The Righteousness of God Apart from the Law AND Not of Works, Lest Anyone Should Boast

Transcription

1 The Righteousness of God Apart from the Law AND Not of Works, Lest Anyone Should Boast By Allen Dvorak Introduction The apostle Paul began his argumentation in the book of Romans by pointing out the failure of both Gentile and Jew to be justified through their own efforts. Those in Gentile societies, living under an unwritten law ( without law Romans 2:12, 14), had rejected the incorruptible God, choosing to serve the creature rather than the Creator (1:22, 25, 28). God gave them up to uncleanness, to vile passions that sprang from debased minds that did not like to retain God in their knowledge. With regard to righteousness, the Gentiles were an abject failure. Unfortunately, Israel, a people chosen by God to receive special blessings (3:1; 9:4-5), had likewise failed in the matter of righteousness. Although they were quick to judge the ungodly Gentile for his unrighteousness, they were guilty of the same things (2:1). Despite the more specific guidance of the Law of Moses (2:17), the Jews had failed to keep that law and had dishonored God through their transgressions (2:27; 9:31). Using the haraz method of chaining OT passages together in Romans 3:10-18, 1 Paul marshaled the testimony of the Law against the Jews, concluding: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19) 2 Since Paul had shown that both Jew and Gentile were under sin, he concluded that no one would be justified in God s sight by the deeds of law; law provides the knowledge of sin (3:20). It is at this point in his argumentation, having closed the door of righteousness by the perfect keeping of law to both Jew and Gentile, that Paul introduced the plan of God to justify all men by His grace (3:21-26). We should not mistake Paul s comments about the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles (e.g., 2:1-3, 17-20) as constituting his major point. Justified Freely by His Grace In perhaps the most comprehensive brief summary of God s redemptive plan, Paul affirmed that now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed (3:21). The 1 Kaiser, 4. Kaiser explains, The writers of the NT sometimes present in the form of a single citation an assemblage of phrases or sentences drawn from two or more OT sources. This method is sometimes referred to as the haraz method. The conflated passages in Romans 3:10-18 appear to be Psalm 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8 and Psalm 36:1. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture citations are from the New King James Version. 187

2 new perspective on Paul (NPP) does not, however, share the view of Paul s argumentation that I have laid out in the preceding paragraphs. N. T. Wright, for example, does not understand verse 21 to be speaking primarily of the righteousness given to/pronounced on man, but rather a characterization of God Himself. In fact, Wright is dismissive of what he calls the simple narrative, i.e., that Paul wrote about the universal failure of mankind to achieve righteousness by means of their own efforts and that God provides another way. Commenting on the argumentation of Paul in Romans 3:1-8, Wright says: Of course, as the literature shows abundantly, summaries of the doctrine of justification down the years have regularly answered the question with yes. God will revoke his plan! Torah will be set aside as a failed first attempt to rescue humans! The through Israel part of the plan can now safely be ignored, and we are back with the simple narrative of humans sin; God sends Jesus; all is well, or perhaps God is righteous; humans sin; God justifies them 3 As a peripheral observation, my understanding of Paul s argumentation does not involve seeing the Torah as a failed first attempt to rescue humans. Perhaps Wright is correct in characterizing the thinking of some in this way, but it does not represent my view. In his writing, Wright likes to charge that others are not observing the context of Paul s specific words/comments. It is certainly true that we must observe context in determining meaning and it seems to me that Wright fails to do this very thing in his analysis of Paul s argumentation in Romans 3. Before we engage in a more comprehensive summary of Wright s view of the meaning of the righteousness of God, consider the relationship between verses 20 and 21 in chapter 3. Note that verse 21 begins with an adversative, the word but (δέ), indicating a contrast with what has preceded. What are the contrasted elements? In Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul has shown that Gentiles and Jews were not justified by their deeds, the keeping of law, but rather that all men are guilty of sin. Paul contrasted two ways by which men can be justified; justification by deeds of law is contrasted with a righteousness of God apart from [the] law (the article the is absent from the Greek text, both as a modifier of righteousness and law ). The Righteousness of God Observing the immediate context (more about verses later in this regard) is important because the phrase righteousness of God, if considered independently of context, could legitimately be understood in more than one way. It could mean a righteousness that belongs to God, i.e., a quality that describes Him (possession). It could also refer to a righteousness that finds its source in God, i.e., a righteousness that He bestows on others (source). The meaning of the phrase will also be affected by the context in which it is used. The following quotation speaks to the difficulty in determining the meaning of the phrase: 3 Wright,

