What does Paul mean by “works of the law”?

Explanation:

Paul explains in Romans 3:20 that no one will be justified before God by works of the law. We can detect what Paul means by the phrase because we find a similar phrase in a Jewish work that was written prior to Paul. Scholars have recovered fragments of a Jewish document preserved by the Qumran community where a writer states that he has written concerning the works of the law. Later, the author writes that by doing the works of the law, You will be doing righteousness before Him [God].³ Clearly, a Jewish author prior to Paul thought that doing the works of the law would make one righteous before God. Likely, Paul is countering this view. That is, Paul is saying that by obeying the precepts of the law no one will be righteous before God, because no one is able to keep the law. ⁴

Counterargument:

There are other writings from the Qumran community that suggest the Judaism of the first century considered the works of the law to be a boundary marker that one was a member of the covenant community.⁵ That is, the works of the law were the religious obligations one upheld in order to remain a member of the covenant community of God. Of course, to perform certain works in order to maintain membership in a community is not the same as performing works in order to be righteous before God. Given that there are other early Jewish documents that state that the works of the law have to do with Jewish boundary markers, we cannot be sure that Paul uses the phrase to denote the prescriptions of the law that ought to be obeyed.

Response to counterargument:

The fact that some members of the Qumran community may have used the phrase works of the law to refer to the boundary markers of God’s covenant people does not undermine this argument. For according to this argument, there were Jews prior to Paul who believed that by doing the works of the law one was righteous before God. Now Paul says here that by doing the works of the law no one will be justified, because all are under the power of sin (Romans 3:9). Clearly, Paul’s train of thought aligns with the Jews who viewed the works of the law in a legal sense, not as boundary markers.

Explanation:

Paul says that no one will be justified by God through works of the law. We can deduce what he means by works of the law by considering the overall logic of his thinking. First, in Romans 2:13 he says that the doers of the law will be justified before God.⁶ The phrase doers of the law is parallel to the notion of works of the law. The law is a set of prescriptions, and if one obeys those prescriptions, one is justified before God. Paul also explains in Romans 3:9–18 that all are under the power of sin. To sin is to disobey God’s law. That all are under the power of sin implies that no one has obeyed God’s law.

When we put these points together, we see that Paul can say in Romans 3:20 that no one will be justified by the works of the law. In other words, the works of the law are the prescriptions that count as righteousness. If one obeys the prescriptions, one is justified. But all are under the power of sin. Therefore, no one will be justified by obeying the prescriptions.

Counterargument:

It is not clear that when Paul says the doers of the law will be justified, he has in mind the same concept as the works of the law. Rather, when Paul introduces the notion of being a doer of the law, he has in mind doing works of righteousness. In particular, Paul says that even the Gentiles sometimes do by nature what the law requires (Romans 2:15). But when we reach Romans 3:20, Paul seems to have in mind specifically Jewish laws. For he says in Romans 3:19 that the law speaks to those under the law, referring to the Jews, and then in Romans 3:20 he says no one will be justified by works of the law. In other words, the works of the law have to do with particularly Jewish customs, and no one will be justified by these. On the other hand, those who do the law, as in, the works of righteousness that the Gentiles sometimes do naturally, will be justified.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument fails to notice the universality in the Jewish laws. When Paul refers to doing the laws, or the works of the laws, he generally has in mind good works.⁷ The advantage of the Jews is that God prescribed for them what constitutes a good work in the Mosaic law. Still, God created humans with a conscience so that even the Gentiles sometimes did good works, or, what is prescribed in the Mosaic law, naturally. So Paul’s point is directed at the Jews but it applies universally. The point is that no one will be justified by doing good works, or, obeying the prescriptions of the law, not because the prescriptions fail, but because we are under the power of sin.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. When we piece Paul’s logic together, we clearly see that God requires good works, but because of sin, no one is able to perform them, so no one will be justified by good works. Still, there is some confusion over which aspects of the law Paul has in mind. For instance, does works of the law refer to the moral or ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law? Of course, by saying the law brings knowledge of sin, Paul clarifies that he likely has in mind the moral aspects of the Mosaic law.

Explanation:

Paul says that no one will be justified by works of the law. We can detect what he means by the phrase works of the law by considering his main point in this section. Specifically, Paul’s argument in the preceding section is that Jewish particularism should be merged with universal human experience.¹⁰ In other words, the Jews assumed that because they were God’s chosen people, they would be specially justified before God. And the items that marked out the Jews as God’s covenant people were circumcision, the Sabbath, and some dietary laws. Thus, the phrase works of the law referred to those boundary markers that identified one as a Jew. What Paul is saying in this section is that, while the boundary markers may identify one as a Jew, they are not what justify one before God.

Counterargument:

While it might be true that Paul is countering Jewish particularism, it does not follow that the phrase works of the law refers to the boundary markers that identify one as a Jew. Further, if Jewish particularism is on Paul’s mind, it is more likely that Paul is saying the Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles when it comes to justification, not because the boundary markers are unimportant, but because the Jews are sinful. And because the Jews are sinful, they are unable to uphold the works of the law. In fact, there is textual evidence to support the fact that the Jewish particularism Paul combats is a Jewish belief that because they had the law, they were exempt from God’s judgment. For in Romans 2:13 Paul explains that one who does the law is righteous before God. Then in Romans 3:9 he says that both Gentiles and Jews are under sin, before stating that by works of the laws, no one is justified (Romans 3:20). Since Paul says that by doing the law no one is righteous before God, it is clear that he has no problem with the law. The problem is that because of sin, no one can do the law, and this is the issue that Paul wants the Jews in Rome to recognize.

Explanation:

We know from Romans 2:25 and sections of Paul’s letter to the Galatians that circumcision was prioritized by the Jews. For example, in Romans 2:25 Paul specifically refers to circumcision, and the fact that the Jews overemphasized its importance. ¹¹ Likewise, in Galatians 5:2 Paul chastises the Galatians for overemphasizing circumcision, and says that Christ will be of no value if they get circumcised. That the Jews and Jewish Christians overemphasized circumcision suggests that these overemphasized Jewish identity markers. And Paul wants the Jewish Christians in Rome to understand that identity markers will not justify them before God. So Paul explains that no one will be justified by works of the law, or, Jewish identity markers.

Counterargument:

This argument contends that the Jewish Christians overemphasize circumcision, and Paul intends to counter this line of thinking. It points out that Paul refers to circumcision in Romans 2:25, and Galatians 5:2, which suggests Jewish identity markers is the problem Paul addresses. The problem with this argument is that Paul has much more than circumcision in mind. He says so himself in Romans 2:25. He highlights not only circumcision there but the law as a whole. He says that circumcision is only valuable if one keeps the whole law. Now, if all Paul had in mind were Jewish identity markers as such as circumcision, he would be saying that circumcision is of value only if one is circumcised. Such a statement is obvious and inconsequential. Clearly, what Paul says in Romans 2:25 is that unless one keeps the prescriptions of the law, identity markers such as circumcision are not valuable. This implies that the law has to do with more than identity markers. Likewise, when Paul refers to the works of the law in Romans 3:20, he has more than identity markers in mind.

The weakness of this view is that it ignores what Paul says at the end of Romans 3:20. For at the end of Romans 3:20, Paul says that through the law comes knowledge of sin. Now, if the works of the law have to do with Jewish identity markers such as circumcision and food laws, it is not clear why knowledge of sin comes through these.