Rom 3:21, 28: righteousness without the Law

In this section, two texts will be examined: 3:21 manifestation of God’s righteousness without the Law and 3: 28 without works of the Law.

2.3.2.1.2.1 χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (3:21)

Rom 3:21- 26 is taken as one of the key sections of the letter of Romans next to 1:16-17. A detailed discussion is beyond the purview of this analysis but only χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ will be discussed in light of its topical progression. The section starts with Νυνί and its function is understood to be either temporal (Fitzmyer, 1993;Schreiner, 1998; Cranfield & Sanday, 1979; Moo, 1996;Cranfield, 1975:201; Dunn, 1988b:164), a logical contrast with the preceding argument ( Jewett, 2007:272), or both a logical and temporal shift (Barrett ,1991). It is erroneous to exclude the logical connection insofar as Paul is developing his argument that justification is without works of the Law. He is contrasting justification by works of the Law against righteousness apart from the Law. Although it is not impossible that Paul is thinking in temporal terms, the emphasis and priority is on the works of the Law.

45

Scholars are divided over whether χωρὶς νόμου modifies πεφανέρωται (Meyer, 1884:163; Moo, 1996:222; Jewett, 2007:272; Cranfield, 1975:201) or if it modifies δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Morris, 1988; Murray, 1959; Mounce, 1995). The former reading is plausible because Paul is not declaring a new righteousness insofar as the Law and the prophets already witnessed about God’s righteousness (3:21b). Instead, Paul is expounding the ways in which the righteousness of God is made public apart from the ways and manner of God’s righteousness revealed in the Law.

The meaning of the righteousness of God, in fact, matters here: 1) the status or gift of righteousness (Schreiner, 1998; Murray, 1959; Dunn, 1988b); 2) justifying activity of God that is God’s intervening activity to deliver humanity (Moo, 1996); 3) God’s righteous attribute or his uprightness (Fitzmyer, 1993); and 4) both his activity of righteousness and his righteous character (Moo, 1996; Barrett, 1991). It should be noted that Paul did not say the righteousness of God is dispensed or bestowed but it is manifested. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean the righteousness of God was hidden or unknown in the past (Meyer, 1884:163). But it means that now the manifestation of the righteousness of God is without the Law.

If the righteousness of God is the saving activity of God, and if it had been witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (3:21b) then there had been manifestation of God’s saving activity through the Law among the Jews while they were under the Law. If this is the case, then what does manifestation of God’s righteousness (χωρὶς νόμου) precisely mean? Moo (1996:222) correctly pointed out, “Paul’s purpose is to announce the way in which God’s righteousness has been manifest rather than to contrast two kinds of righteousness.” Yet, Moo has not stated what this means precisely.

Pointedly, χωρὶς νόμου means God himself acting outside of the realm of the stipulation of the Law, not man receiving the status of righteousness by faith. There are key terms and concepts that are important to unfold, what Paul means without the Law: such as redemption in Christ Jesus (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) (3:24), propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) (3:25), and in his blood (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι) (3:25). These terms (redemption, propitiation and blood) are the language of the Law and are the ways in which God revealed his righteousness (his saving activities) under the Law and served as witness to the righteousness of God. Similarly, the prophets witnessed about the coming of the Messiah (1:1-2). Yet Paul focuses on the sacrificial aspect of the Law in his explanation of the manifestation of the righteousness of the Law, rather than the promise. No explicit statement is stated in the Law (probably except the prophets) that God would send God’s son in the likeness of sinful flesh and offer him as a sacrifice to manifest his righteousness. The Law is against human sacrifice. If this is

46

granted, χωρὶς νόμου is not about how one gets status of righteousness before God without doing or fulfilling the requirements of the Law as Moo claims (Moo, 1986:222). Nor does it mean that God abrogated the Law; rather it means that he did not use its prescriptions for salvific activity from his side.

2.3.2.1.2.2. χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (3:28)

This concept (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου) occurs only in 3:28 but it occurs as ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in 3:20, and the singular form τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in 2:15. The phrase appears only in these chapters of Romans where Paul extensively discusses God’s impartial judgement and the sinfulness of both the Jews and the Gentiles. 3:20a begins with the word διότι which links it with v.19 introducing reason (Jewett, 2007:265) but γὰρin 3:20b gives an explanation for v. 20a. The Bultmann school believed that ἔργων νόμου refers to doing the Law and the very intent and attempt to do the Law is sin (Bultmann, 1951:264; Käsemann, 1980:89,102–103; Hübner, 1984:113–124; Fuller, 1975:28–42). Those closer to Bultmann’s position contend that ἔργων νόμου refers to doing good work to achieve salvation (Calvin, 1960:878–879; Sanday & Headlam, 1902:76,94; Nygren, 1949:142–143,162–165; Barrett, 1991:70–71,82–83; Leenhardt, 1961:96–97, 108–111; Murray, 1959:107,122–123; Cranfield, 1975:197–198; Morris, 1988:171– 171,185–187). Other scholars, although rejecting Bultmann’s thesis that the very attempt of doing good is evil, affirm that ἔργων νόμου refers to doing the requirements of the commandments of the Law but no one can keep them (Westerholm, 1988:120–121; Thielman, 1989:61–65; Moo, 1983:208). Still others think that ἔργων νόμου denotes keeping the rituals part of the Law (Wiles, 1967: 67-69).

While Dunn (2008:23–25), proponent of the NPP, affirms that χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου refers to the conduct prescribed by the Law, he insists that it also refers to a social and ethnic identity and formulates the definition of ἔργων νόμου as “privileged status attested and maintained by obedience to the Law” (Dunn, 1992:111) (italics his) arguing that ἔργων νόμου is addressed to the Jews not to the Gentiles (Dunn, 2008:44; 1992:105). Dunn contends that 2:17-21 is not relevant to ἔργων νόμου because ἔργων νόμου is not related to breach of the Law (Dunn, 2008:45) insofar as it refers to performing what the Law requires (Dunn, 1992:109); the role of the Law is not to produce justification but to create awareness of sin (3:20) (Dunn, 2008:47) and ἔργων νόμου is associated with boasting in 3:27 because they think that God is only the God of the Jews (Dunn, 1992:110–111) and 4 QFlor. 1.1-7 deeds of the law refers to what distinguishes Qumran community from others (Dunn, 1992:103). Dunn concludes that Paul is against the Jews’ assumption that status within the covenant ensures final acquittal and that disobedience to the comandments of God will not deter one from entering to the age to come because sacrificial cult dissolves

47

the problem of sin (Dunn, 1992:108). Therefore, Paul’s indictment is both disobedience to the Law and a boasting attitude towards the others (Dunn, 1992:108).

The RNPP-representatives such as Lloyd Gaston proposes an experiment approach and John Gager, reading νόμου as subjective genitive, argue that ἔργων νόμου is synonymous to the curse the Law brings to the non-Jews. It does not refer to commandments of the Law to be obeyed by someone. Rather it refers to what the Law produces (wrath and evil things such as inciting sin in 7:10-11) when it encounters those who are outside of the covenant of the Jews and hence, Paul added Jesus for a means of salvation for them (Gaston, 1987:100–107).Gaston maintains that the judgement in Rom 2: 17-19 refers only to a specific group of Judaizers who insist that Gentiles must convert to Judaism and keep the Law not to the Jews as a whole (Gaston, 1987:138–139), but the Law continues to be a means of salvation for the Jews. A number of scholars have shown the weakness of Gaston and Gager’s interpretation, such as Thielman (1989:123–124) hence no need of rehearsing. Nonetheless, Gaston-Gager’s interpretation contributes to the fact that in no place in Romans has Paul urged the Jews to abandon the Law. Daniel Boyarin (1994:36–37), on the other hand, while affirming the NPP position by arguing that ἔργων νόμου refers to the identity markers such as circumcision, kashruth, the observance of the Sabbath and the holidays, he contends that Paul is a Jewish cultural critic, a culture which is in tension between “ethnocenterism and universalist monotheism.” Boyarin divides the Law or ἔργων νόμου into literal and allegorical. But he argues for the allegorical approach that hermeneutically “Paul understood “works” as the material signifier of “faith,” that is, his essentially allegorical appropriation of Scripture…” (Boyarin, 1994:36– 37). However, there is hardly any convincing evidence that Paul is thinking the Law allegorically in Romans. Nanos (1996:9,11) understands ἔργων νόμου as referring to Jews’ status (such as circumcision) which created Jews’ ethnocentric exclusivism that “denied equal access to God’s mercy for non-Jews…” Basically Nanos agrees with the NPP on the meaning of the ἔργων νόμου.

