unpacking justification: the problem with torah-righteousness and the solution of christ-righteousness
Click here for the series outline.
One urgent question that arises from this discussion so far is a two-sided one: Why does Paul believe that fulfilling the covenant obligations of the Law (Torah-righteousness) is not sufficient to be considered righteous by God (justified) and thus to bring about God's fulfilment of his covenant obligations (God's righteousness)? And, on the flip side, why does Paul believe that Christ's faithfulness is sufficient to bring about God's righteousness? Let me present a multi-faceted answer to this two-sided question.
In a way, I think the answer is rather simple. Paul knew the general story of Jesus; he knew Jesus had been viewed by Paul's Pharisaic peers and the Jewish elders as a Law-breaker - "soft" on Sabbath and the purity regulations, to be sure - even finally condemned as "unrighteous" according to the highest Jewish court. However, in Paul's commissioning experience near Damascus he was confronted by a mind-boggling reality: God had resurrected this legally "unrighteous" Jesus. Therefore, although Jesus had been deemed unrighteous according to the Law, God clearly considered him righteous, effectively overturning the condemnation of Jesus according to the Law by justifying him through resurrection. Thus, by resurrecting the legally "unrighteous" Jesus, God demonstrated that the Law is irrelevant to one being justified by God. The converse was also true then: by resurrecting the Jesus who had been obedient to his divine commission, God demonstrated that justification is available through the faithfulness of Jesus.
But there's even more to Paul’s commissioning experience. Paul had himself fulfilled all his covenant obligations according to the Law - he was righteous according to the Law - even following the heightened Pharisaic expectations of righteousness (Phil 3:5-6). Yet this Law-keeping had made him unable to recognize the One deemed righteous by God, Jesus Christ; that is, his own pursuit of Torah-righteousness had made him unable to recognize the righteousness of God revealed in Christ. If this were true for Paul, one who pursued such Torah-righteousness as well as anyone, it was a real danger for all who blindly pursued Torah-righteousness (cf. Rom 9:30-10:4).
There's also another factor to consider in answering this question, another ex post facto realization flowing from Paul's experience of the resurrected crucified Messiah. This added factor relates to the Jewish conception of the larger problem which God's righteousness is intended to address. As noted above, God's fulfilment of his own multi-covenantal obligations, his righteousness, entails a complete eradication of the effects of sin and death, a complete renewal of humanity and all creation. However, in no way could it be said that Law-keeping in itself could ever bring that about, because the Law - although "holy, righteous, and good" - had no power in itself to deal with the internal, pervasive problem of human sin. The Law was merely an impersonal written code, and what was needed was the new covenant reality of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom 7-8; cf. Gal 5; 2 Cor 3-4).
So what of the Law? Even in the midst of his strongest statements against Torah-righteousness, Paul is adamant that the Law is "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom 7:12), that it is not nullified in Christ but rather "fulfilled" (Rom 3:31; 8:4; 13:10), that Christ is the "goal" (telos) of the Law (Rom 10:4). In yet another set of ex post facto ideas (he would not have thought this way prior to his experience of the resurrected crucified Christ) Paul asserts that there is a sense in which the Law had only an interim status in the divine economy. The divine purpose of the Law was essentially twofold: to highlight Jewish sinfulness, revealing sin as legal trespass and even provoking sin as disobedience; and to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of Christ (Rom 7:7-11; Gal 3:19-25). The Law is "fulfilled" in Christ and among those who are in Christ, in the sense that the latent tendencies of the Law in both its vertical (divine-human) and horizontal (human-human) dimensions are woven together in Christ - in his life, death, and resurrection on behalf of others before God - and thus also among those who are united with Christ in his death and resurrection as they live out Christ's self-giving love of God and others by the Spirit. And so, Christ is the "end" or "goal" of the Law in the sense that the covenantal dimension of the Law is completed in him - the Torah continues to function as Scripture, authoritative sacred writings through which God speaks to his people, but it no longer functions as covenant, defining the status and identity and character of the people of God before him. Such status-, identity-, and character-definition is only found in Christ. In these senses - and this is the most radical aspect of Paul's thought in his first-century Jewish context - Christ has displaced the Torah.
Click here for the next post in the series.
