The Mosaic Covenant: A Doable Covenant of Grace

Introduction

Many years teaching the Tanakh and Biblical Hebrew in a Christian theological environment have led me to the conclusion that there is a lot of confusion within Christian circles regarding the nature of the Mosaic covenant, and the way in which the righteousness of Israel is rightly to be defined within this covenantal framework.

A key aspect of this confusion is the common Christian understanding that the Law of Moses is not gracious or doable per se. For Jewish people, particularly those involved in interfaith dialogue, it is important to help correct this Christian misconception regarding Torah by pointing to the teaching of the Tanakh, the authority of which is traditionally acknowledged by Christians as part of Holy Scripture. This can be done by emphasizing how the Tanakh speaks of Torah as gracious and therefore doable. A model for how to argue this is presented below.

Definition of Key Terms

Strictly speaking “the Mosaic covenant” is the legal framework established by two covenants, namely, the Sinaitic covenant and the Deuteronomic covenant. The Sinaitic covenant is the legally binding, written agreement that God and Israel entered into with each other at Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:3-8; Deut. 5:2-3). This covenant has fundamentally defined the nature of God’s relationship with Israel, and the historical dynamics of their subsequent relationship from a theological perspective (Ex. 19:5-6).¹ The Deuteronomic covenant, on the other hand, is the renewal and updating of the Sinaitic covenant that took place on the plains of Moab, preparatory to Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land (Deut. 28:69). The formal establishment of the Deuteronomic covenant is implied in Deuteronomy 29-30.²

In discussing the issue of whether the Mosaic covenant is a “covenant of grace,” or whether the Mosaic covenant and Torah are “gracious,” it should be noted that the concept of grace invoked by Christians at this point is much narrower than the rich sense of grace conveyed by the word hesed in its Biblical usage. According to the Tanakh, God’s grace is the abundant kindness that He voluntarily shows to people in His acts of saving and blessing them. This is broader than just redemption from sin (for example, Num. 14:18-19; Ps. 51:3-4; 86:5 Mic. 7:18 along with Ex. 15:13; 34:6-7; Ps. 31.17; 36:8-9; 86:13; 90:14; 94:18; 103:8; 144:1-2; Ezra 9:9). However, in discussing the theological question of whether the Mosaic covenant and Torah are gracious, all that is meant in this regard from the Christian point of view is whether or not they contain a mechanism for the forgiveness of sins.

The Problem of Perfection Under the Mosaic Covenant

The Christian confusion regarding the Mosaic covenant primarily stems from the influence of the view commonly held by Christian theologians that the obedience personally required of Israel under the terms of the Mosaic covenant is absolute moral perfection. For example, in the year 412 CE the Christian theologian Augustine expressed the view that “the Law … justif[ies] no man,” but initially functions to reveal a person’s sin, driving him or her to dependence upon the mercy of God.³ The influential Catholic scholar Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) was of the view that the Law of Moses is unable to save, except to the extent that in ancient times it promised a future salvation, and ceremonially portrayed the need for “faith in the Mediator” while functioning as a vehicle for the expression of such faith.⁴ Building on Augustine’s understanding, the Reformer Martin Luther (who was an Augustinian monk by training) was more black and white. According to Luther, as stated in his lectures given in 1531 CE on the book of Galatians, “the Law requires perfect obedience to God, and condemns those who do not supply it.” Naturally Luther held that “no one supplies or can supply this perfect obedience to the Law.” Thus he concluded, “Therefore the Law does not justify but condemns.”⁵

It should be noted that the views described above have abstracted grace from the Law. This is particularly evident in Luther’s formulation where he clearly narrowed the definition of “Law” to equate to the commandments as given by God but devoid of any sense of atoning grace. For Luther, the Law does not give promises or grace, but simply demands obedience.⁶ In other words, his view was one in which the sacrificial system was conceptually excised from the Law, thereby placing the grace of atonement outside of the Law.

