Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
Not to give the New Perspective people too much credit, but something jumped out at me reading Romans. I’ve been reading it four times in the last few months in different spots plus listening to it and I’ve noticed that the whole argument of the book when it pertains to justification by faith appears to be a response to the false teaching that adherence to the Jewish Law is salvific.
Because the Jewish Law does not figure too central in our thinking anymore, I think this gets forgotten and we as good Protestants get focused on how salvation is not by works (doing good in general, sacraments, etcetera) while Paul really was not addressing this idea.
Rom 1 and 2 show how both hedonistic and self-righteous gentiles are alike under sin and are culpable to the “Law of Nature,” which is a sense of God’s Law one can derive from his or her own conscience. The latter part of Rom 2 and then Rom 3 speak of how Jews likewise, regardless of the privilege of having of the Law, are under sin. Even the sin list of Rom 3:10-18, though it implicitly includes gentiles, is not really directed at a gentile audience but rather to Jews (a point that Chrysostom recognized in his homilies on Romans.) Verse 9 makes this pretty clear: “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.”
If you read chapter three, the “we” are Jews and the “they” are gentiles. So, when Paul brings David, Isaiah, and other Old Testament writers as witnesses against the whole world (showing how Jews and Greeks alike are under sin), Paul is not doing so for the reason we often think of when we go through the “Romans Road” preaching to unbelievers. Rather, he is proving to self-righteous Jews that their own Law, when used lawfully, shows that they stand condemned.
This is why Paul says in verse 19, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed.” Hence, Paul’s emphasis I think is often lost because our audience generally is not Jewish.
So, when Paul speaks of faith alone in the latter part of chapter 3, he is clearly doing so to disprove salvation-by-Law-adherence. Verse 22 states, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” So, Paul is showing how the Law is used lawfully, and that on the basis of the Law gentiles cannot be excluded from salvation, because they by faith can attain to the same righteousness that Jews can.
This point is important, because the New Perspective people try to teach that though good works are still needed for salvation, they are just not the good works as stipulated in the Jewish Law. However, this is not Paul’s point either. We can extrapolate this much from Romans 4, because before Abraham did anything he was made righteous by faith.
However, this is not the key emphasis of Romans 4 either, though it is true.
In Romans 4, the example of Abraham is given for two reasons. First, he existed before the Mosaic Law and was able to attain righteousness despite its non-existence. Second, he attained to righteousness by faith and not by doing any specific command or work. So, we as Protestants immediately get comfort from this as we see we do not need to follow the slavish works of Romanism, or run of the mill good deeds, and think that we need to add these to our account to make up for what Jesus could not do—perish the thought.
However, this is not what is on the forefront of Paul’s mind and the preceding, though true, is anachronistic. Paul clues us in what is on the forefront of his mind in Rom 4:16: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.”
Paul’s discussion therefore was not in order to speak against works righteousness, even though by consequence he does disprove works-righteousness. Rather, the whole point was to show that both Jews and gentiles can be saved by the same faith and therefore the Law does not serve as a differentiator for who is saved and who isn’t.
This need to correct the Jews’ misunderstanding of the Law figures prominently in chapters which we read from totally different perspectives. When we read Rom 5 we think “original sin.” Though original sin is part of the discussion, Paul’s point in bringing it up is to show, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:21). So, Paul is concerned with the lawful use of the Law than he is about infants being born with sin, though the latter is true.
In Romans 6, Paul responds to a counterargument against the lawful use of the Law–if the Law does not bring about righteousness, why not just sin? In Rom 7, we often take solace in the fact that Paul struggles with living a righteous life just like us, but the chapter really is not about this. It speaks of how the Law works within the heart of a believer, making sinfulness more sinful and thereby making grace more gracious. Again, it is about the lawful use of the Law.
Likewise, Rom 8 shows how a Spirit-led life replaces slavish adherence to the Law. Need I go into detail about how Romans 9 through 11, though it teaches predestination, is specifically about how those with the Law have been hardened as a means to bring in the full nation of [spiritual] Israel?
I hope by bringing this up, there may be a greater appreciation of Paul’s thought.
Error – You said, “Romans 4, because before Abraham did anything he was made righteous by faith.”
What happened between Gen 12 and Gen 15 or 22, whichever you prefer as the point of Abraham’s justification?
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Your entire logic is based upon that premise and therefore you arrive at false conclusions.
If the Law is no longer in force, why does St. Paul say:
1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Don’t you recognize these Commandments enumerated there?
Thou shalt not – commit idolatry, lie, commit adultery, steal, covet.
Its not the law which is the difference. Its the advent of Jesus.
Before Jesus, no saving grace.
After Jesus, saving grace provided in the Sacraments.
Before Jesus, the Jews did all their good works and as it says in Heb 11:
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
BY FAITH they did all that good. But they didn’t receive the promise.
So, salvation is not BY FAITH. Nor is it by all the good that they did.
Why is it then? By the mercy of God which was poured out to them from the Cross.
So, how do Christians receive that mercy? In the Sacraments. When we approach the Sacraments, we approach the Cross of our Lord, we remember His Sacrifice and He pours out to us His mercy.
All Christians? No! Only those who, in obedience to His word, have kept the Commandments.
Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
De Maria, I would like to write on the Real Presence this evening, so pardon the brief reply:
“What happened between Gen 12 and Gen 15 or 22, whichever you prefer as the point of Abraham’s justification?”
According to Rom 4, Abraham was saved by faith in Gen 15. Lacking a better way to describe and understand it, the faith Abraham had in Gen 12 was not saving faith because it was immature faith (Abraham did not yet understand that the promise was encapsulated in a child of promise, that is Isaac, who foreshadows Christ the ultimate child of promise.) In Gen 22, Arabraham was already saved and he merely acted in accordance with his faith in Gen 15. He believed God that his heir will be his own son, and he continued in that belief when he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, because he trusted that God would raise him from the dead (which again, foreshadows Christ.) So, I think there are solid exegetical grounds to place the events of Gen 15 at the center.
“If the Law is no longer in force…”
The Law is still in force, it just never made anyone righteous. You don’t bother trying to fulfill the Law either, so I think you are just trying to disagree on purpose. I suppose you can take it up with your Priest, he would not affirm that the Law made anyone righteous.
“Before Jesus, no saving grace.
After Jesus, saving grace provided in the Sacraments.”
No, faith in the true God saved before, and it saves now. The sacraments are signs of the grace of God, they are not means of grace. Faith precedes the sacraments and gives the sacraments power.
“Before Jesus, the Jews did all their good works and as it says in Heb 11:
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down…”
You just quoted a lot of “by faiths,” and yet you are fixated by works. Do you trust in your own innate goodness to get you in heaven?
“BY FAITH they did all that good. But they didn’t receive the promise. So, salvation is not BY FAITH. By the mercy of God which was poured out to them from the Cross. So, how do Christians receive that mercy? In the Sacraments.”
You just replaced one Law with another Law. Works do not make anyone righteous. One has to be righteous for His good works to please God. The Scripture speaks of David, Abraham, and others in heaven. They had no Catholic sacraments. You missed the whole point of Heb 11. They were approved and saved by faith, as all men were and will always be.
“Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
The Law is fulfilled by believing in the One in whom He has sent and in love, which is as Paul states “faith working in love.” You cannot divorce it from faith, but you can easily divorce it from works because men are made righteous before having done anything.
If they were saved by faith, why didn’t they receive the promise?
Simply because that would be anachronistic. THey did not receive the promise because they were waiting for it. Christians now receive the promise, because Christ has already come. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).
You’re getting warm. Now, if you can connect the Sacraments, you will see how it is in the Sacraments that we are justified by faith, apart from works.
That’s a non sequitur. You asked an unrelated question, I gave an answer, and now you get into the sacraments. (Why should that surprise anyone, the article that you are responding to is not even about what you are writing back to.) Again, the thief on the cross had no opportunity to perform any sacraments but he was declared righteous. Abraham, before doing any sacrament, was declared righteous. Apparently, you are so self-righteous, the idea of God declaring anyone righteous apart from them doing anything is abhorrent to you. Sadly for you, that is exactly what you find in the Scripture and in the church fathers and if you never come to understand it, God will account you as the Jews who though circumcision was needed on top of faith. You misunderstand the sacraments and you see them as works and not as sign of God’s grace.
Craig,
First of all, I loved the original post and happily agreed with most of it. I’m working my way through the Commentary Series but this seems like a definitive break with your past exegesis. I see this as a much more mature/informed exegesis that is being most fair to the text. In fact, I think you’re actually more on the road away from Protestantism and towards Catholicism that you might think.
Unrelated to all that, I wanted to comment on something you said in the comment section above: //////Lacking a better way to describe and understand it, the faith Abraham had in Gen 12 was not saving faith because it was immature faith///////
I don’t think this is a safe nor exegetical claim to make. Hebrews 11:8 presents the faith of Abraham in Genesis 12 as just as good of a faith as the other heroes of Hebrews Ch11. It is dangerous to say a faith of someone, especially an OT hero, was not saving. In fact, nowhere is such a concept of non-saving faith taught in the NT. And many people who had weak faith in the NT were undoubtedly saved, particularly the Gentile Christians who still had a hard time letting go of their pagan past. Further, Galatians 3:8 says the Gospel was preached to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, and Abraham accepted it.
Abraham left his home at God’s Command, Abraham built an altar twice to God, Abraham spoke intimately in dialog with God, Melchizedek said Abraham was blessed by God, and God gave Abraham victory in battle, all in Genesis 12-14, so it’s not a good answer at all to say Abraham didn’t have saving faith until Genesis 15:6. Abraham knew more than Rahab did, and Rahab was justified without issue. Abraham was closer to God than the thief on the Cross (who didn’t even know about the events after the Resurrection).
There is a specific reason why the faith of Abraham in Gen 15 saves, but not Gen 12/ In Gen 15, Abraham believs God’s promise that He will have promises descendants. As we know, Christ is a descendant of Abraham and Paul painfully exegetes these promises to show that a specific “Seed” is in view. Hence, we can locate in Rom 4 that the faith in Gen 15 saved, which I may infer from Heb 6 that there is a such thing as non=saving faith (i.e. it’s not yet in the Son, etc.) Being that Heb 11 is a list of faithful things men done, to try to argue that any of them specifically represent a singular moment a man became righteous with God would be to misread the passage.
God bless,
Craig