posted by R. Fowler White
In his understandably celebrated commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Professor John Murray wrote pointedly about Paul’s reference to Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 and then elaborated on the theology of that OT text in Appendix B of the commentary. Regarding Paul’s allusion to Lev 18:5, Murray wrote:
[Lev. 18:5] does not appear in a context that deals with legal righteousness as opposed to that of faith. Lev. 18:5 is in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel …. [It] refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God.
Apart from his commentary on Romans, it is also helpful to know that when Murray chaired the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Committee on Texts and Proof Texts (whose report was adopted by the denomination’s 1955 and 1956 general assemblies), the committee inserted Lev 18:5 as a proof text for WCF 19.6. Since the insertion supports the sentence in 19.6 pertaining to the promises of the law to “the regenerate,” it is clear that Murray and his committee took Lev 18:5 to be addressed to that group, otherwise identified in 19:6 as “true believers.” The committee’s insertion, then, sheds light on Murray’s statements about Lev 18:5 in his Romans commentary and in its Appendix B.
Understanding Murray’s reasoning. Reflecting on the details above, we notice first that Murray characterizes Israel’s relationship to God in Lev 18:5 in its redemptive-historical context: they are God’s redeemed and covenant people (emphasis added), and Lev 18:5 speaks of “the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God” (emphasis added). Clearly, Murray is focused on the grace of Israel’s redemption from Egypt and their consequent reconstitution as God’s covenant community. Furthermore, Murray takes the law-keeping mentioned in Lev 18:5 to be the fruit of saving and sanctifying grace, a point confirmed in his exposition of that text in Appendix B of his commentary (see further below). When therefore Murray asserts that Lev 18:5 “does not appear in a context that deals with legal righteousness as opposed to that of faith,” we understand him to mean that Lev 18:5 appears in a context where God deals with His people according to His grace, not in a context where God deals with them according to their works (two contexts otherwise known as “the covenant of grace” and “the covenant of works”).
We must go further, however, to understand Murray’s position. If the law-keeping required in Lev 18:5 is that of a people redeemed by God and bound to Him by covenant, Murray recognizes that a question arises: how could Paul properly appeal to that text as an illustration of works-righteousness when its original context is not about works-righteousness? Does Paul, in fact, misuse Lev 18:5? Murray’s answer is forthright: in the original context, the terms of Lev 18:5 properly expresses law-keeping, in his words, as “the way of sanctification” for believers, but those same terms in themselves also express law-keeping as “the way of justification” for the ungodly. To clarify his point, he reminds us that in justification law-keeping is done by Christ and is imputed to the believer’s account; in sanctification law-keeping is produced in the believer’s life. Murray sums up his view of Lev 18:5 in Appendix B to his commentary:
We must bear in mind that righteousness and life are never separable. Within the realm of justification by grace through faith there is not only acceptance with God as righteous in the righteousness of Christ but there is also the new life which the believer lives. The new life is one of righteousness in obedience to the commandments of God. … In the renovated realm of saving and sanctifying grace, we come back to the combination righteousness–approbation–life. The witness of Scripture to the necessity and actuality of this in the redeemed, covenant life of believers is pervasive. It is this principle that appears in Lev 18:5 ….
Assessing Murray’s reasoning. Murray’s view initially commends itself when he points out that law-keeping (i.e., righteousness, obedience) has a bearing on both justification and sanctification. But is he right about Lev 18:5 and its use in Rom 10:5? If, for our purposes, we set aside Murray’s curious inattention to the typological nature of Israel’s redemption and reconstitution and focus on God’s grace toward Israel, we can understand why he says that “Lev 18:5 is in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel.” We also appreciate his point that in the realm of grace, righteousness and life are inseparable. As far as it goes, Murray’s analysis of Lev 18:5 in its context is a plausible working hypothesis. Plausible as his proposal appears, there are holes discernible in it.
One hole in Murray’s analysis is that he does not reckon with the two types of congregants to whom Moses knew that he was speaking. Moses knew that his hearers included those with circumcised hearts of faith and also those with uncircumcised hearts of unbelief, those who heard him with humility and also those who heard him with pride (Deut 1:32; 9:6-7, 12-13, 16, 23-24, 27; 10:16; 29:4; 30:6; cf. Jer 4:4; Ps 106:24; Acts 7:51; Jude 5). In the same vein, Murray does not take into account the two types of hearers mentioned in WCF 16.6-7 and 19.5-6: those who heard the law were not only believers (i.e., regenerate), but also others (i.e., unbelievers, unregenerate). Overall, then, Murray does not consider the reality that Moses himself faced: the redemption and covenant that he mediated was able only to expose but not to change their make-up as a spiritually mixed multitude. There is no doubt that this reality determined how Israel would examine themselves in the light of Lev 18:5.
Over and over again, Moses urged Israel to be careful to hear God’s claims on them with the humility of faith and not with their historically demonstrated pride of unbelief (see especially Deut 1-11). He reminded them as those who would be heirs with Abraham that they, like their father, must trust in God’s oath of suretyship, since it was His suretyship that was the gracious basis of all that they would inherit (Gen 15:6-18; Deut 1:35; 4:20, 32-40; 7:6-11; 9:1-6; 10:14-16; 11:9). To those, then, who heard Lev 18:5 with faith in the Lord as their surety, the words of WCF 19.6 would apply: “the promises of [the law] … [showed] them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.” Presumably, this is what Murray and his committee had in mind when they inserted Lev 18:5 as a proof text for WCF 19.6. Yet we observe this: the blessing promised in Lev 18:5 was not due to the regenerate by the law. On what basis was it due to them? We would all agree that the basis of blessing would be the righteousness of their surety, and we have no doubt whatsoever that Murray confesses that truth. Our concern here, however, is that that truth does not figure into his exegesis of Lev 18:5. To appreciate better how it should figure into the exegesis of Lev 18:5, it seems fitting and necessary to reflect on how believers and others examined themselves in its light.
What might we justifiably infer about those of faith when they examined themselves in light of Lev 18:5? Would they see themselves as law-keepers to whom justification and life were due by the law? We know better. No, they would humbly see themselves as law-breakers to whom condemnation and death were due by the law. They would also see how much they owed to the Divine Surety for fulfilling the law’s righteousness and for bearing its curse in their place and for their good (cf. WLC Q97a). And, yes, further, they would be spurred to more gratitude, expressing that gratitude in greater care to conform themselves to the law as the rule of their obedience (cf. WLC Q97b).
Now let us ask about the others who heard Moses, particularly those others among the covenant people. What might we justifiably infer about them when they examined themselves in light of Lev 18:5? Should it not have caused them to see their standing as law-breakers and awakened them to flee God’s wrath (cf. WLC Q96a)? Should it not have caused them to see their need of the Divine Surety and the perfection of His righteousness and driven them to Him (cf. WLC Q95-96)? To be sure. Nonetheless, we know, as Moses knew, that those without faith would seek to establish their own righteousness as law-keepers to whom justification and life would be due by the law (cf. Rom 9:31-32; 10:3). Indeed, we know, as Moses knew, that many in Israel’s mixed multitude persisted in the pride of unbelief and self-righteousness, and that the law left them without excuse and under its curse (cf. WLC Q96). Thus, Lev 18:5 in its context does refer to the truth that justification and life were due only to the law-keeper and that any law-breaker who would seek to establish his own righteousness as a law-keeper was condemned. The law-breaker’s only hope was to repent and heed the witness that the law itself bore to the Divine Surety and the perfection of His righteousness.
