Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Dear Akio,

I suspect that the expressions "the law viewed in terms of
faith" and "the law viewed in terms of works" are too complicated
and subtile for ordinary street people to understand, who were the
original recipients of the letter. If we need to distinguish the law '
from the law for some reasons, I think that the "law concerning faith"
and the "law concerning works" would have less problem.

But even this distinction seems to be problematic, when we come to 3:31.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, 
we uphold the law.

Should we take it as "do we then overthrow the law (concerning faith) 
by this faith", as "do we then overthrow the law (concerning works)
by this faith" , or as "do we then overthrouw the law (concerning
both faith and works) by this faith" ?

None of them seem satisfactory. As the "New Perspective on Paul"
clearly demonstrated, the contrast between "faith and works" 
is foreign in Judaism. It exists in the traditional Protestant
theology. 

My current solution for this problem is based on the fact that the 
theme of the text containing the expressions NOMOS PISTEWS and
NOMOS ERGWN is"

3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 
3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? 
Yes, of Gentiles also, 3:30 since God is one; and he will justify the 
circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through 
their faith.

Chapter 4 is a further demonstration of this theme. The theme is that 
the Gentiles can be children of Abraham and thereby people of God by
faith, apart from the works of the Law, that is, without becoming Jews by
doing the Law, in particular circumcision. 

With this understanding of the theme in mind, I would take 3:27-28 as 
follows:

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what law? On the 
[law] of works [of the law] ? No, but on the law of faith. 3:28 For we hold 
that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

3:28 provides the ground for the conclusion of 3:27. That is why I take
"the law of works" to be "the law of works of the law". So, "works" here
is not works in general sense, but the works OF THE LAW, the identity
marker of being a Jew. 

Now, the "law of the works of the law" would be best understood as the
principle of the works of the law. Also, the expression "which law" 
implies that the "law" here does not refer to the Torah. There is
only one Torah, so talking about "which Torah" does not make
sense. To me "the torah viewed in terms of faith/works" or
the "torah concerning faith/works" is artificial distinction.

Just an initial thought...

Moon 
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea