The traditional understanding of Jesus’ life that I have been immersed in is this. I am a sinner, violating God’s law. That law demands perfect obedience to it by me to enter into heaven, to be saved. John Piper paints this picture. Imagine a large boulder, a rock that is immeasurable. That rock is God’s righteousness, his moral perfection and standard that he demands his creatures live up to. Because I, like all human beings, have sinned against God and do not meet God’s standard, that boulder stands over me as God’s wrath and judgment. The doctrine of imputation comes into play at this point in the metaphor. Jesus has perfectly obeyed the law and has met this impossible standard that God has set and demands. He exchanges with me, by faith, his perfect obedience for my sin. The effect is that this boulder now becomes my rock-solid, immovable foundation upon which I stand before God in his judgment. Jesus now stands under the same boulder and stands condemned by God for my sin. That picture is a beautiful picture that Piper paints, and is very helpful in understanding his doctrine of imputation.

This year, along with some guys at my church, I am reading through the entire Bible in 90 days–I should be done in March. Recently the reading plan completed the Torah, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. After reading those books I don’t feel like this is the best reading of Israel’s Law. Nor do I believe that it is the most desirable reading of the Law.

Genesis 1 paints a vocation for humanity. That is to be God’s image on the earth, exercising God’s dominion and filling the earth with his image through family. Adam and Eve, as we know, failed to complete this task. When God called Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 the promise of a family living in a land climaxes in the promise that through Abraham’s family God would bless all the families of the earth. Abraham’s descendants would restore humanity to its original vocation. When rescued from Egypt God gives Israel the vocation of the royal priesthood (Exodus 19:6).

Pushing this farther is how God introduces the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. The wording of the commandments indicates that the Law is a moral standard that Israel is to live up to in order to be God’s people and live in the land promised to Abraham. Rather, it is how they are to live because they are God’s people and are going to possess the land.

In Deuteronomy 27 God lists out the blessings and curses for faithfully living out God’s Torah. The blessings climax with God saying that Israel will be so blessed that the nations will have to come to them for sustenence. If Israel is unfaithful to the Law she will not be blessed and will be so dependent upon the nations that they will be carried off into exile.

The picture that emerges is that Israel’s obedience to the Law is about fulfilling Israel’s task, her vocation, Adam’s task. The blessing that God intended to unleash upon the world through Adam will be realised through Israel being faithful to God through Torah. It’s how Israel is to live as God’s people. It’s eschatological.

So when Jesus comes and is the fulfillment of Israel, he is taking on this eschatological destiny. He is observing the Torah in the way God intended so that God’s blessings could come upon the earth. It’s not the picture that Piper paints, as attractive as the picture is. Jesus is bringing Israel’s vocation to pass. He is bringing Adam’s mission to completion. His miracles are part of this blessing that God planned and promised to unleash. The healings and forgiveness and love and compassion are the eschatological blessings being realized.

It’s a question I have had to wrestle with ever since I started to read N. T. Wright. Before reading his work the model Christus Victor wasn’t something I took seriously. Instead I dressed it up within the framework of another model, namely penal substitution.

But Wright has forced me to ask the question a new, “Why did Jesus have to die?” My normal, penal substitution/neo-Calvinistic, conservative evangelical answer would have been along this narrative. Man has sinned and transgressed God’s law. Because of this sinners deserve and will get the just sentence of hell–eternal conscious torment. Jesus came, lived a perfect life and did not violate God’s moral law. He was crucified on the cross and raised from the dead. God exchanged man’s sin for Jesus’ perfect obedience. Jesus’ crucifixion was him suffering God’s wrath–hell–in dying, the wrath for the sins of those who are in Christ. He was raised to prove, justify, vindicate his penal substitutionary death–proved that Jesus’ death did satisfy God’s justice. It was our proof of purchase, our receipt from God to show we are going to heaven. In short, the reason why Jesus died was to take away my sin so that I will go to heaven when I die if I believe in him.

