PAUL AND THE LAW
Keeping the commandments of God
By Brian S. Rosner
Apollos (IVP). 249 pages. £14.99
ISBN 978 1 844 748 914
In this book Brian Rosner examines Paul’s thinking about the law of Moses with a view to determining how its commandments apply to the Christian. He records that this work has been long in the making and, although its content will command the attention of the academy, it is mainly addressed to the church.
He regards Paul’s teaching on this subject as arising out of a ‘polemical rereading of the law of Moses’ in the light of the coming of Christ which involved repudiation of it as a law covenant, replacement of it with the law of Christ and re-appropriation of it as prophecy in relation to the gospel and as wisdom for Christian living. He unpacks each of those with tables of supporting verses and concludes with a summary. These tail pieces are put together in the final chapter followed by a bibliography and indices (author and Scripture).
The three Rs
Repudiation is made explicit in the words ‘not under the law’ but implied by the absence of the words ‘walking in/after the law’ – an argument from silence for which there might be another explanation than thinly-veiled refutation of Judaism, namely exultation in the rich fulfilment of the new era of the Messiah.
Replacement is treated in a chapter headed ‘Under the law of Christ’, where several Pauline expressions are listed and construed as an ‘antithesis’ to law and as ‘substitutes’ for it. ‘Christ not Torah’ is indeed the antithesis, but are the substitutes, namely ‘the law of Christ/faith/Spirit’, necessarily devoid of any allusion to ‘commandment’? It would seem that they are, from the fact that ‘the law of Christ’ (Galatians 6.2) is not regarded as ‘the law of Moses in the light of Christ.’ Fulfilment of the law in love, faith and the Spirit is what is emphasised instead.
Re- appropriation of the law is dealt with in two parts. The first is by way of ‘Witness to the gospel’ which focuses on prediction-fulfilment, and Rosner shows his commitment to the consonance of Scripture via painstaking exegesis and typology, even when the connection is not obvious, as in Paul’s use of Leviticus 18.5 and Deuteronomy 9.4 and 30.11-14 in Galatians and Romans respectively.
Counsel not commandment?
The second, ‘Written for our Instruction’, deals with the law in terms of wisdom for Christian living. Rosner here builds on his monograph Paul, Scripture and Ethics (1994) in which he argued for the continuing role of the law in Paul’s instruction and exhortation. He shows how law and wisdom are closely related in the Old Testament and that law is internalised in the Christian and connected with the created order and the character of God in the New Testament. This is so, but leads him to argue that Paul presents law only as counsel and not as commandment.
In his final chapter Rosner admits that he has been using the expression ‘keeping the commandments of God’ in ‘a deliberately ambiguous manner’ as in the subtitle of the book itself. What he means is that there are no commandments of God which the Christian is told to obey because the apostle does not bring any specific injunction from the law of Moses to bear on the Christian. Law is now wisdom and so in the strictest sense becomes counsel not commandment.
Is this really so?
But does the apostle not refer to prohibitions of the second table of the Decalogue in his words to Christians, for example in Romans 13.8-10 and Ephesians 6.1-3? And is it conceivable that he could abominate idolatry without thinking of its ‘first table’? Does not ‘wisdom’ speak as authoritatively in James as in Proverbs? Verbs are used in the imperative mood in the New Testament as well as the Old and ‘keeping commandments’ cannot only mean ‘retaining’ them.
Watch this space
It will be interesting to watch how the academy reacts to this proposed synthesis of Pauline material, much of which is controverted. But it may become salutary to note how this attempt to preserve ‘law’ without ‘commandment’ will affect the church herself and her witness in the world in the not too distant future.
Is it not likely to weaken further what is authoritative in itself, namely the moral law of God which is not given due weight in this study because of its focus on the ‘law of Moses’ to the neglect of the universal and permanent moral law? It will enervate evangelistic preaching to unbelievers who are still ‘under the law’ by failing to warn them of their accountability on the day of judgment (Romans 3.19 is not treated) and, albeit indirectly, encourage ill-disciplined living on the part of Christians who need firm and clear warnings about no-go areas for desires, words and deeds. Even the regenerate can be foolish and sin is deceptive.
