Introduction

Since 1977, when E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism landed on traditional Pauline scholarship with a thud, a raging debate over Paul’s perspective of the Law ensued. Central to the ongoing debate is the interpretation of the Pauline phrase “works of the Law.” The important phrase appears eight times in the New Testament including three times in Galatians 2:16, once in Galatians 3:2, 5, 10, and once in Romans 3:20, 28. However, no theological consensus exists for the reason why “works of the Law” cannot justify. Until a clear understanding of Paul’s meaning of the phrase exists, a key construct of Protestantism, sola fide or justification by faith alone, is at risk. The question remains: Why is it that the Law cannot justify? Five different interpretive perspectives exist that attempt to answer the question. First, the traditional view suggests the Law cannot justify because it is impossible for humans to fulfill and it is legalistic even to try procuring righteousness through works. Second, the idolatrous view suggests the Law cannot justify because even attempting to obey the law to achieve righteousness is sinful. Third, the imperfection view suggests the Law cannot justify because it is not possible for humanity to obey the law perfectly. Fourth, the subjective genitive view suggests the Law cannot justify because the Law is an active agent of destruction. Fifth, the exclusivist view suggests the Law cannot justify because it constructs social boundaries that lead to ethnic exclusivism between Jews and Gentiles. However, this particular paper proves that the reason why “works of the Law” cannot justify is that the Law is incapable of propelling sinners towards righteousness. Accordingly, an exploration of various scholarly interpretations of “works of the Law” ensues, followed by an exegesis of the phrase with primary consideration given to Galatians 2:16 within its historical and literary context.

The Traditional View

Paul’s understanding of ‘works of the law’ is foundational to the protest that led to Protestantism, thus, a proper grasp of the traditional view is critical in order to assess it in light of its modern opponents. Thomas Schreiner briefly summarizes the traditional view by stating that some “claim that ‘works of the law’ do not justify because no one can fulfill the law perfectly, and it is legalistic to try to gain righteousness by doing good works.”[1] The traditional view coequally emphasizes both assertions, which provides its distinctiveness from other views. John Calvin and Martin Luther both represent the traditional view.

 

John Calvin

Calvin acknowledges the difficulty of defining “works of the Law,” and recognizes two competing views; one view suggests that “works of the Law” pertain only to ceremonial Law, while the second view suggests that “works of the Law” pertain to whole Law.[2] Calvin is adamant that Paul is referring to the whole Law and states, “Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery.”[3] To bolster his argument, Calvin contends that Romans 3:20; 7:7; and 5:20 mean that the Law is far beyond human capacity, and that God provided the Law in order to prove humanity’s utter inability to keep the Law.[4] Calvin clearly asserts that “works of the Law” do not justify because humanity is unable to fulfill the Law perfectly, but an additional nuance exists.

Irrespective of Calvin’s caustic temperament, the theology within his writing vehemently opposes legalistic perspectives. For this research, the definition of legalism is “one who achieves righteousness by law keeping.”[5] In particular, commenting on Galatians 2:16, Calvin accused the Roman Catholic Church of legalism by stating, “Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist of works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing.”[6] Calvin’s polemic against legalism continues by suggesting the believer must first be free from the bondage of the Law prior to being compelled to consider obedience as an option.[7] Without question, Calvin claimed that “works of the Law” do not justify as no one can fulfill the law perfectly, and even trying to fulfill the Law without being free from it is legalistic. However, it seems impossible to leave the traditional view without exploring the complementary views of the most famous protestor.

 

Martin Luther

Stephen Westerholm suggests there was no more important passage to Luther than the phrase in Galatians 2:16: “A man is not justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.”[8] Like Calvin, Luther insists the Law is not limited to the ceremonial Law, but instead, the Law “includes a lot.”[9] Again, aligned with Calvin, Luther opposes legalism and demands that justification is solely by faith opposing any notion that justification can occur through his broad definition of the works of the Law or in combination with faith.[10] However, the specific reasons why the Law cannot justify is more nuanced in Luther than Calvin.