Wright has forced me to grapple with the historical picture of Jesus. To come to terms with the narratives the Gospels have painted of Jesus and the meaning to Jesus’ death within those narratives. That Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth. He ministered three years and taught about the “kingdom of God,” painting a picture of what it will look like while implicitly critiquing Israel for failing to be that picture as they were called to be. He was hailed a king on Sunday; condemned and died as a rebel king on Friday, and raised to life on Sunday. In short, Jesus’ death was the climax to Jesus’ ministry to bring about the kingdom of God here on earth.

The challenge is how to put these two narrative strands together in a way the honors both. Are the Gospels Passion narratives (another name for the story of Jesus’ final week on earth, his time in Jerusalem ending in his death) with extended introductions? Or are they something else? How do we take the picture of Jesus in the Gospels and put it together with what Paul and the others say in the epistles? It’s the end all, be all question at the heart of the Christianity. It’s the question I look forward to answering with my high school students this Sunday.

N. T. Wright likens this question and the event of the crucifixion to some of the ancient maps. Like these maps with Jerusalem being the center of the world, so is the cross of Jesus the center of Christianity. How these are put together determines everything.

Recently some friends asked why I have been silent on the whole Rob Bell saga. My answer was that there isn’t a whole lot to say about it and that my Reformed brethren’s rush to judgement about the theology of a pastor based upon the promotional material for a book due out on Tuesday (March 15, 2011) was embarrassing. But that’s what I do want to talk about, the Reformed response.

Before I talk about it, I want to make something clear. I’m not a Rob Bell fan. I’ve never really liked him. As a student of Greek I find his handling of the language to be laughable at best–and to me discredits him as an authority. I also want to say that I haven’t read all his books, watched his Nooma video series, or listen to his podcasts. I’ve only read Velvet Elvis and laughed as I put it back on the shelf.

So with that established, I want to offer a critique of the Reformed response from within camp. There are two points that I want to make. The response was premature and thus unfair. And the response was based upon presuppositions about Rob Bell before actually hearing him.

When Rob Bell released his promo material for his book Love Wins at the end of February he touched off a violent F-5 tornado from the Reformed community. Justin Taylor blogged that Rob Bell has moved farther away from orthodoxy, going so far as to label him a universalist. John Piper tweeted, “Farewell @robbell” (I’m assuming he meant @realrobbell, which is the twitter account of the author/pastor under scrutiny). The dean of Boyce College (part of Southern Seminary), Denny Burk, joined Piper and Taylor. Kenny DeYoung came to Taylor’s defense in the wake of the backlash.

As a Reformed guy, especially as one who looks up to Piper in many ways, it was sad to see this happen. I understand that Bell has some out-there ideas. I understand he has a lot in common with the “emerging church” movement (Bell has denied being part of that group and I’ll give him benefit of the doubt there).

But why rush to judgement on the promotional material? If Piper was getting ready to publish a book, made the promo controversial, and people were labeling him a heretic without having read his book, he’d be upset and rightfully so. He would want people to wait and see what he said in the book where his actual claims are being put forward and his reasons for claiming them can be examined. His supporters, like Taylor and Burk, would plead for people to read the book before coming to conclusions. They would call it rushing to judgment and premature to label Piper as a heretic.

So to label Bell as a heretic, however true it may turn out to be next week, was rushed. And because it’s rushed it’s not fair at all. Isn’t one of the great things about America, and being a Christian, supposed to be a person isn’t going to be assumed guilty without first proving that guilt? I mean DeYoung’s post grasps at straws to say Bell’s questions were more than mere questions, but didactic by nature, smuggling in truth claims through the back door. There’s no interest in being fair here at all.

Which leads me to my second point. The Reformed response seems to have read in their presuppositions about bell into the video. When I watched the promo video and read the publisher blurb, I didn’t immediately think universalism. In fact, I thought Bell raised some good questions that should be answered by myself and my Reformed brothers. I didn’t assume Bell was setting up a heresy in these questions. And because of that I didn’t feel Bell was sneaking heresy in.

But Taylor, Burk, DeYoung, and others have assumed heresy first, without reading what the book actually claims, and then viewed the promo material. They are reading Bell with presuppositions of heresy.

I remember at the Desiring God national conference on postmodernism back in 2006 (I believe it was 2006). Mark Driscoll was preaching on the church in a postmodern context. He discussed Velvet Elvis and the illustration of a brick wall the Bell used. Driscoll, giving the exact page, claims that Bell said we can throw away the virgin birth of Jesus, and that Bell doesn’t believe in it. In the book all Bell is doing is challenging the idea that doctrine should be placed together like a brick wall. Bell even states that he believes in the virgin birth. Love Wins isn’t the first time people presupposed Bell is stating heresy. But this is probably people have done so before actually reading his book.

When I look at how hard and devastating the Reformed response to Bell’s promotional video and publisher’s note, I am reminded of the F-5 tornado. The funnel cloud can be up to a mile in diameter. Winds range between 261-318 mph. These things can turn cars into missiles and take the bark off of a tree. They are the most destructive force in nature. Skyscrapers cower in fear before the F-5 tornado. And that’s what I saw from the Reformed guys like Justin Taylor and John Piper.

There was no grace. There was no waiting to see what the book said. Piper’s tweet comes awfully close to saying that Bell is dead to him. “Farewell Rob Bell.” There was no invitation for dialogue and discussion and debate. There was only casting about the label of heretic. There was only condemnation. There was only the devastation of the F-5 twister.

I have no clue what Rob Bell is going to say. I prefer my heresy to come from N. T. Wright. When it comes to the doctrines of heaven and hell Rob Bell may believe that love wins, whatever that may mean. But when it came tommy brothers’ response to his promo stuff, Bell was devastatingly wrong. Love did not win.

This discussion of N. T. Wright’s case comes from his book Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (IVP, Downers Grove, IL, 2009) on pages 216-224. Wright’s argument follows on his discussion of Romans 3:21-30 as he sees Romans 3:21-4:25 as one whole argument by Paul. So one needs to read the whole chapter to really see Wright’s interpretation (really the whole book).

The issue for Wright is not about how gets “saved” or goes to heaven when they die. Justification is about more than just that. It’s about the promises God made and the covenants he gave to accomplish them. Thus in Romans 4:1-8, Paul is discussing Genesis 15 and what was promised and sealed by covenant to Abraham. It is not a mere abstract discussion of Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2.

Wright retranslates Romans 4:1-2 as, “What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a boast–but not in the presence of God.” This translation is significantly different from what you find in the standard translations like the ESV or NIV. In Wright’s translation, the issue is how did Abraham become the forefather to the family of God that was to be the vessel through which God sets the world right. Was it by something in Abraham, giving him grounds to boast on, or God’s grace through Abraham’s faith?

The citation of Genesis 15:6 loudly shuts down the idea that it was by works. Abraham believed the promise made in Genesis 15:4-5. And that faith, that trust, that believing God’s promise counted as Abraham’s righteousness (Genesis 15:6; cf. Romans 4:3). Abraham did not work to put God in his debt, making the given righteousness a wage earned. Rather, understanding that he is a sinner and is ungodly, Abraham trusted God–looking away from himself–and believed that God justifies the ungodly. God graciously counted this faith for righteousness.

Wright wants to keep in mind what it was that Abraham was believing, namely God’s promise to give him a family (Genesis 15:5). It was not “forgiveness of sin” or “how one gets to heaven when they die.” There is no combat against Pelagianism or Roman Catholicism. Yes the fact that because Abraham was “ungodly” when God called him, and that it was his faith in God’s promise that was counted as his righteousness, that these heretical theologies are incorrect. But Paul is not writing about and against those heresies.

And when Paul brings in the citation of David from Psalm 32:1-2 Wright argues that Paul is saying it’s in the covenant of Genesis 15, in the family given to Abraham, that God was going to forgive sin, not counting sin against a person.

Thus we find Abraham to be our forefather by faith. God graciously gave Abraham the covenant by faith. It is by faith that he received his membership into God’s saving purposes. It is by faith he is the first in the family of forgiven sinners. He was ungodly and God did not count his sin against him.

Righteousness becomes one’s status as a member of that family, as in and heir to the Genesis 15 covenant. Faith is that which identifies one as part of that family and covenant. Faith is the badge that circumcision once was. Abraham became part of that family, received the covenant, justified by his faith in the promises God made. Genesis 17:11 said the badge (“sign and seal”) of the covenant was circumcision; Romans 4:11says the badge (“sign and seal”) of righteousness is faith (Wright observes that Paul turns covenant in Genesis 17:11 into righteousness in Romans 4:11).

