Where’s the Legalism? A Re-Examination of the Evidence in Romans 3 & 4 by Todd A. Engstrom Burlington, Iowa A PAPER PRESENTED At the Sixty-Third Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Region of the Evangelical Theological Society on the theme “The Future Direction of Evangelical Theology” Grace Bible College Wyoming, Michigan March 23-24, 2018 Introduction The debate of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” is about whether the Jews obey the law as a form of legalism. The Reformation defined “works” as good deeds to earn acceptance with God. The “New Perspective” disagrees with the Reformation’s characterization of Judaism as a cold system of works-righteousness. “The problem focuses on the character of Judaism as a religion of salvation. For rabbinic specialists the emphasis in rabbinic Judaism on God’s goodness and generosity, his encouragement of repentance and offer of forgiveness is plain. Whereas Paul seems to depict Judaism as coldly and calculatingly legalistic, a system of ‘works’ righteousness, where salvation is earned by the merit of good works. Looked at from another angle, the problem is the way in which Paul has been understood as the great exponent of the central Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. As Krister Stendahl warned twenty years ago, it is deceptively easy to read Paul in light of Luther’s agonized search for relief from a troubled conscious. Since Paul’s teaching on justification faith seems to speak so directly to Luther’s subjective wrestlings, it was a natural corollary to see Paul’s opponents in terms of the unreformed Catholicism which opposed Luther, with first-century Judaism read through the ‘grid’ of the early sixteenth-century Catholic system of merit. To a remarkable and indeed alarming degree, throughout this century the standard depiction of the Judaism which Paul rejected as been the reflex of Lutheran hermeneutic. How serious this is for New Testament scholarship may be seen when we recall that the two most influential New Testament scholars of the past two generations, Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann, both read Paul through Lutheran spectacles and both made this understanding of justification by faith their central theological principle. And the most recent full-scale treatment of this area of Pauline theology, on Paul and the law, still continues to work with the picture of Paul as one who rejected the perverted attempt to use the law as a means of earning righteousness by good works.” James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul” in Jesus, Paul and the Law (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), p. 185, Emphasis original. In his recent commentary on Romans, Longenecker interacts with the “New Perspective” and argues for “legalism,” saying: Rather, we argue, in agreement with the great majority of Christian commentators of the past, that here in 3:20 – as well as in the phrase’s other appearances in Galatians and Romans (see above) – Paul was using ‘works of the law’ pejoratively in an effort to deny the legalism that the phrase connoted in certain Jewish and/or Jewish Christian circles. Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), p. 369. The purpose of this paper is to determine if the Jews obey the law as a form of legalism. First, we will provide a definition of “legalism” and examine four pieces of evidence that scholars present to support legalism. The four pieces of evidence examined are: 1) Boasting, 2) “through the law of faith,” 3) Contrast between “faith” and “works of law,” and 4) Abraham is justified by faith not by works. After each piece of evidence is presented, we will re-examine the evidence to determine if it supports legalism. Definition of “Legalism” We begin by defining the term “legalism.” Gathercole identifies a problem with the term “legalism” by its indiscriminate use. Scholars use the word “Legalism” as an umbrella term so that everything bad can be absorbed by it. His solution is to develop a vocabulary that can advance the discussion. He does this by pointing out five different features that have adhered to the term “legalism”; which are not of the same kind, nor are they mutually dependent. His fifth feature is the issue of the relation of works and salvation. His interaction with the so-called “New Perspective” has revealed there is not enough of a distinction between salvation as getting in and final vindication at the last judgment. His concern is to reopen the question of whether a view of final salvation on the basis of works was current in the Second Temple period. Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) Kindle Ed. Location 406-448, Emphasis original. Martin Luther comments on the phrase “deeds of the law” ἔργων νόμου saying: What the Apostle means by ‘deeds of the law’ are works in which the self-righteous trust as if, by doing them, they were justified and so were righteous on account of their works. In other words, while doing good, they do not seek after righteousness, but they merely wish to boast that they have already obtained righteousness through their works. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), p. 64. Following Luther’s lead, many scholars see Paul using νόμος “law” to designate the law as misunderstood and perverted by his Judaistic opponents – in a word, legalism. Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul” WTJ 45 (1983), p. 85. Even though the Greek language has no word for “legalism,” C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law” SJT 17 (1964), p. 55. it does provide sufficient resources for the expression of the concept. Moo makes the following observation, “Quite apart from the eight occurrences of the phrase εκ (or chōris) tōn ergon tou nomou , . . . one finds the denial that justification can be attained en tō nomō (“in the law” – Gal. 3:11); that life or the inheritance can be secured ek tou nomou (“on the basis of the law” – Gal. 3:21, and Gal. 3:18 and Rom. 4:14, respectively); and that the promise can be inherited dia tou nomou (“through the law” – Rom. 4:13). Similarly, Paul speaks derogatorily of “righteousness based on the law” (Phil. 3:9), and “seeking one’s own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3).” Ibid., p. 86. These expressions refer to the error of attempting to secure a right standing before God on the basis of obeying the law, so the concept of “legalism” is found in the phrase, not in the individual word. In other words, Paul’s criticism is not with the law itself, but with the false use of the law. Ibid. What is the false use of the law? With the phrase “works of the law,” ἔργων νόμου Paul is censoring the legalistic law-observance of the Jew. The Jew is trying to use his obedience to the law as a means to earn merit or gain favor before God. The works are performed as a bribe so God is obligated to bestow his blessing by the way the Jew expresses himself. The “works of the law” ἔργων νόμου are performed as a means of self-righteousness for the Jew. In his striving for self-righteousness, the Jew becomes arrogant and prideful in his accomplishments. Daniel P. Fuller, “Paul and the ‘Works of the Law’” WTJ 38 (1975), p. 37. The Jew should know better because it is impossible to keep the law perfectly. Thus, “legalism” is defined as a person’s works being the ground of a right relation with God, so that he can boast in his accomplishments. Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), p. 530. Cf. Bird’s definition, “The pejorative term ‘legalism’ usually connotes something like a self-conscious striving for the accumulation of merit independent of divine assistance in order to make a claim before God for vindication based upon an inherent righteousness.” Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2007), p. 90. The four pieces of evidence that scholars present to support the legalism of the Jews will now be examined and re-examined. First Piece of Evidence – Boasting In Romans 3:27 Paul is in the middle of his conversation with an imaginary Jewish The reference to “Jews,” “Jew,” “Jewish,” is a general use of the term referring specifically to the imaginary Jewish interlocutor and the Judaism he represents that Paul is using as his foil. A specific Jewish sect is not in view. interlocutor who asks Paul, “Where, then, is boasting?” Ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; Paul’s answer, “It is excluded.” ἐξεκλείσθη. Many scholars point to the Jew’s boasting in the “works of the law” ἔργων νόμου as evidence for legalism. By his obedience to the “works of the law,” this constitutes some kind of claim on God. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 165. The problem is the Jew does the law which allows the Jew to boast that his own works have established his relationship with God. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 246-247. This naturally leads to the self-aggrandizement of the person who does the “works of the law.” John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans NICNT 1 volume edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 122. Paul naturally excludes this kind of boasting because he contrasts faith and works – which are two kinds of human responses to God. Moo, Romans, p. 247. Boasting and faith are mutually exclusive. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Rev. ed., Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 78–79 It is our faith, “apart from works of the law” χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (v. 28), that rules out any possibility of boasting. Moo, Romans, p. 249. Paul reminds his readers that pride and boasting are unwarranted because all people are sinners. Romans 3:23 Since righteousness is obtained by believing rather than doing, it demonstrates that it is a gift given to the ungodly. Romans 4:5 Since it is a gift, it is undeserved, and the proper response is gratitude with a thankful heart instead of arrogance. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), pp. 120-121. A Re-Examination of the Evidence of Boasting Paul’s use of “boasting” καύχησις is a conclusion drawn from his preceding argument. Whether his conclusion is from 3:21-26 or the whole of 1:18-3:26, C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), p. 218. the allusion to 2:17, 23 is indisputable. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 WBC; vol. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 185. Therefore, the kind of boasting that Paul excludes in 3:27 is described in 2:17, 23. What is the Jew’s boast? A clue to identifying the Jew’s boast is stated in 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be declared righteous.” All translations of Romans are mine, unless noted otherwise. Who are the “hearers of the Law”? Paul identifies the “hearers of the Law” in Romans 2:14-17, For when the Gentiles who by nature do not have the Law do the things required by the Law, these who do not have the Law are a Law to themselves, in that they show the work required by the Law written in their hearts, with their conscience testifying, and their thoughts now accusing and now defending them, in the day when God will judge the secrets of humans according to my gospel, through Messiah Jesus. The Jew, who has the law by nature, is the hearer of the Law. The Jew possesses the law and hears the law, but does not do the law. In Romans 2:17-23, Paul identifies the Jew’s boast. In verses 21-22, Paul acts like a prosecuting attorney by asking four questions: “. . . you, therefore, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal? You who speak against adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, but do you rob the temples of idols?” With the Jew forced to admit guilt with each question, Paul pronounces his judgement: “You who boast in the law, through your transgression of the law, you dishonor God.” He, then, cites Isaiah 52:5 to prove that his judgment is true. The Jew’s boast is possessing the law. Paul, however, insists that boasting in possessing the law is misplaced because he indicts the Jew for failing to do the law. Moo, Schreiner, Bird, and Longenecker make the same observation: “As vv. 12-24 have shown that the Jews’ possession of the law will not shield them from judgment because it is the doing of the law, not simply the possession of the law, that matters, so vv. 25-29 argue that circumcision also is of no benefit unless the law is obeyed.” Moo, Romans, p. 166. “In this context boasting is not censured; the Jews are criticized for failing to observe the law, and thus for bringing dishonor (v. 24) upon the God in whom they boast.” T. R. Schreiner, Romans vol. 6, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 130. “He [the imaginary adversary] cannot boast in his mere possession of the law if it has not been put into practice. He cannot boast in his practice of the law if he has transgressed it.” M. F. Bird, Romans, The Story of God Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), p. 81. “Rather, in 2:17-29 Paul simply denounces the Jews in their failures to ‘obey,’ ‘keep,’ or ‘do’ the Mosaic law, which they ‘possess,’ ‘affirm,’ and ‘claim’ to rely on. And most of what is said in these denunciations consists simply of explications of what was already said and quoted earlier in 2:1-16 – that is, explications about passing judgment on others but doing the same things oneself (as in vv. 1-5), about knowing the law but not doing or keeping the law (as in vv. 12-13), and about Gentiles ‘doing by nature the things of the law’ and so being ‘a law for themselves’ (as in vv. 14-15).” R. N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), p. 292. Paul is warning his fellow Jew that boasting in possessing the law does not protect him from God’s judgment. Since Paul is indicting the Jew for boasting in possessing the law, which is not the same as doing the law, then how can the Jew be guilty of legalism? As stated above, we defined “legalism” as a person’s works being the ground of a right relation with God, so that he can boast in his accomplishments. Paul, however, indicts the Jew for failing to do the law. By failing to do the law, the Jew is not boasting in his accomplishments of obeying the law as the ground of his right relationship with God. Contra Morris, “For the Jew it was a matter of pride that he had received the law (2:23; cf. 2:17), a pride that he could not but regard as legitimate because no other people had received this great gift. From this it was an easy step, and a very natural one, to pride in the extent to which one kept the law.” The problem with his commentary is Paul is indicting the Jew for not keeping the law. The Jew boasts in possessing the law which is not equivalent to doing the law. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 185. Paul’s use of “boasting” in Romans 2:17-23 and 3:27 cannot be used as evidence to support the accusation of “legalism.” Second Piece of Evidence - διὰ νόμου πίστεως (“through the law of faith”) The diatribe continues with the Jew needing to know why boasting in possessing the law is excluded. An overview of the conversation in 3:27 will be helpful: Jew: Where, then, is boasting? Paul: It is excluded. Jew: By what sort of law? Of works? Paul: No, but by a law of faith. Why does Paul forbid “boasting”? It is excluded “by a law of faith.” διὰ νόμου πίστεως The diatribe reveals a contrast between “law of works” and “law of faith,” so the debate focuses on Paul’s meaning of “law.” νόμος There are two main options: Paul uses “law” νόμος metaphorically as a play on words so that it means “principle,” “order,” “rule,” “religious system,” or “norm.” Schreiner, Romans, p. 201. The play on “law” is on the lexical breadth of “law” as legal code (i.e., Mosaic law) or a general rule of prescriptive force (i.e., principle). This view sees the principle of faith as the antithesis of the principle of law. Boasting is excluded because of the principle that God has provided, i.e., salvation by faith. In verse 28 Paul reiterates the same contrast: salvation is by faith and not by works of the law. Additionally, many commentators stress that Paul is not talking about the law in a positive relation to faith because law and faith are at odds when it comes to the ground on which God justifies individuals. When Paul contrasts “law” and “faith,” he assumes some discontinuity between the Mosaic law and faith in Romans 3:21-22. Thus, the “law of faith” is the principle that demands justification is by faith and not by observing the law, so that boasting is logically excluded. Bird, Romans, p. 122. Paul uses “law” to refer to the Mosaic law. This view sees the Mosaic law as supporting and establishing faith as the means by which God justifies individuals. Paul understands it is possible to look at the Mosaic law in two different ways: a correct view and an incorrect view. It is incorrect to look at the Mosaic law in term of “works” because it leads to boasting in one’s achievements, i.e., legalism. It is correct to look at the Mosaic law in relation to “faith,” which eliminates boasting in one’s achievements. In Romans 3:21 Paul sets up a twofold perspective on the law. God’s righteousness is apart from the law, but at the same time it is witnessed to by “the law and the prophets.” Schreiner, Romans, p. 201. Paul says that the Law and Prophets testify to justification by faith. In 3:31, Paul concludes that faith does not abolish the law; rather, faith upholds the law. Thus, Paul wants his readers to understand the law in light of faith, which will exclude any attempt to boast in one’s achievements of observing the law, because the law supports faith in the prophetic and christological senses. Bird, Romans, p. 123. Regardless of which view is adopted, both views see the contrast between “law of works” and “law of faith” as two kinds of human responses to God. Moo, Romans, pp. 246-247. In other words, both views follow the Reformation in seeing an argument against “works-righteousness” or “legalism” in the contrast between “works” and “faith.” The “for” γὰρ in verse 28 grounds all of verse 27, confirming that the reason for boasting to be excluded is due to the fact that righteousness is by faith and “apart from works of the law.” χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου In both verses 27 and 28, there is a clear contrast between “faith” πίστις and “works of law.” ἔργων νόμου If righteousness were based on human works, then boasting would naturally follow. But if righteousness cannot be obtained through a person’s works, then boasting is obviously ruled out. Righteousness with God depends on faith alone and is received as a gift, not achieved as a work. Schreiner, Romans, pp. 202-203. A Re-Examination of the Evidence - διὰ νόμου πίστεως (“through the law of faith”) The short section of Romans 3:27-31 contributes to the