Westerholm details six specific reasons why Luther believes that one cannot be justified by works of the law. First, due to God’s almighty power, any attempt to satisfy God would be completely futile leading individuals to misery and pain.[11] Second, God is the source of everything that is good, which includes the Law, so any attempt for humanity to justify themselves with works diminishes the God’s glory.[12] Third, in order to meet the requirements of the Law, complete obedience is necessary, but Luther’s own experience proved the impossibility of meeting God’s standards.[13] Fourth, even good works are offensive without faith.[14] Fifth, regardless of human effort, Luther believes that humanity remains in bondage to Satan, and works are ineffective against the power of evil.[15] Finally, if humanity believes “works of the Law,” not the cross, can absolve them from sin, then Christ died in vain.[16] In other words, according to Luther, works of the Law have absolutely no power in light of the cross.[17] Both Protestant stalwarts clearly support the view that Paul claimed in Galatians 2:16 that “works of the Law” do not justify because no one can perfectly fulfill the law and that attempting to gain righteousness through works is legalistic and fruitless. However, not all theologians align with Luther and Calvin. Next, with overtones of Luther, Rudolf Bultmann takes center stage.

 

The Idolatrous View

Schreiner explains that Rudolf Bultmann aligns with Luther and Calvin regarding the impossibility of keeping the Law.[18] However, the inability for humanity to keep the Law is not the primary focus of Bultmann’s polemic.[19] In fact, Schreiner notes that Bultmann, along with Ernst Käsemann, believe, “The very attempt to obey the law as a means of justification is sinful, even if people were to obey it perfectly.”[20] Accordingly, unlike Luther, Westerholm notes the idolatrous view considers “works of the Law” as “something…bad.”[21]

 

Rudolf Bultmann

Bultmann presumes that all individuals are creatures and denying creatureliness is to deny God, thus all human pursuits are pursuits of life in the created world and not God.[22] Specifically, it is not only delusional for man to attempt, in his own efforts, to procure life; it is the ultimate sin of idolatry.[23] Accordingly, although the original intent of the Law was to abdicate self-reliance, Bultmann contends that the Jews attempted to establish a righteousness through their own self-reliant pursuits, which is a fleshly, idolatrous, and sinful attempt to rule the self.[24] Accordingly, Bultmann identifies two primary reasons why “works of the Law” cannot justify. First, “works of the Law” cannot justify because “there is no true fulfilment of the Law.”[25] In other words, for Bultmann, Paul’s language that no man will be justified by “works of the Law” in Galatians 2:16 means that no man can; it is impossible for man to procure his own righteousness.[26] Second, works of the Law cannot justify because “man’s effort to achieve his salvation by keeping the Law only leads him into sin, indeed this effort itself in the end is already sin.”[27] Accordingly, for Bultmann, the ultimate reason why “works of the Law,” whether ceremonial or moral, cannot justify is that any human pursuit leads to self-reliance and then to boasting and “man must not have any boast before God” (Rom. 3:27; 4:2).[28] Bultmann is not the only scholar who holds the idolatrous view. Ernst Käsemann holds a similar view, but places additional emphasis on the Law’s relationship to boasting.

 

Ernst Käsemann

Käsemann claims that the Law thrusts an individual “into the existing world of anxiety about oneself, self-confidence, and unceasing self-assurance.”[29] Furthermore, Käsemann asserts that faith and boasting are incongruous.[30] Deductive logic suggests that since the Law leads to boasting, and boasting is incompatible with faith, then the Law is incompatible with faith. The incompatibility is due to the essence of the Law itself. By its very nature, the Law in Judaism points to transgressions, prompts the individual to repent, and then drives the sinner to pursue the Law with more vehemence.[31] Accordingly, the reason the Law cannot justify is that “it simply pushes one deeper into the vicious circle of demand and effort from which Paul breaks free.”[32] For Käsemann, instead of justifying, the Law “simply provokes the possibility of boasting.”[33]

The Imperfection View

In many ways, the imperfection view stands in stark contrast to the idolatrous view of Bultmann and Käsemann. Schreiner explains that scholars who hold the imperfection view, such as Ulrich Wilckens and Frank Thielman, argue that the reason why the Law cannot justify is simply “because no one obeys the law perfectly.”[34] However, similar to the traditional view, the imperfection view believes it is impossible to obey the law perfectly and that the Law is inherently good, but in contrast to the traditional view, it ignores the suggestion that it is legalistic to try to gain righteousness by doing good works.

