Who is I in Romans 7?

No, that’s not a case of bad grammar. I’m talking about the passage in Romans 7:7-24 in which Paul takes on the first person “I” to speak of the struggle against sin.  This post is adapted from a discussion I’ve been having on the RTS student forum.  I’ve tried to make it readable as a single post, but it might be slightly disjointed at first, and there may be some redundancies.  I will try to revise in the future, expanding and trimming where needed.

My reading of Romans 7 in particular and of Romans in general is indebted to some key observations of A. Andrew Das, author of Solving the Romans Debate.  His book is less about Romans 7 specifically, though one chapter includes a fairly lengthy exegesis of that section. The thesis of the book in general is that Romans was written primarily to a pretty homogeneous Gentile church in Rome. I think Das’s arguments are very compelling, if not totally conclusive. While this thesis colors his reading of Romans 7, I don’t think the reading he presents relies entirely on it.

I will be seeking to demonstrate here that Paul’s use of the first person is prosopopoeia (speech in character) from the perspective of an preregenerate person, and specifically a Gentile god-fearer, though the application of the passage is certainly broader.

We start with how Paul uses language in Romans in general when differentiating Jews and Gentiles, particularly in their relation to the Law. He generally speaks of Jews as being “under the law” and Gentiles as being “apart from the law.” Think Romans 2:12-14 when he is arguing that both Jew and Gentile stand equally condemned before God:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law . . . For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

This is, in fact, the first time Paul refers to the “law” in the book. Again, in Romans 3:21-22,

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction [between Jew or Gentile see Romans 3:29-30].”

So just as there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile as to who are guilty before God, there is also no distinction as to how they are saved (i.e. through faith in Jesus Christ).  With these passages as basis we should move forward with the understanding that “apart from the law”=Gentile and “under the law”=Jew.  Keep this in mind because it’s important.

In Romans 4 Paul shows that Abraham received the promise before the law (i.e. apart from the law), and so was like a righteous Gentile before his coming under the law through circumcision, so that it is clear that justification is apart from the law.

Romans 5 speaks of the period from Adam to Moses as “before the law was given,” again very much like a Gentile state, not being “under the law,” but still in sin and standing condemned. I also think Paul in Romans 5 is using the word “imputation” in a very different way from how we usually think of it (not that this invalidates the doctrine of imputation).  With this general context in mind, then we come to Romans 7:7-10.

For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

Now we would look at two particular issues in the section: the classical rhetorical device of prosopopoeia and Paul’s use of “Spirit” and “flesh.”

First prosopopoeia: “Speech in Character.” Das and Stanley Stowers observe that the “Oh wretched man” section in particular bears a striking resemblance to the classical device of “speech in character.” In fact, Paul is using strikingly similar language to Greek (Gentile) tragedies. Compare these passages:

Eurepides’ Medea:

“Ah, me! a wretched suffering woman I! O would that I could die!”

“Oh, oh! Would that Heaven’s levin bolt would cleave this head in twain! What gain is life to me? Woe, woe is me! O, to die and win release, quitting this loathed existence!”

“This one brief day forget thy children dear, and after that lament; for though thou wilt slay them yet they were thy darlings still, and I am a lady of sorrows.”

Seneca’s Medea:

“Why, soul, dost hesitate? Why are my cheeks wet with tears? Why do anger and love now hither, now thither draw my changeful heart? A double tide tosses me, uncertain of my course; as when rushing winds wage mad warfare, and from both sides conflicting floods lash the seas and the fluctuating waters boil, even so is my heart tossed. Anger puts love to flight, and love, anger. O wrath, yield thee to love.”

“Why dost thou delay now, O soul? Why hesitate, though thou canst do it? Now has my wrath died within me. I am sorry for my act, ashamed.”

“What, wretched woman, have I done? wretched, say I? Though I repent, yet have I done it!”

Romans 7

“For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate . . . So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

“For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.”

“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

“Wretched man that I am!” is a despairing cry of a distinctly Gentile tone, as is the language Paul uses for the dual wills dilemma.  A resident of the city of Rome (or any other Greco-Roman city) would have immediately connected Paul’s words with similar passages from their contemporary arts. This is the language of theater, their pop culture. The allusion would be as apparent to them as it would be to us if someone wrote the words “there is no spoon.”

Prosopopoeia was one of the standard and widely used rhetorical devices of Paul’s day, in which the speaker would “take on” the character of a third person using first person language.  The effect would be one of a Roman prosecutor speaking in the first person (using “I”) but from the perspective of a murdered victim. Together with the kind of language Paul uses in Romans 7 (close in character to the Greek tragedy), I think this is good indication that he is in fact employing this commonplace rhetorical device.

The actual content and message of text strongly suggests this as well with the language used to describe “I”: “I am of the flesh, sold under sin,” “captive to the law of sin,” etc. In short, there is no Spirit-empowering work described in the life of “I” in Romans 7:8-24. It’s all flesh. Only the law is described as “spiritual.”

This lends itself strongly to the reading of Paul speaking from the point of view of an unregenerate person. By itself the prosopopoeia theory might be interesting, but we need to be careful of how we use extra-biblical sources to interpret. The Scripture trumps all tertiary sources. So for me, the real clincher is how Paul speaks of the “Spirit” in contrast to the “flesh” in chapters 7 and 8.

7:5 “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.”
7:6 “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”

7:14 (prosopopoeia?) “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.”
7:18 “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.”
7:24 “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”
8:3-4 “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
8:6 “For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.”
8:7 “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”
8:8-9 “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

The state of the “I” in Romans 7 is very different from that of the believer described in Romans 8. I think it is a deliberate contrast by Paul. In Romans 7 “I” is still a slave to sin (sold under sin), and “of the flesh.” It is the law that is “spiritual,” but “I” cannot perform it.

In Romans 8, Paul tells his readers that they are no longer of the flesh, but of the Spirit, and as they walk by the Spirit the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in them (i.e. in us).

That is all very well and interesting, but what indication do Paul’s readers have that we are supposed to understand this section as prosopopoeia?  Isn’t the autobiographical sense the most natural reading of the pronoun “I”?  And if we do grant the rhetorical device, why should we think Paul is speaking from the point of view of a Gentile?  Why not a Jew?

For this, we go back to that phrase, “apart from the law.”  Romans 7:8-9 is the key to understanding this section as “speech in character” from the perspective of a Gentile proselyte who is trying to come “under” the Law of Moses. As we noted earlier, Paul always speaks of Gentiles as being “apart from the law” in their pagan existence and of Jews as being “under the law.” In v.8 and 9 Paul says that “apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law.” I believe that when we read this, we must remember how Paul has used this phrase previously in the epistle and understand that he is speaking from the perspective of a Gentile. If we take “apart from the law” to mean the same thing as he’s meant by it previously and even in other epistles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:20-21), Paul might just as well have said, “I was once alive as an ignorant  pagan Gentile.”

If we do not take it this way, then we have to explain what Paul means by saying that he was once “apart from the law.” When is a Jew (such as Paul) ever apart from the law? He is born under it and made a participant of it through his circumcision.¹  This is a point that Paul has made repeatedly in Romans—that Jews being under the law are condemned by it. We must also then explain how his use of being “apart from the law” in a personal sense in Romans 7 relates at all to how he has used the phrase previously to distinguish Gentiles from Jews.  And finally, we must wonder how a Gentile readership used to seeing prosopopoeia in everyday use would have been expected to understand that what Paul was saying was not to be taken as speech in character! ²

So, I believe this all strongly favors the reading of Romans 7:7-24 as Paul’s impersonation of one who was ignorant of the law (as in the case of a total pagan Gentile), who comes to the law and realizes that it is good and right and just . . . but then discovers to his horror that he has no power to keep it. This might be before, perhaps, he has even heard of Jesus Christ or whether there even is a Holy Spirit (as in the case John’s disciples in Acts 19:2). They might not even understand why they are so powerless to do good.

