Romans 7

[fhansen]

**The Jews believe they have a right standing with God due to Abraham’s faith and God’s gracious act of declaring him “just” as a result. **This is Paul’s argument from Torah in Romans, and this is the basis for his arguments against those who say that Torah observance is a requisite for justification. (Read Romans chapter 4.) Jews believe in a just standing for themselves based on this event that occurred prior to reception of the Torah. They have never taught that the Torah was a new replacement for this favor Abraham and his seed enjoyed from God. This further makes the issue unlikely that Paul had in mind a “works” vs. “grace” issue, claiming that Jews believed in “works” that lead to salvation. They just plain don’t believe this.

But didn’t the temple sacrifice have the purpose of atonement for sins-for “breaking Torah”?

 

[fhansen]

The Pauline Letters, then, manifest a twofold conviction: the insufficiency of the legal covenant of Sinai, on the one hand, and on the other, the validity of the covenant-promise. This latter finds its fulfilment in justification by faith in Christ, offered “to the Jew first, but also to the Greek” (Rm 1.16). Their refusal of faith in Christ places the Jewish people in a situation of disobedience, but they are still “loved” and promised God’s mercy (cf. Rm 11.26-32).

This is what the Church currently understands and I believe it.

Yes, and I think it’s obvious that Church teachings on this align well with Paul in Rom 7. The law, here particularly the Mosaic law, is in conflict with the flesh, which covets unlawful things. The problem is that the law, on its own, cannot overcome this covetousness, this law of sin/concupiscence. So the law now becomes understood for what it is, a teacher that discloses the law of sin (CCC1963), rather than the means to overcome sin. IOW, the law justifies no one (Rom 2); it cannot justify us; it merely provides the instruction or command (the letter), not the means to accomplish it (the Spirit) as if we could do so on our own simply by hearing it. We’re still in the flesh at this point, after all.

The bottom line message that man needs to know, the essence of the New Covenant, is that man needs God-communion with Him-first of all, in order to be righteous, rather than needing to be righteousness first of all in order to commune with God. So with the reconciliation won by Christ on the cross, man is first of all forgiven, made clean purely gratis by God the source of all righteousness, so that now the two may commune, God making His abode in us and then preceding to do a work of preserving and increasing justice/righteousness in us unto salvation.

The Original sin was a matter of Adams will, the will to disobey God. As we now come to recognize what Adam missed, the uncompromising goodness, trustworthiness, and love of God-and our need for Him-humanity may turn *back *to Him, now with the will to obey, wrought by the justice only He can provide, said justice defined as love, love for Him. Jesus enables all this, which begins, for our part in response to His call, with faith. Once the original sin, the original rift, is mended, then the communion which ensues becomes the means to overcome all other sin that flows from that initial act of basic disobedience, sin that the catechism teaches is the natural result. (CCC397)

 

[fhansen]

Yes, and I think it’s obvious that Church teachings on this align well with Paul in Rom 7. The law, here particularly the Mosaic law, is in conflict with the flesh, which covets unlawful things. The problem is that the law, on its own, cannot overcome this covetousness, this law of sin/concupiscence. So the law now becomes understood for what it is, a teacher that discloses the law of sin (CCC1963), rather than the means to overcome sin. IOW, the law justifies no one (Rom 2); it cannot justify us; it merely provides the instruction or command (the letter), not the means to accomplish it (the Spirit) as if we could do so on our own simply by hearing it. We’re still in the flesh at this point, after all.

The bottom line message that man needs to know, the essence of the New Covenant, is that man needs God-communion with Him-first of all, in order to be righteous, rather than needing to be righteousness first of all in order to commune with God. So with the reconciliation won by Christ on the cross, man is first of all forgiven, made clean purely gratis by God the source of all righteousness, so that now the two may commune, God making His abode in us and then preceding to do a work of preserving and increasing justice/righteousness in us unto salvation.

The Original sin was a matter of Adams will, the will to disobey God. As we now come to recognize what Adam missed, the uncompromising goodness, trustworthiness, and love of God-and our need for Him-humanity may turn *back *to Him, now with the will to obey, wrought by the justice only He can provide, said justice defined as love, love for Him. Jesus enables all this, which begins, for our part in response to His call, with faith. Once the original sin, the original rift, is mended, then the communion which ensues becomes the means to overcome all other sin that flows from that initial act of basic disobedience, sin that the catechism teaches is the natural and inevitable result. (CCC397)

 

[DelsonJacobs]

But didn’t the temple sacrifice have the purpose of atonement for sins-for “breaking Torah”?

Yes, but these are individual sins. There are three other details to take into account to understand why observing the Mosaic Law doesn’t justify which is in line with Paul’s arguments.

1. The doctrine of Original Sin originated with the Gospel of Christ. The Jewish religion to this day has no such concept. People can commit sins and thus be guilty of their sins, but Judaism doesn’t have a doctrine in which sin is inherited from our original parents. One of the first declarations of this truth came from St. Paul himself at Romans 5.12.
2. The Abrahamic Covenant was not dependent upon the Law Covenant. The promises to Abraham were dependent not by fulfilling a Law that did not exist in Abraham’s day but dependent solely on God to fulfill the promises made to the patriarch and his descendents. The righteous standing given to Abraham and thus to his offspring, as the Jews understand it, did not free them from sin which leads to death (Original Sin) but guaranteed them a place in the Messianic Age or kingdom, otherwise known as Olam Ha-Ba or the world to come. The Mosaic Law was part of the constitution the offspring of Abraham agreed upon when they became a sovereign nation of their own at Mt. Sinai.
3. The Mosaic Law covenant was replaced by the New Covenant, but it did not replace the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Romans 11.13-24 one of things the New Covenant does for Gentiles is allow them a place in the commonwealth promised to the patriarch and their offspring, causing Gentiles to inherit what is promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. For Jews it makes it possible for them to, along with these Gentiles, be resurrected to enjoy the fulfillment of these promises eternally through Christ. Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant had hints of eternity in it, the Mosaic Law made no such promises of justification to be declared righteous for life. The Law Covenant had to be put aside to allow the Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled completely.

The Law Covenant did not produce or promise eternal life which Christ taught was out of reach due to our being enslaved to sin. The Jews did not recognize that they were enslaved to sin. (John 8.33) Christ was the one who revealed this truth. Such a declaration that justification to life comes from obeying the Law is nowhere in the Old Testament, and Romans repeatedly stands by this very claim.

That being the case, it cannot be said that the Jews believed the Mosaic Law could free them from sin and death inherited from Original Sin. No, they didn’t see themselves as slaves to sin. For the Jews obedience to the Law was freedom from slavery to the Egyptians. Instead of being ruled by the whim of man they were now ruled by the Law of God. Jews didn’t then nor today believe that obedience to Torah justifies or saves. They don’t even have a doctrine of salvation.

Instead the “justification by works of Law vs. grace” seems to be a misplaced preconception that people often come to Romans with when they read it. The concept isn’t incorrect, it is just that it may not apply as widely as some do in a blanketing manner with all that is written in Romans.

I know this may sound unbelievable or just outright wrong. It took me years to stop trying to make “works vs grace” fit in the way I wanted it to here, so I actually expect to be disbelieved at this point. The theology is still being worked on too by people much smarter than me, so until that ship comes in my comments may seem more ambiguous than reassuring.