Where Is Boasting?

Simon Gathercole’s Where Is Boasting has some stimulating insights into the argument of Romans 2, and some important objections to the NPP. The following notes are based on Gathercole:

1) It is clear that in Romans 2, Paul considers this Jew to be unrepentant and an apostate from Judaism. It has been common in recent NT scholarship to emphasize that the Jews had means for forgiveness and redemption. They weren’t condemned to death simply because they had broken the law, but had the system of sacrifices that would address the wrongs they did. But the law requires that the Israelites confess and repent of their sins. Otherwise, the sacrifices would not be effective for them. There are two sorts of sins in the sacrificial system: high-handed sins and sins of inadvertency or ignorance. The latter are the only kind that can be atoned by sacrifice. But you can be redeemed when you commit a high-handed sin if you confess it and abandon it. That brings the sin down to the level of inadvertency, so that it can be dealt with by sacrifice. But Paul is treating this Jew as unrepentant (v 4), and working hard to convince the Jew that he is a sinner (vv 17ff). That means that, under the law, this Jew does not have recourse to the sacrificial system, or at least that it is not going to be effective for him. Since this Jew represents the nation, Paul is treating the nation not only as corrupted by sin, but as unrepentant, as unconvinced that they ARE sinners.

2) This helps to specify Paul’s precise problem with Judaism, which has been a big issue with the NPP. The general consensus among NPP scholars is that Paul is not attacking works-righteousness in a traditional sense, but rather is attacking national pride of Israel, their boasting in and depending on their own election, their misuse of the law to exclude Gentiles, or their misunderstanding of the proper use of the law. But Paul here makes it clear that his problem with the Jews is that they have transgressed the law, and therefore have failed to accomplish their mission among the nations (2:24). By transgressing the law, they have become the opposite of what they claim to be: they are not circumcision, but uncircumcision. One of the ways they have transgressed the law may be a pride and dependence on election, in a presumptive way. One great sin was their exclusion of Gentiles from salvation. But that’s not what Paul says: he simply says they have transgressed the law.

3) There is an additional problem that has been suppressed in NPP. According to Paul, the Jews who have transgressed the law do not acknowledge that they have transgressed the law. This leads us back toward the more traditional Protestant reading of Romans: The Jews do have hope in their obedience, a hope that at the judgment they will be able to stand not just because they POSSESS the law but because they believe they have KEPT the law. It is true that possession of the law and election as Isarel does not guarantee they will stand in judgment, and Paul makes that point here (vv 12-16). But in addition to that Jews have a confidence in their own works, in their having done the things of the law, and believe that they will be judged righteous because of their works.

4) Thus, the flow of Paul’s argument in the center of chapter 2 is, in essence: “OK, Jews, I agree with you that all men will be judged by what they have done. I agree with you that the doers of the law will be justified and vindicated and will inherit glory and life. But (v 17) you haven’t done that, and I’ll show you how you have failed (vv 21-23). Scripture backs me up, saying that God’s name is blasphemed because of you (v 24). Insofar as your circumcision is a marker of your inclusion in Israel, the people of God, it is annulled by your sin and your impenitence, and Gentiles who are keeping the law are able to pass judgment on you (v 27). You have no basis for confidence at the judgment because you have transgressed the law. Don’t trust in, or boast in, your performance of the law.”