For our discussion groups this week, we were asked to interact with the 16th chapter of Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul.[1] In this chapter, Westerholm discusses five key aspects of Paul’s usage of “law” (“nomos” in Greek[2]): its meaning, and its relation to “works,” faith, legalism, and Torah. Our goal was to utilize these nuances to find what Paul really meant when he used “law” – whether it be something ambiguous or something precise.
Another part of the assignment was to categorize all of Paul’s references to “law” as to what he might have meant by the term (i.e. Pentateuch, Sinaitic Law, OT in general, etc.). Although time-consuming, I found the exercise helpful in seeing how fluid “law” actually is, as Paul uses it. For instance, when Paul says, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good,” in Romans 7:12, he means something else by “law” when he says, “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good…” in 7:21.[3]
Westerholm’s discussion of “The Law and Legalism” was the particular part of the chapter I interacted with. Reacting to Cranfield’s claim that “what [Paul] really has in mind may be not the law itself but the misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we have a convenient term,”[4] Westerholm argues “the Greek language… provided, Paul’s vocabulary included, sufficient resources for indicating whether he was speaking of the law as intended by God or in the (allegedly) perverted form in which it was understood by Jews.”[5] Westerholm takes this into his next point: “that no such distinction is intended.”[6]
Overall, this is the part I interacted with the most. Paul’s lack of distinction doesn’t seem to indicate the words didn’t exist; it indicates he didn’t feel the need to separate them. Instead, he treats “law” as a single entity (almost always), but with various aspects that he highlights in order to make different points. It’s as though Paul had a box of crayons: sometimes he refers to the entire box; sometimes he refers to specific colors. We create problems for ourselves when we say that Paul was only talking about one color (i.e. legalism).
Now I know this might oversimplify the issue, but I think it points out how Paul did not seem to care which part of the law he was discussing; what mattered to him was how, in comparison to Christ, it was insufficient. Or as Westerholm puts it, “But – it must be emphasized – in Paul’s argument it is human deeds of any kind that cannot justify.”[7] It didn’t matter if it was the legalism crayon or the “Abraham is our father” crayon; the entire box is insufficient in comparison to Christ.
With that analogy exhausted, I think there might be one counterpoint to Westerholm’s statement about human deeds. In Romans 13:8, Paul says, “Own no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” I might be misunderstanding Paul here, but if what Westerholm says is true, that deeds cannot justify, then what do we make of loving one’s neighbor? And how does Christ play into all of this?
I’m not asking rhetorically; I’m asking because this was the one hang up I had in understanding Paul’s nuanced usage of “law.” If he treats the law as insufficient, which I think is a correct assessment of Romans, then how should we interpret Romans 13:8-10?
What do you think? Does Paul have one cohesive meaning of “law” or is it more ambiguous as I’ve suggested? And how might this alter our understanding of Paul’s Judaism – or the Judaism in Paul’s day?
[1] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New On Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Eerdmans, 2004), 297-340
[2] I have not studied Greek; this is second-hand information from my professor
[3] Emphasis mine
[4] C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964), 55, referring to the terms “legalism,” “legalist,” or “legalistic.”
[5] Westerholm, Perspectives, 331
[6] Westerholm, Perspectives, 331
[7] Westerholm, Perspectives, 333
the archives near Emmaus 
Wow, Paul and the Law is one of those great subjects that you can never over exhaust. If the occassion of Romans lends itself to unifying the Jewish and Gentile congregation, after the 7-8 year expulsion of the Jews from Rome and the ultimate goal (eschatologically speaking) is to have a Jew and Gentile olive tree (Rom 11) on the day of the Lord’s return, then I would say (through a thorough reading of Rom 9-11), Paul is simply pointing out that Torah (or ethnicity) has no “bragging rights”. In other words, you can not leverage status in faith community from a God given grace (Torah). You can, however, humble yourself, sacrifice for others becuase, “love does no harm to its neighbour” (Rom13:10), or leverage from them, or consider themself of greater value on the basis of Torah. Leveraging from God, through Torah observance completely misses the “telos (perfect goal) of the law” (10:4), Christ, who sacrificed Himself for others through love, thus fulfilling the law. If the Jewish and Gentile congregation understood this, they would be able to eat at the same table (Rom 14), and continue the work of grafting in Jews and Genitles into the olive tree (the Israel of God: 11:26) without using Torah as means of justifying themselves. Just a thought. Love your challenges! I think Wrights Romans commentary is one of the best on this perspective. By memory Westerholm is very similar to Thomas Schriener on his Torah perspectives in Romans. Be blessed, quite a jump from Lukan pneumatology!
