Justification by Faith

Stephen Terry

 

Commentary for the October 28, 2017 Sabbath School Lesson

 

“This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:22-24, NIV

Some might maintain that since God does not actively prevent this evil in the world, He is to blame for that which He does not prevent.  (v 5) However, if evil were always turned to good by God, there would be no restraint for evil. For why would one prevent it if it was only going to result in good anyway? (v 8) Evil then perhaps serves as its own restraint, with evil checking evil.  Maybe a good example for this would be the nuclear deterrent of the Cold War. However, without an outside restraint, there is always the possibility that mutual deterrence will fail. This may have been what the Apostle John intended to illustrate by metaphor in Revelation 7:1. Ultimately, evil will fail to check evil, then comes the Apocalypse.

Our free choice may bring the blame in the end, not on God, but on mankind, who have universally chosen to turn from God and toward the evil. (v 10) In a world where we refer to some individuals as saints and others as reverend, we elevate the righteousness of some over the herd, but Paul here casts all down equally into the realm of sin and death. (v 23) Based on this foundation, it becomes absurd for us to accuse God for the evil in the world. It would be like someone convicted for drunk driving blaming the manufacturer of his car for his or her arrest. Like the driver, it is only when we accept responsibility for who and what we are that healing can begin.

Making this all the more tragic, Paul has stated that every driver is drunk, not just a few hapless individuals, so every car is headed for a collision. We may find some comfort in pointing to the failings of others as somehow worse than our own because their sins appear different to us, but that is very much like all those drunk drivers thinking themselves superior to other drunk drivers because they are not driving the same model of automobile. However, because the Law condemns the act of driving under the influence, those drunk drivers are continually hauled into court where they are condemned and sentenced. Once the sentence is served though, the driver is destined to become drunk once again and get behind the wheel to repeat the cycle until death finally makes a permanent intervention.  The Law does not have the power to bring change, only judgment and condemnation.

Paul shows us this hopelessness to lead us into the heart of his thesis. There is another answer that he claims has been there all along in the words of the Law and the Prophets. (v 21) In order to understand those words, we must first come to recognize that even though Law has existed for millennia, all remain sinners. (v 23) Then we can begin to uncouple righteousness and obedience to the Law from salvation and place them in their proper perspective. This is not because the Law is unrighteous, but because we find ourselves unable to be obedient to it. While it may seem so to some, instead of declaring the situation hopeless as far as salvation is concerned, he tells us there is another door that is not bolted shut against us.

He tells us that the Jews and Gentiles both have access to that same door, which he calls "faith." We might ask, "Faith in what?” Paul’s answer is “Faith in Jesus,” ( v 26) that He will provide what we are unable to provide for ourselves. Strangely, some who say that they believe this whole idea of righteousness by faith have not grasped this point. Perhaps it seems too easy, too cheap, even though it cost the highest price ever paid: the death of Jesus. Instead these continue to focus on obedience to the Law and judge others over the issue of that obedience. These have more in common with the Judaizing Christians of the first century than with the Pauline theology ultimately accepted and endorsed by Hellenic Christianity. Those Judaizers never completely escaped the righteousness by obedience to the Law path to salvation of their forebears. The split between the two camps in Apostolic times continues to reverberate in the church today. We still choose which path we will follow in how we choose to live each day.

Some may not recognize that every effort to earn salvation through obedience to the Law is a statement that to that extent, Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient. It states by deed, if not by word, that the cross is not enough to make it into heaven. If we take that amount of obedience that is necessary to add to the cross to be saved for each of us, then we multiply it by the trillions who have lived on the Earth, then the sacrifice of Christ begins to appear very small indeed and woefully inadequate.

Sadly there is not just this theological failing of such a focus on obedience, there is also the failure of pragmatic faith. The teaching that obedience is a necessary prerequisite to salvation is also schismatic for it sets up a tiered system of faith where holiness, authority and control are determined on the basis of outward appearances of obedience to the Law. This practice encourages all to hide who they really are behind a mask of apparent righteousness. Jesus compared this to whitewashing tombs. (Matthew 23:27)

Those who live like this find it very easy to judge and condemn those who do not. They would like to see all of Christianity living behind these masks as they do. When we do not, they are quick to be the ones who point out that our “slip is showing.” But the fact that they have succeeded in hiding their sins for a time does not make them more righteous, only more devious. They play a dangerous game of deceiving not only others but themselves for sin, like a dead fish, always rises to the surface.  (Numbers 32:23)

For those who feel the need to judge others for sins they do not have such as homosexuality or abortions, which are popular sins to rebuke in modern evangelical Christianity, Paul provides a simple and direct response in Romans, chapter three. When we choose to point out the sins of others as particularly heinous while ignoring our own relatively "trivial" sins, we overlook that "there is no difference." (v 22) In James 2:10, we are told that committing even one sin makes us guilty of all sin. Or more plainly, if we "bear false witness" (Exodus 20:16), we are guilty of murder and adultery and all other sins as well. Perhaps this is because in our choosing the sin we are willing to live with ourselves, we give license to others to also choose the sins they prefer to live with.

When we apply this principle to Paul's words in Romans 2:1, it becomes clear that we ourselves are guilty of the same homosexuality that we condemn, in principle if not in deed. If Jesus, whom Christians typically believe was sinless, did not condemn someone for their sexual sin, even though there were witnesses to the act, (John 8:1-11) then how can we, sinful as we are, condemn others as though somehow their sin is greater than our own? Paul said we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). It seems it should be impossible to find someone to cast the first stone. (John 8:7)

In verses 25-26, Paul makes a particularly intriguing statement. He asserts that God did not punish sin prior to the cross in order that the punishment for sin could be paid on the cross. This seems to fly in the face of the stories of the Noahic Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  As Paul develops in chapter six, the wages of sin is death. (6:23) This is not a new concept. It was present in the Old Testament as well. (Ezekiel 18:4) If death is the result of sin, and Jesus took that punishment on Himself, did something not work? After all, before, during, and since Jesus’ sojourn in Israel, men, women and children died and continue to die, whether they call on His name or not.

How can death have been taken away and still be here, unless death is somehow not death? Is it possible that the death we all experience is not the death that Jesus took upon Himself? This would mean that there is more than one kind of death.  Perhaps this is why John refers to more than one death. (Revelation 2:11) Is this the reality or was this a doctrine developed to explain away the fact that although Jesus took upon Himself the death of us all, people continued to die? This may not be something we can ferret out thousands of years later.

In struggling with this idea, some have interpreted Jesus death on the cross as bestowing unconditional immortality. However, while this may seem great for those who make it into heaven, it creates a problem for those who do not. What should be done with them?  Since they needed a place as well, the idea of an ever-burning hell seemed to solve the twin problems of what to do with immortal sinners and how to bring justice to rest upon the evil. This seems problematic when we consider the loathness of God to have even two immortal sinners in Adam and Eve. (Genesis 3:22)

A third perspective is that death as we now experience it is merely sleep and not really death. This may be related to Paul’s statement that the dead are sleeping (1 Thessalonians 4:15), as well as statements in the Old Testament about the dead lacking knowledge (Job 14:20-21) or participation in the living world (Ecclesiastes 9:6) or in relationship with God. (Psalm 115:17)

In any event, there does seem to be consensus that Jesus’ death upon the cross in some way fundamentally changed the relationship we all have to death. Perhaps the fullness of the revelation of what that means will not dawn until the day Paul foretold when “Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinthians 15:54)