clarification of the phrases “from faith to faith” ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν and “by faith” ἐκ πίστεως from 1:17. Cranfield, Romans, p. 218. Since Romans 1:16-17 is considered the “thesis” or “proposition” of the whole letter, the interpretation of this statement will govern the exegesis of the entire letter. Thus, if “faith” refers to the instrument of the believer, then the context of the two phrases includes the individual believer in some way. This phrase is difficult to translate, but the majority of commentators see the context being the individual believer: Tertullian – “He [God] removes people from faith in the law to faith in the gospel – that is to say, His own law and His own gospel.” Origen – “The first people were in the faith because they believed God and Moses his servant, from which faith they have now gone over to the faith of the gospel.” Ambrosiaster – “What does this mean, except that ‘the faith of God’ is in him because he promises, and ‘the faith of man’ is in him because he believes the one who promises.” Augustine – “From the faith of those who preach the gospel to the faith of those who obey it.” Aquinas – He mentions two different interpretations: 1) “from present faith to future faith” 2) “from faith in the unseen to faith in realities actually possessed.” Luther – “The words ‘from faith to faith’ therefore signify that the believer grows in faith more and more, so that he who is justified becomes more and more righteous.” Calvin – It should be translated “by faith unto faith” and that the phrase “marks the daily progress of every believer.” C. K. Barrett – “faith from start to finish” J. Murray – ‘From faith’ points to the truth that only ‘by faith’ are we the beneficiaries of this righteousness. L. Morris – “faith through and through” D. Moo – “from nothing but faith.” T. R. Schreiner – “by faith from first to last.” R. H. Mounce – “by faith alone and leads on to greater faith.” J. D. G. Dunn – “from God’s faithfulness to the faith of human beings.” C. E. B. Cranfield – “The sense of the whole sentence may then be set out as follows: For in it (i.e. in the gospel as it is being preached) a righteous status which is God’s gift is being revealed (and so offered to men)—a righteous status which is altogether by faith. However, if this is a statement about God, then the progression would reflect something about God with “faith” πίστις referring to a characteristic of God. How does God’s characteristic of “faith” πίστις progress in Scripture? Given the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s eschatology, the starting point would be God’s faithfulness revealed in the Old Testament. God is faithful in keeping his covenant with Israel by fulfilling his promises to the patriarchs. If this is correct, then “from faith” ἐκ πίστεως would refer to God’s faithfulness of old. If God’s faithfulness of old is the starting point, then what is the ending point? The ending point would be God’s faithfulness in the last days. If this is what Paul is referring to, then the instrument of the believer’s faith is not what Paul has in mind. If “from faith to faith” ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν is correctly interpreted as a progression “from God’s faithfulness of old to God’s faithfulness in these last days,” then the reference is to God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant with Israel. The context would be redemptive-historical with a focus on the covenant. N. T. Wright is instructive by pointing out that the themes of creation and covenant, which are rooted in the Old Testament, remained basic within the very Jewish thought of Paul. “[H]e believes that Israel’s God, the creator, has acted decisively to fulfil the covenant promise and so to renew both covenant and creation. Paul thereby understands himself to be living at a different moment in the story, though there are partial parallels within the inaugurated eschatology we find at Qumran. The new age has already begun, though the old age continues alongside it. That in turn generates both Paul’s vision of the church and the problems he addresses within it, but of that we must speak elsewhere.” N.T Wright, Paul In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 34. Thus, Paul’s contrast between “law of works” and “law of faith” does not refer to two kinds of human responses to God, i.e, “human achievement” and “human faith.” The “law of works” cannot be “legalism” because the Jew boasts in possessing the law and Paul indicts him for not doing the works the law requires. The “law of faith” is an attribute of God, i.e., God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant with Israel. Third Piece of Evidence – Contrast Between “faith” and “works of law” in v. 28 Let’s continue to chart the course of Paul’s diatribe: Jew: Where, then, is boasting? Paul: It is excluded. Jew: By what sort of law? Of works? Paul: No, but by a law of faithfulness. λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. Verse 28 explains the “law of faith.” According to Moo, the “law of faith” is a “rule” or “principle,” so he argues for the first main option stated above. Moo, Romans, p. 250. What the two main options stated above have in common is the contrast of “human works” vs. “human faith.” Paul wants to exclude any attempt to boast in one’s achievements of observing the law because “a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (v. 28). Paul uses the first person plural “we consider” λογιζόμεθα γὰρ to indicate that this is a shared point of view with his readers. With the prepositional phrase “apart from works of the law,” χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου Paul is addressing the Jewish problem of “legalism.” As in 3:20, what is meant by “works of the law” is anything a person does in obedience to the law. Moo, Romans, p. 250. Paul’s polemic is against “legalism” because righteousness is obtained by faith in Christ, not by keeping the law, e.g. Abraham in Romans 4. If righteousness is by faith instead of works, then the boasting Paul excludes is in works accomplished. Paul detects in the gospel rejecting Jews a confidence in their own ability to obey the law for salvation rather than in Christ. The heart attitude of the Jew was to promote self rather than God, which is not limited to Jews for it is a natural response of sinful human beings, who are inherently inclined to pride. The Jews’ pride is evident in thinking they were morally superior to Gentiles. Schreiner, Romans, pp. 204-205. Therefore, if we soften this antithesis of “works” and “faith,” it would erode the full significance of Paul’s gospel. It must be emphasized that no works, no matter their nature or motivation, can play any part in making a sinner right with God. Moo, Romans, p. 251. Dunn also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the works/faith antithesis: “‘The law of faith’ then must mean the law understood in terms of faith (not ‘of God’s faithfulness’ [Gaston, Paul, 172], which destroys the ‘works’/’faith’ antithesis).” Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 186. A Re-Examination of the Evidence - Contrast Between “faith” and “works of law” in v. 28 The Greek text of Romans 3:28 is: λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. The ESV’s translation is: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” When read this way, it clearly supports the antithesis of “human works” and “human faith.” But, has the ESV correctly translated Romans 3:28? Why do we not translate the verse this way: “For we consider that a man apart from works of the law is declared righteous by faithfulness.”? The “man apart from works of the law” is a Gentile. The law by its very nature separated Jews and Gentiles. Moo agrees saying, “Finally, it is clear that Paul views the law as a barrier separating Jew and Gentile, an exclusive privilege of Israel which must (in some sense) be removed if unity is to be attained in the church (Eph 2:15; cf. the argument in Rom 3:28-30 and 10:4-10.” “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul”, p. 81. A Jew would be a man from works of the law When reading Galatians 2:16, Seifrid comments, “In Gal. 2:16 ex ergon nomou most likely should be read with anthrōpos (not with the verb). Paul speaks of ‘a person of the works of the law’ (cf. Gal. 3:5, 10, hōsoi ex ergon nomou) in analogy to ‘a man in Christ’ (2 Cor. 12:2), and the various references to ‘those of the circumcision’, and ‘those of the law’ (e.g. Rom. 4:16). Despite the contrary insistence from a number of interpreters, a scan of usage of ean mē (and ei mē) shows that these particles here introduce an exceptive clause. This resolution of the difficulty is more straightforward than the supposition of the ellipsis (Walker 1997).” Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness NSBT (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), p. 106 n. 42. and a Gentile would be a man apart from works of the law. What Paul means by “works of the law” is “works required by the law.” Schreiner agrees saying, “works of law should be defined as the deeds or actions demanded by the law, whereas the term works refers to all deeds or actions that are done (including deeds and actions not mentioned in the law). Thus, the terms works of law and works are not absolutely equivalent. The two terms overlap in that both refer to actions or deeds performed by human beings.” Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, p. 112. Moo argues for the same definition: “actions performed in obedience to the law, works which are commanded by the law.” “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul”, p. 92. A problem for Schreiner is clearly stated by Harink, “Schreiner himself makes an argument for a traditional understanding: ‘When Paul used the phrase ‘works of Law’ he referred to doing what the Law commanded. Paul maintained that no one can be justified . . . before God by doing what that Law commands, for no one can do everything which the Law demands and, should they experience some measure of success, they would sin in their pride of achievement” (975). The strangeness of this argument is palpable: the Jews, by virtue of being given the law and being called to obey it, were made to sin; indeed, to sin not only in their disobedience, but also and precisely in their obedience! This is a rather vicious ‘Lutheranism,’ in which God, by giving Torah, was intent only on setting a massive trap of condemnation for the Jews.” Douglas K. Harink, Paul among the Postliberals (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2003), p. 39 n. 29. God gave the law to Israel expecting it to be obeyed. Thus, Paul chastises the Jew for not obeying the law. What good is possessing the law if it is not obeyed? With the prepositional phrase “apart from works of the law” modifying the noun “man,” the evidence does not support “legalism.” Paul’s antithesis of “works” and “faith” is not anthropological, i.e. “human achievement” vs. “human believing.” Fourth Piece of Evidence – Abraham is justified by faith not by works The theme that binds together 3:27–31 and chapter 4 is that all peoples are justified by faith. Schreiner, Romans, p. 209. Moo agrees, “. . . we may characterize 4:1-8 as a kind of ‘commentary’ on 3:27-28.” Romans, p. 259. The one who does the finding in 4:1 is Abraham, so the context of the paragraph answers the question as to whether righteousness is by works. The question in verse 1 looks to Abraham as evidence to support the assertion in 3:27-28 that righteousness is by faith and not by works. Moo agrees saying, “In this verse, Paul explains why he has asked about Abraham’s experience in v. 1. The flow of thought may be paraphrased: “What shall we say about Abraham? For if we say he was justified by works, he has reason to boast, and my claim in 3:27-28 that all boasting is excluded is called into question.” Romans, p. 260. What Paul argues in 4:1-8 is that people do not become children of Abraham by works. Schreiner, Romans, p. 213. Moo agrees saying, “In this chapter, Paul appeals to Abraham to support his insistence that righteousness can be attained only through faith. But, as in 3:27-31, Paul’s purpose is not only to establish the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but also, indeed especially, to draw out the implications of this sola fide. . . . In vv. 3-8, Paul shows that the ‘reckoning’ of Abraham’s faith for righteousness is an entirely gracious act that by its nature excludes any appeal to works.” Moo, Romans, p. 255 Paul appeals to Abraham