Sometimes I wonder if we’d be better off translating nomad consistently as “law” (vague principle) or “Law” to allow Paul’s wordplay to stick. The same can be said of pneuma, for instance. When we try to parse Paul’s meaning to finely it seems to limit Paul’s thoughts.
Paul was a learned scholar, so Paul’s view, in some respects, reflects the source of his study.
[Isaiah 2:3] says “For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.”
Isaiah’s use of ‘law’ here is figurative, almost personified – yet look at how Paul’s use of this verse in [Rom 11:26], Paul merges the law phrase directly with the ‘Elohim of Jacob’ phrase (in [Isa 2:3] and also [Mic 4:2]). Paul is introducing nothing new here, save for a clearer interpretation of [Isa 2:3]; and his interpretation isn’t even novel, but is actually evident in the original verse. It is almost as if Paul (in Romans) is pointing out clear meaning in Isaiah others may have missed.
The point here is that ‘law’ in its broadest sense is the character of God (Elohim) Himself. However Pauls use, (as in [Rom 2:12]) just like the Old Covenant prophets he studied, narrowed the law to be the word and expressed command of God ([Isa 5:24])
So Paul’s treatment of what ‘law’ meant really only reflects the previous biblical writers. Although this may have been novel compared to its treatment by the Pharisees and the Sadducee, it clearly isn’t novel compared to its treatment by OT prophets.
Lee
I really like that imagery of being grafted into an olive tree for both Jews and Gentiles; that certainly is Paul’s intent here in Romans, to unify them. And you’re absolutely right that Paul is guarding against the “bragging rights” mentality that seems to have been prevalent in the early churches. What I think is difficult to distinguish, though, is whether those “bragging rights” were in play because of ethnicity through Torah observance, because of a “works based righteousness” in which Jews were justified by what they had done, or because certain members of the early church were barring Gentiles out by enforcing obedience to the law? Westerholm seems to take the third option; that Paul’s main problem with the “Judaizers” is that they were attempting to keep Gentiles out when Christ’s sacrifice is what has opened the door to everyone.
We have N.T. Wright on our recommended reading list, so I think I’ll get a chance to read some of his material later on in the semester. I’m really looking forward to it.
Great thoughts, Lee!
Brian
Very true. Our world of English with its many words for one thing oftentimes misrepresents other languages (especially ancient ones) where they were attempting to say something completely different than what we might say today. What Westerholm has been saying within this chapter we read has really helped to erase the need for distinction in order to hear what Paul is actually trying to say. Not to say that it isn’t important to point out and name the nuances, but to take the step back and remember that what I might see as a nuance, Paul might see as the same exact thing or vice versa.
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.
Yeah ok, I wasnt aware that the issue was an external issue with Judaizers. I’ve always interpreted it as internal struggles between Christian Jews and Gentiles. Predominantly, Gentiles writing Jews off on the basis of covenant unfaithfulness and and Jews using “bragging rights” to justfy themselves. The Jewish problem i would argue is one of ethnicity, hence, Paul’s redefinition of the “people of God” presented in Rom 9-11 (his use of election here is genius if traced according to the text and not a reformed doctrinal position). Also Paul’s former example of Abraham (ch. 4), the faithful/obedient Gentile/ come Jew, to concluded is first argument presented from chs. 1-3 would suggest that ethnicity is a contentious issue.