Justification and Law in Paul

[Andre]

Another thread came to an end without my being able to respond to the challenge as to how to take Romans 2 literally - that there will indeed be a deeds based judgment and that eternal life and justification are in the balance, with the Jew being judged by the Law of Moses - and yet reconcile this with material from places like Romans 3 and Galatians 3 where Paul seems to say that the Law of Moses is not connected to justification.

I am not prepared to make my initial arguments just yet. But here are some teasers:

1. We should take Romans 2 exactly as it reads, with no "hypotheticals": there will be a deeds-based judgement; eternal life and justification are at issue; the Jew (who lived while the Law of Moses was in force) will be judged by that Law and some will indeed "pass";

2. While material in places like Galatians 3 and Romans 3 seems to suggest that obedience to the Law of Moses will not play a role in justification of any Jew (and his getting eternal life), Paul's real argument in those places is that it is pursuing the Law of Moses in a manner that seeks to restrict justification to Jews only that is a "dead-end" in respect to the Jew being ultimately justified (and saved). He is not saying that conformance to the Law of Moses otherwise cannot be relevant to final justification and salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. We should take Romans 2 exactly as it reads, with no "hypotheticals": there will be a deeds-based judgement; eternal life and justification are at issue; the Jew (who lived while the Law of Moses was in force) will be judged by that Law and some will indeed "pass";

a. There is a literal judgement of works with eternal life versus eternal death as alternative consequences "according to his deeds."

b. The phrase "according to HIS deeds" refers back to the HYPOCRITE in verse 1-5 as well as the HYPOCRITE in verses 17-29.

c. Christians are promised by Christ to NEVER come into such a judgement where eternal death and eternal life willl be judged by their works - Jn. 5:24

d. This passage was written when the Mosaic law was not in force so it cannot possibly be referring to when the Mosaic law was in force.

2. While material in places like Galatians 3 and Romans 3 seems to suggest that obedience to the Law of Moses will not play a role in justification of any Jew (and his getting eternal life), Paul's real argument in those places is that it is pursuing the Law of Moses in a manner that seeks to restrict justification to Jews only that is a "dead-end" in respect to the Jew being ultimately justified (and saved). He is not saying that conformance to the Law of Moses otherwise cannot be relevant to final justification and salvation.

a. This is nothing but mental gymnastics in order to pervert the word of God as Paul explicity denies that the law is of faith (Gal. 2:12). In regard to justificaton when both law and faith are mentioned they are ALWAYS in contrast to each other with denial that justification is by law or works.

b. Romans 3:19-20 and Romans 3:10-12 uses universal all inclusive terms in regard to justification by law with full denial of such a possibility.

c. It cannot be denied that ALL Jews have violated some point in the Mosaic law (James 2:10-11) and thus by that very violation under its "curse" (Gal. 3:10-13). Hence, there is no possible way that any under its "curse" can at one and the same time be justified through faith that includes the law.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not prepared to make my initial arguments just yet. But here are some teasers:

1. We should take Romans 2 exactly as it reads, with no "hypotheticals": there will be a deeds-based judgement; eternal life and justification are at issue;

Agreed. That is exactly how to take scripture - as if it were "true".

And "notice the details" - for example in Romans 2:13-16 the judgment whereby we are justified is future.

"For not the hearers of the Law are JUST before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be JustiFIED ... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God WILL judge the secrets of ALL"

The justification that is future does not change the status of the person.

For example the "doers" of Romans 2:13 must already be saints - saved, born-again or as Romans 8:5-8 points out "they could not" being doing what they are doing. In that case the future judgment does not "make them saints" - it simply confirms that the fruit of the good tree - is "good".

And in that case the "non-doers" of Rom 2:14 - are not saved - and the future judgment that sees them in their not-saved state - does not change anything - they are still "not saved". That judgment simply confirms that the fruit of the bad tree - is bad.

the Jew (who lived while the Law of Moses was in force) will be judged by that Law and some will indeed "pass";

In Heb 8 we are told that the law of God (as known in Jeremiah 31) "is written on the heart" for New Covenant saints.

In 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

The Law as Paul points out in Romans 3 and Gal 3 - is applicable to ALL mankind - showing ALL mankind to be sinners in need of a savior.

That is the context for the Romans 2:13 "Doers of the Law" statement in terms of "Which law" you are talking about.

Hence at the end of Romans 3:31 "do we then make VOID the Law of God by our FAITH? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God"

2. While material in places like Galatians 3 and Romans 3 seems to suggest that obedience to the Law of Moses will not play a role in justification

Justification in Romans 3 (and in Romans 5) is the "justification past" event - where the lost sinner comes to Christ and is justified.

That can only be by faith alone - and apart from works.

That particular justification - changes the "status" of the lost sinner -- from lost to saved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Andre, I would recommend Justification by Tom Wright (former Bishop of Durham, England) as further reading. A review is here.

 

[Andre]

a. This is nothing but mental gymnastics in order to pervert the word of God

Why do you do this, Dr Walter?

Why do engage in demeaning rhetoric, suggesting that those who do not share your position are "perverting" the word of God.

Does it make you feel good?

Do you think it will really carry any weight at all in the mind of a serious open-minded reader? Do you think calling me a "perverter of the word of God" constitutes responsible debate?

I will give more than enough actual Biblical arguments to chew on soon enough.

But can we please interact respectfully?

 

[Andre]

In Heb 8 we are told that the law of God (as known in Jeremiah 31) "is written on the heart" for New Covenant saints.

In 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

The Law as Paul points out in Romans 3 and Gal 3 - is applicable to ALL mankind - showing ALL mankind to be sinners in need of a savior.

That is the context for the Romans 2:13 "Doers of the Law" statement in terms of "Which law" you are talking about.

Hence at the end of Romans 3:31 "do we then make VOID the Law of God by our FAITH? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God"

I am very aware of Romans 3:31.

I do not have the time to get into the details here, but I believe that the "law" that is established is something other than the written code of the Law of Moses, even though it is closely related to it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Another thread came to an end without my being able to respond to the challenge as to how to take Romans 2 literally - that there will indeed be a deeds based judgment and that eternal life and justification are in the balance, with the Jew being judged by the Law of Moses - and yet reconcile this with material from places like Romans 3 and Galatians 3 where Paul seems to say that the Law of Moses is not connected to justification.

I am not prepared to make my initial arguments just yet. But here are some teasers:

1. We should take Romans 2 exactly as it reads, with no "hypotheticals": there will be a deeds-based judgement; eternal life and justification are at issue; the Jew (who lived while the Law of Moses was in force) will be judged by that Law and some will indeed "pass";

2. While material in places like Galatians 3 and Romans 3 seems to suggest that obedience to the Law of Moses will not play a role in justification of any Jew (and his getting eternal life), Paul's real argument in those places is that it is pursuing the Law of Moses in a manner that seeks to restrict justification to Jews only that is a "dead-end" in respect to the Jew being ultimately justified (and saved). He is not saying that conformance to the Law of Moses otherwise cannot be relevant to final justification and salvation.

They like the threads after 30 Pages I'm Thinkin......your too slow off the draw.

 

[Andre]

Andre, I would recommend Justification by Tom Wright (former Bishop of Durham, England) as further reading. A review is here.

I have already read it, but thanks for the suggestion.

Those who are familiar with Wright will know that many of the things I post are based on his ideas, although I do not remember if he supports my point number (2) or not.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because that is precisely what you are doing. You are not interested in the truth and it is plain to see. What you have done is taken a position on Romans 2:6-10 and you will find a way to FORCE every scripture and argument against your position to fit your preassumptions. Your position is wrong and you do mental gynastics in order to avoid the clear evidence that it is wrong.

Why do you do this, Dr Walter?

Why do engage in demeaning rhetoric, suggesting that those who do not share your position are "perverting" the word of God.

Does it make you feel good?

Do you think it will really carry any weight at all in the mind of a serious open-minded reader? Do you think calling me a "perverter of the word of God" constitutes responsible debate?

I will give more than enough actual Biblical arguments to chew on soon enough.

But can we please interact respectfully?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 2:6-10 is a literal description of the future judgement of the wicked according to their works.

Verses 7-15 simply present the JUST standards of that judgement. JUST standards give the law's criteria for both damnation for evil works and reward for good works. Just because the criteria for just judgement of works is given does not infer or demand that such hypocrites willl be able to produce such works that will be rewarded. Indeed, the whole introduction (Rom. 1:19-2:5) and conclusion (Rom. 2:17-20) demands that such will not produce any works the Law will judge righteous.

Christ has already promised that NO BELEIVER will come into such a judgment where eternal life and eternal death are the issue (Jn. 5:24) because their sins have already been judged in Christ at the cross and they already have passed from death to life.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Jn. 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation [judgment]; but is passed from death unto life.

The Greek term translated "condemnation" is elsewhere translated "judgement" 41 times and is only translated "condemnation" 2 times.

Romans 2:6-10 is a literal description of the future judgement of the wicked according to their works.

Verses 7-15 simply present the JUST standards of that judgement. JUST standards give the law's criteria for both damnation for evil works and reward for good works. Just because the criteria for just judgement of works is given does not infer or demand that such hypocrites willl be able to produce such works that will be rewarded. Indeed, the whole introduction (Rom. 1:19-2:5) and conclusion (Rom. 2:17-20) demands that such will not produce any works the Law will judge righteous.

Christ has already promised that NO BELEIVER will come into such a judgment where eternal life and eternal death are the issue (Jn. 5:24) because their sins have already been judged in Christ at the cross and they already have passed from death to life.

 

[Andre]

Because that is precisely what you are doing.

You are free to disagree with me and make the relevant arguments. But is not appropriate to engage in the kind of demonizing and dismissive rhetoric into which you sometimes lapse.

You should not need to take this "low road". I certainly do not - you will not find me suggesting that those who disagree with me are "perverting" the word of God.

Please remember, Dr. W, what is said about carelessly spoken words (Matthew 12)

Again, soon enough you will have more than enough detailed exegesis to handle. I suggest you direct your energies to that task and not to making baseless, false, and otherwise unconstructive accusations.

 

[Matt Black]

You are not interested in the truth and it is plain to see. What you have done is taken a position on Romans 2:6-10 and you will find a way to FORCE every scripture and argument against your position to fit your preassumptions. Your position is wrong and you do mental gynastics in order to avoid the clear evidence that it is wrong.

I think you've amply proved Andre's point with this.

 

[Andre]

Jn. 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation [judgment]; but is passed from death unto life.

The Greek term translated "condemnation" is elsewhere translated "judgement" 41 times and is only translated "condemnation" 2 times.

Well, at least one reputable translations render this term as "condemnation", not judgement (the NET Bible). It is a legitimate question as to whether Jesus is saying that the believer is not even going to be subject to judgement, or whether he will indeed be subject to the judgement and not condemned.

Paul certainly thinks that some will come into judgement and "pass":

He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality

I am not entirely sure I understand how you deal with this text, although you probably have addressed it with arguments that I have not yet had time to entirely deal with.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, at least one reputable translations render this term as "condemnation", not judgement (the NET Bible). It is a legitimate question as to whether Jesus is saying that the believer is not even going to be subject to judgement, or whether he will indeed be subject to the judgement and not condemned.

Paul certainly thinks that some will come into judgement and "pass":

He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality

I am not entirely sure I understand how you deal with this text, although you probably have addressed it with arguments that I have not yet had time to entirely deal with.

Jesus says that the believer will not "COME INTO" judgement and the precise judgement that he has in view is one that is in regard to "DEATH" vesus "LIFE".

 

[Andre]

Jesus says that the believer will not "COME INTO" judgement and the precise judgement that he has in view is one that is in regard to "DEATH" vesus "LIFE".

Aren't you begging the question? Here is the NET translation:

I tell you the solemn truth, 45 the one who hears 46 my message 47 and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned

This version of the version is entirely consistent with the assertion that the believer is indeed subject to judgement, but will not be condemned at that judgement.

So it appears that there is some local ambiguity as to exactly what Jesus is saying here.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, at least one reputable translations render this term as "condemnation", not judgement (the NET Bible). It is a legitimate question as to whether Jesus is saying that the believer is not even going to be subject to judgement, or whether he will indeed be subject to the judgement and not condemned.

Paul certainly thinks that some will come into judgement and "pass":

He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality

I am not entirely sure I understand how you deal with this text, although you probably have addressed it with arguments that I have not yet had time to entirely deal with.

First, you totally agreed that no Jew could be justified under the law of Moses and if it was the law of Moses in Rom. 2:13 then your position admittedly would be in error.

Well, we proved it is the law of Moses in Romans 2:12-15 that is consistently in contrast with another law by which the Gentiles will be judged - the law of conscience.

So you were forced to change your position because you had to admit it is the law of Moses in Romans 2:12-15 that is being contrasted with another law. Now your NEW position is that the Jew could be justified under the Law of Moses when the law was in force but not after it was annulled by the New Covenant.

However, Galatians 3:10-13 and James 2:10-11 completely debunks your new position as the law has ALWAYS had the same requirement and there is no Jew at ANY TIME kept all points of the law and to fail in one point brings them under THE CURSE of the Law. No Jew could EVER have been justified "by the deeds of the law" but only CONDEMNED as the curse is put into effect by failure in ONE POINT. The law cannot simeltaneously CURSE and JUSTIFY anyone. Justification by the deeds of the law has always been in contrast to justification by faith as proved in the case of Abraham who PRECEDED the Law and by the case of Hebrews 4:2 which says the same gospel was preached to them as well as unto us and Acts 10:43 which says remission of sins was by faith in the Messaiah and by Hebrews 10:1-4 which says the law NEVER removed sins.

You have been forced to change your position and now your change does not help you in the least. The simple truth is that there has been and never will be any justification by YOUR WORKS whether they are in response to the Law of Moses or the Law of Conscience.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your chosen translation is even inferior to the Watchtower translation. Your translation does not translate the Greek text properly. Both the Critical Text and the Received text have the words "but is passed from death unto life" but your translation omits them entirely.

You are illustrating exactly what I have said. You will do ANYTHING to defend you interpretation of Romans 2:6-10 - ANYTHING! You have to search out a translation to defend your position, a translation that does not even include the whole text that is found in both the Critical and Traditional texts.

There is no ambiguity but simple PERVERSION by a faulty translation. You just as well take up the Watchtower translation if that is what is required to FORCE your theory upon the Scriptures.

The Greek term "erchetai" is found in both the Critical and traditional text and it means "to come"

Aren't you begging the question? Here is the NET translation:

I tell you the solemn truth, 45 the one who hears 46 my message 47 and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned

This version of the version is entirely consistent with the assertion that the believer is indeed subject to judgement, but will not be condemned at that judgement.

So it appears that there is some local ambiguity as to exactly what Jesus is saying here.

 

[Andre]

First, you totally agreed that no Jew could be justified under the law of Moses and if it was the law of Moses in Rom. 2:13 then your position admittedly would be in error.

No I did not agree that no "Jew could be justified under the Law of Moses". I have asserted, and have yet to provide the argument, that no Jew who pursued the Law of Moses in a manner which sought to restrict salvation to Jews could be justified under the Law of Moses.

I will implicitly address all your other points when I get around to making my arguments.

 

[Dr. Walter]

“I tell you the solemn truth, 1 the one who hears 2 my message 3 and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, 4 but has crossed over from death to life." - NET

I double checked the translation and found that you simply did not quote the entire text rather than the translators leaving off part of the Greek text. However, there are translations guilty of those very things.

However, what they did not do was to translate the Greek term "erchotai" at all. They omitted this term altogether and it is found in both the Critical and Traditional texts. Instead of properly translating the Greek text "will not come into judgement" they left the Greek term "erchotai" altogether.

So your translation is an improper translation of the Greek text - improper because it take the liberty to EXCLUDE what God included in the text.

Your chosen translation is even inferior to the Watchtower translation. Your translation does not translate the Greek text properly. Both the Critical Text and the Received text have the words "but is passed from death unto life" but your translation omits them entirely.

You are illustrating exactly what I have said. You will do ANYTHING to defend you interpretation of Romans 2:6-10 - ANYTHING! You have to search out a translation to defend your position, a translation that does not even include the whole text that is found in both the Critical and Traditional texts.

There is no ambiguity but simple PERVERSION by a faulty translation. You just as well take up the Watchtower translation if that is what is required to FORCE your theory upon the Scriptures.

The Greek term "erchetai" is found in both the Critical and traditional text and it means "to come"