3 Recent scholars generally agree that the one theme that may encapsulate the entire book is the righteousness of God. Unfortunately, the precise meaning of this phrase is disputed. First, traditionally Protestant interpreters have argued that the phrase refers to a gift that God grants. God judges sinners to be righteous if they believe in Christ (Rom. 3:21 22; 4:1 8; 10:3). Catholic interpreters, still acknowledging that righteousness is a gift, have argued that it refers to an actual righteousness that God produces in believers by His transforming power (Rom. 6 8). Perhaps the most commonly held view today is that righteousness of God refers to a power that God exercises, God s saving power. This interpretation emphasizes the OT concept of divine righteousness (Ps. 98:2; Isa. 46:13; 51:8). Finally, others see the phrase as expressing a quality that God possesses. God is righteous. This righteousness is expressed both in His just condemnation of sinners and in His declaring and then actually making believers righteous (Rom. 3:3 5, 25 26). The fact is one cannot isolate any of these definitions as the single meaning of the phrase. Each definition is applicable in various contexts. The fourth and final definition, however, is probably the one that Paul has in mind in Rom. 1:17. 4 Before proceeding any further with the phrase righteousness of God, it would be good at this point to define the meaning of the Greek word translated righteousness. In my lecture on justification by faith, the Greek words translated justification and justify were defined. All of the Greek words involved in that study are from the same family of words with the Greek stem dik (δικαίωµα; δικαίωσις; δικαιόω). The Greek word translated righteousness (δικαιοσύνη; dikaiosune) is from the same family and stem. A consultation of Greek lexicons, with regard to the meaning of δικαιοσύνη yields the following results: BDAG: 5 1) the quality, state, or practice of judicial responsibility w. focus on fairness, justice, equitableness, fairness 2) the quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness 3) the quality or characteristic of upright behavior, uprightness, righteousness a) of uprightness in general: b) of specific action righteousness in the sense of fulfilling divine expectation not specifically expressed in ordinances c) uprightness as determined by divine/legal standards 6 Louw-Nida: 4 Quarles, Arndt, (BDAG) 6 BDAG comments on the difficulty of defining righteousness : In Pauline thought the intimate association of God s interest in retaining a reputation for justice that rewards goodness and requites evil, while at the same time working out a plan of salvation for all humanity, complicates classification of his use of δικαιοσύνη. 189

4 1) to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else to put right with, to cause to be in a right relationship with. 7 2) the act of doing what God requires righteousness, doing what God requires, doing what is right. 3) observances or practices required by one s religion religious observances, religious requirements. 4) acts of charity, alms, giving to the needy. Vine: the character or quality of being right or just 8 Liddell: righteousness, justice 9 As these definitions suggest, it is often difficult to separate the root meaning of a word from its applied meanings. The basal meaning of righteousness is uprightness, correctness, the doing of what is right or the quality of being right or just (borrowing portions of the definitions above). However, uprightness or correctness is determined by God s revealed moral standard manifested in both unwritten and written law. Since God is the One who stipulates the character of His law (it is His law!), when one behaves in conformity with the divine standard, the result is righteousness, but it also appears to be covenant faithfulness. When God acts with justice, since His covenant mandates justice in the actions of men as a moral responsibility, He is acting in conformity with the dictates of His covenant therefore, covenant faithfulness! Thus, covenant faithfulness would appear to be an applied meaning of the root idea of uprightness or correctness, particularly in the area of justice (since the covenant stipulated blessings and curses depending on the behavior of the covenant people). As an additional illustration of the principle stated in the preceding paragraph (basal meanings sometimes morph into applied meanings or, to say it in other words, result is confused with cause), consider Sanders explanation of the meaning of righteousness : Covenantal nomism is the view that one s place in God s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for 7 Louw-Nida, Vol. 1, 451. Louw-Nida comment further, Some scholars, however, interpret δικαιόω, δικαίωσις, and δικαιοσύνη in the following contexts as meaning forensic righteousness, that is to say, the act of being declared righteous on the basis of Christ s atoning ministry, but it would seem more probable that Paul uses these expressions in the context of the covenant relation rather than in the context of legal procedures. 8 Vine, Vol. 2, 534. Vine says further, It is used to denote an attribute of God, e.g., Rom. 3:5, the context of which shows that the righteousness of God means essentially the same as His faithfulness, or truthfulness, that which is consistent with His own nature and promises; Rom. 3:25, 26 speaks of His righteousness as exhibited in the death of Christ, which is sufficient to show men that God is neither indifferent to sin nor regards it lightly. On the contrary, it demonstrates that quality of holiness in Him which must find expression in His condemnation of sin. 9 Liddell,

