What Is Spirituality?

By Charles C. Ryrie

[Charles C. Ryrie, Dean of Doctoral Studies and Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary.]

Oddly enough, the concept of spirituality, though the subject of much preaching, writing, and discussion, is seldom defined. Usually anything that approaches a definition will be in the nature of a description of the characteristics of spirituality, but one searches in vain in literature for a concise definition of the concept itself. The reason for this is that the concept includes several factors, and it is not easy to weave these together into a balanced definition. Too, the only verse in the Bible that approaches a definition is rather difficult of interpretation (1 Cor 2:15—”But he that is spiritual judgeth all things”). Consequently, it is avoided. Nevertheless, it is important to try to formulate a definition, for this is like the cornerstone which determines the shape of the entire building.

The Concept of Spirituality

Genuine spirituality involves three factors. The first is regeneration. No one can be spiritual in the biblical sense without having first experienced the new life that is freely given to all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Spirituality without regeneration is reformation.

Second, the Holy Spirit is preeminently involved in producing spirituality. This is not to say that the other persons of the Godhead do not have their particular work in this, nor that the believer himself has no responsibility, nor that there are not other means of grace; but it is to affirm His major role in spirituality. The ministries of the Spirit involve teaching (John 16:12–15), guiding (Rom 8:14), assuring (Rom 8:16), praying (Rom 8:26), the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:7), warring against the flesh (Gal 5:17), and all of these depend for their full manifestation on the filling of the Spirit (Eph 5:18).

To be filled with the Spirit means to be controlled by the Spirit. The clue to this definition is found in Ephesians 5:18 where there is contrast and comparison between drunkenness and Spirit-filling. It is the comparison which gives the clue, for just as a drunken person is controlled by the liquor which he consumes, so a Spirit-filled Christian is controlled by the Spirit. This will cause him to act in ways which are unnatural to him, not implying that such ways will be erratic or abnormal, but asserting that they will not be the ways of the old life. Control by the Spirit is a necessary part of spirituality.

The third factor involved in spirituality is time. If the spiritual person judges or examines or discerns all things (1 Cor 2:15), this must involve time in order to gain knowledge and to acquire experience for discerning all things. The Amplified Bible elaborates on the verse in this fashion: “He can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him.” This could not be accomplished overnight; it is something which is true only of a mature Christian.

In that word maturity I think we have the key to the concept of spirituality, for Christian maturity is the growth which the Holy Spirit produces over a period of time in the believer. To be sure, the same amount of time is not required for each individual, but some time is necessary for all. It is not the time itself which is determinative of maturity; rather it is the progress made and growth achieved which is all-important. Rate multiplied by time equals distance, so that the distance to maturity may be covered in a shorter time if the rate of growth is accelerated. And it will be accelerated if none of the control which ought to be given to the Holy Spirit is retained by self.

Here is a proposed definition of spirituality which attempts to be concise and at the same time to keep these above-discussed factors in mind. Spiritually is a mature and maturing relation to the Holy Spirit. While this may simply be another way of saying that spirituality is Christian maturity, it tries to delineate more openly the factors of Spirit-control over a period of time. Certainly the definition satisfies the requirements of the description of a spiritual man in 1 Corinthians 2:15, for one who is experiencing a grown-up relation to the Holy Spirit will be able to discern all things and at the same time not be understood by others.

If this be a correct definition, there are certain ramifications of it which ought to be thought through.

A new Christian cannot be called spiritual simply because he has not had sufficient time to grow and develop in Christian knowledge and experience. A new believer can be Spirit-controlled, but the area of control is subject to expansion in the normal process of Christian growth. A young Christian has not yet been confronted with many areas within the general sphere of Christian conduct, for instance; and while he may be completely willing to let the Spirit control his life and actions, he has not yet gained the experience and maturity that comes from having faced these problems and having made Spirit-controlled decisions about them. When he is first saved he may not even know that there is such a person as a weaker brother, and, although he may not be unwilling to curb his liberty for the sake of that brother, he has not yet faced the doing of it, to say nothing of having guided others into right decisions about such matters. Spirit-control may be total over the new Christian’s life insofar as he has knowledge of that life in his newborn state, but as his knowledge increases and his growth progresses, new vistas of life break upon him which must also be consciously yielded to God’s direction. Time to gain maturity is needed for genuine spirituality.

A Christian of longer standing may not be spiritual not because he has not had enough time but because during the years of his Christian life he has not allowed the Holy Spirit to control him. Whereas the new Christian may lack the time required to become spiritual, the believer of longer standing may be deficient in yieldedness. And without complete and continued control by the Spirit he cannot be spiritual. This, of course, was the burden of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for his readers were in this exact condition.

A Christian can backslide in certain areas of his life without losing all the ground he has gained during his Christian lifetime. The flesh may control his actions during a period of backsliding, but when he comes back to the Lord he does not necessarily have to start the process of growth all over again. For example, a believer may backslide with regard to personal Bible study, but when he comes back to it he will not have forgotten everything he formerly knew. However, this principle does not apply in every area of life, for there are some aspects of living, such as fidelity in marriage, which if violated can never be fully redeemed. The sin can be forgiven, fellowship restored, but the ground lost cannot be recovered.

There are stages of growth within the area of maturity. The best illustration is that of the human being who, though in adulthood, continues to grow, develop, and mature. The spiritual man who is experiencing a grown-up relation to the Holy Spirit is not stagnant in his Christian life, for he also has a growing relationship in his walk with the Lord. Although we never arrive at perfection in this life, it is also true that we never ascend to a plateau above and beyond which there is no further ground to gain. Spirituality, then, is a mature and a growing relationship to the Spirit.

The state of babyhood need not last long. Let no one try to take refuge in a fraudulent kind of piety which demeans or ignores the processes of growth that have advanced him to a state of maturity which he refuses to recognize. False humility is sometimes the reason for such lack of recognition of maturity which has actually been achieved. After all, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians those believers were about four or five years old in the faith, and he expected them to be spiritual by that time. He makes it quite clear that, although when he was with them he could not speak to them as spiritual people (for they were then babes in Christ), he fully anticipated that by the time he wrote this letter to them they would have matured to the point where he could address them as spiritual (1 Cor 3:1–2). With the passing of only a few years, babyhood should also disappear.

The Characteristics of Spirituality

Spirituality is more easily characterized than defined. And in these biblical characteristics of spirituality we have concrete tests by which one may determine whether or not he is spiritual.

Spirituality will be seen in one’s character. If spirituality involves control by the Spirit (Eph 5:18), and if the Spirit has come to glorify Christ (John 16:14), then a spiritual person will manifest Christ in his character and actions. To glory is to show, display, or manifest. The evidence that the Holy Spirit is in control of a life is not found in manifestations of the Spirit, but in the display of Christ. The fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23) is a perfect description of the character of Christ; thus, the Christian who is spiritual will display love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control. These are the traits that will describe his character.

In his conduct the spiritual believer will imitate Christ. One of the wrong emphases in victorious life teachings today demeans this aspect of the truth. We are told not to imitate Christ since this involves striving which is a work of the flesh; rather, we should simply allow Christ to live out His life through us. Actually it is not a question of one view or the other; both ideas are scriptural. Christ lives in me, and the life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20), but I am also exhorted to “follow His steps” (1 Pet 2:21) and to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6). Obviously if the Holy Spirit is allowed to produce the character of Christ in an individual, the life that he lives will imitate Christ. One of the most rewarding studies in the Gospels is to note the details of our Lord’s life which we as His followers would do well to imitate.

Spirituality will be seen in one’s knowledge. The strong meat of the Word of God belongs to mature Christians (Heb 5:14), and Paul expected the Corinthians after four or five years of Christian experience to be able to understand strong meat of the Word. The milk of the Word is for babes in Christ, and Paul does not scold the Corinthians for feeding on milk when they were first converted. But when their diet continued to consist only of milk, he, like the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, denounces them as defective Christians. What is meat truth? Of course, the Bible does not label passages milk or meat so it is not always easy to answer that question. However, one subject is clearly designated meat, and that is the matter which reminded the writer to the Hebrews of the inability of his readers to understand what he was writing about. And that subject is the truth about Melchisedek and his priesthood (Heb 5:10–11). Here is an example from the Bible itself of the meat of the Word, and it may rightly be used as a test of one’s spirituality.

Spirituality will be seen in one’s attitudes. A spiritual Christian will exhibit at least two basic attitudes throughout life. The first is an attitude of thankfulness. “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 5:20). This admonition follows the command to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18) and is thereby one of the characteristics of a Spirit-filled life. It is to be an all-inclusive attitude in the life of the believer. It should apply at all times (“always”) and in all situations (“for all things”). No time and no circumstance is expected. This means that grumbling, carping criticism, discontent, etc., will not characterize a spiritual Christian. This does not mean he can never be discontented in the proper exercise of godly ambition nor that he should never criticize in the sense of exercising discernment (Phil 1:9–10). But the kind of attitude that blames God for that which we do not like or that is vexed with His dealings with us is not a characteristic of genuine spirituality.

The other attitude of life which characterizes the spiritual Christian is, in the words of Paul, that of “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). This is not entirely a positional matter; that is, it does not only relate to the unity within the body of Christ which the Holy Spirit has brought about by baptizing every believer into that body (1 Cor 12:13). It is true that we could never make such unity, but we are exhorted to endeavor to keep it. The very fact that the word keep is used shows that the unity has been made by the Spirit, but the fact that there is also an exhortation shows that we must not disrupt that unity. Obviously, there is no problem about keeping unity with members of the body of Christ who have predeceased me; nor is there any difficulty in maintaining unity with those other Christians whom I do not know or with whom I have no contact. Therefore, the only sphere in which this exhortation has any relevance is the group of believers with whom I am thrown in contact. And it goes without saying that there are many practical problems in trying to keep the unity of the Spirit among believers I know—and the same is true for believers who know me. But, difficult as this may be, it is a requirement of spirituality.

It was the lack of this attitude that called forth Paul’s scathing denunciation of the Corinthians (1 Cor 3:1–7; cf. 1:12–13). Disunity had developed among believers who should have been worshipping together. Actually, there were four parties in Corinth (1:12). The “Paul Party” was perhaps a large group in the church who had been converted under Paul and who continued to adhere to him. But as is often the case, they seemed disposed to be more Pauline than Paul was and to disparage other gifted men, all of which resulted in detracting from the glory of Christ. The “Apollos Party” (Acts 18:24–28) also contained some personal converts as well as those who had been won over by Apollos’ genial manner and eloquent preaching. Some may have followed him because they considered his teaching more advanced than Paul’s plain gospel preaching or they were attracted to his more cultured manner. The “Peter Party” would undoubtedly have been composed of conservative Jewish believers who rallied to the hero of Pentecost. The “Christ Party” was perhaps the most difficult to get along with, for those in this group prided themselves on being His followers, not any mere man’s disciples. They were Gnostics before Gnosticism, and they unquestionably strutted their supposed spiritual superiority before all.

