No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul's Theology of the Law in Romans 3:19-20
Abstract
The fundamental problem of the law in Paul, posed with fresh urgency by the work of E. P. Sanders, remains the separation
of the law in Paul’s theology from its gracious covenantal context. Paul’s claim of the impossibility of righteousness through
the law depends upon a disjunction of law and covenant which appears both logically incoherent and radically un-Jewish. The
solution, I propose, lies in a crucial but neglected aspect of Jewish covenant theology. According to a widespread strain
within Jewish thought, apart from the grace and forgiveness found within the covenantal relationship, there is no one who
is righteous or who can stand before God’s judgement. Through echo of Psalm 143:2, Paul’s pivotal formulation within Romans
3:19–20 explicitly draws upon this feature of Jewish covenantal thought. Accordingly, the ‘works of the law’ in Romans do
not refer to the law within the gracious framework of the covenant (a covenant which in Paul’s thought was operative throughout
Israel’s history, and had now reached its climax in Christ), but rather to the law’s observance apart from the covenant and its promise of mercy in Jesus Christ. The distinction between the law’s fulfilment considered within or apart from the covenantal relationship of faith is the
key which unlocks the coherence and profoundly Jewish character of Paul’s theology of the law.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The amount of biblical scholarship on covenant over the past decade is not great; however, significant work on the definition and taxonomy of covenant has helped to overcome certain reductionistic tendencies of older scholarship, which has contributed, in turn, to a better grasp of the canonical function of the term in the Old and New Testaments. In Old Testament scholarship, the idea that covenant simply means ‘obligation’ and is essentially one-sided (Kutsch, Perlitt) has been largely abandoned in favor of the view that covenants establish kinship bonds (relations and obligations) between covenanting parties (Cross, Hugenberger). There is also broad recognition that the richness of the concept cannot be exhausted merely by analyses of occurrences of berith or certain related phrases. In New Testament scholarship, some small strides have been made in assessing the significance of covenant in the Gospels; whereas discussion of covenant in Paul has been dominated by the ‘New Perspective’ debate over ‘covenantal nomism’. Finally, some light has been shed on the meaning and significance of diatheke in two highly controverted texts (Gal. 3.15-16; Heb. 9.16-17).
Zur Beschreibung rabbinischer ‘Soteriologie’ haben sich in der Forschung zwei konträre Modelle etabliert: Dem einen zufolge entscheiden die Werke eines Menschen über seine Teilhabe an der kommenden Welt; dem anderen zufolge entscheidet seine Zugehörigkeit zum erwählten Volk. Beide Denkmuster sind in Talmud und Midrasch reichlich belegt. Herkömmliche Hierarchisierungen, die das eine Muster dem anderen starr über- oder unterordnen, sind jedoch unangemessen. Vielmehr bringt die rabbinische Tradition Erwählung und Vergeltung in stets wechselnden Proportionen zum Ausgleich, was bis zur scheinbaren Verabsolutierung des einen und Ignorierung des anderen der beiden Prinzipien reichen kann. Rabbinische Soteriologie ist in diesem Sinne ‘optional’ strukturiert.
Cet article presente la concption paulinienne du sacrifice de Jesus-Christ. Se placant, tout en la modifiant, dans la tradition de l'offrande des peches venant de l'Ancien Testament, Paul envisage la mort du Christ comme un sacrifice en expiation de nos peches, expiatoin qui n'est rendue possible que par l'incarnation.