I can’t find my password at the moment so I’ll address it here.
Am I the only one who thinks that this works better as a defense of Wright’s view (though it may point to clarifications he needs to make) rather than a rebuttal?:
certain things are enclosed by boundaries. The border to a country encloses a way of life. It is not just about being on this side of the border or that one. The boundary markers do not exist in their own right, but are there for a reason, and they mark and point to something else
Here is what I see. I see Paul saying that both those “of the law” will be justified along those who are believers like Abraham before he was circumcised (Romans 4.14-16):
For if it is those of the law [alone] who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the one of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
This jives with Paul’s point that Abraham was justified while “ungodly.” John Murray denies that the term “ungodly” applies to Abraham because he think that “ungodly” has moral connotations and that it couldn’t be explained simply by saying that Abraham was a believer who sins. I understand Murray’s reluctance, but think his solution is implausible. Rather, “ungodly” refers to Abraham’s status as a Gentile (see here for more argumentation and contextual evidence).
Now none of this is identical to the term “works of the law” but it does show that the law is firmly enmeshed in questions of Jewish identity whether they alone or right with God. All this in Romans 4 is further defense and elaboration of an earlier statement:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law (Romans 3.28-31).
How do we avoid the implication that Paul is saying we believe one is justified by faith whether or not he is a Jew? I simply don’t see any other way to go. There is no need to bring up monotheism if Paul is saying that “we believe one is justified by faith rather than by being good enough.” Sure, works of the law cover the entire gamut, but it is the entire thing as given to Israel as part of her special calling and identity.
In fact, if Paul is making a special case for Gentiles here, he would be implying that they are so much worse than Jews that only justification by faith could include them. And that would be a reversal of all his argumentation in Romans 2 and 3.
In case I am not being understandable. As I see it the traditional view would demand the following:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law [that is, apart from any attempt to be morally good or pure enough to be justified]. Or is God the God of Jews only? [because if anyone could be justified by being morally pure enough, it could only be Jews] Is he not the God of Gentiles also? [Who are so much worse than Jews that, if there was any need for a supply of moral good works then we know all the Gentiles would be even more hopeless than the Jews] Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law (Romans 3.28-31).
But everything in Romans 2-3 has been arguing that there is no such great difference. Both Jews and Gentiles are alike under sin.
Um, yes, I agree with your take on Wright. What’s astounding about Wilson is that he generates all these mostly rhetorical “criticisms” of Wright while overlooking Leithart saying the same things in books put out by Canon Press. (More power to Leithart for saying them, because they’re simply correct.)
Maybe it would be helpful, instead of asking about the meaning of “works of the law” or if Jews had an official theology of merit, we should ask if they ever boasted inappropriately in themselves. I think they did and that it probably bled over into their lawkeeping. But I don’t think this can justify “traditional” readings of “works of the law” or Paul’s argument. Romans 11 shows that election can lead to such arrogance.
Pingback: Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Trying to pin it down: Perspecitve old or new on “works of the law” and the unrighteousness of Israel
I left a comment over there:
Ken, try this.
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART FROM THE MOSAIC COVENANT. Or is he the God of the Jews only?”
In much of Paul’s argumentation such as the part you mention, Paul uses “law” to refer to the law, i.e., the Mosaic law. It is the law as a whole which is to say, the Mosaic covenant.
But while it’s true that the law is a package deal (a covenant), this is hardly a death blow to a new perspective (i.e., redemptive-historical) reading of, for examples, Romans and Galatians. Indeed, my new perspective reading of Galatians requires seeing the law as the Mosaic covenant.