One of the major tenants of the New Perspective on Paul is that the phrase "works of law" only refer to the specific Jewish identity markers in law. As James Dunn (1) puts it:
"‘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 favor, as merit-amassing 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;...in other words, Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls 'covenantal nomism.' And what he 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."
In this blog post I will give two counter examples to what Dunn argues here about the phrase "works of law", I will show that the term means more than the narrow definition of mere Jewish identity markers.
Counter Example 1:
Romans 2:14-15 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Explanation: Here Paul is teaching us that us that the gentiles lack the Mosaic law, which would include these Jewish identity markers like circumcision and so on. But yet Paul says that even though they do not have the Mosaic law they have another law, namely, the Law that is written on their heart, this would be the natural law. But Paul uses the Greek phrase argon tou nomou or "work of the law" to describe this natural law. Thus, this shows us that the phrase "work of the law" is not refering only to the narrow use of the Mosaic law but the general natural law instilled on all mankind.
Counter Example 2:
Romans 3:19-20 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Explanation: At this point Paul has shown that both Gentiles (Romans 1) and Jews (Romans 2) both stand condemned before God. Romans 3:19-20 offers a summary statement of this universal condemnation to lead us to the Gospel of Justification by faith alone. Paul begins in verse 19 to remind us that all are held accountable to God because they are under the law. This cannot be referring to just the Mosaic law alone because only the Jews are held accountable to the Mosaic law, but not the Gentiles and then, if this were true, the whole world would not be held accountable under the law. But Paul seems to be stressing that the whole world is held accountable and thus the phrase "under the law" has to be referring to the moral law of God by which everyone is subject to; both Jew and Gentile. Paul continues in verse 20 to say that no one will be justified in his sight by "works of the law". Paul has just shown that all are held accountable to God and then he goes on to argue that because of this no one will be justified in his sight because of being under the law. Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" to title this universal law by which Jews and Gentiles stand condemned. Thus, the phrase works of law have a much broader meaning than just the narrow identity badges of the Jewish people.
Conclusion:
We can see from this that the New perspective on Paul is unreasonable because it ultimately rests on unbiblical presuppositions. But I think Paul's traditional Reformed message is worth considering. Paul tells us that we are all condemned before a Holy God. But the question that we must think about is this: How are we to be made right before a Holy God that is terribly angry at the countless sins we have committed ? I think Paul answers this question clearly:
Romans 3:21-22 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
And again:
Romans 4:5-8 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Thus, the Word of God teaches us that we cannot be made right before God by works, but by Faith in Jesus Christ who imputes to us his works (Phil. 3:9).
*** For more useful material on this subject read Douglas Moo's commentary on the Book of Romans***
Bibliography
1. Cf. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press), 1990; Romans; The Epistle to the Galatians (Black's New Testament Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1993.
Thankx Nate, very enjoyable :) keep up the good work
ReplyDeleteHey Allison,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your support. If you want any of these posts on your blog just let me know.
God Bless,
NPT
oh just post whatever you find relevant to the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic discussion- up to you.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the argument above proves and assumes too much. Your interpretation of Paul’s use of the phrase “works of law” requires that it mean clearly and exclusively a rather developed notion of natural law reflected in the Mosaic ordinances. This is an interesting view, but one that probably requires the intellectual framework of much later Christian scholasticism.
ReplyDeleteIn the first example, for example, one wonders who these Gentiles are. You seem to assume that the reference is to the entire non-Jewish world. However, the Church of Rome at that time was made up of believing Jews and Gentiles (like the Church in Galatia, but probably with a larger and stronger Jewish presence). The former were most likely law-observant, while the latter were not (a diversity found also within the Pauline Churches). When these Gentiles did “by nature” (a strange expression coming from a Reformed Theologian) the “works of the law,” Paul may have had in mind the praxis of synagogue oriented God-Fearers, rather than an abstract philosophical notion of the “natural law” in the sense of his Hellenist contemporaries.
