Justification in Redemptive History

By Mark W. Karlberg

Since the time of the Reformation, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) has been recognized as the fundamental and determinative doctrine of the Protestant faith. It is quite understandable, then, in light of the importance of this doctrine that much of Protestant interpretation and exposition of soteric justification would be polemical in nature. After all, Protestants believed that the Church stood or fell, depending upon its adherence to or repudiation of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith. In the history of Protestant dogmatic theology, there has been the tendency so to emphasize the sola fide character in justification that the full relation of faith and works to forensic justification at times has been unclear or obscure. During the course of the Reformation, increasing stress upon the absolute character of faith as the sole instrument of justification was necessitated by the erroneous teaching of Roman Catholicism. As the Protestants insisted, there could be no mixture of faith and obedience in the article of justification by faith in its primary, constitutive sense. Though justifying faith inevitably produces good works, so that faith and obedience are inseparable, faith is the alone instrument of justification. The term “instrument” is a scholastic word which simply serves to identify the manner in which divine justification is received. The term, though not found in Scripture, does not import any foreign or speculative notion into the biblical teaching.

Central to the Reformers’ doctrinal formulations are the teachings of the apostle Paul. Justification is apart from the works of the law. A man is justified by faith, not by works. The righteous man shall live by faith (e.g., Rom 1:17; 3:19ff; 5:1–21; Gal 3:1–18; Eph 2:8–10; and Phil 3:3ff). But what shall we say of James, who writes: a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24)? And what of the epistle to the Hebrews, which is an extended exposition of this same teaching found in James regarding the necessity of faith and obedience? It is frequently pointed out how Luther objected to the teachings of James and the author of Hebrews on grounds of apparent conflict with the Pauline teaching. As a consequence, Luther relegated these books (among others) to a lower status within the canon of Scripture. Regarding those passages in Hebrews which insist upon faith and obedience, Calvin Schoonhoven mistakenly suggests:

Luther so felt the sting of these sections that he disavowed the book. Not only the dramatic pointedness bothered him, but more so what was actually said. Subsequent commentators have struggled rather much to ease the violent impact of this material. Thus it is that Luther and other commentators follow the “analogy-of-faith” hermeneutical principle, which we are convinced obstructs precise exegesis by demanding that all the biblical literature be read in the light of so-called ruling concepts derived from supposed clear statements of other Scripture. By so doing they have done great disservice to the text.[1]

The particular “ruling concept” that Schoonhoven has in mind here is the traditional law-gospel distinction.

It has become commonplace in biblical and theological interpretation to substitute the Barthian notion of “law in grace” for the traditional law versus grace distinction. Modern critics argue that biblical theology challenges the entire federalist structure of historic Reformed theology. Daniel Fuller concludes his recent study by stating: “Calvin never sensed, as biblical theology has begun to perceive, that Paul used the same term ‘law’ in two ways that are very opposite to each other because of the complicating factor of the power of sin.”[2] Fuller’s conception of “law” is entirely different from Calvin’s, judged by the former’s repudiation of the traditional understanding of the law-gospel distinction which is now shared by a growing number of theologians, including Schoonhoven and Geoffrey Bromiley, both of whom, like Fuller, teach at Fuller Theological Seminary, Thomas and James Torrance in Scotland, and G. C. Berkouwer and S. G. DeGraaf in The Netherlands.[3] Elsewhere, I have presented a full historical-theological analysis of the Reformed concept of “works” in the rise and development of covenant theology.[4]

This present study offers a fresh interpretation of the “apparently” contradictory teachings in the Scriptures on the role of faith and works in redemptive justification. The proper and legitimate use of the biblical-theological method of interpretation, contrary to the opinion of modern, critical exegetes, will strive to unfold and manifest the multifaceted message of redemptive revelation set forth in the Old and New Testaments. Since the beginning of Reformed theology, there has been continual development and progress in the articulation of a distinctly Reformed methodology, namely, the covenantal methodology. One of the leading modern exponents of this interpretive methodology is Geerhardus Vos, of whom Richard Gaffin, Jr. remarks:

Writing at the height of his career, he observed that Reformed theology “has from the beginning shown itself possessed of a true historic sense in the apprehension of the progressive character of the deliverance of truth. Its doctrine of the covenants on its historical side represents the first attempt at constructing a history of revelation and may justly be considered the precursor of what is at present called Biblical Theology.”[5]

It is just this concern for the progressive nature of biblical revelation that is requisite for an adequate interpretation of the fundamental Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. Since the Reformed biblical-theological method has matured to the point of a consciously vital and consistent approach to Scripture, we are now in a better position to appreciate the redemptive-historical character of God’s revelation of justification in the way of the covenant of grace. Systematic theology depends upon the fruits of biblical theology. There is a mutual relationship between these two methodologies.[6] Consequently, a proper view of biblical theology will not lead to a depreciatory view of systematic theology.

Neglect of biblical theology produces an unhealthy, one-sided approach to the biblical message, which is incapable of doing justice to the various strands of redemptive revelation. Gaffin cautions:

The tendency, in the interests of maintaining the unity and divine authorship of Scripture, to minimize or ignore the distinctiveness of each of the human writers is unfortunate not only because in its own way it suggests a conflict between divine and human elements in Scripture, but also because it bars the way to a more pointed and articulate grasp of biblical teaching. Careful attention to the writings of the various authors in all their respective individuality and particularity will only serve to disclose in all its rich diversity the organic unity of biblical revelation.[7]

The key to right understanding of the biblical teaching on justification in the covenant of grace is to be found in the federalist interpretation of the continuity and discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants. Apart from this dominant feature in the federalist interpretation of the divine covenants, one will not succeed in arriving at an accurate understanding of the role of faith and obedience in justification, as that is expounded in the epistles of Paul, James, and the writer to the Hebrews. Specifically, acknowledgment of the distinctive and characteristic law feature of the Mosaic Covenant is of paramount importance in the Pauline epistles and in Hebrews. Succinctly stated, the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace incorporates the system of works-inheritance in the typical sphere of covenant life, in which physical and temporal blessings are contingent upon the obedience of the Israelite nation, as opposed to the spiritual, antitypical blessings (namely, eternal salvation) which rest exclusively upon the obedience of Christ. The spiritual blessings are an essential part of the Mosaic Covenant. The law was added to the promise given to Abraham in order that grace might abound. That is to say, the system of works-inheritance in the typical sphere serves a subservient, pedagogical function in the life of the people of God prior to the coming of Christ (Rom 5:20 and Gal 3:24–25).

With a view to the further elucidation of this teaching in the Scriptures, we proceed to a brief analysis of the Old Testament revelation of justification in the context of the divine covenants and the ensuing demand for righteousness on the part of the recipients of grace.

Old Testament: Redemption: Justification of the Godly

The history of redemption, as unfolded in the sacred writings, can be understood only in the light of Scripture’s teaching on creation and the fall. Any attempt to minimize or obscure the historical character of the biblical account of creation and man’s fall into sin will result in a defective view of Heilsgeschichte.[8]

Students of theology are aware of the various and divergent interpretations of salvation-history in modern biblical and theological studies. Basic to our present interpretation of God’s revelation is adherence to the historic integrity of the biblical narratives. The history of redemption is the unfolding of God’s progressive revelation of himself to man in his saving acts of sovereign grace in Jesus Christ. It is the history of divine blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience.

The Christological basis of redemption becomes increasingly clear in the ongoing administration of the single covenant of grace, which extends from the fall of Adam in the garden to the consummation, the summing up of all things in heaven and earth. The love and mercy of God toward sinners is realized in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Our biblical-theological conception of Heilsgeschichte and the covenant of God differs radically from that of neo-orthodoxy, particularly the views of Karl Barth. The historical nature of salvation-history is not qualitatively different from “ordinary history” (Historie vs. Geschichte). As Barth defines the divine covenant as a single covenant of grace in Christ, applicable to creation and redemption alike, there is no transition from wrath to grace in history, just as there is no doctrine of the Fall as a concrete, historical reality. Barth’s teaching on the “Fall” stands in sharp contrast to that of Protestant orthodoxy. Barth’s conception of the eternal covenant in Christ is purely speculative in origin.

Contrary to all Barthian and semi-Barthian interpretations of biblical revelation, God first declared his word of sovereign grace in Christ to Adam in the garden subsequent to Adam’s transgression of the law of God. The provision of redeeming grace and love were symbolized by God’s clothing of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:15, 21). Upon their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, our first parents realized that protection and strength could be found only in the saving intervention of God into their personal lives.

The early chapters of Genesis set forth the history of man’s response to God’s covenant provisions. Among the covenant-keepers, Enoch is described as one who “walked with God” (Gen 5:24).9 The expression “to walk with God” denotes covenant faithfulness and is commonly used throughout the Old and New Testament writings. Clearly, the recipients of saving grace are those who “walk with God.” They are the ones who keep covenant with their God. This is strikingly evident in the life of Noah and his family. In the midst of widespread ungodliness and corruption, Noah was one who “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen 6:8). Scripture declares: “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:9). In the building of the ark and the gathering of the living creatures, Noah “did according to all that God commanded him” (Gen 6:22; 7:5). The godly people are those who keep covenant with God, who walk in the way of covenant obedience.

When we come to Abram’s time, we reach a fuller and clearer revelation of God’s covenant of grace. God calls Abram to leave his own country in Haran for the place of God’s own choice. “So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him” (Gen 12:4). The fifteenth chapter of Genesis records for us the first divine, covenantal ratification of the promise first given to Adam and his descendants (the elect seed) after the Fall. The restoration of fellowship between God and man is exclusively the Lord’s accomplishment. In response, Abram declares his “Amen” to God’s commitment and promise.[10] (The full implications of Abram’s assent of faith are drawn by the apostle Paul in Romans 4. Deeper and clearer understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith had to await the fullness of times. But in the early Genesis narrative, we are told simply that Abram took God at his word.) Abram trusts God for the future realization of the promises, which are both spiritual and physical (the latter, both typical and antitypical). The relationship between the temporal (typical) blessings and the eternal (antitypical) blessings would come into sharper focus only with the passage of time, and with the subsequent administrations of the one and eternal covenant of grace.[11]

Following the temporal redemption of Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, God brings his people to the wilderness of Sinai. Through the mediation of Moses, God gives his law as a covenant to the elect nation, Israel. God declares: “Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people” (Exod 19:5). Upon hearing the law and commandments of the Lord their God, the people vow their commitment to walk in the way of the covenant with Moses. The precise nature of this covenant has been a matter of intense theological debate in recent years. Writers of both the Old and New Testament documents identify a distinctive law-principle operative in a unique and peculiar manner under the Mosaic Covenant administration. This principle comes to pointed expression in Leviticus 18:5. In explaining the nature and function of the law of Moses, God stipulates that his people are not to live like the Egyptians nor the Canaanites, nor are they to walk in their ordinances. Rather, “You shall do my judgments, and keep my ordinances, to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man practices, he shall live in them: I am the Lord” (Lev 18:4–5). This principle of works is again highlighted in Ezekiel 20:11. It is the characteristic feature of the Mosaic Covenant. The antithetical principles of law and grace are operative within the one Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. We shall consider the New Testament interpretation of this law-principle later in our discussion.

Among biblical exegetes who accept the historic accuracy and integrity of the scriptural accounts, there are two distinct opinions regarding the function of “law” under the Old Covenant. The first and major Reformed and Lutheran interpretation since the Reformation period is that the law-principle operates in close conjunction with the bestowal of temporal, earthly rewards. From this point of view, a contemporary exegete writes: “The life of the Hebrews as a nation would depend on the law, not in a totally legalistic sense, but in that the law was the basis of the covenant, and in the covenant rested their close relationship to their God.” Elsewhere, this commentator remarks: “The covenant promise of the land, made first to the patriarchs, moved forward by Moses, and still to be experienced by future generations, spanned time within the framework of the purpose of God. And yet the continuity of the covenant, in its fullness, was contingent upon the obedience of the people of God.”[12] According to the second Reformed viewpoint, the function of the law under Moses is explained in such a way that the law-principle operates merely in terms of general chastisement for sin. While recognizing the unique situation within the Mosaic economv (in obvious distinction from the New Covenant economy), this view contends that God had determined to discipline Israel in certain instances with immediate judgment for sin or threat of impending judgment so as to demonstrate his holiness and righteousness. Generally, divine judgment according to works, rendered in terms of Old Covenant administration, is suspended during the gospel age. In contrast to both Reformed orthodox interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant, modernists argue that these “apparent” divine judgments (which they cannot really accept according to the canons of critical reasoning) merely have been recounted in Israel’s history as a witness to their socio-religious tradition. By historicizing Israel’s religion, divine revelation is nothing more than human perception and response to reality as they experienced it in their cultus. We adopt the first Reformed interpretation.

Consistently, the expression “he who does the commandments shall inherit life by them” (Lev 18:5; Ezek 20:11; Luke 10:28; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12) underscores the fact that the blessings of God are obtained on the basis of obedience (i.e., the works-principle of inheritance). There is no strain of Pharisaical self-righteousness lurking in this divine mandate. The biblical principle of law observance (the works-principle of inheritance) is agreeable with law as the eternal rule of life (see the discussion below on Heb 3:18–4:2, 6). The creature of God is by necessity bound to obey his Creator. This is his natural obligation by virtue of his creation in the image of God as one in covenant relationship with the Lord and Giver of life. “Man’s whole obligation is to heed, and to the obedient Israelite was given the promise of life and rich inheritance. The fact that ultimately piety and prosperity will be united was foreshadowed in the history of the Israelite theocracy, for it symbolized the consummate kingdom of God.”[13] Man’s ability to render obedience to God since the Fall is contingent upon the gracious working of the Holy Spirit, who inscribes the law upon hearts of flesh. Those who through grace are obedient receive the favor and blessing of God. This was true of Adam, Enoch, and Noah in the days prior to the flood, and subsequently in the calling of Abraham as the father of all who believe (Gal 3:8–9; Rom 4:16). What more precisely is the meaning of the law-principle as opposite to the principle of faith within the Mosaic economy (Gal 3:11–12)? In our discussion of later biblical revelation in the New Testament, we will deal more fully with this question.

This much is clear: Under the Mosaic Covenant the reward of continuing temporal blessings in the land of promise is contingent upon the obedience of Israel, not upon the substitutionary obedience of another, namely, Christ. This is the principle of works-inheritance, rather than faith-inheritance. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27–28 set forth blessings and curses as the dual sanctions of the Mosaic Covenant. Blessing is the reward for covenant faithfulness, whereas curse is the just recompense for covenant faithlessness. The fact that righteousness and obedience on the part of the Israelite is possible only in terms of the immediate working of the Holy Spirit is in itself immaterial with respect to the administrative operation of the principle of law-inheritance in the symbolic-typical sphere of the Mosaic Covenant. Peter Craigie comments: “Israel, remaining faithful to the covenant God, would be renowned among other nations, not because of inherent merit, but because the covenant community would reflect the glory of the covenant God in its national life. This glory was the potential of the community of God’s people; but in the two chapters that follow (Deut 26), a solemn warning is issued concerning the natural disasters that would fall upon Israel in the event of unfaithfulness to the covenant God.”[14] The judgment of God according to works is both individual and corporate, affecting the entire nation of Israel. An instance of individual judgment from God appears in connection with entrance into the land of promise, Canaan. For their obedience, Caleb and Joshua are granted God’s favor (Num 14:20–38), whereas punishment is rendered to Moses and Aaron for transgression (Num 20:10–13).[15] Corporately, so long as Israel remained faithful to her oath of commitment, she enjoyed peace and prosperity in Canaan. When the necessary measure of corporate righteousness was lacking, God was justified in sending his people into exile (typical judgment corresponding to the land of Canaan as typical blessing).

The central motif in the collection of Psalms is observance of the commandments, wherein is blessedness for the covenant keeper. There is delight in observing God’s law, just as there is reward in so doing. The Psalmist exclaims: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has recompensed me…. I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore has the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight. With the merciful you will show yourself merciful; with an upright man you will show yourself upright” (Ps 18:20; 23–25). In these so-called Psalms of confidence of the individual,[16] the individualistic motif also has corporate meaning and application. “Even in the private psalms the confidence motif has generally a collective bearing since the suppliant prays as a member of the covenant and the favor expected is for the benefit of the community.”[17] The plea for vindication is a common concern in the hymns of Israelite worship (see also Ps 26:1–3; 37:28–29; 92:12–15). In terms of the peculiar, typical application of law observance in the corporate life of Israel, the vindicatory Psalms point to their ultimate fulfillment in the person and work of the Servant of the Lord, the Lord’s Anointed. The reward for obedience in Israel, whether individual or corporate, typifies the redemptive work of the one man, Christ Jesus. The righteousness of godly Israel demonstrates the righteousness of God. “The Lord is our righteousness” (Jer 33:16). When the Psalmist rejoices in the Lord’s salvation and deliverance from all his enemies, the song of redemption is ultimately Christ’s (see, e.g., Ps 18:1–3 and 28:8–9). This is the glorification in Israel of God’s name and works among all the nations of the world.

In the community of God’s redeemed people, there is the justification of the godly. The justified are the ones who keep covenant with their God. The prophet Habakkuk describes the godly member of Israel as the just and righteous one who obtains life through faith (Hab 2:4). We shall be observing below that this is the perspective of the writer to the Hebrews. The justification of the godly is obtained in the way of covenant faithfulness. The expression “the just shall inherit life by his faith” describes faith-inheritance (as opposed to works-inheritance).

One of the most important, and critically controversial, books in the Old Testament is the book of Deuteronomy. Craigie remarks: “The book of Deuteronomy is one of the most comprehensive accounts in the OT of the covenant between God and his people. It is a book that is vital for understanding the complexities of biblical theology, for the majority of that theology is concerned with the covenant relationship between God and man.”[18] Emphasis falls heavily upon the necessity for Israel to be obedient to the commandments of God in order for there to be blessing and prosperity in Canaan (Deut 4:37–40; 6:1–3).[19]

The purpose of the law of Moses is to increase transgression. The full increase of sin reaches its culmination in the period of the exile. Apart from the unique Mosaic law administration, Israel is “alive unto God” as a beneficiary of the promises given to Abraham. But when the law comes, Israel “dies,” typically speaking (Rom 7:1–13).[20] Her restoration is to be accomplished by the Servant of the covenant, Jesus Christ. In that day the Spirit will write God’s law upon the hearts of his people, rather than on tables of stone (Jer 31:31ff; 4:4; Ezek 16:59–63; cf., Zech 8:14–17). The Lord God will vindicate the glory of his own name in the salvation of his people.

Deuteronomy prescribes that when Israel desired to have a king the one appointed should rule from the book of the law (Deut 17:18ff). At the appointment of David, God renewed to him the oath-promise of covenant faithfulness (2 Sam 7; 1 Chron 17; Ps 89:35–37). Although the Davidic Covenant is important in the ongoing revelation of the single covenant of grace, this covenant does not displace the definitive role of the Mosaic Covenant administration of law as a means of tutelage and bondage until the coming of Christ, who himself proclaims the acceptable day of the Lord and liberty to the captives (Isa 61:1ff). In that day, Christ terminates the law of Moses (Rom 10:4). The righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law (Rom 3:21). The full explanation of the grace of soteric justification awaits the fullness of times. Under the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace, God justifies the godly who walk in the way of faithful obedience to the commandments and statutes given through Moses. The Old Testament teaching does not draw out the full implications of the manner of justification, but rather declares that the redemption of God’s people is manifested in the justification of the godly as the righteous ones who inherit the promise through faith. The faith of the righteous man is demonstrated in his unreserved commitment in doing the will of God. Habakkuk 2:4 describes the justified man. Leviticus 18:5 defines the characteristic law-principle of inheritance operative within the Mosaic Covenant administration, which principle is opposite to the faith-principle of inheritance. The reference to the faith of the just is to saving faith more generally defined as trust. The full unfolding of the concept of soteric, justifying faith, in the technical Pauline sense, lay beyond the Old Testament revelation.

New Testament: Fullness of Revelation in Christ

A. Reconciliation and Justification

At the opening of his Gospel, John sharply contrasts the present revelation in Christ with the former revelation under Moses by making use of the biblical, law-grace antithesis (John 1:17). Similarly, the apostle Paul preaches: “Be it known to you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38–39). This is the message of reconciliation, the revelation of God which comes apart from the law, though witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21). The discontinuity between law and grace in terms of the typical and antitypical distinction within the Mosaic Covenant is clearly brought out in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb 8:8–13; 9:15). The characteristic operation of law under Moses is temporary, and in need of change (7:12; 21–28). The termination of law includes the suspension of the Mosaic system of typology.[21] Commenting on the idea of “truth” in the Johannine writings (including John 1:17) and the epistle to the Hebrews, Vos writes that “it expresses the heavenly character of the Christian realities of revelation and redemption in which the higher world directly communicates itself, and the opposite of ‘the true’ is the typical, wherein the connection with the heavenly world is present only in a mediated, shadowy form.”[22]

The great interpreter of the function of the Mosaic law covenant in biblical history and eschatology is the apostle Paul. As Vos observes: “The promise given to Abraham in its worldwide significance, the law as introduced by Moses in its disciplinary, convicting function, both in their relation, in case of the former positive, in case of the latter negative, to the gospel, have once for all been interpreted for us by this great philosopher of history.”[23] Paul sets the history of God’s covenant in the context of the familiar two-age construction, i.e., the conscious awareness of the present age and the age to come. Paul’s theological perspective is fundamentally eschatological. Furthermore, Paul’s point of orientation is that of the history of salvation (historia salutis), in distinction from the application of redemption (ordo salutis). Consequently, Paul’s discussion of justification by faith is in the first place redemptive-historical. The teaching on justification is considered in terms of the specific covenantal transactions between God and man, notably the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the New Covenants, all of which are manifestations of the one and eternal covenant of grace.

According to 2 Corinthians 3:6ff, the distinctive nature of the Mosaic Covenant is that it is a ministration of death and condemnation, in contrast to the New Covenant, which is a ministration of life and justification. The former is letter, whereas the latter is Spirit. It is commonly agreed by exegetes today that πνεῦμα is a reference to the Holy Spirit as the One who gives life. But in what sense does the Mosaic Covenant minister death rather than life? Elsewhere, Paul tells us that the purpose of the Mosaic law is to increase transgression so that sin might abound (Rom 5:20; Gal 3:19). This is the meaning of Paul’s expression “the letter kills.” Although there clearly are elements of promise in and around the Mosaic Covenant, yet this covenant does not consist in promise in its characteristic and peculiar system of typology. (The grace-principle applies to the sacrificial cultus of the Mosaic typological system.) What distinguishes the Old Covenant from the New is the striking operation of the principle of works-inheritance in the unique, pedagogical sphere of covenant life. The apostle is able to identify the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of law (i.e., works) in opposition to grace because this particular, historical administration of the single covenant of grace provides a special restricted context for the works-inheritance-principle. The principle of works is operative in this special sphere of typical kingdom inheritance, while at the same time the principle of sovereign grace is operative in the antitypical, spiritual sphere.

