The joy of wandering through the field of Pauline interpretation is often the pain of making a journey through a sea of mercury. The frustration of trying to understand letters written 2000 years in the past is a hard task. Studying Paul’s thought can lead many a smart man or woman to the point of frustration. Why does Paul say this? How can he say that? At their best moments, scholars and lay people alike feel as though they are part of Mission Impossible. Does this mean we should give up our study? By no means. For we are not alone in our struggle to understand God’s Holy Word. The Holy Spirit illuminates the road set before us and helps us discern the difficulties of the text. It is in this struggle to deal with the difficulties of Romans that a new interpretive framework for understanding Paul’s thought has arisen. It is called the New Perspective. One of the foremost proponents of the New Perspective, N.T. Wright, has argued that the Pauline corpus needs to be understood through the lens of understand Judaism as a religion of grace. This is in stark contrast to the Old Perspective that sees the Judaism of Paul’s day being a religion where good works are done to be made righteous.
Although both the New and Old Perspective make key points regarding Paul’s understanding of the law and Jewish identity, they face difficulty in explaining the entirety of Paul’s thought. The New Perspective, specifically N.T. Wright, places too much emphasis on the exclusivity of national identity summed up in circumcision, while the Old Perspective ignores the role of national identity in keeping the law. Instead, Romans reveals that one’s nationality does not contain any bearing on one’s ability to keep the law; everyone is at the same playing field when it comes to our standing before God.
The interpretive framework of the Old Perspective understands the law as a series of requirements that must be fulfilled in order fore one to be made righteous. In Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul, he argues from the Old Perspective that “according to Paul’s most frequent usage of νόμος (law), the term refers to the sum of specific divine requirements given to Israel through Moses. They are intended to be “done” or “kept,” though the placing of concrete demands of course makes possible the “transgression” of the law as well as its obedience.” In addition, this framework understands works of the law to be the specific divine requirements given to Israel through Moses. This framework for understanding Romans places the focus of Paul’s argument against those Jews who thought they were righteous through keeping specific divine requirements. Paul outlines some of these requirements in Romans 2:21-23, including a rejection of stealing, adultery, and worshiping idols. Since the human race has missed these requirements, the way only way to be made righteous before God is through faith. This results in two distinctions: those who try to follow the concrete demands of the law, and those who place their faith in Him. Westerholm states, “Faith and deeds (or faith and the law) are seen as exclusive alternatives. A contrast between faith and deeds is so astonishing in the context of Jewish thought that many have wondered whether Paul really intended it. On the other hand, the two components on which the contrast rests are both comprehensible enough in principle and sufficiently well attested in Paul’s wrings to caution against its hasty dismissal.” This framework provides a critical distinction for understanding Paul’s argument in Romans 1-4; it defines the way by which we can be made righteous, through faith and not by deeds of the law. However, this framework becomes inadequate in explaining key aspects of Paul’s argument found in Romans 2:24-27, 3:29, and 4:9-12.
Paul’s concern for the role of circumcision in Romans 2:24-27 demonstrates that the mechanism by which the Jews understood justification was more complicated than just keeping specific divine commands. Before verse 24, he has been arguing that the Jewish nation as a whole was unable to fulfill the specific commands of God. For Paul, this failure on the part of the Jews has reached a critical point; their failure to uphold God’s law has caused God to be blasphemed. In verse 24-25, he writes, “For as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” For circumcision is indeed of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” The use of for after the quotation explains the reason God is being blasphemed: It is because the Jews misunderstoodn the role of circumsion. In other words, one might ask, “Why is God blasphemed because of the Jews?” To which Paul might respond, “Because the Jews misunderstood circumcision as the way by which they were justified, when really it does not hold any power unless it is accompanied by obedience to the law.” This misunderstanding stems from the fact that they thought circumcision justifies as opposed to delineates. Paul demonstrates the impacts of their misunderstanding in verse 27 by stating, “Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.” The fact that those who keep the law are able to condemn others show that the Jews who condemn the Gentiles will in fact be condemned by the Gentiles who keep the law. The key point of this argument shows us that Paul was writing to an audience who thought circumcision played a role in one’s justification.
