Faithful Readings of the Law Foster Unity

Paul wrote Romans to make a case for the unity of all Jesus-followers in Rome.  All those in Christ, Jewish and non-Jewish, are siblings in God’s one new family by the Spirit.

In Rom. 3:27-31, Paul sums up his case for unity using two arguments that undermine claims of Jewish privilege in God’s new family.  I’ll look at the first of these in this post.

Paul wants the two groups in the Roman Christian community to stop passing judgment on one another (Rom. 2:1).  Both groups must stop asserting claims of superiority over the other.  They must embrace as siblings and welcome one another joyfully in Christ (Rom. 15:7-9).  In the language of Rom. 3:27, he wants them to stop “boasting.”

After arguing that all in Christ are justified on the same basis, in v. 27 he asks, “where then is boasting?”  What does he mean by this?  Paul is speaking about the claims of privilege made by the Jewish Christians in Rome over-against the non-Jewish Christians.

Before they had been banished from Rome by Claudius, they held key positions of leadership within the Christian community.  Since their banishment from Rome, however, the gentiles have taken responsibility in the community and have shaped communal patterns of life in ways unfamiliar to the Jewish Christians.

Now that they’ve come back, they’d like things to return to where they were five years before.

The Jewish Christians are likely using the Law to back up their claims.  They have historic priority in the plan of God.  They are God’s chosen people.  Just read the Scriptures!  They have been chosen as a light to the nations, as guides to the blind, as teachers of the ignorant!  Surely they deserve to be returned to their honored positions of leadership in the community, making crucial decisions about the character of the life of the church.

This sort of boasting is driving the growing division in the Roman church.

For Paul, however, there can be no boasting of any group over any other.  After all, both Jews and non-Jews are justified before God on the same basis (“by faith without reference to Jewish identity,” v. 28).

And this reality must shape how they read the Law in the fellowships.

When Paul asks, “by what kind of law?” he sets before them the question, “by what reading of the law?”  Or, “what use of Scripture eliminates boasting in the church?”

He then contrasts two Scripture-reading strategies.  On one hand there is reading the Law as a “law of works.”  That is, a reading strategy that highlights the uniqueness Israel, bolstering the claims  of Jewish church members over non-Jewish church members.  The Jewish Christians are reading Scripture to highlight their priority in the people of God.

Pursuing that strategy results in division, discouragement, and destruction.  One group will be triumphant and another will be marginalized and angry.

On the other hand, they can read the Law as a “law of faith.”  That is, reading Scripture to foster communities of faithfulness to Jesus.  This Scripture-reading strategy seeks to foster a flourishing community of mutuality in line with God’s new moves in Christ and according to the life-giving aims of the Spirit.

This strategy emphasizes the commonality of everyone in the community of Christ, marginalizes no one, and eliminates boasting.

What’s at stake, then, is how to read the Law as Scripture.  Marshaling the law to support the claims of any group against others in God’s people leads to disaster, provokes fleshly responses, and divides a community.

Using Scripture to shed increasing light on the goodness of God, to transform relationships, and to gain new insights on God’s designs for communal flourishing, furthers the aims of God’s Spirit in the church.

Paul is not against the Law in Romans.  He’s arguing against a fleshly reading of the Law—using Scripture to bolster one groups claims over another is a reading strategy that plays into the hands of the powers of Sin, Death, and Flesh.  The inevitable result is an increasingly divided community.

Looking ahead, I think this is largely Paul’s point in Romans 7.  Paul frames his discussion of the “I” in Romans 7 by referring to these competing reading strategies—these alternative uses of Scripture by the Roman community.

In Rom. 7:6, Paul contrasts the “newness of the Spirit” and the “oldness of the letter.”  And in Rom. 8:2, he states that the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”  Paul is telling them that there is a way of using Scripture in a community that can actually be destructive, furthering the purposes of God’s cosmic enemies, Sin and Death.

