For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13).
But when he reaches chapter 3, Paul says the opposite,
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).
Furthermore, Paul brings in the element of faith in the question of justification and draws the following conclusion.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28).
Lest the readers might think that faith alone is enough, that there is no need to perform the deeds of the Law, making the Law useless, Paul states his stance clearly that he supports the law.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Romans 3:31).
But he did not give any reasons, such as not keeping the law would bring chaos and instability in the society, or that the law enshrines moral values etc. Perhaps it was unnecessary to explain because at the back of his mind as well as his readers' mind, it had been taken for granted that not keeping the Law would bring down the wrath of God!
Any how, this position agrees with the teaching in Matthew, namely that Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Now, how do we harmonize these two seemingly contradictory positions towards the Law, namely that the doers of the law shall be justified and that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law?
First of all, let us take a look at a crucial word in the Greek original.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.
Counted justified by faith a man (without, besides) the deeds of the law. (Literal translation of Romans 3:28).
Click on the link to check the meaning, it is found that we can choose between without and besides for the Greek word χωρὶς. How different the theology would be! Had translators throughout the ages chosen "besides", there would not have been any contradiction. Besides keeping the law, man should do so with faith. Both doing and believing are needed for justification.
Don't blame Martin Luther for choosing "without" in order to uphold his theology of sola fide. The Vulgate (Latin translation) also chooses the word "sine" which means "without" in Latin. With so much authority behind, it is difficult to side with a "besides" translation. Then, what more can we say? Perhaps we should turn our look at the "doers of the Law".
In Romans 2, Paul was contrasting the Jews with the Gentiles. The Jews had heard the Torah. They were chastened by God for not keeping it. The Gentiles had not heard the Torah. Yet, they followed their conscience and had done what God approved. They received their glory. Paul argues that doing the law, not just hearing the law, justifies a man. Between hearing the Torah and doing the Torah, of course justification comes from doing. This teaching agrees with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7. Jesus uses the parable of building a house on a rock vs building a house on sand to show the importance of doing the teachings of the gospel (Matthew 7:24-27).
So far in the Romans, faith has not yet entered the picture. Jesus had not appeared on the scene to shed his blood for our propitiation. There was nothing for people to put their faith in (Romans 3:24-25). Now, Paul takes the next step. He contrasts doing with believing and work with faith. Between them, Paul argues that faith (in Jesus), not the performing deeds of the Torah, justifies. I think Paul said this in the context of polemic against Judaism. In short,
- Between hearing the Torah and doing the deeds of the Torah, doing justifies.
- Between doing the deeds of Torah and faith in Jesus, faith justifies.
- Though faith justifies, the Law is still indispensable.
No comments:
Post a Comment