Historical / Hermeneutical Probs: “Works of the Law” #1

Introduction to Exegetical Problems with the New Perspective on 'Works of the Law'

0:00 exegetical problems with the new perspective, and this will take up the rest of our time in these lectures.

0:12 Of course, ultimately, the question over whether the new perspective provides a valid interpretation of the Apostle Paul must be determined on the basis of exegesis, must be determined on the basis of the careful study of the Scriptures themselves, and especially of the writings of the Apostle Paul. Are the viewpoints of the new perspective supported by what Paul actually says and teaches in his epistles? Well, again, in the limited amount of space that we have, there's no way I can give a detailed exposition of every relevant passage of Scripture, but I do want to take up three of the major categories of new perspective reinterpretation of Paul and at least point to some of the exegetical problems with those reinterpretations.

0:57 Therefore, I hope to establish that the traditional Reformed interpretation is correct. The first problem that I want to take up is the new perspective understanding of the works of the law.

1:14 I remind you that one of the major tenets of the new perspective is its peculiar understanding of Paul's reference to the works of the law in connection with justification. Its understanding of what Paul meant, for example, when he says that we are justified by faith and not by the works of the law. The phrase, the works or deeds of the law. Let me just say that you're going to see some weird looking letters and things in your notes.

1:39 That's because for some reason, I don't know what I did. I thought I had it right this time, but when it was run off for you, the Greek letters just come out in English letters, and so I apologize for that. But most of the time, I give an English transliteration of the Greek. So this phrase is found in Paul's epistle, to the Romans and to the Galatians, eight or nine times.

2:08 I say eight or nine times because there's a textual variance in one of the texts. The phrase is found in Romans 3.20 and 28. Some manuscripts have it in Romans 9.32,

2:20 while others simply have the more general term works. It's found three times in Galatians 2.15, and it's found in Galatians 3.2, 3.5, and 3.10.

Traditional Reformed vs. New Perspective on 'Works of the Law'

2:30 In the traditional Reformed view, when Paul speaks of being justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, this is understood to refer to the impossibility of being justified on the basis of one's efforts to do what the law commands. Since no sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, has obeyed or is able to obey the law of God perfectly or genuinely, no one can be justified before God by their works. The Reformational view has therefore also understood Paul's polemic against justification by the works of the law to be directed toward a kind of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian legalism that believed that we are justified either in whole or in part on the basis of our own good works or efforts to obey the law.

3:14 That's the traditional Reformed understanding. But as we have seen, the New Perspective argues that this understanding is wrong. Jews were not trying to be justified on the basis of their keeping of the law, according to Sanders. And according to Dunne and Wright, when Paul speaks about the works of the law, he has in mind the social function of the law as a boundary.

3:35 It is a boundary marker or a charter of national privilege separating Jews from Gentiles. This particularly brings into focus those boundary marker regulations such as circumcision, food laws, Sabbath laws, and feast days by which the Jews were set apart from the Gentiles. Likewise, the problem he is addressing is not the basis upon which a sinner can find acceptance with God, but the question of how Gentiles can be included together with the Jews in the covenant community. Well, I want to seek to demonstrate that the New Perspective understanding of Paul's polemic with reference to the works of the law is off the mark, and the Reformed understanding on the whole is in line with the Scriptures.

Analyzing 'Works of the Law' in Romans: Ethical vs. Ethnic Distinctives

4:17 The path I will follow is outlined below. You can just look at the outline. I'll not read it, but there's the outline.

4:25 So let's consider, first of all, the works of the law in Romans. I want to show that in Romans, the works of the law refers to deeds performed in obedience to the commandments of God as a whole with respect to His ethical claims upon men. In doing so, I'll be showing that contrary to the New Perspective, it does not refer just to adherence to the law in terms of its socially excluding function given primary expression in Jewish boundary markers. Or another way of saying it, I want to demonstrate that works of law does not point simply to ethnic distinctives, but also, and indeed,

5:07 primarily to ethical distinctives, okay? In one sense, this is a simple way of laying out the two different views with respect to the works of the law. Are the works of the law referring to ethnic distinctives by which, through these boundary markers, the Jews maintain their separation from the Gentiles? Or is Paul's concern with ethical distinctives when he speaks of the works of the law?

5:39 Okay? All right. I want to demonstrate that the works of the law does point to ethical concern. This is demonstrated, first of all, by the overall context in which this phrase is first introduced in Romans 3.20.

5:57 Turn, please, to Romans 3.20. Paul writes, Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. This is the first use of the phrase, works or deeds of the law, in Romans.

6:23 Dunn, in his commentary on Romans, interprets the works of the law here as, quote, those acts by which a member of the covenant identified himself as a Jew and maintained his status within the covenant. He argues that between the phrases, works of the law and shall be justified, there is a hidden middle term, which Reformation exegesis largely missed. The hidden middle term, he says, is the function of the law as an identity factor. The social function of the law, marking out the people of the law in their distinctiveness, circumcision, food laws, etc.

6:59 Wright, in his commentary on Romans, tells us that the reference here is, to possession of Torah as the badge of being God's special people. So is the reference here, then, to the social function of the law, the law merely as a boundary marker separating the Jews from the Gentiles, or does the reference include the ethical function of the law and to those deeds performed in obedience to the covenant, or to those deeds performed in obedience to the commands of the law as a whole? That's the question. Well, one of the keys to understanding Paul's use of the phrase, the deeds of the law, here, is a careful consideration of the preceding context.

Context of Romans 1-3: Universal Condemnation by Ethical Standards

7:36 Now, obviously, I don't have time in this context to give a detailed exposition of the entirety of Romans 1 through 3, 19, but I do want to try to draw out some of the main lines of thought leading up to verses 19 through 20 of this third chapter. First of all, Paul has just spent two and a half chapters proving that all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, are sinners under the wrath of God and under condemnation. He has given an extended, sweeping indictment comprehending both Gentile and Jew. He charges both Gentiles and Jews for their failure to live up to the divine standard of what is expected of them.

8:20 This is what he is seeking to do in that section of the letter is confirmed by his own words. The words in chapter 3, verse 9, For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. Secondly, the standard before which all stand condemned is spelled out in those two and a half chapters, not in terms of the boundary marker function of the law, but in terms of the ethical claims of God upon men. Let me demonstrate this.

8:54 After saying in chapter 1, verse 18, and you may want to follow some of this in your Bible as I skim through the book of Romans, the portion of Romans leading up to our key text. After saying in chapter 1, verse 18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, Paul then follows with a long list of those sins by which mankind has exposed himself to the wrath of God and which themselves are an indication of the wrath of God that rests upon the human race. For example, we read, beginning in verse 29, being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness,

9:36 full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also approve those things. They also approve those who practice them. His argument in verses 18 through 32 of chapter 1 is that all men have sinned, are accountable to God for their actions under His wrath and without excuse. The passage has as its focus Gentiles who do not have written revelation.

10:19 They have sinned against the revelation of God in creation and conscience. They have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness that God has revealed to them. Verse 18. Though in the saving sense they have not known God, yet what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

10:40 For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Chapter 1, verses 19 to 20. So in chapter 1, verses 18 through 32, all mankind stands condemned, not in terms of the boundary marker function of the law, and not even in terms of having violated the law of God as inscripturated by Moses. They stand condemned, even those who do not have the law inscripturated, in terms of the ethical, moral claims of God upon all men as creatures created in His image and as revealed to all in creation and conscience.

11:19 Then in chapter 2, he begins to anticipate the presumptions of the moralists. Verse 1. Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things. In other words, he condemns the moralist who judges others while failing to see that in doing so he is condemning himself for he too is guilty of the same sins.

11:46 He goes on to point out that God's judgment is impartial. Verses 2 to 6. Verse 6 ends that line of thought with these words. Who will render to each one according to his will, or his deeds, or according to his works?

12:04 Notice from the context that the works or deeds Paul has in mind there at the end of verse 6 are works in general. Any kind of works. Works that can be described as doing good. Verse 7.

12:16 Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory. Works that can be described as doing evil. Verse 9. Tribulation and anguish on every soul of man who does evil.

12:29 Again, verse 10. But glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good. And now he explicitly begins to show that the Jews who have the law and the Gentiles who do not are in the same boat. This applies to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

12:45 Verse 10. God shows no partiality in this, he says. Verse 11. For as many who have sinned, who have done evil works without law will also perish without law.

12:57 Speaking of the Gentiles who do not have scripture-rated special revelation. And as many as have sinned or have done evil works in the law will be judged by the law. Verse 12. The Jews.

13:08 Or this could include Gentile proselytes who do have in scripture-rated special revelation. Verse 13. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. And there's a lot to be said about that text, but for right now possessing the law and hearing the law will not justify.

13:27 The law must be obeyed. Now note that the emphasis is upon doing what the law requires. Paul's point, going back up to verse 6, is that God will render to each one according to his works, according to his good deeds or his evil deeds, regardless of whether one is a Jew who has the law or a Gentile who does not have the law in its written form. He goes on to explain now in verses 14 to 16 that though the Gentiles do not have the law in written form, they still have the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.

14:02 Therefore they will be judged by God for what they do know and for what their consciences bear witness to of God's law by virtue of natural revelation. This is an important text for it demonstrates that the law of God, as in scripture-rated by Moses, does apply to Gentiles with respect to its ethical and moral demands. It is not only considered here in terms of its social function of maintaining the Jews' distinct social and ethnic separation from the nations, its ethical demands correspond with the work of the law written on the heart of all men by nature and all men are accountable to those ethical demands.

14:46 Then, beginning in verse 17, he addresses the Jew who has the written law, characteristically relies upon the law, makes his boast in God, knows his will, approves things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law. He addresses the Jew who is confident that he himself is a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and so on, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law, verses 17 to 20. By a series of rhetorical questions, he implies that even Jews who would teach the law to others are guilty of violating its prohibitions against lying, adultery, idolatry, and so on, verses 21 to 23. The result of this is that the name of God

15:29 is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of them, verse 24. He then points out that the Jews' circumcision will avail him nothing if he does not obey the ethical demands of the law as a whole, verses 25 to 29. Notice that he contrasts here the moral or ethical claims of the law with the Jewish boundary marker of circumcision, verse 21, following you who preach that man should not steal. Do you steal?

15:57 You who say do not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples, et cetera, verse 25. For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law. But if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

16:14 You see, keeping or not keeping the law, including such commands as do not steal and do not commit adultery, are contrasted here with circumcision. It is at least hypothetical for the sake of argument, Paul is since saying, that one may not be circumcised and yet keep the law in the way Paul speaks of keeping the law in this context, verse 26, while one who is circumcised may not keep the law in the sense Paul is referring to in this context, verse 27. Clearly what is at issue here is the law in terms of its ethical demands, not merely its function as a social boundary marker. The problem with the Jew that is identified

16:59 and underscored here is not that he has failed to keep the boundary marker regulations of the law, such as circumcision. Furthermore, it is not his insistence that Gentiles become Jews and that they keep the boundary marker regulations of the law. Rather, it is his failure to obey the law as a whole in terms of its ethical demands. So Paul continues his argument that all are under condemnation, both Jew and Gentile, that all are accountable to God as lawbreakers and sinners, leading up to verse 9 of chapter 3, where he says, What then?

17:34 Are we better than they ? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. And then how does he go on to describe this universal condition of all mankind, this all being under sin?

17:52 In terms of Jewish boundary markers? No. In terms of the ethical claims of God upon his creatures, verses 10 to 18. And you can just skim down through there.

Romans 3:19-20: The Climax of Universal Guilt and the Meaning of 'Deeds of the Law'

18:04 I won't even read it. You're familiar with that passage. There is none righteous, no, not one, none who understands, and so forth. It is now at this point that we come to verses 19 to 20, where we are first confronted with the phrase, the deeds of the law.

18:20 And these verses really serve as the conclusion or climax to all the argumentation of chapter 1, verse 18 to 3, 18. Paul writes, Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Now, in light of the context that we have just surveyed, the deeds of the law here cannot be limited to so-called Jewish boundary markers.

19:00 The emphasis of the last two and a half chapters has been that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of failing to do what the law as a whole requires in terms of God's ethical claims upon mankind. Now, let me briefly point out the main lines of thought in these verses. First of all, we have a common knowledge assumed. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those under the law.

19:32 Now, what does he mean by that? Well, we know, introduces a circumstance assumed to be known by Paul's hearers. What is known is that whatever the law says, it says to those under or in the law. Back up in the immediately preceding verses, verses 10 to 18, Paul has just given a series of quotations that come from the Psalms and from Isaiah.

20:00 Therefore, I believe the first use of the term law in this sentence, whatever the law says, may not designate what it uses or usually does with Paul, the law of Moses, but it may refer to the Old Testament canon as a whole. However, we must keep in mind that these indictments from the Psalms and Isaiah are based upon the ethical requirements of the Mosaic law. The second use of namas, it says to those who are under or in the law, may continue to refer to the Old Testament as a whole or he may revert to the usual and more narrow meaning. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.

20:35 The point is that the law, the Old Testament, including the quotes that he has just given concerning the fact that there are none righteous, no, not one, speaks to those who are under or in the law. This is probably a reference to the Jews. Now, John Murray tries to give a broader reference. He does that by pointing to the reference to the Gentiles who do not have the law in written form, being a law to themselves, showing the work of the law written in their hearts in Romans 2, 14 and 15, which we commented on a moment ago.

21:06 And that way he expands the reference to all people, Jew and Gentile, as those being described in the words, whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law. That's a possible interpretation. It's an attempt to take into account the universal language in these two verses. Every mouth may be stopped, all the world may become guilty by the deeds of the law.

21:25 No flesh shall be justified. However, though I do find that interpretation attractive, I will concede that it is a little too strained. The phrase is literally, those who are in the law, which is parallel to Paul's referring to the Jews in chapter 2, verse 12 by the words, as many as in the law, in contrast with the Gentiles. Also, the quotations preceding this in verses 10 to 18 are taken from the Old Testament and are thus found in the Scriptures by those who had the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jews.

21:58 The assumption from early on in this letter has been that though all Gentiles are exposed to the claims of God's law and are accountable to its ethical demands, all are exposed to the law inscripturated as given to Moses. Thus, I think the most natural understanding is that when Paul says whatever the law says, it says to those who are in the law he is primarily thinking of Jews. However, this does not in any way remove the universal focus of what Paul is saying. For next we have, secondly, a universal purpose asserted.

22:34 Notice the language. Now we know, that whatever the law says, it says to those who are in the law, and now this is followed by a purpose statement, in order that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. He is not just referring to Jews, but to all men, every mouth, all the world. The law says what it says to those who are under the law, with the purpose that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world become guilty before God.

23:05 Now the question may be raised, what does every mouth being stopped and the whole world being guilty have to do with the law given to the Jews? Well, Paul has been telling us leading up to this. The Jews who had the privilege of possessing the law in written form did not and could not keep the demands of the law. He has been demonstrating that they have not kept the demands of the law.

23:33 Thus he has demonstrated that they are as much sinners as the Gentiles are who do not have the Scriptures and yet live in disobedience to what they know, and are aware of concerning God's law by natural revelation. It then follows that every mouth is stopped and the whole world is guilty before God. If the Jews who had the law could not keep the law and are ultimately condemned by the law, then it follows that no one, including the Gentiles, have or can all stand condemned before God. The mouth being stopped describes the situation of a man at court, a defendant, who has nothing to say in answer to the charges that are brought against him.

24:14 The word translated guilty is only used this once in the New Testament, but it is used in extra-biblical literature to carry the idea of being answerable to, or liable to prosecution, or accountable. The image then is of all humanity standing before God, accountable to Him for willful and inexcusable violations of His will, awaiting the sentence of condemnation that their actions deserve. The point is that there is nothing but no plea of justification that anyone can give on the basis of one's devotion to or obedience to God's demands. All are under sin's tyranny.

24:52 All are under condemnation. The whole world, Jews and Gentiles alike, stand condemned, stands condemned before God and without a plea. Next, we have thirdly, a confirming reason given. And this brings us now to our text.

25:11 Verse 20 begins with the word, therefore. In the New King James, the Greek word may be translated for or because. This verse either serves to confirm the preceding assertion of the guilt of all men for, which I actually prefer that translation, or it gives a reason for the guilt of all men because. In a sense, we might say that it does both, thus I call this a confirming reason given.

25:41 Either way, Paul now makes his point that by the deeds of the law, no flesh, no person, no man, woman, boy or girl, no Jew, and no Gentile will be justified in his sight. Actually, unlike the preceding verse, there's no article before law. Literally, the text says, by the deeds of law. I would not want to push that too far, but the point of the absence of the article in this context may simply be a way of underscoring that there is no justification by obedience to any law given to man, whether the law inscripturated, the Jew, or the work of the law written in the heart, Gentile, Romans 2, 12 to 13.

26:22 However, Paul may have in mind again the Mosaic law, but the point is still the same. Obedience to the law cannot justify. Clearly, by the deeds of the law, he cannot merely be referring to boundary marker regulations. If he were, that would be inconsistent with the whole train of argument leading up to this point.

26:41 Remember that the emphasis of the last two and a half chapters, the last two and a half chapters, has been that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of failing to live up to the divine standard in terms of God's ethical claims upon mankind. All are guilty. All are under sin. Every mouth is without any plea to offer before God with respect to circumcision, et cetera, boundary markers.

27:03 It could not be said that the Jews had failed to keep those regulations, nor could it be said with reference merely to boundary marker regulations or to the social function of the law that, at its result, was to stop every mouth and to render all the world guilty before God. The Jews are guilty and all the world is guilty, and every mouth of every man is stopped because we have failed to live up to what God requires in terms of the law's ethical claims upon us. Every mouth is stopped because by the effort to obey the law of God, by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in God's sight. There can be no justification on the basis of law keeping because it is at this very point that the whole world stands condemned.

27:46 This is what the apostle has been laboring to demonstrate. Let me emphasize again that the fault the law finds in the preceding context with the Jew is not that the Jews have failed to adhere to the boundary markers of the law or have failed to possess and accept the law as a charter of national privilege and distinction, separating them from the Gentiles and marking them out as God's covenant people. No, Paul acknowledges that they have not failed to do that in chapter 2 when he speaks of their circumcision. Nor is the fault that Paul finds with the Jews in the preceding context the fact that they are trying to impose those boundary markers

28:30 upon the Gentiles. No, that's not it at all. The fault he finds and that the law finds with both the Jew and the Gentile is that they have all failed to live up to what the law requires. Both in terms of natural revelation

28:49 and in terms of inscripturated special revelation. They have failed to live up to the divine standard of proper God-glorifying behavior. They have failed to live up to what God requires particularly in terms of His ethical claims upon men and so it is that by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight. So the deeds of the law here refers to those deeds performed in obedience to the law of God.

29:15 Now, it's important to point out that Paul is not condemning obedience to the law as a bad thing. His point is that there can be no justification before God on that basis. The universal sinfulness of mankind is the problem that makes this so. Fourth, a further confirmation added.

29:37 We'll come back to this later but you'll also notice another reason he gives in verse 20. For why no flesh will be justified by the works of the law? This both further confirms what he has just said and it confirms the interpretation that was just given of what he says. Paul follows by saying because by the law is the knowledge of sin.

30:00 This again tells us that what he has in mind is not merely the law conceived of in terms of its boundary marker function or social function but the law in terms of its ethical function by which it defines and exposes and confers the knowledge of human sinfulness. So much for the context in which this phrase is introduced in Romans. The fact that the deeds or works of the law in Romans refers to deeds performed in obedience to the commands of the law as a whole can be demonstrated secondly by the close connection of the phrase in this epistle with the more general term works in Romans 4, 1 through 6.

Romans 4:1-6: 'Works of the Law' Synonymous with General 'Works'

30:44 Excuse me. Paul not only says that we are not justified by the works of the law in this epistle, he also says that we are not justified by works using the more general term and he uses the more general term in a context which points to it being synonymous with the phrase works of the law. Let me direct your attention now to chapter 3, verse 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

31:25 Now at first, this text might seem to support the idea that what Paul has in mind here are the boundary marker requirements of the law such as circumcision. We notice there that he immediately follows by saying in verses 29 to 30, Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

31:51 So someone says it is clear then the deeds of the law refer to circumcision and the point is simply that God is the God of Gentiles and Jews alike because whether or not one is circumcised does not matter. Justification is apart from the deeds of the law. That is, it is apart from adherence to Jewish boundary markers such as circumcision. Well it is true that Paul teaches that reliance upon circumcision or upon one's Jewishness does not justify and that justification is open to both Jew and Gentile.

32:23 That is one of the points he is making in his overall argument. But it is impossible to restrict the works of the law in this text to circumcision only or to circumcision only conceived of as a boundary marker or as a social separator. The emphasis is upon obedience to the commands of the law as a whole which would include circumcision. This is confirmed first by the preceding context which we have already considered but most conclusively this passage at the end of chapter 3 is immediately followed in chapter 4 by a discussion in which Paul excludes all works in general of any kind from being the basis of justification.

33:00 He writes in Romans 4 1 through 6 and I am not going to read that because we have read it so many times already this week but keep your eyes there on that passage Romans 4 1 through 6 several preliminary observations from this passage. One, in these verses Paul is talking about justification. That is clear. Two, Paul is underscoring that justification is not by works but by faith.

33:27 That too is clear to all. He says in verses 2 to 3 that to ascribe Abraham's justification to works would be to contradict the truth that he was justified by faith and would leave him with something to boast in. Three, he describes works in terms of human activity deeds that one performs and not in terms of a status that is defined by certain boundary markers. Now this third observation may be challenged by some new perspective advocates.

34:00 So let me set forth several considerations which I think make this clear. Number one, there is the way this general term works in Romans 4, 1 to 6 is used elsewhere in the book of Romans. Let me give you two examples. The first we already saw back in chapter 2 verses 5 and 6.

34:20 Paul writes, But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God and the law of the world. And so Paul says that the works are deeds according to his deeds according to his works. Remember from the context that the works or deeds Paul has in mind here are works in general. Any kind of works, works that can be described as doing good in verse 7, eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory.

34:57 Works that can be described as doing evil verse 9, who works what is good. The term works in Romans 2 clearly refers to any kind of deeds that men perform whether evil or good. The second text in which the general term works is used is Romans 9, 10 to 11. If you look there Paul is speaking of God's election of Jacob as opposed to Esau.

35:26 He says, And not only this but when Rebekah also had conceived by one man even by our father Isaac for the children not yet being born nor having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him who calls. Notice here when God chose Jacob neither Jacob nor Esau had done any good or evil and then this doing of good or evil is described in terms of works that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him who does good or evil. So, Paul's use of the term works

36:11 elsewhere in the epistle supports the meaning in chapter 4 of any human actions or deeds in general. Secondly, there is the contrast in Romans 4, 4 between someone who works and earns a wage and someone who believes and receives a free gift of grace. Verse 4, Now to him who works the wages are not counted as grace and that is a book keeping metaphor here. The picture is that of one who works who labors and then he receives the wages that are due to him for his work and this is set forth in contrast with grace.

36:51 Thirdly, there is the fact that against this receiving what is due for what one does Paul counters with the assertion of justification by faith. Verse 5, But to him who does not work that is does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness. So, works refers to human actions by which one by debt receives that which is due for those actions or merits it. If Abraham was justified by works he would have been counted righteous as the reward due to him for the deeds that he performed

37:36 but he was not justified by works he was justified by faith. The apostle speaks quite broadly of the principle of works in opposition to faith whereas faith receives freely what God's grace grants. Works obtain their blessing their reward on the basis of wages due. Fourthly, the fact that by works is included any deeds or virtue of our own of any kind and not merely works in the parallel between working not and being ungodly.

38:13 In verse 5 he who does not work and the ungodly whom God justifies by faith are one and the same. They are synonymous expressions. The blessing of justification according to verse 4 is given on the principle of grace not works. And now in verse 5 this gospel grace consists in justifying the ungodly.

38:36 So by him who works not him who is ungodly. The emphasis is to show that in justification God has absolutely no regard to any good or godliness of our own whatsoever. Paul then brings in the example of David. David unlike Abraham lived after Moses and therefore he was subject to the boundary marker regulations of the Mosaic law.

39:01 Nevertheless according to verse 6 he was counted righteous apart from works. But now is the idea here merely that he was counted righteous from his adherence to Jewish boundary markers. Is that the totality of what is meant here by God imputing righteousness without works? It is true as Paul points out in verses 9 to 11 that this blessing of justification did not come to David or to Abraham simply because they were circumcised.

39:30 He does indeed thereby underscore that this is a blessing that is not exclusive to Jews who possess the law of Moses. Nevertheless the works referred to here by which David was counted righteous are not merely ceremonial works. Paul includes all works including the law in terms of its ethical claims and this can be seen by the fact as you will notice that this imputing righteousness to David apart from works is further described in verses 7 to 8 in terms of his lawless deeds being forgiven and his sins being covered and in terms of his sins not being imputed to him. These are not merely works that mark off moral ethical works.

40:10 His sins were not imputed to him. In spite of his sins and in spite of his evil deeds God imputed righteousness to him. This righteousness imputed is contrasted with evil deeds sins. The fact that God imputed righteousness to him apart from works involved among other things the fact that his sins were forgiven and were not imputed to him.

40:35 Conclusion In the book of Romans it is true among other things that both Jews and Gentiles are equally in need of justification by faith. It is true that Paul is emphasizing among other things that if ever justified before God both Jews and Gentiles must be justified in the same way by faith apart from the works of the law. Clearly Paul is concerned in his letter to the Romans to emphasize the essential unity of believing Jew and believing Gentile in the new covenant community the church. This is one of the major themes of the book of Romans.

41:17 However, it is wrong to limit the works of the law to referring only to boundary marker regulations or merely to the social function of the law. On the contrary the phrase is used in Romans to refer to all that the law requires in terms of its ethical claims upon men. It is used in connection with the phrase the works of the law in Romans. Let's consider now the works of the law in Galatians.

Analyzing 'Works of the Law' in Galatians: Occasion and Deeper Problem

41:56 Paul's use of the language works of the law in Galatians is especially important to our subject. The occasion of that letter or its historical context is one which may seem to be very agreeable to the new perspective of understanding. It is clear I am convinced, as I have come to be known, or insisting that Gentile Christians be circumcised. They were apparently also insisting that they observe other boundary marker requirements of the law.

42:35 That this was the occasion comes out for example in chapter 2. In an implied contrast with what was happening to the Galatians Paul in verse 3 says that when in Jerusalem not even Titus had been compelled to circumcise the Gentile Christians in the same circumcision party or at least of a similar theological viewpoint with those who were troubling the Galatians refused to have table fellowship with Gentile Christians and were requiring them to be circumcised and to live like Jews . Paul speaks of those

43:20 who compel you to be circumcised and warns the Gentiles of the law . He also speaks of the observing of days and months and seasons and years . So it is true that the occasion of the letter was the insistence by the Judaizers that the Gentiles submit to the law of Moses and the focus seems primarily to have been upon what advocates of the new perspective might call boundary marker requirements . But now having acknowledged that the insistence upon the observance of such regulations was the occasion of the letter

44:04 an examination of Paul's use of the phrase the works of the law demonstrates that Paul saw in this insistence of the Judaizers a much deeper problem . It involved a problem that goes beyond the mere issue of boundary markers or the social function of the law . What Paul argues is that to insist that justification is dependent upon obedience to any aspect of the law means that we must be obedient to all that the law as a whole demands in order to be justified . And he underscores that this is exactly what both the Jews and the Gentiles had failed to do and were unable to do .

44:45 Therefore justification is not based upon obedience to the demands of the law in any way either in part or in whole . Now let's look at this . Here we have what is perhaps the most straightforward statement of the doctrine of justification and not by the works of the law . Paul writes knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ even we have believed in Christ that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law

45:30 for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified . Notice the phrase is mentioned three times . The first is that the Gentiles be circumcised and live like Jews . An insistence that had even caused Peter to cave in for fear of certain men who had come to Antioch at one point while he was there cave in in the sense that before they came he ate freely with the Gentiles but after they came he withdrew from them and separated himself therefore Paul rebuked him to his face .