One urgent question that arises from this discussion so far is a two-sided one: Why does Paul believe that fulfilling the covenant obligations of the Law (Torah-righteousness) is not sufficient to be considered righteous by God (justified) and thus to bring about God's fulfilment of his covenant obligations (God's righteousness)? And, on the flip side, why does Paul believe that Christ's faithfulness is sufficient to bring about God's righteousness? Let me present a multi-faceted answer to this two-sided question.
In a way, I think the answer is rather simple. Paul knew the general story of Jesus; he knew Jesus had been viewed by Paul's Pharisaic peers and the Jewish elders as a Law-breaker - "soft" on Sabbath and the purity regulations, to be sure - even finally condemned as "unrighteous" according to the highest Jewish court. However, in Paul's commissioning experience near Damascus he was confronted by a mind-boggling reality: God had resurrected this legally "unrighteous" Jesus. Therefore, although Jesus had been deemed unrighteous according to the Law, God clearly considered him righteous, effectively overturning the condemnation of Jesus according to the Law by justifying him through resurrection. Thus, by resurrecting the legally "unrighteous" Jesus, God demonstrated that the Law is irrelevant to one being justified by God. The converse was also true then: by resurrecting the Jesus who had been obedient to his divine commission, God demonstrated that justification is available through the faithfulness of Jesus.
But there's even more to Paul’s commissioning experience. Paul had himself fulfilled all his covenant obligations according to the Law - he was righteous according to the Law - even following the heightened Pharisaic expectations of righteousness (Phil 3:5-6). Yet this Law-keeping had made him unable to recognize the One deemed righteous by God, Jesus Christ; that is, his own pursuit of Torah-righteousness had made him unable to recognize the righteousness of God revealed in Christ. If this were true for Paul, one who pursued such Torah-righteousness as well as anyone, it was a real danger for all who blindly pursued Torah-righteousness (cf. Rom 9:30-10:4).
There's also another factor to consider in answering this question, another ex post facto realization flowing from Paul's experience of the resurrected crucified Messiah. This added factor relates to the Jewish conception of the larger problem which God's righteousness is intended to address. As noted above, God's fulfilment of his own multi-covenantal obligations, his righteousness, entails a complete eradication of the effects of sin and death, a complete renewal of humanity and all creation. However, in no way could it be said that Law-keeping in itself could ever bring that about, because the Law - although "holy, righteous, and good" - had no power in itself to deal with the internal, pervasive problem of human sin. The Law was merely an impersonal written code, and what was needed was the new covenant reality of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom 7-8; cf. Gal 5; 2 Cor 3-4).
So what of the Law? Even in the midst of his strongest statements against Torah-righteousness, Paul is adamant that the Law is "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom 7:12), that it is not nullified in Christ but rather "fulfilled" (Rom 3:31; 8:4; 13:10), that Christ is the "goal" (telos) of the Law (Rom 10:4). In yet another set of ex post facto ideas (he would not have thought this way prior to his experience of the resurrected crucified Christ) Paul asserts that there is a sense in which the Law had only an interim status in the divine economy. The divine purpose of the Law was essentially twofold: to highlight Jewish sinfulness, revealing sin as legal trespass and even provoking sin as disobedience; and to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of Christ (Rom 7:7-11; Gal 3:19-25). The Law is "fulfilled" in Christ and among those who are in Christ, in the sense that the latent tendencies of the Law in both its vertical (divine-human) and horizontal (human-human) dimensions are woven together in Christ - in his life, death, and resurrection on behalf of others before God - and thus also among those who are united with Christ in his death and resurrection as they live out Christ's self-giving love of God and others by the Spirit. And so, Christ is the "end" or "goal" of the Law in the sense that the covenantal dimension of the Law is completed in him - the Torah continues to function as Scripture, authoritative sacred writings through which God speaks to his people, but it no longer functions as covenant, defining the status and identity and character of the people of God before him. Such status-, identity-, and character-definition is only found in Christ. In these senses - and this is the most radical aspect of Paul's thought in his first-century Jewish context - Christ has displaced the Torah.
Click here for the next post in the series.
Labels: justification, paul and his letters, theology
posted by Michael Pahl at
6/26/2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home