RBL 10/2005 Rapa, Robert K.

The Meaning of Works of the Law in Galatians and Romans

Studies in Biblical Literature 31 New York: Lang, 2001. Pp. xiv + 317. Hardcover. $66.95. ISBN 0820451193. Guy Prentiss Waters Belhaven College Jackson, MS 39202 As the title suggests, The Meaning of Works of the Law in Galatians and Romans is an effort to explain how Paul uses the phrase works of the law in the two Pauline letters in which this phrase appears. In the opening chapter, Rapa offers warrant for such a study. The phrase works of the law has occupied center stage in the last generation of scholarly attempts to come to terms with Pauls conception of the law. Whereas, he argues, the term law in Paul is generally and widely understood to refer to the Mosaic law, with respect to erga there is no such consensus (7). Chapter 2 offers Rapas analysis of the way in which interpreters from the Reformation to the present have handled the questions of Pauls view of the law, generally, and of the meaning of the phrase works of the law, particularly. He is critically appreciative of the Reformers conclusions with respect to this question (Rapa terms this the traditional position). He is also sensitive to the concerns that recent critical discussion has brought to this traditional perspective. The third chapter offers the reader an analysis of expressions parallel to works of the law in 2 Baruch and the Qumran scrolls. In these sources, the phrase refers to works done in obedience to the commandments (53; cf. 55). Rapa then details Douglas Moos analysis of the Pauline instances of ergon and proceeds to draw two conclusions from that analysis. First, the determining factor for Paul, in ethical terms, is not the fact of the work itself, but the consequential moral or spiritual orientation of that work (68). Second, the phrase works of the law is always used in negative terms (68). Such works liability, for Paul, is that they are insufficient to effect for humanity as a whole or for an individual what he (Paul) considers a proper ethical moral alignment or

This review was published by RBL !2005 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

relationship with God, as evidenced by justification, reception of the Spirit, election, and so on (68). Chapters 4, 5, and 6 treat Galatians. In chapter 4 Rapa argues, following James D. G. Dunn, that Pauls Jewish-Christian opponents have attempt[ed] to protect the Mosaic Covenant and the Jewish works of the law that had become the social identity badges of the Judaism of their day (93). They did so, the author maintains, by insisting that the Galatian converts must become practical Jews in order to be complete as Christian faith-descendants of Abraham (96). After offering a rhetorical analysis of the letter in chapter 5, Rapa examines in chapter 6 instances of the phrase works of the law in Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) individually. In Gal 2:16, the works of the law were the nomistic observances related to the Jewish law that these judaizers argued were part and parcel of what it meant to be Christian (13839). Paul here negates the works required by the law as the agency whereby the believers are to be justified (139). In Gal 3:2, 5, 10, works of the law carry the same meaning as at Gal 2:16. At Gal 3:10 in particular, Paul is not referring to [LXX Deut 27:26] in order to demand a perfect obedience of the law (159). Nor, however, is Paul simply objecting to works of the law as identity badges (183 n. 95; cf. 243, 250). He is, rather, accentuat[ing] the negative result of any attempted salvific use of the law (159). Pauls objection to works of the law, then, is in fact an objection to the judaizers misappropriation of that law as something salvific (167). Chapters 7, 8, and 9 treat Romans. Rapa argues in chapter 7 that Pauls judaizing opponents in view in this epistle are to be identified as the same or nearly the same as those reflected in his letter to the Galatians (204). Rapas rhetorical analysis in the next chapter suggests that the instances of works of the law in Romans (3:20, 28) fall in the dialectic confirmatio section of the letter (230). This rhetorical situation ensures that the understanding of works of the law will be a negative understanding (231). Chapter 9 examines how Paul uses works of the law at Rom 3:20, 28. These uses are similar, Rapa contends, to the apostles uses in Galatians. Pauls concern at Rom 3:20 is not over the law, as such, but over what the judaizers understood the function of that law to be, namely, salvific. For Paul, however, the law is strictly revelatory and restraining (244). At Rom 3:28 Paul is insisting that it is not by works of the law (a Jewish lifestyle as a soteriological requisite) that a person is justified. Justification comes apart from that covenantal framework (250). In chapter 10 Rapa draws conclusions from his study. While the phrase works of the law certainly connotes Jewish boundary markers, it is also pointedly soteriological (264). In this light, one may also see that Paul adopts a totally honest and consistent attitude toward the law (266). The apostles critique of the law, as measured by the

This review was published by RBL !2005 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

works of the law passages, properly is a critique of a soteriological misuse of the law (266). Rapas study is a helpful demonstration that one cannot fully appreciate Pauls concern for the law as he expresses that concern in the works of the law texts without reference to soteriological categories and concerns. (Although he does not develop or labor the point, it is clear that, for Rapa, the instances of works of the law evidence Pauline justification to be essentially soteriological.) This does not mean, for Rapa, that Pauls understanding of the law had no social or ecclesiological dimension whatsoever. In view of the polarization that one can encounter in the secondary literature, Rapas conscious desire to balance the soteriological and the social in Pauls understanding of the law is surely salutary. This work is beneficial in another respect. Rapa proposes that Paul expresses in Galatians and Romans an integrated and consistent theology of the law. Paul directs his statements concerning the law to diverse audiences from different perspectives, in order to meet the needs of each particular group he is addressing (266). Specifically, Pauls objections to the law, as evidenced from the works of the law texts, are not absolute. They are directed to a particular abuse of the law by certain individuals. This does not at all militate against some degree of appreciation for and embrace of the law on the part of the apostle. Once proper distinctions are granted, then, the way is open for exploration of a consistent Pauline theology of the law. In assessing what is certainly a welcome contribution to the ongoing conversation concerning Pauls understanding of the law, one may dissent from some of Rapas particular readings and conclusions. Two methodological issues, however, merit particular consideration. First, one might have wished for a clearer methodological statement justifying restriction of this study to the phrase works of the law. Rapa recognizes parallel expressions in other Second Temple texts but cautiously refrains from establishing a causal relationship at this point between those texts and Pauls letters. It seems, then, that one must search for such an explanation within the Pauline data themselves. Rapa correctly recognizes that Pauls erg- language as a whole has some bearing on the works of the law texts. Relative to the latter, however, he devotes comparatively little attention to the nonworks of the law erg- passages. It is unclear, then, why these eight works of the law texts should be privileged for distinct if not separate scholarly treatment. In other words, has Rapa attenuated in his discussion a body of evidence (other erg- texts) that may have confirmed, nuanced, or even challenged his particular conclusions? More pointed attention to such concerns as these could only serve to bolster the readers confidence in Rapas conclusions.

This review was published by RBL !2005 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

A second and related concern pertains to Rapas conception of the flexibility of the apostles use of the phrase works of the law. Rapa insists in this work that Paul consistently uses the phrase works of the law negatively. Rapa also states, however, that [in] Pauls mind the only continuing validity to be found in works of the law was in the domain of a believing Jews expression of devotion to God (based upon his personal practice, as noted in Acts 21:1526; 1 Cor. 9:1923) (140). An argument supporting this claim, however, appears to be absent from this work. It is just such an argument that is needed given the fact that Rapa has claimed that nonworks of the law instances of erg- words can be used in both neutral and ethical formulations and that the phrase works of the law carries with it a virtually indisputable connotation of negative conceptuality (68). While this observation may seem minor, it poses again for this work a foundational question of method. These criticisms notwithstanding, one may be grateful for this contribution to what has proven to be a vigorous and unabated discussion in the critical study of Pauline thought. It merits the studied consideration of any individual who has interest in the place of law in Pauls thought.

This review was published by RBL !2005 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.