Faith and Works: Romans Chapter 2 Versus Chapters 3–4?

There are only two prospective outcomes of God’s righteous judgment: either (a) “glory,” “honor,” “immortality,” and “peace,” summed up as “life eternal” (Romans 2:7);¹ or (b) “wrath and fury, tribulation and distress” (vv. 8-9). The standard of judgment is the same for everyone, according to the “works” or “deeds” [érga] of each person (v. 6), without inequity, injustice, or favoritism. “For there is no partiality with God” (v. 11). 

The term érga is the plural form of érgon (vv. 6, 7, 15), referring to an “act” or “action,” a “work” or “deed,” “what one undertakes to do” or “something done,” applicable to human conduct whether good or bad.² The second chapter of Romans highlights active obedience in the justification process (vv. 6-8, 10, 13, 14), which seems at variance with the chapters that follow regarding justification by faith apart from works (e.g., 3:20, 28; 4:2-5).

In a linguistic sense, interpreters throughout the history of the interpretation of Paul have resolved the problem of Romans 2 by taking the rest of the letter, understood in the traditional sense of a negation of justification through the doing of good works, as the main text which determines the meaning of the entire letter. Romans 2—or the parts that do not fit that meaning—is then read in a way that is consistent with the rest of the letter. In that way, before the process of interpretation begins, the reading of Romans is predetermined in such a way that one part of the letter determines how another is to be read. In reality this predetermination of how chapter 2 is to be read also determines the meaning of the rest of the letter. By leaving out of consideration the possible influence of chapter 2 on the meaning of Romans, the traditional understanding is reinforced. Our understanding of the letter would be different if chapter 2 were allowed to co-determine its meaning…. the tension between Romans 2 and the rest of Romans should be considered, not as a problem to be avoided, but as a promising starting point for deepening our understanding of the letter …³

Alleviating Misconceptions

If justification is “by faith alone,” as commonly inferred from chaps. 3–4, what are we to make of chap. 2? Is this apparent discrepancy irreconcilable? The problem is not what Paul actually says but the way in which “faith” has been misconceived as merely an internal belief devoid of external acts [érga] of obedience. However, the original audience to whom Paul’s letter is addressed understood “faith” [pístis] as “obedience of faith” [hupakoēn písteōs] (1:5; 16:26; cf. 1:8; 2:6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14; 6:3-17; 10:16; 15:18; 16:19). 

The humble “works” of obedience in chap. 2 are not the same as the judaized meritorious “works of the law” [érgōn nómou] (3:20, 28) discussed later.⁴ Context and linguistic qualifiers determine whether the term “works” [érga] and comparable expressions are meant in a positive or negative sense, so “there is no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. Works are the evidence of Faith, and Faith has its necessary outcome in Works.”⁵

Conclusion

For those on the positive side of God’s righteous judgment, Paul clearly does not discount personal responsibility and effort as implied in Romans chap. 2 by the requisites of “seeking,” “endurance,” “of good work,” and “doing good” (vv. 7-10). Salvation involves divine-human participation for “those who do not regard their good works as an end in themselves, but see them as marks not of human achievement but of hope in God. Their trust is not in their good works, but in God, the only source of glory, honour, and incorruption.”⁶

For those on the negative side, the motivating disposition is “self-seeking” characterized by the ones who “do not obey [apeithéō] the truth, but obey [peíthō] unrighteousness” and everyone “who does [katergázomai] evil” (vv. 8-9). Condemnation is the inevitable consequence of human defiance, sinful effort, and rejection of God’s merciful grace. Whether good or bad, God “will give to each one according to his works” (v. 6).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Eternal life is indicative of both longevity and quality of existence (cf. John 10:10; 1 Tim. 4:8). Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Note Rom. 9:11; cf. Matt. 16:27; 1 Cor. 3:13-15; 2 Cor. 11:15; 2 Tim. 4:14; Tit. 1:16.

     ³ Hendrikus Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) 8-10.

     ⁴ A number of passages employ érgōn (“works”) without nómou (“of law”) but have the same meaning (BAGD 308), e.g., Rom. 4:2, 6; 9:12; 11:6; Eph. 2:9.

     ⁵ William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1908) 57.

