Does Romans 2:6-7 Teach That We Are Justified By Faith And Works? (Part 1 Of 2)

• Discussion:

           -Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers wrote an article interacting with claims made by Ron Rhodes on Romans 2:6-7. He argues that passages such as Romans 3:28 do not so much condemn the idea of meritorious works in obtaining a righteous standing before God, but specifically works of the Mosaic Law, such as circumcision. Before answering any of Broussard's claims, it is necessary to provide some background information as to what kind of interpretation of Paul's words that he relies on to make his case.

           Many apologists for Rome have resorted to a liberal interpretation of Pauline texts concerning justification by faith. The traditional understanding of the apostle's teaching is that he rejects good works in general as being required besides faith for our justification before God. This "new" perspective on the meaning of works and works of the law in Paul was not known by most people until former canon theologian of Westminster Abbey now turned Anglican Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright published a book on the subject titled What St. Paul Really Said.

           Continuing on, this school of thought maintains that the Apostle Paul did not argue against depending on the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law for getting right with God. Rather, he only stood in opposition to observing the dietary and ceremonial parts of the Law for acquiring personal righteousness. In other words, it is argued by proponents of the new perspective on Paul that he opposed circumcision, heeding to food laws, and the observance of Jewish Sabbaths when defending his teaching of justification by faith. Thus, expressions like "works" and "works of the law" in the Pauline epistles have been narrowed to Jewish ethnic badges or the ceremonial law.

          The most obvious implication of all this, if true, would be that traditional churches have developed their soteriology on outdated interpretations of Scripture advanced by the Protestant Reformers and others of ages past. Advocates of this theology assert that Paul's use of the phrase "works of the Law" should be interpreted through a different lens than usual to conclude that he was merely opposing boundary-markers. They maintain that the Judaism of Paul's time in general was not legalistic. Consequently, Paul's focus is shifted from soteriological concerns to ecclesiastical ones.

          "Romans 2:6-7 refers to good works that belong to the moral sphere. The “works” that Paul speaks of in Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:5 refer to works that belonged to the Law of Moses, the keeping of which was necessary for Jews (circumcision, kosher laws, ritual washings, precepts governing the offering of sacrifices, etc.)."

           A colossal problem for the above argument is Romans 3:19-20. The Law is treated as something that the entire world is subjugated to. Man is silenced before God as he stands condemned for his sins  Thus, the Apostle Paul gives the Law and "works of the Law" a universal application.

            In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul uses the term "Law" in a sense broader than boundary markers. In discussing their application, Paul pinpoints moral precepts as the "Law." That destroys the distinction that some try to make between "works" and "works of the Law."

            In Galatians 5:1-3, circumcision was not part of the "moral sphere" of the Law, yet Paul said that those who seek after that ritual must obey it perfectly. That point blows the distinction made between "works" and "works of the Law" out of the water.

           "The two verses immediately following Romans 3:28 bear this out. Right after juxtaposing the standards of faith and “works of law,” Paul writes in verse twenty-nine, “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one.” This is the premise that leads Paul to the conclusion in the next verse that God will “justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.” If Paul is juxtaposing faith and circumcision here in verse thirty, then we can conclude that circumcision is the kind of thing he has in mind when he juxtaposes faith with “works of law” in verse twenty-eight."

           Paul places faith and circumcision side by side for contrasting effect. It would be wrong to interpret "works of the Law" as referring exclusively to the ceremonial law. Both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. "circumcision" and "uncircumcision") are justified by the same means: faith apart from works of merit. That is the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans.