Legalism

but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.  Why?  Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.  Romans 9: 31-32a  NASB

By – How are we supposed to live?  By faith, of course.  But what does that mean?  Paul cites Habakkuk in the famous phrase, but that still leaves us with plenty of practical questions.  Furthermore, Paul complicates the whole subject by telling us that being born Jewish isn’t enough.  God’s children come through the promise, not the bloodline.  According to Paul’s argument, Israel pursued righteousness by a means other than this promise.  The NASB translates, “as though it were by works.”  Ah, if it were only that simple.

Christians have been taught that there is a hard and fast distinction between works and faith.  “You can’t earn your salvation” is a rather common refrain.  Salvation is a gift.  For most of us that means it is like a treasure that I possess.  It’s mine no matter what, like owning a piece of land.  And God does not practice eminent domain.

The problem is that this doesn’t make sense.  Scriptures constantly exhort us to live out our commitment to YHWH.  Faith is found in practice, not possession.  It’s not stockpiled wealth.  It’s worldview.  That means that we have to seriously investigate the additions and substitutions made in translations of verses like this one.  For example, the NASB indicates by italics that the translators have added “that” in “that law,” “they did not pursue” and “it were” in “as though it were.”  In addition, they note that the proper Greek preposition is “out of” rather than “by.”  Let’s make some corrections.

“But Israel following after a law (nomos).”  Isn’t it entirely reasonable to suggest that Paul uses nomos here in the sense of principle rather than Torah?  We know that Paul uses nomos in at least seven different ways.  Since Paul claims he is Torah observant and he teaches followers of Yeshua to be Torah observant, and most of those followers were Jews, can we even imagine that Paul considered following Torah a mistake?  What Paul says is that some Jews followed a principle of legalistic adherence to ritual practice, something that neither the Tanakh nor he endorses.  

“But Israel following after a principle of righteousness into a nomos of righteousness did not arrive.”  We must contrast this statement with Paul’s previous observation about the “nations” (Gentiles).  Paul says that they “not following righteousness have taken on righteousness, a righteousness but out of faith” (v. 30).  The contrasting idea is crucial.  How is it possible that the Gentiles took on righteousness without pursuing it?  There can be only one answer.  They adopted a way of life that met the standards of God without actually having those standards set before them.  The answer cannot be that they made up their own standard of righteousness nor can it be that God relaxed the standard.  Righteousness is defined by God and God alone.  Doing what pleases Him is righteousness.  Doing anything else is not.  Paul understands this implicitly.  So if the nations behave in ways that God approves, they attain righteousness in spite of the fact that they do not have the written standard.  They did not pursue a written code yet they actually adopted that code.  Therefore, their righteousness was born out of faith, that is, emuna, trust.  They trusted in what they could not see, namely, the written nomos.

In contrast, Israel had the nomos but, according to Paul’s observation at this point, Israel acted as though practicing legalistic adherence was sufficient.  They did not trust in the Lord.  They trusted in the ritual.  They followed a principle of righteousness, namely, “if I do all of the outward things God commands, I will be secure.”   But, as Paul notes, this is not true righteousness.  True righteousness demands a commitment of the heart and the hands.  Israel did not arrive where it thought it would.  Why?  Because it did not practice what it knew to be the standard according to emuna, according to “faith.”  Legalism replaced trust.

Does this mean, as commonly taught, that there is no standard for righteousness any more?  Impossible!  How could Paul commend the nations for attaining righteousness if there were nothing to attain?  How could the nations “take on” righteousness if there were no standard, no observable behavior?  The standard is God’s.  Heart and hand work together.  Israel failed because, in this comparison, it failed to see that both are required.  The nations succeeded because they had both heart and hand.  What else could they do since they did not have God’s direct instructions?

Does this mean that Israel is lost?  Paul is emphatic: “May it never be!” (Romans 11:1).  God has not rejected His people and never will.  But true righteousness can be found in both Greeks and Jews wherever men and women live by trust according to Torah (see Romans 10:5-7).  Righteousness begins in the heart no matter what ethnic background you happen to have.  It begins there, but does not end there.  It ends when we stand before Him and hear, “Well done.”

Topical Index:  righteousness, nomos, legalism, Romans 9:31-32

Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rein de Wit

Skip, I am not sure if you are aware of this translation, you might like it:
Daniel Gregg’s MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/45_romans/rm9.html

Bonnie

This article brought on another “Ah, ha” moment for me. Paul is quoting Deut. 30:14 and that is telling the people about God’s Instructions for holy living. Paul is not advocating for a NEW law. Paul is calling people to THE law, Torah.

K. Gallagher

“Faith is found in practice, not possession.”

This is emunah summed up very succinctly. (Love it!) Faith has substance and evidence. It is only tangible when expressed through practice. Our practice is the evidence of our trust. Faith, Hebraically speaking, is not something abstract and therefore personally defined or interpreted. It’s not a feeling; it’s action. It’s not something I have, it’s something I do —- because I trust (and because I love!). Thanks Skip for another great Today’s Word.

Laurita Hayes

At some point in my life, I had to sit down and rethink what faith is. I remember being told about an interview with a member of a famous family of tight rope walkers, who, when asked what he thought was the most important thing that made him able to walk on wire while the rest of us are only able to walk on the ground, replied “faith”. Faith in what? Granted, the whole family had a strong relationship with G-d, but to this tight rope walker, there seemed to be no difference between faith in Him, and faith that the wire was going to be there at his next step. I found in my head I had ‘faith’ separated into two categories: “Faith”, and “faith”. One was reserved for matters of religion and G-d; one was reserved for things like “the sun always rises in the east”. But if I do not have faith that my next step is going to be met with solid ground (or solid wire!), I find myself frozen; unable to take that step. Faith comes out of believing that all the laws of that great Creator are so. Not limited to the laws that show me the way to my salvation, He is just as faithful in the laws that govern my next step. Science is only possible, so say the scientists, to the extent that they have confidence that the order in the universe that they observed yesterday, will still be there today, and even in the places they haven’t gone looking yet. They have faith in the Law; perhaps more than we do.

Faith is faith. We walk in faith in all those laws. The thought has crossed my mind that perhaps there is no real difference in those laws to the Lawgiver, as they were all designed with our lives in mind. In all dimensions. Perhaps we are the ones that get hung up in semantics. People who have no faith are people we commit to institutions, because they are too filled with fear to function. But I find in the areas of my life that have not been perfected in faith that I am still insane because of the fear that comes from having not having that faith. The acronym for fear that I was given: False Evidence Appearing Real, is a real crazy maker, and, I am beginning to think, not necessarily limited to matters concerning my salvation!

Laurita Hayes

2Timothy 1:7 “For G-d hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

bp

nice.

For me, right now, faith = forgiveness. or my ability to do so on an active, ongoing basis.

carl roberts

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who is making his support upon Him will not be disappointed.”

We do what we believe, the rest is just a bunch of religious talk.

“But what about you?” He asked. – “Who do you say I AM?”

What is the answer that pleased our LORD? What is the answer given by a man that elicited this response from our Redeemer, these words which proceeded from the lips of our LORD? “Blessed are you..”

First century living anyone?

~ And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ ~ (Acts 5.42)

~ And he brought them outside and he said to them, “Sirs, what must I do so that I may live?- What must I do to be saved?” (sōthō)

~ And they said to him, “Trust in our LORD Yeshua The Messiah, and you shall live, – you and your household.” ~

~ For among the first things I passed on to you was what I also received, namely this: the Messiah died for our sins, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; and He was buried; and He was raised on the third day, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; and He was seen by Kefa, then by the Twelve; and afterwards He was seen by more than five hundred brothers at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, though some have died. Later He was seen by Ya‘akov, then by all the emissaries; and last of all he was seen by me, even though I was born at the wrong time. ~ (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

~ Who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption? ~ It is the LORD.

Stephen Green

It is obvious from the whole of verse 32 and verse 33 that it is faith IN CHRIST which Paul is referring to, and that he is contrasting it with the temple sacrifices, ‘the works of the law’ that is of the sacrificial law:
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Mark

“How is it possible that the Gentiles took on righteousness without pursuing it? There can be only one answer. They adopted a way of life that met the standards of God without actually having those standards set before them.”

I’m not so convinced of this. Isn’t the answer simply found in the 3rd chapter of Romans?

Romans 3:20-22
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

So it appears that righteousness is by faith in Yeshua, not by the law. Or am I missing something? I’m not so sure I get the comment “Doing what pleases Him is righteousness.” If anyone can help I’d appreciate it.

K. Gallagher

There are many far more qualified than I am to answer this question, but since I’ve recently been studying Romans 3, I cannot help myself but to offer my two cents and at least express my personal discoveries of this passage. I hope you don’t mind and forgive me ahead of time if I’ve altogether misunderstood the question to begin with.

Perhaps the seeming discrepancy comes from how we define the terms within these verses? For example, if we assume faith means mere belief (a mental assent) then we could possibly conclude that the “works of the law” are in opposition to the “faith” of Yeshua. But wouldn’t that make Paul’s statement in verse 31 contradictory to our assumption?

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

How are we supposed to “establish” or “uphold” something that is opposition to our faith? I don’t think this was Paul’s intent at all. Verse 22 is usually translated differently than your quote, yet those translations carry the meaning you implied. For example, here is the NASB:

Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

But, look at Young’s Literal Translation (it’s similar to what you quoted):

Rom 3:22 and the righteousness of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, –for there is no difference,

Notice the word “the” before “faith of Jesus Christ”? The use of a definite article changes the meaning of this verse quite a bit. Instead of our faith in Jesus Christ, righteousness comes through THE faith of Jesus Christ. In Greek (and I have a very limited understanding of Greek to be clear), faith is in the genitive case, which usually shows possession and is generally translated into English with a prepositional phrase starting with the word “of”. I only point this out because many translations use the preposition “in” instead of “of”. Doing so gives us a much different picture than what Paul actually stated.

This subtle difference changes the entire meaning of these verses. It is either:
1. Righteousness is by/through our faith IN Jesus (Yeshua). OR
2. Righteousness is by/through THE faith OF Jesus (Yeshua).

So, it doesn’t seem so simple to me in light of this. I would LOVE to hear what a Greek scholar would say about this passage. I realize I’ve only offered another question, but hopefully more to ponder on.

Mark

Thank you! The difference between “of” and “in” is interesting. I appreciate your help.

Mark

I agree, good points. My conflict here was that I always believed that it was the work of Yeshua, and His blood, that cleansed me and made me righteous before YHWH. I can stop choosing sin and decide to choose righteous living (Torah), but does that “make” me righteous? I do like how carl says “righteousness” is “right-relatedness”. Even though I observe Torah and walk righteously, I’ve still already sinned and can’t stand before YHWH without the intercessor, Yeshua.

Does this sound right?

carl roberts

I’m not so sure I get the comment “Doing what pleases Him is righteousness.” If anyone can help I’d appreciate it.

lol!- I’ll take a stab at it, Mark. First, to tackle is “righteousness.” One of the very first “Bible words” I learned. Think of “righteousness” as “right-relatedness”. How does any man (any man, Jew or Gentile) enter into “right-relatedness” with God, who has revealed HImself as thrice-holy? If man is a sinner (and all have sinned..) and God is “wholly” holy, how are the two, the Human and the Divine, -reconciled or brought into “right-relationship” with each other?

No answers (just yet), but I’d love to hear from some of you.. Are any willing to testify? ~ Let the redeemed of the LORD say so.. ~

Avram

Dear brothers and sisters in Messiah, I am grateful to YHWH and encouraged to see that Skip upholds the truth in his articles. This topic of legalism has been on my heart for a while and I prayed that YHWH would help me understand the truth about it. After an indepth study I concluded that legalism is not a biblical term but it is used by many as if it was, without even defining it. In almost all cases people refer to legalism as A: obedience to the letter of the Torah, B: obedience to the Torah for salvation purposes, C: obedience to the Torah without loving YHWH. All these definitions are not biblical at all because YHWH never said: Be careful that you would not obey these commandments in order to be saved, or without loving Me, or to the letter. In fact He asked us to obey Him to the letter in everything. There is no exemple in the Scriptures where somone obeyed YHWH with wrong reasons or without loving Him. I believe that the way people define legalism brings huge confusion among believers and promotes disobedience. There is only one way to define legalism that would make sense to what the Scriptures say. Obedience to YHWH’s commandments is faith (or better said faithfulness) and that includes loving Him with all our heart, mind and soul. Legalism is obedience to man-made religious laws. In Messiah’s time the Jewish people did not obey the written Torah but they followed the Torah according to the Rabbinical interpretation (Oral Torah, tradition of the elders, works of the law, etc). The expressions “works of torah” and “under torah” are not found in the Tanakh at all and they were discovered in the Dead See scroll (Qumran – the Essenies sectarian manuscripts). These expressions refer to the ortodox/traditional interpretation of the Torah. So, I conclude that in Romans 10 Paul is saying that the Jewish people in his time pursued the righteousness that was by the works of torah (Talmudic aproach to the Torah) and not the righteousness that is by faithfulness to YHWH’s commandments. There are too many evidences in the Gospels that the Jewish people in Messiah’s time did not follow the Torah hence John the Baptist, Messiah and Peter called people to repentance (return to YHWH’s ways of Torah). Except a small minority of faithfull people the majority did not live in faith (faithfulness to YHWH). If someone is interested to study more about this please refer to Andrew Gabriel Roth – Aramaic-English translation of the New Testament. He has valuable research included in his work. Shalom, Avram

David F.

I have thought along these same lines lately Avram. ONE of the verses that hlepd me come to this conclusion is this:

Luke 1:5-6 “…….Zekaryah, of the division of Abiyah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aharon, and her name was Elisheba. And they were both righteous before Elohim, blamelessly walking in all the commands and righteousness of YHVH.”

And this one: Mark 7: “These people honor me with their lips but there hearts are far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrines that traditions of men! For laying aside the commandment of Elohim you hold fast (to keep carefully or faithfully) to the traditions of men. ….All too well you reject (disregard, nullify, despise) the commandment of Elohim that you may keep your traditions!”

Couldn’t be more clear.

Thanks you Skip and Avram!

Laurita Hayes

Romans 14:23 “…whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” KJV

So now we have to decide what faith is. So many people, when asked their religious orientation say “oh, I’m a believer”. Believe what? Anything? I have always liked what Josh McDowell defined faith as: “Faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence”. Oh, yeah, the first part of Romans 14:23: “And he that doubteth is damned…”

I like that “right-relatedness” description. I also have had to adjust my view of the word “faith” in terms of being used as a noun in our thinking, as I think it may be more often used as a verb in the Scripture. “Faithing” is an action taken, not a thought intellectualizing.

So I have had to ask myself if sin, or “wrong-relatedness” is a result of a profound lack of faith; and if so, lack of faith, again, in what? Lack of faith that love is true. How do I know it is true? Because I have experienced it; because I have seen the difference in my life between letting the love of G-d in, and shutting it out.

How do I know what love is? The Law. The Law is what shows me. What other thing could? There is nothing spelled out in The Love Chapter, 1Corinthians 13, that the Law had not already shown me.

To me, having faith that love is true is just another way of saying that I have faith that the Law- that Law that shows me HOW to love G-d, myself and others, and allow their (and my own) love back in return- is true.

You asked how the human and the Divine interact. What I have found is that the Law is our meeting place; a place that we both can agree on something. I can hold Him to what that Law says about Who and How and What He is, and He, likewise, can hold me to at least agreeing that the Law is “just, and holy, and good”, even if I am not quite faithing that it is yet! The closest thing I have found to this interaction is marriage. To break faith in a marriage is to spell its doom. Sin is the breaking of that trust two persons must have to relate. So I go and repent again….

Ester

“They adopted a way of life that met the standards of God without actually having those standards set before them. The answer cannot be that they made up their own standard of righteousness nor can it be that God relaxed the standard. Righteousness is defined by God and God alone. Doing what pleases Him is righteousness. Doing anything else is not. Paul understands this implicitly. So if the nations behave in ways that God approves, they attain righteousness in spite of the fact that they do not have the written standard. They did not pursue a written code yet they actually adopted that code. Therefore, their righteousness was born out of faith, that is, emuna, trust. They trusted in what they could not see, namely, the written nomos.”

Hmmm, thought-provoking indeed.
Doing what pleases YHWH is righteousness! This is first and foremost, then that action is to be of faith in Him, by His standard, His approval, though it is not in the written form, nor “actually having those standards set before them.” That would be not be legalism!
Based on this, would it be considered right before YHWH that one be married signing the ketubah in the presence of YHWH, family and friends, being blessed by them, instead of signing the Certificate of Marriage of the land/country in the presence of a pastor, celebrant and a congregation?
I trust this would be food for thought. Is this going back to ancient paths!? Even though we may not all be “Jewish”, but are surely grafted-in as partakers of the “Jewish” Root.
Though alas, we have gone astray from His ways, we have lost sight of His, to follow another set of strange standards “for the protection of the children,
and the possessions/inheritance”; and having the wife given to the husband instead of the husband given to the wife! And the husband is to cling to the wife!
Skip, thank you for Hebraic worldviews! And TWs like this! I wait with bated breath for comments…
Shalom!