The use of the word καταργέω in 2 Corinthians 3:7 has the basic meaning of “coming to an end,”[24] and refers in this context to that which is temporary and passing away. The law feature of Mosaic Covenant is of limited duration, so that the Old Covenant is passing away, while the New is eternal (cf., Heb 8:13; Rom 10:4). Though the Old Covenant, along with the old age, is passing away (preparing for the semi-eschatological age of the Spirit), nevertheless the Old Covenant came in glory (2 Cor 3:9). There is both continuity and discontinuity in God’s covenant dealings throughout the era of redemption (from the revelation of salvation to Adam after the Fall to the consummation).

In a related passage, Galatians 3:15–22, Paul argues that once a covenant has been made, nothing can be added to change or alter that arrangement. How much more so is this true of God’s covenantal dealings with his people. However, Paul proceeds to tell us that the law was added (Gal 3:19) until the coming of Christ. The addition of the law does not alter God’s previous, guaranteed commitment. The law does not annul the promise. God’s grace is secure and indefectible for his elect seed (vss. 16–17). The promised inheritance is obtained by faith, through grace, and not by works. But why then the law? It served a subordinate purpose in the history of redemption. Its function was to increase sin; it was added because of transgressions. And its tutelary purpose is to lead Israel to Christ for salvation (vss. 18–19). The law, divine in origin and mediated through Moses, was given to shut Israel up under sin so that God might have mercy upon all who believe in Jesus Christ (vss. 20–22; cf., Rom 2–3, 11). Consequently, the Mosaic Covenant with its distinctive law-principle did not make the promise void. The pedagogical system of typology with its operative principle of kingdom inheritance by works was subservient to the broader redemptive purpose and program.

Because of the administrative function of the works-inheritance-principle in the Mosaic Covenant, a principle that was also operative in the original covenant of creation, Paul identifies certain legal aspects of the Mosaic Covenant with the “weak and beggarly elements” (στοιχεῖα) of the world (Gal 4:3, 9; cf., Col 2:8, 20).[25] The bondage to which Israel was subjected is part of God’s consignment of all under sin and death (Gal 4:1–4; Rom 3:20; 11:32). In the case of national Israel as God’s elect people, the bondage was, in the first place, typical in nature. It was the covenantal administration of death and condemnation, culminating in the exile of God’s people to Babylon, the kingdom representative of this present, evil world. The term στοιχεῖα refers to creation now subject to the powers and principalities of the old, corrupt age. Israel was held in bondage under the Mosaic administration (the letter of the law) until the time appointed by the Father—the glorious, eschatological age of the Spirit, the age that appears first as semi-eschatological because of its temporary overlap with the era of the present, evil world.[26] Christ’s work of reconciliation brought about the defeat of the worldly principalities and powers by means of the removal of the legal charges against God’s people (Col 2:14–15; Eph 2:15; cf., the cosmic implications described in Rom 8). In principle, believers are freed from the power of sin and death, although there is still the intense struggle against sin because of their semi-eschatological existence prior to the consummation (thus, Rom 7:14–25).

The corollary to reconciliation is the justification of God’s elect, which is apart from the works of the law. “The objective reconciliation took place in the death of Christ; its subjective result is justification.”[27] In justification by faith, we receive the reconciliation. The underlying motif in all of Paul’s discussion is the function of the Mosaic Covenant in the history of redemption. Again, the doctrine of justification is perceived by Paul from his fundamental, redemptive-historical viewpoint. In declaring the full revelation of God’s justification of sinners in history, Paul considers the progressive nature of the single covenant of grace, specifically in relation to the covenants made with Abraham and Moses. The salvation promised to Abraham was not given through the law; its righteousness was the righteousness which is of faith. Those who seek salvation by the law make the promise of no effect, for the law (in its tutelary use) always and only works wrath. Apart from Christ, the law of God condemns the sinner (4:13ff). The expression, “where there is no law, there is no transgression,” is a redemptive-historical marker which identifies the period of the Abrahamic Covenant.[28] When the law came, Israel died, her death taking the form of exile from the typological kingdom. From the redemptive-historical point of view, Israel in accordance with the symbolic-typical picture is alive unto God under the ministration of the Abrahamic Covenant (grace), but dead through sin under the ministration of the Mosaic Covenant (law) in its special typical, earthly sphere. In these two, distinct historical-covenantal contexts, law has a twofold purpose and application. In the sphere of the grace of the Abrahamic Covenant, law has a normative or regulative function which is consistent with soteric grace. In the sphere of the Mosaic Covenant’s works-principle, God’s law demands compliance as the ground of inheritance, and is thus antithetical to grace. This is precisely the point of contrast Paul makes in Romans 4:14–16. The expression “adherents of the law” is used in this twofold sense, one consistent with grace, the other antithetical to grace.

The elenctic function of the Mosaic law is one with the law of the Covenant of Creation. Speaking through both covenants, the law of God serves to shut up all mankind under the curse The principle of works-inheritance which informs both the Creation Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant always operates in a covenantal context, never as a “bare principle” of natural law. As a result of man’s transgression of the law of God, man has become a covenant breaker. This is the point made by the prophet Isaiah. “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (24:5). Though the prophet’s immediate reference is to the creation covenant, which he calls the “everlasting covenant,” he employs terminology from the Mosaic law administration. The law which all men have broken is the law of the Creation Covenant given by natural revelation, that is inscribed upon men’s hearts (cf., Rom 2:14–15). Isaiah’s point is developed more fully by the apostle Paul in the opening three chapters of Romans.[29] To be under the law of condemnation, whether by virtue of the original covenant of creation or the law administration of the Mosaic Covenant, is to be under the “elements of the world.”

According to the gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, declares that through the redeeming work of Christ the law of Moses has been terminated. By faith we are justified, both Jew and Gentile, and freed from the bondage of the law. In the fullness of times, the revelation of justification by faith has reached its mature statement. The apex of Paul’s argument in his epistle to the Romans comes in the fifth chapter, which discusses justification by faith from the standpoint of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of soteric blessing.[30] Anders Nygren writes:

The parallelism which Paul draws between Adam and Christ has seemed so strange and unmanageable that it has made scholars the more willing to treat this section as a parenthesis. More or less consciously interpreters have acted on the assumption that something, which is so foreign to today’s thought as to seem unreal, cannot have been of decisive importance to Paul either…. 

When once one comes to realize what that means to Paul, he forthwith discovers that this passage is by no means a parenthesis or a digression in the apostle’s thought. Rather do we here come to the high point of the epistle. This is the point where all the lines of his thinking converge, both those of the preceding chapters and those of the chapters that follow.[31]

The central concern of the passage is the representative headships of Adam and Christ, and more specifically the peculiar imputation of their respective acts.[32] The parallel is drawn between the imputation of Adam’s sin to all those for whom Adam is the representative, on the one hand, and the imputation of Christ’s obedience, the one righteous act, to all those for whom Christ is the representative, on the other. The scope of the comparison includes the entire range of history, from creation to consummation. Without confusing the incident of the Fall with the original creation, Paul roots all humanity in the historic occasion of the Fall. That is to say, the apostle considers all in Adam in their identification with the one sin of Adam. Paul is not teaching that sin and disobedience are coextensive with creation.[33] Though Adam was created perfect and without sin, be willingly transgressed the law of God and his disobedience was imputed to all in that all sinned in Adam’s one act of transgression (cf., 1 Cor 15:20–23). By Adam’s demerit all mankind came under the wrath of God.[34] But by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith, believers are declared and constituted righteous. The verb κατασταθήσονται in Romans 5:19 cannot be translated “shall be made,” but rather “shall be constituted.” (Compare Paul’s use of the same verb in the earlier part of the verse with reference to being constituted sinners in Adam.)

Included in the representative idea is the corporate notion of solidarity. The representative and corporate ideas are inseparably related in Paul’s thought. The imputation of sin and the imputation of obedience, in the case of the two representative acts of the heads of the Covenant of Creation and the Covenant of Redemption respectively, are conceived corporately, rather than individualistically. Verse 13 begins a parenthesis which extends to the end of verse 17. However, Paul’s reference to the Mosaic law in this parenthetical section serves an important purpose. Its importance is evidenced by the further reference to the Mosaic law in verse 20. With reference to the period between Adam and Moses, Paul says, “sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Rom 5:13). Once again, this is a redemptive-historical way of describing the period of grace and promise (cf., Rom 4:6–8, 15). It refers to that period of redemption beginning with Adam after the Fall and culminating in the covenantal ratification of God’s promise made to Abraham and his seed. It is descriptive of the early history of the covenant of grace. However, even in this era of grace and life, death reigned over the godly line (Rom 5:14; see especially Genesis 5).35 Paul reminds his readers that the wages of sin is death. Yet under the order of grace, God does not reckon sin unto condemnation. Under grace, there is the forgiveness of sin. According to verse 20, the Mosaic law entered in order to increase the transgression that the offense might abound. But even so, where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Even though the Mosaic law’s ministration of death and condemnation served to increase the trespass, more ultimately and gloriously the purpose of the Mosaic law, in continuity with the progressive administration of the single covenant of grace, was to enhance the grace of God (cf., Gal 3:22, 24). In this climactic portion of Paul’s epistle, the teaching on the doctrine of justification by faith is presented in terms of the history of redemption, and more directly in terms of the Mosaic Covenant. Under law, whether the law of creation or the law of Moses in its symbolic-typical kingdom dimension, sin is reckoned to man’s account so that he stands condemned under the wrath of God. Under grace, where sin is not imputed, there is justification and life.

Apart from the law, God revealed his righteousness which is by faith in Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe (Rom 3:21–22). According to the teaching of Romans 5, as Vos points out, “the two transactions of reconciliation and justification are in substance identical.”[36] The transition from wrath to grace in history is registered in the termination of the law administration stage of the covenant of grace and the establishment of the New Covenant. There is no further need for the tutelary, pedagogical function of the law of Moses. The shadow of things has given way to the fullness of revelation by way of the definitive, once-for-all accomplishment of redemption in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21–22; 6:14; 7:6; 10:4; 11:6).

To draw out the contrast between the principles of law and grace, the apostle Paul quotes from the law of Moses its witness both to the righteousness which is of the law and to the righteousness which is of faith (Rom 10:5ff). The principle of works-inheritance is stated in Leviticus 18:5 (see earlier discussion). On the one hand, the expression “the man who does the commandments shall inherit life by them” is understood to mean that God’s favor (reward, justification) is obtained in the way of works, a principle antithetical to saving grace (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12).[37] On the other hand, the expression “the just shall inherit life by his faith” in every instance is in contrast to the principle of works-inheritance. The just who obtain life by faith are those who are faithful covenant keepers. Those who fall into this group are the beneficiaries of God’s saving grace (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; cf. Heb 10:38). In the light of New Covenant revelation, the deeper meaning of the expression, “the just shall inherit life by his faith,” can now be seen. The righteous man is the one who is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. His eternal inheritance is grounded exclusively upon the merits of Jesus Christ. Soteric justification in its technical sense is the imputation of the obedience of Christ to the believer. This deeper content of meaning is consistent with the earlier revelation in the Old Testament. Leviticus 18:5 identifies the order of law with its principle of works-inheritance; Habakkuk 2:4 identifies the order of grace with its underlying principle of faith-inheritance. Paul also cites Deuteronomy 30:12–14 for Moses’ teaching on faith-inheritance (Rom 10:6–8).[38]

The administrative compatibility of these two opposing principles of inheritance within the Mosaic Covenant resides in the distinction between the two spheres of covenant life, one pedagogical (typical) and one spiritual (antitypical). At the time when the symbolic-typical system itself came to a close, Christ terminated the operation of the works-inheritance-principle found within that typical sphere of Old Covenant administration. The fatal mistake of the Judaizers was that they misapplied the principle of works-inheritance, which was operative on the typical level, to the antitypical level and so sought salvation by works. They perverted the Mosaic Covenant into a religion of works-salvation. Israel followed after the law of righteousness (salvation), but did not attain unto it because they sought it as though by works (Rom 9:30–33).

The apostle Paul’s great desire is that Israel might be saved. His message stresses repeatedly the sovereign nature of God’s saving grace to sinners, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom 10:13; esp. 11:1–32). Israel finds her true identity as the people of God only through Christ, by way of individual baptism into his body, the church, the new Israel (see together, Romans 6 and 11; Eph 2:14–16). In Christ God has reconciled the world unto himself. There is now no longer Jew and Gentile, but the “New Man” in Christ Jesus. In the fullness of revelation God has manifested his justification of sinners apart from the works of the law. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

B. Eschatological Judgment and Justification

The description of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer in justification does not exhaust the biblical teaching on this fundamental doctrine in the covenant of grace. Certainly, the primary aspect of forensic justification is constitutive. Through the imputation of the obedience of Christ, all in Christ are constituted righteous. This divine act does not take account of any inner moral transformation in the believer. Both justification with respect to the demonstrative aspect (working faith) and sanctification have in view the inner renewal. Recognition of the two, distinct and inseparable aspects of forensic, declarative justification (the constitutive and the demonstrative) is of utmost importance. To be sure, this distinction does not come as clearly into view in Old Testament revelation, but we must appreciate the progressive nature of redemptive revelation. The compatibility between the Old and New Testament revelation of justification by faith in its twofold meaning (the constitutive and the demonstrative aspects) is apparent in the New Testament writers’ use of Genesis 15:6, which we shall consider in our discussion below.

Shall we say that the law of God is brought to no effect by the law of faith? In certain instances Paul responds with an unequivocal affirmative (e.g., Rom 3:27–28; 4:13–15; Gal 2:16; 21). But in other places Paul answers otherwise (Rom 3:31; 6:1ff; 8:4). Here again, we must distinguish two different meanings for the word “law.” In the former instances, law cannot stand with faith, whereas in the latter, compliance with the law is necessary along with saving faith. To translate this in terms of justification, in the former case we are justified by faith apart from law (the works-principle of inheritance) and in the latter case we are justified by works along with our faith, our faith being demonstrated by our works (James 2). In this latter instance, faith apart from works is a dead faith, a faith which does not justify.

Those who walk with God, who keep covenant, are declared to be righteous. They are justified in the sight of God. Apart from such righteousness, there is no eternal inheritance (1 Cor 6:9–11). For those who have been justified on the ground of Christ’s righteousness, good works follow as the inevitable fruit of justification (Eph 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7). A criterion for consummate blessing and reward is faithful obedience to the law of God in the way of the covenant of grace. The final judgment of God includes both blessing and curse. The righteous saints shall receive their final approbation in accordance with their adherence to the commandments of God (2 Cor 5:9–10; cf., 1 Cor 3:11–15). Justification is according to works, though not on the ground of works. The principle of divine justice and equity applies to all mankind indiscriminately (Rom 2:6–16; cf., 2:29 and 3:28–30). For the righteous who keep covenant, the reward is glory, honor, immortality, and eternal life (cf., also Rev 2:7; 19:7–8; 21:7–8, 23–27). For those who have trampled upon the law and ordinances of God, there is indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish. The question as to how one is constituted and made righteous (i.e., justified and sanctified) is not relevant to Paul’s argument in Romans 2:6–16. and in other related passages.

