Introduction: Another Gospel, Another Law
The Law in Romans, Part 1
*Revised version*
…the power of Sin is the Torah.
ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος
— 1 Cor 15:56
…the Scripture imprisoned all things under Sin…
συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν
— Gal 3:22
The first of the above-cited texts contains the only occurrence of ‘Torah’ (Gk. nomos) in the whole — long and famous — chapter of 1 Corinthians 15, whereas the second contains a rare occurrence of ‘Sin’ (singular) in Galatians (also Gal 2:17; cf. 1:4; 3:19). Bewilderingly, both texts describe the relation between Torah and Sin as that of allies! In order to grasp that vision of the Torah in Paul more broadly, and Romans specifically, we need to recover Paul’s apocalyptic gospel and liberate it from the presuppositions of a pseudo-gospel that for too long have been taken as belonging to Paul himself.
To be specific, interpretations of Paul’s comments on the law/Torah in Romans 4–8 have been held captive by theological, soteriological, and ‘nomological’ presuppositions from Romans 1–3 that are foreign to Paul’s thought. They belong to the ‘gospel’ of his opponents, whom Paul represents as a singular rhetorical opponent, dubbed ‘the Teacher’ by Campbell (after Martyn’s ‘the Teachers’ in Galatia). Paul thoroughly debunks this (pseudo-)gospel in Romans 1:18–3:20 (and, in another, exegetical mode in 3:27–4:25). Paul describes and adopts, for the sake of argument, the position of his opponent, in order to draw out its incoherence and ultimate absurdity (a reductio ad absurdum, achieved in 3:19–20). We should be wary, then, of seeing these presuppositions as anything close to authentically Pauline, unless they are attested elsewhere in Paul’s letters (and in a similar systematical frame).
So, before considering Paul’s law texts in Romans 4–8, which we will do in the next couple of articles, we should take a look at Paul’s ‘Socratic’ argument in Romans 1–3 (cf. here), distinguish between Paul’s gospel and the Teacher’s pseudo-gospel and their respective presuppositions, in particular about the Torah. Here I will not so much argue for this reading as summarise some of Douglas Campbell’s magisterial work on these texts,¹ which has solved myriad exegetical issues that commentators have been wrestling with for a long time, as well as related empirical and theological problems.
1. Paul’s Gospel
Romans 1:16–17 is often taken as somewhat of a ‘thesis statement’ of Romans, and if not that, at least a reasonably good summary of Paul’s gospel message (for the sake of clarity 14–15 are included as well):
[14 I am obligated both to Greeks and to barbarians,
both to the wise and to the foolish.
15 Therefore I am eager to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome.]
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel,
for it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes,
the Jew and especially the Greek.
17 For in it the righteous delivering act of God is revealed through fidelity for fidelity, as it is written, ‘The Righteous One will live by fidelity’ [Hab. 2:4]” (NRSVue, modified).
To grasp these verses, it is first of all good to understand that ‘for’ (Gk. gar) does not need to carry a strong argumentative force (‘because’), but can also function to introduce a clarification or elaboration (see BDAG).
Paul says he is “obligated” (1:15) to preach the gospel to the pagans because, as he noted a few verses earlier, he has received the “gift of apostleship to bring about the obedience that consists of fidelity among all the pagans” (1:5). Accordingly, Paul is eager to preach the ‘royal message’ (Gk. euaggelion) of Christ also to the pagans in Rome (1:15; cf. 1:6). He is not ashamed of this gospel of a crucified and raised Messiah (cf. 1:3–4; 1 Cor 1), however shameful others, perhaps opponents or outsiders, might think it is.²
The reason Paul provides is that the crucified Christ of his gospel reveals that God’s “saving power”, which corresponds to his “righteous delivering act”, “is for [i.e. extends to] everyone who believes” — not just Jews, but also, and especially, ‘Greeks’ (which would have included the Romans). This should be understood in terms that Paul will later develop in chapters 9–11, namely that, in this eschatological moment, Jews are generally, surprisingly, “cut off from Christ”, their own Messiah (9:3, 5) and marked by disobedience, whereas the pagans are, surprisingly, “called to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6; cf. 9:24), now receiving mercy and marked by obedience. Ultimately, though, God’s purpose includes all, encompassing “the fullness of the pagans” and “all Israel” (see 11:25–32).
So then, Paul is eager to preach the gospel to the Romans, and he is not ashamed of it, because God’s saving power streaming through it extends to both Jews and, momentarily, especially Greeks, and ultimately all (3:23–24; 5:15–20). This saving power is the power of resurrection (cf. 4:16–25) and liberation (cf. 8:2) that God as righteous king exercises through his Messiah for the liberation of his people from Sin and Death. This is what Paul means with ‘the righteousness of God’ (dikaiosyne theou)— the divine righteous act of life-giving liberation, revealed by God’s saving power.