This is the kind of situation, attitude, and activity that Paul unhesitatingly labels “carnal” (1 Cor 3:3), for it broke the unity of the Spirit.

However, this is an area in which there needs to be very carefully balanced thinking, for all division is not necessarily wrong, and all unions are not per se right. In the same epistle (11:19) Paul said: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” The noun heretic is used one time in the New Testament (Titus 3:10), but the adjective is used twice (here and Gal 5:20 where the action is condemned as a work of the flesh). The word means a willful choosing for one’s self which results in a party division. Even though heresy is a work of the flesh which is often performed by a carnal Christian, it may be used for good so that those who are not involved in heresy will stand out in the churches. But heresy seems to involve the espousal of error which in turn causes the division. In such instances the heretic is to be admonished twice, then ignored (Titus 3:11), while the part of the divided group that did not follow the error goes on demonstrating its purity of doctrine by abounding in the work of the Lord. Thus to put in balance 1 Corinthians 3:1–5 and 11:19 we may say this: divisions involving heresy may be good and necessary, but divisions over personalities are carnal.

Thankfulness at all times and in all circumstances and the maintenance of unity in that part of the body of Christ with which I live and am concerned with all of the implications pertaining thereto are the two basic attitudes of life that must characterize genuine, biblical spirituality.

Spirituality will be seen in one’s conduct. Spirituality is also demonstrated in one’s self by proper conduct which is the result of the correct, discerning, and mature use of knowledge (Heb 5:13–14). We have already noticed that knowledge of the Word including meat truth is a prerequisite for spirituality, but such knowledge must be used properly in order to be spiritual. The readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews were unskillful in the word of righteousness (v. 13 ); that is, the word concerning uprightness in both doctrine and practice. As a result, they were unable to discern between good and evil (v. 14). This should not be limited to things morally good or evil, but includes things superior versus inferior, things better versus those things which are best. A spiritual Christian will be able to tread his way carefully through the complexities of Christian living so that he not only does that which is right and scriptural but also that which is useful and for the good of others.

Notice that again in this passage the matter of time is involved in maturity or spirituality. These people had had time to use and exercise their spiritual senses though they had not done so. But time is required to reach this state and achieve the ability to use God’s Word skillfully.

Spirituality will be seen in one’s home. The easiest place in which to be spiritual is in public; the most difficult is at home. The relationships of the home are intimate and continuous, while our activities and impressions made in public are intermittent and casual. This axiomatic reminder is especially necessary for Christian workers who too often can make a show of professional spirituality in public ministry while living a carnal life at home.

Again it is the Ephesian passage concerning the filling of the Spirit (5:18–21) which provides the biblical basis for this characteristic of spirituality. The command to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18) is followed by four coordinate phrases each of which begins with a participle. Together they constitute results or characteristics of the Spirit-filled life. The four participles are speaking, singing (v. 19), giving thanks (v. 20), and submitting (v. 21), and the last is not only the conclusion to verses 18–21 but it is also the topic sentence to that which follows beginning in verse 22. In other words, submission which is an evidence of the filling of the Spirit will be seen in the relationships of the home most vividly.

The word submit means to place one’s self in a subordinate rank. This means distinctive things for the husband and for the wife in the home, but both are to be submissive to one another (not just the wife to the husband as is commonly taught). For the husband it involves at least three things. (1) He is to lead, for he is the head of the wife (v. 23). This does not make him a dictator, but the responsible leader of the family who not only has the privilege of making the final decision but also the responsibility. (2) He is to love his wife (v. 25). A man needs this reminder, for he by nature is prone to be less demonstrative if not less loving than a woman. (3) He is to nurture his wife (v. 29). The word translated nourish means to bring to maturity and is used in the New Testament in this verse and in 6:4 only. The word cherish means to warm and in the New Testament it is used only here and in 1 Thessalonians 2:7. The point is simply that the husband is ultimately responsible for helping bring to spiritual maturity his wife and family. The contemporary tragedy is simply that usually the opposite is the case. It is too often the wife who is spiritually astute and who is forced, so to speak, to pull her husband along. Both should be spiritually keen, and it is the husband’s responsibility to take the leadership in this most important matter.

The spiritual wife will be subject to the leadership of her husband (vv. 22, 24). In other words, she will not work at cross purposes with her husband’s leadership in the family. This does not mean that she has no voice, for the husband is a presiding officer over the members of the family (that word is used in 1 Tim 3:4).

Spirituality will be seen in one’s church. The other principal area in which personal spirituality will be demonstrated is the church. We have already seen that a spiritual person will try to keep the unity of the Spirit in the sphere with which he is chiefly concerned—his own local church. A factious spirit is carnality.

The positive contribution a spiritual Christian will bring to the church is through the exercise of his spiritual gifts. The immature Christian promotes division; the mature one, unity through the use of his gifts (1 Cor 12:25). It goes without saying, then (or does it?), that the church member who is always creating problems and who constantly demands to be catered to is not a genuinely spiritual person. But the one who is serving the Lord by promoting the welfare of the church is evincing a mature spiritual life. Accusing the brethren is the work of the devil (Rev 12:10); caring for the brethren is the work of the Lord through His mature children.

This is genuine and wholesome spirituality. The concept is that of a mature and maturing relationship to the Holy Spirit which will be demonstrated in one’s personal life. This is biblical spirituality.

The End of the Law

By Charles C. Ryrie

[Charles C. Ryrie, Dean of the Graduate School, Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary.]

The discussion of the end of the Mosaic law and the ramifications involved is one which usually bogs down in confusion. All interpreters of the Scripture are faced with the clear teaching that the death of Christ brought an end to the Mosaic law (Rom 10:4) while at the same time recognizing that some of the commandments of that law are restated clearly and without change in the epistles of the New Testament. Or to state the problem in the form of a question, it is this: How can the law be ended if portions of it are repeated after it supposedly ended?

The Concept of the Law

The law which is involved in this question is the Mosaic law. Although the word “torah” was used quite widely in Judaism, it especially referred to the code that was given at Sinai. The lives of outstanding rabbis were sometimes called “torah.” The whole of the Old Testament was so designated, but particularly the Pentateuch was the Torah. This superiority of the Pentateuch was linked directly to the greatness of Moses (Num 12:6–8; Deut 34:10), though the rabbis were careful to point out that any difference was only in matters of detail not of principle.

The law is generally divided into three parts—the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial. The moral part is termed “the words of the covenant, the ten words” (Exod 34:28)—from which Greek equivalent we derive the label decalogue. The judgments begin at Exodus 21:2 and determine the rights between man and man with attendant judgments on offenders. The ceremonial part, which commences at Exodus 25:1, regulated the worship life of Israel.

Although this threefold division of the law is quite popularly accepted in Christian theology, the Jews either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it. They first counted all the particular precepts; then divided them into families of commandments. By this method they counted 613 total laws and twelve families of commandments. “The numeral letters of torah denote six hundred and eleven of them; and the other two, which, as they say, are the first words of the decalogue, were delivered by God himself to the people, and so come not within the compass of the word Torah in that place: whence they take this important consideration, namely, Deut xxxiii.4, ‘Moses commanded us the law,’ that is, of six hundred and eleven precepts; two being given by God himself, completes the number of six hundred and thirteen.”[1]

These 613 individual laws were further divided into negative and positive commands, and it was said that there were 365 negative ones and 248 positive ones. This meant that there was one command for each day of the year, in order to keep man from temptation, and one command for each member of the body of man to remind him to obey God with his whole being.

In commenting on this, Schechter tries to minimize the actual numerical count in order to vitiate the Christian’s use of this large number to emphasize the burden of the law. He says that the numbers are relatively unimportant; this division into negative and positive commandments was largely homiletical—the sermon to beware of temptation and obey God with one’s entire body was what mattered, not the numbers.[2]

The twelve families into which the law was categorized were according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. These were further subdivided into twelve families of affirmative and twelve of negative commands. The affirmative families concerned: (1) God and His worship, (2) the sanctuary and priesthood, (3) sacrifices, (4) cleanness and uncleanness, (5) alms and tithes, (6) things to be eaten, (7) passover and other feasts, (8) rule and judgment, (9) truth and doctrines, (10) women and matrimony, (11) criminal judgments and punishments, and (12) judgments in civil causes. The negative families concerned: (1) false worship, (2) separation from the heathen, (3) things sacred, (4) sacrifices and priests (5) meats, (6) fields and harvest, (7) house of doctrines, (8) justice and judgment, (9) feasts, (10) chastity, affinity and purity, (11) marriages, and (12) the kingdom. The total number of the commandments, which is far above the usual ten that the average person remembers when he thinks of the law, and the intricate dividing of them, easily and effectively illuminates several New Testament passages which speak of the detail and burden of the law (cf. Heb 9:1, 10; Acts 15:10; Eph 2:15).

The fact that the specific laws which made up these families were drawn from all parts of the Pentateuch emphasizes another very important fact which must not be obscured by the dividing of the law which the Jews did—and that fact is that the law was also considered as a unit. Commandments from every part were equally important and binding on the life of the Israelite, and the grouping of the various laws under each of the families proves this.

This unitized character of the law is further seen by noticing the penalties which are attached to certain commands in each of the three categories of the law—the commandments, judgments, and ordinances. One of the laws in the first division of commandments required the keeping of the Sabbath day. When a certain Israelite transgressed this command by gathering sticks on that day, the penalty was death by stoning (Num 15:32–36). One of the precepts in the category of judgments concerned letting the land have its sabbatical year of rest. For 490 years Israel ignored that command, and God settled the account due His land by sending the people into Babylonian captivity, where many of them died (Jer 25:11). In the third category, one of the regulations concerned the proper way to worship. This was transgressed by Nadab and Abihu, who were punished with immediate death when they offered strange fire before the Lord (Lev 10:1–7). In each of these three examples the punishment for disobedience involved death, even though the violation was of a different part of the law. The commandments concerning the land or worship were no less binding, nor was the punishment less severe than the commandment to keep the Sabbath, which was one of the first ten. The law was given as a unit. (One might be facetious and remark that it was too bad that Nadab and Abihu were not Christians so that they could have claimed that they were not under any of the law except the Ten Commandments and thus have been spared!)

James’s use of the law is based on this same concept of the unitary nature of the law. When dealing with the problem of partiality in the synagogues, James decries it on the basis that it is in contradiction to the law of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self (Lev 19:18; Jas 2:8). The single violation, he says, makes them guilty of the whole law (Jas 2:10). He could not make such a drastic statement if the law were not considered as a unit. All of this, of course, has a very important bearing on the doing away of the law; for it seems to point to the fact that, unless the New Testament expressly says so, part of the law cannot be ended without doing away with all of it.

Spiritual Evidence

The earliest specific declaration in New Testament times that the law was ended came in the discussions of the Jerusalem council. The question before the council was whether or not circumcision was necessary to salvation. After hearing the evidence from Peter and Paul that God was saving Gentiles apart from the law and its ordinances, James declared emphatically that circumcision was not required in order that the Gentiles be saved (Acts 15:19). In testifying concerning the problem, Peter had described the law as “a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (vs. 10). The necessity of circumcision was not the only matter with which the Judaizers were troubling the Gentile converts, for they were also trying to make them obliged to keep the whole law (cp. vs. 24). In the letters which the council authorized to be sent to the churches, James clearly stated that this was not obligatory for the Gentile converts (vs. 24). He asked them to curb the exercise of their liberty in certain practices, but not on the basis that they were under the law, simply on the grounds of love for their Jewish brethren and for the sake of the unity of the church. If there was ever a good opportunity to say that the Gentiles were under the law, this was it; for that would have settled the matter simply and quickly. But the apostles, who were Jews themselves, recognized that the law had no force any longer, and they did not try to impose it.

The council recognized what Paul stated later in his great doctrinal Epistle to the Romans, namely, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom 10:4). This is the same theme which Paul had preached earlier in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia on his first missionary journey, when he summarized his sermon by stating: “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). In these passages, as in others in the writings of Paul (cf. Gal 5:1; Rom 3:21–22; 7:6), it is made clear that whatever the law could or could not do came to an end with the work of Christ on the cross. Commenting on the specific phase “the end of the law,” Chafer concluded: “Some see only that He, by His suffering and death, paid the penalty the law imposed and thus discharged the indictment against the sinner, which is comprehended in forgiveness. Others see that Christ fulfills the law by supplying the merit which the holy Creator demands, which is comprehended in justification. Doubtless both of these conceptions inhere in this passage; but it will be observed that whatever is done is done for those who believe—with no other requirement added—and that belief results in the bestowment of the righteousness of God.”[3]

There is one other passage in the writings of Paul which, because it is more particular, is even more emphatic concerning the ending of the law. In 2 Corinthians 3:7–11 Paul makes the comparison between what is ministered through Moses and what is ministered through Christ. That which Moses ministered is called a ministration of death and it is specifically said to have been written and engraved in stones. The only part of the Mosaic law which was written in stones was the Ten Commandments—that category which some designate as the moral part of the law. Thus, this passage says that the Ten Commandments are a ministration of death; and furthermore, the same passage declares in no uncertain terms that they are done away (vs. 11). Language could not be clearer, and yet there are fewer truths of which it is harder to convince people. All kinds of exegetical maneuvering goes on in the attempt to make this passage say something else.

The writer to the Hebrews is also clear in teaching that the law has been superseded (Heb 7:11–12). In this chapter the writer has shown that the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than that of Aaron, and the proof he cites relates to tithing. Abraham gave a tithe of the spoils to Melchizedek, and since Levi—Abraham’s great-grandson, out of whom came the Levitical priesfhood—also paid tithes on that occasion in Abraham, the whole Levitical priesthood is seen as subordinate to Melchizedek. Then the writer concludes that if the Levitical priesthood could have brought perfection to the people, there would not have been a need for the priesthood of Melchizedek. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb 7:12). If Christ is our high priest today, then there has to be a change in the law, since He could not qualify as a priest under the Levitical arrangement (being of the tribe of Judah). If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law.

Thus, the evidence of the New Testament forces to the conclusion that the law—all of it, including the Ten Commandments—has been done away.

The Problem

But the New Testament also includes in its ethic many of the specific commandments that were originally a part of the Mosiac law. If the law has been done away in Christ, then why and on what basis are these Mosaic injunctions more binding on the Christian? Is the Christian under the law (or at least certain of its commandments) or has it really been ended?

If the New Testament would simply quote the Ten Commandments, then the solution of the problem would be easy.

One would conclude that the passages which teach that the law is done away refer to all parts except the moral law. But the New Testament only reiterates nine of the ten commandments and it also quotes commands which are outside the moral part of the law (cp. Rom 13:9; Jas 2:8). Thus the New Testament establishes no pattern whereby one may conclude that only the judicial and ceremonial parts of the law were ended; and the problem remains. How can the entire law be done away and parts of it be repeated in the New Testament epistles?

Some Solutions

One solution to the problem is simply to ignore it. The article on law in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology does this. The writer states that Christians are reminded of “their duty in terms of the law…. The Christian is under the evangelical obligation of love and the written law becomes his guide, a rule of gratitude.”[4] The only aspect of the law which ended was its condemning power. Second Corinthians 3:7–11 and Hebrews 7:11–12 are ignored in the discussion.

A more usual solution is that of Calvin, which is followed by many in the Reformed tradition. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law had reference to liberating the conscience from fear and to discontinuing the ancient Jewish ceremonies. He then distinguishes between the moral law, which he said was abrogated only in its effect of condemning men, and the ceremonial law, which was abrogated both in effect and in its use. In discussing 2 Corinthians 3 he only distinguishes the general differences of death and life in the old and new covenants.[5] He has a very fine exposition of the Ten Commandments, and it is interesting to note that in his discussion of the fourth commandment he did not consider Sunday as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath (as the Westminster Confession did).[6] Thus Calvin, as many who have followed him, considered part but not all of the law as ended and the Ten Commandments as binding on the church today (although the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath had to be interpreted nonliterally). This still does not solve the dilemma or relieve the tension between the law as a unit being done away and some commandments being retained.

The solution proposed in this essay is basically one which distinguishes between a code and the commandments contained therein. The Mosaic law was one of several codes of ethics which God has given throughout history. That particular code contained, as we have seen, 613 specific commandments. But there have been other God-given codes. The laws under which Adam’s life was governed combine to form what might be called a code for the Garden of Eden. There were at least two commandments in that code—dress the Garden and avoid eating the fruit of one tree. Noah was given commandments which included, after the Flood, the permission to eat meat (Gen 9:3). God revealed many commandments, statutes, and laws to Abraham which guided his life; together these may be called the Abrahamic code of conduct. The laws through Moses were codified formally and fearfully by being handed down from Mount Sinai. The New Testament speaks of the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) and the “law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2). In the law of Christ are the hundreds of commandments of the New Testament epistles, and together these form a new and distinct code of ethics.

The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated into the law of Christ. As a part of the Mosaic law they are completely and forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today. There are also in the law of Christ commandments from pre-Mosaic codes, as, for instance, the permission to eat meat (1 Tim 4:3). But the inclusion of this one, for example, does not mean that it is necessary to go through theological contortions in order to retain a part of the Mosaic code, so that that particular permission may be retained in this New Testament era. Likewise, it is not necessary to resort to nonliteral exegesis of 2 Corinthians 3 or Hebrews 7 or the fourth commandment in order to understand that the code is ended and familiar commandments are included in the new code.

May this procedure not be likened to the various codes in a household with growing children? At different stages of maturity new codes are instituted but some of the same commandments appear often. To say that the former code is done away and all its commandments is no contradiction. It is as natural as growing up. So it is with the Mosaic law and the law of Christ.

Notes

1. The Works of John Owen, ed., William H. Goold, XVIII, 481.
2. S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 138-42.
3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, III, 81.
4. O. Raymond Johnston, “Law,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 319.
5. John Calvin, Institutes, II, XI, 4.
6. Ibid., II, VIII, 33.

Perseverance: Enduring to the End! - Charles Spurgeon Sermon

Eternal Security - Charles Spurgeon Sermon

Love Your Neighbor - Charles Spurgeon Sermon

Jacob and Esau! - Charles Spurgeon Audio Sermons

Effectual Calling - Charles Spurgeon Sermon | Charles Spurgeon Sermons 2...

Natural or Spiritual? - Charles Spurgeon Sermon

Double Trouble

By Meredith G. Kline

[Meredith G. Kline is professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, and at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.]

If we speak of the double of something, we might have in mind either twice its amount or its twin. A similar ambiguity in certain Biblical words usually rendered “double” has caused interpreters trouble, in part because they have not recognized the presence of the ambiguity or at least have not always reckoned sufficiently with the translation option of “equivalent” or “matching image” rather than “twofold.” The most important issue that turns up in an examination of this matter is a theological question concerning God’s justice. Through a mishandling of the troublesome “double” words the equity of the divine justice has been beclouded. We will make that theological issue the focus of this study, subordinating the lexical investigation to it. Of the lexical items, primary attention will be given to Hebrew ka…pal (verb)/kepel (noun), but we will also deal with the other “double” terms that figure in passages involving the alleged double divine punishment—namely, Hebrew mis̆neh and Greek diploō (verb)/diplous (adjective).

I. Kepel In Isaiah 40

In Isaiah 40 assurance is given that God’s people may expect the coming of the Glory of Yahweh to them (vv 3 if.), his reward with him and his recompense before him (v 10), because payment for their sins has been completed (v 2). By virtue of the full satisfaction of the debt of their iniquity, which had incurred alienation from the Lord and separation from his Presence, the way was now open to restoration. Verse 2 underscores the fact that the punishment for Jerusalem’s covenant-breaking has been meted out in full by expressing it in three synonymous statements. The third of these contains the noun kepel (dual form) and is usually (mis)translated: “She has received from the hand of Yahweh double for all her sins.”

To solve the problem of this apparent imbalance in the scales of divine justice, with two talents of punishment loaded on one side for each talent of sin on the other, resort has been had to various expedients. Some, assuming that the Babylonian exile is the episode in view, suggest that Israel in exile suffered for the sins of the Gentiles as well as paying for their own. But this solves one problem by replacing it with another, for a role of vicarious atonement impossible for sinful beings to perform is thus attributed to Israel.

Another proposal is that double payment signifies simply full measure. This is theologically innocent enough, and it does catch the general drift of the clause. But its particular assumption about the significance of doubling as simply completeness wants demonstration. Our intention is to show that the problem of the unbalanced scales of divine justice is obviated by the recognition that kepel is to be translated “equivalent” rather than “double.”

The meaning of the last of the three statements in Isa 40:2 may be approached by examination of the first two, with which the third must be consistent.

According to the first statement, something (denoted by the noun ṣa…ba…ʾ) has been fulfilled or completed. Usually translated “warfare” or “hard (military) service,” ṣa…ba…ʾ is best understood here as a specified period of labor. The idea is more that of hired or contracted service than rigorous service. Such a meaning for ṣa…ba…ʾ: is found in a series of passages in Job that refer to the day laborer who is obligated to complete a contracted period of service (Job 7:1; 10:17; 14:14; cf. Num 4:23; Dan 10:1). Thus in Job 7:1 the parallel to ṣa…ba…ʾ is “the days of the hireling,” the stipulated time he must work, yearning the while for its completion and his appointed pay (cf. v 2). Similarly in Job 14:14 (cf. 10:17) the picture is that of the laborer waiting for his wages[1] through “all the days of my work term (ṣa…ba…ʾ)." Here then is the background of the imagery in the first statement in Isa 40:2: a laborer’s set period of work with its stipulated wages, its due equivalent according to the current scale. Agreeably the verb (mālēʾ) of which ṣa…ba…ʾ is the subject in this statement is commonly used with terms of time, like days and years, to signify their being completed. The clause may therefore be translated: “Her assigned term of service is completed.”

From the second statement in 40:2 we learn that the appointed time that is declared fulfilled is actually a period of punishment for iniquity. Corresponding to the verb mālēʾ used in the first clause for completing the work term is the verb rāṣâ, which means to make up for, to make good what is owed, to acquit a debt. It is used in the Job 14 context mentioned above for the hireling working off his due time of service (v 6).[2] Of particular importance is the usage in Leviticus 26. There, in v 34, rāṣâ refers to the land that lay fallow during the time of the Israelites’ absence in exile and so made up for the sabbatical years denied to it through the centuries it should have been afforded that rest. Then in v 41 rāṣâ describes the captive Israelites in the land of their enemies making up for their iniquity (both words, verb and object, the same as in Isa 40:2). These two ideas are brought together in v 43: the land making up for its sabbaths, and the people making up for their debt to divine justice. The effect of that is to give the penal debt that Israel must make good a temporal character; it becomes the judicial sentence of a set period of time to be spent in exile. In the historical event this took the specific form of the seventy years of captivity predicted by Jeremiah (25:11–12; 29:10).[3] Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years and the Leviticus 26 identification of the exile as a time when the land would make up for its sabbaths are combined in the record of the fulfillment in 2 Chr 36:21. It is this covenant curse of the determined period of exile predictively threatened in Leviticus 26 that is the underlying, unifying image of Isa 40:2 as a whole. And Lev 26:41 is clearly the primary source of the language in the second of the statements in that verse, which may be translated: “The debt of her iniquity has been paid.”

We are now in a position to take up the third statement in Isa 40:2 with its troublesome “double” word, kepel. Surely this final pronouncement is to be understood in harmony with the sustained emphasis of the preceding clauses on the fact that sin has received its exactly balancing recompense of punishment. It must make an affirmation consistent with the allusive analogue of the hireling who punctually fulfills the stipulated period of labor as the contractual equivalent of his wages. Hence we translate: “She has received from Yahweh’s hand matching punishment as the payment for[4] all her sins.”

Not only would the emphatic teaching of an equivalency of punishment and sin found in the preceding statements of 40:2 be contradicted if kepel were translated “double” in the last clause, but a survey of the use of kepel elsewhere indicates that “duplicate” rather than “double” is consistently its preferable if not its necessary rendering. We will examine that evidence supportive of our interpretation of 40:2 after a concluding expository comment on this prophetic proclamation of comfort to Jerusalem.

The covenant curse of the allotted seventy years of exile as recompense for Israel’s apostasy is, as we have said, the underlying image in Isa 40:2, but in accordance with regular prophetic idiom this typological imagery drawn from the old covenant is parabolic of new covenant reality. Through it, Isaiah is prophetically assuring the new covenant beneficiaries of all ages that their debt of sin has been paid and the divine justice perfectly satisfied. This is accomplished by the suffering of that Servant of the Lord whom Isaiah proceeds to set forth in the following chapters. On this One the Lord lays the iniquity of the many, and he endures the curse due to them, making atonement for them (52:13–53:12). Israel’s exile sufferings were not typological of the cross as an atoning sacrifice offered by the righteous One as a substitute in the place of sinners. Those sufferings were the due punishment for Israel’s own sin, like the punishment endured by the lost in hell. However, in that Israel’s completion of the allotted time of punishment, the seventy years of captivity, did constitute a full payment, a recompense commensurate with their sins, it could provide a figurative groundwork for the gospel pronouncement of 40:2. Comfort my people: In Christ they have received the hell punishment, the eternal seventy years of banishment from the divine Presence, the just wages, the full equivalent payment that matches and cancels their debt of sin. When it is thus recognized that Isa 40:2 describes God’s justice operative in Christ’s atonement, it is all the more evident how scrupulously exact the description must be and how inappropriate would be the insertion here of the notion of an inequitable double payment.

II. KāPal/Kepel In The OT

The conclusion reached concerning kepel in Isa 40:2 is confirmed by an examination of the several appearances of kāpal/kepel elsewhere in the OT. What we find is that the meaning definitely required in most passages is, for the noun kepel, “duplicate, twin, matching equivalent” and, for the verb kāpal, “produce a duplicate or duplex,” or, with respect to an action, “repeat,” while the idea of a double amount is not clearly demanded in any passage.

The verb ka…pal is used in the book of Exodus with reference to cloth material that is folded over so as to produce a pocket of matching front and back pieces facing each other or twin flaps side by side. Exodus 28:16; 39:9 are concerned with the breastpiece of the high priest’s vestments. Kāpal here describes the linen as folded double to make the square pouch in which the Urim and Thummim were kept (28:30). The material was not doubled in amount but doubled over, folded in half. The result was a double in the sense of a duplicate or matching face, not twice the quantity.

Similarly, in the case of the directions for the goats’ hair covering over the tabernacle in 26:9 the verb ka…pal indicates what is to be done to the end curtain of the eleven curtains that were joined together, the one at the front of the tent. Obviously there is no thought of doubling its size; all eleven curtains were to be the same size (v 8). Rather, the curtain in question was somehow folded over, apparently by drawing together its outside edges toward the center of the front elevation of the tent and so producing two matching sides, a kind of diptych.

A striking paronomasia appears in connection with the occurrence of the verb ka…pal in Ezek 21:14 (19).[5] The paronomasia reinforces the symbolism of the commanded act of clapping palm against palm (kap ʾel-kap) as an image of the action (wĕtikkāpēl) to be performed with respect to the sword of judgment.[6] In the symbolic act one hand meets its mate in a duplicating sort of process, producing a matching pair.[7] Likewise, there is to be a duplicating of the sword; a sword matching the original is to be forthcoming. Such then is the meaning of ka…pal here, with the resultant translation “the sword will be replicated (or multiplied).” This action denoted by ka…pal is qualified by s̆ĕlîs̆îtāh, “to a third.” Evidently the idea is that the replicating of the sword is to be repeated up to the point[8] of a third sword.[9]

Two instances of the noun kepel are found in Job. Though not without its difficulties, Job 41:13 (5) contains a reasonably clear description of a fearful duplex pair in the armament of leviathan. Light is thrown on this verse by the next one, which repeats the same imagery, these two verses together being arranged in an AB//A’B’ pattern. Verse 14 (6) reads: “Who would open the doors of his face? His encircling (sĕbîbôt) teeth (are) terror.”[10] In this parallel structure, kepel (v 13) corresponds to sĕbîbôt (v 14), and v 13 (5) is to be read: “Who would open his armored face? Within that pair (kepel)[11] of jaws who would enter?” The B-stich in each verse thus refers to the jaws studded with terrifying teeth, and in both cases the point made is not the quantity of the teeth as such (a double amount) but the particular array of this weaponry, the arrangement of the teeth in facing rows, threatening from both sides, from above and below, whatever dared this gantlet. It is this duplex pattern of matching upper and lower jaws that is denoted by kepel.[12]

The other appearance of kepel is in Job 11:6. The verse is quite obscure but, once more, to interpret kepel in terms of double quantity would not seem to fit. Here again structural parallelism may supply an interpretive clue. For vv 5–6a apparently form another AB//A’B’ pattern. Curiously the idea of an opening of the mouth is present here as in 41:13–14. In view this time are not the jaws of leviathan but the lips of God. “But would that God would speak, that he would open his lips like[13] you!” (v 5).

Corresponding to “lips” in the parallel B-stich of v 6a is kiplayim (dual). Since kepel consistently refers to a matching pair, and especially in view of its use in 41:13 for the duplex form of the mouth, it may be understood here as a poetic synonym for lips. This pairing is corroborated by the use of the dual form kiplayim, which answers to the dual śĕpātāyw,[14] “lips.” Verse 6a is then to be translated: “Would that he would declare to you the hidden things of wisdom, that he would open[15] his lips (kiplayim) in understanding!”

Another possible explanation of this kiplayim would be to see in it a reference to the cosmos-encompassing, paired parameters of God’s wis-dom-the heights of heaven on one side and the depths of Sheol on the other, which is the theme of the immediately following verses (vv 7–9). These two solutions could even be combined. For it might be that the lips of God, as a metonymy for the words of his wisdom, are pictured as extending from the upper to the lower ends of creation.[16] In any case, it is the understanding of kepel as denoting a positionally matching pair that makes possible a satisfactory explanation of this difficult passage.

III. Misóneh In Jer 16:18; 17:18

The teaching of a twofold retribution would be found in Jer 16:18; 17:18 if the critical word, mis̆neh, were translated “double,” a meaning it has at times (e.g. Exod 16:5, 22; Job 42:10). There is, however, the option of translating mis̆neh “equivalent” rather than “double,” as is shown by the use of the term elsewhere. Thus in the Hebrew bondservant legislation of Deuteronomy 15 the master is induced to fulfill the requirement to free such a servant in the seventh year by the reminder that during the six years he has received services equal in value (mis̆neh) to six years’ wages of a hired servant (v 18). Though mis̆neh is often translated “double” here, it is difficult to defend the implication that the bondservant would do twice as much work as a regular paid laborer.

Again, in the regulations governing the prospective king of Israel in Deuteronomy 17, mis̆neh denotes the “copy” of the Deuteronomic treaty, the covenant law that was to be prepared for the king from the original kept in the sanctuary (v 18). This, like the two tables of the covenant at Sinai, reflects the practice in ancient treaty diplomacy of providing the vassal with a duplicate of the document while the suzerain retained his copy.[17]

This clearly attested option of rendering mis̆neh as “equivalent” deserves the preference in both the passages in Jeremiah that would teach twofold punishment according to customary translations of mis̆neh. The threat presented to the apostates in Jer 16:18 is then simply that God “will repay them (with punishment) equivalent (mis̆neh) to their iniquity and sin.” And the concluding plea in 17:18 is that the petitioner’s foes should suffer destruction like that which they intended for him: “Destroy them with a matching (mis̆neh) destruction.” So translated, this plea is in keeping with the request in the first part of the verse that the persecutors be dealt with according to the talion principle, the shame and terror they purposed for the petitioner befalling them.

IV. Diploō/Diplous In The NT

Revelation 18 contains a jubilant vision of God’s judgment on the apostate harlot-city of Babylon. In the midst of it a voice from heaven, calling for vengeance on Babylon, clearly specifies that the judgment is to be executed according to the talion principle of punishment equal to the offense. “Give back to her as she has given (v 6a) … Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself” (v 7a).[18] In between the two quoted statements emphasizing proportionate recompense are two others (vv 6b, 6c) in which the relation of Babylon’s punishment to its iniquity is denoted by diploō/diplous, customarily rendered “double (twofold)” here. Thus NIV: “Pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.” But to translate “double” creates an unacceptable contradiction of the immediately preceding and following call for punishment commensurate with sin. In fact, the imagery of the cup in v 6c itself seems to underscore the talion principle of equivalence. For it is in the very cup of the harlot’s sin, the golden cup full of the wine of her fornication (cf. Rev 14:8; 17:4; 18:3), that her penal potion is to be administered. The idea of pouring her a double amount of punishment would be incongruous with this emphasis on the identity of the vessel of sin and of judgment. Indeed, since Babylon’s cup is described as filled to the brim with her abominations (17:4), getting double that amount of punishment into the very same container would be quite a feat. We propose then that “equivalent” be substituted for “double” in the translation of vv 6b and 6c. How diploō/diplous acquired in NT usage the nuances of kāpal/kepel and mis̆neh is readily accounted for by the fact that they are employed to render these Hebrew words in the LXX. Properly translated, Rev 18:6 declares, consistently with its context, that Babylon’s iniquities were to be balanced by their equal weight of punishment in God’s scales of justice.

Our rendering of diploō/diplous in Rev 18:6 finds support in the two other NT appearances of these terms (actually diplous in both cases). Matthew 23:15 presents one of a series of woes pronounced by Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees. Charging that they made of their proselyte a son of hell, Jesus institutes a comparison between proselytizer and proselyte in terms of that identification. The comparison is expressed by the comparative diploteros. If diplous means “double” here, the comparative form of the adjective must be ignored, for double is double—there is no such thing as more double. Hence the usual sleight-of-hand renderings “twofold more a son of hell than yourselves” or “twice as much a son of hell as you are.” If, however, diplous means “matching image,” the comparative form becomes more manageable. The idea then is that the proselyte takes on more fully than the Pharisees the likeness of a son of hell.

In 1 Tim 5:17 diplous describes the honor of which certain elders are to be considered worthy. The elders in view are those who rule well. If the term malista has its meaning of “specifically,” the phrase it introduces specifies that these elders are those who labor in teaching the Word. If malista means “especially” here, a distinction is drawn between two groups of elders, and the due reception of the contemplated honor by those engaged in teaching is said to be a matter of special importance.

If diplous is translated “double,” efforts to interpret the verse become problematic and speculative.[19] On the other hand if we translate diplous as “equivalent,” the problems disappear. For it makes eminently good and simple sense to say that elders who perform their office well are deserving of matching (diplous) honor commensurate with their service. In Paul’s corroborative observations in v 18 the pay earned by a laborer illustrates the honor due the elders in v 17, and this would point to a normal, commensurate (not extraordinary, double) measure of honor, honor matching the elders’ labors.

It appears then that the NT usage favors the translation of diploō/ diplous in Rev 18:6 as “render the equivalent” (rather than “double”), and that removes the alleged teaching of a twofold divine retribution from this text too.

V. Conclusion

On closer scrutiny all the Biblical data customarily cited as evidence of the teaching of a double divine punishment for sin dissolves with the discovery that the key Hebrew and Greek terms either never mean “double” or do not have that meaning in the relevant passages.

Notice needs to be taken of the fact that in commentary on these texts one finds reference made, in supportive elaboration of the alleged notion of double punishment, to legislation in Exod 22:1, 4, 7, 9 (21:37; 22:3, 6, 8) that stipulates double (or more) payments in cases of theft. Though not directly inflicted by God, these penalties are divinely promulgated. Overlooked in such argument is the fact that two factors are involved in the double payment demanded of the thief: restitution as well as punishment. Return of the original amount is simply restoration. Only the second half of the double payment constitutes punishment, and thus, in keeping with the talion principle, the thief suffers a loss equivalent to that which he inflicted.[20]

Clearly articulated in Biblical law, the talion principle of eye for eye and life for life is foundational to the temporal, human administration of justice as prescribed by God in Scripture for both the common-grace state[21] and the Israelite theocracy[22] as well as in the direct execution of judgment by the Lord himself.

Notes

1. On this meaning of ḥălîpâ cf. ḥelep in Num 18:21, 31.
2. Cf. Job 20:10a, where rāṣâ signifies to make good, specifically to indemnify the poor who have been plundered.
3. Note in these passages the use of mālēʾ for completing the seventy years and the characterization of the exile as a period of service to the Babylonian master.
4. Bêt of cost.
5. The choice of kap, not yad (cf. e.g. Ezek 25:6), and the expansion of the expression hikkâ kap, “clap hands” (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 11:12), by ʾel-kap are dictated by the design of echoing wĕtikkāpēl. This argues against repointing wtkpl as Qal instead of Niphal, which would diminish this sound equivalence.
6. Does the paronomasia even suggest a popular etymologizing of kepel as based on kap, after the pattern of nouns formed with affixed lāmed?
7. In Prov 6:1, where the clapping of one’s hand to the hand of another accompanies a commitment to become surety for the other, the symbolism might be that as hand matches hand, so a pledge of resources is given by one to match the debts of the other.
8. Thus the force of the appended -āh in s̆ĕlîs̆îtāh.
9. If kāpal meant doubling the amount, the s̆ĕlîs̆îtāh would mean “to a third time” and the result would be the improbable idea of six swords.
10. Possibly the verb “enter” from the corresponding B-stich in v 13 does double duty here. Translate then: “Who would enter the circle of terror, his teeth?”
11. Cf. the listing kapallu in UT 422, said to designate an object of apparel that comes in pairs.
12. Even on the interpretation of v 13 (5) as referring to a two-layered coat of mail rather than two rows of teeth, kepel would still signify the matching layers rather than double quantity.
13. By so translating the preposition ʿim (cf. e.g. Ps 143:7) we bring out the comparison with the boasting words of Job’s lips (v 2), to which the opening of God’s lips is to provide a rebuttal.
14. The suffix pronoun here does double duty with kiplayim.
15. The yiptaḥ of the parallel B-stich in v 5 does double duty here.
16. Similarly in the Ugaritic myths the lips of Mot, the god of death, are said to extend from heaven to earth, accommodating the host of victims demanded by his voracious appetite.
17. Similar to mis̆neh is the Akkadian term mis̆tannu found in one of the Alalakh texts (AT.3), a treaty dealing with the extradition of runaway slaves. Mis̆tannu denotes what the owner gives for the returned slave, the stipulated bounty, an appropriate payment in a quid pro quo arrangement.
18. NIV translation.
19. If diplous means twice as much, a comparison is set up with a group that gets a single measure of honor. Since all who rule well are worthy of double honor, there would have to be a group (not mentioned in the verse) who failed to rule well, who would receive the regular amount of honor—a strange thought. To avoid it, “double” might be construed as two kinds of honor (like respect and remuneration) with no comparison made to a group of unsuccessful elders who received only one kind of honor. But the warrant is lacking for that meaning of diplous, and the notion of these two kinds of honor would be abrupt, isolated and speculative.
20. When fourfold or fivefold payment is required (Exod 22:1), aggravation of the crime beyond simple theft is involved, and the additional penalty may be presumed to be commensurate in the divine assessment with the additional degree of guilt.
21. Gen 4:15; 9:6. Cf. M. G. Kline, “The Oracular Origin of the State,” Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (ed. G. A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 132-141.
22. Exod 21:23–25; Lev 24:18–21; Deut 19:21. Cf. M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977) 193-201.

Gospel Until The Law: Rom 5:13-14 And The Old Covenant

By Meredith G. Kline

[Meredith Kline is professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, and at Westminster Theological Seminary in California in Escondido, California.]

Romans 5 expounds the theology of justification as gift of grace by analyzing the analogous roles of Adam and Jesus Christ in the drama of history. In each case the divine government employs the principle of federal headship by which the probationary act of the one is imputed to the many, whether one act of sin unto death or of righteousness unto life. Such is the context of the cryptic parenthesis that appears in Rom 5:13–14, following the anacoluthon at the end of v. 12.[1] As a provisional rendering I suggest: “(13a) For sin was in the (whole) world until the law. (13b) Now sin is not imputed where law is not of force; (14a) but death reigned from Adam to Moses (14b) even over those who did not sin after the mode of the transgression of Adam, (14c) who was a type of the one to come.”

I. Rom 5:13-14 And Classic Covenant Theology

My immediate interest here is the intriguing exegetical puzzle posed by this parenthesis, but I am also using it as an entrance into the question of the nature of the old covenant, particularly as debated within the Reformed camp by proponents of classic covenant theology and the revisionist tradition represented by John Murray.[2] The basic question is obviously of wider evangelical and indeed ecumenical interest, as witnessed in the burgeoning literature on the Pauline view of the law.

As I see it, the customary interpretations of Rom 5:13–14, irrespective of theological perspective, are alike in one respect: their failure to account satisfactorily for the particular segment of history Paul selects to make his point. I hope to show that recognition of the law-gospel contrast and, more specifically, of the operation of the principle of works (as antithetical to grace) in the old covenant is the indispensable key to a satisfactory explanation of this perplexing passage. If so, then Rom 5:13–14 proves to be decisive evidence in corroboration of the classic form of covenant theology, which is distinguished by these key elements.[3]

Before exploring the exegesis of Rom 5:13–14 it will be useful to clarify the aforementioned controversy among covenant theologians. Classic covenantalism recognizes that the old Mosaic order (at its foundation level—that is, as a program of individual salvation in Christ) was in continuity with previous and subsequent administrations of the overarching covenant of grace. But it also sees and takes at face value the massive Biblical evidence for a peculiar discontinuity present in the old covenant in the form of a principle of meritorious works, operating not as a way of eternal salvation but as the principle governing Israel’s retention of its provisional, typological inheritance.[4]

Illustrative of the complexity is Rom 10:5–8, where Paul contrasts law and gospel by juxtaposed quotations, both from the Torah: Lev 18:5 as expressive of works, Deut 30:12–14 as proclaiming the way of faith in Christ. Classic covenantalism seeks to do full justice to this complexity by distinguishing two levels of the old covenant, as suggested above. Among other interpreters, some see the plain meaning of the contrasting strands in Paul’s teaching, judge the apostle inconsistent and let it go at that. Most, with less respect for the plain meaning of the text but more for Paul’s (or God’s) consistency, try to explain away the apostle’s identification of the law as a works arrangement.

