By Works of Law

No one shall be justified

Dieter Mitternacht
By Works of Law
No one shall be justified
Dieter Mitternacht

A thesis presented to the faculty of Bethel Theological

Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree Master of Theology

Spring 1988

Copyright © Dieter Mitternacht

Cover image: St. Paul and St. Peter. El Greco 1587-1592.
Oil on canvas. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.

2
 Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 6

Paul and the Law.......................................................10

I. Introduction ....................................................................... 10
II. The Purpose of the Law ..................................................... 13
”It was added because of transgressions” ......................... 13
No Special Favors, no Boasting ........................................ 20
Confirmation through Allegory ....................................... 22
”He who does them shall live by them” .......................... 25
III. The Abolition of the Law.................................................. 32
IV. The Fulfillment of the Law ............................................... 36
V. Different perspectives........................................................ 41
The Problem ....................................................................... 41
Development Theories ..................................................... 46
Insoluble Contradictions .................................................. 50
Legalism............................................................................. 52
From Solution To Plight ................................................... 54
Exclusivism ........................................................................ 59
The Zion-Torah ................................................................. 62
Conclusion......................................................................... 63
VI. A Christological Perspective ............................................ 66

3
 The Salvation Historical Shift .......................................... 67
Christ, The Ultimate Sacrifice.......................................... 69
Faith in the Promise and Faith in Christ .......................... 71
Summary ........................................................................... 83

Paul and Justification.......................................... 86

I. Introduction ...................................................................... 86
II. Excerpts from the History of Interpretation ................... 88
The Apostolic Fathers....................................................... 88
The Greek and Latin Fathers ........................................... 89
Martin Luther..................................................................... 91
Herman Cremer ................................................................ 93
Adolph Schlatter ............................................................... 95
Rudolph Bultmann ........................................................... 96
III. The Modern Debate.......................................................... 98
”Righteousness of God” according to Ernst
Käsemann .................................................................. 98
The Jewish Origins........................................................... 101
The Power-Gift Relation.................................................. 104
The Peculiarity of Justification ....................................... 107
Summary ..........................................................................109
IV. ”Righteousness of God” in Paul examined ..................... 111
Romans 1. 17....................................................................... 111
Romans 3. 5 ....................................................................... 115
Romans 3. 21-26................................................................ 120
Romans 6. 12-23................................................................ 126
2. Corinthians 5. 21 ........................................................... 132
Conclusion ....................................................................... 137
V. Justification in Galatians ................................................. 139
Paul’s concern for the Galatians ..................................... 140
Galatians 2.17-21 ............................................................... 145
Galatians 3.1-6 .................................................................. 150
Galatians 3.21 .................................................................... 153

4
 Galatians 5.6 ..................................................................... 155
Summary .......................................................................... 159

Works of the Law and Justification .. 162

I. Introduction ..................................................................... 162
II. Some Views on “Works of the Law” ............................... 165
“Works of the Law” = Works done in a “Legalistic
Spirit” ........................................................................ 165
“Works of the Law” = A Realm of Religious
Existence ...................................................................169
“Works of the Law” = Signs of Jewish Identity .............. 173
“Works of the Law” = Neutral but Impossible ............... 176
Conclusion........................................................................ 179
III. “Works of Law” in Galatians ...........................................180
The Problem at Galatia ....................................................180
Galatians 2.16....................................................................186
Galatians 3.2 and 5 ........................................................... 192
Galatians 3.10 .................................................................... 197
IV. “Works of Law” in Romans ............................................ 205
Romans 3.20 .................................................................... 205
EXCURSUS: PSALM 143 .................................................. 213
Romans 3.28 ..................................................................... 218

CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 226

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................... 230

5
 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this thesis is to acquire an understanding of
the phrase “works of the law” ( ) in the writings of the
apostle Paul. The texts that relate to the issue amount to no more
than six verses, two in Romans and four in Galatians, comprising
eight occurrences of the phrase. However, these verses touch on
two areas in Pauline studies that have attracted much attention
throughout the history of interpretation and lie at the heart of
Pauline theology. The two areas are Paul’s teaching on the law
and on justification. Hence, before an intelligent interpretation of
“works of the law” can be undertaken, a basic understanding is
necessary as to, for instance, what was Paul’s fundamental
outlook on his own Jewish heritage, or how he viewed the role of
the law in Judaism. Even though one would wish that “objective”
exegeses would yield objective conclusions, the “history of dis-
agreement” on these matters teaches us to be realistic and
humble. Scholars of great learning have come to contradictory
assertions on almost every point that relates to Paul and the law.
Thus, it would be presumptuous (and ill-advised) to aim at a final
conclusion during the cause of this study.
The task before us, then, demands a general investigation into
Paul’s teaching, both on the law and on righteousness. The
nature of a ThM-thesis, obviously, does not allow a thorough
treatment of these two areas. We will have to focus specifically on
 Introduction

those aspects that relate to our specific purpose: the interpre-

tation of  . This implies, for instance, that special
attention will be given to the purpose for which the law was
given, whereas questions like: what is the validity of the law for
the moral conduct of Christians?, cannot be treated. In general
we will find ourselves focusing more on the “functional aspects”
of the law than on “the content” of the law. It is the role of the
law as an actor on the stage of salvation history that concerns us
primarily. It is with regard to that role that Paul makes his most
critical assertions. Since the phrase “works of the law” occurs
consistently in a depreciative sense, it seems appropriate to
investigate what bearing Paul’s critical evaluation of the role of
the law as a whole had on his understanding of “works of the
law.”
The specific reasons for which “works of the law” were rejected
by Paul were that doing them would neither justify (Rom 3.20,28;
Gal 2.16) nor lead to the reception of the Spirit (Gal 3.1,3). Instead,
to “be by works of the law” meant to “be under a curse” (Gal 3.10).
It is necessary to examine Paul’s perception of the relationship
between “justification” and “Spirit reception.” Before we can
assess why justification was not possible through the law (Gal
2.21) we need to establish what specifically are the connotations
of justification in Paul. Again, the question of justification cannot
be treated comprehensively. Special attention will be given to the
relationship between “gift” and “power” in Paul’s understanding
of righteousness. A selection of texts that relate to that issue will
be looked at. The concern of that selection is to discern
specifically the meaning of the genitive construction
“righteousness of God” ( ). After the conclusion of
that study an interpretation of “justification” in Galatians will be
attempted, based on the concern of Paul in Galatia and the flow
of the argument where some of the occurrences of words with the
-root are found.

7
 In our last major division of this thesis the insights gained will
be applied to the specific case of “works of the law.” The effort
will be made to discern why interpreters disagree, to point out
the weaknesses in the different arguments and to incorporate the
strengths of each argument into a (hopefully) comprehensive
interpretation of “works of the law.”
During the process of developing one’s own position on the
matter, it will be helpful to remember that no one can escape his
or her own (sometimes unconscious) historical and doctrinal
background and preferences. Thus, our aim in this thesis is to
defend our conclusions in humility and with an open mind. We
are neither aiming at complete relativity nor at a defense of our
own position to the expense of that of everybody else’s.

8
Introduction

9
 Part One

Paul and the Law

I. Introduction

An enormous number of pages have been filled on the subject

of Paul and the law, and yet in spite of “all the scholarly labor that
has been poured into the effort it has resulted in no consensus.”1
H.J. Schoeps calls Paul’s understanding of the law “the most

1 E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983), 3.
 Paul and the Law

intricate doctrinal issue in his theology.”2 Yet, the issue must not
be avoided, since “one can hardly understand his theology, if one
does not grasp his theology of the Torah.”3 What is it that makes
Paul’s view of the law so intricate? How is it possible that two
excellent New Testament scholars like C.E.B. Cranfield and Ernst
Käsemann arrive at completely contradictory conclusions
regarding Paul’s view of the law? According to Cranfield, gospel
and law are for Paul basically one,4 whereas for Käsemann, Paul
“sees law and gospel non-dialectically as mutually exclusive
antitheses.”5 Is it simply a battle between different historical-
theological outlooks (Reformed versus Lutheran), or is there a
genuine ambiguity in Paul’s writings that invites such contrary
conclusions? If one adds to these two fundamental perspectives
that of the salvation history school as it is represented by Krister
Stendahl and E.P. Sanders, the variety of interpretations increases
further.
Our objective with this investigation into Paul’s teaching on
the law is not, and cannot be, an exhaustive treatment of all the
aspects that belong under the broad heading of “Paul and the
law.” What concerns us primarily is why Paul was so convinced
that by works of the law no man can be justified. Thus, we need
to find answers to questions like: What was Paul’s perception of
the role of the law under the old covenant? Was there anything
intrinsically wrong with the law that prevented it from being a
means of justification? Did the fallen nature of man prevent the

2 H.J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 168.
3 G. Eichholz, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 178.
4 Cf. C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh:
T.& T. Clark, 1979), 2:862.
5 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 282.

11
law from achieving its objective? How does the death and
resurrection of Christ affect Paul’s understanding of the role of
the law? Had the law a saving function before Christ, but does so
no longer? What is the thought pattern behind Paul’s negative
assertions about the law? Was he in line with and dependent on
Scripture, or are there completely novel elements in his teaching?
All of these questions ultimately accentuate the more basic
inquiry: What is and has been, in Paul’s mind, God’s intention
with the law? There are strong affirmations in his letters to the
effect that with the coming of the Christ, the law has not only lost
its validity, but that those who want to live by the law ( )
are denying the meaning of the death of Christ (Gal 2.21), indeed,
those who are getting circumsized, will loose their share in Christ
(Gal 5.2:      ). On the
other hand, Paul affirms that the law is holy and righteous and
good (Rom 7.12) and spiritual (Rom 7.14) and that obedience to
the love commandment coincides with, and is a fulfillment of the
whole law (  Gal 5.14). Not only that, but God gave His
Son so that the righteous requirements of the law might be ful-
filled in us (Rom 8.4). These apparent contradictions will be the
concern of our study with the aim of clarifying as to how, in
Paul’s mind, they were not contradictions.6 In the end we are
hoping to obtain an understanding of why one cannot be justified
by the works of the law.

6 Even if we held the position that Paul was arbitrary and idiosyncratic on
the grounds of “objective reason,” (cf. our discussion of the matter
below), we would still expect that in his own mind he perceived things
as being harmonious.

12
II. The Purpose of the
Law

”It was added because of transgressions”

Whatever conclusions one arrives at regarding both the

abolition and the fulfillment of the law, is dependent upon what
one considers Paul’s position concerning the pur…pose of the law
to be. In Gal 3.17-25 Paul presents his view of the role of the law in
salvation history. We will have to return to this passage when we
consider the abolition of the law. At this point we are primarily
interested in the question: Why then the law? (v.19). Paul
employs vivid imagery in order to make his point. The law has
been () our (!?)    (Gal 3.24).
The imagery of the  in and of itself, does not
necessarily carry negative connotations.7 The context, however,

7 Cf. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia Fortress Press,
1986), 145 n. 84: “it has to be admitted, that the image of 
suggests rather the notion of preventing transgressions.” (cf. Räisänen’s
view of the context, however, ibid., 140). Cf. also David Lull, “The Law
was our Pedagogue,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 494: “When

13
seems to demand a negative interpretation for the following
reasons:
First, Paul affirms an inferior purpose for the law by means of a
chronological argument: the promise of the inheritance, which is
the Spirit (3.14) who was to come through the offspring that been
promised to Abraham 430 years before the introduction of the
law. That offspring is Christ (    , 3.16).
The law had no share in the promise, since the promise was
received a) when there was no law, and b)  , which
designates a way of existing under the old covenant that is
contrary to that under the law (Gal 3.12).
Second, confinement   (v.23), which is equivalent to
being   (v.25), is paralleled by Paul to confinement
  (v.22). The reason for the confinement is
introduced, in both cases, with a clause: It was in order that
“what was promised” (v.22b [i.e., “justification” v.24b]) might be
by faith (and not by law). Hence, if the law, in conjunction with
sin, was not meant to justify, its pedagogical function must not
have been a positive one.

Paul depicts the law as a pedagogue... he introduces a conceptual field,

behind which there is a wealth of virtually universal experience in
antiquity. From this experience, what Paul was saying would have been
understood by the Galatians; namely, that as long as they were ‘under
sin’ they needed a ‘pedagogue’ to bridle the passions and desires of the
flesh (see 5:16-24).” T. D. Gordon, “A note on  in Gal 3.24-25,”
forthcoming in New Testament Studies, interprets the function of
 as protective of “the integrity and purity of the covenant
community from the defiling influence of the (then-idolatrous)
Gentiles.” However much one would wish Lull’s and Gordon’s
interpretation to be true (it would solve so many problems in one
stroke), it is much too simplistic. Cf. for a balance, Krister Stendahl’s
description of the more unpleasant duties of a  in “Lagen
som övervakare till Kristus,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 17/18 (1953): 162f,
and his reference to the context (ibid., 166) that would suggest a rather
negative understanding of the term.

14
 Paul and the Law

Third, the wider context of 3.19-4.7 would suggest that Paul

includes the  among the    for the
following reasons: Beginning with verse 1 of chapter 4, Paul con-
tinues the description of the  by putting the metaphor
into its own sociological setting. He points out that a child, even
though designated heir of the estate, lives, as long as he is a child,
under the same conditions as a slave. Both are put under
guardians and trustees (v.2). When the child comes of age, how-
ever, he will gain independence of those guardians. “So with us
(  ),” Paul continues to argue, “when we were child-
ren, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the universe”
(v.3). The following similarities emerge: 1) In both instances, it is
the father who acts as the one who determines the time when the
roles of the “enslavers” will cease (v.2b and v.4). 2) In both
instances, the “delivery” is related to the coming off age. It would
appear, therefore, that “the guardians and trustees” belong under
the category of the . Further, the analogy of 4.1-7
reiterates the chronological pattern of 3.23-25 so clearly that one
must conclude that Paul intended “the guardians and trustees” to
represent the  and, hence, included the  under the
.8
The role of the law as pedagogue, then, is a negative one. It
confines under sin and under the   . How, in

8 Cf. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians. A Commentary on the Greek
Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 193-4: ... “the law ranks as one of
the stoicheia.” Cf. also Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on
Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979), 148: “...being under the Torah is only another way
of being “under the ‘elements of the world.’ “ We can not deal with all
the possible understandings of . The reader is
encouraged to consult Betz, or Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon:
A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon,
Hermeneia; trans. W.R. Poehlmann and R.J. Karris (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1971). We are inclined to view the  as
spiritual forces.

15
light of this, should the initial answer to the question:   
;, i.e. it was added because of transgressions (
 , Gal 3.19) be understood? A quick look at the
history of the interpretation of the phrase will shed some light on
the issue. Martin Luther understood    to
mean that the law served both the purpose of increasing
transgressions and of making them “more known and seen.” He
stated further: “The law therefore, of itself, bringeth a special
hatred of God. And thus sin is not only revealed and known by
the law, but also is increased and stirred up by the law.”9 J.B.
Lightfoot translates the phrase: “to create transgression.”10 Hein-
rich A.W. Meyer affirms that “The real idea of the apostle is, that
the emergence of sin - namely in the wrath-deserving (Rom iv.15),
moral form of transgressions - which the law brought about, was
designed by God11 (who must indeed have foreseen this effect)
when he gave the law.”12 Meyer continues to affirm, that
“although  is not always exclusively used in its original sense
for the sake of, in favor of, but may also be taken simply as on
account of,” the point of the recognition of sin is entirely foreign
to the passage and would have required Paul to have written 

9 Martin Luther, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, ed.

Erasmus Middleton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 277.
10 J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1957), 144.
11 Even though we may not agree with Meyer’s view of the purpose of the
law, his view concerning the origin of the law is surely more convincing
than Hans Hübners (Law in Paul’s Thought, trans. James C.G. Greig
[Edinburgh: T.&.T. Clark, 1984], 27ff), who thinks that not God, but the
angels mentioned in Gal 3.19c, were the authors of the law and that they
gave the law against the will of God, in order to provoke men to
transgressions and with the desire of men’s downfall.
12 Heinrich A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to
the Galatians, trans. G.H. Venables (New York: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884), 128.

16
 Paul and the Law

   13 Heinrich Schlier points out

that, according to Paul, it was “sin” (cf. Rom 4.15; 5.13,20; 7.13)
that was present before the law and not “sins,” and concludes:
Man muß daher so formulieren: das Gesetz hat die Übertretung-
en als solche hervorgetrieben, indem es die Sünde sich in den
Übertretungen ausprägen ließ.14 Prevention cannot be the reason
(according to this verse) why the law was given, because of the
reference to . It would not square with what Paul says
about  in other places. Transgressions are not revealed
or prevented by the law but do actually occur and are possible
only where there is a law (cf. Rom 4.15: “For the law brings wrath,
but where there is no law there is no transgression
[]).”15 According to these interpreters, then, Paul
ascribes to the law a role that is not only passive with regard to
the prevention of, or protection from sins, but one that is
interacting with sin in the “production” of transgression.
John Calvin appears more restrictive in his ascription of an ac-
tive role to the law with regard to the causing of sin. He states:
“He (Paul) means that the law was given in order to make
transgressions obvious, and in this way to compel men to
acknowledge their guilt.”16 C.E.B Cranfields position is very close
to that of Calvin. He interprets the phrase “in order that there
might be transgression, the conscious disobeying of definite
commands.”17 However, Cranfield affirms that the law instigated
legalism and, in that respect, increased sin objectively. It opened

13 Ibid., 129.
14 Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief and die Galater, Meyers Komm. (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 153.
15 Ibid., 153.
16 John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians
and Collosians, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 61,
italics added.
17 C.E.B. Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” Scottish Journal of Theology 17
(1964): 46, italics added.

17
up new avenues of sinning.18 F.F. Bruce, in substantial agreement
with Cranfield, states: “ expresses purpose, not antecedent
cause... the purpose of the law was to increase the sum-total of
transgression.”19 In other words, while the law contributed to the
increase of sins it was not the cause of sinning.
An observation that runs in a similar vein is that made by
Earnest Burton DeWitt20 regarding the purpose of Scripture
() to consign ()21 all things   
   . Burton points out an interesting usage of the
verb  in Ps 31.8 (LXX 30.9). The Psalmist petitions the
Lord:      . It seems as though the
imagery in that verse closely resembles the idea present in 3.22.
The “shutting up” is done not by the enemy but to the enemy: in
our case . The one who consigns is different from the one
who oppresses. In other words, he who consigns does not create
the conditions of the consignment. In the present context, this
would mean that Scripture consigned man to the weakness of the
flesh and under the power of sin but is not actively involved in
causing man to sin.
Fourth, an interesting observation regarding the relationship
between  and  can be made: A sudden shift occurs
from  in verse 21 to  in verse 22 and back to  in
verse 23. Does that indicate that  and  are
synonymous expressions? In other words, does Paul ascribe to the
law the function of consigning to sin? This can hardly be the case

18 Ibid.
19 Bruce, Galatians, 175. Contra Lull, 483.
20 Earnest Burton DeWitt, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh:
T.& T. Clark, 1920), 196.
21 Cf. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
other Early Christian Literature, trans. William F. Arndt and F.Wilbur
Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), s.v.: “close up together,”
“hem in.”

18
 Paul and the Law

since, a)   appears to be parallel to   (v.22)

rather than to  .22 b), in verse 23 the  is described as
that to which one is consigned; i.e., as the object, the “room” in
which, or better, “the fence”23 around the area to which, one is
consigned. The consigning as such, however, is done by a third
“factor,” presumably by the one who restrained us
()24 in confinement. This suggests that the reference
with regard to the one who consigned is to God Himself. It is God
who made the decision that Israel ought to be confined 
. F.F. Bruce has pointed out that   (as in 3.8, where
“scripture foresees”) “is practically equivalent to ‘God’ who speaks
in scripture.”25 According to this interpretation, then, God
Himself, was actively involved in the process of confinement to
sin,26 (contrary to what could be inferred from verses 19c and 20)
and the negative role of the law can hardly have been viewed by
Paul as a tragic accident, or contrary to what was its original
intention. Rather, the law was purposed by God to have the
function it actually had in salvation history.
Also, by way of comparison with Paul’s affirmations regarding
the ontology of the law (Rom 7.12, 14), it appears quite impossible
to interpret the phrase in the sense that the law would generate

22 Cf. Bruce, Galatians, 181-2: “To be ‘under law’ is in practice to be ‘under

sin’ - not because law and sin are identical, but because law, while
forbidding sin, stimulates the very thing it forbids.”
23 For the concept of the law as a “fence” which God has put around the
Jewish people cf. Betz, 165.
24 Although the meaning of protection is possible, and would find support
in Jewish literature (cf. ibid.) the more likely interpretation of the word
is that of “restraint” (cf. Burton, 199).
25 Bruce, Galatians, 180.
26 Rom 11.32, the only other place in Paul where  occurs, describes
God as consigning all men to disobedience.

19
sin,27 in and of itself, except for the assumption that Paul viewed
God’s intention to have failed. Except for a view on Paul’s
thinking that leaves room for no-nonsensical contradiction, such
an interpretation seems rather impossible.
The suggestion by Bruce, then, that Paul’s view of the role of
law is negative but that we should distinguish between
“antecedent cause” and “purpose” in our interpretation of 
 , seems a good and acceptable compromise,
while at the same time it should be noted, that, however hard
interpreters may try to avoid unpleasant conclusions, they seem
to agree, that for Paul, the law was not given, for the purpose of
preventing transgressions.28

No Special Favors, no Boasting

It would seem, that the  in Gal 3.22 is introduced not so

much to show that the Gentiles are sinners (which was a non-
disputed fact, cf. 2.15), but in order to accentuate the inclusion of
the Jews among those consigned to sin (i.e. “even the Jews”). In

27 Under the assumption that there is coherence, of course. See our

discussion of Räisänen’s approach below.
28 Cf. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 144: “In Gal 3.19 the context does not
provide us with sufficient clues to make out the meaning of the phrase
.” “In any case it can hardly be taken in the good
Jewish sense of ‘preventing’ transgressions” (ibid., 140). For further
support for the negative view of the purpose of the law, see J.C. Beker,
Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980), 55, 243; Betz, 163-67. Fitzmyer, “The Letter to the
Galatians,” Jerome Biblical Commentary, 2 vols. Eds. Raymond Brown,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy (Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1968): 243; Schoeps, 174; Contra Lull, 496.

20
 Paul and the Law

other words, Jews were meant to recognize their predicament and

be warned against boasting over Gentile. In Romans 2 and 3 Paul
accuses Jews of not allowing the law to fulfill its purpose in their
lives; i.e., not allowing it to humble them. Instead, they boast in
the possession of the law, confident that possession as such
guarantees special favors from God. He also reminds them of the
purpose of the law: “You, then, who teach others, do you not
teach yourself?” (Rom 2.21).
Rom 7.7 affirms the purpose of the law as one of giving
knowledge of sin. It was meant to raise the awareness of every
Jew as to his need for salvation. This awareness was heightened
by the fact that Sin (as a power) made use of the law in order to
increase sinning (Rom 7.8). In Gal 5.21, Paul reminds his readers
that the law itself should have revealed to them that living 
 means slavery. The Mosaic law was never meant to make
alive. Hence, it has never been, could never have been and was
never meant to be, a rival to the “promise” (Gal 3.21; cf. Rom 4.13-
15 and 5.20). From an experiential perspective Gal 2.16 and Rom
3.19,20 affirm the same truth. The sinfulness of man is complete
and the law could not (since it was not meant to [Rom 3.20b])
change that. 29
Thus, if one compares Gal 3.19a with Rom 3.19-20, 5.20 and 7.7,
the impression emerges that the primary function of the law was

29 Betz, 175, perceives this to reflect the fact that “Paul shares the extreme
pessimism prominent in some of the Jewish traditions, especially among
the apocalypticists.” Cf. e.g. 2 Esd 7.46: “For who among the living is
there that has not sinned, or who among men that has not transgressed
the covenant?” 7.68: “For all who have been born are involved in
iniquities, and are full of sins and burdened with transgression.” We
would argue that sufficient pessimism to support Paul’s affirmations,
with regard to the sinfulness of man, can be found already in the Old
Testament (cf. e.g., Ps 51, Ps 143, two psalms that played an important
role in Paul’s defense of his view of Judaism and the law [cf. Rom. 3.4 Gal
2.16; Rom 3.20]).

21
to “magnify” (, 5.20) the transgressions of the people of
Israel, so that every mouth would be stopped (  
 Rom 3.19). In other words, it was God’s will to restrain his
people, by means of the law, from boasting (Rom 2.17ff). The law
was to reveal to them their participation in the human predica-
ment.

Confirmation through Allegory

In order to make his point of the participation of the Jewish

people in the predicament of mankind, Paul seems willing to use
every means available, even that of the rather strained allegory in
Gal 4.21-27. The introductory words,    ; (4.21)
set the stage: The law itself makes it clear and thus it should have
been clear to the honest member of the covenant that in himself
he was neither better than the Gentile, nor in any favorable
position. Rather, the function of the law is negative, it has an
enslaving effect on those who live under the Sinaitic covenant.30
Paul describes life under two different (imaginary rather than
real) covenants. One is a covenant of slavery, the other a
covenant of freedom. Both covenants originate with Abraham
(this time Paul is not interested in making a chronological
argument as in 3.15ff, but a purely qualitative assertion). One

30 The allegory is regularly considered a supplementary argument and an

afterthought, cf. Burton, lxxiv; Schlier, 153. It would appear, however,
that, since the plain and surface meaning of the Old Testament story
would support the Judaizers’ argument more than Paul’s (in that they
would claim to be descendants to Isaac), Paul must have had quite
substantial reasons for incorporating the story at this point. It would
hardly have occurred to him as an afterthought.

22
 Paul and the Law

covenant is represented by the slave woman Hagar (, the

other by the free woman Sarah ( [v.22]). The son who is
born of the slave woman is born  , whereas the son of
the free woman is born   (v.23). So far, no Jew would
have any objections. The way Paul proceeds with his allegory,
however, is extraordinary, to say the least. For a Jew of Paul’s
time, it was indisputable that the covenant runs from Abraham
and Sarah through Isaac, the son of the promise to his
descendants, the people of Israel, confirmed as such through the
giving of the law and the renewal of the covenant at Mount
Sinai.31 Paul, however, turns things upside down by declaring a
direct association between Hagar, her son, Mount Sinai and the
present Jerusalem, asserting that life under the old covenant (that
is, life under the law) equals slavery (that is, life   [v.23]
and enmity towards those that live   [v.29]). Thus the
following lines of heritage emerge:

31 Cf. Jub 16.17f, where it is said to Abraham, that “all the seed of his
(Ishmael’ s) sons should be Gentiles, and be reckoned with Gentiles; but
from the sons of Isaac one should become a holy seed, and should not be
reckoned among the Gentiles. For he should become the portion of the
Most High, and all his seed had fallen into the possession of God, that it
should be unto the Lord a people for (his) possession above all nations
and that it should become a kingdom and priests and a holy nation.”

23
 Abraham
 
Hagar Sarah
(Slave woman) (Free woman)
 
Son   Son  
(Ishmael) (Isaac)
 
Slavery Freedom
 
Mount Sinai
the present Jerusalem the Jerusalem from above
our mother

Could it be said more clearly, provocatively and, to be sure,

rather astonishingly?32 Life under the law is a life of slavery! The
covenant according to the flesh reaches its peak at Mount Sinai.
Again, Paul underlines that the promise to Abraham and the
giving of the law at Sinai are two completely separate entities.
One must keep in mind at the same time, however, that flesh and
law, although closely related, are not synonymous in function.
For instance, the antinomies put over and against each other in
Galatians are not law versus Spirit33 or law versus freedom, but
flesh versus Spirit and slavery versus freedom. The law is the yoke
of slavery (5.1), but not the slave master.

32 Cf Schoeps, 235: „...a typology which.... simply dissolves the facts of

history in what follws from them.“
33 Whenever Paul puts the law in direct opposition to the Spirit, he uses
the expression  Rom 2.27, 29; 7.6; 2 Cor 3.6.

24
 Paul and the Law

”He who does them shall live by them”

Having described the negative purpose of the law, we must

now turn our attention to the question of how that relates to
other affirmations in Paul that seem to contradict what has just
been said. How, in light of Gal 3.21, where Paul affirms that the
law was not given to make alive, shall we interpret Rom 7.10; 10.5;
and Gal 3.12, all of which affirm that the law was given for life?
“He who does them shall live by them!”, “The very commandment
which promised life...”. Obviously, there is a conflict, especially
since in the Old Testament the doing of the law is not presented
as an impossibility, but as a possibility.

But the word is very near you;

it is in your mouth
and in your heart,
so that you can do it.

See I have set before you this day

life and good, death and evil.
If you obey the commandments of the Lord...
then you shall live and multiply
and the Lord will bless you
in the land which you are entering
to take possession of it. (Deut.30.14-16).

It seems obvious that the Deuteronomy passage was perceived

of as a real promise, intended to give hope to the people of Israel
under the old covenant and not to frighten them. It was not
presenting an impossibility but an opportunity.

25
 In addition we find both the delight in, and the confidence of,
keeping the law, as it is described in Psalms 19 and 119. A few
examples among many will suffice:

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; (Ps 19.7)
in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps 19.11b)
Thy testimonies are my delight,
they are my counselors. (Ps 119.24)
Teach me O Lord, the way of thy statutes;
and I will keep it to the end.(Ps 119.33)
With my whole heart I keep thy precepts. (Ps 119.69)

These and many other affirmations regarding the expectancy of

life through the law in the Old Testament.34 Also the writings of
Second Temple Judaism (pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic litera-
ture and Qumran writings), more pessimistic about man’s con-
dition, to be sure, would have supported Paul’s assertions
regarding the weakness of the law. The conviction that the law
was the antidote to the Evil Impulse is very old and very
widespread, stretching at least from Ben Sira (e.g. 15.14-15) and
the Qumran literature (e.g. CD 2.14-16) to the Epistle of James
(e.g. 1.22-25). “For Judaism the great counterpoise to the threat
and power of sin is in the law given to Israel.”35 “…the Jews possess
the Torah as a protective and saving resource against the power
of the evil impulse.”36 “No pious Jew regarded the law as
impossible to fulfill in principle or as a spur to sin.”37

34 C.f. especially Ps 1.
35 Herman Ridderbos, Paul. An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 132.
36 Schoeps, 196. Cf. J. Louis Martin “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Galatians,”
New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 416, who comments on the letter to the
Galatians: “The teachers are apparently using the term ‘flesh’ in order to
speak of the Evil Impulse, and in order to instruct the Galatians about

26
 Paul and the Law

It was not perfect moral conduct that was expected of the

people of Israel, but responsible and devoted service to God,
which included the possibility of repentance and restoration.
Clearly, there seems to be a conflict between these joyful
statements regarding life under the law and Paul’s assertions.
However, in Paul’s perception of life under the law, the Old
Testament promise “He who does them shall live by them”
appears to constitute a threat. Paul affirms that righteousness
and life through the law are only possible if one obeys the law
perfectly (Gal 5.3), which very thing had never been a real pos-
sibility (Gal 3.10,22; Rom 3.9 etc.). To the contrary, had
righteousness been possible through the law, the death of Christ
would have been a waste (Gal 2.21). It is indeed the impossibility
for anyone of keeping the whole law which is, in our opinion, the
primary motivation for Paul’s ferocious attack on circumcision in
Galatians.
Was Paul really so completely off the mark? Did he misin-
terpret the purpose of the law so totally? Before we draw such a
conclusion, we need to take into consideration Dt 27.26, a text
which played a major role in Paul’s assertion of the demand of
perfect obedience.38 In the Masoretic text the wording runs as
follows: “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this
law by doing them.” This curse is the last of twelve in the
“Shechemite dodecalogue.” The first eleven curses were directed

what they take to be a crucial pair of opposites; namely, the fleshly Im-
pulse and the Law. For the teachers, the fleshly impulse and the Law
constitute a pair of opposites in the sense that the Law is the God-given
antidote to the fleshly Impulse.”
37 Käsemann, Romans, 192-3.
38 I am indebted for the following argument to F.F. Bruce, “The Curse of
the Law,” in Paul and Paulinism, Essays in Honor of C.K. Barrett
(London: SPCK, 1982), 27-36.

27
against specific religious or social misdemeanors.39 This twelfth
curse, however, is more comprehensive, even more so in its LXX
version where a twofold  is added: “Cursed is everyone who
does not persevere in all the words of this law by doing them.” If
we replace “all the words of this law” with “all things that are
written in the book of this law,” we get Paul’s quotation in Gal
3.10. According to M. Noth, Paul’s argument does not
misrepresent the original intention of the passage. The text
implies the impossibility of fulfillment: “On the basis of this law,
there is only one possibility for man of having his own
independent activity: that is transgression, defection, followed by
curse and judgment.”40
If Noth is correct, there seems to be tension in the Old
Testament between the offer of life to him who keeps the law and
the impossibility of law keeping. Thus, the following two
questions need to be asked: 1. Is the Old Testament as a whole
incoherent in its teaching on the law? 2. Are there points of
contact between the Old Testament and the Pauline
understanding of the law?
Peter Stuhlmacher has traced a development in the Old
Testament that would speak in favor of Paul’s Jewishness. Stuhl-
macher’s theory runs along the following lines: First, he supports
the discoveries that have been made by means of “tradition
historical” analysis of different lines of traditions of law-
perception in the Old Testament. Secondly, he perceives a histo-
rical Stufenfolge of a more and more intensified experience of law
(Gesetzeserfahrung) in the Old Testament, summarized in the

39 C.f. Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans.
R.A. Wilson (Garden City N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 114f.
40 Martin Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and other Studies, trans. D.R.
AP-Thomas (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967) 131, italics added.

28
 Paul and the Law

expression Lebensordnung.41 In order to fully grasp the meaning of

the lines of traditions, it is imperative to interpret them against
the backdrop of historical and religious experience. Thirdly, the
increasingly intensified experience of the law is accompanied by a
growing awareness of the “Verfehltheit der Existenz des Volkes,
der Glaubensgemeinde und des einzelnen vor Jahweh.”42
Fourthly, this awareness of complete failure in turn leads to the
repeatedly occurring insight into man’s need for renewal and the
provisional character of the Torah. It leads the prophets Jeremiah
and Ezekiel to radical theological affirmations regarding both the
condition of man under the law and the law itself. “Ez 20 weist in
V. 25f auf die grauenerregende Vorläufigkeit der Sinaitora hin.”43
“Um dem Willen Jahwehs wirklich genügen und Gott begegnen
zu können, bedürfen Israel und der einzelne Fromme der
Neuschöpfung.”44 Finally, according to Stuhlmacher, the
expectancy of this new creation is combined with an expectancy
of the eschatological “Zion-Torah” as it replaces the “Sinai-Torah”
(cf.: Isa 2.2-4; Mi 4.1-4; Isa 25.7-9; Jer 31.31ff; Ez 20; 36. 22-28; 40-
48 etc.). The “Zion-Torah” is not completely identical with the
“Sinai-Torah” since it is universal in scope.
”Indem auf diese Weise das erste Gebot zur vollendeten, weltweiten,
Durchsetzung kommt, bringt die Zionstora zur eschatologischen
Vollendung, was in der Sinaitora erst in geschichtlicher Vorläufigkeit zur
Sprache kam.” 45

41 Peter Stuhlmacher, “Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie,”

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 75 (1978): 251-80.
42 Ibid., 256.
43 Ibid., 258.
44 Ibid., 257.
45 Ibid., 258. It would lead beyond the scope of this thesis to investigate
whether or not the idea of a Zion-Torah is a “phantom” (cf. M. Kalusche,
“‘Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie’? Anmerkungen zu einem
Entwurf Peter Stuhlmachers.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 77 [1986]: 200). The major problem with Stuhlmacher’s

29
 It would appear (and this insight is independent of the “Zion-
Torah”- theory) that Stuhlmacher has rightly seen the historical
connection between Paul’s frustration with the Torah and that of
the prophets. Another observation made by Stuhlmacher (based
on the exegesis of H. Gese) should be mentioned at this point,
since it will be of importance for our discussion below.
Stuhlmacher points out that the eschatological experience of the
“already” while still living in the “not yet” is a phenomenon that
can be traced not only in Judaism and the New Testament, but
also in the Old Testament. As an example he cites Psalm 50. The
petitioner in Psalm 50 is conscious of the fact that in the “Toda-
piety” (that is, in the act of complete surrender to Yahweh) lies
the possibility of a present participation in the will of Yahweh.46
While the age of the Spirit is a future event, proleptic experiences
of the blessings of that age are already possible under the old
covenant.
We conclude that the tension between “law-optimism” and
“law-pessimism” was not uniquely Pauline. Paul’s frustration with
the law is not taken out of thin air but has roots in the Old Tes-
tament itself. It will be our task to determine whether these
conflicting affirmations can be viewed as an organic whole. Be-
fore that can be done, however, we need to clarify further, what

position in that regard lies in the fact that the texts which he cites focus
on the newness of the covenant rather than the Torah. We have no clear
evidence that the law, which would be written on the heart, was ex-
pected, by the people of the old covenant, to differ from the written
code in any way (cf. ibid., 200: “Von diesem Gesetz wird im Gegensatz
zum Bund nicht gesagt, daß es sich um ein neues handle... Neu ist nicht
die Torah selbst sondern ihr Ort in Israel: Trat sie dem Bundesvolk seit
der Sinaigesetzgebung von außen als etwas Fremdes gegenüber, so wird
sie nun den Menschen zum Gesetz ihres eigenen Innern....”
46 Stuhlmacher, “Das Gesetz,” 259. Cf. Kalusche’s criticism (ibid., 201),
however, of Stuhlmacher’s interpretation.

30
 Paul and the Law

was Paul’s position regarding the abolition and the fulfillment of

the law.

31
III. The Abolition of the
Law

What does Paul teach regarding the abolition of the law? In Gal
3.15-20 he describes the historical development in which the law
plays a part in the following way:
1. The law was not God’s first revelation to Israel. It came 430
years after the promise that was given to Abraham.
2. The purpose of the law is a negative one. It was not given to
make alive (v.21), but to shut up all things ( ) under sin
(3.22).
3. This negative function of the law was meant for a limited
time period;47 namely, until () the seed would come (v.19) or
“until the coming faith” (   ) would be
revealed (v.23)--that is, “until Christ” (  [v.24]). While

47 Cf. Douglas Moo, “‘ Law’ , ‘Works of the Law’ and Legalism in Paul,”
Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 82: “Against the view of the
Judaizers, who in accordance with some Jewish sentiment may have
regarded the law as eternal, Paul puts forth a conception of salvation-
history in which the law enters into history at a certain point and has
specified, delimited purposes (cf esp. Gal 3.15-25). Most of the Pauline
occurrences of  are found in passages where this salvation-history
scheme is prominent (Gal 2-4; Rom 3-7) and where, therefore, unless
indications to the contrary exist,  should be taken to mean the
Mosaic law.”

32
 Paul and the Law

the temporal force of  in verse 23 suggests a temporal and

salvation historical interpretation of   in verse 24, one48
should be careful not to oversimplify the issue. We will have
occasion at several points throughout this study to demonstrate
that the dividing up of salvation history into independent
segments, as it has been claimed by some, is, if taken absolutely,
not quite Pauline.49
4. The Mosaic law was given by angels and was received
through a mediator (  , v.19c). Whatever these last
two assertions refer to in particular, Paul has in mind (cf. v.20)
the inferiority of the law to the promise and the covenant given
to Abraham by God Himself (vv.16 and 17).
The passage, then, strongly affirms the termination of the law
with the coming of Christ. Whether this termination concerns
the whole law, certain parts of the law, or the law as it is
perceived from a certain perspective, is a question we will have to
deal with below. For the moment it suffices to point out that the
termination of the law, in this context, is closely related to a)
oneness in Christ (      
v.28)--that is, the law is an obstacle for the universal scope of the
gospel; b) liberation from the    (4.3, 9, 10) -

48 Cf. e.g. Burton, 200: “Nor is the reference to the individual experience
under law as bringing men individually to faith in Christ. For the context
makes it clear that the apostle is speaking, rather, of the historic
succession of one period of revelation upon another and the
displacement of the law by Christ.”
49 We do agree with Stendahl, “Lagen,” 172, that unless we let the
“borderline” of salvation history go right through every Christian person
in the sense of the eschatological “already/not yet”, the temporal force of
 renders Luther’s second use of the law impossible. Stendahl
asserts that a spiritualization of the before and after Christ to aspects as
they apply in a timeless fashion to one and the same individual,
therefore, would not be true to the obvious meaning of the text. In our
chapter on “The christological perspective,” we will develop in detail
why we can not agree with Stendahl completely.

33
that is, the law is identified with the enslaving powers; and c) to
the coming of age as sons of God (v.26; 4.1-10)--that is, the law
has been replaced by a guide of superior quality: the Spirit. The
fact that Christ is identified here as the “faith” that has come will
demand further investigation. It is our impression, that the
relevance of “faith” to both the old covenant and the new makes a
“complete” distinction between the before and after Christ
improbable. The coming of the eschatological faith in Christ had
proleptic precursors, so it seems already under the old covenant.50
In Rom 7.1-6 Paul uses the analogy of marriage, and the fact
that death annuls marriage vows, to prove that, since we have
died through Christ to the law, we are no longer bound by the
law. Why is it so important to be free from the law? Because the
law held us captive to the flesh (vv.5-6). We should also take into
consideration, for our understanding of this passage, the im-
mediately preceding discussion on slavery to sin versus slavery to
God in chapter 6, which forms the background for chapter 7.
Christ has died to sin once for all (v.10) and we have died with
him (v.11) in order to be delivered from any dominion of sin over
our lives (v. 6, 7, 12). We were once slaves to sin, but we have now
“been set free from sin and have become slaves of God”, the
return of which is “sanctification and its end () eternal life”
(v.22). If we compare these statements with 7.4, the relationship
between sin and law becomes quite obvious: “Likewise my
brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so
that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from

50 Cf. E. Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte im Römerbrief,”

in Paulinische Perspektiven (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969), 121: “Das
heißt, daß die paulinische Verkündigung der heilsgeschichtlichen
Wirklichkeit zutiefst paradox ist. . . So klaffen bei ihm die Dimensionen
des Historischen und Eschatologischen nicht derart auseínander, daß sie
grundsätzlich und von vornherein geschieden werden können.” We will
argue this point in more detail in our chapter “A Christological
Perspective”.

34
 Paul and the Law

the dead in order that () we may bear fruit for God.” The law is
so intimately linked with sin that, in order to be deliverd from the
power of sin, we need to die to the law (cf. Rom 6.14).
In summary, the reason for the abolition of the law is its
provisional and temporal purpose. In his encounter with Christ,
Paul’s eyes were opened to the fact that the law had a preparatory
function in salvation history until the time of Christ, in that it was
meant to raise the expectancy and the longing for a deliverer
from sin, by making the human predicament painfully apparent
by “consigning to sin” (Gal 3.22), “giving knowledge of sin” (Rom
3.20) “magnifying sin” (Rom 5.20) and increasing sin (Rom 7.8).51
With the coming of Christ, the final solution to the predicament
of mankind has come and the preparatory function is no longer
necessary.
Mention should also be made at this point of 2 Corinthians 3,
where Paul asserts that the “written code kills, but the Spirit gives
life” (v.6b), a devastating assertion regarding the function of the
law. Death, as punishment for disobedience (the curse of the law,
Gal 3.10), is the result of a life under the law. The law is not only
unable to transform, it also condemns those who live under its
domain and do not comply with its demands. Therefore, Paul has
become a minister “of a new covenant, not in a written code but
in the Spirit” (v.6a). Paul continues his argument of 2 Corinthians
3 with a (most illuminating) defense of his negative assertions
that sheds some important light on, and seems to be part and
parcel of, the motivating force behind his controversial ideas - his
christological perspective. This motivating force is the topic of a
later section, however. We must now turn to the question of the
fulfillment of the law.

51 Cf. Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), 212: “Seine Aufgabe ist es, die
Unheilszeit zu verschärfen und aufs deutlichste sichtbar zu machen, daß
in Christus allein das Heil liegt.”

35
IV. The Fulfillment of the
Law

After all these devastating assertions regarding the negative,

killing and condemning role of the law, is there any place left for
positive assertions? Paul obviously thought so. Thus, it is our task
to find out how he could combine the two. But first, what are
these positive assertions? Even in Galatians, commonly
considered the letter of Paul in which the harshest statements
regarding the law are found, he affirms that the whole law is
fulfilled in the love command (Gal. 5.14) and that the law is not
against the “promise” (3.21). Likewise, according to Rom 13.8-10,
the law is fulfilled by him who loves his neighbor (Paul cites four
specific commandments from the Decalogue). Paul admonishes
the Galatians to bear each other’s burdens and thus to fulfill the
law of Christ (6.2). Even in a context where Paul has just argued
for the abolition of the law (Rom 7.1-6) and has presented an
argument to the effect that the law has been exploited by sin (7.7-
25), Paul can without embarrassment state that Christ came into
this world “that the just requirements of the law might be
fulfilled in us” (8.4). How? By condemning sin in the flesh, and
thus doing “what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do”
(8.3). Likewise, according to Rom 2.25-29, the “true Jews” are
known by their obedience to the law. Real inward circumcision of
the heart produces law obedience. To become a believer was not

36
 Paul and the Law

in conflict with “law-compliance”; rather, it is the doers of the law

who will be justified (2.13). The purpose of the death of Christ was
to end the enmity between God and man. The Spirit who makes
the law  (Rom 7.14) now indwells man, so that the
spiritual man will no longer have to succumb to the flesh but can
fulfill the righteous demands of the law.52
Our understanding of what is at stake will be further en-
lightened by taking a close look at the distinction, as Paul
describes it in Romans 8, between law as it relates to the flesh on
the one hand and to the Spirit on the other. Believers, Paul
asserts, were once in the flesh but are now in the Spirit. As long
as we were in the flesh, we were opposed to the law. “For the
mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit
to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh
cannot please God” (vv.7,8). But now, since Christ is in us, we are
in the Spirit, the Spirit is in us, and our own spirits have come
alive (vv.9,10). By the Spirit we are now called, under the
guidance of the Spirit (v.14), to put to death the deeds of the body
(v.13). To set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (v.6). “Flesh”
and “Spirit” represent two spheres of existence, the former one of
rebellion against, the latter one of harmony with, the will of God.
The Spirit has overcome the rebellion of the flesh and become
our internal power and guide. Once the internal guide has taken
possession of the believer, there is no need for an external guide.
It is, in fact, in its external character, as  (the written
code), that the law stands opposed to the Spirit (2 Cor 3.6; Rom
7.6). In other words, with the coming of the Messiah, God made a

52 van Dülmen, 67: “In Christus ist die Erfüllung des Willens Gottes
überhaupt erst möglich. Sein Tod galt einerseits der Befreiung von der
unheilvollen Macht des alten Gesetzes, andererseits jedoch geschah er
ausdrücklich, damit dem in Christus Lebenden die Möglichkeit
geschenkt ist, die Rechtsforderungen des Gesetzes zu erfüllen (vgl. Röm
8,3f).”

37
new covenant with the house of Israel, different from the old one.
In what sense was it different? May we listen to the prophet:
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it
upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.53

It is the fact that the law is no longer external, but internal,

which distinguishes the new from the old covenant. And
obviously, as the internal guide, the law is no longer hindered or
exploited by the flesh. The law is written on our hearts by the
Spirit (2 Cor 3.3) who indwells us and guides us. The prophet
continues:
And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother,
saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest, says the Lord.54

In other words, under the new covenant, there will no longer

be any need for outward direction. Every one who has the law
written on his heart will know the will of God. Neither will the
inward law ever become a law of sin and death, but it will always
be the law of the Spirit of life (Rom 8.2), since the Spirit will
produce his fruit in us against which there is no law (Gal 5.23). It
was in fact the “outwardness” of the law which prevented it from
being a life-giving power. Thus, the “written code” must be
replaced. From this perspective it seems plausible that Paul could
affirm both the abolition of the law as a whole and the fulfillment
of the law as a whole. It is not an abolition of the will of God, nor
a declaration of any defect in the content of the law. It is the
external character of the law that was abolished. The new law was
simply the old from within. This new law was given a variety of
descriptions by Paul: the law of God (Rom 7.22,25; 8.7;), the law

53 Jer.31.33. Cf. F.F. Bruce, “Paul and the Law of Moses,” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 57 (1975): 275: “In Romans 8.1-4 Paul echoes the sense, if
not the very language, of the new covenant oracle of Jer 31.31-34.”
54 Jer.31.34.

38
 Paul and the Law

of the Spirit (Rom 8.2), and the law of Christ (Gal 6.2; cf. also
  1 Cor 9.21).
If the answer was that simple, we could of course conclude our
thesis right here. The solution to our task would be: Before the
coming of the Spirit no one could be justified by works of law,
since the law could not be fulfilled because of its externality.
With the coming of the Spirit into our hearts, the law was written
on our hearts and now can be fulfilled by faith in the power of the
Spirit. It is notoriously difficult, however, to incorporate this
simple pattern into Paul’s teaching on the law as a whole. If Paul
were always completely equating the external law with the
internal (as e.g., in Rom 7.21-25 and 8.2) the issue would be easily
solved. The problem, however, lies in the fact that the
internalization of the law brought with it, so it seems, not only
the exchange of the external written code with the internal law of
the Spirit, but the definite abolition of the written code. In other
words, we can see from Paul’s treatment of circumcision, food
laws, etc., that he did not consider the internal law to totally
square in content with the former external law. Gal 3.17, which we
shall deal with further below, should be mentioned here. Paul
asserts there that, in his endeavor to be justified in Christ, he was
found a sinner. It is not the sinfulness of all mankind Paul is
referring to, but the sinfulness that results from his walk with
Christ. What sinfulness? Obviously not “real” sinfulness, but
sinfulness as it is declared by the law (cf. v.15). Hence, the law
must not (any longer?) be a reliable guide: that is what Paul
seems to affirm. Thus, we find that there is a newness about the
law written on the heart that makes it difficult to compare it with
the old. It would appear that Paul considered the Torah to have
become obsolete in the sense that it was given to a specific people
and into a specific historical situation, which in many ways no
longer applied to the “new Israel.” The universal scope of the
gospel is one obvious such factor, but other factors - like the

39
replacement of the political theocracy with an international
fellowship of “voluntary” members - have also played a role.
Disciplinary prescriptions in the Mosaic law could not be applied
in the new community of believers; indeed, when they were still
applied after the coming of Christ, it was by “the synagogue,” of
which Paul used to be an agent, in its persecution of the Church.
We conclude that Paul affirms the importance of continuing
fulfillment of the law. It is the sign of the Christian to live in
peace with the law of God. The Spirit who indwells the Christian
seeks the things of God and leads into intimate fellowship
between the father and his children. The Spirit produces fruit in
the life of the Christian, against which there is no (revealed) law.
By carrying each other’s burdens, we fulfill the law of Christ. The
whole law is fulfilled in the love command. The question that still
needs to be answered is: How does the law of Christ compare to
the Mosaic law?

40
V. Different perspectives

The Problem

Many passages witness to the fact that Paul did not find every
individual commandment of the law binding upon him and his
fellow Christians. The commandments which he most ferociously
rejected as binding on Gentiles, were circumcision, food laws
and, possibly, the Sabbath law (Gal 4.1-11); all of which are laws
that were considered determinative expressions of covenant
loyalty (cf. e.g., Gen 17 Isa 56.6-8). Further, he who could not
handle such liberty was considered by Paul a “weaker brother”
(Rom 14.6). In fact, Paul required his Jewish Christian brothers to
compromise with regard to Torah regulations that were
obstructing multi-ethnical Christian fellowship (Gal 2.11ff).
In Rom 3.27-31 Paul confidently asserts that he establishes the
law ( ) by allowing Gentiles to be justified by faith
and without circumcision. But how could one speak of
“establishing the law” while excluding the commandment that,
perhaps more than any other, symbolized the establishment of
the law? In fact, Paul anticipated the objections of his Jewish
readers: “Do we then abolish the law through faith?” (v.31a), he

41
asks. One could hardly display one’s disregard for the Mosaic law
in a more drastic fashion than by denying the need of circum-
cision as a prerequisite for membership in the community of God.
Even more so, to make any distinctions at all within the Mosaic
law was simply impossible for a Jew. The observance of the Sab-
bath was a commandment equally important to the doing of
justice. The observance of food laws was not inferior to the prohi-
bition of idolatry.
In fact, one way of showing that one was not an idolater was to
abstain from foods offered to idols. The Apostolic Council, as
recorded in Acts 15, bears witness to the fact that the early Jewish
Christians valued ritual laws highly. James’ recommendations as
to the conduct of the Gentile Christians were limited to the
absolute minimum, as he considered it, of law observances. But
they included laws that were concerned with prescriptions
(”draining of blood”) that related to foodlaws. Likewise, it took a
vision miracle to get Peter to enter the house of a Gentile, even
though Cornelius was a God-fearing person (cf. Acts 10). When
we read the holiness code in Leviticus 19, we find an interming-
ling of cultic, ritual and moral laws that seems strange to the
modern mind. Such intermingling underlines that we can not
easily measure the “importance” of laws from a modern point of
view.
One should be equally careful not to declare the emphasis on
ritual law to be a legalistic preoccupation with perfect law
obedience. Rather, the keeping of the law in its entirety was to be
the proclamation of the holiness of God: “You shall be holy; for I
the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19.2). To be selective about or to
reject any part of the law was tantamount to disobedience and a

42
 Paul and the Law

rejection of God himself, an attitude that holds true from 200

b.c.e.- to 200 c.e.55
In 1 Cor 7.19 Paul makes an astonishing assertion: “Neither
circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but
keeping the commandments of God,” which is, according to E.P.
Sanders, “one of the most amazing sentences he ever wrote.”56
John W. Drane considers what Paul says at this point to be com-
pletely incompatible with his message in Galatians:
Paul actually takes up in the first half of the verse a statement out of
which he had made great spiritual capital against his opponents in
Galatia, but quite unexpectedly he now modifies it in such a way, that he
appears to be saying exactly the opposite of what he had said in
Galatians!...the exact phrase which he uses, “keeping the commandments”
was in certain contexts almost a terminus technicus for keeping the
Mosaic Law of the Old Testament (Ecclus. 32.23; Wisd. 6.18; Matt. 19.17;
cf. Gal 5.14).57

Drane thinks that Paul with this statement introduces the

principle of legalism in Corinthians, the same principle he had so
much rejected in Galatians. 1 Cor 7.19 is incompatible with Gal 5.6
and 6.15 since, in the latter, Paul by implication abandons the

55 Cf Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 71-2: „For a Jew, to be selective about the
Torah meant to disobey it, indeed to reject it. 200 years before Paul’s
time the pious had preferred a martyr’s death to eating pork and thus
“tearing down the paternal law” (, 4 Macc
5.33).“ Cf. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 103: “Deliberate rejection of any
commandment was, in the latter rabbinic formulation, tantamount to
rejecting the God who gave it.” In footnote 32 of the same chapter,
Sanders asserts that he knows “of no exception to this view in Jewish
literature during the period 200 B.C.E. - 200 C.E.” Cf. Gordon F. Fee, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 313,
comments on 1 Cor 7.19 as follows: “. . . it is hard for us to imagine the
horror with which a fellow Jew would have responded. For not only did
circumcision count, it counted for everything.”
56 Sanders, Paul, the Law, 103.
57 John W. Drane, Paul Libertine or Legaist? A Study in the Theology of the
Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975), 65.

43
absolute authority of the Old Testament, whereas in the former
he affirms that “keeping the commandments of God is
everything.58
This interpretation presupposes a view of development in
Paul’s thinking, which seems rather incredible.59 Neither is it
quite so obvious that there is such a dichotomy between the two
statements. When Gal 5.6 asserts that it is   
 which counts  , and not circumcision or
uncircumcision, we should remember that Paul asserts in the
same chapter (5.14) that the whole law is fulfilled in the love
command. If, then, the love command so much squares with the
whole law, why shoud there be such an incompatibility with 1 Cor
7.19b? G. Fee’s comment is more to the point: “In a church where
spirituality had degenerated into something very close to an-
tinomian behavior, Paul simply cannot allow a religious
statement like ‘circumcision counts for nothing’ to be turned into
‘obedience to the will of God counts for nothing.’”60 In other
words, Paul is concerned with obedience to the will of God in
both Galatians and 1 Corinthians, but since the contingent
situations are so different, he phrases his admonition differently.
It appears to be the wrong approach to first prescribe for Paul
what he must have meant by the phrase “keeping the command-
ments,” and then to assert that such a meaning creates an unbe-
lievable contradiction in one and the same verse. If the phrase is
used elsewhere as a terminus technicus for the whole Mosaic law,

58 For this translation cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, The
First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark,
1914), 147.
59 Cf. our comments on developmental theories below.
60 Fee, 314; cf. Heinz D. Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther, NTD
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 59: “Diese ‘gesetzlich’
klingende jüdische Formel, kann im Munde des Paulus nur den
verwundern, der nicht weiß, daß die Rechtfertigung des Sünders den
Menschen nicht von den Geboten Gottes losbindet...”

44
 Paul and the Law

Paul is not necessarily bound by that usage. In addition, if Paul

was really introducing legalistic tendencies in 1 Corinthians, how
does that fit with 9.19-21? The question we have to focus upon,
instead, is this: What is it that motivates Paul to speak out so
drastically against circumcision? Why is there a conflict in certain
cases between adherence to circumcision and doing the will of
God?
As we can see from the context, in 1 Cor 7.19 circumcision was
the sign of a certain social identity just as was uncircumcision.
Either identity could be the state one was in when called by God
(7.17). And Paul’s message is: “So brethren, in whatever state each
was called, there let him remain” (7.24). Paul’s concern is with
social disorder in the Corinthian church. Some, as we can guess
from 7.10-16, have gone through traumatic experiences of divorce
from non-believing wives or husbands, the reason being the
believer’s fear of desecration by the close affiliation with the
unbeliever. Paul affirms that it is the other way around: “the
unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife and the
unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband” (v.14). For
the sake of one’s relationship to God, there is no need for
separation, unless the separation is demanded by the unbeliever
(v.15,16).
The same rule applies to the issue of ethnic identity. Neither
state bring with it any advantage, nor is either in itself of any
concern to the churches of God. In other words, concerns for cir-
cumcision or uncircumcision are secondary to the believer’s
devotion to God alone. “So brethren, in whatever state each was
called, there let him remain with God” (  v.24). It would
appear, then, that “keeping the commandments” meant for Paul
basically the same as “fulfilling the whole law.” It is a compliance
with the will of God through the application of the love command
in everyday life. The tension with the abrogation of the validity of

45
certain laws, is a problem common to Galatians and 1
Corinthians.
Having described, up to this point, the teaching of Paul on the
law with some of its inherent tensions, we shall now consider
some of the unifying expositions that have been attempted from
various quarters. We have, during the course of our discussion,
already hinted at a few possible avenues. At this point we will
consider some of the more important expositions. Again, it would
lead beyond the limitations of this thesis, to treat every position
comprehensively. We will have to limit ourselves to one or two
key issues on each of the views considered.

Development Theories

A few comments are necessary regarding the question of the

development of Paul’s view of the law from the time he wrote
Galatians to the writing of Romans.61 Proponents of development
theories have in common the assertion that Paul’s teaching of the
law contradicts itself only as one compares entire letters. One
and the same letter, for instance Galatians, is in itself cohesive.
The letter to the Romans, since it is chronologically late and also
more of a treatise than a letter written in the heat of a specific
situation, always constitutes the “mature view” of Paul.
We will limit our discussion to two of the recent proponents of
development theories, John W. Drane and Hans Hübner. It is
Hübner’s position that, in Galatians, Paul maintains the actual
abolition of the law as such, whereas in Romans, he only

61 For an enlightening discussion on the development theories, cf.

Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 7ff.

46
 Paul and the Law

struggles with a Jewish misunderstanding of the law. Thus, Christ

is the end of the law (Rom 10.4) only in that regard.62 In other
words, Paul, when writing Galatians, had not yet reached the
mature state of his understanding of the law, a state less critical
of the law than Galatians suggests.63 The fulfillment of  
 in Gal 5.14 by means of the „one“ love command is,
according to Hübner, a critical and ironical use of language which
does not refer to the Torah,64 and therefore, cannot establish a
positive meaning of “Torah” in the context of Galatians. Also, not
only Rom 3.20 and 7.7, but also Rom 4.15, 5.20 and 11.32 do assert
less offensive things (awareness of sin) about the law than Gal
3.19b (provocation to sin).65
Drane suggests another developmental theory, the content of
which is indicated in the title of his book: Paul: Libertine or
Legalist? Drane traces a development in Paul’s view of the law
(under the assumption of the South Galatian theory) from a liber-
tine position in Galatians to a legalistic attitude in 1 Corinthians,66

62 Cf. Hübner, Law, 65.

63 Not withstanding the need for substantial time intervals for any
developmental theory, Hübner adheres to the North Galatian hypothesis
which allows only for a short time period between the writing of
Galatians and the writing of Romans.
64 Ibid., 36ff. In light of the threat of 5.3, that the one who is circumcised
has to keep  Hübner thinks that in 5.14 „...with
 we have to do with a critical and ironical use of language in
Paul.... by means of the linguistic strangeness of using in a
seemingly meaningless way – that is by means of a paradox – Paul
suceeds in reducing to absurdity the Jewish ideal of keeping the whole
law.... the whole Law of Moses simply is not identical with the Law ‘as a
whole’ which holds good for Christians (37)“
65 Ibid., 78ff.
66 It is interesting to note in this connection how differently one can read 1
Corinthians. Andreas Lindemann, “Die biblischen Toragebote und die
paulinische Ethik,” in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des New
Testaments, Ed. W. Schrage, Festschrift für H. Greeven zum 80.
Geburtstag (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1986), 242-65, examines the letter

47
in order to finally arrive at a balanced and mature definition in
Romans. The whole development follows a dialectical scheme
and Romans constitutes the “mature synthesis.”
The problem with every developmental theory, as Räisänen has
pointed out, is that neither Galatians nor Romans can be clearly
categorized and made to fit completely into a development
scheme. “There are already obvious tensions in Paul’s thought on
the law in Galatians. Neither letter is internally consistent.”67
While our understanding of “inconsistencies” in Paul is different
from that of Räisänen, we do think that he has rightly exposed
the Achilles heal of development theories. Both letters affirm the
insufficiency of the law as such (the implications of which will be
discussed below), and thus the need for abolition, but also the
correspondence of the law to the love command and thus the ful-
fillment of the law.
In addition, significant objections have to be raised as to the
plausibility of such drastic development in Paul’s view on the law
as the development theorists suggest. One of the objections
concerns the lack of significant time periods for such develop-
ments to occur: in Drane’s case between Galatians and 1 Corinthi-
ans, in Hübner’s case between Galatians and Romans. Another
objection that weighs rather heavily against any development
theory concerns the fact that, inasmuch as we can trace the early
period of Paul’s life as a Christian, his position on the law as we
encounter it in Galatians is evidenced from the very beginning of
his ministry. Peter Stuhlmacher has advanced important evidence
in support of a fixed view regarding the law, on Paul’s part, long

and arrives at the conclusion that Paul is quite independent of the

Torah. On 1 Cor 7.19 he comments, e.g.: “Eine solche Argumentation
wäre im Kontext eines noch irgendwo von der Tora bestimmten
Denkens nicht möglich,” 250.
67 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 9.

48
 Paul and the Law

before he ever wrote Galatians. The Damascus experience in itself

opened Paul’s eyes,
daß er mit seinem eifernden Eintreten für das mosaische Gesetz und die
altangestammte Gesetzesauslegung, für den Opferkult im Tempel und für
das Verständnis des Kreuzes Christi als eines Jesus verdienstermassen
treffenden Gottesfluches (Deut. 21,22f) gegen den wahren Willen Gottes
in der Sendung Jesu, seines Sohnes, angekämpft hatte.68

With the acknowledgment that the crucified (i.e., cursed by

the law) and resurrected Christ is the personification of the
salvific will of God, the way of the gospel to the Gentiles was
spelled out beyond doubt. If the one who is cursed by the law
represents the true will of God, salvation has been made available
beyond the boundaries of the law. The fact that Paul, even before
he was brought by Barnabas to Antioch, was twice lashed with 39
lashes (2 Cor 11,24), a punishment administered by the synagogue
for serious transgressions of the law, further supports the
assertion that Paul
sogleich nach seiner Berufung Christus als den alleinigen Grund der
Rechtfertigung, als den Messias der Gerechtigkeit (vgl. 1Kor 1,30 mit Jer
23,6) und als das Ende des Gesetzes (Röm 10,4) verkündigt hat und dieser
Glaubenserkenntnis gemäß lebte.69

This, in turn, raises a whole range of questions regarding the

origin of Paul’s gospel that cannot be dealt with at this point. We
find ourselves in agreement with the doubts expressed by Seyoon
Kim as he puts the question: “Is it possible to imagine that Paul,
the zealous Pharisee failed to see the problem of the law when he
learned that God had raised and exalted Jesus of Nazareth who
had been crucified, that is, pronounced by the law as accursed by

68 Peter Stuhlmacher, “Gerechtigkeitsanschauung bei Paulus,” in

Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1981), 89, italics added.
69 Ibid., 91.

49
God (Deut 21.23; Gal 3.13)?”70 The answer, it would appear, has to
be negative. The question of the law was one of the first questions
a zealous pharisee71 would have asked.

Insoluble Contradictions

Heikki Räisänen, the latest proponent72 of the view that every

search for a solution to the inconsistencies in Paul’s teaching on
the law is futile, affirms that the pieces of the puzzle simply do
not fit together. Paul is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. As we have
seen above, Räisänen has shown convincingly that tensions and
“inconsistencies” are present in one and the same letter of Paul
and can, therefore, not be ascribed to possible changes of mind or
different historical situations. Although Räisänen affirms that he
did not have any preconceived notion of an arbitrary Paul when
he began his research,73 it would seem that once the notion had
impressed itself on him, he occasionally falls into the trap of
overdoing the problem. For instance, Räisänen takes the
description of the law as being spiritual (Rom 7.14) to contradict 2
Corinthians 3 where the killing letter of the law is put into
opposition to the life-giving Spirit.74 If the law is spiritual,
Räisänen argues, it cannot possibly be opposed to the Spirit.

70 Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981,
270.
71 Cf. Phil 3.5: “.”
72 Räisänen has, in addition to Paul and the Law, written numerous
articles. For the articles used in this thesis, consult the bibliography.
73 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, V.
74 Cf. ibid., 153.

50
 Paul and the Law

However, the fact that the law is in the service of death by its
inability to give life is not only the issue of 2 Corinthians but also
of Romans 7, the very place where Paul affirms the spirituality of
the law. Paul, then, surely must have meant something different
“by spiritual” in Romans than “life-giving.” Instead, it would seem
that Paul was making an assertion concerning the origin of the
law when he called it spiritual, whereas when speaking of its
function he admitted its weakness.
According to Räisänen, of course, there is something funda-
mentally wrong with Paul’s thinking, namely a conflict between
theological theory based on retrospective reflection on what must
be true in light of the Christ event and affirmations based on
experience. Paul believes that he has to assert that the law “must
not be fulfilled outside the Christian community, for otherwise
Christ would have died in vain.” But when Paul speaks spon-
taneously, as in Rom 2.14f,26f or Phil 3.4-6, he holds that the “law
can be fulfilled even by non-Christian Gentiles.”75 Likewise,
theologically, Paul argues for the total sinfulness of the Jews
(Romans 2 and 3) and perfection of the Christian life in the Spirit
(Galatians or Romans 8), but when the Corinthian experience
brings him back to reality, he has quite different things to say
about Christians. “When confronted with concrete real-life
problems, his distinction between life in the flesh and life in the
Spirit gets blurred.”76 This contradiction, of course, is based on
the assumptions, that Romans 2 and 3 addresses non-Christian
Jews and non-Christian Gentiles, assumptions that, as yet, have
not been proven conclusively.
In any case, we agree with J.D.G. Dunn, that “as a way of
making sense of the text, they (artificial and conflicting theories)
must rank as hypotheses of last resort, second only to speculative

75 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 118.

76 Cf. ibid., 116.

51
emendation of the text.”77 While Räisänen has spelled out many
of the problems clearly and convincingly, his solutions - or rather
“anti-solutions” - seem premature.78

Legalism

Another attempt to solve the problem of discrepancies in Paul’s

view of the law is the conception that Paul, whenever he speaks
negatively about the law, has not the Mosaic law as such in mind,
but really is using the word  in a more narrow sense;
namely, as referring to legalism.79 Major proponents of the view
are R. Bultmann and C.E.B. Cranfield. Even among Jewish
scholars there have been those who admitted to a “legalistic
spirit”80 in parts of Judaism especially among the Jews of the
dispersion. H.J. Schoeps, for instance refers to a legalistic
“Septuagintal piety.”81 Cranfield suggested that the reason why

77 Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, “Works of the law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians
3.10-14),” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 523.
78 Cf. for further criticism of Räisänen’s analysis of the mind of Paul,
Schreiner, “The Abolition and the Fulfillment of the Law,” forthcoming
in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2-3.
79 C.E.B. Cranfield “St. Paul and the Law,” Scottish Journal of Theology 17
(1964): 43-68. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans.
Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951/1955)
e.g., 1:264. Cf. also Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982) and many others.
80 For further discussion cf. 175ff.
81 Schoeps, 27-32, 213ff. For further references cf. Räisänen, Paul and the
Law, 165ff. Other Jewish scholars, however, have completely rejected
such descriptions as caricatures and distortions of the main stream
character of the Judaism of Paul’s day.

52
 Paul and the Law

Paul would use  in a variety of ways was due to the fact that
there was no separate word in Greek for legalism. Thus, when
Paul made negative assertions regarding the law he was really
speaking of a misuse of the law.82 That it is not the law as such
that Paul had in mind, however, meets with serious difficulties
for the following reasons:
First, in Galatians 3 Paul refers to the Mosaic law as it was
received on Mount Sinai when he spoke of its abrogation with the
coming of Christ. As we have argued above, the law as such, was
never meant to rival the promise. It was never God’s intention to
make alive by means of the Mosaic law (Gal 3.19,21).83 Not in a
perverted sense, but in its intended role, the law was the means
of confinement under sin. Secondly, as Räisänen has pointed
out,84 Paul could have easily composed a few sentences that
would have made clear his distinction between the law as such
and its false interpretation.85 Thirdly, we think Cranfield is right,
however, in pointing out, that “we should recognize a tendency in
this passage to regard the law somewhat narrowly.”86 Paul’s
distinction between law and promise certainly supports such a
point of view. Even Calvin’s reference to the “bare law”87 seems
acceptable in light of that distinction. However, the conclusion
that the law, since it is the “bare law,” is not, therefore, the
Mosaic law, seems questionable. It is exactly Paul’s point that the
“bare law” as it was mediated through Moses and on Mt. Sinai (cf.

82 Cranfield, “Law,” 55.

83 Cf. above, 29-33.
84 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 43.
85 Moo, “Law,” 86 is correct when he asserts: “In arguing with the
Judaizers, to use nomos with their meaning would be to sacrifice the
strongest point in his owm polemic.”
86 Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 62.
87 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. ed. J.T. Mc Neill;
trans. F.L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), II.vii.2.

53
Gal 4.24), had a negative purpose, has completed its task, and is
therefore now abolished. The difference between our position and
Cranfield’s is, of course, that Cranfield holds that the real purpose
of the law was actually to make alive, whereas we take Gal 3.21b at
face value, which is, that the true purpose of the Mosaic law was
to reveal to the Jews their predicament, so that faith in the
promise would “make them alive.”
Fourthly, Cranfield’s theory leaves unsolved the tension in the
Pauline literature concerning the explicit disregard for specific
laws. Cranfield comments on Eph. 2.15: “the context suggests
strongly that the meaning of verse 15a is simply that Christ has by
his death abolished the ceremonial ordinances... by doing away
with the obligation to fulfill them literally.”88 Later he says: “But
the ritual regulations remain valid as witnesses to Christ, and
they are established as we allow them to point us to him...”89
Räisänen, correctly in our view, comments on these assertions by
Cranfield: “But clearly that is just another way of saying that the
regulations are invalid and not being established!”90

From Solution To Plight

George F. Moore may be the first Christian scholar to attempt a

positive appraisal of Rabbinic Judaism.91 It was not before 1977,
however, that the criticism against the evaluation of the Judaism

88 Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 65.

89 Ibid., 67.
90 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 72.
91 George F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” Harvard Theological
Review 14 (1921): 197-254.

54
 Paul and the Law

of Paul’s days as “decadent” found an amplifier in the work of E.P.

Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism92 that has caused
substantial reaction among Christian scholars, even though
criticism against the legalistic interpretation of Paul’s adversaries
has long come from Jewish scholars.
Sanders proposed that the Judaism Paul was confronted with
was not legalistic at all. Neither was Paul attacking a legalistic
attitude in his letters. Rather, Judaism was, as it should be,
thoroughly based on what Sanders calls covenantal nomism. After
having taken a thorough look at the Tannaitic literature, the
Dead Sea Scolls, Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon
and 4 Ezra, Sanders confidently affirms that Judaism “kept grace
and works in the right perspective, did not trivialize the
commandments of God and was not especially marked by
hypocrisy.”93 Judaism was concerned with works, but only in the
sense in which it should be.
The pre-eminence of the covenant of grace was completely
undisputed and was therefore only rarely mentioned in the
Tannaitic writings.94 The boasting (e.g., Rom 2.17) that Paul is
attacking is not boasting in works of self-achievement, but rather
boasting in Jewishness; boasting in being the chosen people of
God. Such boasting, according to the Paul of Sanders, is not in-
herently wrong, but rather the right thing to do under the old
covenant as long as it is confined chronologically to the time
before the coming of Christ. Since the coming of Christ, however,
boasting has to be in Christ and his work of grace and no longer
in the election under the old covenant. Thus, Paul is opposing
Judaism not because it has become perverted, but because it is

92 E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1977).
93 Ibid., 427.
94 Ibid., cf. e.g., 421.

55
outdated. It is not Christianity. The new dispensation has caused
that which was once right to be now wrong. Thus, Paul can make
very positive statements about the law, as long as it is viewed in
its function before the coming of Christ. Sanders denies the
existence of any plight with Paul the Pharisee and proposes that
his whole theology of the law is shaped in retrospect. The
movement is completely and exclusively from solution to plight.
Sanders’ insight that it was the boasting in Jewishness and not
in personal accomplishments at all which characterized the
Judaism of Paul’s days is an overstatement, to be sure, but it
underlines the needed reconsideration of passages such as
Romans 2. However, Sanders assertion that “the boasting in
Jewishness” which Paul refers to in Rom 2.17,23 is commendable
as long as it precedes the coming of Christ, and corresponds to
proper Old Testament piety seems less convincing. Such an
assertion, it would appear, is based on a (positively) biased
approach to Judaism and a (negatively) biased approach to Paul.
It takes the arguments for a salvation historical shift and leads
them ad absurdum. In Sanders’ pattern, Paul makes a completely
arbitrary choice in his rejection of Judaism. J.D.G. Dunn rightly
comments: “We are left with an abrupt discontinuity between the
new movement centered in Jesus and the religion of Israel which
makes little sense in particular of Paul’s olive tree allegory in Rom
11.”95
It is certainly true that Paul’s encounter with Christ had the
most profound impact on his life, his understanding of Judaism
and his perception of what true obedience to Yahweh means. But
it is difficult to deny that Paul did find fault with Judaism, so it
seems, and was consciously aware of the inherent weaknesses of
the old covenant even before “the coming of faith.” It is difficult

95 J.D.G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” The John Ryland University
Library 65 (1983): 100.

56
 Paul and the Law

to view Paul’s strong affirmation of the sinfulness of Judaism in

Romans 2 and 3 and his references to Old Testament passages in
support of that view (Ps 51.4 in Rom 3.4 and Ps 143.2 in Rom 3.20),
as being just another afterthought in light of the Christ-event.
Rather it seems to reflect something of which Paul was aware--
maybe not so much in his own life, but in Judaism as a whole--
before his Damascus road experience. “To be sure, the extent and
depth of his condition under the law were hidden to Paul the
Pharisee, and thus the Jew’s true condition is known only in
Christian retrospection.” However, “the indictment of the law is
not merely a dogmatic necessity once Paul accepted the lordship
of Christ.”96 There is a plight of which Paul is aware even before

96 Both quotations, Beker, 242; directed against Sanders. To say that Paul’s
words “as to the righteousness under the law blameless” (Phil. 3.6)
exclude any “plight” is certainly an overstatement. Blamelessness is not
the same as sinlessness. Such an assertion should be compared with, for
instance, Luke 1.6 where it is said of Zechariah and Elisabeth that they
were “righteous and blameless before God.” However, the song of
Zecharaiah reveals a strong plight for the redemption of the people of
Israel; “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for he has visited and redeemed
his people... that we... might serve him without fear, in holiness and
righteousness before him all the days of our life” (Luke 1.68,74). It has
also been argued, against the notion that Paul was plagued with an
“introspective conscience” that Paul’s Damascus road experience was
not a “conversion” but a “call.” Cf. Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and
Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 7: “Here is not that change
of ‘religion’ that we commonly associate with the word conversion.
Serving the one and the same God, Paul receives a new and special
calling in God’s service.” Cf. also Jacob M. Myers and Edwin D. Freed, “Is
Paul Also Among The Prophets?” Interpretation 20 (1966): 40-53, who
gather data from the “calls” of Old Testament prophets and describe
som striking similarities to the Damascus road experience of Paul.
Stendahl does certainly have a point in that the “introspective
conscience of the West” did not originate with Paul and has led to
certain overstatements with regard to the core of Paul’s theology. How-
ever, that his Damascus road experience was just a call to a new service
cannot be be squared with Jesus’s words to Paul (that do not have any
parallel in the calls of the Old Testament prophets): “Why do you
persecute me?”

57
he encounters the solution. Paul rejects the “boasting in God” of
Rom 2.17 and “in the law” in 2.23 because it was coupled with a
neglect of real obedience to the law (”You who boast in the law
do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” Rom 2.23).
Why was Jesus so opposed to the practices of the Pharisees
(Matthew 23, Luke 18)? Was it not their exclusivistic concerns (in
distinguishing themselves from others inside Israel), their
nomistic approach to the covenant that caused the friction
between Jesus and the Jews? Was it not their unwillingness to
commune with the sinner in order to save him that was at the
heart of Jesus’ disagreement with the Pharisees?97 Jesus strongly
opposed the attitude that made God’s gifts into the means of
one’s “self-sanctification,” whether that was done for the purpose
of securing salvation (legalism) or for the purpose of distinguish-
ing oneself from “sinners” (exclusivism). It is the unwillingness of
Jesus, to comply with these concerns, that made him a stumbling-
stone:
Ihr Herr hat nicht wie Pharisäer, Zeloten und Qumrangemeinde die
Frommen frömmer machen wollen. Er ist zu Zöllnern und Sündern
aufgebrochen.”98

97 Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung,” 127-8: “Er (der Pharisäer) vertritt jene

Gemeinschaft frommer Menschen, welche Gottes Verheißungen zu
ihrem Privileg und Gottes Gebote zum Mittel ihrer Selbstheiligung
machen.”
98 Ibid., 129.

58
 Paul and the Law

Exclusivism

J.D.G. Dunn is very much attracted and convinced by Sanders’

conclusions on the character of Palestinian Judaism. But he ar-
gues that Sanders has not understood the mold-breaking impact
his own investigation has on Pauline studies.99 When Paul makes
negative statements about the law and those under the law, he is
not arbitrarily opposing the law or Judaism as such but the law as
the sign of Jewish identity. The reason Paul is so fierce about this
is that the truth of his gospel is inseparable from the
universalistic character of salvation. Jewish exclusivism is
hindering the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Thus Paul is
not opposed to covenantal nomism in its proper form, nor to
“activism, but to nationalism.”100 And when Paul makes his rather
harsh remarks about circumcision, he is not attacking the law as
such, but only its function as an identity marker, a Jewish badge.101
The Antiochean crisis arose out of Paul’s concern for the
inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God without
demanding of them that they become Jews. The post-exilic
period, with its threat of Syrian assimilation, “focused with
particular intensity precisely on those bodily rituals which gave
Judaism its distinctive identity and marked out its boundaries.”102
And in this kind of an environment Jews emphatically held fast to
those badges in order to preserve their national identity.
Circumcision and ritual laws as such were especially suited for

99 Dunn, “New Perspective,” 102.

100 Cf. ibid., 115.
101 Dunn has demonstrated his case, so far, only from an investigation into
the usage of the phrase  in Galatians.
102 Dunn, “Works of the Law,” 525.

59
that kind of an identification. That is the reason why Paul seems
to be opposed to ritual law but not to moral law.103
Dunn asserts that for the devout Jew, “it was primarily a matter
of remaining faithful to the covenant obligations clearly laid
down in the Torah (particularly Gen 17.10-14; Lev 11.1-23; Deut
14.2-21).”104 But he concludes:
... the particular regulations of circumcision and food laws were
important not in themselves, but because they focused Israel’s
distinctiveness, made visible Israel’s claim to be a people set apart, were
the clearest points which differentiated the Jews from the nations.105

And in Dunn’s view,

”works of the law” is precisely the phrase chosen by Paul..., by which Paul
denotes those obligations prescribed by the law which show the
individual concerned to belong to the law, and mark out the practitioner
as a member of the people of the law, the covenant people, the Jewish
nation.106

Dunn is certainly right that circumcision and food laws were

signs of remaining faithful to the covenant (cf. Gen 17.14: “Any
uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his
foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my
covenant.”). Dunn affirms that the reason why Paul rejected “the
works of the law,” was that “the covenant should no longer be
conceived in nationalistic or racial terms.”107 In other words, what
has been right and good formerly is now wrong because of the
inclusivistic character of the Gospel. Circumcision is not wrong,
however, as a practice as such but it has become an obstacle for
the Gospel because “covenant works had become too closely

103 Dunn, “New Perspective,” 120.

104 Dunn, “Works of the Law,” 525.
105 Ibid., 526.
106 Ibid., 527
107 Dunn, “New Perspective,” 114.

60
 Paul and the Law

identified as Jewish observances, covenant righteousness as

national righteousness.”108 Therefore, what Paul is attacking
is a particular attitude to the law as such, the law as a whole in its social
function as distinguishing Jew from Gentile. Viewed from a different
angle, the point of the law as a whole will come into focus in other ways,
particularly in faith (the law of faith - Rom 3.28; 9.31-32) and love of
neighbor (Rom 13.10). And, just as important, the requirements which
obscure that point will become of secondary relevance as adiaphora.109

It would appear that there are two major weaknesses in Dunn’s

argument. First, as we shall argue in our next chapter, Paul is
affirming an antithesis between law and faith or law and promise
that relates back to the time of the old covenant (cf. Gal 3.10-13).
Thus, when Paul puts “works of the law” in antithesis to “faith,” it
is not just a matter of “works of the law” being no longer right.
Secondly, it does not seem that Paul remained completely faithful
to Judaism when considering certain requirements of the law as
adiaphora? Paul is proposing that since the death and
resurrection of Christ, circumcision - a distinct command of God,
the sign of being under the law, and therefore existence under
the law itself - has ceased as a factor in salvation history (Gal
6.15). To the contrary, to be circumcised means, for Gentiles who
want to be part of the “new Israel,” to deny the purpose of the
death of Christ (Gal 2.21; 5.2).110 More seems to be involved than
simply a “new perspective.”

108 Ibid., 114.

109 ”Works of the Law,” 531.
110 Cf. Heikki Räisänen, “Gal. 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” New
Testament Studies 31 (1985): 544: “I think, however, that Paul’s critique of
the law is much more radical than Dunn allows and that we should not
shrink from speaking of his break with Judaism.” Räisänen is certainly
right that that is how the Judaizers perceived the issue. Whether or not
Paul himself perceived of the issue in such drastic terms is less clear (cf.
below).

61
 The Zion-Torah

We have discussed some aspects of Stuhlmacher’s thesis of the

“Zion-Torah” (cf. 25-28). We will therefore refer the reader to that
discussion for further details. In many ways, Stuhlmacher’s
approach is opposite to that of Sanders. Whereas Sanders tries to
prove that there is really no foundation in the life and experience
of the pre-Christian Paul or in Judaism as such for Paul’s radical
assertions regarding the law, Stuhlmacher traces a line of
tradition in the Old Testament that is as pessimistic with regard
to the law as Paul’s. Stuhlmacher, as we have seen, has not been
very successful in demonstrating that the prophets perceived the
“Zion-Torah” to differ in content from the “Sinai-Torah.” Thus his
whole theory of the Zion-Torah has been called into question.111
Stuhlmacher suggests, further, that Paul’s rejection of the
Mosaic Torah is related to the weakness of the Mosaic Torah as
an institution. The dialectic in both Romans and Galatians is not
sufficiently explained with the categories of the existential
anthropology of the apostle.112 Rather, “die Tora wird
eschatologisch verwandelt und als Lebensordnung in Kraft ge-
setzt...”113 It is the Torah that “nunmehr allen Völkern gilt und
kraft der Gabe des heiligen Geistes, der für Paulus die Präsenz
Christi auf Erden ist, ein spontanes Tun der Liebe ermöglicht.”114
Stuhlmacher thus focuses on the inauguration of the Spirit age as

111 The universal outlook of the prophets, however, would, even if the
prophets did not realize it themselves, necessitate certain adjustments
in the Torah.
112 Cf. Stuhlmacher, “Das Gesetz,” 273-4, directed against Hans
Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testamentes (München:
Kaiser Verlag, 1967), 251.
113 Stuhlmacher, “Das Gesetz,” 274.
114 Ibid., 274.

62
 Paul and the Law

one of the main factors in Paul’s thinking about the law. In

Romans 7 Stuhlmacher finds support for the idea that the
commandment was already given to Adam in Paradise; at that
time, however, without bondage to the power of sin and therefore
able to fulfill its original intention.115 Thus, Paul’s objections to the
Torah primarily relate to the powerlessness of the law as an
external code. Stuhlmacher underscores both Paul’s assertion of
the human inability to fulfill the law because of the sinfulness of
man and Paul’s pessimism with regard to the law as the medium
to fight the flesh.

Conclusion

Our examination of development theories has shown that

these theories are not able to deal with the tensions that exist
within a single letter. While the contingent situations certainly
played a role in how Paul would express himself, the basic tenors
of Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans are not incompatible.
Räisänen’s “anti-solution” of a totally confused Paul is not
compelling and appears premature and somewhat biased.
Räisänen is brilliantly able to point out where the tensions lie,
but he is much too quick, in our opinion, in his assertion of
contradictions.
The strength of the “legalistic approach” lies in the fact that it
recognizes the negative outlook of Paul on the  both before
and after Christ. Its weakness lies in the attempt to distinguish
between the “real” purpose of the law as opposed to the purpose
of the  as it is described by Paul in Gal 3. 15ff. Too much

115 Ibid., 275.

63
bending of the obvious meaning of texts is needed, if one tries to
make all of Paul’s negative assertions concerning the law refer to
legalism. However, we do agree that Paul’s negative statements
are related to the “bare law” apart from promise and faith. The
“bare law” is the law as such, however, and not a wrong
perception of it. The promise was not originally and ideally given
with the law, but 430 years earlier.
Sanders’ approach is a stimulating attempt to remove the basis
for much of Pauline scholarship in that it calls into question the
widely accepted perception of the Judaism of New Testament
times. Sanders forces us to be more careful in our description and
detection of the problems that surface in Paul’s letters. However,
Sanders’ interpretation of Paul’s mind as operating completely
“from solution to plight,” to the extent of excluding other factors,
is not convincing and strikes us as more of an academic exercise
than a passionate defense of the Gospel (which we know the
apostle to be engaged in). This in turn calls into question the
analysis by Sanders of the problems Paul was facing.
Our assessment of Dunn’s interpretation of what is at stake in
Paul’s battle against the Judaizers has revealed important insights
into the historical realities Paul was facing. Dunn’s limitation of
the issue at stake to exclusivism versus inclusivism does not seem
to do justice to the whole issue, however. Paul was not just
attempting to correct an over-emphasis or a misunderstanding of
the ritual law that had developed in Judaism during times of
persecution. His attack on the law is more radical.
Stuhlmacher’s interpretation suggests that Paul was actually
Jewish in his pessimistic outlook regarding the law. His
interpretation is also helpful in that it takes into consideration
the importance of the eschatological coming of the Spirit for
Paul’s understanding of the law. Stuhlmacher sees the connection
between the universal scope of the Gospel and Paul’s demand of
the abrogation of the Mosaic law. He is not successful, however,

64
 Paul and the Law

in his attempt to demonstrate the dependence of Paul on an Old

Testament line of tradition with regard to the differences in
content between the Sinai Torah and Paul’s  .

65
VI. A Christological
Perspective

It can hardly be disputed that Paul was rather content with his
own “doing” of the law, before he became a Christian: “as to
righteousness under the law blameless” (Phil 3.6). However, on
the basis of his encounter with Christ, he learned that blameless
righteousness was no more than “refuse” (). He counted
“all things to be loss because of the surpassing worth of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3.8).116 Otto Kuss
summarizes Paul’s christological perspective: “Paulus ... fängt bei
... Christus an zu denken; allein von Jesus her, in dem er den
Christus erschienen glaubt, ordnet er sich was über Gott, Mensch
und die Welt zu sagen ist.”117 Thus, even though Paul, while he
was still a persecutor of the church may never have described life
under the law as slavery, now, in light of what he has experienced
on the Damascus road and subsequently, he is convinced, that
freedom has replaced slavery. The question we have to ask is this:

116 Cf. Ridderbos, Paul, 138.

117 Otto Kuss, “Nomos bei Paulus,” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 17
(1976): 173. Cf. also Sanders, Paul, the Law, 5, Peter Stuhlmacher, “Das
Ende des Gesetzes,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 67 (1970): 14-39,
Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes (Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), e.g. 7, and many others.

66
 Paul and the Law

What is it, in his encounter with Christ, that led Paul to view his
own righteousness under the law in such negative terms and how
did that effect his view of the law itself?

The Salvation Historical Shift

Christ “gave himself for our sins to deliver ( plus

subjunctive) us from the present evil age” (Gal 1.4). These are the
words with which Paul introduces his letter to the Galatians. It is
thus important to investigate how the salvation historical
perception of the two ages, the present evil and the “already/not
yet” present age of the Spirit, affected Paul’s teaching on the law.
The importance of the salvation historical shift is clearly
spelled out in Gal 4. 1-11. Paul constructs his argument by com-
paring the condition of children () and sons () in a
normal household of his time. From that comparison, Paul
derives principles which he then applies to the context of the two
ages, before and after “God sent forth his son” (4:4). As long as an
heir is a child, his life condition is no better than that of a slave
(v. 1). He is put, by the father, under guardians and trustees until
the date set by the father (v.2). “So with us” (  ),
Paul says, introducing the application. Before the coming of
Christ into the world “we were slaves to the elemental spirits of
the universe” (v.3), but now we have received the adoption
() and the Spirit of the Son of God (vs. 5, 6). Even more
so, Paul seems to have perceived a similarity between life under
the law and pagan service to “gods, who were no gods” (cf.4: 8),

67
which is “an astonishing statement for a former pharisee to
make.”118
In order to make an end to this slavery like existence, “God
sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to
redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive
adoption as sons ()” (4:4). In other words, Jesus Christ
inaugurated the reign of the Spirit, in order that the era of the
Spirit might succeed the era of the law.
In 1:4 Paul introduces the death of Christ as the act of
deliverance from the present evil age.119 In 2:20 he announces his
own participation in the crucifixion of Christ as the beginning of
his “living for God,” and in 6:14 he interprets the crucifixion of
himself with Christ as a crucifixion of the world to him, and him
to the world ( ). Through the death of Jesus
Christ on the cross, a new eschatological situation has been inau-
gurated. Christ has brought deliverance from the present evil age
and he who dies with Him dies to the world; that is, the evil age
has lost its dominion over him. The Spirit has come to make war
against the flesh; he has come to confirm in us the fact that we
are now sons and not slaves anymore, by crying in our hearts:
“Abba Father!” (4:6).
It would appear, then, that Paul distinguished between life
under the law and life in Christ as two spheres of existence, the
latter of which was a tremendous improvement compared to the
former. If taken in isolation, these statements seem to imply, as J.
Louis Martyn suggested, that the coming of the Spirit is entirely

118 Bruce, Galatians, 202-3.

119 Cf. Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 44: “All the same, this deliverance...
consists also of a loosing of the Saints from the sinful ties of this world,
and of a liberation from the divine curse and wrath. . . “

68
 Paul and the Law

related to the eschatological inauguration of the new age.120 As we

shall see, however, we are not convinced that Paul viewed the
antinomy Spirit - Flesh entirely as an apocalyptic antinomy that
belongs to the “new creation.” There seems to be a difference in
degree between the experience of the Spirit under the old
covenant and that under the new. But to consign the Spirit
exclusively to the new age is a distortion of the delicate picture
we find even in Galatians.121

Christ, The Ultimate Sacrifice

Could it be that Paul made a distinction between what could

be accomplished   before and after the coming of Christ?
Was it only since His coming, and on the basis of changes in the
law code, that the law had become solely condemning, the

120 Martyn sees Paul describing the replacement of the archaic pair of
opposites “law - flesh,” to which the Judaizers adhered (since they
thought the law was given by God to oppose the yetzer hara), with the
apocalyptic pair of opposites “Spirit - flesh.” “Thus the warefare of the
Spirit versus the fleah is a major characteristic of the scene in which the
Galatians - together with all other human beings - now find themselves”
(416).
121 2 Corinthians 3 should be mentioned at this point. In that chapter Paul
compares the old dispensation of the written code with the new
dispensation of the Spirit and states: “What once had splendor has come
to have no spledor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if
what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have
much more splendor” (vv. 10-11). We should note that, even though Paul
calls the dispensation of the law a dispensation of death (v.7) he still
ascribed to it a certain measure of splendor. That splendor, however,
vanished with the coming of Christ like moonlight vanishes at the break
of dawn.

69
change being due to the abrogation of the sacrificial system
(since Christ had become the ultimate and final sacrifice)? Thus,
beginning with the death and resurrection of Christ, there was no
longer any provision in the law for forgiveness and reconciliation.
The law had ceased to have a soteriological function. Con-
sequently, righteousness through the law was now only possible
by perfect (and therefore impossible) obedience.
This answer could possibly solve the problem of Gal 5. 3, but it
does not suffice for Gal 3. 10-13, 21, 22; Rom 9. 30 - 10. 12; or the
implications of the allegory in chapter 4 of Galatians. There Paul
asserts not only the present insufficiency of the law, but that it
has never been the purpose of the Mosaic law to make alive; i.e.,
to compete with “the promise?” Not only since Christ, but from
the day it was given (Gal 3.21 ), the law was not meant to
provide life. Hence, while presenting an explanation for the non-
soteriological function of the law “since Christ,” this exposition
cannot solve the negative affirmations regarding the role of the
law before Christ.
As we shall argue, however, these assertions do not imply, that,
in Paul’s view, sacrifices were not able to forgive under the old
covenant. Rather, it would appear, that Paul had a very specific
understanding of faith. “Faith in Christ” now and “faith in the
promise” before the coming of Christ belong together - that is,
Christ was the focus and the fulfillment of the sacrificial system
not only since he has come in the flesh but at all times.122

122 Cf. the next section.

70
 Paul and the Law

Faith in the Promise and Faith in Christ

In Gal 3.10-13 Paul builds a case for the necessity of the death of
Christ on the basis that       
 (v. 10a). We will return to this verse in Part III (212-219) of
our thesis where we will focus specifically upon the phrase “works
of the law.” At this point, we should simply recognize that the
relationship between   and the  parallels the
relationship between   and  in v. 13. “Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the ”; that is, from the curse
that is upon those who are   . Clearly, the curse
relates to the negative purpose of the law to begin with. It was
not meant to make alive (3. 19) and could therefore not prevent
transgression. If only a wrong perception of the law, or a false
motivation with regard to the law, was in Paul’s mind at this
point, the death of Christ would seem a rather strong measure to
correct that perception. A prophet who would have revealed the
misconception and called the people back to a correct use of the
law would have sufficed. But, redemption is required. What is at
stake is the impossibility of fulfilling the law, as is implicitly
expressed in the phrase “He who does them shall live by them” (v.
12b).123
Another way of explaining the argument of this passage is
represented in the view that the whole section is an anachronistic
and irrational reconstruction of salvation history by Paul. In other
words, there really is no basis for Paul’s assertion of an irre-

123 Cf. Thomas Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-
examination of Galatians 3.10,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 27 (1984): 151-60. We shall return to the question of “perfect
obedience” versus “misconception” in our discussion of “works of the
law” in this passage, 212-219.

71
vocable124 curse. Rather, in E.P. Sanders’ opinion, “his revised view
of the law in God’s plan springs from his conviction that salvation
is through the death of Christ (Gal 2. 21).”125 In other words, since
Paul, as a good Jew, believed in the possibility of forgiveness and
restoration under the law, it could not have been an irrevocable
curse that made him believe in the death of Christ as a means of
redemption. Instead, it was the other way around. The death of
Christ revealed to Paul that life under the law must have been
cursed. Sanders continues to argue that Paul retrospectively
concluded that, since the appropriation of the benefits of the
death of Christ comes through faith, faith must have always been
the way to righteousness and doing the law must have led to a
curse. Having reached this anachronistic insight, Paul looked for
a proof text where “righteousness” and “faith” appear together
and another one where “” and “curse” were interrelated.126
Having found those, he reconstructed his beliefs about salvation
history.
We have already articulated our disagreement with Sanders
above (cf. Part I, “From Solution to Plight,” 54-59). His exclusive
interpretation of Paul as “from solution to plight” is not credible.
Looking at Sanders interpretation of the present text, the fact
that his presuppositions governed his interpretation against the
obvious meaning of the text becomes apparent. The more natural
interpretation is that Paul uses his Old Testament quotations to
prove salvation historical realities. Side by side, Paul perceives of
two ways of existing under the old covenant: one leading to life
and the other to death, one being   the other  .
The curse came upòn everyone who did not abide by  

124 We shall take issue with the “irrevocability” assumption shortly.

125 Sanders, Paul, the Law, 27.
126 Ibid., 21.

72
 Paul and the Law

         (v.10b),127
whereas life was given to him who was   . Being
 , so it seems, coincided with being under the demand of
fulfilling the law completely. Living   designated a life
of obedience to the will of God - to which the law would come to
testify 430 years later - without the demand of perfect fulfillment.
Gal 3.12a is crucial at this point:      .
There is a dichotomy: Law and faith are separated. Why? Because
faith is put in the promise given to Abraham and not in the law.
The law is not the object of faith, trust, commitment. While the
fulfillment of the promise lay in the future, the law - given 430
years later - was not that fulfillment. It could never be the
fulfillment, because its purpose was a different one. Only in the
coming of Faith - that is “in Christ” - would the fulfillment of the
promise be given (3.23,24). Not that the law was against the
promise, but the role of the law was not to make alive (3.21). The
giving of life (i.e., the reception of the promise of the Spirit
through faith [3.14]), was the unique prerogative of the 
which is Christ (3.16b), for “if the inheritance is by the law, it is no
longer by promise” (3.18).
Paul viewed the curse as being intimately linked with the
 whereas salvation is intimately linked to faith; not any
kind of faith, however, but a faith that is rooted in the promise of
the coming deliverer. In other words, even under the old cove-

127 Burton’s distinction, 105, between “the verdict of law” and “God’s
judgment” is interesting. He thinks that “Paul expressly denies both
directly and indirectly” the principle of law as it is expressed in verse 12,
“He who does them shall live by them.” “It is necessary, therefore,
throughout the passage, to distinguish between the verdicts of the law
and the judgments of God.” We have already pointed out that, when it
was revealed to Paul that the crucified and cursed Jesus was the Christ,
that insight caused his confidence in the law to waver drastically.
However, unless we deny the divine origin of the law, Burton’s
distinction is impossible.

73
nant, when faith occurred it was faith in the Messiah, since it was
faith in the promise given to Abraham. Paul confidently affirms
that the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham (3.8).
Therefore “it is    who are the sons of Abraham” (3.7).
“Those who are   are blessed    ”
(3.9).128
The following pattern seems to emerge: Paul viewed the 
as a collection of prescriptions, ethical and cultic, that demanded
perfect observation. However, the demand of perfect observation,
because it could not be done, led to a curse. Apart from the
specific faith in the promise given to Abraham, even those parts
of the law that seem to offer restoration and forgiveness, fall
under the curse.129 In other words, even the cultic sections of the
law that provided for forgiveness and restoration were so
intimately dependent upon and looking forward to the coming of
Christ that, without faith in the ultimate sacrifice, the blood of
bulls and goats were not able to redeem. The sacrificial system
simply became another part of the law that demanded perfect
performance.
That the reckoning of righteousness by faith was possible,
however, and is mediated through the sacrificial system, is clear
from the argument in Rom 4.6,7, where Paul cites David, who re-
joices over the covering of sins. Thus, the law provided sacrificial
“types” that could function redemptively, if combined with faith

128 A reference to John 8.56 may be allowed at this point: “Your father
Abraham rejoiced, that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.”
129 Cf. Moo, “Law,” 88: “I would maintain that Paul distinguishes promise
and law by definition (see Gal 3.15-25 and Rom 4.13-16), so that the
denial, that justification can come through the law (e.g., Gal 3.11) is not a
denial that those ‘under the law’ could be justified. It does constitute a
denial that man could ever be justified by means of the law (see Gal 2.21;
3.21).”

74
 Paul and the Law

in the promise of the “antitype.” Faith was not to be put in the

sacrifice per se but in the promise to which the sacrifice pointed.130
Through the awareness of the curse that lies on mankind,
revealed to them by the law, the people of Israel were challenged
to believe in the promised one who would redeem them from the
curse. The law, although not   itself, was meant,
through its intended negative function, to stimulate faith; hence
Paul’s assertion that the law was apart from the promise (Gal 3.18)
but not against the promise. To him who turned to the Lord, his
faith in the promise was reckoned as righteousness, since the
redeemer would come and      
     (Gal 3.13). Cursing clearly
carries forensic connotations. The fact, however, that Paul speaks
of redemption (cf., 4.5) from the curse and that the removal of the
curse is directly linked to the reception of the Spirit (v.14)
suggests that being under the curse of the law implied more than
the judicial declaration of being guilty. To be cursed meant to be
captivated by sin. And so, the removal of the curse was a
redemptive act.131
We shall now turn to Rom 9.30 - 10.5ff, a passage that will shed
further light on the pattern we see emerging. Paul compares the
righteousness which is   with the righteousness that is 
. The righteousness from the law is the righteousness
which the Jews seek to establish apart from God’s righteousness
(10.3a). The righteousness of faith is God’s righteousness to which
they would not submit ( 10.3b). As we shall see
below, the phrase “God’s righteousness” is frequently used by

130 Cf. Pss 50.12-15; 51.16-17: “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken
spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
131 Cf. Bruce, “Curse,” 34: “The verb  is probably used in Gal 3.13
and 4.5 because of its appropriateness to emancipation from slavery.
Moreover, in Gal 4.5 it is not simply from the curse of the law but from
existence under Law as such that believers have been redeemed.”

75
Paul in a way that underscores the holistic character of God’s
saving work in the life of his people. At this point, true to that
interpretation, Paul speaks of the righteousness of God not only
as something we receive (9.30), but as something to which we
submit (cf. our discussion on Romans 6 below).
In fact, he who lives by the righteousness of God (faith), is he
who admits that he cannot ascend into heaven or descend into
the abyss (10.6,7) but who believe that God will fulfill his will in
him. In its Old Testament context, the reference to the
“ascending” and the “descending” is preceded by the words of
Moses, the mediator of the law: “For this commandment which I
command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven... Neither is it beyond the sea...” (Dt.30.11-13).132
Moses apparently faced a situation in which the people of Israel
were frustrated with the impossibility of fulfilling the law. “No
one can ascend to heaven or travel beyond the sea,” they would
say. “Likewise no one can fulfill this law.”133 Moses, however, was
extremely confident:”The word is near you on your lips and in
your heart so that you can do it!”134 And Paul adds: “That is the

132 For the replacement of “beyond the sea” with “descend into the abyss,”
see Käsemann, Romans, 288: “. . . the questions in the quotation take on
a sense which only a Christian can understand.”
133 Cf. ibid.: “According to Prov.30.4; 4 Esra 4.8; Philo De virtutibus, 183,
these last phrases seem to be used proverbially to designate superhuman
exertions which are supposed to actualize something impossible.”
134 It has often been pointed out that Paul deleted “so that you can do it”
from his quotation of Deut 30.14. Whatever inferences one draws from
this, the whole tenor of Romans, in our opinion, does not permit an
antithesis between “doing” and “believing,” in the sense that “believing”
was a matter of the heart only. Luther comes dangerously close to saying
that (cf. Lectures on Deuteronomy, Luther’s Works, vol. 9. Ed. Jaroslav
Pelikan [Saint Louis: Concordia, 1960], 277-79). He first asserts that
Moses affirmed a dichotomy between “Let us hear and do” and “In your
mouth and heart” and then concludes: “The law demands an inner
nature which loves it and has pleasure in it; thus it is satisfied and
fulfilled if it is loved” (278). Luther goes even further in his comments on

76
 Paul and the Law

word of faith which we preach” (v.8b). Paul, then, is asserting two

things: 1) he is affirming an interrelation between law and faith,
which puts the law into a different perspective; and 2) most
importantly for our interpretation to notice, he relates the
encouragement given by Moses directly to faith in Christ. The
“obedience of faith” signifies commitment to God that is
nourished by the indwelling of the Spirit. This observation is
strengthened further by Paul’s christological interpretation of the
“ascending” and the “descending.” It means  
and   In other words, not only is Christ the
turning point of salvation history, He also embodies the challenge
every human being throughout all times has to face as it
encounters the divine will. To resign before the impossibility of
the commandment amounts to a denial of the promise given to
Abraham and reiterated by Moses. It is an accusation of God, that
He would not provide the means to do what He demands. The
mediator of the law affirmed that the law is preceded by the

the omission of “that you can do it” in Romans by Paul: “with

overflowing spirit he took occasion from Moses for composing a new
and fitting text against the work-righteousness” (279). The problem with
Luther’s interpretation of these verses, in our opinion, lies in his
misrepresentation of the power of the Spirit both under the old
covenant and even more so as He is experienced after the inaugural
event of the death and resurrection of Christ. The Spirit was given to do
the will of God and not only to love the command in the heart and thus
to receive “freedom of conscience” (cf. Lectures on Galatians 1535,
Luther’s Works, vol. 26. Ed. Jaroslav Pelikan [Saint Louis: Concordia,
1960], 11, where Luther says that we should “take hold of Christ who is
sitting at the right hand of God, who is our life and our righteousness,
and who makes intercession for us miserable sinners....In my conscience
not the Law will reign, that hard tyrant and cruel disciplinarian, but
Christ...”) Cf. Richard Hays, “Jesus’ Faith and Ours: A Re-reading of
Galatians 3,” Theological Student Fellowship Bulletin Sept-Oct (1983): 2:
“as long as Paul’s gospel is interpreted as the answer to individual
soteriological dilemma, that gospel is being severely truncated.” We
must add that the individual soteriological dilemma also finds its
solution in the gospel.

77
promise; i.e., Christ, not only chronologically but also soteriologi-
cally. In the “promise” he proclaimed the only fulfillment of the
commandments to be available:

The Lord your God will circumcise your heart

so that you will love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul,
that you may live. (Deut. 30.6)

We have seen, thus far, that Paul viewed and interpreted the
old covenant from a christological perspective. Faith in Christ
now was faith in the promise then. And faith in the promise then
would have been invalid without the coming of Christ now. The
law was meant to arouse faith in the promise by doing its proper
function of making aware of, and increasing, sin. As such it would
prepare for the coming Messiah. But not only that: according to
Deut. 30.6 and 14, God had, throughout the time of the law, pro-
vided the means to also live and obey the commandments (”so
that you may live” v.6; “so that you may do it” v.14).
In light of this, what does it mean, that Christ is the  of
the law (10.4)? If our interpretation is right, it cannot mean that
Christ has made an end to the law as a way of salvation,135 since
that has never been the purpose of the law in the first place. The
law was meant to confront man with the will of God, with the
limits of his own abilities and thus with the need of a redeemer.
Christ is the “end” of the law, in the sense that His coming
renders that purpose of the law obsolete. But Christ is the 
of the law also in the sense of being its “goal.” For, in Christ, the

135 Contra Gerge E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), 502: “. . . it has come to an end as a way of
righteousness, for in Christ righteousness is by faith, not by works.”
More careful and acceptable, Bruce, Paul, 191: “Now that Christ has come
there is no more place for law in man’s approach to God.”

78
 Paul and the Law

circumcision of the heart has become a reality as never before.

Faith has come to dwell within us “so that we can do it.”
We do realize that this hypothesis, and with it Gal 3.21b, stand
in conflict to Rom 7.10, where Paul asserts that the com-
mandment was actually given for life, and that the killing funct-
ion of the law was not intentional, but occurred because of the
corruption of the role of the law by “Sin.” Before we jump to
premature conclusions, two things demand consideration. First,
the argument of Paul in Rom 7.7-12 does not primarily deal with
the functional aspect of the law, but with the ontology of the law:
“Is the law sin?” (  ;, v.7). When facing the
accusation that he would attribute to the law an evil origin, Paul
is more than willing to paint a drastic contrast between sin and
law. However, when the purpose of the law is the focus of the
argument, the distinctions between sin and law are less clear.
That this is a conscious effort on Paul’s part can be assumed from
the fact that, just a few verses later (v.13ff), where he turns to the
purpose of the law, the strongly affirmed distinctions ( ,
v.7) do actually become less clear again. In verse 13 Paul asks,
“Did that which is good, then, bring death to me?” and replies,
“Of course not.” However, it was through the good law ( 
) that sin worked death. And the purpose of the killing is
described as “in order that” () through the commandment (
 ) sin might become sinful beyond measure. Thus,
viewed from the perspective of purpose, the law, as it interacts
with sin, brings about knowledge (Rom 3.20) and magnification
(Rom 5.20) of sin and thus expectancy of the Messiah (Gal 3.22
!).
Secondly, we need to consider the fact that verse 10 follows the
difficult verse 9: “I was once alive apart from the law, but when
the commandment came sin revived and I died.” The whole issue
of whether Rom 7 is autobiographical etc. cannot be dealt with at
this point. For our purposes it is important to simply recognize

79
that the statement of v.9a can, in its totality, only apply to Adam
before the fall.136 The reference to the transgression of the
commandment that follows in v.9b could be interpreted in light
of Rom 5.14, where Adam is said to have committed a
transgression (). If we compare these observations with
2 Esd 7.11f, where Adam is said to have transgressed the statutes
of the Lord with the result that “the entrances of this world were
made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome,”137 the picture emerges
that in Pharisaic thinking (without embarrassment as to the
anachronistic way of speaking of the Torah), the commandments
could be viewed as originally given to Adam in Paradise. Under
pre-Fall conditions, verse 10 continues, the commandment
promised life. In other words, as long as Adam was living in
unbroken harmony with God (he was alive), the commandment
was given to preserve life. With the entrance of sin into this
world, that purpose was lost; and when the law was given
through Moses - since it was given apart from the promise - it
could only serve a negative purpose.138
We have now looked in some detail at Gal 3. 10-13 and Rom
9.31-10.8 with the objective of finding clues to Paul’s thinking on
the relationship between promise and law. For a third perspective
on this issue, we need to look once more at the allegory of Gal
4.21-31. In that passage, Isaac is called the son   (4.29),
whereas the son of the slave woman is the son   To be
conceived  , means, in that context, to be conceived
the natural way. To be conceived   however,

136 Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 196: “There is nothing in that passage which
does not fit Adam, and everything fits Adam alone.”
137 Cf. also Apoc. Mos 13-28.
138 Cf. Stuhlmacher, “Das Gesetz,” 275. The solution offered here is another
example of how one can, if one is interested, find explanations for the
tensions in Paul’s teaching on law. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 152,
predictably, dismisses the difference between Gal 3.21 and Rom 7.10 as
two lines of thought, that clearly contradict each other.

80
 Paul and the Law

denotes a conception that requires an intervention of the Spirit.

Thus, the son of the promise is    The promise
could only be fulfilled through the Spirit. That which character-
izes life  , then, is hope in the impossible (”Rejoice, O
barren one who does not bear...” 4.27). In other words, it is faith
in the God who can do the impossible (i.e., revive the dead womb
of Sarah), which releases the Spirit and makes the miracle
happen. Again Paul points out the correspondence between the
son of “the free woman” and “us” who are children of the free
woman (v.31) who is the Jerusalem from above (v.26). That is the
freedom, Paul announces, to which Christ has set us free (5.1).
Life   on the other hand, corresponds to life apart
from the Spirit: to weakness of the flesh, to life which is content
with (and trusts in) what is humanly possible. We must
emphasize that here life in the flesh does not simply equal
legalism.139 Paul’s focus is less on good versus bad motivation than
on possibility versus impossibility. Abraham’s intercourse with
Hagar was an attempt to help God’s promise on the way, to make
the impossible possible in unbelief, and in that sense the story as
such carries a message against legalism. Paul’s main emphasis
here, however, is on slavery versus freedom. It is the law as such,
as it is given on Mount Sinai, which corresponds to slavery, in
that it cannot make possible the impossible. The law has an
important role to play, but it is not that of giving life; i.e., of
opening the barren womb. Rather the role of the law is spelled

139 Legalism, as Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English

Language, ed. Philip B. Grove (Springfield, Mass.: G & C Merriam
Company, 1981), 1290, defines it is “the principles and practices
characterizing the theological doctrine of strict conformity to a code of
deeds and observances (as the Mosaic law) as a means of justification.”
Or in C.E.B. Cranfield’s definition, Romans, 848, legalists are those who
are “refusing to accept the righteous status God has made available in
Christ and insisting on thinking that they can earn their own righteous
status by their fulfillment of the law’s demands.”

81
out in the introduction to the allegory: “Do you not hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons one by a slave and
one by a free woman” (v.21). The law itself, Paul affirms, testifies
to the fact that there were always two ways of existence. Thus the
law had a revelatory character. It was the purpose of the law to
unveil the deadlock which characterized human existence in
general and Israel’s in particular. While assisting sin and flesh in
the enslavement of man, for the purpose of making the deadlock
obvious, the law also pointed to the solution offered, all
throughout the history of Israel, exemplified in the story of the
conception of Isaac. The righteous demand of the law could be
fulfilled by the power of the Spirit, who would be given to the one
who trusted in the God who could raise the dead.
We may be permitted, at this point, a reference to Heb 11.8-19,
since there we find two interesting parallels to the present
passage: one emphasizing the “already” aspect of the es-
chatological promise in the life of Abraham, the other focusing
on the “not yet.” The writer of Hebrews describes Abraham, the
hero of faith, as he readily offers up Isaac, trusting “that God was
able to raise men even from the dead,” and thus make the
promise given to his seed come true anyway. Faith meant, for
Abraham, relying on the promise of God, although the
circumstances seemed impossible. And he did see his faith
produce results (vv.17-19). The other parallel to our allegory is
this: In vv.8-11 Abraham is described as a sojourner in the land of
the promise, as in a foreign land, “for he looked forward to the
city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God”
(v.10). Abraham would not settle in the promised land, because
he was looking forward to the city from above; or, back in Gala-
tians, the Jerusalem from above, the free, which is our mother
(4.26). Hence, Abraham did see miracles, he did experience the
power of the Spirit, but he knew that there was more and better
to come.

82
 Paul and the Law

The promise given to Abraham and his  was the Spirit
(Gal 3.14). And the fulfillment of the promise would occur not in
his seeds (plural) but in the seed, which is Christ. In other words,
Abraham’s faith, which was reckoned to him as righteousness,
was faith in the One who was to come, the Messiah, who would
inaugurate the age of the Spirit. He did experience the presence
and working of the Spirit as he sojourned through this world; but
he was also aware that he was a sojourner, and that the 
and with it the Spirit-age, was still to come. That’s why, as the
book of Hebrews tells us, he would not settle in the promised
land.

Summary

Paul’s perception of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ

as the inauguration of the age of the Spirit and the delivery out of
this evil age must be viewed as a significant shift in salvation
history. There is a real difference between life in the old age and
life in the new. Salvation history has entered into a new phase.
The eschatological era has begun.
However, the recognition of the inaugurating Christ event at a
specific point in time did not make Paul indifferent to the sub-
ordination of salvation historical changes to the principle of “faith
in the promised redeemer” which is the principle by which God
justifies and always has justified convicted and repentant
sinners.140 Christ not only is the inaugurator and the center of the

140 Cf. Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung,” 135: “Gott handelt seit der Schöpfung
bis zum Jüngsten Tage nie anders mit Juden und Heiden. . . Anders

83
age of the Spirit. He also is the ultimate realization of the
righteousness of God (1 Cor 1.30). We have tried to demonstrate
that, for Paul, faith is the faith of Abraham; that is, faith in the
promise given by God to send a deliverer for those who admit
their captivity under the curse of the law. This recognition of the
need of a redeemer was and is described as a need of 
. Because of Abraham’s faith in the promise, God gave
Abraham a son  . Faith in the promise made proleptic
experiences of the eschatological work of the Spirit possible.
There is frustration with the law, but there is also recognition
of the law’s usefulness and necessity in the limited sense we
described. There is awareness of the inaugurating implications of
the death and resurrection of Christ, but without letting that
awareness lead to the erection of a complete dichotomy between
life under the old and the new covenant.
What strikes us as most important, however, and what makes
Paul’s negative assertions regarding the law plausible, is his
perception of the Mosaic law as a compilation of regulations and
prescriptions, separated from the promise that God first gave to
Abraham when he made with him and his descendants a cove-
nant of grace. Since Paul had this “narrow view” of the , he
could assert that the  was in alliance with sin. However,
Paul also asserts, that being   was not the only option
available to the Jew. Faith in the promise given to Abraham was
to release the Spirit in the life of the Jew who admitted his
predicament and surrendered himself to the mercies of God.
Thus, in brokenness God would revive the sinner to life by faith.
It would appear that the frustration Paul felt with the law when
he looked back on the history of Israel nurtured his beliefs that
the “fulfillment of the law,” as it was offered as a possibility

müßte auch das Kreuz Jesu seinen zentralen Platz verlieren, un dann
würde alles schief.”

84
 Paul and the Law

through “the circumcision of the heart,” was a rare event; too rare
for him to view existence under the old covenant as a whole as
anything but slavery. The Christ event, however, ushered in the
age of the Spirit, free and independent of the law, since the Spirit
now indwelled every believer. “For by the Spirit we were all
baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and were
all made to drink of one Spirit.” With the indwelling of the Spirit
came the guidance of the Spirit, victory over the flesh and thus a
new creation. The law is still useful as a reminder of the moral
minimum expected of the life of faith, since the tension between
the presence and the future of the eschatological reality also
belongs to the age of the Spirit.

85
 Part Two

PAUL AND
JUSTIFICATION

I. Introduction

A thorough understanding of justification in Paul is indis-

pensable for an interpretation of Paul and the law. It is because
no man can be justified by works of the law that Paul is so op-
posed to life  . “If righteousness were through the law,
then Christ died for nothing” (Gal 2.21). Before we can answer the

86
 Paul and Justification

question of why works of the law are insufficient, we must clarify

what it is that they were unable to accomplish.
Some scholars believe that Paul’s concept of justification
developed in his battle with the Judaizers and in his attempt to
come to terms with the place in salvation history of the Mosaic
law since the Christ-event. If that is the case, justification by faith
would not, as the Reformers believed, constitute the center of
Paul’s theology, but simply one aspect among many.141 However
that may be, a clear understanding of the meaning of justification
in Paul is imperative.
We will begin our investigation with a look at some excerpts
from the history of the interpretation of  . After a
review of Ernst Käsemann’s influential article “Gottesgerecht-
igkeit” some of the reactions to Käsemann’s article will be
discussed followed by an investigation into some of the most
important passages in the Pauline letters that relate to the discus-
sion. Finally, the concept of justification in Galatians will be our
topic.

141 Until F.C. Baur’s publication of Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ; His Life
and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine: A Contribution to a Critical
History of Primitive Christianity, 2d ed. 2 vols. (London/Edinburgh:
Williams and Norgate, 1876) the Reformation view of Paul was taken for
granted. Beginning with Baur, many attempts have been made to restate
the center of Paul’s thinking; cf. A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the
Apostle (New York: Holt and Co., 1931), 225: “The doctrine of
righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater...” One of the latest
attempts in the search for the center in Paul is that of Beker, 19, who
finds the core of Paul’s theology in the apocalyptic expectation of “the
imminent cosmic triumph of God.”

87
 II. Excerpts from the
History of
Interpretation 142

The Apostolic Fathers

According to Peter Stuhlmacher, the Pauline usage of  is

distorted already in the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. Its
specifically Jewish connotations - namely, a combination of judi-
cial and ontological conceptions - disappears. For Ignatius 
denotes only acceptance at the final judgment, while Polycarp

142 The purpose of this investigation is not that of a historical overview.

What is important for our present purpose is to demonstrate the variety
of interpretations attempted which in turn will indicate the complexity
of the term . Much of the input for this section,
especially from before the Reformation, is based on Peter Stuhlmacher,
Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1965)

88
 Paul and Justification

consistently interprets it in an ethical sense. Such “fragmentary”

conceptions occur for two reasons: 1) The eschatology of the
Apostolic Fathers no longer takes seriously the Pauline Überla-
gerung of the two ages, and 2) the eschatological tension between
present and future gives way to a (more or less) prolonged
expectation of the future.143
Alister McGrath summarizes the view of the Apostolic Fathers
by stating that they were eager “to express an essentially Hebraic
gospel in a Hellenistic milieu,” with the result that “Christ’s
teaching was seriously compromised by the Hellenism of its ear-
liest adherents.” One of these serious mistakes was the “implicit
equation of sedaqa,  and iustitia, linked with the par-
ticular associations of the Latin term meritum.”144

The Greek and Latin Fathers

The Greek fathers continue to define  with connotations

from Greek philosophy. Origen, for instance, interprets it as
God’s attribute, the aequitas. However, he also recognizes a
twofold sense in the term: 1) Christ is the personification of the
 (cf. 1.Cor 1.30); and 2)  is the gift attributed to us, in a
judicial sense, ex fide. The Latin fathers (except Augustine),
especially in the Ambrosiaster, developed a twofold understan-
ding of  that was similar to Origen’s. On the one hand, 
denoted the Old Testament concept of God’s promise-faithful-
ness; and on the other, it stood for the gift made visible through

143 Cf. ibid., 12-13.

144 A. McGrath, Iustitia Dei I, Beginnings to 1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986), 18.

89
the faith of the individual.145 For Pelagius  designated both
God’s retributive righteousness and as a gift, the gift of virtue
(Geschenk der Tugend).146 Augustine - the first to again break with
all twofold interpretations of God’s righteousness - interpreted
 consistently as God’s justifying gift of grace.147 In Thomas of
Aquinas the traditions accumulate. Thomas incorporates them all
into his scholastic system, without attempting to merge them.
The favorite interpretation for Thomas remains, however, the
aequitas.148
Two strands of interpretations, then, of , run through the
history of interpretation, from the Apostolic Fathers to the
Reformation: 1. The interpretation predominant with the Latin
fathers (except Augustine) and several of the Greek fathers: The
righteousness of God is understood as God’s distributive judicial
fairness, or God’s impartiality in judgment.149 2. Augustine’s
interpretation of the righteousness of God as God’s gift of
righteousness: “... not the righteousness by which He is Himself
righteous, but that with which he endows man when he justifies
the ungodly... It is called God’s (righteousness) and Christ’s
(righteousness) because it is by their bounty that these gifts are

145 Cf. ibid., 22: “Like many of his contemporaries... he appears to be

obsessed with the idea that man can acquire merit before God, and the
associated idea, that certain labors are necessary to attain this.”
146 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 15.
147 Cf. ibid., 18.
148 Cf. ibid., 17.
149 Cf. Manfred T. Brauch, “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in recent
German discussion,” app. in E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 525; also Marion Soards,
“Käsemann’s Righteousness Reexamined,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49
(1987): 104.

90
 Paul and Justification

bestowed on us.”150 Of all the exegetes, only Augustine interprets

the Pauline concept as one whole.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther, terrified by the idea of a righteous God who

judges everyone according to his deeds ( taken as a subjective
genitive), strongly emphasized the gift-character of the  (
taken as an objective genitive). The righteousness of God is not
God’s judicial condemning demand, but rather: iustitia dei equals
iustitia fidei. Luther comments: “... it is not something by which
He Himself is righteous or by which a person could be righteous,
but it is that which can be possessed in no other way than
through faith.”151 By virtue of the possession of this gift, man is
acquitted before God and does not have to fear the divine
judgment anymore. “When I learned, that righteousness is His
mercy, and that He makes us righteous through it, a remedy was
offered to me in my affliction.”152 “Christ deems us righteous on
account of his blood and counts for righteousness the fact that we
desire to be righteous.”153
However, Luther’s concern for an understanding of  as God’s
merciful gift, given to man to possess, even though predominant,

150 Augustine, “On the Spirit and the Letter,” in A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol.5, ed. Philip
Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 89.
151 Ibid., 31.
152 Martin Luther, Table Talk, Luther’s Works vol. 54 (Saint Louis:
Concordia, 1972), 309.
153 Ibid., 374.

91
does not represent his understanding in its entirety. In his ser-
mon on “Two kinds of Righteousness,”154 Luther says concerning
the “alien” righteousness: “This is an infinite righteousness, and
one that swallows up all sins in a moment...” and “he who trusts
in Christ exists in Christ... It is therefore impossible that sin
should remain in him.” That this does not simply describe judicial
acquittal becomes clear from what follows: “... Christ daily drives
out the old Adam more and more ... For alien righteousness is not
instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally
perfected at the end through death.”155 We must note that Luther
describes being justified not only as the forensic result of our
trust in Christ, but also as a process of transformation.
Stuhlmacher draws attention to Luther’s introduction to Romans:
... durch den glawben wirt der mensch on sund, und gewynnet lust zu
Gottis gepotten, damit gibt er Got seyn ehre und betzalet yhn, was er yhm
schudig ist.156

It would appear, then, that for Luther, even though the forensic
connotations were dominationg his thinking, the idea of justifi-
cation was not exhausted in its forensic connotations. It also
denoted the transforming activity of God. Whether or not this is
a Pauline idea, we will try to find out in our exegetical section
below.

154 Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer, Luther’s Works, vol. 31, (Saint
Louis: Concordia, 1972), 297 ff.
155 Ibid., 298-9. Cf. A. McGrath Iustitia Dei II, From 1500 to the Present Day
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 18: “Luther and
Augustine concur in understanding justification as an all-embracing
process, subsuming the beginning, development and subsequent
perfection of the Christian life.”
156 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 20.

92
 Paul and Justification

Herman Cremer

Under the influence of the work of H. Cremer,157 the distinc-

tions between subjective and objective interpretations of “the
righteousness of God” lost most of its force. Cremer observed that
“the righteousness of God” in the Old Testament is a relational
concept describing the relationship between two partners. It is a
concept that belongs inside the covenant relationship. The Old
Testament does not know of a punitive righteousness, but
righteousness of God is always iustitia salutifera.
Im ganzen Alten Testament ist und bleibt die Gerechtigkeit justitia
salutifera, weil sie ihrem Wesen nach justitia justificatoria ist, d.h. weil es
ihr Wesen ist, Recht zu schaffen denen die es bedürfen ...158

Cremer is also known for the important observation, that

das Königtum Gottes früher (ist) als die Forderung Gottes an sein Volk;
die Bundesauflage, das Gesetz, ist nicht Begründung, sondern Ausfluß
dieses Königtums.159

In other words, “the righteousness of God” in the Old

Testament belongs to covenant terminology, an insight that has
found wide support.160 Cremer asserted that the origin of Paul’s
concept of  should be sought in the Old Testament. His study
inspired the search for a new definition. The term “subjective
genitive,” so far perceived as a “Greek” description of the essence

157 Herman Cremer. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 2d ed. (Gütersloh:

Bertelsmann, 1900)
158 Ibid., 33.
159 Ibid., 77f.
160 Cf. e.g., Walther Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 2 vols. 8th ed.
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 1:155: “Eine Äußerung der
bundesgemäßen Liebestreue Jahvehs ist seine Gerechtigkeit. . . Gott
(beweist) seine Huld in der Durchführung von Recht und
Gerechtigkeit.”

93
of God, received a new definition. It became a “designation of his
action, his activity as Lord and Redeemer.”161 A new grammatical
term became prominent: the genitive of authorship. It is defined
by Brauch as “the righteousness which comes from God, which is
given to man and which is the basis of man’s relationship with
God.”162 In Brauch’s view, this amounts to a combination of both
the objective and the subjective elements. The term has, however,
been attributed with a variety of meanings. One example may il-
lustrate this: R. Bultmann adopted the term and called it the
herrschende Bedeutung in Paul. He also accepted Cremer’s
insights regarding the meaning of  in the Old Testament. Yet
he denied that Paul used  as iustitia salutifera.163 For Bultmann,
the genitive of authorship had only forensic connotations, and in
this sense he employed the term against E. Käsemann.
Käsemann, however, had never objected to the term. He used it
himself. Hence, obviously, it meant something different to him.164

161 Cf. Brauch, 525. Brauch further states that Paul’s concept of  “is not
derived from Greek moral philosophy, but from Hebraic thought
patterns involving the divine-human relation.”
162 Cf. ibid., 525.
163 Rudolph Bultmann, “,” Journal of Biblical Literature 83
(1964): 13: “Gottes Gerechtigkeit kann sowohl seine richterliche iustitia
distributiva bedeuten wie seine iustitia salutifera, nähmlich seine
helfende, heilbringende Macht, an die der einzelne Fromme appellieren
kann. Daß diese zweite Bedeutung bei Paulus überhaupt eine Rolle
spielt, vermag ich nicht zu sehen.”
164 Cf. Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung,” 136-7: “Nie wurde von mir behauptet,
Gerechtigkeit Gottes meine durchweg oder vorzugsweise einen
subjektiven Genitiv. . . Den gen. auct., also der soteriologische Sinn der
Wendung, wurde im Gegenteil von mir als dominierend bezeichnet.”
(italics added).

94
 Paul and Justification

Adolph Schlatter

Adolph Schlatter perceived an intrinsic connection between

God’s righteousness and his Lordship. He differed from Luther
and Augustine in that he centralized Gottes Recht in his percep-
tion of  Schlatter wrote:
Die Gerechtigkeit ist genauso die Gott eignende, wie die Kraft die seine
und der Zorn der seine ist... es it offenkundig, daß sich die Aussage des
Paulus über die Gerechtigkeit Gottes nicht auf die Eigenschaft einer
ruhenden Substanz beziehen läßt. Paulus denkt in jeder Aussage über
Gott an den Schöpfer, an den, der will und wirkt, sich offenbart und den
Menschen in das von ihm gewollte Verhältnis zu sich bringt. Es ist aber in
der Gottheit Gottes begründet, daß sein Wirken Recht schafft und das
Verhältnis des Menschen zu ihm so ordnet, daß alles Böse in Kraft seines
herrlichen Willens aus ihm ausgeschieden ist.165 (italics added)

Schlatter further thinks that the interpreters of the Re-

formation, in their conception of man as “sinner,” could not reach
beyond the understanding of the “imputation” of God’s
righteousness. The need of the reader decided the meaning of
Paul’s words, rather than the text itself.
Der Ausleger ging von seinem Ich, Paulus von Gott aus; der Vordersatz
des Auslegers war seine eigene Not, der des Paulus war die Sendung des
Christus, sein Tod, durch den die Schuld von der Menschheit
weggenommen ist, und seine Herrschaft, die ihn zum Geber des Lebens
für sie machen wird.... Wenn aber Luther und Calvin sagen, wie die
Gemeinschaft Gottes mit dem Menschen zu stande komme, dann
verblaßt Gottes Gerechtigkeit faßt ganz, und das Erbarmen tritt an ihre
Stelle.166

165 Adolph Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief,

Gedächtnisausgabe zum 100. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1952),
36.
166 Ibid., 38.

95
 While agreeing in substance with Schlatter, Stuhlmacher
thinks Schlatter has failed to give credit to the apocalyptic scope
of justification; that is, Paul’s view does not simply amount to a
reversal of ethics,167 but embodies a pessimistic view of the
present age. It is a complete no to the old creation.168

Rudolph Bultmann

The last interpreter to be reviewed is Rudolph Bultmann. It is

important first of all to recall Bultmann’s presuppositions. Bult-
mann came to the conclusion that theology has to be anthro-
pology; that is, an analysis of man’s encounter with God. Only by
analyzing man’s condition before God can we know anything
about God. Anything else would be “God-less” speculation. Faith
and lostness mirror anthropologically God’s activity toward man.
History is existence; i.e., the sphere of man’s decisions and
actions. Eschatological, futuristic expectations must therefore be
demythologized and interpreted as they relate to this ontological
sphere. These presuppositions play an important role in Bult-
mann’s objection to Käsemann’s interpretation of righteousness
as power. He cannot accept the cosmic-power concept of Käse-
mann, since it does not fit into his anthropological categories.
Thus, for instance, he is forced to interpret  in Rom 1.16
with possibility,169 limiting his interpretation to anthropology as
opposed to cosmology. Such an interpretation, however, fails to

167 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 53: “Schlatter spricht hier nur von
einer Kehre der Ethik, nicht aber von der tötenden Macht Gottes.”
168 Cf. ibid., 53.
169 Cf. Bultmann, “,” 14.

96
 Paul and Justification

appreciate, that creation involves more than anthropology, “for

the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons
of God (Rom 8.19).170 Bultmann interprets  purely forensically
and states:
... it must be clearly recognized that there is complete agreement between
them (i.e. the Pauline and the Jewish conception) as to the formal
meaning of : It is a forensic-eschatological term.171

Paul differs from Judaism, however, in that he asserts the  as

“already imputed to man in the present,”172 without giving up the
eschatological connotations of the concept. This paradox proves
the forensic character of the . Bultmann admits that
sometimes the genitive   is subjective (e.g. Rom 3.5, 25).
But he sees no reason to harmonize the two conceptions. Rather,
he asserts a double meaning in Paul.173
Whether one accepts one or the other conclusion reached
throughout history, the variety of interpretations teaches us that
there is an intricacy to the concept of  that demands cautious
treatment.

170 Cf. Ernst Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” in Exegetische Versuche und

Besinnungen, vol 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 186:
“Bultmann wählt charakteristischerweise jene Übersetzung, welche das
Moment des handelnden und schaffenden Gottes, der sich im
Evangelium durchsetzt, durch das andere einer anthropologischen
Vorgegebenheit ersetzt.” Also in “Rechtfertigung,” 136: “Freunde und
Gegner sind an der Frage zu testen, ob sie von der Herrschaft Christi nur
als einer mythologischen, mystischen, metaphysischen Redeweise
sprechen können. Gerade das ist der Kern des Streites ....”
171 Bultmann, Theology, 2:273.
172 Ibid., 2:274.
173 Cf. Bultmann, “,” 13.

97
III. The Modern Debate

”Righteousness of God” according to

Ernst Käsemann

With the publication of Ernst Käsemann’s article “Gottesge-

rechtigkeit bei Paulus” in 1961, the debate concerning the mean-
ing of  was brought to the forefront of theological debate.
Käsemann, who took both Cremer’s and Schlatter’s insights
seriously, proposed that a purely objective understanding of
God’s righteousness is incomplete in that it neglects the inherent
quality of power in God’s righteousness. In other words, a
complete absorption of  in an understanding as Gabe is
inadequate. God’s righteousness can never be interpreted as
something that can completely become our possession, if “der
Machtcharakter der Gabe beachtet und Christi Herrschaft als
eigentlicher Inhalt der Gabe erkannt wird”.174
Käsemann strongly supports an understanding of  as gift.
But the gift is always accompanied by God’s saving power. A

174 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 189.

98
 Paul and Justification

purely forensic perspective is incomplete, since it leaves certain

characteristics of  unaccounted for. Rather,  needs to be
understood from a “salvation-creating” (heilsschaffenden) per-
spective.
We will now attempt to summarize Käsemann’s position by
taking a closer look at the major points of his thesis:
1)  is an independent fixed Jewish formula. It is found first in
Dt. 33.21, has its own tradition history inside Judaism (Test. Dan
6.10) and in the Qumran literature (Q.XI.12). Paul reveals his
direct dependence on apocalyptic Judaism by his use of the
formula. Hence,  in Paul must not be interpreted on the basis
of a universal (hellenistic) understanding of . Paul was
in line with the Old Testament and Late Judaism, which under-
stood righteousness not primarily as a personal-ethical quality,
but rather as the description of a relationship; that is, “die Ge-
meinschaftstreue und im Prozess die wiederhergestellte ‘Geltung’
des für unschuldig erklärten Gliedes der Gemeinschaft.”175
2)  is a gift from God to man but has also power-character: a)
in Rom 1.17  represents (parallel to the wrath of God, v.18) the
epiphany of the power of God; b) in Rom 10.3 God’s righteousness
demands submission; c) in 1 Cor 1.30,  is the term used to
describe the manifestation of Christ; d) in 2 Cor 5.21 it  denotes
the manifestation of the church; e) the subjective genitives in
Rom. 3.5 and 3.25f describe God’s own activity.
At the same time, implicitely in Phil. 3.9 and explicitely in
Rom. 5.17 (  ), Paul describes  as a gift.
Because of this double-character “interpretation can no longer be
content to take Phil 3.9 as the normative key to Paul’s doctrine of
justification.”176 The Lordship of Christ is the actual content (der
eigentliche Inhalt) of the gift. The power-gift relation reflects a

175 Ibid., 185.

176 Käsemann, Romans, 26.

99
Grundphänomen in Paul’s theology, comparable in principle to
Paul’s conception of spirit, grace and  .177
3) What distinguishes Paul from earlier traditions is not that
the righteousness of God is a present fact nor the sola gratia of
justification,178 but its radicalization and universalization. Before
Paul, God’s righteousness meant God’s covenant-faithfulness,
without conflict with Torah-observance. Paul widens the concept
to represent God’s universal fellowship-faithfulness toward all of
creation (cf. Rom 3.22 and 8.29: the righteousness of God is the
means to give back the lacking glory of God not just to the Jews
but to all men). Thus, there are two novelties in Paul’s teaching
on justification: a) His universal application of justification (
 and   coincide); b) The revelation and the
reception of the righteousness of God takes place  .
4) Righteousness has a temporal double-aspect.179 It is both
present and future (the dialectic of having and not fully having).
This again suggests that righteousness is not controlled by us,
something we simply possess, but rather something which
controls us. Justification is a process. “Nicht einmal Rechtfer-
tigung und Heiligung lassen sich sachlich und chronologisch
trennen.”180 The gift has power-character in order to prevent
independence, the basic sin in whatever form it finds expression.
“An ihr wird zuschanden alle eigene Gerechtigkeit und jede
menschliche Unbotmäßigkeit ....”181

177 Cf. Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 187.

178 Cf. Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung,” 134.
179 Cf. above. The idea of the temporal duality is not a Pauline novelty but,
as a concept, already exists in Qumran. Christ, of course, fills the con-
cept with new meaning.
180 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 184.
181 Ibid., 192.

100
 Paul and Justification

The Jewish Origins

Yahweh is the creator, the faithful and reliable God of the

word. This personal reliability, according to Stuhlmacher, reveals
itself in the (h)qdc which reigns and guides the history of Is-
rael.182 Yahweh’s (h)qdc is:
das unverbrüchliche Ereignis der schöpferischen Treue des Gottes..., der
sich selbst mit Israel verbunden hat... Die Verbindung von Wort,
Schöpfung, Geschichte und Jahwehs, die rettende Zukunft verbürgenden,
Treueerweis sind für den Begriff der (h)qdc Gottes im Alten Testament
konstitutiv.183

Dt.33.21 is the only place in the Old Testament where the

Hebrew equivalent hwhy tqdc to the term “righteousness of
God” appears. Stuhlmacher thinks that the Sitz im Leben of this
verse is the holy war (”Gad crouches like a lion, he tears the arm,
and the crown of the head” v.20) Thus, hwhy tqdc and Wy+p$m
are “Umschreibungen für Jahwehs Heilshandeln an Israel im Rah-
men des heiligen Krieges.”184 Stuhlmacher, by way of comparison
with other holy war texts (e.g. Jg. 5.11, where the plural: hwhy

182 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 130.

183 Ibid., 141. Scholars that support the interpretation of “the righteousness
of God” in the Old Testament as iustitia salutifera are numerous. Cf. e.g.,
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol 1 (New York: Harper and Row,
1962), 377. Eichrodt, 158: “(Jahvehs Gerechtigkeit) steht für den
alttestamentlichen Frommen immer im Zusammenhang mit der
Erwählung Gottes, die mit ihrem Ziel eines heiligen und für die ganze
Welt segenbringenden Volkes weit über der Höhenlage einer bloßen
iustitia distributiva liegt.” E. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the Old
Testament” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol.4, ed. Emory S.
Bucke (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 83: “No reference to the
concept of a punitive sedaqa can be adduced. That would be a
contradictio in adiecto.” For further references cf. Stuhlmacher,
Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 115.
184 Cf. ibid., 142 ff; quote, 143.

101
twqdc is used) thinks that the expression was plural in form
before the Masoretic punctuation hwhy t(y)qdc. If this is
correct, the only occurrence of the “technical term” in the Old
Testament is eliminated.185 Hence the term was first to appear in
apocalyptic writings.
With regard to apocalyptic literature Stuhlmacher asserts: a)
that “righteousness of God” is used as a technical term; b) that it
always denotes God’s own conduct, God’s right; (the perception
of God in His covenant faithfulness, His forgiving mercy, and His
demand of obedience is always combined with a perception of
him as the creator); c) that both futuristic and realized (prä-
sentische) ideas of eschatology are found; and d) that “right-
eousness of God” is the expression used for the persistence of
God’s right, God’s faithfulness and His creator-function in a
chaotic world.186 These, according to Stuhlmacher, are the catego-
ries available to Paul.
This alleged direct dependence of Paul on apocalyptic Judaism
has been increasingly questioned. M. Soards calls into question
the validity of Käsemann’s assertion of the fixed Jewish formula by
convincingly pointing out that one of the passages used by Käse-
mann in “Gottesgerechtigkeit” (Test. Dan 6.10) is exegetically
weak.187 The charge is serious, since Käsemann referred to only
two passages to begin with.
E.P. Sanders undertook a detailed analysis of the Qumran
writings and found a close conceptual affinity between righteous-
ness in Qumran and in the Old Testament.188 R. Hays affirms that
“Sanders’s case is considerably strengthened by the observation

185 This conjecture is contested by F. Crüsemann, “Jahwehs Gerechtigkeit,”

Evangelische Theologie 36 (1976): 435, note 49. He thinks that there is
“für eine solche Annahme kein einziger wirklicher Grund.”
186 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 175.
187 Cf. Soards, 265f.
188 See Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 233-328, cf., especially, 307.

102
 Paul and Justification

that the hqdc terminology occurs not in apocalyptic narrative

contexts but primarily in the hymns and prayers, whose voca-
bulary is heavily influenced by the Old Testament Psalms.”189 Nils
Dahl’s evaluation of where scholarship presently is at, may
therefore be right:
What the Qumran texts really prove is that the OT idea of God’s
righteousness was alive in Judaism at the time of the NT... It is not
necessary to suppose that the Pauline terminology is directly taken over
from circles in Qumran or related groups.190

Günter Klein expresses similar dissatisfaction with the view

that the expression  was a terminus technicus.191 And in a
recent article, even Stuhlmacher himself has admitted that his
dissertation treats “den Begriff Gottesgerechtigkeit zu starr als
einen festen terminus technicus, der immer nur die Bedeutung
von Gottes eigenem Recht hat.” Furthermore, Stuhlmacher
admits that it was not clear to him, when he wrote his
dissertation “daß man zwischen dem Alten Testament und den
Texten der frühjüdischen Apocalyptik traditionsgeschichtlich
keinen scharfen Trennungsstrich ziehen darf;192
We have arrived at a consensus, so it seems: The decisive
influence on Paul’s concept of , more than anything else, is the
Old Testament itself; and inasmuch as apocalyptic Judaism has
contributed to Paul’s theology, it is not in conflict with the Old

189 Richard Hays, “Psalm 143 and Romans 3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(1980): 108.
190 Nils A. Dahl, “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and
Implications,” in Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 99. Also
K. Koch, “Die drei Gerechtigkeiten,” in Rechtfertigung, Festschrift für
Ernst Käsemann, eds. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann and P. Stuhlmacher
(Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1976), 247.
191 Günter Klein, “Righteousness in the NT,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary
of the Bible, suppl. vol., ed. Emory S. Bucke (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1962), 750-2.
192 Stuhlmacher, “Gerechtigkeitsanschauung,” 105.

103
Testament. The renewed focus on the Old Testament, however,
does not mean the repudiation of the apocalyptic framework of
Paul’s theology. Rather, scholarship increasingly recognizes the
close affinity between apocalyptic ideas like historical dualism,
universal cosmic expectation, the imminent end of the world and
certain strands of OT literature. Apocalyptic emphases reflect the
special and often extremely distressful experiences in
intertestamental Judaism. The Wellhausen view of “apocalypti-
cism” as a degeneration of Israel’s prophetic religion (armchair
sophistry)193 is disappearing.194

The Power-Gift Relation

As we have seen earlier, it is not possible for Bultmann (given

his presuppositions) to accept Käsemann’s thesis. In his
response,195 he disregards completely all the passages cited by
Käsemann that suggest a “power-aspect” of  by discarding
them as “rhetorical.”196 He emphatically affirms: “dik. bezeichnet
nicht das Handeln als solches, sondern sein Ergebnis.” Therefore,
whenever  is not subjective (i.e., a description of God Himself),
it is always a description of the resulting status given to man
through the Gospel. If the meaning Gabe is first narrowed down

193 Julius Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur,” in Skizzen und

Vorarbeiten, 6 vols (Berlin: Reimer, 1884-99) 215-49. The position of
Bousset-Gressman, Religion (cf. 381: “Die alte Zusammenstellung der
Begriffe Gerechtigkeit, Heil, Barmherzigkeit is vergessen.”), does not
find much support today.
194 Cf. Beker, 136.
195 See Bultmann, “.”
196 Cf. ibid., 14.

104
 Paul and Justification

into only including anthropological categories, Käsemann

responds, the conflicting passages have to be explained rhe-
torically.197
With regard to Rom 3.5 and 25, Bultmann agrees that the
genitive  is subjective. But these passages, Bultmann replies,
express God’s forensic iustitia distributiva, which is clear from the
parallelism with  in verse 5. He categorically denies the idea
of any iustitia salutifera in Paul.198 Käsemann sharply disagrees
with Bultmann, insisting that Bultmann has neglected the
context of the chapter, overlooking the much stronger parallelism
between “righteousness” and “faithfulness” of God (vv. 4 and 25).
Not the judgmental righteousness of God is in view, but the
victorious salvation-faithfulness (die sich siegreich durchsetzende
Heilstreue Gottes). Käsemann describes this difference between
himself and Bultmann as being at the heart of their disagreement.
G. Klein comments on the discussion regarding anthropology
versus cosmology:
Käsemann’s deepest concern is to ensure this unity (of
justification and sanctification) and thus to emphasize the motif
of the divine claim to dominion over the world as the center of
Pauline theology. His concern is threatened, however, when the
cosmological and anthropological dimensions are explained
conceptually with the motifs of power and gift, or are set in
opposition to each other.199
Klein thinks that we do not have to go “beyond anthropology”
in our understanding of . Cosmology must not be separated
from anthropology. Hence, Klein basically reiterates Bultmann’s
criticism that  must be interpreted anthropologically as
possibility.

197 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 182.

198 Ibid., 13.
199 Cf. ibid., 751.

105
 Hans Hübner, in an attempt to reconcile Käsemann’s position
with that of Bultmann, points out that the idea of power as such
is not foreign to Bultmann, since Bultmann spoke of the 
both as a gift and as a power, the Herrschaftsbereich der
göttlichen Tat.200 He concludes:
Während also Bultmann das Dasein des Glaubenden als In-der-charis-
sein versteht, sieht es Käsemann als In-der-Gottesgerechtigkeit-sein.
Beide verstehen demnach das Dasein des Glaubenden als ein spezifisches
In-sein das durch Herrschaftswandel qualifiziert ist.201

This attempt by Hübner does not take into consideration,

however, the real contradictions between Bultmann and
Käsemann. Hübner neglects the completely different conception
of  in Bultmann’s thinking from that of Käsemann’s. In
dealing with the question of Machtcharakter, Bultmann rejects
the translation of  in Rom 1. 16 with Macht and prefers
“Kraft,” since it includes the anthropological idea of Möglichkeit.
Whereas Käsemann speaks of Lordship, Bultmann chooses the
words Verpflichtung, Anspruch, Forderung. No doubt grave
differences between a Bultmannian anthropological and a
Käsemannian christological interpretation surface at this point,
and they are irreconcilable. Thus Käsemann in his response to
Bultmann:
Bultmann wählt characteristischerweise jene Übersetzung, welche das
Moment des handelnden und schaffenden Gottes, der sich im Evangelium
durchsetzt, durch das andere einer anthropologischen Vorgegebenheit
ersetzt... Mir liegt jedoch alles daran, daß das Evangelium seine
Manifestation ist, in welcher er selber herrschend und sich durchsetzend
auf den Plan tritt.202

200 Bultmann, “,” 178-9.

201 Cf. Hans Hübner, “Existentiale Interpretation der Paulinischen
Gerechtigkeit,” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 479.
202 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 186; italics added.

106
 Paul and Justification

It does not appear that the Bultmannian criticism with regard

to the understanding of power in general is credible from a bibli-
cal perspective. It a priori excludes divine intervention in both a
genuine christological and a cosmological sense. This, on the
other hand, does not prove that the aspect of power is present in
the expression . That question can only be answered
exegetically.

The Peculiarity of Justification

Gustav Strecker’s article203 will be mentioned here, because it

helps clarify a distinctive notion in Käsemann’s understanding of
. For Strecker, the Pauline teaching on justification is a late
development of Paul’s Erlösungslehre.204 It is yet another way for
Paul of expressing what he has said on other occasions with re-
gard to   and . Now he is facing the Judaizers
and their reliance on the ; hence the new terminology. In
other words, what was called “liberation from flesh, sin and
death” is now called “justification from the law.” This
interpretation highlights by contrast some of the characteristics
of Käsemann’s concept of . Justification, for Käsemann, is not
simply another way of saying “liberation from the law”; i.e.,

203 Gustav Strecker, “Befreiung und Rechtfertigung,” in Rechtfertigung,

Festschrift for Ernst Käsemann, op.cit., 479-508.
204 Strecker dates Galatians after 1 Thessalonians but before 1 and 2
Corinthians. He reckons with a timespan of 15-17 years before the
composition of 1 Thessalonians. Between 1 Thessalonians and Galatians
another considerable interval is assumed: “Ist der 1. Thessalonicherbrief
einem früheren Stadium der Theologie des Paulus zuzurechnen, so
eröffnet der Galaterbrief demgegenüber die Spätphase.” (ibid., 480)

107
liberation from an oppressive force. That is part of it. But the idea
of liberation as such does not carry any moral connotations. It
does not state the characteristics of justification. For Käsemann
justification expresses a very specific quality, which makes the
term so unique: Justification is, and has always been, the justifi-
cation of the godless. That implies on the one hand, that
Gott handelt seit der Schöpfung bis zum Jüngsten Tage nie anders mit
Juden und Heiden... Weil es sich so verhält, ist die Heilsgeschichte nicht
die Vollendung, geschweige denn der Ersatz für die Rechtfertigung,
sondern ihre geschichtliche Tiefe, also einer ihrer Teilaspekte.

On the other hand, Käsemann understands the concept of the

justification of the godless as Paul’s way of interpreting christolo-
gy:
Sie verkündigt auf ihre Weise das “wahrer Gott und wahrer Mensch”,
indem sie ausspricht, daß der wahre Gott sich den Gottlosen gesellt und
ihnen Heil bringt, wie es in Jesus geschah, aber nicht bei Pharisäern und
Qumranleuten.205

The difference between Strecker and Käsemann lies in the fact

that Strecker is content with a liberation from something.
Käsemann, however, focuses strongly on the fact that we also are
liberated to something; namely, a life under the Lordship of
Christ:
Die Glaubenden sind die in Gottes Herrschaft zurückgeholte Welt, die
Schar unter dem eschatologischen Rechte Gottes, in welcher deshalb
nach 2. Kor. 5,21 Gottes Gerechtigkeit irdisch manifest wird.206

205 Käsemann, “Rechtfertigung,” 130.

206 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 193.

108
 Paul and Justification

Summary

We can summarize: throughout Church history theologians

have struggled with a definition of  . The variety of
suggested meanings underscores the complexity of the term. The
tension was felt between a subjective (e.g., the aequitas) and an
objective (a forensic gift) understanding of the genitive  (cf.
e.g., Origen). Also, the question regarding the impact of
justification on our lives generated a variety of answers - forensic
or ethical or both or an even wider concept that related right-
eousness directly to God’s whole work of salvation. To solve the
first tension, some interpreters suggested different independent
meanings for  in different contexts in the New Testament.
Others sought a more comprehensive definition that would
somehow embrace both the subjective and the objective aspects
of “righteousness of God”: The grammatical term genitive of
authorship appeared in the discussion.
With regard to the second tension, again two versions were
prevalent. On the one hand, what came to be the predominantly
Catholic view; namely, that God’s righteousness is imparted to
persons in order to make them upright. On the other, the view
adopted by the Reformers; namely, that righteousness is given to
the believer as his acquittal in the last judgment.207 We have seen,
however, that even the one who caused the renaissance (earlier
by Augustine) of the second view - Martin Luther - had an
awareness of the transforming impact of the “alien”
righteousness.
Ernst Käsemann’s solution to the complexity of the concept
was his association of Giver and gift and of status and trans-

207 Cf. John Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, New York/Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1982), 66.

109
formation in the power-gift formula. The reason why the Pauline
concept of  would not completely square with any of the at-
tempted definitions, according to Käsemann, lies in the fact that
the gift has power character - a phenomenon of Pauline theology
in general. Hence, one must always keep in mind that the right-
eousness of God is God’s action as He is faithfully involved in our
redemption both from condemnation (forensically) and from
weakness (ethically), and that it avails both the opportunity to
and the demand of obedience. Finally, justification summarizes
the quality of redemption: away from a self-sanctifying (self-
satisfying?) legalistic/exclusivistic life, to a life characterized by
transformation into the image of His Son, who was concerned
with reaching the ungodly, the sinners and tax collectors.
Käsemann has focused on what is the novel and uniquely Paul-
ine contribution to the message of justification; namely, its
radicalization and universalization in that it is apart from the law
and for all creation. This is Käsemann’s answer as to how 
relates to   and  . He has also pointed out
that the present experience of , and of the Spirit, who is the
acting power of God’s righteousness,208 was not a uniquely Pauline
characteristic, but was something both Old Testament saints and
Jewish apocalyptics considered part of their reality.209 The
christological interpretation of  by Paul, however, makes Paul
affirm with great confidence:      
   (Gal. 2.21). There is an inherent
weakness and helplessness with regard to   and
 apart from Christ. What is required is  .

208 Cf. Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit,” 190.

209 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 222: “Der Geist ist die
neuschaffende Kraft der Gottesgerechtigkeit und erscheint deshalb bei
Paulus als praesentia Christi, denn Christus ist Gottes Gerechtigkeit in
Person (2. Kor. 5.21).”

110
IV. ”Righteousness of
God” in Paul
examined

We will now attempt an interpretation of some of the texts that

are related to the above discussion. Exegesis must always be the
ultimate ground on which the validity of any hypothesis is
demonstrated or discharged. To cover all the relevant passages in
depth is not possible, given the present limitations. We will focus,
therefore, on the major occurrences of the term , giving special
attention to the questions raised by Käsemann’s thesis. We will
also consider Romans 6, where the word  occurs
without an adhering genitive, because of its importance for the
present debate.

Romans 1. 17

In Rom 1.16 Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel,

because () a) it is () the power of God unto salvation, and
b) therein ( ) God’s righteousness is being revealed. In the

111
Gospel, then, which is the power of God, the righteousness of
God is being revealed. The meaning of  at this point could
simply be that the gift of acquittal, forgiveness, mercy, is given to
everyone who believes; i.e., it is the bestowal of a righteous
status.210
However, questions as to the completeness of this definition
arise from a careful look at the parallelism between verse 17 and
verse 18; i.e., between the righteousness of God and the wrath of
God which both are .211 Two observations need to
be made. First, since  in verse 18 can only be taken as a sub-
jective genitive (i.e., the wrath which belongs to God212), the
parallelism suggests that this is also the case with  in verse 17

210 Right away we meet with some confusion of terminology. Cranfield,

Romans, 98f, opts against an understanding of  in this verse as
“subjective genitive” and for a “genitive of origin.” Surprisingly, Cranfield
argues that Käsemann rejects the “genitive of origin,” an accusation that
is explicitly denounced by Käsemann (cf. “Rechtfertigung,” 136-7). The
misunderstanding, however, once again underlines how different one
can understand one and the same grammatical term. For, indeed,
materially Cranfield and Käsemann disagree. For Cranfield, the term
“genitive of origin” is basically equivalent to the term “objective genitive”
(focusing exclusively on the “status” idea), whereas Käsemann uses the
term “genitive of origin” to underline that “subjective” and “objective
genitive” are inseparable; that is, the gift cannot be separated from the
giver. With the gift comes also the lordship of Christ, since he is the
righteousness of God. Throughout this chapter we will use the genitive
of origin with the connotations ascribed to it by Käsemann.
211 Cranfield, Romans, 109-10, speaks of 1.17 and 1.18 as revealing “two
aspects of the same process.” This, we believe, is an overstatement and
more a reflection of the harmony, in Cranfield’s mind, between Law and
Gospel, than what the text expressly says. But it does indicate that there
exists, in the present context, a close parallelism between God’s
righteousness and God’s wrath as two descriptions of God’s action in the
world.
212 The wrath of God is not God’s capricious emotion nor (merely) the
inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe (contra C.H.
Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC [New York: Harper and
Row, 1951], 20 ff.) but “God doing his work of judgment,” Reumann, 67.

112
 Paul and Justification

(compare also   in verse 16). Secondly, “God’s wrath”

appears to function as a heading for the rest of the chapter.
Hence, its meaning is clearly not exhausted in the connotations
of a forensic status of condemnation. God actually transforms the
real life situation of those who are subject to His wrath. The effect
of His wrath is spelled out drastically in the context of 1.18-31. In
His wrath God  . By implication, then, one
would expect that the revelation of the Gospel in this world
would be described with a term of equal or similar (yet positive)
force.213 In other words, if the term “wrath of God” serves as a
description of God’s work of condemnation, then the term “right-
eousness of God” may function as a description of God’s work of
salvation.214 The parallelism seems to suggest that both “God’s
righteousness” and “God’s wrath” are descriptions for God as he is
acting in this world, affecting the lives of those who are subject to
either “activity.” Neither righteousness nor wrath are simply
something given by God to man, but describe opposite ways in
which God deals with man. “Genitive of origin” seems to be the
most fitting grammatical description.
We also need to mention briefly the phrase   
 in Rom 1.17. It is a difficult phrase, and a conclusive
argument cannot be based on it. Many interpretations have been

213 Regarding the relationship of v.18 to v.16, we side with William Sanday
and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. 6th repr. 1920
(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1895), 40, who consider the content of the
gospel to be God’s saving action in his , whereas the  is not
part of the gospel itself, but rather proves the necessity of salvation: “St.
Paul has just stated, what the Gospel is; he now goes on to show the
necessity for such a Gospel.” Contra Cranfield, Romans, 109, who thinks,
that  also is being revealed in the gospel.
214 Even Cranfield, who is strongly in favor of an interpretation that
understands  exclusively as a status term, admits that there is a
“certain plausibility” (Romans, 97) to the “activity”-explanation
(although he does not consider the evidence conclusive).

113
suggested throughout history.215 From all the possible options,
those that see in the phrase a depiction of the ongoing role of
God’s righteousness seem most plausible.216 Thus, either Paul
thinks of a continuation of the “justifying activity” of God from
that in the Old Testament (”from faith”) to that in the New
Testament (”to faith”) - asserting the overriding principle of faith
in both covenants and the equality of the character of God’s
righteousness in both covenants - or he is referring to the
continuing process of “justification” throughout the Christian life,
which would make a purely initiating concept of  seem
incomplete.217 In any case, the phrase seems to support the
“genitive of origin.”
Finally, the Old Testament quotation (cf. Hab 2.4)   
   demands some comments. Paul obviously
uses the quotation as a proof-text for his immediately preceding
assertions. The fact that the righteousness of God is revealed in
the Gospel from faith to faith is validated by the prophets words:
“he who through faith is righteous shall live.” It seems that the
emphasis lies on the fact that both in the Old Testament context
and in the Gospel, the focus is on faith as the requirement for
righteousness. Faith is the means by which one attains (and/or
maintains) righteousness. It would go beyond the present
limitations to deal with all the questions of interpretation that
adhere to this quotation.218 It needs to be pointed out, however,
that in the Old Testament context of Hab 2.4 the meaning of

215 For a summary see Cranfield, Romans, 99.

216 Cf. Reumann, 67.
217 Cranfield’s suggestion (Romans, 97) that the phrase is simply an
emphatic equivalent to sola fide is not convincing. We agree with
Käsemann (Romans, 30-31) that the phrase is meaningless unless it
“referred to a movement either in the life of the individual Christian or
in salvation history.” (italics added).
218 For an overview see Cranfield, ibid., 100ff.

114
 Paul and Justification

“righteous” seems to have strong ethical connotations (cf. Hab 1.4

and especially verse 13.).
We can assert with a certain confidence that Paul’s
understanding of  in Rom 1.17 is best explained with the
description “genitive of origin.” The fact that the concept of “the
wrath of God,” as it is employed here, encompasses both
condemnation and the giving “them up in the lusts of their hearts
to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies etc.,” may suggest
that Paul had a broader concept in mind when speaking of  in
verse 17, than simply “acquittal.” The revelation of God’s
righteousness may also designate God’s activity as He is
transforming our lives here and now (cf. present tense of 
 in verses 17 and 18). If this implication is correct, God’s
righteousness and God’s wrath may be viewed as summary
expressions or “headings” for God’s salvific and judgmental work
in the world.

Romans 3. 5

The genitive of  in this passage is universally accepted as

carrying strong subjective connotations. The task of exegesis is to
find out what the context reveals about the meaning of  in its
subjective sense. In the immediate context, Paul deals with the
allegedly special status of the Jew before God. In chapter 2 he has
argued that not “belonging” but “performing” makes one a real
Jew (         
[v.29]). Now he has to face the question of whether God’s
faithfulness ( [3.3]) to the Jews would cease if some of the
Jews were unfaithful () in their responsibility to the

115
covenant; a question that seems to require an affirmative answer
after what Paul had just asserted. However, Paul answers: 
! (v.4). God maintains His part of the covenant with Israel
despite their violations.219 God is faithful despite the
unfaithfulness of the Jews, which proves His truthfulness220 with
regard to his promises and vindicates Him as the righteous God.
The Old Testament quotation (Ps 51.4 LXX 50.6) that follows in
verse 4 serves the purpose of giving a concrete example for what
has just been asserted; namely, that God is truthful in his
commitment to the promises given in His word, and every man is
found a sinner before Him (cf. the preceding verse 4a in Ps 51:
“Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned... so that (result) Thou art
justified....”) The terrible transgressions of David (adultery with
Bathsheba and the “murder” of her husband - which is the
historical context attributed to Ps 51) revealed the vast difference
between God and man. It demonstrated the human predicament
(cf. the next verse in Ps 51: “Behold I was brought forth in
iniquity....”) and highlighted the righteousness of God. This
proved, on the one hand, that God is faithful to His promises as
recorded in scripture (    v.4 should probably be
taken parallel to     in v. 2221); and, on the other,
that there is a great contrast between God and man. God is
truthful in every respect, whereas man, even great heroes like
David, are liars (seemingly used here as a synonym for sinners,
because of the contrast with ). Thus, God’s truthfulness,
(i.e., that He is not a liar who does not keep his part of the
covenant) guarantees His faithfulness, which remains strong

219 Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 81.

220 Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 181: “In  the thought of God’s faithfulness
to His promises is no doubt specifically prominent....”
221 So Sanday and Headlam, 72, notwithstanding the legal connotations in
the context of the Psalm.

116
 Paul and Justification

despite the unfaithfulness of some in Israel.222 The unfaithfulness

of the Jews reveals the faithfulness of God. Or, our
unrighteousness shows () the righteousness of God
(v.5).223

222 Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 183: “It is possible that Paul also had in mind. . .
the fact that the case of David ... was an outstanding example of God’s
faithfulness in the face of grievous sin (cf. e.g., Ps 89.35; Isa 55.3; Lk
1.32,69; Rom 1.3).”
223 If the line of argument, as we have traced it, is correct, 
in verse 5 cannot refer to God’s distributive justice. Verse 5 makes only
sense if “the righteousness of God” is viewed parallel with “the
faithfulness of God.” If God’s distributive justice was in view (i.e., God’s
just administration of both punitive and saving action), the development
of the argument between Paul and his opponents would not make sense.
The opponents clearly based their slogan (”why not do evil that good
may come?” [v.8]) on the assumption that, since God is faithful (i.e.,
righteous) despite the unfaithfulness (i.e., unrighteousness) of his
people (in agreement with Paul), sinning does not have any
repercussions (in disagreement with Paul; cf. Käsemann, Romans, 82;
Cranfield, Romans, 183-4). John Piper, The Justification of God (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 108, also argues for the interpretation
of “righteousness of God” as parallel to the “faithfulness of God” in verse
5. However, Piper asserts that verse 5a (not only verse 5b) expresses the
view of Paul’s opponents contrary to that of Paul himself (similar v.7).
Piper bases this interpretation on the meaning of the Old Testament
quotation in its original context, which, according to him, “highlights
the righteousness of God’s punitive judgment,” a sense which he admits
“does not seem to fit” (ibid., 111). Piper’s solution: “Ps 51.4 is a support for
what sins do not do to God (abrogate his faithfulness) by showing what
in fact they do do to God (justify his judgment).” Thus, for Piper, “God’s
righteousness” embraces both faithfulness and wrath (cf. ibid., 112), the
point of the section being that God would “preserve and display his own
glory in salvation and judgment” (ibid., 113).
That verse 5a would express the point of view of Paul’s opponents does
not seem credible, however. We agree with Cranfield, Romans, 184: “The
point of the first question of verse 5, then, is to draw attention to the
difficulty which presents itself, if it is really true that the unbelief of the
Jews actually serves to show up the faithfulness of God (or the sinfulness
of men generally to show up the righteousness of God).” It is because
Paul and his opponents agree that God is faithful to His covenant

117
 While arguing from the covenant with Israel, Paul somewhat
unexpectedly transforms his conclusion into an application for all
mankind. The history of Israel proves the sinfulness of every
human being (cf. vv. 9ff). The reason Paul stresses the sinfulness
of every human being, at this point, is not so much, so it seems, a
need to affirm the sinfulness of the Gentiles (that assertion would
need no verification). Rather, Paul wants to point out that Jews
are just as sinful as everybody else. This is clear both from the con-
cern of the paragraph (what is the advantage of the Jew?) and also
from the immediately following reference to Ps. 51. 4, alluding to
the sins of David (the context of the psalm especially emphasizes
the participation of the Jews in the human predicament, “In sin
did my mother conceive me,” v.5).224 In other words, Paul points
out that the Jews, while thinking of themselves as superior to the
Gentiles in every respect, actually have shown by their behavior
that they are not. The focus on the sinfulness of the Jews does
not, of course, minimize the declaration of universal sinfulness
Verse 4 actually initiates a transition of Paul’s argument from
Israel to the whole cosmos (v. 6), preparing for the preliminary
summary of 3. 9 ( …    
).
Paul’s main concern in this paragraph, however, is a de-
scription of God’s commitment to His promises. Human failure
does not abrogate God’s faithfulness. Rather,   
 . God’s faithfulness and His righteousness

promises that the whole controversy gets started in the first place (cf.
Käsemann, Romans, 82, 84: “Libertinism really could develop out of
Paul’s view of justification, and his adversaries claim that it is an
unavoidable result.”).
224 Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 85: “Only from the perspective of the Jew as the
representative of the religious person can universal godlessness be
proclaimed.”

118
 Paul and Justification

are closely related.225 The issue in the whole paragraph is ulti-

mately the question of God’s integrity versus humanity’s lack of
integrity.226 (It has led L. Keck to translate  “the moral integrity
of God.”227) Hence, God’s total commitment to His covenant
promises constitutes a powerful declaration of God’s right-
eousness.
This implies, of course, that there is no fault with God (cf. the
court imagery underlying verses 4 and 6). When men will judge
God (   )228 - that is, question his faithfulness - he
will prevail (). Yet “God’s righteousness” is not simply an
expression of his unfailing correctness as a judge (as the close
resemblance to  makes clear). Rather, . is a relational
term. God, in His saving action, is acknowledged righteous.
Everyone will admit that He is justified in His words ( 
 ), because He acts according to His words. God’s
righteousness is expressed in His covenant-faithfulness.229 His

225 Cranfield, Romans, 184, asserts that the reference of  and
 is “to the Jews’ unbelief and to God’s faithfulness to his
covenant.”
226 Cf. Richard Hays, “Psalm 143,” 109-10.
227 Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, Proclamation commentaries
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 117-30.
228 The RSV has chosen to interpret  as a passive. Cranfield,
Romans, 182, allows that possibility but thinks that God being judged by
men is “a bold image.” He prefers the interpretation of  as
middle voice (also Michel, 96, Piper, 106). Schlatter, 116, Sanday and
Headlam, 72, Barrett, 63 and Käsemann, Romans, 81 prefer the passive
voice based on the parallelism with verse 7. To be sure, there is some
ambivalence. However, since the main concern for the insertion of the
quotation seems, in our opinion, to be Paul’s interest in the vindication
of God’s faithfulness, the passive seems preferable.
229 Cf. Reumann, 73: It is “not simply an assertion of one of his attributes, or
even to his being justified in a court battle (though a theodicy is
involved).”

119
righteousness amounts to “a functional equivalent of ‘the
faithfulness of God’ (3.3) and ‘the truthfulness of God.’”230
In summary, the best grammatical description for the genitive
 in  in Rom 3.5 would seem to be “the genitive of origin or
authorship.” The theme of “judgment” (vv.4,6) underlines the
focus on the forensic aspect of “justification” and on the
subjective connotations of the genitive, whereas the parallelism
with “faithfulness” underscores the saving and “relational”
connotations of God’s righteousness.

Romans 3. 21-26

In these verses the expression  occurs four times,

twice with the genitive  (vv.21, 22) and twice with the genitive
 (vv. 25, 26). For the following reasons,  in verses 21 and
22 should be kept in close approximation to  in verses 25 and
26:
a) the eschatological  231 at the beginning of verse 21: The
words    function as a reference to the revela-

230 Hays, “Psalm 143,” 111. Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 79: “In good OT fashion
God’s truth is his reliability, which upholds covenant and promise. . .
The issue is not a quality of God’s nature, but a declaration of the power
of God working itself out forensically in the sphere of the covenant.” Cf.
Karl Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus (Münster: Kaiser Verlag, 1967),
107. In our discussion below on Ps. 143, we will find further evidence as
to how closely righteousness, faithfulness and even truthfulness belong
together.
231 We agree with Cranfield, Romans, 201, and Käsemann, Romans, 92, that
a purely “logical” force of  must be rejected. The presence of
 and the immediately following reference to the historical

120
 Paul and Justification

tion of God’s righteousness at a specific point in history; namely,

in Jesus Christ. Thus, even though, “righteousness” is here
presented as a gift given    , the
context focuses on the “giver” of righteousness.
b) the inter-relatedness of verses 21 and 22 with verses 25 and
26: If one considers the parallelism between  (v.21)
and   (vv.25 and 26),232 the parallelism between 
(v.21) and     (v.26), and thirdly, the fact that Christ
is referred to as the mediator of God’s righteousness in both
instances, the close affinity between the meaning of  in verses
21 and 22 and   in verses 25 and 26 becomes
clear.233 The subjective force of the genitive  after 
is universally accepted.
c) the contextual proximity to 3.5: 3.21ff appears to be the
definitive answer to the questions raised earlier in the chapter as
to the reality of the righteousness of God. There may have been
doubts as to God’s righteousness: i.e., faithfulness (cf. v.3). But its
demonstration () in Christ and its manifestation in us
through   has silenced all doubts.

Christ-event, which is the , demands a

“chronological” understanding of nuni, cf. v.26: .
232 Cf. W.G. Kümmel, “ und , ein Beitrag zum Verständnis
der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und
Kirche 49 (1952): 154-67.
233 Cranfield, Romans, 211, criticizes Anders Nygren, Commentary on
Romans, trans. Carl Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949)
who has recognized the close affinity between the phrases (cf. 160-1), for
interpreting all occurrences of the term as descriptions of the righteous
status. We agree that it is quite impossible to interpret  in verses 25
and 26 as an objective genitive. But Cranfield’s interpretation of  in
vv.21 and 22 as “a status of righteousness before God which is God’s gift”
(Romans, 202) and in vv. 25 and 26 as “God’s own righteousness” (ibid.,
211) draws too sharp a distinction between the two phrases.

121
 Verse 22, then, describes God’s righteousness as being directed
toward all who believe, accomplishing (v.24) their justification.234
The context emphasizes the forensic declaration of being right
before God. The focus is on sinning (  v.23) rather
than on being under the power of sin (  v.9). God has
been patiently enduring the sins (plural) of past times (v.25c), but
has now, through the saving work of Jesus Christ, shown Himself
to be        by removing
(not just overlooking), at the present time, the guilt of man in the
sacrifice of His son. The focus upon sins as anthropological
actions requires for its resolution the implication of forgiveness,
even though the expression itself is absent.235
The problem is not solved completely, however, by the remis-
sion of guilt. The fact that all have sinned goes hand in hand with
the lack of glory (v.23b), which probably is a reference to the
result of the fall of man.236 That the reference in verse 23 to
 and the tense of the verb should imply that believers in
Christ still lack the glory of God seems unconvincing. Cranfield
speaks of a “relative glory’ which already illumines the lives of the

234 The fact that God’s righteousness is “for all who believe” would suggest
that iustitia salutifera and not iustitia distributiva is in Paul’s mind (Cf.
Kümmel, “,” 161. Contra John Piper, “The Demonstration of the
Righteousness of God in Romans 3.25-26,” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 7 [1980]: 2-32, who holds a different interpretation of
Rom 3.5 [cf. above] and therefore thinks that the issue is not as clear; cf.
12, where he calls Kümmel’s omission of a reference to 3.5 a “serious
flaw”).
235 It is noteworthy that the explicit concept of forgiving sins occurs only
once in all of Romans (4.7) in an Old Testament quotation ().
The noun () is absent from both Romans and Galatians. In fact, it
appears in Paul only twice (Eph 1.7; Col 1.14).
236 Cf. 3 Baruch (Greek version) 4.16: “Then know, Baruch, that just as Adam
through this tree was condemned and was stripped of the glory of God
...”

122
 Paul and Justification

believers,” but which is distinct from the glory of verse 23.237 It is

unclear where Cranfield gets his distinctions. Of course, there is
an already/not yet aspect to the present glory (cf. 2 Cor 3.18 “we...
are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to
another”), but that does not justify the assumption of two kinds
of glory.238 We can expect, therefore, that with the remission of
sins comes also the initiation of the eschatological restoration
into the glory of God.
The three metaphors used in verse 24239 to describe God’s solu-
tion to man’s predicament are a) the law court metaphor of

237 Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 204.

238 Compare also Rom 8.18, 21 (future tense) and 30 (present tense.
Käsemann, Romans, 95, acknowledges the close affinity between
righteousness and glory: “. . . with righteousness the lost image will be
restored to a person in his participation in Christ’s lordship and the
fallen world will be eschatologically changed into the new creation of 2
Cor 5.17.”
239 It has been proposed by Ernst Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis von Römer
3.25-26,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43
(1950/51):150-54, who further develops R. Bultmann’s observations, that
Paul is incorporating tradition materials in 3.24-26a. The presence of
such traditions is indicated, e.g., by the abrupt change in sentence
structure (the participle in verse 24), the un-typical piling up of
terminology, the overladen style, and the “narrow” covenant related
understanding of the righteousness of God; an understanding which
Paul is quick to “correct” in verse 26b by applying it to every individual
believer ( [cf. ibid., 154, also Käsemann, Romans,
98-99]). The traditional character of verses 25-26a has been widely
accepted (cf. e.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur neueren Exegese von Römer
3.24-26” in Jesus und Paulus, eds. E.E. Ellis and Eric Grässer [Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975]; Eichholz, 191; Eduard Lohse, Martyrer
und Gottesknecht [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955], 140). The
inclusion of verse 24 in the traditional unit has been subject to
substantial criticism, however, and the issue seems undecided (cf. for a
summary of the debate, Piper, “The Demonstration of the
Righteousness,” 6-7. In disagreement with any “tradition-theory”
Cranfield, Romans, 200, note 1, has argued that the paragraph is too vital
and central to Paul’s argument for him to get involved at this point in a
“correction” of traditions. “It is very much more probable that these

123
justification, b) the slave market metaphor of redemption, and c)
the sacrifice metaphor of atonement. It must be observed that
justification occurs through ( plus genitive) the redemption
which is in Jesus Christ and that redemption takes place in the
sacrificial death of Christ. Paul, so it seems, does not describe
three distinct aspects of the saving work of Christ, but rather
explicates justification by means of redemption240 and redemption
by means of atonement.241 Had he intended to give three

verses are Paul’s own independent and careful composition....” Our

present skills simply do not permit us to make up our mind regarding
the questions of traditions. It would appear, however, that, since the
proposed “correction” concerns primarily the question of the “universal
scope” of God’s righteousness, the acceptance of “traditions” does not
affect the interpretation of  with regard to the issue of iustitia
salutifera substantially (cf. Käsemann’s assertion regarding the meaning
of verse 25 [Romans, 100]: “The concern is with the patience of God
which demonstrates his covenant faithfulness and which effects
forgiveness.”)
240 Cf. F.F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, rev. ed. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 98: “The redemption () or ransom
is the buying of a slave out of bondage in order to set him free.”, also
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1955), 42; C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (New York:
Harper and Row, 1957), 76 remarks: “The word can mean simply
‘deliverance’ , ‘liberation’ ; the act, that is, by which God finally sets men
free from the bondage to evil powers and to corruption;” and adds, that
“the connection with blood and death reminds of its original sense of
‘ransoming’ . . .” (Whether or not a price is involved here, has no bearing
on our argument.) Nygren, 154, remarks, that “we hear in the word
‘redemption’ a reminder of the thralldom in which man lies by reason of
which he cannot make his own way to the righteousness of God.”
241 It can hardly be doubted that the putting forth of Christ as a 
involves both “expiation” and “propitiation.” The concept, obviously,
cannot be treated in depth at this point. We can simply recognize, that
God deals with the necessary judgment of sin (”wrath”) in the death of
Christ. Justification involves the removal of both sin and wrath. By doing
so God shows himself to be faithful to his covenant promises. “God
himself makes this expiation and hence makes possible again the
fellowship which had been interrupted” (Käsemann, Romans, 97).

124
 Paul and Justification

independent metaphors, he could have made that easily clear

through the conjunction  instead of  and the use of a
relative clause. Thus, it seems, justification incorporates the
redemptive aspect of salvation; or, in other words, redemption is
the means by which justification is accomplished. With regard to
the implications of  Murray writes: “It is quite
pauline to represent that which redemption secures, in contrast
with that which sin has brought, as transformation into the image
of God (cf. II Cor 3.18).”242 We conclude that the concept of
justification encompasses the concepts of redemption and
atonement. Further support for this interpretation is found in the
fact that all of these metaphors are summarized in the expression
    . Jesus Christ, then, is the
“display” of God’s righteousness and those who believe are the
recipients of God’s saving work, summarized as His being 
  (v.26).243 We can conclude, then, that the “genitive
of authorship” would serve as the best grammatical description
both of  in verse 21 and 22 and of  in verses 25 and 26.
God’s righteousness accomplishes our justification, which means
forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation and restoration in Jesus
Christ.
The saving work of Jesus Christ is God’s demonstration of His
righteousness     ) in redeeming
and justifying “him who has faith in Jesus (3.26). That the
expression  carries power aspects in this particular section is
suggested by the compilation of metaphors, all under the heading
“the demonstration of the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ.”

242 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960), 113.
243 Cf. Käsemann’s strong assertion, Romans, 96: “The argument that legal
terminology is unsuitable for the ethical relation between God and man,
and that it can be used only paradoxically (Dodd), is a relic of what is
now an illegitimate liberalism.”

125
 Moreover, if the revelation of the righteousness of God is
supposed to be the solution to man’s captivity under the power of
sin (cf. below), the reception of a new status alone would not be a
satisfactory solution. In other words, if 3.21-26 is the thesis which
stands in sharp antithesis to the depicted hopelessness of
mankind,244 delivery - not just acquittal - is needed. And, finally, if
Michel’s observation is correct that the section should be
understood as the positive counterpart to the preceding negative
description of the revelation of the wrath of God,245 our argument
from the parallelism in Rom 1.17 and 18 between righteousness
and wrath has some bearing even on this passage.
We need to observe that, up to this point in our exegetical
investigation, we have traced several hints and implications that
could suggest transformatory elements in the concept of
justification. It must be admitted, however, that explicit
statements in that regard have been harder to find. Thus,
Käsemann’s assertion of synonymity between “justification” and
“sanctification” would seem to demand further evidence before it
can be accepted.

Romans 6. 12-23

In Romans 6 Paul asserts that life without a Lord is impossible.

We are slaves: either to sin unto death; or to obedience unto
righteousness. That, to which one pledges allegiance, one will

244 Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 91. Cranfield, Romans, 199, even calls this
section the center and heart of the whole of Rom 1. 16b - 15. 13.
245 Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, Meyers Komm. (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 103f.

126
 Paul and Justification

also be dominated by (v. 16). Paul makes a whole series of

antithetical statements in order to describe, by means of contrast,
the difference between life under the dominion of Satan and life
under the lordship of Christ. He does, however, mention neither
Christ nor Satan directly, but circumscribes their lordship by
means of expressions that represent the quality of each existence.
It may be helpful to visualize these statements in a table.
You are slaves to the one whom you obey:
(v.16)
You are either
   or  
     
(v.17)
Thanks be to God, that
        
(v.18)
    
      
(v.19)
I put this in human terms
    
         
       
   
      
(v.20)
For when
     
     

(v.22)
But now
   
      
     

In verse 16 sin and obedience are described as two antithetical,
enslaving masters. Sin reigns (cf. v.12) to bring about () death,
and obedience reigns to bring about () righteousness. A few

127
introductory comments are necessary. First, what is the meaning
of sin and obedience? “Sin” is a concept Paul uses regularly to
describe the evil power that enslaves us (e.g., “Let not sin reign in
your mortal bodies,” v.12, “sin will have no dominion over you,”
v.14). That seems rather explicit and clear. But how can one be a
slave to obedience? Verse 17b (”you have become obedient from
the heart”) seems to suggest that obedience in this context refers
to human obedience that responds to God’s call. However, how
can one become a slave to one’s own obedience (v.16)? And how
would that match the antithetical statement about slavery to sin?
Rather than construing and speculating about psychological pro-
cesses, we probably should interpret “obedience” in verse 16 in
light of Rom 5.19; namely, as an equivalent expression to “the
obedient Christ.” In other words, what verse 16 describes is the
choice between serving Satan  death or Christ 
righteousness.
Secondly, what is meant by the antithesis of death and
righteousness? In order to deal with that question, we will first
consider the significance of the more obvious antithesis of death
and life in verses 21 and 22. There the  of the shameful
things done in slavery to sin is death, whereas the  of slavery
to God is eternal life, which is the logical extension of sancti-
fication. Death and life, then, are used primarily to denote the ul-
timate and still future state of existence (cf. v.23, the “reward”).
They also represent a specific quality of the present existence,
however (shameful deeds corresponding to death versus
sanctification corresponding to eternal life).
In verse 16 the antithesis to death is righteousness.246 In order
to find out whether this antithesis carries the same connotations

246 Regarding this difference Dodd, Romans, 97, says: “This is probably little
more than an inadvertence in dictating.” Completely unacceptable!
Better Bruce, Romans, 134: “righteousness (justification) and life are two

128
 Paul and Justification

as the one in verses 21 and 22 (i.e., righteousness possibly being

synonymous with eternal life), we need to look at the other
occurrences of righteousness in the same passage. It becomes
immediately apparent that “righteousness” as a concept does not
completely correspond to “life”: a) the term is not only put in
opposition to death (the future result of slavery to sin), but also
to sin itself as it, in the present, attempts to dominate our lives
(vv.18 and 20); b) in v. 19 righteousness is used in antithesis to
 and  to either of which we can yield our bodies.
c) By yielding our members to righteousness (as opposed to
yielding them to sin), we will experience sanctification (v.13).
Slavery to sin leads to impurity and iniquity; slavery to right-
eousness leads to sanctification.247
Thus, the way Paul employs the term “righteousness” in this
passage is predominantly as the antidote to sin. Both a), b) and c)
suggest some power-aspect to righteousness as experienced in
the present. We are dealing here with righteousness not as it
relates to the final judgment, but to present victory over sin.248
Furthermore, we should note the parallelisms in verse 19b and
c. There is protasis and apodosis. Yielding one’s members to
iniquity brought about (more) iniquity (). Yielding one’s

sides of the same coin (cf. 5.18, 21).” Barrett, Romans, 132: “Righteousness
remains important to the Christian.”
247 According to Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 283, justification means
ultimately that man is released from sin to obedience. Walter Lüthi, The
Letter to the Romans (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1961) 88:
“Sanctification consists in Christ taking us to himself.”
248 Cf. F.L. Godet, Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1956, reprinted from Funk and Wagnall’s edition of
1883) 255-6, John Murray, Romans, 132. Ridderbos, Paul, 260, proposes
an independent origin for Paul’s concept of righteousness in Romans 6
(”it is entirely oriented to the OT equivalent sedaqa”) “alongside of and
over against the much more pregnant forensic use of the concept.” If,
but only if, a completely independent forensic usage can be
demonstrated for the other occurrences of , Ridderbos is right.

129
members to righteousness brings about sanctification ().
Since verse 19b seems to suggest a causal relationship between
the yielding and its result, we may have to understand v.19b
likewise ( - ). In light of the argument from our next
paragraph, the   of verse 22 should also be taken into
consideration at this point.
One may object that the dative form ( ) in which
“righteousness” is employed consistently carries the meaning of
“toward,” describing the result of our “enslavement” to Christ,
rather than the actual source of “enslavement.” However, the
parallelism between verse 18 and verse 22 suggests that the da-
tives in both verses (  and  ) should be taken as
possessive datives. Having been liberated from sin, we are now
slaves of God (v.22). Likewise, having been liberated from sin, we
are now slaves of righteousness (v.18). Thus, a quite coherent
picture emerges. As “sin” (in almost hypostatical fashion) repre-
sents Satan, and “obedience” Christ, so we can now see that
righteousness is the expression used to represent the presence of
God in our lives. “It is particularly plain here that for Paul right-
eousness cannot be detached from God’s self-revelation.”249 Our
responsibility lies in the yielding of ourselves to the master who
(or the activity which) performs sanctification in our lives.
Finally, the force of the passive of  should be recog-
nized. We do not enslave ourselves to righteousness. Rather, God
(v.22; i.e., “righteousness,” v.18) enslaves us (”as” sin; i.e., Satan
had done) and sanctifies us (contrary to Satan). Enslavement,
however, occurs subsequent to “yielding,” which is our responsi-
bility.
It would be presumptuous to dismiss the whole of Paul’s
argument here as hyperbolic or rhetorical, or to simply assert that
it cannot be taken at face value. We should be careful not to

249 Käsemann, Romans, 180.

130
 Paul and Justification

interpret verse 19a, where Paul says that he speaks in human

terms, in a way that waters down the whole passage. Paul may be
referring to the fact that the slavery image as it is applied to sin
does not really correspond to life under the lordship of Christ.
And since the recipients of the letter know more about the
dominion of Satan (     ) than the
lordship of Christ, he makes this harsh equation ( - ).
But that does not mean that the slavery image as such is
inappropriate. Paul has too often called himself the  of
Christ (cf. e.g., Rom 1.1) for that to be the case.250 In addition, we
would also have to dismiss related passages like the exhortation
to  “in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (5.17), or
“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you
obey your passions” (6.12), or that “as sin reigned in death, grace
also might reign through righteousness...” (5.21).
Righteousness and even grace (the argument regarding grace
can not be considered at this point), as odd as it may seem to our
modern mind, should be taken as descriptions of the ruling of
Christ in our lives.251 Therefore: “Yield... your members to God as
instruments of righteousness” (6.13). “For sin will have no
dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace”
(6.14). Here, then, we have an understanding of righteousness
that would strongly support both “the genitive of origin,” the
saving character of righteousness and the transforming
implications of righteousness since by righteousness Paul means
the presence of God in our lives.

250 According to Cranfield, Romans, 325, Paul is apologizing for using the
slavery imagery in connection with righteousness. He concludes, that “in
almost every respect the image is inappropriate for Paul’s purpose.”
Compare also Nygren, Romans, 257: “. . . the parallel has only severely
limited validity.”
251 Dodd, Romans, 95: “. . . grace. . . has power to create good vastly
exceeding the self-propagating power of evil.” Bruce, Romans, 132: “. . .
grace supplies the will and the power to obey.”

131
 2. Corinthians 5. 21

According to 2 Cor 5.21 in Christ “we” may become (

the righteousness of God. The context of the whole section is that
of the ministry of Paul and his fellow workers, which they have
been given by God. Paul declares his commitment to complete
service to God. He wants to please God (v.9), since his conduct in
life will be evaluated before the judgment seat of Christ (v.10).
Knowing the fear of God, he tries to persuade men (v.11). This
persuasion is his ministry of reconciliation (v.18), which he
exercises as an ambassador of Christ: “We beseech you on behalf
of Christ, be reconciled to God”(v.20). It is important for our
understanding of this passage to keep the context of ministry in
mind.
The call to reconciliation is the missionary call to the world. It
is a description of what God has done for the whole world in
Christ, by “not counting their trespasses against them” (v. 19).
Reconciliation, however, is also an ongoing challenge to the
Church (”We beseech you...”).252  means “change,”
“exchange.”253 This exchange (of the old nature for the new creat-
ion) is completely available and ours in Christ. Yet, there is a
demand on our part to let the “exchange” become a real “change”
in our present lives. Reconciliation, then, may be circumscribed
as “willingness” or “commitment to be changed.” To no longer

252 The view that the call for reconciliation concerns only the world, not yet
converted, is strongly contested by Rudolph Bultmann, Der zweite Brief
and die Korinther, Meyers Komm. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1976), 165. He replies: “Unsinn! Für Paulus besteht diese Alternative gar
nicht.” Rather, the call to be reconciled is the demand of
.
253 Cf. F. Büchsel, “,” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, vol.1. Eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G.W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 251-9.

132
 Paul and Justification

live for oneself, but for Christ, does not come automatically.
Therefore, the message of reconciliation must be brought to the
Church: “we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain”
(6.1). We are challenged to live in the new reality that is ours in
Christ. “Be reconciled to God” means, “live according to verse 17”:
“if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” The result of true
reconciliation consists in the readiness to participate in the
spreading of God’s reconciliation to the world. Thus, Paul
admonishes his fellow Christians to work together with him (6.1);
that is, on behalf of Christ (5.20). In other words, we are to let
Christ offer salvation to the world through us.
In this context of challenge to commitment, Paul refers to the
death of Christ in verse 15. It seems his primary concern is not
Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. Instead, he is concerned that
the suffering Christ might become paradigmatic for the life of
every believer. “And he died for all, that () those who live no
longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and
was raised” (v.15). Paul’s and his fellow workers’ identification
with Christ in a ministry that involves suffering constitutes the
main concern of the whole section 5.6 - 6.10. Christ Himself is the
standard for their ministry.
Likewise, when Paul makes his second affirmation regarding
the ministry of Christ in verse 21, it is embedded in the context of
his admonition to imitate Christ. God reconciled the world to
Himself by making Christ to be sin, that is, to partake of the
agony of the fallen creation and to carry our sin to the cross, “so
that () in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In
light of the immediately preceding admonition that the Church
“be reconciled to God”; that is, to become partakers in the “new
creation” and the immediately following affirmation, “not to
accept the grace of God in vain” (6.1), to “become the
righteousness of God” seems to carry similar, ministry related,
connotations. Besides, a statement regarding a forensic status

133
does not comply with the verbal idea of  (see below). To
become the righteousness of God is related to our participation in
the ministry of reconciliation. There is a certain similarity
between v.15 and verse 21, that can throw some light on our
understanding of  in verse 21. The two verses differ in
perspective more than in content. Verse 15 expresses from an
anthropological perspective (active voice) what verse 21 describes
from a theological perspective (passive voice):

He died for all... He made him to be sin...

that those who live so that in him
might no longer live we might become
for themselves... the righteousness of God.

To “become the righteousness of God,” however, is not syno-

nymous with “committing oneself to God”, neither is “recon-
ciliation” synonymous with “becoming God’s righteousness.” In-
stead, “to become the righteousness of God “ means more than
commitment or reconciliation. It means the reception of a new
existence   who Himself is our righteousness (1 Cor 1. 30).
“Here the idea of imputation is transformed into one of being by
the copula .”254 Paul is not talking about a mystical union
but about a participation in the new age inaugurated by, and
under the dominion of, Christ. What God has done in and
through Christ, then, is the model for what He wants to do in and
through us. As Christ was the righteousness of God in His earthly
ministry so we are now, in Him, to become the righteousness of
God.

254 Gustav Schrenk, “,” Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, vol.2, eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G.W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 208.

134
 Paul and Justification

Since 5.21 fits very well into the flow of the argument of the
passage, it need not be explained as a “delayed conclusion” to
verses 17-19,255 or a description of “the how of reconciliation.”256
Neither is it satisfactory to take the force out of  by
calling it a stronger expression for “receiving,”257 or “an excep-
tional wording in order to emphasize the ‘sweet exchange.’”258
This verse implies transformation that results in commitment to
the service of God.
In 6.3-10, the implications of “becoming” the righteousness of
God are spelled out. They are the total commitment to the re-
conciliation of the world, notwithstanding afflictions, hardships,
beatings, imprisonments etc., being servants to God (6.4) “in the
power of God through the weapons of righteousness” ( 
   6.7).259 Since in these verses
“righteousness” transpires in a list of several virtues and gifts, the

255 Nils A. Dahl, “A Fragment and its Context: 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1,” in

Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 66. Victor Paul Furnish, II
Corinthians, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1984), 351, calls it,
in agreement with Dahl, a summary affirmation.
256 M.J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 354.
257 Wendland, 208. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, 167, simply
states: “die  wie sonst bei Paulus: die von Gott
geschenkte Gerechtigkeit. . . die Möglichkeit Gerechte zu sein” which
means “daß ihnen die Sünden vergeben sind (aliena iustitia).”
258 F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB (Greenwood, S.C.: The Attic Press,
Inc., 1971), 211. Neither is Cranfield’ s, conclusion (Romans, 97-98) quite
satisfying, who, recognizing that the expression is exceptional, thinks
that it is an “instance of the use of the abstract for the concrete.”
259 It is interesting in this connection to note how, in the two above-
mentioned texts from the Old Testament (Jg. 5.11; and Deut. 33. 21) God’s
righteous deeds and Israel’s melt into one, as Crüsemann, 435, points
out. Yahweh and His people are so much identified in the holy wars,
that (in Jg. 5. 11) the hwhy twqdc are described without embar-
rassment, in the next line, as the triumphs of the peasants of Israel
(l)r#yb wnzrp tqdc).

135
apparent (but isolated) interpretation would be that “weapons of
righteousness” describe one aspect of our equipment in our
service to God. Also “weapons of righteousness” could simply be a
metaphorical way of saying “righteousness.” However, the
proximity and the grammatical and metaphorical relationship to
the preceding   demand careful consideration. In-
stead of inserting a semicolon between “power of God” and
“weapons of righteousness” (as the RSV has done, seemingly
referring the  all the way back to v.4a), the metaphorical
similarity between “power” and “weapons” suggests that the 
in v.7b connects directly to “power of God.” In other words, the
power of God is manifested in the weapons of righteousness. This
still does not imply that “righteousness” is more than one gift
among many given to us for ministry. We should, at this point,
simply recognize the recurring close affinity between the power
of God and righteousness.
If our interpretation of 5.21 is correct, it seems most likely that
the genitive   should be taken as a possessive
genitive. In other words, righteousness is not the weapon (or
weapons) with which we minister, but rather we commend
ourselves (6.4) with weapons that accompany the presence of God
in us as He reconciles the world to Himself. In that case,
righteousness could, even in this verse, represent a wider concept
than what first seemed apparent. Since this argument builds on
an implication from 5.21, we do not claim that it is compelling. It
is interesting, however, to demonstrate its possibility.
We conclude that  in 5. 21 describes both our new position
in Christ and our ministry in Christ. We are the presence of God
to this world. We are, in Christ, to realize the purposes of God in
this world. Whether or not righteousness as a concept therefore
“relates to God’s whole intervention in Jesus,”260 can not be judged

260 Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC (Waco: Word, 1986), 159.

136
 Paul and Justification

from this passage. It seems, however, that to be a messenger of

reconciliation falls under the category of “being” the righteous-
ness of God.

Conclusion

Our exegesis has shown that the meaning of  the way Paul
employs the term, does not allow a simplistic answer. God’s
righteousness is God’s gift to man, imputed on the basis of 
. It is not simply a gift, however, that becomes our
possession. The term “righteousness of God” represents God as
He is involved in the salvation of the world through the power of
the Gospel (Rom 1.16-17). It is the expression which summarizes
God’s faithfulness and truthfulness (Rom 3.5). The justifying God
is the God who resolves the predicament of man through
forgiveness, redemption and restoration (Rom 3.21-26). The
righteousness of God represents God Himself as he “enslaves”
those who yield their bodies (Rom 6.15-23) unto sanctification.
Finally, as we “become” the righteousness of God, we become the
ambassadors of Christ, who is our righteousness (1 Cor 1.30) and
  we “become” the righteousness of God in this world (2
Cor 5.21; 6.7).
As we encounter God in His righteousness, we encounter Him
as both Savior and Lord. The moment God forgives he also li-
berates, restores, takes possession of and commissions. In short,
the Giver cannot be separated from the gift. While the expression
has its closest ties to “justice” and “right,” it would appear that, at
least in some passages, it is not confined to what happens in the
law court, but encompasses also the continuing effect of the law

137
court verdict. As justified members of the new covenant, we have
peace with God (Rom 5.1). That means we are forgiven, but also
that we are no longer living in rebellion against God (cf. Rom
5.10ff).
The argument that justification by faith cannot be so central to
Pauline thought as has often been held, because Paul never uses
it as a basis for ethical teaching, looses much of its force when the
vital association between justification and the gift of the Spirit is
born in mind.261
It must be admitted that much of our exegesis with regard to
the transformatory character of  has been based on deductions
implications and contextual arguments, rather than explicit and
unmistakable evidence. If the evidence was completely clear, the
debate around the meaning of  in Paul would have never
arisen. It can be asserted with confidence, that the “genitive of
origin” is the most natural grammatical definition for  in Paul,
sometimes with the emphasis on the giver sometimes on the
recipient, but never on one to the exclusion of the other.
Whether that should imply “identification” of or “vital
association” between righteousness and sanctification is not
completely clear. That the two belong inseparably together,
however, is beyond dispute.

261 Bruce, “Curse,” 34, italics added.

138
 Paul and Justification

V. Justification in
Galatians

Words that contain the .-root in Paul’s letter to the

Galatians amount to thirteen in number: one adjectival form (3.11,
occurring in an Old Testament quotation), four nominal forms
(2.21; 3.6,21; 5.5;) and eight verbal forms (2.16,17; 3.8,11,24; 5.4). Six
times a -word occurs in antithetical conjunction with  5
times in synthetic conjunction with  (one of which is in the
combination  ) and once in synthetic conjunction
with  It becomes immediately clear that the .-words
and  are incongruous, whereas -words and 
complement each other. It is because the law can neither justify
nor make alive that it has to be rejected. Indeed, if justification
was  , Christ died in vain (2.21); and if a law had been
given that could make alive, righteousness would be by the law
(3.21) and the law would indeed be a contestant of the promised
Spirit, the very thing Paul denies in Gal 3.21. In other words,
Christ and the  constitute two competing realms of
existence if one accredits to the law a role which it was never
given. One can seek to be justified   (3.11) or  
(2.17). However, the attempt to be justified   inevitably
leads to a curse, whereas justification   results in the
reception of the promise of the Spirit (3.14).

139
 It will be our task throughout the course of this chapter to
determine Paul’s concept of “righteousness” in Galatians. The
procedure will be to consider some passages in context and to try
to establish what is the bearing of the flow of each argument on
our understanding of “justification.” Before we do that, however,
we will try to describe Paul’s concern for his Galatian friends as it
surfaces in the letter, since an overall view of the underlying
motivation for Paul’s writing this letter may prevent us from
superficial or one-sided interpretations.

Paul’s concern for the Galatians

The question “How do I know that I am part of the people of

God?” is the primary focus of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
Whereas the Judaizers claimed that certain rituals had to be
performed, Paul appealed to the experience of the Spirit by the
Galatians as evidence for their justification. It would appear,
however, that his concern is far from exhausted with the question
of place or position in terms of soteriology?” Paul had a sincere
passion for seeing the churches at Galatia being transformed into
the image of Christ, a passion that, in our opinion, constitutes the
backdrop to his insistence on freedom from the law, rejection of
circumcision and faith in Christ. The fact that his converts and
friends in Galatia had deserted the Gospel of Christ (1.6,7) was a
most distressing experience for Paul which results in the
illuminating biographical section of 4.12-20. There he recounts
their earlier blessedness ( and summarizes what lies
at the heart of his concern: “My little children with whom I am
again in travail until Christ be formed in you.” Paul expects and
longs for the realization of the “new creation” (6.15) in the lives of

140
 Paul and Justification

his spiritual children. His concern is with life and walk in the Spi-
rit (5.25).
Thus, when he fights the practice of circumcision it is not
because he objects to circumcision as such. In fact, circumcision
as such is as irrelevant as uncircumcision for the heart of the
matter, which is “faith working through love” (5.6). Compliance
with the law marks the rejection of the Spirit and thus of Christ
himself. “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,
Christ will be of no advantage to you” (5.2). In other words, there
was a vital association in Paul’s mind between “getting in” and
living a transformed life.
We should note that Paul employs the imagery of “entrance”
consistently in combination with his concern for the quality of
the Christian life. The primary sign for entrance into the
Christian community, baptism, is referred to by Paul as a sign of
their “putting on of Christ” (3.27f). When Paul speaks of
becoming “heirs” (3.29f), “sons” (4.1ff), receiving “adoption as
sons” (4.5) - images that all relate to “entrance” - he does so in a
context that strongly affirms the qualitative difference between
“being in” and “being out.” Being “in bondage” (4.8) means, of
course, being lost and therefore it is important to be delivered
out of bondage. But being “in bondage” means also being bound
to sin.
In order to understand how Paul’s concern for the transfor-
mation into the image of Christ of the Galatian Christians relates
to the issue of circumcision, one needs to recognize a) that
Christian life and ethics are intimately dependent upon the
influence of spiritual forces (cf. 5.16ff)262 and b) that the decision
to be circumcised signifies the return to the dominion of flesh
and sin. Therefore, Paul is enraged: “Are you so foolish? Having
begun , are you now ending ?” (3.3). The freedom

262 Cf. Betz, 33.

141
for which Christ has set us free, is the choice to live by the Spirit,
who then will produce the fruit of the Spirit (5.16-22).
Paul’s concern for the Galatian Christians and for the truth of
the Gospel centers on the issue of Jewish exclusivism, because the
law which was claimed, by Paul’s opponents, to be necessary for
salvation was a Jewish law. It was the suggestion of the
insufficiency of Christ, however, and not Jewish exclusivism as
such that was Paul’s primary concern (2.21; 3.1; 5.4;). Not even
pragmatic considerations-- however relevant for a universal mis-
sion strategy-- suffice, in our opinion, to explain the whole force
behind Paul’s rebuttal of a life under the Mosaic law. The only
adequate motivation for Paul’s rage against Torah compliance is
that it is foolishness (3.1,3), because the Mosaic law is not able to
make alive (3.21); that is, to transform into the image of Christ
(4.19).263 Therefore, Paul emphatically opposes a return under the
institution of the law. He is proud of having died to the law,
because now he can live to God (–clause! 2.19). The life he now
lives,         (2.20).
Before we leave the question of Paul’s concern in Galatia, we
will take a look at E.P. Sanders’ understanding of what is at stake
in the letter to the Galatians. According to Sanders, there is a
distinction in Paul’s theology (that agrees in principle with
Palestinian Judaism) between how one gets into the covenant and
how one stays in the covenant. Whereas “getting in” is completely
by grace, “staying in” depends on one’s performance.264 Thus,
according to Sanders, when Paul defends the law-free Gospel in
Galatians, he is not opposing the role of the law as a “rule of life,”
but exclusively as a means of “getting in.” Once one is in the
covenant, the law resumes its demanding force. The conflict with

263 For a discussion of the Jewish notion of the Torah being the antidote
against the yetzer hara, see 22ff.
264 Cf. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 112.

142
 Paul and Justification

the Judaizers concerns, therefore, only the “getting in,” since that
is where the point of disagreement occurs. For Paul, faith in
Christ has replaced the normal procedures of proselytization.265
Robert Gundry has argued,266 against Sanders, that on the basis
of 3.3; 5.4,7, the issue at stake in Galatians is, in fact, staying in
the covenant. Paul asks the Galatians whether they, after having
begun in the Spirit, are now ending in the flesh (3.3). He also
exhorts them that they have fallen away from grace (5.4). Thus, it
seems clear, at least from Paul’s perspective-- whatever may have
been the position of the Judaizers267-- that the issue was “staying
in.”268
It would appear that Gundry is right in that Paul bases his
argument against the Judaizers on the experience of the Galatians
of “being in.” Thus, Paul argues that the fact of the Spirit
experience (3.1-5) proves that the accusation of the Judaizers is
invalid. Paul also expresses his fear that the Galatians could
abandon their blessed state. Thus, while in the mind of Paul there
was no question as to the fact that the Galatians were in and that
his concern was their “staying in,” the fear of the Galatians and
the affirmations of the Judaizers seem still to have been that the
Galatians “were not in.”
In Sanders’ pattern, “God’s judgment” appears to constitute the
core of interest. Everything revolves around the issue: “How can I
get in, to be on the safe side; and how can I stay in, to remain on
the safe side?” This, in my opinion, is a one-sided

265 Ibid., 19: “The quality and character of Judaism are not in view; it is only
the question of how one becomes a true son of Abraham, that is, enters
the people of God.”
266 Robert Gundry, “Grace, Works, and Staying saved in Paul,” Biblica 66
(1985): 9.
267 Gen 17. 9-14 would suggest that from the Judaizers’ point of view, the
issue may well have been “getting in.”
268 Cf. ibid., 11.

143
misrepresentation of Paul’s concern in Galatia. Why does Paul
challenge the Galatians to continue in the Spirit (3.2), not to fall
away from grace (5.4), or to continue in their “running well”
(5.7)? Is it because he wants them to make it through the final
judgment? Certainly, that is always included! But Paul has very
little to say about the parousia in Galatians. Instead, as we have
already stated, the reason why Paul wants the Galatians to “be in”
is that being in means both justification and life. His concern is
for their transformation into the image of Christ. This
transformation occurs in this present time while we are involved
in the struggle with the flesh (cf. e.g. 3.1,3; 4.10, 19; 5.11-15;). God
has brought us into covenant with himself for a purpose in the
present time. It is that same Spirit who redeems us from sin, who
also fights in us the battle against the flesh. It is the fact that our
obedience is “evidential” of our salvation which is constantly to
be taken into account with regard to Paul’s concern for the
Galatians.269 Throughout the letter to the Galatians, Paul focuses
on freedom versus slavery, on life in the Spirit versus life in the
flesh; i.e., his concern is with the present quality of the Christian
lives of the Galatians. Thus, it is because justification in Christ
leads to life in Christ, both now and ultimately, that Paul fights
for the “being in” of the Galatians. It is our task throughout the
rest of this chapter to demonstrate how Paul argues for the
inseparability of “justification,” “Spirit reception” and “life.”

269 Cf. Gundry, ibid., 11

144
 Paul and Justification

Galatians 2.17-21

A detailed analysis of this passage is not possible. The

difficulties involved in the interpretation of verse 17 alone are
numerous which “no commentator fails to note.”270 Our objective
can therefore be no more than approaching the passage with a
very specific interest - the interpretation of  in verse 17
and  in verse 21 - and deal with other issues only to the
degree they affect our interpretation. Although verse 17 relates
directly back to verses 15 and 16, thematically the verse belongs
together with verses 18-21 since it introduces an accusation that
Paul is going to rebut in the ensuing verses.
In Gal 2.18-21 Paul counters the (hypothetical?) accusation put
forward in verse 17 that Christ is a servant of sin; an accusation
that is based on the fact that Paul is found a sinner in his search
for righteousness in Christ (   
[v.17]). The way Paul went about “being justified”, in other words,
created substantial controversy. From the manner in which Paul
expresses himself we can deduce that his concern, at this point, is
not with his own reputation. He accepts it as a fact that to seek
righteousness in Christ results – inevitably, so it seems – leads to
“being found a sinner.” But he emphatically ( ) rejects
the accusation that, therefore, Christ is a servant of sin. Thus, the
accusation that “being found sinners” and “being a servant of sin”
were synonymous is strongly rejected by Paul. And that is what
he is going to prove.
The three major questions that demand a response are a) what
does Paul refer to with “seeking to be justified in Christ?” b) what
does it mean to be “found sinners?” and c) how does Paul defend

270 Betz, 119. For an overview of the different interpretations circulating

until the completion of his commentary in 1920, cf. Burton, 127ff.

145
Christ against the accusation of being a servant of Sin? First, how
should we understand the concept “seeking to be justified in
Christ?” The accusation of verse 17b suggests that Paul is speaking
polemically; that is, he is referring to justification in Christ with
the emphasis on in Christ as opposed to the seeking of
justification    (v.16). The question as to what light
the antithetical contrast between    and  
sheds on our understanding of    will be dealt with
in Part III of this thesis. We can simply affirm, at this point, that
the force of the phrase “in Christ” lies on “identity.”271 This is the
most natural understanding of the phrase. To be in Christ is the
basis of our Christian existence as opposed (in this context) to
existence   . This insight also necessitates the
conclusion that “seeking to be justified” not only preceded but
also succeeds (with the emphasis on “succeeds” in this verse) our
“entrance” into the body of Christ. “Being” in Christ we seek to be
justified. The reference to “being found sinners” would be
unintelligible unless justification directly relates to the manner in
which those in Christ live. It would appear that justification is
closely linked to a certain way of life that stands in conflict with
the  which, therefore, declares Paul and those who have
accepted his radical conclusions to be sinners.272
Secondly, what does the phrase “being found sinners” refer to?
As we shall see in a moment, Paul defends Christ’s “innocence”
with the argument, that he and whoever has come to believe in

271 Cf. 1.22; 2.4; 3.14; and especially 3.26-28 which constitutes a direct
linkage to the present context. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor
Gentile... Cf. also Romans 8.
272 Bruce, Galatians, 140-41, is correct, of course, that “in logic” all Jewish
Christians have become “sinners” since they by yielding to faith in Christ
have abandoned faith in the law. It would appear, however, that Paul is
not arguing on the basis of logical necessities, but on the basis of real
facts that have been transformed by his opponents into accusations
against Christ.

146
 Paul and Justification

Christ, has - by the indwelling of Christ - attained an obedience

to the will of God far superior to that of his life under the law.
Thus, “being found sinners” - to the degree to which Paul accepts
the accusation - must refer to very specific “sins.” It seems
probable, therefore, that we should interpret the term in light of
verse 15. The inclusive reference in verse 15 to “Gentile sinners”
versus “we who are Jews” and the reference to  suggests a
reference to identity rather than conduct; what Paul had in mind
were the absence versus the presence of the signs of Jewish
identity; namely, that which clearly distinguished a Jew from a
Gentile and put the Gentile outside of God’s salvation historical
purposes. (Of course, Paul will not agree, ultimately, with all the
implications put forward by his opponents in such a distinction,
but that is what he is being accused of and what the Torah
declares, and, therefore, in a dialectical sense, he accepts the
charges.) Thus, astonishingly, Paul correlates himself as a Jew,
and with him the Jewish Christians that seek to be justified in
Christ (according to the polemical undertone in “justified in
Christ”) with those “Gentile sinners” of verse 15. That this is the
right interpretation is suggested further by the phrase  
in verse 17. Paul affirms that “even we ourselves” (i.e., not only the
Gentile Christians but also we Jewish Christians) are found
sinners. In other words, Paul is saying that the Jews who have
come to believe in Christ have become like “Gentiles” under the
scrutiny of the Judaizers. However, the inference drawn by his
opponents that, therefore, Christ must be a servant of sin is
emphatically denied by Paul.
How then, thirdly, does Paul go about his defense of Christ’s
“innocence.” The method Paul adapts for his defense of Christ’s
sinlessness is twofold, a) an argument from experience, and b) a
theological argument. By demonstrating to the Galatians the
impact of the death of Christ on his own life (and on theirs, cf.
3.1-5) Paul attempts to remove any doubts concerning the fact

147
that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the purposes of God. Paul
affirms that his death to the law (that same death that makes him
a sinner in the specific sense we have described) has resulted in
life for God (v.19). Since life, as we shall see further, carries strong
ethical connotations in Galatians, Paul is implying here that, to
the contrary of what the Judaizers are claiming, he has never
been more in compliance with the will of God than now. Indeed,
if he would build up () again what he has torn down
(presumably Paul is referring to the tearing down of the specific
demands of Torah obedience by the Judaizers) he would certainly
prove himself to be a transgressor (  
[v.18]). The reference to “transgression” at this point occurs in
antithesis to “live to God” (v.19) Thus, Paul makes the specific
point that a return under the law amounts to being cut off from
Christ in whom God’s life is being offered. He further underlines
the fact that Christ is the servant of God by declaring that the life
he lives for God coincides with the life he lives by faith in the son
of God (v.20).
Paul’s rebuttal of the accusation against Christ is, however, not
only based on experience. It is intermingled with a theological
argument. The theological argument is this: dying to the law
coincides with participation in the death of Christ (v.19b). The
death of Christ, however, is a death through and to the law. In
other words, one can not belong to Christ if one is not ready to
die to the law. In fact, in order to live for God, it is mandatory to
die to the law (v.19a  !) Thus, not only does the experience of a
life that draws upon the resources in Christ prove that Christ is
opposed to sin. Death to the law is a theological necessity, since
the crucifixion of Christ authenticates the termination of the
law.273

273 Cf. Gal 3.13.

148
 Paul and Justification

In verse 21 Paul concludes his defense of the sinlessness of

Christ with a double assertion. First, he articulates with a definite
pronouncement what it would mean to again build up what has
been torn down. It would be nothing less than the nullification of
the grace of God (verse 21a). “Grace,” as it occurs in this emphatic
pronouncement comprises the sum total of what Paul has been
arguing in the whole section.274 Secondly, with a final stroke, Paul
concludes his defense by merging the theological argument and
the argument from experience into one unambiguous
proposition. “For if justification were through the law then Christ
died to no purpose.” (v.21). Or, to rephrase the statement, if we
are seeking to be justified in any other way than   we
deny that Christ is the basis of all justification.
We conclude that the reference to justification in verse 17 is
coterminous with the reference to justification in verse 21 since
verse 21 is the conclusion of the argument that had its direct
origin in verse 17. The implications of conduct in the reference to
justification in verse 17, the antithetical relationship to being a
transgressor and the fact that being justified by dying with Christ
means the reception of life unto God (which again is antithetical
to being a transgressor) suggests that the concept of justification,
if not embraces, is vitally associated to life in the Spirit.

274 That the word  is used not only in Romans (cf. Rom 5.20-21) but
also in Galatians with a wider meaning than “unmerited favor” is most
clearly seen in Gal 2.9 where Paul makes use of the expression to denote
either the ministry of Paul or the impact of his ministry to the Gentiles.
The fruit Paul had produced among the Gentiles helped the leadership
in Jerusalem “perceive the grace that was given to me” (cf. Rom 1.5).

149
 Galatians 3.1-6

It may be convenient to begin an interpretation of 

in 3.6 as it relates to the affirmations regarding the reception of
the Spirit in 3.1-5 by looking at an exegetical question that has
regularly been considered a problem. The question concerns the
function of the conjunction  as it connects (or
disconnects?) Gal 3.1-5 with Gal 3.6. The problem we are facing is
this: Paul asserts that the Galatians had believed the word of God
and received the Spirit apart from works of the law. He concludes
that assertion with a question: “Does he who supplies the Spirit to
you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law or
by the message of faith? Clearly, the implicit answer is: God
works miracles among you on the basis of your accepting the
message of faith. Then Paul proceeds with his argument by
saying:  Abraham has believed God and it was reckoned to
him as righteousness. The problem we are facing is this: in one
sense, there is a correspondence between verse 5 and verse 6; and
in another sense, there seems to be a discrepancy. The
correspondence consists of the fact that a message of faith was
presented both to the Galatians and to Abraham, both parties
received that message by faith. The discrepancy consists of the
apparent incompatibility of the results of either faith as they are
described in both cases. If the discrepancy is real, it has been
argued, a proper comparison can not have been intended. But
that, in turn, requires an interpretation of  that deflects the
comparative nature of the conjunction.
For instance, H.D. Betz thinks that  introduces a new
section in Paul’s argument, in that it functions as an abbreviated
introductory formula meaning “As (it was written).” Thus, 
does not tightly connect verses 5 and 6. The problem Betz runs
into, as he admits himself, is that nowhere else in Paul’s writing is

150
 Paul and Justification

 used in such a way.275 Donald Guthrie evidences a similar

uneasiness when he remarks that “Paul’s sudden appeal to
Abraham appears somewhat unexpected.”276 Both the uneasiness
with a real comparison and the assertion that the reference to
Abraham is unexpected, reveal, so it seems, a preconceived
notion of incompatibility between the Spirit’s miraculous
manifestations among the Galatian Christians and the gift of
righteousness to Abraham. Whereas Abraham, so the argument
goes, was reckoned judicially justified on the basis of his faith in
the promise, the Galatians were receiving the power of the Spirit
on the basis of their faith in the promise. Thus, the comparison
can not be real and it is necessary to interpret  in a very
unusual way. Such procedure, needless to say, is not satisfying.
Bruce is clearly correct in his assertion that “the connection
implied in  would be lost unless there were the closest
possible link between receiving the Spirit and being justified.”277
Further support for an intentional comparison, on Paul’s part,
of Abraham’s righteousness with the blessings the Galatians
received, has been advanced by Sam Williams who has pointed
out a threefold parallelism between Abraham’s experience and
that of the Galatians: namely, a) divine initiative, b) human
response, and c) divine blessing.278 Williams concludes: “In light
of the parallels between Abraham’s experience and the Galatians’
which Paul appears to be stressing in Gal 3.5-6, it seems likely
that the  which introduces v.6 is intended to indicate

275 Betz, 140.

276 Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 94.
Cf. Schlier, 127, who quotes Lietzmann on calling  “das verlegene
Flickwort.”
277 Bruce, Galatians, 152. Cf. also Bruce “Curse,” 34, a quotation we have
already cited in chapter IV, Conclusion.
278 Cf. Sam Williams, “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians,” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 93.

151
similarity.”279 Hence, the conjunction should be translated “in the
same way” or “likewise.”
It is true, of course, that Abraham was given the “promise” of
the Spirit, and, hence, did not receive the Spirit in the same
sense, or to the same degree, as did the Galatians. Before we
conclude, however, that Abraham received the Spirit only in
anticipation-- that is, not really at all-- we should remind
ourselves of what we have pointed out in our discussion of Gal
4.21-31. Isaac, the immediate result of Abraham’s faith, is called by
Paul a son  . We should not hesitate to affirm,
therefore, that Abraham experienced miracles worked by the
Spirit in his own lifetime. What is more important for our present
purpose, however, is the intimate relationship between reception
of the Spirit and the reckoning of righteousness.280 Unless there is
a direct linkage between justification and Spirit reception, Paul’s
argument falls apart completely. If we adhere to a concept of
justification that is forensic, we need to strongly affirm that
justification is inseparable from the rest of God’s saving work. In
other words, Paul’s appeal to Abraham’s justification does not
support his argument of 3.1-5 unless Abraham’s justification by
implication proved his reception of the Spirit. The conclusion
seems justified that Spirit manifestations follow, inevitably, the
manifestation of the righteousness of God.281

279 Ibid., 94.

280 Cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (New
York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1965), 54: “In the story of Abraham’s faith
we are not dealing with a forensic scene but rather with a bestowing of
God’s grace.... God’s justification is an outpouring of grace which far
exceeds the legal sphere.”
281 This vital association between justification and Spirit reception can be
demonstrated further by a careful assessment of the transition from 2.21
to 3.1-5. Righteousness does not come through the law but through
Christ, Paul asserts. And he proves this fact, by appealing to the Spirit
experience of the Galatians. Thus, righteousness relates, contextually,

152
 Paul and Justification

Galatians 3.21

It would appear from the manner in which Paul applies the

term “life” in Galatians that “life” denotes the present trans-
formed state of obedient faith and not only a soteriological
concept. It depicts the freedom to do the will of God and to resist
the desires of the flesh (5.13). Life from the Spirit is the opposite
of the corruption that comes from the flesh (6.8). Living by the
Spirit means walking by the Spirit (5.25). “`To live for God’ sums
up Paul’s concept of Christian existence, soteriology as well as
ethics.”282 It is essential for our discussion to keep in mind that
the concept of “life” represents the “present” condition of the
believer under the dominion of the Spirit, as opposed to
subjection to sin and flesh.
In Gal 3.21 Paul asserts: “If a law had been given which could
make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law (
).” The immediate context of the verse pertains to the

both back to “life” (2.19-20) and forward to “the manifestation of the

Spirit” (3.1-5). In addition, in Gal 3.13-14 Paul affirms that the death of
Christ was necessary to redeem us from the curse of the law, so that we
might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Since both “curse”
and “justification” relate to legal concepts, the way in which Paul speaks
of the curse can shed some light on our understanding of justification.
We need to observe that the curse referred to in 3.10, the termination of
which is articulated by the concept of justification, is not just a
condemning verdict that is removed. Its abolishment requires an act of
redemption (cf. Gal 4.5). Thus, if justification is the concept that de-
scribes redemption from the curse, we need to cautiously determine the
implications for our understanding of justification. Redemption involves
not simply a judicial verdict of “Not Guilty!”, but liberation by God from
the captivity under law and flesh (cf. Büchsel, 126-8). As we observed
during our discussion of Rom 3.21-26, in Rom 3.24 Paul stated it
unambiguously: We are justified “through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus.”
282 Betz, 122.

153
distinction between law and promise. Paul emphasizes that the
law is not opposed to the promise, since it was never given the
same task as the promise. Thus, by contrast, an inquiry into the
purpose for which the promise was given will help establish a
clear perception of what it was that the law was never intended
for.
Since the promise consisted of the Spirit (3.14), it seems safe to
assume that the purpose of the promise coincided with that of
the Spirit. The function ascribed to the Spirit in Galatians is both
that of indicating that one belonged to the people of God (3.1-3)
and that of making possible obedience to the will of God by
fighting the flesh and producing in us the fruit of the Spirit (cf.
esp. chapter 5). Thus, when Paul puts the law in contrast to the
promise, it would appear that he has in mind that the law could
not do what the promise could. It could neither justify nor make
alive (3.21). It would square well, then, with our observation
concerning the meaning of “life” in Galatians, and the present
context, if the inability to make alive included the inability to
assist in performing the will of God.
How, then, do “justification” and “life” relate to each other in
3.21? It is clear from the construction of the verse that Paul
perceived a close proximity between the two expressions “life”
and “righteousness.” He affirms that the inability of the law to
make alive evidenced the lack of justification   and made
necessary the coming of the Spirit. In other words, if justification
would have been possible by means of the law, the law would
have been able to make alive. Again we encounter a vital
association between “justification” and “Spirit reception” or “life.”
If one adheres to a forensic concept of justification Paul’s
argument is only compelling if justification by necessity lead to
life in the Spirit. Otherwise, the absence of life would not prove
the absence of justification. The law could very well have been
able to provide means of forgiveness without thereby “making

154
 Paul and Justification

alive.” This, however, seems to be the point Paul is making. In

3.21, then, Paul declares that life and righteousness belong
together. Either determines the reality of the other. Being alive
proves that God is putting our lives “right” again. Being righteous
implicitly necessitates the reception of the life of the Spirit.283

Galatians 5.6

Paul’s argument in Gal 5.1-6 culminates in the phrase “faith

working through love.” Having described, by means of the
allegory of the two sons of Abraham (4.21-31), the existence under
the law as slavery and  , Paul asserts in 5.1: “For
freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not
submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Clearly Paul focuses upon the
redemption from subjection to the power of sin which Christ has
brought about. Thus, when he states in 5.2 that Christ is of no
advantage for those who are going to be circumcised, the advan-
tage in mind is the freedom from the yoke of slavery.
At the same time we need to recognize, that a widening of
focus occurs in verse 3. Not only does the loss of Christ mean
slavery under sin, it also means that in itself the whole law is
nothing but a collection of requirements that have a condemning
effect inasmuch as they demand perfect fulfillment. Thus, a
forensic element is introduced into the discussion; namely, the
issue of having to fulfill    if one is severed from

283 The immediately following statement in 3.22 concerning the

consignment to sin, by contrast, further strengthens our assertion. What
is at stake is the question of power.

155
Christ (vv.3,4). Paul does not completely change focus from
ethics to soteriology, however, as is clear from verse 6b. Thus, in
verse 4, when he refers to the falling away from grace and the
wish   , it would appear that both judicial and
“power” questions are part of the concern. Falling away from
grace means both the loss of God’s mercy and the loss of one’s
authority over the flesh, freedom in the Spirit and power to
imitate Christ. Seeking to be justified by the law, then, is directly
related to the loss of all that is ours in Christ.
In verse 6 the phrase   appears, denoting the sphere of
existence of the believer in which neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision counts for anything but where the “obedience of
faith” is a reality (”faith working through love”). Clearly, Paul
intended to highlight the differences between   and 
, in order to make it unmistakably apparent that the battle is
between two realms of existence. We are involved in a choice of
“master.” The “sphere” of the law is a sphere where flesh and sin
will make us their slaves. The sphere of Christ is the sphere where
the Spirit brings about His fruit. Neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision makes any difference. The only thing that counts
is a new creation (6.15). Thus, verse 6b constitutes the
culmination of Paul’s argument. It states the reason why freedom
from the yoke of slavery is so crucial, and it provides a basis for
the following paraenetical section clothed in the imagery of the
battle between the Spirit and the flesh (5.13ff).
Verse 6 then is the culmination of the argument of 5.1-6. But
how does verse 5 fit into the argument? It would appear, that
verse 5 provides us with a summary description of how Paul per-
ceived of existence  . Five factors are mentioned: Spirit,
faith, hope, righteousness and expectation. The Spirit is the
agent, the actor in the sphere of Christ. Everything happens
. Faith is the means by which the power of the Spirit is
released ( , cf. v.6  ). Righteousness

156
 Paul and Justification

is the goal toward which all things in Christ are heading. And
hope testifies to the tension between the eschatological “already”
and the “not yet.” Perfection is still ahead of us. Thus, we have
hope in that which we do not see (cf. Rom 8.24-25). Finally, hope
creates eager expectation ().284 The role ascribed to
faith in verse 5 and 6 is reminiscent of Paul’s earlier quasi-
personification of faith in 3.23. Thus, it should not come as a
surprise that Paul would use the word here with those
connotations.285
It should be clear, from what has been said thus far, that
 in verse 6 carries strong ethical connotations. The
future righteousness we are eagerly awaiting is a state of being
“right” in every respect. However, the question needs to be raised
whether the righteousness referred to here is a different right-
eousness from that referred to in other places. The question is
legitimate since here Paul speaks of righteousness as something
we are looking forward to, whereas otherwise righteousness is
described by Paul predominantly as a present reality (cf. 2.17;
Rom 2.13 however). Joachim Jeremias asserts: “So we have a
twofold justification and there is a difference between them: the
one (at baptism) is a justification by faith; the other (at the last
judgment) is a justification by faith which worketh by love.”286
According to Jeremias, both kinds of righteousness are present in
the Sermon on the Mount (5.3ff and 7.21ff). Paul, however, speaks
predominantly of the former, whereas the latter is the concept
preferred by James. Thus, Jeremias states: “Paul is representing
the beginning, whereas James is representing the end of the
Sermon on the Mount.”287 Are there, then, two kinds of

284 The same verb is used as in Rom 8.25. There  is added.
285 Contra Betz, 263.
286 Joachim Jeremias, “Paul and James,” The Expository Times, 66 (1954-55):
370.
287 Ibid., 371.

157
justification, one by faith and one by works? Is the final judgment
going to be based on human achievements? P. Stuhlmacher has
strongly contested these assertions and pointed out that Luther
and Calvin would have considered Jeremias’ position as
“klassischer Katholizismus.”288 Stuhlmacher’s exegetical argument
against Jeremias’ double righteousness is based upon the
observation that the judgment of the Christian according to
works is a judgment of the  to which the Christian is still
attached, rather than of the Christian himself. Stuhlmacher states
further:
Der mit der Taufe gesetzte und auf das Endgericht zuführende Kampf des
Christen wird zwar ethisch ausgefochten, aber nicht mehr ethisch
entschieden, weil es in ihm um den Machtkampf Gottes des Schöpfers mit
den Mächten dieser Welt geht.289

Stuhlmacher, then, thinks that the tension between grace and

works is solved in the recognition of the dialectical relationship
between  and , a relationship that makes every
Christian a battle field. Although the battle materializes in the
experience of the Christian as ethical decisions, it is a power
struggle between God and the powers of this world. The right-
eousness which we receive in baptism is the beginning (der
Aufgang) of God’s faithful commitment to our liberation from the
evil forces, the final judgment the ushering in of the ultimate
epiphany.
The following can be said about Stuhlmacher’s scheme: a) The
imagery of man as a battle field is certainly confirmed in 5.13-24.
However, Stuhlmacher’s scheme seems to take too little account
of the element of choice (”Do not gratify the desires of the flesh!”
5.16b) and, thus, of human responsibility (”do not use your
freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” 5.13). Man’s decision is

288 P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 229.

289 Ibid., 231.

158
 Paul and Justification

important, even though the power to follow through with the

decision comes from the Spirit. b) Stuhlmacher’s assertion that
justification is identical with the battle against the flesh cannot
be deduced from this text in isolation. However, the “vital
association” between justification and “faith working through
love” is evident from the text. Living in the grace of Christ to
which we were called (1.6) resembles the idea of Rom 5.21, where
grace is said to “reign through righteousness to eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord.”290 Seeking to be justified by the
law implies falling away from grace which, in turn, prevents a life
of “faith working through love.”

Summary

It would appear that, in Galatians, justification is directly

linked by the apostle Paul to life for God as opposed to being a
transgressor (2.17-21), the reception and the manifestation of the
Spirit (3.1-6), making alive (3.21) and the transforming work of
grace (5.1-6). Initiation into the community of God and
transformation of the members of that community into the image
of Christ are inseparable concepts for Paul. The saving work of
Christ encompasses all aspects of the Christian life. Christ the
Savior is inseparable from Christ the Lord. Obedience is
evidential of “being in” the community.
Once the essentially universal agreement among theologians
with regard to these assertions is recognized, the question
whether justification incorporates sanctification (Käsemann) or
whether justification and sanctification are two distinct but

290 Cf. also Rom 6.14 and 15.

159
inseparable concepts (Cranfield) looses much of its importance.
There are texts that would suggest that Käsemann’s
interpretation is preferable (esp., Romans 6), but most texts do
not state the matter unambiguously. Thus, it would seem that we
have to allow for the possibility that Paul employs the term
“justification” with different nuances in different contexts. For
our present concern it is enough to affirm the “vital association”
(Bruce) between justification and the transforming aspects of the
saving work of Christ.

160
Paul and Justification

161
 Part Three

WORKS OF THE
LAW AND
JUSTIFICATION

I. Introduction

Part III of this thesis has as its objective to apply our insights
concerning the law to one phrase that seems to occupy a key
position in our exploration of the relationship between law and
righteousness. The phrase is  . It occurs only eight
times in Paul: twice in Romans (3.20 and 28) and six times in
Galatians (2.16; 3.2, 5 and 10). Considering the fact that three of

162
 Works of the Law and Justification

the occurrences in Galatians are found in one verse (2.16) and

that the occurrence in Rom 3.20 closely resembles one of the
occurrences in Gal 2.16, it would seem that with such a limited
spectrum it should not be very difficult to define the meaning of
the phrase.
Further, the phrase is always applied with negative connota-
tions. Works of the law cannot justify (Rom 3.20,28; Gal 2.16), the
Spirit and miracles do not come by works of the law (Gal 3.2,5)
and those who are    are under a curse (Gal 3.10).291 It
would appear that at last we have a phrase that is applied
consistently by Paul and that, therefore, should be easy to ana-
lyze. However, a variety of interpretations have been suggested,
rather contradictory in nature, one of which we have already
mentioned292 but which will be dealt with in more detail
presently.
In Part I of our thesis we have demonstrated our general
understanding of Paul’s definition of . We have argued that
it is Paul’s position that the  as it was given at Mount Sinai
was never meant to make alive or justify; and that, therefore,
seeking to be justified through the law would be - and would
always have been - a vain enterprise. Our investigation into the
meaning of justification in Paul (Part II) has lead to the
conclusion that Paul perceived of justification never in forensic
“isolation” but always as part (or the summary) of an organic
whole. Justification is vitally associated with sanctification. Both
of these insights will be of importance for our interpretation of
“works of the law.”

291 Rom 2.15 should be mentioned where the phrase  occurs.
The singularity of “work” and the rather different context make us
hesitate to include the phrase in our present study. It is also the only
text that is not unambiguously negative.
292 We are referring to our discussion of J.D.G. Dunn’s “New Perspective”;
see Part I, 59-62.

163
 Several of the texts that contain the phrase   have
been interpreted from different angles during the course of this
thesis. It will now be our task to fuse those findings with the
additional observations that will be made on the basis of the
present investigations. We will proceed in the following way:
First, we will survey some important interpretations of 
 Then, we will assess the problem at Antioch and Galatia
and interpret the six occurrences of the   in Galatians.
Following that, Rom 3.20 will be looked at in context and the
main thrust of the argument will be taken into consideration for
the interpretation of   in Rom 3.20. Then we will insert
an excursus on Ps 143.2, since that verse is quoted in modified
form in both Rom 3.20 and Gal 2.16 each time with the addition
by Paul of   We will seek to let the original context of
Ps 143 shed some light on the Pauline usage. That the Psalm was
of importance for Paul’s conception of   can be asserted
with confidence, since both in Romans and Galatians it is the
allusion to that Psalm which Paul chooses for the purpose of
clarifying how he perceives the issue. Finally, Rom 3.28 will be the
subject of our investigation.

164
II. Some Views on
“Works of the Law”

We will start our investigation into the meaning of the phrase

   by looking at some of the definitions of 
 that have been advanced throughout the history of
interpretation. Paul’s negative perception of  confronts us in
this phrase with unmistakable distinctness and demands an
answer (or at least an attempt at an answer) from anyone who
tries to interpret the phrase.

“Works of the Law” = Works done

in a “Legalistic Spirit”

The antithesis to   in which the “works of the

law” occur leaves no doubt that life    is sharply
distinguished in Paul’s mind from life    .
As we have seen earlier, the antithesis is sometimes presented as
one between law and faith or law and promise (Galatians 3) - an

165
antithesis that relates to both the old and the new covenant.
Since the antithesis is so drastic, it has been suggested that Paul
is in fact rejecting a distortion of Torah obedience and not
“proper” Torah obedience. In other words, what Paul is rejecting
is a “decadent Judaism,” a “purely formal obedience” and a
“hopelessly perverted religiosity,”293 and that is what he is
referring to with the phrase   . Usually this dis-
tortion has been summarized under the concept of “legalism.”
We have already discussed the general strengths and weaknesses
in C.E.B. Cranfield’s interpretation, a major contemporary
proponent of this view.294 At this time we will take a closer look at
how the concept of legalism relates to “works of the law in
particular. Burton writes:
By   Paul means the deeds of obedience to formal
statutes done in the legalistic spirit, with the expectation of
thereby meriting and securing divine approval and award, such
obedience, in other words, as the legalists rendered to the law of
the Old Testament as expanded and interpreted by them.295
This “legalistic spirit” that is Paul’s supposed opponent in
Galatians and to which Burton is referring has been described
comprehensively by Rudolph Bultmann:
The way of works of the law and the way of grace and faith are mutually
exclusive opposites (Gal 2.15-21; Rom 4.4f.,14-16; 6.14; 11.5f.). But why is
this the case? Because man’s effort to achieve his salvation by keeping the
Law only leads him into sin, indeed this effort itself in the end is already
sin. It is the insight which Paul has achieved into the nature of sin that
determines his teaching on the Law. This embraces two insights. One is
the insight that sin is man’s self-powered striving to undergird his own
existence in forgetfulness of his creaturely existence, to produce his
salvation by his own strength, that striving which finds its extreme

293 Cf. Räisänen’s discussion in Paul and the Law, 164ff.

294 Cf. Part I chapter V.
295 Burton, 120.

166
 Works of the Law and Justification

expression in “boasting” and “trusting in the flesh.” The other is the

insight that man is always already a sinner, that, fallen into the power of
sin, he is always already involved in a falsely oriented understanding of
his existence. The reason, then, that man shall not, must not, be
“rightwised” by works of the law is that he must not be allowed to
imagine that he is able to procure his salvation by his own strength; for he
can find his salvation only when he understands himself in his depend-
ence upon God the creator.296

Bultmann places at the heart of the problem of “works of the

law” the question of motivation. Even if one would obey the law
perfectly it would not accomplish any good, since the attempt in
itself would be a rejection of one’s “creaturely existence.” It
would amount to boasting in one’s own works and, therefore,
would be inherently evil. In that sense “works of the law” re-
present all that has gone wrong in man’s relationship to his
creator. Christ, according to Bultmann, reveals to man the
deepest insights into his existence; that is, into what has always
been and will always be man’s challenge: the submission to his
Creator.
There is an important insight to be gained from Bultmann’s
observations that plays a major part in Paul’s rejection of “works
of the law.” It is crucial, however, not to generalize the concept
“works of the law” in the sense that an antithesis of “doing” versus
“believing” is construed. In fact, the boasting (Rom 2.15) in which
Bultmann sees the “legalistic spirit” at work may not be so easily
explicable as a “general” boasting in meritorious works of the law.
The passages related to boasting in the law (Rom 2.17,23; 3.27) ap-
pear to describe a boasting in a position of grace, a boasting in
God and a “not-doing” of the just requirements of the law (cf. esp.
2.17-23). According to those passages, the problem was not the
attempt to “achieve” a “rightwised” position before God by
obeying the requirements of the law. What Paul is opposing is an

296 Rudolph Bultmann, Theology, I:264.

167
exaggerated trust in the possession of the law, by performing the
outward signs of identity of Judaism.297
Further, our investigation into Gal 3.10-13 in Part I chapter V of
this thesis has shown, that there were two ways of existing under
the old covenant - one by faith in the promise, the other by law
apart from the promise. Paul is opposing life   (Gal 3.11)
because the law as such was never given to justify (Gal 3.21). Thus,
what Paul is addressing in his rejection of “works of the law” is
not only the wrong “motivation” of pride in the flesh, but the fact
that it is plain foolishness (Gal 3.1,3) to seek justification by
means of the law.298 In other words, to seek justification by works
of the law implies to expect something from the law that the law
was not given for. The law was added to increase transgressions
(Gal 3.19; Rom 5.20) and, thus, to highlight the predicament of
man which, in turn, was meant to arouse the longing for the
“promised redeemer.” Thus, Paul is rejecting justification by
works of the law not only because it represents the wrong
motivation but because it is simply an impossibility. The just
requirements of the law are fulfilled by faith since faith is the
means by which God releases his Spirit “so that you can do it”
(Deut 30.14).

297 Cf. F.C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, (Edinburgh-
London: T.& T. Clark, 1960): 64: “If anything, Judaism erred on the side
of over-emphasizing the free grace of God, his infinite loving-kindness
(if this be error!) and in consequence made forgiveness much too simple
and too easy to obtain.”
298 As we procede the distinction between “wrong motivation” and
“impossibility” will be further elaborated upon.

168
 Works of the Law and Justification

“Works of the Law” = A Realm of

Religious Existence

An important contribution to the interpretation of  

has been made by Ernst Lohmeyer.299 Lohmeyer starts out in his
investigation by asking for the grammatical options available for
the genitive construction and determines that “the genitive of
origin or attribution” would seem the most natural option to start
with. He deduces this from a comparison with 1 Cor 3.13 (”each
man’s work will be manifest”) or Rom 2.6 (”For he will render to
every man    ”). If the phrase   is taken
in approximation to these references, it would appear that the
law, in a similar fashion as “man” in the examples mentioned,
would function as originator of works. Lohmeyer dismisses such
an interpretation of  , however, on the grounds that the
case with the law is different, in that the law-- instead of being at
the performing end-- demands works and that therefore the ver-
bal idea in the construction prohibits a genitive of origin. In other
words, the law can not at the same time be the one that demands
and the one that does the works.300
Lohmeyer also rejects the objective genitive (which he
interprets as “das Mühen um das Gesetz”) on the grounds that the
concept “work” does not comply with the idea of “effort towards”
(ein immer strebendes Sich-bemühen), but rather designates the
more definite idea of “result.” In addition, it would be unnatural
for Paul to describe the goal of our endeavor as “law” rather than
“righteousness.” The third grammatical option -- “the genitive of
quality” - does not suffice either, according to Lohmeyer, since

299 Ernst Lohmeyer, “Probleme Paulinischer Theologie, II. ‘Gesetzeswerke,’ “

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 28 (1929): 177-207.
300 Ibid., 178.

169
the law is not a quality but a norm which serves as a definition for
moral and other qualities. Lohmeyer concludes “daß hier alle
grammatischen Definitionen versagen.”301 Thus we have to define
the meaning of the genitive construction with a certain liberty
based on the factual relationship (sachliche Beziehung) between
the two nomina, keeping in mind that in Hebrew genitive
constructions are more loosely defined than in Greek, which
could be the explanation for the difficulties encountered.302
For that purpose Lohmeyer proceeds with an investigation into
the usage of  in the LXX and and late Jewish literature
(Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch) and finds that the word
is used to describe the sum total of human activity: past,
completed events, present action, and - still to be pursued -
future action. In fact, the concept of works defines the “Form der
religiösen Existenz des jüdischen Frommen.”303 However,”works”
are not descriptions of human achievements. Works relate to the
law in that they are the visual expression of the grace given by
God to His people: they are the fruits of His righteousness.304
Therefore, works of the law precede the actions of man. “Werke
sind durch die Offenbarung des Gesetzes die gottgeschenkte
Möglichkeit, seinem Willen zu leben und darum im strengsten
Sinne erst zu ‘sein’.”305 Works of the law and reward from God
coincide in that works are the expression of God’s love; that is,
they originate with God. “Denn beide, Gesetz und Mensch,
Gesetz und Volk, sind ‘Werke’ der Liebe Gottes.”306 The disparity
between “sittlich religiösem Tun und naturhaft geschichtlichem

301 Ibid., 179.

302 Ibid., 180.
303 Ibid., 195.
304 Cf. ibid., 189. Lohmeyer refers to Apoc. Ezra IV 2,3, (9,31) etc.
305 Ibid., 194-5.
306 Ibid., 195.

170
 Works of the Law and Justification

Sein” is the riddle that will be graciously solved by God in the

eschatological judgment.307
Paul, Lohmeyer continues to argue, regularly uses “works” in
constructions that would suggest a double perspective. On the
one hand, it is the work of God; on the other hand, “works” are
dependent upon man’s actions, as is exemplified in 1 Cor 15.58:
“Be... always abounding in the work of the Lord.”308 The case is
different when it comes to “works of the law,” however, for
several reasons. First, the phrase “works of the law” is
distinguished from all other genitive combinations with  in
that it lacks a personal subject. Secondly, the concept “works of
the law” does not designate detailed requirements that demand
response but constitutes the basic conditions (grundsätzliche
Bedingungen), which Lohmeyer calls the “Dienst des Gesetzes,”
that make the fulfillment of the specifics possible. When he has
specfic acts in mind, Paul always refers to the “doing of the law”
in an indirect manner; e.g., in Rom 2.25; 10.5; Gal 5.3.309 Thirdly,
the preposition  makes an instrumental idea impossible. The
idea conveyed is “origin.”310 Thus the question of fulfillment or
non-fulfillment is not the focus of “works of the law”. Rather, the
concept    summarizes the religious and historical
existence of the Jewish people, without direct reference to the
conduct of the individual.311 Lohmeyer asserts that there are two
“clear” passages (one speaking of Jews, the other of man in
general) that prove that the work of the law is the precondition of

307 Ibid., 194, italics added.

308 Cf. further Phil 1.6; 2.30; Rom 14.20, 1 Cor 16.10.
309 Lohmeyer gathers further evidence from the LXX and late Judaism for
his view that the word  regularly refers not to specific actions but to
“service in its totality” and is utilized in concepts of interaction between
God’s and man’s activity, cf. 182ff.
310 Ibid., 199-200.
311 Cf. ibid., 200.

171
existence (Sein), the definition of man in his “Dasein” in order to
make “Sein” possible. The passages are Gal 3.10 and Rom 2.15.312
Lohmeyer attributes great significance, so it seems, to the  in
Gal 3.10. “Being” precedes action. Likewise in Rom 2.15 the doing
of the law is evidence to a condition that precedes the doing;
namely, the engravement of the work of the law on the heart.
Lohmeyer asserts that there is a quality about the Dienst des
Gesetzes that testifies to an inherently provisional character. This
quality Lohmeyer calls the motive of the never-ending requirement
(das Motiv der bleibenden Aufgabe).313 The law is not able to bring
about what it prescribes, which is evident from the fact that its
demands need to be continuously repeated. Now, since the
“works of the law” are the basis of man’s existence (Sein) rather
than a description of his performance, the problem lies with the
law itself. “Der Dienst des Gesetzes ist nicht eine Frage des
menschlichen Vermögens, sondern des göttlichen Willens.”314
Therefore, Paul rejects the Dienst des Gesetzes not because of
human lack of compliance, even though the problem finds its
expression in human failure, but because of the failure of the
Dienst des Gesetzes which precedes human failure. The law is
inherently weak and incapable of constituting a functioning basis
for religious existence. Hence the law itself bears witness to the
necessity of its own termination.
Lohmeyer, then, argues for a deficiency of the law with regard
to its incapability to provide the religious environment in which
obedience to God was possible. Thus, the abolishment of the Mo-
saic law was not only due to inclusivistic concerns on Paul’s part.

312 Ibid. 201-2.

313 Ibid., 201, 203-6. Cf. also 183: “‘ Werk’ (ist). . . der in unablässigen Mühen
sich vollziehende Akt der Erfüllung.”
314 Ibid., 206-7.

172
 Works of the Law and Justification

(Lohmeyer has been falsely made a supporter of such a position

in the article by Joseph Tyson, which we shall discuss shortly.)
The most important weakness of Lohmeyer’s thesis will be
discussed during our disccusion of Douglas Moo’s interpretation
below. One weakness with Lohmeyer’s thesis that can be
mentioned at this point is his dissociation of the Dienst des
Gesetzes from human responsibility. Even if he were right that
“works of the law” were the basis for the religious existence of the
Jews as it came to them from Mount Sinai, an existence of
weakness and slavery (cf. Gal 4.21ff), there was a choice available
to turn that “cursed” existence into a “blessed” existence, namely
by receiving the “blessing of Abraham” (Gal 3.10-14) which is the
promise of the Spirit.

“Works of the Law” = Signs of Jewish

Identity

Joseph Tyson, embracing Lohmeyer’s analysis, applies the

interpretation of   as Dienst des Gesetzes which he calls
“nomistic service,” to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.315 He asserts
that Paul, together with Peter, was aware of the fact ( 2.15)
that “nomistic service” did not justify-- an awareness which was
not based on their pre-Christian frustration with the law, but on
“the superiority of faith in Christ.”316 Tyson further observes from
the context of Gal 2.16 that “nomistic service” included certain

315 Joseph Tyson, “‘ Works of Law’ in Galatians,” Journal of Biblical

Literature 92 (1973): 423-31.
316 Ibid., 426.

173
food laws. In 3.2-3 Tyson notices the affiliation between “works of
law” and “flesh” which, in his opinion, “focuses attention on the
outward or the visible”317 an insight which in turn leads him to
relate “works of the law” closely to circumcision since cir-
cumcision is an outward and fleshly thing (cf. Phil 3.2-11). “Cir-
cumcision, therefore, must be understood as a chief characteristic
of nomistic service.” “Thus, when Paul thinks of works of law, he
thinks of existence as a Jew.”318 Tyson asserts that the references to
the death of Christ in both 2.21 and 3.1 are inexplicable.319 Only
when we reach 3.14 the relationship between the death of Christ
and the “nomistic service” becomes clear. The death of Christ has
universal character, but “nomistic service” makes impossible the
inclusion of the Gentiles. Food laws and circumcision served as
signs of exclusivism and separation. Thus, inasmuch as Paul
refers to the death of Christ it is in the context of inclusivism
versus exclusivism, since the death of Christ “opened up a new set
of conditions which made nomistic service no longer a possible
framework for justification.”320 “In God’s new world in Christ there
is no distinction between Jew and Greek.”321
Although Tyson refers to Lohmeyer’s “convincing analysis,”322 it
would appear that his understanding of that analysis is rather
limited. His remarks concerning the death of Christ in 2.21 and 3.1
indicate an assessment of both “nomistic service” and the
meaning of the death of Christ in Galatians that is much more
simplistic than Lohmeyer’s. While Lohmeyer certainly maintains
that for the Jew the historical limitation of his Gesetzesdienst is

317 Ibid., 427.

318 Ibid., 428 and 430.
319 Ibid., 428: “In some still unclear way, the significance of Jesus’ death is
at stake.”
320 Ibid., 430.
321 Ibid., 431.
322 Ibid., 425.

174
 Works of the Law and Justification

the Mosaic law and that, therefore, the universal character of the
Gospel comes into conflict with the “Jewish boundaries” of the
law, he by no means limits the rejection of the Gesetzesdienst to
questions of national identity. The eschatological day,
inaugurated by Christ, is viewed instead as the way out of the
bleibenden Anspruch. It offers the solution to the discrepancy
between dem Anspruch und der Tatsache.323 Tyson does not refer
to the question of the inferiority of the law as a “realm of religious
existence.” The very last sentence in his article (”God’s people are
marked by faith and the Spirit rather than by circumcision and
food laws.”) summarizes in a nutshell his, so it seems, simplified
approach.
James D.G. Dunn’s interpretation of “works of the law” belongs
also under this heading. We have already discussed his position
in some detail in Part I Chapter V under the heading
“Exclusivism,” however. Thus we will not reiterate what has al-
ready been said, but will refer the reader to that chapter. Dunn
has in essence elaborated upon the theory advanced by Tyson.
His approach is more thorough than Tyson’s. However, with
regard to the fact that he makes “exclusivism” the central issue of
Galatians, the criticism we have expressed against Tyson applies
also to him. The heart of our disagreement with both Dunn and
Tyson, is not their observation that “works of the law” are mainly
“Jewish” rituals, but that “works of the law” was a positive term
for Paul as long as it related to the period before Christ. In our
opinion, Paul is arguing against reliance on the performance of
those rituals, circumcision in particular, at all times.

323 Cf. Lohmeyer, 206.

175
 “Works of the Law” = Neutral but
Impossible

Douglas Moo rejects the legalistic interpretation of “works of

the law” as it is represented by Cranfield, Burton, Daniel P.
Fuller324 and others, since it neglects the stress on the salvation
historical transition.325 Moo also rejects Tyson’s view, and with it
Lohmeyer’s on the basis that “the idea of a general service of an
institution” is not what Paul focuses upon when he uses 
. Rather, Paul’s emphasis lies on the fulfillment of concrete
acts as is clear from Galatians “where the issue is not ‘service of
the law’ but the accomplishment of what the law requires.”326 Moo
suggests the following translation of  : “Works done in
obedience to the Law.” No less, no more! That this is the right
translation is further sustained by an investigation into the word
 when used absolutely. Both  and   are used
with the same prepositions ( and ). Also, the contextual
proximity of the phrase in Romans 3 to  in Romans 4
suggests a similarity in meaning. Moo concludes that “ 
  should be viewed as a particular subset of .”327 This
insight suggests that, since in Romans 4 the works of Abraham
were good and not evil actions – that is, potentially but not in
and of themselves meritorious in character – “‘works of the law’
will likewise indicate commendable actions, performed in
obedience to the law.”328 Thus,

324 Fuller, “Paul,” 28-42.

325 Moo, “Law,” 88 “What is sacrificed, it seems to me, when  is
construed to mean legalism, is nothing less than the heart of Paul’s
conception of saving history.”
326 Ibid., 94.
327 Ibid., 95.
328 Ibid., 96.

176
 Works of the Law and Justification

”works of the law” cannot justify, not because they are inherently wrong,
nor only because a decisive shift in salvation history has occurred but
fundamentally because no man is able to do them in sufficient degree and
number so as to gain merit before God.”329

Moo is certainly right that the issue of “exclusivism” explains

Paul’s rejection of “works of the law” only in part. He is also right
that “legalism” is not a workable solution to salvage the
“reputation” of the law, as though Paul was of the opinion that
 actually was a means of justification in that a distinction
between law and promise was imperceptible. We agree with Moo
that “Paul distinguishes promise and law by definition.”330 Finally,
Moo has advanced convincing evidence that “works” should be
viewed as specific deeds done in compliance with the
requirements of the law. Lohmeyer’s distinction between Sein
and Dasein does not have enough exegetical support to carry
conviction.
However, Moo’s solution - that the “impossibility” of fulfilling
the whole law was the pivotal reason why Paul rejected
justification on the basis of “works of the law” - is not satisfactory
for the following reasons: First, as we have argued in Part I
(esp.,72-75) the antithesis between the “bare law” and the
concrete faith in the promise given to Abraham was an antithesis
already present under the old covenant. Thus, there was a choice
offered between life   and life   all along (not
withstanding the eschatological “coming of faith”), which means
that Paul made a distinction between attempts to fulfill the law 
  and attempts to fulfill the law  , and that
he perceived of the two possibilities as being available
simultaneously. The demand of perfect law fulfillment was a
consequence of the attempt to fulfill the law   
rather than its presupposition.

329 Ibid., 98.

177
 Therefore, it is necessary to conclude, that the curse of the law
that is upon all who rely on works of the law is not simply a
matter that cannot be avoided since it is impossible to do “all”
that the law requires. Instead, to seek justification   
is wrong since justification (and the reception of the Spirit, Gal
3.1-5) ought to be sought by “faith in the promise.” The reason
why relying on works of the law lead to the demand of perfect
obedience, was that, apart from faith in the promise, even the
sacrificial parts of the law shrivel up to a group of prescriptions
and regulations that demand perfect performance without
restorating power.
Secondly, there seems to be an inseparable linkage between
motivation and the possibility/impossibility of “abiding in all the
things written in the book ...” In other words, if we attempt to
fulfill the requirements of the law  , or  , we will
not be able to. But if we do it   or  , we will.
The distinction between life   and life    is
not only one of justification versus condemnation, but one of
obedience versus non-obedience. The law was never meant as
God’s channel of power. The issue, from this perspective, is not
whether works of the law are evil or good works, but that the
choice between “promise” and “law” decides whether the just
requirements of the law will be fulfilled in us. Hence, while we
agree with Moo that the issue at stake was the impossibility of the
fulfillment of the law, we disagree that there is no inherent
polemical tone in the term. The adherents to the interpretation of
works of the law as “legalistic works,” then, are not completely
contradicted by Moo. Rather, it is a combination of “legalism”
and “impossibility” that accounts for Paul’s depreciation of life 
  As we have observed further, the adherents to the
“exclusivistic” interpretation of “works of the law” are correct in

330 Ibid., 88.

178
 Works of the Law and Justification

that the focus of the Judaizers lies on the fulfillment of certain

ritual requirements rather than the moral law.

Conclusion

If our evaluation of the theories surveyed is correct, the

following preliminary observation can be made. First, the
rejection of “works of the law” by Paul finds its expression in his
rejection of circumcision and food laws, not primarily because
those practices are hindrances to the universal thrust of the
Gospel - although that is part of Paul’s concern - but because
compliance to circumcision and food laws by Gentiles signifies a
devastating misconception of both the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ and of the antithesis between law and promise.
Secondly, “works of the law” denote specific deeds required by the
law. Thirdly, it was and is wrong to live    because it
is foolishness (Gal 3.1,3). The law cannot make alive. Hence, to
depend or rely upon the law for life must lead to frustration and
curse.

179
III. “Works of Law” in
Galatians

The Problem at Galatia

The context of Galatians 2.16 where the phrase  

occurs historically for the first time in the Pauline corpus is that
of the Antiochean controversy between Peter and Paul. Paul
appears to have incorporated the report of the incident at
Antioch into the letter to the Galatians for the sake of providing
further evidence of his Apostolic authority. In 1.12 he had already
indicated that his authority was not from men but from God. He
had received the Gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles by
revelation of Jesus Christ. He further explained that even the
leadership in Jerusalem had recognized his Apostolic authority
(2.1ff). The recognition from Jerusalem, however, did not change
his position regarding the law-free Gospel. Beginning with 2.11,
Paul informs his friends in Galatia that he had openly confronted
Peter in Antioch, because Peter had acted as a hypocrite (2.13) in

180
 Works of the Law and Justification

that he had secluded himself from table fellowship with the

Gentile Christians there.
The confrontation between Peter and Paul, as it is described in
these verses, “constituted the locus classicus for the Tübingen
school of their dialectical reconstruction of original
Christianity,”331 that is, of the hypothesis of the irreconcilable
conflict between Peter and Paul which lead to the splitting up of
the early church into different fractions. However, it seems rather
unlikely that Paul would refer to his conflict with Peter here if the
result had been a disaster. Also, we read in 2.12 that Peter
separated himself from the Gentile Christians only under
pressure. Before “some from James” had come, he had no
problems fitting into the ethnically mixed Christian communities
at Galatia. Thus, obviously, Peter’s withdrawal from table
fellowship with the Galatian Christians was contrary to his
innermost convictions: It was an act of hypocrisy.332 Peter stood
“condemned” ( v.11). However, the pressure which
“some from James” exerted on the Jews in Antioch must have
been substantial, since even Barnabas was carried away into
hypocrisy (2.13), a fact that Paul remarks with apparent
astonishment.
It would appear, therefore, that more was at stake than
compliance with laws of tradition.333 Only arguments from the
Torah itself (combined with authorization from important
leaders in Jerusalem) could have made Peter and Barnabas waver
in their convictions. In addition, a reference by Paul to the
conflict at Antioch would not have been very helpful unless that
conflict concerned the Torah as such since the problem at Galatia

331 Cf. Bruce, Galatians, 23; Lightfoot, 27.

332 Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, trans.
of the manuscript by Henry Zylstra; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 95.
333 So Walter Schmithals, Paul and James, Studies in Biblical Theology,
trans. D.M. Barton, Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1965), 63.

181
concerned a law of the Torah, circumcision. It seems natural to
assume that Paul referred to the Antiochean incident in order to
strengthen his case against the Judaizers at Galatia. He needed an
argument that supported his criticism not only of tradition but of
circumcision.
We cannot deal comprehensively, at this point, with the
question of chronology with regard to the Apostolic Council.
However, that question seems less important if one considers the
following: The laws in Leviticus 17 and 18, which James is alluding
to (Acts 15.19-21) were intended originally to regulate the behavior
of both natives of Israel and of the “stranger who sojourns among
you” (cf. Lev 17.10,12,15; 18.26). Thus, the prescriptions by James
could be interpreted in two ways. They could be understood as
rules that applied for “natives”; they could also, however, be
interpreted as rules that regulated the toleration of strangers
among the people of God without giving the strangers the status
of “equals.” Thus, James’ ruling could be, if one so wished,
interpreted as upholding the superiority of the Jews over the Gen-
tiles. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that Paul, who probably
had interpreted the regulations simply as a convenient way to
regulate fellowship among equals, did no longer accept these
prescriptions once they were used to uphold distinctions. Paul
now not only allowed the Gentiles to eat whatever they wanted if
their conscience was clean (Rom 14; 1 Cor 8); he considered it an
obligation, at least for himself and those Jews who worked
together with him, to become a “sinner” for the sake of Christ
(Gal 2.17).334
Whereas the conflict in Antioch was focusing predominantly
on food laws, the problem at Galatia evolved almost exclusively
around the question of circumcision (but cf. 4.10). Since the

334 This seems to be Paul’s position with regard to “food-laws” in any case.
We have no evidence, however, that Paul considered circumcision of
Jews to be a problem, so long it was not made the basis of justification.

182
 Works of the Law and Justification

apostles had agreed that circumcision was not required of the

Gentiles (cf. 2.7-10; and Acts 15), Paul could cite the apostles as
his supporters on the issue. However, the force with which the
Judaizers were able to affect the Galatians seems to suggest that
suspicions against Paul were still lingering in high-up circles in
Jerusalem and played a part in the severity of the problem at
Galatia.335 Also, Paul’s declaration of independence and his claim
to have received his gospel by revelation (1.12,16-17; 2.7) would
suggest that Paul was interested in claiming more than
“Jerusalem” authorization.
In 2.14 Paul records how he had confronted Peter: He reports
the words of his admonition.336 The way Paul puts his accusation,
however, is quite surprising. Peter had withdrawn from the
Gentiles and separated himself, limiting his fellowship to Jews.
Thus, he had asserted that he could not live like a Gentile and
still be in accord with the law. One would have expected Paul to
confront Peter in that situation by saying: “If you insist on living
like a Jew, don’t you see that you deny your Gentile brothers the
right to be properly part of the people of God?!” Paul, however,
approaches the problem quite differently. He says to Peter: If you,
though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you
compel Gentiles to live like Jews.
It seems as though Paul turns the matter on its head. Peter had
just admitted that living like a Gentile is impossible for a Jew.
Hence, why would Paul accuse Peter of doing what, in effect, he
did not do (or at least no longer did)? In order to come to terms
with this corollary, we need to recognize that Peter’s action was
based on hypocrisy. He stood condemned! Paul’s attack on Peter,
therefore, is more subtle than it at first seems. He purposely
chose to phrase his accusation as he did, in order to make Peter,

335 Cf. Stuhlmacher, “Gerechtigkeitsanschauung,” 96.

336 That is what the form of direct speech would make us assume.

183
by his own beliefs, recognize the hypocrisy in his behavior. Paul,
it seems, is appealing to a truth on which both he and Peter
agree, even though Peter participated in the segregation of the
Judaizers. And the truth was this: They had all come to believe
that the old (Mosaic) covenant had ended and that the Gospel
had been offered to all nations without distinctions (cf. 3.26-29).
Thus, in theory, they had all accepted that the people of God no
longer received their identity from national boundary markers.
They had also understood that justification was not available
through the law but only through Jesus Christ. Thus Paul can
forcefully confront Peter by saying: “If you, then, although by
nature () you belong under the old covenant, live like a
Gentile - that is, if your desire to be justified   a desire
that has lead you to become a Gentile ‘sinner’ (cf. 2.17) - how can
you compel Gentiles to commit themselves to what you yourself
have, in your better moments, abandoned? How can you lead
them back under those weak and beggarly principles?”337
Thus we can see that the conflict that arose in those early
mixed churches was concerned with the question, “Where is our
identity as the people of God?” What Paul refers to in verse 14
with the distinction between  and  is further
clarified in verse 15. Here Paul places “being Jews by nature”
( ) against being Gentile sinners ( 
. What is the meaning of the phrase  
? From a comparison with verse 17, it would appear
that the phrase cannot denote becoming a sinner in the absolute
sense of the word. In verse 17 Paul strongly affirms that his zeal to
be justified in Christ has made him a “sinner.” Hence, Paul

337 Gal 4.9. Whether or not Paul expected all Jewish Christians to surrender
their adherence to the ceremonial law is a different issue and not a
necessary implication from this text. It is clear however, that Paul
himself was extremely flexible and that at this point he expected
flexibility also from Peter. Cf. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 75.

184
 Works of the Law and Justification

employs the term as it is understood from the viewpoint of those

under the law. In other words, Paul “has become a sinner in a
relative (Torah-oriented) sense.”338 In talking about Gentile sin-
ners, he is not primarily referring to the immoral and depraved
behaviors of Gentiles (although that was certainly part of the
accusation by his opponents, cf., 2.17b), but simply to Gentiles as
a whole, in that they are not under the law. To be  
consequently denotes Jews as a whole in their covenantal
existence under the law. The differentiation between 
 and    relates predominantly to
identity.
To live , then, means to live under the Mosaic cove-
nant and to be committed to that covenant. That commitment is
most clearly made visible through obedience to the ceremonial
law, especially circumcision. Paul affirms in verse 17a that such
commitment in its totality is not possible for those who seek to
be justified in Christ. The question that has to be asked is: What
is the root of Paul’s objections to circumcision? Is it that circum-
cision confined the spread of the Gospel to Judaism, whereas the
nature of the Gospel was “universalistic” (cf. 6.15)? Most probably
this is part of Paul’s concern. Circumcision was a sign of Jewish
national identity as J. Dunn has rightly emphasized. But it would
not seem that this really was the major concern in Paul’s letter to
the Galatians. First of all, the Galatians seem to have been willing
to comply with the demand of the Judaizers and get circumcised
(cf. 3.1). Thus, the immediate concern of Paul was not that the
Gentiles could not be reached because of Jewish “exclusivism.”
Secondly, circumcision is described by Paul as a contradiction of
the advantage of Christ (5.2). To get circumcised led to the
demand of keeping the whole law (5.3) which was an
impossibility. Thus, thirdly, and this is the crux of the matter,

338 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 75.

185
compliance to circumcision made justification impossible. In
order to () live for God one must die to the law (2.19).
Thus, it would appear that Paul rejected the practice of
circumcision by the Galatian Christians primarily because it
evidenced their “foolish” belief that the law was a means of
justification. The Galatians had been made to believe that
justification necessitated being a Jew and partaking of the bene-
fits of the Mosaic covenant. But Paul asserts strongly that “the
law was added because of transgressions” (3.19) and was not given
to make alive or justify (3.21). Thus, to look to the law for “help” is
“foolishness” (3.1,3). It is a rejection of God’s intention to bring
about justification by faith in Christ, apart from works of the law
(Rom 3.28). It would appear, then, that Paul’s rejection of
circumcision for Gentiles relates to his overall perception of the
purpose of the law and that “works of the law” are works that in-
dicate that misdirected perception of the purpose of the law.

Galatians 2.16

As we have argued, there is a clear analogy between the

Antiochean episode and the Galatian problem. It is, in fact, for
that reason that Paul refers to the Antiochean episode.339 Thus,
the question of whether Paul is addressing the Galatians
themselves from verse 15 onwards or whether he is continuing his
speech to Peter in 2.15-21 is almost irrelevant. Also, the flow of the

339 Cf. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 47,48. This is one of those cases, where
one can get carried away with the interest in “subject matter” (the Peter-
Paul debate) instead of the author’s intent; cf. E.D. Hirsch, Validity in
Interpretation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1967)

186
 Works of the Law and Justification

argument suggests a close connection between verses 14,15 and 17.

Now we shall consider how verse 16 fits into the context. How
should the threefold occurrence of    in verse 16 be
interpreted? The phrase occurs in antithesis to / 
 as part of a whole series of antitheses. We shall start by
looking at these antitheses as Paul lists them in verses 14 to 18:

v.14      

v.15      
v.16a       
v.16d       
v.17/18      
    

The first two pairs (vv.14,15) have already been established as
references to “identity.” In addition, it is apparent that 
in verse 17 correspond to the  in verse 15. Thus, even in
verse 17 the focus seems to be on “identity.” The connection to 
 further underlines that the primary concern of Paul here
is not “human achievements,” but “existence” in a certain
“sphere.”340 Paul’s reference to  –– which is the “real”
dialectical antithesis to  since the synthesis between 
  and   , as it was
suggested by the opponents, is emphatically rejected by Paul341 ––

340 Cf. Burton, 124: “the sphere in which the Christian lives.”
341 Some interpreters (Lietzmann, Bousset, Sieffert, Zahn) have claimed
that parabathn emauton synistanw should be understood as a
description of Paul’s attempt to rationalize Peter’s disagreement with
him. Thus, Paul describes how Peter viewed his own action. He should
have never torn down that which he now is trying to re-establish;
namely, law obedience. The fact of the re-establishing proves that the
tearing down was wrong and sinful (cf. for a criticism of this view,
Wilhelm Mundle, “Zur Auslegung von Gal 2.17,18,” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 23 [1924]: 152-3). Mundle is certainly
right in pointing out the absurdity of such an interpretation. He
suggests that the reference should be understood in light of Rom 4.15:

187
deserves some attention. It is worth noting how Paul expresses
himself in verse 18: “But if I build up again those things which I
tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor.” Whereas both the
“building up” and the “tearing down” are described in active
terms, the basis of those actions is referred to by means of the
phrase “  ” We should note that Paul
does not say: “If... then I become a transgressor.” Rather, he
phrases the expression in such a way as to imply that if he
engages in the tearing down, etc., those actions evidence -
“display” - what he is. Thus, the phrase reads like the description
of a certain “quality of life” as it contrasts against “life  .”
Verse 19 further underlines that not only acts of transgression are
in view here but the more fundamental concept of condemnation
and weakness. There was only one way to quit being a
transgressor; namely, to die to the law.342 We conclude that
   functions as a proper antithetical
description to      
It can further be established that the idea of justification
relates   antithetically back to    in verse
16c. By works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But in Christ
we are being (and are going to be; [future tense]) justified. In
addition, the polemical undertone in verse 17 – that is, the
argument that justification in Christ is in certain disagreement
with the law of Moses – further connects   antithetically
with   .

. In other words, to re-establish the

law would mean to declare what Christ has done null and void.
342 The fact that one has to die with Christ to the law in order to live for
Christ suggests that more than a false attitude or motivation was at
stake. The death of Christ would have been a unnecessarily drastic
measure, if it was only meant to make one aware of wrong behavior. A
prophetic word, so it seems, would have suited that purpose perfectly.

188
 Works of the Law and Justification

It would seem established that verse 16 ought to be read as part

of the argument in which Paul contrasts two “spheres of
existence”, one  , the other   (cf. 5.4-6). The
terms  and   describe the physical limita-
tions of the sphere of the law as they contrast with the equally
physical descriptions of identity,  and   .
The term  relates to the spiritual condition of failure
under the law, just as   relates to the spiritual condition
of victory over sin. Man’s existence   is characterized by
 since the  is without power; the function that
was assigned to the law by God was not that of justification but of
revelation; revelation, that is, of man’s predicament to man.
How, then, does verse 16 fit into the argument? The basic logic
of the verse runs like this:
a) Justification is not by works of the law
but only by faith in Jesus Christ
b) Because no flesh shall be justified by works of the law.
Several observations need to be made. First, the context seems
to suggest that Paul is arguing against very specific “works of the
law”; namely, laws that underline the distinctions between Jews
and Gentiles. Thus, Paul’s concern is not with whatever kind of
“achievement” under the law, but predominantly with the
observation of certain ritual laws that indicate overconfidence in
Jewishness. Secondly, Paul opposes these “works of the law” be-
cause those who do them claim that Christ is not sufficient for
their salvation. Thirdly, we need to note the  clause in verse
16d with which Paul states the reason why justification was not
available by works of the law. It is because no flesh (  )
shall be justified by “works of the law.” There are no exceptions.
This leads us to the conclusion a) that the conjunction   in

189
verse 16a can only be taken as an “adversative” conjunction343 and
b) that the antithesis between “works of the law” and “faith in
Jesus Christ” is absolute. The two are diametrically opposed.
“Works of the law” lead to condemnation whereas “faith in Jesus
Christ” leads to justification.344 Why, then, this absolute antithesis

343 There is almost universal agreement that the conjunction  must
be taken in its more unusual “adversative” sense (the natural exceptive
meaning [cf. Gal 1.19] translating as “unless” or “except” does not make
sense in this context) The translation “but” is clearly an option Paul was
aware of as 1.7 shows. Burton, 120-21, suggests the translation “but only”
although he recognizes that “ is properly exceptive, not
adversative.” He suggests that if “except” is chosen as the interpretation
it can only refer to  and not to ,
since a reference to the whole statement “would yield the thought that a
man can be justified by works of the law if this be accompanied by
faith.” Bruce, Galatians, 138, supports “but”; Betz, 113, “but only.” Schlier
argues that because of its dependence on   is
adversative. Dunn, “The New Perspective,” 113, accepts the “exceptive”
meaning of  but contends, at the same time, that it is
incompatible with verses 16b and c. To solve the inconsistency, Dunn
makes the incredible suggestion that verse 16 describes the actual
process of how Paul’ sthinking on the relationship between 
and  changed from a complementary to an antithetical
understanding. “In repeating the contrast. . . Paul alters it significantly:
what were initially juxtaposed as complementary are now posed as
straight alternatives.” Paul was suddenly struck by the implications of
his own assertions and thus changed his mind between verse 16a and
b,c. We have already suggested that one weakness in Dunn’s position
consists of the fact that he confines the “wrongness” of “works of the
law” to the period after Christ.
344 The fact that Paul supports his point with a quotation from the Old
Testament (Ps 143.2; for a discussion of the Old Testament context of the
quotation see Part III, 229-34) and the “absolute” character of his
assertion seem to suggest that the reference to “” in verse 16a is
not only to Jews that have become Christians but to Jews of all times.
This cannot be made out with absolute certainty, however, from this
context. It all depends on how one interprets “works of the law.” If
“works of the law” referred to “exclusivistic concerns” only, it would
make sense to say that “we who have become Christians know that
justification is no longer confined to the Jewish nation.” However, if our
interpretation is right and “works of the law” have always been contrary

190
 Works of the Law and Justification

between “works of the law” and “faith in Jesus Christ?” As we have

seen from the context, Paul is contrasting two antithetical
“spheres of existence,” one of transgression and condemnation
and one of life and justification. The doing of the “works of the
law” amounts to a rejection of Christ and all that he offers. In
order to live for God one needs to die to the law and rise again to
a life in Christ (2.20). To again turn one’s back on Christ leads to
a life that is marked by transgressions (2.19).
Performance of “works of the law,” then, equals a) living by the
law, b) being a transgressor and c) not being a “sinner.” It would
appear that the three interpretations for “works of the law” that
have been referred to earlier, the legalistic interpretation
(Cranfield), the “impossibility” interpretation (Moo) and the
exclusivistic interpretation (Dunn) all focus on a true aspect of
“works of the law.” Either interpretation, if taken in isolation,
however, leads to a distortion of what is at stake. “Works of the
law” are wrong because they indicate one’s “faith” in the law
rather than in Christ (2.21). “Works of the law” are foolishness
because reliance on them leads to transgressions in that they
sever from the the power of faith in Christ (2.19). “Works of the
law” are wrong because they indicate one’s reliance on national
identity, election and one’s focus on ritual performance at the ex-
pense of a concern for obedience to the will of God (2.15,17,20); a
concern that was to be reinforced by the law but fulfilled by faith
in Christ.

to “faith in Christ/the promise,” Paul is pointing out that confidence in

our own effort to fulfill the law has always - or should always have - been
“known,” by “us who are Jews by nature” ( [v.15]), to
be against God’s true intention with the law.

191
 Galatians 3.2 and 5

In Galatians 3.2 and 5, the phrase   occurs in contrast

to the phrase  . Whereas in 2.16 the debate
concerned justification, here it is the reception and the experi-
ence of the Spirit. The passage is introduced with the emphatic
statement: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” (v.1).
Paul is enraged because the Galatians have not understood the
implications of the crucifixion of Christ. In order to get an
understanding of what Paul may imply with this accusation, we
need to consider his theology of the cross in Galatians. References
to the crucifixion of Christ are found in 2.19; 3.1; 5.11, 24; 6.12 and
6.14. 2.19 relates the death of Christ to the event when Paul died
to the law in order to live for God. In 5.11 Paul refers to the cross
as the stumbling block that would be removed if he was still
preaching circumcision. The imagery of the crucifixion is used in
5.24 to emphasize that the flesh has no longer any power over us.
In 6.12 the cross of Christ is described, in contrast to
circumcision, as the reason for persecution. Finally, 6.14 presents
the cross of Christ as Paul’s glory over against the “glory” of
circumcision, which is a glory in the flesh since the crucifixion
brought about Paul’s separation from the . We should also
add 3.13, where Christ’s “hanging on a tree” is interpreted as a
curse by the law.
It becomes immediately clear that the crucifixion of Christ
carries a twofold emphasis in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. One is
polemical and underlines the shamefulness of the cross in the
eyes of the world (especially the Jewish “world”); the other relates
to power and the victory over the flesh. In 6.14 and 15 the two
emphases are merged into one powerful statement:

192
 Works of the Law and Justification

But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord

Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to
the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor
uncircumcision, but a new creation.
The new creation has both spiritual and cosmic dimensions.
Paul states that he has died both to sin and to the . The
cross, therefore, marks the end both of the  as it represents
the present evil age and thus, since the liberation relates not only
to an individual people but to creation ( ), also the
end of racial distinctions (3.28). It needs to be pointed out,
however, that God did not bring about a new creation, in order to
remove racial distinctions. Instead, the racial distinctions have
been removed because they are no longer valid in the new
creation. Thus, Paul’s polemic against circumcision is not a
matter of his unfavorable disposition towards his own ethnic
origin. Jewish nationalism is not worse than any other
nationalism. But since the Jews as a nation represented a certain
stage in salvation history, Paul had to deal with the abrogation of
Jewish nationalism in particular.
If we now return to our passage, what do these insights imply
for the interpretation of 3.1-5? Both the close proximity to 2.20
and the reference to the Spirit suggest that Paul’s primary focus,
as he alludes to the crucifixion of Christ, at this point, is that of
the power dimension of the cross. Paul’s public portrayal of
Christ as crucified refers to the demonstration of the power of
God among the Galatians as he first visited them. The reference is
strongly reminiscent of the strategy Paul had adopted when he
first came to Corinth: “For I decided to know nothing among you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was was with you in
weakness... but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1
Cor 2.1-4). Whereas the weakness in Corinth related to “wisdom,”
here it relates to the “glory in the flesh” (6.13).

193
 Thus, when Paul reminds his readers that they had received
the Spirit by means of a crucified Christ the implications are
twofold: 1) They have experienced the results of the termination
of the old age with its order and regulations and the advent of the
new creation; and 2) whatever happened to them was not
accomplished by Paul but by God Himself. Thus, Paul’s message
has been given divine sanction. It would seem that Paul is still
continuing his defense (this time from the perspective of experi-
ence) of what are the effects of living either   or  .
Since the Galatians have not received the Spirit by “works of the
law” it is evidenced that the new creation is not confined to
Jewish boundaries. The focus of “works of the law” continues to
be on specific works like circumcision rather than a general
reference to “doing” of the law.
We must now consider the phrase   . The trans-
lation of this phrase is difficult since a great variety of meanings
are possible. The word  can designate a) the organ or the
capacity of hearing,345 b) that which belongs to hearing (i.e.,
tidings or news) and c) the presentation of what has been heard -
that is, preaching. This last sense is the most frequent usage of
 in the New Testament.346 The word  can denote the
content (cf. Jude 3), the result or the quality of the “hear-
ing/preaching.” Commentators are usually looking for an analogy
to    in their search for an interpretation of the
phrase. Ridderbos, who looks for a correspondence not only in
meaning but also in grammatical structure, decides that an active
meaning is implied in  since  is active. Thus he translates
“hearing of faith.”347 Burton thinks that the two phrases “express
the leading antithesis of the whole epistle” and translates

345 Cf. Ridderbos, Galatians, 113. Schlier, 121. Cf. also Mk 7.35.
346 (John 12.38) Rom 10.16; 1 Thess 2.13; Heb 4.2.
347 Ibid.,

194
 Works of the Law and Justification

“hearing (of the Gospel) accompanied by faith.”348 Thus 

alone represents the Gospel and faith comes with it and through
it. Betz and Schlier decide for “proclamation of the faith.”349
Schlier supports his decision with a reference to the fact that as
 qualifies , so does  qualify . “Darin ent-
spricht der Ausdruck   dem entgegengesetzten von
  .”350 In other words, Schlier views the parallelism
between   and   completely antithetical.
Whereas Ridderbos decided for the same actor in both phrases,
but of antithetical actions, Schlier sees the antithesis extended to
the question of actor too.
Which of the options mentioned, then, makes most sense
according to the flow and the focus of the argument? We need to
recognize that the actor focused upon in verses 1-5 is God
Himself. This is implied by the introductory reference to the
presentation of Christ crucified. Also, Paul simply asks: “Does He
(God)... do so by works of the law or by the preaching of faith?”
At this point Paul is not involved in a salvation historical
argument about what came first (cf. 3.15ff), but he simply wants
his friends to ask themselves: “Who made the reception of the
Spirit possible? The focus on God as the actor shows that Paul is
not inquiring as to what they did, but as to what the
circumstances were that made the reception of the Spirit
possible.
Keeping this focus on God as the actor in mind, it seems that
Schlier’s analysis of the phrase comes closest to a contextually
sound meaning. Schlier points out that  as it occurs in the
LXX translation of Is 53.1 (quoted by Paul in Rom 10.16) is a

348 Burton, 147. For further similar suggestions see Bruce, Galatians, 149,
Guthrie, 92-3.
349 Betz, 132, and Schlier, 122: “Die  entsteht mit bzw. aus der ,
die aber wird dann nachträglich durch die  characterisiert.”
350 Schlier, ibid.

195
translation of the Hebrew h(wm$,351 representing the “message of
Yahweh,” “the revelation from God.” It is a message that brings
tidings or news. Schlier further states that  is identical in
content with the gospel but points out that the word  itself
points towards the origin of the proclamation rather than to the
act of communication.352 Thus,   could be translated
as “the faith that you received by means of the proclamation that
has its origin in God.” The focus is on God who is the originator
of the faith, and the reception of (rather than the human
response by) faith corresponds to the supernatural experience
that accompanied the proclamation. Faith brought with it the
Spirit (3.14).
We conclude that 3.1-5 is theological in perspective despite the
focus on experience. Paul is reminding the Galatians of what has
happened to them when they encountered the message of the
cross. He appeals to their experience in order to remind them of
what God has done to them in Christ. Whereas in 2.15-21, Paul
had focused upon the fact that faith in Christ made available jus-
tification and life for God, in this section he emphasized the
supernatural phenomena that accompanied the reception of
Christ. By focusing completely on what God has done in and
through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Paul creates a strong
contrast to the  , the works that indicate dependence
on the law for salvation. Paul affirms that it should have been
obvious to the Galatians that not their submission to
circumcision but solely God’s intervention in Christ brought
about their salvation. Therefore he so strongly reacts by calling
them “fools.” “Works of the law” are not the basis for the recep-
tion of the Spirit. Instead the Spirit is given   .

351 Cf. also Is 52.7 Ob 1.1.

352 Schlier, 122.

196
 Works of the Law and Justification

Thus, Paul defends his law-free Gospel by pointing out that it is

so much better in every respect than life under the law. Since God
has brought about their salvation - which is evidenced by their
reception of the Spirit - by the proclamation of the message of
faith and without the “assistance” of the law, it is clear that their
justification is not dependent on compliance to the law.
However, as we shall see in our next section, Paul’s salvation
historical perspective does not make him blind for the glory that
was present under the old covenant, even though, in light of the
glory of Christ, that glory is “no” glory (2 Corinthians 3). Verses 6-
9 consist of a defense of exactly that point; namely, that neither
justification nor Spirit reception were completely absent before
the coming of Christ in the flesh, His death and resurrection.
However, everything, even before the “coming of faith” was cen-
tered around the specific faith in the promised Messiah
(”scripture preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham”). The
experience of justification by Abraham relates to that of the
Galatians; and, since justification was a reality not only during,
but even before (cf. 3.15ff) the Mosaic covenant, it evidenced that
“failure” was not a doom that hung over the era of the law like a
veil that could not be lifted.

Galatians 3.10

We have already dealt with Gal 3.10-14 in some detail353 and will
now focus specifically on what has been left out so far; namely,
the interpretation of   The categorical statement with
which Paul connects the “works of the law” with the “curse” has

353 Cf. especially Part I, 72-76.

197
often been taken as an indication that Paul does not refer to
“proper” works of the law since such a view of the law could
simply not come from a Jew who believes in the Old Testament.
It has also been claimed that the inherent logic of Gal 3.10-14
suggests that Paul is not arguing against the law as such.354 We

354 Traditionally, the passage has been assumed to contain an implied

proposition: “it is impossible to keep the law perfectly.” Thus, everybody
is under a curse. (Cf. Burton, 164; Lightfoot, 137-8; Albrecht Oepke, Der
Brief des Paulus an die Galater, TH, vol. 9. ed. Joachim Rohde [Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973], 105.) Even the Jewish scholar H.J.
Schoeps, (cf. 175-77) holds that view. Schoeps thinks that Paul refers to
the 613 prescriptions and prohibitions of the Torah that cannot be
fulfilled by anyone perfectly. Fuller, “Paul,” has challenged that in-
terpretation and asserted that the curse is not a result of the failure to
comply with the demands of the law since the doing of the “works of the
law” itself is the problem. Thus, he interpreted “works of the law” as
“legalism” and opposed the addition of the implied proposition (”no one
can do it perfectly”) to Gal 3.10 as a “highly arbitrary procedure” (33).
Betz, 144-6, agrees with the arbitrariness of adding an argument e
silento. He states: “In fact Paul says the opposite. The law was given to
generate sin; sin is not the result of man’s inability to keep it but the
necessary presupposition for salvation” (145-6). Dunn, “Works of the
Law,” 534-6, argues, that “works of the law” are rejected neither because
they cannot be fulfilled, nor because doing them has been wrong before
the coming of Christ. Rather, “works of the law” are identical with the
“Jewish identity markers.” To be  means to interpret the
covenant relationship exclusively in terms of national identity. It is
characterized by the assumption that everything is perfect if one
physically belongs to Israel (534). The curse that was removed by Christ
was “the curse of a wrong understanding of the law” (536).
The only interpreter of those mentioned here who bases his argument
on the negative purpose of the law is Betz, a factor that certainly must
be taken into consideration for a correct understanding of this passage.
However, Betz’s interpretation of that purpose is unacceptable to us:
“The Torah was... given... for the purpose of breaking it and generating
sin (cf. 3.19-21)” (145). Betz solves the tension between this “extremely”
negative purpose as he sees it and the positive assertions in Galatians
with regard to the law by suggesting a distinction between “God’s Torah”
and a “Jewish Torah” given on Mount Sinai. Such a distinction is not
credible, however. Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law possible,”
157, has correctly pointed out that such a distinction contradicts Gal 3.21

198
 Works of the Law and Justification

have, however, demonstrated that Paul actually did view the law,
as it was given on Mount Sinai, to be apart from the promise of
faith and that it “was intended for” a negative function. Thus, it
has been our argument that Paul supported the abolition of the
 because it had a limited purpose. That limited purpose had
both a temporal and a functional component. Temporally, the
purpose of the law had reached its limit with the arrival of Christ
on the scene of salvation history, since it was intended 
. Functionally, the purpose of the law was limited in that
it was never meant to be the sole factor in the life of a Jew. The
law was given to make Jews aware of their desperate predicament
in order that they would seek comfort and power in the promise
that was given to Abraham. Faith both then and now was
christocentric. When that specific “faith in the promise” became a
“faith realiter,” the functional purpose of the law had reached its
fulfillment. Hence, the termination of the functional purpose
coincided with the termination of the temporal purpose, since
the functional purpose determined the provisional character of
the law to begin with.
It is now our task to establish how the term  ,
according to Gal 3.10-14, fits into that pattern. In verse 10 Paul
states          The con-
junction  is inferential355 and relates verse 10 back to verse 9.
Thus, the “cursedness” of verse 10 that results from being 
  is contrasted with the “blessedness” of participation
in the faith of Abraham (   ).356The reason why

where it is specifically stated that the law from Mount Sinai was not
opposed to the promise.
355 Cf. Betz, 144.
356 Since verse 11 relates the faith that leads to blessedness or justification to
the people of the old covenant it is natural to conclude that
 in verse 9 is not a reference only to Gentile believers but
includes Jews. Contra Sanders, Paul, the Law, 21-22.

199
those who are    are under a curse is given in verse
10b. “For cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things
written in the book of the law.”357 The curse, then, has clear ties to
“not doing”; i.e., disobedience,358 which, based on the antithetical
analogy, suggests, that the “blessedness” is associated with
“doing”; i.e., obedience. Hence, the antithesis here described is
not one of “doing” versus “believing” but one of “not being able to
achieve by works of the law” versus “achieving by faith.” That
which is achieved by faith is justification or blessedness. The
following pattern emerges:

  –– obedience –– blessedness
   –– disobedience –– curse

357 It has been argued by Sanders, Paul, the Law, 21-27 that the word “all”
just happened to occur in an Old Testament quotation that Paul chose,
because that quotation was the only one that contained both the word
“curse” and . Further, those statements in Paul’s quotations which
he does not repeat in his own words, Sanders argues, are not the focus of
Paul’s argument. Since the thesis-statement for Paul’s argument is found
in Gal 3.8, Paul is not interested in proving anything against Judaism,
but simply in showing that “Gentiles are (only) righteoused by faith.” It
is inconceivable to us, however, how Gal 3.10-14 should not be an
argument against “righteousness by the law” or, that the fact “that we do
not have an explicit statement of the reason for which Paul held that no
one is righteoused by the law” in 3.6-18 should lead us to the conclusion
that Paul is only arguing backwards (cf. 26f). Sanders confidently asserts
that Paul’s diverse statements in 3.10-14 “are not reasons, they are
arguments.”(?? [p.26]) Are we supposed to read 3.10-14 as though 3.19-21
was never written? Again it becomes clear that Sanders’ overriding prin-
ciple (which he, of course, considers to be Paul’s principle), “from
solution to plight,” completely governs his analysis of texts against their
obvious (so it seems to us) meaning. For a thorough criticism of Sanders,
see Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation Of
The View Of E.P. Sanders,” Westminster Theological Journal, 47 (1985)
245-78.
358 Cf. Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law possible?” 155.

200
 Works of the Law and Justification

We should caution ourselves, however, against the inference

that “abiding by all things written in the book of the law”
coincides with “being justified by faith” and being “blessed” in
that “justification by faith” leads to perfect obedience.359 Rather, it
is the other way round: justification by works of the law is only
possible by perfect obedience to the requirements of the law
since justification by works of the law precludes the redemptive
function of the sacrificial laws. If one approaches the demands of
the law without faith, one is left completely to one’s own
resources and has failed to understand that the law was meant to
reveal the necessity of faith by revealing the predicament of man.
The life of faith is the only form of existence under the law that is
not under the curse of the law in that it does not require perfect
obedience but makes possible “substantial” obedience. This as-
sertion is based on two insights: 1) faith releases the Spirit (3.14),
“so that you can do it” (Deut 30.14); and 2) the faith of Abraham is
the specific faith in the promised “seed.” Only by faith in the
promise could the blood of bulls and goats avail restoration, since
only in the promised Messiah was the “type” to be found that
would give validity to the “antitypes.” Thus, the admonition to
abide by all things written in the book of the law was a threat, to
him who lived under the Mosaic covenant as though that
covenant was the sole basis for his religious existence. However,
if one allowed the law to humble oneself and turned to God by
faith, obedience became possible and sacrifices redemptive so
that failure could be dealt with.360

359 Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience,” 260, has correctly pointed out,
that Rom 5.12 and Phil 3.6 do not pose a logical dilemma (as Sanders
thinks [cf. Paul, the Law, 24]), since “the word blameless ()
should not be equated with sinlessness.” Schreiner correctly supports his
thesis with a reference to Lk 1.6.
360 In light of what has been said thus far, it is clear that Paul did not
challenge the availability of forgiveness under the old covenant. George
Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology

201
 The fact that the curse follows disobedience is further
elaborated upon by Paul in verse 13. There the “curse” is related to
 as that which is pronounced by the  on everyone who
hangs on a tree. In other words, the curse is not inflicted upon an
innocent person, but it follows an action where human
responsibility is involved; in this case, a capital crime. An in-
dication as to what it meant to be cursed is given by the fact that
the removal of the curse demanded an act of redemption (4.5).361
Thus, it would seem that being “cursed” coincided with the
confinement to sin (3.22-23). If that is a correct observation, the
role of the “bare law” in its - properly Pauline - negative function
is in view.362 And, therefore, Paul can assert confidently that it is
clear () that no one can be justified before God  
(3.11).
Thus, there is a place for human decision and responsibility
that allows a choice between living    and living 
. Further, “works of the law” oppose “righteousness by
faith” because the one who relies on “works of the law”
misunderstands the “narrow” purpose of the law, a purpose that

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 49-54, has build a case

against “the impossibility” theory by arguing that the sacrificial system
was contradicting the thought that one single infraction against the law
placed one under a curse. Our argument invalidates this challenge. Paul
is neither rejecting the sacrificial system as valid under the old covenant,
nor is he focusing on “perfect” obedience if one lives by faith in the
promise. Rather, the “humble and contrite heart” must, by necessity,
precede sacrifices in order for them to be meaningful (cf. Ps 51.16-17).
With the coming of Christ in the flesh, the situation has changed,
however, in that the sacrificial system had only an antitypical function
“until” it would be consummated in the sacrifice of Christ.
361 The parallelism to 4.5 suggests a similarity between “cursedness” and
“slavery”: “You were in bondage” (4.8).
362 Here lies the weakness with Dunn’s interpretation, “Works,” 536, who
thinks, that the removal of the curse equals the removal of a “wrong
understanding of the law.”

202
 Works of the Law and Justification

was neither to give life nor to justify (3.21). However, the inten-
tion of the negative purpose of the law was not to destroy but to
make aware of the dilemma of human sinfulness and the
necessity of a redeemer. The law was not against the promise
(3.21a).363
Whatever position one takes on the meaning of   in
these verses, it can not be understood as simply a reference to
“human response.” The parallelism to    would
suggest – by means of contrast – that, just as the origin of “works
of the law” lies with man, the focus here is on God as the
originator of faith, and, as such, on the supernatural character of
faith (cf. our argument above on 3.1-5). If we consider further,
that justification and making alive are vitally associated, the
question whether   in verse 11 relates to   or to
 becomes of minor importance. What is clear, is that
 describes God’s powerful gift, available both before and
after Christ’s appearance in the flesh, and given for justification
and life.
We conclude, then, that     is a concept that
relates to existence under the law in separation from faith. It is an
existence that derives its definition from the purpose of the law
as it is defined in 3.19. Life    leads to a curse,
because it indicates the exclusive dependence on the law, yet the
law was not given for justification or life. Thus, to be cursed is the
“natural” result of living   as Paul defined it. To rely on
“works of the law” means to rely on what can be assured by
means of some rituals that certify one’s identity under the Mosaic
covenant. The provisions of divine restoration by means of
forgiveness and sacrifice are excluded. The one who relies on
works of the law is forced to do it all because there is no place for
mercy. Thus, the focus becomes one of judicial concerns (”do all

363 Contra Betz, 145.

203
613 commandments or be condemned!”) instead of one of
substantial obedience, “blamelessness,” an obedience that is
infused into man in his brokenness before the demand of the law
and his acceptance of his total dependence upon his creator.
The simultaneity of    and   suggests
that     was not an inevitable consequence of
being born under the law. Every Jew was subject to the negative
purpose of the law; that is, to be made aware of sin, to become a
conscious transgressor. However, 430 years before the giving of
the law, the promise was given through faith in which Abraham
was justified and received a son   (Gal 4.29). That
faith in the promise was equally available throughout the period
of the law. Indeed, the law was given to reinforce the need of the
fulfillment of the promise. Thus, to rely on the law for salvation,
by performing the prescriptions of the law diligently, holding that
therein was life, is not only “wrong” but plain “foolishness” (3.1,3).
It displays an ignorance of the purposes of God that is
inexcusable. It evidences a pride in the chosenness that is not
concerned with obedience, a boasting in the law without concern
for fulfillment of the law, a nationalistic understanding of
election that excludes others in order to preserve its own “false”
security.

204
IV. “Works of Law” in
Romans

Romans 3.20

In Rom 3.20a the text reads:     
   . (Except for  , the phrase is
the same as in Gal 2.16). Ps. 143.2, to which Paul is alluding reads
in the LXX (142.2):        We
will begin with a careful look at the context in which Rom 3.20a
occurs. After that we will include an excursus on Psalm 143 with
special reference to verse 2.
What, then, is the argument of the section 2.17-3.20 and what
light can it shed on our understanding of 3.20? Paul emphasizes,
in 3.1-4, the faithfulness of God, regardless of the unfaithfulness
of some in Israel. God has committed Himself to Israel with
bonds that cannot be broken. Otherwise their advantage of being
entrusted     (whose purpose was to reveal them as
sinners and God as truthful) would not be much of a blessing to
them. Paul also affirms, however, that defiant sinning leads to the
condemnation of the individuals engaging therein (v.8). God’s

205
faithfulness, then, is not a guarantee of ultimate salvation for
every individual Jew. It is a guarantee, however, that God will
always prove Himself to be truthful to His promises, given to
Israel as a nation, and by contrast prove   
(v.4). God is not interested, however, in displaying His own
truthfulness simply for the sake of contrast, (i.e., in order to
increase His own glory – as Paul’s hypothetical opponents argued,
possibly trying to defend licentious living, vv.5-8364), but (and here
we have to guess the conclusion of Paul’s argument, since he
dismisses his objectors with an outraged exclamation:   
 , v.8) because God really is concerned with the well-
being of His people (cf. 2.4). That’s why He made promises in the
first place: And He will keep them.
In verse 9, Paul reiterates (in essence) the question of verse 1:
“What then? Are we (Jews) any better off ()?” The
answer, however, is quite different this time: “ !” Why?
Because    . At this point, we face a
crucial exegetical decision. Does   mean “altogether not”
or “not altogether”? Both translations are grammatically possible.
The first option is chosen by many commentators and
translations (RSV: No, not at all) and finds support in the
Vulgate’s nequaquam. If that interpretation is accepted, the
argument runs like this: While there was an advantage for the Jew
(v.2) on the basis of God’s righteousness, this advantage has
evaporated (v.9) because all have sinned. For there is none, not
one, neither Jew nor Gentile, who is righteous (v.10), who fears
God (v.18). The whole world is guilty () before God (v.19).
The totality of mankind’s depravity proves that Jews have no
advantage. A rather strange argument, if an argument at all, and

364 Cf. Stuhlmacher, „Paul’s Understanding of the Law in Romans,“ Svensk

Exegetisk Årsbok 50 (1985): 90: „. . . he exclaims that the judgment of
God rightly falls on those people who attribute to him a perversion of
the Gospel and maintain that he preaches ‘cheap grace.’ “

206
 Works of the Law and Justification

cynical, considering the purpose of the law, which was not to

enable right living, but only to make those   (Jews)
aware of their equality with the Gentiles, that is, an equality as
sinners (vv.19-20). The   , so passionately called the
advantage of the Jews, would prove to be nothing but the
hangman. Such an interpretation completely contradicts verse 4,
where God is said to be faithful to His people despite the
unfaithfulness of the Jews.365
It seems obvious that   must be taken in a restrictive
sense: “Not in any respect”366 or “not altogether.”367 Only then does
the argument make sense. The Jews have many advantages, but
there is one sense in which they are as unfortunate as the
Gentiles. They are subject to sin (  ).
Characteristically, Paul here uses the singular  which
“always means, in almost hypostatizing fashion, the power of
sin.”368 The fact that, despite all their privileges, the Jews are as
miserable as the Gentiles with regard to the dominion of sin in
their lives, is demonstrated by their own history as recorded in
the Scriptures (vv.11-18). It is the duty of the  (3.19, here
synonymous with all Holy Scripture; cf. the wide range of
citations in vv.11-18), to make the Jews aware of their wretched-
ness, “in order that () every mouth be stopped and the whole
world may be held accountable to God” (v.19) The stopping of the
mouth (  ) is a rather clear allusion to the
boasting in 2.17 and 23.

365 Cranfield, Romans, 190, mentions Aquinas, who (under the assumption
of the correctness of the first option) takes 3.1 as a reference to what
Jews have received as a people, whereas 3.9 refers to Jews as individuals.
This still does not solve the problem, however. If all individual Jews have
no advantage, what’s the use of the advantage?
366 Käsemann, Romans, 86. Michel, 98: “Nicht in jeder Hinsicht.”
367 Cranfield, Romans, 190. Cf. the similar usage of the phrase in 1 Cor 5.10
and 1 Cor 16.12 ().
368 Käsemann, Romans, 86.

207
 It will be apparent in a moment that there is an uninterrupted
argument running from 2.17 all the way to 3.20.369 The in-
terpretation of   as “not altogether” is one piece in the
attempt to demonstrate that. Next, it is vitally important to
recognize how Paul articulates his concern in 2.17. Four issues are
at stake: 1) Being called a Jew, 2) relying upon the law, 3) boasting
in God, and 4) knowing the will of God by means of having the
law. Paul is concerned about the boasting in Jewishness, the pride
in the election, the assumption of superiority over the Gentiles.
Paul makes rather direct and, so it seems, exaggerated remarks
about the moral condition of the Jews: “You commit adultery; you
rob temples (allusion to idolatry); you are breaking the law” (2.
22,23); “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles be-
cause of you” (2. 24). Whatever may be the historical contexts of
these accusations, the point Paul is making is clear: To be a Jew is
not ascertained by birth and circumcision (2. 29). To be a Jew
(i.e., a praise to God) means to fulfill the law (v. 27). Paul is not,
at this point, concerned with the wrongly motivated doing of
good works. Rather, it is the not doing of good works of the law
(which makes a Jew a “non-Jew” (v. 28), which is Paul’s concern.
Ancestry does not by itself make one pleasing to God.
Having made this point clear, Paul goes on to say that, despite
the failure of the Jews to do what they knew was right, God has
not rejected them. But, and this is the pivotal point of the
argument, it has thus been proven beyond doubt that all men,
even the Jews with all their privileges, live under a predicament:
All are in slavery under sin and in need of deliverance. The Jews
pride themselves in the law, the antidote to the evil inclination.
But what is the reality? The law can only visualize their miserable

369 Verse 20 is universally recognized as the conclusion of the preceding

section or even the letter up to now. Cf. Barrett, Romans, 72-82,
Käsemann, Romans, 84- 94. Nygren, 109-118. Cranfield, Romans, 202-3;
and many others.

208
 Works of the Law and Justification

situation, a function not to be despised (since its purpose was to

prevent the pride which Paul is so concerned about), but
certainly not the solution to mankind’s predicament.
This, then, is the summary of the tragic reality: There is no
distinction. All are under the power of sin! Jews have no
advantage over Gentiles in this respect. They know better what is
right or wrong (and that should have prevented rather than
encouraged boasting), but they have equally little power to do
what is right. This clearly is an attack against the common Jewish
notion that the law was given by God to the Jews as the power to
overcome the evil inclination, the (rh rcy. “We touch here on
one of the most striking and distinctive parts of Paul’s preaching.
. . the law can offer relief and help in no respect what ever....”370
“For Judaism the great counterpoise to the threat and power of
sin is in the law, given to Israel.”371 Without further elaborating on
the function of the law (that has been dealt with in Part I of this
thesis), it seems clear that any solution to the human predica-
ment requires both forgiveness of guilt (3.19) and liberation from
the power of sin (3.9). Otherwise the bold assertion of 2.27 that
Gentiles372 without circumcision    would be
hypothetical and hypocritical.
We have focused on the predicament of mankind, since it is
the main focus of this section. That does not mean, however, that
the issue of personal responsibility and guilt is absent. Paul places
strong responsibility on those who despise the righteousness of
God. “Their condemnation is just” (3.8). Also, throughout 2.17-29,
there is an underlying accusation of hypocrisy; e.g., “while you
preach against stealing, do you steal?” (v.21). Thus, what the law

370 Ridderbos, Paul, 131.

371 Ibid., 132.
372 In our opinion Paul is referring here to Christian Gentiles. A reference to
Gentiles as such seems impossible, considering the main thesis of
chapter 3.

209
was able to do – that is, to show to the Jew his sinfulness (3.19)
and lead him to repentance (cf. 2.4) – he would not accept.
We must now turn our attention to the phrase “works of the
law” in Rom 3.20. In verses 19 and 20 the word  occurs four
times. First, the articular unmodified  , which refers back
in a summarizing fashion to verses 10-18, represents quotations
from and allusions to Pss 14.1-3; 53.1-3; 5.9; 140.3; 10.7 and 36.1,
Eccl 7.20, Prv 1.16 and Is 59.7-8. Hence, we have here a utilization
of the word  in its widest sense; that is, a description of the
Old Testament canon.373 The second usage,   , applies to
the institution of the law, since it relates the law to the people of
Israel to whom the Old Testament canon was primarily given. In
other words, the two occurrences of  together describe the
role of the law in its totality: the revelation of the predicament of
mankind to those who live under the institution of the Mosaic
covenant. Likewise, the fourth reference to the anarthrous
374 once more spells out the purpose for which the law was

373 It may be interesting to note that, when Paul summarizes all of the Old
Testament canon under the designation  it happens in a context
where he refers the Scriptures as they serve the purpose of conviction of
sin; that is, the very purpose he predominantly ascribes to the law in the
narrow sense of the word.
374 Attempts have been made to distinguish between articular and
anarthrous . ever since Origen, who made a distinction between
the Mosaic and natural law. Sanday and Headlam, 58, think that
Origen’s distinction is incomplete: they themselves distinguish three
basic meanings:  means “law of Moses” (”the art. denotes
something with which the readers are familiar, ‘their own law’ “), 
means law in general, but sometimes (third use) also the Mosaic law
when the emphasis lies not on its proceeding from Moses but on its
character as law. J.B. Lightfoot, 118, considered to always refer to
the written law of the Old Testament, whereas anarthrous refers
to a principle. However, these attempts have been successfully
contradicted by Eduard Grafe, Die Paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz nach
den vier Hauptbriefen (Freiburg im Breisgau und Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr
[Siebeck], 1884), who, on the one hand, pointed out the contradictory
conclusions at which two of the proponents of the distinctions (Gustav

210
 Works of the Law and Justification

given, as we have described it in Part I Chapter 2 of this thesis:

“Through the law comes knowledge of sin.” “Paulus gibt die
kühne, für einen Juden geradezu verblüffende Antwort: das was
das Gesetz tatsächlich gewirkt hat sollte es auch wirken.”375 The
flow of thought does not allow any other conclusion: The Mosaic
law was given for the purpose of revealing sin.
Hence, when Paul, in the course of this argument, affirms that
   no man shall be justified, it seems natural to
conclude that he is expositing the same truth, only from another
angle. It is not and has never been the divine intention, that
righteousness should be given by the law; for if a law had been
given that could make alive, it would be a contestant to the
promise given to Abraham (cf. Gal 3.21). The distinction between
promise and law is not spelled out as clearly here as in Galatians
3, but seems to be crucial even in this context (cf. Rom 4.13-14;
5.20).
Paul’s description of the law in these verses is highly active, if
not personified. The law “speaks” and it speaks to those  
. The language is reminiscent of Gal 3.8,22, where   is
described as “foreseeing” and “consigning.” This observation also

Volkmar and Carl Holsten, for references cf. Kuss, Nomos bei Paulus,
182f.) have arrived and secondly by demonstrating the exegetical
guesswork involved in such distinctions in texts like Rom 2.23-25; 7.1-6.
Grafe considers it a basic mistake to distinguish “zwischen einem
Allgemeinbegriff des Gesetzes und dem Einzelbegriff des mosaischen
Gesetzes” since Paul is always concerned only with divine law
(göttlichem Gesetz). . .” Moo, “Law,” 75ff, further cites Rom 7.7-14 and
Gal 3.11-12 where a distinction between articular and anarthrous 
“would wreak havoc with the continuity of the argument.” Also “the fact
that Josephus and Philo use anarthrous  of the Mosaic law and the
impossibility of maintaining a difference in form in the LXX all point to
the illegitimacy of drawing distinctions in meaning on the basis of the
usage of the article” (77).
375 Grafe, 16. Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 87: “In context the  clause offers
not merely the conclusion, but also the divine purpose.”

211
agrees with the wide range of references that are summarized
under the word  at this time. Again, when Paul affirms in
verse 20b that    , it is clear that he
views the law in the same “narrow” sense with regard to its
function as he also did in Galatians; namely, the law as distinct
from the promise (cf. Gal 3.15-21). In addition, “   (v.19)
denotes the sphere of the law as a factor in salvation history.”376 If
these insights are combined with the observations regarding the
flow of the argument in the whole section, the idea is further
strengthened that Paul is concerned with both the basic dilemma
of man as a victim of sin in a certain period of salvation history,
and with man’s false perception of the purpose of the law. The
reference to the “stopping of every mouth” (v.19b) refers back to
the boasting in the law and the Mosaic covenant which had lead
to an over-confidence in Jewishness. Thus, the force of the
argument lies both on the lack of power – that is, the
impossibility of achieving justification by means of works of the
law – and on the “foolishness” of such an attempt, since the law
should have revealed to those under the law that justification is
not achieved by simply belonging under law. Justification can
only be achieved by divine intervention.
The verb used in verse 20a is ,377 passive voice and
future tense, the passive voice emphasizing that justification is
God’s work. That the future tense refers to the final judgment is
obvious. It does not exclude, however, present experience of
God’s righteousness (cf. v.21ff). Justification involves redemption

376 Käsemann, Romans, 87. Käsemann remarks further, that this fact “warns
against interpreting en as obviously ‘mystical’ in the parallel phrases ‘in
Christ’ and ‘in the Spirit.’ “
377 For an overview of the LXX usage of / cf.
Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 217-20. Stuhlmacher concludes, 218:
“Rechts- und Seinsbegriffe können im alttestamentlichen,
gemeinschaftsbezogenen Denken also nicht in Gegensatz zueinander
treten oder antithetisiert werden.”

212
 Works of the Law and Justification

and atonement (3.24-25), all of which are metaphors, that

describe what God does for him who enters into a faith
relationship with Him. “Works of the law,” on the other hand,
denote the vain attempt of man to be justified by means of the
law, apart from faith. They denote an approach to the law that is
misguided and which leads to an understanding of the law as a
collection of prescriptions and norms that have to be fulfilled
perfectly.

EXCURSUS: PSALM 143

It is generally accepted that Paul is alluding to the LXX version

of Ps. 143.2 (LXX 142.2) in both Rom 3.20 and Gal 2.16. Whether
Paul was employing Old Testament texts according to their
original meaning is a complicated issue and can not be dealt with
here. It would make little sense, however, and be rather
counterproductive, if Paul, in a context (both Galatians and
Romans) in which he aims at persuading his Jewish brothers, was
employing an Old Testament allusion without paying attention to
its original context. We should therefore benefit from looking at
Psalm 143.
Psalm 143 belongs to the category “laments of the individual.”
The psalmist, in much distress (v.4,7), appeals to Yahweh’s
faithfulness and righteousness for deliverance from his enemy.
“In thy faithfulness answer me, in thy righteousness!” (v.1b).
There are a whole series of parallelisms that throw light on the
psalmist’s perception of Yahweh’s righteousness: In verse 1 Yah-
weh’s righteousness (hqdc) functions as a synonym of His
faithfulness (hnwm), LXX ); in verses 11 and 12, the psalm-

213
ist beseeches God consecutively “for thy name’s sake,” “in thy
righteousness” and “in thy steadfast love” (LXX    )
for life, deliverance and vengeance. Throughout the psalm God’s
righteousness is one of the concepts that describe God’s activity
of deliverance from the enemy.378
To encounter God in His righteousness means restoration for
the servant of God (v. 12). It is a most desirable moment for him.
Indeed, the psalmist appeals to God not to encounter him in
judgment, but in righteousness. God’s righteousness and his
judgment are described as opposites, the former being desired,
the latter dreaded. Keeping in mind that the whole psalm is a
plea for deliverance, verse 2 appears, at first sight, misplaced.379 In
fact, the argument of the psalm seems more coherent if verse 2 is
left out:

v.1: Hear my prayer, O Lord...

In thy faithfulness answer me,
in thy righteousness!
v.3 For the enemy has pursued me...

An “interpolation-theory,” however, is an argument of last

resort and should be considered very reluctantly. It is our present
task, therefore, to reconsider the argument of Psalm 143 and to
search for a way to integrate verse 2. We will proceed by taking a

378 The LXX translation of hnwm) with  is very interesting. It shows
the close affinity between faithfulness and truthfulness and provides an
Old Testament analogy for the trio  and  used
by Paul in Rom 3.5.
379 H.J. Kraus, Psalmen, vol.2. BKAT (Neukirchen VLUYN: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972), 937, calls verse 2 a Fremdkörper. E.G. Briggs, The Book of
Psalms, vol.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), 515, describes it as “an
additional petition, not homogeneous with the original Psalm,” 515. Cf.
also H. Schmidt, “Das Gebet der Angeklagten im Alten Testament,”
Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1928): 1-
46.

214
 Works of the Law and Justification

closer look at how the two subordinate clauses (v.2b and v.3a;
introduced in the MT with yk, in the LXX with ) are to be
related, under the assumption that verse 2 belongs to the original
psalm. Three options are available:
1. both clauses refer back to verse 2a
2. 2b refers back to 2a whereas 3a refers back to verse 1
3. 2b refers back to 2a and 3a refers back to 2b
The first option would imply that the psalmist pleads for mercy
when he is judged because the enemy has pursued him. That
seems rather unlikely to be the meaning of the passage. Why
should a victim be judged for being persecuted?
The second option would imply that, while the petitioner fears
the judgment of God because of his own sinfulness (2b referring
back to 2a), he appeals to God’s righteousness for deliverance
from the enemy (3a referring back to 1). This interpretation is the
most commonplace. It is also the one which almost necessitates
that verse 2 be taken as an interpolation.
Option three - i.e., the first clause (2b) referring back to 2a; and
the second clause (3a), in subordination to the first, referring
back to 2b - allows (so it would appear) the smoothest and most
coherent interpretation: the psalmist calls upon God not to go
into judgment with him, since in the eyes of the Lord no living
being is righteous. The reason for this total and universal
unworthiness of mankind is explained by the psalmist in his
personal experience of being victimized. Hence, the psalmist’s
petition can be paraphrased as follows: “Lord, hear my prayers in
your righteousness. Do not judge me for my unrighteousness, but
rather deliver me from the source of my unrighteousness!” The
phrase   suggests the idea of a trial in which no man is
found without fault ( ). It would seem clear,
therefore, that “not justified” refers to the legal concept of being
found guilty. At the same time, verse 3 suggests that the removal

215
of unrighteousness involves deliverance from the enemy. In other
words, the encounter with God in His righteousness includes
both forgiveness and redemption.
The power of the enemy is experienced by the psalmist as a
power that prevents him from doing the will of God. Verses 9 and
10 describe his dilemma very vividly:

Deliver me, o Lord, from my enemies!

I have fled to thee in refuge!
Teach me to do thy will,
for thou art my God!
Let thy good Spirit lead me
on a level path!

The enemies of the psalmist are threatening his life to the

point of death. We should probably think of a real physical
threat. But the enemies also seem to have played a role in the
experience of spiritual separation from the Lord. Therefore, the
psalmist longs for God to teach him and the Spirit to guide him
again (cf. further v.7 “My spirit fails. Hide not thy face from me.”).
What bothers the psalmist is his separation from God: “The
earnest character and the sincerity of his longing for God (v.6)
cannot be doubted.”380 He is conscious of the curse that rests on
all mankind, even on the elect. Thus he appeals to God in His
righteousness for deliverance: He calls upon the Lord confidently,
     (LXX v.12, cf. v.2). The psalmist has a keen
sense of both his election and his failures. It is worth noting that
there is not a trace of remorse in the whole psalm and that the
idea of being a victim is dominating. Verse 12 asks for vengeance
rather than forgiveness, a fact that has caused B. Duhm (with

380 A. Weiser, The Psalms. A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1962), 818; cf. F. Delitzsch, The Psalms, vol. III, trans. Francis
Bolton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 375.

216
 Works of the Law and Justification

regard to the fact that this psalm is used as the “seventh

penitential Psalm” in the liturgical churches) to remark: “Wer die
Verwünschungen V.12 als Bußpsalm betet, muß ein ganz eigenar-
tiges Reuegefühl haben.”381 The only justification for the use of the
psalm as the seventh penitential psalm of the Church comes from
verse 2, provided the verse is taken in accordance with the
unsatisfactory option 2 above.382
We find, in this psalm, a rather remarkable parallel to the basic
tenor in Romans 3. The psalmist is a perfect example of a person
under the old covenant who allowed the law to do to him what,
according to Paul, was the primary role of the law; namely, to
reveal to him his predicament, his enslavement to sin; but also to
challenge the psalmist to admit his miserable condition, turn to
God for forgiveness and deliverance (”In thy righteousness bring
me out of trouble!” [v.12]). Paul’s addition of “by works of the law”
to the quotation in Rom 3.20a seems perfectly in accordance with
the context of the Psalm. Paul wants to undergird the underlying
assumption that is present in the Psalm; namely, that, apart from
a divine intervention, even for the elect, i.e., those that belong
under the Mosaic covenant, there is no hope for justification. No
man living can be righteous for all are under sin/the enemy (Rom
3.9/Ps 143.3) and can, therefore, never please God beyond
reproach.

381 Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck,
1922), 469.
382 Cf. Briggs, 516.

217
 Romans 3.28

The second and last occurrence of the phrase    in
Romans is found in 3.28. The section 3.27-31 is introduced by Paul
with the question: “What then becomes of our boasting? ( 
 ;).” The answer: “It is excluded! ().” First, we
need to note that “boasting” is the catchword that connects the
section to the whole context, beginning with 2.17.383 Paul is still
involved in the argument against exaggerated and misdirected
confidence in the privileges that were the possession of the Jew
on the basis of his election. Secondly, in 3.21 Paul has been
arguing that the law has no part in the manifestation of the
righteousness of God (    ),
except to bear witness to it. In fact, the law was given to make
aware of sin (3.20). Thus, verse 27 should be read with that
affirmation in mind; namely, that to boast in the law would be
foolishness because it would disclose a complete confusion of the
purpose of the law.
Thirdly, the way Paul phrased his question ( 384) suggests
that he intended to establish with his answer certain important
inferences from what he has stated in 3.21-26. The inference that
stands out particularly is this: whatever advantage may have
existed that could have lead to boasting, before the coming of
Christ, is now excluded, because in and through Christ God has
come equally near to both Jews and Gentiles. Thus Paul asks: “Or

383 There is also a connection to 4.2. It will become clear as we go along that
the kind of “boasting” to which 4.2 refers -- i.e., boasting in one’s own
works --is included in Paul’s argument at this point. It is, however,
secondary to the boasting in ethnic superiority (2.17ff), as the focus of
the argument, as we see it, suggests.
384 The inferential usage of  at this point can hardly be contested; cf.
Bauer, s.v.

218
 Works of the Law and Justification

is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles
also? Yes of the Gentiles also” (v.29). This line of argument shows
that Paul still had the kind of boasting in mind that he is
referring to in 2.17.
Fourthly, in order to grasp the tenor of 3.27-31, it is crucial to
appreciate the force both of the aorist tense and the passive voice
in . The actor on the scene who has removed the
possibility of boasting once and for all is God Himself. The
remission of boasting is not subject to human decision.385 Further,
the finality that is inherent in the verb386 suggests that boasting is
no longer even a possibility. Such an assertion is credible only if
the boasting referred to related to the specific Jewish claim of
ethnic superiority.
Fifthly, Paul insists that, by implication, the law pointed to the
universality of salvation in its affirmation of monotheism. “Since
God is one” (v.30a), salvation must come to all nations through
one and the same God.
Whereas our first two observations evidence that the argument
of 3.27-31 is a continuation of the argument concerning the
intended role of the law under the old covenant (2.17-3.20), the
other three observations (which are more explicit and should be
considered the focus of the passage) emphasize the direct linkage
of 3.27-31 to 3.21-26; namely, the eschatological manifestation of
God’s righteousness. The eschatological shift has brought about
the replacement of the “law of works” with the “law of faith.” If
the antithesis consisted at this point of two opposite principles,
one of works and one of believing,  would (in meaning,
voice and tense) have been the wrong expression to use. It would

385 Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 219: “The tense of  indicates that the
exclusion referred to has been accomplished once for all. . . the
exclusion effected by God himself (the passive concealing a reference to
divine action). . .”
386 Cf. Bauer, s.v.: „it is eliminated.“

219
imply that through the eschatological Christ-event, meritorious
works of achievement (as a general principle) are no longer
possible. That clearly cannot be the meaning of the text. Rather,
the now extinguished “boasting” must refer to the specific
historic phenomenon of Jewish pride in their election and wrong
perception of the purpose of the law. Hence, boasting in ethnic
superiority is not only wrong because it has always been wrong,
but it has become impossible, since the election now applies to,
and is available through faith for, all mankind.
It is clear, then, that Paul is very much involved in the
historical Jew- Gentile debate and that it is highly questionable
whether the three occurrences of  in verse 27 should be
historically neutralized in an interpretation as “principle.”387
Instead, it would appear that here we have one of the occasions
where Paul articulates his distinction between the Mosaic Torah
and the eschatological “law of Christ.” 388 There is a “law of works,”

387 Thus, e.g., the RSV and Nygren, 162. Sanday and Headlam, 95 suggest
„system;“ Käsemann, Romans, 103: „rule, order, or norm of faith.“ For an
overview of the history of interpretation of 3.27, see Heikki Räisänen,
“’Das Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm 3.27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’
(Röm 8.2),“ New Testament Studies 26 (1979-80): 101-117.
388 According to G. Friedrich, “Das Gesetz des Glaubens, Röm 3.27”
Theologische Zeitschrift, 10 (1954): 401-17, the law of faith is the Mosaic
law in as much as it testifies to Christ. Thus, the law has a
Doppelbeschaffenheit (415). Friedrich points out the improbability that
 has a different meaning in v.27 from all the other occurrences in
the immediate context. “In dem Abschnitt Röm 3.19-31 kommt  11-
12mal vor. Bis zum V.27 ist  ganz sicher die Thora, auch in den
V.28-31 ist damit das Mosaische Gesetz gemeint. Wie sollte Paulus dazu
kommen, in V.27  plötzlich einen anderen Sinn zu geben?”
Räisänen is correct, however (cf. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens,” 106), in his
criticism of Friedrich, that such an argument, especially in light of Rom
7, cannot carry the weight of proof alone. Räisänen points out further
that Friedrich’s thesis neglects both the temporal force of 
and of  in 3.21. This criticism applies also to Cranfield, Romans,
who, despite his insights regarding and his affirmation of the
temporal force of  (201) prefers to connect 3.27 without historical

220
 Works of the Law and Justification

a law in which Jews can boast because it ascribes to them a

privileged position, a special relationship to God, and it makes
possible (if misunderstood) pride in ethnic superiority.
Understood correctly, of course, even the law of works was
opposed to that kind of boasting since its purpose was to make
aware of sin. As such, the argument addresses the Jews of all
times. The finality with which “boasting” has become impossible,
however, emphasizes the salvation historical difference between
the time before and after Christ. The law of faith no longer
recognizes racial distinctions. Boasting in Jewishness has become
a historical vestige. Further, Paul argues that by witnessing to
monotheism, the law has always asserted that “God will justify
the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the
uncircumcised through their faith” (v.30b).
In its eschatological form, then, we are confronted with the
question of the compatibility of content between the Mosaic law

distinctions back to 3.19-20. The only significance (possibly) attributed

by Cranfield, in this regard, to 3.21-26 would be “that God has rendered
all such glorying futile and absurd by what he has done in Christ” (219).
If the “futility” only relates to “insight,” what Christ has done is not
novel. It was the purpose of the law all along to make aware of the
futility” of living by “works of the law.”
In addition, the weakness of any argument that is based on complete
equality between “law of works” and “law of faith” lies in the fact that
Paul’s argument is based on distinctions. If the law of faith was
coterminous with the law of works, the exclusion of boasting in racial
distinctions would not be evident. However, the Mosaic law carried the
signs of its own termination. Thus, in a sense, one could argue, from an
organic rather than static understanding of Torah, that the abrogation of
the ethnic particularities of the Torah was part of the Torah’s design and
that that would be the rational for 3.31. We should be careful, however,
not to elevate this factor into the position of the “only” factor that
necessitated the abrogation of the law. In Romans 8.2, where Paul also
puts the “law of works” and the “law of faith” in functional antithesis, the
focus is not on the question of exclusivism or boasting but on the
question of power; i.e. “the law of the Spirit of life” that has power to
liberate from “the law of sin and death.”

221
and the “law of faith.”389 Paul is, indeed, very well aware of the fact
that ascribing to the eschatological “law of faith,” as he
understands it, the position of the “law of works” will raise
objections from those who expected the two to be identical in
content. Thus he anticipates the question: Do we then abolish the
law through faith (     ;)? The
presence of this question indicates that Paul’s interpretation of
what is the eschatological   was not self evident to
every Jewish Christian. However, Paul claims that the law itself
indicated its own provisional character. One of those indicators
was monotheism. There was in the law a dialectical tension
between the universally applicable and the historically specified
pronouncements of the law. In other words, the inclusivistic
implications of monotheism carried the seeds of the abrogation
of the ethnically determined Mosaic law. Therefore, Paul can
rebut the accusation with his typical  ! and confidently
affirm: “We uphold the Law” (v.31).
How, then, do these insights influence the interpretation of
 ? First, the historical tenor of the passage suggests that
“faith” (v.28) relates to the specific “faith in Jesus” (v.26) and
similarly    relates to   (v.21). God
revealed his righteousness apart from the law, and  
 (v.22).390 Thus, whatever interpretation of the genitive

389 Stuhlmacher, in close affinity with Friedrich, takes a somewhat dubious

position on this issue. He states, (Paul’s understanding, 97): ...boast is
not excluded through the law which demands works (= ‘the law of
works’ ). Instead, this boast of the Jew is excluded through ‘the law of
faith’ ; i.e., the Pentateuch, which, for example, testifies through its
promises to God’s salvific righteousness. . .” Stuhlmacher asserts later in
the same article that “the cultic Torah is for Paul both fulfilled and
abolished” (101). But then the law of faith is not really the Pentateuch!?
390 The most prominent suggestions as to the interpretation of the genitive
 are subjective, objective and qualitative genitives, of which the
objective is the most commonly accepted. Käsemann, Romans, 94,

222
 Works of the Law and Justification

construction  391 one favors, “faith in Christ” is never

referring exclusively to human receptivity. It would, in quite non-
Pauline fashion, place the eschatological manifestation of the
righteousness of God into the hands of man. Secondly, the Jew-
Gentile issue indicates that “faith” has a polemical ring. It points
specifically to the inclusivistic character of the Gospel.392
Taken together, these insights suggest that the antithesis
between faith and works of the law in verse 28, is first of all, a
temporal antithesis separated by the death and resurrection of
Christ. In other words   (v.27) and   (v.28)
represent two concepts that belong intimately together and
exclusively to the period before Christ. Both expressions denote
the antithesis to (the law of) faith. In both expressions the
genitive describes the character of the noun it modifies. Whereas
in the first phrase, the genitive  expresses what the law of
works is like as opposed to the law of faith, in the second phrase
the genitive  defines the specific kind of works that are in
view.
Whereas the temporal antithesis is predominant in this pas-
sage, we have also seen that, inasmuch as the passage relates to

thinks that verse 26 suggests that Paul has an objective genitive in mind;
also Bruce, Romans, 96, Sanday and Headlam, 84-5.
391 Although the personal appropriation of God’s righteousness is by “faith
in Christ” and “apart from the law”, which attaches anthropological
connotations of human determination to the two concepts, and thus
justifies the choice of an objective genitive, the concepts relate primarily
to the eschatological manifestation  (v.26) of God’s
righteousness. Thus,  is intimately but antithetically
related to existence  (v.19). In other words, the
anthropological “faith in Christ” is preceded by the eschatological “faith
of Christ”; or, as Gal 3.23 puts it, by “the Faith,” as it represents Christ
himself in a personified manner of speech.
392 Michel, 102, points out that the antithetical relationship of  to
“works of the law” draws “das Kreuz Christi in die Auseinadersetzung
mit dem Judentum.”

223
the larger context, Paul’s underlying concern is with the
antithesis of law and promise (Old Testament context, 3.19-20; cf.
Gal 3.10-14). This concern, however, is secondary. The reason why
we think it should still be defended as an underlying part of the
argument, is, that in chapter 4 Paul returns to the situation
before the Christ event. Thus, it can be expected that 3.27-31 has a
transitional function. In chapter 4 he will examine the life of the
patriarch Abraham, and focus on the fact that Abraham guarded
himself against boasting in his own works and trusted in the God
who justifies the ungodly (i.e., the one who does not consider his
own religiosity something to boast about [cf. 4.5]). The con-
nection of the “boasting” in verse 27 with 4.2 may suggest further
that Paul is less concerned with the foolishness (that is
uselessness) of the attempt to be justified    (cf. Rom
3.20) – such foolishness should have become indisputably clear
after 3.21-26 – and focuses on the “wrong-ness” of seeking
justification on the basis of the law.393 In other words, Paul under-
lines the fact that existence    was not the only
option available under the old covenant. Rather, the role of the
law was, by making aware of the predicament, to point to the
Redeemer and encourage faith in the promise. Thus, it is
probable that Paul includes the question of human responsibility
to a greater degree at this point than in 3.20.

393 Cf. Käsemann, Romans, p.103: “If verse 20a has summarily said that a
person cannot be justified by works of the law, verse 28 with its
catchword points out that he is not supposed to be justified in this way.”
(italics added).

224
225
 CONCLUSION
It has become apparent that Paul’s teaching on law, justifi-
cation and “works of the law” is intricate and that a complete
understanding does not allow a simplistic answer but demands a
combination of perspectives. Paul’s teaching on “works of the
law” must be understood on the basis of his view of the law as
such and on the basis of his view of justification as an event that
is vitally associated with the reception of the Spirit who is the
agent of God accomplishing the transformation into the image of
Christ in our lives.
Paul’s view of the purpose of the law has its roots in his
frustration with the law (a frustration present already with the
prophets Jeremia and Hezekiel), his conceptual separation of law
from promise (a separation that applies to the time both before
and after the coming of Christ), his belief that the law was
inferior to Christ as an agent in salvation history (slavery versus
freedom) and his recognition of the law as being a hindrance for
the universal scope of the gospel. Paul’s fundamental rejection of
the  relates both to his affirmation of the newness and
superiority of the Spirit age over “the dispensation of the law” and
to the fact that the purpose of the law has never been that of
justification.

226
 Conclusion

The vital association between justification and the reception

and manifestation of the Spirit – that is, life in victory over the
flesh – underlines that Paul’s rejection of the law was closely
geared to his perception of the law as separate from the work of
the Spirit. Because the law could not make alive it could neither
justify and vice versa (Gal 3.21). The work of the Spirit was and is
exclusively connected to the promise that was given to Abraham.
The role of the law was to instigate faith in the promise by reveal-
ing to the Jew his powerless and condemned situation.
”Works of the law” are performances of outward and ritual
prescriptions of the law, based on the assumption that
conformity to the identity markers of the law suffices for
salvation, since the law is God’s means of justification. Thus, a
complete understanding of why Paul rejects “works of the law,”
requires three aspects to be taken into consideration.
First, when Paul talks about “works of the law,” he thinks of
obedience to the law apart from faith in the promise/Christ.
Thus, “being by works of the law” is representative of a
misconception of the nature of life under the old covenant. God’s
intention had been to add the law to the promise – that had been
given much earlier – for a very specific reason. However, those 
  lived under the law as though no promise had been
given and as though their compliance to the law in itself
guaranteed their salvation.
Secondly, when Paul talks about “works of the law,” he thinks
of an outward performance of rituals, especially circumcision,
that identify the performer as one who belongs under the
covenant from Mount Sinai. It is not the outward performance of
ritual law that shows one to be part of the people of God,
however, but the fulfillment of the law by the power of the Spirit
from within (cf. Rom 2.25-29).
Thirdly, justification by “works of the law” is impossible since
the , according to Paul, is a collection of prescriptions that

227
demand perfect fulfillment based on the fact that the  is
separate from faith in the promise. Reliance on “works of the law”
indicates a misdirected and “foolish” trust in the ritual
conformation of the election. To be    equals being
under a curse since it demonstrates “faith” in the law rather than
faith in Christ. It perverts the redemptive role of the sacrificial
law. It hinders the intervention of the Spirit both then and now,
since the Spirit comes by faith in the promised redeemer.

228
Conclusion

229
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achtemeier, E.R. “Righteousness in the Old Testament.” In The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol.4. Edited by Emory S.
Bucke. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. 80-85.
Aland, Kurt, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wik-
gren, eds. The Greek New Testament. 3rd edition. United Bible
Societies, 1975.
Alt, Albrecht. Essays of OT History and Religion. Translated by
R.A. Wilson. Garden City, NY.: Doubleday & Co., 1967.
Augustine of Hippo. “On the Spirit and the Letter.” In A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church. Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971. 80-114.
Barrett, C.K. “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar.” In
Rechtfertigung. Edited by J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann and P.
Stuhlmacher. J.C.B. Mohr Tübingen, 1976. 1-16.
---. The Epistle to the Romans. HNTC. London: Harper & Row,
1957.
---. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. HNTC. London: Harper
and Row, 1968.
---. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. HNTC. London: Harper
and Row, 1968.

230
 Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by W.F. Arndt and
F.W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Baur, F.C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. His Life and Work, His
Epistles and His Doctrines: A Contribution to a Critical History
of Primitive Christianity. London/Edinburgh: Williams and
Norgate, 1876.
Beker, J.C. Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and
Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to
the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1979.
Boussett, W., Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im spät-
hellenistischen Zeitalter. HNT, vol. 21. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1926.
Brauch, Manfred T. “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in
Recent German discussion,” Appendix in E.P. Sanders Paul and
Palestinian Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. 523-42.
Briggs, Ch.A. The Book of Psalms. ICC. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark,
1907.
Bruce, F.F. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977.
---. The Letter to the Romans. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1963.
---. Commentary on Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
---. “The Curse of the Law.” In Paul and Paulinism. Essays in
Honour of C.K. Barrett. London: SPCK, 1982, 27-36.
---. “Paul and the Law of Moses.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Uni-
versity Library 57 (1975): 259-79.

231
Bultmann, Rudolph. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. New
York: Charles Scribners and Sons, 1951/55.
---. “ .” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 12-16.
---. Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther. Meyers Komm. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
Burton, Earnest DeWitt. The Epistle to the Galatians. ICC.
Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1920.
Büchsel, F. “ ” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament vol. 1. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Trans-
lated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by J. T.
McNeill. Translated by F.L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1961.
---. The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians
and Philemon. Translated by T.H.L. Parker. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1965.
Charlesworth, James H. ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2
vols. Garden City, NY.: Doubleday & Co., 1983.
Cranfield, C.E.B. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh:
T.& T. Clark, 1975.
---. “St. Paul and the Law” Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964):
43-68.
Cremer, Herman. Die Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre.
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1900.
Crüsemann, F. “Jahwehs Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament.”
Evangelische Theologie 36 (1976): 427-50.
Dahl, Nils A. “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function
and Implications.” In Studies in Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1977. 95-120.

232
 Bibliography

---. “A Fragment and its Context: 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1.” In

Studies in Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. 62-9.
Delitzsch, Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Translated
by Francis Bolton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.
Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. London:
Hoddor and Stoughton, 1932.
Drane, John W. Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the
Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London: SPCK, 1975.
Duhm, Bernhard. Die Psalmen. Kurzer Handkommentar zum AT.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1922.
Dunn, J.D.G. “The New Perspective on Paul.” Bulletin of the John
Rylands University Library 65 (1983): 95-122.
---. “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal.3).” New
Testament Studies 31 (1985): 523-42.
Dülmen, Andrea van. Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus.
Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968.
Eichholz, G. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Neukirchen
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. 8th
edition. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1st edition 1933.
Elliger, Karl, Rudolph W. eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Fitzmyer, Joseph, A. “Paul and the Law.” In A Companion to Paul.
Edited by M. Taylor. New York: Alba House, 1975. 73-87
---. “The Letter to the Galatians.” Jerome Biblical Commentary. 2
vols. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and

233
 Roland E. Murphy. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968.
2:236-46.
Friedrich, G. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens Röm. 3.27.” Theologische
Zeitschrift 6 (1954): 401-417.
Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law. Contrast or Continuum? Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
---. “Paul and ‘The Works of the Law’” Westminster Journal of
Theology 38 (1975-76): 28-42.
Furnish, Victor P. II Corinthians. Anchor Bible, Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday & Co., 1984.
Godet, F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Grafe, Eduard. Die Paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz nach den vier
Hauptbriefen. Freiburg und Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1884.
Grant, F.C. Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, Edinburgh-
London: T.& T. Clark, 1960.
Grove, Philip B. ed. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
of the English Language. Springfield, Mass.: G & C Merriam,
1981.
Gundry. Robert H. “Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul.” Bi-
blica 66 (1985): 1-38.
Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.
Harris, M.J. “2 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
Vol.10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Hays, R.B. “Jesus’ Faith and Ours.” Theological Student Fellowship
Bulletin Sept (1983): 2-6.
---. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” Journal of Biblical Lite-
rature 99 (1980): 107-115.

234
 Bibliography

Hirsch, E.D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven and London:

Yale University Press, 1967.
Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian
Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Hübner, Hans. “Existentiale Interpretation der Paulinischen Ge-
rechtigkeit.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 463-88.
---. Law in Paul’s Thought. Translated by James C.G. Greig.
Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1984.
Jeremias, Joachim. “Paul and James.” The Expository Times 66
(1954-55): 368-71.
---. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York:
Charles Scribners and Sons, 1965.
Kalusche, Martin “`Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie’?
Anmerkungen zu einem Entwurf Peter Stuhlmachers.” Zeit-
schrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1986): 194-
205.
Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Proclamation
Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Kertelge, Karl. Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. Münster: Verlag Asch-
endorf, 1967.
---. “Zur Deutung des Rechtfertigungsbegriffs im Galaterbrief.”
Biblische Zeitschrift 12 (1968): 211-22.
Kim, Seyoon The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981.
Klein, Günther. “Righteousness in the NT.” In The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible. Suppl. vol. Edited by Emory S. Bucke.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. 750-2.
Koch, K. “Die Drei Gerechtigkeiten.” In Rechtfertigung. Edited by
J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1976. 245-67.

235
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen. BKAT. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
Kuss, Otto. “Nomos bei Paulus.” Münchener Theologische Zeit-
schrift 17 (1966): 173-225.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by G.W.
Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
---. “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus.” 2d revised edition. In Exege-
tische Versuche und Besinnungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1964. 181-93.
---. “Rechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte.” In Paulinische Per-
spektien. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969. 108-39.
---. “Zum Verständnis von Römer 3.25-26.” Zeitschrift für neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1950-51): 150-54.
Kümmel, W.G. “ und , ein Beitrag zum
Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre.” Zeitschrift
für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952): 154-67.
Lightfoot, J.B. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.
Lindemann, Andreas. “Die biblischen Toragebote und die paulin-
ische Ethik.” In Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen
Testaments. Edited by Wolfgang Schrage. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1986. 242-65.
Lohmeyer, Ernst. “Probleme Paulinischer Theologie, II. Gesetzes-
werke.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 28
(1929): 177-207.
Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Translated by W.R.
Poehlmann and R.J. Karris. Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971.

236
 Bibliography

---. Martyrer und Gottesknecht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1955.
Lull, D.J. “The Law was Our Pedagogue.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 105 (1986): 481-99.
Luther, Martin. Career of the Reformer. Luther’s Works. Vol. 31.
Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972.
---. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930.
---. Lectures on Deuteronomy. Luther’s Works. Vol 9. Saint Louis:
Concordia, 1972.
---. Lectures on Romans. Luther’s Works. Vol. 25. Saint Louis:
Concordia, 1972.
---. Table Talk. Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Saint Louis: Concordia,
1972.
Lüthi, Walther. The Letter to the Romans. Richmond: John Knox
Press, 1961.
Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1986.
Martyn, J.L. “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Galatians.” New Testa-
ment Studies 31 (1985): 410-24.
McGrath, A.E. Iustitia Dei. Vol.1, From the Beginnings to 1500.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
---. Iustitia Dei. Vol.2, From 1500 to the Present Day. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Meyer, Heinrich A.W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Epistle to the Galatians. Translated by G.H. Venables. New
York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884.
Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. Meyer’s Komm. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

237
Moo, D.J. “`Law,’`Works of the Law,’and Legalism in Paul.”
Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 73-100.
Moore, George F. “Christian Writers on Judaism.” Harvard
Theological Review 14 (1921): 197-254.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1955.
Moulton, W.F, A.S. Geden and H.K. Moulton. A Concordance to
the Greek Testament. 5th edition. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark,
1978.
Mundle, W. “Zur Auslegung von Gal 2. 17-18.” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 23 (1924): 152-3.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1959.
Myers, J. & Freed, E.D. “Is Paul also among the Prophets?”
Interpretation 20 (1966): 40-53.
Noth, Martin. The Laws in the Pentateuch and other Studies.
Translated by D.R. AP-Thomas. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1967.
Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1949.
Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. TH, vol.9.
Edited by Joachim Rohde. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1973.
Piper, John. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in
Romans 3.25, 26.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7
(1980): 2-32.
---. The Justification of God. An Exegetical and Theological Study of
Romans 9.1-23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.
Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. New York:
Harper and Row, 1962.

238
 Bibliography

Rahlfs, Alfred. ed. Septuaginta, Id Est Vetus Testamentum Graece

Iuxta LXX Interpretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, 1979.
Reumann, John. Righteousness in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul, An Outline of His Theology. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
---. The Epistle of Paul to the Christians in Galatia. Translated by
Henry Zylstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
Robertson, A. and Plummer, A. The First Epistle of St Paul to the
Corinthians. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1914.
Räisänan, Heikki. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens (Röm.3.27) und das
Gesetz des Geistes (Röm. 8.2)” New Testament Studies 26 (1979-
80): 101-17.
---. “Gal.2:16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism.” New Testament
Studies 31 (1985): 543-55.
---. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Sanday, William and Hedlam, Arhtur C. The Epistle to the
Romans. ICC; 5th ed. 6th repr. 1920. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark,
1st ed. 1895.
Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1977.
---. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983.
Schlatter, Adolph. Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Rö-
merbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1935.
Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief and die Galater. Meyers Kommentar.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

239
Schmidt, Hans. “Das Gebet der Angeklagten im AT.” Beiheft zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 49 (1928): 1-
46.
Schmithals, Walter. Paul and James. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R.
Allenson, Inc., 1965.
Schoeps, H.J. Paul, The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of
Jewish Religious History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1961.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An
Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders.” Westminster
Theological Journal 47 (1985): 245-78.
---. “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible?” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984): 151-60.
---. “The Abolition and the Fulfillment of the Law.” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 47-74.
Schrenk, Gustav. “dikaiosynh k.t.l.,” Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament; vol.2. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich.
Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. New York:
Holt and Co., 1931.
Stendahl, Krister. “Lagen som övervakare intill Kristus.” Svensk
Exegetisk Årsbok 17/18 (1953): 161-73.
---. Paul among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Das Ende des Gesetzes.” Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 67 (1970): 14-39.
---. “Das Gesetz als Thema Biblischer Theologie.” Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 75 (1978): 251-80.

240
 Bibliography

---. “Die Gerechtigkeitsanschauung des Apostels Paulus.” In

Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. 87-116.
---. Gottes Gerchtigkeit bei Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965.
---. “Paul’s understanding of the Law in Romans.” Svensk
Exegetisk Årsbok 50 (1985): 87-104.
---. “Zur neueren Exegese von Röm 3.24-26.” In Jesus und Paulus.
Edited by E.E. Ellis and Eric Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1975. 315-33.
Tyson, Joseph.B. “`Works of Law’ in Galatians.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 92 (1973): 423-31.
Weiser, Arthur. The Psalms. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962.
Wellhausen, Julius. “Zur Apokalyptischen Literatur.” In Skizzen
und Vorarbeiten. 6 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1884-99. 215-49.
Wendland, Heinz D. Die Briefe an die Korinther. NTD. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.
Williams, Sam K. “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 91-100.

241
242