Reading Romans in Context. Paul and Second Temple Judaism

Through a nontechnical collection of short essays in Reading Romans in Context. Paul and Second Temple Judaism the message of Paul in his epistle to the Romans is set against the background to texts of the Second Temple period. Each of the authors is an expert in the field he or she treats.

Each chapter pairs a major unit of Paul’s letter with one or more sections of a thematically related Jewish text. It intro-duces and explores the theological message of the com-parative text and shows how the ideas unfolded in these texts illuminate our understanding of Paul’s major letter.

Again and again the difference between Paul and the com-parative texts appears to be Paul’s insight that the law as such can not produce obedient people. The only source of real obedience is the gospel of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit. Actually the articles in this bundle refute the new perspective on Paul.

Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich and Jason Maston (ed.) Reading Romans in Context. Paul and Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), paperback 192 pp., $19,99 (ISBN 9780310517955)

The Law in Holy Scripture

I call your attention for a bundle of essays published more than ten years ago; a bundle that is still very relevant. Just as the title indicate its topic is: the Law in Holy Scripture. With one exception the authors all belong the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod; a conservative Lutheran body that wants to uphold the heritage of classical Lutheranism as expressed in the Formula Concordiae.

We live in an age with a strong antinomian atmosphere. Man wants to be his own master and make his own decisions. The articles in The Law in Holy Scripture makes clear to us that the ‘law’’ (thora) in its several aspects ought to have a fundamental place in the faith and life of a Christian. That makes that this bundle is a bundle just for our time.

Not only antinomianism but also legalism is a problem of all ages. Do we find our only ground of acceptation in the sight of God in what Christ did on Calvary or somewhere else? The essence of the Reformation is that our justification is only based on the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us and received by faith.

From the side of a large number of New Testament scholars this perspective is seriously questioned. A so called new per-spective on Paul has been developed especially the last decennia of the former century until now. According to the new perspective on Paul justification has not to do with soteriology but with ecclesiology, ethnic exclusivism and salvation history.

Without denying element of truth in the new perspective its fundamental orientation is wrong and it actually embodies a new form of legalism. Finally, our acceptance in the sight of God is based on our own behavior. The elements of truth of the new perspective can easily be incorporated in the classic per-spective of the Reformation. This cannot be said of the reverse.

At the least three articles in The Law in Holy Scripture deal with the new perspective, namely that of Charles A .Gieschen, A. Andrew Das and Arthur A. Just jr. They are all painstaking and important. It is shown that the new perspective does not do justice to important elements of Paul’s teaching.

Especially the article of Gieschen I think to be very refreshing. He shows that Paul’s message of justification is intrinsically linked to his view on man. Since the Fall man is not able to obey God perfectly. The fundamental difference between Paul and early Christianity in general at the one side and (proto)-rabbinic Judaism at the other side is their anthropology. 
Gieschen denies with convincing arguments that the law does not demand perfect obedience. When we understand that actually the law does demand that and man is unable to give that, the new perspective falls down and the strength and truth of the classical perspective of the Reformation becomes clear.

In the opening article Dean O. Wenthe shows that The second the Hebrew word ‘thora’ does not only mean ‘law’, but also the Pentateuch and its story of salvation. ‘Thora’ means ‘instruc-tion’; not only making clear to us what God commands us to do, but also what he promises to us. 
In accordance with the doctrine of the Formula Concordiae in almost all articles in articles in The Law in Holy Scripture explicitly the positive place of the law in the life of a Christian an embodiment of the identity and duty of a Christian is emphasized.

In his article ‘Law in a Law-less World’ David P. Scaer rightly says the not only classical Lutherans but also classical Reformed Christians affirm that for the sinner as sinner the law always accuses. The accusing function of the law has a place in the life of a Christian till his death. 
However, Daniel L. Gard states in his article ‘Law and Freedom in the Old Testament’ that knowledge of the distinction between law and Gospel is fundamental for the understanding of the Word of God is far removed from the perspective of Calvin and Barth. I would strongly emphasize that this is true for Barth and for among other neo-Calvinists, but not for Calvin himself and many of his followers during the centuries.

Till his death Calvin has considered himself as a spiritual pupil of Luther. Especially in his early writings you feel Luther’s influence. But also when you read the final edition of the Institution you see in its chapters on justification how fun-damental the law-Gospel distinction remained for Calvin . Apart from the doctrine of sacraments the difference between Calvin and Luther is more in difference in personality than in theology.

