One for Many
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what law? The law of works? No, but by the law of faith. Romans 3:27 ESV
Law – It is so unfortunate that Paul uses a word (nomos) that has become so stripped of its original complexity that we now think of its meaning basically as “rules.” That often leaves us with the impression that Paul uses nomos as the equivalent of Torah, and for that reason, we often hear the claim that Paul did away with the obligation of Torah for believers. But this simplification in translation belies the wide range of meanings associated with nomos in Paul’s Greek usage and forces us to think of only the single association nomos = torah. What a disaster this has caused! In the contemporary world of faith where very, very few believers have any real knowledge of the original languages and where most Christian worship is conducted without any deep ties to the original community, it’s no wonder that we tend to believe what we are told by the religious professionals. We are no longer very Berean. We just don’t look for ourselves.
Perhaps that’s why Michael Winger wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject of Paul’s use of nomos. Winger outlines seven different, and not necessarily related, uses of this word in Pauline material – and this does not include the rich metaphorical uses Paul also employs. Winger’s list includes: nomos as verbal (nomos is action), as a standard for judgment, as a guide for conduct, as something that controls or commands or rules, as an identification qualification of a particular people, as a source that is received, and as something that some people subject themselves to. Some of these uses are related. Some are not. The question for any individual verse in Paul’s written material becomes: Which use of nomos best fits the context of this text? It is not always obvious.
I am not here to tell you what Paul means every time he writes the word nomos. I am here to tell you that you simply cannot assume that the translation committee got it right or that you know what he means before you place his words in their context. I am here to plead that you will continue to ask yourself, “What would this have meant if I understand the author to be a Torah-observant Jewish rabbi writing to Torah-observant Messianic synagogues?” In other words, the assumption that Paul is writing to sola fide Christians is neither theologically warranted nor historically accurate. Therefore, we will have to discover what Paul means from within Paul’s frame of reference.
Law and grace! Oh, the cataclysm that this juxtaposition has perpetrated. The needless agony and confusion that has been the result of Augustine’s view that Romans 7 is the standard account of conversion.
Let’s make a vow. Let’s vow to stop all the argument and debate about the “law vs. grace” stuff until we really know how Paul uses nomos. Let’s investigate and stop listening to the theological pundits (including me, by the way). Let’s be Berean.
Topical Index: law, nomos, Romans 3:27, Michael Winger
God Morning Skip!
“It is so unfortunate that Paul uses a word (nomos) that has become so stripped of its original complexity that we now think of its meaning basically as “rules.”
i knew i could count on you to help me weave something together! After reading T’sW, this came to mind:
For the Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. ~Hebrews 4:12
Of course, since the verse begins with “For”, one would need to check the preceeding verse(es).
i hope that i didn’t offend anyone about the phucket list. i did sleep very well last night though.
Shabbat Shalom!
Jeanette,
The fact that you slept well last has nothing to do with whether or not your comment yesterday was offensive or inappropriate for this blog site.
It has more to do with your ability to convince YOURSELF that you did nothing wrong. It’s called denial.
Hi Judi! i love your name. Reminds me of a friend of mine. I’d like to share these blessings with you. Enjoy!
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/blessings.html
“help me weave something together”
Hi Jeanette
The heading in my Bible for Acts 17 reads “Thessalonika, difficulties with the Jews”
Then the sub-heading regarding the Bereans is “Fresh difficulties at Beroea”
And for some reason the following passage strikes me as funny
Probably because as a youth I was often referred to as a “troublemaker”
17:13 When the Jews of Thessalonika heard that the word of God was being preached by Paul at Beroea as well, they went there to make trouble and stir up the people.
When I first read the Bible back in the mid 70’s I sympathized with the Jews
It seemed to me that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who was fulfilling the Word of the Jewish God
Found in the Torah
And Paul was creating a New Religion, which looked to me a lot like my Catholic religion
Paul’s view of the world was based on his reading of the Torah and his mystical experience of Christ
But faith without works has never made any sense to me
BTW in Acts 20:13 my Bible has a heading called “From Troas to Miletus”
Which makes me think of Jeanette 🙂
nomos = torah = mao hara
Hi Mikie! Take a good look at Peter’s rooftop experience and Shaul’s Damascus Road experience – compare them to other times when direction was given as to what to do, say, etc. and see if you can spot a difference. If you are willing.
Thanks for the hug!
“Peter’s rooftop experience and Shaul’s Damascus Road experience”
“Compare them to other times when direction was given as to what to do”
Hi Jeanette,
In my view, Jesus was a Jew who primarily taught other Jews about the Way of the Jewish God
Peter and Paul were Jews who believed in the Jewish God
But Peter and Paul had experiences that compelled them to include Gentiles in their missions
And to a certain extent “relax” their Jewish customs
Ananias – Buffy Sainte-Marie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suJjIlpQrSI
Ananias From Album “It’s My Way”
Ananais, Ananais,
tell me what kind of man this Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
tell me what kind of man this Jesus is, my Lord.
You know He went to the sick and the sick they got well.
Tell me what kind of man this Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
tell me what kind of man this Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
tell me what kind of man this Jesus is, my Lord.
You know He went to the dead and the dead they did rise.
Tell me what kind of man Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
oh tell me what kind of man my Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
oh tell me what kind of man my Jesus is, my Lord.
You know He, He come to my heart and my heart opened up
oh tell me what kind of man Jesus is, my Lord.
Ananais, Ananais,
oh tell me what kind of man my Jesus is, my Lord.
Judi is right. This time I will remove it. Please show some respect to readers here.
Hi Skip.. I think this is the first time that I have seen such an attitude on your blog.
I am not surprised though as people have their opinions.
Expressing them in a way that is pallatable is precious and makes one desire to come back.
But the back handers … not sure that this is good.
I continue to be ministered to although I do not comment much.
There is such a vast amount to view for this little Christian lady to absorb at this late stage of my life IN CHRIST. GOD BLESS
I think the Spirit of God alive and active Today reveals to the sincere soul seeking God the meanings of the ancient wording as it applies TODAY in Today’s world, the only Day that exists with God.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:28-29
Was Saul not a Pharisee and a Torah believing Jew before coming alive and sensitive to the leadings of the Spirit of the Resurrected Christ? Was he not attempting to convey the Spirit of the ancient letters in the Torah?
The Scriptures will continue to be somewhat “sticky” and thorny to many. After all these thousands of years, multitudes of writings, filtered through minds who are seeking to know the Creator, and some who look to craft a holy work to fit them rather than the other way around, all we, as sincere believers can do is the best we can. YHWH knows those who seek Him with their whole heart and those who are looking instead for something to ADD to their blissful lives.
We all know that anarchy can never work, however, on a parallel, we think autonomy fits us better and we look for autonomous individuals with similar philosophies. This is oftentimes messy.
It is with great difficulty we struggle with YHWH for understanding. Some seem to have a flippant attitude that the “gospel” in them experientially is cool with YHWH for now and He will work it all out in the long run. I agree with that to a point, but disrespecting His Holiness through careless offense, without repentance, brings about the “karma” of judgment.
Sorry for the “legal” reference. But, YHWH IS the JUDGE with all caps! Have mercy LORD!
~ But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world ~ (Galatians 6.14)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDajMfEP5M
Skip,
I’m not sure I’m ready to run with the suggestion that nomos does not mean Torah, at least not in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Here’s why.
Paul’s use of nomos in Rom 3:27 where it appears twice – law of works contrasted with law of faith – is a direct answer to the theological problem he has raised thus far in his letter. Nomos here must have identical meaning for the contrast to to be a contrast. And his contrast is his answer to the predicament his letter would have created for the readers thus far.
Paul expresses what appears to be a contradiction:
In 2:13 he is quite adamant that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified.”
In 3:20 he is equally adamant: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
How does he resolve this contradiction? See 3:27: The Torah is not a Torah of works, it is a Torah of faith. So when you come to his famous statement, 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” he clearly identifies one of his two versions of Torah. It is the Torah of works that justification is apart from.
What, then, are we to do with the other Torah, the Torah of faith? Paul earlier had written, Rom. 1:17 “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ The righteous live by faith? Don’t the righteous live by keeping the Torah? And yet has quoted the Tanakh in making the statement.
Follow Paul’s logic and you find the way in which he handles this whole topic of faith, righteousness, justification, and Torah.
In 3:27 clearly identifies the Torah of faith, supported by his backup comment, Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Faith upholds the law – the Torah.
Because too many read the bible through the colored glasses of neoplatonism, they fail to see that if the righteous man lives by faith, this is not some mystical exercise. How does the righteous person live by faith and thereby be justified as a “doer of the law”?
He does this first of all by recognizing the difference between the Torah of works, the Torah that allows boasting, and the Torah of faith, the Torah that prevents boasting.
And this is why we must not only “uphold the law” but also why Paul and James can say quite clearly, James 2: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
The only time the two words “faith alone” appear together is in this text of James, and then it is negative. You are not saved by faith alone. This cuts against the notion of contemporary Protestantism especially, which has a neoplatonic view of faith, an anti-nomian disposition to Torah, and then cries “justification by faith alone” despite the very clear words of both Paul and James.
While the way Paul uses nomos may be a helpful study, it is the way he links justification to the Torah of faith that is the center of his teaching here in Romans. What people seem to have lost is the ability to read Paul’s letter as a letter, an explanation of some point(s) he is trying to establish. Words and phrases are abstracted out of context in the pretense of a biblical scholarship that is atrocious. Until the colored glasses of neoplatonism are thrown away, the real truths of Paul’s letter(s) will – the meaning of the life of faith – remain a mystery.
Hi Skip,
I sense your ‘frustration’ here, when you are drawn to making vows!!
Vows will be broken when folks/ Bible believers have no knowledge, that vows are not meant to be broken, or, they are care less what making vows mean.
Especially so when Torah often translated as ‘law’ in fact means direction/instructions as to how Bible believers are to live their lives.
Grace and law are interconnected, without ‘law’, how does one find ‘grace’, or to recognize grace was extended to the lawless which means not walking in Torah ways.
Your Video Series taken in Israel has so much to offer us from Hebraic perspective. I’d thought I knew most of the ‘errors’ of translation in our Bibles, but not really!
I do hope readers here will watch these precious wonderful videos, where their mindsets will surely benefit from the many Hebraic aspects of the teachings so well presented, verses the Roman-Greco many of us are so accustomed to, and, need to break free from.
These videos have reinforced what I have been learning these many years, through the Hebrew language, and of what Paul said to be wary of a ‘false gospel’, false teachers, leading precious Believers away from Torah into bondage. Gal 1: 6-9
We are to keep far away from a false matter, then knowing by now, Yahushua’s parents of Levitical lineage, would NOT have given their very special son from above, a foreign name, why do we not rather embrace the change needed to use His Hebrew name instead, thus hastening the desire of the Two-Houses being joyfully reconciled and regathered into One Fold, according to our ABBA’s will?
Like Bob Gorelik , such a knowledgeable relaxed teacher, in the video lessons said-we need to hear with the ear of our hearts. (Thank you, Bob, love your lessons!)
Compliments, Skip, for the well presented beautiful video teachings! I so love the extra background sceneries of Israel, bringing forth many lovely memories of the trips there.
Shalom!
Hi Ester!
“Especially so when Torah often translated as ‘law’ in fact means direction/instructions as to how Bible believers are to live their lives.”
I have been guided by the Sweet and Holy Spirit to see that the “law” referred to so much and often is the “oral” law of the “sages.” Just think about it.
Open our eyes Father. Amen.
p.s. Did you know that Esther was a Greek name given to Hadassah, which means “myrtle” in Hebrew?
The “Sweet and Holy Spirit” may be leading you to see that nomos is the “oral” Torah, but unfortunately, He isn’t leading most scholars and linguists to draw this conclusion. CONTEXT determines meaning, not private revelation. In fact, as you well know, YHWH cautions us when anyone brings forth a private revelation simply because of the human proclivity to determine truth on the basis of what I ate this morning.
Hi Skip!
Who defined the Sweet and Holy Spirit as a he? Bet it was the same group of men who sat around trying to define God.
Shalom!
p.s. did you do your homework?
You know, those men in your book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience. Don’t tell me you fell for that. Oops! Wait! ………
I must tell you that I apologized to Our Father for spending money set aside for tithes to buy that book. Forgiven.
I am sorry that you found the book less than satisfactory. Perhaps it wasn’t as uncomplicated as you expected. Theological arguments and historical developments are not everyone’s cup of tea.
“p.s. did you do your homework?”
“I apologized to Our Father for spending money set aside for tithes to buy that book.”
Hi Jeanette,
I think your comments above would just be flippant if addressed to peers like me
And I obviously would not take offense at such comments
But Skip is not our peer, he is the owner of this “business”
So addressed to him, they are somewhat disrespectful
And, as my mother would say, they make you look bad 🙂
Mikie,
What’s the difference between the sayings: (1) If the shoe fits, wear it, and (2) Walk a mile in someone else’s moccasin’s (sp?)
LOL!!!! i just reminded myself of something Johnny Cochrane said!!
p.s. your Mom must know my Mom. Sounds like something she would say 🙂
(1) “If the shoe fits, wear it” means if the accusation applies, take responsibility for it
(2) “Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” means the other person is different, so learn to empathize
“Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” means the other person is different, so learn to empathize”
Hi Jeanette,
Was in a rush when I wrote the above and on the way out the door the following thought occurred
Regarding the “shoes” it should be the other person has a more difficult path
So learn to empathize with them and count yourself lucky
If the shoe fits………………buy two.