Studies in Scripture

⚠️ LONG EXPOSITORY READ!

𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗕𝗬 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗦: 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗜𝗧 𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗠 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗬

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦, 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝? 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐟 𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬, 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭; 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲? "𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬."
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟒:𝟏-𝟑 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

In Chapter 4 of the book of Romans, Paul appeals to the experience of the patriarch Abraham to argue his point that justification is by faith apart works. But what he means by "works" in the context has generally been casually assumed by Christians rather than proved by the context. This is partly because of a statement he added for perspective but which further complicates the matter.

The statement reads:

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐝𝐥𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟒:𝟒-𝟓 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

Based on this, Christians have generally believed the works he says a man is not justified by to refer to good works, righteous acts, or acts of obedience to God's commandments.

So, to be justified by faith apart from works is understood to mean to be justified by faith apart from good works, righteousness or obedience to God. Thus righteousness, good works and obedience to God are considered as works that are opposed to faith and cannot justify.

But this reading of what Paul means by works does not pass the test when examined in the light of the example of Abraham that he references to corroborate it. On the contrary, it proves to be diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures reveal about the circumstances surrounding father Abraham's faith and justification.

Surely, the patriarch's justification did not take place in a works vacuum. In other words, it was not credited to him as righteousness while he was without good works, righteousness or obedience to God. For at the point his faith was said to have been credited to him as righteousness, at least he had to his credit the work of leaving his country, father's house and kinsmen and travelling for over a thousand miles with his family and belongings to settle in Canaan. He also had the work of constantly moving with them from one place to another in tents.

These works cannot be removed from his story as if they didn't exist when his faith was credited to him as righteousness. They were years-spanning brutal works of righteousness, being expressions of obedience to explicit divine commands.

So when Paul cites him as a model of someone who was justified by faith apart from works — "the one who does not work but believes," it cannot be in the sense of him being someone who did not have works of obedience toward God but just believed and was justified.

Abraham was obviously someone who believed from a place of continuing works of obedience to God rather than from a place of no obedience to God and was justified regardless of it. It was obedience to God that got him to the point where he believed God and had his faith credited to him as righteousness, not disobedience.

Consequently, going by his model, to be justified by faith apart from works proves not to be about being justified simply by believing without obeying God of doing righteousness. This idea is not just alien to his example, it outrightly contradicts it.

So how then are we to understand Paul's doctrine of justification by faith apart from works? By relating with it as part of a wider discussion that began from prior sections of the book of Romans.

The faith versus works dichotomy that we see in Chapter 4 of the book of Romans did not enter into Paul's discussion out of nowhere. It was cast as his focus from the start of the Epistle when he stated that he was "not ashamed of the gospel," that "it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

It was from here that he plotted the course which would see him pit the works that his people do as those to whom God committed the Law, which made them advantaged over Gentiles, against faith in Christ that did not reckon this advantage for them over Gentiles. This is why he spoke upfront about not being ashamed of the Gospel. The context of the shame was as a Jew having to concede that they had no advantage over Gentiles with regard to the salvation offered by the Gospel.

His goal was to nullify the boasting of his Jewish people in these works as works that justify them over Gentiles by showing that in the matter of justification from sin, the works gave them no advantage over Gentiles, that it is rather faith that justifies a person from sin, putting justification from sin within reach of both Jews and Gentiles without Jews having any advantage over Gentiles in this.

For some context, toward the end of the previous chapter he had said:

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝, 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞; 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟏-𝟐𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

So he speaks about a righteousness of God that is through faith in Jesus Christ, describing this righteousness as a righteousness of God that is APART FROM THE LAW. By this he hints at there being a righteousness that is otherwise, that is, that it is somehow associated, connected, or related to the Law.

This is where he first introduced the dichotomy of justification by faith and justification by works. Originally, he presented it in the form of righteousness that is apart from the law and the opposite righteousness implied — righteousness associated with the Law.

While the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is what he alternatively refers to as justification by faith, the righteousness that is associated with the Law is the one he alternatively refers to as justification by works.

Now this is where we Christians get our understanding mixed up with regard to the dichotomy. We read him describe the righteousness of faith as righteousness that is "apart from the Law," and we think this means it is a righteousness that has nothing to do with keeping God's Law. So we conclude that the righteousness associated with the Law, which is justification by works, must mean justification that has to do with keeping God's commandments.