A similar instance where law obedience is called for in regard to kingdom inheritance is Jesus’ discourses with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18–30) and with the lawyer (Luke 10:25–37). On the one hand, Jesus affirms the principle of reward according to works, analogous to Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:6–16. Furthermore, Jesus intimates the kind of righteousness which is required for life eternal in each of these two discourses. What is necessary is a radically different approach to the law of God from that of the Judaizers (cf., especially Luke 19:25, 29, with Matt 5:20).[39] The order of grace does not nullify the law of God, but rather establishes it. Yet, such obedience is wholly different in character from that of the self-righteous Pharisees. In these same two discourses, on the other hand, Jesus uses the law in its pedagogical, elenchtic function to convince his hearers of their guiltiness before God as sinners and to point them to the grace of forgiveness and faith-righteousness.[40]

In concluding this study of justification in redemptive history, we turn our attention to the themes of justification, covenant, and eschatology in the epistle to the Hebrews. The proper interpretation of this book depends entirely upon our earlier discussion concerning justification in its twofold meaning. To summarize our thesis thus far: the Old Testament teaching on justification does not bring clearly to view the idea of imputed righteousness as the sole ground of man’s salvation. Saving faith is an obedient, working faith which is realized only by the power of the Spirit of God. Justification is viewed in terms of inwrought righteousness, whereby works are evidential of justifying faith. The New Testament teaching clarifies the constitutive and demonstrative aspects of forensic, soteric justification. The former aspect could be comprehended only in the fullness of times.

The fundamental theme which underlies the message of Hebrews is covenant continuity—the unity of the covenant of grace throughout redemptive history. From this perspective, the writer considers the nature of justifying faith in both covenant dispensations, the Old and the New. Recent analyses of this epistle have approached this matter of covenant continuity from a modern, critical viewpoint. The modern view repudiates the distinction between law and grace, faith and works, the distinction we have maintained in this study. According to the modern critics, there is no sense in which there is a legitimate, divinely ordained contrast between the covenantal administration of law and the covenantal administration of grace, either in terms of the contrasting covenant of creation (works) and the covenant of redemption (grace), or in terms of the opposing principles of law and grace within the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. In place of the traditional teaching, the critics maintain only one covenantal relationship between God and man from creation to consummation, namely, the covenant of grace. When we speak of law, so these critics argue, we must always speak of law in grace. From the outset of creation, God has committed himself to preserve his creative work, despite the disobedience and irresponsibility of man. (This view has little in common with the orthodox doctrine of supralapsarianism.) They contend that nothing can frustrate the grace of God. This promise of covenant grace is demonstrated by the sacrificial death of Christ for the sins of the world. The good news of the gospel is that God has always taken the initiative in grace to be man’s blessedness. To live responsibly and authentically, man is called to a life of faith in the saving mercies of Christ. But in all of this, we must never speak of the (consequent) absolute necessity of the atonement, as though God the Father were somehow obliged to sacrifice his own Son in order to placate his wrath and satisfy an “abstract” demand for legal righteousness. In line with this, the critics continue to argue, we must throw out the “contractual” and “legalistic” notions of imputed righteousness as the ground and merit of justification, and faith as the alone instrumental cause of the believer’s justification. A legal conception of covenant accountability jeopardizes the doctrine of sovereign grace and sacrifices the freedom and love of God. Finally, we are told that we must begin and end our theological reflection upon God and man from the perspective of the grace of God. All else is subordinate to God’s grace.

It is our contention that this modern theological viewpoint is a clear repudiation of the historic orthodox understanding of the gospel of Christ. The modern doctrine of grace is nothing more than the agelong confusion of faith-righteousness and worksrighteousness under the guise of an exclusive emphasis upon the “sovereign grace of God in Christ.” And it is from this modernist position that recent challenges to the traditional interpretation of the letter to the Hebrews have come. Based upon his study of Hebrews, Schoonhoven contends:

There is no way that this emphasis on a necessary condition can be diminished. Though not absent from the other New Testament writings, it is represented so forthrightly and dramatically here that it forces a careful reevaluation of all traditional theological categories. Indeed, salvation is by faith alone; but the very faith that saves is only such if it is or includes the obedience of faith. There is simply no way that the “analogy-of-faith” principle can modify or eradicate the conditional nature of salvation.[41]

In contrast to the traditional interpretation of Hebrews and the epistles of Paul more generally, Schoonhoven offers a novel reinterpretation of the nature of faith and works in justification according to the message of Hebrews. He draws no distinction between the constitutive and demonstrative aspects of justification. Rather, he concludes from his study:

It is exactly in regard to this discussion of faith and obedience that the problem of an “analogy-of-faith” hermeneutic is most acute. Though Paul and the other New Testament writers in a different and less dramatic way say the same as the writer of Hebrews, yet somehow in many theological circles a wrong radical of revelation has achieved normative status; namely, that man is saved by faith alone and that this faith does not necessarily include “obedience.”[42]

It must be pointed out here that Schoonhoven’s estimate of the traditional teaching is entirely wrong in this last regard. The historic Reformed tradition maintains that faith is the alone instrument of justification (with regard to the constitutive aspect), but that such saving faith inevitably results in good works such that a man is justified by works (in terms of the demonstrative aspect). These two, distinct aspects of soteric justification are inseparable realities in the life of the believer within the covenant of grace. The teaching on justification in the epistles of James and the writer to the Hebrews pertains to the demonstrative function of works as evidential of saving faith.

In order to understand the message of the writer to the Hebrews, it is essential that we bring into our consideration again the biblical distinction between works-inheritance and faith-inheritance. The expression “the doers of the commandments shall inherit life by them” refers to works-inheritance, and the expression “the just shall inherit life by his faith” denotes faith-righteousness. These two expressions apply to two opposing covenantal orders, law and grace. At every point in his discussion, the writer to the Hebrews considers the covenant keeper as one who is justified by faith. His primary concern in this letter is not the meritorious ground of justification, but rather the working nature of saving faith. His message is a summons to his readers that they respond similarly in faith and obedience. Faith is decisively eschatological, looking to the final reckoning (justification) of mankind at the day of the Lord (e.g., Heb 2:1–3; 3:12–4:16; 6:1–12; 12:1–29). There is a qualitative difference between the righteousness of the believer and that of the unbeliever.

The reward of the eternal inheritance awaits those who pcrsevere in covenant faithfulness. The reason that the Israelites of old did not enter into the rest of God is that they failed to believe and obey the God of the covenant. In this epistle, faith and obedience are synonymous (see esp. Heb 3:18–4:2, 6). The writer calls his readers to covenant faithfulness, as imitators of Jesus Christ, who himself kept covenant with his God in the face of all human opposition (3:2). Herein lies the continuity between the obedience of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant and the obedience of believers under the New. Although the principle of inheritance in the typical, earthly sphere of Old Covenant life is antithetical to the principle of inheritance in the antitypical, spiritual sphere of covenant life, nevertheless there is this parallel: what was required of the Israelites under the typical system of the Mosaic Covenant is identical to what is required now of believers under the New Covenant, namely, covenant faithfulness. In other words, the parallel is in terms of law as the eternal rule of life and fellowship with God, the so-called normative or regulative use of the law (cf., 1 Pet 1:14–16). This same point is drawn by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:6–11. The way of the covenant is the way of covenant faithfulness. We are exhorted not to be like the unfaithful and disobedient Israelites. We are to learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6, 11; Heb 2:1–4:6).

The relationship of faith and works in Hebrews leads Schoonhoven to remark: “Faith cannot be separated from obedience. Obedience is included in and a part of the faith experience. Thus when the author says faith, he at the same time says obedience, for the terms are interchangeable.”[43] Regrettably, this definition of faith-obedience becomes normative for Schoonhoven’s interpretation of the doctrine of justification by faith (= works). The fatal mistake of Schoonhoven is that he will not grant that there are two distinct, separate functions of works in justification appropriate to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. What is twofold in the biblical teaching is merged and confounded in the thought of Schoonhoven.

The familiar eleventh chapter of Hebrews enumerates some of the outstanding heroes of the faith. They are the just who followed the way of faith, who walk with God as covenant keepers. The writer begins by defining faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (11:1). Faith is here defined in its basic covenantal and eschatological sense, applicable to both the creation covenant and the redemptive covenant. It is not faith defined in the Pauline sense as that which justifies the ungodly, in which sense faith is the receiving organ of Christ’s imputed righteousness. In verse 7 the writer describes Noah as the heir of the righteousness which is by faith, an expression equally applicable to all the others mentioned in this eleventh chapter. The expression “righteousness which is by faith” characterizes the status of the just man, the one whose covenant faithfulness meets with divine favor. It is different from the technical Pauline expression, the “righteousness which is by faith,” which contrasts with the “righteousness which is by the law” (e.g., Rom 10:5–6; Phil 3:9). The use of this phrase in Hebrews is appropriate to the order of grace. Even so able a Reformed exegete as Philip E. Hughes imports the Pauline meaning into the text here in Hebrews. Hughes speaks of the righteousness of faith as the righteousness of imputation.[44] Rather, this expression is to be understood as equivalent to that in Hebrews 10:38 which reads: “the just shall inherit life by his faith.” F. F. Bruce speaks of this latter text in Hebrews as a principle testimonium for the doctrine of justification by faith, similar to the use of Genesis 15:6 in the epistle to the Romans and the epistle of James (Jas 2:23).[45] The writer to the Hebrews has in view the demonstrative function of works as evidential of justifying faith.[46]

It is apparent that the writer to the Hebrews uses the concept of faith as a synonym for obedience, and thus in a general sense, rather than in the technical sense of faith as the alone instrument of constitutive justification. Faith means covenant-keeping. Vos comments, “Though not in the specific Pauline sense of justifying faith, it is saving faith no less than the faith preached by Paul.”[47] Herein lies the continuity between the teaching on justification by faith in the Old and New Testaments. Implicit in the writer to the Hebrews’ conception of faith is the idea of patience and perseverance in the way of the covenant. Faith apart from such well-doing is a dead faith; but covenant faithfulness receives the favor and reward of God (Heb 12:14–15: 13:7–8). “Through this whole noble description of faith rings the note of personal attachment, covenant-loyalty to God…. It is the responsive act on the believer’s part to the act of covenant-committal on the part of God.”[48] Such faith is not a matter of human resource, but solely of the sovereign grace of God in Christ (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–25; 13:20–21).

The message of James (2:14–26) is analogous to that of the writer to the Hebrews. Whereas the apostle Paul cites Genesis 15:6 as a corroboration of the doctrine of justification by faith in its primary, constitutive sense, James cites the same Old Testament text as a corroboration of the fact that justifying faith is a faith that works. Both aspects belong to one forensic, declarative justification. James, like the writer to Hebrews, defines saving faith in the general terms of trust and commitment (Jas 1:5–6). Faith involves patience in well-doing (Jas 5:7–11), persistence in doing the will of God (Jas 1:22–25). The reward for covenant keeping is of both temporal and eternal benefit (Jas 1:12 and Jas 5:16–18).

James and the writer to the Hebrews consider the nature and character of saving faith from the perspective of the continuity of the Old and New Covenants. The common themes in these two administrations of the single covenant of grace are the justification of the godly and the appeal to the criteria of works at the day of the Lord. This perspective on justifying faith differs from the emphasis of the apostle Paul. Paul considers saving faith from the perspective of the discontinuity of the covenants. The righteousness of God has been revealed from faith to faith, apart from the law. Faith, in distinction from good works, is the alone instrument of justification.

There is no contradiction between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of James and the writer to the Hebrews. The modern, critical attempt to eliminate the law-gospel distinction, and along with that the distinction between works as ground of justification and works as demonstrative of justifying faith, undermines the gospel of grace.[49] The modern interpretation misuses biblical theology by confusing the two distinct perspectives on justification held by the authors of Scripture, and in the final analysis rejects the contribution to be gained from a biblical-theological approach to the teaching of Scripture. Contrary to the opinions of Fuller and Schoonhoven, they are the ones who cannot “stand up under the scrutiny of biblical theology.”[50] Historic, biblical Christianity continues to stand or fall with its adherence to or denial of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The biblical doctrine of justification takes into account the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the sole meritorious ground of salvation and works as evidential of saving faith. Shall James or the writer to the Hebrews silence the teaching of Paul on justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of salvation? Or shall Paul silence the teaching of James and the writer to the Hebrews on the demonstrative aspect of justifying faith? Or shall we listen to what each of these writers has to say as an author of the inerrant Word of God, inspired by the Spirit himself?

Notes

1. Calvin R. Schoonhoven, “The ‘Analogy of Faith’ and the Intent of Hebrews.” Ed., W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor, Scriptitre, Tradition, and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. Harrison by His Students and Colleagues in Honor of His Seventy-fifth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp.92–3.
2. Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneittics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), p.204.
3. See also Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp.305–316; Thomas F. Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church, trans. and ed. by Torrance (New York: Harper, 1959), esp. pp. xlix ff; James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland,” The Scottish Journal of Theology, 23 (1970), 51–76; and G. C. Berkouwer, Sin (trans. P. C. Holtrop; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), pp.187–231.
4. Mark W. Karlberg, “The Mosaic Covenant and the Concept of Works in Reformed Hermeneutics: A Historical-Critical Analysis with Particular Attention to Early Covenant Eschatology” (Th.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1980); and my article, “Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant,” The Westminster Theological Journal, 43 (1980), 1–57.
5. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Introduction.” Ed., Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg [N.J.]: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), p.xiii (hereafter cited as Redemptive History). For earlier work in biblical theology, see Robert Rainy, Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1874). Consult also my dissertation, op. cit., for the relation between covenant theology and biblical theology.
6. See Gaffin’s “Introduction,” op. cit., pp.xvii ff Karl Barth and neoorthodoxy in general are highly critical of systematic theology. See esp. Barth’s massive work, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1932–67).
7. Gaffin, ibid., p.xix; cf. Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” Redemptive History, pp.14ff.
8. See, e.g., Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1947) and his Christianity and Barthianism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1965).
9. Meredith G. Kline suggests that this biblical expression refers more directly to the prophet’s supernatural reception of revelation through his experience of the divine council. In this connection see Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), pp. 57ff.
10. Meredith G. Kline, “Abram’s Amen,” The Westminster Theological Journal, 31 (1968), 1–11.
11. G. Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” Redemptive History, pp.227–30. “And it is important to notice how the author represents this ascent of the patriarchs’ faith to the heavenly world as in no way mediated by the typical fulfilment of the promise that was to intervene between them and its final New Testament realization. The ascent to the heavenly country did not use as a stepping-stone the thought of the earthly Canaan; it was made directly from the vantage ground of the promises of God” (ibid., pp.228–9).
12. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), pp.129, 133. Similarly, R. K. Harrison writes: “As long as the chosen people kept the prescribed statutes and ordinances, they could expect to live. The kind of life which the law brought would be one of divine blessing and material prosperity, consonant with the covenantal promises, but contingent always upon implicit obedience to the Will of God” (Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980], p.185).
13. Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), p.59.
14. Craigie, op. cit., p.325.
15. Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), p.153.
16. Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning (New enlarged, updated edition; New York: Alba House, 1974), pp. 264ff.
17. Ibid., p.320. In contrast to Sabourin’s position, Hermann Gunkel contends: “The current explanation of the ‘I’ as standing for the community is nothing more than a stubborn remnant of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture which prevailed in an earlier day” (The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. Thomas M. Horner, Facet Books. Biblical series #19 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], p.17).
18. Craigie, op. cit., p.73.
19. For two different interpretations of Deuteronomy, contrast Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, (trans. Dorothea Barton; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), with Kline, Treaty of the Great King.
20. See Mark W. Karlberg, “Law in Pauline Eschatology: The Historical Qualification of Justification by Faith” (Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1977), which offers an entirely new interpretation of Romans 7, along with an extensive bibliography of relevant New Testament literature.
21. For a recent alternative position on Christ’s termination of the law, compare Ragnar Bring, Christus und das Gesetz: Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes des Alten Testaments nach Paulus und sein Glauben an Christus (Leiden: Brill, 1967).
22. Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” Redemptive History, p. 201.
23. Vos, “The Theology of Paul,” Redemptive History, p.359.
24. Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957).
25. Cf. Andrew J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964).
26. On Paul’s concept of σάρξ in the context of the two-age construction, see especially, J. D. G. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1:3–4, ” Journal of Theological Studies, 24 (1973), 40–68; and G. Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” Biblical and Theological Studies (New York, 1912), pp.209–259.
27. Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” Redemptive History, pp. 363f.
28. Professor Kline first suggested to me this line of interpretation.
29. Cf. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 2, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 156ff.
30. Vos too takes a strong stand on the importance of the biblical concept of “merit.” See his essay, “The Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification,” Redemptive History, pp. 388ff. He comments: “Paradox though it may sound, yet we believe it to be strictly true, that the motive underlying the apostle’s championship of grace is at bottom identical with the motive underlying his forensic bent” (p. 396).
31. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (trans. Carl C. Rasmussen; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), pp. 207, 209.
32. For a thorough and detailed study on this matter, see John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959). A radically different interpretation is offered by K. Barth in his Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5 (trans. T. A. Smail; New York, 1956).
33. Barth writes: “And so as Adam’s children and heirs, in our past as weak, sinners, godless, and enemies, we are in this provisional way still men whose nature reflects the true human nature of Christ. And so, because our nature in Adam is a provisional copy of our true nature in Christ, its formal structure can and must even in its perversion be the same” (Christ and Adam, p. 47). Rudolf Bultmann contends that Barth’s interpretation cannot be derived at all from the text. See his “Adam and Christ According to Romans 5, ” Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (eds. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder; New York, 1962), pp.143–165. Equally unacceptable is Herman Ridderbos’ suggestion of the “supra-individual situation of sin and death represented by Adam” (Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. John R. de Witt; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975, p.99). In this connection, see especially the remarks of Gaffin in his review article “Paul as Theologian.” The Westminster Theological Journal, 30 (1968), p. 213.
34. Regarding covenant theology’s doctrine of the original covenant of works with Adam before the fall, Fuller states: “There the conditional promises of the Bible echo ‘the covenant of works’ into which God supposedly entered with Adam and Eve when, according to Genesis 2:17, he made the enjoyment of eternal life conditional upon their refraining from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (op. cit., pp. ix f). After abandoning the doctrine of the covenant of works, Fuller “realized that if the law is, indeed, a law of faith, enjoining only the obedience of faith and the works that proceed therefrom (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11), then there could no longer be any antithesis in biblical theology between the law and the gospel. I then had to accept the very drastic conclusion that the antithesis between law and gospel established by Luther, Calvin, and the covenant theologians could no longer stand up under the scrutiny of biblical theology” (p. xi).
35. See note 28 above.
36. Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” p. 364.
37. Cf. Craigie, op. cit., pp. 44-5, where he comments on the antithesis between law and grace. For an alternative interpretation, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” The Scottish Journal of Theology, 17 (1964), 43–68.
38. Fuller notes: “It is apparent that we regard [John] Murray as wrong in thinking of ‘the righteousness of the law’ (Rom 10:5) as standing in contrast with the ‘righteousness of faith’ (Rom 10:6ff). In drawing such a contrast, Murray reveals the deep impression that covenant theology has made on him” (op. cit., note 23, p. 79). Fuller goes on to argue: “Everyone would agree that ‘their own righteousness’ (Rom 10:3) and ‘a righteousness of my own’ (Phil 3:9) represent the opposite of ‘the righteousness of faith’ in both Philippians 3:9 and Romans 10:5–8. But whereas Paul uses the word ‘law’ as a synonym for ‘own righteousness’ in Philippians 3:9, the use of ‘law’ has no such meaning in the Romans 9:30–10:10 passage” (p.86). “We conclude, therefore, that Paul used not only the term ‘works of the law’ but also, on occasion, simply the term ‘law’ to describe how it played a vital role in bringing sin to full fruition. There is no rule-of-thumb method for knowing when nomos (‘law’) has this meaning in Paul. Instead we allow contextual considerations such as how Galatians 3:10b could argue for v. 10a, and the parallelism in Philippians 3:9 between ‘own righteousness’ and ‘law’, to conclude that Paul meant nomos in the bad sense in Galatians 3:10a” (p. 97). Fuller’s exegesis rests upon his presupposition that there is no biblical law-grace contrast.
39. See John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), pp. 151-7. “Jesus is explicit to the effect that a righteousness of a certain character is indispensable if we are to be members of the kingdom of heaven” (p. 154). “Jesus, however, does not inform us here of the way by which we come to possess that righteousness” (p.157). Jesus deals with the matter of kingdom righteousness, not the righteousness of imputation.
40. Cf. the studies of J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (Cambridge: University Press, 1972), and Ernst Käsemann, “God’s Righteousness in Paul,” The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).
41. Schoonhoven, op. cit., p. 99.
42. Ibid., p. 108.
43. Ibid., p.107. Cf. Fuller’s similar argument, op. cit.
44. Hughes, op. cit., pp. 464-5.
45. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 274-5.
46. Scripture often speaks of the believer’s “righteousness of the law” in the Old Testament sense of the justification of the godly. It is not antithetical to the order of sovereign grace (e.g., Luke 1:6 and 2:5). In the period of transition from Old to New Covenant administration, Scripture identifies certain devout (just, pious) men who walk in the way of godliness and truth (Acts 2:5 and 22:12). Similarly, Paul calls himself a Pharisee, not a Sadducee, in Acts 23:6, because “a Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning the distinctive theological position of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee—in the early decades of Christianity, at least” (Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954], p. 453).
47. Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” p. 228.
48. Ibid., p. 230. “Faith in its last analysis was to the patriarchs the apprehension, the possession, the enjoyment of God Himself” (p. 229).
49. Fuller distinguishes between “unconditional election” and “unmeritorious conditionality” as that which is involved in both receiving and persevering in salvation (op cit., p.46, footnote). “The conclusion, then, is that instead of two sets of promises in the Bible—conditional and unconditional—there is only one kind of promise throughout Scripture, and the realization of its promises is dependent upon compliance with conditions which are well characterized as ‘the obedience of faith’ (Rom 1:5; 16:26)” (p. 105). Schoonhoven contends likewise, “So then, contrary to some Reformation thinking, grace or the blessing of God seems to be conditioned on obedience. And here is the nub of the problem. The Reformation and later theologians were so intent on obliterating the ‘works’ idea of the Roman Church that they read the texts in such a way as to conform to what they falsely regarded as a radical grace theology, a grace with no conditions attached whatever. This is a patent application of the ‘analogy-of-faith’ principle” (op. cit., p.94). From the perspective of “unmeritorious conditionality,” Schoonhoven speaks of the threats of God as “a real and indispensable aspect of the salvation process” (p. 98).
50. See footnote 34 above.