More on the justification of Gentiles who do good works

I really like this comment from Steven Opp—first, because it gives me an opportunity to address in a bit more detail the relation between the justification of Gentiles on the basis of what they have done and the justification of the people of God by faith; and secondly, because Steven is an evangelist and naturally wants to know whether the narrative reading is going to help him present the gospel to “a modern individual”.

So today more on those righteous Gentiles. The question of what an evangelist might do with this approach, if anything, we’ll look at in a day or two.

What about in Ch. 3 when speaking of both Jews and Gentiles Paul says no one is righteous, not one? Then he goes on to talk about Jesus. Is the difference that while no one is righteous (Ch. 3) the Gentiles do righteous things (Ch. 2), so you can be unrighteous but still do righteous deeds which effects how you are judged?

The first point to make is that Romans 3 is an argument directed against the Jew: “what advantage has the Jew… if our unrighteous serves to show… are we Jews any better off… whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law… what becomes of our boasting?” Yes, the Greeks were under sin, and God would judge the Greek world—no Jew would dispute that. But if God was going to hold the “world” accountable, he must first address the sinfulness of those to whom the Law spoke directly (3:19).

So Israel had to recognize that as a people they also faced the wrath of God, a central element in which, as it turned out, would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, and events through to the Bar Kochba revolt. The thrust of the quotations from scripture in 3:10-18 is not “all people are sinful” but “Israel is no less sinful than the Gentiles”. If you source the quotations, you will find that they all come from passages that speak of the unrighteousness of God’s people.

When we come to what is said about Jesus in 3:21-26, therefore, it reads in the first place as the solution to the sinfulness of Israel, which is why at the heart of it is atonement imagery. So the Jews could not boast—they were justified only by trust, apart from works of the Law (3:27-28). But this break from the Law meant that God could show himself also to be God of the Gentiles (29-30). Anyone could believe that God had made Jesus Lord.

So we are dealing in chapter 3 with the justification of God’s people, including, of course, those Gentiles who have attached themselves through baptism. (We have to keep in mind that at this stage the Gentiles were understood to have joined themselves to Israel’s story, they had become grafted on to the rich root of Israel’s fathers.) On what basis would they avoid destruction on the day of God’s wrath?

But this controversy is set against the backdrop of God’s judgment of the pagan world, which is explicitly a judgment according to what people had done, a judgment according to works (Rom. 2:12-15). Much of the old pagan system as described in Romans 1:18-32 would be overthrown; only what was righteous and honourable would survive. But as a precondition to this judgment much of the old Jewish system would also be destroyed; only those who trusted in the God who raised Jesus from the dead would survive to continue their corporate witness to the creator God.

If you enjoyed reading this post, why not share it with associates, friends, and loved ones?
Submitted by peter wilkinson on  Thu, 05/24/2012 - 11:17

I don’t think this works, Andrew. There is a constant shift of focus between Jew and Gentile in Romans 1-3, the passages you examine being no different. Eg.

Romans 1:18-32 — apparently Gentile, but Jews smuggled in as well in 1:22, 24 and 25 — with distinct echoes of OT sources.

Romans 2:1 — Jew; “therefore” also becomes contradictory if 1:18-32 exclusively addresses Gentiles

Romans 2:7 — sounds like Gentile

Romans 2:9-12 — Jew and Gentile

Romans 2:13 — Jew, but Gentile proselyte suggested

Romans 2:14-16 — Gentile  (picking up the previous comment)

Romans 2:17-25 - Jew

Romans 2: 26-27a - Gentile

Romans 2:27b-29 - Jew

Romans 2:13b (also picking up the implication of Romans 2:7) seems flatly to contradict Romans 3:20, unless Romans 2:14-15 is undesrtood as the new covenant working in the hearts of Gentiles — “written on their hearts” directly echoes Jeremiah 31:33. This kind of new covenant description of Jews in Romans 2:28-29, where the Spirit is introduced for the first time, makes best sense of the whole if Jews and Gentiles are seen as being described in remarakably close association.

Romans 3:8 — Jews, leading to Paul himself as a bearer of the new covenant.

Romans 3:9 — your interpretation of “better” as “better off than Gentiles” seems unusual, but it makes no difference: Paul sums up the whole train of thought with: “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin” — Romans 3:9

Romans 3:10-18 — there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for understanding this catena of verses to be directed exclusively at Jews, either from the OT sources, or more importantly from the way Paul uses them in the argument, which has consistently had Jew and Gentile in focus in their standing before God.

Romans 3:19 — not only Jews but “the whole world” is held accountable by the law, which does not justify/declare righteous, but brings consciousness of sin - 3:20.

This intimate similarity of the standing of Jew and Gentile before God now provides the contextual background for interpreting Romans 3:21-31, which describes the provision of justification for Jew and Gentile, because it is “apart from the law”, but testified by the Law and the Prophets (which for Paul, evidently have a worldwide significance).

Romans 3:22 — “All who believe” must mean Jew and Gentile, otherwise the next sentence — “There is no difference” does not make sense; it must mean “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in this argument”.

Romans 3:23 — “All have sinned” continues to mean Jew and Gentile; there is no reason to limit its meaning to “all Jews” in the light of the previous “All”.

Romans 3:24 — The particularly Jewish concepts — justification, grace, redemption (recalling the Exodus) now apply to Gentiles as well as Jews. This is subversive and revolutionary.

Romans 3:25 — Continuing the atonishing inclusion of benefits from their Jewish origins to a Gentile context, Jesus is the hilasterion (mercy seat) “through faith in his blood”. Temple language is welded to Exodus (Passover) language (but not, as it is sometimes said, Maccabean martyr language).

Romans 3:27 — Jewish “boasting”, not of moral superiority, but of exclusive possession of divine favour, is removed because of justification by faith “apart from observing the law” — 3:28, and precisely because this included the Gentiles. Otherwise the question and statement which follow makes no sense: “Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of the Gentiles too, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by that same faith” — Romans 3:29-30.

In other words, the interweaving pattern of Jews and Gentiles continues throughout chapter 3, and lays the foundation for looking at Abraham the Gentile in chapter 4. Chapter 4 would make no sense, in the flow of the argument, if Paul had been looking exclusively at Jews in Romans 3:21-31.

It’s for these reasons that Paul’s argument makes best sense if it is seen as universalising the provision of justification, through Israel to Gentiles. His assertion is that this is what the Law and Prophets were testifying would happen all along. It underlies the purpose of the formation of Israel as God’s people, and the enigmatic course of the OT narrative up to the coming of Jesus, and the narrative of Jesus himself, as exhibited in its whole-narrative and worldwide significance in Romans 3:21-31 and onwards.

Peter, I agree that Paul has in view both Jew and Greek throughout Romans 1-3. As I said in the post, the premise of his argument is that Israel’s God is about the judge the pagan world, but this means that Jews can no longer afford to be complacent—God will not judge the Greek-Roman world without first holding his own people accountable, because they should have been a light to the blind, etc. That straightforward logic is enough to account for the fact that the Jews are smuggled into his critique of pagan idolatry and its ethical consequences in 1:18-32.

So in chapters 2-3 the argument is primarily directed against the Jew, but judgment against the Greek is necessarily in the background, hence the impression of alternation that you point to in chapter 2.

I do not think the argument that the Gentiles mentioned in 2:13-16 are Christians works. It is the work of the Law that is written on their hearts, not the Law, as we would expect from Jer. 31:33; the work of the Law is inspired by “nature”, not by the Spirit of God; and we would not expect Christians, who are no longer under condemnation, to be accused or excused according to conscience on the day when “God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus”.

There is no contradiction between 2:13b and 3:20 because, according to my reading, the first passage has reference to God’s judgment of the pagan world, and the second has reference to the judgment of Israel, which, unlike the pagans, had the Law. 2:13b speaks of the justification of those who “do not have the law”; 3:20 speaks of those who have the Law and therefore have “knowledge of sin”.

Then, as I say, chapter 3 is addressed to Jews. Paul’s argument in 3:9-18 is that “we Jews” are no “better off” than the Gentiles—again it is an argument against Jewish presumption. The translation is the ESV. The verb is proechō, which means “to be in a better position, to have an advantage over, to be better off”. To support this particular argument against the Jews Paul quotes several Old Testament passages that speak of the sinfulness of Israel.

Yes, of course, the Greeks are also sinful, but that is not the point he is trying to make. For all their boasted elect status, the Jews have proved themselves to be as much enslaved to sin as the Gentiles; therefore, on the day of God’s wrath they will not be justified by works of the Law. All that the Law has done, in the end, is to reveal (for example, in the passages quoted in 3:10-18) that they are sinful and subject to judgment.

Therefore, Paul argues in 3:21-26, God has demonstrated his righteousness by acting outside the Law the redeem his people through the death of Jesus. Yes, this has implications for Gentiles, but that comes in right at the end of his argument. Because he has acted to save his people apart from the Law, Gentiles also get to participate. But it is a fundamental mistake to read the preceding argument through the lens of that addendum.