In 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah." To support this, he asks rhetorically, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (3:29). "Works of Torah" must therefore be something that are characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles. If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).1It is in chapter 4 that we have the first concrete example of what Paul means by "works of Torah," and the example confirms the thesis just advanced (that if Paul has anything in mind it is the ceremonial rather than the moral components of Torah). The example is circumcision (4:9-12). Paul emphasizes with great force the non-necessity of circumcision for justification. In fact, the whole purpose of his discussion of Abraham as the father of the faithful (chapter 4) is to show the non-necessity of circumcision.This indicates that circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind—something confirmed by the fact that Paul had earlier conducted an extended discussion of the irrelevance of circumcision to salvation (2:25-3:1) and by the fact that right after his affirmation in 3:27 that works of Torah are not necessary he drew the implication that God "will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (3:30).Our hypothesis that Paul has in mind primarily the ceremonial elements of Torah by "works of Torah" is thus confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Romans. It is further confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Galatians.But while circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind, there are other works, as indicated by the text of Galatians. When Paul reminds Peter in Galatians 2:16 that they both "know that a man is not justified by works of Torah," it is in a context where Peter and the other Jews had separated themselves from eating with the Gentiles of Antioch (Gal. 2:12-13). This was because Gentiles were unclean and because they ate unclean food (Acts 10:9-16 with 11:3-12). Eating with Gentiles thus indicated a breach of the separation between clean and unclean people (clearly stressed in the Torah) and a partaking of unclean food (also stressed in the Torah). Thus the laws of separation between clean and unclean are also in view when Paul discusses "works of Torah."Paul also laments that the Galatians "observe [Jewish] days, and months, and seasons, and years!" (Gal 4:10). This indicates that in addition to circumcision, separation laws, and food laws, Jewish festival laws are also subsumed under what Paul has in mind when he speaks of "works of Torah." In short, Paul has principally in mind the ceremonial works of Torah when he speaks of "works of Torah."2But a question arises concerning whether Paul has in mind only the ceremonial works of Torah when he uses the phrase. Does he also have in mind the moral work of Torah? Many contemporary Protestant preachers assume that he does, but this is a judgement that must be established by exegesis and evidence rather than by a simple assertion that it is so.3. Furthermore, Paul not only does not stress the non-necessity of love but that he lays a great deal of stress on the importance of love and obedience. For example, when Paul states that "we wait for the hope of [justification]" (Gal 5:5) he says that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail [toward that hope], but faith working through love" (or "faith made effective through love," RSV margin; Gal 5:6).4. Also, Paul indicates that eternal life is a reward for "perseverance in good work" (Rom 2:7) and that we "seek . . . immortality by perseverance in good work" (ibid.). He also states that "he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Gal 6:8) and sowing to the Spirit is defined in context as "sharing all good things with him who teaches" (Gal 6:6, see also 2 Cor 9:1-6), "doing the good" (Gal 6:9), and "doing good to all men" (Gal 6:10). These clearly indicate the necessity of doing good in order to receive the gift of eternal life on the last day....love is not necessary for initial justification, leaving intact the fact that they are necessary for the reward of eternal life on the last day (Rom 2:7, Gal 6:6-10) and final, eschatological justification (Gal 5:5-6).The thesis that love is not necessary for initial justification is something to which everyone in Christendom is agreed. The fact Protestants agree to it is so well-known it does not need documentation. But the agreement of Catholics to this thesis is so commonly denied (in Protestant preaching) that it does need documentation.A Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that "works of Torah" (including works of love) are not necessary to become justified because the Council of Trent, the official Catholic response to the Protestant Reformers, states, "[N]othing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works. Otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace."6 Trent thus teaches that nothing prior to justification, including works (of whatever kind) merits justification.
The analysis is flawed on several grounds:
i) The reason Paul stresses the "ceremonial Torah" is due to the nature of the opponent. The Judaizers regarded observance of the "ceremonial Torah" as necessary for salvation. Not just for Jews or Messianic Jews but Gentile Christians. To be a convert to Christianity, you had to be a convert to Judaism.
ii) Trent invents a dichotomy between initial justification, which isn't meritorious, and final justification, which is.
iii) Citing passages about the necessity of sanctification for salvation doesn't conflict with the opposing position since classic evangelical theology grants the necessity of sanctification for salvation. So that's not inconsistent with the opposing position. Moreover, it commits a category mistake by conflating justification with sanctification.
iv) We can grant the Catholic distinction for argument's sake. It backfires. They wish to restrict what Paul says to the "ceremonial Torah". But that's the part that Jews were able to keep. Although ritual purity was a cumbersome chore, that part of the law could be executed to perfection. It was quite possible to obey the ceremonial law. Inability to perform the ceremonial law wasn't the source of the problem. It was possible to fully comply with the purity codes and offerings. It's the moral rather than ritual demands that defeated Jews, however devout.
v) Finally, as one commentator notes:
"Works of the law" most naturally means deeds or actions which the law requires (Exod 18:20)…Paul uses "law" and "works of the law" synonymous (e.g. Gal 2:16; 3:10-11). Andrew Das, Galatians (Concordia 2014), 249.
Excellent response! I myself have a critique of this faulty Roman Catholic reasoning:
ReplyDeletehttps://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-refutation-of-new-perspective-on-paul.html
One of the points Paul makes, in Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25, is that there isn't any system of works whereby we can be justified, so he doesn't just have one system in mind. Furthermore, his concern for the exclusion of works goes beyond initial justification, as Galatians 3:3 illustrates. Moreover, Paul was capable of describing good works that were independent of the Jewish law and distinguishing those works from faith. He does so many times. So, when he refers to being justified by faith, without mentioning those non-Jewish-law works, the most natural way to interpret what he's saying is that he only has faith in mind (sola fide). To read non-Jewish-law works into passages that only mention faith is dubious. And it's not as though justification is free of works in its initial phase in Roman Catholicism. Rather, the work of baptism is considered a normative means of attaining initial justification. Not only does that contradict the exclusion of works and the freeness of eternal life scripture refers to, but it also contradicts many Biblical passages that describe various individuals and groups being justified prior to baptism. The passages in the gospels, Acts, and the epistles that refer to justification prior to baptism include ones that can't be dismissed as some sort of exception to a rule. Given that there isn't a single individual in scripture who believes, but has to wait until his baptism to be justified, it's perverse to dismiss the many passages describing prebaptismal justification as exceptions to the rule. From a philosophical perspective, it makes more sense for all of justification to be free of works if it's free of works at its initial stage. What sense would there be in justifying people freely at first, only to add a lifetime of works the moment after that initial justification takes effect? It's like offering somebody a supposedly free car under the reasoning that they don't have to start paying for it until after they drive it off the lot. That's not a free car. And it makes more philosophical sense for justification to be entirely free of works if we're justified in Christ, with his righteousness being of a substitutionary nature, as scripture tells us is the case. More could be said, but these are several reasons, among many, why the kind of Catholic argumentation under consideration here doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteJason, I understand how Paul saying in Romans 3 that boasting needs to be excluded eliminates any system of works. I'm trying to understand how the section in Galatians 3 gives you that. I understand that if righteousness could come through the law, then righteousness could be through the law. I'm trying to think how a Catholic who would want to claim it starts with grace but you have to add works. Kind of smooshing law and gospel, which later in Galatians would explain you would lose grace.
DeleteThanks.
Geoff,
DeleteI wasn't citing the exclusion of boasting in Romans 3. I was citing the exclusion of any law of works. If Paul had some other system of works in mind, such as Roman Catholicism's, he should have appealed to that. He didn't. Instead of replacing a Jewish system of works with a Roman Catholic system, he rejects every law of works in favor of a law of faith. Similarly, Galatians 3:21-22 makes faith the alternative to every system of works rather than making a combination of faith and Roman Catholic works the alternative to one other system of works, a Jewish one. By asking "what kind of law" in Romans 3:27 and putting one law against another (a law of works, a law of faith), it's evident that he's not just addressing one law, such as the ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law or the Jewish law as a whole. Similarly, in Galatians 3 he puts matters in terms of "if a law had been given" and refers to "a tutor". He isn't just concerned with excluding one system of works. And since he applies the law terminology to faith as well in Romans 3, not just works, it can't be a matter of all laws being inherently bad, insufficient, or irrelevant. The Roman Catholic system can't be made acceptable by calling it something other than a law. Besides, Catholicism refers to its works as a law.