An Old Perspective understanding of this passage glosses over its importance to understanding Paul’s argument. In Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2, Mark Seifrid states, “It is altogether likely that the understanding of Judaism which Paul here dismisses could encompass the benefits of ancestry, birth and upbringing; the apostle’s language elsewhere suggest as much and the reference to circumcision in this context probably implies it. But any ideas of this sort remain very much in the background.” Although it is true that circumcision appears to be in the background due to the fact that the net effect of Paul’s argument is to show that all humanity cannot be made righteous by trying to keep God’s specific demands, Paul arrives there by arguing against national identity. Furthermore, the issue of national identity does not appear to be a second thought of Paul. This is because of the effect of misunderstanding the role of national identity. The effect is not pleasant; it is the blaspheming of God. Despite all of this, even if the issue of circumcision is one going on in the background, it is still not integrated into the Old Perspective’s understanding of the law. There is no way to understand how circumcision functions within the Old Perspective and the law; there is only recognition of its existence, but not a description of its function.
In Romans 3:29, Paul’s juxtaposition of justification and circumcision further muddles the interpretive framework of the Old Perspective. Paul writes, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” This becomes problematic for the Old Perspective in two unique ways. First, Paul seems to be addressing a matter of national identity through circumcision and not works righteousness. Second, Paul must stress that faith, apart of circumcision has the power justify.
Paul’s unique focus on deconstructing national identity as a means to be justified is outside the interpretive framework of the Old Perspective. The previous understanding of the law of only being specific divine commands places Israel in a unique situation in so far as God has given them His commands. However, as Paul has already proven, this uniqueness destroys their ability to be justified. This uniqueness has only shown that Israel is not unique when it comes to their ability to be justified. Therefore, it seems that the uniqueness that Paul is arguing against is not one of received divine commands, but rather of the role of circumcision in justification. For if it was divine commands, Paul would not need to readdress the issue here because he has already proven Israel has no moral footing above the Gentiles.
The important distinction of faith compared to circumcision in Romans 3:29 is more complex than what the Old Perspective accounts for. Here Paul is concerned with helping the Jews to understand that only faith can justify, but the important thing he is arguing against is not one of works righteousness, but of national identity. This throws a wrench in the two categories of justification in the Old Perspective. National identity has become an important category that Paul must address. However, proponents of the Old Perspective have tried to refute this distinction. In Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, Simon Gathercole writes, “Paul’s argument in 3:29-30 has an ad absurdum quality to it. That is to say, he is not seriously opposing a view that holds that God is exclusively God of the Jews. Rather, he is noting that if obedience to the Torah were God’s appointed means to justification, then it would be case that God had absolutely no concern for gentiles, who of course had not been given Torah.” This response fails to engage with what is happening within 3:29-30 for two reasons. First, since Paul has already concluded that having the law does not leave one any better off in terms of justification, it is unreasonable for Paul to think that his audience might still believe that having the law makes someone better off. Since no one can keep the law, the fact that the Jews were given it does not signal a lack of concern for the gentiles. Rather, it signals that there must be a more complex understanding of justification than just keeping the law and faith. The second problem for this view is that Gathercole’s comment still endorses a discussion of national identity in justification. The impact to this is that Paul is still arguing against justification through national identity. When Gathercole argues that Paul is saying obedience to the law cannot leave one justified, because the Gentiles were not given the law, he is arguing that for Paul no one can be justified through the law because of its innately national demarcation. The statement boils down to failure of national demarcation to influence the outcome of one’s justification. The issue of dealing with nationality is one that the Old Perspective has failed to account for, and it is stuck outside the Old Perspective interpretive dichotomy.
The irregularities that the Old Perspective encounters in difficult passages of Romans 2-4 has lead to a new school of thought called the New Perspective. From scholars such as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, the New Perspective encompasses a plethora of differing views of the law within Romans. Some of these views think that Paul misunderstood the Judaism his day and still others believe that we do not comprehend the Judaism of Paul’s time. Due to the varied understandings, I shall only examine N.T. Wright’s understanding of the role of the law. Wright believes that the unique failure of the Jews was that they held too much confidence in their nationality. In What Saint Paul Really Said, Wright states, “Israel rejected the call of Jesus…because it challenges that which has become her all-consuming interest; her relentless pursuit of national, ethnic, and territorial identity.” For Wright, the failure of Israel was not that they could not keep the law, but that they became dependent on their nationality. In Paul: In Fresh Perspective, he writes that one of the presuppositions of Paul is, “The family of Abraham, who themselves share in the evil, as well as in the image-bearing vocation, of the rest of humanity, treated their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege. This was their meta-sin, their own second-order form of idolatry, compounding the basic forms they already shared with the Gentiles.” Therefore, Wright argues that Israel’s fault was not that they thought moral deeds would make them righteous, but that Israel thought their unique position, as the people of God would make them righteous.
This New Perspective has given us fresh insight into Paul’s thought in Romans. It has opened up the doors to new and insightful debate. However, it still does not seem to accomplish the aim of its purpose, to determine Paul’s understanding of the function of national identity and law in Romans. This is most evidentially seen in Romans 2:21-24 and 3:9-12.
Although it is true within Romans 2:19-24 that Paul is keen to point out that the Jews have a problem relating to their national identity, the problem is that they are hypocritical when it comes to keeping the law. He writes, “You are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?” Paul is arguing that Jewish hypocrisy to keep the law is the issue. They are relying upon their Jewishness to carry them through the requirement of the law. His point is that their Jewishness will not help them fulfill the law. In fact, their unique identity places a greater burden on them to keep the law. Paul’s purpose in this argument shows that this issue is not that the Jews depended upon “their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege,” but rather that they treated their uniqueness of bearing the law as a reason they stood on higher ground before God. Paul clarifies the type of hypocrisy they have in 2:21-24. He writes, “While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you mob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.” Paul’s conclusion to this argument shows the fault they have, they consider themselves to be of better moral standing before God when they are not. This is in contrast to Wright’s understanding that Israel’s issue was that they thought God had made them His exclusive people. Paul finds fault in their hypocrisy to keep the law and not in their claim to be the exclusive people of God. Their sin was not parading around their national identity, but rather it was not keeping the law.
The effect of Wright’s choice of national identity as the main force behind Paul’s argument does not bode well with the summary statement in Romans 3:9-12. Paul writes, “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good.”” Wright agrees that no one is righteous, but he does not see this as the main focus of Paul in Romans. However, Paul’s reference to what he has already proven demonstrates that this is a summary of his argument. This is especially clear when we understand that Paul is trying to lay the groundwork for the importance of Jesus Christ to both Jews and gentiles. And the only way to get there is to argue that humankind cannot be justified apart from belief in Christ because we do not do good. This is Paul’s defining thought before 3:27, and if we agree with Wright that Paul is arguing against national identity first, and moral deeds second, then we miss his summary that we are on equal footing before God’s judgment. Furthermore, if Paul’s main argument is that Israel is at fault for thinking they are special apart from their moral quality, then it becomes unnecessary for Paul to argue that no one can be justified through their moral actions, which he summarizes in Romans 3. In other words, if Paul is not trying to address the role of moral actions in justification as his primary focus, then it becomes unnecessary for him to spend so much time arguing for the role of moral actions in justification. This leaves Wright’s understanding of Romans in a bind as well.
With both viewpoints lacking explanatory support, we must turn to the possibility that Paul’s thought is more complex than both perspectives give him credit. This becomes an ever-increasing possibility when we consider the complexities of Second Temple Judaism. In fact, one of the main conclusions of Justification and Variegated Nomism vol. 1 is there are many unique and complex understandings of justification in Second Temple Judaism. This leaves us wondering how to understand the role and function of the law and national identity in Romans 2-4. I contend that Paul is primarily concerned with an issue of national identity with his Jewish friends. However, he finds the fault of the Jewish people to be that they think being Jewish will protect them from the condemnation of the law. Instead of the Jewish viewpoint, Paul makes the case that the law has proven that the Jewish people are made of the same stuff as the gentiles. In order to do this, I will take examine the passages dealing with the law and justification in Romans 2-3 beginning with Romans 2:12 and ending with 3:30.
Paul begins his attack in Romans 2:12-23 by arguing that having the law cannot make one justified unless one actually does what the law requires. This means that if Jews do some of what the law requires they are still not justified and if they believe that there is something inherently better about them they are still not justified. Paul begins:
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Paul is desperately concerned with proving that keeping the law is the only way that the law can justify a person. Paul regards this to be of such supreme importance that he argues that nationality plays no role in justification. And whether or not the Gentiles who keep the law are hypothetical, Christian, or pagan, the point is that in order to be justified apart from faith one must keep the law. One’s nationality does nothing to solve that problem. Now Paul turns to deal with the issue of the inability of nationality to help one keep the law. He writes:
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth– you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.
As I have stated earlier, the issue here is that boasting in God will not put the Jews on a higher platform before God. The Jews must still keep the law in all of its tenants. The fault of the Jew is not boasting in God’s choice of their nationality, but rather that their nationality can justify them apart from the law.
Now Paul is ready to lay the dagger in the heart of the Jewish claim that being Jewish allows the Jews to be justified apart from keeping the law. He decides to go after circumcision. He writes:
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Paul levels his final blow against the circumcised Jews by pointing out that “he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.” Paul even takes the issue further by foreshadowing what he will unveil in Chapter 8, but the point is that circumcision in the Old Covenant is not guarantee of being righteous before God. The only way to be made righteous apart from faith is to do what the law requires.
In Romans 3:9-20 Paul returns to his original argument of Romans 1-2 and summarizes what he has argued. He writes.
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”…”There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
This sounds very familiar from back in Romans 1-2, and it is. Back in Chapter 1, Verse 32 Paul states that man does the things that man knows will lead to death. He also writes about those under the law and finds and that those under the law will be judged by the law. Paul is ready to press on in his argument, but he reminds the Romans what he has been arguing. He has been arguing that all mankind stands condemned before God and that apart from faith the only way to be righteous is to keep the law.
But before Paul can get to on to discussing faith, he reminds the Jews that national signifiers will not guarantee righteousness. He writes, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” When Paul states works of the law, I contend he is referring to national Jewish signifiers. This is a likely explanation for three key reasons. The first is that Paul chooses to sum up his argument here, which means he needs to draw conclusions regarding his previous argument that deals with the role of national identity in justification. Since he does not choose to do this before, or after this passage, the most likely conclusion is that this passage serves to complete his previous argument regarding national identity.
The second is that all of the mentions of works earlier in Romans come before the introduction of the law or are different from his mention of works in 3:20. This occurs in Romans two times before it is addressed in 3:20. In Romans 2:6, Paul writes, “He will render to each one according to his works” The obvious problem here with understanding works as related to keeping the moral requirements of the law is that Paul has not yet introduced the law in his argument. In addition, the use of works in 3:20 is used to modify the law, and works in 2:6 stands alone. Due to this distinction, it is difficult to think Paul thinks that the works in 2:6 is the same as the works of the law. The other place where works is discussed before 3:20 is in Romans 2:15. Paul writes, “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.” This discussion of works is also unique compared to the one in 3:20 for five key reasons. First, Paul is discussing something as a singularity in 2:15 compared to a plurality in 3:20. Second, in 2:15 Paul is talking about the work of the law as opposed to works of the law. In the case of 2:15 work is the direct object of the verb, while in 3:20, works modifies the law. Third, in 2:15 Paul is concerned with the thing the law does, which is in contrast to a person doing works of the law. What the law does is different from things someone does under the law. Fourth, the context of Paul’s argument further de-links the mention of works in 3:20 to 2:15. Given that Paul is trying to show that nationality has no bearing in one’s ability to keep the law, it makes much more sense that Paul is saying that the work of the law is the way by which the law makes one holy and set apart as the people of God. This work of the law is how people will know who the people of God are or are not. Lastly, this passage uniquely references having this thing written on one’s heart. The other places within Romans that Paul uses this language deal with the Spirit or circumcision, as opposed to doing moral deeds of the law. Therefore, it is most likely from 2:15 that the work of the law is something different from works of the law mentioned in 3:20.
The third reason for understanding works of the law as Jewish signifiers in 3:20 deals with the structure of 3:20. Paul writes, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” If works of the law equal Westerholm’s “the sum of specific divine requirements,” then Paul is arguing that keeping the “specific divine requirements,” will fail because of sin. However, if one keeps the divine requirements, there is no sin. In addition, Paul sets up two categories in this verse as opposed to understanding the law and works of the law as the same category. There are the works of the law, and there is the knowledge of sin that comes through the law. If Paul saw these two categories as one, then his argument becomes, “We can not be justified by doing what the law requires, because the law informs us of sin. The obvious issue with this is that Paul has never argued that the Jewish people can do what the law requires. Instead, he has been arguing that they do not do what the law requires. He has been arguing that the problem is that they thought their nationality let them off the hook of the law. However, if we allow the two categories to stand, Paul’s argument becomes, “We cannot be justified by our national signifiers because they came with the law that condemns us.” This flow of thought is much more consistent with what Paul has already argued. If the issue is Israel’s belief that they could be justified apart from the law through their nationality, Paul really sums up his point nicely before expounding upon his thesis statement in 3:31 and following.
Now we must move ahead to 3:27-30, which demonstrates that Paul is arguing against boasting in national signifiers. He writes, “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.” This is the second time that Paul mentions boasting in Romans. Earlier he mentions it when dealing with the hypocritical Jews who “boast in God.” There the Jewish boast is not that they can keep the law. In fact, their boast relates to their national identity. Therefore, based on Paul’s earlier understanding of where boasting is located, it makes sense that in 3:27 boasting is related to being the people of God. This means that boasting national identify is eliminated because the law of faith breaks down national barriers. Since Paul is placing faith in direction opposition to national signifiers in the passage, it makes sense that the works of the law mentioned are national signifiers. These national signifiers can be anything from Jewish food laws to Jewish festivals, or even circumcision. This option is extremely attractive, especially compared to the different understanding of works of the law. If Paul asserted that they could no longer boast about keeping divine deeds, Paul would need to prove that the Jews have been keeping divine deeds. However, Paul has argued against this position back in Romans 2. In fact, he never praises the Jewish people for their ability to keep the law. Instead, he condemns them. Therefore, for Paul to remain consistent with his earlier thought, he cannot argue that their boast is in the ability to keep the law.
In Romans 3:28-30, the issue of nationality further demonstrates that boasting is located in nationality and not in keeping God’s divine commands. Paul writes, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one.” As I maintained before, the Old Perspective is non-responsive to matter of nationality being discussed here. Furthermore, this passage links circumcision to works of the law through the discussion of nationality. Here, God justifies apart from works of the law because God transcends national barriers. This means that the works of the law have a connection with the Jewish nationality; hence, they are connected to circumcision. Paul finally brings this discussion of the role of nationality in justification to a close in 30. He writes, “He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” The contrast of faith and circumcision as a means to justification shows that Paul was writing to an audience that thought nationality played a role in justification. Paul is trying to argue that God justifies with faith, and not with nationality, and that is how he closes his discussion of the role of nationality in justification.
The immense density of Paul’s writing continues to spur on new and creative interpretations of his thought. These new insights have something valuable to add to Pauline study; however, they take some of their arguments to far. Specifically, N.T. Wright does not pay enough attention to the importance of keeping the law in Paul’s letter. However, his new insights into the role of nationality in Romans offers a breath of fresh air to the classic Old Perspective. This does not mean the Old Perspective has fallen into disrepair. In fact, the emphasis of the Old Perspective on the necessity of Israel to keep the law as the means of justification pre-Christ provide a very important and well-aged insight into Paul’s thought. Combing this, we find that Israel’s fault was that they thought being Jewish could protect them from failing to keep the law. Their boast in nationality turned out to be meaningless in light of their failure to keep the law.
Stephen, Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
D. Carson, et.al., Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2, The Paradoxes of Paul
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).
Stephen, Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Stephen, Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Stephen, Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Mark Seifrid, et.al., Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities of