Some more analysis on these thoughts.  I argued that the “Law-Gospel” hermeneutic, as applied to Luke 10.25-37; 18.18-30, resulted in a fundamental misreading of the text. Thinking of the context of those passages in Luke’s Gospel has given me some further reflections on how that Gospel portrays the situation in first-century Palestine. Specifically, I think the way we think of Jesus’ ministry, especially as it placed him in conflict with the Pharisees, may possibly be seriously misleading. We are taught to think that Jesus came to a people confident that they would be saved from the wrath to come by their own good works. There is evidence to suggest, however, that Jesus came to a people so confident in their own adoption by God that they refused to consider the possibility that their generation would soon be judged by God, or that they would not be among those who would be vindicated in such a judgment.

1. The Prophetic Message of John the Baptist According to Luke

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.
Every ravine shall be filled up,
And every mountain and hill shall be brought low;
And the crooked shall become straight,
And the rough roads smooth;
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’” [Isaiah 40.3, 4]

He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” And the multitudes were questioning him, saying, “Then what shall we do?” And he would answer and say to them, “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise.” And some tax-gatherers also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”

Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he might be the Christ, John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

So with many other exhortations also he preached the gospel to the people [Luke 3.1-18].

The last verse of this lengthy passage mentions the term “gospel,” yet the idea has been present from the beginning of Luke’s description of John the Baptist’s message. Luke tells us that John’s work is found prophesied in Isaiah 40.3, 4, a passage which goes on to say:

Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of the gospel,
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of gospel;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah, “Here is your God!” [Isaiah 40.9]

The above translation is from the NASB but with “gospel” used instead of “good news.” We know Luke reads Isaiah in this way because he quotes Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61.1 in which Jesus uses the word “gospel” for Isaiah’s “good news” (Luke 4.18).

Having established that Luke is begins his description of John’s ministry with a Scriptural allusion to the Gospel, and ends it with an explicit mention of the Gospel, we are in a better position to note some features of the Gospel of John the Baptist and the context in which it was proclaimed.

The Gospel of John the Baptist is a declaration that God is drawing near. Therefore, the Israelites need to repent of their sins. Various people ask John what it is they must do and he gives them rather specific instructions. Obviously, repentance is a central feature of John’s Gospel.

Furthermore, John is ready to motivate those who hesitate to change their behavior in the way that he suggests. Apparently, a significant number in Israel might think they do not need to repent because they are descended from Abraham. John’s reply is that descent from Abraham is worthless apart from the fruits of repentance. Matthew’s Gospel tells us the same thing in regard to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3.7, 8).

What Luke and Matthew seem to be saying is that some Israelites (especially the Pharisees and Sadducees) were prone to think of themselves as favored by God simply because of the promises made to Abraham, apart from any good works on their part, or any lack thereof.

2. Sonship & John’s Gospel

Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

They answered him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that you say, ‘You shall become free’?”

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s offspring; yet you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with my Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”

They answered and said to him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.

They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

The Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8.21-48).

This dispute over paternity shows that some Israelites among Jesus’ contemporaries not only presumed to be favored by God as descendents of Abraham, but also rejected Jesus on the grounds that they were God’s children. Their confidence in their own standing as members of God’s family led them to accuse Jesus of being both a bastard and a half-breed who was not truly descended from Abraham (that is, a Samaritan).

3. The Epistle of James

James, in his controversial argument that faith without works is dead, says,

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” [Genesis 15.6], and he was called the friend of God. (2.19-23)

Some Protestants assume that James is written later than Paul to those who have turned the doctrine of justification of justification by faith alone into a license to sin. However, if we take into account the Hebrew background to the belief that “God is one” we find that James makes much more sense as a relatively early exhortation for God’s people to follow his commands.

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6.4). This confession was a basic badge of Israel’s identity that differentiated it from the polytheistic nations around them. James is telling his audience, “the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (James 1.1), that their monotheistic faith does not exempt them from the judgment of God. They need to be showing their faith by their deeds (James 2.18).

Understood this way, we see that James’ message is quite similar to that of John the Baptist. Both exhort their audience not to rely on the surface features of covenant membership (descent from Abraham or a monotheistic confession of faith) but rather to show fruits of repentance through a change in behavior. In fact, James exhortation that his readers follow the example of Abraham corresponds rather fittingly with John the Baptist’s warning that mere physical descent from Abraham will not count for much. It also fits well with Jesus appeal to Abraham’s behavior in order to argue that his opponents are not true children of Abraham.

4. Sons of the Kingdom in Matthew’s Gospel

And when He had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, entreating Him, and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain.”

And He said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

But the centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I, too, am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.”

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled, and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed that very hour (Matthew 8.5-13).

Elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus uses the term, “sons of the kingdom,” to denote those who will escape the wrath of God and be vindicated by his grace (13.38). Yet here he refers to the Israelites who do not believe. He as much as says in this passage that the Gentiles with faith are the true sons of Abraham who will be publicly acknowledged as one family with him (c.f. Galatians 3.7, 23-29; Romans 4.11).

Why would Jesus need to say such things to his Israelite contemporaries? The most available explanation is in Matthew 3.7-10, the parallel to Luke 3.1-18 above:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3.7-10).

Jesus is repeating John’s theme. Israel’s covenantal privileges as the sons of the kingdom, and even the sons of God (Deuteronomy 14.1a), are only going to lead to their condemnation unless they repent and believe.

5. Provisional Conclusions

The above observations are not sufficient for any firm conclusions, but they do indicate that further investigation is warranted. I had always thought and been taught that the Israelites in Jesus’ day all thought that they had to strive to be “good enough to go to heaven.” But the message of John the Baptist and Jesus in John’s Gospel seems to indicate a different situation. It seems from what we’ve seen above that some Israelites were presuming they were immune to judgment due to their membership in God’s covenant. John the Baptist told them that what they had wasn’t enough. They needed to repent and show fruits of repentance if they wished to escape the wrath to come. The Israelites resisted Jesus’ warning of judgment because they were certain of their status of God’s sons.

Provisionally then, the Gospel as Luke understands it to begin with John’s ministry, is a call to repentance in the face of an impending visitation by God-a repentance that is defined in terms of concrete behaviors. As this visitation takes place, we see the content of the Gospel message adjusted according to what has already happened and what is left to yet take place.

A call to repentance in the face of God’s visitation, it should go without saying (!?), means a call to believe and trust in the God who is promising his visitation. One must first and foremost repent of unbelief and one never responds to a message from a person unless one believes the message and trusts the person. Perhaps the data above will help us feel more comfortable with the fact that the first sermon of the Church does not even bother to mention faith or believing, but simply exhorts those who want to be delivered from God’s wrath to repent and be baptized.

Some more analysis related to these thoughts:

When Christ enjoins upon the young man the duty of following him (Mt. 19:23), he does not give a counsel, but a command to all in common because no one can have a hope of salvation unless he follows Christ (2 Pet. 2:21), although from a particular cause it is peculiarly adapted to him. –Francis Turretin (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol 2, p. 32; 11.4.11)

The story of the Scribe and Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the rich young ruler are both commonly given a similar interpretation in PCA churches, as well as in other Evangelical churches. This interpretation might be characterized as Lutheran. What characterizes this interpretation is a stress on the difference between law and gospel. This difference is alleged to manifest itself in Jesus’ preaching “law” to the Scribe and the rich young ruler not so they will follow his directions, but so they will realize that they are incapable of such obedience. This realization will make them open to the offer of the Gospel, which is said to be sheer grace without any conditional commands.My argument in this essay is that this “Law-Gospel” interpretation of these two passages is in error. An accurate interpretation will not use the categories of “Law” and “Gospel” in such a way.

1. Initial Considerations

The Hebrew Scriptures explicitly declare that there is no man who does not sin. King Solomon prayed at the dedication of the Temple,

When they sin against you (for there is no man who does not sin) and you are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near; if they take thought in the land where they have been taken captive, and repent and make supplication to you in the land of those who have taken them captive, saying, “We have sinned and have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly”; if they return to Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to Thee toward their land which you have given to their fathers, the city which you have chosen, and the house which I have built for your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive your people who have sinned against you and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against you, and make them objects of compassion before those who have taken them captive, that they may have compassion on them (for they are your people and your inheritance which you have brought forth from Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace), that your eyes may be open to the supplication of your servant and to the supplication of your people Israel, to listen to them whenever they call to you. For you have separated them from all the peoples of the earth as your inheritance, as you spoke through Moses your servant, when you brought our fathers forth from Egypt, O Lord GOD (First Kings 8.46-53).

Solomon was not revealing some well-kept secret when he stated that there is no man who does not sin. One of the songs, sung by pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for worship, confessed

If you, LORD, marked iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?
But there is forgiveness with you,
That you may be feared (Psalm 130.3, 4).

And David’s prayer was also sung in worship:

Hear my prayer, O LORD,
Give ear to my supplications!
Answer me in your faithfulness, in your righteousness!
And do not enter into judgment with your servant,
For in your sight no man living is righteous (Psalm 143.1, 2).

Solomon in his wisdom asked the rhetorical question, “Who can say, ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin’?” (Proverbs 20.9). He also wrote, “there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7.20).

If this was a longer essay and a more detailed one, it might be worth pursuing how David and possibly another Psalmist, and Solomon arrived at this conclusion about possibility of a man or woman living without sinning. Apart from their observations on life, what did they read in the earlier Scriptures that enabled them to make such confidently negative assertions? While a great deal of evidence was undoubtedly available, my hunch is that Solomon’s prayer refers to a specific strand from Moses’ farewell sermon. He mentions that all men sin while speaking of those taken out of the Promised Land reflects Deuteronomy 28-30, which begins by promising blessings for obedience and threatening curses that include exile. By the beginning of chapter 30, however, the threat is transformed into a prophecy in which Moses simply predicts that the people will go into exile and then be restored after God circumcises their hearts. Except for the hope after the exile, the last seven chapters of Deuteronomy paint a bleak picture of the future of God’s chosen people. Perhaps this portrayal of God’s own chosen people unable to remain in such a gracious covenant with God was one strand of evidence that led the writers of the Kingdom period to deduce that no one could live without sin.

But whatever may be said about earlier revelation, the fact is that we have straightforward statements in the Psalms and wisdom literature that no one is without sin. Thus, any Israelite in Palestine who claimed that he obeyed God “perfectly” would be either grossly ignorant or an unbeliever in Israel’s canonical Scriptures. This would be a possibility for the Sadducees who only accepted as canonical the Pentateuch. But it would not be a possibility for Jesus, nor for the main characters in either of our passages in Luke’s Gospel.

Before we deal with these passages, we need to take into account how Luke describes Zacharias and Elizabeth: “they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (1.6). This should terminate any thought that “keeping the law” necessarily implies sinless obedience to all God’s commands. In fact, given the fact that the Mosaic Law made provision for getting one’s sins forgiven, it is difficult to see how anyone could claim that the Mosaic Law demanded perfect obedience to God’s commands as a condition for eternal life. A law code, which includes provisions for receiving forgiveness for breaking parts of the code, is clearly not expecting moral perfection of the people under the code. God’s covenant was with sinners, after all. We should not be surprised to read Luke’s description of Zacharias and Elizabeth.

Notice, incidentally, that the Apostle Paul exhorts the church in Philippi to be “blameless.”

Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may have cause to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain (Philippians 2.14-16).

Yet, to my knowledge, no one ever claims that the Apostle Paul expected the Philippians to be sinless. Nor, strangely, does anyone insist that the Apostle Paul is here preaching “law” so that the Philippians will give up any hope of appearing as lights in the world, and instead beg God for the unconditional grace of the Gospel.

2. The Rich Young Ruler: Luke 18.18-30

The Rich Young Ruler asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (i.e. be raised by God in glory at the resurrection). Jesus lists the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, and fifth commands of the Decalogue. The young man then replies, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” Our immediate question should be: Why should we assume that the Rich Young Ruler meant anything different than Luke did when describing Zacharias and Elizabeth?

According to the parallel passage in Mark’s Gospel, in response to this answer, “looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him” (10.21). This makes it even more implausible to suggest that the Rich Young Ruler was boldly setting aside First Kings 8.46; Psalm 130.3, 4; 143.1, 2; Proverbs 20.9; and Ecclesiastes 7.20. When the Sadducees contradict the doctrine of the resurrection, we see Jesus explicitly argue against them. If there were any intent on the part of the Ruler to contradict the doctrine of universal sinfulness then we would expect Jesus to take similar action.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus gives us every reason to think that he agrees with the Rich Young Ruler’s description of himself. “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Luke 18.22). To tell a person that, in addition to what he claims to have done, he must do one thing more, assumes that one accepts that the person has indeed done what he claims he has done. If Jesus’ real problem with the Ruler was his claim to have never sinned, it seems odd that he would simply insist on one more good work.

Finally, there is nothing in this text that even approaches the issue of a person realizing that he cannot obey all God’s commands without sinning. On the contrary, Peter and the rest of the disciples have done exactly what Jesus asked of the Young Ruler (Luke 10.28). The Rich Young Ruler did not go away sad because he realized that he could not obey all God’s commands perfectly. He did so because he realized that he could obey Jesus’ command, however imperfectly, but that he didn’t want to do so, even if it cost him the resurrection of glory.

3. The Parable of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10.25-37

In reply to a statement of the two greatest commandments, Jesus says, “You have answered correctly; ‘do this, and you will live’ [Leviticus 18.5]” (10.28). The popular Evangelical reading of this statement assumes that Jesus is saying that one must obey the law perfectly in order to receive eternal life. But why should we think that this was Jesus’ meaning? The reaction of the Scribe gives us no evidence of such a meaning. He doesn’t ask, “How can anyone be sinless?” but rather, “Who is my neighbor?” And Jesus doesn’t tell a parable of someone finding it impossible to sinlessly love his wife as he ought to, but rather a story involving racial boundaries that had been used to systematically pervert the application of the law.

The issue in this story is not of a person trying to fulfill all of the law perfectly but not being able to do so. Rather, the issue involves someone who can begin treating the Samaritans better but who doesn’t want to do so. He would rather exclude Samaritans from his definition of “neighbor” and thus justify not loving them at all.

To repeat what has been said before, Luke 1.6 gives us firm evidence that sinners who are following God can be described “walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” The burden of proof needs to be met by those who insist Jesus was telling the scribe that he must be sinless in order to inherit life.

Furthermore, if the Scribe had thought Jesus was claiming that sinless perfection was required, he would have obviously accused Jesus of not knowing the Scriptures that, as we have seen, clearly show that God’s gracious covenant is intended for sinful men to promise them salvation and glory.

4. Sanctification by Faith

The Law-Gospel hermeneutic is extra-ordinarily implausible in these two cases. Why are people so prone to interpret these passages in such a manner? I think the motive is to protect the doctrine of justification by faith. If so, I offer the following considerations:

(a) Justification by faith is set over against any form of justification by works. But the Law-Gospel hermeneutic actually claims that Jesus advocated some form of works-righteousness, only to rescue the doctrine of justification by faith by positing that Jesus was not really intending for anyone to try to be justified by works. Isn’t this a rather self-defeating way to argue for justification by faith alone? What is to keep an opponent from claiming that we ourselves are admitting that justification is by works but then trying to deny it by a contrived and unsupported claim that Jesus didn’t really mean it? Are we not giving Roman Catholics ammunition by insisting that Jesus actually did tell the Rich Young Ruler and the Scribe that they could inherit life by being good enough?

(b) If Jesus did indeed mean for the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and then follow him in order to be saved from the wrath to come, this does not mean that Jesus advocated justification by meritorious good works or ultimately by any other kind of good works. We are given, in the New Testament, a situation very much like that of the Rich Young Ruler, which unquestionably entails salvation by faith.

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward (Hebrews 11.14-26).

Moses was saved not because he did “enough” good works or earned anything in God’s sight. He was saved because he trusted God. But because he trusted God he aligned himself with God’s people rather than with the Egyptians.

Jesus was presenting the Rich Young Ruler with a similar decision. Israel was under judgment and living by faith no longer could be done in the usual way. Jesus was calling whoever would listen (whoever had ears to hear) to join him and trust him to bring them into the Kingdom and save them from the coming judgment. Thus he was offering the Rich Young Ruler an opportunity to choose “rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of” Israel.

(c) This interpretation, I think, offers a satisfactory explanation, for Jesus’ mysterious initial comment “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Luke 8.19). To illustrate my point, I will take another part of Hebrews 11:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (vv. 17-19).

Offering up one’s son as a human sacrifice is normally reprehensible, but when God called Abraham to do it, he decided he could trust God’s guidance. The Rich Young Ruler has been living according to God’s covenant and has enjoyed many blessings. But in a time of judgment, such blessings can become snares. The Ruler needed to realize that his riches were only relatively good. God was the absolute. If God was calling him to leave his wealth behind then it was no longer good. God alone is good, and Jesus was showing the Ruler how to pursue him in faith.

(d) In the case of the Scribe, the situation is slightly different. The Scribe was not living in a way that would normally be considered believing and faithful as the Rich Young Ruler was. The Scribe was living in sin. Not only was his ethic perverse, but also he himself already suspected it was perverse. Jesus was able to get him to condemn himself from his own mouth. Jesus’ call was simply that he repent from sin and live according to God’s commands. Obviously, if the Scribe refused to recognize the Samaritan as his neighbor then he is guilty of unbelief. If he repented and acknowledged the Samaritan as his neighbor, then it would show that he trusted God. Jesus was calling the Scribe to faith.

To sum up, my interpretation of these two passages is much less contrived and bolsters the Protestant concern for salvation by faith. Indeed, I am arguing that these two stories show us that not only justification but sanctification is by faith because faith believes God’s promises and takes action according to those promises. As the Westminster Confession states in its chapter “Of Saving Faith”:

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come (14.2a).

5. Conclusion

The typical interpretations of Luke 10.25-37 and 18.18-30 along the lines of a Law-Gospel hermeneutic are obviously flawed and end up undermining the very doctrine they are trying to protect. They allow Jesus to actually encourage people to be justified by good works and then try to save the Reformation slogan sola fide (“faith alone”) by claiming Jesus really was using a clever ploy to get people to give up trying to be justified by good works.

A better interpretation allows Jesus to simply call people to repentance and faith. Because faith involves trusting God’s promises, it involves concrete actions. Nevertheless, such works are not meritorious nor an attempt to earn God’s favor. Rather they are manifestations of a trust in God to save us and take care of us.

Legalism means “law-ism.”  From the term itself it simply means that the law is exalted.  It does not say how or why one does so.

A person who believed that his devouring of widow’s houses was OK with God because he tithed everything he bought as well as earned as a sign of God’s grace on his life (i.e. he thanked God as the source of his moral ability to tithe and devour widow’s houses) would be a “legalist”–he would define himself as favored by God on the evidentiary basis of keeping some rules that he associated with the Law.

If Jesus met such a person, he would condemn him as lawless, tell him to repent, warn him of impending judgment, and exhort him to actually obey the Law.

Jesus’ exhortation to obey the law would not be an exhortation to become sinless.  It would not be an attempt to get the person to stop despising the Law.  Jesus didn’t tell people to love their wives because he wanted them to be convicted that they lost their tempers and didn’t love them sinlessly.  He told them to love Samaritans whom they had convinced themselves they were obeying the law by hating.  They wanted to hate Samaritans and boasted that they did so better than other people.  The dynamics of striving to be good enough are completely absent from the Gospels.

When people refused to believe Jesus’ interpretation they were trusting in themselves that they were righteous rather than trusting in Jesus that their righteousness was odious sin.  It was not odious because it failed to measure up.  It was odious because it was going in an entirely wrong direction.