Monday, 9 November 2026

The Heart of the Prosperity Gospel: Self or the Savior?

By Dan Lioy[1]

Abstract[2]

This essay explores whether self or the Savior is at the heart of the prosperity gospel. An analysis and critique of its dogma indicates that it is predominantly anthropocentric, rather than Christocentric. This ego-focused outlook is likewise present in the health-and-wealth movement. One discovers that preachers of success are touting a religion of self in which people are the measure of all things. A detailed discussion of Ephesians 1:3–23 provides a needed biblical response. One learns that the Son, not self, is at the heart of the Father’s plan of redemption. Also, it is in Christ alone that believers find forgiveness, hope, and wisdom. Only He is the meta-narrative of life, whether temporal or eternal in nature. Indeed, He is the sole reason for the existence of the church and the one who enables believers to complete their God-given work.

1. An analysis and critique of the prosperity gospel dogma

In July 2007, both Christianity Today and The Christian Century printed articles on the prosperity gospel (Glifford 2007; Phiri & Maxwell 2007). The fact that both a theologically conservative, evangelical magazine (Christianity Today) and an ecumenical, mainline Protestant magazine (The Christian Century) covered the same topic around the same time suggests the editorial boards of these respective publications considered it to be an increasingly important subject. Indeed, as Hunt (2000:73) notes, the “health and prosperity gospel” is “one of the fastest growing religious movements on a global scale”. It has been “adopted as far afield as Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Africa, India, Latin America and the Pacific rim of Southeast Asia” (Hunt 1998:272).

The latter observation is confirmed by a Time magazine poll, which determined that in the U.S., “17% of Christians” who were surveyed “said they considered themselves” to be part of the “Prosperity Theology” movement (Van Biema & Chu 2006). Additionally, a “full 61% believed that God wants people to be prosperous”. On the African continent, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey in 2006 in which individuals were asked whether God would “grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith” and whether “religious faith was ‘very important to economic success’” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). Roughly 9 out of 10 participants from Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya said yes.

While the theology of the prosperity gospel is not monolithic, its “teachings follow a general pattern” (Folarin 2007:80). The movement’s dogma blends “Pentecostal revivalism with elements of positive thinking” (Coleman 1993:355; cf. Sarles 1986:330). Adherents insist that faith is a supernatural force that believers use to get whatever form of personal success they want, including physical health and material wealth. Faith is also claimed to be the medium through which the full power of the Holy Spirit is unleashed. A theology of the spoken word (or rhematology) is the basis for these notions. There is an implicit confidence in the power of “positive confession” (Coleman 1993:356), in which faith enables what believers think and say to become actualized realities. Through the “force of faith” the “positive power (God) is ‘activated’, and the negative (Satan) is confronted and negated” (Hunt 1998:275; Hunt 2000:75; cf. Atkinson 2007:174, 184; Beckford 2001:14, 17; Hummel 1991:12–13; McConnell 1995:186; Sarles 1986:332).

Devotees reason that God has faith in the inherent, actualizing power of His faith. Correspondingly, at the dawn of time He used faith to conceptualize the universe and command it into existence (cf. Gen 1; Ps 33:6; Heb 11:3; 2 Pet 3:5). Likewise, it is inferred that believers can use faith to conceive ideas in their mind and speak them into existence. Similar reasoning lies behind the assertion that Jesus was wounded on the cross so that every Christian who has enough faith can enjoy complete physical healing (cf. Isa 53:5; Matt 8:17; 1 Pet 2:24). Not only are the reality of disease and sickness repudiated, but it is also maintained that God commands all faithful believers to experience perfect health (Beckford 2001:18–19; Coleman 1993:355–356; Folarin 2007:78, 83–84; Hummel 1991:13–14; Hunt 2000:73; Sarles 1986:331; cf. Jas 5:14–16).

The perspective of Scripture is quite different regarding the nature and significance of Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary. In Romans 3:25, Paul said that “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”.3 The Greek noun hilastērion, which can also be rendered “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (Herrmann 1999:3:318–319), communicates the idea that the Son’s work on the cross averted the Father’s wrath against sinners. Jesus’ sacrifice also provided the removal of personal guilt. Paul was making a parallel between the atoning sacrifices offered in the temple and Jesus’ death on the cross. His sacrifice is the means by which salvation is accomplished for all who repent and believe (v. 24). In fact, the Greek noun apolutrōsis, which is translated “redemption”, carries overtones of a “ransom payment” (Büchsel 1999:351–352). The term is adapted from its original use in the slave market. We were formerly enslaved to sin, but Jesus ransomed us by His death on the cross so that we could become His servants (cf. Green 1993:203–204; Mitton 1962:309–310; Morris 2001:113–114; Reid 1979:352).

According to proponents of the theology of success, Christians should decide what they want, believe it is theirs, and confess it to be true. Reputedly, they can obtain the longings of their heart by naming and claiming them by faith.

As a matter of fact, God is glorified when His people are rich and happy in every way. Christians are spurred on by the assurance that all the promises of spiritual, physical, and financial blessing God made to Abraham and his descendants likewise apply to all believers (Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15:17–20; 17:1–8; 22:15–18). Supposedly, God has already promised and granted them their deepest wishes (Beckford 2001:19; Folarin 2007:81–82; Hummel 1991:15–7; Sarles 1986:334–335).

Advocates of the prosperity gospel believe that since it is the will of God for believers to enjoy life to the fullest extent possible (cf. John 10:10), including financial prosperity and entrepreneurial success (cf. Deut 7:12–26; Josh 14:9; Ps 23:1–6; Mal 3:10; Mark 10:29–30; 3 John 2), living in poverty violates His will and dishonors His name. A lack of faith is labeled as one reason why Christians fail to be healed, enjoy abundant wealth, and so on. Moreover, it is reasoned that God never wants His people to suffer or be poor. Satan and sin, not God, are said to be the culprits behind every form of sickness, tragedy, and hardship that exists. Allegedly, the devil uses pseudo-symptoms of non-existent ailments to trick believers into imagining they are not feeling well and to entice them to think or say a negative confession (Folarin 2007:78–79, 87; Hunt 2000:74; McConnell 1995:186; cf. Atkinson 2007:174, 184).

Sarles (1986:347) observes that the gospel of affluence has robbed “human faith … of its biblical foundation” and imposed on it “an entirely new meaning”. It has become a “form of magic, with the spoken word” operating “as the incantation” (348). In contrast, Scripture teaches that faith is a belief in what God has revealed in His Word. It is a trusting commitment. An exercise of faith involves the whole person—the mind, emotions, and will. With the mind, one believes in God’s existence and in the teaching of Scripture (Matt 22:37; 2 Thess 2:13). With the emotions, the sinner exercises a personal faith in Christ as the only one who can redeem from sin (Luke 24:32, 41; Rom 15:13). With the will, one surrenders to Christ and trusts Him as Lord and Savior (Acts 16:31; 1 John 5:1, 4–5). This faith helps us recognize that the one crucified on the cross and buried in a tomb was raised to life by the power of God. Faith helps us affirm that Jesus’ resurrection life also opens the way for us to live eternally (cf. Blackman 1962:222; Bromiley 1982:270–271; Morris 1993:285; Packer 2001:431–432).

According to Hebrews 11:1, faith is being confident that what we hope for will actually occur. Also, it is being convinced about things we cannot see. At its core, faith is a matter of conviction. It is an assurance based on God’s unchanging character. Popular opinion sees faith as irrational. Supposedly, it is believing something even when our mind tells us not to. In contrast, the biblical concept of faith includes both reason and experience. Such faith, however, is not limited to what we can see. It makes unseen spiritual realities perceivable, not by willing them into existence, but by a conviction that what God has said about them is true. Biblical faith is rooted in the knowledge of God (v. 6). Those who possess this faith believe that God is real and that He rewards those who truly want to know Him. Faith is so foundational to the Christian life that one cannot be in a relationship with the Lord apart from it.

2. An analysis and critique of the prosperity gospel movement

To some extent, the contemporary prosperity gospel movement traces its origins to the United States (Beckford 2001:15–16; Phiri & Maxwell 2007) and appeals to the “Western materialistic mindset” (Robison 2003). Perhaps Joel Osteen is the best known spokesperson today within American evangelicalism (Lioy 2007:1; Van Biema & Chu 2006). Byassee (2005) points out that Osteen’s message is a continuation of what others before him have taught (such as Russell Conwell, Norman Vincent Peale, and Bruce Wilkinson): “just improve your attitude, keep your chin up, and God’s blessings will rain down on you”. Osteen urges people to “enlarge their vision” about the “good things” God supposedly wants to do for them and “expect people to go out of their way” to offer help. Osteen asserts that when people think “upbeat, self-confident” thoughts about themselves and “speak words of victory” over dire situations, happiness and abundance will result. Here one encounters an ideology of materialism that is “framed in a kind of Tony Robbins positivism” (Van Biema & Chu 2006).

The preceding observations are not intended to suggest that someone such as Osteen is “deliberately misleading or manipulating” his audience (Robison 2003). Also, to a certain extent, church leaders like Osteen attempt to preach a message that highlights both prosperity and salvation (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). Furthermore, as a result of prosperity gospel churches making large contributions to “faith-based antipoverty” charities, the disadvantaged feel affirmed as members of God’s spiritual family (Van Biema & Chu 2006).

In some cases, an “enterprise culture” (Hunt 2000:79) is fostered, one characterized by “dynamism” and “entrepreneurship” (Gifford 2007) and that results in the gradual transformation of economically blighted communities. In other cases, the promise of success that is preached “embraces all areas of life”, especially when the stress is “on divine, not human, agency”. To the marginalized of society, a renewed sense of hope emerges. The disenfranchised begin to see that God cares about their lives so much (Beckford 2001:13; Folarin 2007:89)—including their “education, finances, health care”, and so on (Walsh 2007)—that He will pull them out of poverty (Hunt 2000:76).

The prosperity gospel movement is not confined to any one denomination of American Christianity, but has “swept beyond its Pentecostal base into more buttoned-down evangelical churches, and even into congregations in the more liberal Mainline” (Van Biema & Chu 2006; cf. McConnell 1995:188). Furthermore, the gospel of success is a racially diverse movement that mirrors “the contours of contemporary society” (Hunt 2000:74) and reflects “contemporary cultural values”. As a result of linking “pockets of common (religious) culture across political boundaries” (Coleman 1993:355), it has migrated to such Third World locales as Asia, Latin America, and Africa (Gifford 2007; Hummel 1991:30).

According to Phiri & Maxwell (2007), U.S.-based religious media is a primary reason for the global extent of this influence (cf. Folarin 2007:71). Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), based in Santa Ana, California, is one of the largest and most influential organizations. Bonnie Dolan, the director of Zambia’s Center for Christian Missions, is quoted as saying that when people watch television, they “assume that TBN is American Christianity, and Americans know everything, so why not listen to it?” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007).This “prosperity teaching via the media” (perhaps epitomized by TBN) has also left its mark on Latino churches worldwide in a way that parallels African churches (Walsh 2007).

Phiri & Maxwell (2007) observe that in addition to such American “health-and-wealth preachers” as Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin Jr. (cf. Hunt 1998:272; McConnell 1995:183–184), TBN broadcasts “wall-to-wall peddlers of plenty” around the globe. By way of example, on the African continent, purveyors of success teach that “spoken words of faith create … blessing” and that “material blessing is the gospel”. Viewers are promised “abundant wealth, runaway professional success, and unassailable physical and emotional health” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). In this brand of Christianity, “a believer is successful; if not, something is wrong” (Gifford 2007; cf. Van Biema & Chu 2006; Walsh 2007). Because affluence is said to be the Christians’ God-given “right and inheritance”, it is what they should “expect and demand” (Gifford 2007).

As a result of the “gospel of wealth” extending “tremendous promise to an economically deprived people”, it has pierced “the heart of Africa’s dynamic, growing church” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). In contrast, the historic Christian message of sacrifice and suffering remains “unappealing”. Walsh (2007) contends that an undue focus on a “prosperous Christ is troubling”, for “once suffering rears its inevitable head in one’s life, what kind of Christ is one left with?” The indigent, while struggling to survive in the arid soil of unrelenting deprivation, are bombarded with messages exhorting them to plant a seed of faith and believe that from it they will reap an unimaginable harvest of plenty (Folarin 2007:83; Robison 2003; Sarles 1986:333). Success preachers leverage the “biblical image of ‘sowing and reaping’” to get parishoners to bring their “tithes and offerings”, which in turn are proclaimed to be the “instruments of prosperity” (Gifford 2007).

Throughout many cities in Africa, bumper stickers on automobiles display such slogans as “With Jesus I Will Always Win” and “Your Success Is Determined by Your Faith” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). Similarly, congregations flaunt such names as “Victory Bible Church”, “Jesus Breakthrough Assembly”, and “Triumphant Christian Centre” (Gifford 2007). Likewise, conventions advertise such titles as “Living a Life of Abundance”, “Taking Your Territories”, and “Stepping into Greatness”. These health-and-wealth mantras play right into “traditional African values”, which tend to “link material success and spiritual success” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). Analogous circumstances often exist in Latino churches; but tragically, the “ideal life” offered by preachers of success “rarely, if ever, changes the real-life picture” of “neighborhoods wracked by poverty, gang violence, substandard education, and pervasive drug and alcohol abuse” (Walsh 2007).

Among African congregations, there is a tendency to admire the “Big Man” (Phiri & Maxwell 2007). This is epitomized by “rich, powerful leaders such as prosperity preachers” who are “adorned with all the trappings of a successful tribal chief”. People assume these religious superstars are “worth heeding” because of their “larger-than-life” success. This image is reinforced by these ministers claims to be the “Man of God” or the “Archbishop” (Gifford 2007). They heighten their elite, authoritative status by asserting that the written words of Scripture “have a performative or declarative use”. According to Sarles (1986:337), a “highly subjective and arbitrary” approach is used for “interpreting the biblical text”. Ministers who assert to be divinely commissioned apostles quote numerous passages of Scripture “without attention to grammatical indicators, semantic nuances, or literary and historical context” (cf. Hummel 1991:17). They also present themselves to be the Lord’s anointed prophets through whom He fulfills the promises of the Bible in the lives of His people (Hunt 2000:82). Congregants are told that God is working through these egotistical leaders to give them “the blessings of Abraham, the power of Joseph, the authority of Moses, the sovereignty of David, the exploits of Elijah, and … revival and restoration of Israel itself” (Gifford 2007).

From a sociological standpoint, one might regard the prosperity gospel as a “counter-movement” (Speck 2007:4) to more traditional forms of evangelism that teach about suffering for the cause of Christ (cf. Hunt 1998:273–274). Proponents of success herald a “unique and unorthodox interpretation” of Scripture that harmonizes with “some of the major attributes of contemporary culture” (Hunt 2000:84), which is “preoccupied with material prosperity and obsessed with concern for health” (Hummel 1991:28). While theologically conservative evangelicals tend to stress the blessings awaiting Christians in the future messianic kingdom, ministers of entrepreneurship redirect the spotlight on obtaining worldly abundance right now. This shift from the transcendent future to the workaday present is seen in a more pragmatic approach to life in which the needs of the individual attain foremost importance (Speck 2007:6-7). In turn, the focus is taken off of “theocentric providence” and placed on “anthropocentric prosperity” (Sarles 1986:329).

Health-and-wealth preachers “unabashedly” borrow “religious imagery” from the “Judeo-Christian tradition” to advance their own ecclesiastical aims and aspirations (Speck 2007:9). In keeping with the postmodernist “societal order” in which we live (12), the prosperity gospel operates in a relativistic manner that “reflects the increasing inner secularisation of faith” (Hunt 2000:84) and the “irrationalism” now controlling “our entire culture” (Robbins 1978). For example, truth is not necessarily anchored to or verified by a particular sacred text. Instead, truth—not to mention ultimate reality itself—is deconstructed and reconstructed by prominent religious leaders and their followers. As prestige and authority become increasingly centralized, there is a comparable heightened potential that “those in power [will] impose their wishes upon the powerless”, and manipulate people, resources, and circumstances to their own advantage (Speck 2007:10).

On one level, the health-and-wealth message being preached is regarded by “doctrinally traditional Christians” as “simplistic, possibly heretical and certainly embarrassing” (Van Biema & Chu 2006). On another level, it is considered by ecumenical, mainline Protestants as a “pagan gospel of acquisition”, “self-help”, and “self-improvement” (Bypassee 2005). On balance, it signifies a capitalistic obsession with “individual self-esteem, ambition, [and] confidence “ (Gifford 2007). Expressed differently, the prosperity gospel is a consumer-centric religion of self in which people believe they are the measure of all things (Beckford 2001:18; Robison 2003). Like other forms of humanism, it is an “attitude or way of life centered on human interests or values” (Mish 2006). When people insist they are complete within themselves, it leads to a rejection of virtually every truth-claim about God and His existence. A Christ-centered ethical norm is jettisoned for a man-centered, materialistic one. Also, rather than look to Scripture for moral guidance, ethical standards are determined by one’s own feelings and experiences (Lioy 2007:3).

3. The sovereignty and supremacy of the Messiah as Lord

In the previous section, the prosperity gospel was referred to as a religion of self. The implication of this anthropocentric orientation is that the individual sits on the throne (so to speak) of the movement and its dogma. An examination of Scripture, however, indicates that the emphasis should be entirely on the Messiah. His sovereignty and supremacy as Lord is supposed to dominate the theological landscape, establish the agenda for the church, and remain the foundation and focus of the Christian life.

To give prominence to anyone or anything else other than the Lord is idolatry, which violates the first commandment of the Decalogue. It says, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7). The Hebrew phrase is more literally translated “before my face” and can also be rendered “in my presence”, “against me”, or “in hostility toward me” (Lioy 2004:55). The implication is that God has “exclusively claimed” His people “as His own”. Accordingly, He permits “no rivals—whether real or imagined—in His presence”. For believers to tolerate any other circumstance results in a “hostile dynamic”, one that goes “against God and His relationship” with them.

The New Testament builds on this theocentric orientation by revealing that everything is to be focused on the Messiah. Expressed differently, He is the “meta-narrative of life, whether temporal or eternal in nature” (Lioy 2007:253). Likewise, He is the key to understanding human identity, and the only one who has fully revealed the Father to humanity (John 1:18; 14:9). The same God who had partially revealed Himself in times past, now has disclosed Himself totally and ultimately in His Son (Heb 1:1). The Son gives full and final expression to all that was previously revealed (cf. Luke 24:44), and He does so in a way that is focused, clear, and relevant. Indeed, for our benefit, the Father has made the Son to be the quintessential essence of wisdom (1 Cor 1:30).

This Christocentric orientation is found in Ephesians 1:3–23. For that reason, a detailed discussion of these verses is undertaken to provide a biblical response to the consumer-centric religion of self represented by the prosperity gospel. Beginning with verse 3, Paul extolled the Father, in which the Greek adjective rendered “praise” (eulogtos) conveys the “idea of someone deserving appreciation” and “honor” (Hoehner 2002:162). The apostle stated that unending adoration belongs to God for the spiritual blessings He has given believers “in Christ”. According to Snodgrass (1996:43), “the idea of being ‘in Christ’ is one of the most important components in Paul’s theology”. The Lord Jesus alone is the “source” and the “sphere” of the believers’ gifts of grace (Wood 1978:11:25). Here the apostle wove the “function of Christ as heavenly mediator into the praise of God as benefactor” (Perkins 2000:372).

