Romans 3:28 - What is Paul Denying?

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.

 

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)

Yes.

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

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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).

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.

Argumentative and without relevent content.

 

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).

 

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".

 

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

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.

 

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.