One popular method of escaping the perceived tension has been to suppose that identification of the law as antithetical to faith does not represent Paul’s own opinion but is a Judaizing misunderstanding that he is opposing.[5] Others, perceiving the contrived nature of this misinterpretation solution, think to relieve the tension by qualifications that in effect eliminate the law principle from the situation. Thus, according to Moisés Silva, the law, though “leading to life,” could not be and was not in the divine purpose intended to be a “source of righteousness and life.”[6] To this extent he agrees with classic covenantalism. But because the Murray position followed by Silva so minimizes the significance of the typological stratum as virtually to reduce the old covenant to the one level of its continuity with other administrations of grace, his suggestion leaves the law principle functioning merely as a hypothetical proposal of salvation by works and in no other way.[7]

The total covenantal experience of Israel with all its canonical documentation shouts out against such a reductionism. The law’s principle of works was not just something hypothetical. It was actually applied—and with a vengeance. It was the judicial principle that governed the corporate life of Israel as recipient of the national election and controlled Israel’s tenure in the typological kingdom of Canaan. Termination of that typological order and Israel’s loss of the national election in the divine execution of the covenant curse in the Babylonian exile and again in A.D. 70, exactly as threatened in the Torah treaty, emphatically contradict the notion that the law’s stipulations and sanctions were mere hypothetical formulations. A strange blindness with respect to Israel has in large part happened to Biblical scholarship.

On the classic covenantal understanding, the law that came 430 years later did not disannul the promise (Gal 3:17)—not because the old covenant did not really introduce an operative works principle, but because works and faith were operating on two different levels in the Mosaic economy. What is truly remarkable is that Paul sounds often enough as though he too were reducing the Mosaic economy to one level—not, however, to the grace level but to the typological works level. If the apostle expressed himself so unguardedly today he would risk being accused of dispensationalist leanings.

Rejection of the works principle in the old covenant tends to degenerate into a more general denial of the possibility of merit in the religious relationship[8] and thus to a rejection of the principle of works in the original creation covenant with Adam.[9] Such a development moves away from Reformation doctrine back into something akin to Roman Catholic theology. If the gravitation toward the denial of the original covenant of works is not due to the logical outworking of an antiforensic bias already present in opposition to the traditional law-gospel contrast, it may be explained in terms of exegetical linkage—that is, the exegete’s encounter with the parallelism between the old covenant and the covenant of creation found in Biblical passages like Rom 5:13–14.

Indeed, Rom 5:13–14 speaks to this entire issue. We shall discover that it speaks decisively against both the extreme of rejecting the law-gospel contrast and the compromise of denying the law really was law, or, positively stated, that it summons us back to a new appreciation of classic federal theology.

II. Until The Law

Romans 5:13a states the essential idea of the entire parenthesis, but in a dense way that needs the unpacking it is then given in vv. 13b–14. Interpretation best proceeds, therefore, from the latter clarification back to v. 13a. Requiring attention first, however, is the key (but generally slighted) element in the passage, present already in v. 13a and found again in v. 14a—namely, the particular boundaries Paul establishes for the situation cited in support of his larger thesis in this chapter.[10]

The limits set are “until the law” (v. 13a) and “from Adam to Moses” (v. 14a). These bounds are not simply temporal, as if Paul said “until the days of the Hittite empire” or “from the paleolithic to the late bronze age.” Both the terminus ad quem, “to Moses,” and the terminus a quo, “from Adam,” are epochal turning points in the history of divine-human relationships, or, in more Biblical terms, covenantal turning points.[11] Adam stands at the end of the original order, the covenant of creation, and at the inauguration of redemptive covenant. Moses marks the coming of the old covenant and the closing of the patriarchal epoch, which featured especially the Abrahamic covenant. Clearly then the apostle’s selection of Adam and Moses as boundary points has the effect of concentrating his discourse on the history of the covenant community. In particular, his use of the law as the terminus ad quem demands that the subject in this parenthesis is a group on whom the instituting of the old covenant had an immediate and direct impact.

The law did not have such an impact on the nations of the Gentiles, strangers to the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12; cf. Rom 2:14; 1 Cor 9:20–21). Their knowledge of God’s moral requirements and attending sanctions, their experience of sin and its consequences, were not affected by God’s special covenantal revelation through Moses. The introduction of the law had the requisite significance only within the bounds of redemptive covenant, represented in the days of Moses by Israel, the people for whom reception of the law was a peculiar, distinguishing privilege (Rom 3:2; 9:4). The descendants of Adam in general cannot be the subject of the parenthesis. Yet commentators of all schools try to interpret the passage as though it were descriptive of universal history. Even those who see in v. 14b (though not in vv. 13–14a) a reference to a limited portion of mankind identify that as an intranational cross-section of humanity. All miss the ineluctable consequence of Paul’s making the Mosaic law the terminus ad quem: The subject of the parenthesis must be the covenant community.[12]

The kind of covenantal-historical structuring of theological discourse found in Rom 5:13–14 is part of a Pauline pattern. For him to expound soteriology is to analyze the nature and interrelationships of the covenant of promise to Abraham, the law covenant mediated by Moses, and the new covenant with its gospel of justification by faith. Certainly use of the historical schema of the covenants as the framework of doctrinal teaching is characteristic of the book of Romans. And in Romans 5 this covenant pattern becomes panoramic, extending back beyond the Abrahamic covenant and its redemptive precursors in Genesis 3–11 to the preredemptive covenant of the Creator with Adam and reaching forward beyond the law to Christ (the new Adam) and the new covenant. This sweeping overview of covenantal history develops here as elsewhere in Paul’s teaching out of his presentation of soteriology. Exposition of the achievement of righteousness and life for the many by the one man, Jesus Christ, called for an account of the situation of universally prevailing sin and death that had to be overcome. That in turn involved explaining how the sin/death reign entered the world through the one man Adam (vv. 12 ff.), who thus (as a federal representative) played a role parallel to that of the coming Christ (v. 14c).

The parenthesis in Rom 5:13–14 sits then in the middle of a chapter that as a whole surveys history from the covenant of creation to the new covenant in the fulness of time. As the parenthesis elaborates on the reign of sin/death mentioned in v. 12, it naturally continues this covenantal structuring. This is signalized, as we have noted, by the phrases “until the law” (v. 13a) and “from Adam to Moses” (v. 14a). By these allusions to the patriarchal/Abrahamic and law epochs the parenthesis fills in the history between the first and last covenants treated in the rest of Romans 5, so completing the cosmic mural of the four major covenant epochs.

What Paul says in Rom 5:14a about the covenant community—that death reigned over them from Adam to Moses—reveals that it is the story of the patriarchs as told in the book of Genesis that is before his mind. The inevitability of death even for God’s people is a prominent theme running through the Genesis narratives of the covenant line. “And he died” is the epitaphic closure of each brief biography in the genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5. Enoch’s deathless transfer to heaven was a unique instance, a prophetic sign of the eschatological victory of the promised seed of the woman over death. In the genealogy of the patriarchs from Noah to Terah in Gen 11:10–26, their death is implicit in the references to the number of years they lived after begetting the next-named individual (or the line leading to him). Then in the narratives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob accounts of their death/burial and that of other members of their families figure prominently to the very end of the Genesis history with the coffin of Joseph in Egypt. And the opening chapters of Exodus carry down to the era of Moses the tale of generation succeeding dying generation in the covenant line. It is this lugubrious narrative of God’s mortal folk that is summarized in Rom 5:14a.

Thus understood the parenthesis fits right into the immediately preceding context, for there too Paul not only draws upon the book of Genesis but does so in elucidation of the same theme of sin and death. In Romans 4, dealing with Abraham as father of believers, Paul exploits the way the Genesis account relates Abraham’s faith to death as an obstacle to promise fulfillment, an obstacle at which, he says, the patriarch’s faith did not stagger because it resided in God who quickens the dead (4:17–20). And in Romans 5 itself Paul utilizes the early chapters of Genesis for their record of Adam’s breaking the death-sanctioned covenant of creation. As the obvious source behind 5:14a the Genesis history of the covenant people also provides another indication of the proper explanation of the subject of the parenthesis.

It was observed above that the terminus formulae are the main such index that the subject is not general world history but the history of the covenant community. A further inescapable implication of the Moses/law terminus ad quem is that the situation in this covenantal order before the law differed fundamentally from that after the law was instituted. With respect to the matters under consideration in Romans 5 a radical contrast must obtain between the patriarchal/Abrahamic order and the old (law) covenant.

Furthermore, the terminus a quo has similar significance. “From Adam” (Adam being viewed on this side of the fall) indicates a contrast between the patriarchal/Abrahamic order and the prelapsarian covenant of creation.[13] Moreover, within these exegetical confines it will be the same contrast that obtains in both directions—that is, the two boundary epochs, the covenant of creation and the old covenant, will be alike in that respect where they differ from the covenant order from Adam to Moses.[14]

Once these exegetical parameters are established, the law-gospel contrast naturally suggests itself as the differentiating feature in the contrast posited in Rom 5:13–14. Indeed, it is our conclusion that the exegetical demands inherent in the terminus indicators in this passage cannot be satisfied except with the recognition that while grace was the principle of kingdom blessing in the Abrahamic covenant (and new covenant), in the covenant of creation and in the old covenant (at that typological level in terms of which Paul here and elsewhere identifies it) the operating principle was works.

III. Grace From Adam To Moses

The identification of the subject of the parenthesis as the covenant community, required by the terminus formulae in vv. 13a and 14a, opens up the meaning of the obscure expressions in vv. 13b and 14b. They too refer to the people of God in the period from Adam to Moses. Moreover, they too contrast this patriarchal/Abrahamic order with both the subsequent law epoch (v. 13b) and the preceding covenant of creation (v. 14b), and they do so not just by implication but explicitly: “apart from the law” (v. 13b) and “not (like) Adam” (v. 14b). Further, the nature of that contrast as the works-grace antithesis now emerges even more clearly, for the whole point of the description of the covenantal order before the law in vv. 13b and 14b is that it was a grace arrangement. In their shared contrast to this, the covenants of creation and the law are identified as economies informed by the works principle.[15]

1. Sin not like Adam’s transgression. A contrast is drawn in v. 14b between Adam’s transgression and sins committed by certain persons located between Adam and Moses (cf. v. 14a).[16] The NIV rendering (flagrantly over-interpretive) expresses the common explanation of the particular aspect of Adam’s offense that is in view: “even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.” The true nature of the contrast mentioned in v. 14b will become apparent if we follow the lead provided by an OT source alluded to in this verse.

