19-The new Righteousness the same for all

The new Righteousness the same for all In v. 9 just above we met the puzzling question τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα (which, by the way, our English revisers rendered “What then? Are we in worse case,” whereto the American Company appended this pithy comment, “For ‘in worse case’ read ‘better’ and omit the margin”!). We can now say, that any claim the Jew might have to priority, is effectually wiped out. To ‘glory’ in the privilege of Abrahamic descent, or the possession of the ‘Law,’ was peculiarly Jewish. Such glorying is now rendered impossible, nay even inconceivable.

3:27. “What becomes, then, of our boasting? It has been entirely shut out.”

Here we have a past fact simply. The tense concentrates attention entirely on the consideration that it is past. Henceforth all ‘boasting’ (and the article, though it may conceivably be only the article attached to ‘abstract nouns,’ as such, seems here to define the ‘boasting’ as that of St Paul’s compatriots) “has been excluded,” “is excluded.” So far, all is ‘plain sailing.’ Now there are ‘rocks ahead.’ The use of νόμου, in the very next question, is eminently perplexing. However, we recall that in other instances, the Apostle uses this particular term with prodigious freedom. 8:2 will illustrate.

All English versions say ‘law.’ What the ordinary reader may gather therefrom one hardly likes to think. S. inclines to the rendering ‘system.’ To my mind, in modern English ‘principle’ is the nearest equivalent.

Let us, then, adventure Song of Solomon 3:27-31. “Thanks to what principle? The principle of doing things? No! the principle of believing. Our view is, that a man is set right before God by faith, apart from doing Law’s biddings.”

“Or, can it be that God is the God of the Jews alone? Is He not the Gentiles’ too? Aye, surely, the Gentiles’ also; if in very truth there is One God, who will accept the Circumcision, thanks to faith, and the Uncircumcision, because they have the Faith.”

“Do we then by our faith annul the Law? Nay, nay! We establish it.”

Viewing the passage as a whole, one notices at once the full force of the νόμος difficulty. It is a class of difficulty which dogs our steps everywhere. To the orderly English mind, it is barely conceivable that a word should be employed in one paragraph in two senses. That is, presumably, why our Company of Revisers retained the term ‘law’ all through. Yet the more one peruses the sentence, the more certain one becomes, that the νόμος of v. 31 has nothing whatever to do with the νόμος of v. 27. Verse 31 contains a purely subsidiary question. It does not appear to affect the section generally, or to have any intimate relation with it.

But, mark the baffling conciseness of the question that follows ἐξεκλείσθη. “Where is our boasting? It is shut out. By what sort of principle?” So runs the text. Would it be going too far to affirm that, when St Paul declares that “boasting” is “shut out” by such and such a principle, he means that none can boast, because the ‘principle,’ whereby a man finds favour or mercy with God, is not ‘works’ but ‘faith’?

“What ‘principle’ excludes it?” he asks. This must plainly be a brachylogy; for the expanded sense should be, By the operation of what principle is it excluded? The answer is, Faith not works. That is the principle which renders all boasting impossible. The λογιζόμεθα γάρ-γάρ appears preferable to οὖν-represents the Pauline position. Possibly, by the use of the plural, he means to convey the idea that his readers are carried with him. On the other hand, quite as possibly, he is speaking for himself alone. The ἤ (in v. 29) introduces, as normally, an impossible alternative. If Law were the royal road to δικαιοσύνη, Israel would occupy a position of unfair privilege. The Gentile would be situated, by comparison, most unfavourably. My impression is, that in saying εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεός, the writer means us to gather that God is the same for all, as I have put it in the paraphrase. The distinction (in v. 30), between ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως, is not very easy to grasp. And yet we can hardly suppose the variation unintentional. Maybe, the anarthrous form distinguishes ‘faith’ as a whole from ‘works’ as a whole; whereas the διὰ τῆς πίστεως refers to belief in a specific form, that is to say, belief in Christ. The distinction, such as it is, rests less on the variation of preposition than on the presence or absence of the article. In v. 31 the writer, having dealt with the question of ‘glorying,’ raises yet a further question, and answers it very briefly. If the Law (an objector might urge) does not help a man with God, what is the use of it? You are emptying it of all meaning. Not so! responds the Apostle, Law becomes more real than ever. For the explanation of this ‘dark saying,’ we must turn to a later passage. From 13:10 we learn that Love is πλήρωμα νόμου.

St Paul’s great Master Himself had expressly repudiated the charge of abolishing ‘Law.’ He spoke definitely of ‘the Law.’ I should say it is likely enough that ‘Law’ means ‘the Law’ here too. Νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν would really contain no meaning, setting Jewish Law apart.