1
PAUL, APOSTLE OF TORAH OBEDIENCE: RETHEOLOGIZING TORAH OBEDIENCE
IN THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
(DRAFT)
INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL RESEARCH: BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, HERMENEUTICS,
AND THE THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES RESEARCH GROUP
NOVEMBER 20, 2015
J. DAVID STARK
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
INTRODUCTION
Commonly, Paul of Tarsus is portrayed as an “apostle of grace” who preached a “Torah-
free” gospel and, consequently, opposed making Torah obedience a requirement for Gentile
Christians. So far as it goes, this sketch contains important truths. For Paul, “the works of
the Torah” should never be an identity locus for the Christian community. What often fails
to be appreciated—with serious consequences for understanding the rest of Pauline
thought—however, is the degree to which Paul himself rewrites and retheologizes what
counts as proper Torah obedience.
In this connection, perhaps a helpful holistic for this discussion is the concept of the
“trace.” It has been said that “the (pure) trace is differance”—namely, “the differance which
opens appearance . . . and signification”—and thus, “the trace is . . . the absolute origin of
sense in general.”1 Prototypically, the trace combines both the moving away of the past, the
moving forward of the future, and what remains from them as influencing and informing
the present.2 The trace, therefore, includes the category of “remainder,” but it does so
specifically in connection to the “non-remainder.”3 That is, neither what passes away nor
1 Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, corrected ed. (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University, 1997), 62, 65. Of course, there is no intention here either to engage or to
underwrite Derrida’s entire hermeneutical program. As the following discussion should show, however, there
seem to be several points of contact between the present argument and how Derrida (non-)concept of the
“trace,” and in this context, it appears a helpful holistic. 2 Ibid., 61, 67.
3 Ibid., 66.
2
what the present portends is itself present, but precisely in its’ being non-present, it exerts
force upon and shapes what remains.4
Concentrating particularly on Rom 2:1–16 as a trace for the balance of the letter, this
paper will show how Paul’s rereading of Torah obedience allows him holistically to
commend this obedience even to Gentiles as such (“retentive tracing”).5 The paper will then
connect this retheologizing movement to subsequent testimony within the Christian
tradition and consider its significance for similarly theological readings of Christian
scripture by contemporary interpreters (“protentive tracing”).
(P)RE-TRACING: TORAH OBEDIENCE AND THE ARGUMENT OF ROMANS 2:1–16
In Rom 2:1–16, perhaps the first substantive salvo about the significance of Torah
obedience may occur in the first verse: the interlocutor is inexcusable because “by that
which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same
things” (ἐν ᾧ . . . κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις, τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων).6
Thus, even at this stage, the interlocutor’s own moral standard is something the
interlocutor does not fulfill.7 Instead, where the interlocutor criticizes others’ behavior, that
4 Ibid., 67, 70–71; Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1978), 12. 5 Of course, for Derrida, that “the trace is . . . the absolute origin of sense in general . . . amounts to
saying that there is no absolute origin of sense in general.” Derrida, Grammatology, 65. The trace always bears
the character of something that has passed away and become absent. Consequently, due to limitations of
space, there must remain in Rom 2:1–16 itself—as is arguably customary within human communication—a
good many untraced traces, or traces that do not appear as such because both their presence and their absence
have become absent, or unfelt. Derrida, Difference, 12; Rosalind M. Selby, Comical Doctrine: An
Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes, United
Kingdom: Paternoster, 2006), 37–38. 6 Rom 2:1.
7 hen ἐν (in, with, by) appears with the relative pronoun and a word of judging outside om , it
mostly ( ) signals the standard by which a thing is udged. Additionally, some manuscripts of om
insert κρί ατι before κρίνεις such that the text reads ἐν ᾧ . . . κρί ατι κρίνεις (C*vid
, 104, syh**
; by what judgment
you judge). In this case, the language would be strikingly parallel to Matt 7:2, and there has been some
suggestion that Rom 2:1 reflects the saying of Jesus preserved in that text (cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans,
Word Biblical Commentary 38 [Dallas: Word, 1988], 80; William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to
the Romans, New Testament Commentary 12–13 [N.p.: William Hendriksen, 1980-1981; repr., Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2002], 12:89; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 980], 4). There are, however, various other possible antecedents that could have informed Paul’s
3
criticism should consistently apply to other similar kinds of behavior not only with others
but also where the interlocutor himself exhibits it.
hat is more, even apart from the interlocutor’s udgment, “God’s udgment is
according to the truth on those who do such things” (Rom 2:2; τὸ κρί α τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ
ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας). One may debate whether the phrase “according to
the truth” (κατὰ ἀλήθειαν) here more communicates the notion of divine faithfulness or of
what complies with the facts of a particular case.8 In any event, “truth” (ἀλήθεια) seems here
to be intimately connected with the Mosaic Torah. In v. 8, Paul situates “truth” firmly in the
domain of morality as something to be obeyed or disobeyed. This way of characterizing
“truth” also fits firmly within the context already established for the language in 1:18, 25.
Perhaps still more strikingly, 0 describes Jews as “having in the Torah the form of
knowledge and truth” (ἔχοντα τὴν όρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νό ῳ).9 Thus,
the assumption already at work in 2:2 seems to be that Yahweh will judge wrongdoers
(including those who criticize other wrongdoers but behave similarly) according to the true
standard articulated in the Torah.
Although this judgment is inescapable, divine mercy works encourages repentance
from those who might find themselves coming under this judgment (2:3–4). Consequently,
language in Rom 2:1 (e.g., Ps 62:13; Prov 24:12; Job 34:11; Tob 4:9–10; Sir 16:14; Jub. 5:15; 1 En. 100:7; see
Dunn, Romans, 84; Käsemann, Romans, 57; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the omans A Commentary,
trans. Scott J. Hafemann, 1st ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 45). In any event, there does
seem safely to have been an early textual tradition of understanding ἐν ᾧ (by that which) in Rom 2:1 as
communicating the interlocutor’s standard of udgment. 8 In favor of divine faithfulness, see Dunn, Romans, lxiii, 44, 80–81, 133, 847, 850. In favor of factual
accuracy, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ed. J. A.
Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, 2 vols., rev. ed., International Critical Commentary (New
York: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 143; cf. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans, ed. John Owen, trans. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries (N.p. n.p., 849; repr., Bellingham,
Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 85. 9 Johannes Behm, “ ορφή, ορφόω, όρφωσις, ετα ορφόω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 754–55, comments, “This udgment, which is
stated with obvious irony by Paul, is not the same as his own estimate of the significance of the Law, in spite
of . ff.; 3 ff.; 3 3 ; 9 4; 3 8.” Even if Paul’s statement is shaded with irony, the context for this irony is
probably the same as that in 2:1–16—namely, the over-exuberance of some Jews about some aspects of their
privileges. Consequently, even an ironic evaluation in 0 does not seem to mitigate this text’s interpretive
significance for 2:2.
4
those who persist in impenitence will engender further wrath upon themselves “on the day
of the revelation of the wrath and the righteous judgment of God” (2:5; ἐν ἡ έρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ
ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ; cf. 1:17–18; 2:4a).10 That is, the genitive construction
involved in the phrase ἡ έρα ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας (lit.: day of wrath and of
revelation of righteous judgment) is apparently a hendiadys. As 1:17–18 suggests is
anticipated in the present, the one eschatological day of judgment finds dual expression
toward some in wrath and toward others in beneficent righteousness.11
Despite frequent readings of this phrase that suggest that righteous judgment
(δικαιοκρισία) functions, with “wrath” (ὀργή), on a wholly punitive plane in this text, the
following clause seems to confirm further that the dual perspective of 1:17–18 is maintained
here too. This following clause identifies Israel’s God as one who “will render to each one
according to his works” (2:6; ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ). According to 2:8–9,
some of this “rendering” (ἀποδοῦναι) is explicitly punitive toward “those who disobey the
truth and obey unrighteousness” (τοῖς . . . ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθο ένοις) or
“every soul of a person who does evil” (πᾶς ψυχὴ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζο ένου τὸ κακόν). On
the other hand, according to 2:7, 10, some of the rendering Yahweh does on that day will be
10
Dunn, Romans, 84; Käsemann, Romans, 56; see also Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary,
Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 202–3. 11
1Q33 18:7–8; Sib. Or. 3.702–709; T. Lev. 15.2. That ἀποκαλύψεως (of revelation) should cross the
preceding καί (and) to modify ἡ έρα (day) more immediately than does the closer ὀργῆς (of wrath) is hardly
typical. Yet, a “day of wrath” (ἡ έρα ὀργῆς) could scarcely be a day apart from the revelation or enactment of
that wrath (cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. Gordon D. Fee, New International
Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 134–35). Several witnesses add a
further “and” after “of revelation” so that they produce the reading “day of wrath and revelation and righteous
udgment” ( ℵ2, D
2, Ψ, 33, 39, 88 , , sy
h; ἡ έρα ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ δικαιοκρισίας). According to
Cranfield, Romans, 4 n , this reading, “has the effect of making ἀποκαλύψεως parallel with ὀργῆς and
δικαιοκρισίας,” but he dismisses it because “intrinsic probability is against it, and it is possible to account for it
as due to a careless reader’s puzzlement at the combination ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας.” On the other hand, it
is not precisely clear how “of the revelation of the righteous udgment” (ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας) would
cause special puzzlement in the producers of so broad a set of textual witnesses. Although the reading with
this additional “and” should probably not be adopted as the more original, it does witness a reasonably early
and substantive tradition of situating “of revelation” with both “of wrath” and “of righteous udgment”
(δικαιοκρισίας) as modi ers of the “day” (ἡ έρα). If the text does present the phrase ἡ έρα ὀργῆς καὶ
ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας as a hendiadys in this manner, one possible reason for or meaningful gain from
doing so is the more evocative packaging of the phrase “day of wrath” as a stock unit informed by its scriptural
antecedents (Lam 1:12; 2:1, 21–22; Ezek 22:24; Zeph 1:15, 18; 2:3; cf. Isa 13:9, 13; 37:3; Jer 51:6; Zeph 2:2).
5
explicitly beneficent toward “those who, by perseverance in good work, seek glory and
honor and immortality” (τοῖς . . . καθ’ ὑπο ονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τι ὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν
ζητοῦσιν) or “everyone who does good” (παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζο ένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν).
Thus, if the interlocutor maintains his current position, the danger of Yahweh’s
punitive judgment stands. On the other hand, if the interlocutor succumbs to divine
encouragements toward repentance, he too may find himself subject to further beneficence.
Consequently, in , even Paul’s criticism of the interlocutor seems carefully to qualify the
punishment forthcoming for the interlocutor’s current behavior by the possibility of still
more lavish kindness should the interlocutor amend his ways.
Both possible results from the divine evaluation of people’s behavior are “first”
(πρῶτον) toward Jews and then also toward Greeks (2:9–10). This language echoes the Jews’
apparently privileged status in salvation history (3:1–20). The Jews’ priority in udgment
counterbalances their priority in salvation-historical privilege.12 Thus, both Jew and Greek
stand on equal footing before Yahweh in his judging them according to their deeds rather
than according to the privileges of their ethnicity, and “there is no partiality with God”
(2:11; οὐ . . . ἐστιν προσωπολη ψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ).13
Paul immediately follows this statement by further disabusing his interlocutor and
his readers of the notion that Torah-possession ultimately has any relevance in connection
with divine udgment. Judgment is “apart from the Torah” (ἀνό ως) to the Greeks who do
not normally have access to it, and udgment is “through the Torah” (διὰ νό ου) to the Jews
who do normally have access to it (2:12; cf. 2:14).14 In the end, “the hearers of the Torah
will not be righteous before God, but the doers of the Torah will be ustified” (Rom 2:13; οὐ
. . . οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νό ου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ’ οἱ ποιηταὶ νό ου δικαιωθήσονται).15 “Hearing”
in itself was regularly a positive concept within Judaism (cf. Deut 6:4).16 In this context,
12
Jewett, Romans, 208; Moo, Romans, 139. 13
Cf. Calvin, Romans, 94; C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The orks of the Law’ in the Epistle to the omans,”
JSNT 43, no. 1 (1991): 96. 14
Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Paul, the Law, and Gentiles A Contextual and Exegetical eading of omans
2:12– 6,” JETS 42, no. 1 (1999): 42; Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, trans. Wilhelm Pauck, Library of
Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 45, 49; Moo, Romans, 4 ; Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’
‘ orks of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45, no. 1 (1983): 80, 82, 88. 15
The several surrounding references to an eschatological judgment scenario suggest that the
grammatically non-verbal v. 13a also has a future reference (Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New
on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 267). 16
Dunn, Romans, 97; Lamp, “Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles,” 43.