It is true that we can and must say that Calvin spoke more explicitly than Luther on the third use of the law. But the same can be said of Luther’s colleague Melanchthon. And when we read for example Luther’s Great Catechism we see how important were for Luther the Ten Commandments for the identity of the life of a Christian as Christian.

In The Law in Holy Scripture again and again it is emphasized that the accusing function of the law is not its only function. A Christian is free from the condemning power of the law, but jut for that reason wants to fulfill the law and life in accordance with God’s commandments. He shows the realness of his Christianity in his fruits.

David P. Scaer points to the fact the reducing the content of the Word of God to Gospel alone is used nowadays to justify women in office. However, the Gospel was never meant to disintegrate the law. A Gospel without the law not only in ifs accusing function but also as embodiment of the identity of a Christian is another gospel.

It is true that several aspects related to the Mosaic law are not any longer binding for a believer under the new dispensation. In the articles of Dales C. Allison and Peter J. Scaer it is shown that Jesus, when he as on earth, was both a law observant Jew but at the same time put into perspective the importance of the food laws and purity laws. 
When Luke in his gospel and the book of Acts speaks about law with regard to its specifically Mosaic elements, law has the meaning of custom (ethos); a custom that is respectable but no more importance must be given to it.

When we see this there is no real difference between Paul as we see him in own letters and Paul as portrayed by Luke. Paul was a gentile to the gentiles and Jew to the Jews but knew that for Jews and gentiles salvation could only be found in Christ who redeemed us from the curse of the law.

I can highly recommend the reading of The Law in Holy Scripture. To be a Christian we have to know the distinction and relation between law and Gospel not only in theory but above all in practice. Studying the articles of The Law in Holy Scripture can be a help.

Charles A. Gieschen (ed.), The Law in Holy Scripture: Essays from the Concordia Theological Seminary Sympo-sium (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), 252 pp., $ 26,99 (ISBN 978-0-7586-5758-9)

Judgment according to Works in Romans

How must we understand what Paul writes in his letter about judgment according to work? How can we relate that to his message of justification by faith and not by the works of the law? In the last century several monographs were devoted to this subject. In the former century in New Testament scholarship a view on Paul was developed which came be called the new perspective.

According to the adherents of the new perspective the message of justification of Paul is not a soteriological message, but a message that rejects ethnic exclusivity. It makes clear that with the coming of Jesus Christ a new era in salvation-history has came. 
The identity markers of new covenant community are not circum-cision, purity rules, the Sabbath and so one, but faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. When the new perspective on Paul is right, the classical Protestant view of justification by faith is actually a grotesque misunderstanding of what Paul really meant.

Now the problem with the new perspective is not so much in what it states but in what in denies or at least does not express explicitly enough. There are very important indications that Paul’s message of justification of justification is first of a soteriological message and has background the inability of man to do the law of God. I point in this context only to Romans 1:18-3:20. These chapters also show us very clearly that we cannot restrict the work of the law to the so-called boundary or identity makers.

According to the adherents of new perspective justification by faith has to with the entering into or belonging to the new covenant community. In the final judgment new obedience will be the criteria. So man’s final salvation is based on the new obedience. But is this really what Paul meant? I am sure that his not the cause. Can the relationship between justification by faith and judgment according to works explained in another way?

A positive answer is given in a very relevant monograph written by Kevin W. McFadden, assistant professor of New Testament at Cairn University. This monograph is a revision of his dissertation which he completed at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary under direction of Tom Schreiner and with guidance of Mark A. Seifrid. McFadden restricts himself to Paul’s most important letter, the letter to Romans. I deem it an advantage that his study is not too elaborate. The concise character increases its clearness.

In Judgment according to Works in Romans McFadden examines each passage in Romans in which the judgment according to works plays a prominent role, namely Romans 1:18-32; 2:1-29; 3:1-20 and 14:1-23. McFadden argues that Paul in Romans 1:18-3:20 God will repay Jews and Gentiles according to their works and that both stand guilty and condemned before God. Paul uses the theme of judgment according to works to make this universal accusation.

McFadden makes clear that at the one side Romans 14:1-23 is similar to the description of the final judgment in Romans 1:18-3:20, but that at the other side in this passage the judgment functions as an exhortation to Christians rather than as an accusation against the world. In distinction to Romans 1:18-3:20 doing the law is not seen as the standard in final judgment. The final standing of a Christian is grounded in the saving work of Christ.

McFadden says that we must start in Paul with the thought of judgment according to works. Only when we realize that we can understand what Paul writes about justification by faith. Justification by faith must be seen in the context of the final judgment. It is first of all a soteriological category. 
The revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ is an alternative and saving approach to justification in the final judgment. The judgment according to works can only lead to damnation. The gospel of God’s righteousness in Christ goes not from solution to plight as E.P. Sanders argued in Paul and Palestinian Judaism but from the plight of God´s deserved wrath to just.

