Law in Romans: Promissory

I apologize for taking so long to get here. But when we talk about “Law,” we have to be clear what we’re saying (and not saying). What Paul says about the Law is a subset of what he says about, and how he reads, the rest of the scriptures of Israel. I take these to be his presuppositions:

  1. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the good news
  2. This good news is brought about by Israel’s God
  3. God promised to bring such good news to Israel
  4. These promises are found in Israel’s scriptures

This is little more than a restating of Romans 1:1-7. So, in brief reply to people’s vociferous reactions from earlier this week: No, what I’m about to lay out is not a supersessionist, replacement theology. It is a surprising redefinition of what it means to be faithful to the Law and scriptures of Israel.

There are problems with claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures and the way of salvation–especially when ethnic Israel, by and large, is not receiving Jesus as God’s promised good news. But these are the problems Romans was written to answer.

The first thing to say is this: the purpose of the Law is to witness beyond itself to the coming Messiah. This means that the purpose of the Law was not ultimately either (a) to define the people of God; (b) provide the righteousness requisite for being acquitted as one of God’s faithful people; or (c) tell people what to do for all times and places.

The first indication of this is in the opening verses, where Paul says that the gospel concerning God’s son was prepromised in the scriptures. The stage is set, here, for scriptural references to be read as promissory.

This vein is worked out in several places of the letter:

In Rom 3, after stating the law will not justify any flesh, Paul situates the law with respect to his gospel: “But now, without law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed to by the law and the prophets–the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ.”

The law and prophets witness to something beyond themselves: to the coming Christ as the revelation of God’s righteousness.

Similarly, Paul introduces Rom 4 with a statement that he establishes the law. He then goes on to depict the Abraham narrative as anticipating the Christ event in two crucial ways: as Jesus’ death provides for the justification of the ungodly, so too Abraham believed in the God who justifies the ungodly (4:5). And, in the second half of the chapter, the birth of Isaac is depicted as a resurrection–so that Abraham believes in the God who gives life to the dead. This anticipates our own justification as we believe in him who raised Jesus from the dead (4:22-25).

The Abraham narrative shows that the gospel of Christ establishes the Law because it depicts the promises to Abraham, and his justification, as anticipations of the work this same God does now, through Paul’s gospel.

This becomes Paul’s focus as he wrestles with the problem of Israel’s unbelief in chs. 9-10 as well.

At the end of chapter 9, the difference between Israel’s non-attainment of righteousness and the Gentile’s attainment of it has to do with Israel’s failure to read the Law as witness to Christ: “Not by faith, but as though by works–they stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, ‘Behold! I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and however believes in him shall not be disappointed.’”

Wrong use of the Law is failing to see it as an anticipation of the coming Christ.

Similarly, in the beginning of ch. 10, the problem with Israel’s pursuit of righteousness is that it did not use the law so as to arrive at Christ. They strove to attain their own righteousness rather than recognizing God’s righteousness which comes through Christ: “For Christ is the telos of the law, unto righteousness for all who believe” (10:4).

In a third pass at the same argument, Paul contrasts the self-referential idea of “doing” the Torah with the Christo-referential idea of the law as witness to the coming Christ.

Law-righteousness, he claims, says, “Whoever does these things will live by them.” Faith righteousness, however, sees in Torah a witness to the Christ event: “Do not say in your heart who will ascend into heaven–that is, to bring down the Messiah. Nor, who will descend into the abyss–that is, to raise the Messiah from the dead. What does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart; that is, the word of faith that we proclaim. That if you confess Jesus is Lord with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from among the dead, you will be saved.”

In this, Paul rewrites Deut 30. No longer do those verses testify to the gift of the Law as the means of salvation, but to Christ as that means.

This is the first line of argument about the Law in Romans: that the purpose of the whole Torah is to bear witness to something beyond itself. It is a diachronic purpose. The law, correctly understood, has a centrifugal rather than centripetal force: it throws you outside of itself to the coming Christ.

Tomorrow we will take up a second line of argument: that the Law comes in in order to ensure that Israel, like everyone else, is recognizably sinful.

4 thoughts on “Law in Romans: Promissory”

  1. “The Abraham narrative shows that the gospel of Christ establishes the Law because it depicts the promises to Abraham, and his justification, as anticipations of the work this same God does now, through Paul’s gospel”.

    Do you mean the law is established in the sense of bearing witness to Christ?

    “At the end of chapter 9, the difference between Israel’s non-attainment of righteousness and the Gentile’s attainment of it has to do with Israel’s failure to read the Law as witness to Christ”. (Also, your second and third passes.)

    Are you reading the ‘attainment’ here as being in Paul’s time? Or might the ‘attainment’ be taken as what might be attained at any time, ie any time between Moses and Paul?

    “in the beginning of ch. 10 … They strove to attain their own righteousness”.

    How do you understand what they were striving for? Were they being criticised by Paul because they were striving for salvation by keeping the law’s commands, or because they were striving for Jews with the law being exclusively God’s people?

  2. Yes, law established in the sense of bearing witness to Christ.

    In what time? In Paul’s time–as he’s wrestling with Israel’s “failure” in contrast to Gentiles’ “success” in terms of responding to the gospel.

    What were they striving for? Perhaps a bit of both: keeping commands as the way to demarcate themselves as the righteous people of God.

  3. Does Christ in the NT always refer exclusively to Jesus? Does it always mean Jesus as Messiah? Since we have several uses of Anointed=Messiah=Christ (מָשִׁיחַ, translated χριστοῦ in the LXX) in the OT referring to say Cyrus (Is 45:1), or to Israel (Pss 28:8, 84:9, 89:20, 105:15 etc), or Israel’s king (1 Sam 2:10), is it possible that the witness to Messiah and the focus that Jesus makes of this Anointing goes beyond a Jesus-only definition of Christ? The implications for us are a participation in this same Spirit and a rereading of Romans in that light – I think this especially applies to Romans 8 and 9-11 and the application of the prophesies concerning the Gentiles in chapter 15. Does this help for instance get into Paul’s use of ‘in Christ’ as a term for the elect?

    Sorry that my questions are slightly off your topic – but the assumptions in your topic (which I find agreeable) seem to me to demand them.

    For instance – the Law and the Prophets may witness, as you say, to ‘the coming of’ a Messiah – but do they not also witness in themselves and their own time to the election of Israel and the tenderness and gentleness of God known to them in that election, i.e. to an Anointing that was present then in their tradition – and not necessarily exclusive (e.g. the invitation in the psalms to all who fear)… (except for the need for that miniature death known as circumcision)?

    This is of course where Paul is coming from – that the external markers of having been consecrated are no longer required for Gentiles because the cutting off that is imaged in Abraham’s obedience after he believed is accomplished in the death of Jesus (see Col 2:11).

    But equally Paul is careful to point out how important this ancient witness is for the Christ-believers of his present day (Romans 15:4)

  4. @Bob: I know that your question was for Daniel but I thought I’d toss in my own take that at least in Paul’s writings it seems that “Christ” is always Jesus, the resurrected Lord. I think Paul would have seen those OT examples that you noted as “types” pointing toward Christ also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.