The major perpetuating problem with the traditional interpretation is imposing Christian soteriology upon first century Jewish understating of salvation. Paul is not castigating the Jews because they thought that they are sinners and wanted to be accepted before God by fulfilling the requirements of the Law. This does not emerge from Romans. Instead, what emerges from Romans particularly in 2:17 is that a typical Jew thinks that (1) Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ (he is a Jew), (2) ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ (he is resting in the Law) and (3) καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ (he boasts in God). A typical Jew does not think of himself as outside of God’s people and hence strives to be accepted before God as his people by keeping the commandments. On the contrary, a typical Jew boasts of his knowledge of God, discerning the truth, possessing the Law, the

48

promise, the fathers, and the glory (3:1; 9:4-5; 11:10). For him, circumcision has advantage (3:1) because it is the seal or the sign of righteousness (4:11). He believes in the God of Abraham with the same faith like Abraham, which is believing in one God (3: 29-30). Paul is not claiming that Abraham believed in Jesus Christ and got righteousness but that Abraham believed in one God and the promise God gave him is reckoned to him as righteousness (4:16-24). Jewish people share this faith and do not believe less. Therefore, Paul is not accusing the Jews of not having faith in God. But Paul is arguing that the Jews did not believe in the Messiah like the Jesus followers do (3: 24-25). What emerges from Romans about the Jews is not that they are striving to please God so that they might be accepted but they are confident that they are already accepted and need no other means of salvation.

Further, within the community of Jesus followers, it seems that the strong and the weak are judging one another (14-15). Paul did not ask the weak to leave their practices even though he sides with the strong, he warns the strong not to be obstacles to their brothers. Nor did he accuse them of trying to secure their salvation by keeping dietary law but affirms and encourages them to do it in the realm of faith in Christ. In light of this overall portrayal of the Jews in the letter, the proponents of the traditional reading downplay the historical and focus on the theological. It is hardly convincing to read ἔργων νόμου as a Jew striving to get acceptance before God.

Nor is it correct to think that Paul is contending that it is impossible to keep the Law. Neither is he limiting works of the Law to national identity. On the contrary, Paul argues that the commandments of the Law must be obeyed because disobeying it dishonours God. Keeping the commandment is related to honouring God among the Gentiles (2:24) not related to salvation or just keeping boundaries because the commandments of God are entrusted to the people of God who have already been recognized as God’s people before the giving of the Law. Enduring in doing good works and seeking glory, honour and immortality rewards the Jews and Gentiles with glory, honour, peace, and eternal life (2:7, 10). The content of the good works is the commandments of the Law. All these dynamics of Paul’s concept on work must be kept in view while interpreting ἔργων νόμου. Neither isthe Law evil per se nor does evil rather the Law is good, holy and spiritual (7: 13-14). Therefore, ἔργων νόμου is an inclusive expression both obedience to the commandments and as an identity marker.

So χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου in 3:28 and ἐξ ἔργων νόμου should be interpreted as modified understanding of the new perspective that is as a reference to both the sociological exclusivism of ἔργων νόμου as well as obedience to the requirements of the Law. Entering into salvation through Jesus Christ is not by

49

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου yet staying in Christ in faith requires obedience. This concept will be developed later under the topical analysis of “The doers of the Law.”