God has blessed us—among a seemingly infinite variety of ways (cf. Abbott 1979:4–5)—by choosing us (vv. 4–6), redeeming us (vv. 7–8), and revealing His eternal plan of redemption to us (vv. 9–10). Lenski (1961:350) commented that the Son is “the central diamond around which all the lesser diamonds are set as rays”. While it is true that God sometimes blesses His people materially as well as spiritually, in verse 3 Paul chose to focus on cosmic blessings (cf. Hendriksen 1995:73–74; Lincoln 1990:20–21). This serves as a corrective to the undue emphasis health-and-wealth orators place on becoming rich. The eternal treasures believers have in Christ are certain, for they have been secured for us “in the heavenly realms”, that is, “the place where God dwells” (Hoehner 2002:275). These grace-gifts flow from God the Father, through God the Son, to us (O’Brien 1999:90).

“Blessed” renders the Greek verb eulogeō. It refers to an act of declaring (or wishing) favor and goodness upon others (Beyer 1999:754–755). In the Old Testament, important people blessed those with less power or influence. For example, the patriarchs declared God’s favor upon their children (Gen 49:1–28). Leaders frequently blessed their subordinates, especially when preparing to leave them (for instance, Moses and Joshua; Deut 31). The Lord’s people bless Him by showing gratitude and singing songs of praise (Ps 103:1–2). God also blesses His people through spiritual and physical enrichment. For example, He showers them with life and fruitfulness (Gen 1:22, 28). Of course, God’s foremost blessing is turning people from their wicked ways and pardoning their sins (Acts 3:25–26). The atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis for the Lord’s favor and goodness to believers (Eph 1:3).

The first spiritual blessing Paul mentioned is that God, in His absolute and boundless love (cf. Hoehner 2002:182; Turaki 2006:1427), “chose us” (rendering the Greek verb eklegomai; v. 4) and “predestined us” (rendering the Greek verb proorizō; v. 5). These terms, which serve to “give believers assurance of God’s purpose for them” (Lincoln 1990:23), are parallel but have different shades of meaning. Just as God chose the Jewish nation to be His own and to receive the promised land as an inheritance, so He chose Christian believers to be His own people and to receive the inheritance of eternal life (cf. Schrenk 1999:4:144). It can “never perish, spoil or fade” (1 Pet. 1:4), for it is “kept in heaven” for us eternally.

There are at least two distinct views of what predestination means when it is discussed in Scripture (cf. Hoehner 2002:185–193; Schmidt 1999:5:456). Some think that people are so debased by sin that they are unable to respond to the offer of salvation made available in Christ. It is argued that those who believe have the ability to do so only because God previously chose them for redemption. In other words, the Lord gives them grace, and this enables them to believe the truth. Others think that God gives all people enough grace to accept the offer of salvation. This remains true even though many reject His grace. In this way, the Lord predestines some for redemption in the sense that He knows beforehand those who will choose to believe the truth of their own free will (cf. Erickson 1998:936–940; Grudem 1994:674–679; Spencer 2001:951). These two views suggest that “God’s sovereign purposes work in paradoxical conjunction with human freedom” (Newman 1996:237).

God chose believers “to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4; cf. Col 1:22; 1 Thess 3:13). Hoehner (2002:178) explains that “since God has selected the believer to be his possession, the believer should reflect God’s character” (cf. Turaki 2006:1426). To be “holy” (Eph 1:4) means to be distinctly different from the world so that God can use us for His purposes (cf. Wood 1978:24). Our holiness is the result of our having been chosen, not the reason we were chosen (cf. Peterson 2000:547; Ury 1996:343–344). To be “blameless” means to be free of the immoral and selfish lifestyle that marks people who are apart from God (cf. Hauck 19994:830–831).

God also predestined believers “for adoption to sonship” (v. 5; cf. Rom 8:15–23; Gal 4:4–7). Through Jesus Christ, God’s Son, we become spiritual children of God. Under Roman law, adopted sons enjoyed the same privileges as natural sons (cf. Lincoln 1990:25; O’Brien 1999:102). Similarly, God reckons believers as His true children and as recipients of all the benefits that go with that status (cf. Scott 1993:16). It is no wonder that believers give God praise for the wonderful grace He has poured out on them in His Son, whom He dearly loves (Eph 1:6).

Despite the magnificence of our having been chosen by God, this spiritual blessing is not the only one we receive. Paul also mentioned the blessing of redemption (vv. 7–8). Through redemption God makes His choosing effective in our lives. As noted earlier, the Greek noun translated “redemption” (apolutrōsis; v. 7) refers to a ransom. Because we were born with a sinful nature, God was not attracted to us due to any goodness He saw in us. Despite our sinful condition, He rescued us from our state of separation from His holiness. He did this by sending His Son to become the sacrifice for our sins. Robinson (1979:28) describes Jesus as being both “the ideal Man and the Image of God” (cf. Hendriksen 1995:102). By His shed blood, Christ ransomed us from slavery to sin and from the sentence of death under which we languished.

Closely related to redemption is “forgiveness”. The Greek noun Paul used (aphēsis) had a variety of meanings including “to send off”, “to release”, “to give up”, “to pardon”, and “to hurl” (Bultmann 1999:1:509) The idea is that when we receive the effect of Jesus’ redemption through faith, God releases us from the penalty of our sins and hurls our sin debt far away from us (cf. Snodgrass 1996:51). What the Father did for us through His Son was in harmony with the riches of His grace. Hoehner (2002:200–201) defines “grace” as “God’s unmerited or undeserved favor”, especially in His provision of “salvation for sinners through Christ’s sacrificial death”.

In addition to showering us with His unmerited favor, God has also lavished us “with all wisdom and understanding” (v. 8). Turaki (2006:1427) defines “wisdom” as “knowledge of the true reality of a situation”, not just “superficial facts”. Also, “understanding” refers to the “discernment required to distinguish between reality and falsehood”. Before we believed, we did not have spiritual insight; but since coming to a knowledge of the truth, we can now see how things really are and can get an idea of how God wants us to live.

Another spiritual blessing Paul listed is our ability to know the “mystery of [God’s] will” (v. 9). The Greek noun rendered “mystery” is mustērion and generally denotes that which is hidden or secret (Bornkmann 1999:802–803). For the apostle, a “mystery” is a truth that was once hidden but has now been revealed through Christ (cf. Motyer 2001:803; O’Brien 1993:621–623; Thielman 1996:546–547). With the advent of Son, the divine secret is meant to be understood by all believers (cf. Rom 16:25–27; Col 1:25–27). The Lord made His will known to Paul “by revelation”. This began on the road to Damascus when the apostle encountered the risen Messiah. At that time Christ charged Paul with taking the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 26:16–18).

Ephesians 1:10 states that God’s eternal plan was to head up all things in Christ at the divinely appointed time. This includes everything “in heaven and on earth”. Havener (1992:1190) explains that the Messiah is the “agent of God’s plan of salvation to such a degree that despite the cosmic proportions of this plan, all is done ‘in Christ’”. The Greek verb translated “bring unity” (anakephalaiomai) can mean “to sum up” (Schlier 1999:681–682). In Paul’s day, “when a column of figures” was tallied, the “total was placed” at the head of the column (Wood 1978:26). In a similar fashion, at the terminus of history all things “will be seen to add up to Christ”. O’Brien (1999:112) clarifies that the Son is not just “the means, the instrument, or the functionary through whom” the Father effects His will. More importantly, the Son is “the focal point”.

In 3:3, mustērion also refers to God’s previously veiled plan for dealing with the righteous, in particular, that God’s grace includes Gentiles as well as Jews (v. 6). According to the Father’s redemptive plan, the time had arrived to disclose His compassion toward those Gentiles who became devoted followers of the Son. Indeed, God has bestowed upon believing Gentiles all the blessings enjoyed by saved Jews. Christ dwells in Gentile and Jewish believers, and both possess the same “hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

In Ephesians 1:11, Paul noted that God causes all things to happen in accordance with “the purpose of his will”. This included Jews such as Paul coming to faith in Christ. The language of Ephesians (particularly the first half) is richer and more effusive than the language in other letters by Paul. The apostle’s style is demonstrated in this phrase: “the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”. The phrase contains an inclusive term (“everything”) and several synonyms (“plan,” “works out,” “purpose,” “will”). This style suits the apostle’s subject of God’s grand plan for believers, the church, and the universe.

The divine purpose was that the conversion of Jews to Christ would bring the Lord eternal praise (v. 12). Similarly, according to Romans 8:28, “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose”. The historical record is that the apostles and other Jews were the first to trust in Christ (cf. Wood 1978:26). Admittedly, the majority of Jews who were contemporaries of Paul rejected the Messiah. Nevertheless, a remnant of that generation of Jews formed the nucleus of the church. Through them, the gospel went out to the entire world. Those early Jewish believers were walking testimonies of God’s glory.

With verse 13, Paul changed pronouns from “we” to “you” (plural). He was now specifically referring to the Ephesian believers (cf. Abbott 1979:21–22; Bock 1994:310; Snodgrass 1996:51). Although Jewish Christians had been chosen for their role in starting the church, this should not have made the Ephesians feel like outsiders. They, too, were included in Christ (cf. O’Brien 1999:118). Paul was stressing “to his readers” that “God’s activity” does not occur “in a vacuum”, but even includes the Gentiles (Best 1998:148). Jewish and non-Jewish believers form one united church, the cosmic body of Christ (cf. Turaki 2006:1427). Paul delineated the stages of development by which the Gentiles became “included in Christ”. It is the same process through which anyone is born again. First, the Gentiles “heard the word of truth” when Paul or others proclaimed the gospel to them. They then “believed” the truth they heard. The result was their spiritual regeneration.

It is clarifying to note that “all three persons of the Trinity are involved with the believers’ relationship with God” (Hoehner 2002:240; cf. Hendriksen 1995:91; Lenski 1961:364; Robinson 1979:19–20; Turaki 2006:1426). To be specific, the Father has blessed us because of our spiritual union with His Son. Further, the gift of the Spirit identifies us as God’s spiritual children. Moreover, the Spirit is the believers’ guarantee that they belong to the Father and that He will do for them what He has promised in His Son. The Spirit’s abiding presence confirms that one’s faith is genuine and that one’s adoption into God’s family is real. These are excellent reasons for us to give unending praise to God.

Paul explained that when his readers trusted in Christ, they were “marked … with a seal” (v. 13), which is the Holy Spirit. Put another way, the Lord identified believers as His own by giving them the Spirit, whom He promised long ago (cf. Ezek 36:26–27; 37:14; Joel 2:28–30). Snodgrass (1996:46) observed that “the Spirit is the primary gift” of God and the “source of all the others”. By calling the Spirit a seal, Paul may have raised a number of images in the minds of his readers. At that time, seals were fastened to merchandise being exported to specify the manufacturers’ identity and safeguard the arrival of the items. Seals were also put on official papers to vouch for their authenticity. On occasion seals represented an agency in the government (cf. Ryken 1998:766). Any of these uses of seals might symbolize a part of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying and eternally preserving work in the lives of those who trust in Christ (cf. Woodcock 1998:139, 150).

The preceding remarks notwithstanding, for Paul, the Spirit is not only a seal but also a “deposit” (Eph 1:14; cf. 2 Cor 1:21–22). In the apostle’s day, a deposit was a token initial payment to confirm to a seller that the remaining purchase price would be given (cf. Behm 1999:475; Best 1998:151–152). Lincoln (1990:41) clarifies that “the Spirit is seen as the power of the age to come given ahead of time in history”. In the eschaton, believers will receive the full installment of eternal life from the riches of God’s grace (cf. Hendriksen 1995:92). During the interim, the Spirit’s presence in our lives assures us of coming glory. In truth, He is a “preview or foretaste” of our “future salvation” (Woodcock 1998:153). The Father’s provision of the Spirit is to “the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:14; cp. v. 12).

In verses 15 and 16, Paul told the Ephesians that he thanked God for their faith and love. Then in verses 17 through 19, the apostle mentioned the two spiritual blessings he was asking God to give them, and described what those blessings could do for them. Though Paul had founded the church at Ephesus, due to his imprisonment in Rome, he had not seen the believers there for several years (cf. Acts 28:30-31; Eph. 3:1). Nonetheless, even while under house arrest, he could receive mail and visitors. Through one or both of these means Paul had received good news about the Ephesians’ spiritual health (1:15). Specifically, the apostle mentioned their faith “in the Lord Jesus” and their “love for all his people”. It is no wonder Paul gave God thanks for the Ephesians (v. 16).

In addition to praying about the Ephesians, the apostle prayed for them. He wanted the Ephesians to have “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation” (v. 17), and he wanted “the eyes of [their] heart [to] be enlightened” (v. 18; cf. Col 1:9). These two requests amount to about the same result. Concerning the first, Paul wanted God to give the Ephesians heightened insight into spiritual truth. In all likelihood, the apostle was “not thinking of particular charismatic gifts that are possessed only by some members of the community” (Perkins 2000:381).

Paul’s readers already had the Holy Spirit as a result of their faith in the Messiah; but the apostle prayed that the Spirit would give them additional wisdom and understanding concerning eternal matters (Eph 1:17). This request indicates that spiritual insight requires more than just intelligence or hard work or a method. It is a gift of God. Paul told his readers that wisdom and revelation by the Spirit could help them know God better. The implication is that spiritual insight is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to deepen our relationship with the Lord (cf. Hoehner 2002:257–259).

Concerning the apostle’s second request, Paul prayed for God to enlighten the eyes of the Ephesians’ hearts (v. 18). In Jewish thinking, the heart was the center of faith and feeling, as well as the source from which words and actions spring (cf. Best 1998:165; Ryken 1998:368–369). Thus, Paul’s request was for the Ephesians to have an inner awareness of God’s truth. If the eyes of the their hearts had better vision (metaphorically speaking), they could focus on the hope, riches, and power of God. The “hope to which he has called” us is eternal life with God. The “riches of his glorious inheritance in his people” most likely refers to believers’ receiving citizenship in heaven. The “incomparably great power for us who believe” (v. 19) includes all the ways God freely and powerfully acts to achieve His purposes in our lives for His glory.

Knowledge of God’s power was the third benefit of clear spiritual vision that Paul listed for the Ephesians. The apostle went on to describe that power as it was demonstrated in the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation (vv. 19–20). When the Son died on the cross, His enemies thought they had heard the last of Him, but they were incorrect (cf. Turaki 2006:1428). With the unstoppable force of God’s power, Christ broke the barrier of death and rose immortal from the grave (cf. Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10). Then, for 40 days the Redeemer ministered on earth to His followers (cf. Acts 1:3). After that, He ascended to heaven and assumed His place at God’s right hand (cf. Acts 1:9; 7:55–56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3).

In Bible times, when a person of power and importance—such as a monarch—wanted to honor someone, the important person would let the individual to be honored take up a position at his right hand (cf. Lincoln 1990:61–62). Indeed, Scriptures often draw upon the cultural perception of the hand being a symbol of power and authority (cf. Exod 15:6, 12; 1 Kings 2:19; 1 Chron 6:39; Job 40:14; Pss 16:8, 11; 17:7; 18:35; Isa 41:20; Luke 1:66). Clearly, Paul meant that the Son received from the Father the highest honor and authority (cf. Denten 1962:561–562; Hess 1996:324). Penner (1983:12) maintains that the “enthronement of Christ at the Father’s right hand” is the “central and determining christological theme in Ephesians”. In point of fact, whatever the Father “has done and will do for the believer” is dependent on the “greatness of the power” He demonstrated when He “exalted Christ to ultimate lordship” (13). Additionally, “in raising and enthroning Christ, God raises and enthrones believers along with him” (Allen 1986:105; cf. Eph. 2:6–7).

Jesus’ authority extends over all spiritual beings (cf. Hoehner 2002:279; Robinson 1979:41). Paul was undoubtedly referring to these beings when he stated that the Messiah sovereignly reigns over all heavenly rulers, authorities, powers, and dominions (Eph 1:21; cf. Phil 2:9–11; Col 1:16). Speculation about spiritual beings was common among first-century Jewish and pagan religious leaders alike. Many of them came up with quite elaborate theories about these beings, arranging them in orders and assigning them powers (cf. Lincoln 1990:62–63). Of course, the apostle knew perfectly well that most (if not all) of these theories were incorrect. Even so, people believed them, and of course there really are angels. For that reason, Paul said, in effect, “Call spiritual beings by whatever name you wish, now and in the world to come. No creature stands as majestic in power as the Lord Jesus” (cf. Best 1998:173–175; O’Brien 1999:142).

The Messiah’s authority is not merely over spiritual creatures. It extends to every aspect of creation, including the “very structures of life, whether they be political, financial, biological, or historical” (Snodgrass 1996:75). Paul expressed this truth by saying that “all things [are] under [Christ’s] feet” (Eph 1:22; cp. Pss 8:6; 110:1) and that He is the “head over everything” (Eph. 1:22). Moreover, the apostle referred to the Son as the Head of the church, His spiritual body (vv. 22–23; cf. Col 1:18). New Testament scholars have taken different positions on what this means. According to one group of experts, Jesus is the Head of the church in the sense that He is the church’s source and origin. In contrast, another group of experts thinks Christ is the Head of the church in the sense that He is its leader and authority. In all likelihood, both positions are equally true of the Son (cf. Kroeger 1993:375–377; McVay 1993:377–378; Rayburn 2001:537–538).

Paul declared that the Messiah is Head not only over the church but over everything. Indeed, His headship over all things is “for the church” (Eph 1:22). Expressed differently, Christ exerts His great power for the eternal benefit of the saints (cf. Allen 1986:104). This image emphasizes that the church is the locus of Jesus’ earthly ministry. The image is used both of the church universal and of individual local congregations. Verse 23 says that the risen and exalted Lord is the “fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (cf. Col 1:19–20). Ephesians 1:23 is more literally rendered as either “who fills all in all” or “who is filled entirely”. This phrase could be taken to mean that the omnipresent Messiah reigns supreme over every aspect of the entire universe. The phrase could also indicate that the presence and power of the Son is evident in every conceivable way in the church (Lenski 1961:404).

Both emphases imply that the risen and glorified Savior completely fills everything and fully completes His work in and through the church. As Snodgrass put it (1996:78), “Christ is the place where God’s presence, power, and salvation are known, and the church draws from this fullness” (cf. Abbott 1979:34–38; Best 1998:183–191; Hendriksen 1995:103–106; Hoehner 2002:296–301; Robinson 1979:42–45; Wood 1978:31–32). From a pastoral standpoint, members of the faith community should “reflect the unity they have in Christ and walk in a manner that pleases the one who forgave them”. Through their witness and work, they shine the light of the Son “in a world that lives by different standards”. Regardless of how difficult remaining faithful to the Lord Jesus might seem at times, believers know that the Messiah is “committed to expressing His presence and character through them” (Bock 1994:308–309).