The preceding considerations lead us to a second hole in Murray’s exegesis of Lev 18:5 (cf. Deut 27:26). Despite Paul’s two citations of Moses in Rom 10:5-8, Murray does not appear to give enough attention to how Paul’s appeal to Moses in Rom 10:5 correlates with his appeal to Moses in Rom 10:6-8. In Rom 10:5 Paul shows that in Lev 18:5 (as in Deut 27:26) Moses taught the righteousness of the law according to which justification and life would belong only to the seed who fulfilled it. By contrast, in Rom 10:6-8 Paul shows that in Deut 30:11-14 Moses also taught the righteousness of faith according to which the justification and life promised by the law were available to every law-breaker who believes in the Surety, to whom alone justification and life belonged according to the perfection of His own righteousness (Rom 10:4-13; 1 Tim 3:16 [KJV, ASV, NKJV]; Rom 3:21-22; cf. Gen 15:6-18; 12:3; 22:17b-18). In keeping with his heart’s desire and prayer for Israel (Rom 10:1), Paul’s overall message, especially to his Jewish readers, was that they should do as he did: follow Moses, who taught not only the righteousness of the law but the righteousness of faith also. So, yes, Moses taught both contrasting principles in the one Sinai covenant, and he could do so because those two principles were made compatible by the Surety who fulfilled God’s word (Rom 10:4, 6-9; 9:32b-33). Evidently, as Paul understood it, it was with a view to faith in that Surety that Moses discipled Israel in the contrasting but compatible principles of the righteousness of (i.e., required by) the law and the righteousness of (i.e., received by) faith.
With Murray we ought to affirm that Paul did not misuse Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5. We ought also to agree with him that Lev 18:5 appears in a context in which the claims of God upon His covenant people, redeemed from Egypt, are being asserted and urged upon Israel. Still, there is reason to conclude that Murray’s exegesis of Lev 18:5 has holes in it. Addressing Israel as a mixed multitude, in Lev 18:5 Moses taught that justification and life were due only to the law-keeper and, conversely, that condemnation and death were due to all law-breakers. Yet Moses also taught in Deut 30:11-14 that the law-breaker’s only hope of blessing lay in the Surety whom Abraham trusted and to whom the law of Moses itself bore witness. All who refused to submit to God’s righteousness through faith and sought instead to establish their own righteousness would be without excuse and under the law’s curse. Having severed themselves from the Divine Surety in the pride of their unbelief and self-righteousness, they turned the Sinai covenant into just another covenant without a surety and consigned themselves as law-breakers to condemnation and death (Gal 5:4; 2 Cor 3:7, 9).
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Reed Here said,
January 16, 2024 at 2:34 pm
Quite helpful.
While maybe not intended, I can see in this analysis an eliminating of a “republication” principle in the Mosaic Law. Yes, the blessings could be earned (cov. of Works), but only by perfect obedience. Since this was impossible, this “reading” of the ML (as a cov. of works), like a calculator used to divide by zero, always returned “error”.
Yet this feature (the law’s condemning function) is surely a cov. of grace feature.
At most, we can say the self-righteous pursuer sees the cov. of works republished in the ML. The regenerated, however, see what is only there, the cov. of grace in its condemnation of the sinner, and its pointing to the Savior.
Roger said,
January 16, 2024 at 2:59 pm
Absolutely correct! You did a fine job of pointing out the deficiency in Murray’s reasoning here. Additionally, if we follow Murray’s position to its logical end, there would be no ground or basis for our justification in God’s sight. In other words, if “the righteousness of the law according to which justification and life would belong only to the seed who fulfilled it” was not taught in Leviticus 18:5, then on what basis was Jesus able to merit righteousness for His elect people? Keep in mind that Jesus did not fulfill the original “covenant of works,” which had already been broken by the first Adam and brought all of mankind under the penalty of sin and death. Rather, Scripture plainly states: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). Jesus fulfilled “the Law” expressly as it was revealed within the Mosaic covenant, under which He was born as an innocent man (as the second Adam) and obligated to perfectly obey in order to redeem and merit righteousness for His elect people. Murray unwittingly undermined the entire gospel of grace with his teaching here.
rfwhite said,
January 16, 2024 at 3:48 pm
#1. Reed: As you picked up from the post, I don’t see the Sinai covenant falling into the covenant-of-works category. I say that because, as I see it, a covenant of works has no provision(s) for a surety; only a covenant of grace does. The content of Sinai published both God’s righteous requirements and also His provisions for a surety (and those provisions are in a shadow-and-type form especially associated with the messianic offices and the sacrifices). So, I see Sinai’s content including the works principle along with the grace principle.
rfwhite said,
January 16, 2024 at 4:29 pm
#2 Roger: I appreciate you weighing in. A couple of points come to mind … As for the logical end of Murray’s exegesis of Lev 18:5, we might say it this way: thankfully, Murray’s sound legacy on justification by faith does not depend on his exegesis of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5. … As for Jesus and the covenant of works, we seem to have a difference or two. I agree that we have to recognize the discontinuities between the law under which Jesus was born and lived and the standard under which Adam was created and lived. Our differences would probably show up, for example, in that I take it that Paul’s argument in Rom 5 requires a common (at least overlapping) moral standard for Adam and Jesus. That might be a subject for another post!
Roger said,
January 17, 2024 at 1:11 pm
Thank you for your response, Mr. White. While I’m sure we have some minor differences (e.g., I do not fully agree with the WCF on a number of points), I would certainly agree that Paul’s argument in Romans 5 requires “a common (at least overlapping) moral standard for Adam and Jesus.” Personally, I see this requirement being met by the fact that “the work of the Law” (Rom. 2:15) is written upon the hearts of all mankind, and thus applied to both Adam and Jesus as the first and last man. Therefore, while Jesus was required to obey the entire Mosaic Law (Gal. 4:4-5) – i.e., He was covenantally bound under its authority as an Israelite – by doing so He ipso facto fulfilled the “common” moral standard that applied to Adam (prior to the Mosaic Law being given) and Himself (after the Mosaic Law had been given). Thus, while the Mosaic Covenant indeed held forth the same (or at least overlapping) moral standard that applies to all mankind in the original covenant of works, and typologically held forth the promise of the covenant of grace in its ceremonial commands, in itself it is neither THE covenant of works or THE covenant of grace. While much more could be said to flesh that out in greater detail, that’s my position in a nutshell.
As a side note, I view the original covenant of works as being made solely with Adam as the federal head of all mankind (apart from Jesus, the second Adam). Once that covenant was broken by Adam, only its condemnatory power over mankind remains in force. Therefore, Jesus Himself was never under the covenant of works per se. Moreover, I view the covenant of grace (or new covenant) as being made solely with Christ as the federal head of His elect people, and He indeed fulfilled that covenant by His death burial and resurrection for their sins – “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). However, the question in my mind is what specific “law” did Jesus fulfill in order to qualify Himself as being fully righteous under the terms of the new covenant between Himself and the Father? To me it seems clear that Scripture explicitly answers this question by repeatedly citing the legal promises of eternal life and righteousness by obedience to the Mosaic Law:
“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them.” (Lev. 18:5)
“Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”” (Matt. 19:16-17)
“And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”” (Luke 10:25-28)
“For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.” (Rom. 2:13)
“And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.” (Rom. 7:10)
“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”” (Rom. 10:5)
“Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”” (Gal. 3:12)
Jesus indeed fulfilled these requirements of the Mosaic Law in our stead (Gal. 4:4-5), proving Himself to in fact be a righteous man who merited eternal life and redeemed us by His works of obedience to its demands. Hopefully that clarifies where I’m coming from a bit.
Moses in Moab, Grace, and Works | Green Baggins said,
March 13, 2024 at 5:15 pm
[…] that He was dealing with sinful man on the basis of the principle of works. Others maintain (with John Murray) that God administered the law as a rule of obedience, meaning that He was dealing with sinful man […]