I won’t give too much away here about what I think Paul is doing in Romans 7:7-8:1, but just to say for now that Paul perceives the problem in the Roman Christian community as one in which a certain Scripture-reading strategy unintentionally forms an alliance with the dark purposes of Sin to destroy the church in Rome.

Just think about how this sheds light on contemporary uses of Scripture by Christians.  Do we ever use the Bible to beat each other up?  Might we actually be using Scripture to further the purposes of God’s enemies, Sin and Death, rather than unleashing the redeeming and renewing power of God?

Advertisements

5 responses to “Faithful Readings of the Law Foster Unity

  • Andrew

    Paul wants the two groups in the Roman Christian community to stop passing judgement on one another (Rom. 2:1). One group, Paul identifies as ‘Jews’ (Rom 2:17), so the House of Judah. You claim the second group is ‘Gentiles’. Lets test that theory by looking at what Paul says about this other group. Paul describes characteristics of the ‘other’ group in (Rom 2:21-24) concluding with “For as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed amongst the nations because of you.’

    Paul is quoting the Old Testament in his description of this ‘other’ group’s behavior. Either Paul is quoting the OT correctly in context, or he is quoting it out of context, instead using it for his purposes. So if Paul’s use of the OT in [Rom 2:24] is using the OT correctly and in context, we should be able to look at his OT quotes to see who this ‘other’ group is. In [Rom 2:24], Paul is quoting [Isa 52:5] and [Ezek 36:21] so lets see who is being addressed there. If Paul’s other group is ‘Gentiles’ [Isa 52:5] and [Eze 36:21] should be addressed to ‘Gentiles.

    [Eze 36:21] is clear, it is addressed to the ‘House of Israel’ which is causing ‘God’s name to be profaned amongst the nations’. Similarly, [Isa 52:5] is addressed to “O captive daughter of Zion” ([Isa 52:2]) who was in captivity in Assyria ([Isa 52:4]). Isaiah is saying this ‘captive daughter of Zion’ is causing God’s name to be despised [Isa 52:5]. So is this captive daughter of Zion ‘Gentiles’ or ‘the House of Israel’?

    If the ‘captive daughter of Zion’ (taken to Assyria) are ‘Gentiles’ Paul is citing the OT correctly, and the Roman Jews are having trouble accepting ‘Gentiles’. On the other hand if Isaiah’s ‘captive daughter of Zion’ is the ‘House of Israel’ but Paul is addressing Jews about Gentiles (as you claim), than he is clearly abusing Isaiah in his use of the OT, which suggests Paul doesn’t understand the OT or he doesn’t care what it says.

    Paul also describes the behaviour of this ‘other group’ in [Rom 1:22] by quoting [Jer 10:14]. Who is [Jer 10:14] describing (answered in [Jer 10:1])?

    On the other hand, the claim Paul is advocating for unity between ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’ is false. Perhaps Paul is aware that the new covenant would unify the House of Israel with the House of Judah under a Messianic King of the House of David (IAW [Jer 31:31](Heb 8:8) and [Eze 37:19,22,24]).

    Claiming Paul is trying to heal a rift between ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’ works only by constructing false theology using circular logic and hermeneutics that ignore secular ‘Greek’ word meaning. Such a view also paints Paul as either ignorant of OT prophecy or purposefully mis-using it for his own purposes.

  • Andrew T.

    Are you suggesting there was no distinction (biblically or prophetically) between the house of Israel and the House of Judah; that this division dominatd all of those OT prophets who specifically foresaw and predicted the reunification of those two houses under one shepherd, were wrong.

    When you read [Acts 1:6], [John 7:35] or [1 Peter 1:1] do you deny that this division within the Kingdom was at the heart of contemporary thinking, either by the apostles, or opponents within the temple?

    Despite this element dominating the thinking of OT, Jesus allies, and his opponents, do you contend that in his use of the OT, Paul’s understanding differed (and was novel)?

    If so, that’s quite a claim – one that needs some justification don’t you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: