Did Paul Misinterpret the Old Testament?

. . . Paul comes to the Jewish scriptures from the gospel. Scripture has become for him a testimony to this gospel because of its content. The event of Christ has provided him with a radically new starting point. Jesus Christ, who is the confirmation of the divine promise, is its centre rather than the torah. Paul did not exchange one God for another, rather he received a new revelation concerning God from the selfsame God of the scriptures. The gospel has been revealed by the Law and the prophets (Rom. 3.21), and this is what God has always been about.

However, to confirm that Paul comes to the scriptures from the perspective of Christ and that he did not derive his theology from an interpretation of the Old Testament can be easily misunderstood unless this statement is set within Paul’s hermeneutic of interpretation. U. Lus (Geschichtsverständnis, 90) is fully correct when he insists that Paul throughout his letters is seeking to offer a real interpretation of biblical texts. He is not offering an esoteric reading, a Gnostic construct, or a private rumination, but an interpretation of scripture which will convince his hearers, even opponents. Often it has been suggested that Paul is not even attempting to hear his biblical text, but he is drawing out only that which he had previously inserted. Paul’s interpretation is eisegesis, not exegesis! Such a caricature fails utterly to grasp that for Paul scripture (text) and reality belong together. One cannot understand scripture apart from the reality of which it speaks, namely Christ. Conversely, one cannot grasp this reality apart from scripture, whether by a direct appeal to the Spirit, or by some mystical experience. For a modern biblical critic it is axiomatic that genuine exegesis depends on recovering a text’s true historical context. For Paul genuine interpretation depends on its bearing witness to its true subject matter, who is Christ. In this sense, Paul is not interested in the Old Testament ‘for its own sake’, if what is understood thereby is the biblical text separated from its true christological referent. That Paul is not following modern exegetical rules is clear, but this acknowledgment is far from saying that he is wilful, inconsistent, or irrational. A characteristic feature of Paul’s interpretation of the Old Testament is his consistent referring of the biblical text to the present (Gegenwartsbezug). Because God acted in Jesus Christ, the reality revealed in the gospel is not something of the past, but a fully present word of grace. Paul is fully aware of a temporal differential between the past and the present. He knows that the gospel was promised ‘beforehand’ (Rom. 1.2; Gal. 3.8). Yet Paul is neither an existentialist nor a philosopher of history. He also does not deal with the relation of the past to the present in terms of a historical sequence spanning prophecy and fulfilment. Rather for Paul scripture has a voice which speaks. It is a living word which confronts its hearers now. It can speak invitingly to all the world (Rom. 10.18), from the heavens (10.18f.), or in direct accusations (3.4).
- Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis, MN: First Fortress Press, 1992), 240-41.  

Moses: Law or Gospel?

Von Rad (Theology, II, 388ff.) has mounted the case that originally the Mosaic law was understood as Yahweh’s saving action. The law was not seen as a threat to Israel’s existence, but was understood as an act of divine grace, in the New Testament terminology, as gospel. It was the prophets, rather, who first pronounced Israel’s relationship to Yahweh as having been altered through their message of judgment. Obedience to the law became a measure to test Israel before the divine will, and Israel was condemned as fundamentally in disobedience. As a result, only a radically new saving event, different in kind from the past tradition, could redeem Israel from its punishment.
The most incisive exegetical and theological response to von Rad’s interpretation has come from Zimmerli (Law and the Prophets). Initially he finds it odd that von Rad has turned Moses in to ‘gospel’ and the prophets into ‘law’. Further he argues that the Mosaic law was dialectically structured from the start. On the one hand, it contained a promise to life to Israel, a saving act of divine grace. On the other hand, Israel always understood that there was a reverse side to the covenant (Deut. 27.1ff.). Disobedience called forth certain divine judgment before which the people of God had no privileged status. Zimmerli then makes the convincing case that the prophets understood their vocation as calling forth the divine judgment which was implied from the law from the beginning as an inevitable response to disobedience.
- Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis, MN: First Fortress Press, 1992), 175.  

The Nature of Biblical Theological Reflection

Because Biblical Theology grapples with the reality of the biblical witnesses, and moves beyond the original historical moorings of the text, the accusation is often made that such a model is anti-historical, philosophically idealistic, and abstract. Such a characterization badly misunderstands the approach which is being suggested. Biblical theological reflection is not timeless speculation about the nature of good, but the life and death struggle of the concrete historical communities of the Christian church who are trying to be faithful to their own particular historical contexts to the imperatives of the gospel in mission to the world. But the heart of the enterprise is christological, its content is Jesus Christ and not its own self-understanding or identity. Therefore the aim of the enterprise involves the classic movement of faith seeking knowledge, of those who confess Christ struggling to understand the nature and will of the One who has already been revealed as Lord. The true expositor of the Christian scriptures is the one who awaits in anticipation toward becoming the interpreted rather than the interpreter. The very divine reality which the interpreter strives to grasp, is the very One who grasps the interpreter. The Christian doctrine of the role of the Holy Spirit is not a hermeneutical principle, but that divine reality itself who makes understanding of God possible.
- Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis, MN: First Fortress Press, 1992), 86-7. 

Examining Ourselves Before the Supper

Some have difficulty with the words of the Form: “Let every one examine his heart whether he also believes this sure promise of God that all his sins are forgiven him only for the sake of the passion and death of Jesus Christ.” The question is then whether someone who is not sure of this may celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We must pay close attention to how the word “sure” is used in this context. It is not asked whether we believe with certainty or whether we have a sure faith. The key is that we truly believe God’s promise to be sure and definite. The crux is not what we believe with respect to ourselves but what we believe with respect to God’s promise. The liturgical form itself points out that we must see it this way and not otherwise. After all, it is said further along “that we do not have a perfect faith and that we must daily strive with the weakness of our faith.” Nevertheless, “desirous to fight against our unbelief and to live according to all the commandments of God we rest assured that no sin or infirmity which still remains in us against our will can hinder us from being received of God in grace.”
This is completely in line with Calvin’s pastoral guidance. When we sense an imperfect faith within us and our conscience accuses us of many shortcomings, this should not hinder us from approaching the Lord’s Table. The sacrament is precisely intended for such people! “If to stay away from the Lord’s Supper we maintain that our faith is still weak and our life imperfect, we would resemble someone who excuses himself from taking medication because he is sick.”
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 812-13.   

D. G. Hart on Paleo- and Neo-Reformed

@ Old Life.

“Experiencing” Justification

While nothing is inherently wrong with experience, problems arise when experience becomes primary, especially in our assurance of justification. Faith is not experience, but a hoping in things unseen and often un-”experienced”:

There are indeed people who for the first time in their lives quite consciously experience God’s justification in a very personal and profound way. It is, however, not right to prescribe the experience of a few as a model for all. Others then await this special, overpowering experience, while–for a shorter or longer span of time that precedes it–they keep themselves far from the acceptance of the promise that Christ will be our righteousness. Faith in this promise is impeded by the thought that justification must first be experienced in a dramatic way before one can speak of Christ as “my righteousness.” In this scheme the significance of Christ is then identified with the experience of this special moment. This actually leaves no room for hesitant contemplation of God’s promise and growth for hope in Christ. There is only this indeterminate waiting for that one special moment. All contact with Christ in faith is marked by the liberating force of justification. Assurance of justification is not restricted to a unique form of experience, but characterizes all contact with Christ, who wants to be our righteousness. The danger is that this special (type of) experience is made into a prerequisite for justification. In this way faith is assigned much more than a functional (facilitating) role. 
. . . one can only experience justification through the preaching of the gospel. In this preaching salvation, including justification, is mediated. 
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 622-23.   

What the Law Could Not Do… Christ Did.

During the free-will controversy between Pelagius and Augustine, the argument was repeatedly lodged against the latter that too much grace would render good works void. During the Reformation, also, Rome’s charge against the Reformers was similar: if justification is by faith alone, what happens to works? What will motivate men to obedience? The Reformers replied that genuine faith could not be divorced from truly good works but that one who was truly justified would, by faith in Christ, also be sanctified. Of course, the Roman Catholics didn’t buy this, and they still don’t. What was the problem? Well, it just didn’t make sense to the Roman Catholics. How could hearing justification by faith apart from works cause sinful people to obey? Rome knew well that what was needed was some incentive. And they did not fail to produce such incentives as we have seen throughout the course of Church history. 

Today, however, many protestants seem to oversimplify the Roman Catholic position, accusing them of justification by works apart from grace. In practice this may very well be the case. It behooves us, however, to hear what Rome really said. Did they ever say that anyone could be saved apart from grace? No! They called down fire on pelagianism for neglecting grace. They believed and confessed that God’s grace was absolutely necessary for anyone to be saved. So did the semi-pelagians, so did the Arminians, and so do many today.

What was the difference? Well, the Reformers believed that it was grace alone. Indeed, the believer does not have to cooperate with grace (that’s semi-pelagianism), but it is God who justifies and sanctifies the believer who looks to Christ alone for righteousness. The Reformers realized that sin was not merely an act (actus), but a habit (habitus). It was not through eliminating individual acts of sin that one was cleansed, but a divine intervention was necessary. So it would not be through preaching the law, but preaching the gospel of Christ, the object of our faith, that would cause believers to grow. It was not through exhorting man to obedience through the law, but by proclaiming the gospel. They preached that Christ’s active obedience, rather than their own, was what made them righteous before God. This is where Rome and Geneva split ways. Rome preached grace, but it was conditional. Geneva, on the other hand, proclaimed the free justification through Christ alone. 

The accusation made against the Reformers, was also brought against Paul. When Paul preached the gospel of free grace in Christ, the objection was made: “Are we to sin that grace may abound?” What does Paul say? Like the Reformers following him, he responded, “By no means!” (Rom 6:1-2). That believers who have been shown mercy and grace in Christ should continue to live in sin, is explicitly denounced by the apostle. Behind the question posed and the answer given by Paul, we can deduce two things. First, the apostle was not an antinomian. He did not think that free justification by grace meant license to sin. Second, however, it is implied that the apostles’ gospel did not follow the logic of the legalist–which went something like this: threats produce obedience, but grace will only produce laxity. It boggled the minds of the legalists that preaching a gospel of what Christ has already accomplished could possibly produce any obedience.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones has this to say regarding Romans 6:

‘The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some peoplemight misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does notmatter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.

‘If our preaching does not expose us to that charge and to that misunderstanding, it is because we are not really preaching the gospel. – it was brought frequently against Martin Luther. … It was also brought against George Whitefield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity - if there is such a thing – has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’, and that we are saved, not by anything we do, but in spite of it, entirely and only by the grace of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

‘ … I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, to the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation … ‘
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans. Exposition of Chapter 6: The New Man, 8-10 

Therefore, to lodge the accusation of antinomianism against those who desire to hear the gospel preached purely, is nothing new. Paul was accused of it, the Reformers were accused of it, but they all held firmly that it was not our own method of justification or sanctification, but only the free gospel of Christ that could and would produce genuine fruit in us. God has promised to work through the preached Word (i.e., the gospel), not through our own performance.

Berkouwer comments on the connection between faith in the gospel of Christ and sanctification:

. . . Hence the sanctification of believers is never an independent area of human activity. The supposed antinomy is supplanted by the idea, clearly advanced in Scriptures, that the sanctification of the believer is a corollary of his faith.
. . . The immediate consequence of the “sola-fide” doctrine was exactly this indissoluble bond between faith and sanctification. And we speak of faith, not as a point of departure for a fresh emission of power, or as a human function or potency producing other effects, but of faith as true orientation toward the grace of God and as the life which flourishes on this divine grace, on the forgiveness of sins. 
- G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 26-8.  

Holiness is important, and it is precisely to maintain God’s holiness that we must preach the gospel. For, no one who thinks that they can do anything apart from faith in the gospel is going to please God. It is only in light of the gospel that we can offer any real obedience (and even then it’s imperfect). Any obedience that comes from our own self-willed righteousness is not obedience at all.

To hold sola-fide in one hand, and justification by works in the other may be illogical and unbiblical, but it is not impossible. It is, perhaps, acceptable that Rome would consistently preach faith and works, but for a protestant church to preach a legalistic scheme of justification or sanctification is unacceptable:

. . . Many people still acknowledge that we must be justified by the righteousness that Christ has acquired but believe or at least act in practice as if we must be sanctified by a holiness we bring about ourselves. If that were the case, we would not–contrary to the apostolic witness (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 4:31;  5:1, 13)–live under grace and stand in freedom but continue always to be under the law. Evangelical sanctification, however, is just as distinct from legalistic sanctification as the righteousness that is of faith differs from that which is obtained by works. For it consists in the reality that in Christ God grants us, along with righteousness, also complete holiness, and does not just impute it but also inwardly imparts it by the regenerating and renewing working of the Holy Spirit until we have been fully conformed to the image of the Son.
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 248.  

Why Preach the Gospel to Believers? Why Every Week?

Historically, Reformational theology recognized three different uses for the law. The order is different between Lutherans and Reformed, but it comes down to this: the first use is the law as a pedagogue, to show us our sinfulness and lead us to Christ; the second, the civil use of the law; and the third, the law as a rule of faith and life.

In the Heidelberg Catechism the way this all plays out is through the scheme: guilt, grace, and gratitude. The first use of the law convicts us of our sin–guilt. In light of the greatness of our guilt we turn to the gospel of Christ in repentance, and embrace his righteousness through faith–grace. Finally, in light of the fact that Christ has accomplished all things for us, we respond with joyful obedience to God’s law–gratitude. 

The Problem:
Unfortunately, some have taken and twisted this scheme. Rather than guilt, grace, gratitude, some would rather be out with grace and jump from guilt straight to gratitude. The logic behind this goes something like this: Christians already know the gospel and to preach it repeatedly is redundant, impractical, and will likely end up comforting sinners. To preach the gospel occasionally is one thing, but who needs to hear it every week?

Perhaps if Paul had not written that he “decided to know nothing among [the Corinthians] except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) there would be no problem. After all, if anyone needed to hear the law more and the gospel less, one is inclined to think that it was the Corinthians. But no, Paul did not go the route of legalism, but preached Christ. Is this foolish? Paul knew that people would think so, but this didn’t stop him. From the get go Paul refers to the Corinthian church as “sanctified in Christ Jesus,” and he calls them “saints.” Not only this, but the epistle is sprinkled with indicatives of what Christ has done. Paul tells them that they are “in Christ Jesus,” (1:30) that they “are Christ’s,” (3:23) that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed,” (5:7) that they are “washed, . . . sanctified, . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God,” (6:11) that their bodies are “members of Christ,” (6:15) “the body of Christ,” (12:27) that “Christ died for our sins,” (15:3) and so on. 

If Paul’s epistle to the “carnal” Corinthians is so full of the gospel, does it make any sense not to preach the gospel every week to sinful believers? 

Objections:
The objection is raised: what about comforting people who are sinful, those who sin repeatedly? To begin, who isn’t sinful? Are only the less sinful people “worthy enough” for the gospel? Didn’t Christ come to heal the sick? Christ already answered the question as to how to deal with people who sin again and again. Peter asks, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” What does Christ say? He doesn’t tell Peter to only forgive those who are worthy of forgiveness. No! Christ responds, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” For those who come to Christ seeking forgiveness, the preacher must not wait until they are “worthy enough” to hear the gospel! The preacher who does that is not doing his job! There’s a reason the Canons of Dort tell us that the gospel “ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.” [emphasis mine]

For the sake of the argument let’s say that there are hypocrites who don’t care about Christ. Is it okay to exhort them with the law only? Well, if we are able to discern their hearts and if we think that the law has any power to change people, maybe. But for those of us who believe that it is the preaching of the gospel that saves, not our own wisdom, we ought to trust that God’s word will accomplish what He wills.

What about reading Christ into Scripture? Well, if we’re preaching from the New Testament there shouldn’t be any problems with preaching the gospel every sermon (though some have trouble with this). And the Old Testament? Isn’t it eisogesis (fancy word that means reading something into the text that’s not really there) to preach the gospel from every text of the OT? It’s actually quite simple here as well. We follow the example of the New Testament writers. They didn’t seem to have all the difficulty we do (mainly because they weren’t holding extra-biblical presuppositions). Some will retort, saying that it’s impossible and will necessarily result in allegory or “spiritualizing” the text. And to prove this they’ll quote a sentence or short paragraph from the OT and ask how it is that Christ can be preached from it. Now this is just stupid. No one is saying that we ought to preach Christ from individual sentences stripped of their redemptive-historical context. Let’s keep the context, but look past the shadows and types of the OT (as we are instructed to do in the book of Hebrews and as we see in the rest of the NT) and read it like Christians rather than second-temple Jews. 

Scripture tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not the law! To preach imperatives week after week, assuming that everyone already knows the gospel, is to overestimate the fact that we are all prone to works-righteousness. At heart, we are all pharisees, and the only way to kill a pharisee is not to give him a bigger list of things to do, but to show him that he can’t do anything! And from there it’s the gospel–again and again–not mere law! Paul said that the law is the pedagogue leading us to Christ, yet so many seem to think that Christ is the pedagogue who leads us to the law. Preach the gospel promiscuously, please.

Cutting the Gospel in Half: A Recipe for Despair

One should not treat the preaching of the law in isolation. The entire Word of God needs to be preached. This Word comprises both the law and the gospel. No one can preach the gospel while ignoring the accusation of the law. Theologically, the accusation comes first. How can the acquittal be announced before the accusation has been brought forward?
As accusation, the law always precedes the preaching of the gospel and resonates in it. However, by limiting oneself to the accusation, one would fall short of the mandate to preach God’s Word. By stopping after the word of the law, one cuts the gospel in half by eliminating its saving and purifying perspective. It causes despair without indicating the way back to God.
. . . It does not befit us to prescribe for the Holy Spirit how to do his work. We have the mandate to preach the gospel (as acquittal from the accusation of the law; i.e., in terms of both of these words). For some the accusation through the law will hit home, and for others, the graceful love of God for a sinner. At any rate, both need to be proclaimed: guilt and redemption; punishment and forgiveness; judgment and grace.
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 433-34.  

The Church and the Old Testament

God’s promises are not predictions or prognostications that cease to have relevance once they have come true. In that case part of the Old Testament would only be of historical significance to us! The church of Christ sees the coming of God to his people described in all of the Old Testament, and hears in it the announcement of salvation. Therefore the church still loves the Old Testament as the Word of God, just as it was the book of life and the book of prayer to the Son of Man. Passages from the Psalms became words from the cross. Jesus said of the Scriptures of the Old Testament: “They are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). “To him give all the prophets witness” (Acts 10:43). It says in the gospel “that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning [him]” (Luke 24:44). We must keep in mind that when God’s promises become true, this does not necessarily mean that they have been completely fulfilled. The Old Testament promises of salvation open mighty perspectives pertaining to consummation and God’s eternal kingdom. It says that “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9). This is not yet the case. We can indeed see more of it that could those who first heard the words of this prophecy. At one time the knowledge of the God of the covenant remained practically limited to a single nation, while today the Word of God reaches around the globe. But the full realization of these promises remains outstanding. Their realization in the new dispensation will be superseded by their ultimate fulfillment in the coming kingdom of God.
- J. van Genderen, W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics trans. Gerrits Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 67.