Works of the Law

Definition

A theological framework that names the Pauline phrase works of the law (Greek erga nomou; Romans 3:20, 3:27-28; 9:32; Galatians 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) and clarifies what Paul is actually opposing when he says that no one is justified by works of the law. The Reformation tradition has read the phrase as meritorious moral effort, the religious self-righteousness of one who tries to earn salvation by being good. The New Perspective on Paul (Sanders, Dunn, Wright) and the Paul-Within-Judaism lane have re-described the phrase. Works of the law, in the actual Second-Temple Jewish context, names the specific boundary-marker practices of Torah-observance that distinguished Jews from gentiles in the ancient world: circumcision, food laws (kashrut), and Sabbath / festival-calendar observance. Paul is not arguing against the Hebrew Bible’s call to love God and neighbor or against ethical obedience. He is arguing against the requirement that gentile believers must adopt the Jewish boundary-markers to be included in the covenant family. The framework is essential for reading Romans, Galatians, and Philippians without importing a Reformation polemic against medieval Catholicism into Paul’s first-century argument.

Key proponents

Modern

E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Fortress, 1977). The foundational study that re-described Second-Temple Judaism as covenantal nomism: Jews were in the covenant by election and stayed in by Torah observance, not trying to earn entry by merit. The book that started the New Perspective on Paul.
James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-16 (WBC 38A/B, Word, 1988), The New Perspective on Paul (Eerdmans, rev. 2007), and Jesus, Paul, and the Law (WJK, 1990). The single most important voice on works of the law as boundary-markers. Dunn argued specifically that erga nomou names those Torah practices that visibly distinguished Jews from gentiles: circumcision, kashrut, Sabbath, festival observance.
N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant (Fortress, 1992) and Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress, 2013). Develops the Dunn reading inside the broader narrative of the climax of Israel’s covenant story.
Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards (Baylor, 2019). Reads works of the law as the boundary practices that protected the Weak’s Jewish identity in the Roman house churches, with Paul calling the Weak not to abandon Torah but to not require it of gentile believers for table fellowship.
Matthew Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone (Baker Academic, 2017). Bates reframes works of the law inside his pistis-as-allegiance model: works of the law are the visible ethnic-identity markers that compete with the singular allegiance to King Jesus.
Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress, 1996) and Reading Romans Within Judaism (Cascade, 2018). The hardest Paul-Within-Judaism reading: works of the law in Paul targets gentiles being pressured to Judaize, not Jews continuing their ancestral Torah observance.
Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul (Fortress, 2009) and The Formation of Christianity in Antioch (Routledge, 2003). Develops the Paul-Within-Judaism framework historically.
Anders Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew (Fortress, 2016) and the Paul-Within-Judaism collected volumes. Reads Paul as a Torah-observant Jewish apostle to gentiles.
Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian (HarperOne, 2010). Argues that Paul’s whole law-and-works argument is categorically gentile-facing, not aimed at Jews.
Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (Yale, 2017). Historicizes the boundary-marker question in first-century gentile-Jewish relations.
Marty Solomon (Bema podcast, Romans and Galatians series). Holds the Dunn boundary-marker reading inside a broader Hebrew-context framing.
Timothy Gombis (Romans podcast, 2024-25). Combines the New Perspective reading with attention to the powers and the flesh in Paul.
Michael F. Bird, Romans: The Story of God Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 2016). Holds the New Perspective insight together with continuing Reformed concerns.

Premodern witnesses

The Hebrew Bible itself. The Torah does not present itself as a means of earning right relationship with YHWH. Israel is already in the covenant when the Torah is given at Sinai (Ex 19-20). The Torah’s purpose is covenantal: how the elect people lives in faithful response to the God who has already chosen them.
The Qumran community’s Halakhic Letter (4QMMT). The text uses the exact phrase ma’asei ha-torah (works of the Torah) to name specific halakhic practices that distinguish the Qumran community from other Jews. The Pauline erga nomou has a direct Second-Temple Jewish background in boundary-marker practices, not in moralistic effort to earn salvation.
The Letter of Aristeas (c. 2nd century BCE). The earliest extended Jewish defense of the Torah for gentile readers. The food laws, circumcision, and Sabbath are explicitly described as the markers that set Jews apart from the nations.
Philo of Alexandria (Special Laws; Migration of Abraham). The Hellenistic-Jewish philosopher’s extended treatment of which Torah commandments are binding for gentile God-fearers and which are uniquely Israel’s.
The Acts 15 Jerusalem Council. The earliest Christian-Jewish ruling on the question. The council does not require circumcision of gentile believers but does ask gentile believers to abstain from certain things for the sake of fellowship with Jewish believers (Acts 15:19-20). The decision is exactly what Dunn’s boundary-marker reading would predict: the ethnic-identity markers are not required of gentiles, but mutual table fellowship across the Jew-gentile divide must be preserved.
Augustine (Spirit and the Letter; commentary on Romans). Read works of the law in a transformational-grace frame: the law commands what only grace can supply. This is not the boundary-marker reading, but Augustine’s framing is more careful than the later medieval and Reformation versions.
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans; Homilies on Galatians). Reads works of the law as Mosaic-ceremonial Torah, distinguishing ceremonial from moral aspects of the law. Closer to the boundary-marker reading than the later Western tradition.
Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I-II.99-105; Commentary on Romans). Develops the ceremonial / moral distinction in extenso: ceremonial commandments are passing; moral commandments are abiding.
Martin Luther (Lectures on Galatians; Lectures on Romans). Reads works of the law as any human effort to earn justification before God. The Reformation polemic against medieval Catholic works-righteousness is poured back into Paul’s argument. The boundary-marker reading is lost.
John Calvin (Institutes 3.11-19; Commentary on Romans). Holds Luther’s meritorious-effort reading. The Reformed tradition’s central polemic against works-righteousness religion is set.

See How We Read for the longer lineage of this and the other frameworks on this site.

Core insights

Second-Temple Judaism was not a works-righteousness religion. This is Sanders’s foundational claim, and it is now the scholarly consensus. The caricature of Jews trying to earn salvation by being good enough that has shaped Western Christian readings of Paul for 500 years is not the Judaism Paul knew. Jews understood themselves to be in the covenant by YHWH’s election of Abraham and his offspring; Torah was the covenantal way of life, not a ladder by which one climbs into divine favor. When Paul argues against works of the law, he is not tearing down a Jewish merit-system; no such Jewish merit-system existed.

“Works of the law” in 4QMMT names specific boundary-markers. The Qumran Halakhic Letter uses the precise Hebrew phrase ma’asei ha-torah (translated works of the Torah) to refer to the specific halakhic practices distinguishing the Qumran community from other Jews. The Pauline erga nomou has a Jewish Second-Temple technical use, naming specific boundary-marker practices, not generic moral effort. The conjunction is decisive for the framework’s claim.

Paul’s “works of the law” targets three specific practices. Across Romans and Galatians, Paul’s actual argument focuses on three Torah practices that visibly distinguished Jews from gentiles in the Greco-Roman world:

Circumcision (Rom 2:25-29; 3:1, 30; 4:9-12; Gal 2:3-5, 7-9; 5:2-6; 6:12-15)
Food laws (Rom 14:1-23; Gal 2:11-14)
Sabbath and festival calendar (Rom 14:5-6; Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16-17)

These three practices, called by Jewish historians the boundary-marker triad, were the practices a gentile would have to adopt to be considered fully Jewish. Paul’s argument is that gentile believers in Messiah do not need to adopt these practices to be included in the covenant family.

Paul is not arguing against Torah-observance for Jewish believers. This is the most important corrective the Paul-Within-Judaism lane offers. Paul nowhere instructs Jewish believers in Messiah to stop circumcising their sons, stop keeping kashrut, or stop observing the festivals. The famous Acts 21:24 scene has Paul himself purifying with Jewish believers in the Temple to demonstrate that he is still living in observance of the Torah. The argument is not Torah vs. no-Torah; the argument is can gentile believers join the messianic community without becoming Jews? Paul says yes: gentiles enter through pistis Christou (the faithfulness of Christ and the responding allegiance), not through adoption of the Jewish boundary-marker practices.

The Reformation read Paul’s polemic as anti-medieval-Catholic and lost the original target. Luther’s reading of Paul was shaped by his struggle against the late-medieval Catholic indulgence system and the facere quod in se est (“do what is in you”) teaching. Luther legitimately opposed those abuses, but he read his sixteenth-century target back into Paul’s first-century argument. The result: Paul’s erga nomou was reframed as generic moralistic self-righteousness, and the boundary-marker dimension was lost. The Reformed tradition has inherited Luther’s misreading and built a substantial polemical theology on it. The Paul-Within-Judaism lane is not abandoning Reformation insights; it is restoring Paul’s original target.

“Works of the law” and “good works” are different categories in Paul. This is the most often-confused point. Paul does call believers to good works (Eph 2:10, we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works; Titus 2:14; 3:8, 14; Rom 2:6-11, judgment according to works). The phrase erga nomou (works of the law) is specific: it names the Torah’s boundary-marker practices. Good works (kala erga, erga agatha) names Spirit-empowered loving action. Paul is not opposed to good works; he is opposed to gentile believers being required to take on the Jewish boundary-markers as a condition of covenant membership. The Reformation’s sola fide polemic against works has often collapsed these two categories into one, with damaging pastoral consequences.

The Acts 15 Jerusalem Council is the historical proof. The earliest Christian-Jewish controversy was exactly the boundary-marker question. The Council does not require circumcision of gentile believers, but it does ask gentile believers to avoid certain things (idol food, blood, strangled animals, sexual immorality) for the sake of table fellowship with Jewish believers. The decision is not a wholesale abandonment of Torah; it is a practical accommodation for mixed-ethnicity messianic communities. The whole later Pauline argument in Romans and Galatians builds on this Council’s logic.