5 transgression Obedience maintains one s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God s grace as such Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect. 10 (italics in the original) As the following quotations will demonstrate, Wright believes that the righteousness of God is a reference to a righteousness possessed or exhibited by God, although he defines that righteousness as covenant faithfulness rather than moral uprightness. The covenant referenced is God s covenant with Abraham. The following series of quotations from Wright s writings will explain further what he means by covenant faithfulness : Somehow Paul does not yet say how, he only, but strongly, affirms that God will be true to his single plan. Israel s unrighteousness (her covenant failure, no less: her failure to be the middle term in the single-plan-through-israel-for-the-world) will only make God s righteousness (his covenant faithfulness, no less: his determination to put that selfsame plan into effect) shine out all the more brightly. This, and not a shrunken or diminished version of it, is the platform for the complex but utterly coherent theology of 3:21 4: (boldface emphasis mine asd) But Abraham s righteousness is his right standing within that covenant, and God s righteousness is his unswerving commitment to be faithful to that covenant including the promise (4:13) that Abraham would inherit the world 12 (emphasis mine asd) God s righteousness here is his faithfulness to the covenant, specifically to the covenant with Abraham made in Genesis 15, and that it is because of this covenant that God deals with sins through the faithful, obedient death of Jesus the Messiah (3:24 26). 13 (boldface emphasis mine asd) God s righteousness is that quality or attribute because of which he saves his people. His acts of righteousness are thus the acts he performs as outworkings or demonstrations of his covenant faithfulness. But, even at that point, righteousness does not mean the same as salvation. Even when the words denote the same thing the mighty deeds by which God rescues his people the word righteousness connotes the notion of God s covenant faithfulness because of which he does such things, and the word salvation connotes the fact that his people were in trouble and needed rescuing. 14 (boldface emphasis mine asd) But now, God s righteousness is made manifest apart from the law. Not apart from the single plan, apart from God s Israel-shaped purposes, but apart from the Torah. God s righteousness, in the light of 2:17 3:8, must mean, and can only mean, God s faithfulness to his single plan, the plan through which he will deal with 10 Sanders, Paul, 75, 420, 544. Cited by Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, Wright, Ibid., Ibid. 14 Ibid.,

6 the problem of human sin and put the whole world right at last. That is not only what the Old Testament usage would demand; it is not only what is indicated by the postbiblical second-temple literature of which John Piper is so cautious. It is massively indicated by the argument of Romans itself to this point, provided we actually read what Paul says, particularly in 2:17 3:8, rather than merely assuming that we can read 1:18 and 3:19f. and conclude that everything in between is merely a way of saying so all are sinful and need saving. And it is powerfully supported by the actual argument of 3:21 4:25. In particular, it is supported by the emphatic conclusion of 3:25f., which can only mean that God is revealing his own righteousness. Paul says it three times: to display his righteousness (3:25), to display his righteousness again (3:26), so that he might himself be dikaios, in the right (3:26) 15 In his summary of Wright s view of the righteousness of God, Mattison explains: God s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) with regard to the covenant people was indeed fulfilled, in the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. 16 Wright and other advocates of the NPP reject the idea that the righteousness of God could be that uprightness that He declares with respect to the believer. Although they charge others with reading Paul s letters through sixteenth century lenses, they seem unable themselves to talk about the imputation of righteousness in any way other than Reformed theology s view of the imputation of Christ s personal righteousness. 17 For instance, Mattison introduces an illustration used by Wright: The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is justified cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is righteous if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is righteous if the judge rules in his or her favor. 18 If the reader will pardon a lengthy quote from Wright, he develops the illustration of the judge and the defendant, distinguishing between the righteousness of each: Let us imagine a fictitious scenario in ancient Israel. Azariah and Bildad go to law before Gamaliel, acting as judge. Azariah accuses Bildad of stealing a sheep. Gamaliel hears the case and finds in favour of Bildad: the court declares that the accusation is unfounded and that Bildad is innocent. That finding in favour, that declaration, is justification ; its result is that Bildad is now righteous, that is, in the right. This does not mean, primarily, that Bildad is virtuous, certainly not that 15 Ibid., Mattison, A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul. 17 And yet the Scriptures clearly speak of the imputation of faith and of righteousness (cf. Romans 4:3, 5, 6, 8, 11). 18 Ibid. 192

7 he has a special concern for the glory of the judge. It is quite possible that Gamaliel has mistried the case, that morally and actually Bildad is guilty, and that his only concern is for his own saving of his skin. But he is righteous in terms of the court s decision. He is, in other words, the vindicated defendant. But that status, though it is received from the judge, was not the judge s own status. Gamaliel was not a vindicated defendant, and even if he had been at some time in the past that would not have been the point. When the judge in the lawcourt justifies someone, he does not give that person his own particular righteousness. He creates the status the vindicated defendant now possesses, by an act of declaration, a speech-act in our contemporary jargon. Conversely, Gamaliel hears the case according to the rules laid down for judges: no bribes, no favouritism, uphold the law, punish the wrongdoer, vindicate the person in the right, make sure widows and orphans get their proper due. If he does all this, he is righteous in the way that a judge is supposed to be righteous. When he finds in favour of Bildad, however, Bildad is righteous, but not at all in that way. He has not done any of those things, nor did he need to. Nor is the verdict righteous a way of saying that he has, really, even though it doesn t look like it. Once again: righteous and its cognates, in their biblical setting, are in this sense relational terms, indicating how things stand with particular people in relation to the court. (Not, we note, in their relationship to the judge, as though the possibility that Bildad and Gamaliel might go off arm in arm for a drink were the point of it all; in fact, if they did so, eyebrows might be raised.) This works completely, satisfyingly, and thoroughly across the entire range of Pauline exegesis and theology. Conversely, it makes no sense to suggest, with Piper, that for both defendant and judge righteousness means an unwavering allegiance to treasure and uphold the glory of God, and that in this lawcourt it is indeed conceivable for the Judge s righteousness to be shared by the defendant. Anticipating his later argument for the imputation of God s/christ s righteousness (why else would he want to make this strange argument?), Piper suggests that it may be that when the defendant lacks moral righteousness (where did moral righteousness come from all of a sudden?), the Judge, who is also Creator and Redeemer, may find a way to make his righteousness count for the defendant, since it is exactly the righteousness he needs namely, an unwavering and flawless and acted-out allegiance to the glory of the Judge. This, to be frank, looks suspiciously like a deus ex machina kind of theological exegesis: I know this is impossible and illogical, but because God is God he can do it! The trouble is that this, as we shall see, is not how the language actually works. The result Piper is really after or rather, its proper Pauline equivalent can be obtained without recourse to such tortuous argumentation Wright,

