Subjective Genitive Works of The Law in Romans

JBL 126, no.
3 (2007): 553-577
The "Works of the Law" in Romans

and Galatians: A New Defense of
the Subjective Genitive
P A U L L. O W E N
powen@montreat.edu
Montreat College, Montreat, NC 28757
One of the most perplexing debates in NT scholarship has centered on the

meaning of the Pauline phrase "works of the Law."1 Most scholars view this expres-
sion as denoting either (primarily) ethnic badges of Jewish identity and superior-
ity,2 or works done out of a sense of obligation to the Law more generally
conceived.3 A third proposal, which so far has failed to secure much of a follow-
1
For an overview of the literature and issues, see Thomas Schreiner, "Works of the Law," in
Dictionary ofPaul and His Letters (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 975-79.
2
So James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998),
354-59; E. P. Sanders, Paul the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 46; and
N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 122,132.
3
So (with varying nuances) Stephen Westerholm, Israels Law and the Church's Faith: Paul
and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 109-21; Mark Seifrid, Christ, Our
Righteousness: Pauls Theology of Justification (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000); Seyoon
Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin ofPauls Gospel (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002), 57-66; Frank Thielman, Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994); Thomas Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theol-
ogy of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 33-71; idem, "Works of Law' in Paul" NovT 33 (1991):
217-44; Robert Keith Rapa, The Meaning of 'WorL· of the Law* in Galatians and Romans (New
York: Peter Lang, 2001); and Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 211-17; idem, "'Law/ Works of the Law,' and Legalism in Paul," WT/45 (1983):
73-100. Daniel Fuller understands the expression to be a way of referring to the misguided attempt
on the part of Israel to relate to God in a legalistic manner, which puts God under obligation to
pay back human merit ("Paul and 'The Works of the Law/" WTJ 38 [1975]: 28-42). In other
words, for Fuller (unlike Schreiner, Moo, and Westerholm), the problem is not so much human
failure to keep the Law as it is the idolatrous attempt to relate to God on the basis of merit in the
first place.
553
554 Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 3 (2007)
4 5
ing, is to take the genitive phrase έργα νόμου in a subjective sense. The phrase
would therefore denote the effects of the Law's activity among humankind since
6
the time of the giving of the Law to Israel. Paul is prone to use this expression
when the agency of the Law in effecting justification is the issue at stake.
The emphasis in this turn of phrase would then lie not so much on human
failure fully to obey the Law (though that is implied) as on the Law's own inability
(owing to the gripping power of sin) to produce in people a righteousness that can
survive before the bar of God's judgment. The issue is precisely whether the Jew
ish people are right to place their confidence in the righteousness provided by the
Law (Rom 2:17-18; Phil 3:9; cf. Bar 4:4; 2 Bar. 48:22). In this essay, I will explore the
possibility that this third proposal has considerable merit and is based on a more
reliable exegetical basis than any of the other options.
I. DEFINING JUSTIFICATION
In this article, I use the word "justify" and its cognates repeatedly. It is not
practical to define in each and every instance what I mean by the terminology, so
I will state at the outset what I understand "justification" to mean in Pauline the
ology (with particular regard to Romans and Galatians). Romans 1:16-17 is very
4
With the exception of Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 1987), 100-106. It should be made clear that I do not agree with every aspect of
Gaston's argument. Gaston argues that the Law "works" sin and wrath only for the Gentiles. For
Gaston, the Law simply pronounces wrath upon those Gentiles who fall outside of the covenant.
But this is entirely contrary to Paul's whole point in Rom 2:17-29, which is precisely that the Law
condemns Jews within the covenant who fail to comply with its demands. In this connection,
Gaston's attempt to limit 2:17-29 only to a specific group of Jewish missionaries is entirely uncon
vincing (Paul and the Torah, 138-39). Paul's argument in this section is clearly a generalized con
demnation of the Jewish nation of his time, which (rightly or wrongly), Paul critiqued in prophetic
manner as ungodly and apostate.
5
For a definition of the subjective genitive, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 113: "The genitive substantive functions semantically as
the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun." Scholars generally seem to assume that
the phrase should be taken as an objective genitive ("works that fulfill the Law"), so that the issue
is the human failure to fulfill all of the Law's demands. Though Moo suggests that it may be a
subjective genitive, taken in the sense of "the works that the Law requires" (Romans, 209 n. 61),
this would reduce to the same meaning as the objective genitive and would be subject to the same
criticisms. Furthermore, the noun έργον does not mean "requirement" in the sense of an obli
gation (though it is sometimes used of a "task" or assignment; see 1 Cor 15:58; 16:10; Phil 2:30).
When Paul wants to speak of the Law's requirements, he uses the noun δικαίωμα (see Rom 2:26;
8:4).
6
That Paul can personify the Law as a working agent should be clear in view of Rom 4:15:
ό γ α ρ νόμος όργήν κατεργάζεται ("for the Law brings about wrath"). I am arguing that Paul
uses the term έργα in this phrase not in the sense of deeds but in the sense of effects, or "that
which is brought into being by work" (BAGD, s.v. έργον, 308).
Owen: The "Works of the Law" 555
instructive in this regard. For Paul, the "gospel" reveals the "righteousness of God"
to those who have faith. To be "justified" is to receive the soteriological benefit of
the righteousness of God. What it means to receive the soteriological benefit ("the
power of God to salvation") of the righteousness of God can be determined by 1:18-
32, where Paul describes the consequences of the revelation of "the wrath of God."
The gospel is the opposite ofthat. Whereas the revelation of God's wrath brings a
darkened heart (1:21), a giving over to the enslaving power of sin (1:24, 26, 28),
and the judgment that one deserves death (1:32), the justification offered in the
gospel illumines the heart (cf. 2 Cor 3:16), frees from the power of sin (Rom 6:7),
and reconciles the ungodly to God (Rom 4:5; 5:1; 8:1). To be justified is simply to
be accepted into the family of God (Gal 3:24-26), and so to have God's condemn
ing judgment removed—a judgment that includes bondage to the power of sin
(Rom 6:14-23).
II. THE PRIMARY TEXTS
The expression έργα νόμου occurs eight times in the Pauline corpus: Rom
3:20,28; Gal 2:16 (3x); 3:2, 5,10.7 What is striking in my view is how comfortably
the subjective genitive fits the contextual flow of each of these references. I will dis
cuss each of the texts in turn.
The "WorL· of the Law" in Romans
Romans 3:20
In 3:1-18, Paul argues that the Jewish people stand condemned before God
alongside all of humankind, despite their incredible privileges, the chief of which
8
is the gift of the λόγια τοΰ θεού (3:2). Whatever the specific meaning, in 3:2 Paul
cites God's oracles as the chief privilege given to the Jewish people. They alone were
7
One other possible occurrence is in Rom 9:32, where the word νόμου is found in the lat
est corrector of K, D, Ψ, 33, 81, 104; Vg MSS; the Peshitta; the Palestinian Syriac, Armenian,
Ethiopie, Georgian, and Slavonic versions; Diodore, Chrysostom, and the majority of the Byzan
tine witnesses. Commentators usually assume that νόμου has been added to harmonize with
3:20,28; but it could just as well have been dropped to harmonize with 9:11. Internal evidence may
favor the inclusion of νόμου, because Paul has just focused on the misguided belief that the Law
can provide righteousness ("a law of righteousness") in 9:31. We would naturally expect a state
ment in v. 32 about what the Law can provide, but instead, in the commonly accepted critical text,
we find no reference to the Law. If one follows the Byzantine text on this point, v. 32 becomes an
expression of the futility of thinking that the goal of the Law is to produce works that would jus
tify. Paul insists that the true goal and purpose of the Law is to produce justifying faith, not jus
tifying works. In any case, in deference to scholarly consensus, I do not include Rom 9:32 in this
investigation of Paul's use of the phrase "works of the Law."
8
For discussion see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 326-27.
entrusted with God's "words." It is hard to believe that the Mosaic Law is not to
9
some extent included among the oracles that Paul has in mind. It is through the
Law that the Jews have been given the clear advantage of having a direct and spec
ified revelation of the will of God (2:17-20; cf. Deut. 4:6-8). In what way, then, has
this proved ultimately to benefit the Jewish people?
Paul's argument throughout 3:1-18 is that God's "words" have not ultimately
benefited the nation to whom they were entrusted. Israel failed to believe God's
word (3:3), failed to live righteously before God (3:5), and ultimately failed to carry
out the will of God in the world with any greater success than the Gentiles (3:10-
18). This is why Paul—speaking in a prophetic manner—believed that his Jewish
people stood condemned before the bar of divine judgment, alongside the rest of
humanity. Paul drives this point home in 3:19-20. What he insists is that the Law
has failed to produce righteousness in Israel in the midst of the world.
What, then, has the Law accomplished? Paul answers that what the Law has
done is close every mouth (3:19b) and put the whole world in the position of need
ing to give an account of its sinful actions before the bar of divine judgment (3:19c).
In short, what the Law has done is to provide "the knowledge of sin" to Israel
(3:20b).10 The issue at stake here is precisely the question of what the Law has, and
has not, been able to do for Israel.
In this context, the subjective genitive reading of "works of the Law" makes
good sense. The question in 3:20a is, what has the Law been able to do? Paul has
just stated that the Law has done something in 3:19c—-it has made the whole world
accountable to God for sin. Paul now supports his claim in 3:20a: "because (διότι)
by the works of the Law no one will be justified in his presence." Or to put it another
way: "because no one will be justified in his presence by what is produced by the
Law." The reason that the Law has closed every mouth and made everyone account
able before God for their sin (3:19) is that the Law does not make sinful human
beings righteous (3:20a)—in fact, it has the opposite effect of furthering their con
demnation (3:20b).
What most exegetes continue to overlook is that in this context Paul is not
even addressing the question: What works must a person perform in order to be
justified?11 If one looks back at the preceding context, it is clear that he is instead
9
Thomas Schreiner seems to deny that God's commandments are in view at all, because
he says it "misses the point of the text" (Romans [Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Tes
tament 6; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 149). It is not clear why this should be the case, for the
point of the text could well be understood in terms of Israel's rebellion against God in the face of
God's clear revelation of his will in the Law (cf. Rom 5:13; 7:7), which was the chief advantage of
the Jews (2:20). The Law of God has been foremost in Paul's thinking in 2:17-29, so why would
it be excluded from 3:2 (even if the "oracles of God" includes more than just the Law)?
10
"If the law declares all people sinners and makes them conscious of their condition, then
a fortiori the Jew to whom the law is addressed is just as much an object of God's wrath as the
pagan whose moral perversion and degradation reveal his condition" (Fitzmyer, Romans, 339).
11
Contra Moo, Romans, 210.
Owen: The "Works of the Law" 557
asking the question: What benefit have the "words" of God provided to the Jewish
people? The issue at stake in 3:20 is the historical evidence (as witnessed by Israel's
conduct) of the effectiveness of God's words (contained in the Law) in dealing with
the problem of sin, not the existential question of how many works a person must
perform to be accepted before God.
Romans 3:28
The subjective genitive reading of 3:28 makes just as much sense as in the ear
lier reference. In 3:21 Paul makes the argument that God's "righteousness" has been
displayed in the world χωρίς νόμου. The Law did not demonstrate God's "righ
teousness," but rather his gracious "tolerance" of Israel's sin (3:25).12 God's righ
teousness wasfinallydemonstrated on the cross in Christ's redemptive sacrifice
(3:22,24-26). Against the background of human unfaithfulness (3:1-18), God has
shown himself faithful (i.e., righteous, 3:3,5) in bringing about the salvation of all
who exercise faith in his Son (3:22,27).
Paul then insists that the scheme he has just presented excludes human boast
ing (3:27). Boasting is said to be excluded by "a law of faith." In other words, boast-
12
Although the issues are complex and debated, I believe the soundest exegesis of Rom 3:25
indicates that God overlooked the sins of his elect people in OT Israel through the mechanisms
of the sacrificial cult, which pointed ahead to Christ's eschatological Day of Atonement. In other
words, the άνοχη του θεού is precisely the patience God exercised over the sins of the people
in anticipation of the atonement to be effected for them on the cross. Sin was not definitively dealt
with under the OT cult, but it was set aside, and its punishment put on hold. Paul's point is that
the "righteousness of God" (i.e., God's saving action on behalf of the people) was not expressed
in the mechanisms of forgiveness under the Law, as it has now been demonstrated on the cross.
Thus: "God displayed Christ as a bloody expiation to be received by faith. This was to demonstrate
his righteousness, since the sins of the people committed previously were passed over only because
of God's patience [i.e., in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice]." God displayed righteousness on the
cross because the passing over of the previously committed sins required an eventual atonement
that the sacrifices could not themselves provide. This is quite different from the interpretation
(popular among many Protestants) that God had to display justice in punishing Christ because
the forbearance that God maintained in passing over the previously committed sins appeared to
be unjust. This reading ignores the simple fact that God did often punish the sins of Israel during
previous times (e.g., by plagues, military defeats, and especially the exile). The issue at stake is
not God's retributive justice but God's fulfillment of the promise of atonement, which was only
typified by the earlier sacrifices. Cf. Calvin: "I think it is probable that Paul was thinking of legal
expiations, which were indeed evidences of satisfactions to come, but which could by no means
placate God. There is a similar passage in Heb. 9.15, in which it is stated that the redemption of
the transgressions which remained under the old covenant was brought by Christ— Paul teaches
simply that until the death of Christ there had been no price for placating God, and that this was
not performed or accomplished by legal types" (Calvin, commentary on Rom. 3:25). Likewise
Dunn's suggested interpretation: "Former sins were passed over . . . because Jesus' death as the
death of sinful man is effective for the persons of faith who came before him as well as those who
come after" (James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 [WBC 38A; Waco: Word, 1998], 181-82).
ing is excluded when one comes to understand that the true purpose of the Law (for
the elect; see Rom 11:7) was not to enable the Jew to earn his own righteous status
13
before God by means of personal merit; rather, Pauls scheme insists that the pur
pose of the Law is to promote "faith" in God's righteousness, which was displayed
in the soteric mission of his Son Jesus (cf. Rom 9:32-33).
Paul drives home again his view of the effectiveness of the Law in v. 28: "For
we reckon a person to be justified by faith without (χωρίς) the works of the Law''
In other words, Paul maintains that justification comes by faith without the agency
of the Law; not by the power of the Law to produce righteous works (a power that
Paul denies in opposition to his Jewish opponents). Though the Law held forth the
hypothetical promise of life on the condition of personal obedience (Lev 18:5), this
was simply for the purpose of revealing human depravity and inability. In reality,
justification cannot come by means of the mechanism of the Law. In v. 21, Paul
insists that the righteousness of God has now been manifested χωρίς νόμου
("without the Law"). There Paul clearly means to say that the righteousness of God
has now been manifested, though not by the Law—but rather through "the
faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ" (3:22).14 It is important to recognize that what Paul
has in mind in this context (as signaled by v. 21) is what the Law has, or has not,
brought about.
What Paul is now saying in v. 28 is that a person is justified by faith without
the "works of the Law"—in other words, not by righteous works produced by the
Law. The Law did in theory hold forth the promise of life (and hence the prospect
offinaljustification), but only if a person complied with its demands. Since human
depravity makes this impossible (3:20), the gospel declares that a person is justified
by faith in Christ, not by works produced by the Law (since the Law cannot pro
vide the righteousness which comes only by faith in Jesus).15
What the Law itself can accomplish is ultimately only human condemnation.
Paul has insisted that the one thing the Law did not do is manifest the soteric righ
teousness of God as it has been displayed in the gospel of the cross (3:21-26),
because the Law does not operate for the benefit of sinners on the principle of
human helplessness and inability to obey its stipulations (cf. Rom 10:5). The Law
13
So correctly, Schreiner, Romans, 201-2: "The law, rightly understood, harmonizes with
righteousness by faith" (p. 201).
14
Or possibly "through faith in Jesus Christ."
15
It may be objected that this reduces Paul's words to a meaningless redundancy: "Of course
justification cannot come by what the Law brings about, if the Law does not bring about justifi
cation, but only condemnation." But this objection would be to overlook an important point. Not
everyone would agree that the Law is insufficient for justification. Some would adamantly insist
that a person cannot be justified without the righteousness-producing power of the Law. For the
Jew, the "works of the Law" would include truly righteous deeds in this life, which will be the
basis of ultimate salvation at the eschatological judgment. So Paul's denial is not a meaningless
redundancy.
Owen: The "Wbrfcs of the Law" 559
of Moses does not operate on a principle of faith (cf. Rom 10:5-6), for faith (in
Pauline terms) involves the human admission of inability to comply with God's
righteous will (cf. Rom 4:5) and the abandonment of one's fate before the bar of
judgment to the unmerited faithfulness of the covenant God that has been dis-
played in the gracious soteric mission of Jesus.16
A fundamental point made by Paul earlier in Rom 3:5 is crucial here: "our
unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God." Human disobedience
highlights the covenantal faithfulness of God (rather than negating it [3:3]); for
when salvation takes place in the face of human failure to comply with God's righ-
teous will, the utterly gracious nature of God's intervention is all the more evident
(cf. Rom 5:20; 4 Ezra 8:36; Jub. 1:5-6). It was Paul's view that if the Law had been
able to produce personal righteousness among those to whom it was entrusted,
then indeed Israel would have had a ground for boasting of their superiority over
the Gentiles before God (Rom 4:2; cf. Gal 3:21).17 But because Israel has not in fact
been able adequately to keep the Law, all grounds for human boasting have been
removed.
What has the Law done then? Again, that is the central question in the con-
text of Rom 3:28—not what must a person do in order to be justified. What the
Law has not done is provide Israel with a ground for boasting before God of their
superiority in comparison with those who lack the light of the Law (3:27-28). The
Law was never really intended to be the means by which God's righteousness would
be conveyed to the world (3:21a). Instead, what the Law has done all along is to
testify to the world's need for the gracious intervention that would be effected uni-
laterally by God through the work of Christ on the cross (3:21b).
Therefore, it remains true that "a person is justified by faith (in God's righ-
teousness), and not by righteous works produced by the Law" (paraphrasing 3:28).
The Law could only point ahead to the final solution to the problem of sin that
would be brought about in the redemptive action of God's Son (3:22 cf. Gal 3:23-
24). Paul differs radically from his Jewish contemporaries in that he does not see in
the revelation of the Law an effective solution to sin (Rom 2:17-20; cf. Bar 4:4; 2 Bar.
48:22); he sees only a revelation of human inability, and the need for God's gra-
cious intervention, ultimately experienced through the mission of Christ.
16
This is what Paul is getting at in Rom 4:16. Justification by faith removes any ground that
the Jews might have to boast before God of their superiority to the Gentiles. Paul's gospel called
on the Jews to abandon their prideful insistence on ethnic superiority and to admit that they are
no more worthy of Gods approval than the Gentiles are.
17
The reason should be obvious. Any persons who are justified on the basis of their obedi-
ence to God's will could then point out to God the contrast between themselves and the "ungodly"
persons who have failed to obey. This is the centerpiece of Paul's polemic against the Jewish peo-
ple. He accuses them of exalting themselves above the Gentiles in the sight of God (see Rom 2:17-
20; 9:30-10:4), as though their godliness could be contrasted with the ungodliness of the nations
who live without the guidance of the Law (see Deut 28:1).
Excursus on Perfect Obedience
In light of the way Paul's critique of Israel's life under the Law has been tradi-
tionally understood, there is no basis in the Bible for the notion that justification
by means of the Law would have required Israel's perfect compliance with its
demands.18 Galatians 3:10 and 5:3 are commonly cited (arguably out of context) in
the attempt to prove that the Law could justify only on the terms of perfect com-
pliance with its demands. Yet in Gal 3:10 Paul adds the word "all" to his citation of
Deut 27:26, not to make some theological point about the need for perfect obedi-
ence but in light of the immediate context of Moses' words (cf. Deut 28:1).
It is quite obvious that "doing all of God's commandments" does not imply
perfect compliance with each and every detail of the Law (which, after all, also pro-
vided mechanisms of forgiveness for anticipated breaches of the Law). Moses sim-
ply says "all" of the commandments must be performed, because each word of God
is precious, and therefore there is not a single commandment that Israel can feel free
to ignore or disregard (cf. Deut 32:46-47). If any Jew were to disregard even the
least of God's words, as though they need not be clung to and revered, then this
would be an obvious sign of a wicked heart that does not truly love the Lord (Deut
5:29-33; 6:5-6; 30:6-8; cf. Heb 10:28).19 Such a person (who has no desire or intent
to keep the whole Law) would be cut off from God's covenant for lack of love (see
Rom 13:10b; Matt 22:37-40).20
The point of Gal 5:3 (another commonly cited text) is simply that if one
accepts circumcision, one then incurs the burden of obeying the whole Law (dis-
regarding none of the commandments). One must operate under the terms and
conditions of the Mosaic covenant, which assumes the intent to keep the whole
Law (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12). The problem, then, is not that perfect obedience (which
18
Contra Schreiner, Law and Its Fulfillment, 44-50; Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 102;
Robert Gundry, "Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul" Bib 66 (1985): 23-25; and Moo, '"Law,'
'Works of the Law,'" 97-98.
19
Thus, when the parents of John the Baptist are said to be "righteous in the sight of God,
walking blamelessly in all of the commandments and requirements of the Lord" (Luke 1:6), it
cannot mean that they obeyed the Law perfectly (cf. Acts 15:10). It simply means that they were
among the righteous remnant who loved God and whose intent was to keep his whole Law (reject-
ing none of God's words). It does not mean they never sinned, but only that (unlike the majority
of the nation) their hearts were inclined to obedience to the whole Law of God. Were such an
example to be directed to Paul, he would no doubt insist that, like Abraham, they were righteous
in the sight of God by faith (see Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11), and that their wholehearted obedience to
the Law was the result of God's own gracious operation in and through them.
20
See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977), 134-38. When Paul
says that "love is the fulfillment of the Law" (Rom 13:10b), he is reflecting the teaching of Moses
in Deuteronomy (cf. 6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1,13,22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:16). Ultimately, love for God is a gift
that will be given to Israel in the eschatological age (Deut 30:6).
/
Owen: The "Worte of the Law" 561
was never required) is impossible, but simply that now one must relate to God on
the basis of obedience to the whole Law (though not one's whole obedience to the
Law). For Paul, salvation by grace entails not merely the admission of personal fault
and imperfection in one's attempt to keep the Law (as in Judaism), but the admis-
sion of radical ungodliness and enslavement to the power of sin (Rom 5:6-8)--to
such an extent that adequate (let alone perfect) obedience to the Law becomes
impossible.21
The scandalous nature of Paul's critique of Judaism is not that he accused Jews
of failing to obey God's Law perfectly (which any Jew would have happily admit-
ted), but that he accused his "kinsmen according to theflesh"of going astray into
the same idolatry, wickedness, and disregard of God's words that characterized the
Gentiles (Romans 2)—all the while thinking themselves to be "blameless" under the
Law (Phil 3:6; Rom 10:3).22 In effect, these criticisms amount to the claim that the
nation of Israel was in such a state of radical apostasy that it was presently cut off
from the promises and blessings of the covenant.23
21
One can find moving admissions of depravity and the extent of human guilt in Jewish
literature, but never to the extent that adequate personal compliance with God's Law (which is the
condition for remaining in the covenant) becomes impossible. A person could still expect to be
reckoned righteous on the basis of one's own obedience to the whole Law. For a discussion of this
matter with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls (where some of the most striking of such admissions
can be found), see Mark Seifrid, "Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early
Judaism," in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities ofSecond Temple Judaism
(ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 431-38.
22
Paul was not the only one to speak such harsh words of the Judaism of his day (Luke 18:9-
14; Matt 5:19-20; 15:1-9; John 7:19; 8:47). Cf. 1 En. 93:9; 4 Ezra 8:56; 2 Bar. 41:3; Jub. 1:7-14.
23
Although not in the Pauline corpus, Jas 2:10 is also sometimes cited as evidence of the
necessity of perfect obedience to the Law for justification in early Christianity. Yet James's point
here is hardly to make a theological statement about universal human guilt, but to insist that it is
persons who love their neighbor who truly fulfill the Law (w. 8-9). In the context (2:8-13), James
is addressing people who think that they keep God's Law yet commit sins such as murder and
adultery. When James says that the transgression of the Law at one point constitutes a failure to
keep the Law at all (v. 10), he has in mind serious breaches of the Law that undermine its basic
principle—love of neighbor. He is saying that if one keeps the whole Law and yet shows an obvi-
ous lack of love for one's neighbor by adultery or murder (v. 11), one has not kept the Law at all.
James is thinking not of failure to keep the Law perfectly in every detail but of failure to abide by
any one of the basic principles of the Law. Any act that openly disregards the basic requirement
of love of neighbor undermines one's claim to keep the Law at all. The issue is not an alleged
requirement of perfect obedience to the Law, but the need to avoid any form of apostate behav-
ior, which shows utter disregard for the fundamental principles of the Law. James's teaching here
resonates with the theology reflected in Jub. 33:13-14. Some individual sins are viewed as demon-
strations of apostasy, any one of which will suffice to place a person outside the boundaries of the
covenant. For discussion of Jubilees, see Peter Enns, "Expansions of Scripture," in Justification and
Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, ed. Carson et al., 94-96; and Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism,
368-69.
The "Worte of the Law" in Galatians
Galatians 2:16
The subjective genitive reading of the "works of the Law" also makes the best
sense of the various occurrences of this expression in Galatians. The first instance
of the phrase appears in 2:16: "since we know that a person is not justified by the
works of the Law but through the faith of Jesus Christ, and so we put our faith in
Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works
of the Law, because by the works of the Law no one shall be justifìed.,, I would argue
again that what Paul is directly speaking of here is not what a person must do in
order to be justified (though that obviously is a related issue, which is often con-
fused with Pauls point); rather, Paul is arguing about the role and efficacy of the
Law itself for justification. What is the Law capable of doing? Is it capable of pro-
ducing a righteousness that is acceptable in the sight of God? In that light, the
expression "works of the Law" is best translated "righteous works produced by the
Law." Two points call for further comment.
First, I assume that the phrase πίστεως Χρίστου (and its variations) should
also be taken as a subjective genitive. This is not the place to argue the case for that
rendering, which has received considerable (though not unanimous) support in
NT scholarship.241 simply note, for the sake of the many scholars who do adopt the
subjective genitive "faith of Christ," that consistency would suggest that the phrase
"works of the Law" here should likewise be taken in that manner.25
If both expressions are taken to employ subjective genitives, then one has a
nicely balanced argument in this verse. Paul is insisting, in effect, that we are jus
tified not by what the Law can do but by what Christ has done. The opposition is
not so much between our believing in Christ and our obeying the Law; rather, the
opposition is between what the Law has been able to accomplish (which would
require human compliance for our benefit) and what Christ has accomplished
(which requires faith for our benefit). This is an issue that is explicitly highlighted
by Paul in Rom 8:3,26 so it would not be strange for Paul to have this question in
mind here.
24
It is not necessary to take space here to refer to the many articles on both sides of this
debate, which for the most part are well known to Pauline scholars. Two representative discus
sions, which cite the relevant secondary literature, can be found in Wallace, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics, 114-16 (who argues for the rendering "faith/faithfulness of Christ"); and Moisés
Silva, "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians," in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2, The
Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2004), 227-34 (who argues for the rendering "faith in Christ").
25
A point nicely made by Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 103.
26
"For what the Law was unable to do, being weak through the flesh, God did when he sent
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3).
Owen: The "Worte of the Lawn 563
Second, in the immediate context the issue at stake is precisely the effects of
the Law. What has the Law been able to do? In Gal 2:19 Paul tells us something
that the Law has been able to do. The Law has caused us to "die to the Law." In other
words, the Law reveals our captivity to sin, our inability to comply with God's righ
teous will as revealed in the Law, which then directs us to seek liberation from sin
through Christ, apart from the Law (see Gal 3:22; Rom 5:20; 7:13).
Paul makes the same point in a negative manner in Gal 2:21. He insists that if
"righteousness is through the Law, then Christ died for no reason."27 So Paul insists
that righteousness is not through the Law. Again, the immediate question centers
on the agency of the Law itself, not on the adequacy of human response to the Law
(which is, though, a related question). Has the Law brought about a righteousness
that will be accepted in the presence of God? No, it has not. In light of the close
proximity to 3:19 and 21, then, it is most natural to read "works of the Law" in 3:16
as a subjective genitive. Has righteousness come through the Law? By no means, for
"a person is not justified by works produced by the Law, but through the faith(ful-
ness) of Jesus Christ" (3:16).
Galatians 3:2,5
The references to the "works of the Law" in 3:2, 5 can be taken together. The
dispute necessarily centers on the question of the precise nuance of Paul's point in
each verse. To begin with, is Paul asking in v. 2 whether the Galatians received the
Spirit by obeying the Law or by exercising faith? Or is the nuance slightly different?
Is the direct question rather, Did the Law provide the Spirit, or did faith provide the
Spirit? In other words, is Paul asking an existential question regarding a person's
faith versus law keeping, or a redemptive-historical question regarding the benefits
distributed to people in the old era and its terms versus the new era and its terms?
Several points suggest that Paul is asking a redemptive-historical question about
the role of the Law versus the role of faith (each considered as a dispensation with
distinctly stipulated terms for justification), rather than focusing on the Galatians'
personal obedience to the Law versus their personal exercise of faith.
27
Gaston amazingly translates Gal 2:21: "for since through law is the righteousness of God,
consequently Christ has died as a free gift" (Paul and the Torah, 66). This translation is exceed
ingly improbable for two reasons: (1) It is highly unlikely, in a context where Paul is insisting that
Gentiles do not need to keep the Law to be justified, that Paul is going to assert then that righ
teousness does in fact come "through law." (2) Paul has just insisted that he does not nullify the
grace of God. Clearly, he means to say that those who insist on the Law as the means of justifica
tion do nullify Gods grace. Why do they do so? Because if righteousness comes through the Law,
then there was no reason for Christ to die. Why would Christ need to die to bring a grace that
already comes through the Law? In this context, the meaning of δωρεάν is clearly "without a rea
son," not "as afreegift." How would the assertion that righteousness comes through the Law prove
that Christ died "as a free gift" in any case? Gastorfs translation plainly makes no sense in this
context.
First, if Paul wanted to focus on the Galatians' actions that led to the gift of the
Spirit in v. 2, he chose a rather peculiar way of expressing himself. Why would he
not simply ask, "Did you receive the Spirit by obeying the Law or by believing?" Or
Paul could have even said, "Did you receive the Spirit by your works of the Law or
by your faith?" The fact that Paul did not choose such wording may well indicate
that the nuance here is different. Paul is highlighting the contrast between the
effects of the Law (during the dispensation of its agency) and the effects of faith
(during the dispensation of its agency), which suggests again that the subjective
genitive is the best rendering.
Second, only the subjective genitive reading of "works of the Law" really makes
sense in v. 5. The question is not, What did you do to receive the Spirit and see mir-
acles worked among you? The question is, How did God supply you with the Spirit
and work miracles among you—did God give these blessings to you Gentiles dur-
ing the era of the Law, or did you receive these blessings with the dawn of the new
dispensation of faith? Clearly, the answer is that God did these things by means of
the faith created by God's Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22) in the new age, which has supplanted
the era of the Old Covenant, and not by means of the Law in the old age.
Third, with regard to "faith," which Paul contrasts with the Law in 3:2 and 5,
it is important to see the redemptive-historical connotation of Paul's language. As
the subsequent argument makes clear, "faith" is considered not only as the human
response to God; it is also something that has broken into history subsequent to the
era of the Law: "But before faith (as the solely stipulated condition for justification)
came, we were kept in custody under the Law.... But now that faith has come (as
the sole stipulated condition for justification), we no longer need a tutor" (3:23,
25). Faith (as the sole stated condition for justification) here clearly stands for the
realization of the hope that saints in ages past could only anticipate (since the legal
terms for justification in times past were impossible for sinners to keep adequately;
cf. Acts 15:10).
In this light, the issue at stake in 3:2 and 5 is what God has given to his peo-
ple during the era of the Law as the means of justification versus the era of faith as
the means of justification. Paul is asking the Galatians what benefits they as Gen-
tiles received during the era of the Law. The immediate question that Paul is pos-
ing in 3:2 and 5 is not what requirements a person has to fulfill in order to receive
the blessings—whether acts of obedience to the Law or the exercise of faith, though
it is tempting to read the text in that manner in light of the Galatians' theological
confusion regarding the requirement of circumcision.
Though the answer to that existential question is indeed implied by Paul's
argument, the argument itself centers on a more foundational issue that Paul is
addressing, on which the existential question of the necessity of circumcision for
personal justification necessarily depends. The question he is asking is simply this:
Has the Law provided the gift of the Spirit to you, or has the Spirit been provided
through the arrival of the new economy of faith? His questions here anticipate the
theological claim of 3:10-14: Christ's substitutionary obedience on the cross has

secured for the Gentiles the supernatural gift of the Spirit, which is received on the
condition of faith, and not through the activity of the Law.
Galatians 3:10
In the final usage of the expression "works of the Law" that will be considered
in this article, the subjective genitive reading again finds strong support from the
context. First, if "works of the Law" is taken in the sense of "acts of obedience to the
Law," then it becomes difficult to make much sense of w. 10-14. Paul would then
be saying in v. 10 that all those who do what the Law requires of them are under a
curse, which is the exact opposite of what Paul says in this verse (citing Deut
27:26)!28 It is not those who are doing the Law who are cursed but those who are
not doing the Law.
The subjective genitive reading enables one to read this passage in a consistent
manner, in which "works of the Law" refers to the effects of the Law, or what the
Law brings about. Paul is then saying that all those who are subject to what the Law
effects or brings about are under a curse. This makes perfect sense in light of Paul's
subsequent quotation of Deut 27:26. The Law pronounces a curse upon all who fail
to comply with its demands.29 That is what the Law does. In Paul's view, no person
can comply with the demands of the Law because of the radical power of sin (cf. Gal
3:21; Rom 3:19-20). Therefore, what the Law effects is precisely a curse on all who
receive it!
Paul then cites Hab 2:4 in v. 11, to show that justification before God is found
by faith, not by the Law; or in other words not by works resulting from the revela-
tion of the Law to Israel. The Jews believed that the Law made them righteous
because it showed them how to live before God (cf. Rom 2:17-20). Yet Paul's posi-
tion was that the Law of God cursed Israel rather than working to Israel's benefit,
28
Interpreters try to get around this by reading PauTs statement as though he really meant
to say that all those who try to do the works of the Law are under a curse (because they fail to be
perfect). But this assumes that perfect obedience to the Law was what the Law required for justi-
fication—which we have already suggested is misguided. It is far more likely that when Paul speaks
of those who are "of the works of the Law," he has in mind not those who attempt to keep the
Law but rather those who live under the inevitable effects of the Law (which brings a curse upon
those who receive it). In short, those who are "of the works of the Law" are those who are under
the curse that the Law brings about.
29
Again, compliance with the demands of the Law would entail an acceptance of all of God's
words and the intent to obey the whole Law, not perfect compliance with each and every com-
mandment. A wooden reading of such language would lead to the absurd conclusion that Jews
outside the land in the Diaspora could not keep the Law. See further Daniel Fuller, Gospel and Law:
Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 88-93. Fuller does a good job of showing that the expectation of per-
fect adherence to the Law for justification would make no sense in Pauls Jewish context.
because Israel could not go on to live according to the Law. (That is his hidden
premise in v. 10.) That is why Habakkuk recognized that the only true way to be jus
tified is by faith—which for Paul always entails the acceptance of righteousness as
an imputed gift that is not based on personal obedience to the Law (cf. Rom 4:5-
6; 5:17).
When Paul states in v. 12 that the Law is not "of faith" (citing Lev 18:5), he
does not mean that the Law does not require some level of belief in the God of
Israel. Faith here does not stand for a monotheistic confession. Paul simply means
that the Law does not operate (according to its stipulated terms) on the basis of an
inability to comply with its demands and dependence on an imputed righteous
ness. The Law's mechanism of justification does not assume personal inability to
fulfill it. To be justified by the Law, it is necessary personally to keep the Law (Rom
2:25), and if one can be justified by personally keeping the Law, then obviously
"faith" is not necessary—because for Paul faith assumes the need to receive righ
teousness as an imputed gift that is not based on personal obedience. Justification
by faith implies the acceptance of the righteousness of God as a gift that is imputed
in Christ to the ungodly believer (cf. 2 Cor 5:21).
Verses 13 and 14 make it clear that this is what Paul has in mind, for he says
there that Christ redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us (citing
Deut 21:23). This is, of course, an allusion to the cross. Paul sees in Jesus' willing
ness to bear Israel's deserved curse (cf. Isaiah 53), an embodiment of the selfless
compliance with the will of God that Israel failed to offer to God. This obedience
to God is the righteousness that is imputed to believers for their justification. So
Paul says that Christ became a curse, "so that" the blessing promised to Abraham
might be extended to the Gentiles. Christ's obedience in the place of Israel fulfills
the condition for Gentile blessing (cf. Gen 18:18-19). The Gentiles need to be jus
tified in order to be reckoned sons of Abraham (cf. Gal 3:29), and Christ's obedi
ence on the cross is the condition of that justification—precisely because his
obedience on the cross becomes the righteousness that is imputed to the ungodly
believer.
Second, Paul's own statement in v. 11 directly supports the present argument.
There he insists that no one is justified "by the Law" (έν νόμω). Paul makes this
statement in v. 11 in order to support his claim in v. 10, as seen by the way he begins:
"Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is clear...." Since v. 11 makes
a direct claim about what the Law cannot do, we are justified in arguing that v. 10
has just made a contrasting claim about what the Law does do (bring about a curse).
Paul is focusing his argument not on what we have failed to do but on what the
Law has, and has not, been able to do. In this case, the phrase "works of the Law"
should be taken as a subjective genitive, indicating the "effects" of the Law's activ
ity, or what benefits the Law brings about. According to Paul, the Law ultimately
curses all those to whom it is given (3:10); it does not bring about their justification
in the sight of God (3:11).
III. SOME LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS
The use of the subjective genitive in the expression "works of the Law" also
derives solid support on linguistic grounds. Apart from the eight examples just
considered, there are four other examples in the undisputed Pauline letters of the
plural noun "works" followed by a noun or pronoun in the genitive. In each case,
the use of the subjective genitive is the most natural option:
"Wbrfcs" with the Genitive in Paul
Romans 2:6. "who will repay each person according to the works of him." Here
the pronoun αότοϋ is the implied subject of the verbal idea in the head noun έργα
(i.e., according to the things he does).
Romans 13:12. "Therefore, let us lay aside the works of darkness." Although
this could well be taken as an attributive genitive (i.e., evil works), it also makes
good sense as a subjective genitive. In that case, "darkness" (as a personification of
evil powers that influence human behavior) is again the implied subject of the ver
bal idea in the head noun έργα (i.e., the deeds produced by the powers of dark
ness).
2 Corinthians 11:15. "whose end will be according to the works of them." Here
again, the pronoun αυτών is the implied subject of the verbal idea in the head
noun έργα (i.e., according to the things they do).
Galatians 5:19. "Now the works of the flesh are evident." Here the "flesh" is
clearly performing the action of the verbal idea in the head noun (i.e., the things the
flesh produces).
"Work" with the Genitive of "Law" in Paul
There is also one other occurrence of the Greek noun έργον used with the
genitive of νόμος in Paul, though in this case it is "work" in the singular: "who
show the work of the Law written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Here, too, it is prob
able that we are dealing with a subjective genitive. When Gentile Christians reveal
their renewed nature by complying with the righteous demands of the Law (2:14),
they thereby show the internalized Law's positive effect (cf. Deut 30:6) engraved
on their hearts (cf. Jer 31:33). The internalized Law has made God's will known in
an effective manner, so that this revelation of his will results in a life of evident love
for God. This "work of the Law" will produce evidence at the final judgment that
will be the basis of the eschatological acquittal of the elect (2:7,13,16).30
30
Works play an evidentiary role in the final judgment in Pauline Christianity, not a mer
itorious role, as in Judaism. The difference is a necessary consequence of the two soteriological
In other words, in their case, the revealed Law of God is effective in produc-
ing righteousness, in its internally revelatory role. Now this may sound like a con-
tradiction of all we have maintained to this point regarding Paul's use of the "works
of the Law," but it must be kept within the context of Paul's broader theological
viewpoint. For Paul, the Law of Moses is a dead letter—but only under the Old
Covenant, and apart from the internal action of the Spirit of God who is at work in
the hearts of Christian believers (cf. 2 Cor 3:6,15-17). For those who have experi-
enced the blessings of the New Covenant,31 the Law of God is internalized and truly
effective in producing a righteousness that is accepted in the presence of God (cf.
Rom 2:29; 7:6; 8:4; Gal 5:14-16; 6:2).32
IV. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
I have argued above that Paul consistently uses the expression "works of the
Law" to speak of righteous works (or other effects) that the Law itself is unable to
produce. But this proposal could be subjected to numerous objections. I will con-
sider a few of the more important ones.
"WorL· of the Law" as a Technical Term?
It might be objected that the expression "works of the Law" has a background
in Judaism as a way of speaking of those things which human beings are to do in
compliance with the Law's demands.33 However, the linguistic features of the com-
monly cited examples (drawn from the Dead Sea Scrolls)34 are all quite different
from the Pauline usage.
schemes, one of which is synergistic, and the other monergistic. In one, the righteous participants
in God's covenant with Israel are rewarded on the basis of their own works in fulfillment of the
Law. In the other, Christ fulfills the Law, first in his own obedient life, and then through the lives
of his elect people (Rom 15:18; 2 Cor 3:5; 13:5; Phil 2:13; cf. Heb 13:21). There is no room for
strictly personal merit in Paul's monergistic scheme.
31
For Paul this would probably include the elect saints of previous ages like Abraham and
David, who were justified by faith in Gods sheer grace (Rom 4:1-8) and must have experienced
the benefits of the New Covenant in a provisional, anticipatory manner.
32
In keeping with the spirit of Pauline theology, we would say that this righteousness is
accepted because it is produced by God's Spirit (Rom 8:4), and because the imperfections in the
believer's works are covered by Christ's righteousness (2 Cor 5:21).
33
So Fitzmyer, Romans, 338.
34
Scholars sometimes point to the phrase "works of the commandments" in 2 Bar. 57:2 (see
Moo, Romans, 208 n. 59; Fuller, "Paul and cThe Works of the Law,'" 35), but there is no reason to
make much of this parallel since (whatever the wording of the lost Hebrew original) it uses the
plural "commandments," not the singular "Law." Furthermore, the Law of Moses is probably not
directly in view in this text (cf. 2 Bar. 17:4), which further weakens the comparison.
In 4QFlor (4Q174) 1:7 the "works of the Law" are clearly said to be what man
is "to offer" God: "And he commanded to build for himself a temple of man, to
offer him in it, before him, the works of the Law."35 Here the "works of the Law" (or
possibly "works of thanksgiving") are plainly what Israel is to offer to God. But
Paul nowhere speaks of anyone offering (whether rightly or wrongly) "works of
the Law" to God; nor does he use any comparable grammatical construction. The
same holds true for the occurrence of the phrase "some works of the Law" in
4QMMT (4Q399 2:2-3): "And also we have written to you some of the works of the
Law which we think are good for you."36 There the "works of the Law" are what
the Qumran sectarians have "written" to others for their instruction in how they
should properly observe the Law. But Paul nowhere speaks of the "works of the
Law" as something written (whether rightly or wrongly) to anyone for the purpose
of instruction, whether by Moses to Israel, or by Paul's Judaizing opponents to Gen-
tile Christians; nor does he use any grammatical construction that is comparable
to this.
Two other possible examples of a related construction occur in 1QS 5:20-21:
"they shall examine their spirits in the Community, between one another, in respect
of each man's insight and of his works in the Law";37 and 6:18: "the Many will be
questioned about his duties, concerning his insight and his works in the Law."38
But here the texts both speak of personal deeds: "his works in the Law." Paul
nowhere in his letters uses a personal pronoun in connection with "works of the
Law."
It seems to have escaped the notice of modern scholarship that,39 unlike the
Pauline examples, none of these extrabiblical references occurs in the context of
questions concerning the capacity of the Law to produce righteousness in the sight
of God. They all rather unambiguously speak of human obligations to obey the
Law. If Paul had spoken of the "works of the Law" as something that could be
"offered" to God, or written to an audience for their instruction in how to obey
God, then obviously the subjective genitive (understood in the sense of what is pro-
duced by the Law) would be ruled out. The same would hold true if Paul had ever
35
Translation by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea
ScrolL· Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1:353; slightly emended to read m m rather
than m i n .
36
Ibid., 2:803; translation slightly altered.
37
38
39
See the discussions of Martin Abegg, "4QMMT, Paul, and 'Works of the Law,"* in The
Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, Interpretation (ed. Peter W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001),
203-16; and John Kampen (with more caution), "4QMMT and New Testament Studies," in Read-
ing 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. John Kampen and Moshe Bern-
stein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 129-44, esp. 138-43.
written of a person's own "works of the Law." Such usages would obviously entail
40
actions of people in attempting to adhere to the commandments of God.
The fact that Paul never employs the phrase "works of the Law" in such con
structions only goes to show the contrast between the Pauline usage of this expres
sion and the various Qumran examples to which scholars commonly appeal. When
Paul speaks of the "works of the Law," he has in mind the Law as an agent on which
the Jews rely for their righteousness before God; and he uses this expression in con
texts where he is insisting that the Law can never justify a person or bring about
spiritual benefit (because the giving of the Law did not produce good works or
other positive benefits among the people of Israel). Because of Israel's inability to
comply with the demands of the Law, the Law only condemned those who received
it (cf. Rom 4:15).
"WorL· of the Law" as Interchangeable with "WorL·"?
Another objection, in particular regarding the usage of this expression in