4. Conclusion

The title of this essay questions whether self or the Savior is at the heart of the prosperity gospel. An analysis and critique of its dogma indicates that it is predominately anthropocentric, rather than Christocentric, in its theological orientation. Adherents superstitiously treat faith as a magical force that can unleash the power of the Spirit to bring them health and wealth. Proponents of success operate as if it is their God-given entitlement to be rich and happy in every way possible. Also, those who take a dissenting view are labeled as being weak in faith and unwilling to claim God’s promises for their life.

This “me”-centered outlook is also present in the prosperity gospel movement. While there are some potentially constructive aspects of it (as mentioned earlier in the essay), these are overshadowed by a crass emphasis on achieving personal success. Self-appointed church leaders manipulate Scripture to advance their own egotistical aims and aspirations. Also, they prey on the destitute in their local communities to build their ecclesiastical empires. In this scenario, the so-called “Man of God” is the king of his dominion. Indeed, the congregation he leads—including its people and resources—exist to do his bidding. It is hard to imagine a church setup that could be any more pagan and materialistic than this.

A detailed discussion of Ephesians 1:3–23 provides a needed biblical response to the consumer-centric religion of self represented by the prosperity gospel. We learn that the Father, through the Son, has given us every conceivable spiritual blessing—not because we are entitled to such, but because of God’s grace. These blessings include being chosen, adopted, redeemed, and forgiven by the Lord. By making us the objects of His heavenly riches in Christ, the Father brings glory to Himself. In turn, our response is to offer Him unending praise.

The Son, not self, is at the heart of the Father’s plan of redemption. It is in Christ that believers have hope, wisdom, and understanding. Likewise, it is in Christ that they receive the promised Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their eternal inheritance. It is because of the believers’ faith in the Son that the Father is given thanks. The risen Messiah is the locus of God’s power, the supreme ruler over all heavenly and earthly authorities, and the sovereign leader of the church. The faith community originated with Christ, continues to exist because of Him, and completes its God-given work in and through the Son. In conclusion, the Lord Jesus is the meta-narrative of life, whether temporal or eternal in nature. For this reason, God alone receives adoration from His people.

Bibliography

Abbott TK 1979. Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. T&T Clark.

Allen TG 1986. Exaltation and solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6. JSNT 28:103–120.

Atkinson WP 2007. The nature of the crucified Christ in Word-Faith teaching. Evangelical Review of Theology 31(2):169-184.

Beckford RS 2001. Theology in the age of crack: crack age, prosperity doctrine and ‘being there’. Black Theology in Britain 4(1):9-24.

Behm J 1999. ᾿Αρραβών. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 1), 475. Eerdmans.

Best E 1998. A critical and exegetical commentary on Ephesians. T&T Clark.

Beyer HW 1999. Ευ᾿λογέω. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 2), 754–764. Eerdmans.

Blackman EC 1962. Faith, faithfulness. In GA Buttrick et al. (eds), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (vol 2), 222–234. Abingdon Press.

Bock DL 1994. A theology of Paul’s prison epistles. In RB Zuck et al. (eds), A biblical theology of the New Testament, 299–331. Moody Press.

Bornkmann G 1999.Μυστηριον. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 4), 802–828. Eerdmans.

Bromiley GW 1982. Faith. In GW Bromiley (ed), The international standard Bible encyclopedia (vol 2), 270–273. Eerdmans.

Büchsel F 1999. ᾿Απολύτρωσις. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 4), 351–356. Eerdmans.

Bultmann R 1999.῍Αφεσις. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 1), 509–512. Eerdmans.

Byassee J 2005. Be happy: the health and wealth gospel. The Christian Century. Accessed from .

Coleman S 1993. Conservative Protestantism and the world order: the faith movement in the United States and Sweden. Sociology of Religion 54(4):353-373.

Denten RC 1962. Hand. In GA Buttrick et al (eds), The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible (vol 2), 520–521. Abingdon Press.

Erickson MJ 1998. Christian theology (2nd ed). Baker.

Folarin GO 2007. Contemporary state of the prosperity gospel in Nigeria. Asia Journal of Theology 21(1):69-95.

Conspectus 4:1 (March 2007) p. 62

Glifford P 2007. Expecting miracles: the prosperity gospel in Africa. The Christian Century. Accessed from .

Green JB 1993. Death of Christ. In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 201–209. IVP.

Grudem W 1994. Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan.

Hauck F 1999. ῎Αμωμος. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 4), 830–831. Eerdmans.

Havener I 1992. Ephesians. In RJ Karris (ed), The collegeville Bible commentary, 1188–1197. The Liturgical Press.

Hendriksen W 1995. Exposition of Ephesians. Baker.

Herrmann S 1999. ῾Ιλαστήριον. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 3), 318–319. Eerdmans.

Hess RS 1996. Hand, right hand. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 324. Baker.

Hoehner HW 2002. Ephesians: an exegetical commentary. Baker.

Hummel CE 1991. The prosperity gospel: health and wealth and the faith movement. IVP.

Hunt S 1998. Magical moments: an intellectualist approach to the neo-Pentecostal faith ministries. Religion 28(3):271-280.

Hunt S 2000. Dramatising the “health and wealth gospel”: belief and practice of a neo-Pentecostal “faith” ministry. Journal of Beliefs and Values 21(1):73-86.

Kroeger CC 1993. Head. In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 375–377. IVP.

Lenski RCH 1961. The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Augsburg.

Lincoln AT 1990. Ephesians. Word Books.

Lioy D 2004. The Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount. Peter Lang.

_____ 2007. Jesus as Torah in John 1–12. Wipf and Stock.

McConnell DR 1995. A different gospel. Hendrickson.

McVay JK 1993. Head, Christ as. In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 377–378. IVP.

Mish FC 2006. Humanism. In Merriam-Webster OnLine. Accessed from .

Mitton CL 1962. Atonement. In GA Buttrick et al. (eds), The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible (vol 1), 309–313. Abingdon.

Morris L 1993. Faith. In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 285–291. IVP.

Morris L 2001. Atonement. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 113–114. Baker.

Motyer S 2001. Mystery. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 803. Baker.

Newman CC 1996. Election and predestination in Ephesians 1:4–6a: an exegetical-theological study of the historical, christological realization of God’s purpose. Review and Expositor 93:237–247.

O’Brien PT 1993. Mystery. In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 621–623. IVP.

O’Brien PT 1999. The letter to the Ephesians. Eerdmans.

Packer JI 2001. Faith. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 431–434. Baker.

Penner E 1983. The enthronement of Christ in Ephesians. Direction 12(3):12-19.

Perkins P 2000. The letter to the Ephesians. In LE Keck et al. (eds), The new interpreter’s Bible (vol 11), 351–466. Abingdon.

Peterson DG 2000. Holiness. In TD Alexander et al. (eds), New dictionary of biblical theology, 544–550. IVP.

Phiri I & Maxwell J 2007. Gospel riches: Africa’s rapid embrace of prosperity Pentecostalism provokes concern—and hope. Christianity Today. Accessed from www.christianitytoday. com/ct/2007/july/12.22.html.

Rayburn R S 2001. Head, headship. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 537–538. Baker.

Reid WS 1979. Atone, atonement. In GW Bromiley et al. (eds), The international standard Bible encyclopedia (vol 1), 352–355. Eerdmans.

Robbins, JW 1978. The Trinity manifesto—a program for our time. The Trinity Foundation. Online. Accessed from .

Robison J 2003. Another view of the prosperity gospel. Charisma. Accessed from .

Robinson JA 1979. Commentary on Ephesians. Kregel.

Ryken L et al. (eds) 1998. Dictionary of biblical imagery. IVP.

Sarles K 1986. A theological evaluation of the prosperity gospel. Bibliotheca Sacra 143:329–350.

Schlier H 1999. ᾿Ανακεφαλαιόομαι. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 3), 681–682. Eerdmans.

Schmidt KL 1999. Προορί. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 5), 456. Eerdmans.

Schrenk G 1999. ᾿Εκλέγομαι. In G Kittel, G Friedrich & GW Bromiley (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 4), 144. Eerdmans.

Scott J M 1993. Adoption, sonship. In In GF Hawthorne et al. (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 15–18. IVP.

Snodgrass K 1996. Ephesians. Zondervan.

Speck BW 2007. Spirituality in higher education: a literature review. In BW Speck & SL Hoppe (eds), Searching for spirituality in higher education, 3–34. Peter Lang.

Spencer SR 2001. Predestination. In In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 950–951. Baker.

Thielman F 1996. Mystery. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 546–547. Baker.

Turaki Y 2006. Ephesians. In T Adeyemo (ed), Africa Bible commentary, 1425–1438. Zondervan.

Ury MW 1996. Holy, holiness. In WA Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed), 340–344. Baker.

Van Biema D & Chu J 2006. Does God want you to be rich? Time. Accessed from .

Walsh AS 2007. First church of prosperidad. Christianity Today. Accessed from .

Wood AS 1978. Ephesians. In FE Gaebelein (ed), The expositor’s Bible commentary (vol 11), 3–92. Zondervan.

Woodcock E 1998. The seal of the Holy Spirit. Bibliotheca Sacra 155:139–163.

Notes

  1. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the South African Theological Seminary.
  2. Dan Lioy holds a ThM. (Dallas Theological Seminary) and a PhD. (North-West University). He has lectured at Trinity Theological Seminary, Marylhurst University, and Southwestern College. He has written several academic monographs, including ones on the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation. He is presently a postgraduate supervisor with the South African Theological Seminary.
  3. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from Today’s New International Version (hereafter abbreviated, TNIV).

Jesus as Torah in John 2:1-22

By Dan Lioy[1]

Abstract[2]

An examination of John 2:1–22 affirms the Fourth Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus being the divine, incarnate Torah.[3] The miracle of changing water into wine at a humble peasant wedding in Cana of Galilee revealed that the Logos is the Creator of all things. In order to bring about overflowing joy associated with the fulfilment of the law’s messianic promises, it was necessary for Jesus to atone for the sins of humanity, particularly through the shedding of His blood on the cross. Jesus’ clearing the temple courts in Jerusalem validated His claim to be greater than this shrine and to have authority over all the religious institutions associated with it. By His bold act, the one who is the culmination of the Tanakh[4] signaled that the judgment of God rested on the established civil and religious authorities. They were giving way to the new order of forgiveness from sin and fellowship with the Lord.

1. Introduction

A major premise of this essay is that the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus as the divine, incarnate Torah. Expressed differently, He is portrayed as the realization of all the Mosaic law’s redemptive-historical types, prophecies, and expectations (cf. the discussion in Casselli 1997; Lioy 2007). The Evangelist’s goal was to convince people to trust in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and consequently find eternal life in Him (John 20:30–31). The inclusion of seven signs (2:11), or attesting miracles, in the first 12 chapters of the Fourth Gospel help to accomplish that overarching purpose. The wondrous deeds persuasively demonstrate the messianic identity, power, and authority of the Lord Jesus.

2. Jesus as torah changing of water into wine (John 2:1–11)

John 2:1–11 records the first of 12 miracles performed by Jesus during His earthly ministry. Johns (1994:521) maintains that the “signs consistently play a positive role for faith throughout the Fourth Gospel”. Against the backdrop of the “juridical motif” that “dominates the Fourth Gospel”, the “miracles help make the case” for the messianic identity of the Son (527; cf. Cook 1979:55–56; Kim 2001:62–64, 81–82). Just as in the period of Moses, the great lawgiver and leader of Israel, God intervened in human history, so now with the coming of the Logos, God involved Himself in a new way to bring about eternal redemption for those who believed (cf. Deut 11:3; 29:2).

Lincoln (2005:61) explains that in the Septuagint, the Greek noun rendered “sign” was “particularly employed of divine actions through Moses at the time of the exodus”. These miraculous deeds “attested to Moses as the divine agent, judged the Egyptians and their gods, and brought about the liberation of Israel” (cf. Exod 4:1–9, 28–31; 7:1–7; 10:1–2; 12:12–13). Similarly, in the writings of the Old Testament prophets, signs “attested to the prophets as God’s agents, confirmed their message, and frequently also served as a vehicle for conveying that message” (cf. Isa 20:1–4; Ezek 4:1–4; 12:8–16). In a corresponding manner, “Jesus’ signs … attest to his divine agency”. Furthermore, the miraculous deeds He performed emphasize the “unique status of this agent as the giver of life in abundance”. As the Messiah, He “exercises the divine prerogative” by “overturning dearth, disease and death”.

Jesus’ first recorded miracle took place at a wedding feast, which His disciples and mother also attended (John 2:1–2). The marriage celebration was a symbolic reminder that the age of the Messiah had dawned and inaugurated the blessings of the eschatological kingdom (Gen 49:11; Isa 25:6; Jer 31:5; Hos 2:22; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13; cf. Bock 2002:424; Ng 2001:68, 70; Sanders and Mastin 1988:109). The backdrop of this wedding feast was an array of purification rites described in the Tanakh, all of which found their ultimate fulfilment in the Son. The time reference in John 2:1 suggests the Messiah arrived the third day after He and His followers left the Jordan River area, where the Baptizer had been headquartered. The presence of Mary at the celebration indicates that the bride or groom (or both) was a close friend of the family, rather than just an acquaintance of Jesus and the disciples (Calvin 1999:82). It is unclear why no mention is made of Joseph. He may have been dead by this time.

The changing of water into wine occurred at Cana in Galilee. This village is only mentioned two other times in the Fourth Gospel (4:46 and 21:2). The latter reference identifies Cana as the home of Nathanael, who had just been chosen to follow Jesus (1:47). Since Cana was a small town, Nathanael would more than likely have also known the newly married couple. The exact location of this village remains unknown. Two possible sites are near Nazareth, where Jesus grew up with His family. One is a group of ruins called Khirbet Kana, about nine miles north of Nazareth. A second possibility is the present village of Kafr Kanna, about four miles northeast of Nazareth. Some of the Crusaders identified this location as Cana, and it fits well with the descriptions of medieval travellers, who describe a church in this location supposedly containing at least one of the original water jars from the wedding.

In Jesus’ day, wedding festivals could last up to a week. On such occasions, banquets would be prepared to accommodate many guests. The attendees would spend the time celebrating the new life to be enjoyed by the married couple. It was common for entire villages to be invited to a wedding celebration. Also, to refuse such an invitation was considered an insult. The wedding meal itself consisted of bread dipped in wine. Typically, the guests would call for innumerable toasts. After that, more visiting, eating, and drinking would occur (though this was rarely an occasion for drunkenness).

Wine diluted with water was the accepted beverage of the times, and people were accustomed to it. Because of a lack of water purification processes, this mixture was safer to drink than water alone. Careful planning was needed to accommodate all who came. This was imperative, for the strong unwritten rules of hospitality implied that it was humiliating to be caught in short supply of some necessary item (Morris 1995:156). Even the poorest Jewish parents would scrimp and save enough money to provide plenty of food and wine for their children’s wedding; yet, for some unknown reason, the bridegroom failed to supply enough of the latter for the duration of the festivities (v. 3). Perhaps more guests came than he had anticipated, or perhaps they stayed longer than he had planned (Nicol 1972:53).

Few details are given of what happened next. Evidently, someone reported the predicament to Mary, who then went to Jesus. Perhaps He was seated at a table with His disciples and enjoying the festivities. One possibility is that Mary quietly sat down next to Jesus and discretely told Him the wine had run out (cf. Goldsmith 2003). Keener (2003:503), however, observes that “women were ordinarily separated from men at such feasts (insofar as possible)”. The counter point is that the typical Galilean home of the parents of a groom “would not be large enough to segregate genders”. If the festivities took place “in a courtyard surrounded by homes”, then “the women and food preparation could have been concentrated in one home”. Given the Fourth Gospel’s lack of details about the wedding celebration, any reconstruction must rely on conjecture.

It is clear from Jesus’ response that Mary’s statement implied more than a simple observation of fact. Implicit in her words was a request for Jesus to do something about the situation so that the bridegroom could avoid being socially embarrassed. According to verse 11, Jesus had not yet performed any miracles. Thus at this point in the account we can only speculate as to what Mary had observed in Jesus that would give her the idea He could somehow resolve the problem.

It is unlikely that Mary expected Jesus to send the people home, for that was not His prerogative. Mary probably also did not want Him to send His disciples into town to buy more wine, for they surely lacked the funds to do so. It is possible Mary had seen Jesus on other occasions do kind and helpful things for hurting people. Perhaps in the privacy of neighbourhood life, Jesus was known as an extraordinary and caring person. Regardless of what Mary may have been thinking, Jesus gave her a startling and provocative answer. He did not say either yes or no; instead, He asked Mary why she had come to Him for help. Without waiting for her reply, Jesus’ words indicate that He was no longer under His mother’s authority. While Jesus continued to honour Mary, His actions were governed by the mission His Father in heaven had given Him (cf. 8:28–29). In brief, the goal of the divine, incarnate Torah was to die on the cross in order to atone for the sins of the world (cf. 1:29).

Jesus was neither cruel nor harsh in His remarks to His mother. “Woman” (2:4)5 was a common term of address that implied no disrespect (Matt 15:28, Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15; cf. Barrett 1978:191; Lightfoot 1983:100–101; Schnackenburg 1987:328.). In contemporary parlance, one might say, “Dear lady” (cf. Beasley-Murray 1999:34; Brown 1966:99; Bruce 1983:69). Such observations notwithstanding, the response “sets a peculiar distance between Jesus and his mother” (Bultmann 1976:116; cf. Keener 2003:504–506; Ridderbos 1997:105; Whitacre 1982:85). Jesus wanted Mary to think of Him not so much as the son whom she had parented, but rather as the Redeemer of Israel. Jesus used a social situation to point to a spiritual reality. In fact, the contrast between the wedding crisis and His mission could not have been more vivid. The Saviour’s query, “Why do you involve me?” (John 2:4), underscores Mary’s desire that Jesus do something to help a family avoid social embarrassment. Also, the follow-up statement, “My time has not yet come”, stressed that Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary, resurrection from the dead, and return to the Father in glory was a more eternally relevant issue (12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1; cf. Calvin 1999:85).

From what transpired, it is clear that Jesus had not offended Mary. In fact, she seemed to instinctively know that her son would intervene in a constructive manner. At this point, Mary returned to the servants and possibly told the head steward to do whatever Jesus directed. Although Mary did not know what her son might have in mind, she nevertheless trusted Him to initiate what was prudent. Here we see that despite the awkwardness of the situation, the Lord Jesus conducted Himself impeccably in the social affairs of His community. Though His redemptive mission was lofty, He was not above mingling with people on all levels, so that they might be drawn to Him in saving faith as the fulfilment of the Tanakh (2:11). Jesus’ response to Mary shows that the Saviour knew and controlled His eternal future (10:17–18). Mary, in turn, submitted to Jesus’ decision about how to handle the situation.

The Messiah apparently wasted no time in taking action. After getting up from where He had been sitting, He went to the nearby spot where there were six empty stone jars. Perhaps after praying silently to His heavenly Father, Jesus told the servants to fill the jars with water (John 2:6–7). Mary’s faith was honoured when Jesus did His first miracle at this humble peasant wedding. Jesus performed the miracle in such a way as to not draw attention to Himself or the shortage of wine at the feast (Köstenberger 2004:95).

The six stone vessels at the wedding feast normally kept the family’s water supply fresh and cool. The jars of varying size each could hold about 20 to 30 gallons of water (all total, roughly between 120 and 180 gallons of liquid), which the Jews used to wash their hands and vessels according to the Mosaic law’s requirements (Thomas 1991:162–165). Apparently, because of the number of wedding guests, the water in the six jars had been used up, so they needed to be refilled. The servants might have been puzzled by Jesus’ unusual sounding command. Why take ordinary water to the master of ceremonies (vs. 8)? Despite whatever doubts the servants may have had, they did not complain; instead, they did exactly what Jesus said.

After the servants filled the jars to the top with water, they then dipped some out and took it to the person in charge of the festivities. When the person in charge (usually a servant or friend of the bridegroom) tasted the water now turned into wine, he was so pleasantly surprised that he commended the bridegroom for his good taste (v. 9). The master of ceremonies noted that it was customary for the host (such as the bridegroom) to serve the best wine first and then later to bring out the less expensive wines; but the bridegroom was congratulated for the brilliant stroke of keeping the best wine until last (v. 10).

Jesus’ first sign was experienced not so much as a miracle, but rather as a wonderful discovery. Only the Messiah and the servants initially knew what had happened. Jesus evidently took no unusual action, such as touching the stone jars or commanding the water to turn into wine. Most likely, Jesus’ simple prayer brought about the attesting sign. Jesus did not call for a pause in the festivities, and He did not summon everyone’s attention. He also did not tell those present to gather around and see how He had changed water into wine; rather, Jesus performed His miracle in a quiet and humble manner. John 1:3 reveals that the Logos is the Creator of all things. In fact, acts of creation and transformation are part of His nature (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). O’Day (1995, 9:538) states that the miracle Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee was “neither a rejection nor a replacement of the old, but the creation of something new in the midst of Judaism”. Likewise, Silva (1988:28) affirms that the “new order instituted by Christ must be seen as a fulfilment, not a rejection, of the OT message”.

Jesus’ turning water into wine should be understood in terms of what the Old Testament said about the coming Redeemer. In the messianic age, the Lord would host a great feast complete with the best food and overflowing wine, symbolizing great joy (Isa 25:6; Joel 2:19, 24; 3:18; Amos 9:13–15; cf. Westcott 1981:39). In fact, one non-biblical description of the messianic age describes it as a time of great fertility, with grapes so large that just one would produce “about 120 gallons of wine” (Brown 1966:105; cf. 2 Baruch 29:5). Wine, however, could also symbolize suffering, since its colour suggested blood, and drinking its dregs was a sign of punishment (Pss 60:3; 75:8; Jer 25:15–16; cf. Glasson 1963:26, 88). Jesus symbolically linked wine with His blood at the Last Supper, which He celebrated when His hour had indeed come (John 2:4; 13:1; 18:11).

Smith (1962:334) maintains that the Johannine writer “saw Jesus’ signs as antitypes of Moses’ signs” recorded in the “Exodus materials”. Similarly, Lierman (2006:214) observed that “just as Moses began his ministry with signs to show that he was sent by God, so also Jesus in the Fourth Gospel performs signs to show he is sent by the Father”. McGrath (2001) offers this clarification regarding the Moses typology in the Fourth Gospel: “John makes use of a motif and imagery that is not uniquely his, and yet which he uses in his own distinctive way” (58). Indeed, in the Fourth Gospel, “the belief that Jesus is the ‘prophet (like Moses)’ is perhaps made more explicit than elsewhere in the New Testament” (59).

We do not know how Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana in Galilee, only that He did it instantaneously and without fanfare; but we do know that Jesus used this miracle to validate His claim to be the perfection of the gift of the Torah (a truth that would later lead to His crucifixion). All the miracles of Jesus were signs that He performed to demonstrate His power so that people would trust in Him. Labahn (1999:186) states that the primary objective of the Fourth Gospel is to “awaken belief or perhaps to strengthen belief”. In a similar vein, Witherington (1995:4) considers the Fourth Gospel to be a “dramatic biography written for Christians to use for evangelistic purposes”. He also proposes a secondary purpose, namely, to “encourage those who already believe” (11). Likewise, Beasley-Murray (1999:lxxxix) affirms “there is ground … for thinking that the Fourth Gospel was written with both evangelistic and didactic aims in view”.

The Messiah’s changing the water into wine unveiled His glory (that is, His divine nature, presence, and power; cf. Exod 24:15–18; 34:29–35; 40:34–38), and the disciples believed in Him as the Anointed One (John 2:11). His glory was seen in two aspects at Cana—His love for the neighbourhood people and His control over the elements of nature. Witherington (1995:79) thinks the consequence of Jesus’ glory being revealed is that “God’s life-giving and joyful presence can be found” in the Messiah. In addition, Keener (2003:275) remarks that “whereas Jesus’ signs in the Synoptics especially authenticate his mission, the Fourth Gospel analyzes the signs in a christological context, using them and the frequently subsequent discourses to interpret Jesus’ identity and to call for faith”.

3. Jesus as torah clearing the temple courts (John 2:12–22)

After Jesus attended the wedding in Cana, He travelled some 20 miles northeast to Capernaum, where He stayed for a few days with His mothers, brothers (cf. Matt 1:24–25; 12:46; Mark 3:21; 6:3; Luke 8:19), and disciples (cf. John 1:35–51). Capernaum, the home of some of Jesus’ followers, served as the Lord’s headquarters during a large portion of His public ministry (cf. Matt 4:13; Mark 1:21; 2:1). It was a fishing village built on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum hosted a Roman garrison that maintained peace in the region. Major highways crisscrossed at Capernaum, making it militarily strategic. Because of its fishing and trading industries, the city was something of a melting pot of Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures.

When it was nearly time for the celebration of the Jewish Passover in the winter of a.d. 27, 6 Jesus travelled about 80 miles south from Capernaum to Jerusalem. Passover was one of several yearly sacred festivals the people of God observed. These special days had different purposes and varying kinds of observances, but they all were meant to deepen the people’s devotion to the Lord and give them occasions for joy and celebration. Passover was the first festival on the calendar and possibly signified the most important holy feast to the Israelites. During this sacred event, they would commemorate the final plague in Egypt, when the angel of death passed over the Israelites while killing the firstborn of Egypt (cf. Exod 12:1–30). Passover was to begin on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month (Lev 23:5). The Israelites would kill a lamb and on that evening eat a special meal. It was designed to remind them of the meal their ancestors ate on the first Passover night, before leaving Egypt (cf. Num 9:1–14; 28:16; Deut 16:1–7; Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12–26; John 2:13; 11:55; 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 11:28).

The Fourth Gospel records at least three separate Passover celebrations that occurred during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry: the first in 2:13, 23; the second in 6:4; and the third in 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; and 19:14. Some think that the Jewish festival mentioned in 5:1 was Passover, though Pentecost and Tabernacles are two other strong possibilities. Depending on the separate number of Passover celebrations appearing in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ ministry could have lasted as long as three and a half years (Harris 2001). This statement is based on the premise that the Passovers appear in strict chronological order. Another option is that the material in the Fourth Gospel is arranged topically. In turn, this would leave open the possibility that the account of Jesus clearing the temple courts actually occurred later in His public ministry.

The Synoptic Gospels record a similar episode occurring in the week preceding Jesus’ crucifixion, specifically after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (cf. Matt 21:12–17; Mark 11:12–18; Luke 19:45–46). Those favouring the view that the episodes in the Fourth Gospel are topically arranged consider the two temple clearing incidents as being one and the same (cf. Barrett 1978:195; Borchert 1996:160–162, 166; Keener 2003:518–519; Lincoln 2005:141–144; Schnackenburg 1987:344; Witherington 1995:85–86). In contrast, those who regard the material in John’s Gospel as being sequenced chronologically argue for two separate episodes. This view is supported by the writer’s emphasis throughout his narrative on mentioning specific times, places, facts, and details. Also, the content and wording of the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels about the temple clearing incident are markedly different (cf. Brown 1983:118–119; Carson 1991:177–178; Köstenberger 2004:111; Morris 1995:167–168; Tenney 1981:44). Regardless of which view is preferred, Jesus’ statement in John 2:19 most likely forms the basis for the accusations voiced by false witnesses at the Redeemer’s trial before the Sanhedrin (cf. Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58) and for the spectators’ taunting remarks as His crucifixion (cf. Matt 27:40; Mark 15:29).

In the Fourth Gospel, there is theological significance to the clearing of the temple courts as one of Jesus’ first public acts. From the start of the Saviour’s earthly ministry, the judgment of God rested on the established civil and religious authorities. This was the reason why the old order, represented by the temple built by Herod the Great, would give way to the new order, represented by the temple of Jesus’ body. With the advent of Jesus as the final expression of God’s Tanakh, all the divine blessings anticipated under the old covenant were brought to fruition, including being cleansed from sin, experiencing the delight of salvation, and enjoying unbroken fellowship with the Lord (cf. Isa 25:6–9; 56:7; Jer 31:31–34; Rev 21:22).

Kerr (2002:67) maintains that Jesus’ bold action at the Jerusalem shrine heralded the “eschatological hour, the hour that comes to dominate the Gospel as Jesus moves towards the cross and the resurrection”. Expressed differently, the cleansing of the temple in John 2:13–22 is an end-time event that “signals that the day of the Lord has come or is very near”. It is in this “eschatological ethos” that “judgment will begin at the house of the Lord and a new Temple will be raised”. According to Köstenberger (2004:102), the literature of the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism “express the expectation of the establishment of a new temple for the messianic age” (cf. Ezek 40–44; 1 Enoch 90:28–36; Pss Sol 17:30).

Hanson (1991:43) thinks that the Evangelist’s intent in John 2:17–22 was to “present Jesus as the true Temple, the house of God”. Likewise, Coloe (2001:3) states that the “Temple, as the dwelling place of God, points to the identity and role of Jesus”. Moreover, Hoskins (2002:abstract), based on his analysis of John 1:14, 1:51, 2:18–22, and 4:20–24, concluded that the Son, as the “true Temple” of God, “fulfills, surpasses, and replaces” the shrine in Jerusalem, along with the religious festivals associated with it, namely, the Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, and Feast of Dedication. It is through the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son that the Father replaces the old temple order with the new temple order. Jesus, as the antitype of the Jerusalem sanctuary, has become the “locus of God’s presence, glory, revelation, and abundant provision”.

The temple area Jesus entered with His disciples was a complex of courts, porticoes, and buildings on a large raised platform. The area was filled with activity and noise as merchants and bankers did business with worshipers. Every day, and especially during the Passover celebration, pilgrims who had travelled from near and distant locations offered many types of sacrifices. Vendors near the temple sold ceremonially pure animals to the worshipers for this purpose. Money changers converted foreign coins into the proper currency so that visitors could buy the animals they needed and also pay the required half-shekel temple tax (cf. Exod 30:13–16). Tragically, the presence of all this commercial activity prevented Gentile converts to Judaism from being able to worship and pray in the only approved spot of the temple area (John 2:14).

The Messiah, being filled with indignation at the enormity of the injustice, took bold and decisive action. To symbolize God’s authority and judgment (Bruce 1983:75), Jesus made a whip out of cords of rope and began to flail it in the air, perhaps in a wide, circular motion. He chased people out of the temple area, and opened the pens housing their sheep and cattle to let these animals escape. He also turned over the tables of the moneychangers and scattered their coins on the ground (v. 15). Next, Jesus went to the merchants selling doves and ordered them to remove the birds from the area. Perhaps He opened some of the cages in which the doves were kept so they could more easily fly away. He ordered that the rest be removed and that the sanctuary of His Father no longer be turned into a house of merchants (v. 16). This is possibly an allusion to Zechariah 14:21, wherein the Hebrew term rendered “Canaanite” could also be translated “merchant” or “trader”. The idea is that in the day the Lord established His messianic kingdom, He would remove all those involved in commercial activity from His temple.

From Jesus’ earliest years, He was aware of His special relationship with His heavenly Father, including God’s desire that the temple in Jerusalem be a sacred place for worship and prayer (cf. Luke 2:49). This attitude is reflected in Jesus’ efforts at the start of His earthly ministry to clear the temple area of all profane activity. This set in motion a long chain of events that led to His atoning sacrifice on the cross. After the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead, His disciples remembered the prophecy recorded in Psalm 69:9, which foretold that Jesus’ fervent devotion for the Lord’s house burned in Him like a fire.

As the second half of this verse prophesies, the Redeemer’s love for the things of God would raise the ire of His enemies (cf. Rom 15:3). The antagonists did not realize that the insults they hurled at the Father, fell on the Son. Kerr (2002) argues that John 2:17 “brings the death of Jesus into view and that his death is the death of God’s Paschal Lamb” (67). Accordingly, there is “no future for the old Temple and its sacrifices. God no more dwells within its walls, and its sacrifices have been replaced by Jesus, the Passover sacrifice. Jesus is now the house of the Father. God dwells in Jesus” (82).

As the divine, incarnate Torah, Jesus is the Lord and the Messenger of the covenant about whom Malachi 3:1–4 said would come to spiritually purify and morally refine God’s people. This is in keeping with the Old Testament teaching that God maintained a burning zeal and passion for the covenant community and would deal with all rivals firmly. As John 2:17 indicates, anyone who was spiritually unfaithful to the Lord Jesus would experience His hand of discipline (cf. Prov 3:11–12; Heb 12:5–6). Similarly, James 4:5 states that God “jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us.” The idea is that when God’s people become unfaithful in their commitment, He zealously desires to have them return to Him in faithfulness and love. For that reason, when they opt for friendship with the world, it provokes God to anger. Indeed, He will not permit them to have divided loyalties between Himself and the world.

At some point, the temple authorities were alerted about the unfolding events and began to rush to the scene to investigate. When “the Jews” saw what Jesus had done, they demanded an explanation for His actions (John 2:18). In the New Testament, the Greek noun Ioudaioi (rendered “Jews”) has a range of meanings, including the Jewish people as a whole, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and its environs, the religious leaders headquartered in Jerusalem, or simply those who were antagonistic toward Jesus (Carson 1991:141–142; Stern 1992:158–159; Whitacre 1982:20). Often in the Fourth Gospel, references to “the Jews” is not meant to be an “ethnic designation”, but rather a “symbol of Jesus’ opponents” (O’Day 1995, 9:617).

Keener (2003:222) states that the “primary issue is not ethnic (both persecutor and persecuted are Jewish) but power”. Generally speaking, “the Jews” are “symbols of human rejection of God’s revelation in Jesus”. In a “negative sense”, the antagonists in the Fourth Gospel become “representatives of the world” (Smith 1995:56). Kierspel (2006) carries the discussion further by maintaining that the Evangelist used Ioudaioi “in parallel position to kosmos throughout the Gospel” (214). Moreover, an examination of the way in which kosmos is used “reveals the author’s intent to translate the particulars of Jesus’ life throughout the text into universal notions that apply to Jews and Gentiles alike” (215; italics are his). For that reason, the audience is cosmopolitan irrespective of the ethnic origin of its members (cf. John 3:16, 19; 4:42; 12:19–20).

Lincoln (2000:45) draws attention to the lawsuit motif found in the Fourth Gospel, noting that it is a reworking of the lawsuits recorded in Isaiah 40–55. Moreover, in the Fourth Gospel, Israel becomes the “representative of the world” (46), especially as the evidence is presented in the universal court of justice regarding Jesus and His messianic claims. The nations are “represented through the Samaritans”, who affirm that Jesus is the Saviour of humankind (John 4:42), and the Greeks, who want to meet Jesus (12:20–22). Furthermore, Jesus’ “climatic trial before Pilate … sets the lawsuit squarely on the world stage and in the context of the nations” (256). Throughout the forensic process (as seen in the Fourth Gospel’s cosmic-trial metaphor), Jesus functions as “God’s authorized agent and chief witness” (46). The irony is that the person who is eventually tried and condemned by the religious and civil authorities of the day turns out to be their Creator and Judge (as well as that of all humankind).

In John 2:18, the Evangelist was referring to the Jewish authorities who had oversight of the Jerusalem shrine. They wanted proof of Jesus’ legal right to disrupt the commercial activities occurring in the temple area. The Greek word rendered “sign” most likely refers to some sort of miracle that would certify Jesus’ status as the Son of God (cf. 1 Cor 1:22). Ironically, Jesus’ resurrection is the only authentication of His divine nature that He promised to give the religious leaders (cf. Rom 1:3). They failed to understand His claim that if they tore down the temple of His body, He would build it again within three days (Lightfoot 1983:113–114). The Jewish authorities thought the Messiah was referring to the temple of Herod the Great, which the king began to renovate and reconstruct around 19 or 20 b.c. The shrine was not completed until a.d. 64, during the reign of Herod Agrippa. A 46-year time line implies a date of around a.d. 27 for the Passover mentioned in John 2:13 (Haenchen 1984:184; Schnackenburg 1987:351).

On other occasions (recorded in the Synoptic Gospels), Pharisees and teachers of the law demanded to see Jesus perform a sign to authenticate His divine authority. In response, He declared that the only certifying mark they would receive was that of the Jonah. The prophet was facing certain death during the three-day period in which he lay entombed in the belly of a huge sea creature (cf. Jonah 1:17). The Lord restored Jonah to life by setting him free from his predicament. This foreshadowed the Torah of God spending a similar amount of time buried in the depths of the earth. His own resurrection from the dead would be the supreme validation of His messianic power and authority and serve as a sign that He was superseding the “old temple order” (Keener 2003:517; cf. Matt 12:38–41; 16:1–4; Luke 11:16, 29–32). After Jesus’ was raised from the dead, the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to remember what the Redeemer had said, including the meaning and significance of His teachings (cf. John 14:26). What the embodiment of the Tanakh had prophesied, fulfilled what God had promised in the Old Testament (Calvin 1999:98). Jesus’ disciples believed the Scriptures and the sayings Jesus had spoken about them.

4. Conclusion

The Fourth Gospel presents Jesus as the divine, incarnate Torah. The Evangelist recorded a number of witnesses from the first year of the Messiah’s earthly ministry to substantiate this truth. The miracle of changing water into wine at a humble peasant wedding in Cana of Galilee revealed that the Logos is the Creator of all things. He also demonstrated that acts of creation and transformation are part of His nature; but in order to bring about overflowing joy associated with the fulfilment of the law’s messianic promises, it was necessary for Jesus to atone for the sins of humanity, particularly through the shedding of His blood on the cross.

Jesus’ clearing the temple courts in Jerusalem validated His claim to be greater than this shrine and to have authority over all the religious institutions associated with it. By His bold act, the one who is the culmination of the Tanakh signaled that the judgment of God rested on the established civil and religious authorities. They were giving way to the new order of forgiveness from sin and fellowship with the Lord. It was to be an era characterized by spiritual purity and unmitigated zeal for God.

Works Cited

Barker KL et al. (eds) 2006. Zondervan TNIV study Bible. Zondervan.

Barrett CK 1978. The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed). Westminster.

Beasley-Murray GR 1999. John (2nd ed). Thomas Nelson.

Bock DL 2002. Jesus according to Scripture: restoring the portrait from the Gospels. Baker.

Borchert GL 1996. John 1–11. Broadman & Holman.

Brown RE 1966. The gospel according to John (i–xii). Doubleday.

Bruce FF 1983. The gospel of John. Eerdmans.

Bultmann R 1976. The gospel of John: a commentary. Translated by GR Beasley-Murray et al. Westminster.

Calvin J 1999. Commentary on the holy gospel of Jesus Christ according to John (vol 1). Translated by W Pringle. Baker.

Carson DA 1991. The gospel according to John. Eerdmans.

Casselli SJ 1997. Jesus as eschatological torah. Trinity Journal. 18(1):15-41.

Coloe ML 2001. God dwells with us: temple symbolism in the fourth gospel. The Liturgical Press.

Cook WR 1979. The theology of John. Moody.

Glasson TF 1963. Moses in the fourth gospel. SCM Press.

Goldsmith J 2003. The visual Bible: gospel of John. Visual Bible International.

Haenchen E 1984. John 1. Translated by RW Funk. Fortress Press.

Hanson AT 1991. The prophetic gospel: a study of John and the Old Testament. T&T Clark.

Harris WH 2001. The gospel of John: introduction and commentary. Biblical Studies Press. Website: .

Hoskins PM 2002. Jesus as the replacement of the temple in the gospel of John. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Johns LL 1994. The signs as witnesses in the fourth gospel: reexamining the evidence. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 56(3):519-535.

Keener CS 2003. The gospel of John: a commentary (vol 1). Hendrickson.

Kerr AR 2002. The temple of Jesus’ body: the temple theme in the Gospel of John. Sheffield Academic.

Kierspel L 2006. The Jews and the world in the fourth gospel: parallelism, function, and context. Mohr Siebeck.

Kim SS 2001. The relationship of the seven sign-miracles of Jesus in the fourth gospel to the Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary.

Köstenberger AJ 2004. John. Baker.

Labahn M 1999. Between tradition and literary art: the miracle tradition in the fourth gospel. Biblica 80:178–203.

Lierman J 2006. The Mosaic pattern of John’s Christology. In J Lierman (ed), Challenging perspectives on the gospel of John, 210–234. Mohr Siebeck.

Lightfoot RH 1983. St. John’s gospel: a commentary. Edited by CF Evans. Oxford UP.

Lincoln AT 2000. Truth on trial: the lawsuit motif in the Fourth Gospel. Hendrickson.

_____ 2005. The gospel according to Saint John. Hendrickson.

Lindars B 1986. The gospel of John. Eerdmans.

Lioy D. The moral law in Christ-centered perspective: a canonical and integrative approach. Conspectus 3:54–89.

McGrath JF 2001. John’s apologetic Christology: legitimation and development in Johannine Christology. Cambridge University Press.

Morris L 1995. The gospel according to John (rev ed). Eerdmans.

Ng W 2001. Water symbolism in John: an eschatological interpretation. Peter Lang.

Nicol W 1972. The semeia in the fourth gospel: tradition and redaction. EJ Brill.

O’Day GR 1995. The gospel of John. In LE Keck et al. (ed), The new interpreter’s Bible, 9:493–865. Abingdon.

Ridderbos H 1997. The Gospel according to John: a theological commentary. Translated by J Vriend. Eerdmans.

Sanders JN & Mastin BA 1988. A commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Hendrickson.

Schnackenburg R 1987. The gospel according to St John (vol 1 of 3). Translated by K Smyth. Crossroad.

Silva M 1988. Approaching the fourth gospel. Criswell Theological Review 3(1):17-29.

Smith DM 1995. The theology of the gospel of John. Cambridge University Press.

Smith RH 1962. Exodus typology in the fourth gospel. Journal of Biblical Literature 81:329–342.

Stern DH 1992. Jewish New Testament commentary. Jewish New Testament Publications.

Tenney MC 1981. The gospel of John. In FE Gaebelein (ed), The expositor’s Bible commentary (vol 9), 3–203. Zondervan.

Thomas JC 1991. The fourth gospel and rabbinic Judaism. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums. 82(3–4):159–182.

Westcott BF 1981. The gospel according to St. John. Eerdmans.

Whitacre RA 1982. Johannine polemic: the role of tradition and theology. Scholars Press.

Witherington B 1995. John’s wisdom: a commentary on the Fourth Gospel. John Knox.

Notes

  1. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the South African Theological Seminary.
  2. Dan Lioy holds a ThM. (Dallas Theological Seminary) and a PhD. (North-West University). He has lectured at Trinity Theological Seminary, Marylhurst University, and Southwestern College. He has written several academic monographs, including ones on the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation. He is presently a postgraduate supervisor with the South African Theological Seminary.
  3. This essay is a preliminary version of material to appear in a forthcoming monograph being researched and written by the author. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the faculty and staff of SATS. © 2007 All rights reserved.
  4. Tanakh is an acronym that identifies the entire Hebrew Bible, which includes the Torah (or Law), Nevi’im (or Prophets), and Ketuvim (or Writings). Throughout this essay, the words “Torah” and “Tanakh” will be used interchangeably in reference to the Messiah. This approach is based on the fact that now and then in the Fourth Gospel the corpus of Hebrew sacred writings is referred to as the “Law” (cf. John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25).
  5. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from Today’s New International Version (hereafter abbreviated, TNIV).
  6. The dates for the life of Christ used in this essay are based on the timeline appearing in the Zondervan TNIV Study Bible (2006:1656–1658).

The Moral Law from a Christ-centered Perspective: A Canonical and Integrative Approach

By Dan Lioy[1]

Abstract[2]

This essay uses a canonical and integrative approach to examine the nature of the moral law from a Christ-centered perspective. The writer affirms that the Messiah, as the divine, incarnate Torah (John 1:1, 14, 16–18), fulfilled the law by carrying out its ethical injunctions, showing forth its true spiritual meaning, and bringing all that it stood for prophetically to completion (Matt 5:17). The Redeemer is the culmination (that is, the destination, goal, outcome, and fulfillment) of the law for believers (Rom 10:4) and the realization of the law’s types, prophecies, and expectations (Heb 1:1–4; 8:8–8, 13). While His death and resurrection put an end to the administrative and ritual aspects of the law, its universal moral absolutes remain authoritative and applicable for His followers (Jas 1:19–20, 22–27; 2:8–27). The foremost way they heed the moral law is by showing unconditional, Christlike love to others (Rom 13:8–10; Jas 2:8).

1. The Intent of This Essay

The intent of this essay is to examine the nature of the moral law from a Christ-centered perspective and to do so in a canonical and integrative manner. It builds on the findings and conclusions presented in my monograph dealing with the relationship between the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount (Lioy 2004). In that study, I maintained that God’s universal ethical absolutes were applicable for the church today. In the last chapter, I noted some areas for further research. This included how Matthew 5:17–20 interlaced with other pivotal texts (for instance, Romans 10:4 and the Book of Hebrews) regarding the continuing applicability of the moral law. The latter part of this essay investigates these matters further, along with exploring other relevant portions of the New Testament, but before that is done, a foundation of understanding is laid regarding the biblical concept of the law and the relationship of Jesus and His followers to the law.

2. The Biblical Concept of the Law

Foundational to this study is the biblical concept of the law, an issue I have previously discussed at length (Lioy 2004:13–34). This includes understanding various legal terms used in the Old Testament, the primary one of which is the Hebrew noun tôrâ. Depending on the context in which the word is used, it can mean “direction”, “instruction” or “law”. Tôrâ appears not only in legal texts, but also in narratives, speeches, poems, and genealogies. An examination of Scripture indicates that for the ancient Hebrews, morality was not an abstract concept disconnected from the present; rather, it signified ethical imperatives concerning how people of faith should live.

A similar mindset is found in the New Testament, especially in connection with the Greek noun nomos. The focus of this term is on ethical standards and rules of conduct, as established by tradition. Such synonyms as “custom”, “principle” and “norm” help to convey the lexical range of meanings found in nomos. The term also is used to denote what people should do, with such terms as “ordinance”, “rule” and “command” helping to capture this sense of the noun. Depending on the context, nomos is used to refer to the Pentateuch, guidelines for ethical behavior and the promise of God. The noun denotes ethical instruction that is divine in origin and concerns the way of life characterized by righteousness and blessing. While in the New Testament, nomos does not refer to the teaching tradition of Israel’s religious leaders, an awareness of the oral Torah can help one to better understand and appreciate the New Testament concept of the law.

Clarifying the biblical concept of the law includes a discussion of its nature, various categories and interrelated purposes. With respect to its nature, the law reflects the holiness of God and His will for humankind. Also, by means of His law, God evaluates how closely people live up to His flawless moral standard (cf. Rom 3:20). While there is an essential unity to the law, it would be incorrect to view it as a judicial monolith, for its various ordinances deal with civil, ceremonial, and ethical matters. While the administrative and ritual aspects of the Mosaic legal code are no longer binding on Christians, the moral aspects of God’s law remain authoritative for the church (cf. John 14:15; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 5:13–14; 6:2; 1 John 5:2–3). Admittedly, Scripture does not explicitly map out these particular distinctions; nonetheless, they represent a valid and useful demarcation of the three main types of law appearing in Scripture.

The three main categories of biblical law served distinct, though related, purposes. Because ancient Israel was a theocracy (in which the people recognized God as their King), the civil codes and religious ordinances were limited in their application to that nation during the period of the Old Testament. The moral law, however, transcends the time and culture of ancient Israel and has enduring applicability for the household of faith today. Two premier examples of the ethical aspect of God’s law would be the Ten Commandments (recorded in Exod 20:1–17 and Deut 5:6–21) and the Sermon on the Mount (recorded in Matt 5–7). Because these portions of Scripture represent the epitome of God’s will for humankind, they also serve as useful starting points for recognizing His universal moral absolutes.

Just as there are various categories of biblical law, there are also several interrelated purposes. The first of these is to increase the cognizance people have of their sin (cf. Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7–11). They recognize that they have violated God’s will and fall short of His glorious moral standard (3:23). Second, the law spotlights the transgressors’ need for a Redeemer, that is, salvation through faith in the Son (Gal 3:19–24). Third, the law helps to restrain evil by specifying the kinds of acts that are wicked. In this way, it assists governing authorities to maintain civil order, protect the innocent, and penalize the unjust. Fourth, the law helps God’s people to recognize and live uprightly by giving them an ethical frame of reference. They are able to do so, for they are indwelt by the Spirit and energized by the Father’s love.

3. The Relationship of the Messiah to the Law

In any discussion concerning the relevancy of the law for believers, it is important clarify the nature of the relationship between the Messiah and the law. Throughout His time on earth, Jesus remained subject to the law (Gal 4:4), and as a righteous Jew, acted in accordance with its stipulations (Luke 2:21–23; 4:16). Jesus also upheld the truth that the moral law continued to be relevant and binding (Matt 5:17–18). Furthermore, as Israel’s greatest teacher (cf. Matt 7:28–29; John 13:13–14), He expounded on the meaning of the law and clarified its significance for God’s people (e.g., Matt 5:21–48). In particular, Jesus stated that love for God and all people were the foremost commandments of Scripture (Matt 22:37–40; cf. Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18).

In His teaching ministry, Jesus disclosed the true meaning and intent of the law. He also affirmed the divine authority of the Hebrew sacred writings. This included condemning the extra-biblical traditions added to the Mosaic code (cf. Matt 15:1–9; 23:1–36) and censuring rigid, inaccurate views of the law (cf. Matt 5:20, 38). His sought neither to invalidate God’s commands nor add new edicts to what already existed; instead, He strove to undo humanly imposed notions of right and wrong that ran counter to the divine intent of the law (cf. Mark 7:1–23).

When Adam and Eve violated God’s command (Gen 3:1–7), sin entered the world and brought death along with it (Rom 5:12). The law of God was within its rightful authority to condemn all people, for all Adam’s descendants had violated what the Lord decreed (Rom 3:23). Through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary, the fundamental relationship between regenerate sinners and the law was radically altered. To be specific, the Messiah, through His work on the cross, rendered powerless the law’s ability to condemn those trusting in Him. As a result of their spiritual union with Christ (Rom 6:1–7), they were pardoned (or acquitted) of sin and delivered from eternal damnation (Rom 8:1).

In addition, Jesus’ death and resurrection put an end to the need for the ritualistic elements of the Mosaic code. As the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus satisfied the demands of the law completely and for all time (cf. John 1:29; Heb 7:26–28; 9:1, 9–10, 23–27). In this way, the Saviour brought to pass the spiritual reality foreshadowed by the ceremonial laws, thus rendering them obsolete and outdated (Heb 8:13). The upshot is that neither the civil nor ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic legal code remain biding for believers today; nonetheless, these aspects of the law continue to have pedagogic value for believers, especially as they seek to understand and adhere to God’s moral law.

4. The Relationship of Believers to the Law

Jesus, through His atoning death at Calvary, frees believers from the condemnation of the law, but not from living in accordance with its timeless moral precepts and injunctions. After all, the “law is holy”3 (Rom 7:12); likewise, its commandments are “holy, righteous and good”. The implication is that God’s universal moral absolutes are eternal in nature, unchanging, and perfect. As such, they transcend historical eras and societal constructs, having applicability for Christians down through the centuries.

The New Testament affirms the abiding validity of the ethical precepts of the Mosaic legal code. Paul noted that when we “live … according to the Spirit”, the “righteous requirement of the law” is “fully met in us” (Rom 8:4). Similarly, John exhorted the believers in his day to “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). This injunction brings to mind the second commandment of the Decalogue prohibiting idolatry (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8). Clearly, the holy God revealed in the Old Testament is the same Lord disclosed in the New Testament.

Some might argue that biblical concepts of God have changed between the time of Abraham and Moses in the Old Testament and Jesus and the disciples in the New Testament. This notion, however, is undercut by the indistinguishable theological orientation found throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, especially as seen in their moral directives. As a matter of fact, legal imperatives are an inseparable part of the Lord’s covenant relationship with His people. In short, the covenant and law go hand in hand to create a unified and holy community of the redeemed down through the ages (cf. Heb 12:18–29). Not surprisingly, then, the ethical instruction given by Jesus and His apostles reflects an affirmation of the Mosaic legal code and its reapplication to believers this side of Calvary.

5. The Messiah’s Fulfillment of the Law (Matt 5:17-19)

I have previously discussed the way in which the Messiah fulfilled the moral law (Lioy 2004:104–106, 136–144), and a review of that information is in order here. The key biblical text is Matthew 5:17–20, with verses 21–48 forming a broader pertinent scriptural context. A pivotal interpretative issue concerns whether Jesus was taking umbrage with the Mosaic law recorded in the Old Testament or the Pharisaic interpretation of the same. In this discussion, I am siding with the latter premise; in other words, the Messiah was challenging the Halakha, the collective body of Jewish religious law, including talmudic and rabbinic ordinances, customs, and traditions.

In verse 17, Jesus’ collectively referred to the Hebrew sacred writings as “the Law” and “the Prophets”, which mirrors how religious experts of the day would have talked about the entire Old Testament. Some think the Messiah wanted to abrogate, supersede, or replace the Mosaic legal code. Others conjecture that He radicalized the demands of the law and intensified its requirements, and in the process nullified some longstanding injunctions. Still others maintain that Jesus introduced demands that go beyond and in different directions from those found in the law (cf. Banks 1975:210, 229–230, 235; Barth 1976:153–159; Davies 1962:33–34, 39; Geisler 1989:204–207; Guthrie 1981:676–677; Fanning 1994b:431; Jeremias 1971:206; Lowery 1994a:47–48; Marshall 2004:118–119; Menninger 1994:104–108; Moo 1992:450, 454–456; Moo 1993:350–353; Pate 2000:350–351; Sanders 1985:260; Sanders 1990:93–94; Thielman 2005:87, 89–90).

None of these options are acceptable, for they contradict Jesus’ statement that He did not “come to abolish the Law and the Prophets”. “Abolish” renders the Greek verb katalyo, which means “to put an end to the effect or validity of something”. The idea is that during the Saviour’s first advent, He did not seek to annul, repeal, do away with, or make invalid the Mosaic legal code. Instead, His primary concern was to dismantle incorrect views about the law, especially faulty interpretations promulgated by the religious specialists of the day. This included a works-based form of righteousness in which strict adherence to the law would gain people their salvation (cf. Rom 9:30–33).

Rather than tear down all that the law stood for and represented, Jesus came to “fulfill” (Matt 5:17) the same. The Greek verb plro has three interrelated meanings (cf. Barth 1976:67–68; Branscomb 1930:226–229; Jeremias 1971:84–85; Meier 1976:73–75; Motyer 1996:61; Sanders 1985:261; Suggs 1970:115–119), each of which apply to what Jesus said about Himself. The Messiah fulfilled the law by carrying out its ethical injunctions, showing forth its true spiritual meaning, and bringing all that it stood for prophetically to completion (cf. Bock 2002:132; Bolton 1978:61–62; Henry 1957:318–319; Ladd 1997:122–123; Loader 2002:167–168; McQuilkin 1995:46–49; Murray 1957:150; Sprinkle 2006:27; VanGemeren 1993:38–39). The idea is that Jesus obeyed the law perfectly, thoroughly, and absolutely. He is the realization of its types and prophecies and the exclusive inspired interpretor of its teachings. Furthermore, He alone fully satisfied the payment for sin required by the law. Thus, He is more than an ideal example of how God’s people should act. The Son is the object of the believers’ faith, enabling them to be declared righteous in the Father’s sight. Jesus also leads them beyond a surface-level compliance with the law to an inward adherence to its moral expectations.

There is no dichotomy, then, between Jesus and the Mosaic legal code. What He taught and did stood in continuity with the Old Testament, while at the same time made a break with the prevalent legalistic traditions of the day. Jesus endeavored to clarify what God originally revealed in the law, truths that had been obscured by some religious experts in the intertestamental period. The Saviour made it clear that erroneous views about the law were separate from it and worthy of being rejected. Accordingly, His goal was to abrogate unscriptural notions by replacing them with the truth.

The moral law forms the backdrop of Jesus’ declaration recorded in verse 18. This is due in part to the fact that during His earthly ministry, He began to nullify the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic legal code (cf. Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15; 1 Tim 4:4). Indeed, because of Jesus’ high priestly ministry, the ceremonies and sacrifices connected with the Levitical priesthood ceased to be valid (Heb 8:13). While the administrative and liturgical functions of the law were no longer in force, God’s universal moral absolutes remained in effect. This is made clear when Jesus solemnly assured His listeners that “the smallest letter” (Matt 5:18) and “the least stroke of a pen” found in the law would never “disappear” from it until everything recorded in it was achieved. Not even “heaven and earth” would vanish before God had “accomplished” all that He declared would come to pass.

Ginomai is the Greek verb rendered “accomplished” and it refers to attaining to or arriving at something. From a Christ-centered standpoint, Jesus satisfied all the demands of the Torah, fulfilled their prophetic announcements, and flawlessly elucidated their divinely inspired teaching. These interrelated purposes find their fullest and most ultimate expression in the Saviour’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. Through His death and resurrection, He makes it possible for believers to live in accordance with the ethical standards of the law. Likewise, all the hopes and dreams for saved humanity, as expressed in the law, reach their consummation and closure as a result of the Son’s redemptive work.

Behind Jesus’ statements in verse 19 is His refusal to countenance any misinterpretations and misapplications of the law. The religionists of the day ignored the least commandment by using the Mosaic legal code to win acceptance with God; and they encouraged others to disregard the law by perpetuating the incorrect notion that a mere outward compliance with rules and regulations ensured the intactness of one’s relationship with God. In the end, the meticulous observance of human traditions and opinions is an inadequate substitute for the moral law. Those who so depreciated the ordinances of Scripture would be considered least in the kingdom of the Lawgiver. Oppositely, those who affirmed the moral law—from the least to the greatest of its injunctions—would correspondingly be “called great in the kingdom of heaven”.

The ethical demands of the kingdom exceed what anyone can humanly achieve on their own. Indeed, no matter how closely religionists might try to abide by the technicalities of the law, their sinful nature undermines their best efforts (cf. Rom 7:7–25). Even the smallest infraction makes one guilty of breaking all of God’s commands (cf. Jas 2:10). This was just as true for such pious leaders as “the Pharisees and the teachers of the law” (Matt 5:20). Because they remained entrenched in their legalism and hypocrisy, they would fail to secure redemption for themselves. Only those who rely on God—completely and exclusively—will be admitted to the divine kingdom.

6. The Messiah as the Divine, Incarnate Torah (John 1:1, 14, 16-18)

I have elsewhere explored the Johannine view of Jesus’ relationship to the Mosaic law (Lioy 2005:66–71, 80–87), information that is germane to this essay. Foundational is the apostle’s presentation of Jesus as the eternally preexistent, divine Word. John 1:1 uses the Greek noun logos to refer to the Messiah as “the independent personified expression of God” (Danker 2000:601) to the world. Logos represents a fusion of the religious-philosophical outlook of ancient Greece and the monotheistic orientation of biblical Judaism. The resulting emphasis is on Jesus being the Creator, Sustainer, Ruler, and Judge of the universe. In short, He is the divine, incarnate Torah, the One who embodies God’s wisdom, revelation, and command.

The opening verse of John’s Gospel uses the Greek term arch (translated “beginning”) in connection with the Messiah. At the dawn of time, when the material universe came into being, the Logos already existed. Every aspect of life, whether temporal or eternal, originated from and was consummated in the Logos. Also, because He is the divine, incarnate Torah, the Logos is the source of whatever is considered right and true. With the enfleshment of the Word, God has entered the scene of human history to usher in a new age of redemption. The climax of this cosmic drama is the Son’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, which proves to be the success, not failure, of His divinely foreordained mission. In this way, the Logos reveals the heart of the Father and enables believing sinners to become His spiritual children (cf. v. 12).

John 1:1 states that the divine, incarnate Torah was with the Father from all eternity. Their relationship is intimate, personal, and (in a manner of speaking) face-to-face. The apostle, by using the Greek noun theos in reference to Jesus, emphasized that the Logos is truly God, just as are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the fullness of the Godhead resides in all three Persons of the Trinity, implying that they each fully share the same divine nature (cf. John 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 17:11; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9; Heb 1:3; 2 Pet 1:1). Also, because the Son is uncreated, He is not dependent on anyone or anything; instead, every entity throughout the universe exists because of Him and for Him.

Logos is again used in John 1:14 in connection with the divine Torah of eternity becoming a human being (literally, “flesh”) and taking up residence among humankind. Jesus, without giving up any of His attributes as God (cf. Phil 2:6–8), took upon Himself a full and genuine human nature. Thus, within the person of the Messiah was the complete and perfect union of His divine and human natures (Col 1:19; 2:9; Heb 1:3). In becoming incarnate, the Word remained untainted by and free from sin (cf. Rom 8:3; Heb 4:5; 7:26). These truths are not a theological abstraction, but rather signify the literal enfleshment of the Creator in space and time.

“Made his dwelling” translates the Greek verb skno, which is more literally rendered “tabernacled”. This serves as a reminder of the shrine in the wilderness wherein the Lord displayed His glory among the Israelites (cf. Exod 25:8; 40:34–35; 1 Kings 8:10–11). The grandeur and splendor of God were also present in the Messiah, whose “glory” (John 1:14) the disciples noted. In one sense, the luminescent perfection of God shining forth from Jesus is implied by the Greek term doxa (cf. the account of the Transfiguration recorded in Matt 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36); but the most profound way in which Jesus’ followers witnessed His glory was through His death on the cross, followed by His resurrection and ascension (cf. John 7:39; 12:23, 28; 13:31–32; 17:1, 4–5).

This is none other than the glory of the divine, incarnate Torah, whom John 1:14 refers to as “the one and only” Son. The phrase renders the Greek word monogens, a term that points to something distinctively unique, special, or one-of-a-kind. With respect to the Logos, He alone is the eternal Son of God, the extraordinary object of the Father’s love, and equal to the Father and the Spirit as God. Just as important is the apostle’s statement about the Logos being “full of grace and truth”. Charis (literally, “grace”) denotes God’s enduring love (chesed in Hebrew), while altheia (literally, “truth”) refers to God’s faithfulness (’emet in Hebrew). In the Old Testament, the Lord made His mercy and compassion known through an intermediary such as Moses (cf. Exod 33:18–19; 34:6–7). Now, with the advent of the Messiah, grace and truth from God have reached their full and final expression (cf. John 14:6; Eph 2:8).

The eternal preexistence of the divine, incarnate Torah was the basis for John the Baptizer declaring that the Messiah far outranked him (John 1:15). The same preeminent, incarnate Lord inundated His disciples with the fullness of His presence. The apostle referred to it as charin anti charitos, which is literally rendered “grace upon grace” (v. 16). Admittedly, God’s unmerited favor was already present throughout the Old Testament era; yet John, without diminishing this truth, noted that the enfleshment of the Logos resulted in even more of an inexhaustible supply of divine grace being piled on top of grace for the redeemed. Less likely is the view that the grace of God available under the new covenant somehow replaces or displaces what was available under the old covenant (cf. McQuilkin 1995:52; Moo 1992:461; Räisänen 1986:196). Ultimately, there is a strong correspondence and continuity between the testaments with respect to the compassion and faithfulness of the Lord that He made available to the faith community.

This emphasis on continuity between the testaments also applies to the “law” (nomos), which is mentioned in verse 17. After all, it was the triune God who revealed the law to Moses, and he in turn made it known to Israel (cf. Heb 1:1). That same body of teaching pointed to the long awaited Messiah, the very individual about whom Moses wrote (John 5:46). Likewise, Abraham and Isaiah foresaw the advent of the Redeemer (cf. 8:56; 12:41). Admittedly, the perspective of these and other Old Testament saints was limited (cf. 1 Pet 1:10–12); nonetheless, the Spirit enabled them to prophesy about the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah (cf. Deut 18:15, 18; Ps 2:1–2; 22; 28:16; 118:22; Isa 52:13–53:12; Matt 21:42; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; Acts 4:11, 25–26; 1 Cor 10:3).

As the divine, incarnate Torah, Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God (cf. Heb 1:2–3). He is also the one through whom God’s “grace and truth” (John 1:17; cf. Exod 33:13) are made available to believers in fullest abundance. While there is an implied contrast between Moses and the Messiah in John 1:17, it would be incorrect to conclude that Jesus either displaced and repudiated the law or questioned its abiding validity and authority (cf. Loader 2002:448–451; Pancaro 1975:539–543; Paroschi 2006:162–165); instead, the emphasis is on Jesus fulfilling the Mosaic corpus (Fernando 2004:70; Ladd 1997:266–267; Murray 1957:123, 150; Motyer 1996:61, 134; Sloyan 1978:118; Sprinkle 2006:31–32, 38–39; VanGemeren 1993:37–38). Jesus is not simply a new Moses. More importantly, the Son utterly transcends Israel’s lawgiver as well as all other prominent individuals in the Old Testament (cf. Heb 3:1–7). With the advent of the divine, incarnate Torah, the old era is subsumed by the new one. Indeed, all the redemptive-historical types and prophecies recorded in the sacred Hebrew writings find their consummation in the Son (cf. 10:1).

Although the Mosaic law is holy (cf. Rom 7:12), it could only provide an incomplete understanding of God (Guthrie 1981:684; cf. Heb 1:1–2). In addition, He who “lives in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16) has never been seen in the fullness of His glory by human eyes (John 1:18; cf. Exod 33:20; 1 John 4:12). The only exception is the divine, incarnate Torah (John 6:46). All that the law anticipated and declared is embodied in the Messiah. He is not only the “one and only son” (1:18; Greek, monogens huios), but also “God” (theos) made in “human likeness” (Phil. 2:6). John 1:18 uses the Greek noun kolpos to declare that the Lord Jesus abides in intimate relationship with the Father (as well as the Spirit). As the premier soteriological and eschatological revelation of the Torah, the Son has made the Father known to humankind (cf. Fernando 2004:65–66; Paroschi 2006:158–161; Sprinkle 2006:37).

With the advent of the Messiah, the Father’s revelation to believers is ultimate, complete, and final (cf. Fernando 2004:68). This truth is emphasized by the Greek verb exegeomai, which means “to expound” or “to set forth in great detail”. Interestingly, the English noun “exegesis” is derived from the verb and refers to a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. What the law of Moses could not elucidate about the triune God has now been fully unveiled by the divine, incarnate Torah. Only He could reveal the essential being of the Godhead, for the Messiah alone is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), the “exact representation of [God’s] being” (Heb 1:3), and the One in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). We should not be surprised, then, that Jesus said to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

7. The Messiah as the Culmination of the Law (Rom 3:21, 28, 31; 6:6, 14; 7:5-6; 8:1-4; 9:30-32; 10:3-4; 13:8-10)

The Pauline writings contain a wealth of information about the moral law, and the apostle’s letter to the Romans is possibly his most seminal text on the issue. His epistle affirms the truth that there is a fundamental unity and continuity between the testaments, in which the same world view and theological message is consistently maintained (cf. Lioy 2005:15). For instance, the gospel Paul declared had its origin in the Hebrew Scriptures and previously was the subject of the prophets’ interest (Rom 1:2). In fact, the message of truth had even been proclaimed to Abraham (Gal 3:8); and so the good news Paul heralded was not something novel or deviant, but rather grounded in the revelation of the Old Testament.

This literary and theological coherence between the testaments is reflected in Paul’s discussion of the moral law. By way of example, Romans 3:21 states that the entire Hebrew corpus testified to the “righteousness of God”. The precise meaning of this phrase is debated among scholars, with some asserting that the emphasis is on God’s attribute of righteousness. Without denying the truth of the latter, a more likely exegetical option is that Paul was emphasizing God’s justifying activity in conferring an upright status on believers; hence, the verse is referring to righteousness from God, which He imputes to sinners who trust in the Messiah for salvation (cf. Kruse 1996:170, 188–189; Martin 2001:126–127; McGrath 1993:520–521; Thielman 2005:346; VanDrunen 2006:43; cf. 1:17; 3:22).

In 3:31, Paul asked whether his stress on faith in the Son as the basis for imputed righteousness nullifies the law (that is, renders it inoperative). Expressed differently, does an emphasis on faith somehow imply that believers can forget about the law? The apostle’s response was an emphatic “not at all!” The basis for this assertion stems from the interrelated purposes of the law, which were mentioned earlier in this essay. In short, God did not give the law to provide justification but rather to show people their state of sin and their need to be reconciled with Him. Consequently, the faith of those who trust in the Messiah actually “uphold the law”, especially its continuing authority to condemn those who reject the Son. From what has been said, the Messiah is central to the believers’ ongoing relationship with the law.

In 6:14, Paul revealed that sin is no longer the believers’ master. Here the apostle metaphorically depicted sin as a powerful foe that enslaves people (cf. Ps 19:13). Sin misuses the law to arouse evil desires within the lost. In turn, these forbidden passions yield a harvest of ungodly deeds, resulting in death (Rom 7:5). The situation is different for believers. Their identification with Jesus’ in His death, burial, and resurrection means they have died to the law (6:1–14). Consequently, they are no longer held captive like prisoners under its condemnation. Now that they are “released from the law” (7:6), they can serve God by living in the Spirit (cf. VanDrunen 2006:4).

Paul, in saying that believers are no longer “under the law” (6:14), did not mean they have no obligation to heed God’s universal ethical absolutes. In fact, when believers operate “under grace”, the Spirit enables them to do all that the moral law enjoins. Put another way, under the disciplinary authority of grace, believers have the freedom to live according to a higher principle—a principle that is rooted in the resurrection life of the Lord Jesus (cf. Titus 2:11–12). He has unshackled them from slavery to sin so that they can become slaves, or willing servants, to righteous living (cf. Rom 6:15–18).

Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross is the basis for God showering believers with His love and grace, rather than giving them the punishment they deserve (cf. 5:1–11). Jesus’ redemptive work at Calvary is also the reason why there is no condemnation, or looming eternal punishment, for those who are united to Him by faith (8:1). His followers operate in the power of the Spirit, who is life-giving, rather than the power of sin, which is death-producing. In verse 2, the Greek noun translated “law” (nomos) can refer to a controlling principle (cf. 3:27; 7:21–23). Another possibility is that Paul meant the law of God functioning within two different contexts. In one situation, sin misuses the law and brings about death for sinners. In the opposite situation, believers operate in the Son through the Spirit to obey the moral law, which leads to life (cf. Bandstra 1964:108–110; Martin 2001:31; Thielman 1994:201–202).

The viability of this second option is reinforced by the explanation Paul supplied in 8:3. He noted that the sinful nature weakened the Mosaic law by arousing forbidden passions within the lost; and in this crippled state, the law was “powerless” to free them from sin and death. What the law failed to achieve—providing righteousness for humanity—the Father did by sending His “in the likeness of sinful humanity”. The latter phrase implies that sin never controlled the Messiah; in turn, His human nature remained morally pure and spiritually undefiled. This qualified Him to be God’s offering to atone for the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29; 1 John 2:2).

By one righteous act on the cross, the incarnate Messiah “condemned sin in human flesh” (Rom 8:3). Likewise, the believers’ “old self” (6:6) was crucified with the Son. “Old self” refers to everything people were before trusting in Jesus for salvation, when they were still enslaved to sin (cf. 3:9), were ungodly (cf. 5:6), and were God’s enemies (cf. 5:10). In short, the old self is our state before being born again. The crucifixion of our pre-conversion, unregenerate self is the basis for sin losing its power in our lives and for our post-conversion, regenerate self being enlivened and empowered by the Spirit.

When people trust in the Son, a miraculous exchange occurs. Their guilty status as condemned sinners is transferred to the Messiah on the cross and His perfect righteousness is transferred to them. Through this exchange, the requirements of the law are met in full. Jesus’ righteousness operating in believers enables them to live consistently according to the Spirit of God, rather than according to the sinful nature (8:4). Additionally, the Saviour makes it possible for the moral law of God to become a part the innermost being of believing sinners and for its ethical injunctions and principles to affect their thoughts, emotions and decisions (Ladd 1997:553–554; cf. Jer 31:31–34).

These truths have sobering implications. To be specific, those who trust in the Son and operate in the power of the Spirit are declared righteous. Also, they live in such a way that they fully satisfy the requirements of the moral law. In contrast, those who reject the Messiah and operate in the “old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6)—that is, the letter of the Old Testament law—remain eternally condemned sinners (9:30–32). Their unregenerate status will never change as long as they insist on trying to get right with God by scrupulously keeping the law or assert that maintaining their covenant status as God’s people depends on them performing a never-ending catalog of meritorious works (Thielman 1993:532, 538; VanDrunen 2006:9–11, 45). The fundamental truth of the gospel is that people receive God’s imputed righteousness through faith in the Messiah, not earn it by doing what is commanded in the Mosaic legal code (Schreiner 1993c:975, 978; cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:28; 10:3; Gal 2:16).

Recent critical scholarship has largely abandoned the “traditional Reformation understanding” of the doctrine of justification by faith taught in Paul’s writings (Hafemann 1993:671). Indeed, despite the “plethora of new proposals” that specialists have offered, “no consensus has yet emerged” (Hafemann 1993:673; cf. Gager 2000:146; Thielman 1994:45–47). For instance, one current paradigm known as the “new perspective” on Paul (or NPP) is not a “unified, homogenous group”, but rather a “spectrum of viewpoints” (VanDrunen 2006:36; cf. Chancey 2006:21; Farnell 2005:201–202; Waters 2004:151). Admittedly, supporters of the NPP are right in disapproving any caricature of rabbinicism prevalent during the Second Temple period of Judaism (approximately 515 b.c.-a.d. 70; cf. Chancey 2006:20; Gieschen 2004:121, 144; Lichtenberger 2001:7, 22). Moreover, adherents are correct in emphasizing the importance of carefully analyzing primary sources written during that time, especially to obtain a clearer, more accurate understanding of the New Testament corpus, including the Pauline epistles (cf. Bird 2005:63–64, 68–69; Mattison 2006; Mitchell 1996).

Such affirmations notwithstanding, the major tenets of the NPP are undermined by an objective analysis of the biblical and extra-biblical data. According to Carson (2001:544), the NPP tries to adopt a single, tidy explanation for a diverse array of extra-biblical literature, with the result that the formulation is both “reductionistic” and “misleading” (cf. O’Brien 2004:253). Kim (2002:294–295) notes that the NPP sociological and philosophical reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism has attained the “status of a dogma” that “insists on interpreting Paul” only through the distorted lens of that credo. Others have observed that the NPP contradicts far more accurate and nuanced interpretations of the apostle’s theology found in conservative, confessional forms of Protestantism (cf. Busenitz 2005:258–259; Farnell 2005:203, 243; Riddlebarger 1996; Trueman 2000; Venema 2003; Waters 2004:151, 191–198; Watson 2001).

VanDrunen (2006:54) advances the discussion with the observation that those favoring the “new perspective” put too much “interpretive weight” on the literature found in first-century Judaism (Diaspora, Palestinian, and Qumran writings) and too little on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (especially the broader historical and theological perspective found in them). They redefine “righteousness” as living in covenant relationship with God and remaining faithful to His covenant promises, over against the more traditional understanding of conforming to God’s perfect “moral standard”. “Works of the law” is said to refer to “boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s covenant people” (in particular, being circumcised, keeping the Sabbath, and observing dietary regulations), not attempts to create one’s own upright status before God by doing what the Mosaic law demands. “Justification” refers to the vindication of God’s covenant people before the pagan nations, not His unconditional pardoning and acceptance of believing sinners. The basis for justification is shifted from the “finished work” of the Lord Jesus at Calvary to the “Spirit-produced works of the believer”. Finally, NPP adherents reject the notion that the sin of the first Adam has been imputed to humanity and that the righteousness of the second (eschatological) Adam has been imputed to believers (cf. Bird 2005:58–63; Das 2001:5, 273; Gaffin 2002; Gieschen 2004:121–122; Horton 2004; Hughes 2005:275; Johnson 2004; O’Brien 2004:295–296; Seifrid 2006:19–28; Thomas 2005:315–316; Waters 2004:151–190; Westerholm 2006:16–25).

