Drew
Member
Many people deployed this text from Romans 3 as evidence that Paul does not really mean what he has written in Romans 2 about ultimate justification by good works:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Such readers see "the works of the Law" as a general reference to good works. And so they see Paul denying that good works are related to ultimate justification. But, what does Paul say next?:
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one
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.
People who read 3:28 as a general denunciation of justification by good works have to have this man be a universal man so they will 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 the traditional 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 the traditional 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 the traditionalist thinks 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.
He is instead saying that the Jew in particular is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is not, therefore, making a “good works†argument at all – he is making an ethnic argument. If Paul wants to deny that justification is limited to Jews, one great way to say this is to say that Jews are not justified by doing the works of a law that only Jews can do.
And this is indeed what Paul is doing, as Romans 4 confirms.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Such readers see "the works of the Law" as a general reference to good works. And so they see Paul denying that good works are related to ultimate justification. But, what does Paul say next?:
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one
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.
People who read 3:28 as a general denunciation of justification by good works have to have this man be a universal man so they will 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 the traditional 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 the traditional 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 the traditionalist thinks 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.
He is instead saying that the Jew in particular is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is not, therefore, making a “good works†argument at all – he is making an ethnic argument. If Paul wants to deny that justification is limited to Jews, one great way to say this is to say that Jews are not justified by doing the works of a law that only Jews can do.
And this is indeed what Paul is doing, as Romans 4 confirms.