The Gracious Nature of Torah

By way of contrast to the fundamentally negative view of the Law described immediately above, it is argued below that holding to the idea that under the Mosaic covenant God required the personal moral perfection of Israel as a condition for keeping the covenant is to misunderstand the teaching of the Tanakh on this issue. Rather, the Tanakh indicates that God’s covenant with Israel presupposed from the start the impurity and imperfection of the people as a whole, and provided a mechanism for atonement within Torah itself to deal with this imperfection. Presupposing both the reality of sin and the possibility of the forgiveness of sin, the Tanakh thus presents the Mosaic covenant as a gracious covenant whose terms are really doable. When taken on its own terms, therefore, the Tanakh does not teach that Israel’s covenantal obligation is national or individual moral perfection in isolation from atonement (kaparah) or repentance (teshuvah). This can be proved from two basic facts that are evident in the Tanakh: Firstly, the Tanakh plainly speaks of Torah as doable; and secondly, Torah includes within its terms a system of atonement.

Torah as Doable

The first body of evidence from the Hebrew Bible that supports the idea of the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant comes from specific examples of Israelites who claimed to have genuinely kept God’s Law, along with particular Israelites who are described either by God or the Biblical narrator as having kept God’s Law. The kings David, Hezekiah, and Josiah are key examples in this regard.

David’s claim to have been a keeper of Torah is most clearly expressed in Psalm 18. On the assumption that verse 1 indicates that King David was the author of this psalm (or at least portrayed as such), it is remarkable that David claimed in verse 22 to have kept to the ways of the LORD and to have not been guilty before [his] God.⁷ He also claimed in verse 24 to be blameless toward Him, and to have guarded [him]self against sinning.⁸ Furthermore, David claimed in verses 21 and 25 to have been rewarded and requited by God according to [his own] merit (or “righteousness”). Lest David’s claim in Psalm 18 be viewed as him overstepping the bounds of propriety in claiming to possess a measure of personal righteousness that he rightfully did not possess, it is significant that the LORD is recorded in I Kings 14:8 confirming to King Solomon that his father, David, was someone who kept My commandments and followed Me with all his heart, doing only what was right in My sight.⁹ Similar language is also used of David in I Kings 3:14; 9:4; 11:34, 38; 15:5; and II Chronicles 7:17.

Following the pattern of their forefather David, King Hezekiah and King Josiah are also described in the Tanakh as being keepers of Torah. Regarding Hezekiah, in II Kings 18:6 the narrator states that Hezekiah kept the commandments that God had given to Moses. Similarly in II Chronicles 31:20-21 the narrator states the following: Hezekiah . . . acted in a way that was good, upright, and faithful before the LORD his God. Every work he undertook in the service of the House of God or in the Teaching and the Commandment, to worship his God, he did with all his heart. Regarding Josiah, in II Kings 23:25 the narrator presents him as being the paradigmatic Torah-observant king of Israel: There was no king like him before who turned back to God with all his heart and soul and might, in full accord with the Teaching of Moses (literally, “according to all the Law of Moses”). In II Chronicles 35:26, the narrator notes that Josiah did faithful deeds, in accord with the Teaching of the LORD (literally, “in accordance with what was written in the Law of the LORD”).

On the basis of the passages just cited, the Tanakh plainly speaks of the Law of Moses as a body of law that could be kept and in fact was kept by Israelites like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, despite the occasional sins and errors that they may have committed.¹⁰

The idea that the Tanakh teaches that Torah is doable is reflected in Jewish teachings from the Second Temple period as well as in rabbinical tradition. For example, I Maccabees records how the Maccabean Revolt was sparked by the priest Mattathias, father of Judas Maccabeus, who refused to participate in the pagan sacrifices that were being enforced upon the Jewish population during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Mattathias was “zealous for the Law” (I Macc. 2:26-27). This zeal was a function of his desire to “walk in the covenant of our fathers” and to “uphold the covenant” (I Macc. 2:20, 27). Before his death, Mattathias instructed his sons to “gather to yourselves the doers of the Law” and “devote yourselves to the commandments of the Law” (I Macc. 2:67-68). Mattathias obviously believed that it was possible for the Law to be done. The Maccabean Revolt presupposed the reality of Divine commandments that should and could be kept. Likewise the community at Qumran was established on the belief that the Law of Moses should be followed. The members of the community were to “seek God … to do what is good and upright before Him, just as He commanded through Moses and all His servants the prophets” (1QS I, 1-3). The Qumranites identified themselves with the righteous mentioned in Psalm 37:12, “the doers of the Law” (4Q171 1–2 II, 14), and viewed themselves as being the faithful remnant of the end times, the ones who “do the whole Law” (4Q174 1–3 II, 2).

