In the preceding verses, Paul has retold Israel ’s story so as to show that God has always
been making and remaking Israel ,
forming a remnant from Abraham descendants with the result that “not all who
are descended from Israel
belong to Israel .”
Now in 9:30 Paul pauses as he often does to ask a rhetorical question.
“What shall
we say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it;
that is, a righteousness that is by faith(fulness); but that Israel who
pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that
law?”
The implied answer here is “Yes, that is exactly what we
should say!”. In fact, it is what Paul has been saying through most of Romans
1-8. And it is that argument in Romans 1-8 we must remember if we are to
understand what Paul is saying here. He is not merely advocating for faith over
works as those of us raised in the Protestant tradition might expect at first
glance. Instead, he is saying that Israel has done the same thing that
Paul described himself as having done in Romans 7. Even as Paul “followed” the
law by persecuting the Church, that pursuing of the law actually led Paul away
from where God really wanted him to be. Likewise, Paul is saying here,
Israel sought righteousness through the law but even in keeping the law
Israel did not succeed in really reaching the law’s goal (more on that in a
moment).
In the next verse (32), Paul says that the reason Israel failed
to reach the law’s goal is because they didn’t pursue it by faith(fulness) but
as if it were by works. Once again, it is important to remember how Paul has
used this language throughout his letter and not simply impose our own meaning
on these words. When Paul has talked about “works” in Romans, he has had in
mind specifically the works of the Jewish law; things like circumcision, food
laws, and Sabbath observance, things that marked Israel
off as Israel .
So when he says that Israel
pursued the law by works he is not admonishing his fellow Jews for trying to
earn their salvation. Instead, he is saying they’ve missed what it means
to really fulfill the law; that truly reaching God’s law is not about ethnic
identity markers. Similarly, when Paul has talked about faith(fulness) in
Romans he has been referring to God’s faithfulness through Christ (often
followed closely by faithful human response). Likewise, here Paul would be
saying the law’s real goal is found not in maintaining Jewish ethnicity but in
the faithfulness of God. And it is no coincidence that this is the same
thing Paul has just been saying in the preceding verses (whereas arguing that
righteousness comes by faith as trust or belief rather than works would have
very little to do with anything Paul said in 9:1-29). Paul has just spent the
whole chapter claiming that being Israel is not about ethnicity but
about God’s faithfulness to his promises.
By pursuing the law as if its goal was maintaining the
purity of Israel , Israel has
stumbled over the stumbling block of God’s faithfulness in Christ. They failed
to see that Christ was actually the law’s goal. That is what Paul means in 10:4
when he says “Christ is the end of the law.” Like its English counterpart, the
Greek word telos does not always refer to the termination or cessation
of something. It can also mean “end” in the sense of a goal or purpose and that
is Paul’s meaning here. Christ is the point to which the law has been leading
all along. Jesus is the summit of Israel ’s story that Paul has been
telling for the last 37 verses. Faith in Christ and the faithfulness of Christ
are not the antithesis of the law. Paul is not arguing that Israel should
give up the law and just “have faith” instead. He is saying that the way to
really fulfill the law is through faith in and the faithfulness of the Messiah.
He said as much all the way back in 3:31: “Do we then overthrow the law by this
faith(fulness)? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law!”.
Once again, we hear the echoes of that old friend who has always been close by as we’ve journeyed through the pages of Romans; the prophet Habakkuk. We are reminded of his assessment of
No comments:
Post a Comment