Despite some criticisms of this book (by Doug Wilson, although he has also some positive things to say about it), I read the whole book with the greatest pleasure. In fact, there were times I had to put the book down and literally dance around the room in pure glee, because of a point made that undermined the various heresies floating around today in Reformed-dom. Buy the book. That is not a request. It is a command. What with this book and By Faith Alone, which is just about to hit the stalls, the FV and NPP will have a hard time in Reformed circles from now on.
I’m just going to hit a few of the high lights. All the essays were top-notch, in my opinion. And just because I am mentioning some essays and not others, does not mean I found the unmentioned ones unprofitable. I have underlining on just about every page (and I am spare with the pencil!).
First up: Iain Duguid’s outstanding critique of covenantal nomism from the perspective of the OT. If staying in the covenant (to use Sanders’s jargon) means works, then Israel would have been sunk countless times. Even if we grant (which I don’t) that NPP authors do not hold to a view of the OT like this, it at least proves that the 2TJ that Sanders describes has nothing to do with the OT.
Scott Clark points out why it is that we no longer define Reformed theology by the symbols of the 3FU and the WS: “Rather than identifying ourselves as Reformed and defining Reformed by the symbols, over time we identified ourselves as conservatives and came to regard our Reformed identity as just a subset of a broader antimodern reaction” (pg. 6).
David VanDrunen and Scott Clark point out the importance of the pactum salutis. It underlies all of covenant theology. This is a very similar point to that made in the White/Beisner article in By Faith Alone. In fact, it was extremely interesting to compare the two articles, which have quite a bit of overlap (though by no means superfluous: buy both books!).
Michael Horton has a footnote in his article that destroys the “works of the law” interpretation of the NPP: “If in Romans 2 the Jews are condemned for not fulfilling the works of the law, that can hardly fit circumcision, dietary laws, etc., which they did in fact keep scrupulously” (pg. 214, footnote 45).
Godfrey quotes Bavinck as saying that there is no difference between Calvin and Luther on justification (pg. 268). Amen.
I decided not to do with this book what I did with By Faith Alone, since CJPM is twice as long, and even Doug Wilson does not do each article justice. So I merely point out some of the many highlights in an effort to whet your appetite for this fantastic book. Buy it. that is not a request.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“If in Romans 2 the Jews are condemned for not fulfilling the works of the law, that can hardly fit circumcision, dietary laws, etc., which they did in fact keep scrupulously”
But *are* the Jews condemned for not fulfilling the works of the law in Romans 2? The phrase doesn’t occur there.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Is this a serious question, Todd? “Doing good” (verse 7), “works what is good” (vs 10), “”doers of the law” (vs. 13), “rest on the law” (vs 17), “doing the law” (vs 25), “requirements of the law” (vs 26), “fulfills the law” (vs 27). Does the phrase itself have to occur for the criticism to “work?” Furthermore, this criticism works in many other chapters of Romans as well. The man who attempts to find justification by the works of the law is condemned. But that cannot be the circumcision, dietary laws, etc., since that would be something that the Jews observed scrupulously.
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 2:40 pm
But where in Romans 2 are the Jews condemend for what they *haven’t* done? Isn’t it a matter of “trangressions of” rather than “lack of conformity unto”? I simply find it odd for MH to pick out Romans 2 for making this point.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm
They are condemned for not repenting in verse 4, for not “obeying the truth” in verse 8, implied “not working what is good” in verse 10, implied “not doers of the law” in verse 13, comparison with Gentiles in verse 14, who do the law (implied that Jews do not). How is that not exactly what you require?
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Okay, sure. I’m with you. But Romans 2 is hardly a good test case for the interpretation of “works of the law.” Reading *this* chapter in terms of works of the law assumes what your view wants to prove, that “works of the law” is a phrase that includes more than just the boundary markers. At the very least, it’s hardly worth dancing about.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Onthe contrary, Todd, it proves that under no circumstances is it a good understanding of the phrase, since the works of the law in the rest of Romans depends on what Romans 2 is talking about. Romans 2 is paradigmatic when it comes to obedience to the law. Therefore the NPP is completely wrong on this.
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Okay. Maybe. But you’re still assuming a lot of what you wish to prove. Comment #6 is an unproven assertion, although I think I agree with it.