That faith is believing God brings life from death. For Abraham, it was that God can cause Sarah to become pregnant by Abraham in their old age, when their bodies were dead. For the Christian, faith that God brings life from death is that Jesus was raised from the dead.

A friend of mine, Thom, had a good question about this discussion. He asked,

Honest question – How does Jesus’s discussion of the sheep and the goats, separated in eternity by virtue of their works (which we all agree are done through the power of the Spirit) not point to Wright’s view?
What I’m asking is, why does it seem Jesus has no qualms with positing that their WORKS are what bring about a certain judicial decision from God?
There’s no mention of Christ’s meriting works here a what finally decides their destiny. There’s no mention of faith. There’s just a mention of their works.
Again, this is an honest question; I’m not all up on these Wright vs. Reformed debates. I’m just wondering how you who hold the Reformed position go about dealing with this passage, especially considering that it seems like it could be a proof-text IN SUPPORT of Wright.
(And I do understand this is largely an argument about Paul, but as I’m more interested in the entire biblical corpus, I thought this is an important question.)
Thank you for any help.

Is this passage relevant to the discussion? In terms of the Pauline theological discussion, I’d have to say no. But in terms of understanding the wider New Testament’s depiction of the final judgment scene, which is important to the debate, it is immensely helpful. It forms an insightful backdrop to the Pauline discussion to understand his own Christian contemporaries on the subject. So for the sake of understanding the final judgment in terms of the wider New Testament, let us look at this parable.

So here’s the text of Matthew 25:31-46 (ESV),

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Some observations from this passage. First Jesus will separate out all the nations into two groups. One group will be on his right, the sheep, and the other on his left, the goats. Second, the only reason for the division given in the text itself is the deeds, the actions, the life lived by the sheep and goats. Faith is noticeably absent from the discussion. Thirdly, the works being done don’t seem to be characterized as “religious” works. Both the sheep and the goats seem shocked at Jesus’ decision. Fourth, the sheep are labeled by Jesus as δίκαιοι, “righteous” (25:37, 46).

The picture of this parable that Jesus tells seems to indicate that it is one’s life lived, one’s deeds, that gets him/her incorporated into the sheep, called “righteous” by the King, and to enter eternal life. In the final judgment, Jesus is going to look at one’s deeds and render his verdict. Indeed, it looks like entrance into eternal life comes based upon one’s works.

But there is more to Matthew’s account than just this one parable. He has had many discussions up to this point. Another text in Matthew about the Son of Man rendering this verdict is in Matthew 7:21-23. There we see people who have done good deeds. In fact the deeds they do mirror those of Jesus ministry in Matthew 8-9 and the ministry Jesus authorizes his disciples to engage in as well in Matthew 10. But these people don’t get to enter into the kingdom of heaven. In fact Jesus calls them “you workers of lawlessness.” Why? Jesus says there has to be a knowing of him and by him for Jesus to grant entrance into and participation in his kingdom. The works come after this knowing, and this knowing provides the foundation for the judgment.

We must also consider Jesus’ working of miracles. Time after time (cf. Matthew 8-9) we see Jesus looking at the actions of the people and commending them for their faith. At no point is there mentioned any kind of discussion of the receiver of the miracle exercising faith. We only see them in action. Yet when Jesus sees these actions he commends their faith. Thus in Matthew there is a vital connection between faith and actions, the latter giving expression to the former, and the former being what brings Jesus to unleash resurrection-power to grant the miracle.

Matthew, it seems, does not contradict the Reformed tradition’s “justification by faith alone.” For that matter neither does N. T. Wright. However, it seems that works plays a more central role in the final judgment than is stated in the Reformed tradition. For in the final judgment, the only ground provided for the King’s dividing the nations into righteous sheep and unrighteous goats is the works present or absent in the life of the persons being judged. The works are serving as the basis of the judgment. It seems, in the wider context of Matthew’s account, that these works point to faith, but Jesus leaves “faith” out of the parable. “Basis” language seems to be appropriate to the scene of the final judgment.

Matthew has spelled out in the previous 24 chapters that the works point to faith. Thus here in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus tells us then that those works, that are to point to faith, are to be judged. And it is on the basis of that judgment that Jesus grants the status of righteous and entrance into eternal life.

But more and more I find myself doubting that as a proper Hebraic understanding of “righteousness” language. Take Psalm 35 for example. David, the attributed author of this particular psalm, is praying to Yahweh for rescue and deliverance and salvation from his enemies. He asks Yahweh to “contend” for him, to “Awake and rouse yourself for my vindication, for my cause, my God, my Lord” (Psalm 35:23). David pleads, “Vindicate me, O LORD, my God, according to your righteousness, and let them not rejoice over me.” What is God’s righteousness here in this text? Is it referring to his own obedience to his own Law? Is it his faithfulness to his own honor and glory? Is it an attribute of God, and if so what of God is being described?

As I read David I cannot escape that God’s righteousness is bound up with his deliverance of David from the enemy. It’s not explicitly being tied to the Law. But there is the concept of God’s judging/deciding a contention in a court between two parties (35:23-24). But the fighting of 35:1-2 isn’t that of legal action but of waging a war. David isn’t asking for Yahweh to make a legal prnouncement here, he wants God as his Kong to declare and then wage war against David’s enemies. But I’m stil left asking what is the righteousness David is pleading for God to act in accordance with?

Let me further complicate this issue of righteousness? What is David’s righteousness in Psalm 35:27? Is that his conformity to the demands of the Law, whether a gift from someone else or the result of his own effort? Or is the righteousness that David has here Yahweh’s deliverance of David? The latter seems most preferable on light of the whole Psalm. He pleads for deliverance and gets it so the people see it and praise his God.

If that is the case then it seems to me that God’s righteousness in Psalm 35:28 is a reference to God’s saving action on behalf of David. David now tells of God’s salvation, God’s righteousness. But we are now forced to return to Psalm 35:24. Is the “righteousness” there’ that David appeals to, a reference to God’s saving activity? Makes most sense to me, in light of what has been written here.

It seems that God’s righteousness is his saving activity. But it’s not mere activity. It’s judging, making legal declaration in a legal contention (35:23) even, but the also putting that legal declaration into effect. It’s deciding in David’s favor and then acting accordingly. It’s waging war against the enemies of his people, bringing them to utter deatruction and ruination.

God’s righteousness is his ruling and reigning in favor of his people. Our righteousness is God’s ruling in our contention with our enemies and him defeating them on our behalf. While there is room for a legal declaration by God, it seems difficult to see how the Hebraic mind would have with it the Reformation doctrine of imputation and righteousness being obedience to the Law.

In the three chapters of Isaiah’s prophecy death itself is directly challenged. In Isaiah 24 the prophet anticipates the joy and the horrors of when Yahweh, the Righteous One and God of Israel, will judge the whole earth because, “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5 ESV). And, as so prominent in Isaiah’s preaching, Yahweh does so to show forth his glory and honor as God of the whole earth, not just Israel. In Isaiah 25, those who are delivered through the outpouring of God’s wrath will enter into a great feast. Those who have refused to acknowledge Yahweh as the true God will be made to do so. God will raise up the weak over the strong. And God will defeat all enemies, including death. Isaiah writes,

[Yahweh] will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken. (Isaiah 25:7-8 ESV)

And this defeat of death happens when God defeats Israel’s enemies. As Isaiah writes, “For the hand of the LORD will rest on this mountain, and Moab shall be trampled down in his place, as straw is trampled down in a dunghill” (25:10).

In Isaiah 26 Judah sings a song about the peace that Yahweh has brought upon her when “Moab” is destroyed. In that song Judah sings of those who ruled over them, competing lords, that they have been destroyed by God and they shall never rise again (26:12-14). But for Judah, she writhed in birth pains. And the nation could not deliver herself but Yahweh increased her, showing forth his own honor and glory (26:15-18). And at the climax of this great deliverance Isaiah 26:19 says, “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.” Most interesting is that the LXX uses ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω, the verbal forms for resurrection (ανάστασις). Now as to whether this is literal in Isaiah or a metaphor is difficult to say because defeating Israel’s enemies and defeating death seem to parallel each other. Isaiah 27 points to this raising up from the dead to be a metaphor for her restoration from exile.

Ezekiel 37:1-14 points to the resurrection as a metaphor for Israel and Judah returning, as one nation, from exile. The valley of bones will be spoken to by the prophet and life will be given to the dead. Dead collections of bones will be formed into bodies and the Spirit of life will breathe life into those new bodies (37:1-10). The graves will open up and release Israel from her exile and to return to her land (37:11-14). Thus, life from death for Israel in the Old Testament seems to be the nation of Israel being restored from exile and pagan domination.

Then one comes to Daniel 12:1-5. Here resurrection seems to be literal. Physical bodies will come up out of the grave to everlasting life, others to shame and contempt. Those who receive life will shine like the stars in the heavens. And this resurrection is God’s deliverance of his people at the raising up of Michael during the time of trouble. Those whose name is written in the book will be raised up to everlasting life.

Thus the life of the nation becomes bound up with the life of the persons who comprise that nation. When God delivers them from their enemies through resurrection from the grave to eternal life God will deliver the nation from pagan rule over them and bring to an end their punishment for sin. When God raises the people of Israel from the dust of the earth he will end her exile.

The question now becomes, how does Israel obtain the life promised in Torah when she can effect no deliverance? God promises to raise the people from the grave and thus end the exile and give the promised life to the nation. To put it together, the life that Israel is seeking through Torah comes through God’s final judgment of th earth and deliverance of the people from her enemies. Now how does the New Testament say this has played out?

We start with Moses and Leviticus 18:1-5 (NET),

1 The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘I am the Lord your God! 3 You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt where you have been living, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan into which I am about to bring you; you must not walk in their statutes. 4 You must observe my regulations and you must be sure to walk in my statutes. I am the Lord your God. 5 So you must keep my statutes and my regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them. I am the Lord.

Here Yahweh is admonishing Israel via the preaching of Moses against living like the Egyptians, the paganism they have been delivered from, and the Canaanites, the paganism they will soon confront. Israel no doubt remembers what God did to Egypt and can see that the same awaits for Canaan. Thus God offers a different story to walk in than those who surround Egypt, the way of life. Israel will live if she will follow Yahweh’s commandments, which in the context of Leviticus 18 is sexual relationships. To walk in the story of Egypt or Canaan is to walk in the story of judgment.

Now, to borrow from the TV show Lost, flash forward to the days when God is about to bring Babylon against Judah, having already brought Assyria against Israel. Ezekiel 20 is Yahweh’s recount of Israel’s history from her exodus from Egypt to her judgment concluding with her restoration. And in that redemptive-historical sermon, three times Ezekiel declares that if one would but observe Yahweh’s Torah that person would have life. And each time he brings it up it is an indictment against Israel for her disobedience and resulting judgment. To follow Torah is to be rewarded with life. The nation would not be destroyed. She would not go into exile. The temple would still stand. Jerusalem would not be overran by pagan, uncircumcised Gentiles.

Finally, flash forward to when Yahweh has brought the exiled community back from Medo-Persia. Geographically the exile has ended. But, no Messiah has come from the house of David to re-establish the Davidic monarchy. Israel is still under the rule of foreign, Gentile nations (Nehemiah 9:35-37). Yahweh has not fully ended the exile. In Nehemiah 9, Nehemiah retells Israel’s history in his prayer of repentance to God on behalf of the restored community. Again in Nehemiah 9:26-29 we see Leviticus 18:5 restated. God had promised Israel life through observing Torah. However, they refused to walk in the path of Torah. Even when God would redeem them from his wrath they still did not listen. So then Israel died. She did not experience life. Exile came and Israel was enslaved to Gentile nations, again.

The Torah promised life to Israel if she would walk the path that Yahweh put before her. But Israel did not. That’s the recurring theme one finds throughout the story told in the Old Testament. So the question for Israel has been, how does one get to that promised life for the nation if she cannot walk the path Yahweh put before her?