Romans, might be that the interchange between the term "works" (Rom 3:27; 4:4-
6; 9:11,32; 11:6) and "works of the Law" makes it clear that Paul has in mind human
deeds that are performed in the attempt to fulfill the requirements of the Law.41
However, the exposition of the Pauline usage of this expression above has already
called that assumption into question. It could just as well be that Paul uses the
phrase "works of the Law" precisely in order to signal those points in his argument
when he is focusing on the agency of the Law itself, as opposed to the agency of peo
ple in their attempts to fulfill the Law. When Paul wants to speak of human attempts
to fulfill the Law, he simply speaks of "works," but when he wants to speak of the
Law's own inability to produce a righteousness that will stand before the bar of
divine judgment due to humankind's universally experienced slavery to sin, he
speaks of "the works of the Law."
40
Paul is capable of speaking of the Law in such constructions, but he uses the noun
δικαίωμα (cf. Rom 2:26: an uncircumcised man keeps τ α δικαιώματα του νόμου; 8:4: those
who are in Christ fulfill το δικαίωμα του νόμου).
41
This is essentially Westerholm^ objection (Israels Law and the Church's Faith, 116-17;
likewise Moo, "'Law,' 'Works of the Law/" 94-95). This objection, however, fails to see the close
connection between human "works" and the "works of the Law" in the present proposal. It is pre
cisely because the Law has failed to inspire righteous human works (Rom 7:8-10) that could pass
the scrutiny of the day ofjudgment (cf. Rom 2:17-25) that the works of the Law are ultimately cast
in negative terms in Paul's theology. Because the Law can only condemn, not produce works that
justify, it is futile to attempt to be justified on the basis of ones performance in complying with
the will of God as revealed in the Mosaic Law. Even Abraham was justified not by works but
through faith in the God who forgives the "ungodly" (Rom 4:1-8). On Abraham as the paradig
matic "Lawkeeper" in Judaism, see Moo, Romans, 256.
The true "works of the Law" according to Paul are only condemnation (3:19),
personal knowledge of sin (3:20), subjection to wrath (4:15), the revelation of sin-
ful passions (7:5,13), spiritual death (7:9), and bondage to sin and death (8:2). The
only way that God's Law (as it functioned under the Old Covenant) could benefit
a person for justification is if one proved capable of complying with its demands
(2:25). But since no one is capable of adequately obeying the Law because of the
power of sin (3:9), the effects of the Law of Moses ultimately prove to be negative—
except insofar as the Mosaic Law served to prepare the faithful elect in Israel (cf.
11:7) for the gracious intervention of God's saving righteousness in the mission of
Christ (3:21-22).
"WorL· of the Law" as Additions to Faith?
Regarding the usage of the expression "works of the Law" in Galatians, it