Hey, speaking of Romans 2, though, which Gentiles do what the law requires, showing that the work of the law (!) is written on their hearts? Gentile Christians? Or someone else?
Chris Hutchinson said,
March 1, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Lane,
Dancing? And now commanding us things properly left to our own Christian freedom?
Are you sure that you are Reformed? ;-)
I’ve enjoyed your reviews. Keep up the good work.
Chris H.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Yes, I am a dictator on this blog, and everyone has to do exactly what I say!
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I think that sometimes Paul has one, sometimes the other in view. For instance, in verse 24, certainly the unbelieving Gentile is in view. However, in verse 15, Paul seems to make a distinction between believers and non-believers. I think that Paul is primarily thinking of non-believers. What do you think?
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I’m thinking that Paul wouldn’t say that any unbeliever had the law written on his heart–this is a blessing of the new covenant. But it is again a matter of taking things that come up explicitly only later in Romans and bringing them back into our understanding of Romans 2.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 4:47 pm
But is the law Paul is talking about there the natural law which makes all men to be without excuse? Surely the Gentile who is “without the law” in verse 14 is without the Torah. He is without the Israelite version of the law. So he doesn’t need to have the Torah written on his heart in order to have the law.
vox reformata said,
March 1, 2007 at 4:48 pm
aaaah, sooooothing, nothing like a glass of cold bias.
greenbaggins said,
March 1, 2007 at 4:54 pm
As I have said before, I do not allow anonymous comments on this blog. Please identify yourself, or you will have your posts removed.
Andrew Malloy said,
March 1, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Lane,
Vox reformata will probably not reveal his identity. I have this crazy feeling it is a FV guy (due to other posts he has made on other blogs; probably Doug Wilson or something).
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 6:00 pm
But why would Paul use such loaded language–law written on the heart–if he didn’t want his readers to think of the new covenant? Is this phrase ever used otherwise in the OT?
Stewart said,
March 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. — Jer. 31:33
Todd said,
March 1, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Right. Would Paul use this language in a way that has nothing to do with the promise of new covenant?
Stewart said,
March 1, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I dont think so. :-)
inwoo said,
March 1, 2007 at 11:09 pm
couldn’t put the book down.
there’s some solid gold nuggets in there! book worth the buck.
Todd said,
March 2, 2007 at 7:58 am
Yes, inwoo, but did you dance?
Andrew Malloy said,
March 2, 2007 at 8:47 am
Todd, did you read the book? If not, you really shouldn’t be commenting; if so, continue on! :)
Andrew Malloy said,
March 2, 2007 at 8:51 am
Hey Lane,
I started my internship! I am excited to see what happens. That is, dealing with the testing of my gifts that He has given to me. http://www.redeemerchurchms.org/ is my church website.
Hope everything is going well with your ministry, thanks for all of your work.
Cory said,
March 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Todd and others,
There is a point you are missing it seems to me in Rom 2. The apostle is speaking of unbelieving gentiles in verese 13 and 14. He is not speaking of the law as it comes to covenant members. He is speaking of the *works* of the law as in natural law. “or when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts”
The WORK of the law is written on their hearts, not the law itself. That is the difference. The work of the law means that they have put into their conscience the necessity of obeying the moral law. But the law itself is not written into their hearts like it is to those in Christ. Then the law itself is written on our hearts and we use the law for that which it was intended–namely love for God.
Stewart said,
March 2, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Commenting about what, Andrew?
Todd said,
March 2, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“The work of the law means that they have put into their conscience the necessity of obeying the moral law.”
OK. I’m open to this. But I don’t think you’ve done anything except assert it. How would you go about demonstrating a distinction between the work of the law and the law itself?
Stewart said,
March 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Todd, go read Turretin, vol 1 pp.575-576.
fRANK qUIJADA said,
March 2, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Wrong again Andrew Malloy. You’re awfully good at that.
I didn’t know we couldn’t use screen names, which BTW you should use “big mouth” or something along those lines. So here’s my name.
Sorry Green Baggins, I’ll use my name from now on. Can you also “dance” because of that?
Esau said,
March 2, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Let’s be civil, at least – can’t we?
David Wallace
fRANK qUIJADA said,
March 2, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Yeah-yeah. I apologize.
Stewart said,
March 2, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Yeah, let’s be “civil.” Lane, will you stop categorizing FV Folks as heretics?