8 Back to Context! Since dictionary definitions in many cases suggest a spectrum of meanings for a word, the context in which a word is used is often enlightening (not always!) in the determination of its specific meaning. The phrase righteousness of God is found in the NT only seven times: Romans 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; James 1: Those passages follow: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17) But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) [Romans 3:5] But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (Romans 3:21) even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; (Romans 3:22) For they being ignorant of God s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:3) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21) for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1:20) Note that Paul spoke of the righteousness of God being revealed in both Romans 1:17 and 3:21, suggesting that he had the same righteousness in mind in both passages. 21 The righteousness of God was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets and is now revealed in the gospel. In Romans 1:17, the righteousness of God is from [ἐκ, out of - asd] faith, an odd thing to say if the covenant faithfulness of God is under consideration. The quotation from Habakkuk (2:4) helps us to understand that the righteousness of God is not the covenant faithfulness of God, but instead refers to the righteousness of the believer ( the righteous ESV), accomplished through the work of the Savior (explained in 3:24-25) and bestowed upon him by God. It is of God in this sense (source). We need to return to the context of Romans 3:21 and make some additional observations. As noted earlier, Paul s summary of God s plan must be viewed in light of his argumentation in the first three chapters of Romans and particularly his conclusion of verse 20. However, the verses following verse 21 are also useful in understanding the meaning of the righteousness of God. 20 That exact phrase is not found at all in the Old Testament (NKJV). 21 Although the NKJV uses the same English word ( reveal ) in these verses, the Greek verbs are different. 194

9 In verse 22, Paul continued his description of the righteousness of God, noting that it is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe (NKJV). 22 Is there any evidence in this context that Paul had in mind the justification of individuals, the declaration that they are righteous, rather than the extension of God s covenant faithfulness toward them? I believe it to be extremely telling that Paul returns to the subject of the sinful condition of mankind, i.e., his conclusion of verse 20, restating it in verse 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Paul tied justification to grace and redemption in verse 24. Redemption involves the payment of a ransom 23 and the apostle identified the required price in verse 25. Jesus is a propitiation (the satisfaction of the demands of the law) through His blood. These words refer to the process behind the justification of the individual sinner. The word righteousness is repeated in verse 25 and obviously applies to God. What is its meaning in this verse? Context again assists us. Note the repetition of the phrase to demonstrate His righteousness in verse 26. The latter part of verse 25 identifies the need for such a demonstration, i.e., God had passed over the sins that were previously committed. Such an action appears unjust, partial to wickedness. The latter part of verse 26 identifies the purpose of such a demonstration, i.e., that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. The righteousness of God referenced in verses is clearly God s personal righteousness 24 and the meaning of righteousness in this context is clearly a reference to the quality of being just. Don t miss the fact that God s desire is also to be the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus this passage is about the justification of individuals, the declaration of righteousness resulting from the forgiveness of sins. One final observation about the phrase the righteousness of God apart from the law is in order. In Romans 4:6, Paul used a very similar phrase, i.e., righteousness apart from works, noting the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes such righteousness. That blessedness is identified specifically in verse 7 as the forgiveness of sin. Righteousness apart from works is imputed to those whose sins are covered in the sense of forgiveness. Romans 3:5 The apostle Paul also referred to the righteousness of God in Romans 3:5. Wright claims that the concept of the covenant faithfulness of God is introduced in the early verses of chapter three and that particular meaning of the righteousness of God carries into verses 21ff. 22 The phrase faith in Jesus Christ is a translation of διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, a form of pistis Christou. It is asserted by some that the phrase should be translated faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The translation faithfulness of Jesus Christ is more accommodative to Wright s view of the meaning of righteousness of God, although not definitive. Consider the difference in translations of the preposition διὰ in the phrase to all who believe in the NKJV and ESV (to versus for). 23 Vine. The Greek word translated redemption is ἀπολύτρωσις; the release is effected by the payment of a ransom, or the required price, the lutron (ransom), Even Wright admits this; cf. Justification, 176 (see the quote associated with footnote 13). 195

10 Note, however, the quotation of Psalm 51:4 in verse 3, clearly designed to affirm the justice of God in punishing Israel for her unrighteousness. God was justified in His words. Paul s rhetorical question of verse 5b concerns the just (righteous) character of God. It doesn t seem that Paul was using the word righteousness in the sense of covenant faithfulness. It is interesting that verse 3 does, in fact, mention the faithfulness of God. Why didn t Paul use the Greek word elsewhere translated righteousness (δικαιοσύνη; dikaiosune) in this verse, if in fact covenant faithfulness is the meaning of righteousness? Romans 10:3 It does not seem that Paul used the expression God s righteousness in this passage in the sense of God s personal righteousness or even His covenant faithfulness. Paul wrote that the Jews were ignorant of His righteousness and had not submitted to His righteousness. In his commentary on Romans, Whiteside comments: The Jews fully understood that God was a righteous being. It was not that of which they were ignorant. They were ignorant of God s plan, or way, of righteousness. This righteousness is something to which men should submit and to which the Jews had not submitted. This righteousness is revealed in the gospel; this they had repudiated, and were, therefore, in a lost condition Corinthians 5:21 This passage is commonly used to suggest the doctrine of the imputed personal righteousness of Christ. That teaching, associated with Calvinism, ought to be rejected on other grounds, but this passage also does not demand such an understanding. While rejecting the notion of Christ s imputed righteousness, Wright claims again that covenant faithfulness is the meaning of the righteousness of God in verse 21: But there is more. The little word genōmetha in 5:21b that we might become God s righteousness in him does not sit comfortably with the normal interpretation, according to which God s righteousness is imputed or reckoned to believers. If that was what Paul meant, with the overtones of extraneous righteousness that normally come with that theory, the one thing he ought not to have said is that we become that righteousness. Surely that leans far too much towards a Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness? How careless of Paul to leave the door open to such a notion! But if Paul means so that we apostles embody in our own lives the fact that, in Christ, the God of the covenant has been faithful to his single-plan-through-israel-for-the-world, is this not an exact and accurate way of saying just this? Whiteside, Wright,

11 Wright s argument is that the comments of Paul regarding his ministry in the previous chapters of 2 Corinthians are designed to show that God has renewed the covenant in Jesus the Messiah. It seems to me, however, that the subject of this pericope is individual justification. Note the references to reconciliation and to the idea of God not imputing trespasses (vv ). Furthermore, there appears to be a clear contrast between the two halves of verse 21, a contrast between sin and righteousness. In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Barnett summarizes: As indicated earlier, righteousness is the opposite of condemnation, the divine rejection (see on 3:9). The words become the righteousness of God in him point to forgiveness, the reversal of condemnation. Here, then, is the objective, forensic justification of God to those who are covenantally dedicated to God in Christ, whom God made sin. This theme is touched on in the First Letter (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11) and expressed in the present letter (cf. 3:9), possibly in response to a worksrighteousness schema of the false apostles (see 11:15). 27 James 1:20 The context of James 1:20 is that of man s response to temptation. He should not blame God (v. 13) because God doesn t tempt anyone; He is the giver of every good and perfect gift. Verse 19 begins as a conclusion to the previous verses: So then, my beloved brethren. Man is encouraged to be swift to hear, slow to speak and slow to wrath, for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God. It seems clear that the righteousness of God in this passage is not God s personal righteousness; it makes no sense to talk about man s wrath not producing God s personal righteousness. Nor does it appear to mean God s covenant faithfulness. The context would suggest that the quality or characteristic of upright behavior expected by God is the best meaning here. Not of Works, Lest Anyone Should Boast Paul s conclusion in Romans 3:28 was that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. He had introduced the concept of the righteousness of God apart from the law in 3:21, a righteousness that he indicated was through faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). It is clear from the context that the phrases apart from the law (v. 21) and apart from the deeds of the law (v. 28) are synonymous in meaning. 28 Furthermore, in Romans 4:6, Paul mentioned the imputation of righteousness apart from works, an expression that I believe uses works in the same sense as the phrases in verses 21 and Barnett, Comparing Galatians 2:16 and 2:21 reveals the same thing: justified by the works of the law has the same meaning as righteousness [that] comes through the law. 197

12 The phrase works of the law is found eight times in Paul s writings (as translated in the ESV: Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16 [3x]; 3:2, 5, 10). What does Paul mean by works or works of the law in these passages? The NPP: Works of the Law Although it appears that the expression new perspective on Paul was coined by James Dunn in a 1982 lecture, an understanding of the NPP view of Second Temple Judaism should begin with the research conclusions of E. P. Sanders. Although not the first to suggest that the traditional understanding of Second Temple Judaism was incorrect, Sanders appears to have been responsible for a paradigm shift in the thinking of many scholars on the subject of the nature of Judaism in Paul s day. In his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, published in 1977, Sanders claimed that his research indicated that Second Temple Judaism was not a legalistic, works-righteousness religion. Yinger succinctly summarizes Sanders view as follows: Rather than earning divine favor by their works of obedience to his Law, Jews emphasized God s free election of Israel. They were made members of the elect people of God by grace alone. Salvation was a gift, not something they had to first earn Of course, God s Law, what Jews call Torah, played a central role in all of this, and obedience to God s commands was, indeed, discussed intensively in Judaism. But these commandments were not onerous entry requirements. Instead, Israel was already in via the covenant that God had made with the nation. The Law was God s wise and perfect provision to guide his people on the right path. Rigorous obedience to the commandments was the expected response to God s prior act of saving grace, not an attempt to earn it. Both the nation and individuals within the nation kept the commands not in order to be redeemed but because they had been redeemed or saved (think exodus from Egypt). 29 Sanders coined the expression covenantal nomism to describe his view of the character of first-century Judaism. 30 Not everyone, however, agrees with Sanders conclusions from his research in Tannaitic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. William Barrick points out: One of the world s leading Jewish experts on Judaism, Jacob Neusner, describes Sanders as a writer with a rich capacity to make up distinctions and definitions as he goes along, then to impose these distinctions and definitions upon sources that, on the face of it, scarcely sustain them Yinger, Although covenantal nomism has been previously defined, Mattison offers this excellent summary: The meaning of covenantal nomism is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism. 31 Barrick. He cites Jacob Neusner, Mr. Sanders Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, Scottish Journal of Theology 44 (1991):

13 James Dunn further refined this new perspective on Paul by suggesting that the expression works of the law (and other synonymous phrases) in Paul s writings referred to a limited and specific group of works rather than all of the requirements of the Law of Moses. In his work The New Perspective on Paul, Dunn wrote: His denial that justification is from works of law is, more precisely, a denial that justification depends on circumcision or on observation of the Jewish purity and food taboos. We may justifiably deduce therefore that by works of law Paul intended his readers to think of particularly observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws. His Galatian readership might well think also of the one other area of law observance to which Paul refers disapprovingly later in the same letter their observance of special days and feasts (Gal. 4:10). 32 Works of law, works of the law are nowhere understood here, either by his Jewish interlocutors or by Paul himself, as works which earn God s favour, as meritamassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God s people; given by God for precisely that reason, they serve to demonstrate covenant status. They are the proper response to God s covenant grace, the minimal commitment for members of God s people. In other words, Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls covenantal nomism. And what Paul denies is that God s justification depends on covenantal nomism, that God s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant The phrase works of the law in Gal. 2:16 is, in fact, a fairly restricted one: it refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works those regulations prescribed by the law which any good Jew would simply take for granted to describe what a good Jew did. To be a Jew, was to be a member of the covenant, was to observe circumcision, food laws and sabbath. 33 N. T. Wright agrees with Dunn s view of the meaning of works of the law. He wrote: These works of Torah were neither an attempt to earn the covenant membership he already had by God s grace, nor an attempt to add his own merit to the grace he had been given. They were an attempt, he would have said, to do, out of love and obedience to Israel s God, the works which would function as a sign in the present that he was part of the people who would be vindicated in the future, on the last day, when God would act in his long-promised judgment and mercy. That is what Paul the apostle referred to as justification by works. 34 (emphasis in the original) Dunn supported his affirmation about the meaning of the works of the law by noting that in Greco-Roman literature of the period, the practices of circumcision, abstention from pork and observance of the Sabbath were considered distinctive to the Jews. He also argued that the Jews themselves held the same view, i.e., these practices were identity 32 Dunn, Ibid., Wright,

14 markers. 35 Finally, he claimed that the phrase works of the law was used in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls with a restricted meaning. Yinger summarizes: Dunn bolstered his understanding of works of law by finding similar usage of the phrase in other Jewish writings. Thus, a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls used the Hebrew equivalent to works of law to describe the sect s distinctive practices. By these practices, these works of law, it became clear who did, and who did not, belong to the sect. The phrase did not suggest a theology of meritorious achievement, but it spoke of how to identify the true followers of God. 36 Dunn s tenuous jump from the usage of the phrase works of the law in Qumran writings to Paul s employ of the phrase in the NT is not exactly a necessary inference. It appears that his argument goes roughly like this: 1) Qumran writers used the phrase in a limited sense, specifying particular regulations that identified the community. 2) Paul used an essentially synonymous phrase in his writings. 3) Paul must have used the phrase in the same way that the Qumran community did. 4) Paul, however, had reference to different specific regulations (from those cited in 4QMMT. Barrick quotes an authority on Qumran materials who disagrees with Dunn s conclusion about the limited sense of the phrase: In the intertestamental period, sectarian authors at Qumran spoke of the members of their community as doers/workers of the law ( ôñê hattôr~h, 1QpHab 7:11; 8:1; 12:4). They did not indicate that the law in such cases was limited to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, or dietary regulations. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, one of the world s leading authorities on Qumran, Aramaic, and the intertestamental period, concludes that Qumran materials (especially 4QMM T 3.29) rule out the suggestion of both Dunn, about a restricted sense of erga nomou,..., and Gaston, that the gen. nomou is a subjective gen[itive]. 37 Fitzmyer goes on to declare that The Qumran usage makes it clear that deeds of the law refers, indeed, to things prescribed or required by the Mosaic law. To the extent that a works righteousness would be indicated by the phrase in question, this reading reveals that Paul knew whereof he was speaking when he took issue with contemporary Judaism and its attitude to legal regulations. In 4QMMT the 35 Dunn, Yinger, 20. By contrast, Wright (55) claims that the phrase works of the law is found in only one document in second-temple Judaism, namely, 4QMMT (from Qumran). 37 Barrick cites Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB. (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p

