Romans Introduction
The book of Romans, written by the apostle Paul, is often used to prove that believers in Christ are free from any obligation to obey the Mosaic Law. There are many “freedom passages” in Paul's letter to the Romans, and it is our purpose to examine each in detail and see if Paul (and God) really is granting believers this liberty. Whenever the topic of following God's instructions from the Old Testament comes up, the almost universal rallying cry springs forth, "We are not under law but under grace." This reminds me of a line in The Princess Bride. Throughout the movie, Vizzini repeatedly proclaims "Inconceivable!" with an emphatic lisp, and then finally, Inigo Montoya says in his Spanish accent, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means." The same thing applies to the book of Romans. Rather than pull the freedom passages out of context, we need to examine how Paul uses each of them to see if it matches what we have been taught. Good biblical hermeneutics and proper exegeses (the methods by which we accurately interpret the bible) are essential if we are to discover the truth of what Paul is teaching.
As we approach the book of Romans, we should first define some key terms regarding the law that are relevant to both the book and its first-century context:
Torah: This word literally means “instruction” or “teaching” in Hebrew and is often translated as “law.” It specifically refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch or Mosaic Law.
Oral Law: These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud.
With these terms in mind, it is important at this point to make a critical distinction between biblical Judaism and the Pharisaical Judaism of the first century. Biblical Judaism, which accepts the Torah and remainder of the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) alone as authoritative, is a grace-based religion. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, in contrast, believed one must also obey the man-made Oral Law. These Pharisees had an external focus on works in which they “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt” (Luke 18:9). A major reason people believe we are free from the Mosaic Law is because they believe biblical Judaism is a works-based system that God put in place for a time to show us our need for a Savior. While the Torah absolutely does point to the Messiah, it is by no means works-based. In his commentary on Romans, New Testament scholar James Dunn cites Ed Sanders' work on first-century Judaism. In this work, Sanders (another Pauline expert) makes a compelling argument that Judaism was not a works-based, earn-your-own-salvation religion, but rather a grace-based religion, wholly dependent upon God's election. Dunn writes:
As we approach the book of Romans, we should first define some key terms regarding the law that are relevant to both the book and its first-century context:
Torah: This word literally means “instruction” or “teaching” in Hebrew and is often translated as “law.” It specifically refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch or Mosaic Law.
Oral Law: These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud.
With these terms in mind, it is important at this point to make a critical distinction between biblical Judaism and the Pharisaical Judaism of the first century. Biblical Judaism, which accepts the Torah and remainder of the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) alone as authoritative, is a grace-based religion. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, in contrast, believed one must also obey the man-made Oral Law. These Pharisees had an external focus on works in which they “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt” (Luke 18:9). A major reason people believe we are free from the Mosaic Law is because they believe biblical Judaism is a works-based system that God put in place for a time to show us our need for a Savior. While the Torah absolutely does point to the Messiah, it is by no means works-based. In his commentary on Romans, New Testament scholar James Dunn cites Ed Sanders' work on first-century Judaism. In this work, Sanders (another Pauline expert) makes a compelling argument that Judaism was not a works-based, earn-your-own-salvation religion, but rather a grace-based religion, wholly dependent upon God's election. Dunn writes:
Judaism’s whole religious self-understanding was based on the premise of grace—that God had freely chosen Israel and made his covenant with Israel, to be their God and they his people. This covenant relationship was regulated by the law, not as a way of entering the covenant, or of gaining merit, but as the way of living within the covenant (1988, lxv).
God's people were not to obey the law for the purpose of their own justification. God has always redeemed and justified his people by grace, through faith. Rather, obedience to the law was a way of life after God's people had been redeemed, a response to the grace of God. If this is the case, and it certainly appears to be, who then were Paul's antagonists?
Anticipating this question, Dunn answers it for us (lxix-lxx). Because of the events that befell both Israel and the Jews, such as the Assyrian captivity of the northern Kingdom, the Babylonian captivity, and the invasion of Judea by Antiochus Ephiphanes, Judaism morphed into a separatist religion. Beginning around the time of Ezra, Jews began to shun contact with other nations. Separateness began to be deeply rooted in the Jews' national consciousness. We see this attitude reflected in such passages as Jubilees 22:16:
Anticipating this question, Dunn answers it for us (lxix-lxx). Because of the events that befell both Israel and the Jews, such as the Assyrian captivity of the northern Kingdom, the Babylonian captivity, and the invasion of Judea by Antiochus Ephiphanes, Judaism morphed into a separatist religion. Beginning around the time of Ezra, Jews began to shun contact with other nations. Separateness began to be deeply rooted in the Jews' national consciousness. We see this attitude reflected in such passages as Jubilees 22:16:
Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.
