What does it mean that Paul’s righteousness in the law was blameless?

Explanation:

Paul says that according to righteousness in the law, he is blameless. To understand what he means by this, it is important to notice that he is talking about righteousness ἐν νόμῳ.³ That is, Paul has in mind the righteousness that is in the law or rooted in the law.⁴ What he is saying is that if one were to measure his righteousness according to the requirements of the Mosaic law as interpreted by the Pharisees, one would find that he followed these laws blamelessly.^5,6 Thus, Paul is not saying that he is blameless in the sense that he is sinless before God, but that he followed the requirements of the Pharisaic laws closely.

Counterargument:

Paul is not saying that he was blameless according to some objective standard. That is, he is not saying that if one were to record the aspects of the law that entail outward adherence, and then compare Paul’s behaviour to these aspects, one would notice that Paul objectively followed these aspects blamelessly. Rather, Paul is likely explaining his subjective experience.⁷ He is saying that from his perspective, he was righteous before God because he followed the Jewish laws. Of course, later he learns that in fact he was not righteous before God, so he now considers his former life and adherence to the law a loss (Philippians 3:7).

Response to counterargument:  

This counterargument does not suit the context. According to the context, Paul is comparing his credentials with the Judaizers.⁸ Paul warns the Philippians against the Judaizers and then explains that even on their terms, Paul had them beat. Thus, he has more credibility than the Judaizers. Added to this, the items he lists are all verifiable.⁹ For example, he says he was a Hebrew, circumcised on the eighth day, born of the tribe of Benjamin, a persecutor of the church, and righteous in the law. His point here is to explain that from every verifiable angle, he is objectively blameless when it comes to adherence to the Jewish laws. But he will go on to explain that he considers all of this a loss compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:7). Given that Paul compares his credentials to the Judaizers, and that each of the aspects is verifiable, he has in mind the objective standards of the Pharisaic law.

Explanation:

Paul says that he was blameless according to righteousness in the law. To understand what Paul means by this, it is helpful to compare the notion that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law with his comments in Romans 7:1–25.¹⁰ For in Romans 7:1–25 he explains that while the law is good (Romans 7:12), it could not prevent him from sinning (Romans 7:7). Instead, the law revealed sin to him and produced in him all kinds of sinful desires. In other words, the law revealed to Paul that without the Holy Spirit (Romans 7:6), he was a man of the flesh, so that although he could uphold the outward rituals of the law, he was spiritually tormented by his sinful behaviour (Romans 7:14–15). Thus, when Paul says that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law, he does not mean that he was sinless or that he was not tormented by sin. Rather, he means that he was blameless in the sense that he followed the outward rituals of the law very closely.

Counterargument:  

The problem with using Romans 7:1–25 to understand Philippians 3:6 is that it is not clear from Romans 7 whether Paul has in mind his new life in Christ or his former life as a Pharisee. That is, in Romans 7:1–25 he seems to be saying that since his conversion he struggles against the power of sin, but Philippians 3:6 suggests that before his conversion, he thought himself to be blameless. Likely Paul’s heart was hard when he was a Pharisee, so he did not even realize that his behaviour was sinful. Thus, Philippians 3:6 has to do with Paul’s subjective experience before conversion, in that he believed he was righteous before God, but in reality he was not.

Response to counterargument:

Paul says in Romans 7:1–25 that the law conjured sinful desires in him. Specifically, he says that the commandment do not covet produced in him all kinds of covetous desires. Of course, that is not because the commandment is sinful, but because the commandment produced in Paul knowledge of his sinful behaviour. In fact, we can deduce that this counterargument is incorrect by another route. For this counterargument has it that Paul subjectively believed he was righteous before God but he was not. In fact, Paul says that he was blameless according to the law. One of the provisions in the law was animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins. Thus, the law taught the Israelites that they were not sinless, because atonement sacrifices were an important daily ritual. Given that Paul followed the law blamelessly, he must have partaken in animal sacrifices of atonement. Of course, such participation implies that Paul did not see himself as blameless before God, otherwise such sacrifices would be unnecessary. Rather, he saw himself as blameless according to the outward regulations of the law.

Explanation:

When Paul says that he was blameless in terms of righteousness in the law, he means that his character was right before God.¹¹ We can deduce this by considering the meaning of the term blameless.  It means something like having a general character that is acceptable to God.¹² Thus, Paul is saying not that he was sinless but that his character was generally acceptable in God’s eyes. Interestingly, Paul will go on to explain that although some might consider such an impeccable performance of keeping the Jewish laws an achievement, Paul ends up considering it all a loss for the sake of Christ (Philippians 3:7).¹³

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this argument misunderstands the grammar of Philippians 3:6 as well as Paul’s broader writing. For in Philippians 3:6, Paul does not say that he is blameless before God, but that he became blameless according to righteousness in the law. In other words, Paul was blameless in the law, not blameless before God. Another way to translate the term for blameless, which gets at its meaning, is faultless.¹⁴ Paul is saying that he was faultless in upholding the Jewish laws. So much for the grammar.

The second problem with the above is that it misunderstands Paul’s overall writings. For Paul does not think that one’s character can become acceptable to God by obedience to Jewish laws. Rather, the laws reveal sin but cannot subdue the passions of the flesh or renovate one’s character. For that, we need the Holy Spirit. Paul explains this in many passages including Romans 7:6, where Paul says that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code. Also, in Galatians 3:10, Paul explains that all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. How can Paul’s character become blameless in the sight of God through obedience to the law, when all who are under the law are cursed?

The weakness of this view is that it tries to determine Paul’s meaning without considering the meaning of the terms Paul uses in context. Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand an author’s meaning aside from the immediate context, because words have multiple meanings and their sense can differ depending on the sentence in which the words are found. By trying to understand blameless and righteousness outside the context of the sentence, this view is ungrounded.