Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Moo, Douglas

Having established that "boasting" in Paul's Jewish background could have something to do with the works of individuals, Gathercole turns to Romans 1-5 to determine just what the text indicates about the "boasting" that Paul here condemns. He spends considerable lime on the difficult and much-debated ch. 2, arguing basically that Paul's focus on Jewish sinfulness implies very strongly that it was Jewish failure to do the law that invalidated Jews' boasting. The same perspective emerges, he argues, in chs. 3 and 4. The denial that "works of the law" can justify in 3:20 fits with the synergism of election works that he has found in the Jewish writings (he calls this a "chastened" view of Judaism), and a concern with obedience (not just covenant status) is confirmed by the argument of ch. 7. "Boasting" in 3:27 again, then, involves both confidence stemming from God's election and pride resulting from obedience to the law. Similarly, Paul's handling of Abraham reveals his polemical thrust against a Jewish tendency to attach Abraham's justification to his "works" (especially in association with his testing). Paul counters by placing Abraham in the category of the "ungodly," thereby suggesting that it is his "works" of obedience that is the issue in his boasting-a point confirmed by bringing in David, who was also justified "apart from works."

I find it difficult to criticize a book with which I agree so wholeheartedly. Gathercole's analysis of the Jewish writings falls closely into line with many other interpretations of Judaism in the wake of the New Perspective: while Jewish soteriology stressed God's elective grace, manifested in covenant, it also made obedience to the law a requirement for eventual salvation. I also appreciated Gathercole's recognition that the shift from a national to an individual eschatology (typical of this period) inevitably introduced a more synergistic note into Jewish soteriology. He marshals telling criticisms of the New Perspective interpretation of the phrase "works of the law" in the Dead Sea Scrolls (interacting especially with M. Abegg; pp. 92-96). Also to be welcomed is the attention he gives to the implications about Jewish soteriology found in NT texts (an often neglected feature in current discussions). His remarks on Romans 1-5, while limited due to space constraints and his particular purpose, focus helpfully on the larger nature of the argument and, to my mind, are generally quite on target.

I would venture to name only two points of criticism. The first is his suggestion that Paul's dialogue partner in Romans 2 and following is both representative of Judaism generally (pp. 197-99) and a Jew whom Paul presents as unrepentant and therefore apostate (cf. Rom 2:1-5; pp. 206-9); this is why Paul does not mention the efficacy of sacrifice to care for the sin problem. Perhaps Gathercole means that, after the coming of Christ, all Jews who do not embrace Christ must necessarily be placed in the category of "apostate"; it is difficult to see, otherwise, how the Jew of Romans 2 can be both representative and apostate. My second criticism has to do with Gathercole's analysis of the "judgment by works" theme in Paul. He quite correctly notes that this doctrine cannot be eliminated from Paul's teaching; that it bears a general resemblance to the Jewish view, which also combined elective grace with vindication by works; and that, for all its resemblance, Paul's pneumatology nevertheless distinguishes his view from that of Judaism when it comes to the exact nature of the interaction between grace and works. But I worry that Gathercole has perhaps placed more weight than is appropriate on the importance of judgment by works vis-à-vis justification by faith in Paul's theology (crucial are the admittedly very difficult Rom 2:7-11,13, 25-29; see also his related treatment of James 2 [pp. 116-18]).