Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism. Richard Wellons Winston

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of by faith.147 This mistaken pursuit caused them to stumble over Christ.148 They did not recognize God’s provision of righteousness in Christ, and that the law pointed to him as its culmination all along.149 Leviticus 18:5 represents Israel’s misguided pursuit of the law, and Deut 30:11–14 represents the pursuit of the law by faith.150

Finally, in 2013, N. T. Wright again addressed Rom 9:30—10:13 in Paul and the Faithfulness of God.151 Wright argues that Israel sought the law of righteousness in the wrong way: they used particular nationalistic works (sabbath, food-laws, circumcision) as a way of establishing themselves exclusively as God’s people and keeping everyone else at bay.152 The true keeping of the Torah that God was aiming at all along was the universal confession of Jesus as Lord, and faith that God raised him from the dead.153 The person who does this will live; this is the fulfillment of the Torah now made possible for all nations in Christ.154

      Taxonomy of Views

      The literature review reveals three major positions on Israel’s chief error with reference to the law in Rom 9:30—10:13.

      Misunderstanding

First, some argue that Israel essentially misunderstood the true demand of the law and sought to fulfill it in the wrong way. At its core, the law actually demands faith. The Jews misunderstood this fundamental requirement of the law, and thus rejected Christ because they were preoccupied with lesser forms of obedience.155

N. T. Wright summarizes this view with these words: “To confess Jesus as lord and to believe that God raised him from the dead is to ‘attain the Torah’, the nomos dikaiosynēs, the ‘law of covenant membership’, the point towards which the whole Pentateuch was heading. Conversely, to reject the Messiah is to fail to attain Torah, to stumble over the stone.”156 Similarly, John Toews writes, “Israel perceived the law as a demand for human performance instead of a call to faith.”157 Charles Cranfield asks, “What then is this pursuit of the law ἐκ πίστεως? The answer must be, surely, that it is to respond to the claim to faith which God makes through the law.”158

      Nationalism

Second, Israel limited the expression of righteousness to their nationalistic symbols. The Jews think that righteousness is available only for Jews. The work of Christ which makes righteousness available to all is a stumbling-block to them.159

James Dunn articulates this view well: “The trouble with Israel is that they have confused the law and the righteousness it speaks of with works like circumcision which serve to make righteousness a function of Jewish identity rather than of God’s gracious outreach to and through faith. This failure came to eschatological expression and climax in their refusal to recognize Christ as Messiah.”160 Stephen Pattee summarizes his approach with these words:

Rom 10:5 is actually an interpretive paraphrase of Lev 18:5, in which Paul uses Lev 19:18 to assist in articulating the true meaning of “the righteousness of the law.” Because of this connection, Paul was able to conclude that the demand of Lev 18:5 to keep the entire law was met when the impartial love described in Lev 19:18 is practiced. The significance of this conclusion is that it enabled Paul to define precisely the nature of Jewish hypocrisy. By their failure to grant gentiles co-equal status before God, the Jews had violated the most succinct summation of the law’s requirements.161

Doug Mohrmann argues that Paul aimed “to supplant the law with Christ in God’s administration of righteousness, to challenge Jewish presumptive boasting over the law and their historical relationship with God, and to invite all humanity to a new confession of faith in God in Christ.”162

      Legalism

Third, Israel tried to keep the law in order to attain righteousness by works instead of by faith. However, sinful humans cannot adequately perform the law’s righteous demands, and exist under the curse of the law. Because of their preoccupation with their own works, Israel rejected Christ’s gift of righteousness.163

      Thomas Schreiner summarizes this view in the conclusion to his article on Rom 9:30—10:3:

The Jews pursued the law in order to obtain right standing with God, but they failed to attain that righteousness with reference to the law because they did not obey the law perfectly. Why is it that Israel did not obtain righteousness by pursuing the law? It is not because pursuing the law, properly understood, is evil or misguided, but because the law was pursued “as from works” instead of by faith. To pursue the law from works is to use the law as a means of establishing one’s own righteousness, but employing the law to establish one’s own righteousness is a delusive enterprise precisely because no one can obey the law perfectly. To pursue the law in faith is to recognize that the law cannot be obeyed sufficiently to obtain salvation, and that salvation can only be obtained by believing in Christ.164

Similarly, John Calvin writes, “they sought to be justified by works, and thus laboured for what no man could attain to; and still further, they stumbled at Christ, through whom alone a way is open to the attainment of righteousness.”165 Peter Stuhlmacher also observes, “Instead of living before God on the basis of faith, Israel stands before the Law and attempts to follow the path which is—as Paul already indicated in 3:20 (cf. Gal. 2:16)—condemned by God to fail, namely, to be justified on the basis of works.”166

      This dissertation argues the third view: Paul criticizes Israel for pursuing a right standing with God by obeying the Mosaic law when they should have discerned within their own Scriptures both humanity’s inability to keep the law and the necessity of salvation by faith alone. Throughout the passage, Paul contrasts righteousness by faith with righteousness by works, and uses the OT to prove his theological argument. The result is a dense argument against the folly of works-righteousness based on the law and the necessity of salvation by faith alone as witnessed by the OT as a whole.

      Structure of the Argument

Successive chapters study Rom 9:30—10:13 section by section. Chapter 2 examines the foundational paragraph of 9:30–33 and Paul’s use of Isa 8:14; 28:16 in Rom 9:33. Special attention is given to interpreting the phrase νόμον δικαιοσύνης (9:31), and Paul’s statement that Israel pursued the law by works instead of by faith (9:31–32a). Since Paul concludes each paragraph in 9:30—10:13 with an OT citation to prove his argument, special attention is given throughout to Paul’s use of the OT.167 All OT citations are studied under the following methodology: the original OT context; the use of the OT passage in Jewish literature; textual factors; Paul’s hermeneutics and theological point.168

      Chapter 3 examines the second stage of Paul’s argument in 10:1–4. This paragraph echoes 9:30–33 but develops the main idea further. Special attention is given to the interpretation of Rom 10:4.

      The OT citations in 10:5–8 flow out of the argument in 10:1–4 but are too complex to address in a single chapter. Therefore, chapter 4 examines Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, and chapter 5 examines Paul’s use of Deut 8:17a; 9:4a; 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8. The two citations contrast the differing approaches to righteousness offered by the law and the gospel.

      Chapter 6 concludes the exegesis of the passage by examining Rom 10:9–13 and Paul’s use of Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11 and Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13. Here Paul moves from criticism to cure as he articulates the proper response to the gospel. Chapter 7 concludes the study and offers areas of further research.

      We offer this dissertation with the goal of demonstrating that a traditional Law-Gospel (Lutheran) approach to Paul is defensible within one of Paul’s most important discussions of the law. In addition, it is consistent with the Old Testament’s approach to the issues of faith and righteousness. No full length-study has attempted to prove that point by focusing on this particular passage; this dissertation meets that need.

      СКАЧАТЬ