to explore how he pertains to righteousness. In verse 2 Abraham has a reason for boasting if his righteousness before God is based on works. If Abraham did the requisite works, then his boasting would be appropriate. Abraham’s offense was that he failed to keep the law sufficiently. Verse 2 is about works in relationship to justification. Therefore Paul’s point is that Abraham did not perform the works necessary to boast before God. Ibid., p. 214. Abraham’s relationship with God is stated in Genesis 15:6. Abraham’s belief in God was counted to him as righteousness. The idea here is not that faith is a “work.” Rather, verses 4-5 restate the subject matter of verses 2-3, so that the contrast between faith and works will be understood. Paul clearly contrasts “working” and “believing” in verses 4-5. “Working” is done to earn a wage, and the wage is owed to the person who does the work. “Believing” is fundamentally different from “working.” “Working” is relying on one’s own abilities, but “believing” relies on another. The object of Abraham’s faith was “God” (v. 3), and he relied “on the one who justified the ungodly.” Working involves doing, but the genius of believing is receiving. Therefore, Abraham’s justification is explicitly grounded upon his faith and not works because God’s alien righteousness is imputed to him by God’s grace. When Abraham lamented about not having an heir, God promised him that his seed would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. Since Abraham was beyond the usual age to procreate, he trusted God to fulfill his promise. Abraham’s faith honored God because he believed that God could do the impossible by making his seed too many to count. By putting his faith in God’s promise, Abraham is an example that righteousness lies in believing instead of working. Ibid., p. 215. Given the emphasis of Abraham’s works in Jewish literature, For example, Sirach 44:19-21; Jubilees 23:10. See Schreiner, Romans, p. 217 for more citations from Jewish literature. this could naturally lead to synergism that is foreign to Paul’s theology. Paul separates himself from his contemporary Jews by teaching that one obtains a right standing before God by faith, and that Abraham was included into the people of God before he kept the law by obeying God’s command of circumcision. Paul’s departure from Jewish thinking occurs when he labels Abraham as “godless.” There is no criticism of Abraham’s legalism here, but the reason why Paul forbids boasting in works is because human beings who boast in their works demonstrate they have not received justification by faith. Boasting and any sense of earning salvation is eliminated. Schreiner, Romans, pp. 216-221. A Re-Examination of the Evidence - Abraham is justified by faith not by works The question asked in 4:1 is a continuation of the diatribe between Paul and his imaginary Jewish interlocutor from 3:27-31. Identifying the speaker is difficult, so this is how I see it: Jew: Where, then, is boasting? Paul: It is excluded. Jew: By what sort of law? Of works? Paul: No, but by a law of faithfulness. For we reckon a man apart from works of the law to be declared righteousness from faithfulness. Paul’s question to the Jew: Or, is God the God of Jews alone? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Paul’s answer to his own question: Yes, he is the God of the Gentiles also, since God is one who will declare righteous the circumcised from faithfulness and the one with the foreskin through the same faithfulness. Paul’s question to the Jew: Therefore, do we abolish the law through this faithfulness? Paul’s answer to his own question: May it never be! Rather, we establish the law. Paul’s question to the Jew: What, then, shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? The purpose for Paul’s question to the Jew in 4:1 is to acknowledge that Abraham poses a problem for his gospel. Paul comes along side of the Jew and uses this question to lead him to the gospel. Contra Jipp who sees the interlocutor as the one who asks about Abraham. Joshua W. Jipp, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,” JSNT 32 (2009), p. 220. The theme that binds together 3:27–31 and chapter 4 is that Jews and Gentiles are justified by Messiah’s faithfulness. The subject of the finding is “we,” so verse 1 should be translated as two questions: “What, then, shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” It should be translated as two sentences because when Paul uses the phrase Τί οὐ̂ν ἐρου̂μεν “What then are we to say?” he always poses two questions in this letter: Romans 4:1 What then are we to say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? Romans 6:1 What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? Romans 7:7 What then should we say? That the law is sin? Romans 8:31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? Romans 9:14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? Romans 9:30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faithfulness but Israel, pursuing the Law of righteousness did not attain it? Paul is answering the question, “How is Abraham the forefather of Christians?” The condition of Abraham being declared righteous on the basis of works has nothing to do with legalism, for by “works” Paul means “works required by the law.” Cranford’s comments on “works” are helpful: “The ‘works’ in view here should not be lifted out of context and imbued with significance arising from the theological concerns of the Reformation; the works in view are clearly those which are of the law (3:20, 28) and which function primarily to designate who is and who is not a Jew (3:22, 29-30).” Michael Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All who Believe,” NTS 41 (1995), p. 77. Rather, this condition serves as a description of the Jews’ boast in Romans 2:17-20. The Jews’ boast in Romans 2:17-20 is possessing the law. Paul’s complaint against the Jews is they are not doing the law, which does not support the notion of legalism. Abraham is an example that is contrary to the Jews’ boast. Abraham was reckoned righteous according to God’s grace. Abraham is an example of Paul’s argument in Romans 3:21-31. Schreiner’s comment, “Therefore, Abraham’s justification is explicitly grounded upon his faith and not works because God’s alien righteousness is imputed to him by God’s grace” (stated above) is not entirely correct because the ground of one’s justification cannot be the believer’s faith. In Romans 3:21-31, when Paul uses πιστις (“faith”), he is referring to the Messiah’s faithfulness. When Paul uses the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”), he is referring to God’s righteous character. Therefore, God’s righteous character is on full display when we see Jesus Messiah on the cross. Both Jew and Gentile are included into the people of God on the ground of Jesus Messiah’s faithfulness, therefore believers in the gospel put their faith into Jesus Messiah’s faithfulness. Therefore, Romans 3:21-26 is the justification of God on the ground of Messiah’s faithfulness and Romans 3:27-31 is the justification of the law on the ground of Messiah’s faithfulness. We must beware of having right theology from the wrong text. The goal is to have right theology from the right text. Who are the ones that God declares righteous? Righteous are those who trust in God, just like Abraham. Abraham, who is an ungodly person, believed upon God who declares the ungodly righteous (cf. Romans 4:11-12). With the Jews boasting in possessing the law and circumcision in Romans 2:17-20, it appears they do not view themselves as “ungodly.” The contrast Paul is making looks to be Abraham views himself as “ungodly” whereas the Jews view themselves as “godly.” Abraham, then, was declared righteous by God while he was an uncircumcised Gentile. Abraham’s belief in God illustrates that he had nothing to offer God as the ground of his justification. If he had, then he would have something to boast about. However, because Abraham saw himself as an ungodly man in need of God’s grace, he simply believed in God. Cranford also sees Paul emphasizing Abraham’s belief saying, “Building on the workman imagery in v. 4, Paul expresses the reality of Abraham’s situation in v. 5 in contrast to the reckoning in v. 4. Abraham did not ‘work’ but instead believed, and it was in accordance with that belief (and therefore not the work) that righteousness was reckoned. Nothing about v. 5 forces us to understand ‘work’ as mere human effort, and therefore antithetical to faith; the work in view is Abraham’s circumcision (vv. 9-12), and it is this work which was unrelated to righteousness, not his obedience in general. Verse 5 highlights the fact that works were lacking in the case of Abraham’s justification – not to show that salvation is unrelated to obedience, but to show that faith and works of law mark out different boundaries. Since works of law were not present when righteousness was reckoned to Abraham, they can have no ability to identify God’s people today either.” Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4,” pp. 81-82. The Jews who boast in possessing the law and circumcision need to know that the law is not the medium that God chose to fulfill his promise, i.e. give the inheritance. God did not design the law to reveal his righteousness in fulfilling his promise because he designed the law to produce wrath. Yes, the law promises life, Leviticus 18:5 but it cannot fulfill what it promises because it cannot secure the obedience that it commands. Therefore, the Jews’ boast in possessing the law is misplaced because they fail to do what the law requires. By failing to do what the law requires, this is proof that they live under the law’s indictment. Through living under the law’s indictment, it condemns them to be sinners. The law, then, serves to reveal the righteousness of God’s wrath. What is the medium that God chose to fulfill his promise to Abraham? He chose the gospel which is Jesus’ faithfulness, i.e. the righteousness of faithfulness. For the promise to be certain, it is from faithfulness according to grace for those of the law and for those of Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all. Romans 4:16 The law does not validate God’s promise because it produces wrath. The gospel is what validates God’s promise because God poured out his wrath on his Son, Romans 3:23-26 which results in both Jews and Gentiles being blessed. Abraham, despite the deadness of his body and the deadness of Sarah’s womb, believed and trusted in God’s promise. By believing in God, Abraham grew strong in his faith. With this deadness being the backdrop, Paul writes, But the words “it was reckoned to him” were not written on account of him alone, but on account of us also, which will be reckoned to us, to those who believe upon the one who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteous (Rom. 4:23-25). The Jews who boast in possessing the law need to stop what they are doing and follow Abraham’s example. As Abraham believed that God could bring forth life from his deadness, we need to believe that God has brought forth life from the dead. We need to boast in the one who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead because he died on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteous. We boast in God’s grace because both Jew and Gentile are declared righteous before God on the ground of Jesus Messiah’s faithfulness. Schreiner’s assertion that Abraham failed to keep the law sufficiently is inaccurate. Paul is contrasting Abraham’s belief with the Jew’s unbelief. Abraham is trusting in God, but the Jews are trusting in possessing the law. By believing in God, Abraham grew strong in his faith. By not believing in God, the Jews are growing in disobedience because they break the very law they possess. There is no mention here of legalism, the failure to achieve perfect obedience, or an antithesis between human faith and human achievement. Jipp’s article is instructive for he teaches us how Paul describes Abraham’s faith in heroic fashion by shaping Abraham’s faith in accordance with his Christological commitments, in particular to his understanding of Jesus’ faithfulness unto death and his ensuing resurrection. In other words, Paul presents Abraham as a type of Jesus. Paul portrays Abraham’s faith “by his commitment to the revelation of God’s saving act through the faithful Jesus who trusted God for his own resurrection in the face of death. . . . Both Abraham and Jesus, as God’s chosen representative agents, face a seemingly hopeless situation marked by death (4:17b, 19). Paul speaks of Jesus as ‘handed over [to death] for our sins’ (4:25a), has having ‘died for us’ (5:8; cf. 5:6, 9, 10, 11). Both figures display trust and obedience toward the God who resurrects from the dead (4:17-22//3:22, 25, 26; 5:18-19). Furthermore, both the faith of Abraham and of Jesus are described as fulfilling, confirming and revealing God’s promises for a family of both Jew and Gentile (4:16).” Paul answers the question of 4:1 by narrating the event of Isaac’s birth. “Abraham is the forefather of Jew and Gentile, but not according to the traditional understanding which connected Abraham with his progeny by means of circumcision. For, according to Paul’s reading of Genesis, Abraham did not receive Isaac through circumcision or anything else which could be characterized as κατά σάρκα (4:1). Isaac’s birth was a result, rather, of divine promise and Abraham’s faithful response to the promise. It is for this reason that Paul later declares that it is not ‘the children of the flesh (τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς) that are God’s children, but the children of promise (τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) who are counted as seed’ (Rom. 9:8). In other words, Abraham is the father of Jew and Gentile because his heroic trust in the God who resurrects and gives life to the dead was the means whereby God initiated the fulfillment of his promise to give Abraham a worldwide family – a promise ultimately fulfilled through the faithful Messiah.” Jipp, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,”pp. 237-238. Conclusion We defined “legalism” as “a person’s works being the ground of a right relation with God, so that he can boast in his accomplishments.” The four pieces of evidence 1) Boasting, 2) “through the law of faith,” 3) Contrast between “faith” and “works of law,” and 4) Abraham is justified by faith not by works reveal to us that the Jews do not obey the law as a form of legalism. The boasting that Paul forbids is boasting in possessing the law. Paul indicts the Jew for failing to do the law, which is disobedience. By failing to do the law, the Jew is not boasting in his accomplishments of obeying the law as the ground of his right relationship with God. Cranfield correctly states, “This rejection of boasting on the basis of good works does not mesh well with what Paul has earlier stated about the exclusion of boasting, since Paul makes it clear that the Jews were boasting not because of their obedience (as Abraham might) but in spite of their disobedience (2.23).” Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4,” p. 77. The meaning of “law of faith” is dependent upon the thesis statement of Romans 1:16-17. The progression of the phrase “from faith to faith” should be interpreted as “from God’s faithfulness of old to God’s faithfulness in these last days.” Paul writes the letter of Romans to defend God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant with Israel. The “law of faith” is an attribute of God. He proves himself faithful by fulfilling his promises to Israel. The “law of faith” is the “law of faithfulness,” which Paul describes in Romans 3:21-26. Romans 3:28 explains the meaning of the “law of faithfulness,” so it should be translated this way: For we consider that a man apart from works of the law is declared righteous by faithfulness. Silva says, “Certainly the Protestant Reformers left no room for ambiguity that such faith was precisely the antithesis of ‘futile human activity.’ Indeed, faith is by definition the abandonment of our works and efforts so that we might rest solely on divine grace: οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ (Rom 9:16). Thus to say that we are justified not by works of the law but by faith in Christ is to acknowledge, in the most forceful terms possible, that we must renounce futile human activity and rely on gracious divine initiative. But if so, then the main (theological) motivation for arguing that πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to Christ’s own faith(fullness) turns out to be a phantom.” (Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of the Law in Galatians” in Justification and Variegated Nomism vol. 2 eds. Carson, O’ Brien, Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 234, emphasis original. In the essay “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians” by A. B. Caneday, he studies 2:16 and argues for this reading: “We by nature are Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, but knowing that a human from the deeds required by the Law is not justified except through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah.” Paul’s use of πίστις is metonymy for his sacrificial death and resurrection. Paul’s concern with being “from works of law” is not with “works-righteousness.” Rather, with the phrases “from works of law” and “faith of Jesus Messiah,” Paul is contrasting two covenants “the covenant of Torah” with “the covenant of Messiah.” This essay is in the book The Faith of Jesus Christ eds. M. F. Bird and P. M. Sprinkle (Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 185-205. Silva reviewed this book in Themelios Vol. 35 Issue 2 (2010), pp. 309-311 and he simply passes over Caneday’s essay. For those of us who see that πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to Christ’s own faithfulness, are we seeing a phantom, or an exegetical insight that requires further study? When I translate Romans 3:28 as “For we consider that a man apart from works of the law is declared righteous by faithfulness,” am I seeing a phantom, or is this the reality of the text? The man apart from works of the law is a Gentile. Abraham is an example that is contrary to the Jews’ boast. The Jews need to stop boasting in possessing the law because the very thing they boast in condemns them to be law breakers. They need to follow Abraham’s example by seeing themselves as ungodly people who are in need of God’s grace. By boasting in God’s grace, both Jew and Gentile are declared righteous before God on the ground of Jesus Messiah’s faithfulness. We need to boast in the one who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead because he died on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteous. 24