A Study on the Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Paul.

In Romans 3:20 is the first time that St. Paul uses the expression “works of the Torah” (from the Greek, ergon nomou). This term is familiar in modern preaching as “works of the law”; however, it would be more properly translated in context as “works of the Torah,” because the law (nomos) of which Paul speaks everywhere in Romans and Galatians is the Mosaic Law (Torah; nomos being the common Septuagint translation of the Hebrew term “Torah”)

The translation of ergon nomou as “works of the Torah” is confirmed by the archaeological-lexical evidence, since it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, writings of the Qumran community in first-century Israel. Thus it appears in the famous document known as MMT, which served as a Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community. This document, whose name is translated as “Some Relevant Works of the Torah,” focuses on certain disputed interpretations of specific Mosaic rules and reveals an enormous concern on the part of first-century Jews about the works of the Torah. The phrase works of the Torah/works of the Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in St. Paul (cf. the three articles in the November/December 1994 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review and in the book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by R. Eisenman and M. Wise, chapter 6, Works Reckoned as Righteousness— Legal Texts). The term “works of the Torah” thus precedes St. Paul and is a term he has taken up from the Jewish vocabulary of his time (which is why he has to dispute with the people about this in Romans and Galatians, because they already used the term). As we have said, its first appearance in St. Paul is in Romans 3:20. Before this point in Romans, the term ergon (“work” or “action”) and its cognates are found only in 2:6; 7, and 15. In none of these places does the term indicate what Paul has here in mind.

In 2:6 Paul was affirming that God would judge every man according to his works. Obviously he was not referring to works of the Torah, because he is speaking both of the judgment of the Gentiles and of the judgment of the Jews (cf. 2:9-10).

In 2:7 Paul was affirming that God would reward those who persevered in “the practice of good” (lit., “in good works”) by granting them eternal life or immortality (as well as glory and honor). But this is precisely what St. Paul says the works of the Torah will not attain, because the Torah does not give the power to avoid sin. (Thus there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between “good work” and “work of the Torah.”) And in 2:15 Paul was affirming that when the Gentiles naturally fulfilled what the Torah required, they show that “what the Torah requires” (lit., “the work of the Torah”) is written in their hearts. This is the core of the Torah that is really important—Paul has the same thing in mind in 8:3-4 when he says that God has done what the Torah could not do by sending his Son to condemn sin in the flesh, “so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us” (8:4). The “work of the Torah” of 2:15 is then the same as “the just requirement of the Torah” of 8:4. This is what is written in the hearts of the Gentiles—not merely the precepts of the Torah concerning diet, festivals, and ceremonies—and for which Christ died to give us power to carry it out.

Thus the introduction of the term “works of the Torah” in 3:20 is a new theme in the epistle, distinct from “works” (actions, whether good or bad) according to which men will be judged, distinct from “good work” that God will reward with eternal life, and distinct from “work of the Law” that is written in the hearts of the Gentiles and for which Christ died so that we might fulfill it. In accordance with these distinctions, we must investigate more closely what St. Paul means by this term.

Unfortunately the context does not give us many clues here, but it becomes clear in the following chapter, in Romans 4. Once the term “works of the Torah” has been introduced, the evidence quickly appears as to what precisely Paul has in mind.

In 3:28 Paul reiterates his thesis that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Torah.” To support this he asks rhetorically, “Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also” (3:29). “Works of the Torah” must then be something characteristic of the Jews rather than of the Gentiles. If Paul has anything particular in mind here, it could probably be the ceremonial components of the Torah (circumcision, laws concerning foods and festivals), which are distinctively characteristic of the Jews. They could not be the moral components of the Torah, since the Gentiles themselves have these written in their hearts (2:15) and consequently “fulfill them naturally” (2:14). [1]

It is in chapter 4 that we have the first concrete example of what Paul means by “works of the Torah,” and the example confirms the proposed thesis (that if Paul has anything in mind it is the ceremonial rather than the moral components of the Torah). The example is circumcision (4:9-12). Paul emphasizes with great force the non-necessity of circumcision for justification. In fact, the whole purpose of his discussion of Abraham as father of the faith (chapter 4) is to show the non-necessity of circumcision.

This indicates that circumcision is the work of the Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind—something confirmed by the fact that Paul had earlier maintained a discussion about the irrelevance of circumcision for salvation (2:25-3:1), and by the fact that just after this affirmation in 3:27 that the works of the Torah are not necessary, he arrived at the consequence that “God will justify the circumcised in virtue of faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (3:30).

Our hypothesis that St. Paul has in mind in the first place the ceremonial elements of the Torah by “works of the Torah” is thus confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Romans. This is again confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Galatians.

Paul is concerned to point out that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3). Paul characterizes as agitators those who were alarmed at the hypocrisy of Peter, who was in “the party of the circumcised” (Gal 2:12). He emphasizes that “if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal 5:2). His affirmation that “every man who receives circumcision… is bound to keep the whole Torah” (Gal 5:3) indicates that circumcision was at the forefront of the debate about the Torah and was the sign of embracing the Torah. He affirms that “in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (Gal 5:6).

Paul emphasizes the difference between his preaching and the preaching of circumcision by asking: “But if I… still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?” (Gal 5:11), and he goes on to affirm that he wishes those who favor circumcision “would go the whole way and mutilate themselves! (Gal 5:12, NIV). He warns his readers that those “who would compel you to be circumcised do so only in order not to be persecuted themselves” (Gal 6:12) and that “even those who are circumcised do not keep the Torah, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh” (Gal 6:13), finally reminding his readers that “neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal 6:15).

But while circumcision is the work of the Torah par excellence that Paul has in mind, there are other works, as is indicated in the text of Galatians. When Paul reminds Peter in Galatians 2:16 that both “know that a man is not justified by works of the Torah,” it is in the context where Peter and the other Jews had separated themselves so as not to eat with the Gentiles of Antioch (Gal 2:12-13). This was because the Gentiles were impure and because they ate impure foods (Acts 10:9-16 with 11:3-12). To eat with the Gentiles thus indicated a breach of separation between pure and impure (clearly stressed in the Torah) and a participation in the eating of impure foods (also stressed in the Torah). Thus the laws of separation between pure and impure are taken into account by Paul when he deals with “works of the Torah.”

Paul also laments that the Galatians “observe days [Jewish], months, seasons, and years! (Gal 4:10). This indicates that in addition to circumcision, the laws of separation, the laws concerning foods, and the laws of the Jewish festivals are also comprised in what Paul has in mind when he speaks of “works of the Torah.” In short, Paul principally has in mind the ceremonial works of the Torah when he speaks of “works of the Torah.” [2]

But a question arises as to whether Paul has in mind only the ceremonial works of the Torah when he uses the phrase. Or does he also have in mind the moral works of the Torah? Many contemporary evangelical preachers say yes, but this affirmation must be established by exegesis and evidence rather than by the mere assertion that it is so.

A person who recognizes the unified nature of the Torah in St. Paul’s thought might argue that, in virtue of its very unification, when Paul speaks of the works of the Torah he must mean all the works of the Torah, whether ceremonial or moral. But this inference is faulty. To argue that a unified whole is unnecessary does not mean that all its elements are unnecessary. To maintain that is to incur what in logic is known as the fallacy of division (that is, the whole has a certain property—non-necessity—therefore all the parts also have this property). [3] To give an everyday example, the dietitian might tell us that drinking Diet Coke is not necessary for good health, but we are not thereby authorized to reach the conclusion that drinking water (the principal ingredient of Diet Coke) is not necessary for good health. In the same way, we cannot simply assume from the fact that the Torah is not necessary for salvation that none of the elements of the Torah are necessary for salvation. This is shown abundantly by the fact that one of the elements of the Torah is faith in God, which is necessary for personal salvation. [4] Moreover, the apparent vision of a unified Torah in St. Paul is mitigated by the fact that he regularly moves between the two elements of the Torah that are and are not important, but surprisingly uses similar language to express these elements. For example, his use of the phrase “works of the Torah” to denote primarily (or exclusively) the ceremonial works characteristic of the Jews (and which are not written in the hearts of the Gentiles) and the similar phrase “work of the Torah” that is written in the hearts of the Gentiles and which sometimes characterizes their behavior. Much of the impression one receives that Paul has in mind a unified Torah derives from his language (which always speaks of a single Torah, not of a set of moral, civil, and ceremonial Torahs), even though his language distinguishes between the different types of “work(s) of the Torah.”

For both considerations (the logical and the linguistic), one cannot argue from Paul’s point of view of a unified Torah to conclude that he is saying that every element of the Torah is unnecessary. Indeed, as we have seen, at least one element of the Torah—faith in God—is necessary. The “work of the Torah” is therefore required.

Now we must return to exegesis and evidence to establish whether the “(moral) work of the Torah” is included in Paul’s phrase “works of the Torah.” There are a number of powerful arguments that it is not:

  1. One piece of evidence that we have already noted is outside the Bible. Recent archaeological and linguistic studies have shown that in the first century in Judaism the phrase “works of the Torah” was a technical term for actions that served as marks of Jewish identity (for example, ceremonial works), indicating that they were members of the Jewish covenant, in contrast to those who were outside it. [5]
  2. Paul clearly has in his mind the ceremonial works but not the moral work. This is indicated by the fact that he repeatedly and explicitly stresses the non-necessity of the ceremonial works, and especially circumcision, but he never repeatedly or explicitly stresses the non-necessity of the moral work such as charity.
  3. Moreover, Paul not only does not stress the non-necessity of charity but places great stress on the importance of charity and obedience. For example, when Paul affirms that “we wait for the hope of [justification]” (Gal 5:5) he says that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value [with respect to that hope], but rather faith through charity” (or “faith made effective through charity,” RSV margin; Gal 5:6).
  4. St. Paul also indicates that eternal life is a reward “for perseverance in good work(s)” (Rom 2:7) and that “we attain immortality by perseverance in good work(s)” (ibid.). He also affirms that “he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal 6:8) and sowing to the Spirit is defined in the context as “sharing all good things with him who teaches” (Gal 6:6, see also 2 Cor 9:1-6), and “doing good to all men” (Gal 6:10). This clearly indicates the necessity of doing good in order to receive the gift of eternal life on the last day.

The only way anyone could avoid the force of this argument would be to say that argument 1 is in the long run inconsistent (though it be quite firm) because it is based on extra-canonical evidence; that 2, though (also) quite firm, is presumptive rather than conclusive; that 3 principally has in mind the good that is necessary after one is justified, not before; and that in 4 what is spoken of is the final reception of eternal life rather than initial justification. This reply is possible (but very doubtful, in view of the force of the preceding arguments), but even if it were satisfactory it would not damage the exposition of Romans that we are developing here. It would only show that charity is not necessary for initial justification, leaving intact the fact that it is necessary for the reward of eternal life on the last day (Rom 2:7, Gal 6:6-10) and finally for eschatological justification (Gal 5:5-6).

The thesis that charity is not necessary for initial justification is something on which all Christians agree. The fact that Protestants agree is well known and needs no documentation. But the agreement of Catholics on this thesis is commonly denied (in Protestant circles) and therefore needs documentation.

A Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that “the works of the Torah” (including the works of charity) are not necessary to be justified because the Council of Trent, the official Catholic response to the Protestant reformers, declares: “None of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is not by works. Otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” [6] Trent thus teaches that there is nothing prior to justification, including works (of any kind), that merits justification.

In fact Catholic theology could teach that works of charity are really impossible before justification, because before that time the theological virtue of charity had not been infused (poured out) into the hearts of the faithful (cf. Rom 5:5: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us”). The only charity a person has before justification is the self-oriented charity that he manifests toward those from whom he hopes to receive some benefit. But this kind of charity counts for nothing before God (Matt 5:46). But if works of true charity are not possible before justification, obviously neither are they necessary for justification. Finally, the Eastern Orthodox would also agree with the thesis that works of charity are not necessary in order to be justified, indicating the agreement of all Christians on this point.

Therefore, even if “the works of the Torah” includes “the (moral) work of the Torah,” it does not affect our exposition on Romans. Giving an impartial evaluation of the four preceding arguments, it is extremely improbable that Paul includes the moral work in “works of the Torah,” but if he did it would not damage our interpretation.

An application of the preceding considerations to the interpretation of 3:20. As we saw earlier, Paul thinks that knowledge of sin comes through the Torah and that the Torah does not grant power to escape from sin; it is incapable of justifying. Paul thus establishes that “no one will be justified in view of the works of the Torah.” Any interpretation of “the works of the Torah” would make sense in this affirmation.

If “works of the Torah” means all the works of the Torah, including the works of charity, then it is obvious that they will not produce justification because the Torah does not give the capacity to practice works of charity. Similarly, if “works of the Torah” means ceremonial works, then it is obvious once more that one is not justified by the works of the Torah because practicing the ceremonial works does not even begin to free one from sin, which is why the Torah is not capable of justifying.

Then, in whatever sense the phrase “works of the Torah” is construed, Paul’s argument remains firm: the Torah only produces the knowledge of sin, not its liberation, and so performing the works of the Torah would not lead to justification. No man will be justified by the works of the Torah.

Author: James Akin

Source: Apologetica.org

Translator: Fr. Marcelo Navarro, missionary of the Institute of the Incarnate Word in Guyana

NOTES

  1. For a fuller development, see the commentary on 3:29. ↩

  2. The phrase “ceremonial works of the Torah” is to be preferred to the common phrase “works of the ceremonial law” because St. Paul does not speak of a ceremonial Torah in contrast to a moral Torah or a civil Torah. The tripartite division of the Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial precepts, although it is an exact division, is an anachronism that is not found in St. Paul’s thought. The Torah can certainly be divided in that way, but Paul himself does not make that division. If there is a division that goes to the fore in Paul’s mind, it is between the obligatory and non-obligatory parts of the Torah. But when he discusses this he does not speak of two separate Torahs, but of one Torah that has two aspects—moral and ceremonial—which are obligatory and non-obligatory respectively for Christians. Thus we must distinguish between the “(ceremonial) works of the Torah” that count for nothing “in Christ” and the “(moral) work of the Torah that is written in the hearts of the Gentiles and which Christians have power to carry out. ↩

  3. To give an example of this fallacy that I learned in my first Logic class, a great building may have a certain property, such as that of weighing hundreds of tons, from which it does not follow that each brick of the building also possesses that property. ↩

  4. Even if it be implicit faith. ↩

  5. See Dunn, “Jesus, Paul and the Law”, p. 220, Romans, vol. 1, p. 154. This thesis is confirmed by numerous modern authors, including E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, p. 147, Alan Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 131, F. J. Matera, Galatians, p. 93. ↩

  6. Trent, session six, “Decree on Justification”, chapter 8, quoting Rom 11:6. ↩

Copyright © 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.