The later rabbinical emphasis on the responsibility of the Jewish people to study and follow Torah is consistent with the widespread acceptance in the Second Temple period of the importance of Torah observance, and also clearly implies that Torah is actually doable. The rabbinical emphasis on Torah observance ultimately stems from the ethical obligation that was historically placed upon the people of Israel at the time of the establishment of the covenants at Sinai and Moab. As explained by Rashi, the obligation received by the people under the terms of the Sinaitic covenant was “the observance of the Torah” (see Rashi on Exodus 19:5). Likewise at the time of the Deuteronomic covenant the people “accepted Torah upon themselves” (see Rashi on Deuteronomy 28:69). Israel’s covenantal obligation was, therefore, to keep God’s covenant by keeping Torah (see also Ex. 19:6, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut. 5:1; 6:1-3; 10:12-13; 29:8; Eccl. 12:13),¹¹ and that obligation implies that, under the terms of the covenant, doing Torah is possible.

Torah as Gracious

If the covenant simply required perfect personal obedience on the part of Israel, as the great majority of Christian theologians down the centuries have believed, then it does seem strange that the Hebrew Bible records in a positive way that David, an acknowledged adulterer and murderer (II Sam. 12:9; I Kgs. 15:5), was someone who kept to the ways of the LORD and was blameless (as per Ps. 18:22, 24), and acknowledged by God as having kept [His] commandments … doing only what was right in [His] eyes (as per I Kgs. 14:8). Such ascriptions of legal righteousness to David do not fit into the schema that says that God accepts only absolutely perfect human obedience to Torah as obedience.

The only solution that can satisfactorily explain the legal righteousness of people like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, while upholding the justice and purity of God, is that which says that the Mosaic covenant must have included provision for the forgiveness of sins. The descriptions in the Tanakh that portray particular Israelites as keepers of Torah operate on the basis of what can be called covenant righteousness rather than absolute righteousness. That is to say, the obedience exercised by faithful Israelites like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah consisted of an ongoing and genuine commitment to doing Torah in the broader context of the system of atonement established by Torah. This obedience was an expression of their emunah, their faithfulness to the terms of the covenant.

That keeping Torah is viewed in the Tanakh as possible is ultimately due to the presence of the grace of atonement within the Torah. Grace does not exist in paralleled opposition to the Law (as historically the majority of Christian theologians have believed). Rather, grace has been built into the structure of the Law from the beginning. The historical context for this is that Israel initially received Torah as the terms of a covenant that was established upon the shedding and sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24:5-6, 8). The involvement during the covenant ceremony of the blood of burnt offerings (which according to Lev. 1:4 have an atoning function) implies that atonement was a precondition for Israel to enter into covenant with God. Consistent with this precondition, atonement was also necessary as an ongoing condition for the people to maintain righteous status within the covenant. This was provided through the Levitical system of atonement, which was commanded as an integral part of the Law (I Chron. 6:34). It is by God’s gracious design that Torah includes provision for forgiveness and reconciliation after a breach of the covenant has occurred because of sin. In addition to the burnt offerings, the sin offerings and guilt offerings also have atonement as an important part of their function (Lev. 4:3, 13-14, 20, 22-23, 26-28, 31, 35; 5:5-6, 10, 14-19, 20-26).¹² Of course, the ultimate example of the provision in Torah for the forgiveness of sin is the institution of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-34), the day that Rambam describes as “the apex of forgiveness and pardon for Israel.”¹³ That provision for atonement was actually commanded as part of the Mosaic legislation means that in God’s design a system of atonement is intrinsic to Torah.¹⁴

The timing of when God gave Moses the plans for the building of the Tabernacle is also significant in this regard. The fact that the Tanakh records that God revealed these plans during the period of forty days and forty nights during which Moses was in God’s presence on Mount Sinai shortly after the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant (Ex. 24:18-31:18) shows that the Tabernacle was part and parcel of the covenantal arrangement from the outset. The laws governing the system of atonement connected with the Tabernacle were also commanded as part of Torah while Moses was at Sinai (Lev. 1:1-7:38; 16:1-34).

The details just mentioned indicate that the grace of atonement has been an integral part of the covenant relationship established at Sinai from the very beginning. Because impurity cannot stand in the presence of a holy and pure God, an important aspect of God’s grace to the people of Israel is the provision for redemption, cleansing, forgiveness, and perfection through the sacrificial system. This strongly implies that when God initially called upon Israel to obey Him and to keep His covenant (Ex. 19:5), and when Israel responded to that call by pledging obedience to God on three occasions (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7), the obedience required and pledged was a form of covenant obedience, an ongoing and genuine commitment to obey God’s Law that also presupposes the necessity of atonement.

The view advocated here, therefore, is that the Tanakh speaks of covenant Law as a Divinely-appointed means of grace. As such, it is impossible to remove grace from the Law without destroying it. In fact, without Torah there is no atoning grace available to the people of Israel under the terms of the covenant. Significantly this means that the common dialectical strategy within Christian circles whereby law and grace are played off against each other creates a false dichotomy as far as the Law of Moses is concerned. Such a strategy effectively denies the gracious nature of the Law as given by God. The Biblical evidence supports the view that, in God’s plan, the grace of atonement was offered to ancient Israel through the Law. Instead of attempting to divide the Mosaic revelation into two parts, gracious and non-gracious, corresponding to promise on the one hand and law on the other, interpreters of the Bible need to recognize the Tanakh’s own presentation of the matter, and to acknowledge that Torah stands as an integrated whole that functions as the Divinely-appointed vehicle of atoning grace within the Mosaic covenantal arrangement.

In arguing for the idea that Torah functions as a vehicle of Divine grace, it should also be acknowledged that Torah can nevertheless function as a means of condemnation on both the national and individual levels for Israel. The fact that the curses of the covenant in the form of disease, famine, defeat, and exile (Lev. 26:14-39; Deut. 28:15-68) historically came down against ancient Israel (II Kgs. 17:6-23; 24:1-25:21; Jer. 11:1-17) speaks to the power of Torah to condemn as well as to bless. Yet the point being argued here is that the Tanakh posits the existence of a genuine redemptive and vivifying function of Torah for faithful Israel. Sadly this Biblical perspective is an idea that the vast majority of Christian interpreters of the Tanakh have failed to recognize.

The classic presentation in the Tanakh of the redemptive and vivifying function of Torah is also found in Psalm 119. This psalm teaches that obedience to Torah is the way of blessing: Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the Law of the LORD (v. 1). It also teaches that delighting in Torah is the means by which God’s mercy and the promise of life is to be experienced: May Your compassion come to me that I might live, for Your Law is my delight (v. 77). In fact, the author of this psalm believed that he had already begun to experience, in part, the life that had been promised to him within Divine Torah itself, and this was something for which he was determined to be eternally grateful: I will never forget Your precepts, for You have given me life through them (v. 93). He also prayed that God would give him life in accordance with what was promised in Torah: Your compassion is great, O LORD; give me life in accordance with Your rules (v. 156).

The Connection Between Obedience and Grace in the Tanakh

It is precisely because the Tanakh describes Torah as a means of grace that obedience is portrayed therein as being the condition of salvation. The Tanakh teaches that, because Torah is the vehicle of Divine grace to Israel, recalcitrant disobedience to Torah ultimately disqualifies a person from the grace that is being offered through Torah. Hence, the idea also expressed in the Tanakh that God’s grace is ordinarily available only to those who are committed to the covenant relationship with Him, that is, to those who keep Torah.

This principle is perhaps most clearly stated in Psalm 103:17-18 where it is written that “the kindness of the LORD is from eternity to eternity upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is for the children’s children of those who keep His covenant and remember to do His precepts.” This reference clearly indicates that God’s hesed is experienced by those who keep covenant with Him, where keeping covenant involves remembering to do the moral actions indicated by the LORD’s precepts. The Christian Reformer, John Calvin, also noticed this point. Commenting on verse 18, he observed that “God is merciful only to those who … keep his covenant.”¹⁵ Psalm 103 teaches, therefore, that God’s grace rests upon the keeper of Torah.

Isaiah 55:7 is also relevant in this regard. Here the prophet is recorded as proclaiming in an eschatological context, “Let the wicked abandon his way, and the sinful his plans; let each one turn back to the LORD so that He might have compassion upon him, and to our God, for He abounds in forgiveness.” The perspective presented here is that receiving God’s mercy and the pardon of sins is conditional on repentance (teshuvah). The clear implication of Isaiah 55:7 is that the wicked person has to forsake his or her wicked way and to turn back to God in covenant obedience in order to benefit from God’s mercy.

David is recorded in the Tanakh as reflecting the same understanding when he prayed to God in Psalm 25:10, acknowledging that “all the paths of the LORD are kindness and faithfulness for those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” This clearly expresses the idea that God’s covenant hesed is reserved for those who prove to be faithful to the covenant. The Psalter in particular gives expression to a fundamental belief in the covenantal justice of God. God vindicates the righteous (Ps. 7:11), and the LORD watches over all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy (Ps. 145:20). In the words of the author of Psalm 119, the LORD can be called upon to be gracious to . . . those who love [His] name (Ps. 119:132).

Elsewhere in the Tanakh, there are many texts that speak of the grace of God toward the righteous: The LORD show[s] kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love [Him] and keep [His] commandments (Deut. 5:10; see also Deut. 7:9); the LORD is the God who keep[s] [His] gracious covenant with [His] servants when they walk before [Him] in wholehearted devotion (I Kgs. 8:23); the LORD “keeps the covenant and kindness with those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4). As the examples given above show, the principle is that, as Israel keeps covenant with God by doing Torah, God will keep covenant with Israel in the sense that He will love and bless the nation (Deut. 7:12-13). Such texts reflect the standard soteriology of the Tanakh: that God is merciful to the righteous but punishes the wicked. This soteriology is based on the covenantal justice and jealous character of God as the Second Commandment famously summarizes: I, the LORD your God, am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me, but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments (Ex. 20:5-6). This Divine self-description presupposes the establishment of a covenant of grace with Israel and commandments that could be kept. This is the reason that the Tanakh teaches that those who keep God’s commandments experience His covenant love, whereas those who rebel against God and His covenant experience covenant wrath instead.

Conclusion

Understanding the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant is essential for interpreting the history of Israel in the Tanakh accurately and for avoiding inaccurate Christian stereotypes of the nature of Jewish piety. The view commonly held in Christian circles that the people of Israel were required to obey the Law of Moses absolutely perfectly in isolation from an intrinsic mechanism of atonement is fundamentally flawed in that it does not square with the teaching in the Tanakh regarding the function of the Law in the context of the Mosaic covenant. It fails to take account of the gracious nature of this covenant and how Torah is indeed doable. No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it (Deut. 30:14).

Footnotes

1. Ibn Ezra and Ramban both take the berit in Exodus 19:5 as referring to the covenant made in Exodus 24:3-8 after the giving of the Law. See Ibn Ezra and Ramban on Exodus 19:5 and 24:1. ↩

2. In particular, Deuteronomy 29:9-14 indicates that the Deuteronomic covenant was being made (koret in verses 11, 13) at the time corresponding to the hayom of the narrative (see verses 9, 11-12, 14) with the generations who were standing (nitsavim in verse 9 and omed in verse 14) in the particular location corresponding to the poh of the narrative (see verse 14) in the land of Moab (Deut. 1:5; 28:69). Ramban interpreted verse 9 as possibly implying the existence of a covenant-making ceremony similar to what had taken place earlier at Sinai. See Ramban on Deuteronomy 29:9. ↩

3. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, ch. 15 as quoted in Philip Schaff (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Series 1, trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis (New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), vol. 5, p. 89. ↩

4. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, part 1 of part 2, q. 98, art. 2, ad. 4; part 1 of part 2, q. 103, art. 4, resp.; part 1 of part 2, q. 107, art. 2, resp.; part 3, q. 62, art. 6, resp. & ad. 1; part 3, q. 68, art. 1, ad. 1; see also part 1 of part 2, q. 107, art. 1, ad. 3. ↩

5. Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 73 vols. (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1911), vol. 40, part 1, p. 257 (my translation); see also pp. 398, 408. For a modern day echo of Luther’s teaching at this point, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), pp. 218-220, 311, 396. ↩

6. Luther believed that “the Law … is God’s Word and Commandment, which commands what we should do,” but the Gospel is “that which does not demand our work, does not call upon us to do, but calls upon us to receive” (Luthers Werke, vol. 36, pp. 13-14 [my translation]). That is to say, “the Gospel is a pure gift … But the Law takes and demands from us … One is promise; the other is command. One gives; the other takes and demands” (Luthers Werke, vol. 36, pp. 14-15 [my translation]). Furthermore, “the Gospel … gives God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life” (Luthers Werke, vol. 36, p.17 [my translation]). ↩

7. The translations of the Bible that are in italics are from the NJPS. Any translations in quotation marks are my own translation. That King David was the author of Psalm 18 was acknowledged by Rashi (on Psalm 18:3) and Radak (on Psalm 18:1), among others. ↩

8. The Hebrew word translated here as “blameless” is the adjective tamim. Andrew Das has noted that the Biblical concept of blamelessness does not usually indicate sinless perfection. Rather, “a ‘blameless’ Jew is one who attempts to avoid sin and takes advantage of repentance and the sacrificial system” for forgiveness. See A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), p. 218. ↩

9. As Mordechai Cogan has noted, the description of David in I Kings 14:8 indicates “loyal behavior” on David’s part. See Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 10 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001), p. 379. ↩

10. Even though Luther held that no one can perform the works of the Law perfectly to be thereby justified, he nevertheless was of the opinion that the works of the Law can be performed, particularly by the believer after he or she has been justified by faith. See Luther, Luthers Werke, vol. 40, part 1, pp. 219, 400-402, 407-408. ↩

11. According to Ibn Ezra, “an exalted rule” among the commandments of the LORD is the commandment recorded in Deuteronomy 10:13 that Israel should “keep all the commandments of the LORD.” See Ibn Ezra, Yesod Mora, 2:5. In other words, the most general of all the commandments is the commandment for Israel to do Torah. ↩

12. For a good discussion of the atoning value of the Levitical sacrifices, see Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, pp. 115-121. ↩

13. See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 2:7. ↩

14. The idea that the Law of Moses includes atonement as an integral part of the Law has been acknowledged by a number of modern Christian scholars, in particular Ed Sanders, George Howard, James Dunn, and Palmer Robertson. Dunn has stated that the obedience called for by the Law “was within the terms of the covenant, including the provision of atonement by covenant law,” and “[t]hat obedience was considered practicable” (James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], p. 361). Dunn also claims that the idea that the Law of Moses does not require absolute obedience “was one of the points of consensus” emerging out of the third Durham-Tübingen Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism that was held in 1994 (see James D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001], p. 312). See also E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 28; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology, 2nd ed., SNTSMS 35 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 53; and O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), pp. 173-174. ↩

15. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948-1949), vol. 4, p. 140. ↩