This hypothesis may not be correct, but it points out that the presence of 17th c. Reformed European Theology in 1st century Jewish-Christian literature, (when you scratch beneath the surface) is not as conspicuous as some would hope.
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI do not think I am imposing any categories here. All I am saying is that the text is simply teaching that gentiles who do not have the Mosaic law that do the law show that they have access to law written on their inward conscious or heart (which is all the text really says). This is all I mean by natural law and I do not imply anything else more developed that would be going beyond the text itself.
The reason why I am forced to conclude that this refers to the inward written law on the heart of the gentiles is because of the failure of alternative interpretations which your hypothesis seems to be a fine example of. The Gentiles are, in this text, not "hearers of the law" but clearly the God fears were hearers of the law. So I do not think a God-fearer is much of a strong candidate for the Gentiles in this text. As any beginning Greek student knows if a word is unclear by lexical matters alone in a given text the context ought to determine the meaning of the word. Since the Gentiles Do not have the law and it is the law written on their heart and they are not hearers of the law (v. 13) then we should probably conclude that it is written on their nature or essence in some sense, which is one of the possible glosses for the Greek word phusis by the way. So for these reasons the text of the Bible forces us to interpret it in this way.
This may be uncomfortable for hip and cool Bible scholars like Dunn that hate philosophy and scholasticism. But just because the new perspective proponents have a priori assumptions about how Paul could not have said anything philosophical or anything Reformed does not give them the right to distort the clear meaning of the text for their novel agenda. For you see, we both have presuppositions here, but the question is: What does the text teach, my presuppositions or that of a recent fad hobby horse in hip biblical scholarship? Well I think the text, so far as I can see, clearly teaches former rather than the latter.
God Bless,
NPT
You sound like a 16th c. Roman Catholic. The purpose of the New Perspective and other areas of NT scholarship is not to offend confessional sensibilities. In fact - and ironically - new critical insight into the meaning of the biblical text and its consequent affect on Christian exegesis is the very legacy of that Renaissance Humanism which was so powerful an ally of the Reformation.
ReplyDeleteThe scripture principle at the foundation of Evangelical Christianity ought to prohibit church doctrine from becoming a litmus test for biblical scholarship. If Sola Scriptura be true, all other dogmas be damned…if necessary.
The “given context” of this passage is the mid-first century church in Rome, a mixed congregation of law-observant Jews and law-free Gentiles. By “hearers of the law,” however, Paul specifically denotes Jews (cf. v. 12b - 13).
Pauline spiritualization of the physical parts of the law (not untypically Jewish in the late intertestamental period) has as its aim the elimination of the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles (particularly relevant to the church in Rome at the time of the Epistle).
Chapter 2 demonstrates the ethical equality of those under the Law of Moses and those under the law of conscience (since the latter “do not have the law” to regulate their every action). However, this spiritualized/ethicized linking of law and conscience is not intended to define Paul’s use of the word “law” as characterizing the relationship between human beings and God as one of meritorious pursuit of eternal life.
Thus 3:20 need not be understood this way. In fact, given the thrust of chapter 3 and its emphasis specifically on the Mosaic Law (vv. 2, 19, 20a, 20b, 21a, 21b, [v. 27 “our boasting” (i.e., Jewish) explains the meaning of “principle of works” (i.e., Torah)] 28, 31a, 31b), Paul is not using the expression “law” or “works of law” here with the wider semantic range of 2:14, but rather is specifically addressing Jewish conceit.
Hello again....whoever you are.
ReplyDeleteIt is ironic you call me a Catholic when you are arguing for a view point that is in fact unbiblical and a step towards Rome with respect to justification. Certainly the NPP does not share a synonymous view of justification with Rome, but it is sufficiently similar. The difference being that Romes view of justification is more metaphysical in orientation than the NPP, but it is still a rejection of justification by faith alone.