Note that the reference to this passage is not found in the written Torah, nor in the Bible, but rather in an added man-made rule designed to separate the Jews from the Gentiles. Later, this admonition became a law under the Oral Law1 of the Rabbis. We see the dominance of this oral law in Acts:
And [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation" (Acts 10:28a, emphasis ours).
Here Peter claims that associating with a Gentile is unlawful. Yet it is only unlawful with regard to the rabbinic enactments in the Oral Law, not to the Torah.
Dunn writes:
Dunn writes:
Not surprisingly this desire to live within the law and be marked off from the lawless and sinner became a dominant concern in the factionalism which was a feature of Judaism in the period from the Maccabeans to the emergence of rabbinic Judaism as the most powerful faction (lxx).
In an attempt to avoid returning to exile, the Jews completely separated themselves from Gentiles, which led to both a separate and elite identity. From this developed a wrongly works-oriented religion, as they sought to keep both the Torah and the Oral Law, claiming superiority and separateness from their works of the law.
Furthermore, during the Second Temple Period, especially in the first century AD, we see Jews condemning other Jews as “sinners” because they were not educated in the Torah, worked for the Romans, or did not measure up to the standards the Pharisees had erected, i.e. the Oral Law. No clearer example of this can be shown than that of Jesus' teaching in Luke 18:9-14 in which he describes the self-righteous Pharisee contrasted with the repentant tax collector. Luke tells us that Jesus told this parable to those who trusted in their own righteousness and treated others with contempt. It was directed at the Pharisees. Not only did the Pharisees separate themselves from Gentiles, but they also separated themselves from those Jews who did not measure up to their code of righteousness.
When Jews, coming out of Rabbinic Judaism, became believers in Christ, this former “baggage” would not have been easily left behind. This leads to a key issue in Paul's letter to the Roman Christians. In fact, according to Dunn, a major theme running throughout Romans is how Jews and Gentiles stand in relation to each other in terms of the gospel (800). God's design was for Jews and Gentiles to be united through Christ. With the first-century backdrop of Jewish separatism and elitism, we can imagine just how difficult this unity must have been. The Jews came from a background of fences built upon fences with man-made rules and regulations governing every aspect of their life. The Gentiles came from the background of doing anything they wanted, worshipping what they wanted, eating what they wanted, and living however they wanted. These two groups were then thrust together, and both groups thought they were superior to the other. Paul's letter is designed to help them get along in the community of faith. Understanding the Roman schisms between believing Jews and Gentiles will play a significant role in understanding the letter as a whole. It is this very thing that is at the heart of Paul's letter to the Romans. Each group saw themselves as exclusive and righteous, based on their own works.
Many have misunderstood the root issues in the Roman church. They have mistakenly believed that those wanting to live according to God's instructions in the Torah were now being condemned by Paul as trying to earn salvation through works. Such an understanding introduces conflict and contradiction into Paul's writings. How could Paul, on one hand, proclaim that we are “not under the Torah” and therefore have no obligation to keep God's law or use it for instruction or authority in our lives, then turn around and quote the law as his authority and proof text (1 Corinthians 9:8-9, Romans 4:10-19; 7:7)? One cannot at the same time dismiss the law as an authority and cite it as an authority. Or, how can Paul at one moment appear to be saying we are free from the law, but then turn right around and say that we uphold the law (Romans 3:31)? When we correctly understand the cultural context of Paul's letter, the cohesiveness will become apparent.
Last, let us note with gravity the nature of Paul's writings as a whole. Pauline theology is incredibly complex, and at times, seemingly contradictory. This is why Peter states the following regarding the teaching of Paul:
Furthermore, during the Second Temple Period, especially in the first century AD, we see Jews condemning other Jews as “sinners” because they were not educated in the Torah, worked for the Romans, or did not measure up to the standards the Pharisees had erected, i.e. the Oral Law. No clearer example of this can be shown than that of Jesus' teaching in Luke 18:9-14 in which he describes the self-righteous Pharisee contrasted with the repentant tax collector. Luke tells us that Jesus told this parable to those who trusted in their own righteousness and treated others with contempt. It was directed at the Pharisees. Not only did the Pharisees separate themselves from Gentiles, but they also separated themselves from those Jews who did not measure up to their code of righteousness.
When Jews, coming out of Rabbinic Judaism, became believers in Christ, this former “baggage” would not have been easily left behind. This leads to a key issue in Paul's letter to the Roman Christians. In fact, according to Dunn, a major theme running throughout Romans is how Jews and Gentiles stand in relation to each other in terms of the gospel (800). God's design was for Jews and Gentiles to be united through Christ. With the first-century backdrop of Jewish separatism and elitism, we can imagine just how difficult this unity must have been. The Jews came from a background of fences built upon fences with man-made rules and regulations governing every aspect of their life. The Gentiles came from the background of doing anything they wanted, worshipping what they wanted, eating what they wanted, and living however they wanted. These two groups were then thrust together, and both groups thought they were superior to the other. Paul's letter is designed to help them get along in the community of faith. Understanding the Roman schisms between believing Jews and Gentiles will play a significant role in understanding the letter as a whole. It is this very thing that is at the heart of Paul's letter to the Romans. Each group saw themselves as exclusive and righteous, based on their own works.
Many have misunderstood the root issues in the Roman church. They have mistakenly believed that those wanting to live according to God's instructions in the Torah were now being condemned by Paul as trying to earn salvation through works. Such an understanding introduces conflict and contradiction into Paul's writings. How could Paul, on one hand, proclaim that we are “not under the Torah” and therefore have no obligation to keep God's law or use it for instruction or authority in our lives, then turn around and quote the law as his authority and proof text (1 Corinthians 9:8-9, Romans 4:10-19; 7:7)? One cannot at the same time dismiss the law as an authority and cite it as an authority. Or, how can Paul at one moment appear to be saying we are free from the law, but then turn right around and say that we uphold the law (Romans 3:31)? When we correctly understand the cultural context of Paul's letter, the cohesiveness will become apparent.
Last, let us note with gravity the nature of Paul's writings as a whole. Pauline theology is incredibly complex, and at times, seemingly contradictory. This is why Peter states the following regarding the teaching of Paul:
There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability (2 Peter 3:16b-17).
Peter states that Paul's letters are often hard to understand, and that ignorant people can twist them and so fall prey to the error of lawlessness. We, along with Peter's original audience, should take this to heart as we approach the book of Romans. With this introduction, we turn our attention to the freedom passages found in the book of Romans, which cause so many Christians so much confusion.
1 Some rabbinic apologists dispute that Jewish Oral Law prohibits Jews eating with Gentiles. While no Talmudic law could be found preventing Jews eating with Gentiles, there is a gezeirah (rabbinic law designed to prevent breaking a commandment) preventing Jews eating kosher food, prepared in a kosher kitchen, in a kosher manner if that food was prepared by a non-Jew. This is called bishul akum, and Rashi comments that this gezeirah was designed to prevent Jews from eating with Gentiles (Meseches Beitzah 16a “ein,” Avodah Zarah 35b “v’hashlakos”). Refer to Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Tur Y.D. 113, Ramban Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b. For further reference see:Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b, Yerushalmi Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:8, Ran Meseches Avodah Zarah page 28 “rebbe,” Rosh Meseches Chullin 3:61, Issur V’heter 43:1, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:9, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:16, Aruch Hashulchan 1
1 Some rabbinic apologists dispute that Jewish Oral Law prohibits Jews eating with Gentiles. While no Talmudic law could be found preventing Jews eating with Gentiles, there is a gezeirah (rabbinic law designed to prevent breaking a commandment) preventing Jews eating kosher food, prepared in a kosher kitchen, in a kosher manner if that food was prepared by a non-Jew. This is called bishul akum, and Rashi comments that this gezeirah was designed to prevent Jews from eating with Gentiles (Meseches Beitzah 16a “ein,” Avodah Zarah 35b “v’hashlakos”). Refer to Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Tur Y.D. 113, Ramban Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b. For further reference see:Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b, Yerushalmi Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:8, Ran Meseches Avodah Zarah page 28 “rebbe,” Rosh Meseches Chullin 3:61, Issur V’heter 43:1, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:9, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:16, Aruch Hashulchan 1