Justin->The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

In his Gospel, John always seems to be arrogant when he refers to himself as “the Disciple whom Jesus loved;”  As if it is an official title for him.  Is he saying the other disciples are not loved like he is?     On the other hand, this seems fitting for the Author who is obsessed with love.  In one of his epistles he writes, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1Jo 4:10).”   Could it be the way he talks about himself is the way we should all talk about ourselves.  Maybe it is best if we all had this sanctified boasting where we find our very being  hidden in the immense love of Jesus.

Romans 2: CryptoJustification


Considering Paul’s use of diatribe, what is Paul arguing in Romans 2?  Clearly he is arguing against a Jewish fleshy supremacy over gentiles.  According to Paul, being a circumcised Jew is not anymore beneficial  before God then a gentile.  He deconstructs his Jewish opponent’s arrogant stance in several ways.  Firstly, in 2:1-5 Paul says that their prideful stance makes them oblivious to their need for God’s mercy.  Secondly, in vv. 6-11 Paul appeals to the impartiality of God the judge; He gives to each person his due, to the Jew first and also the Greek.  The Jew receives no special benefit before the throne of God.  Thirdly, he exposes their hypocrisy in vv. 17-24.  Though they have been given the law and the wisdom of God they still do not obey their own teachings.  They say don’t steal yet they steal and etc.  Lastly, Paul deals with works and covenant identity.  This is probably the most controversial aspect in this chapter of Romans so I will deal with it with more care.

In v. 13, Paul writes, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”  This verse alone seems contradictory to Grace.  How can anything man does justify him before God, especially in light of the fact that Paul has already condemned the deeds of the gentiles and exposed the judgmental hypocrisy of the Jews?  Who can do the works necessary to be justified before God?  It is at this time that we need to take a closer look at the text.

In v. 12-16 Paul is contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles.  In v. 14 he writes, “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, do what the law requires, they are law to themselves.”  Paul reiterating the fact that God is impartial. The Jews who have the law but do not obey it will be condemned.  The Gentiles who do not have the law but do the deeds of the law will be judged worthy.  The problem is what gentiles actually do the deeds of the law?  It is certainly not the idol worshipping Gentiles from Romans 1.

I believe the solution is to be found in Paul’s understanding of redemptive history and eschatology.  Paul has eschatological categories in mind in Romans 2.  He is thinking of the future judgment of God as demonstrated by his use of the phrase “on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.”43 He also writes in vs. 16, “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”  Paul is clearly working with an eschatological framework.

This is important to consider when answering the aforementioned question, “what Gentiles are the doers of the law?”  According to v. 15, they are the ones who “show that the work of the law is written on their hearts…”  Paul is alluding here to Jeremiah 31:33, “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” 44 The main difference between these Gentiles and both Jews and Pagan Gentiles is that they are in the New Covenant.  It is those who belong to the New Covenant that have the law written on their hearts and obey God.  It is not an obedience of the outward flesh but an inward change of the heart that bears the fruit of good works.  The Jews have the law in letter but Gentile Christians have it in their heart.45 It is the inward heart that God judges.

This is made clear in v. 16, “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” According to Paul’s gospel, God judges the secrets (κρυπτα) of men.   What are these “secrets of men” that God will judge?  Paul makes this clear in vv. 25-29.  Here Paul is discussing the relationship of covenant identity (i.e. circumcision) with obedience of the law.  Verses 28-29 are very significant when he states, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one secretly (κρυπτω), and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.”  The “secrets of men” that God judges are whether or not people are inwardly Jews. God’s judgment is not about ethnicity but it is about the work of the Spirit which creates a new covenant identity.  This covenant identity entails bearing good fruit.  Outside of this new covenant community it is impossible to bear the fruit of God.  Therefore, both Pagans and Jews are equally condemned outside of Christ.  Circumcision of the flesh is no benefit.

What are the implications of this understanding of Romans 2?  Firstly, justification (in this instance) is considered forensic in nature, meaning that it is God declaring his people righteous.  Secondly, works are a result of our covenant status (i.e. circumcised heart) and not the vice versa.  We do not work our way into the covenant but we are recreated into the New Covenant people through the Holy Spirit.  The New Covenant was created because of the grace of God.  Lastly, this justification happens in the future when “God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”  In the Day of Judgment, God will declare us righteous based on the ontological renewal He has worked in us through the Spirit of Christ.46

It is important to remember that Romans 2 is not a comprehensive nor systematic understanding of justification.  Rather, Paul is framing justification in a specific way in order to humble his fictitious Jewish opponent.  The status of the New Covenant members is not based on ethnicity but on the preeminent grace of God who circumcises hearts in Christ.  As we will see he continues this argument into the next chapters of Romans as he brings up how the atonement also justifies those who have faith.  We have to keep our understanding of Romans within a polemical framework.

Romans2: Diatribe called Quest

The Epistle to the Romans is Art!  It is many things: a letter, pastoral care, deep theological truths, Apostolic witness, God’s revealing love…; yet, this content is all weaved together into a masterful piece of literature.  God has given His beautiful Word to the Church, through the medium of beautiful whispers.

Paul,a master rhetorician, uses many tools when composing Romans; one of these is Diatribe.  Diatribe is a rhetorical technique where one creates a dialog with with a fictitious opponent. In this dialog, there is a back and forth questioning between the two people.  This rhetorical technique is advantageous because it highlights the strengths of one person’s views and the weakness of the others.

This is significant because Paul begins using this technique in Romans 2.1-4 when he states,

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man–you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself–that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
(Rom 2:1-4)

As we can see, Paul goes on the offensive as he attacks his opponent(s); but, who is his opposition?  Are they legalistic Christians or Pagans?  I think Paul gives us some clues.  Firstly, he attacks his opponent by vocatively addressing him as “O man” (ἄνθρωπε).  In my opinion, he ties his opponent to the greater HUMANity that has been fallen since the beginning.  This fallen humanity is specifically mentioned in Romans 1.18-32.

Although Paul’s opponent is certainly part of the greater humanity, I do think he has something more specific in mind.  In 2.17 he states, “What about you? You call yourself a Jew; you depend on the Law and boast about God…”   His “adversary” is a Jew.  This point is pertinent to one trying to understand Paul’s presentation of the Gospel in Romans.  The Gospel that he is giving to the Gentile Roman church (1.13) is not a situationless truth; rather, it is a polemic against a contemporary Judaic world view.  The question being answered in Romans is not, “what is the gospel?”  Instead, the question is “how does Paul’s gospel trump the Judaic belief system?”

With this in mind, I hope to show how Paul uses Diatribe to demonstate the importance of justification.

Romans Two in Contradiction

Romans 2 follows 1:18-32, where Paul demonstrates how the gentiles are under the wrath of God because His natural revelation holds them accountable. It also comes before 3:1-20, where Paul condemns the Jews as being equally (if not more) sinful under the law. He concludes this humbling argument in 3:19-20 when he states, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” While Paul demonstrates that the whole world is under condemnation and that the works of the law will justify no one, it is very interesting that Paul says in 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified before God.” Those who are doers of the law are justified, yet by the works of the law no flesh will be justified. Has Paul ever heard of the Law on Non-Contradiction?! Ahead, I hope to resolve this apparent contradiction in light of Paul’s rhetorical argument.

Paul and Justification

After walking in the shadow of the Reformed tradition and the larger Ecclesial heritage, I will now attempt to probe the doctrine of justification as presented by the Apostle Paul. This is quite a pretentious endeavor because to do real justice this subject I would have to produce a lengthy manuscript dealing the entire Pauline corpus. Sadly, this would take up too much time and it is a stretch considering my abilities. Instead, I will examine how justification by faith interacts with works in Romans 2 and 3. Needless to say, this will hardly be comprehensive.

By the way, I would love feed back from anybody reading these next posts.

Calvin in the Sun


Calvin held justification in high regard as well. He called it “main hinge on which religion turns.”[1] He essentially agrees with Luther on the idea of justification being legal in nature. He states, “He is said to be justified in Gods sight who is both reckoned righteous in God’s judgment and has been accepted on account of his righteousness.” Furthermore he writes, “we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”[2] According to Calvin, our justification is only by Christ’s death that we a have the forgiveness of sins and acceptance by God. Again, Calvin strongly concurs with Luther on this point.

Surprisingly though, the relationship between justification and sanctification is remarkably different for Calvin and Luther. Where Luther sees a logical priority between justification and sanctification, Calvin sees them simultaneously applied to the believer by union with Christ. Where Luther uses the analogy of a doctor or marriage, Calvin uses the analogy of the sun. He notes that the sun sheds its rays upon the earth and these rays give both heat and light. The light does not give heat and the heat does not give light yet they are from an inseparable in source.[3] For him, this is the perfect analogy because in union with Christ believers receive both justification and sanctification but they do not overlap. He beautifully remarks about the “double grace” that we receive by faith, “that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.”[4] Anthony Lane summarizes this concept of Calvin well, calling it “double justification.” By Christ’s death and resurrection God is satisfied but by Christ’s Spirit in the believer God is pleased.[5] For Calvin, our works matter before God; they are pleasing. It also means that there is a correlation between our works and our justification. A true Christian who is justified by the blood of Christ will be bear the fruit of sanctification. As I will discuss in a later post, I think this is a reason why Calvin was more sympathetic towards the contemporary Catholic views.

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.1.

[2] Ibid, 3.11.2.

[3] Ibid, 3.11.6

[4] Ibid, 3.11.1

[5] Anthony N.S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue (London: T&T Clark, 2002), pgs. 33-36.

Reformation, Luther, Justification

Luther was a Dirty Hesher

Luther was a Dirty Hesher

In the next couple post, I will examine the two great giants of the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564). There is much in between them and Augustine to ponder, such as how Via Moderna shifted the focus of justification from state to status.[1] But, it was these two men that had that had the biggest affect on the Reformed doctrine of justification. This is why it is important to have at least a basic understanding of how they viewed this subject.  Right now,  I will specifically explain Luther’s view on the matter.

To understand Luther’s view of justification, one has to realize that his view grew and changed through out his life. Carl Trueman believes that the most significant changes happened from 1515 until 1520. He comments on how Luther’s first major formulation of justification can be seen in his commentary on Romans 4:7.[2] Here Luther likens justification to a doctor pronouncing an ill patient healthy based on the fact that he, the doctor, is capable of restoring that man to health. Is the patient healthy at that moment? No, but he is declared healthy because in the future he will be in that state because of the sure capability of the doctor. Likewise, Christ can declare us currently justified based on the fact that he can and will cause us to be justifiable. Our status changes because of faithfulness of the good doctor. It is interesting; in Luther’s early view there is a mix of both status and state with in an eschatological rubric. Our status is declared right with God based on Christ’s capability to make us right in the future.

This view dramatically changed in the next five years of his life as his theological view points matured. For Luther, status and state became bifurcated under two different kinds of righteousness. This can be seen in his sermon Two Kinds of Righteousness, where he distinguishes between alien righteousness and proper righteousness. Alien righteousness is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed to us when we have faith in Him. He writes that, “this righteousness is primary; it is the basis, the cause, the source of all our own actual righteousness. For this is the righteousness given in place of the original righteousness lost in Adam. It accomplishes the same as that original righteousness would have accomplished; rather, it accomplishes more.”[3] Just as Adam’s sin destroyed humanities status before God, so did Christ’s life and death give us a new status before Him. The second righteousness, that is proper righteousness, is a product of the alien righteousness. When a person experiences the first one then he is transformed and seeks to crucify the flesh, love his neighbor, and most importantly love God. It doesn’t accomplish anything before God but it accomplishes much before man.

For these two forms of righteousness he uses the analogy of marriage. In the marriage relationship, which Jesus has with the Church, they share all things. The Church receives His righteousness and He has taken her sin. Furthermore, Luther writes, “Through the righteousness of the first arises the voice of the bridegroom who says to the soul, ‘I am yours,’ but through the voice of the second comes the voice of the bride who says, ‘I am yours.’ Then the marriage is consummated…. Then the soul no longer seeks to righteous in and for itself, but it has Christ as its righteousness and therefore only seeks the welfare of others.”[4] For Luther, justification is entirely received from the work and person of Christ; sanctification is reactionary and is the product of being loved by Christ.

As we can see, Luther’s understanding of justification radically shifted within a short period of time.  At first, he believed justification to be a current declaration of ‘righteous’ based on Christ’s ability to make a person so.   Then, he shifts to a purely external form of righteousness based on union with Christ.  This righteousness has a freeing affect, allowing a person to love his neighbor without selfishness.

[1] Carl Trueman notes how voluntarism changed problem of sin from ontology to the relationship between God and Man. Hence the focus on status. Carl Trueman, edited by Bruce L. McCormack, “Simul Peccator et Justus”, Justification in Perspective, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 81.

[2] Carl Trueman, Ibid., 75.

[3] Rev. Martin Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness, paragraph 3.

[4] Ibid, paragraph 9.