Rom 3:25-26 teaches that in the cross of Christ God demonstrated his righteousness because he had passed over previous sins in his forbearance. In one sense for the believer the final judgment has already happened. However, the cross does not replace the final judgment but it does guarantee the verdict of the final judgment. The ground both for present and final justification is for Paul the saving work of Christ.

The believer knows that his justification is based on what Christ did for him. He died for him, was resurrected for him and prays for him. So it is both a judgment that can be said according to works and according to faith because the believer is seen by God as he is in Christ. Although McFadden uses not this expression: we can say that Christ fulfilled the demands of the law for the believer.

Now the great question remains: how can we make sense of what Paul writes in Romans 2 about judgment according to works with the sketched view on justification by faith and the meaning of cross of Christ? Since the beginning of Christian commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans the second chapter has raised exegetical and theological questions.

Three explanations have been given during the centuries. Since the former century Paul has been accused of inconsistency. This is the view both of E.P. Sanders, whose work Paul and Palestinian Judaism was a catalyst of the new perspective on Paul, and of the Finish New Testament scholar Heikki Räisänen.

Now, even apart from one’s view on Scripture, inconsistency is a very unsatisfactory explanation, unless an author gives clear indications that he writes in a carelessly way. But incoherence is just for that reason, as McFadden rightly states, very unlike in Paul’s letter to the Romans. This letter is characterized by the majesty of its arguments.

A second explanation is that Paul speaks of positive recompense in Romans 2 only as a hypothetical possibility. This vies goes back to the commentaries of Melanchton and Calvin. The category of the doers of the law in Romans 2 is an empty set, because no one can keep the law perfectly. Many commentators until now have followed Calvin and Melanchton. Almost all these commentators argue that, unlike justification in Romans 2:13, the positive recompense in Romans 2:7 and 10 is fulfilled by Christian obedience, although both Hans Lierzmann and Douglas Moo argue that also in vv. 7 and 10 positive recompense is an empty set.

Third, many argue that Romans 2 describes Gentile Christians who fulfill the law by the Spirit. McFadden does not mention him, but this view was defended by Augustine. Herman Ridderbos and Tom Schreiner see Christian obedience in Romans 2:25-29, but argue that in Romans 2:14-15 Paul is speaking of the occasional obedience of unbelieving Gentiles.

Several scholars combine the hypothetical and Gentile Christian view of Romans 2. John Murray, for example, makes a strong argument for the Gentile Christian view of Romans 2:6-11 and endorses the hypothetical view of Romans 2:13. Actually this agrees with the position of Calvin and Melanchton. McFadden shared this view originally and I myself am at least still inclined to it. We must say that both the hypothetical and Gentile Christian view has its own difficulties.

I fully agree with McFadden that the hypothetical view cannot account for the flow of though in Romans 2:25-29. It cannot be denied that Paul in Romans 2:28-29 refers to the promise of the Spirit associated with justification by faith. I also share McFadden view that this is run makes it likely that Paul views Christian obedience to be that with in some sense receives positive recompense in the final judgment with regard to Romans 2:7 and 10.

I am less sure than he that this is also true for Romans 2:13. He thinks that when Paul speaks about the possibility that in the final judgment the thoughts of the Gentiles will excuse them this is a subtle hint to the category of Christian Gentiles. I don not think that it is necessary, as McFadden argues, that when we allow the possibility of positive recompense by (Gentile) Christian obedience this must be also true for Romans 2:13, but let each judge for himself.

I again fully agree with McFadden that Paul’s argument in Romans 2 is not contradictory but complex. In Romans 2 Paul speaks both about obedience required by the law and obedience enabled by the Spirit. These themes he unfolds more fully later in his letter.

McFadden conclusion is that the classical Protestant position that good works are not the ground of justification in the final judgment but nevertheless are an evidence of it is correct. I would add to what McFadden that Paul when speaking about the law in relation to Christian obedience he does not speak about doing the law but fulfilling the law by the Spirit (Romans 8:4) and that when Paul speaks of good works he does not mention the law (Romans 13:3; see also Ephesians 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7).

I consider the monograph of McFadden an excellent study that can help to see that the classic Protestant view on both justification by faith and judgment according to works is exegetically well founded.

Kevin W. Mc Fadden, Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), paperback 196 p., price $59,-- (ISBN 9781451465679).