And since the Apostle says no one is justified by works, we interpret this to mean that no one is justified by doing righteousness, or obeying the commandments of God. So we presume that to be justified by faith apart from works means to be justified by faith without doing anything, that is, without doing righteousness or obeying God's commandments.

Sadly, this is not the dichotomy that the Apostle intended us to understand from his words.

He speaks of the righteousness of faith as righteousness "that is apart from the Law in the sense of it being a righteousness that has nothing to do with the works that Jews did as those to whom God gave the Law. This was indirectly a way to say the righteousness has nothing to do with being Jewish.

When reading the Scripture to understand the things written in it, it is important for us to frequently remind ourselves that we are the ones who broke the books into chapters and verses for ease of reference. The writers, particularly those of the Epistles, generally wrote them as one piece. So a point raised in one section is often very likely connected and subordinate to something discussed previously.

Therefore, in order to rightly understand the justification dichotomy that Paul confronts us with in this section of the book of Romans, as well as how he arrived at the conclusion that if Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast, though not before God, we need to consider it in the light of the things he said leading up to it.

To begin, let us first track back to Chapter 3 where he said:

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠? 𝐈𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐁𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰? 𝐎𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬? 𝐍𝐨, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰. 𝐎𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲? 𝐈𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨? 𝐘𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟕-𝟐𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

So just five verses before Chapter 4, Paul had asked: "Where then is boasting?" And answered: "It has been excluded."

We need to find out what boasting he is referring to. We cannot just assume it.

For the answer to the question of what boasting he is talking about, we have to track back to Chapter 2 where he said:

𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟐:𝟐𝟑 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

So the boasting he was talking about was boasting in the Law.

But what is boasting in the Law about? Is it about boasting in one's ability to keep the Law as Christians generally assume? In other words, is it about boasting in doing good or righteousness?

Who does Paul have in mind as the "you" doing the boasting? Is it a particular person or group? Or is it any and everyone who is obeying God's commandments and doing righteousness?

For the answers to these questions, we need to yet again track back to the statement, "You who boast in the law," to the wider context of what was said before and leading up to it.

Here it is:

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐉𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝, 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡, 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡— 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟? 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐥, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐥? 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲? 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐬, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐨𝐛 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬? 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐁𝐎𝐀𝐒𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐖, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐨𝐝? 𝐅𝐨𝐫 ❞𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮,❞ 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟐:𝟏𝟕-𝟐𝟒 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

The above gives us the contextual information we need to understand what boasting in the Law was about and who Paul had in mind in talking about it.

The first thing to note is that, contextually, Paul is dealing with this boasting — boasting in the Law — specifically with those of his ethnicity — Jews — in mind. He is not dealing with it as an issue bedeviling humans in general. The "you" that he addresses in verse 23, saying: "You boast in the Law," is the "you" he addressed earlier in verse 18 saying: "If you call yourself a Jew." This means that the boasting — boasting in the Law — is a Jewish issue.

And according to him, this boasting is based on the fact that they are the ones who:

— Rely on the Law. That is, as something that distinguishes them as a people from Gentiles — the rest of humanity.
— Boast in God. That is, in the fact that God chose them as his people apart from and above Gentiles — the rest of the nations of the world.

And who DESPITE:

— Knowing God's will and being able to distinguish what matters. That is, knowing what is good and just from the Law
— Being instructed out of the Law
— Being confident that they are guides to people who are blind, light to those in darkness, corrector of the foolish, teacher of the immature. All these being based on the fact that they are the ones to whom God committed the Law
— Possessing in the law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth

Yet had a reputation for dishonoring God through BREAKING THE LAW. A reputation that gave opportunity to Gentiles to blaspheme God.

Now observe that nothing in this breakdown of what boasting in the Law consisted in has anything to do with keeping the Law. It is simply about Jews having the Law, being taught from it, deriving a sense of what is good and just from it, being the ones God chose by it to be guide and light to the rest of the nations of the world, and so on.

Their reputation was in breaking the Law, not in keeping it. Their boasting in it over Gentiles is notwithstanding their not being faithful in keeping it.

To destroy this boasting, Paul then makes the following assertion:

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰; 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟐:𝟐𝟓 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

Since the boasting was essentially about their Jewishness, something they defined by circumcision, Paul attacked circumcision saying it has value, that is, for justification, only if they practiced the Law. And on the flip side he declares that if as a Jew, one is a violator of God's Law, then one's circumcision, that is, one's Jewishness, is null and void. In other words, being a breaker of God's law makes a Jew no different from an uncircumcised person, that is, a Gentile.

This means that being a Jew, that is, being a person of the Law, justifies only if one is faithful in practicing the Law. Otherwise, it is of no value.

Then looking at the subject from the Gentile perspective, he says:

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐟 𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰?
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟐:𝟐𝟕 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

In other words, a Gentile, if he keeps the Law, will be justified in God's sight despite not being physically circumcised or subscribed to God's covenant as one of his people, and will by this condemn a Jew who is subscribed but given to breaking the Law.

The foregoing essentially makes keeping the Law an imperative for justification both Jews and Gentiles, which voids the advantage that Jews otherwise had over Gentiles in being the people of the Law.

In the two verses that follow, with which he closes the section, the Apostle makes this point clear by defining what it means to be a Jew and be circumcised apart from just being physically a Jew and being physically circumcised. He redefines it around having a heart rightly disposed to doing what pleases God. Thus he voids Jewish boasting in their Jewishness as something that justifies them over Gentiles.

But lest he be misunderstood to be teaching that Jews have no edge whatsoever over Gentiles, Paul immediately asks:

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞? 𝐎𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧?
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟏 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

And he answers, saying:

𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭. 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

In other words, he seeks to make it clear that his teaching is not that Jews absolutely have no advantage over Gentiles and therefore nothing at all to boast in over Gentiles. He affirms that they have an advantage that is great in every respect. Chief of this, he says, is the fact that they are the ones that God entrusted with his word, that is, his counsel, as represented in the Law.

He then talks briefly about the unfaithfulness of some of them, how it could not void God's faithfulness and so on.

But then he returns and asks:

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧? 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲? 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥; 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐧.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

Simply put, his question is this: "Does this advantage that we Jews have over Gentiles in being the ones to whom God communicated his Law make us better than them when it comes to justification from sin?

Paul declares emphatically that it does not. He notes that he has already shown, that is, in the prior sections of the Epistle, that when it comes to sin, Jews and Gentiles both have a history of practicing it and are therefore equally guilty.

In other words, both have a track record of not doing righteousness or keeping the commandments of God. With this being the case, one group — Jews — cannot be justified from it simply because they are the ones entrusted with the Law, while the other group — Gentiles — would be condemned for it because they are not the ones entrusted with the Law.

Paul then goes on to cite several passages of Scripture that speak to Jews being guilty of practicing sin in different forms. He rounds up by saying:

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐨𝐝; 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭; 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐧.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟏𝟗-𝟐𝟎 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

It is rather unfortunate that many of us read the things cited in this section and assume that he cited them with all humans in view, when he actually cited them with just Jews in mind. This is why he ends his citation of them with: "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law."

The point he is making with this statement is that the things that the passages of Scripture he just quoted says — "whatever the Law says," are directed at the Jews — "those under the Law."

So when he says this was "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight," he is having the boasting of Jews in mind. It is their boastful mouths that he is referring to as the "every mouth" that needs to be stopped so that all the world — Jews and Gentiles, rather than just Gentiles, as they presumed, may answer to God for their sins. He predicates this on the fact that the works of the Law, that is, the works that Jews do as the ones having the Law, those in which they boast over Gentiles, have proved to not be of any value in justifying anyone from sin.

This is the course that Paul followed to arrive at the point where he asked: 'Where then is boasting?" and then answered that "It has been excluded."

As we have seen, the context of the question is about the boasting of Jews in the Law as something that by them being its custodians, made them better than Gentiles and so justified despite them practicing sin just like Gentiles. The import of the question was to show that their advantage, although valid in a very important way, had absolutely no relevance with regard to justification.

So next he asks: "By what kind of law?" In other words, the exclusion of their boasting is based on what principle?"

"Of works?," he asks. "No, but by the law of faith," he replies.

The point of this is that Jewish boasting over Gentiles based on their relationship with the Law has been excluded from justification by the principle of faith. The fact that both are required to demonstrate faith in Christ in order to be justified shows that Jews have no advantage over Gentiles by reason of the works that God committed to them in relation to the Law.

So when Paul later spoke about the righteousness that is apart from the Law, this is what he was referring to. He did not mean it as righteousness that does not require one to keep God's commandments, but as righteousness that has nothing to do with the works related to being Jews, that is, the works that Jews do as those to whom God committed the Law. These are specifically works that are binding on Jews but are not binding on non-Jews.

Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans as an apology to defend the Gospel as God's power for salvation, that is, as his effective means for salvation, for everyone who believes in Jesus, rather than it being as some Jews presumed and promoted it to serve their interest and assert them as having an advantage in it over Gentiles, as the power of God for salvation for just Jews who believe.

The reasoning was that salvation being the blessing of Jews means that only Jews are eligible for it by faith, that if Gentiles wanted to be eligible for it they could not just take it up by faith since they were by their uncircumcision and lack of a record in Jewish works considered inferior to Jews. So in addition to faith, they were told they had to upgrade and become Jews by becoming circumcised and joining native Jews to do the works binding on Jews.

Thus Jewish works became works imperative for justification, which now made them the deal breaker and not faith in Christ. This was what informed the justification dichotomy that Paul raised to the fore and sought to use Abraham's example to explain in Chapter 4 of Romans.

The works he condemns as not justifying are not the good works, righteousness or acts of obedience to God's moral law that many Christians think, but the non-moral works or activities that are unique to Jews as a people and which distinguishes them from Gentiles. Works such as circumcision, eating only clean foods, observing Jewish calendar days, months and feasts. Basically, works that have no universal moral value, but which were binding on Jews and counted as righteousness for them when they did them, and as unrighteousness when they did not do them.

So the righteousness of faith, which he describes as the righteousness of God that is apart from the Law, is apart from the Law, not in the sense that it does not require one to keep the Law — God's moral law, but in the sense that it does not require one to keep the Jewish aspects, which are also called the Law.

That this righteousness of God through faith is "witnessed by the Law and the Prophets" means that it is corroborated by the Scriptures. The phrase "the Law and the Prophets" was a way the collection of the five books of Moses and the books of the major and minor prophets was sometimes summarily referred to in those days. The phrase also could refer to all Jewish Scriptures.

Then in saying that this righteousness that is apart from the Law, that is, the righteousness of faith, has been revealed as a righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ that is for ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE, and that "there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," he is speaking to the fact that the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness that is Jews biased such that they are the only ones who can receive it if they believe, but that anyone, whether Jew or not, as long as they believe, can receive it, since it does not discriminate or make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, it is a righteousness that deals with both as equals because "all," that is, both Jews and Gentiles, "have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

So he says: "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." By this he reiterates the same point, which is that anyone can have righteousness credited to them based on only their faith without them having to embrace the works of the Law, which are works peculiar to Jews.

Thus we see that the faith versus works dichotomy that Paul has on his mind is a faith versus Jewish works dichotomy, not a faith versus good works, righteousness or works of obedience to God's moral law dichotomy as is now generally believed among us to be the case.

But just in case someone is still not convinced that the works that Paul has in mind as works opposed to faith and which do not justify are works specific to Jews and not good works or acts of righteousness which are universal, what he says next should hopefully clear all doubt.

As follow-up to his statement insisting that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law, he asks the following rhetorical questions:

𝐎𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲? 𝐈𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨?
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

And answers them at once saying:

𝐘𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨, 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞.
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

If the works of the Law that he insists are works that do not justify are not works unique to Jews but are works that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of, why is he, right after insisting they do not justify, launching an attack with a question that is apparently directed at Jews and making a claim for Gentiles that destroys Jewish pride and puts Gentiles at par with Jews?

The reason is obvious. It is because the works of the Law are works that only Jews perform. They are works by which Jews exclude Gentiles from God and claim God for themselves alone. At the center of these works is circumcision. This is the heart of the faith versus works dichotomy that we find in Chapter 4 of Romans. It is a dichotomy that pits justification by Jewish works against justification by faith apart from Jewish works, not justification by good works against justification by faith apart from good works.

It is in furtherance of this that he appeals to Abraham as an example. This is why in order to show that Abraham was justified by faith he cites the testimony of Scripture that Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness. But in order to show that Abraham was not justified by works he refers to Abraham's circumcision status as at the time he was justified and notes that he was uncircumcised when he was justified, meaning that Abraham was justified by faith apart from circumcision, which is what justification by faith apart from works is about. The "apart from works" is apart from Jewish works or apart from works that are for Jews.

Concerning the blessing of righteousness that is apart from works, he first asks:

𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨? 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲, "𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬."
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟒:𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

Observe that he frames this question around being circumcised versus being uncircumcised. That is, about being Jewish versus being Gentile.

He does not say: "Is this blessing then on those who do good works, or on those who don't do good works?" Or: "Is this blessing then on those who obey God's commandments, or on those who don't obey God's commandments?" Which is the path of argumentation that he would most definitely have followed if the dichotomy he was dealing with was a dichotomy of good works versus no good works. But he does not, because the dichotomy he was dealing with was one that divided Jews and Gentiles, not one that divided doers of good works from non-doers. It was a dichotomy of doing Jewish works vs not doing Jewish works.

In order to answer the question, he asks a second question using Abraham as the example, saying:

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝? 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝? 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟒:𝟏𝟎 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

The reason the question of whether Abraham was justified before he was circumcised or after matters to the discussion about justification by works is because circumcision is at the center of the works of the Law. It is what Jews define their Jewishness by, around which they have built the other works that they use to exclude Gentiles. By showing that Abraham was justified by faith while he was uncircumcised, he was proving that Gentiles can be justified by faith without works, circumcision and the Jewish works built in it being together what makes up the works of the Law.

Had his point been about justification by faith apart from good works, what he would have asked from Abraham's story is whether he was justified by faith while he did good works or while he did not do good works, or while he obeyed God or while he did not obey God. This, as we can see, is not what he asks.

What he was all along teaching was not that a person can be justified apart from doing good works, righteousness or obedience to God. What he was rather teaching was that a person can be justified by faith apart from Jewish works. In other words, Gentiles can be justified by faith without having to become circumcised and observe Jewish religious customs. This is what the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works is about. The works that we can be justified apart from are Jewish works, not works of righteousness or acts of obedience to God.

Join me soon in another article titled: 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗕𝗬 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗦: 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗜𝗧 𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗬 as I show from the book of Galatians that the issue Paul addressed in it is exactly the same issue — Jewish work, not good works, righteousness or obedience to God.

𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗟𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗥 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗥𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘?

𝐃𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐥.
𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝟔:𝟐𝟕 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐁

In a private Christian group that I belong to, someone wrote the following with regard to what the Lord says in the above passage.

𝐘𝐞𝐬, 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 "𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞" 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐨, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭? 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭! 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭.

His words and the logic revealed in them highlights both a subtle denial of the truth and a misunderstanding about the meaning and usage of the word "labor," that is, "work", and the word "gift" that is common among us.

For even though the passage clearly emphasizes both the work that they would do — WORK FOR THE FOOD THAT LASTS FOR ETERNAL LIFE, and what he, Jesus, would do — GIVE THEM ETERNAL LIFE, without contradictions, he says the Lord "𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞." So he voids a part of what the Lord said and keeps the other.

The same person further wrote:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬.

Again, as is evident to all who are honest, nothing in the language of the passage "𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠." What the Lord says is that these people should cease working for food that perishes. This is not the same thing as saying they should cease working.

The problem of the person with the passage, for which they turned away from what it clearly says stems from their inability to understand the fact that Jesus telling these people to work for the food that lasts for eternal life is not inconsistent with him telling them that eternal life is his to give. The person clearly thinks that the two statements are contradictory and so felt the need to void one for the other.

This fact is betrayed by the rhetorical question and negative assertion they followed the claim with, saying:

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭? 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭!

In other words, this is the filter through which the person processed the passage. It is the basis for their claim that the Lord "used language that did not focus on work that they would do."

Because the person knows that eternal life is a gift, and they suppose that a gift is something that one does not labor/work for, the person concluded that even though Jesus explicitly tells these people to "work for the food that lasts for eternal life," he could not mean that they should actually "work for the food that lasts for eternal life." They reasoned that taking the Lord's word that these people should work "for the food that lasts for eternal life" to mean exactly what it says contradicts the truth of eternal life being a gift.

So the person rejects what Christ says, not because Christ says he didn't say it, or because he says he didn't mean it as spoken, but because it contradicts their understanding of what makes a thing a gift.

This post is intended to help the person, as well as others with the same reasoning, explain the passage and resolve the problem.

The first thing that must be stated is that the person's understanding of what makes a thing a gift is wrong. There is nothing that says a gift is something that the receiver does not work or labor for. This is a common Christian misunderstanding of what actually makes a thing a gift.

What makes a thing a gift is the fact that the receiver DOES NOT BEAR THE COST for it. This is why a gift is said to be free. It is not the presumption that the receiver must not do anything (any work) in order to receive or be given it.

Not bearing the cost for a thing you receive is not the same thing as not doing anything (any work) in order to receive it. You can be required to do something (some work) in order to receive or be eligible for a thing that is a gift. This does not void the thing being a gift.

For example, a company can offer to give an item free to everyone who buys a given product of theirs. This makes the item they are offering to give freely a gift. But even though the item is a gift and will be given for free, for anyone to be eligible to receive it, the person has to bear the expense of buying the said product. If a person does not bear this expense, they will not be eligible for the item.

No one says the item given is not free or not a gift simply because being given it is predicated on bearing the expense of buying some product first. To argue that the item is not a gift but something you earn because it comes with the obligation to buy something first would be illogical.

An item does not qualify as a gift only when the receiver bears no expense in order to receive it. It qualifies as a gift once it is defined as something the receiver will not bear its cost. The giver, or someone else, could bear the cost. What the receiver has to do in order to receive it does not constitute payment for the item. It is merely an eligibility condition.

Take another example of someone invited to something like a feast. The foods and drinks they are given at the feast are free. They are not required to pay for them. So they are gifts.

At the end of the feast, they could even still be given takeaway packs of other things as a gesture of the organizer's good will. The takeaway packs are also gifts.

The hard reality is that receiving these gifts comes with a cost to the receiver — the cost of showing up at the venue of the feast. If a person does not bear this cost, they won't be eligible to receive the gifts. Bearing the cost of coming is however not equal to bearing the cost of the gifts. These costs are separate.

For some, the cost of coming might be burning physical energy by walking some distance. For some others it might be burning gas by driving. Some others might spend money to take flights. In short, each one would have to expend different things in the form of time, energy, money and other resources, to be eligible to receive the gifts.

No reasonable person would conclude that because they had to bear these costs in order to receive the things, that the things they received are therefore not gifts but things they earned. That would be nonsensical.

With this settled, let me now walk us through the story patiently to show us how it is both about the work that these people had to do and the work that Jesus would do without contradictions.

Jesus had fed these people with bread and fish a day earlier. Seeing that he had done this by a miracle, the people wanted to make him their king. The Lord however wisely avoided them and eventually left their city under the cover of the night.

The next day, these people returned to where he had fed them to look for him, hoping to be fed again. After searching for him and not finding him in their region, they entered boats and crossed over the sea to Capernaum to look for him.

When they eventually found Jesus and he saw them, knowing that they must have expended a lot of energy, time, money and other things to locate him just so they might eat loaves and fishes again, he accused them saying:

"You seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate some of the loaves and were filled.

In other words, Jesus acknowledged the fact that they sought it. He just disparaged their seeking him as being purely for carnal reasons. So the Lord said:

"Do not WORK FOR the food that perishes, but FOR the food that lasts for eternal life."

The phrasal verb "WORK FOR," as used in this passage, does not mean WORK TO EARN as you assume in your mind. Neither does it mean "PAY FOR." It cannot mean either because that would make a nonsense of what Jesus said.

A quick substitution of the phrase with these options would immediately prove my point.

Substituting "work for" with "work to earn" would make the passage read as:

Do not WORK TO EARN the food that perishes, but TO EARN the food that lasts for eternal life."

Substituting the phrase with "pay for" would cause the passage to read as follows:

Do not PAY FOR the food that perishes, but FOR the food that lasts for eternal life."

Neither fits the reality of the actions of the people in the narrative.

The people did not WORK TO EARN or PAY FOR the loaves and fish they ate the previous day. They received them for FREE. In other words, they received them as GIFTS. This was precisely why they got up on this day and spared no expense seeking to locate Jesus by all means. They again wanted to be fed free loaves and fishes.

They were not seeking to now work to earn or pay for the food. So Jesus could not have by telling them to not work for the food that perishes mean that they should not work to earn or pay for the food that perishes. No!

The phrasal verb "work for" refers not to them working to earn or pay for the food that perishes, that is, for loaves and fishes, but to their putting effort, spending time, energy and other resources to look for him, so as to eat free bread and fish again. This is what the statement: "work (labor) for the food that perishes" means, which is what the Lord was asking them to desist from. The statement has nothing to do with working to earn food of either sort.

If to "work for the food that perishes" means to "work to earn or pay for the food that perishes," then asking them to desist from this and instead work "for the food that lasts for eternal life" would mean asking them to "work to earn or pay for the food that lasts for eternal life." This clearly makes no sense.

The Lord cannot mean "work for" as "work to earn" in the first statement and not mean it as "work to earn" in the second statement. If the meaning of "work to earn" does not fit the first statement for the phrase "work for," then it certainly cannot fit in the second statement. The two statements rely on the same meaning to make sense.

The phrasal verb "work for" can indeed mean "work to earn" or "pay for," but it can also mean "work with a particular result as the goal of one's efforts."

The problem is that Christians are often guilty of locking themselves to one among many meanings of a word or phrase and refusing to consider the context to see if it supports another equally valid meaning of the word or phrase. Anyone who then tries to help them see that a word or phrase actually has other meanings that fit the context better, they attack and tear down as an enemy of the truth.

In this case, the context shows that the meaning of "work to earn," which is a valid meaning of "work for," does not fit. The meaning that fits is "work with a view to receive," that is, do whatever one has to do in order to reach a particular goal. This is an equally valid meaning of the phrase "work for."

These people spared no expense, left everything, including their town, boarded boats and crossed over a sea, all of which was strenuous work or labor, to find Jesus, just so they might again have the opportunity to be fed by him with free food. This is the sense in which they LABORed or WORKed FOR the food that perishes.

So when the Lord told them to not work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, he did not mean that they should not work at all, but that they should change what they were working for, that is, what they were expending their time, energy and resources with a view to obtain, from the food that perishes, to the food that does not perish.

Both foods were gifts. So it was not a case of telling them to stop working to earn one food that was not a gift and just receive the other food that was a gift. It was a case of telling them to stop exerting themselves and seeking after him for the gift that perishes that he gives, and exert themselves and seek him rather for the gift that does not perish that he also gives.

He was the same person who would give both. He had given them both the day before. They however locked in on the one without lasting value and wanted more of it, while despising the other with lasting value. The Lord however did not want them hooked on the temporal gift and miss out on the eternal gift.

Asking them to work for the food that lasts for eternal life is simply asking them to do whatever it takes, bear whatever it would cost them, to be beneficiaries of his gift of eternal life, just the way they were currently doing to position themselves to be beneficiaries of his gift of loaves and fishes.

Imagine if Elon Musk said he would give a million dollars every day going forward to everyone who comes to his house or office. What would you not do to be benefited by this? How many times would you do whatever you can to always get to his house?

If it would require you to trek a long distance from where you are to his house or office, would you not do it? If you did this and he then gives you a million dollars, would you disparage the money as not a gift since you had to exert yourself over a long distance to come to his place in order to get it? I think not!

Your working or laboring to cover a long distance in order to get to his house or office is your working for the million dollar. You worked with a view to get the money, not to earn it. Your working to cover the distance is not value for the money. It's your own personal cost.

If working to cover a long distance to Musk's house or office had the value of a million dollars by itself, anyone who covers the distance to his house would be automatically ENTITLED to a million dollars even if Elon did not promise or offer it. Elon would be under obligation to give them the money without a choice. That's what it means to work to earn something. It means you are entitled to it by your actions and the giver would be guilty of wrongdoing to not give you.

But when you do something with a view to obtaining some other thing without what you do entitling you to the other thing, that's not you working to earn, it's you working with a view to obtain the other thing. The other thing could very much be a gift and it won't matter.

The Syrophoenician woman followed after Jesus and kept pleading with him to heal her daughter until Jesus healed her daughter. Only God knows how many kilometers she covered and for how many hours this lasted. That was her working for the healing of her daughter.

She did not work to earn the healing. She worked with a view to obtaining the healing. The physical and mental stress she had to endure was the work she had to do to obtain the healing. But it was not payment for the healing and did not entitle her to the healing such that she can now go and tell people she worked to earn her daughter's healing.

Once we understand the phrase "work for" in this sense, and we purge yourself of the false notion that a gift is something we do nothing (no work) to receive, the passage makes perfect sense. We no longer see a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. We would then see no conflict in admitting that it teaches both that we are to work for the food that lasts for eternal life and that eternal life is a gift which we cannot earn but which Jesus gives us when we do.

This is the pure and unadulterated truth of salvation. It is not a teaching of salvation by works; it is a teaching of salvation as a gift.

Let God be true and every man a liar.