David said,
March 2, 2007 at 11:55 pm
When I read Romans 2, it seems to me that vv25-29 are saying much the same thing as vv13-16.
For example, “If a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” = “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
It also seems like the “for” at the beginning of verse 14 indicates the verse is unpacking the last clause of verse 13: who are these “doers of the law who will be justified”?
That’s how I see it. But maybe that’s just me. Thoughts, anyone?
Andrew Malloy said,
March 3, 2007 at 12:48 am
I don’t think I talk enough to be labeled as ‘big mouth,’ and why are you saying ‘wrong AGAIN’?
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 3, 2007 at 2:13 am
test
html
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 3, 2007 at 4:50 am
Lane,
Are you saying that “the law” never means specifically the ceremonial law?
I don’t see how Rom. 4:16 can be interpreted any other way. In that verse, there is a distinction made between those “who are of the law” and those “who are of the faith of Abraham”, but the distinction is not between the unfaithful and faithful (as it is in some other places). In that verse, those “who are of the law” have Abraham as their father, they are the seed, the promise is made sure to them, and it is of faith and according to grace. So, in Rom. 4:16, those “who are of the law” are believing Jews – they have the faith that their father Abraham had while circumcised. The believing gentiles also have the faith of Abraham – his faithwhile still uncircumcised (verses 11-12).
Paul’s use of “the law” is complicated, but the context of each usage makes it clear whether he is talking about the whole law or only a part of it. Here is one example which I think is incontrovertible. In Gal. 3:7, Paul says “the law” was added 430 years after the promise was given to Abraham. Here, Paul limits the law to only one portion of the ceremonial law. Here “the law” doesn’t refer to the moral law and it doesn’t refer to circumcision. Rather, it refers to the mosaic laws of temple, priesthood and sacrifices, separation, justice, etc. This is the law that was added because of transgressions. This is the tutor that we are no longer under.
By contrast, in Rom. 2:26 “the law” is referring to the moral law without the ceremonies. After all, if an uncircumcised man can keep the righteous requirements of the law then in this context circumcision can’t be one of those requirements.
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 3, 2007 at 4:57 am
To answer Horton’s footnote I would say two things. First, you are right that in most of Romans 2 and in many other places “law” is not referring to ceremonial law or “boundary markers” – the unbelieving Jews were here also being condemned for breaking God’s moral law (2:17-23). But, you are wrong to suggest that unbelieving Jews kept circumcision, the dietary laws, temple and sabbath observances, etc. scrupulously. They didn’t keep these laws at all. Hypocritical obedience is not only worthless, it is worse, it is a mockery and a cause for greater condemnation. If an unbelieving Jew refrained from eating shrimp, but then had sex with pagan harlots, it is not as though he kept one command out of two. He made a mockery out of the separation and holiness laws and it would have been better for him if he had not defiled the ceremonies. You cannot scrupulously “keep” physical circumcision without faith – it becomes uncircumcision. You cannot observe the shadow of sacrifices if you deny and despise the reality.
To belabor the point: If a married man beat his wife and had sex with other women, we would not say that he kept his marriage vows scrupulously, but had problems in other areas. His wickedness means he is not keeping his vows. To say that unbelieving Jews kept circumcision and the other ceremonial laws scrupulously is like saying that the Corinthians observed the Lord’s Supper scrupulously. The outward forms were present, but they were betrayed, twisted, defiled, lied against, trod underfoot- anything but “kept”.
Blessings,
Mahaffey
greenbaggins said,
March 3, 2007 at 10:15 am
But Sean, you are imposing a later view of the law onto what the Jews thought they were doing. They thought they were keeping the law. Of course, Paul (and especially James) would agree with you that that’s how the law *ought* to have been interpreted. But that is not, in fact, how the Jews were interpreting the law. They thought that the outward things could be kept and that therefore they were keeping the law. They did circumcize their flesh (though not their hearts). They did observe the dietary laws (but not keeping themselves truly holy, since no one can). However, that is not the force of Paul’s argument in Romans 2, where the entire moral law is in view, not just a part of the national Israelite covenant.
greenbaggins said,
March 3, 2007 at 10:15 am
By the way, welcome to my blog Sean. Do you have a blog of your own?
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 3, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Thanks for the welcome and the interaction. I don’t have a blog of my own yet (I’m still html illiterate and write too slowly to post anything on a regular basis).
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 3, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Lane, this is not a later view of the law – it is the original intent. When you say that the Jews were misinterpreting the law and that they erroneously thought they were keeping it, I agree. But we have to specify that we are talking about culpably ignorant and immoral Jews, not faithful Jews. By contrast, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Joseph and Mary, Anna, Simeone, John and all those in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 knew that keeping the law meant living by faith alone. They knew that God required love from a pure heart and they knew that they were called to be holy. They knew that they were imperfect sinners and that they must be cleansed by God and forgiven to be acceptable in His sight
This was not a hidden mystery and it was not a later or New Testament addition to the law. The teachers of Israel should have known these things. The Psalms are full of confession of sin and thanksgiving for forgiveness. The Old Testament believers knew that God did not desire sacrifices and burnt offerings, but rather required inward truth and a contrite heart (Ps. 50 & 51). It was the law that required love of God and man from the heart (Deut 6 & Lev. 19). It was the law that required a circumcised heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4). It was the law and the prophets that commanded humility, mercy, love, truth, repentance, and purity (Lev. 19:17-18; Hos. 6:6; Isa.1:1-20; Mic. 6:1-8). It was the Old Testament that taught that man is sinful and can not stand in the sight of God unless He is merciful and forgives us and cleanses us (Ex. 15:13; 20:6; Num. 14:18-19; I Kings 8:2; Ps. 51).
My point then is this: There is nothing new about Paul’s condemnation of the Jews behavior. He is bringing the same rebuke that the prophets brought against Israel. If anything, Pauls’ language is milder – he says “your circumcision has become uncircumcision”. Isaiah declared that God hated the sacrifices which the Israelites brought – that they had become an abomination to Him.
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 4, 2007 at 12:25 am
So, I want to reiterate my point contra Horton. The Corinthians were not scrupulously observing the Lord’s Supper – “when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (I Cor. 11:20). The unbelieving Jews in the time of the New Testament were not keeping the law of circumcision or the laws of sacrifice or separation – if they did not have Abraham’s faith then their circumcision was uncircumcision and was offensive to God. And this is not a new teaching or new rebuke. “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, king of Judah… Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, You people of Gomorrah: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the Lord. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats. “When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies– I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword”; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isa. 1).
Sean Mahaffey said,
March 4, 2007 at 12:26 am
God’s covenant people have always been tempted to trust in the gracious symbols God gives – the bronze serpent, “the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord”, the sacrifices, circumcision (and baptism and the Lord’s Supper). The unbelieving Jews were a generation of murderers and adulterers. They were not trying to be justified by loving God and neighbor and being faithful to their family. They were trying to be justified by trusting in circumcision. But they were wicked. They were not keeping the righteous requirements of the law – love and faith. And they were not keeping circumcision. Circumcision demanded confession of the sinfulness of the flesh and the saving power of God. It demanded a new heart and loving obedience. Paul’s argument is not “You have kept the law of circumcision, but forgotten the moral law.” Rather, his argument is “Fools and Blind! You ain’t got nothin!”
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Stewart said,
March 5, 2007 at 9:49 am
Great stuff, Sean.
greenbaggins said,
March 5, 2007 at 11:40 am
Sean, I agree with a lot of what you have said here. However, the point of Paul’s argument is not “let’s go back and observe circumcision properly.” Paul’s point is not that the Jews weren’t obeying the boundary markers correctly, and that therefore they ought to do so. Paul’s point is faith versus works. So MH’s point is that the Jews outwardly kept these boundary markers. I don’t think that inward, true keeping of these boundary markers need be in view here. The Jews thought that they were keeping Torah by an outward show of keeping the whole Torah. Paul’s point thus cannot be limited to boundary markers. It simply doesn’t fit the scope of his argument. As the examples of how the Jews are *not* keeping Torah, the boundary markers are not mentioned, but rather stealing, adultery, idolatry, etc (vv. 21-23). Therefore, the boundary markers are not primarily in Paul’s purview. Paul is saying that the Jews were teaching the moral law, but not doing it.
Todd said,
March 5, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“Paul is saying that the Jews were teaching the moral law, but not doing it.”
And that there are Gentiles out there who are doing it.
Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry | R. Scott Clark, ed. at PastorBookshelf said,
March 20, 2007 at 3:31 pm
[...] Lane Keister, Green Baggins (03/07) Review [...]