We establish law 2

1. Passages where Paul affirms the importance of law
Romans 3:31: In some way, Paul wants to make it clear that justification on the basis of faith (whether Paul has in mind Christ's faithfulness, human faith in God, or both) does not nullify the idea of law.

"Do we nullify law through the faith? May it not be! But we establish law."

Romans 8:4: God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin to condemn sin in the flesh, "so that the righteous requirement (dikaioma) of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not according to flesh but according to Spirit."

So apparently we affirm the dikaioma of the law. Is this establishment of law? Dikaioma bears a closer look. Its form would lead us to see it as something like "an act of righteousness," "an instance of righteousness." But words ultimately don't care what their form pushes us toward. Word study time. I'll proceed for the moment on the assumption that it means something like I'm thinking here--righteous requirement, righteous product in life.

The train of thought in Romans 6-8 leads us to associate whatever this fulfillment is with the contrasts of Romans 6.

Romans 6:1, 12: "Should we remain in sin, that grace might abound? May it not be!" "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires."

Apparently Paul affirms, through the power of the Spirit, both the possibility and necessity of fulfilling the dikaioma of the law, which means an absence of sin and implies a freedom from the power of sin.

Romans 13:8-10: Notice that this passage uses pleroma, "fulness of the law is love." We remember that 8:4 speaks of the "righteous requirement" of the law being fulfilled (pleroo) in us.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that for Paul the Spirit enables the believer to love his/her neighbor, which must stand at the heart of what he means when he suggests that believers affirm law.

1 Corinthians 9:21: "To those without law [I became] as one without law, although not being lawless with respect to God but enlawed with respect to Christ, so that I might gain those without law."

This comment again seems completely to cohere with the line of interpretation above. It seems that Frank Thielman has pursued this line of thought. Note to self...

None of these things seem too problematic yet, even if they contradict several popular understandings of Paul and the law (particularly the traditionally Lutheran and Bultmannian ones).

We might throw our first "problem" into the mix:

Romans 2:14: "For whenever Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these although they do not have law are law in themselves. Who demonstrate the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing between one or another of their reasonings, accusing or defending on the Day when God will judge the hidden things of people according to my gospel through Jesus Christ."

Here Paul seems to give us a situation where Gentiles fulfill the dikaioma of the law by nature. This has always been a difficult passage for me to interpret. Up until now I have generally assumed that Paul is presenting a non-possible scenario, for all have sinned. But as I've begun to fiddle with my understanding of certain other passages in Romans, I think I will here declare my affiliation with another possible interpretation.

I think I will align myself with Hays and others who believe Paul is speaking of Gentile believers who, because they have the Holy Spirit, have the law written on their hearts. This is the law of Christ, the law of love, the law that "we establish." And thus the relevance of the comment "according to my gospel," thus this is true for the way he preaches the salvation of the Gentiles, "on the Day."

Next entry is about places where Paul talks about his law keeping before coming to Christ...