     ⁶ C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans BNTC (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1984) 46-47.

Related Posts: Bookends of Romans: Defining Faith, Abraham Believed God (Rom 4:3), Abbreviated Gospel, Baptism (Rom 6:1-4) 

Related articles: Donnie DeBord, When Are We Saved?

Image credit: https://heartfixxer.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/press-on/

Questions About Biblical Miracles (Part 3): When Jesus said believers will do the works He did, and even greater works (John 14:12), would this not indicate miracle-working today?

Any interpretation of a scripture which involves an absurdity or an impossibility must be false. Among the many other miraculous works Jesus performed, He turned water into wine (John 4:46), fed multitudes with little food (Matt. 14:15-21), calmed storms (Matt. 8:26), walked on water (John 6:19), restored maimed and severed body parts (Mark 3:1-5; Luke 22:50-51), and raised the dead (John 12:1). No one on earth today (despite a number of exaggerated claims) can genuinely reproduce these amazing miraculous feats, much less even greater ones! To understand what Jesus meant by His statement in John 14:12, should we not first consider the context?

The Lord was with His apostles when He instituted the Lord’s supper (Luke 22:14 ff.) and therefore was speaking directly to the apostles in chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16 of John’s Gospel. The statement in John 14:12 was directed to the apostle Philip, who apparently, like the others, was struggling at the time with his beliefs (vv. 8-12). The apostles did go on to do similar miraculous works to what Jesus had done (Acts 2:43; 5:12; etc.), but there is no record of them performing greater miracles than He did. What, then, were the “greater works” of which the Lord spoke? 

The second occurrence of the term “works” in John 14:12 was not in the original text but was supplied by the English translators. Jesus actually said to the apostles, “greater [things] than these he will do.” To what would this have reference? For one thing, the ministry of Jesus was limited primarily to Judea and Galilee, but the ministry of the apostles was to extend throughout the world (Acts 1:8). Jesus did not publicly proclaim His death, burial and resurrection, but the apostles did (Acts 2:14-24). During His earthly ministry the Lord brought no one into His spiritual kingdom, but the apostles did (Matt. 16:18-19; Mark 9:1). Christ baptized no one into His death, burial and resurrection or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but the apostles did (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5). In a general sense we can also do these “greater [things],” but there is no one living on earth today who can do the same (much less greater) miracles than those performed by our Lord.

-- Kevin L. Moore

*Originally appearing in The Exhorter (April-June 1998).

Addendum: “Jesus performed miracles but didn’t advertise them. We advertise them but don’t perform them” (Vance Havner).

Related Posts: Duration of Miraculous Gifts (1 Cor 13:8-13), Questions Part 1: Mark 16:17-18, Questions Part 2: Heb. 13:8, Questions Part 4: Matt. 4:7

Related articles: 

Image credit: Adapted from http://www.amasezerano.com/ukubaho-kwa-mbere-kwa-kristo-preexistence/

Questions About Baptism (Part 2 of 4)

     Since Paul said, ‘For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . .’ 
(1 Corinthians 1:17), how can baptism be such an important part of the salvation process?  

     To understand why Paul said what he said in this verse, it is necessary to read the context. He was addressing the problem of division among the Corinthian disciples (vv. 10-17), who, incidentally, had already been baptized (cf. 12:13; Acts 18:8). They had been dividing into factious groups (i.e. claiming to be followers of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ), but in so doing many were exalting fallible men above their one and only spiritual Head -- Christ. Paul was trying to redirect their misguided focus, especially away from himself. Christ had died for them and they had been baptized in the name of Christ, not of Paul (v. 13). Although a few people in Corinth had been immersed by Paul’s own hands (vv. 14-16), he was glad he had not personally baptized more if it was going to result in such problems. Since Paul was such a prominent figure in the early church, he apparently tried to refrain from personally baptizing people “lest anyone should say that [he] had baptized in [his] own name” (v. 15). That was not his mission; rather he was entrusted with pointing souls to Jesus by proclaiming the gospel (v. 17), and his co-workers no doubt did the actual baptizing when people responded to the gospel he preached. By considering the entire ministry of Paul and his writings, rather than isolating a single verse out of its context, it is obvious that Paul believed in baptism, preached baptism, administered baptism, and certainly never intended to undermine the importance of baptism (cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12). See also Pauline Amnesia. 