I also notice that you did not respond to my point that "works of law" do not always mean Jewish identity badges or exclusively the Mosaic law in my counter example in Romans 2:14-15. Again another irony of the NPP I suppose....I guess biblical scholarship has it's own tradition and presuppositions that do not fit with the text of the Bible. New critical insights that do not fit with the text of the Bible which is ultimately a rejection of sola fide.
But I see you wish to argue against my second point, since the first argument did not fair well.
From verse 2 that mentions specifically the Jewish oracles of God there is a transition in the text that condemns both Jews and Gentiles jointly (3:9). This condemnation of the Gentiles comes from their knowledge of the law written on the heart (1:32; 2:14-15) and the Jews because of the Mosaic law. After a general condemnation of both Jew and Gentile (3:10-18) Paul directly goes to the subject on how all are condemned which reinforces his point discussed in the previous verses. The law discussed in 19 makes all accountable even those not in the Mosaic covenant, if this were not the case then this would go against Pauls thinking that the whole world will be held accountable so that ever mount may be stopped, if this were not true of both Jews and Gentiles outside of Moses then this would go against the flow of the text from 3:10-18 and it would go against Pauls assertion that purpose of this law is that every mount will be stopped and held accountable to God. This goes into verse 20 makes a universal statement that no one will be justified by works of law. Clearly the textual flow here seems to go with a more general notion of law rather than the specific covenant with Moses.
All 21 is simply asserting is that the Torah points to what Paul is teaching and in no way suggests we should view works of law or law as exclusively the law of Moses or Torah. This is just a presupposition you put in the text without any sort of argumentation. Paul again reinforces his point by saying all have sinned and thus need this righteousness by faith v.23 (including Gentiles).
If Law and Works of Law do not mean something wider here then I submit, on your interpretation, Paul is contradicting himself. This is because after all discussion on law and works of law Paul then says to follow the law (Rom.3:31). Paul is saying do not follow these Jewish identity markers with the Gentiles, but by the way follow these Jewish identity markers with the Gentiles.
The Biblical Reformed view point can make sense of all this, by simply saying: Paul has been teaching against justification by the works both Gentiles (Rom. 1) and Jew (Rom. 2), but that does not mean that Paul does not want us not to follow the law, but that we do not use it as a means of justification.
God Bless,
NPT
By “16th c. Roman Catholic” I meant to refer to someone whose exegesis is dogmatically driven to the point that the meaning of the text is determined in advance on the basis of ecclesial doctrinal commitments (in your case the Reformation confessional tradition).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I ultimately don’t care whether Paul was Reformed, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Arian, Ebionite, or Gnostic. What I want to know is the meaning of the text in its own context as objectively as possible. Whatever the result of that is, I will deal with it theologically after having determined the literal sense of the text in question. I do not need in advance to know that the text articulates my personal theological convictions.
The one possible example of a wider semantic rage for “works of law” in 2:14 is an extension of and an exception to the consistently literal use of the expression and cognate expressions throughout chapters two and three, particularly towards the end of chapter three where we find the contentious verses placed within a direct address by Paul to his Jewish-Christian contemporaries within the Roman church.
You wrote: “All [verse 3:] 21 is simply asserting is that the Torah points to what Paul is teaching and in no way suggests we should view works of law or law as exclusively the law of Moses or Torah.”
Is this likely given the existence of a widespread dispute throughout the first century Church over the relation of gentile believers to the law (of Moses)? Why should there have been a dispute at all if the meaning of “law” was generally regarded with the flexibility with which you take it? Is it reasonable to suppose that Jewish-Christians (or non-Christian Jews) of the first century would have given to the terms “law” and “works of law” a primary meaning that was ethical and universal rather national and particular in content?
You wrote: “…but that does not mean that Paul does not want us not to follow the law, but that we do not use it as a means of justification.”