Romans 10:4 explains that the Saviour is the telos (literally, “end”) of the law for all who trust in Him. One implication is that He is the terminus of “using the law to establish one’s own righteousness” (Schreiner 1993b:121, 135; cf. Das 2003:93). There are two other interpretive options worth mentioning in connection with this verse. The first is that Jesus somehow brings about the cessation or abolition of the Mosaic law, either historically, existentially, or both (cf. Adeyemi 2006:133–136, 206; Kruse 1996:226–229; Martin 2001:133–134, 141, 154; Pate 2000:248–249; Räisänen 1986:54–56, 82, 199–200; Sanders 1983:38–40; Strickland 1993:266–270). While it is true that the Messiah’s death and resurrection put an end to the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law (a point made in the third section of this essay), its universal moral absolutes remain authoritative and applicable for His followers. Also, as I explained in the fifth section of this paper, it is incorrect to suppose that Jesus sought to annul, repeal, or do away with the Mosaic legal code. Accordingly, a second interpretive option is preferred, namely, that telos points to Jesus being the culmination (that is, the destination, goal, outcome, and fulfillment) of the law (Badenas 1985:114–115, 117–118, 143, 151; Bandstra 1964:101–106, 183; Bolton 1978:61; Das 2001:249–251; Fairbairn 1957:443–444; Gager 2000:134–135; Guthrie 1981:694; Henry 1957:180; Kaiser 1993:188; Meyer 2004:86, 89, 92; Moo 1993:358–359; Moo 2004:214–215; Morris 1990:62; Motyer 1996:38, 182; Rhyne 1981:103–104, 113–114, 118; Rhyne 1985:492–493, 498–499; Sloyan 1978:171; Thielman 1994:207–208; Wenham 1995:228; Wright 1991:24–244; cf. Matt 5:17). The implication is that all its types and prophecies are realized in Him, its teachings find their most perfect expression in Him, and its demands are most fully satisfied in Him (cf. Gal 3:24).

The ongoing relevance of the ethical and social aspects of the Mosaic law for believers is evident in Romans 13:8–10, where Paul stressed that Christians are duty bound to show love to all people (v. 8). This reflects Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 22:34–40. He said the greatest commandment is to love God unconditionally and to love others as we love ourselves. There are always opportunities for believers to help others in need (Gal 6:10) and thus “fulfill the law of Christ” (v. 2). The latter phrase refers to “the moral norms” of the Old Testament legal code (Schreiner 1993a:542, 544; cf. Bandstra 1964:111–114; Das 2003:171–173; Ridderbos 1975:284–285; Sprinkle 2006:21; contra Adeyemi 2006:108–119), especially as interpreted by the Saviour (Kim 2002:267; Stanton 2001:115–116; Stanton 2004:113, 116, 122). To refuse to assist the disadvantaged would be a denial of God’s love for us (cf. 1 John 3:16–18). We must pay the debt of love even to those who do not love us. For this, we must rely on the Spirit for the strength to be kind to the mean and coldhearted (cf. Gal 5:22).

To love others unconditionally fulfills the moral requirements of the law of Moses (Gal 5:14). Romans 13:9 lists four of the ten commandments that appear in Exodus 20:1–17 (cf. Deut 5:6–21), and these four all concern relationships with other people. The Lord forbids His people from committing adultery, murdering, stealing, and coveting the possessions of others. Paul could have mentioned numerous additional injunctions. This was unnecessary, however, for the command in Leviticus 19:18 sums up every conceivable law: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. This directive acknowledges a self-evident truth, namely, that we instinctively love ourselves. When we make every effort to treat others with the sensitivity and compassion of the Messiah, we do what is prescribed in the moral law. In fact, love is the essence of God’s universal ethical absolutes (Rom 13:10).

8. The Messiah as the Realization of the Law’s Types, Prophecies, and Expectations (Heb 1:1-4; 8:8-8, 13)

The Book of Hebrews occupies a distinctive place among the New Testament writings for its emphasis on the superiority of the Messiah to leading figures and institutions existing during the Old Testament era. The epistle teaches that because of who Jesus is and what He has done, He is the realization of the law’s types, prophecies, and expectations. This truth harmonizes with what has been said up to this point concerning the Saviour’s relationship to the Mosaic legal code.

Hebrews 1:1 declares that during the era of the Old Testament, God spoke redemptively to His people through His prophets on a number of occasions. The Lord did so in various portions and in a variety of ways (for example, through visions, dreams, and riddles). The idea is that His revelation was fragmentary and partial, though fully inspired and authoritative. Prophets used a variety of means to convey God’s message to people, including oral, dramatic, and written forms. Prophets did not spend all of their time predicting the future. Much of their efforts went into observing what was taking place around them and declaring God’s message concerning those situations. The prophets were not speaking on their own behalf or for their personal benefit. Rather, they were God’s messengers, whom He authorized to convey vital truths to others.

The basis for God choosing to reveal Himself in progressive stages rests on the fact that He works with us according to the level of our understanding. At first, He revealed Himself only in shadows and symbols; but as people came to know more about Him and the way He works, He became more explicit in His dealings and disclosures. It is important to acknowledge these ancient revelations for what they taught people about God, while simultaneously noting that they pointed to a time when God would reveal Himself more fully and finally in “his Son” (v. 2).

The candid statements appearing in verse 1 were not meant to diminish the value of God’s revelation through the Hebrew prophets. The fact that He considered them the transmitters of divine truth is evidence of just how much respect He held for these faithful servants of the Lord; but the same God who had partially revealed Himself in times past, now had disclosed Himself totally and ultimately in His Son. With the advent of the Messiah, everything is centered in Him. Expressed differently, He is the meta-narrative of life, whether temporal or eternal in nature. He in turn gives full and final expression to all that was previously revealed (cf. Luke 24:44), and He does so in a way that is focused, clear, and relevant.

“In these last days” (Heb 1:2) would carry a special significance for the first readers of the epistle, who probably interpreted the phrase to mean that Jesus, as the Saviour, had ushered in the messianic age. He is not merely the end of a long line of Old Testament prophets, but more importantly the one for whom the Hebrews had waited for centuries. He is the complete and distinct revelation of God. Even with the coming of the Saviour, the inspired nature of God’s communication has not changed. The messages He conveyed through the prophets to the community of faith were graced by His power and love; and this remains true now that the Son has unveiled the Father to us. In fact, what the Messiah has disclosed is in harmony with all that appears in the Old Testament, for what the prophets foretold finds its realization in the Messiah (cf. Rom 1:2; 3:21).

Having pointed out Jesus’ distinction as the Son of God, the author of Hebrews proceeded to explain ways in which God’s revelation through the Saviour is better than all other revelations of the Lord. To show this superiority, the writer made a number of statements describing the Son. First, the Father appointed His Son as “heir of all things” (1:2). In Hebrew culture, the firstborn son was the highest ranked of all children. Therefore, he was also the family heir. Jesus is the heir, owner, and Lord of God’s creation. Second, it is through the Son that the Father “made the universe”. The Greek term rendered “universe” refers to the temporal ages and includes the spatial realm, which exists in those time periods. Before time and matter were created, the Messiah eternally preexisted.

Third, the Son is the “radiance” (v. 3) of the triune God’s glory. This does not mean Jesus is merely a reflection of the Lord’s majesty. The Messiah is God Himself, for the glory of God is His radiance. In Jesus’ incarnation, He unveiled to humankind the majesty of the divine. Fourth, the Son is the “exact representation” of the triune God’s being. The Greek word behind this translation originally referred to the die used in minting coins. The term later came to refer to the impression on coins. The writer of Hebrews was saying that who Jesus is corresponds exactly to that of the Godhead. Thus, He alone is the precise image of God’s essence. While the Son is one with the Father and the Spirit in terms of their being, there remains a distinction of the divine persons of the Trinity. Fifth, not only did the Son create the universe, but He also holds it together by His powerful word. Through His sustaining royal decree, He prevents the cosmos from destruction. Clearly, the Son has a continued interest in the world and loves it. Thus, He is carrying it toward the fulfillment of His divine plan.

Sixth, at the heart of the divine plan and revelation to humankind is making redemption available for the lost. This is why the Son died to wash us from the stain of our sins. The Greek noun for “purged” is katharismos, from which we derive the term catharsis, meaning a purging that brings about spiritual renewal. The idea is that through His atoning sacrifice at Calvary, Jesus accomplished cleansing for humanity’s transgressions. The writer expressed his thoughts in the past tense to underscore that the Messiah’s redemptive work on our behalf has already been accomplished. Seventh, because Jesus completed the task for which He was sent, He was granted the place of highest honor—to sit at God’s right hand in a posture of rest (as opposed to endlessly ministering in a standing position; cf. 10:11). The Lord Jesus did once and for all what the Hebrew priests were required to do on a regular basis. Now, as our great High Priest, the Messiah continually applies to us the purification for sins He obtained at the cross. This enables us to worship in God’s presence.

For the various reasons given by the writer of Hebrews, the Son is to be considered superior to everything else. This includes the angels (1:5–2:18), Moses (3:1–4:13), the office of the Aaronic priests (4:14–7:28), and the sacrifices the priests offered (8:1–10:18). In short, the Messiah is the realization of all the types, prophecies, and expectations connected with the Mosaic legal code.

Of particular relevance is the discussion appearing Hebrews 8 concerning the interrelationship between the old and new covenants (cf. Lioy 2006). Verses 1–5 indicate that because Jesus’ ministry is heavenly and unlimited, it is superior to that of the Levitical priests. The Saviour, as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5), has inaugurated a new and better covenant than the old one based on the Mosaic law. The new covenant is superior, precisely because it is “established on better promises” (Heb 8:6). The writer of Hebrews argued that if the first covenant had sufficiently met the needs of people and had adequately provided for their salvation, then there would have been no need for a new covenant to replace it (v. 7). But the old covenant was insufficient and inadequate in bringing people to God, and therefore a new covenant had to be established.

The nexus of the shortfall was not the covenant in and of itself, but those living under it. God had found fault with the Israelites, primarily because they did not continue in that covenant (v. 8). While God initiated the old covenant with His people, they also willingly agreed to it (cf. Josh 24). Thus, the covenant was a mutual obligation between God and the people. Nonetheless, the people often failed to live up to their part of the obligation (cf. Neh 9; Dan 9:1–19). As a result, human failure rendered the old covenant inoperative (cf. Rom 7:7–25).

The establishment of a new covenant naturally implies that the old covenant—especially its “ceremonies and rituals” (Kaiser 1993:186)—is obsolete, needs to be replaced, and will eventually disappear from the scene altogether (Heb 8:13). It would be incorrect to conclude from the preceding remarks that the writer of Hebrews disparaged or maligned the old covenant, or that he indicated the abrogation of the moral law associated with it (cf. Fanning 1994a:401–403; Rhee 2001:144). The contrast is not between an evil system (namely, the old covenant) and a good system (namely, the new covenant), but between what is good and what is better. According to Jones (1994:110), the way in which the administrative and liturgical aspects of the Sinaitic covenant were “rendered nonbinding is by redemptive accomplishment rather than legislative repeal”. Furthermore, as Ladd (1997:630) notes, “all that the old order symbolized was fulfilled in the reality of Christ” (cf. Murray 1957:150–151; Portalatín 2006:58–60).

9. The Abiding Relevance of the Moral Law for Christians (Jas 1:19-20, 22-27; 2:8-27)

The implications of the moral law, especially its abiding relevance for believers, receives considerable attention in the Letter of James. Of particular importance is the biblical concept of righteousness, which is first mentioned in 1:20. In verse 19, James exhorted his readers to be slow to get angry. Human anger is a volatile emotion that can easily get out of control, especially in tense situations. When inappropriate forms of anger erupt, whether toward evildoers or unwanted circumstances, it does not accomplish God’s “righteousness” (v. 20). This means the aftermath of human anger falls short of God’s righteous moral standard, does not reflect the upright standing He gives believers in the Messiah, does not result in any of the good things God wants done, and is contrary to the equity and justice He will establish in His future eternal kingdom. In short, human anger does not produce the righteousness God desires, regardless of its form.

For many Christians, the concept of righteousness might seem too abstract to understand. This difficulty is decreased as they grow in their appreciation of what it means to live in a holy, or morally pure, manner. People are considered righteous when their personal behaviors are in harmony with God’s will as it is revealed in Scripture. The righteous person voluntarily serves the Lord (Mal 3:18), takes delight in Him (Ps 33:1), and gives thanks to Him for His mercy and love (140:13). The righteous are blessed by God (5:12) and upheld by Him (37:17). The righteous may experience hardships and trials in life, but God promises to help them through the difficulty (34:19).

No matter how severe the believers’ afflictions might be, the Lord will never forsake them (37:25) or allow them to fall (55:22). The prospect for the righteous is joy (Prov 10:28) and the way of the Lord is their strength, or refuge (v. 29). The Lord promises to be with them in their darkest moments (11:8) and to be a refuge for them in death (14:32). In summary, James was urging his readers to leave whatever sinful path they might have been on, and to follow the path of uprightness. Otherwise, they would be sinning by refusing to do what they knew to be “good” (Jas 4:17). Here we see that sins of omission (neglecting to do what is right) are just as inappropriate as sins of commission (opting to do what is wrong).

James told his readers that passively listening to God’s Word was not enough to promote spiritual growth. It was just as important for them to obediently act upon what it says (1:22). To hear what the moral law declares without implementing its teachings is nothing but self-deception. Those who hear but do not heed God’s Word are like people who observe what they look like in a mirror, walk away, and quickly forget the image they saw (vv. 23–24). James exhorted his readers to look carefully into and fix their attention on the “perfect law that gives freedom” (v. 25). They were to live out, not forget, what the law of liberty taught. The sustained and thoughtful study of God’s universal ethical precepts would bring them true liberty, spiritual vitality, and abundant blessing in whatever they undertook.

“Religion” (v. 26) is another important biblical concept in James, especially in terms of the abiding relevance of the moral law for Christians. The Greek word translated “religious” denotes the practice of external rituals and observances of a spiritual tradition, such as attendance at worship, prayer, fasting, and giving to the poor. Merely doing these things does not in itself constitute true religion. Those who are genuinely pious demonstrate their faith by controlling what they say. On the other hand, failure to bridle the tongue betrays the self-deception in those who regard themselves as religious and exposes a form of spirituality that has no eternal value. 

Verse 27 shifts the focus from outward observances to service for others, particularly “orphans and widows”. In Scripture, widows, orphans, and aliens are usually depicted as the most helpless among people. Often, they had none but God as their patron and protector (cf. Exod 22:22–23; Deut 10:18; Isa 1:17). Moreover, in Bible times, there was no social safety net to catch the dispossessed and homeless when their source of support was suddenly gone. Widows, orphans, and foreigners were frequently reduced to begging, especially if there was no friend, relative, or benefactor to care for them (cf. Gen 38:11; Ruth 1:8).

James 1:27 reflects this biblical perspective by focusing attention on orphans and widows who live in a state of distress. The writer maintained that clean and undefiled religion is demonstrated, not just in rituals and observances, but also in the upright conduct and righteous character associated with God’s moral law. Examples of this type of behavior include caring for those in anguish and keeping oneself clean in a morally polluted world. The writer’s intention in this passage was not to give a formal definition of religion. Rather, his aim was to draw a contrast between religion as mere ritualistic observance and faith in action that pleases God. Religion that demonstrates genuine spirituality and Christian maturity is an active faith motivated by love.

A similar emphasis can be found in 2:8, in which the writer focused on the directive recorded Leviticus 19:18. It is the supreme commandment in terms of defining how people should treat one another. This dictum is also royal, for among all the commandments given by God (who is the sovereign King of the universe), it sums up the entirety of the “moral norms” contained in the Old Testament legal code (Schreiner 1997:645). James 2:8 builds on this truth by stressing that the royal law will become the guiding principle in the future messianic kingdom. The author observed that believers are doing well when they love others as much as they love themselves. The point is that they cannot heed the most important directive in Scripture and discriminate against others at the same time (cf. vv. 1–7).

As this essay on the nature of the moral law has maintained, both testaments of Scripture are one unified expression, given by one Lawgiver. This means believers cannot make exceptions or subtract the ethical injunctions of God they dislike. Against the backdrop of His infinitely perfect moral standard (Rom 3:23), the person who observes every divine law except for one, is still liable for violating them all (Jas 2:10; cf. VanDrunen 2006:5–6). The sobering reality is that everyone fails to heed the whole law (Rom 3:9–18), which is why people must depend on the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus in order to be saved (v. 24).

James set up a clear contrast between treating others the way we would like to be treated and showing favoritism toward somebody for any reason (Jas 2:9). Doing the first pleases God, while doing the second is sin. Accordingly, failing to observe the royal law—the most liberating, relationship-building command God ever gave—makes one a lawbreaker. Perhaps James thought that some among his readers would look upon showing favoritism as more a social convention than as sin. How, they might ask, could such a custom compare to sins like adultery and murder (v. 11)? The answer James provided is clear and direct. If we transgress any part of the moral law, we are guilty of breaking all of it (v. 10).

To better understand this concept, imagine a balloon with all the commands of God written upon it. Next, imagine trying to cut out one of the commands with a razor blade without affecting the others. James used the weighty sins of adultery and murder to explain that selective obedience to the provisions of God’s universal ethical code was absurd. The author would scoff at the popular notion that certain iniquities do not affect our relationship with God because they are less serious than others.

The author seems to have associated obedience to the moral law with fellowship with God, the one who gave the law. From this perspective, heeding the precepts of God’s abiding ethical absolutes is a display of faith and springs from love. Disobedience to the moral law, on the other hand, is a breach of faith that disrupts fellowship with God, the Lawgiver. In James 2:12, the author placed an equally strong emphasis on talking and acting as if one is going to be judged by the liberating law of God. There is also an emphasis in the original language to make this behavior a matter of habit. Because of the wise counsel contained in God’s perfect moral law, James could say that it gives spiritual freedom (cf. 1:25)—but only if it is respected and obeyed. Disobedience results in bondage and restricted living (cf. John 8:34).

According to James 2:13, the believer who has been merciful will be shown mercy when his or her character flaws and weaknesses are exposed on the final day. In contrast, those who have shown little mercy to others will receive little themselves. Furthermore, the believer who has demonstrated mercy to others will have nothing to fear at the time of divine assessment, for the mercy shown to him or her will triumph over that judgment (cf. 1 John 4:17). As Jesus’ followers strive to become more merciful, there is hope. The liberating power of the Son working within them makes it possible for them to obey God’s moral law more fully and completely.

James 2:14–27 spotlights the relationship of faith to good works. For some, these verses seem difficult to reconcile with Paul’s teaching concerning justification by faith (cf. Laato 2006:213–215); but an objective and balanced study of the New Testament indicates the two men were in agreement and that James was possibly “responding to a misunderstood Pauline teaching” (Davids 1993:458; cf. Guthrie 1981:598–599; Ladd 1997:639; Marshall 2004:692–693; Sloyan 1978:112). Both writers would affirm that saving faith is a voluntary change in a sinner’s mind that results in a turning to God with a corresponding turning away from sin. It includes a transformation of one’s view, feeling, and purpose in life. An exercise of faith involves the whole person—the mind, emotions, and will—and eventually one’s behavior. With the mind one believes in God’s existence and in the teaching of Scripture; emotions are connected to personal faith in the Son as the only one who can redeem from sin; and with the will one surrenders to the Messiah and trusts Him as Lord and Saviour. The natural consequence of saving faith is a lifestyle that actively promotes and demonstrates righteousness through the doing of good works (McGrath 1993:522; Morris 1990:314; cf. Eph 2:8–9; Titus 2:11–14).

James used two rhetorical questions to begin his discussion about the nature of genuine, saving faith. To paraphrase, those questions were: (1) What good is faith that is not accompanied by righteous deeds? and (2) How can a faith that is devoid of good works save anybody (Jas 2:14)? The author’s point was that faith resulting in eternal life will naturally manifest itself in virtuous acts. The construction of the second question in the Greek shows that “No” was the expected answer. There is no contradiction here with Paul’s teaching that salvation cannot be attained through works (cf. Rom 3:28). James was simply saying that true faith will manifest itself in a life of active obedience to God’s moral law. The author’s rebuke is directed toward a spurious kind of “faith” that is merely an intellectual assent, not a life-changing trust in the Messiah. Because this kind of “faith” is void of good works, it is worthless. Expressed differently, belief without action is dead on arrival (Jas 2:16–17).

Verse 18 anticipates an imaginary objector declaring, “You have faith; I have deeds”. The idea is that there are two equally valid types of faith—one that simply believes and another that acts on that belief. James challenged the idea that genuine, saving faith has no effect on the way a person acts. In short, trusting in the Messiah is authenticated by doing kind deeds to others. Next, the author commented on the presumed value of merely believing in the existence of God by noting that such by itself does not result in eternal life. After all, even the demons are monotheists, for they affirm that there is only one God and it causes them to tremble with fear (v. 19; cf. Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29). The obvious conclusion is that “faith without deeds is useless”, for dead orthodoxy is barren of eternal fruit (v. 20).

To reinforce his point, James presented illustrations from the lives of two prominent Old Testament characters—the patriarch Abraham and the prostitute Rahab. James introduced each example by means of a question with which his readers were expected to give full and hearty agreement. In the case of Abraham, when he was about 85, he believed God’s promise concerning a son to be born through Sarah (Gen 15:5). Verse 6 indicates that the patriarch considered the Lord’s pledge as being reliable and dependable. Indeed, the patriarch was confident that God was fully capable of bringing about what He had promised. Consequently, Abraham’s faith was “credited … to him as righteousness”. Expressed differently, the Lord considered the patriarch’s response of faith as proof of his genuine commitment and evidence of his steadfast loyalty. Paul referred to this verse in Romans 4:3 to stress that an upright standing before God comes through faith, not by means of obedience to the law (cf. Gal 3:6). As Abraham’s life illustrated, God forgives the believing sinner on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (Rom 3:25–26).

Years later, when Abraham was about 116, he submitted to God’s test to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–19). This was an act of faith on the part of the patriarch (Heb 11:17–19) in which he demonstrated that he feared God (Gen 22:12). This meant Abraham followed the Lord in absolute obedience. James 2:21 explains that the patriarch’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, proved that his faith was genuine and that he existed in a right relationship with God. It was not the deed that justified Abraham; rather, he showed himself to be justified through the saving faith that was manifested in his virtuous deed. Verse 22 says that the patriarch’s faith and actions worked together, with his actions making his faith complete.

James 2:23 and Romans 4:3 both quote Genesis 15:6 when referring to Abraham’s justification. Paul maintained that God counted the patriarch to be righteous because of his faith. James stressed a related truth, namely, that Abraham vindicated the reality of his previously-existing faith and his upright status before God by obeying the Lord (Fanning 1994b:429). The patriarch showed by his actions that he genuinely was God’s friend (cf. 2 Chr 20:7). This indicates that Abraham so pleased God by his life that the Lord showered the patriarch with His favor in a distinctive way.

A superficial reading of James 2:24 seems to teach that people are justified by what they do and not by faith alone. Moreover, some have been confused by the author’s concept of justification here and how it relates to Paul’s teaching on the subject (cf. Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16; 3:11); but a careful examination of Scripture indicates there is no contradiction. For Paul, “justification” means to declare a sinner not guilty before the Father by means of faith in the Son and His death in the sinner’s place. Because the Messiah died for sin, the repentant sinner can enjoy a standing of righteousness before God. In James, the concept of “justification” is taken one step further to include the validation of one’s faith in the sight of God and others. Expressed differently, the upright status of believers with God is vindicated by the way they choose to live.

Rahab the prostitute is the second example James put forward of genuine, saving faith. Joshua 2:1–21 records the episode in which Rahab hid the Israelite spies and sent them safely away by a different road. Like Abraham, Rahab was shown to be righteous when her trust in God prompted her to act in a way that met with His approval (Jas 2:25). He was pleased with Rahab’s virtuous deed because she operated in faith (cf. Heb 11:6, 31). James 2:26 reveals that the connection between genuine, saving faith and godly deeds is as close as that between body and spirit. When the spirit is separated from the body, the latter dies (cf. Eccl 12:7). Likewise, faith that is barren of any fruit is just as dead. Oppositely, living faith manifests itself in good works advocated by God’s moral law.

It is worth noting that John also insisted on the inseparable connection between genuine faith and righteous deeds. He wrote that loving God meant keeping His commands (1 John 5:3). The idea is that love for God has less to do with emotions than with an across-the-board compliance with His universal ethical absolutes. Likewise, our love for other believers is not just something we talk about. It is also demonstrated by truly helping those in need (cf. 3:18). Regrettably, when people who are not Christians think about God’s demands, they equate them with regulations like those of the scribes and Pharisees, something that was truly irksome and overwhelming (5:3). The new birth, however, changes the perspective of believers and gives them strength through the Spirit to live in accordance with God’s moral law. As Jesus Himself declared, His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt 11:30).

10. Conclusion

This essay has examined the nature of the moral law from a Christ-centered perspective and done so in a canonical and integrative manner. The discussion began by considering the biblical concept of the law. From the vantage point of the Old Testament, morality concerned how people of faith should live. Similarly, the New Testament regarded ethical instruction as being concerned with a way of life that is characterized by righteousness and blessing. The Mosaic legal code dealt with civil, ceremonial, and ethical issues, of which the administrative and ritual aspects are no longer binding on Christians. In contrast, the universal ethical absolutes of God’s law remain authoritative and applicable for Jesus’ followers. Two interrelated purposes of His moral law are helping people recognize their sin and see their need for a Redeemer.

This essay maintains that the Lord Jesus always remained subject to the law and sought to fulfill it. He did the latter by carrying out its ethical injunctions, showing forth its true spiritual meaning, and bringing all that it stood for prophetically to completion. He also endeavored to dismantle incorrect views about the law, such as the erroneous interpretations put forward by the religious elite of His day. Jesus particularly took issue with the works-based form of righteousness they promulgated, especially its insistence on people earning their salvation by strictly following the law.

As the atoning sacrifice for humankind, the Messiah satisfied the demands of the law completely and for all time. Accordingly, those who trust in Him for eternal life are freed from the condemnation of the law. The natural consequence of saving faith is a lifestyle that actively promotes and demonstrates righteousness through the doing of good works. In short, the Holy Spirit empowers believers to do what the moral law enjoins.

The implication is that God wants believers to abide by His universal ethical absolutes, not ignore, disregard, or minimize them. The sustained and thoughtful study of the moral law brings them true liberty, spiritual vitality, and abundant blessing in whatever they undertake. Through their new life in the Son and the enabling presence of the Spirit, all that the moral law advocates influences the believers’ thoughts, emotions, and decisions. The foremost way this is demonstrated is by showing unconditional, Christlike love to others.

Bibliography

Adeyemi F 2006. The new covenant Torah in Jeremiah and the law of Christ in Paul. Peter Lang.

Badenas R 1985. Christ the end of the law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline perspective. JSNT Press.

Bandstra AJ 1964. The law and the elements of the world: an exegetical study in aspects of Paul’s teaching. J.H. Kok.

Banks R 1975. Jesus and the law in the Synoptic tradition. Cambridge University Press.

Barth G 1976. Matthew’s understanding of the law. In G Bornkamm, G Barth, and HJ Held, eds. P Scott, trans. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (58–164). Westminster Press.

Bird MF 2005. When the dust finally settles: coming to a post new-perspective perspective. Criswell Theological Review 2(2):57-69.

Bock DL 2002. Jesus according to Scripture: restoring the portrait from the Gospels. Baker

Bolton S 1978. The true bounds of Christian freedom. Banner of Truth.

Branscomb BH 1930. Jesus and the law of Moses. Richard R. Smith, Inc.

Busenitz IA 2005. The Reformer’s understanding of Paul and the law. The Master’s Seminary Journal 16(2):245-259.

Carson DA 2001. Summaries and conclusions. In DA Carson, PT O’Brien, and MA Seifrid, eds. Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1: the complexities of Second Temple Judaism (1:505–548). Baker.

Chancey MA 2006. Paul and the law: EP Sander’s retrieval of Judaism. The Christian century 123(12):20-23.

Danker FW 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press.

Das AA 2001. Paul, the law, and the covenant. Hendrickson.

Das AA 2003. Paul and the Jews. Hendrickson.

Davids PH 1993. James and Paul. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (457–461). IVP.

Davies WD 1962. Christian origins and Judaism. Westminster Press.

Fairbairn P 1957. The revelation of law in Scripture. Zondervan.

Fanning BM 1994a. A theology of Hebrews. In RB Zuck and DL Bock, eds. A biblical theology of the New Testament (369–415). Moody.

Fanning BM 1994b. A theology of James. In RB Zuck and DL Bock, eds. A biblical theology of the New Testament (417–435). Moody.

Farnell FD 2005. The new perspective on Paul: its basic tenets, history, and presuppositions. The Master’s Seminary Journal 16(2):189-243.

Fernando GCA 2004. The relationship between law and love in the Gospel of John. Peter Lang.

Gaffin R 2002. A reformed critique of the new perspective. Modern Reformation. Website: http://www.modernreformation.org/rg02newp.htm.

Gager JG 2000. Reinventing Paul. Oxford University Press.

Geisler NL 1989. Christian ethics: options and issues. Baker.

Gieschen CA 2004. Paul and the law: was Luther right? In CA Gieschen, ed. The law in holy Scripture: essays from the Concordia Theological Seminary symposium on exegetical theology (113–147). Concordia.

Guthrie D 1981. New Testament theology. IVP.

Hafemann SJ 1993. Paul and his interpreters. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (666–679). IVP.

Henry CF 1957. Christian personal ethics. Eerdmans.

Horton M 2004. Déjà vu all over again. Modern Reformation. Website: http://www.modernreformation.org/mh04dejavu.htm.

Hughes J 2005. The new perspective’s view of Paul and the law. The Master’s Seminary Journal 16(2):261-276.

Jeremias J 1971. New Testament theology: the proclamation of Jesus. J Bowden, trans. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Johnson P 2004. A defense of the old perspective on Paul: what did St. Paul really say? London Reformed Baptist Seminary. Website:

Jones DC 1994. Biblical Christian ethics. Baker.

Kaiser WC 1993. The law as God’s gracious guidance for the promotion of holiness. In WG Strickland, ed. The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: five views (177–209). Zondervan.

Kim S 2002. Paul and the new perspective: second thoughts on the origin of Paul’s gospel. Eerdmans.

Kruse CG 1996. Paul, the law, and justification. Hendrickson.

Ladd GE 1997. A theology of the New Testament, rev ed. Eerdmans.

Laato A 2006. Paul’s theology of “righteousness through faith” in the context of Tanak and Jewish interpretive traditions. In J Neusner, AJ Avery-Peck, A Laato, R Nurmela, and KG Sandelin, eds. Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective: essays in memory of Karl-Johan Illman (195–224). University Press of America.

Lichtenberger H 2001. The understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s day. In JDG Dunn, ed. Paul and the Mosaic law (7–23). Eerdmans.

Lioy D 2004. The Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount. Peter Lang.

Lioy D 2005. The search for ultimate reality: intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine prologues. Peter Lang.

Lioy D 2006. Progressive covenantalism as an integrative motif of Scripture. Conspectus 1:81–107. Website:

Loader WRG 2002. Jesus’ attitude towards the law: a study of the Gospels. Eerdmans.

Lowery DK 1994. A theology of Matthew. In RB Zuck and DL Bock, eds. A biblical theology of the New Testament (19–63). Moody.

Marshall IH 2004. New Testament theology. IVP

Martin BL 2001. Christ and the law in Paul. Wipf and Stock.

Mattison MM 2006. A summary on the new perspective on Paul. Jewish Christian Webring. Website:

McGrath AE 1993. Justification. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (517–523). IVP.

McQuilkin R 1995. Biblical ethics: an introduction, 2nd ed. Tyndale.

Meier JP 1976. Law and history in Matthew’s Gospel: a redactional study of Mt. 5:17–48. Biblical Institute Press.

Menninger RE 1994. Israel and the church in the Gospel of Matthew. Peter Lang.

Meyer PW 2004. The Word in this world: essays in New Testament exegesis and theology. JT Carroll, ed. Westminster John Knox Press.

Mitchell NB. 1996. Works righteousness and the synagogue of Satan: rethinking Christian caricatures of 1st century Judaism. International Council of Christians and Jews. Website:

Moo DJ 1992. Law. In JB Green and S McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (450–461). IVP.

Moo DJ 1993. The law of Christ as the fulfillment of the law of Moses: a modified Lutheran view. In WG Strickland, ed. The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: five views (319–376). Zondervan.

Moo DJ 2004. Israel and the law in Romans 5–11: interaction with the new perspective. In DA Carson, PT O’Brien, and MA Seifrid, eds. Justification and variegated nomism. Volume II: the paradoxes of Paul (2:185–216). Baker.

Morris L 1990. New Testament theology. Zondervan.

Motyer A 1996. Look to the Rock: an Old Testament background to our understanding of Christ. Kregel.

Murray J 1957. Principles of conduct: aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.

O’Brien PT 2004. Was Paul a covenantal nomist? In DA Carson, PT O’Brien, and MA Seifrid, eds. Justification and variegated nomism. Volume II: the paradoxes of Paul (2:249–296). Baker.

Pancaro S 1975. The law in the fourth Gospel: the Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John. E. J. Brill.

Paroschi W 2006. Incarnation and covenant in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–18). Peter Lang.

Pate CM 2000. The reverse of the curse: Paul, wisdom, and the law. Mohr Siebeck.

Portalatín A 2006. Temporal oppositions as hermeneutical categories in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Peter Lang.

Räisänen H 1986. Paul and the law. Fortress.

Rhee V 2001. Faith in Hebrews: analysis within the context of Christology, eschatology, and ethics. Peter Lang.

Rhyne CT 1981. Faith establishes the law. Scholars Press.

Rhyne CT 1985. Nomos dikiaosynes and the meaning of Romans 10:4. Catholic biblical quarterly 47(3):486-499.

Ridderbos H 1975. Paul: an outline of his theology. J R De Witt, trans. Eerdmans.

Riddlebarger K 1996. Reformed confessionalism and the new perspective on Paul: a new challenge to a fundamental article of faith. Modern Reformation. Website:

Sanders EP 1983. Paul, the law, and the Jewish people. Fortress Press.

Sanders EP 1985. Jesus and Judaism. Fortress.

Sanders EP 1990. Jewish law from Jesus to Mishnah. Trinity Press International.

Schreiner TR 1993a. Law of Christ. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (542–544). IVP.

Schreiner T R 1993b. Paul’s view of the law in Romans 10:4–5. Westminster Theological Journal 55:113–155.

Schreiner TR 1993c. Works of the law. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (975–979). IVP.

Schreiner TR 1997. Law. In RP Martin and PH Davids, eds. Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments (644–649). IVP.

Seifrid MA 2006. The narrative of Scripture and justification by faith: a still fresher reading of Paul. Concordia Theological Seminary. 

Sloyan GS 1978. Is Christ the end of the law? Westminster Press.

Suggs MJ 1970. Wisdom, christology, and law in Matthew’s gospel. Harvard University Press.

Sprinkle JM 2006. Biblical law and its relevance: a Christian understanding and ethical application for today of the Mosaic regulations. University Press of America.

Stanton GN 2001. The law of Moses and the law of Christ. In JDG Dunn, ed. Paul and the Mosaic law (99–116). Eerdmans.

Stanton GN 2004. Jesus and the Gospel. Cambridge University Press.

Strickland WG 1993. The inauguration of the law of Christ with the gospel of Christ: a dispensational view. In WG Strickland, ed. The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: five views (229–279). Zondervan.

Thielman F 1993. Law. In G F Hawthorne, R P Martin, and D G Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his letters (529–542). InterVarsity Press.

Thielman F 1994. Paul and the law: a contextual approach. InterVarsity Press.

Thielman F 2005. Theology of the New Testament: a canonical and synthetic approach. Zondervan.

Trueman C 2000. A man more sinned against than sinning? The portrait of Martin Luther in contemporary New Testament scholarship: some casual observations of a mere historian. Westminster Theological Seminary. 

Thomas R L 2005. Hermeneutics of the new perspective on Paul. The Master’s Seminary Journal 16(2):293-316.

VanDrunen DM, ed. 2006. Report on justification presented to the seventy-third general assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. 

VanGemeren WA 1993. The law as the perfection of righteousness in Jesus Christ: a Reformed perspective. In WG Strickland, ed. The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: five views (13–58). Zondervan.

Venema CP 2003. Evaluating the new perspective on Paul: Scripture, confession, and historical reconstruction. World Reformed Fellowship. 

Waters GP 2004. Justification and the new perspectives on Paul: a review and response. P&R Publishing.

Watson F 2001. Not the new perspective. University of Aberdeen. 

Wenham D 1995. Paul: follower of Jesus or founder of Christianity? Eerdmans.

Westerholm S 2006. Justification by faith is the answer: what is the question? Concordia Theological Seminary. 

Wright NT 1991. The climax of the covenant: Christ and the law in Pauline theology. Fortress Press.

Notes

  1. Dan Lioy holds a ThM. (Dallas Theological Seminary) and a PhD. (North-West University). He has lectured at Trinity Theological Seminary, Marylhurst University, and Southwestern College. He has written several academic monographs, including ones on the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation. He also serves as a postgraduate supervisor with the South African Theological Seminary.
  2. This essay is a preliminary version of a chapter to appear in a forthcoming monograph being researched and written by the author. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the faculty and staff of SATS. © 2007 All rights reserved.
  3. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from Today’s New International Version (hereafter abbreviated, TNIV).