Romans 3:28 - What is Paul Denying?

[Andre]

If your position were correct Paul would have said "a jew" instead of "a man" as you demand the previous phrase "deeds of the law" must refer to Jews and not generic "man."

No. Paul does not need to say "Jew" explcitly since he can reasonably expect his reader to understand that only Jews are under the Law of Moses. And that he expects the reader to understand this clear from verse 29:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

As I have already argued, the only reason why Paul would even write verse 29 is that he is addressing someone who would think that justification is limited to Jews, who are the only people under the Law of Moses. This is rock-hard evidence that "law" in verse 28 is the Law of Moses.

I am sorry, but I did not understand the 2nd half of your post.

 

[Andre]

Your fundemental Premise is that all men are going to ultimately be judged "according to your works" - Rom. 2:6

Yes, but these are not really works for which the person can substantially take credit - they are works generated by the Holy Spirit (as per Romans 8)

You believe this is as true for Gentiles as it is for Jews.

Yes.

Would it be wrong to presume that the only "works" that can possibly justify Jew or Gentile before God are "good" works - Rom. 2:7????

No, it would not be wrong to presume this - these are indeed "good works".

Hence, if my presumption is correct and you agree with it, then your position is that only jews and gentiles that are able to present sufficient "good" works as opposed to bad works will be ultimately justified as you don't take the position that anyone now is perfect and produces only "good" works without any "bad" works. So your position is one of scales in the balance - good works out weigh bad works by those who profess Christ in order to be justified before God.

Sort of. As I have written in other posts, we are not actually told what the passing standard will be. But, what we are told is that those who have faith in Jesus will pass. So that is why I embrace justification by faith in this somewhat qualified and nuanced sense.

Again, presumably you don't believe the MORAL law has been abolished and that love is the fulfilling of all commandments by God. Therefore, justification by faith according to your position is initial justification as well as inclusive of progressive sanctification as the basis for ultimate future justification before God. Thus faith plus GOOD works equals final justification before God according to your view of Romans 2:6.

Well, sort of. As I have said in this post, and others, the one who has faith (and keeps it) in Jesus is guaranteed pass the good works judgement.

In order to avoid the problem of repeated denials that any man is justified by works or by works of the law or the deeds of the law you restrict those statements to the Jewish law and the idea that Paul is only denying that anyone must become a Jew in order to be saved by conforming to the Mosaic Law.

Have I summarized your position correctly?

This last paragraph is a very good characterization of a key part of my position.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, Paul did not need to bring in the Jew - Gentile distinction. The fact that Jews and Gentiles together make up all humanity is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that Paul has indeed introduced the matter of this particular ethnic distinction and repeatedly returns to it through the chapter.

If Paul were simply using "Jew + Gentile" as a way to refer to all of humanity, then why didn't he do so in any of the following ways instead:

1. Men + Women
2. People with beards + People without beards
3. Rich people + Non Rich people

....and so on and so on.[/COLOR]

What you demand is "beside the point" IS THE POINT Paul is making - Jews and gentiles are ALL OF HUMANITY - the same kind of man - sinful. It is your position that demands such distinctions as "Men + Women" etc. not mine or Paul's. He uses UNIVERAL TERMS - "all the world" and "no flesh" and "every man" and "a man" when it comes to the law, to sin and to redemption through justification by faith.

What you don't understand and most likely will reject is that the Romans 3:28 conclusion:

"Therefore we conclude that A MAN is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law" is UNIVERSAL because he uses a UNIVERSAL term that calls for his next question "Is he the God of the Jews only" as if the only "man" God created was a JEWISH man!

Is the Gentile less of "a man" than the Jew? If so, did another God create the gentile than the God who created the jew? Since there is but "ONE GOD" there can be but "ONE UNIVERSAL MAN" in regard to law, in regard to sin, in regard to justification.

Therefore Paul's reason for asking "Is he the God of the Gentiles" originates from Paul declaring that "a man" is not justified by the deeds of the law. The phrase "justified by the deeds of the law" refers to Paul previous words "according to the law" in Romans 2:6. That phrase IS "the law of works" for justification. Romans 3:27-28 is a clear and explicit denial that any man, any human created by God is justified by this law of works "according to your works" before God.

Why? Because it gives grounds for boasting and boasting is excluded. Why because "according to your works" fails to obtain justification before God becuase WHATEVER LAW YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT that originates with God has CONDEMNED the works of the Jew and Gentile EQUALLY as "sin" and you cannot be justified by sin before God.

Why? Because we are justified by faith and the only role of faith in justificaiton is to RECEIVE what God has provided in Christ as that is the only thing that can PROPITIATE the justice of God for sinners. YOUR WORKS cannot PROPIATE the wrath of God against sin because you works COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

Andre, do you know what is the "glory of God"????? It is His HOLINESS! Do you know what kind of HOLINESS God has? SINLESS PERFECTION. Sin is coming short of SINLESS PERFECTION and this is exactly how James 2:10 defines sin. All of your works are but inquity if you bring them to God expecting to be justified by them according to His standard of holiness. That is why God provided HOLINESS in the Person and works of Christ for our redemption which is obtaine soley and only by FAITH alone.

As long as you believe in works for justification YOU ARE REJECTING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST as you do not BELIEVE that Christ is "THE END" of righteousness for justification but you believe he is the BEGINNING of rightousness for justification thus you have REVERSED the Word of God.

 

[Andre]

As long as you believe in works for justification YOU ARE REJECTING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST as you do not BELIEVE that Christ is "THE END" of righteousness for justification but you believe he is the BEGINNING of rightousness for justification thus you have REVERSED the Word of God.

I am, of course, not in the position that you suggest that I am.

As for the rest of your post, to try to deal with it would be re-state arguments that I believe are already clearly stated. There is one exception to this, which I will address in my next post.

Shortly, I intend to press on and make arguments from Romans 10 that Paul, as he has done in Romans 2, 3, and 4, is arguing against ethnic privilege, not "good works" in respect to the matter of justification.

I may also have something more to say about Romans 3, but not in response to anything in particular from your post number 63.

 

[Andre]

"Therefore we conclude that A MAN is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law" is UNIVERSAL because he uses a UNIVERSAL term that calls for his next question "Is he the God of the Jews only" as if the only "man" God created was a JEWISH man!

Is the Gentile less of "a man" than the Jew? If so, did another God create the gentile than the God who created the jew? Since there is but "ONE GOD" there can be but "ONE UNIVERSAL MAN" in regard to law, in regard to sin, in regard to justification.

I do not think this argument is very convincing. Let's look at the text again:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The key word is the "or". Clearly, the "or" indicates that Paul is arguing that if justification were achieved by works of the Law, whatever Paul actually means by "works of the Law", this would mean that God is only god of the Jews. That is why Paul uses the connective "or". That is simply how the language reads. If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

This should end the debate, but I am pretty sure it will continue.

You have to have this man be a universal man so you argue that verse 29 is Paul's way of saying "well God created Jewish men so I had better add in the Gentiles here to make this a "universal". Well God also created 4 foot men, and men with big noses. And so on. Why has Paul instead split up humanity into Jew and Gentile, and not, say, men and women?

In other words, one problem with your view is that it does not give any explanation at all as to why Paul has picked these particular categories - Jew and Gentile as the two "halves" of this universal man.

But a bigger problem with your view is that it has no explanatory leverage whatsoever in respect to Paul's clear belief that his listener thinks that if justification were achieved by "good works", this would specifically cut out the Gentile.

If Paul were really saying what you think he is saying, he would have written something like this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles.

But, of course, he says something radically different - something that forces the reader to conclude that Paul is refuting a belief about a path to justification that is not open to the Gentile. And Paul therefore cannot, repeat cannot be refuting a belief about a "universal" man being justified by good works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

From a lost Jewish and Judizer perspective the whole world is made up of two types of men - Jew and Gentile. That is the jewish reality. There is no question that a particular type of Jew - Judiaziers - believe that the only kind of man that is justified before God is the Jew who believes in Christ plus the Mosaic law as the means for justification and the Judiazer is the one that caused the problem in Acts 15 and in the Galatian churches.

However, here is the distinction between you and Paul. You take the obvious and superficial problem - The judizer position - justification by proselyzation to the law of Moses through circumcision - and claim this is the sole issue Paul is dealing with when he says we are not justified by works and/or the deeds of the law.

Here is the difficulty in dealing with your position. You have correctly defined the issue concerning the position of the Judizer but you have not correctly interpreted why this position is wrong and that is precisely what Paul deals with - the root of this error or why it is wrong.

Unlike Paul, you do not deal with WHY this postion is wrong, instead you simply identify the obvious Jewish problem (justification by Mosaic law) and use it as the scape goat to defend another GENERIC form of the very same basic error creating a GENERIC counterpart (Justification by good works) while Paul deals with the very root of this Jewish problem which is the false idea that justification before God is by "the law of works" (which is the law that states justification "according to your works") rather than by "the law of... faith." The Judizer model of justification is based upon the very same root problem that your GENERIC model of justification is based on - "works." The Judizer's defines justification by "good" works according to the Mosaic Law while you define justification by "good" works according to the Moral Law but both the Judizer and you have the very same model - Justification by works - except their is ethnic and yours is generic.

Paul destroys this works model by going to the root problem which is that justification is not by works at all but by "the law...of faith."

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The key word is the "or". Clearly, the "or" indicates that Paul is arguing that if justification were achieved by works of the Law, whatever Paul actually means by "works of the Law", this would mean that God is only god of the Jews. That is why Paul uses the connective "or". That is simply how the language reads. If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

You are right that Paul is combating the Jewish idea of justification by the Law of Moses but he is destroying it at its root. He is attacking the idea that justification is by works which is the reason why the Judizers teach the doctrine of justification by the law of Moses because they believe the Law of Moses defines "good" and "evil" and it is only by doing "good works" that even the Jew beleives he can be justified before God. You don't like this conclusion but I have proven it is part and parcel of the Jewish model of justification as they condemned to Gehenna those who did not do "good" works as defined by the Mosaic law.

This is precisely why Paul dismantles this theory by its roots or "the law of works." By its roots it is a theory that promotes boasting because it is based upon YOUR WORKS whereas the "law of...faith" destroys any basis for boasting as it excludes ALL YOUR WORKS (v. 28) as none of YOUR WORKS are used by God to "propitiate" or satisfy His violated justice/righteousness (vv. 24-26). Only faith appropriates the provision of God through Christ's satisfaction of violated justice.

Now, we come to the conclusion in verse 28. Paul denies that the generic man - "a man" is justified by "the deeds of the law" thus he destroys your GENERIC justification by works model as much as he destroys the Judizers model of justification by works. However, in context this would apply specifically to the superficial Judizer's doctrine but it would apply to it from the roots up and therefore is a comprehensive and conclusive statement that denies any and all kinds of justification models based upon the same root error that justification before God is by "the law of works."

In regard to the immediate Judizer's teaching it would make God exclusively the God of Jews (v. 29) but in regard to the more comprehensive root problem ("the law of works") it would make void the Law of God and invalidate it's just demands. Only "the law of faith" does not make void the Law of God and establishes the law by satisfying its just demands in the Person and work of Jesus Christ (v. 31).

However, in regard to the GENERIC man "a man" (v. 28) any theory of justification is wrong that restricts God to be only the God of a certain race of mankind (v. 29). Paul is drawing another obvious conclusion that should expose the Judizer theory as error as there is only "ONE GOD" that is creator of GENERIC "man" which the Jews had divided into two parts - Jew and Gentile.

Surprisingly, you use the Judaistic problem as the scape goat to justify a GENERIC version of the same problem - justification by works - but fail to see that the Jews are the ones who also divided mankind into two classes - Jews versus gentiles and that this two class division is part and parcel with what Paul is dealing with and refuting and he is refuting it by using universal terms in response ("all the world" "no flesh" "every mouth" "a man").

You keep claiming that you have laid down foundations for your position, which I believe are stated in the first four posts you made in this thread. However, I took all four posts and repudiated EVERY POINT you made but you continue to talk as though they have never been challenged or repudiated.

I don't expect you to accept the truth as you are married in spirit to your savior of good works - only the true Savior can open your blind eyes and deaf ears to the WHOLE truth. What you have is a HALF-truth. You have rightly defined the superficial problem or the doctrine of the Judizers and that Paul is repudiating it but you have no eyes to see that Paul is refuting it by going deeper and dealing with this problem from its roots up or the foundation upon which it stands. He is repudiating justification by "the law of works" or justification "according to your works." This not only exposes and destroys the JEWISH doctrine of "good works" according to how the Law of Moses defines good and evil but it destroys your GENERIC model of justification which stands on the very same "law of works."

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

This should end the debate, but I am pretty sure it will continue.

You have to have this man be a universal man so you argue that verse 29 is Paul's way of saying "well God created Jewish men so I had better add in the Gentiles here to make this a "universal". Well God also created 4 foot men, and men with big noses. And so on. Why has Paul instead split up humanity into Jew and Gentile, and not, say, men and women?

In other words, one problem with your view is that it does not give any explanation at all as to why Paul has picked these particular categories - Jew and Gentile as the two "halves" of this universal man.

But a bigger problem with your view is that it has no explanatory leverage whatsoever in respect to Paul's clear belief that his listener thinks that if justification were achieved by "good works", this would specifically cut out the Gentile.

If Paul were really saying what you think he is saying, he would have written something like this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles.

But, of course, he says something radically different - something that forces the reader to conclude that Paul is refuting a belief about a path to justification that is not open to the Gentile. And Paul therefore cannot, repeat cannot be refuting a belief about a "universal" man being justified by good works.

 

[Andre]

From a lost Jewish and Judizer perspective the whole world is made up of two types of men - Jew and Gentile.

True, but as I have shown, Paul is clearly responding to a person who thinks that "justification by works of the law" is something that only a Jew could achieve. So this does not make the "man" in 3:28 a "universal man".

However, here is the distinction between you and Paul. You take the obvious and superficial problem - The judizer position - justification by proselyzation to the law of Moses through circumcision - and claim this is the sole issue Paul is dealing with when he says we are not justified by works and/or the deeds of the law.

This is not what I am doing. I am arguing from the text itself that the very content of what Paul is saying shows that he must be responding to someone who thinks that justification is for Jews alone.

Unlike Paul, you do not deal with WHY this postion is wrong, instead you simply identify the obvious Jewish problem (justification by Mosaic law) and use it as the scape goat to defend another GENERIC form of the very same basic error creating a GENERIC counterpart (Justification by good works) while Paul deals with the very root of this Jewish problem which is the false idea that justification before God is by "the law of works" (which is the law that states justification "according to your works") rather than by "the law of... faith." The Judizer model of justification is based upon the very same root problem that your GENERIC model of justification is based on - "works." The Judizer's defines justification by "good" works according to the Mosaic Law while you define justification by "good" works according to the Moral Law but both the Judizer and you have the very same model - Justification by works - except their is ethnic and yours is generic.

This is a circular argument yet again - you assume that the issue here is good works and then draw the obvious conclusions. Plus you have not engaged the force of my argument. To repeat: If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

You are right that Paul is combating the Jewish idea of justification by the Law of Moses but he is destroying it at its root. He is attacking the idea that justification is by works which is the reason why the Judizers teach the doctrine of justification by the law of Moses because they believe the Law of Moses defines "good" and "evil" and it is only by doing "good works" that even the Jew beleives he can be justified before God.

There is no actual evidence that this is what Paul is doing. Again, you assume that the issue of "works" is a "good works" issue and not an "ethnic delimiter" issue. I do not make such assumptions - I have shown that the form and content of what Paul actually wrote - here in 3:28-29, and in the letter more broadly, shows that he is rebuking the person who believes justification is limited to Jews.

 

[Andre]

I don't expect you to accept the truth as you are married in spirit to your savior of good works - only the true Savior can open your blind eyes and deaf ears to the WHOLE truth.

An entirely inappropriate comment. Let's argue the texts, and not speculate about things that you or cannot possibly know. My arguments are what they are. I sense we are going over old ground.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are simply not being objective with the text and context and that is obvious when you argue that it is an assumption on my part that the Jews believed in justification by "good" works. Does not Paul say to those very same jews you claim he is talking to the following words:

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The Gentiles never heard the law because they were never given the law that you can "HEAR" when it is READ. The only people that are "HEARERS of the law" are the Jews and their proselyte Gentiles. This was the boast of the Pharisee OVER OTHER JEWS and that is why the Pharisee denomination existed in contrast to the Sadducees and other denominational distinctions among the Jews. This is why the Pharisees threatened their JEWISH audience with GEHENNA for those who lived in disobedience to the law (BAD WORKS). YOU ARE SIMPLY BEING CLOSED MINDED TBVIOUS TRUTH because that OBVIOUS TRUTH destroys your position as Paul denies the root of this error which is justification "according to works" as that is "the law of works" in regard to justification by works. The Jewish concept of Justification was based upon that very law just as your concept of justification is based upon that law - the law of "GOOD WORKS."

Second, it is the Greek Grammar that makes "a man" GENERIC man. Paul is an educated grammarian. He used the anarthous construction purposely here. God is the creator of ALL MANKIND - GENERIC not merely the Jew.

True, but as I have shown, Paul is clearly responding to a person who thinks that "justification by works of the law" is something that only a Jew could achieve. So this does not make the "man" in 3:28 a "universal man".


This is not what I am doing. I am arguing from the text itself that the very content of what Paul is saying shows that he must be responding to someone who thinks that justification is for Jews alone.


This is a circular argument yet again - you assume that the issue here is good works and then draw the obvious conclusions. Plus you have not engaged the force of my argument. To repeat: If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.


There is no actual evidence that this is what Paul is doing. Again, you assume that the issue of "works" is a "good works" issue and not an "ethnic delimiter" issue. I do not make such assumptions - I have shown that the form and content of what Paul actually wrote - here in 3:28-29, and in the letter more broadly, shows that he is rebuking the person who believes justification is limited to Jews.

 

[Andre]

You are simply not being objective with the text and context and that is obvious when you argue that it is an assumption on my part that the Jews believed in justification by "good" works.

Well I certainly disagree that Jew beleived in justification by good works. Although I have not argued the point, I have read arguments to the effect that the Jews never really believed in justification by good works, but rather believed that they were ethnicallly privileged for salvation and did the works of the Law of Moses out of gratitude for a justification that was given to them on ethnic grounds instead. But I have not actually argued that point on historical grounds, I have shown that the texts of Romans show that this is the kind of thinking that Paul was responding to.

In any event, I have seen nothing from you that I would take as an actual argument that Jews believed in justification by good works. Can you point out posts where you believe you have done more than simply assume this. But even if this were true, the texts we have been talking about show that Pual is responding to a Jew who believes his justification is based on ethnicity, not good works.

Does not Paul say to those very same jews you claim he is talking to the following words:

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Fair point. At least twice, I have acknowledged that, for my argument to work, the "law" here cannot be the Law of Moses. I have also stated that I plan to explain why this is not the Law of Moses, but I will need more time - it is a very complex and lengthy argument.

This is why the Pharisees threatened their JEWISH audience with GEHENNA for those who lived in disobedience to the law (BAD WORKS). YOU ARE SIMPLY BEING CLOSED MINDED TBVIOUS TRUTH

Please stop with the insults. Why not try to find actual errors in my arguments and leave the personal stuff out of this?

Now even if the Pharisees did this, this does not mean that the Jew did not believe that justification was essentially an ethnic privilege, which some Jews would forfeit by disobeying the Law.

Second, it is the Greek Grammar that makes "a man" GENERIC man. Paul is an educated grammarian. He used the anarthous construction purposely here. God is the creator of ALL MANKIND - GENERIC not merely the Jew.

You have not dealt with the following, which, by itself, shows your take on this "man" cannot be correct:

If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

Your view is that has no explanatory leverage whatsoever in respect to Paul's clear belief that his listener thinks that if justification were achieved by "good works", this would specifically cut out the Gentile.

If Paul were really saying what you think he is saying, he would have written something like this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles.

But, of course, he says something radically different - something that forces the reader to conclude that Paul is refuting a belief about a path to justification that is not open to the Gentile. And Paul therefore cannot, repeat cannot be refuting a belief about a "universal" man being justified by good works.

 

[Andre]

Here is material from theologian NT Wright, asserting that "justification by good works" was not, in fact, a widely held belief among Jews. Now there is no argument in the present post to support this assertion. But, if time permits, I can do the research into that:

The main thrust of Sanders’s work, which I endorse, is that first century Judaism was not a system of Pelagian-style works-righteousness. First century Jews were not imagining that they had to earn ‘righteousness’, that is, basic membership in God’s people, membership in the covenant, through doing moral good deeds. They did not regard the Torah, the Jewish law, as a ladder of good works up which they had to climb, with salvation as the reward at the top. On the contrary. As any good Calvinist could have told Sanders, they regarded the Torah as a good, lovely, God-given thing, not a ladder of good works for eager merit-earners, but the way of life for the people already redeemed. God chose Israel; God redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt by an act of sheer grace and power; and God then gave Israel the Torah, not to earn their status with God but to demonstrate it. Now it is true, of course, that the Mishnah and Talmud, the codified commentaries and elaborations on Torah-keeping which grew up over the half-millennium after Paul’s day, do indeed look like the kind of casuistical law-mongering which many people think of today when they hear the word ‘legalism’. But Sanders’s point here stands, despite many attempts to dislodge it. The main motive for keeping the law in Judaism was not to earn membership in the people of God, or justification or salvation, but to express one’s gratitude for it, to demonstrate one’s membership, and ultimately to become the sort of person God clearly intended you to become. In Lutheran terms, it was tertius usus legis. In Calvinist terms, this was why God gave the law in the first place.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Do you mean to tell me that you are going to a non-Biblical uninspired writer to confute the explicit statement of Paul in Romans 2:13 to the contrary???? You talk about a closed mind to God's word!!!!! Do you actually believe that the Jewish teachers/rabbi's taught their people that Jews could be justified before God if they violated the law of Moses as did the Gentiles????????????????

Here is the extreme that you are willing to go in order to defend a false doctrine.

Here is material from theologian NT Wright, asserting that "justification by good works" was not, in fact, a widely held belief among Jews. Now there is no argument in the present post to support this assertion. But, if time permits, I can do the research into that:

The main thrust of Sanders’s work, which I endorse, is that first century Judaism was not a system of Pelagian-style works-righteousness. First century Jews were not imagining that they had to earn ‘righteousness’, that is, basic membership in God’s people, membership in the covenant, through doing moral good deeds. They did not regard the Torah, the Jewish law, as a ladder of good works up which they had to climb, with salvation as the reward at the top. On the contrary. As any good Calvinist could have told Sanders, they regarded the Torah as a good, lovely, God-given thing, not a ladder of good works for eager merit-earners, but the way of life for the people already redeemed. God chose Israel; God redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt by an act of sheer grace and power; and God then gave Israel the Torah, not to earn their status with God but to demonstrate it. Now it is true, of course, that the Mishnah and Talmud, the codified commentaries and elaborations on Torah-keeping which grew up over the half-millennium after Paul’s day, do indeed look like the kind of casuistical law-mongering which many people think of today when they hear the word ‘legalism’. But Sanders’s point here stands, despite many attempts to dislodge it. The main motive for keeping the law in Judaism was not to earn membership in the people of God, or justification or salvation, but to express one’s gratitude for it, to demonstrate one’s membership, and ultimately to become the sort of person God clearly intended you to become. In Lutheran terms, it was tertius usus legis. In Calvinist terms, this was why God gave the law in the first place.

 

[Andre]

Do you mean to tell me that you are going to a non-Biblical uninspired writer to confute the explicit statement of Paul in Romans 2:13 to the contrary????

Oh my. What we have here is a situation where you and NT Wright disagree, not where NT Wright and Paul disagree. Or at least the question on the table is really this: Andre agrees with NT Wright about what Paul's argument is. Dr. Walter agrees with a lot of other people that Paul's argument is something else.

So please do not make this into a "how dare NT Wright disagree with Paul" scenario. I could equally claim "how dare you disagree with Paul".

I have news for you - like NT Wright, you are not a writer of inspired Scripture.

Besides, I have told you repeatedly - I am going to argue that the "law" in 2:13 is not the Law of Moses. If that argument works, then I am in the clear in respect to the challenge 2:13 gives me. It is a challenge - I acknowledge that - but it can, and will be addressed (in time).

You talk about a closed mind to God's word!!!!! Do you actually believe that the Jewish teachers/rabbi's taught their people that Jews could be justified before God if they violated the law of Moses as did the Gentiles????????????????

My position is not vulnerable to this critique. My point is not centrally what Jews did or did not believe except in terms of Paul's argument in Romans. My arguments are what they are - the textual evidence of Romans suggests that, regardless of what some Jews may have believed, Paul is responding to those who believed that jutification was an ethnic privilege.

One more time:If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" in 3:28 cannot be a universal man.

Your view is that has no explanatory leverage whatsoever in respect to Paul's clear belief that his listener thinks that if justification were achieved by "good works", this would specifically cut out the Gentile.

If Paul were really saying what you think he is saying, he would have written something like this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles.

But, of course, he says something radically different - something that forces the reader to conclude that Paul is refuting a belief about a path to justification that is not open to the Gentile. And Paul therefore cannot, repeat cannot be refuting a belief about a "universal" man being justified by good works.

Here is the extreme that you are willing to go in order to defend a false doctrine.

Argumentative and without relevent content.

 

[Andre]

Do you mean to tell me that you are going to a non-Biblical uninspired writer to confute the explicit statement of Paul in Romans 2:13 to the contrary???? .

Oh dear. Let's talk about 2:13 in relation to Wright's (and my) view.

In 2:13, Paul speaks of people being justified by doing "the law". Now I agree that this is indeed a statement of good works justification.

But it is you, not me, that believes that Paul is refuting good works righteousness. So I have no idea why you think this statement creates problems for me, in respect to the matter of good works justification.

It creates problems for you, in that you simply do not believe that Paul means what he says - people will indeed be justified by good works at the end.

The point is this: In 2:13, Paul is setting the "NT Wright" Jew straight, telling that Jew that he will indeed be judged by good works and not get justification by ethnic privilege. So, of course, this does not challenge Wright's assertion that Jews believed justification was an ethnic privilege.

Now to be fair, 2:13 is a problem for me - I need to make the case that the "law" here is not the Law of Moses. Otherwise, I have a big problem (and will join you in the club of people with big challenges in respect to making their exegesis work).

 

[Dr. Walter]

You pick and choose what part of my argument you wish to deal with. Romans 2:13 can only refer to "the law" which can be READ as it speaks to those who are "HEARERS" of "the law." The law given to the Gentile is written upon THE CONSCIENCE - can't be read and therefore there are no "hearers."

Claiming that you are closed minded is not a personal attack - it is an accurate description.

You have not dealt with the following, which, by itself, shows your take on this "man" cannot be correct:

If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

Your view is that has no explanatory leverage whatsoever in respect to Paul's clear belief that his listener thinks that if justification were achieved by "good works", this would specifically cut out the Gentile.

If Paul were really saying what you think he is saying, he would have written something like this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles.

But, of course, he says something radically different - something that forces the reader to conclude that Paul is refuting a belief about a path to justification that is not open to the Gentile. And Paul therefore cannot, repeat cannot be refuting a belief about a "universal" man being justified by good works.

When Paul uses "a man" which grammatically emphasizes what characterizes man as a creature from all other creatures rather than what characterizes one man from another man (langauge, race, social standing, gender) he anticipates and destroys the Judizer position that God is only the God of the Jew in regard to justification, as justification is the theme here. He anticipates it by denying that ANY MAN ("a man" by characterziation) is justified by "the law of works" IN GENERAL and therefore neither is the Jew justified by doing the deeds of the law of Moses in SPECIFIC as the general is inclusive of the specific just as the GENERIC man is inclusive of the Jew versus Gentile.

On the other hand, the Jewish position denied that GENERIC man can be justified before God and therefore in regard to justification, God is only the God of the Jews and not the gentiles. However, there is only ONE God and the God that created the GENERIC man is also the justifer of the GENERIC man through "the law..of faith and justifies NO MAN through "the law of works" in general which means he does not justify the Jew through the "deeds of the law" of Moses in specific.

Please notice that Paul did not say justified simply by "the law" but by "THE DEEDS of the law" or "THE WORKS of the law." Romans 2:13 speaks directly to the Jewish man who expected to be ultimately justifieed by the law of Moses and denies that merely "hearing" the law justifies anyone but it is the "DOERS." The term "doers" means that you DO THE WORKS or DO THE DEEDS of the law as failure to DO what the Law defines as GOOD is sin or "bad works."

The very language Paul uses to describe the error demands more than merely being BORN UNDER THE LAW or merely "HEARING" the law but one must be a DOER of the law as this is the meaning of being justified by "THE DEEDS" or by "THE WORKS" of the law.

Absolute Proof is the fact that Jesus was "BORN UNDER THE LAW" but was a DOER of the Law and challenged anyone to find sin in his obedience to God's Law - the Mosaic law that he was born under. The law required obedience in order to be justified by it and that is made clear by Christ to the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28 and to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First, it does not contradict my position as my position is that ANYONE who can keep the law will be justified by the law. That is the truth of this passage. However, after laying down this truth, Paul then demonstrates that no such man exists who can measure up to that standard regardless if it is Jew or gentile (Rom. 3:9) but that "all the world" fails to measure up to this standard and thererfore "no flesh" whether jew or Gentile will be justified by the law's standard (Rom. 3:10-20).

The point is this: In 2:13, Paul is setting the "NT Wright" Jew straight, telling that Jew that he will indeed be judged by good works and not get justification by ethnic privilege. So, of course, this does not challenge Wright's assertion that Jews believed justification was an ethnic privilege.

This text is certainly a problem for you insomuch you replace the words of Paul in Romans 2:13 with your own words. Paul does not contrast "doers" with "privilege" as you assert but "doers" with "hearers." You change God's word to suite your dogma. This text is clearly asserting that only those who OBEY the law will be justified by the law. In other words, DISOBEDIENCE to the law of God will not justify anyone.

A further problem you have is that verse 13-24 is inseparably linked together. The DOING of the law instead of hearing is the theme from verse 13-24: "The law" in verse 13 is the SAME law referred to in verse 14 that the Gentiles do not have:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Therefore, verse 14 defines "the law" as Jewish law. Therefore, the law that the Jew has is no good to the Jew if he is not a DOER of this law. This contrast between being only a hearer versus a doer is taken upon in verses 17-24:

17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


There is no possible honest way that you can deny that Romans 2:13-14 deals with "the law" of the Jews as there is no change of law between verses 13 and 14. There is no possible honest way that you can deny that Romans 2:17-24 is an exposition of what Paul means by being a "doer" versus a "hearer" of the Jewish law. Therefore you whole position is proven wrong as the law of Moses required all to be a "DOER" thus one is justified by "THE WORKS" or "THE DEEDS" of the law not by merely being born "under the law" as a Jew. Although, the Jew argued that being a Jew was prerequisite for being justified by the works of the Law, no Jew argued that simply being a Jew justified you before God and Paul puts that false interpretation to rest right here in Romans 2:11-29.

 

[Andre]

Romans 2:13 can only refer to "the law" which can be READ as it speaks to those who are "HEARERS" of "the law."

I agree, but this does not force us to conclude that this is the Law of Moses.

Claiming that you are closed minded is not a personal attack - it is an accurate description.

Of course, you have no possible way to make any kind of judgement about whether I am close-minded. All you have are arguments from me, almost all of which, if not all, you have failed to undermine.

When Paul uses "a man" which grammatically emphasizes what characterizes man as a creature from all other creatures rather than what characterizes one man from another man (langauge, race, social standing, gender)

You simply refuse address the fatal flaw in this position, which I have pointed out repeatedly. If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

Until you can deal with this, your position cannot be sustained. And I do not see how you will be able to undermine the force of this argument.

He anticipates it by denying that ANY MAN ("a man" by characterziation) is justified by "the law of works" IN GENERAL and therefore neither is the Jew justified by doing the deeds of the law of Moses in SPECIFIC as the general is inclusive of the specific just as the GENERIC man is inclusive of the Jew versus Gentile.

Again, you simply presume that "works" means "moral activities designed to earn justification" as opposed to "works that reflect a justification achieved on other grounds - ethnic privilege". I will not tire of pointing out what the careful reader will know - you have simply assumed a "good works" reading here, while I have actually argued for an "ethnic privilege" reading.

Please notice that Paul did not say justified simply by "the law" but by "THE DEEDS of the law" or "THE WORKS of the law."

This does no damage to my position - I have been arguing that these are "works" carried out by a person who believes they have been justified on ethnic grounds. Even though you persist in doing this, you cannot simply sweep legitimate competing alternatives off the table before the debate has even begun. Imagine if I simply declared that "works of the law must, by definition, refer to those elements of what is essentially a charter of ethnic privilege, and these are not done to "earn" justification, but to celebrate the justification that has been given on ethnic grounds".

If I were to do this, I would be begging the very question at issue. Unlike you, I have mounted actual arguments in support of my take on what "works of the Law" really refers to.

The circumcision discussion of chapter 4 does great damage to your position. Paul argues strenously that Abraham's justification was achieved before he received the mark of circumcision. One does not need to be Einstein to realize that he is arguing against justification by ethnic privilege, not good works. After all, circumcision is the key marker that separated the Jew from the Gentile.

And it is certainly not a "good work".

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your responses are perfect nonsense! First, you deny that "good works" is demanded by the words "justified" with "deeds" and "works" of the law, then you admit that "deeds" includes works PLUS ethnic race preference but deny the "works" part that justifies is "good" which leaves only "bad" as there are only two types of works in the pages of God's Word or in the definition of all religions on the face of the earth "good" and "evil." Since you have distinguished "ethnicity" from "deeds" in one section of your argument but then denied it in another section of your argument - perfect nonsense is the result.

Ethnicity is not a "deed" or a "work" that YOU DO but a character trait you are born with WITHOUT CHOICE in regard to the Jew.

Your so-called "fatal flaw" is the very thing I am charging you with. Generic man is justified apart from "the law of works". Therefore He is not the God of Jews alone when it comes to justification by "the law of works" but he is the God of GENERIC Man (Jews and gentiles or the two classifications referred to throughout scriptures)through the "law of...faith" which is inclusive of both classifications of men.

Paul does not say one word about anyone being justified "on ethnic grounds" which is something YOU ARE (espicially a Jew) but he is talking about justification on "works" and "deeds" grounds which is something YOU DO. Nowhere does he ever talk about being justified on what YOU ARE only on what YOU DO.

I agree, but this does not force us to conclude that this is the Law of Moses.


Of course, you have no possible way to make any kind of judgement about whether I am close-minded. All you have are arguments from me, almost all of which, if not all, you have failed to undermine.


You simply refuse address the fatal flaw in this position, which I have pointed out repeatedly. If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

Until you can deal with this, your position cannot be sustained. And I do not see how you will be able to undermine the force of this argument.


Again, you simply presume that "works" means "moral activities designed to earn justification" as opposed to "works that reflect a justification achieved on other grounds - ethnic privilege". I will not tire of pointing out what the careful reader will know - you have simply assumed a "good works" reading here, while I have actually argued for an "ethnic privilege" reading.



This does no damage to my position - I have been arguing that these are "works" carried out by a person who believes they have been justified on ethnic grounds. Even though you persist in doing this, you cannot simply sweep legitimate competing alternatives off the table before the debate has even begun. Imagine if I simply declared that "works of the law must, by definition, refer to those elements of what is essentially a charter of ethnic privilege, and these are not done to "earn" justification, but to celebrate the justification that has been given on ethnic grounds".

If I were to do this, I would be begging the very question at issue. Unlike you, I have mounted actual arguments in support of my take on what "works of the Law" really refers to.

The circumcision discussion of chapter 4 does great damage to your position. Paul argues strenously that Abraham's justification was achieved before he received the mark of circumcision. One does not need to be Einstein to realize that he is arguing against justification by ethnic privilege, not good works. After all, circumcision is the key marker that separated the Jew from the Gentile.

And it is certainly not a "good work".

 

[Andre]

First, it does not contradict my position as my position is that ANYONE who can keep the law will be justified by the law.

But then you have Paul saying people will be justified by "the law" in Romans 2, and yet believing that there will be zero such people. You need to have Paul laying down a non-attainable standard but this is not, in fact, what Paul does - he repeatedly asserts that there will be those justified by good works. How you think a competent writer would write this and intend us to think that it is true of nobody is a mystery to me.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

That is the truth of this passage. However, after laying down this truth, Paul then demonstrates that no such man exists who can measure up to that standard regardless if it is Jew or gentile (Rom. 3:9) but that "all the world" fails to measure up to this standard and thererfore "no flesh" whether jew or Gentile will be justified by the law's standard (Rom. 3:10-20).

You have already been shown that this is simply not what Paul believes. Yes, he describes man's sad state in Romans 3, but then we get this later on in the letter:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Question: Who is the person in verses 21 to 24a? Is it not the human in the same lost state as per the first part of Romans 3? Yes or no.

Question: What happens to that person? Are they hopelessly stuck in that state? If they were, you have a point. I would be interested to see how you read this statement as anything other than a declaration that there is indeed a way to escape the Romans 3:9 state:

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

This sure seems like a statement that a person can escape the Romans 3 state through Christ. But, of course, you cannot believe this since you are arguing that Romans 3 shows we are forever stuck in that hopeless state and therefore cannot possibly be justified by good works as Romans 2 says we will.

So, again, is this, or is this not a statement of rescue from slavery to sin?

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

I think you know that this is indeed such a statement. But you need to deny that it is in order to make your case that Romans 3 closes the door on future justification by good works.

 

[Andre]

This text is certainly a problem for you insomuch you replace the words of Paul in Romans 2:13 with your own words. Paul does not contrast "doers" with "privilege" as you assert but "doers" with "hearers." You change God's word to suite your dogma.

You are simply not accurately characterizing what I have done. I have never given you any grounds to suggest that I am changing Paul's words.

How, and please be specific, have I demonstrably - that is through something I actually posed - replaced Paul's words.

I have done no such thing. Are you intentionally misrepresenting me?

I have no idea why you think I have stated that Paul is contrasting doers with privilege. Remember, it is you who thinks that 2:13 will be true of zero people. It is you who think that there will be no "doers" of the Law who will be justified.

Let me be crystal clear: I have never ever, ever, directly or indirectly denied that Romans 2:!3 is true as it stands - that's your department - I have affirmed that it is indeed true, only that "the law" is not the Law of Moses.

And if Paul is critiquing the belief that the Jew is ethnically privileged to salvation, then, as long as "the law" in 2:13 does not denote the Law of Moses, my position works just fine. Why? Because I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses.