I was quite encouraged by the conversation that ensued after yesterday’s post on the Law, and reading from solution to plight. Mostly I was encouraged because after articulating how Paul thinks about the law, I was bombarded by all sorts of objections–most of which are the objections of the rhetorical interlocutor who clearly misunderstands Paul in Romans. This leads me to think that I’m on the right track with articulating a Pauline theology of the Law!
Before diving into the details, let’s orient ourselves a bit. I had a professor once upon a time who used to say that every controversy the church had to face for the first several hundred (2,000?!) years of its existence hinged on the question of continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. And it’s not just about whether there is continuity or discontinuity, the question is where, exactly, the continuity lies and where exactly the discontinuity lies.
One of the problems with most of the objections that have arisen here over the past few days is that people are concluding that a surprising function of the Law, as that function is asserted by NT writers, entails a wholesale discontinuity between the God of Israel / Law and the God of the church / the gospel. Again, not to get too cheeky–this is precisely the misunderstanding about his own theology that drives Romans.
Paul proclaims a Torah free gospel, especially for Gentiles. And now he has to deal with the question of both what this sort of message means about the God of Israel and Israel’s scriptures and what it means that the Gentiles are the predominant members of this new would-be Jewish movement. The point is that we have to be patient with the developing of how continuity works between OT and NT, not assuming that discontinuity–or surprise–at one important point means throwing out the whole OT, Israel, God, etc.
At this point it’s important to highlight two other important aspects of this conversation: (1) The general perspective I’m advocating here, that how OT has value for Christians is only with reference to and/or through Christ, is not just Paul’s theology. In John, Jesus tells the people, You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have life–but it is these that testify to me! The life-giving value of the Torah is not to be found in itself, but as it bears witness to something beyond itself–to the coming Christ. This is Paul’s point in Romans 3 as well.
(2) When we are talking about the place of “the Law,” as that conversation was spurred by Romans 5, the entity we are talking about was the Law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. One of the biggest problems with making sense of the law in the NT is when we start equivocating, by calling all sorts of things “Law” that might very well be denoted by the word but carry different connotations. The Law, in Paul’s parlance, is what was given “430 years later” than Abraham. It comes at a particular point in time for some particular purposes.
The surprise that Paul has in store is that, because the Law came into a world where sin and death were in power, its life-giving purpose could not be realized, “and this commandment, which was supposed to result in life resulted in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment deceived me, and through it, killed me.”
Throughout the NT, the purpose of the Law is, in some sense, Christo-referential. While one can say that this is because Christ is what God was up to all along (as NT Wright does repeatedly, and surely he’s correct), such a statement is actually a confession of faith that can only be made by those who believe beforehand that Christ is what God was up to all along–it is not something that can be read “straight” off the pages of the Law.
Or, put differently, life in Christ rather than life in Torah is the telos of the Law.
Tomorrow: more on Law in Romans. I promise.
This is really good. I will say, the question that I consistently come back to, however, is HOW Christ is the goal or telos of the Mosaic Law. Perhaps I’m just not hearing all of Paul’s intention in Romans, but I can never quite put my finger on how Paul thinks of this. Is it the traditional reformation answer–that the law shows us our sin and (thus) our need for Christ and redemption through grace, not through the effort of the flesh? Is is prophetically, in that so many elements of the law (temple, priesthood, sacrifice, circumcision, separation from nations, etc.) foreshadow the work of Christ? Is it something else? Is there more than one way in particular that Christ is the goal of the Law all along?
“It (law/torah) comes at a particular point in time for some particular purposes.”
Torah came as the terms of the Mosaic covenant. It was for the building of a nation. But, through the covenant is also how the torah kills; disobedience brings on the curse sanctions of the covenant such as exile from the land and divorce from God.
That is also why “Paul proclaims a Torah free gospel, especially for Gentiles.” The torah is no longer the terms for being in covenant with God. The faithfulness of the one and only torah observant Jew has ushered in a new covenant with different terms and promises.
But the Torah, especially as defined and expanded on by Jesus, still works as a standard of how God wants mankind to live. It is just not the terms of the agreements anymore.
Regarding your last point:
Are we still supposed to keep kosher? To rest on the 7th day? To circumcise?
It seems to me that once you’ve said, “Defined and expanded on by Jesus” that you’re not saying Torah anymore.
Torah not only defined that covenant–that covenant was connected to a particular act of salvation. “I am YHWH your God who brought you out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage…” begins the Decalogue. But, as Jeremiah [!] prophesied, we are no longer in the days when this is God’s defining identity marker, when this is God’s consummate act of salvation. We don’t go to Torah to figure out how to live, we go to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, together with its indicators for what the new creation looks like as it is embodied among the people of God.
“It seems to me that once you’ve said, “Defined and expanded on by Jesus” that you’re not saying Torah anymore.”
Yes, I can agree with that. It is somewhat like the two torahs of Romans 8:
“8:2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.”
Nice post, Daniel.
Billy, out of curiosity, where do you get the notion that Paul represents Jesus as torah-observant?
Wright says in several places that what God needed to save mankind was a faithful/obedient Israelite. Paul mentions the obedience and faithfulness of Jesus in several places. I think that obedience would have to be related to torah observance in some way.
I believe someone associated with this blog has written extensively about how Christ’s obedience and faithfulness in Paul has reference to his death, not torah observance in his own life.
Daniel, do you know of whom I speak here?
Billy, I apologize for the sarcasm here…this comment is more about joking with Daniel.
Stephen,
I take it that Daniel argued against Jesus being torah observant. I looked back a bit for a post like that but I didn’t find anything.
I think that Jesus had to be torah observant. If Jesus is to free those under the curse of the mosaic covenant, brought on by disobedience to torah, then I suspect that he would have undo the curse by obedience to torah. There is a line in Deut. that says something like “do these things and you will live” thus God is justified in raising Jesus to life based on his perfect obedience to torah. Also, since sin and death work through the torah, it would seem that Jesus would need to defeat those through torah. No doubt Jesus understanding of torah was novel, but I don’t see him sitting lose to the terms of the covenant into which he was born.
Billy, I have argued extensively that Jesus’ obedience for which he’s honored in resurrection is, specifically, his obedience in going to death on the cross.
Was he always faithful and obedient to God? Of course. Was he blessed with the life promised in Deuteronomy? No.
The Law offers two possibilities: either you will do all these things and live (the law’s blessing) or you will disobey, be cursed, and die (the law’s curse).
It’s one or the other: either the person will be blessed by the law or cursed.
Paul says explicitly in Gal 3 that he is cursed by the Law. In the end, not even Jesus is blessed by it.
This is part of his argument in that letter for why salvation is not by Torah: life comes–shockingly–through a death cursed by Torah rather than through a life blessed by it.
Funny you should mention “do this an live”: that’s Lev 18:5–the exact verse Paul chooses in both Gal 3 and Rom 10 to contrast the non-saving works of Torah from the saving gospel he proclaims!
Sorry that I am late to the party on this. Thanks for your reply.
Here is the rub though. If it is true that evil came to full fruition through the torah working in Israel (and I think Wright is correct on this), would not Jesus have to deal with that very same aspect of torah and defeat it in himself by complete torah observance? Otherwise what breaks the curse? Why then would his obedient death any different from anyone else who died for their faith?
I think our question about whether or not Jesus had to be torah observant goes beyond what Paul is arguing in Gal 3, but you’re right it is a good place to start and I see your point.
I really appreciate the topic and the chance to share ideas.
or, since
“the Torah simply intensifies the sin of Adam in the people of Israel.”
Would it not follow then that the sin of Adam is undone by Israel’s representative keeping the Torah? If Israel recapitulates and intensifies the sin of Adam through disobedience to Torah, it seems to me it follows that Israel’s representative/the second Adam would undo the first Adam’s transgression by obedience to Torah. And even more so since Jesus’ obedience is demonstrated with all the frailties of a cursed Adamic body.
Billy, your logic is fine. But there’s one huge problem: not one New Testament writer makes that argument.
The surprise of Jesus’ act of salvation is that it shows the Law to be qualitatively the weeping kind of thing to bring about life and salvation. The problem isn’t just quantitative as if someone who did enough of Torah could finally be approved as Messiah. It’s that a new means altogether is being employed.
The key is to point out that “do this and live” wasn’t in reference to eschatological life, only temporal health-wealth.
Thus, Paul is really saying, go by the Law which only promises temporal life, or aim higher and go by the Gospel which promises eternal life. There is no over-lap.
Daniel,
I am going to try to catch up on your series of posts on the Law. Great topic. I am looking forward to reading through the others.