Paul Within Judaism is more careful than the New Perspective. The New Perspective on Paul (Sanders, Dunn, Wright) re-described Second-Temple Judaism and restored the boundary-marker reading. The Paul-Within-Judaism school (Nanos, Eisenbaum, Fredriksen, Zetterholm, Runesson) pushed further: Paul himself remained a Torah-observant Jew, and his arguments are categorically gentile-facing. The site holds the New Perspective as the floor of the conversation, with the Paul-Within-Judaism school as the most coherent recent extension.

The Pauline polemic in Galatians is sharper than in Romans. In Galatians, Paul is responding to agitators who are pressuring gentile converts to adopt circumcision to be saved. His rhetoric is sharp: if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you (Gal 5:2). In Romans, Paul is writing to a mixed community where the question is more nuanced (Strong gentile believers and Weak Jewish believers in tension). Romans is not repeating Galatians; Romans is a more pastoral, more comprehensive treatment of the same underlying question.

Implications. The framework anchors Romans 3:20, 3:27-28; 4:1-25; 9:30-10:13; Galatians 2:16-3:14; 5:2-6; Philippians 3:1-11; Acts 15:1-35; 21:17-26; and the whole Second-Temple Jewish background of Pauline studies. The framework also reshapes how the site reads grace, faith, and works: grace is God’s covenant initiative; faith is allegiance to King Jesus; works of the law is the specific boundary-marker question; good works are the Spirit-empowered ethical life that justification issues in. None of these collapses into the others.

Where it shows up in Scripture

Romans 3:20, by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes knowledge of sin
Romans 3:27-28, by what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith
Romans 4:1-25, the Abraham argument; if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about
Romans 9:30-33, gentiles attaining righteousness while Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive
Romans 14:1-23, the Strong and the Weak on food and days
Galatians 2:11-14, the Antioch incident
Galatians 2:16, a man is not justified by works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ
Galatians 3:2, 5, 10, did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 5:2-6, the circumcision controversy
Philippians 3:2-9, Paul’s autobiographical as to the law, a Pharisee contrasted with the righteousness from the faithfulness of Christ
Acts 15:1-35, the Jerusalem Council
Acts 21:17-26, Paul’s Temple-purification with Jewish believers
4QMMT (Qumran Halakhic Letter), the ma’asei ha-torah (works of the Torah) parallel

Common misreadings to avoid

“Works of the law” means “trying to be good enough to earn salvation.” This is the standard Reformation reading, and it is not what Paul means by erga nomou. The phrase names specific Torah boundary-marker practices: circumcision, food laws, Sabbath/festival observance. The moralistic self-righteousness reading was created by the Reformation polemic against medieval Catholicism and read back into Paul’s first-century argument.
“Paul is arguing that the Torah is abolished.” No. Romans 7:12 explicitly says the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. The whole later New Testament’s call to love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8) is quoting Torah (Lev 19:18). Paul argues against requiring gentiles to adopt the Jewish boundary-markers; he does not argue against Torah’s substance.
“Jews tried to earn salvation by Torah; Christians receive salvation by faith.” A false dichotomy. Sanders’s covenantal nomism showed that Jews understood themselves to be in the covenant by YHWH’s election, not by Torah-effort. Torah was the way of life in the covenant, not the means of earning the covenant. Paul is not contrasting Jewish merit-religion with Christian grace-religion; he is naming where gentiles enter the eschatological people of God.
“Good works are dangerous because they tempt us toward works-righteousness.” A misreading the Reformation tradition has sometimes produced. Paul calls believers to abound in every good work (2 Cor 9:8), be zealous for good works (Titus 2:14), and live as those created for good works (Eph 2:10). The works of the law question is specific (boundary-markers); good works are the Spirit-empowered ethical life the gospel issues in. The two are different categories.
“Paul’s polemic against works of the law means Christians shouldn’t worry about ethics.” A pastoral disaster. Romans 6 immediately follows Romans 3-5 with the argument that those who have died to sin cannot go on living in it. Romans 2:6-11 names judgment according to works. The Pauline gospel produces the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26), not antinomianism.
“James and Paul disagree about justification.” A 500-year debate. The Paul-Within-Judaism reading harmonizes them straightforwardly. Paul argues against gentile believers needing to adopt Torah boundary-markers for covenant inclusion. James argues against a faith-without-works that doesn’t actually produce a transformed life. The two are addressing different questions, not the same question with opposing answers. Both use justified, but in different rhetorical settings.
“The New Perspective on Paul is just a fad.” It has been the scholarly consensus for nearly 50 years (since Sanders in 1977). The vast majority of major Pauline commentaries since 1990 have engaged with or adopted some version of the New Perspective reading. The Reformed tradition has produced significant counter-arguments (most notably John Piper’s The Future of Justification, 2007), but the New Perspective is now part of the mainstream scholarly conversation.

Definition

Key proponents

Core insights

Where it shows up in Scripture

Common misreadings to avoid

Further reading