46:05 This incident in Antioch is a rehearsal of what he said to Peter on that occasion . Now one thing is very clear on the surface of this text . Paul makes a distinct contrast between works of the law and faith in Jesus Christ knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ even we have believed in Christ that we might be justified by faith in Christ not by the works of the law . Now I am aware of the attempts and instructions translated by faith in Jesus Christ as a subjective genitive thus it is argued that it should be translated by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ

46:49 a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as opposed to by faith in Christ objective genitive . The many problems with that interpretation have been demonstrated so often and so convincingly that frankly I am surprised that anyone would still try to hold it . There is an excellent article in justification variegated nomenism volume 2 Moises is that how you say his name or Moses Silva faith versus work of the law in Galatians which I think he pretty much destroys that attempt to do that but be that as it may it is not absolutely

47:33 essential one way or the other to our argument even if one tries to interpret the genitive in that way in the text in contrast with the works of the law in the second part of the verse even we have believed in Christ Paul says so we have this contrast between faith in Christ believing in Christ and the works of the law and this contrast continues to be made throughout this epistle so whatever works of the law refer to they are contrasted with the individual Christians response of faith in Christ and in the gospel so in Galatia it is evident there is a long history of this that both the Gentiles and the Jews

48:18 both believe in God and the saints but we also believe in the word of the Lord the word of the Lord Jesus Christ and the mencion is mentioned in the word of the Lord the word of the Lord and the inspiration of the word of the Lord and the revelation of the word is not in what by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. Paul is not merely excluding works of the law in terms of boundary markers. There is more involved than that, and this becomes clear now. So we consider, for example, what he says in chapter 3, verses 10 to 14, chapter 5, verses 2 to 4, and chapter 6, verse 13.

Galatians 3:10-14: The Law's Curse and Christ's Redemption from All its Demands

49:01 Let's consider now chapter 3, verses 10 to 14. Now let me make several observations immediately. Notice how Paul sets forth the principle that we are not justified by the works of the law here in a way that enlarges the reference beyond the mere question of boundary markers. He says in verse 10 that as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.

49:31 Why? For it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

49:40 Paul is drawing attention to the fact that the law demands obedience to all things that are written in the law. I could do no better here than to quote the comments of Cornelius of Venema on this text. Those who would be justified by the works of the law are reminded that the law pronounces a curse upon everyone who fails to keep all things that are written in it. Any failure in respect to the law's requirement will inevitably bring about the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy 27-26.

50:10 Though the particular works of the law that his opponents were emphasizing were no doubt what Dunn and others called boundary markers, Paul generalizes on the basis of the threatened curse of Deuteronomy that God's judgment rests upon anyone who falls short of anything that is written in the law. Venema goes on to point out that in the context of Deuteronomy 27, from which Paul takes this quote, the requirements of the law include more than such things as circumcision, dietary laws, and feast-dead provisions. They also include prohibitions against idolatry, dishonorable behavior toward one's father or mother, incest, and murder. It is not enough, therefore, to keep the foresight of the law.

50:46 In the former requirements, in order to be justified, one must live in conformity to all that the law enjoins. That is, if one chooses to pursue justification, either in whole or in part, by the works of the law. The second observation. Notice the way that Paul draws a sharp contrast between the works of the law and faith, beginning in verse 11.

51:09 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith. His point is, that God's word teaches that justification is by faith, therefore it cannot be by the works of the law. Why? Here's the key question.

51:25 Why is this so? Is the problem with Jewish boundary markers that exclude Gentiles? No, the contrast is between faith and doing what the law requires. Verse 12.

51:37 Yet the law is not a faith, but the man who does them shall live by them. He says, the principle upon which the Mosaic law, or Mosaic covenant, see the rest, as chapter 3 operates, when divorced from the gospel of justification by faith alone, is one of doing what the law requires, as contrasted with believing what God has promised. And again, the point in the context is that seeking to be justified by doing what the law requires, rather than trusting in Christ for justification, brings one under the curse of the law. One other third observation from this passage.

52:14 I would simply point out where Dunn's interpretation of the works of the law lands him when he comes to verse 13. Verse 13 says, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. Now this verse, in connection with the verses above, have long been understood as teaching that the law demands obedience to all that it commands, and it curses those who fail to do so.

52:41 But that Christ, verse 13, has taken the law's curse upon himself in our place, thus freeing those who believe in him from that curse. Well, because Dunn insists on maintaining that the works of the law speak merely of the social function of the law, in terms of its boundary marker regulations, here is how he interprets this passage. He argues that the curse from which Christ delivers us is the curse of restricting the grace and promise of God on nationalistic terms. Now I have a whole host of quotes in the footnotes where you can see for yourself that that's what he says.

53:17 The curse removed by Christ's death was the curse of a wrong, wrong understanding of the law.

53:24 Jesus died as one who was considered an outsider to the covenant. He, in other words, put himself in the place of the Gentiles. God then vindicated him, thereby demonstrating that God is for the Gentiles. According to Dunn, that's the way we're supposed to understand Galatians 3.13.

53:43 That's what the death of Christ is about there.

53:47 Well, as Stephen Westerholm comments, we may be grateful to Dunn for following the logic of his new perspective to his extraordinary, extraordinary conclusions. Westerholm goes on to show how the conclusion Dunn is forced to on this text shows the folly of his position and indeed refutes his own position concerning the works of the law. Now think about this. I want you to catch this.

54:06 For example, if that is the meaning of Christ being made a curse for us, if that's the focus of the doctrine here, then the Jews themselves had no need of the cross. It was only for the Gentiles to show them that God is for the Gentiles. Or the only need Jews had of it was with reference to their unwillingness to receive Gentiles. So that they would realize that God is for Gentiles.

54:28 Thus, the cross was only for those Jews who were racist and only for those Gentiles who were unhappy with the idea of having to become Jews. What about Gentiles who didn't mind being circumcised? Apparently, the Gentiles in the Galatian churches were attracted to the whole idea. So if the cross meant the removal of the curse of an attitude that said they had to adopt Jewish practices, apparently some of these Gentiles saw no curse in that at all.

54:52 They were perfectly happy. With the idea that membership in the people of God required adopting Jewish boundary markers. Surely this amounts to a grievous trivializing of the death of Christ. You see, Dunn's whole approach in the end is really foolish and ridiculous.

55:09 Not to mention heretical. Luther long ago exposed the folly of those who wish to interpret the works of the law here merely in terms of Jewish ceremonies. See for your entertainment the footnote below where I give a couple of quotes from Luther himself. I'm not commenting on this.

55:26 Now, there's much more that can be said. We are actually going to come back to this passage later. But there's much more that can be said with regard to the close exposition of this text. Also interacting with some of the peculiarities of N.T. Wright's interpretation of it

55:44 and also Daniel Fuller. And that's why I asked Dr. Waldron to provide you with his exposition. Do you guys have that?

55:50 Make sure you pick it up. Galatians 3, 10 to 13. It would be very helpful for you to read it. I actually had assumed that he was going to be presenting that in his lectures.

56:02 And in preparing to come here, I just covered the highlights in looking at Galatians 3, 10 to 13, making the major points. But if you'll read his exposition, it'll fill in some of the details, okay? All right. All right, hang on with me here a minute.

Galatians 5:2-3: Obligation to Keep the Whole Law

56:23 Let's look at a second text. Look at Galatians 5, 2 and 3. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

56:51 Again, notice Paul's emphasis. The Judaizers were insisting that the Gentile Christians be circumcised. Paul's argument is that this insistence upon the necessity of circumcision in order to be justified brings one under debt to obey the whole law in order to be justified, the law. Obligations cannot be treated piecemeal.

57:17 If one insists on adherence to any aspect of the law as the means or ground of justification, then one is under obligation to obey the whole law. Again, as Venema comments, the implication here, though unstated, is clear enough. Because his opponents have not met and cannot meet this burden, they have embraced an obligation that is beyond their reach. Moreover, to seek justification in the way of obedience to requirements of the law is opposite to the grace of Christ.

57:46 Either one is justified freely through faith in Christ or through obedience to the law. The third text. Did you guys understand that? Did you see what I'm saying there?

57:57 Paul is saying if you argue that justification is in whole or in part has anything to do with obedience to the law in any way, any part, then you must keep the whole law. You become debtor to keep the whole law. Okay? Galatians 6.13.

Galatians 6:13: Hypocrisy and Failure to Keep the Whole Law

58:14 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. And here Paul charges his opponents with hypocrisy. When they require you Gentile believers to be circumcised in order to be justified, they do so in order that they might boast in your flesh, in order that they might have cause for boasting in the success of their proselytizing mission. But the problem is, Paul says, that these very ones who compel you to be circumcised do not keep the law.

58:49 They fail to recognize the justification on the basis of the law requires much more than merely being circumcised. You see, when he says that they do not keep the law, he cannot be referring here to the social function of the law in separating Jews from Gentiles. He cannot be talking about the boundary marker requirements of the law. No, they do keep those.

59:09 They were circumcised, and they were compelling these Gentiles to be circumcised. But when Paul says that they do not keep the law, he means that they do not obey the commands, the laws of the law as a whole. They fail to do all that the law requires. So to summarize our survey of Romans and Galatians, the phrase the works of the law cannot be restricted merely to Jewish boundary markers or to the social function of the law.

Conclusion: 'Works of the Law' Refers to Ethical Claims, Justification by Faith Alone

59:33 Paul uses it to refer to obedience to what the law requires as a whole in terms of its ethical claims upon men. And when he says that we are not justified by the works of the law, he is not merely saying that Gentiles need not become Jews in order to be included in the people. He is teaching that justification for both Jew and Gentile is not based upon one's obedience to the law's requirements or upon any kind of human works whatsoever.

60:01 Now, we're going to stop here. We will move on next time to the third consideration that helps us to demonstrate that the Reformation understanding of the works of the law is a proper understanding. We're going to look at the reasons that Paul gives in Romans and Galatians. For why the works of the law cannot justify.

60:25 Why can they not justify? And his reason is going to be because we're sinners and because we have violated the law and we're unable to keep the law.

60:38 But we'll get to that next time. And then we're going to look at other texts where the Apostle Paul speaks of works in general such as Ephesians chapter 2, Titus. And there's one other passage I can't remember. And that support the traditional understanding of what Paul means by works and works of the law.