"The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1:17). If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, 'The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;' 'Being justified freely by his grace;' 'Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?' (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28). Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? 'The man that does them shall live in them,' (Gal. 3:12). 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them,' (Gal. 3:10). Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. 'By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin,' (Rom. 3:20). 'The law worketh wrath,' (Rom. 4:15), and therefore not righteousness. 'The law cannot pacify the conscience,' and therefore cannot confer righteousness. 'Faith is imputed for righteousness,' and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because 'we are justified by faith,' boasting is excluded. 'Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe,' (Gal. 3:21, 22). Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it." (John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, 3:11:19)
ReplyDeleteThis is how David King explained it over a decade ago:
ReplyDeleteAll of Paul's argument from Romans 1:18 through 3:20 sets the stage for What Paul goes on to say in Romans 4. It is very clear that Paul is addressing Jews, in particular (if not before), from Romans 2:17-3:8. Paul addresses both ceremonial and moral aspects of the law, such as ethical commandments and moral aspects. If Paul does not include the moral aspect of the law, then your opponent is going to have to do some theological gymnastics to get around...
Quote:
Romans 2:21-23
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
Paul's whole argument from 1:18 through 3:20 is to demonstrate that Gentile and Jew alike are morally bankrupt before God. In Romans 2:17-3:8, Paul demonstrates that all the special privileges (indeed God-given privileges) in which the Jews gloried would not save them or provide a righteousness for them before God. Paul exposes their hypocrisy because the Jews thought that, with all their privileges, advantages, blessings, God would never judge them. But Paul pursues the Jews into every corner of their retreat, from their boasting of the law without obeying it to their pride in circumcision, and concludes all under sin.
In fact, Romans 1:18 through 3:20 is, as it were, one extended courtroom scene where humanity (Gentile and Jew alike) is in the dock, and Paul is acting as God's counsel for the prosecution. To miss this reality is to demonstrate one's utter inability to read Romans 1:18-3:20 intelligibly.
That's why when Paul comes to Romans 4, and declares that a man is justified apart from the works of the law, it will not do simply to beg the whole question of what Paul has labored to set forth for 2 1/2 chapters prior to his teaching in Romans 4. To then say, "Well, Paul was only talking about the ceremonial law" is (I hate to say it) simply the epitome of stupidity, at which point you need to tell your opponent he needs to look elsewhere to sell that "bag of trinkets."
Others have made good points here, but I want to address what the Catholic says about Romans 2:14-15
ReplyDeleteIt would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).
Among protestants there is debate about whether Romans 2:6, Romans 2:14-15 and Romans 2:26-29 has in mind gentile Christians (Schreiner, BECNT 2nd ed) or whether it is speaking hypothetically (Moo, NICNT 2nd ed--he takes v. 29 to be speaking of gentile Christians).
If gentile Christians are in view, then this undercuts the sentence I quoted from the Roman Catholic.
If gentile non-Christians are in view, then this would seem to conflict with other things the Roman Catholic says. For if gentile non-Christians are actually doers of the moral law (vs. 13) then it seems his uncircumcised (in the flesh) moral law-keeping will be counted as (λογίζομαι - credited as - Romans 4:3) circumcision (of the heart; vs. 26-29).
In other words, it's hard to see how one can read 2:14-15 as the Roman Catholic does and consistently maintain that initial justification is apart from works. By that reading, it would seem that a lot of non-Christian gentiles are capable of law-keeping that is credited as spiritual circumcision and repayment of eternal life (Romans 2:6).
If one tries to get around this by taking "by the Spirit" in vs. 29 to mean that the law-keeping of the uncircumcised man in vs. 26 is a product of the Spirit's circumcision, then this undercuts the non-Christian gentile reading in in vs. 14 as well.
Personally, I prefer Moo's reading over Schreiner's. Schreiner's reading has some problems, to my mind, and Moo's fits better with the over all argument concluding in ch. 3
Hey Jonathan, I have Schreiner 2nd Ed and have read through that section I'd like Moo but finances won't allow atm. Could you perchance give a snapshot of why you prefer Moo's reading? Thanks!
DeleteGetting into some of the details would require an essay. I'll try to keep this short.
DeleteRegarding Romans 2:6-7, Schreiner's says the hypothetical reading is "very strong" and that "it is impossible to argue conclusively against the hypothetical interpretation" just from these verse and the flow of the argument thus far. So, really, Schreiner thinks tipping the scales for a gentile Christian reading of these verses depends upon if Romans 2:14-15 and 2:25-29 can be read as gentile Christians. So we have to turn to those verses.
Regarding Romans 2:14-15, Schreiner mentions again that the evidence is finely balanced but he mentions one argument (in passing) that is circular (it fits with a gentile Christian reading of 2:6-7), then he mentions two independent arguments (the first I don't find very persuasive), a third argument which is really just strengthening a premise in his second argument, and the fourth and fifth arguments are really just attempts to undercut two objections to the idea that gentile Christians are in view.
Regarding 2:25-29, I will simply copy and paste some of the notes I took while I was reading this section (particularly the section "Does Paul Contradict Himself?" on page 153 (sometimes I have in mind what is also said in the footnotes, so consult Schreiner's footnotes too for comparison).
These are rough draft notes I took while reading that I would probably want to re-read and rethink them before committing myself to exactly what I've written below:
------------------------
There are two problems here. The first is that Wright seems to be correct that no one would have thought entrance into the covenant was by works. And this is implicit in the text: ‘the uncircumcised person by nature’--Moo comments on this phrase that “This qualification implies a contrast between what a person is by birth, by “natural” origin, and what the Jew is by birth (for a similar use of φύσις, see Gal. 2:15).” (p. 181 fn. 433 NICNT 2nd ed). The second is that Schreiner has earlier said, that perfect obedience is in view in this pericope (cf. p. 147 or at least in vs 25). Related to this second problem is how that argument (not perfect obedience) is supposed to be convincing in light of Paul’s over-all argument, which Schreiner agrees with (“the main function of this section, which is to convict the Jews of their sin” p. 154), that everyone is in need of Jesus’ righteousness. This would be slightly more convincing if there were a clearer emphasis on Spirit wrought obedience, but that idea seems too underdeveloped to get the point across.
Here is why Moo rejects the gentile Christians view:
"Finally, the context suggests that as transgression of the law disbars the Jew from salvation (v. 25), so obedience to the law grants the Gentile membership among the saved. But Paul would not describe a Christian as having been granted this status as a result of obeying the law.
Paul is again vividly illustrating his point about God’s impartiality in judging Jew and Gentile alike on the basis of works by setting before us the contrasting pictures of a law-obedient Gentile and a disobedient Jew. His larger argument reveals that no such law-obedient Gentile actually exists."
(Moo, NICNT, 2nd ed, pp. 180–181)
This is similar to what I said about v. 26 above (keeping the law is what counts for circumcision). Moo has in mind v. 27.
Furthermore, I wonder if 3:1-2 doesn’t conflict more with Schreiner’s reading. That is, the objection “then what advantage has the Jew?” makes less sense if Paul has simply said that gentile Christians, who have the law written on the heart, are saved by doing the law. Why would any Jew think that they should have an advantage over that sort of law-keeping? The objection “then what advantage?” makes more sense if Paul is speaking hypothetically of gentiles in general.
--------------------------
//It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).//
DeleteWhat Akins is trying to argue is that Romans 3:20 is the first use of "works of the law" having to do with just the ceremonial law because otherwise Romans 2 wouldn't make sense. But that seems, to me at least, him realizing that Romans 2 undercuts his argument about "works of the law" so he's just arbitrarily ruling out Romans 2 as not pertinent to his argument. At least that's how I'm viewing it.
At the same time, Romans 3:20 is about the law showing us we are sinners. How does the ceremonial law give us knowledge of sin? I don't know. It's less than convincing.
Thanks Jonathan!
Delete