great. Now what?
This article seemed to rehash the standard line on circumcision as defended by everyone in the Reformed tradition, without taking into account the motivation for why the Taylors and Wrights of the world have interacted with it and found it wanting.
I am deeply concerned by your pointing us to Zahl as a solution. He is no way forward. He is a ecclesially compromised, political anabaptist who will uphold the status quo until his dying day. He has no scholarly or pious insight into Scripture, and he does not seem to me to be a careful reader of the text. He does not have any concept of holiness or discipline coming from a lively faith in and love for God.
I'm looking forward to part two because I feel like this has just been a rehashing of almost everything that we've all heard every Sunday growing up, but without the clear application necessary to making circumcision of the heart a lively and personal thing. I'd like to see how this affects us, affects our families, and affects our nation.
Blessings,
Dear Jack,
Thank you very much for your comment. The law/gospel distinction is right at the heart of the New Testament, particularly in Paul:
Acts 13:38-39: “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
Romans 3:19-22: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Romans 8:3-4: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Galatians 2:15-16: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 3:24: Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
There is a distinction between these two things and they accomplish two different things. Both are the word of God, yes; but neither accomplishes on its own, at least in teaching, what the other can do. This is why the New Testament maintains its view that the law is a school teacher, intended to help train us up in the way we should go but which could not make us walk in that way, not because of a defect in it but because of a defect in us. There are other ways to preach & teach, and there are other paradigms for helping make sense of the Bible, but law/gospel is one of those ways which is particularly helpful for this project. It is legitimate through its use in the Protestant tradition and therefore should not be quickly abandoned.
I'm no raving fan of David Zahl, but his point in the book is basically correct. Even after you "are saved," you don't become able to keep the law. In fact, the requirements become more difficult, as Paul says in Romans 13: "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." And "we love because he first loved us." We fulfill the law only by our participation in the one who has perfectly fulfilled the law: "Yet not I, but through Christ who lives in me." The "obedience of faith," as you helpfully point out, is important; but it is equally important to say that even after your justification in this life you do not have to then earn God's good favor. The obedience of faith does not justify but is love which naturally outpours from faith. Faith does not generate obedience to the law, but it does generate love. And since love is the fulfillment of the law, then in some sense you have fulfilled the law when you love.
It's really important to try and make sense of what the New Perspective on Paul says. They have said that it's all grace, yes; but then that our present justification is by faith, and our future justification is by works. In other words, you "get in" the family of God by faith but "stay in" by works. This is just rehashing the Medieval Roman view and needs to be rejected outright because it is antithetical to the gospel. When you get around to reading Paul and the Faithfulness of God, I think you'll see this. It is an unspeakable comfort to hear what our Lord Jesus Christ says: "Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you." It is Christ at work in us and through us. In some sense, and we'll get into this a bit in the second part, there are two natures in us: ourselves, the "I" of "I do not do what I want to do but the thing I hate," and Christ, the "not I" of "yet not I, but through Christ in me." Until the I is totally transformed by the not-I, then it is incapable of fulfilling all the demands of the law.
In some sense, the two errors that are easy to fall into are antinomianism and legalism. It seems that your concern is antinomianism, which is a fair position. My concern is legalism, because I actually think it is far more insidious: "For freedom Christ has set you free." In preaching, it's easy to make either error, and I think you were blessed to receive the good news of the gospel every week when you went to church. I don't think everyone else is so lucky, especially when you think that a typical sermon has "three points" and then "some application." If you listen closely, you'll see that the structure is actually gospel-law, which is not even the structure of the Bible! The law comes first, as a teacher; then the gospel comes with Jesus Christ, who preached "the gospel of repentance."
I hope that part two addresses some of your concerns, particularly on the points about the relationship between these passages and about application, and I am incredibly grateful for your feedback. If I have written anything which is incorrect, then please say as much. Peace be with you.