might be objected that the specifics of the situation in Paul's letter make it proba-
ble that he is referring to human attempts to obey the Law, since the issue at stake
is the necessity of circumcision for justification (Gal 5:2-6).42 This conclusion, how-
ever, does not necessarily follow. If Paul wished to deny the necessity of circumci-
sion for people to be found pleasing in the sight of God, he could build a polemic
against what is perceived as a misguided attempt to base justification on human
actions. Certainly, since the Law is based on the assumption of human ability to
comply with its demands (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12), Paul can at times state his argu-
ment in such terms (Rom 4:1-6,16; 9:32; Phil 3:9).
But in addition to criticizing Israel's claim to be righteous before God on the
basis of personal obedience to the Law, another way of addressing the issue would
be to question the ability of the Law itself to produce positive spiritual benefits, in
light of human depravity (Rom 2:25-3:20; Gal 3:10). If the Law itself is incapable
of producing justifying righteousness in people who are enslaved to sin, then this
too is obviously relevant to the question of the requirement of Law observance
(including circumcision) for justification (cf. Acts 13:39; 15:10-11). It is precisely
for that reason that Paul speaks of the "works of the Law" in the negative manner
that he uses in the letter to the Galatians.
It is important to notice that, in Galatians, Paul never accuses his Judaizing
opponents of adding works to faith as cooperative means of justification.43 Rather,
the Judaizers taught that righteousness comes "through the Law" (2:21; cf. 3:11), or
through the works produced by the Law (2:16), not through faith in Christ. There
is no doubt that the Judaizers advocated faith in Christ as the anticipated Messiah
42
So Moo, «'Law,' Works of the Law,'"97.
43
Galatians 3:3 is directed at Paul's Gentile converts, who initially did claim justification by
faith in keeping with the terms of Paul's gospel.
(otherwise they would have had no influence in the early church); but it does not
appear that they advocated faith in Christ as the means whereby a person was
accepted as righteous in the sight of God.44 Their commitment to the Law made it
impossible for them to see faith in Christ as the means of justification, since the Law
was already in operation for centuries prior to the coming of Christ. Obviously, if
people were already being justified by the Law prior to Christ, then Jesus did not
need to die on the cross to provide justification. That is the whole point of 2:21,
and it explains why Paul feels compelled to deny in 3:21 that the Law was ever effec-
tually operative to provide life, even for saints in ages past. So the central argument
of Galatians revolves not around the question of what a person must do to be jus-
tified (faith alone, or faith plus works?), but rather the mutually exclusive under-
standing of the agency of justification (either through the Law, or through the
obedient death of Christ).
Excursus on Legalism
In view of those texts where Paul states his argument in terms of Israel's ten-
dency to boast in its works, it may be somewhat misleading to identify the sin of
which Judaism is accused in these passages as "legalism." After all, most Jews did
not in fact believe that salvation was something that could be strictly earned by
anyone.45 Some texts that are often construed in such terms are misinterpreted. For
example, Rom 11:6 directly addresses a legalistic mentality, yet it is not the Jews
who are accused of such a mind-set but rather those who would question the
preservation of the elect status of Israel. Paul's point is that, since Israel's election is
gracious (Deut 7:7-8; 9:4-7), it cannot be negated by Israel's covenantal failure.
Romans 9:30-33, which does address Israel, is not accusing Judaism of legalism
per se but of a mistaken reliance on the power of God's Law to produce the righ-
teousness people need for justification. Paul is not criticizing the Jews for wanting
44
Unfortunately, we cannot say specifically how the Judaizers understood the saving sig-
nificance of Jesus' death. They no doubt recognized that Jesus' death on the cross was for their ben-
efit and part of the plan of God, but what this entailed for them is hard to say. We know, however,
that they did not view it in the Pauline terms expressed in Gal 1:4 and 2:20. They may have viewed
his death as in some sense a final offering for sin, which fulfilled the anticipations of the sacrifi-
cial system. But viewing Christ's death as an atonement for sin would not necessarily entail Paul's
belief in justification by imputed righteousness, thereby annulling the Law's terms of justifica-
tion based on personal obedience to its demands. It is one thing to say that Christ's death atoned
for sin; it is another to say that Christ's death, once appropriated, was the sole basis on which the
believer was declared to be righteous under the terms of the covenant.
45
Here it would seem that Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) has indeed made his case,
though one might find exceptions to the norm in isolated texts. On the somewhat more legalis-
tic perspective of 4 Ezra, see Sanders's discussion (pp. 409-18); cf. Bauckham, "Apocalypses," 161-
75.
to be righteous (that was a good thing); he is criticizing them for seeking righ-
teousness from the wrong source (since the Law has proven incapable of providing
righteousness under its terms).46
Likewise, Rom 4:1-8 is not really an accusation of legalism (though it is often
read that way), but rather an assault on Jewish national pride, a criticism of Jews
who think that they will be able to "boast" of their superiority to the Gentiles
because of the Law. Paul's wording in v. 2 makes it absolutely clear that he is not say-
ing (even hypothetically) that if a person is declared righteous on the basis of obe-
dience to the Law, that person has a legitimate ground to boast before God. He is
saying only that that person then has a legitimate ground for boasting before other
people (though admittedly in the presence of God), and in this context those other
people are surely the Gentiles (cf. 4:9-12). That is the boasting that Paul is attempt-
ing to exclude by his argument; namely, that Jews will be pronounced righteous on
the basis of their own obedience to God's will, as compared with the Gentiles. Few
if any Jews would stand before God and claim to deserve a share in the world to
come according to strict justice, but they would stand before God and claim to
deserve pardon when their conduct is compared to that of the Gentiles (cf. 4 Ezra
3:28-36; 8:26-32). Further, Rom 4:16, which is found in the same context, is accus-
ing the Jews of rejecting not the premise that salvation is by grace but only what
Paul sees as its necessary consequence (that it must then be by faith). Paul and his
Jewish opponents have radically different understandings of the proper definition
of soteric grace. Judaism sees God's grace in the giving of the Law to Israel; Paul sees
God's grace in the sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ, imputed to all who believe.
Neither does Gal 5:4 mean that in Paul's mind the Jews did not believe in sal-
vation by grace, if grace is defined as God's undeserved favor which brings salva-
tion. "Grace" here is not shorthand for a "system" of salvation that is opposed to
legalism. In other words, Paul is not accusing his converts of adopting a legalistic
soteriology.47 Grace in this context is a benefit (v. 2) that can in some sense be lost;
it is not a means of justification, but justification itself. For the Galatians to seek
46
When Paul accuses the Jews of seeking to establish "their own" righteousness (Rom 10:3),
he is not accusing them of legalism, in the sense of "self-righteous" trusting in one's own merit (so
Schreiner, Romans, 544; and Moo, Romans, 635); but neither is he accusing them only of seeking
to limit justification to the people of Israel (so Dunn, Theology ofPaul, 368). He is lamenting their
mistaken belief in the capacity of the Jew to be justified by personal obedience to the Law. This is
not a matter of legalism, but simply a matter of an unwillingness to recognize the inability of the
Law to enable a person within the covenant to live righteously before God, even in response to
God's elective grace. The problem is the Jewish propensity to "rely on the Law" (Rom 2:17), but
this does not automatically mean that they would boast in themselves.
47
He could have accused these Gentiles of adopting a soteriology that would operate in a
gracious manner in the context of God's covenant with Israel, but then would become legalistic
when applied to those who do not find themselves already within the covenant. However, this is
merely academic, as it does not appear to be Paul's point.
justification by accepting circumcision is to say that they are not yet justified, as
though they had not already received that benefit in Christ (cf. 2:21). Since these
Gentiles had previously claimed to have experienced grace/justification through
Christ (1:9; 5:7), denying that fact could not but be described as falling away from
grace. The question here is not whether justification is by grace or by works, but
rather whether God's grace/justification is a present possession that is already found
in Christ, or whether it is something that must still be sought by these Gentile con-
verts in the Law.
Ironically, later texts that do explicitly contrast grace with works (Eph 2:8-9;
3:5) do not have Judaism specifically in view. They could well be taken as straight-
forward affirmations that God has redeemed the church (including Gentiles) purely
because of his grace, just as in times past God had dealt with Israel (whose gra-
cious election any Jew could affirm). In any event, Paul's real criticism of the Jew-
ish people lay in a somewhat different direction. It is essentially a twofold
critique—both theological and moral.
Their theological mistake (according to Paul), lay primarily in their anthro-
pology, their unwillingness to recognize the enslavement to the power of sin that
Israel continued to manifest even after receiving the gracious gift of the Law (Rom
7:5-13). This is why they put their trust in the Law as the source of their righteous-
ness before God (Rom 2:17), rather than in the person of Christ as the source of
their righteousness (Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:9).
The problem with the Law is not that it encourages legalism, but that human
beings are unable to comply with its demands because of the radical power of sin.
It is simply misguided to think that Paul would depict Judaism as "legalistic" based
on the expectation of obedience to the Law for justification (or "life"). The Mosaic
covenant structured the relationship between God and Israel precisely in those
terms (Deut 30:15-20). In response to God's undeserved grace, which was dis-
played in the giving of Canaan to Abraham's children (Deut 7:7-11; 9:4-6), the
people of Israel were to adhere faithfully to God's Law so as to remain in the land.
This is a kind of "nomism," but it is not necessarily legalistic,48 since the initiative
48
It is important to distinguish legalism as a charge against a religion from legalism as a
charge against an individual person or persons. Here I agree with Moo: "We must also reckon
with the possibility that many 'lay' Jews were more legalistic than the surviving literary remains
of Judaism would suggest" (Romans, 216). There are charges of legalism in the NT, but these have
to do with the mind-set of people, not with the structure of the Jewish religion. Cf. Luke 16:15:
those who "justify themselves"; Luke 18:9: those who "trust in themselves"; Phil 3:3-4: those who
"put their confidence in the flesh." Justification by means of God's gracious gift of the Law can
become a form of legalism when it causes people to trust in themselves rather than in God for
righteousness. But Paul's arguments are usually directed toward a theological critique of the Law's
role in Judaism (which is based on the terms of the Mosaic covenant itself), not criticisms of the
mind-sets of individual people.
in salvation and the ongoing promise of forgiveness of sins (which God is not obli-
gated to confer) are rooted in the will and plan of God.49 Paul simply differed from
other interpretations of Judaism at the time, in that he was radically pessimistic
about Israel's capacity to find life under the synergistic terms of the Mosaic
covenant. A better way of distinguishing Pauline religion from Judaism would be
"monergistic nomism" versus "synergistic nomism," since Paul too insisted on the
necessity of continued obedience in response to redeeming grace, if believers were
permanently to enjoy the salvation of God.50
The moral mistake of Israel could best be characterized as Jewish national
pride. The Jewish people desired to exalt themselves above the Gentiles (Rom 2:1-
4) and imagined themselves to be more righteous than the Gentiles, because they
possessed the gift of the Law (Rom 2:17-24). But far from possessing the righ-
teousness they imagined, Paul claims that, in reality, Israel has gone astray and
fallen into the same idolatrous patterns of behavior as the Gentiles whom they hold
in such contempt (Rom 2:24; 10:21).51 Hence, Israel wrongly boasted before God
that it was more righteous than the "ungodly" Gentiles (Rom 4:1-8), and wrongly
put its confidence in the belief that the Law was able to make Israel more righteous
49
One might wish to argue that conditions changed somewhat after the destruction of the
temple, when good works came to be viewed in rabbinic theology as a means of atonement in the
place of the sacrificial system (cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 164). Thus, D. A. Car-
son's suggestion that, "once atonement was judged to be something that could be secured entirely
by personal deeds, even if it was insisted that such were efficacious because they were God-
appointed means, then the primitive merit theology of the early rabbis was necessarily strength-
ened" (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1981], 92). However, this is irrelevant to the situation as it existed when Paul framed
his own criticisms of Judaism.
50
See Rom 8:13; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; cf. Eph 5:5; 2 Tim 2:12; Titus 1:16. The ques-
tion of what Paul would make of converts who profess faith and then relapse into a lifestyle char-
acterized by such sins is beyond the scope of this article. It is clear that Paul believed it possible
to "fall from grace" (Gal 5:4), yet he also maintained the certainty of the salvation of the elect
(Rom 8:28-34). Paul does not reconcile these two strands of his teaching, though it is possible to
construct a reply based on his view of the covenant with Israel. The whole nation of Israel has a
claim on God's gifts (Rom 9:4), though not every Israelite was one of the elect predestined to eter-
nal salvation (9:6). Apparently, salvation "belongs" to the whole nation in some sense, yet only the
elect within the nation actually partake of the blessings to their eternal benefit (cf. 11:7). A simi-
lar line of thought could be developed in terms of the New Covenant church. All the baptized
who profess faith (and, one could argue, their children) belong to God's family (and hence salva-
tion in some sense "belongs" to them), yet only the elect within the church actually benefit from
those blessings given to the church as a whole. Such a model certainly makes sense of other early
Christian descriptions of apostasy and its consequences (cf. Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 2 Pet 1:4-11; 2:1;
2:20-21).
51
Cf. Gal 2:17: the Jews who seek justification in Christ are those who recognize themselves
to be sinners (like the Gentiles).
(Phil 3:3-9). The issue at stake in most of Paul's criticisms is not the attempt to
merit salvation in God's sight, but rather Israel's arrogant attempt to exalt itself
above the Gentiles in God's sight.
A Meaningless Tautology?
Finally, it has been objected that the subjective genitive understanding of

