Romans

[Jaymin Allen]

A friend asked this query,

"I have a question regarding v. 13, 'For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be justified.'

Is justification, that is, being declared righteous in Christ by God, contingent upon obeying the law?? Is this a case of a Paul/James antinomy (i.e., the seeming contradiction between faith and works)?"

I guess the main issues I'm struggling over are: (1) What presuppositions do I have when resolving the antinomy between Rom. 2:13 and 3:20; and (2) What is the identity of the 'O man' (v. 3), 'one doing good' (v. 7), the 'one who does good' (v. 10), the 'doers of the law' (v. 13), 'Jew...Gentile' (saved or unsaved?; vv. 9, 10, 14)?

What do you guys think?

 

[Galatians220]

You're reading the NIV, right? Okay... I see in my comparative Bible the difference.

The KJB renders Romans 2:13 as "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."...) But this can't be taken out of context from verse 14, which explains it: Those Gentiles who do the law but don't have the Jewish law have a law unto themselves and show "the law" written in their hearts; their conscience "bears witness" (v. 15) that they are either justified or not justified. They're justified "without the (Jewish) law" if they have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and their doing of works are justified - and flow from - that circumstance anyway. So the works are justified, and so are they. But mere hearers of the law and those who know it are not justified and won't be - until they're saved. (On to 3:20) - Flesh cannot satisfy the requirements of the law, for it cannot fulfill it perfectly. Only Jesus Christ did that.

But hey, you asked for "guys," and so I'll just maybe come back later and delete this. (I'm doing that a lot lately... )

Margaret

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul's point here (as the KJV renders it with the parentheses) is an "aside" comment, a truism that substantiates his main point. To counter the self-vindicating objection that "The gentiles can't be justified in God's eyes, for they have never received, nor the majority of them even heard, of the Law," Paul counters: "You, who HAVE heard the Law have no grounds for such a comment, for though you have heard it, you do not obey it." This is the substance of what comes later, vv17ff.

So, this verse is not talking about hearing-and-believing yielding obedience, but of the obvious contrast between fruitless and fruitful hearing, or even obedience to the Law by those without the Law in contrast to dull hearing of that same Law.

Paul doesn't mean to ever say, as of vv9-10, that any man (Jew or Gentile) is actually commendable before God on the basis of his behavior. Though, it could be said that men are known to outwardly act in accordance with their consciences, and thus may receive an outward acknowledgment by God of their justice. But if there is any real commendation, it is with reference to the final judgment of v5 & v16, and any real blessedness (v7) is a product of grace.

The conclusion to the first section (ch 1:18-3:20) comes with a summary indictment of Jews and Gentiles, for their respective sins; all are condemned, none are justified. So, until 3:21, and the unfolding of the true way of salvation, nothing should be taken in section one as positive statements needing no qualification. Occasionally there are idealistic statements, even as the law presents a hypothetical reality that were it possible to keep the law then, sure, men could be saved from hell by law-keeping.

 

[Jaymin Allen]

Paul's point here (as the KJV renders it with the parentheses) is an "aside" comment, a truism that substantiates his main point. To counter the self-vindicating objection that "The gentiles can't be justified in God's eyes, for they have never received, nor the majority of them even heard, of the Law," Paul counters: "You, who HAVE heard the Law have no grounds for such a comment, for though you have heard it, you do not obey it." This is the substance of what comes later, vv17ff.

So, this verse is not talking about hearing-and-believing yielding obedience, but of the obvious contrast between fruitless and fruitful hearing, or even obedience to the Law by those without the Law in contrast to dull hearing of that same Law.

Paul doesn't mean to ever say, as of vv9-10, that any man (Jew or Gentile) is actually commendable before God on the basis of his behavior. Though, it could be said that men are known to outwardly act in accordance with their consciences, and thus may receive an outward acknowledgment by God of their justice. But if there is any real commendation, it is with reference to the final judgment of v5 & v16, and any real blessedness (v7) is a product of grace.

The conclusion to the first section (ch 1:18-3:20) comes with a summary indictment of Jews and Gentiles, for their respective sins; all are condemned, none are justified. So, until 3:21, and the unfolding of the true way of salvation, nothing should be taken in section one as positive statements needing no qualification. Occasionally there are idealistic statements, even as the law presents a hypothetical reality that were it possible to keep the law then, sure, men could be saved from hell by law-keeping.

I understand. Amen brother very well put

 

[Jaymin Allen]

Paul's point here (as the KJV renders it with the parentheses) is an "aside" comment, a truism that substantiates his main point. To counter the self-vindicating objection that "The gentiles can't be justified in God's eyes, for they have never received, nor the majority of them even heard, of the Law," Paul counters: "You, who HAVE heard the Law have no grounds for such a comment, for though you have heard it, you do not obey it." This is the substance of what comes later, vv17ff.

So, this verse is not talking about hearing-and-believing yielding obedience, but of the obvious contrast between fruitless and fruitful hearing, or even obedience to the Law by those without the Law in contrast to dull hearing of that same Law.

Paul doesn't mean to ever say, as of vv9-10, that any man (Jew or Gentile) is actually commendable before God on the basis of his behavior. Though, it could be said that men are known to outwardly act in accordance with their consciences, and thus may receive an outward acknowledgment by God of their justice. But if there is any real commendation, it is with reference to the final judgment of v5 & v16, and any real blessedness (v7) is a product of grace.

The conclusion to the first section (ch 1:18-3:20) comes with a summary indictment of Jews and Gentiles, for their respective sins; all are condemned, none are justified. So, until 3:21, and the unfolding of the true way of salvation, nothing should be taken in section one as positive statements needing no qualification. Occasionally there are idealistic statements, even as the law presents a hypothetical reality that were it possible to keep the law then, sure, men could be saved from hell by law-keeping.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if your view hinges upon the argument that Paul is not speaking of how to become saved: 'Paul doesn't say anything here about the way to get saved, just what one must do or be to be justified. Paul deals with how to get there, and how that works, later.'
I have a couple of questions, however.

Firstly, I find it difficult to believe that Paul doesn't have salvation in view when this is the first instance of a verb (i.e., justified, rightwised, etc.) that will be reappear throughout the letter when speaking of salvation. Secondly, notice the reference to judgment according to deeds (v. 6). This will surely occur. 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10 are quite evidently not making hypothetical claims. And if this is not hypothetical, but rather, an assertion of a real state of affairs, then why would v. 13 simply be a hypothetical statement or a statement showing 'the greatness of our predicament' and how a person is justified, but not describing the way of salvation?"

This is a question I received from that same individual. I'm curious as how you'd respond to the issues raised.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jaymin,
First, please realize that I won't be able to keep up with comebacks. So, after this suggestion, I won't necessarily feel motivated to respond or reply to Mr. Unknown (MU).

Since I don't know Mr Unknown's (MU) personality, I don't know if he is desirous to learn, or if he is faking curiosity in order to assert his own opinions.

1) how does MU mean "Paul is/isn't speaking of how to become saved." Does he refer to the Letter? or does he refer to this particular sentence? And then there is the question of what he means by "salvation." Does he view salvation as "getting saved," as in a MOMENT when a person crosses the divide? or of the whole process that starts at some moment and ends in glory?

Romans is, to begin with, the Christian "gospel presentation", at least from ch1.18 through ch.11. And what is "the gospel"? It is NOT "how one gets saved." That is a practical question, an application of the gospel, not the gospel itself. The gospel itself is the proclamation of what it is that God has DONE to save sinners. Sinners are justified through FAITH in the gospel message. Not when they pray a prayer, and certainly not when they do law-keeping. Prayer and obedience are inevitable products of a believing heart, but they are not actions that move God to extend justification. He justifies those whom he effectually "calls", Rom. 8:30, which "called ones" are reconstituted and enabled to believe.

Now the fact is that one can take Paul's "gospel presentation" and break it up into LAW and GOSPEL. Law condemnation precedes gospel salvation, and these two "parts" are most obvious in Paul's language when he says, first of all, ch1:18, "WRATH REVEALED," and then ch3:21, "RIGHTEOUSNESS REVEALED."

WHY does anyone need "good news" or "gospel"? Because there is a boat-load of BAD NEWS that has to be acknowledged, or God's salvation is not attractive. The sinner doesn't "need" it, in his own mind. Factually, he does, of course, but until he is forced to admit it, he will never seek God's solution.

So, any attempt to understand Romans that will not or cannot see Paul's thought progression, and that this is a larger section dealing with the facts of WRATH, not the facts of RIGHTEOUSNESS, may well make interpretive errors. And MU is off track.

Paul is not speaking, in the place he describes, about "how to get saved", or even the gospel, in its narrow conception. So, MU has make an accurate statement when he described our understanding of what Paul is saying. He understood you, and the "hinge" of that argument.

Second, this may be the "first instance" of this verb, however, it is certainly not the first introduction of the word-complex, which includes noun forms. That would be Paul's thematic or purpose statement in ch.1:16-17. There, the word dikaiosune or "righteousness" is used, a cognate term to verb dkaiow, the future-passive-3p form which is used in 2:13.

The use of a certain "word" cannot be assumed monolithic, as if it can only be used in contexts that state ideas positively. This is a completely unsupportable position. How else could Paul say, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16)?

So, MU's statement that he "finds it difficult to believe" this is the direction of Paul's thought in Romans based on how he thinks Paul MUST use a certain verb is merely a preferential statement; "I don't THINK" is not an argument, but is an admission of a lack of one. By "peppering" you with references to other texts, he has made no attempt to handle Paul's own argument here.

The texts he adduces are references to God's most certain and just final accounting. Interestingly, the Romans verse makes no mention at all of the content of that meeting, an omission that does not help MU's cause. The other verses in the Corinthians correspondence are not in contexts that deal with justification or the beginning of individual redemption in any way. So, it makes virtually no impact on my interpretation of Rom 2 to admit to the principle that God will bring every fact (or ACT) into judgment at the last day. In fact, 1 Cor. 3:15 is even worse for MU's position, because it states that the individual concerned WILL BE SAVED, though barely, as it were.

Such an assize has no bearing on whether a person will enter heaven or not. If it did, then we should have no confidence that those without "good" works, including infants and the death-bed-converted, were accepted. So much for the malefactor on the cross; he's lost too. So, the idea of justification in the salvific sense by works, besides being explicitly repudiated in Galatians, is done away with in this very section, the final verse, Rom 3:20. It is the conclusive statement to the whole indictment of Jew and Gentile alike.

And in the surrounding texts: "NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS!" Rom 3:10. Rom 3:28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law."

Why is 2:13 "hypothetical"? Because 1) it is not proper to be divorced from the context, 2) set against the context, 3) set against the weight of Paul's propositions made in various discourses on the subject of salvation; and finally 4) must actually be HARMONIZED with the texts he proposed respecting final judgment for the believers, which rather seem to teach not a question of destiny, but the quality of reward.

 

[Jaymin Allen]

Jaymin,
First, please realize that I won't be able to keep up with comebacks. So, after this suggestion, I won't necessarily feel motivated to respond or reply to Mr. Unknown (MU).

Since I don't know Mr Unknown's (MU) personality, I don't know if he is desirous to learn, or if he is faking curiosity in order to assert his own opinions.

1) how does MU mean "Paul is/isn't speaking of how to become saved." Does he refer to the Letter? or does he refer to this particular sentence? And then there is the question of what he means by "salvation." Does he view salvation as "getting saved," as in a MOMENT when a person crosses the divide? or of the whole process that starts at some moment and ends in glory?

Romans is, to begin with, the Christian "gospel presentation", at least from ch1.18 through ch.11. And what is "the gospel"? It is NOT "how one gets saved." That is a practical question, an application of the gospel, not the gospel itself. The gospel itself is the proclamation of what it is that God has DONE to save sinners. Sinners are justified through FAITH in the gospel message. Not when they pray a prayer, and certainly not when they do law-keeping. Prayer and obedience are inevitable products of a believing heart, but they are not actions that move God to extend justification. He justifies those whom he effectually "calls", Rom. 8:30, which "called ones" are reconstituted and enabled to believe.

Now the fact is that one can take Paul's "gospel presentation" and break it up into LAW and GOSPEL. Law condemnation precedes gospel salvation, and these two "parts" are most obvious in Paul's language when he says, first of all, ch1:18, "WRATH REVEALED," and then ch3:21, "RIGHTEOUSNESS REVEALED."

WHY does anyone need "good news" or "gospel"? Because there is a boat-load of BAD NEWS that has to be acknowledged, or God's salvation is not attractive. The sinner doesn't "need" it, in his own mind. Factually, he does, of course, but until he is forced to admit it, he will never seek God's solution.

So, any attempt to understand Romans that will not or cannot see Paul's thought progression, and that this is a larger section dealing with the facts of WRATH, not the facts of RIGHTEOUSNESS, may well make interpretive errors. And MU is off track.

Paul is not speaking, in the place he describes, about "how to get saved", or even the gospel, in its narrow conception. So, MU has make an accurate statement when he described our understanding of what Paul is saying. He understood you, and the "hinge" of that argument.

Second, this may be the "first instance" of this verb, however, it is certainly not the first introduction of the word-complex, which includes noun forms. That would be Paul's thematic or purpose statement in ch.1:16-17. There, the word dikaiosune or "righteousness" is used, a cognate term to verb dkaiow, the future-passive-3p form which is used in 2:13.

The use of a certain "word" cannot be assumed monolithic, as if it can only be used in contexts that state ideas positively. This is a completely unsupportable position. How else could Paul say, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16)?

So, MU's statement that he "finds it difficult to believe" this is the direction of Paul's thought in Romans based on how he thinks Paul MUST use a certain verb is merely a preferential statement; "I don't THINK" is not an argument, but is an admission of a lack of one. By "peppering" you with references to other texts, he has made no attempt to handle Paul's own argument here.

The texts he adduces are references to God's most certain and just final accounting. Interestingly, the Romans verse makes no mention at all of the content of that meeting, an omission that does not help MU's cause. The other verses in the Corinthians correspondence are not in contexts that deal with justification or the beginning of individual redemption in any way. So, it makes virtually no impact on my interpretation of Rom 2 to admit to the principle that God will bring every fact (or ACT) into judgment at the last day. In fact, 1 Cor. 3:15 is even worse for MU's position, because it states that the individual concerned WILL BE SAVED, though barely, as it were.

Such an assize has no bearing on whether a person will enter heaven or not. If it did, then we should have no confidence that those without "good" works, including infants and the death-bed-converted, were accepted. So much for the malefactor on the cross; he's lost too. So, the idea of justification in the salvific sense by works, besides being explicitly repudiated in Galatians, is done away with in this very section, the final verse, Rom 3:20. It is the conclusive statement to the whole indictment of Jew and Gentile alike.

And in the surrounding texts: "NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS!" Rom 3:10. Rom 3:28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law."

Why is 2:13 "hypothetical"? Because 1) it is not proper to be divorced from the context, 2) set against the context, 3) set against the weight of Paul's propositions made in various discourses on the subject of salvation; and finally 4) must actually be HARMONIZED with the texts he proposed respecting final judgment for the believers, which rather seem to teach not a question of destiny, but the quality of reward.

I understand Rev. Buchanan. By no means should you feel obligated. I was asked this question a couple days ago and wasn't able to postulate a strong cogent response. Your responses, both of them, are much more than adequate. I understand the text a lot more than I had prior to your responses. I appreciate your time

MU, is a friend of mine named Dave Briones. He'd left the U.S. a couple of months ago and went to London for Ph.D studies.

 

[Christusregnat]

Jaymin,

I can't really add much to the comments made by Rev. Buchanan, but I will say that Paul's statement must be taken in the context that God:


6 "will render to every man according to his deeds" and that

11 "there is no respect of persons with God."

This is the basic argument Paul is making: if a Jew wants to make his boast in the law, while condemning the Gentiles Paul just finished describing in Romans 1:18 - 32, then that Jew MUST understand what the Law requires. The Law requires perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. God has no partiality in the Law: Do this and live, do that and die. Game over. No forgiveness, no repentance, no kidding.

So, this argument has to be taken as in the context that Paul gives us: NO MAN, Jew or Gentile, can be justified by keeping the law. Here Paul is seeking to shake the vain confidence of the Jews:

17 "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God"


Once this argument is completed, Paul doesn't want his hearers to say: "Oh Gee, I guess if I do enough good works, I can be right with God by them!" Rather, he wants them to conclude, based on THIS ARGUMENT that:

9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

If your friend's reading of Romans 2 is different from Paul's "we have before proved", then he does not read it rightly.

It is likely that your friend may have been challenged by some form of works righteousness, whether Papist, Shepherdism, NPP, FV, etc. These are the sorts of passages that are twisted and taken out of context in order to support other gospels that lead men to hell.

Cheers,

Adam

A friend asked this query,

"I have a question regarding v. 13, 'For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be justified.'

Is justification, that is, being declared righteous in Christ by God, contingent upon obeying the law?? Is this a case of a Paul/James antinomy (i.e., the seeming contradiction between faith and works)?"

I guess the main issues I'm struggling over are: (1) What presuppositions do I have when resolving the antinomy between Rom. 2:13 and 3:20; and (2) What is the identity of the 'O man' (v. 3), 'one doing good' (v. 7), the 'one who does good' (v. 10), the 'doers of the law' (v. 13), 'Jew...Gentile' (saved or unsaved?; vv. 9, 10, 14)?

What do you guys think?