What does Paul mean by “the law of faith”?

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means by the law of faith, it is important to understand that he contrasts works of the law with faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is explaining to his audience the fact that one is not justified before God by doing the works of the law. As Paul says in Romans 3:20, through the law comes knowledge of sin, and no one will be justified by works of the law. Instead, a righteousness has been revealed apart from the law, which is justification through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21–22). So works of the law will not make one righteous before God, because all are under sin (Romans 3:9). Still, one can become righteous before God through faith.

With the opposition of works of the law and faith in mind, we can understand what Paul means by a law of faith. For Paul asks why our boasting is excluded. It is excluded, he explains, not by a law of works, but by the law of faith. In other words, our boasting is excluded because we are under sin and cannot make ourselves right with God. Thus, our boasting is excluded by the law of faith.¹

Counterargument:

The logic of this view does not make sense. This view contends that Paul strongly contrasts justification by the works of the law and justification by faith. Paul then asks, On what basis is our boasting excluded? Is it excluded by the law of works? No, says Paul, it is excluded by the law of faith. If Paul has in mind that the law of works means doing the prescriptions of the law, while the law of faith means, having faith in Jesus Christ, this view is not logical. For Paul asks, What excludes our boasting? In fact, the law of works excludes our boasting, because we are not able to do the prescriptions of the law. Thus, Paul cannot mean something like doing the works of the law when he uses the phrase law of works. And if he does not have in mind doing the works of the law by the phrase law of works, then he is not contrasting doing the works of the law with faith in Jesus Christ. So the law of faith does not refer to justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misunderstands what Paul means by his question, Then what becomes of our boasting? When Paul asks what becomes of our boasting, he has in mind the fact that the law of Moses actually forbids any kind of self-glorification before God. So boasting before God is excluded by the Mosaic law. Now Paul wants to know whether the law of works has the power to eliminate such boasting. That is, if one tries to be justified before God by doing the works of the law, will self-boasting before God be eliminated?² To this Paul responds, No. Rather, it’s through the law of faith, which recognizes that one cannot be justified before God, that such boasting is eliminated. The law of faith eliminates boasting, because to have faith in Jesus Christ is to accept that one has no reason to boast before God.

Explanation:

We can understand what Paul means by law of faith when we consider the related phrases law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and in-lawed to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul warns the Galatians not to give into the Judaizers who insist that commitment to Jesus Christ is expressed by keeping the law. Rather, they express their commitment to Christ by fulfilling the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul writes that he is not outside the law in the sense that he is in-lawed to Christ. In both instances, what Paul has in mind is that Christians are under the principles of the Christian gospel, which are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.³ Likely, Paul has the same idea in mind in Romans 3:27 when he refers to the law of faith. That is, the law of faith has to do with the principles of the gospel as taught by Jesus Christ.

Counterargument:

When Paul uses the term law in this section, he has in mind the Mosaic law. When Paul asks if boasting is excluded by the law of works, the law of works can mean nothing other than Mosaic law.⁴ Paul answers that the law of works does not exclude boasting, but the law of faith does. Paul will expand on this notion of the law of faith in Romans 3:31 when he asks whether the law, referring to the Mosaic law, is overturned by faith. Given that Paul has in mind the Mosaic law when he refers to the law of works, and that he will explain that faith fulfills the Mosaic law in Romans 3:31, when Paul refers to the law of faith, the term law refers to the Mosaic law. So Paul has in mind not the principles of faith but a new perspective on the Mosaic law.

Response to counterargument:

This overlooks the possibility that Paul uses the law of faith in a metaphorical sense.⁵ That is, Paul uses a play on words to further establish the contrast between the works of following the Mosaic law and the principle of faith in Jesus Christ. Paul asks, What law excludes boasting? Does the Mosaic law exclude boasting? No, because one must do the law to uphold it. What about the law or principle of faith?⁶ This simple play on words suggests the relevance of faith in terms of salvation history, but the opposition of faith to the works of the Mosaic law.

The one weakness of this view is that if Paul wants to set up an opposition between law and faith, we would not expect him to characterize faith as something like a law.

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means by the law of faith, we have to recognize his audience. He is writing to the Jewish Christians in Rome, and they held a particular view of the Mosaic law, where the law was given to the Israelites by grace to establish a covenant, and the Israelites remained in the covenant by adhering to circumcision and certain dietary and Sabbath laws. In other words, the Jews understood the law through the lens of particular works such as circumcision and dietary restrictions. Paul is now explaining that they ought to understand the law through the lens of faith. To understand the law through the lens of faith is to recognize that the Gentiles do not need to hold circumcision and the dietary restrictions to participate in the gospel.⁹

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul has already sufficiently established that justification is apart from the law.¹⁰ In Romans 3:21, Paul says that the righteousness of God is manifested apart from the law. And in Romans 3:28, Paul will reiterate the fact that we are justified by faith apart from the law. Given the sharp distinction between works of the law, and the fact that we are justified apart from the law, it is unlikely that Paul would encourage the Romans to understand the law through the lens of faith. Rather, given that he is distancing reconciliation with God from the law, and he likely has in mind two separate principles: the principle of the law of Moses and the principle of faith.

Explanation:

When Paul says that boasting is excluded by the law of faith, he seems to have in mind that the function of the law was meant to lead people to faith.¹¹ That is, the function of the law was not to determine the works by which one is made righteous, but to lead one to faith. Thus, the Christians in Rome ought to view the law through the perspective of faith.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that in Romans 4:1–5, Paul is not going to contrast two different ways of perceiving the law. That is, he is not going to contrast thinking that the law has to do with works with seeing that the law leads to faith. Rather, he is going to contrast being made righteous through the law with being made righteous through faith. These are opposing principles. Paul explains that if Abraham is justified by works, he has something to boast before God, which clearly points to the notion of justification by works (Romans 4:2). But Paul contrasts this with the fact that Abraham is counted righteous because he believed God, that is, on the principle of faith. So the context suggests that Paul has in mind not viewing the law with a particular lens but the difference between being justified by works of the law and being justified by faith.

The weakness of this view is that it is not grammatically clear how one gets to seeing the law through faith from the phrase law of faith. That is, the grammar of the law of faith does not obviously lend to the interpretation seeing the Mosaic law through faith.