You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Torah' tag.
I remember, shortly after conversion, joyfully reading the opening chapters of Romans and thinking “wow, this is amazing, laws are unimportant now, just belief is what counts” – what a relief! I basically read Romans without understanding the context yet latching on to certain phrases as in Romans 3:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law;…blah blah bla…a righteousness from God, apart from law, …blah blah bla… 23comes through faith in Jesus…blah blah bla… 24and are justified freely by his grace…blah blah bla…On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I concluded that Paul was saying that obedience to God’s law(s) was no longer required but just that we have faith (whatever that meant). I was reading the Bible to find out about salvation ignorant of what Paul intended to communicate and which struggle he was combating. Was Paul really fighting “legalistic spirit” in Romans, doing away with obedience and good works, and setting up faith in its place? I no longer think so and have argued elsewhere that we have often misunderstand what “works of the law” and, more especially “faith” mean to Paul. This view is also known as the New Perspective on Paul [1] and is considered by some, to be a mini-Reformation or at least an exciting re-discovery of Pauline Theology. Read the rest of this entry »
Wright’s Understanding of Justification of Faith
Most people understand the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith” to mean one is justified because of faith in Jesus. Though this is probable, N.T. Wright has argued in his Commentary on Romans (New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X) that “by” does not mean “because of” but “as evidenced by”. One has been justified and this is evident by one’s faith. As Wright is a Calvinist, faith is not something one produces but a gift of God (Eph 2:8) and this surely influence his interpretation.
Wright argues that faith is the true badge of justification (inclusion in God’s family) over and against the badge of circumcision (works of Torah). This is radically different from the common interpretation as the following example demonstrates: Read the rest of this entry »
We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Rom 3:28
This verse, for some, stands at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Pauline Theology, even the Gospel itself. I used to think it meant “we (Christians) get saved because we believe in something (Jesus, the Resurrection, the Gospel) instead of by doing any meritorious works”. Indeed that is how many Gospel presentations run in showing how Christianity is different from all other “striving” religions.
This sounds like Great News, an easier way to heaven, but I’ve been reading and studying Romans in detail and find four mistakes in this interpretation.
I’ve been listening to Romans 6 and 7 repeatedly over the past couple of weeks and it really is an interesting way of absorbing a message being able to hear, pause and replay the same content over an over again without the effort of actually paging and reading. These 2 chapters are about Sin, the Law and how believers relate to these things and are incorporated into Jesus death and resurrection. Paul draws many interesting antitheses out of these themes which, I think, shed light on what actually happened on the cross and how we tend to mix up themes which for Paul, are separate and symbolic.
I’ve been looking at what Jesus’ death means for Paul and what sense it makes today. My conclusion was that we have perhaps overemphasised one aspect of Jesus’ death, perhaps even, mutated Paul’s meaning, in thinking that Jesus death was the penalty and payment for our sins. We often hear that Jesus died the death we sinners should have died but Paul speaks a different language and we often and unfortunately read his writings through reformed spectacles designed to correct 15th century mistakes thereby systematically missing Paul’s message.
Read the rest of this entry »
After what was a somewhat frightening journey through the workings of substitutionary atonement and an intensive study of Romans, Galatians and Philippians I have reached the following conclusions:
- “Atonement”, in the NT, means reconciliation and not “appeasement”
- God does not demand punishment of (or on behalf of) repentant believers
- Jesus death was the final blood sacrifice for those under Mosaic law (Torah)
- The cross was where God symbolically condemned sin and ended Torah
- Jesus blood was the pledge and beginning of the new covenant
- The new covenant is in spirit not in flesh (or blood)