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (emphasis mine).

Paul’s answer in Romans 6:2-4 is a resounding, “No.” Paul uses a favorite phrase to give voice to his negative answer, μὴ γένοιτο, or, “May it never be!” Instead, Paul sees something in a believer’s union with Jesus through faith in Jesus that kills the sinner and raises that person up from the dead to walk in new life. Romans 6:5-7 explains how Paul can say in Romans 6:2, “We who died to sin, how can we still yet live in sin?”

Paul says in Romans 6:5 that “we have been buried with him in the likeness of his death.” Paul uses the perfect tense for “we have been buried with him.” Thus at a point in time in our union with Christ, namely when we first believed and were first united to Jesus, we were considered to have died and been buried. And the results of that death carries through with us. To put it another way, Jesus’ own death and burial counts for us in such a way that Paul believes that we ourselves have died and been buried as well in that tomb with Jesus. We share, via our union-through-faith, in Jesus’ death and burial.

And what happens is, as Paul says in Romans 6:6, “Our old person was crucified with him.” So the person who existed at conversion and was united to Jesus, with all the sin and hatred towards God, and his death killed that person. That person is said to have been crucified. And the purpose of this crucifying the believer is “so that the sinful person might be destroyed, which we will never be slaves to sin.” We, as slaves to sin and obedient to its very whims, have been destroyed by faith in Jesus. Sin’s mastery over us has been broken.

As Paul says in Romans 6:7, “For the one who has died to sin has been justified from sin.” By participating in Jesus’ crucifixion, we as sinners are killed and no longer subjected to sin’s rule. There is liberation from sin, freedom from sin, and righteousness awaiting us in that death. As one can see in Romans 5:18, Jesus’ act of righteousness in dying on the cross brings about justification of life. Jesus’ has liberated us from sin’s hold by killing us through his own death. But what hope does the believer have if he or she is dead? Sin no longer holds mastery over them but the grave still does. What can be done? Romans 6:7 and Romans 5:18 point to something yet to happen in Jesus’ work with which we are united. Section C. unpacks that finished work of Jesus that Romans 6:7 anticipates while it concludes Paul’s discussion of Jesus’ death.

Before getting into the text I want to make some observations. First is the matrix in which Paul understands Jesus’ soterological work in relation to believers, namely union with Messiah. In Romans 6 Paul over and over again brings up Christians being “baptized intoChrist Jesus [and] his death” (Romans 6:3), we are “buried with him” (Romans 6:4), “we have been united with him” (Romans 6:5), “died with Christ…live with him” (Romans 6:8), “in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11). It is in the context of our union with Jesus that Paul sets out our salvation. It must be understood in this union. John Calvin describes this union like that of Jacob and Esau when Jacob obtained Esau’s blessing. Isaac blessed Esau, but it was Jacob appearing before Isaac as Esau that brought Jacob the blessing. So too with us and Jesus. God blesses Jesus with all the blessings, and because we appear before God as one with Jesus, dressed in him and his accomplishments, we share in the blessings that Jesus is given.

Secondly, the language that Paul uses in these paragraphs is not one of Day of Atonement but rather Passover and Exodus. Notice some of his language. In Romans 6:6 Paul says, “we would no longer be enslaved to sin.” In Romans 6:9 Paul says of Jesus, “death no longer has dominion over him.” Liberation from the great Egypt of sin and death is how the Apostle understands Jesus death, just like in the Passover and Exodus was about freedom from bondage to Egypt and Pharaoh.

I feel the text breaks down into three sections. Section A (Romans 6:1-4) is the objector, Paul’s Jewish dialogue partner throughout the letter, objecting to what Paul has spelled out thus far in his letter about the saving righteousness of God revealed in Jesus the Messiah, specifically as stated in Romans 5:12-21 and Paul’s initial response. Section B (Romans 6:5-6) spells out how Jesus’ death accomplishes salvation in its own right. Section C (Romans 6:8-11) spells out how Jesus’ resurrection accomplishes salvation. Sections B and C hinge together on Romans 6:7.

In the next post I’ll look at Section A.