Along with Genesis 3, Isaiah 24 makes a notable contribution to Paul’s teaching in Romans 5, particularly on the nexus between the universal reign of death and man’s sin—more specifically, Adam’s breaking of the primal covenant. The Isaiah 24–26 apocalypse is a celebration of the resurrection victory over death and Satan secured by God for his people. Paul draws upon this source repeatedly in his treatments of the same topic in Romans 5 and 8 and in 1 Corinthians 15.[17] After the opening proclamation of God’s ultimate triumphant emptying out of the netherworld (Isa 24:1–3), the present dismal situation is portrayed (vv. 4–13): Man and nature groan together, for the earth has become a graveyard, defiled by the dead. And the explanation for this sway of death is that “they broke the ancient covenant” (bĕrît ʿôlām, v. 5d). No other covenant than the primal covenant with Adam provides a suitable point of reference. It is this prophetic doctrine of sin and death that the apostle takes up in Rom 5:12 ff.[18] and 1 Cor 15:21 ff., the two passages where he develops the two-Adams theology.

The explicit reference to covenant in the Isaianic source behind Rom 5:12 ff. supports the interpretation of vv. 13–14 in terms of covenant epochs. Narrowing the focus to 5:14b, Paul’s reference there to Adam’s transgression is also clarified by that same covenantal framework in Isa 24:5. It indicates that what is meant is not the bare notion of violation of a precept but more specifically Adam’s breaking of the death-sanctioned covenant of creation. In an even closer parallel to the language of Rom 5:14b Isaiah’s contemporary, Hosea, also makes explicit the covenantal context of Adam’s act: “They like Adam have transgressed the covenant.”[19]

A covenantal order that can be terminated by being broken is clearly not one for which a consummation of blessing is secured by the sovereign grace of God. It is a probationary covenant of works. Jeremiah contrasted the old covenant with the coming new covenant by characterizing the former as breakable: “which covenant of mine they broke” (Jer 31:32). The new covenant would be different. It would not be breakable, for Christ would be surety of its perfection. It would be a covenant of grace: “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (31:34). Paul expounded the same contrast: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins. And by him all who believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38–39). And in Rom 5:14b the apostle similarly distinguishes between two other covenants: the creation covenant with Adam, and the covenant order from Adam to Moses. The covenant of creation was breakable and had no provision of forgiveness. Transgression of its probationary stipulations would result in its termination and the infliction of its threatened curse. By describing those from Adam to Moses as not sinning after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, Paul signified that they were under a different kind of covenant. They were not under works but under grace/promise, in a covenant where sins are treated differently—where they are forgiven. Romans 5:14b describes the blessed experience of those in a covenant where not the transgression of Adam but the righteousness of the coming One is imputed (cf. v. 13b). This covenantal contrast drawn in v. 14b confirms the conclusion that the design of the terminus a quo, “from Adam” (v. 14a), was to demarcate the gospel order of grace that obtained in the patriarchal/Abrahamic epoch, separating it from a preceding law order, the original covenant of works.

2. Sin not imputed. Romans 5:13b and 14b balance each other formally, standing either side of the main statement in v. 14a, and they parallel each other topically, both identifying the patriarchal community as under a covenant of grace. In each case the provisions of grace are contrasted with the arrangements in a covenant of works—that is, the creation covenant in v. 14b and the old covenant in v. 13b. Just as Adam’s transgression in v. 14b is not merely violation of a commandment but the breaking of a covenant, so the law mentioned in v. 13b refers to a particular covenant, not to a set of commandments (whether those revealed through Moses, or through natural revelation, or ordinances given at creation or through Noah in Gen 9:1–7).

Law in v. 13b must be understood in the sense of the terminus indicator, “until the law,” in v. 13a. It refers to the old covenant, the covenant that was not of faith but of works and yet did not abrogate the earlier promise covenant given to Abraham (Gal 3:10 ff.). More precisely, it would appear that because of his identification of the Mosaic law as a works covenant Paul uses nomos in v. 13b in the specific sense of works principle. To affirm the absence of law in that sense (mē ontos nomou, “apart from law” or “where law is not of force”) is to state negatively[20] the presence of the opposite principle, the gospel principle of grace.[21] In Romans Paul has previously stated the matter in this same way more than once.

In Romans 3 Paul proclaims a righteousness of God that is manifested “without the law” (v. 21, chōris nomou). Law here, as in 5:13, is not just commandments but a (covenant governed by a) juridical principle antithetical to the grace operating in the gospel. Justification under grace is by faith “without the works of the law” (v. 28, chōris ergōn nomou). In Romans 4, again contrasting the law order to one of grace, Paul says that the covenant blessing of justification and kingdom inheritance promised to Abraham was given “not through the law (ou gar dia nomou) but through the righteousness of faith” (vv. 13–14). Then, strikingly anticipating Rom 5:13b, he adds: “Where the law does not obtain (ou de ouk estin nomos) there is no transgression” (4:15b). The absence of law (works) means the presence of grace/promise/faith.

In the gospel context denoted by “apart from the law” in Rom 5:13b, the nonimputation (or accounting) of sin (hamartia de ouk ellogeitai) surely means what it does elsewhere in Paul’s teaching on the forgiveness aspect of justification.[22] Romans 4 provides a parallel in the form of a quotation from the Psalms: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (vv. 7–8; cf. Ps 32:1–2a).[23] Both the elements in Rom 5:13b, the denoting of grace as the absence of law and forgiveness as the nonimputation of sin, are thus explained by the immediately preceding chapter. Similarly in 2 Cor 5:19 Paul declares “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” To be in Christ under the new covenant of the Spirit, life, and righteousness and not under the old covenant of the letter, death, and condemnation (cf. 2 Corinthians 3) is to be in the juridical sphere where law is not of force and sins are not charged to the account because Christ who knew no sin has been made to be sin for us and we have been made the righteousness of God in him (cf. 2 Cor 5:21).

Interpreted according to the analogy of Pauline expression, Rom 5:13b is found to parallel v. 14b in depicting the redemptive community in pre-Mosaic times as under grace, not under the principle of works that operated in the creation covenant with Adam and afterwards in the law covenant.

3. Contrast, not continuum. The prevalent interpretations understand the law referred to directly and indirectly in Rom 5:13–14 as commandments, not as a covenant governed by the works principle, and they define the sin mentioned in vv. 13b and 14b (if not in v. 13a) as individual violation of a particular known precept (or in some similarly qualified manner). Then v. 13b (if not a general axiom covering a situation where commandments are absent) means that judicial account was not taken of sin before the law of Moses. And to much the same effect is the statement in v. 14b about sin not being committed from Adam to Moses (with possible restriction of the predication to a certain part of mankind). But no combination of the options proves satisfactory. For one thing, almost all the proposals bring the passage into contradiction with Paul’s teaching elsewhere or even make it inconsistent within itself.

Some, interpreting v. 12d as a declaration that all have individually sinned, take v. 13a as a specific application of that fact to the period up to the law (cf. also v. 14a) and vv. 13b and 14b as a denial of individual sin in that same period. Blatant contradiction is then apparent within the parenthesis itself between the assertion of individual sin in v. 13a (cf. v. 14a) and its denial in vv. 13b and 14b.

Others see another dimension of sin than individual transgression in v. 13a (or already in v. 12d). This different kind of sin may be defined in terms of the distinction between the imputed sin of Adam and individual sinning or of some dialectical pairing, whether nature/grace in traditional Catholic exegesis or fate/freedom in Kantian Protestant commentary. Since v. 13a affirms the presence of sin in one sense and v. 13b and/or v. 14b its absence in a different sense, contradiction is avoided at this point.

Both views involve another contradiction as well. The idea that judicial account was not taken of sins from Adam to the law (so vv. 13b and 14b on both views) conflicts not only with the statement in v. 14a that death reigned in this period[24] but also with Biblical teaching elsewhere that God does hold guilty and deal accordingly with those who sin individually apart from knowledge of the revelation of his commandments in the Mosaic law.[25] Paul himself earlier in this epistle insists that the Gentiles not only had a natural revelation of moral-spiritual requirements but knew the judgment of God that they were worthy of death for violation of those divinely sanctioned standards (Rom 1:32). He describes these Gentiles who have not the law (2:14) as sinning and perishing in that sin (2:12). Contrary to the interpretation of Rom 5:13, 14 being controverted here, Paul teaches emphatically in Romans itself that in the world at large before the law, as always, sins were registered in God’s account books against the day of wrath.

Most commentators try to soften the contradictions entailed in their exegesis but can do so only by arbitrarily relativizing what vv. 13b and 14b affirm. Cranfield’s treatment is fairly typical. He says v. 13b “must be understood in a relative sense…In comparison with the state of affairs which has obtained since the advent of the law, sin may be said to have been, in the law’s absence, ‘not registered,’ since it was not the fully apparent, sharply defined thing, which it became in its presence.”[26] Such relativizing is in fact rewriting. Paul says that an age in which sin was not imputed and Adam-like transgressions were not committed gave way to the law era, in which sin definitely was imputed and Adam-like transgressions were committed. The relativizers change that into a statement that sin was imputed before the law and that Adam-like transgressions were committed, only not as much so as was the case under the law.

Moreover, the coming of the law actually did not effect the relative change suggested, certainly not for the world at large, which is the supposed subject in the parenthesis. For most of mankind sin was no more sharply defined after the law was given to Israel than before, since they had no knowledge of that revelation. The Gentiles continued to sin and perish “without the law,” as Paul still describes them long after the law’s advent (Rom 2:12–14). The relativizers subtly shift the contrast stated in the text between an earlier and later phase in the history of one group into a comparison of the situations of two (in part contemporary) groups: Gentiles before and after the law, and Israel under the law.[27] Had this been Paul’s intention, would he not speak of the world “without the law” rather than “until the law” or “from Adam to Moses”? We thus are brought back to the key exegetical point mentioned at the outset: Prevalent views of the parenthesis fail to account for the limits Paul sets on his proof case. The Moses/law terminus establishes a radical contrast between the law order and the one that preceded it. The commentators change the apostle’s contrast into a continuum.

The tradition of Reformed exegesis represented by Murray incurs the same criticisms. Murray does avoid the contradictions that embarrass the others.[28] His interpretation of v. 14 is that death reigned until Moses even over the likes of infants and imbeciles[29] who could not be held liable for violating expressly revealed, known law, as did Adam. This interpretation, however, is no more successful than the others in accounting for the particular segment of history selected, for the death of infants and imbeciles is not peculiar to the period before the law. Aware of the problem, Murray can only suggest that the Adam-to-Moses period furnishes a “better example,” while the period after Moses, with its abundant revelation of law, did not provide “as suitable an example.”[30] Like the others he slips into the errors of relativizing the contrast and not taking its sequential nature seriously.

Necessary to make sense of Rom 5:13–14 (and thus taught there by clear implication) is the presence of the works principle in the law covenant in contrast to the covenants that preceded and followed it. The rather bizarre explanation of v. 14b that the Murray tradition finds itself forced into should trigger reappraisals of its rejection of this view of the law and prompt a return to the classic covenantal analysis of the law-gospel contrast mandated by Rom 5:13–14.

Corroborating that classic position and brightly illuminating 5:13–14 is the remarkably similar passage in 7:7–12. Here once more there is redemptive-historical structuring, and again the specific sequence is pre-law and law covenants. Echoing and explaining 5:13b is the narrative[31] description given in 7:8b, 9a of the patriarchal/Abrahamic covenantal epoch: “For apart from the law sin was dead. And I was alive apart from the law once.” And the change effected by the Mosaic law, which is implicit in the terminus formulae in 5:13a and 14a, is powerfully reasserted in 7:9b, now explicitly: “When the commandment came, sin revived and I died.” According to Rom 7:8–9 the difference between the Abrahamic covenant and the law is emphatically not relative but radical. It is the difference between life and death.[32] Together, Rom 5:13–14 and 7:7–12 spotlight the Scriptures’ insistence that between the law and the covenants on either side of it there is contrast, not continuum.

IV. The Point Of The Parenthesis

We may now address the opening statement in the parenthesis. Dealing with the pre-law situation, Rom 5:13a says the reign of sin (and death, cf. v. 14a) extended to all. The phrase en kosmōs indicates the universal extent of sin, not merely its location. “In the world” resumes “all sinned” in v. 12d and is equivalent to “in all the world.”[33] At the same time the terminus formula, “until the law,” in v. 13a anticipates the special focus on the covenant people found in vv. 13b–14. Far from excluding the community of redemptive covenant, the declaration of the sway of sin/death has it especially in mind.

What v. 13a affirms (and v. 14a essentially repeats) is that the reign of sin/death (attributable to the transgression of the one man Adam, v. 12d) was experienced in the temporal existence even of those in the covenant community from Adam to Moses who by faith had promise of the eschatological triumph of righteousness and life, secured through the obedience of the one man, Christ Jesus (vv. 18–19). The purpose of the parenthesis is to underscore that point.

This is missed in the prevalent views inasmuch as they perceive the subject as the world in general rather than the covenant community. Reformed exegetes who (properly) interpret v. 12d in terms of Adam’s federal headship tend to see the parenthesis as designed to prove that the involvement of all in sin and death was indeed via original sin. Allegedly Paul argues that since (relatively speaking) sins were not of the individual kind until the law, the sin that was in the world before that (v. 13a) and accounted for death’s universal sway (v. 14a) must be the original sin mentioned in v. 12d.[34] Those who think v. 12d refers to individual sinning and see vv. 13–14 as stressing the fact that all sin and die are formally closer to the truth on the point of the parenthesis, for in vv. 13–14 Paul is not trying to prove what he said in v. 12d about the mode of the entrance of sin/death into the world. Rather, assuming the validity of that, he simply reaffirms the fact that sin/death was present—with a particular concern, however, to insist that this was the case in the experience of those in the covenant of redemptive grace. The pre-law period is selected as representative of them because covenant administration in that epoch clearly exemplified the principle of justifying grace (vv. 13b and 14b), whereas with the coming of the law the situation was complicated by the introduction of the principle of works into the covenant at the level of the typological kingdom, as reflected in Paul’s identification of law as antithetical to grace/promise/faith.

The point made in the parenthesis serves the ultimate purpose of Romans 5: the exalting of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ. The reign of sin/death over the people Christ comes to redeem is an index of the magnitude of the Savior’s task and the victory of grace that he won.

By the identification of Adam as a figure of the coming Messiah in v. 14c, what the parenthesis has said about the bondage of the covenant people to sin/death is related to the soteric mission of Jesus (vv. 15–21).[35] In this transition (v. 14c) Paul returns to where he was at the end of v. 12: to the federal headship of Adam and the judgment of condemnation and death brought by his probationary failure upon all, including those who would come to know the redemption of God. Then the apostle proceeds to expound the federal headship of the second Adam and the abounding of the grace of Christ to his perishing people in the gift of righteousness and life.

Notes

1. Determination of the true intent of the parenthesis by analysis of its place in Paul’s argument in Romans 5 and its wider context is appropriately the methodological emphasis of C. H. Giblin, “A Qualifying Parenthesis (Rom 5:13–14) and Its Context,” in ToTouch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989) 305-315. His conclusions, however, fall within the usual range of interpretations, which misconstrue that contextual relationship.
2. Murray taught systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and his approach to this subject is currently under vigorous promotion in WTJ.
3. On the claim involved in the term “classic” see M. W. Karlberg, “Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant,” WTJ 43 (1980) 1-57, esp. 7-41; “Moses and Christ: The Place of Law in Seventeenth-Century Puritanism,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989) 11-32.
4. See M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (privately published, 1991) 68, 180, 196–199.
5. Paul does repeatedly oppose a Judaistic misinterpretation of the law, but their error was not the assertion that there was a works principle operating in the old covenant. Rather, it was the application of that principle to eternal salvation instead of to the typological level of national Israel’s history.
6. M. Silva, “Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (ed. W. J. Barker and W. R. Godfrey; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 153 ff., esp. 165.
7. It will be argued below that such a view is incapable of interpreting Rom 5:13–14 satisfactorily.
8. Cf. D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
9. This tendency is displayed in the more immediate sphere of Murray’s influence. In the teaching of his successor, Norman Shepherd, preredemptive and redemptive covenants were flattened into a continuum of promise and demand. Continuation of the drift is evident in a recent article by David B. McWilliams, denying works in the Mosaic covenant and the possibility of meritorious obedience on the part of Adam (“The Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Recent Criticism,” WTJ 53 [1991] 109-124). The basis is thereby removed for construction of the Reformed theology of imputation in connection with the two Adams, which Murray maintained in his studies of Romans 5 but undermined in his revision of the covenant concept. Cf. the perceptive comments of M. W. Karlberg, “The Original State of Adam: Tensions within Reformed Theology,” EvQ 87 (1987) 291-309, esp. 297.
10. Murray faces more openly than most the question of why Paul selects this precise period. He does so, however, only at the end of his discussion, where it confronts him as something problematic for the approach he has adopted (The Epistle tothe Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 1. 190). See further below.
11. See the reference to Isa 24:5 in the discussion of “Adam’s transgression” (v. 14b) below.
12. Those in view are the actual beneficiaries of Christ’s saving work. Identification of them with the covenant community is an historical generalization, for the historical community is broader than the election in Christ.
13. We will find this analysis confirmed by the contrast drawn in v. 14b between the sin phenomena in these two periods.
14. Cf. H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986 [1983]) 145 n. 87.
15. To maintain the traditional concept of the covenant of works with Adam while refusing to recognize the works principle in the old covenant is not an option allowed by the Biblical data.
16. Of those who regard vv. 13–14a as referring to mankind universally, some take the kai introducing v. 14b as explicative-ascensive, others as restrictive. On my view the focus is already restricted before the kai, which can then be taken as simply ascensive.
17. See M. G. Kline, “Death, Leviathan and the Martyrs: Isaiah 24:1–27:1, ” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer (ed. W. C. Kaiser, Jr., and R. F. Youngblood; Chicago: Moody, 1986) 229-249. Also, as noted there, Isaiah 27 is a major source informing Paul’s discussion of God’s covenant and Israel in Romans 9–11.
18. Isaiah’s attribution of the breaking of the primal covenant to mankind in general (cf. “they broke”) is of interest for the debate over Rom 5:12d.
19. Hos 6:7, as preferably though disputedly rendered. It is noteworthy that Hosea’s accusation is against those under the law.
20. This is a further point of parallelism between vv. 13b and 14b.
21. This absence of law cannot be explained as an absence of commandments given by special revelation in the patriarchal era. Genesis records stipulations in God’s covenant revelation to Abraham (cf. 12:1; 17:1). Indeed, Abraham’s obedience is described in Gen 26:5 as a keeping of God’s charge, commandments, statutes, and laws, terms characteristic of the legislation revealed through Moses.
22. The fundamental conceptual correspondence is clear in spite of the distinctive verb, ellogeō, used in Rom 5:13b (elsewhere only in Phlm 18). The obvious ring of the Pauline doctrine of justification is caught by Murray, but he throws away the key with the curt comment that the provisions of justifying grace “are not in view in this verse” (Romans, 1. 189).
23. The fact that Paul draws this beatitude of gospel forgiveness out of the religious heart of the revelation of the law illustrates again the two-level complexity of the old covenant mirrored in the Pauline theology.
24. On the second view this statement of v. 14a might be related not to individual sin but to sin in the sense of v. 13a, and then v. 14a would not be inconsistent with vv. 13b and 14b.
25. This difficulty might be avoided by one who interpreted v. 14b in the restrictive sense.
26. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1980), 1. 282.
27. Cf. the comment of J. D. G. Dunn on v. 14b: “The inference here...is that ‘transgression’ is something of which Israel in particular is guilty, since Israel in particular has the law.” Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988) 276.
28. Two contributing exegetical factors are his interpretation of v. 13b as a general axiom, not an empirical situation, and his view of v. 14b as restrictive.
29. Though uncertainly considering the inclusion of those in general “outside the pale of special revelation,” he apparently falls in with the strained but customary suggestion of those in his tradition.
30. Murray, Romans, 1. 190–191.
31. Distinctive in Rom 7:7–12 is the personification of the covenant community in autobiographical style. S. Westerholm (Israel’sLaw and the Church’s Faith [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988] 181, cf. 58 ff.) is not successful in refuting the essential case made for this exegesis by D. J. Moo (“Israel and Paul in Romans 7:7–12, ” NTS 32 [1986] 122-135). His criticism is effective, however, against Moo’s relativizing of the radical life-death antithesis expressed in this passage, an error that results from his failure to do full justice to the works principle in the law.
32. This same absolute contrast confronted Israel in the dual sanctions of the law covenant: “See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil” (Deut 30:15).
33. Cf. e.g. 1 Cor 4:9; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 11:12.
34. This is the approach, mutatis mutandis, of others who see v. 12d as presenting a corporate or noumenal concept of sin/death.
35. As noted by my colleague, T. David Gordon, the identification of Adam as a federal representative like Christ in v. 14c confirms the interpretation of Adam’s transgression in v. 14b as his failure in that capacity in the primal probationary covenant.