6
however, Paul gives “hearing” a clearly negative flavor by characterizing it as mere hearing
not united to active obedience.17
It is often assumed that, in this text, the deeds that “the doers of the Torah” do (οἱ
ποιηταὶ νό ου) are what cause their doers’ ustification.18 Yet, three important factors
mitigate against this interpretation. The Pauline corpus uses “to ustify” (δικαιοῖν) in the
passive 20 times.19 Excluding the use under investigation in Rom 2:13, explicit agents or
means of human justification appear in 17 cases.20 These agents or means include “blood”
(α α), “God” (θεός), “Torah” (νό ος), “nothing against myself” (οὐδ ν ἐ αυτῷ), “works”
(ἔργα), “faith” (πίστις), “Spirit” (πνεύ α), “grace” (χάρις), and “the Messiah” ( ριστός).21 In
none of these cases, does the Pauline corpus affirm justification by means of works or
Torah. Indeed, whenever “to ustify” and “work” (ἔργον) occur in the same Pauline clause,22
they are coordinated in a denial that justification occurs based on works. Therefore, for him
to place “work” as the agent of this passive verb would be quite uncharacteristic.23 Thus,
17
Cranfield, Romans, 154; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works?:
Another Look at Romans 2,” BBR 3 (1993): 145. Not least because reading was normally done aloud in the
ancient world (cf. Acts 8:30), the Pauline tradition does manifestly does not oppose hearing as such (cf. Eph
3:1; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13). 18
E.g., Douglas J. Moo, “ omans Saved Apart from the Gospel?,” in Through No Fault of Their
Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Siqountos (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1991), 138–41; cf. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, nd ed., Black’s New Testament
Commentaries 6 (London: Hendrickson, 1991), 78; Käsemann, Romans, 58; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and
the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), ; Thomas . Schreiner, “The Abolition and Fulfillment of
the Law in Paul,” JSNT 3 ( 989) 48; Schreiner, “Justification by orks,” 34; Thomas . Schreiner, “Paul
and Perfect Obedience to the Law An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders,” WTJ 47, no. 2 (1985): 278. 19
Rom 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 1 Cor 4:4; 6:11; Gal 2:16–17 (4x); 3:11, 24; 5:4; 1 Tim
3:16; Tit 3:7. 20
Rom 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 4:4; 6:11; Gal 2:16–17 (4x); 3:11, 24; 5:4; 1 Tim 3:16; Tit
3:7. Rom 3:4 also refers to the justification of God and may perhaps prescribe for this justification the means
“in your words” (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου), as the first poetic line quoted there parallels the statement “you will
triumph in your udgment” (νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε). 21
The exact representation of these different agents or means is “blood” ( om 9); “God” (or a
cognate pronoun, om 3 0; Gal 3 ); “Torah” (Gal 3 ); “nothing against myself” ( Cor 4 4); “works” (or
by contextual implication, om 4 ; Gal 6 [3x]); “faith” ( om 3 8; ; Gal 6 [ x]; 3 4); “Spirit” ( Cor
6 ; Tim 3 6); “grace” ( om 3 4; Tit 3 ); and “the Messiah” (or cognate phrase, Cor 6 ; Gal 6). 22
Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2; Gal 2:16. 23
Because of this text’s thematic parallels with Jas 2, one might object that Jas 2:24 explicitly and
favorably discusses justification “from works . . . and not from faith alone” (ἐξ ἔργων . . . καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως
7
both in 2:13 and in 6 (the only other instance of a passive “to ustify” referring to human
justification without an express agent or means), one might do well initially to suspect that
these texts’ implicit justifying agent is something from the list of agents explicitly
mentioned elsewhere.
Second, in 2: 3, the initial assertion that hearers will not be “righteous before God”
(δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ) stands parallel to the following counter-assertion that doers “will be
ustified” (δικαιωθήσονται). Thus, the latter clause appears elliptically to omit “before God”
(παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ) or some other parallel phrase, but this phrase should be understood to
inform the counter-assertion made in 2:13b. Because of the generally forensic context in
όνον). Cf. Luther, Lectures on Romans, 100. Paul normally emphasizes an initial justification by believing
God (or some related concept), but James has a very different emphasis. James portrays working as the
mediate ground of justification and believing as an initial indication toward the working. His connection
between the two is one of presupposition and fulfillment—the works give the substance of what faith
presupposes (Jas 2:22–23). James is interested in the fact that faith leads to faithfulness as its fulfillment, but
James’ basing of justification on faithfulness, or works, itself finds these works implicitly grounded in faith.
Thus, although James does discuss justification by works, when he discusses it, he means something very
different from what Paul normally means by justification “from works” or “from the works of the Torah” (ἐξ
ἔργων [νό ου]). Paul typically emphasizes faith as preceding faithfulness and providing the ground for what is
properly declared of faithfulness to be declared before that faithfulness actually occurs. Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher,
Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 62–63; Yet, in Rom 2:1–16, Paul views justification as an
eschatological experience rather than one in which anyone who believes at any time may partake. Cranfield,
Romans, 154; Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in
Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 201; contra Moo, Romans, 147–48; Consequently, in parallel to
James, Paul emphasizes that justification will be to those who work, but James specifies the works as the
immediate means, or ground, of this justification, and Paul leaves that information unexpressed. The
emphasis on works in Rom 2:1–16 nevertheless appears and seems to indicate Paul’s agreement with the
proposition that faith “alone” ( όνος), without works, cannot include someone in the class of those people who
do the Torah and are justified (Rom 2:9-10; 2:13a; Gal 3:2; Jas 2:14–17, 24). Cf. Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s
Doctrine of Justification; Käsemann, Romans, 57, classifies the relationship Rom 2 has to Jas 2 as a “possible
compromise.”; In Rom 2:1–16, Paul does not specify the grounds or causes on which rewards and a favorable
divine judgment justification will be based. Ibid., 56, 58–59, 68; Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of
Justification, 29, 51; contra Moo, Romans, 147–48; Curiously, Moo recognizes several eschatological elements
in the immediate context of Rom 2:1–16. Ibid., 87, 138–39, 151; He thinks “Paul does not generally use
‘justify’ in this restricted sense [of vindication at the last judgment]; and the context here suggests that he uses
it in his customary manner to denote the decisive salvific event in its broadest sense,” but does not seem to
provide a substantive explanation for this contextual departure. Ibid., 147–48. Instead, he merely indicates the
class of people to which God will give these things.
8
2:1–16, justification “before God” is justification “by God” (ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ). The one before
whom the defendant stands also renders the verdict.
Third, in the Pauline corpus, “to ustify” is equivalent to “to reckon as
righteous(ness)” (λογίζεσθαι ε ς δικαιοσ[υνήν]),24 and the full formula for the later
construction is “to reckon (thing) X to (person) Y as (thing) Z.”25 Applying this cognitive
rubric to “the doers of the Torah will be ustified” (οἱ ποιηταὶ νό ου δικαιωθήσονται) in 2:13b,
it becomes manifest that the thing to be reckoned (X) is left unspecified in this passive
construction. Consequently, as Paul has phrased his statement in v. 13b, the phrase “the
doers of the Torah” identifies a class of the people who will receive justification or will have
righteousness reckoned to them (term Y), but this clause does not indicate the means by
which they will be justified.26
24
Cf. Rom 4:2–3. 25
Cf. Gen 15:6; Num 18:27; Ps 106:31; Prov 27:14; John Calvin, Psalms 93–150, trans. James
Anderson, vols., Calvin’s Commentaries 6 (Edinburgh Calvin Translation Society, n.d.; repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2003), 231; Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament, 2 vols., study guide ed. (Boston: Brill, 2001), s.v. חשב ; The general formula “to reckon X to Y
as Z” indicates that with respect to the person Y, the one reckoning considers X to be Z (H. W. Heidland,
“λογίζο αι, λογισ ός,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey . Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and onald E.
Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006], 284–85). Some question has been raised about whether perhaps one should understand the
equative element in this formula (“as” or “to be”) as resultative (“for”) instead (John Piper, Counted Righteous
in Christ Should e Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s ighteousness? [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002], 7).
Yet, in this formula, equating X with Z also leads to the resultative sense of making X to be Z in one’s mind.
Consequently, one should hold together both the equative and the resultative aspects and not separate them
into an unnecessary dichotomy. On the other hand, this formula does not normally allow X and Z to be two
mutually exclusive things. For example, a parent might well be hesitant to reckon an unclean room (X) to his
child (Y) as a clean room (Z; Ibid., 63–64). An unclean room and a clean room are diametrically opposed to
one another. Rather, the reckoning, which Paul assumes to be sound when God is the one performing the
action, predicates the substantive Z to X in the interests of person Y, where X and Z are two similar or
compatible—but not identical—things (contra David G. Buttrick, “Genesis – 8,” Int 42, no. 4 [1988]:
396). 26
Cf. Rom 3:21-3 ; Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘ orks of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” 94. Cranfield, “‘ orks of
the Law,’” 0 ; contra Douglas J. Moo, “Israel and the Law in omans –11: Interaction with the New
Perspective,” in The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid,
Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism 2 (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2001), 140.
9
Further to demonstrate this point, Paul cites the example of Gentiles who do not
naturally have the Torah but still “do the things of the Torah” (τὰ τοῦ νό ου ποιῶσιν). One
might attempt to distinguish the meaning of this phrase from that of “the works of the
Torah” (ἔργα νό ου).27 Yet, doing so removes the primary option for the meaning of “the
things of the Torah,” especially when these things are things people can apparently “do”
(ποιῶσιν). Therefore, fully separating “the things of the Torah” from “the works of the
Torah” seems imprudent. Instead, the phrase “the things of the Torah” immediately appears
as a more general form of “the works of the Torah”28 that retains the plural in the head
nominal so that the phrase refers to “the things required by the law given to Israel”29 in
their plurality rather than as a single, collective grouping.
In certain contexts, “where the relationship of Israel with other nations is at issue,
certain laws would naturally come more into focus than others . . . circumcision and food
laws in particular.”30 Yet, flattening the category of “the works of the Torah” to function as
if it here includes only or primarily these items mutes the breadth of Paul’s claims about the
category. Indeed, understanding “the things of the Torah” (≈ “the works of the Torah”) in
om 4 simply as “the works which the law requires” or “the works required by the law”
fits well with the following singular reference to “the work of the Torah.”31 In keeping with
the similar later reference to “the righteous requirement of the Torah” (8:4; τὸ δικαίω α τοῦ
νό ου), the singular reference in Rom 2:15 also characterizes the Torah’s requirements as a
summary whole.32 Moreover, with the clause “who manifest the work of the Torah as
written on their hearts” (ο τινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νό ου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις
27
See Lamp, “Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles,” 46–47, although this specific distinction receives
comparatively less attention than the one between “the work of the Torah” (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νό ου) and “the works
of the Torah.” 28
Cf. Simon J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves The Gentiles in omans . 4– evisited,”
JSNT 85 (2002): 34. 29
James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the omans,” in Acts of the Apostles, Romans, First
Corinthians, ed. . obertson Nicoll, vols., The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Peabody, Mass.
Hendrickson, 2002), 597. 30
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 358. 31
Cranfield, “‘Works of the Law,’” 94; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New
Testament Commentaries 9 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 135; Moo, “Saved Apart from the Gospel?,”
139; Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, 43–44; cf. Cranfield, Romans, 219–20; Moo,
“Saved Apart from the Gospel?,” 139; Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, 43–44. 32
Cranfield, Romans, 8; Cranfield, “‘ orks of the Law,’” 94; Schreiner, “The Law in Paul,” 60–61.
10
αὐτῶν), Paul probably alludes to Jer 31 (OG 38):33 or Isa 51:7.33 If these Gentiles are those
who have had the Torah divinely written in them,34 then they do in this sense possess the
Torah, although they do not possess it by their ethnic heritage (Rom 2:14).35 As in Isa 51 so
also in om , the Torah’s embedding in the people’s hearts apparently does not effect
their entire sinlessness. Rather, it provides a compass—which may still be disobeyed—to
direct the peoples hearts toward right and pleasing action before Yahweh so that he may
33
Dunn, Romans, 00; Lamp, “Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles,” 4 ; Schreiner, “Justification by
orks,” 46. According to Dunn, Romans, 100, both references are genuine, “But here Paul is not thinking
explicitly or exclusively of Christians (Christian Gentiles . . .), but is intent on providing a more open-ended
formula which has at least the potential of a wider application.” That this formula “has at least the potential of
a wider application” is difficult to challenge, but to make the case that this “wider application” constitutes
anything close to the central force of the phrase seems very difficult. ather than asserting that “they are a law
to themselves,” the preceding phrase ἑαυτοῖς ε σιν νό ος seems to link with the writing of the Torah on these
Gentiles hearts and so indicate that they have a kind of possession of the Torah that they receive directly from
Yahweh and not from ethnically privileged descent (cf. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves,” 3 ; Daniel B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996], 149–51). Some scholarship has taken exception with understanding Paul to be alluding to
Jer 31 (OG 38):33 or Isa 51:7 in Rom 2:15, particularly because they observe that the OG text speaks of the
Torah rather than the work of the Torah (e.g., Luther, Lectures on Romans, 52; Moo, Romans, ). Yet,
because νό ος and its cognates in this text specifically refer to the Mosaic Torah, insofar as it prescribes things
to do (i.e., works), the phrases “work,” “works of the Torah,” and “the Torah” are all very close in reference
(Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘ orks of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” 9, 83, 96). Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience
to the Law,” 4 n ; Thomas . Schreiner, “‘ orks of Law’ in Paul,” NovT 33, no. 3 (1991): 232, notes the
possibility for a similar overlap of meaning between “the works of the Torah” and “works.” Therefore, no real
reason exists why Paul could not have deliberately put “the work of the Torah” for “the Torah” here.
Moreover, insofar as Paul emphasizes in this text the distinction between the Torah as heard and the Torah as
performed, using the phrase “the work of the Torah” instead of “the Torah” could be very appropriate because
its connotation helps avoid the possible misconception that the Torah’s being written on a heart solely its
reception through hearing (cf. Luther, Lectures on Romans, 52; contra Cranfield, Romans, 158; Cranfield,
“‘ orks of the Law,’” 94). Consequently, that “the work of the Torah” stands in om instead of “the
Torah” is no real impediment to legitimately understanding Paul as there referring to Jer 31 (OG 38):33 or Isa
(cf. Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament The ationale of Midrashic
Exegesis” [paper presented at the southeastern regional meeting of the ETS, Marianna, Fla., March 0, 00 ],
1–16). In contrast to other cases for an allusion to the prophets here, Käsemann, Romans, 64, says this phrase
cannot allude to Jer 38:33 (OG) because “no eschatological facts are made known.” Such an assessment seems
quite curious, however, given the pericope’s broadly eschatological bent. 34
N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the omans,” in Acts, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, Romans, 1
Corinthians, ed. Leander E. Keck et al., New Interpreter’s Bible 0 (Nashville Abingdon, 00 ), 44 . 35
Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 149–51.
11
give a positive verdict for them at the final judgment to be rendered through Messiah Jesus
(cf. Rom 2:16).36
RETENTIVE TRACING: ECHOES OF TORAH OBEDIENCE IN THE BALANCE OF
ROMANS
The balance of Romans also retains traces of such sentiments about Torah obedience.
Especially relevant for this argument’s context are the traces in 2:17–29; 3:1–20; 3:21–31;
and the major section of 4:1–8:17.
Romans 2:17–29 and 3:1–20
In 2:17–29, the primary point negative. Given that Torah obedience identifies those whom
Yahweh will vindicate at the eschatological udgment, the Jews who have the Torah “by
nature” might be expected to be on reasonably sound footing in this regard. Because of the
conditionality in how the pericope opens—“If you call yourself ” (Ε . . . σὺ Ἰουδαῖος
ἐπονο άζῃ), there is some debate about whether the interlocutor in view in 2:17–29 is
actually a Jew or is only adopting that title (e.g., as in the case of a proselyte). Space
prohibits this question from being fully adjudicated here. Yet, the observation may be made
fairly briefly that, for Paul, Jewish identity seems not entirely to be coterminous with the
domain of “ethnicity” insofar as it, in contemporary usage, implies biological descent.
Circumcision too plays a prominent role. Certainly, males who were ethnically Jewish would
tended to have been circumcised in all but the most Hellenizing families. Similarly, male
proselytes of ethnically Gentile descent would not typically have undergone circumcision.
Nevertheless, the option to undergo circumcision was certainly live and even felt to be
preferable in some cases (Gal 2:3; 5:2–3; 6:12–13). After an ethnically Gentile male’s
circumcision and notwithstanding his biological descent, however, he would seem to have
been regarded as crossing over—within Pauline categories—from one to the other of two
binary options. At that uncture, therefore, the newly circumcised individual’s Gentile
genetics would be effectively irrelevant in a great many cases, and in such cases, he would
be regarded simply as a Jew in terms of his identity as constructed around his submission to
circumcision.37
36
Cf. Rom 2:16. 37
This assessment does not suggest that there would not have been some instances or where the
Gentile biology of a circumcised male would not have presented problems for him in relation to individuals
12
Consequently, when Paul’s dialog with this interlocutor turns explicitly to the
question of circumcision in Rom 2:25–29, the implication seems to be that this individual is
indeed within the category—and not simply claiming the name of the category—over which
Paul would write the label “Jew.” In particular, if the interlocutor is simply a (by Pauline
definition, non-circumcised) Gentile proselyte claiming to be a Jew, the point that Paul
makes to the effect that someone need not be a Jew outwardly (i.e., in circumcision) would
seem more moot and one on which the interlocutor would likely already agree with Paul to
a very definite degree.
Thus, in continuing to press his case, Paul begins to take sharper focus at his fellow
Jews’ failure legitimately to find themselves within the class of “Torah doers.” Even within
Israel’s scriptures, however, things are not so simple. For instance, Ps 3 (HB, ENG; 72 OG)
begins, “Surely, good to Israel is God, to those who are upright of heart” ( לאך טוב לישרא
באלהים לברי לב ; Ὡς ἀγαθὸς τῷ Ισραηλ ὁ θεός, τοῖς εὐθέσι τῇ καρδίᾳ). The Israel to whom God
shows himself beneficent are those who are “upright of heart” ( בבברי ל ). Or, in Paul’s own
language, “It is not he who is manifestly [that is, in circumcision] a Jew who is one, nor is
circumcision manifestly in the flesh, 29 but he is a Jew who is one secretly [that is, without
or irrespective of circumcision], and circumcision is of the heart, by means of the Spirit, not
by means of the letter [that is, of the Torah in which bodily circumcision is literally
prescribed]” ( om 8–29a; οὐ . . . ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν οὐδ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ
περιτο ή, 29 ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτο ὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύ ατι οὐ γρά ατι).
Thus, from within the categories of Israel’s own scriptural tradition, Paul begins to rewrite
his contemporaries cultural scripts for key categories of “Jew,” “Gentile,” “circumcision,”
and “uncircumcision” (see also Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4).
Of course, Jews do have advantages, but according to Paul, these advantages differ
from those that might have been suspected. The Jews indeed “were entrusted with the
oracles of God” (3 ; ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ). Yet, these oracles themselves are not a
point of boasting or exultation (2:17–18, 23) but of reproach because Israel proved to be
unfaithful to them (3:3).38 Because of this disobedience, the consummate blessing of having
who were biologically Jewish. The point is simply that cases where Gentile biology might matter seem not to
be among those Paul has in view as he works with what appear to be reasonably firm “Jew and physical
circumcision” and “Gentile and physical uncircumcision” identity binaries. 38
Paul’s exact language is “If some have been unfaithful . . .” (3:3; ε ἠπίστησάν τινες). Judging from
succeeding argument, Paul clearly takes this protasis as definite fact and not merely as one hypothesized for
the sake of argument (3:5– 0). Moreover, his “some” (τινες) seems to be an understatement like he uses
13
received “the oracles of God” (3 ; τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ) resulted primarily in Israel’s
inexcusability before God and in an ability to recognize their transgressions (3:4b, 19–20).
Romans 3:21–31
Nevertheless, for Paul, these oracles are not themselves, so to speak, but “now God’s
righteousness is manifest as being distinct from the Torah, as is testified by the Torah and
the prophets, and God’s righteousness comes through Messiah Jesus’ faithfulness to
everyone who believes” (3 –22; Νυνὶ . . . χωρὶς νό ου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται
αρτυρου ένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νό ου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, 22 δικαιοσύνη δ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ ριστοῦ
ε ς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας).39 Certainly, this Messiah’s faithfulness manifests itself in other
areas too, but principally relevant is his is identity as “him whom God put forward as a
sacrificial offering through [his own or the Messiah’s] faithfulness by means of [the
Messiah’s] blood” ( om 3 ; ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ
α ατι).40 Because “all have sinned and lack God’s glory, 4 although they are being ustified
elsewhere. In 9:1–5, Paul expresses his angst over his fellow Jews’ substantial failure to recognize and believe
in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. In , however, Paul simply proposes a scenario in which “some of the
branches have been broken off” (τινες τῶν κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν). Consequently, for Paul, using the plural
indefinite pronoun seems not necessarily to connote either fewness or smallness in the pronoun’s referent.
Rather, apart from other contextual factors suggesting otherwise, it seems to indicate simply that there is
some group of indeterminate size to which a given statement applies. 39
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, New Testament Theology
(Cambridge, 1993), 57–58, disputes the applicability of this reading in Gal 2–3. He does so primarily because
“the emphasis on the ‘in order that’ in both . 6 and 3. indicates that the phrase encapsulated the point at
issue between Paul and the other missionaries. Whatever the precise point of issue we would naturally expect
that the main argument of the letter would focus on that and spend time expounding it. But we find no
attempt made or need felt by Paul to expound the theme of Christ’s faithfulness. hereas the emphasis on
faith, believing as Abraham believed, is clear and unequivocal.” This argument, however, is itself somewhat
misdirected. The πίστις Ἰησοῦ ριστοῦ in Gal 6; 3 is at the heart of Paul’s argument with his opponents,
but on a subjective reading of this phrase (Messiah Jesus’ faithfulness), the stasis in Galatians would not be
that of fact (What did Jesus do?) but, as Dunn recognizes, of solution (How should one identify those who are
within the people of God?). Even within this perspective, a subjective reading of πίστις Ἰησοῦ ριστοῦ in Gal
6; 3 would nicely fit Paul’s argument about the importance of faith like Abraham’s because it would help
drive home the correspondence between this kind of faith and how God had actually already delivered the
Galatians “from this present evil age” (Gal 4; ἐκ τοῦ α ῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ). 40
Walter Bauer et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, trans. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), ἱλαστήριον; NRSV, loc.
cit. The parallel between “to put forward as a sacrificial offering” (3:25; προθεῖναι ἱλαστήριον) and “to manifest
14
freely by means of his grace through the redemption that is in Messiah Jesus” ( om 3 3–
24; πάντες . . . ἥ αρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ 24 δικαιού ενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ
χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν ριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), Yahweh beneficently shows his own
righteousness to those who believe without making socio-ethnic distinctions among them
(Rom 3:22; cf. Rom 3:27–31; Jas 2:1–7).
On this basis then, Paul inquires, “ here is boasting?” (Rom 3:27a; Ποῦ . . . ἡ
καύχησις;). His response is abrupt and shocking: “It has been excluded. Through what kind
of νό ος has it been excluded? Has it been excluded through a νό ος of works? No, but it has
been excluded through a νό ος of faith” (ἐξεκλείσθη. διὰ ποίου νό ου; τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ
νό ου πίστεως). Of course, νό ος is Paul’s typical term for the Jewish Torah, or law, given
through Moses.41 Yet, Paul’s reference here to a “νό ος of faith” has led some interpreters to
think that the referent is a “principle of faith” whereby one may believe in Jesus and be
saved (cf. 10:12–13).42 Νό ος may indeed have this more general sense in some cases,43 but
there are good reasons to doubt that the term has this sense here.
First, in his preceding paragraph, Paul represents God’s righteousness as being
borne witness “by the νό ος and the prophets” (ὑπὸ τοῦ νό ου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν), a direct
as being distinct from” (3:21; φανερῶσαι χωρίς) is likely significant. If the “but now” (3:21; Νυνὶ δέ) turning
point from how things formerly were to the present state primarily revolves around Jesus’ actions, it is likely
that the manifestation in 3:21 happens by means of Jesus’ crucifixion (3:25). Romans 3:22 seems also to
support this reading by identifying faith in Jesus as what marks those to whom God beneficently shows his
righteousness. In v. 25, the article τῆς may have been omitted to conform v. 25 to v. 22, or it may have been
added to conform v. 25 to vv. 30–31. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
2nd ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 449. If the article is present, the phrase probably has a
slightly more anaphoric connotation toward the reference to “faithfulness of Messiah Jesus” (πίστις Ἰησοῦ
ριστοῦ) in v. 22. Moo, Romans, 218–19n3; cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998), 199. Michael Holmes omits the article. Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New
Testament: SBL Edition (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), Rom 3:25. Yet, since the external
witnesses are fairly evenly weighed and accommodation might have occurred either toward v. 22 or toward vv.
30–31, including the article in v. 25 seems preferable also because it reflects the same usage pattern that Paul
indubitably exhibits in vv. 30–31. Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 199. 41
Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (Waco, Tex.:
Baylor University, 2007), 1:259. 42
E.g., ibid.; Sanders, Paul, the Law, and Jewish People, 33. 43
Hermann Kleinknecht, “Νό ος; in the Greek and Hellenistic orld,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
15
reference to Israel’s scriptural tradition.44 Indeed, according to Paul, these very scriptures
testify that the manifestation of God’s righteousness is not inextricably linked to νό ος
(3:21–22). Rather, although Jews have certain advantages (3:1–2), God’s righteousness is
ultimately put beneficently before them on the same footing as it is with Gentiles—namely,
“through Messiah Jesus’s faithfulness [and] to those [among either Jews or Gentiles] who
believe” (3:22; διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ ριστοῦ ε ς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας).45 Second, Paul could
theoretically introduce a “principle of faith” that should be preferred over against the
Mosaic Torah construed around works. Were he to do so, however, his argument would
likely need to provide some basis for this preference, particularly for the Jewish members of
his audience.46 Instead of taking this route in his argument, Paul inscribes Jesus firmly
within the categories of “atonement” and “Passover” that emerge from the Mosaic literature,
and Paul seeks to demonstrate from these texts his position about Jesus’ messiahship and
the nature of the community surrounding him.47
Consequently, the notion of a “Mosaic law of works” that is set over against a
“principle of faith” fails to do ustice to the argument Paul constructs in om 3–4. Rather,
the language of “νό ος of works” and “νό ος of faith” is much better construed as related to
particular interpretations of a single Mosaic Torah.48 This Torah appears then as a “Torah
of works” when construed around the deeds that it prescribes, and it appears—rightly in
Paul’s estimation—as a “Torah of faith” when construed around Yahweh’s promises that
give rise to human responses of belief on the one hand and to that Torah’s further
behavioral prescriptions on the other.49 Nevertheless, “through this faith” (διὰ τῆς
44
Dunn, Romans, 165–66; Jewett, Romans, 274–75. 45
In Rom 3:25, Paul speaks of Jesus as having been put forward a ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως, which
clearly bespeaks the Father’s or Jesus’s faithfulness rather than human faith, for Jesus was crucified precisely
by unfaithful humans (“an atoning sacrifice through his faithfulness”; cf. Cor 8). Consequently, the
rhetorical parallelism between Rom 3:21–22a and Rom 3:24–26 suggests that the references to a πίστις Ἰησοῦ in
Rom 3:22, 26 are references to “Jesus’ faithfulness” in which other humans then trust. 46
Cf. Jewett, Romans; Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of omans The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). 47
See Rom 3:25–26; 4:1–25. 48
Jewett, Romans, 297. 49
Rom 4; 10; Augustine, Spir. et litt., 21–26 (Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
Series, 14 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004], 4:91–95); Augustine, Util. cred., 9, 12 (ibid., 3:351,
353).
16
πίστεως)—through faith in the faithful Messiah—Paul provocatively and insistently still
claims “we establish the Torah” (3:31; νό ον ἱστάνο εν).
Romans 4:1–8:17
One of Paul’s ma or aims in the large section of 4 –8:17 is, then, to demonstrate how the
Torah is established—is upheld for proper enactment—“through this faith” that he affirms
(Deut 28:69 LXX; 2 Chron 35:19; Jer 42:14, 16; Mark 7:9).50 For Paul, Abraham is the
prototypical and logical place to begin. According to Gen 15, Abraham had faith reckoned
as righteousness before he had the works—circumcision in particular—that ought to have
accompanied that faith (4:3–5, 9–12). Thus, Yahweh’s behavior toward Abraham shows
that, although Abraham does come to be circumcised, his justification before Yahweh is a
distinct matter (cf. 3; 3 ). Consequently, “this faith is nullified” (4:14; κεκένωται ἡ
πίστις) if Abraham, contrary to the divine decree, is not situated by means of his faith to
inherit the promises made to him (i.e., as “righteous”). Moreover, the divine word to
Abraham in Gen 17 promised that Abraham would be the father of “many nations” (4:17;
πολλὰ ἐθνῆ). By definition, therefore, “this promise is invalidated” (4:14; κατήργηται ἡ
ἐπαγγελία) if Gentiles—precisely as such—cannot find membership within Abraham’s
family. Ultimately, Messiah Jesus has become the culminating fulfillment of the promise to
Abraham and is the one through whom this family extends to include Gentiles (4:24–25).
So far so good, but how is it that “we establish the Torah”—seemingly in its
entirety—within this context? To this question, Rom 5–7 provides answers along several
intersecting lines. First, Messiah Jesus has died and risen again. His death breaks the hold
that death has even over God’s enemies, and the breakage becomes manifest as these
enemies come to ally themselves with him (5:5–21). Second, those who cast their lot in with
(οἱ πιστεύοντες) this Messiah in baptism become partakers of his death and resurrection
(6:1–5). Third, by becoming united with Messiah Jesus’ death, those who believe in him die
with respect to “the old person” (6:5; ὁ παλαιὸς . . . ἄνθρωπος). That is, their identity is
decoupled from the “body of sin” by which they previously actualized the covenantal curses
that resulted in death. Correspondingly, by becoming united with Messiah Jesus’
resurrection, those who believe in him also become united with the “body of the Messiah”
50
Walter Grundmann, “Στήκω, Ἵστη ι,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gerhard
Friedrich, and Ronald E. Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006), 461–63; Jewett, Romans, 302–3.
17
by which is climactically actualized for them the covenantal blessings that result in life (6:6–
7:25). Fourth, within this matrix and by the presence of Spirit, those who have come to be
included in the Messiah also truly and properly fulfill the Torah as the Spirit animates both
them and it, although they do not always do so perfectly and sometimes need repentance
(8:1–17).
PROTENTIVE TRACING: RECEPTION-HISTORICAL SOUNDINGS AND
RESSOURCEMENT
Finally, omans’ traces of Torah obedience protentively give rise to particular reception-
historical effects. In turn, these effective historical (wirkungsgeschichtlich) traces protend
possibilities for productive play in the church’s engagement with its scriptures’ legal
material. First and by way of dispelling the “let’s all practice the Torah in order to earn
favor with God and cause him to act beneficently toward us” bogeyman, Romans insists on
the importance of performing the Torah—albeit in a radically redefined manner—and on
God’s graciousness in beneficently acting toward those who fall into this category. The
bogeyman’s suggestion is arguably one with which Paul was not directly contending, but it
is one to which Romans protends a response. For instance, Augustine suggests, “To a man
who holds such views [as the Pelagians], it is perfect truth to say: It is His own gifts that
God crowns, not your merits,—if, at least, your merits are of your own self, not of Him. If,
indeed, they are such, they are evil and God does not crown them; but if they are good, they
are God’s gifts. . . . If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your
merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.”51 Again, the bogeyman’s categories and,
perhaps much more so Augustine’s, are not precisely Paul’s. Nevertheless, omans exhibits
protentive traces that move along these lines. Christians’ performances are real
performances, and they do actually constitute fulfillments of the Torah. Yet, they are
made—and only made successfully—within the domain of “the new person” (ὁ καινὸς
ἄνθρωπος) within the Christian’s identity as constructed around and empowered by the
Messiah and the Spirit. Thus, Yahweh’s vindication of such individuals at the last day really
will take their works into account and will make his judgment accordingly. Still, his
granting this verdict in their behalf validates the powerful presence among them of the
Messiah and the Spirit.
51
Augustine, Grat., 15 (Schaff, NPNF1, 5:450).
18
Second, Romans holds out several options for constructing what seems consistently
to be the same Torah. One may construct it around its Jewish recipients (2:26a; 3:2), the
works it prescribes in its literal sense (3:27–28; 4:13–14, 16; 9:31–32; 10:5), and the
familiarity with sin and punishment that it produces for the disobedient (3:20; 4:15; 5:13,
20; 6:15; 7:1–9, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25; 8:2–3, 7). Or, one may construct it around those who are
able to fulfill it (2:26b–27; 13:8, 10), faith in Yahweh’s promises (3 , 31; 9:31–32; 10:4),
and the familiarity with righteousness and blessing that it produces for the obedient (7:3b–
5, 7, 12, 14, 16, 21–23, 25; 8:2–4). Despite protestations to the contrary, the same Torah
seems to be in view throughout.52 What “makes” the difference in more senses than one is a
matter of construction, or interpretation. Differing interpretations cause the Torah’s
reception to end up in different places. Augustine summarizes, “What the law of works
enjoins by menace, that the law of faith secures by faith.”53 In more precisely Pauline
language, the Torah of works ends up in non-performance and the wrathful execution of
Yahweh’s righteousness on the disobedient (1:18; 4:15; 9:31–32), but the Torah of faith
ends up with the Messiah as the manifestation of Yahweh’s beneficent righteousness for
everyone who believes (1:17; 10:5).54
Thus far, this description—to the extent that it adequately reflects omans’
testimony—is simply a matter of descriptive Pauline theology. Having made his argument
in Romans as he did, Paul seems to have felt that this approach would have had sufficient
persuasive clout even with members of his audience who might tend to have questions
(even if friendly ones) about it. The letter’s strategy for reading the Torah and how this
strategy contributes to the balance of the letter’s rhetoric are certainly connected to the
oman Christians’ perception of Paul’s apostolic authority. Yet, Paul apparently does not
expect his audience to accept his argument “because he says so.” ather, he expects it to
stand as a legitimate reading of what was latent within Israel’s scriptures all along.
To the extent that Romans continues to speak authoritatively to the church on a
basis wider than simply the sentimentalizing influence of its connection to Paul (e.g., in
some cases almost approximating a disposition of “Paul spoke magic words that we should
revere without caring too much for the sense they make”), its rhetoric and reading strategy
also continue to find affirmation. To be sure, attempting to move from observation and
description to affirmation and practice is a transition that entails its own difficulties and
52
Augustine, Spir. et litt., 21 (ibid., 5:91–92). 53
Augustine, Spir. et litt., 22 (ibid., 5:92). 54
Augustine, Spir. et litt., 22 (ibid.); cf. Augustine, Util. cred., 9, 12 (ibid., 3:351, 353).
19
pitfalls. Nevertheless, it is but another instance of same kind of movement the
contemporary church regularly makes. Some communions make this additional movement
with much less effective historical friction than others. Yet, latent within a cherishing and
celebration of Pauline theology is an appreciation for the strategy of engagement with
Israel’s scriptures that Pauline theology entails. Certainly, appreciation may sometimes be
puzzled appreciation as with one spouse to another who has done something confusing and
about which further explanation needs to be sought. Or, appreciation may be adaptive as
when a pianist performing Beethoven’s Für Elise finds the piece so compelling as not only
to represent the piece faithfully but also to put a distinctive expression to it. In either case,
the appreciation remains, and practice follows. So too within Pauline theology, appreciation
and celebration logically should inform following practice not simply with respect to deeds
of piety toward the rest of creation but also with respect to the manner of the church’s
continuing engagement with the sacred texts to which it has fallen heir.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Romans retraces Torah obedience in fresh terms. This sketch prominently
includes Jesus’ death and resurrection and the Spirit’s enlivening presence. Yet, inasmuch as
writing is largely defined by what is not written—the marks made distinguishable by what
is not marked, by the remaining “white space”—so also is this obedience identifiably
inscribed by the allegorical absence of distinctively Jewish practices and the judicial absence
of credit to those who obey. The obedient do indeed benefit, but they benefit by being
partakers of the one body of the faithful Messiah in and through whom all Yahweh’s
promises to Abraham come to their fulfillment. Within this obedience, ethnic and credit-
side ledger markers pass under erasure. Much of Paul’s argument portrays them as only
ever having been a mirage in the first place. The narrative within which Abrahamic
parentage and inheritance are to be inscribed orbits around the faith that Abraham
exhibited and that Yahweh validated.
Having (re)inscribed the context in this manner, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham of
offspring among many nations requires, by definition, the inclusion of Gentiles within the
covenant community. Being included in this community, these Gentiles too are subject to
the covenant charter, and Yahweh’s climactic act in and through Messiah Jesus establishes
the definitive context within which both Jews and Gentiles can and do fulfill the covenant
charter’s stipulations. Precisely for Gentiles to remain Gentiles and actualize the fulfillment
of Yahweh’s promise to Abraham, however, there are certain stipulations in the charter that
20
must not be impressed upon Gentiles in these stipulations’ literal sense. Doing so would be
urging Gentiles to Judaize. Thus, Israel’s Torah has received its germinative setting in death
(Sitz im Tod) and its verdant setting in life (Sitz im Leben) in Jesus’ own death and
resurrection. By virtue of this fact too, the line between the Torah and legitimately figural-
theological engagement with it for the church’s edification has itself been most pointedly
unwritten.
Top Related