In other words, this would describe an aspect of total depravity (that of total inability apart from the work of the Spirit), but it would describe someone that God is already working in to bring them to a realization of their need for Christ. This is someone who is struggling under the reigning power of sin. It would not describe those who are conscious enemies of God.

We see this kind of thing today. There are those who are the self-conscious enemies of God, who hate him and all he commands (think the New Atheists). And then there are those who want to do what is right, perhaps even believe there is a God, but have suddenly come to the realization that no matter how they try, they constantly sin (e.g. someone relying on his own works to merit himself salvation, and suddenly realizes his works fall far short of God’s righteous standard).

In this context Paul is using “flesh” exclusively to refer to someone before conversion, since he tells us that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Flesh and Spirit are diametrically opposed conditions under which a person might be. In Romans 8:9 Paul makes a sweeping statement that refers to all believers:

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

No one who belongs to Christ is without the Spirit, and all who have the Spirit are free. And I think that Romans 7 has to be understood in light of that reality.

In light of the above, it is very difficult to fathom Paul speaking of a redeemed existence as being “sold under sin.” This is language of slavery, and if we read Romans 8, then we should understand those in Christ to be freed from the bondage of sin.

I am certainly not a “perfectionist” in the sense that I think that once you’re saved you can no longer sin. Christians are no longer under the reign of sin and the flesh because we have a new Lord, Jesus Christ, and a Spirit that has set us free. But the temptation to sin and the “desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16) are still present in us.

So there certainly is a war between Spirit and flesh in the believer. But it isn’t characterized by a despairing “Oh wretched man I am!” but rather by the victorious “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”

Paul repeatedly reminds us that we are “in Christ” and that we “live by the Spirit” in order to exhort us to continue to walk by the Spirit. The reminder of the “deeds of the flesh” in Galatians is so that we will remember what we are saved from and not do the deeds that characterize one who still lives under that reign. So there is a certain distinction between being “in” the flesh and the “works” of the flesh. Paul’s repeated line of exhortation appears to be that because we are no longer “in” the flesh, therefore we ought not to do the “works” of the flesh.

Colossians 3:7 makes similar statements: “In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.” Paul presumes that those who are in Christ are no longer living in the flesh, and therefore they ought not to walk in the flesh.

Galatians 5:16 likewise shows that Spirit and flesh are diametrically opposed. “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” And again, “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That is, those who persist in such works are not saved.

Romans 7, I believe, is the voice of one who has realized this, but sees no way out, so to speak.  So, Paul shows that one the way to freedom in Romans 8.

Did Paul Teach the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?

This is an unavoidable question from my last couple posts on Paul and Romans. Does the apostle Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation?  One might come to the conclusion that I don’t think he does, based on my post on “Perishing Apart from the Law.” And one would be correct.  Sort of.  It’s not so clear-cut as that, since the question is actually asking two things.  So let me lay out clearly what I think, at least at this point.

First, it’s necessary to define the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  Here’s how I would define it:

A sinner is justified by God, not because of any merit of his own that might be brought to judgment as righteousness, but only for the sake of the righteousness of Jesus Christ laid to the sinner’s account.  God, as the just judge, when he looks upon a redeemed and believing sinner, sees instead the righteousness of Christ and on that grounds alone justifies.

I think that is a satisfactory definition.  If anyone has anything to add to it, feel free to comment.

So, to our question—or actually, questions, which might have very different answers:

• Does Paul teach this doctrine?
• Does Paul have this doctrine in mind when he uses the word “impute”?

I must answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second.  I believe Paul does teach that Christ’s work of righteousness stands in place of our own before God, since we have nothing of our own to offer.  However, I think Paul is talking about something else, something more general when he talks about imputation, especially in Romans 5.  So there is “imputation” in the Reformed sense, and there is “imputation” in the Pauline sense, which I don’t believe are quite the same thing, but nevertheless do not exclude each other.

First the Pauline.  In Romans 5:13 Paul says that sin is not imputed where there is no law.  This cannot be in reference either to the accounting of Adam’s sin to fallen mankind, nor to the accounting of Christ’s righteousness to justified man.  It would render the Reformed doctrine nonsensical if there were an entire stretch of generations to which imputation in the Reformed sense does not apply (to say nothing of its implications for the Gentiles, who, Paul appears to be arguing, are under the same paradigm as those generations between Adam and Moses).  Therefore, it must be the imputation of man’s sin to his own account.  I believe this is also the sense in which Psalm 32:1-2 (quoted in Romans 4:7-8) speaks.

For Paul, imputation is not necessarily a transfer of sin or righteousness from one account to the other.  Rather, imputation is the accounting itself of the thing, regardless of where it originally came from.  If your sin is imputed to you, then God holds you especially accountable for what you’ve done.  You are counted as a transgressor.  This is what Paul means when he says that sin is not imputed where there is no law.  Yes, sin persisted during this period, and was strong enough to maintain the associated reign of death.  But sin was not imputed because there was no transgression of stated commandments.¹

In Romans 5:20, the law comes in through Moses so that transgression and resulting guilt might be increased.  That is, with the coming of the law, sin is then imputed, thereby making the sinner accountable under the law.  This is the same situation as the Gentile who was once perishing apart from the law and then learns of the law as a God-fearer (which is, by the way, what I believe Romans 7 is describing).

Similarly, when Paul says in Romans 4:3 that “Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness,” we must not insist that “it” refers to the alien righteousness of Christ transferred to Abraham’s account, for the idea is nowhere found in the context.  Rather the picture we get is as if Abraham had faith (given by God through the work of the Spirit) and in lieu of any deeds by which he might otherwise be declared righteous—indeed, Paul points out, before the law of circumcision had even been given that he might keep it—God says, “I’ll take that; consider yourself justified.”

By the means of  faith then, Abraham apprehended God’s promises to him and to his seed, just as we receive the promises of God through a true and living faith in Jesus.  As with Abraham, this faith itself is credited to us by God as righteousness, apart from any works of the law.  This is what I believe Paul is talking about when he talks about imputation.

So what about imputation in the Reformed doctrinal sense?  Does Paul teach that we are justified on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness alone?  He certainly does.  God’s declaration of righteousness on us is a free gift that was attained by Christ’s work alone.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:16-18

Here we see Christ’s “act of righteousness” is what leads to our justification.  In a Reformed theological sense, we might say that it is imputed to us.  As a side, I must insist that Romans 5:18 is speaking of a single act that attains justification, otherwise it destroys the parallel to Adam’s one trespass.  It is one act of righteousness that makes the whole thing possible.  Imputation of Christ’s life-work not explicitly found here.

What was this single righteous act?  Paul has already told us in Romans 5:8-9.

. . . but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

We are justified by Christ’s blood.  This does not necessarily obliterate the idea of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, but I would say Paul makes no such distinction.  Justification is more organic than taking a log entry from one roll and arbitrarily transferring it to another in order to settle the books.  The key is that we are placed “in Christ.”  For Romans 4-7 is Paul’s entire argument to bring us to one conclusion:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1

This is the grounds for our justification.  For if we are in Christ, then all that he is has become ours.  That is our imputation.  When we by faith receive Christ, God regards all that is Christ’s as ours, for we are in him.  How are we placed in him?  Romans 6 gives us this answer: by baptism, and all that it represents.

Whether Romans 6 is speaking of water baptism, or only of “spirit baptism,” or both, is a topic for another discussion, but whichever it is speaking of, this baptism is the means by which we are placed in Christ, by which we receive his righteousness to our account, and are therefore judged righteous before God.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:3-11

Does this render the Reformed doctrine of imputation “redundant” with union with Christ?  Not at all.  Rather, with this understanding, imputation and forensic justification are the inevitable result of our vital union with Christ and his covenant headship.  That is, union and imputation are related but distinct concepts.

It was Jonathan Edwards who said:

“The atonement worked by Jesus’ life and death is achieved by such a community of him and us that if the Father loves the Son, he must love us also.” ²

We might take this thought and apply it just as legitimately to forensic justification.  If we are found “in Christ,” as Paul says, then because of that union, if the Father regards the Son as righteous, then He must justify us also.

. . . for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:26-27

If we are united to Christ his righteousness must appear on our account because his account and ours are the same account.

So does Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation?  Yes.  He just doesn’t call it that.

What Luther (et al.) Didn’t Know

When Luther and many of the Reformers read Galatians, they naturally saw it in the light of their contemporary situation.  The Roman Catholic Church was in effect perpetuating a practical doctrine of works righteousness.  Do this, and have assurance of salvation.  Pay your indulgences, and shave years off your time in Purgatory.¹

So when the Reformers read Galatians and how a man is justified through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than by “works of the law,” this naturally seemed to be speaking directly to the abuses of the church in their day.  Is it a legitimate application of Galatians?  Certainly!  Paul’s epistle does indeed condemn any doctrine that would claim grounds for justification other than faith in Jesus Christ.

But another question is this: was that the situation of Paul’s day?  Was Paul dealing with 1st century Jews who were attempting to earn (merit) their way to heaven through good works?  I think not.  Reading Paul with the assumption that he was dealing with the same abuses in his day as the Reformers were in the 15th century led Luther and others, and still leads many, to stumble over other passages, such as the book of James.

Some recent discoveries in the last century shed new light on the 1st century Jewish situation and their general attitude toward the Law and justification.  The one I want to focus on here is a Jewish hymn from the “Community Rule” scroll (1QS11) found at Qumran in 1949.  This was one of the first discoveries of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.

First some background.  The Qumran community is thought by most to have been a community of Essene Jews.  Of all the Jewish sects, the Essenes were the most conservative.  They separated themselves from the rest of the world in order to remain pure, they abstained from sexual relations, they kept strict community rules that even the Pharisees would have balked at, they had complex systems of ritual purification, and they did not recognize the Hellenized Temple cult because they considered it corrupt.

They were the strictest of the strict in the 1st century Jewish world and had harsh penalties for violations.  If anyone would espouse a doctrine of justification by works, it would be them.²  So if we read their writings, we would expect to get merit x10.  Earn your way straight into the Kingdom (or else)!

Instead, in one marvelous example of 1st century Jewish hymnody, we get this:

As for me,
my justification is with God.
in His hand are the perfection of my way
and the uprightness of my heart.
He will wipe out my transgression
through his righteousness.

For my light has sprung
from the source of His knowledge;
my eyes have beheld his marvelous deeds,
and the light of my heart, the mystery to come.
He that is everlasting
is the support of my right hand;
the way of my steps is over stout rock
which nothing shall shake;
for the rock of my steps is the truth of God
and His might is the support of my right hand.

From the source of his righteousness
is my justification,
and from His marvellous mysteries
is the light in my heart.
. . .

My iniquities, rebellions, and sins,
together with the perversity of my heart,
belong to the company of worms
and to those who walk in darkness.
For mankind has no way,
and man is unable to establish his steps
since justification is with God
and perfection of way is out of His hand.
All things come to pass by His knowledge;
He establishes all things by His design
and without Him nothing is done.

As for me,
if I stumble, the mercies of God
shall be my eternal salvation.
If I stagger because of the sin of flesh,
my justification shall be
by the righteousness of God which endures forever.
When my distress is unleashed
He will deliver my soul from the Pit
and will direct my steps to the way.
He will draw me near by His grace,
and my His mercy will He bring my justification.
. . .

Blessed art Thou my God,
who openest the heart of Thy servant to knowledge!
Establish all his deeds in righteousness;
and as it pleases Thee to do for the elect of mankind,
grant that the son of They handmaid
may stand before Thee forever.
For without Thee no way is perfect,
and without Thy will nothing is done.

When I first read this years ago, it was a real eye opener.  Wow, where did that come from?  This does not look like the picture of Judaism that Luther and so many others painted. This hymn could almost have been written or sung by the apostle Paul.  Writings like this should make us think again about how we view the 1st century Jews.

And in all fairness, it isn’t the fault of Luther and the Reformers that they did not have a better understanding of 1st century Judaism.  They didn’t have the benefit of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls.  And many of the Jews in the time of the Reformation, in a post-Temple existence did in fact hold to a merit-based view of the kingdom.³

And I think therein lies the key.  There is a marked difference between the pre and post-Temple Jewish existence, and so we should read phrases like “works of the law” with this in mind.  I am not saying that we should force an extra-biblical view onto the biblical text.  Rather, we must hear the biblical text with 1st century ears.

What would a man who wrote or sang the hymn of 1QS11 have said is necessary for justification?  Would he say that one needed to do enough good works to earn or merit salvation?  Certainly not!  The text of the hymn is clear.  It’s almost proto-Pauline in its view of man’s basic relationship to God.  Man is totally unable to establish his way, and he “belongs to the company of worms.”  Salvation is of God’s mercy alone.  Only God is able to justify, and the grounds for man’s justification is God’s own righteousness!  So to the 1st century Jews, the idea that one could not earn salvation was by no means a new idea, nor one with which they really would have had any disagreement.

On the other hand, would the writer of this hymn have said that the “works of the law” were necessary for justification?  If he were an Essene, or anything close to it, I think he would have.  And this is what Paul takes issue with.  Even as the Jew sings of justification coming from God, he assumes one thing: in order to attain to the the glorious state that the hymn expresses, you must be Jewish.  And to be a Jew, you obviously must be of the circumcision, which is the first basic “work of the law.”

This is clear from the context of the hymn.  The rest of the “Community Rule” scroll is filled with condemnations against apostates (the Sadducees and Pharisees of Jesus’ day) and reveals the stifling sectarian exclusivity of the community, which they considered to be the only pure assembly.  Is that in conflict with the hymn itself?  A Qumran sectarian would not have thought so (though we certainly would, reading through the lens of Paul).  Jewishness was basic to them, not because of some ethnic megalomania, but because it was the Jews who were under the blood of sacrifice.  Even the Qumran sect, while rejecting the Hellenized Temple cult, looked forward to the coming of “The Righteous One” who would purge and purify the Temple.  To Israel belonged the Temple and the sacrifices to atone for sin, or so they thought.  And that was why they believed they could claim that God justified them apart from their own righteousness and yet at the same time require that Gentiles become Jewish (come “under the law”) in order to enter the Kingdom.  Because in their mind, the sacrifices applied to those of the circumcision.

This is where Paul interjects.  No, he says, you do not have to be Jew!  With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was prefigured by the Old Covenant sacrifices, the shadows are passing away.  The realization of all that was promised has come.  The circumcision is not the line that separates the justified from the unrighteous, and it never really was.  Rather, it is and always has been faith in Jesus Christ.  The blood of Jesus’ sacrifice applies not only to those of the circumcision, but rather to all who believe in Christ and confess Him.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:12-13

So were the Reformers wrong?  What does this say about our traditional application of Paul against merited salvation and works-righteousness?  Is it still valid?  I think it is.  Paul’s insistence on faith in Jesus Christ as the instrument of justification does indeed by necessity exclude a meritorious role for our righteousness.  Even if that is not the exact issue that he is addressing.

What difference does it make?  Well, it gives us a more nuanced understanding of what Paul means by “works of the law.”  He is not speaking about a belief that one can earn their way into heaven.  He is not even speaking of “good works” in general.  And so we need not pull our hair out and engage in mental and exegetical gymnastics to synthesize Paul with James. The “works of the law” that Paul talks about are not the same thing as the “works” that James speaks of when he says “a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

As when we read the 1st century Jews, we should not take the plain sense of James 2:24 to mean that one might earn or merit their salvation.  I believe the basic difference between Paul’s “works of the law” which do not justify and James’ “works” which do, is this:

Paul’s “works of the law” deals with those who would make being Jewish—being “under the law”—a requirement for justification; James is dealing with those who espouse belief and show no fruit.  Paul’s theme is faith in Jesus Christ apart from the “works of the Torah”; James’ point is faith in Jesus Christ that results in good “works.”  “Works of the law” cannot justify; good “works” flowing from faith in Jesus Christ are required for justification.

Does that imply meritorious earning?  Not at all.  It is all of grace, through faith.  And so we may say with the Reformers: Sola Fide . . . just as long as we qualify that fides sine operibus non fide.⁴

FOOTNOTES:

Perishing Apart from the Law

This is actually an observation that I had when I was writing a paper on Romans 5:12-21  a few years ago.  I’ll start by laying out the two verses I want to look at here:

. . . for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted (imputed) where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam . . .
Romans 5:13-14

I think sometimes people just pass over these verses without really thinking about them and trying to understand what Paul is really saying here.  I know I did before writing that paper.  After all, as a Reformed Christian, I would skim over Romans 5 and think, “Oh yeah.  Imputation of Adam’s sin.  I know that.”  And then move swiftly along.

When I took up that section for my exegetical study, I thought I knew exactly what I was going to find.  What a surprise I had!  I might write later posts about some of the other things I discovered in that study, but I’ll just concentrate on verses 13 and 14 here.

First, I think it is clear that Paul is speaking here specifically to Gentile believers.  That is not to say that the text has no relevance to the Jews, but he is clearly zeroing in on a state where one is not “under the law.”  He has made this distinction before in Romans, and he maintains it now for the sake of the Gentile who might say “But what has the Torah to do with me?  Why does God yet condemn?”

In answer to this, Paul makes clear that sin was in the world even “before the Law was given”—that is, in the period of time between Adam to Moses—and that this sin was enough to condemn, even apart from the Law.  However, Paul also make clear that there is a qualitative difference between the sin of Adam and the sin of those between Adam and Moses.

This brings to mind Romans 2:12, where Paul tells his readers that all are under condemnation.  Those who sin apart from the Law will perish even without it.  Those who sin under it will be judged by it.  Note that it is possible to sin apart from the Law; this is a clear reference to Gentiles and Jews.

Here’s the real kicker though, and the part that really challenged me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about Romans 5.  Sin, Paul tells us, was in the world “before the law was given,” but is not “imputed” apart from the Law.  From Adam to Moses was the period “before the law was given.”  So if we give the text its due, we must conclude that sin was not imputed to sinners from Adam to Moses.

Now, if we take the text to mean what it says, we must either rethink our traditional systematic definition of the theological term “impute,” or we must adopt a weird interpretation that says that those between Adam and Moses did not receive condemnation of Adam’s sin.

If we take the context into account, then we must also recognize that Paul is likening his Gentile readers to those “before the Law was given.”

I will not attempt to define “imputation” in this post.  I’ll save that for later.  I just wanted to encourage everyone to take another look at Romans 5 here.  Because how we read it has broad-sweeping implications for how we read the rest of the book.  Romans 7, for instance, where Paul says (whether of himself or of another is another related discussion), “I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”

” . . . apart from the Law. . . .”  Hmmm . . . we’ve heard Paul use that kind of language before, haven’t we?