To Whom Does The Law Speak? Romans 3:19 and the Works of the Law Debate -- By: Herbert Bowsher
Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 68:2 (Fall 2006)
Article: To Whom Does The Law Speak? Romans 3:19 and the Works of the Law Debate
Author: Herbert Bowsher
WTJ 68:2 (Fall 2006) p. 295
To Whom Does The Law Speak?
Romans 3:19 and the Works of the Law Debate
Herbert Bowsher is President of the Cromwell Group, Inc., a pre-employment screening firm in Birmingham, Ala.
In the ongoing justification controversy, one’s understanding of ἔργα νόμου (“works of the law”) in Rom 3:20 marks a critical stage in any discussion. The literature is massive and the participants are legion, but I will be focusing on the work of four key players: James Dunn and N. T. Wright, on the one hand; and their opponents C. E. B. Cranfield and Douglas Moo, on the other. There are probably few who would take issue with the view that these men have produced four of the best and most useful commentaries on Romans that have appeared in the last thirty years.
Although in general agreement with Cranfield and Moo on this point, I will not be dealing with the meaning of ἔργα νόμου as such. What I will argue is that Dunn’s and Wright’s understanding of this phrase in Rom 3:20 requires some key assumptions about νόμος in 3:19. If these assumptions are found wanting, their argument cannot be sustained. However, these assumptions are shared by Cranfield and Moo, which I believe makes their critique of Dunn’s and Wright’s position on “works of the law” more difficult to advance than it would otherwise be.
In framing the issue in these terms I am not implying that there are two hermetically sealed camps with each defending some sort of “party line.” Although they bring their own theological grid with them (which is unavoidable), all four men are more responsible exegetes than that. Indeed, one factor making this whole discussion of Paul’s thought so fascinating is the way all these men agree or disagree with one another in surprising ways. For example, both Cranfield and Wright argue (rather convincingly, in my opinion) that φύσει is part of the first clause in Rom 2:14, thus speaking of Gentiles not having the law by nature.1 Dunn and Moo agree with the more common understanding of φύσει belonging with the second clause, thereby seeing Gentiles as doing by nature those things contained in the law.2
WTJ 68:2 (Fall 2006) p. 296
In this article I will begin with a brief citation of how each side defines ...
Click here to subscribe