What is meant by pursing works in contrast to faith?

Explanation:

To understand the difference between works of the law and faith, it is important to review what Paul wrote leading up to Romans 9:32. In particular, Paul has made it clear that God has mercy on whomever he desires, and this is based not on nationality or human effort in any way (Romans 9:16) but solely on God’s own call. This implies that no amount of human effort can force God’s mercy, and this was Israel’s mistake. They thought that if they kept the precepts of the Mosaic law, they would attain righteousness, but this is not the case. That is because, as Paul has already made clear, humans are sinful, and human sin gets in the way of maintaining the Mosaic law (Romans 3:9–20). Since human sin means no one can keep the law, God simply asks us to have faith. So works of the law are the precepts of the Mosaic law, and faith is simply believing God with one’s heart.

Counterargument:

It is not clear that Romans 3:9–20 is relevant to Paul’s point in this section. Rather, his point seems to be that God has mercy on whomever he desires, aside from national distinctiveness. That is, while the Jews were God’s covenant people, God can also extend his covenant promises to the Gentiles. We can see that this is Paul’s point because he opens Romans 9:4 by asking whether God’s word failed in relation to Israel. Further, he reminds his audience that even Esau, who had the same mother as Jacob, was hated by God. So national distinctiveness is not what instigates God’s mercy. That is, works of the law that are particular to Israel’s ethnicity, such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath laws, cannot lead to righteousness. Rather righteousness is attained by faith.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Paul is explaining how God’s covenant promises extend to both Jews and Gentiles, it is unlikely that when he refers to the works of the law in Romans 9:32, he has distinctively Jewish ethnic laws such as circumcision in mind. That is because Paul simply uses the broad term works.² The term includes any aspect of the Mosaic law. The point is that the Jews thought they could be right with God by keeping the law, but it is not possible to keep the law because of sin. Thus, one is only right with God through faith.

Explanation:

We can detect that the works of Romans 9:32 refers to the whole Mosaic law, which Israel failed to uphold because of sin, by what Paul writes in Romans 10:3–5. There he explains that the Jews were ignorant of God’s righteousness and tried to establish their own. He then explains that Moses wrote about the righteousness based on the law that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. In other words, one must keep the commands perfectly in order to attain righteousness based on the law. Of course, this is impossible because of sin, but Israel failed to see this. Instead, they tried to establish their own righteousness by living according to the Mosaic law instead of putting their faith in Christ.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that when Paul writes in Romans 10:3 that Israel tried to establish their own righteousness, this does not seem to imply that they were trying to keep the whole Mosaic law. The Mosaic law came from God, and Paul has already said that the law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). Of course, if the Mosaic law is holy, righteous, and good, and works in Romans 9:32 refers to the whole Mosaic law, then it is not clear why Paul would say Israel tried to establish their own righteousness. Anyone doing the works of the Mosaic law is not trying to establish his own righteousness but is trying to live according to God’s righteousness. Since Paul characterizes Israel as trying to establish their own righteousness in Romans 10:3, he must have in mind something other than keeping the whole Mosaic law.

Response to counterargument: This counterargument fails to incorporate what Paul writes in Romans 10:5. There he says that according to Moses, the righteousness based on the law has to do with a person living by the commandments. And Paul says this in the context of Israel trying to establish their own righteousness. The point is that the righteousness from God is based on faith because sin prevents humans from upholding the Mosaic law. Israel should have known this but instead tried to establish their own righteousness in the sense of keeping all the Mosaic law without faith. So works means keeping the Mosaic law.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. Paul has made it clear that all are under sin (Romans 3:9), and no one is justified by works of the law (Romans 3:20). Also, the law is holy and good (Romans 7:12). The implication is that sin prevents one from being righteous by the works of the law.

Explanation:

Paul explains that because the Israelites pursued righteousness by works of the law instead of faith, they have not obtained it. We can detect what he means by works of the law as opposed to faith by considering what he already wrote in this letter.³ In Romans 3:28–30 he writes that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. He goes on to explain that God is the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, and that he will justify both by faith. In other words, God is the God of the Israelites who are circumcised and uphold dietary and Sabbath laws, and he is the God of the Gentiles who do not pursue these things. God gave the Jews circumcision as well as dietary and Sabbath laws, and these are the works of the law. Paul is revealing that the Gentiles are also included by faith. So the contrast between the works of the law and faith is the contrast between specifically Jewish laws such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, and faith in Christ. By thinking that righteousness could be established by these specific Jewish identity markers, the Jews have excluded the Gentiles, who have obtained righteousness by faith.

Counterargument:

This argument contends that when Paul contrasts the works of the law with faith, the works of the law refers to specifically Jewish activities. This view argues, based on what Paul wrote in Romans 3:28–30, that by emphasizing these items, the Jews exclude the Gentiles, who have access to righteousness by faith. The problem with this argument is that if we include one more verse from Romans 3 to understand what Paul means, this view is overturned. For Paul asks in Romans 3:31, Do we overthrow the law by this faith? By no means, on the contrary, we uphold the law. If the above argument is right, then Paul is saying that while Gentiles are included by faith, it is through this faith that they ought to uphold the law, which would include circumcision and dietary restrictions. But we know from Paul’s letter to the Galatians that he actually opposed circumcision (Galatians 5:2–6). So what Paul means by upholding works of the law cannot refer to specifically Jewish notions such as circumcision.

Explanation:

Paul writes that the Israelites fell short of righteousness because they pursued it based on works rather than faith. We can detect from Romans 10:3 that he likely means that the Israelites pursued righteousness by emphasizing specifically Jewish identity markers such as dietary restrictions, circumcision, and Sabbath laws.⁴ This was a mistake because it excluded the Gentiles, who are justified by faith. Romans 10:3 highlights this interpretation because there Paul says that the Israelites sought to establish their own righteousness, and they did not submit to God’s righteousness. In other words, the Israelites sought to set salvation up as something distinctively Jewish, requiring circumcision, and adherence to Jewish laws such as dietary restrictions and Sabbath laws. This was a mistake, because God’s righteousness is based on faith, which includes the Gentiles. So works of the law are specifically Jewish identity markers such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath laws, while faith is trust in God.

Counterargument:

When we continue reading Romans 10, we find that Paul is saying all requirements of the Mosaic law are the works of the law. For he says that Moses writes about the righteousness based on the law that the person who does the commands shall live by them. In other words, if one is able to do all of the commands of the Mosaic law, one will be declared righteous. So the works of the law have to do with all of the commands of the Mosaic law, not simply items of Jewish distinctiveness such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath laws.

The weakness of this view is that Paul never separates specifically Jewish identity markers such as circumcision, dietary laws, and keeping the Sabbath, from the rest of the Mosaic law. If Paul did make such a separation, as this view implies, we would expect him to be explicit about it.