     Since the Bible says we’re saved by faith and not by works (e.g. Romans 3:27-31; Ephesians 2:8-9), how can baptism be necessary for salvation? 

     Among other things, this query shows a limited understanding of biblical faith and biblical works. It is true that certain kinds of works play no part in our salvation, e.g. works of human merit (Ephesians 2:9; Mattew 23:3-5; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5) or ingenuity (Acts 7:41), works of the Law of Moses (Romans 3:27; Galatians 2:16), works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) or of the devil (1 John 3:8). But not a single verse in the Bible places baptism in any of these categories. The Bible also speaks of works which do play a fundamental role in our salvation, namely works of God [including belief in Jesus] (John 6:28-29), works of [divine] righteousness (Acts 10:35) [as opposed to self-righteousness Titus 3:5], and works of humble obedience (Philippians 2:12; Hebrews 5:8-9). Since baptism is a command of God (Acts 10:33, 48) and not something humans have invented to save themselves, to exclude it from saving faith would be no different than trying to exclude repentance, which is also required of God (Acts 2:38; 17:30). Because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1; etc.), there are at least two things a conscientious Bible student must take into account: (1) the fatal error of carelessly discarding the many scripture references which also emphasize obedience (Matthew 7:21; John 8:51; 14:15, 21-24; 15:10-14; Romans 6:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Hebrews 5:8-9; et al.), including baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Galatians 3:26-27; et al.); and (2) the fact that biblical faith is clearly a working, active, obedient faith (cf. Romans 1:5; 16:26; Galatians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; James 2:14-26). The only time the words “faith only” appear together in the Bible is in James 2:24, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” To exclude every kind of works from the salvation process is to exclude belief in Jesus (John 6:28-29), and to accept that the Lord does require us to do certain things (Matthew 7:21; James 1:21-22; 1 John 2:17) is to accept baptism. Baptism is not a work of human merit but a humble submission to the will of God.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Thief on the Cross, Questions About Baptism (Part 1), Part 3, Part 4

Was the Apostle Paul Anti-Law?

     In the context of Pauline studies, much discussion has been generated in recent years about Paul’s view of the law in the setting of first-century Judaism. Early Protestant reformers, advocating a doctrine of justification by faith "alone" in reaction to the converse extreme of Roman Catholicism, tended to view the law of Moses as a legalistic system of meritorious works. In the late 1970s the notion of Jewish works-righteousness legalism was convincingly challenged by E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) and was essentially replaced in majority scholarship by the concept of "covenantal nominism" (i.e., Jewish observance of the law, not to gain salvation but to maintain covenantal status as God’s people). While this "new perspective" has significantly gained in popularity, many are now calling for a more balanced position that recognizes elements among first-century Jews of both "personal legalism" and "ethnic exclusivism" and Paul’s responses to them.

A Faulty Premise

     If the Mosaic law were truly a system of meritorious works, and if it is not possible to be saved under such a system (Galatians 3:11; Romans 3:20), then no one adhering to the law of Moses could have been saved – not even Moses himself! However, the foregoing syllogism is built on a faulty premise. During the fifteen centuries that the law of Moses was in force, provisions were made for atonement and forgiveness (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:13, 16, 18), salvation was attainable (1 Samuel 2:1; 2 Samuel 22:51; 1 Chronicles 16:23; Psalm 3:8; etc.), and one could even be counted "blameless" (Luke 1:6; Philippians 3:6). Faith, love and mercy were essential components (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 10:12-21; Micah 6:8; Habakkuk 2:4; Matthew 23:23; etc.), and it was beneficial to all who submitted to it (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; cf. Psalm 78:1-7; etc.).
Paul Was Not Anti-Law
     Contrary to what is commonly assumed, Paul was not anti-law. In fact, he concedes faith’s reinforcement of the law (Romans 3:31), the holiness and righteousness of the law (Romans 7:7, 12), the spirituality of the law (Romans 7:14), and the advantages of Judaism (Romans 3:1-2; 9:4). Does Paul, then, contradict himself in passages like Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16 and 3:11? To borrow the apostle’s own words, certainly not! Instead, his emphasis is consistently on the importance of understanding the law in terms of faith rather than dependence on meritorious observances (cf. Romans 3:27-31; 9:30-32).
     Paul was in favor of the law and its precepts with respect to those for whom it was an important part of their cultural heritage (i.e., within the context of ethnic Judaism), as long as it was not at variance with the Christian faith (cf. Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 21:20-26; 1 Corinthians 9:20; also Romans 15:4). On the other hand, he was vehemently opposed to the enforcement of the law’s ritualistic ordinances on those for whom these practices had no relevance (i.e., non-Jewish Christians), especially if the imposition of such created division in the church and supplanted the "faith of Christ."
Proper Perspective
     Foreshadowing the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (Romans 3:25-26; Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 9:15, 26), persons were saved under the old Jewish law by God’s grace through faith (Romans 4:3-16; cf. 3:25; 9:31-32), i.e., a faith that submitted to the divine will in humble (albeit less than perfect) obedience. Despite the fact that a number of first-century legalistic Jews misconstrued the law’s intended purpose (Luke 11:37-42; Romans 2:23; 10:3), it was never meant to be a cold-hearted structure of meritorious works. While the old-covenant system was not faultless (Hebrews 8:7), it successfully functioned as a temporary measure to keep faith alive until the advent of the promised Messiah and the establishment of his superior new-covenant system (cf. Galatians 3:16–4:7; Hebrews 8:6-13).
--Kevin L. Moore

Addendum: Douglas Stuart reminds us: "nowhere in the Old Testament is it suggested that anyone was saved by keeping the law.... Israel's problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the law; it was with their choosing not to do so" (G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth [4th ed.]: 175, emp. in the text).

Related Posts: Is the Law of Moses Still Binding?, James and the Law of Moses, Fulfilling the Law

Related articles: Jack Cottrell's New Perspective on Paul?

James and the Law of Moses

     Does James affirm the current relevance of the entire Mosaic law for New Testament Christians (2:8-13; 4:11)? It is important to keep the epistle of James in its proper setting. The letter appears to have been written early in the church’s history, while Christianity was still within the general circle of Judaism. It is addressed "to the twelve tribes in the dispersion (diaspora)" (1:1, author’s own translation), with no hint of any conflict between Jewish and non-Jewish believers (i.e. prior to the discord of the early 50s). Around the year 33, Jewish Christians were "scattered" (diaspeirō) from Jerusalem by persecution (Acts 8:1, 4) and traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, "speaking the word to no one except Jews only" (Acts 11:19).

     The readers’ place of meeting is described as a sunagōgē ("synagogue") (James 2:2), Abraham is referred to as "our father" (2:21), and there is extensive use of the Old Testament and Jewish metaphors. Since no other New Testament document had been written at this time, casual reference to "the law" is understandable, with much emphasis on the outward workings of faith (1:22-27; 2:14-16; 3:13; 4:11). Remember that the ministry of James appears to have been primarily among Jewish communities, in contrast to Paul who labored predominantly among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-9)
     When James writes, "For [the one] who keeps all the law, yet stumbles in one thing, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10), he is addressing the issue of certain ones claiming to be faithful to the law yet inconsistently violating the law by discriminating against the poor. James is simply calling for consistency. However, to construe these words to broadly affirm that the law of Moses in its entirety is permanently binding on all Christians of all time is to remove the argument from its original context. The allusions to "the perfect law of liberty" and the "royal law" (1:25; 2:8, 12) show that even these early Jewish disciples were living by a new standard.
     What about the apparent disharmony between the teachings of James and Paul on justification, faith, and works (e.g. James 2:21-24 vs. Romans 4:1-5)? This question led the 16th-century reformer Martin Luther (a strong advocate of the concept of justification by faith "alone") to regard James as "an epistle of straw" (see C. M. Jacobs, trans., Works of Martin Luther 6:444). But the discrepancy that Luther perceived is more apparent than real. The "works" in Romans relate to the meritorious observance of the Mosaic law, while the "works" in James pertain to non-meritorious demonstrations of faith. With the right perspective, these teachings are not at variance and readily harmonize.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Is the Law of Moses Still Binding?, Was Paul Anti-Law?