This illustrates why I said earlier that your interpretation goes too far. If Paul, as you say, wants the Church to follow the law, then why does the Church not practice ritual circumcision? Or follow the Jewish liturgical calendar?
Your answer – as you have already given it – must be that the law which Paul wants the Church to follow (albeit not as a means of justification) is the ethical content of the Mosaic ordinances. However, that reduction of the meaning of “law” or “works of law” to exclusively the ethical and universal, specifically within the verses of chapter two and three I listed above, is the aim of my objection. You deny that 3:20 means identity marker ALONE. However, your actual position requires that “works of law” in 3:20 and 3:28 and “principle of works” in 3:27 and “law” in 3:31 mean EXCLUSIVELY the ethical content of the law which Jews and Gentile have in common.
This interpretation claims too much regarding the words in question. It also refuses to see that the vertical orientation of this part of the Epistle, that of the relation of sinners to God, is not Paul’s only concern. The horizontal orientation, the breaking down of the wall of separation between Jew and non-Jew, is as much if not more his concern (cf. 3:22). Within that concern the literal use of the expression “works of law” is very logical.
Hello, Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWell, I want to know the text as objectively as possible to independent of any of wants for Paul to hold to any theological position. It just happens to be the case that Paul is a Reformed theologian if you were to take the text as it stands independent of any dogmatic considerations, which is why I am Reformed because I think that is what the Bible teaches.
Is this likely given the existence of a widespread dispute throughout the first century Church over the relation of gentile believers to the law (of Moses)? Why should there have been a dispute at all if the meaning of “law” was generally regarded with the flexibility with which you take it? Is it reasonable to suppose that Jewish-Christians (or non-Christian Jews) of the first century would have given to the terms “law” and “works of law” a primary meaning that was ethical and universal rather national and particular in content?
Response: I think that there were two issues in the early church both of them relate to one another. The first was the issue of letting the gentiles into the covenant community. The second was whether one was justified by actions, deeds, or works or by faith through grace. In Romans 9:32 Paul does not condemn what type of works the Jews were following but any action or work at all to receive justification. Given these considerations and the flow of the text in Romans 4 and 9 about works it seems that it is reasonable to believe that there was a dispute about whether one was justified by faith or deeds in the early church.
This illustrates why I said earlier that your interpretation goes too far. If Paul, as you say, wants the Church to follow the law, then why does the Church not practice ritual circumcision? Or follow the Jewish liturgical calendar?
Response: I think you missed my point here. I was saying that Paul wants us to follow the nomos referring to the standard laws he gives in the New Testament, but not as a rule of justification. If you view law and works of law as only referring to Jewish identity markers then my point was you end up making Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3.
However, your actual position requires that “works of law” in 3:20 and 3:28 and “principle of works” in 3:27 and “law” in 3:31 mean EXCLUSIVELY the ethical content of the law which Jews and Gentile have in common.
Response: Yes, you are right here. It does require me to say this works of law in these passages requires it to be that law that both Jew and Gentiles ought to follow as a rule of practice and not as a rule of justification and that would be namely the new covenant commandments given in the New Testament. But I am confused as to how this is a problem with my position.
God Bless,
NPT
NPT,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you take Reformed Theology for Biblical Theology. However, one of the chief features of contemporary theological scholarship and the impact had on it by historical consciousness is the realization of a great cultural/historical distance between the conceptuality of first century Palestinian Judaism and Early Modern Christian Europe. I don’t think that necessarily means rejecting our dogmatic traditions and convictions, but it does require honesty and objectivity when reading much later theology into the biblical texts.
___
You read Paul’s argument in Romans chapters two and three in too abstract and philosophical a way, as if it had essentially to do with the general human predicament under law (revealed and natural) before a holy god (i.e., Reformed Soteriology). However, the gentiles of chapter two (I submit) are not anonymous pagans living on the remotest parts of the planet with only the knowledge of God revealed in nature and conscience to guide them, but rather specifically the Gentile-Christians within the Roman congregation itself.
(The expression “who do by nature what the law requires” need not be understood to refer to natural law (although there is an element of the doctrine of conscience here). It could very plausibly and more contextually refer to the already established practice of non-Jewish law observance. In other words, from the perspective of first century Judaism the law was not an obligation imposed just upon a Jew. To be sure the law in its fullness was the national charter of Israel (cf. Gal 3:10), but there were parts of it, in limited ways, that could be imposed upon gentiles (cf. Acts 15). This may likely be the background to Paul’s claim that there are non-Jews who do “by nature” what the law requires of them. Thus 2:14 would not constitute a use of the expression “works of law” which abstracts the ethical content of the law and makes it the essential meaning – contrary to your interpretation.)
Paul points to the uprightness of the Roman gentile-believers to show the Jews-Christians that they cannot claim moral superiority over their believing non-Jewish counterparts simply because they keep – in addition to faith in Christ – the Law of Moses (he may also be hinting to the Gentile-Christians that they equally cannot claim a kind of reverse self-righteousness on the basis of their rejection of the old law [cf. Gal 5:6]). In other words, Paul’s discussion in chapters two and three is contextualized by the actual shape of the community receiving the letter.
The problem with your position is the extreme unlikelihood that Paul would (or even could) have used the word “law” or the expression “works of law” in a first century Jewish context (which the Romans epistle addresses) in a sense that excludes the peculiarly Mosaic ordinances. Paul’s primary aim in this epistle is to define the theological conditions of the Church community, made up as it is of Jews (law keeping) and gentiles (law free). Pointing out the universal condemnation of sin and universal human guilt is a part of this agenda since it places (contrary to Jewish conceit) everyone in the same ethical level. On the other side, justification by faith in Christ is a common feature of the community and thus Paul’s emphasis on that also fits within his desire to articulate his vision of the messianic community.
Thanks for the lively debate.
Last post.
Hello Again,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you take Reformed Theology for Biblical Theology. However, one of the chief features of contemporary theological scholarship and the impact had on it by historical consciousness is the realization of a great cultural/historical distance between the conceptuality of first century Palestinian Judaism and Early Modern Christian Europe. I don’t think that necessarily means rejecting our dogmatic traditions and convictions, but it does require honesty and objectivity when reading much later theology into the biblical texts.
Response: I have read works on the New Perspective (NT and Dunn) when I first became Christian and I accepted and I was always opened to it. My problem was when I took a class on Romans in my undergrad and read through Douglas Moo’s book on Romans and studied the text in the Greek, I found some textual problems with the NPP. I do not have a problem with contemporary scholarship in general, but I have a problem when contemporary scholarship that requires me to believe something that is not found in the biblical text itself. My dogmatic convictions are not important in this issue, only the text of scripture.
You read Paul’s argument in Romans chapters two and three in too abstract and philosophical a way, as if it had essentially to do with the general human predicament under law (revealed and natural) before a holy god (i.e., Reformed Soteriology). However, the gentiles of chapter two (I submit) are not anonymous pagans living on the remotest parts of the planet with only the knowledge of God revealed in nature and conscience to guide them, but rather specifically the Gentile-Christians within the Roman congregation itself.
Response: Again, your traditions and biases come into play here. If you have noticed this entire discussion I have given you arguments from the text and why I believe what I have believed. You respond to my arguments not by attacking them textually but by saying Paul could have never have written that just a priori because he could never think that abstractly and philosophically. It sounds like your understanding of the text is set dogmatically before you even look at what the text has to say itself and this is the reason why I dropped the NPP about four years ago. This movement has a lot of rhetoric but it does not make a lot of good textual arguments and ends up making Paul contradict himself and misunderstands the nature of even choosing how to understand individual Greek words.
(The expression “who do by nature what the law requires” need not be understood to refer to natural law (although there is an element of the doctrine of conscience here). It could very plausibly and more contextually refer to the already established practice of non-Jewish law observance. In other words, from the perspective of first century Judaism the law was not an obligation imposed just upon a Jew. To be sure the law in its fullness was the national charter of Israel (cf. Gal 3:10), but there were parts of it, in limited ways, that could be imposed upon gentiles (cf. Acts 15). This may likely be the background to Paul’s claim that there are non-Jews who do “by nature” what the law requires of them. Thus 2:14 would not constitute a use of the expression “works of law” which abstracts the ethical content of the law and makes it the essential meaning – contrary to your interpretation.)
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well I already responded to this and you never responded to my response. But here is my old response that you never responded to:
“The reason why I am forced to conclude that this refers to the inward written law on the heart of the gentiles is because of the failure of alternative interpretations which your hypothesis seems to be a fine example of. The Gentiles are, in this text, not "hearers of the law" but clearly the God fears were hearers of the law. So I do not think a God-fearer is much of a strong candidate for the Gentiles in this text. As any beginning Greek student knows if a word is unclear by lexical matters alone in a given text the context ought to determine the meaning of the word. Since the Gentiles Do not have the law and it is the law written on their heart and they are not hearers of the law (v. 13) then we should probably conclude that it is written on their nature or essence in some sense, which is one of the possible glosses for the Greek word phusis by the way. So for these reasons the text of the Bible forces us to interpret it in this way.”
Paul points to the uprightness of the Roman gentile-believers to show the Jews-Christians that they cannot claim moral superiority over their believing non-Jewish counterparts simply because they keep – in addition to faith in Christ – the Law of Moses (he may also be hinting to the Gentile-Christians that they equally cannot claim a kind of reverse self-righteousness on the basis of their rejection of the old law [cf. Gal 5:6]). In other words, Paul’s discussion in chapters two and three is contextualized by the actual shape of the community receiving the letter.
Response: I accept that chapters two and three are contextualized by the actual shape of the community receiving the letter, I never denied that. What I have denied is you’re a priori categories that you are imposing on the letter of things Paul can and cannot be writing, as if NPP proponents know Paul better than Paul himself. I think the function of 2 and 3 is jointly to show that Jews have no bragging rights before God because all are sinful and no one can work for their salvation, Jew and Gentile alike. So the only way in Paul’s argument for someone to be right before God is by Faith alone, both Jew and Gentile. You have given no arguments against Sola Fide and I have shown that a rejection of Sola Fide and an acceptance of the NPP ends up making Paul contradict himself.
The problem with your position is the extreme unlikelihood that Paul would (or even could) have used the word “law” or the expression “works of law” in a first century Jewish context (which the Romans epistle addresses) in a sense that excludes the peculiarly Mosaic ordinances. Paul’s primary aim in this epistle is to define the theological conditions of the Church community, made up as it is of Jews (law keeping) and gentiles (law free). Pointing out the universal condemnation of sin and universal human guilt is a part of this agenda since it places (contrary to Jewish conceit) everyone in the same ethical level. On the other side, justification by faith in Christ is a common feature of the community and thus Paul’s emphasis on that also fits within his desire to articulate his vision of the messianic community.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Saying so does not make it so. You have given two textual arguments for your position and I have defeated both of them, but you have yet to reply to my defeater. Instead you just make statements about your theological convictions without backing them up textually. Thus, my initial two arguments in my post are left untouched. If you read the text of Romans there is nothing unlikely with what I am saying, it only becomes unlikely when one has a priori categories that they impose on Paul ahead of time of what he can or cannot be writing. Jewish conceit is a part of the problem, because after all no one both Jews and Gentiles can be justified by doing things, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of justification by faith alone answers the Jewish conceit and since Paul holds to the Reformation doctrine of sola fide he is able to answer the Jewish conceit in the context of the problem at Rome.
Thank you for your time and the interesting discussion.
God Bless,
NPT