Paul and the Law
Book Review (Brian S. Rosner)
This book by Brian Rosner is an attempt to answer the incredibly complex question, the relationship of Paul to the Law, and it does so in a perhaps deceptively simple way. Not that Rosner's approach lacks rigour or depth, but it can be summarised in a very straightforward way, and has great explanatory power. The problem, you see, is that Paul is capable of and speaks of the "Law" in ways that are incredibly positive and incredibly negative. How can Paul speak of the Law as abolished in Eph 2:15 and then use it to prescribe Christian conduct in Eph 6:2? Or, more directly, how can it be abolished in Eph 2:15, and not abolished in Rom 3:31?!
In chapter one, Rosner offers some preliminary terms. Perhaps most important, he takes the word 'law' to generally refer to the literary whole of the first five books of the Bible, as a unity; he does not generally mean 'only the legal material in the Sinai covenant' or similar. This is important because we aren't trying to carve up the law in any particular passage.
The question is not which bits of the law Paul is referring to in a given instance of nomos, but the law as what. More attention should be paid to the point of view from which Paul is reading the law. p.29
And so Rosner sees not a three-fold use of the law, but a three-fold 'as what' of the Law. That is Paul, sometimes refers to the Law as Mosaic covenant, as prophecy, and as wisdom.
Chapter 2 begins Rosner's look at how and where Paul explicitly repudiates the Law. And he begins by looking at the way Paul uses the phrase "under the Law". This phrase is used by Paul to indicate being a Jew in terms of being under the Law as Mosaic Covenant. Believers are definitively not under the Law, and Gentiles never were under the Law. This is an idea I have trouble getting across to (Gentile) believers, who often act/think/talk like somehow they were under the Mosaic covenant and got freed from it. It's genuinely hard to help people realise that their sin problem isn't because they failed to keep the Mosaic Covenant. I came to this conclusion many years ago after a close reading of Galatians. Rosner's analysis here makes so much sense - Jews were/are under the Law as Mosaic Covenant. Gentiles never were under the Law. Jewish believers in Jesus are free, as Paul sometimes did, to live in accordance with the Mosaic code, but not as law. Why is being under the law bad? Because, based on the way that Paul reads Lev 18.5 in particular, and the law more generally, it cannot achieve what we need:
Those who are under the law are under a curse and under sin. Even though the law promises life to those who keep it, it is evident that no one keeps the law. Consequently, no one receives life through the law. p.81
Believers, whether Jewish or Gentile, are now under grace/led by the Spirit, as members of the new covenant and living in the new redemptive age.
Chapter 3 moves on to consider 'implicit repudiation of the law as law-covenant'. Here Rosner walks through all the things or kinds of things we might expect Paul to say about the Law, based on contemporary Jewish texts and approaches, but which he doesn't say. For example, 'walk' is used extensively in Jewish contexts for one's manner of life, and the phrase 'walk according to the Law' is something we might expect, but never find in Paul's writings. Christians, according to Paul, do not walk according to the law (at least in the law-code sense). This chapter runs through several other things, where Paul ascribes certain things to Jews, but not to Christians. E.g., Jews 'do, observe, keep' the Law, but he does not apply these verbs to Christians in regards to the Law. Jews transgress the Law, Christians do not.
Chapter 4 turns to places where Paul takes certain phrases, and replaces the Law with something else (usually Christ). E.g., believers do not rely on the Law, but they rely on Christ. Or, given that believers do not do, observe, keep the Law, but he does say they fulfil the Law. Instead of walking according to the Law, believers walk in various ways (not as Gentiles, not in idleness, not as enemies of the Gospel, by the Spirit, by apostolic example, by apostolic teaching, by the truth of the Gospel, in Christ, in love, in newness of resurrection life, etc..) The effect of chapter 4 is that is shows powerfully how deep the antithesis and replacement motif goes for Paul. The Law as Legal-Code just cannot and does not function the same was for Christians.
The next two chapters shift focus - how does Paul treat the Law as prophecy (ch 5) and wisdom (ch 6). Chapter 5 then leads us through those texts that speak of the Law as testifying the Gospel. Rosner does this in three movements: Firstly he looks at Romans 10:6-9 as an example of all three 'moves' (repudiation of Law as legal-code, replacement, and reappropriation as prophecy); then considers the prophetic character of the Mosaic Law overall; thirdly treats Romans as a test case.
I think what's fascinating int he Romans 10 example is that Rosner cites the Deuteronomy 30:11-14 passage and points out how Paul has systematically deleted all the references to commanding, hearing, and doing the commandment. Paul rewrites Deuteronomy to shift the focus from obedience to faith. That is a radical re-reading! Rosner meets the charge (which ought to arise) of Paul illegitimately tampering with the Scripture, by seeking grounds to consider the Law as prophetic in the manner in which Paul reads it. He does so in part by taking us through five commentators' takes on the Law as prophecy.
The value of reading Paul's usage of Law as different 'takes' at different points can be illustrated simply like this. Here's Romans 3:21 adapted by me:
But now apart from the Law-as-legal-code the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law-as-prophecy and the Prophets testify. (NIV, adapted)
Even without such interpretive glosses, the two instances of 'Law' have to be understood somewhat differently. Reading with this explicitly in mind helps to clarify Paul's usage. Rosner goes on in this chapter to show positively just how Romans affirms Paul's prophetic interpretation of the Torah as pointing to salvation in Christ.
Chapter 6 was actually a treat. You don't realise that you are reading two texts that are going to converge so serendipitously. But, as I was reading Wenham's book recently, and thinking about this book as I read through it, I was thinking, "okay, so what do I do with that large bulk of the Psalms that speaks so glowingly of the Law, meditating upon it, walking according to it, etc. etc..?" This chapter fundamentally assesses how Paul uses the Law as 'wisdom' especially as a basis for ethics. And in the second part of the chapter, Rosner draws heavily on Wenham's study of the ethics of the Psalms, to see a forerunner in how the Psalms use the Law for ethical wisdom, because
The Psalms offer an enlightening case study in what it means to internalize and delight in the law. p.167
The psalms in general show an approach to the law that does not primarily view the law as commandments, but rather as promise and teaching to be explored, internalized and applied to all of life’s ups and downs. p173-174
The book closes in chapter 7 with an overview and a final argument for the validity of this approach. As I close this review, let me offer my own reflections. I'd heard Rosner speak to these issues and present this threefold hermeneutical approach before, and had had it in mind, but I had not worked through the detailed material myself. Seeing him do so on the page, so to speak, provides a very compelling argument. When you see how pervasively Paul speaks in one way of the Law, and then deliberately eschews certain language for the Law, and the replacement motifs, and the use of prophetic and wisdom categories, this adds up to a compelling case. Furthermore, it provides you as a reader with a tool to hear how Paul is speaking of the Law in any particular text. Also, as I mentioned early in this review, it really helps do away with the problematic "I'm a Gentile, and when I become a Christian then I magically surreptitiously went 'under the Law' for like a split-second and then got saved from failing to fulfil it". No, Gentiles sinned apart from the Law, were condemned apart from the Law, and are saved apart from the Law, and now live as believers not under any parts of the Law that have ongoing legal validity, but according to the way of Christ that appropriates the Torah as Wisdom for Life.