15 phrase is used precisely in a context mentioning sdqh, uprightness, and employs the very words of Gen 15:6 that Paul quotes about Abraham in 4:2c. 38 Barrick himself makes a general, but perceptive observation about the search for the meaning of works of the law : For the meaning of works of the law biblical testimony is more authoritative than the declarations of theologians, whether they are from the early church, the Reformation, or the 20th or 21st centuries. The testimony of the OT, Jesus, and Paul is contrary to the viewpoint of the NPP. 39 Biblical Testimony The illustration of Paul with regard to Abraham in Romans 4 is very helpful in understanding the meaning of the phrase works of the law. As already noted, Paul used the word works as an abbreviated form of the larger phrase works of the law. He wrote about a righteousness of God apart from the law in Romans 3:21, a righteousness through faith (v. 22). He was speaking of the same righteousness in 3:28 when he concluded that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Paul affirmed that if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God (4:2). Abraham s faith, instead, was accounted to him for righteousness (4:3). Verse 4, however, helps us understand the sense in which Paul used the word boasting in verse 2 (also in 3:27). If Abraham had worked, what he would have received ( wages, i.e., the pronouncement of righteousness) would have been a matter of debt rather than grace. Under what circumstances would the pronouncement of righteousness be a matter of debt? If Abraham had kept God s law perfectly (he lived under patriarchal law), he would be righteous as a result of his own efforts and would therefore have reason to boast. Verse 5 also clearly describes Abraham, one who did not work, but believed on Him who justifies the ungodly (note the correlation between verses 3 and 5b faith accounted for righteousness). He received a righteousness apart from works (v. 6); such individuals are blessed in the sense that David described in Psalm 32:1-2 they have been forgiven of their sins. Thus righteousness apart from works is opposed to a righteousness that is earned (wages; debt) by keeping law perfectly. Commenting on Romans 4:1-5, Yinger is honest enough to note that the illustration concerning wages is problematical for the NPP. Although he later finds an explanation for the difficulty, he writes: Nothing is said of works of law in the sense of identity markers, only of works in the sense of human labor ( one who works ) which are owed a wage. The 38 Ibid., Barrick. 201

16 commercial tone of earning a wage by working seems palpable. Paul, then, contrasts such work with Abraham s faith which brought justification as a gift and without works. What the NPP seeks to deny the presence of a legalistic earning mentality based upon how much one has worked seems to be plopped unmistakably in the middle of Paul s own argument. Here is that contrast of faith (or gift) versus works which the Reformation highlighted and which Sanders and the NPP called into question for interpreting Paul and Judaism. 40 Actually, Paul had already made the same argument regarding boasting earlier in Romans 3:27. The law of faith excludes boasting (on the part of man). The man who has faith in Jesus receives the righteousness apart from works (the law) and he has no cause to boast. Yinger asserts that the boasting of Romans 3:27 is for a reason other than perfect lawkeeping. The Jew would have been boasting in his covenantal privilege. He comments: A traditional interpretation reads boasting as boasting in one s own obedience according to a law, or principle of works; it is self-righteous boasting. Faith excludes such boasting since believing is contrasted with doing (faith versus works); one who simply believes is justified, wholly apart from any doing ( apart from works ), and, thus, no such boasting is possible. This applies equally to Jews and Gentiles since both are to be justified by believing and not by doing. A NPP reading takes this boasting as boasting in Jewish covenantal privilege. Such boasting is ruled out by the law of faith, that is, by the new identifying mark of faith in Jesus as Messiah. 41 If we accept the basic paradigm of Sanders with respect to Second Temple Judaism (and Yinger does), the average Jew understood himself to be a part of the covenant by the grace of God. Paul indicated that boasting is associated with debt, not grace. The Jew certainly didn t earn his covenantal privilege through his own efforts. According to Dunn, he didn t even maintain his covenantal privilege through his own efforts. What cause would he have to boast? In light of Yinger s view of the source of boasting in Romans 3:27, the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector in the temple that Jesus told is quite interesting. Jesus clearly described the Pharisee as one who exalted himself and the words put into the mouth of the Pharisee by Jesus also clearly indicate that he was boasting. Luke records that Jesus told the parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others (Luke 18:9). The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like other men listing various sinners and informed God of his own obedience. It seems obvious to me that he was engaged in self-righteous boasting! I believe that Paul made essentially the same point about boasting in Ephesians 2:9. The passage follows: 40 Yinger, Ibid.,

17 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) According to verse nine, the fact that the Ephesians were not saved by works meant that none could boast. How could a person boast of his status before God unless he had kept law perfectly? The man who had kept law perfectly would have no sin and could be pronounced righteous based on his own merit. He would have earned his righteousness. Even Yinger admits the difficulty of Ephesians 2:9 (and 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 3:5) for the NPP. Of course, if no reasonable explanation for these verses can be found that aligns with the NPP, the verses in question must not be Pauline. Problem solved! Several passages from the disputed letters of Paul seem to point unmistakably to precisely the grace-versus-works contrast that the NPP says was not in Paul s mind. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God not the result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8 9) [God] saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. (2 Tim 1:9) He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy. (Tit 3:5) Surely these texts presume that someone was asserting salvation through your own doing, because of one s own works of righteousness rather than the gift and mercy of God. The writer wishes to exclude any notion of earning salvation by human efforts which lead to self-congratulation. In spite of the clear challenge to the NPP posed by these verses, writers aligned with this perspective have been strangely silent, in some cases because these passages are not considered Pauline. 42 Perhaps the most telling passage with reference to the meaning of the phrase works of the law is found in Galatians 3. Paul began the chapter by asking the Galatians about the means by which they had received the Spirit. Was it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith (v. 2)? It appears that Paul was speaking of the initial justification of the Galatians and he answered his own question in verse 3 ( having begun in the Spirit ). He followed up with another question concerning the continued blessing of the Galatians by God was it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith (vs. 5)? Paul described the condition of those who were of the works of the law as being under the curse, citing Deuteronomy 27:26, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. 43 Based on the meaning 42 Yinger, The quotation in verse 10 does not seem to match Deuteronomy 27:26. Alan Cole (Galatians, 140) provides one possible explanation for the difference: But this is all before the giving of the law, the Jew might well say. So Paul comes at once to the period after the giving of the Torah. He quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 to show that failure to keep and do the law brings this same curse. Now it is quite true that the Hebrew Bible does not have the word all in this particular verse; it simply says, Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them, to which all the people add their Amen, thus accepting the justice of the pronouncement. But the all appears in the next verse, being careful to do all his commandments (Deut. 28:1). In his usual way, therefore, Paul is probably fusing two quotations into one. See footnote #1. 203

18 assigned to works of the law by Dunn, Wright and Yinger (representative voices of the NPP), why would Paul write that all who are of the works of the law are under the curse, the curse that comes on those who do not keep all of the law perfectly? According to the NPP advocates, those who were of the works of the law (marked by the identity badges of Judaism: circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath observance) were Jews and they were in a covenant relationship with God as a result of grace. They maintained their covenant relationship through the works of the law. However, the clear implication of the Deuteronomy quotation is that they were responsible to do all things which are written in the book of the law or be cursed! To escape the curse of the law, perfect law keeping was required. The passage(s) quoted by Paul is just one of many that instruct God s people of the OT to keep all the words of the law (e.g., Deuteronomy 28:58; 31:12; 32:46; Joshua 1:7; Nehemiah 9:34). As in Romans, Paul contrasted two ways of being justified by works of the law and by faith. That contrast continues in verses Based on the quotation in verse 10, justification by the law, i.e., by the works of the law, was accomplished by perfect law keeping. It would seem that, contrary to the claims of the NPP, Paul was contrasting justification by faith with justification by perfect law keeping (works-righteousness). Conclusion Barrick provides a concise summary of the differences between traditional Protestant thinking and the NPP: Throughout church history theologians have identified the Judaizers with a legalistic approach to salvation. Thus, the phrase works of the law refers to those works believed to be necessary for salvation. According to the adherents of the NPP, however, the traditional view smacks of anti-semitism and reflects a forced exegesis that they believe exemplified the Western Reformation. Since a major thesis of the NPP is that salvation in first-century Judaism was not based on works, NPP proponents often define works of the law as those works that mark the people of the covenant, identifying them ethnically and socially. Specifically, those works are circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary restrictions. Obviously, both positions (traditional and NPP) cannot be correct. The two are diametrically opposed and contain very different theological corollaries. 44 Clearly the conclusions of Sanders and Dunn form a foundation for the NPP. Although I believe that reasonable doubt can be raised about the research of both men (a study not within the confines of this lecture), the strongest argument against the NPP viewpoint regarding the righteousness of God and the works of the law remains the context of the very passages that supposedly offer the strongest support for that viewpoint. Although I am confident that first-century Jews harbored an attitude of exclusiveness with regard to salvation, I am unconvinced that this was the major target of Paul s argumentation regarding faith and works. 44 Barrick. 204