 

Ulrich Wilckens

Westerholm suggests the foundation for Wilckens’ view rests on a uniquely literal reading of Romans 2:13: “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”[35] Westerholm explaines that for Wilckens, “God does promise salvation to those whose works show them to be righteous.”[36] Accordingly, Wilckens believes that the works of the Law in Galatians 2:16 cannot justify because in Galatians 2:17 all have “been found sinners.”[37] Wilckens finds no indication in Paul’s theology that attempting to keep the Law is sinful or idolatrous.[38] Accordingly, Westerholm succinctly summarizes that for Wilckens “there is one reason – and one reason only – why no one can be justified by works of the law: all have sinned, and where works are the decisive criterion by which righteousness is assessed…the sin of all bring all humankind under the wrath of God.[39] Frank Thielman also supports the imperfection view and agrees with the basic tenets of Wilckens’ perspective. However, Thielman places further distance between the imperfection view and the traditional view of the Reformers.

 

Frank Thielman

Similar to Wilckens, Thielman claims that Paul’s primary concern in Galatians 2:16 pertains to the impossibility of keeping the Law.[40] However, Thielman insists the Reformers erred by contending that Paul thought the Jews and Jewish Christians were believing that “works of the Law” would justify.[41] According to Thielman, Paul was not accusing the Jews of legalism, but instead, reminding the Jews of what they already knew, which was to deny Gentiles justification “unless they do something other than put their faith in God is to deny the commonly accepted Jewish teaching that God justifies the sinner because God is gracious.”[42] A common denominator of all previous views is an emphasis on the inability for humans to obey the “works of the Law.” However, Lloyd Gaston and Paul Owen suggest an entirely different interpretation of the disputed phrase.

 

The Subjective Genitive View

Gaston and Owen provide a unique view of the Greek genitive phrase ἔργωv νόμου, “works of the Law,” by interpreting it in the subjective sense.[43] Owen notes that scholars normally translate the important phrase in the objective sense, which would render the meaning as human “works that fulfill the Law.”[44] However, the subjective genitive, as defined by Daniel Wallace, functions as “the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.”[45] For example, instead of translating “works of the Law” as “works that fulfill the Law,” the subjective genitive would translate the phrase as “the works produced by the Law.”

 

Lloyd Gaston

Gaston’s thesis admits that “works of the Law” in Galatians undermines the grace of God, but more importantly, the Law has a power that leads to catastrophic results.[46] As proof that the Law in an active vehicle, Gaston references Romans 4:15, which states, “The Law brings about wrath.”[47] Furthermore, the Law causes guilt (Rom. 3:19), reveals sin (Rom. 3:20), convicts (Rom. 5:13), increases sin (Rom. 5:20), deceives (Rom. 7:11), and kills (Rom. 7:11).[48] Accordingly, the reason why the Law cannot justify is that it is an agent of destruction. An interesting distinctive of Gaston’s perspective is that he limits the damaging effects of the Law to Gentiles, which he believes create circumstances that reveal the need for redemption.[49] Owen similarly embraces a subjective genitive interpretation of “works of the Law” but repudiates the Gentile limitation imposed by Gaston.[50]

 

Paul Owen

For Owen, humanity’s inability to fulfill the Law resides within the meaning of the phrase “works of the Law,” which indicates the consequences of the Law’s action.[51] However, Owen refutes Gaston by explaining that the Law also “condemns Jews within the covenant who fail to comply with its demands.”[52] For Owen, Galatians 2:16 is not referring to what humans must do to obtain justification, but rather, to the Law’s inability to produce the righteousness necessary for justification in either Jew or Gentile due to its destructive nature.[53] The subjective genitive view certainly minimizes the phrase’s emphasis on human effort highlighted by the Reformers, but pales in comparison to the assault the exclusivist view levels against the traditional view.

 

The Exclusivist View

E. P. Sanders professes that one of his goals is to destroy the Christian view of Judaism “as a religion of legalistic works-righteousness.”[54] Although Sanders’s influence spurred a massive literary response, Thomas Schreiner succinctly summarizes three common denominators of what James Dunn coined the “new perspective.” First, “works of the Law” technically refer to the whole law, but is contextually limited to the entire Law of the covenant, not works in general.[55] Second, Paul attacks the Law because it promotes ethnic exclusivism by demanding Gentiles convert to Judaism for salvation rather than procuring salvation through Christ.[56] Finally, the new perspective denies that Paul rejects “works of the Law” because of legalism or boasting.[57] The following analysis briefly describes the specific aspects of both Sanders’s and Dunn’s influential views in order to address why the Law cannot justify.

 

E. P. Sanders

Sanders’s most prominent work focuses on comparing Paul with Palestinian Judaism in light of “patterns of religion,” by which Sanders means the perception by its members of “how getting in and staying in are understood.”[58] Sanders concludes that early Judaism’s pattern of religion relies on “covenantal nomism,” which asserts that “one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments.”[59] In other words, Judaism understood God’s election as the method for “getting in” but also understood that obedience to the Law was necessary for “staying in” the religion. Sanders acknowledges that Paul disagrees with Judaism in that his soteriology depends on a new life in Christ, not the covenant.[60] However, Sanders maintains that Paul agrees with Judaism regarding the relationship between grace and works: “Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in,’ but they do not earn salvation.”[61] According to Sanders, Paul denies that “works of the Law” justify because he is limiting the phrase to the concept of “getting in,” whereas Judaism asserts that “works of the Law” do justify because it is referring to the concept of “staying in.”[62] For Sanders, Paul and Judaism both agree that “works of the Law” do not justify initially but do justify continually, thus the debate about “works of the Law” is simply a result of “the different usage of the ‘righteous’ word-group.”[63] Dunn also supports the exclusivist view but attempts to clarify Paul’s objection assuming the Apostle was not opposing legalism.

 

James Dunn

Dunn concludes that Sanders’s “covenantal nomism” actually aligns with orthodox Protestantism as both claim, “Grace is always prior; that human effort is ever the response to divine initiative; that good works are the fruit and not the root of salvation.”[64] However, if Dunn is correct, then why did Paul so forcefully communicate that “works of the Law” cannot justify. Before answering the question, Westerholm notes that the majority of Dunn’s theology aligns with orthodox Protestantism, including humanity’s sin nature, God’s grace initiative, the required response of faith, and finally, that love powered by the Spirit aligns with the law of Christ.[65] Additionally, Dunn deviates from Sanders regarding the necessity of works to “stay in” by stating, “If entry into the covenant is by faith, the same principle should apply to life within the covenant…it should depend solely on faith.”[66] Accordingly, one may question what impact Dunn may have on the new perspective. Westerholm explains that Dunn’s distinctive contribution is that Paul’s opponents were Jews who did not focus on human works for justification but required adherence to specific Jewish laws, such as circumcision and food laws, as a requirement for justification.[67] Accordingly, Schreiner appropriately summarizes Dunn’s view by stating, “‘Works of the Law’ must be repudiated as a way to salvation because they create a social boundary between Jews and Gentiles, limiting salvation to a certain ethnic group.”[68] Although Dunn’s perspective as well as all previous views have merit, a solid exegesis of the phrase “works of the Law” is necessary to investigate a proper interpretation.

 

The Gospel view

The views summarized above all claim strong exegetical support. However, in order to provide a proper defense as to why “works of the Law” do not justify, the background and exegesis of Galatians 2:16 are important. Following a brief exposition of the verse, the research summarizes the weaknesses of each of the five views examined above and defends the fact that the reason why “works of the Law” cannot justify is that the Law is incapable of propelling sinners towards righteousness.

 

Exegesis

Thomas Lea and David Black represent the majority of evangelical scholars who agree that the phrase “works of the Law” in Galatians 2:16 resides within a letter written by the Apostle Paul to a specific church planted by Paul and Barnabas in either North or South Galatia around AD 50.[69] Paul’s letter specifically addresses certain false teachers leading the Galatian church astray by suggesting that in some way “works of the Law” could justify.[70] Douglas Moo explains that none of the parties involved questioned the necessity of faith in Christ; the theological question at hand was whether faith in Christ plus “works of the Law” was necessary for justification.[71]

The specific Greek phrase, ἔργωv νόμου, is most commonly translated “works of the Law” in Galatians 2:16 and has no significant textual variants.[72] Furthermore, the overarching literary context of the letter appears to represent a form of persuasive argumentation. Richard Longenecker interprets the letter as an apologetic and Galatians 2:16 as the propositio, that section that sets up the argument.[73] Similarly, Timothy George points out that G. A. Kennedy claims that Galatians is deliberative rhetoric, which attempts to persuade an audience to action.[74] Regardless of the specific nuances, it seems clear that Paul is attempting to influence his readers through persuasive language. Next, the definition of the words “works” and “Law” are critical to understanding the phrase. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida define the Greek word for “works,” ἔργωv, as “that which one normally does…giving the responsibility to his servants, to each one his particular work (to do).”[75] Regarding the Greek word for “Law”, νόμου, Louw and Nida supply two definitions. The first definition is “the first five books of the Old Testament called the Torah (often better rendered as ‘instruction’).”[76] A second definition for the Law consists of the sum of the sacred writings and “is not restricted to the first five books of the Old Testament.”[77] The challenges of interpreting the two key words within Galatians 2:16 are significant even within the definitions. Specifically, the word “works” refers to both what one “normally” does and to “particular” works to do. Furthermore, the definition of the word “Law” refers to both the first five books of the Bible and the entire corpus of the holy writings. The ambiguity lies at the heart of the disparate views identified above. Finally, even an analysis of the syntax defies consensus. Although ἔργωv and νόμου are both in the genitive case, ἔργωv is a prepositional object, but, as noted above, according to Moo, νόμου may be objective genitive or subjective genitive depending on the context.[78] Accordingly, an analysis of each of the five views and a broader literary context are necessary to determine why “works of the Law” cannot justify.

 

Defense

The five views presented all have merit, but all contain weaknesses as well. First, the traditional view suggests that “works of the Law” cannot justify because it is impossible for humans to fulfill the Law and attempting to gain righteousness through works is legalism. The primary weakness in the traditional view is that it overemphasizes “works” and minimizes “Law” when interpreting the phrase.[79] Certainly, Paul would oppose legalism if defined as achieving righteousness by keeping the Law, but when the traditional view assumes that Paul used “works of the Law” to mean that Palestinian Judaism was legalistic in the sense that it completely ignored God’s gracious election, then the traditional view goes too far.[80] Galatians 2:15-16 states, “We are Jews by nature…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.” The context clearly shows that Paul understood that his Jewish audience knew that grace, not works, justified.

Second, the idolatrous view suggests that “works of the Law” cannot justify because it is impossible to for humans to fulfill the Law and attempting to do so is sinful. Although the idolatrous view also has much to offer, the most significant challenge it faces is that the Law is something bad.[81] It is difficult to disagree with Bultmann’s assertion that, “Man’s effort to achieve his salvation by keeping the Law only leads him into sin.”[82] However, Romans 7:12 states, “The Law is holy.” Accordingly, to indict the holy Law seems as reckless as blaming Christ for sin (Gal. 2:17). The problem appears to be an anthropological predicament, not a concern with the “goodness” of the Law. In other words, the Law is not “bad,” but humankind’s use of the Law can be bad; effort to keep the Law is not bad, but humankind’s motivation in keeping the Law can be bad. Humanity’s sin nature is the issue, not the Law.[83]

Third, the imperfection view suggests that “works of the Law” cannot justify because it is impossible for humans to fulfill the Law, but attempting to do so is not legalistic and the Law is inherently good. In light of the weaknesses of the previous two views, the imperfection view seems to resolve the concerns. However, if the reason why Paul believes “works of the Law” cannot justify is that it is impossible to fulfill the Law, then the imperfection view must assert, as Schreiner claims, “If someone could obey the law perfectly, then that person would be righteous.” However, Paul’s soteriology does not rest on whether humanity can do enough to be righteous. Paul’s concern is the inner core of humanity, not the exterior deeds. In fact, Paul considered the doing of the Law rubbish even though “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, [he was] found blameless” (Phil. 3:5).[84] In other words, although it is true that it is impossible for humans to fulfill the Law, this is not Paul’s primary concern. The reason Paul believes that “works of the Law” cannot justify is because humanity’s nature needs replaced, not because humanity’s work needs improved.

Fourth, the subjective genitive view suggests that the “works of the Law” cannot justify because the Law is an active agent of destruction that causes humanity to “seek liberation from sin through Christ, apart from the Law.”[85] The most significant challenge facing the subjective genitive view is the implication that the law is evil because of its activity. Schreiner explains the subjective genitive view results in the following translation, “No one can be righteous by doing the evil deeds produced by the law.”[86] Although Schreiner’s view may exaggerate the subjective genitive view, observing the phrase through the lens of the Law’s evilness contradicts the goodness of the Law proved above. Although one must concede that the Law does reveal the need for redemption, to suggest that “evil means” justify “redemptive ends” moves beyond Paul’s intent.

Finally, the exclusivist view suggests that the “works of the Law” cannot justify because Paul is limiting the phrase to the soteriological concept of “getting in,” thus the real issue is that “works of the Law” create a social boundary between Jews and Gentiles, limiting salvation to a certain ethnic group. First, against Sanders, if legalism is achieving righteousness by keeping the law, then the assertion that Judaism is not legalistic because “works of the Law” do not initially justify appears reasonable. However, Sanders admits that for Palestinian Judaism keeping the Law does continually justify, but maintains that legalism is absent from Judaism – a non sequitur. Second, Dunn denies Sanders’s conclusion that the Law continually justifies, but regardless, attempts to build on Sanders’s illogical conclusion. Dunn’s response is that Paul’s primary concern was ethnic exclusivism through the enforcement of specific Jewish laws (Gal. 2:11-14; 5:2-6). However, in contrast to the traditional view, Dunn’s weakness is that he overemphasizes “Law” and minimizes “works” by suggesting that the “works of the Law” cannot justify “because they are torah works.”[87] By focusing solely on specific laws for justification, Dunn misses the importance of Paul’s critique of human works against the background of the whole law at the end of Galatians 2:16, which states, “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” The weakness of Dunn is in underestimating the anthropological issues of humanity’s flesh that Paul refers to within the verse.[88]

Granted, all the stated views contribute to Paul’s concern regarding “works of the Law.” However, the reason that “works of the Law” cannot justify reveals itself within the broader literary context of Paul’s Gospel message exhibited in the remainder of Galatians chapter two. Paul explains that justification can occur only “in Christ” (Gal. 2:17). Furthermore, Paul explains that a new state of existence occurs because “Christ lives in me” resulting from being “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:19-20). In other words, justification can only occur through a new nature, which is why Paul explains, “If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly” (Gal. 2:21). Christ is the exclusive and comprehensive cause of the justification. Accordingly, the reason why Paul so adamantly claims that “works of the Law” cannot justify is that the Law is incapable of propelling sinners towards righteousness.

Conclusion

Today’s Christians continue to face the temptation of finding identity in moral achievements, performance, and various other “works,” instead of “in Christ.” Accordingly, a proper understanding of “works of the Law” in light of the Gospel view is highly relevant by providing Good News for both evangelism and discipleship ministries. The tenets of the Gospel view include the following: the Law is comprehensive, not particular; the Law is not a problem, but humanity can make it a problem; the Law is impossible to “do”, but “doing” is not Paul’s focus; the Law leads to redemption, but is not the cause of the destruction often required for redemption; and the Law has both anthropological and salvation-historical implications. Furthermore, although it is impossible to offer a comprehensive look at each of the alternative views in a brief study, the traditional, idolatrous, imperfection, subjective-genitive, and exclusivist views in some way all fall short of offering an adequate answer to the question of “why works of the Law” cannot justify. However, by evaluating the broader literary context, the Gospel view asserts that Paul’s primary purpose in maintaining that “works of the Law” cannot justify rests on the Christocentric focus of believers’ new creation status within Paul’s Gospel message. Accordingly, the reason why “works of the Law” cannot justify is that the Law is incapable of propelling sinners towards righteousness. Finally, issues for further study include extrapolating the Gospel view beyond Galatians 2:16 through an examination of other Scripture references specifically and generally related to “works of the Law” as well as performing exegetical analysis for Scripture within the broader context of Paul’s message to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the Gospel view.

---