More specifically, this righteous, saving act was revealed through Christ’s obedient death (“through fidelity”; Gk. ek pisteos). In the fleshly, mortal body of Christ, the power of Sin was condemned (8:3; cf. 6:6–7), after which Christ was raised pneumatically and exalted to cosmic power as God’s regent (8:34). That is the gospel, the ‘royal message’, of Paul, and he has found a very convenient Scriptural text that seems to testify to just this, namely Habakkuk 2:4: “The Righteous One will live by fidelity [Gk. ek pisteos].” Accordingly, the gospel of the crucified and resurrected Messiah can be said to be pre-promised in the holy prophets (1:2).
Moreover, as this gospel is now being proclaimed by Paul, accompanied by powerful pneumatic signs and wonders, and people are being “called [by God] to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6), these people come to share in Christ’s resurrection life, now in the form of Christ’s pneuma in their mortal bodies and ultimately in the form of pneumatic resurrection and exaltation (8:9–11). Meanwhile, however, they participate in his “fidelity” by being obedient to God amid suffering (cf. Rom 5:3–5; 8:17 etc.). Habakkuk 2:4 therefore can not only be applied to Jesus, but also to believers.
So, when Paul writes that God’s saving, resurrecting, liberating power was revealed “through fidelity, for fidelity”, this can be paraphrased as ‘through the fidelity of Christ, for the fidelity of those in Christ [through his Spirit]’. In and through all of this, believers are enfolded by a fundamentally loving God (5:5, 8; 8:35–39).
A future article will zoom in on the role of Paul’s gospel proclamation, especially as described in Romans 9–11 and 1 Corinthians 1–2.
2. A Pseudo-Gospel
Then, from verse 17 to 18, Paul makes a rhetorical transition:
[17 For in him the righteousness of God is revealed through fidelity for fidelity, as it is written, ‘The Righteous One will live by fidelity’ [Hab. 2:4].”]
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth.
The present tense of ‘revealed’ in verse 18 is somewhat puzzling, since the the “day of wrath” is clearly said to be future in 2:6. However, it can be explained as a rare ‘future present’ that makes for a clear contrast with verse 17 that uses the same verb in the exact same form (“is/has been revealed”; Gk. apokalyptetai). Throughout 1:18–3:20 (and beyond), Paul goes on to engage with this contrasting vision of God, salvation, and the Torah that can be summarised as follows.
According to Paul’s opponent, ‘the Teacher’, God is fundamentally characterized by retributive justice. That is to say, God ultimately relates to all humans on the basis of desert, that is, the merit of their individual deeds, either in accordance with his will or not (2:6–10, 16). This ethical divine will can be discerned by pagans through observation of the cosmos, which clearly reflects God’s nature (1:18–32), or through reflecting on their conscience (2:14–15), and by Jews more clearly in the written Torah (2:17–20).
However, the pagans, because of their foolish rejection of God’s externally and internally revealed truth, have been delivered over by God to their ‘impulsive desire of the flesh’, which means they are massively producing immoral deeds — notably idolatry and sexual immorality (this being a classic Jewish critique of pagan society, as well as probably the Teacher’s rhetorical opening; cf. 1:24–32). In other words, there is an ethical decline following an epistemological decline — the body following the mind.³ This is very troublesome in light of God’s future judgment of all humans in accordance with works: they now await God’s wrath (1:18) in the form of severe punishment (2:8–9) and death (1:32)!
However, luckily, there is a remedy against both their foolishness and their wickedness — i.e., epistemological and ethical antidotes — namely the Torah, proclaimed by the Teacher, that enlightens them with God’s truth (see 2:17–19), and circumcision, promoted by the Teacher, that circumcises both the flesh and the heart (following Philo), thus removing the evil impulse and enabling them — now practically Jews in the Teacher’s mind— to do God’s will, be declared righteous on the day of judgment and merit reward (cf. 2:25–29).
This is the ‘good news’ of the Teacher to the pagans: you are heading for punishment, but if you listen to his Torah message and get circumcised, then you will be able to know God’s will and perform good works, thus meriting salvation and escaping God’s impending wrath. The slogan of this gospel is nicely captured in 2:13: “It is not the hearers of the Torah [yes, you there!] who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Torah who will be justified! [So get on and do it already!]” The Romans are presented a choice between ‘Two Ways’, life and death, blessing and curse (cf. Deut 30:19)— and they get to decide which one it will be for them.
3. A Refutation
In refuting this pseudo-gospel, Paul first highlights someone who presumably is non-pagan themselves and who judges the pagans for their rampant sins (and 1:18–32 provides a perfect example of this judgmentalism). As it turns out, the judger also sins and is therefore hypocritical in judging (2:1–5). In 2:17–24, this profile is expanded to someone who calls themselves a Jew, is presumably circumcised, and teaches the Torah to pagans — ‘the Teacher’ — but breaks the Torah themselves. Contrary to what you would expect from the Teacher’s soteriology, circumcised people are not by definition more ethical than uncircumcised people. A hypocritical circumcised judger —someone like the Teacher himself — therefore functions as anecdotal evidence, because Paul only needs one counterexample to refute the Teacher’s claims about the efficacy of circumcision. (This reading counters antisemitic interpretations in which Paul is read to the effect that all Jews — ‘the Jew’ — are attacked here by Paul as prototypical sinners.)
Moreover, if what the Teacher is saying is true, and pagans can know God’s will from nature, then most likely there are also some pagans that actually fulfill God’s will, however much they struggle in doing so (2:14–15)! In other words, not only are circumcised people not by definition righteous, but neither are uncircumcised people by definition unrighteous! (Or, again in other words, Paul rhetorically employs anecdotal evidence of a sinful Jew and a righteous pagan to undermine the Teacher’s gospel.)
These two not implausible scenarios lead to a surprising reversal on the day of judgment: such righteous pagans will condemn such unrighteous Jews (2:27), instead of ‘by definition’ righteous Jews judging ‘by definition’ unrighteous pagans, as the Teacher did in 1:18–32. (Remember, I am, or rather Paul is, assuming the Teacher’s definitions of ‘Jew’ and ‘pagan’, not necessarily Paul’s own!)
Then, in 3:1–8, Paul hammers home that, if God really must be impartial in his judgment (2:11), he cannot favor unrighteous circumcised people simply because they are circumcised, i.e. members of his covenant people. No, God must judge them as he would judge uncircumcised people! In other words, within the Teacher’s system, God’s impartiality must ultimately overrule his covenantal commitments, meaning that Jewishness and circumcision have no advantage at all! (This conclusion is clearly contrary to Paul’s own view: see 9:4–5. But this is a reductio ad absurdum of the Teacher’s view.)
Paul’s final blow, with one of the rare occurrences of one of his own presuppositions in these passages,⁴ is the fact that all humans, Jew and Greek, are slaves to the power of Sin, and that therefore all people, Jewish or not, fail to be righteous (3:9–18). In sum, if salvation is conditional on human righteous activity, no one will be saved, including the Teacher himself (3:19–20)! His ‘gospel’ had only one job — save people — and it failed even himself.
Note Paul’s various deployments of phrases including ‘Jew’ and ‘Greek’:
- The Teacher most likely used the slogan that salvation is ‘for the Jew first, then the Greek’, or it at least summarised his ‘gospel’: ‘Jews’ are by definition righteous (through circumcision and Torah) and will therefore be justified/saved on the last day, whereas ‘Greeks’ are by definition unrighteous (through the foreskin and fleshly passions) but can become righteous and thus attain salvation by getting circumcised and taking up Torah observance.
- In 1:16, Paul’s use of the phrase (Ioudaio te proton kai Helleni) should probably be interpreted in such a way that stresses the priority of pagans instead of Jews, albeit in Paul’s mission and not in salvation as such (see above).
- In 2:9–10, Paul tactically employs the slogan with its original meaning to bring the Teacher in an awkward position: in the wicked category (v. 9), ‘first the Jew’ is the awkward part, and in the righteous category (v. 10), ‘then the Greek’ is.
- In 3:9, ‘first’ (proton) is dropped (Ioudaious te kai Hellenas) as Jews and Greeks are put on the same level under the oppressive rule of Sin, which prevents any human being, even a circumcised Torah-teacher, from being righteous and thus being saved at the final judgment — within the Teacher’s own system, that is.
4. Paul’s Gospel, Again
After having demolished the Teacher’s gospel (and preparing the Romans to do the same if they come to hear it), Paul returns in 3:21–26 to his own gospel message, expanding on what he had already said in 1:16–17 (with verses 23–26 expanding in turn on 21–22, working roughly chiastically). For our present purposes, it suffices to say that Douglas Campbell has painstakingly shown how this passage can, quite smoothly, be understood apart from the Teacher’s presuppositions (as found in 1:18–3:20), in apocalyptic terms. Paul can be seen to build on traditions that the Romans had already received, involving ‘atonement’ in a broad sense, while steadily introducing them to key tenets of his own gospel of ‘deliverance by fidelity’ that he will, in much more direct and elaborate terms, describe in chapters 5–8. The passage can be rendered roughly as follows:
21 But now, apart from the [observances of] Torah,
God’s righteous act of deliverance has been revealed,
attested by the Torah and the Prophets —
God’s righteous act of deliverance [has been revealed]
through the fidelity of Jesus Christ, for all who believe.
For there is no distinction,
since all have sinned and lack the divine glory
24 and are now released freely by his generosity,
through the liberation that is by means of Christ Jesus,
25 whom God intended to be a singular event of cleansing
through fidelity, through his blood,
as a proof of his righteous act of deliverance,
for the sake of the release from previously occurring transgressions through the respite coming from God,
26 as a proof of his righteous act of deliverance at the present time,
so that he is righteous in that he releases the one by fidelity, Jesus [or: the one who shares the fidelity of Jesus].
5. Another Gospel, Another Law
5.1 The Torah of Works and the Torah of Fidelity
Importantly for our present concerns, Paul relates his gospel differently to the Torah than the Teacher does his. For the Teacher, the Torah is front and center in relation to a fundamentally retributive God and contractual salvation, as we have seen above. Paul, however, centers the death and resurrection of Christ through which the saving, resurrecting, and unconditionally liberating act of a fundamentally loving God is revealed. Paul understands the Torah through this act, instead of the other way around (one might say ‘retrospectively’). Accordingly, he writes that God’s deliverance is revealed “apart from the [observance of] Torah” while “being attested by the Torah and Prophets” (3:21).
- Firstly, God’s deliverance circumvents the Torah in the sense of its ‘works’, i.e. observances, circumcision first among them. God has delivered through the fidelity of Christ, now shared through the Spirit and the gospel proclamation (cf. Gal 3:1–5), which provides both the knowledge of God and the ethical power to live righteously. Accordingly, pagans have no need whatsoever to take up Torah observance in order to be ‘justified’ — which, for Paul, does not mean ‘declared righteous’, but rather ‘delivered’ (cf. 6:7). Deliverance has been achieved through Christ’s fidelity, in which the Romans participate now through the Spirit. Consequently, the Romans can be reassured that, since they participate in Christ’s fidelity, they will also share in his resurrection (cf. 8:17; 10:9–10). Their present deliverance guarantees their future deliverance.
- Secondly, God’s deliverance is attested by the Torah and the Prophets (cf. 1:2), most notably Habakkuk 2:4 from which Paul derives the crucial phrase ek pisteos (see above on 1:17). Two obvious foci of scriptural citations in the letter as a whole are chapter 4 about Abraham (see next article) and chapters 9–11 concerning Israel, the Gentiles, and Christ (see e.g. 10:6–8, 11, 13). In 9:4 Paul lists “the promises” as one of Israel’s privileges. Notable is also 15:4, in which the Scriptures are framed in terms of teaching endurance and providing encouragement and hope — all of which fits smoothly with Paul’s gospel of fidelity. Finally, in 15:8, Paul describes Christ as showing God’s truthfulness to his promises to the patriarchs, before quoting four Scriptural texts, from all over the Hebrew Bible, that testify to God’s outreach to the pagans: 2 Samuel 22:50//Psa 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10, the last of which, like Habakkuk 1:3–4, highlights Christ’s Messiahship and resurrection/raising to cosmic power: “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope” (cf. 1:3–4).
So, when Paul a few verses later in 3:27 starts talking about two ‘kinds’ of law/Torah, or two laws/Torahs (depending on how one renders poiou; see BDAG), there is no need to revert to general translations like ‘principle’ (RSV, NET) or ‘teaching’ (Campbell). Paul is very much talking about the particular Torah here, but in two different ‘modes’ or functions, just as he did in 3:21! 3:27 can be translated as follows (note the chiastic structure):
Where then is boasting? It is excluded.
A By which [or: what kind of] Torah? Of works? No,
B but through the Torah of fidelity,
B’ for we reckon that humans are justified by fidelity
A’ apart from works of Torah.
Now, as to the meaning of the genitives, “[Torah] of works” and “[Torah] of fidelity”, two things are important to keep in mind: firstly, just because they occur in parallel constructions does not mean their meaning must be identical; and secondly, both their meaning is governed by the context. When we look at that context, we see that the “Torah of works” refers back to the Torah that prescribes the observance of works for the sake of earning justification (point 1 above; cf. 2:13)— i.e., the Teacher’s view of the Torah, which for Paul is circumvented. This ‘Torah’ does not exclude boasting at all! Rather, boasting, as the opposite side of judgmentalism, is one of its central dynamics, as in any meritocracy.
Furthermore, the “Torah of fidelity” is the Torah that testified beforehand to the fidelity of Christ through which God has brought deliverance — i.e., Paul’s positive take on the Torah (point 2 above). In this case, ‘Torah’ arguably refers to the Scriptures as a whole — i.e., what Paul refers to as “the Torah and Prophets” in verse 21, with the Prophets being elided for the sake of this rhetorical point. In chapter 4, Paul continues to discuss a very pertinent example from the Torah proper who testifies to ‘fidelity’, namely Abraham.
5.2 The Torah of Sin and the Torah of Love
But in the rest of Romans, Paul does not just highlight these respectively neutral and positive functions of Torah (the first belonging to the Teacher), but also a more sinister, negative function: deliverance was not just testified by Torah, and outside of Torah, but also from Torah (cf. 5:20; 6:14–15; 7:1–6)! Within Paul’s forensic-nonretributive framework (on which more later), the Torah is not (just) a neutral moral standard, but a hostile, oppressive cosmic power — just as in Galatians. However, unlike in Galatians, Paul goes on to significantly nuance that ‘negative’ account of Torah, as he from 7:7 onwards casts the Torah as an instrument of evil powers (Sin first among them) instead of an evil power itself.⁴
Finally, and fourthly, deliverance effects the fulfilment of the “righteous requirement” of the Torah (8:3), namely love (13:8–10) — this being another positive function. In Galatian terms, all that counts is “fidelity active through love” (Gal 5:6). In this way, both the first half (fidelity to Yhwh) and second half of the law (loving others) is fulfilled.
The Torah, then, is “upheld” (3:31) in two senses: its promissory testimony about fidelity is retroactively affirmed, and its ethical imperative of love is achieved through fidelity (cf. Gal 5:14; 6:2).
Conclusion
These claims about the Torah having four functions in Romans — testimony, observance, oppression, and love — are the substance of the coming articles, in which we will take an exegetical look at ‘law-texts’ in Romans 4–8 through the lens of Paul’s gospel, the true gospel. As we go through the texts, I will note common interpretations and their reliance on (some of) the Teacher’s presuppositions, before putting forward my alternative reading that is in line with Paul’s broader apocalyptic argument. In this way, by letting go of the Teacher’s framework (elaborated on here), we can allow another ‘nomology’ to emerge, one that is perhaps more foreign to us at times but is also more authentically Pauline.
In broader terms, my arguments will try to persuade readers about the ultimate coherence of Paul’s thoughts on the law. This might be the area where previous readers of Paul have most often thrown their hands into the air, given up making sense of Paul, and handed him over to incoherence. But, if it proves persuasive on the ground in the texts, my fourfold framework — originally inspired by Martyn’s work on Galatians⁵ —will perhaps shed some much-needed light and give some relief to the frustrated Paulinist.
For part 2, see here. On Abraham in Romans 4, see here.
Endnotes
1. Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Eerdmans, 2009). Also look forward to an upcoming book by Andrew Rillera, in which he develops his thesis for which Campbell was his advisor. For anyone wanting to critique Campbell’s exegesis, it might be wise to start with chapter 1 instead of jump into chapter 13. One must either refute all Campbell’s arguments about Justification Theory’s intrinsic, systematic, empirical, reception-historical, hermeneutical, and, finally, exegetical difficulties, or provide a paradigm on all these levels that avoids all these problems — something which Campbell actually achieves, an astounding accomplishment.
2. See Robert Jewett’s commentary on 1:16 in Romans: A Commentary (Fortress Press 2006).
3. An insight ultimately traceable for me, I think, to N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (HarperOne, 2012).
4. Cf. 2:16 and perhaps 2:29, with mentions of respectively Christ and the Spirit, who both play a very minor role in the Teacher’s gospel. 3:9 could be called an ‘external’ rather than ‘immanent’ critique.
5. By restoring the Torah to its original goodness (7:12–13), Paul approximates the Teacher’s view of the law (namely as the Torah of works; see above), but only on the surface level; within their systems as a whole, they have very different roles, especially because the Teacher does not take the powers of Sin, Death, and the Flesh into account.
6. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33A (Doubleday 1997), e.g. Comment #34, “The Blessing God, the Cursing Law, and the Cross”, Comment #48, “The Law and Daily Life in the Church of God”, and Comment #50, “The Law in the Hands of Christ”. One particular principle that I have broadly taken over from him is that we should, as a rule, interpret nomos as Torah and not some generic law or principle, which most often just does not work exegetically (see 555n41).