"works of the Law" produces a meaningless tautology in Paul's statements.52 For if
the works of the Law are entirely negative (as Gaston has argued), then why would
Paul need to specify the fact that no one can be justified by the works of the Law?
Obviously, if the only works of the Law are such things as sin (Rom 7:7), death
(Rom 7:10), and wrath (Rom 4:15), then the Law clearly cannot bring justification.
Why would Paul need to state such an obvious fact?
This objection may well apply to Gaston's view of the "works of the Law," but
it does not apply to the view being presented here. The purpose of the Law was not
merely to pronounce a curse upon the Gentiles, who lay outside the covenant. The
purpose of the Law was precisely—by means of their inability to keep the Law—to
reveal to the Jews (to whom the Law was entrusted) their participation in the fall
of Adam (Rom 3:19,23; 5:12; 7:13), and thus to prepare them for the redemption
from the curse to be effected by Christ (Rom 3:21-22; Gal 3:22-24).53 The point
that Paul makes en route to this conclusion is indeed something that would be con-
tentious and would certainly sound blasphemous to his fellow Jews. He is claiming
that, precisely in its role as the vehicle of the revelation of God's righteous will to
Israel, the effects of the Law upon Israel have proven to be negative, not positive—
not because of any defect in the Law itself (Rom 3:31),54 but because of the power
of indwelling sin (Rom 7:7-12).
52
So Schreiner, '"Works of Law* in Paul," 231; and Rapa, Meaning of "WorL· of the Law,"
138.
53
From a Pauline perspective, this no doubt could explain why Moses from the very begin-
ning told Israel that it would find itself unable to keep the Law (Deut 31:29). The purpose of the
Law was to hold forth the promise of life by means of compliance with the revealed will of God
(much like Adam in the Genesis narrative; cf. 4 Ezra 3:19-23). When Israel subsequently failed
to keep the Law (even after receiving the gracious gift of the Land, just as Adam was placed in the
Garden), it would see that the Jews too are participants in the fall of Adam and the curse that falls
upon those who break God's commandment—a curse from which a deliverance would be required
that would accomplish what the Law failed to accomplish (escape from condemnation before the
justice of God). In other words, the purpose of the Law was (ironically) to keep the Jewish peo-
ple from being tempted to trust in their own righteousness, which is precisely the point Paul
makes in Rom 9:30-33. On Israel's history as the recapitulation of Adam's prior story, see N. T.
Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1, The New Testament and the People of God
(London: SPCK, 1992), 251-52,262-68.
54
Paul simply did not believe that the purpose of the Law was ever to be fulfilled by Israel's
own godly compliance with its stipulations. It was precisely in failing to keep the Law and being
V. CONCLUSION
The phrase "works of the Law" in Romans and Galatians should be taken as
a subjective genitive referring to what is brought about by the giving of the Law. Paul
insists, contrary to the popular conceptions offirst-centuryJudaism, that the Law
was an ineffective agent of justification, for it failed to produce in fallen sinners the
righteousness required for life under its stipulated terms. Under the New Covenant,
life is found through faith, through which the obedience of the Messiah Jesus is
credited for the benefit of all who trust in his atonement on their behalf. This read-
ing of the Pauline usage of the expression "works of the Law" is consistent with
similar linguistic constructions in his letters. Objections to this proposal fail to
meet their burden of proof. The linguistic evidence derived from the Dead Sea
Scrolls is basically irrelevant for the study of Paul's use of the phrase "works of the
Law." Works of the Law and "works" are not necessarily interchangeable for Paul.
Works of the Law do not need to be viewed as additions to faith to make sense of
the argument of Galatians. Nor is it a meaningless tautology to say that "works of
the Law" fail to bring justification, in light of contemporary Jewish opinions about
the effectual soteric agency of the Law.
driven to faith in God's own righteousness, given as a free gift in Christ, that Israel could attain
to the true goal and purpose of the Law (Rom 3:31; 9:30-33; Gal 3:21-22). This may be part of
what Paul speaks of in Rom 11:32: "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that he may show
mercy to 201." By means of the Law, Israel came to recognize its common participation in the guilt
and depravity of the human race alongside the Gentiles, in order to be prepared for God's universal
mercy in Christ.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

Subjective Genitive Works of The Law in Romans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subjective Genitive Works of The Law in Romans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JBL 126, no.

The "Works of the Law" in Romans

One of the most perplexing debates in NT scholarship has centered on the

II. THE PRIMARY TEXTS

The "WorL· of the Law" in Romans

Excursus on Perfect Obedience

The "Worte of the Law" in Galatians

theological claim of 3:10-14: Christ's substitutionary obedience on the cross has

III. SOME LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS

"Wbrfcs" with the Genitive in Paul

"Work" with the Genitive of "Law" in Paul

IV. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS

"WorL· of the Law" as a Technical Term?

"WorL· of the Law" as Interchangeable with "WorL·"?

Another objection, in particular regarding the usage of this expression in

"WorL· of the Law" as Additions to Faith?

Regarding the usage of the expression "works of the Law" in Galatians, it

Finally, it has been objected that the subjective genitive understanding of

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

You might also like