What does it mean that the doers of the law will be justified?

Explanation:

In order to understand what Paul means when he says that the doers of the law will be justified, it’s important to notice that we find this comment in the opening sections of Paul’s letter to Rome.⁶ There were Jews and Gentiles in the church at Rome, and Paul addresses both audiences throughout his letter. At this early stage, he wants the Jewish Christians to recognize that the Gentiles are heirs of the inheritance of God through Jesus Christ. To help them understand this, Paul must counter a common Jewish notion, which is that the Jews had special privileges in terms of salvation because they were God’s covenant people. Paul knows that some of his audience associate being a part of God’s covenant with hearing the law, which implies that for the Gentiles to be included in the inheritance, they also must hear and understand the law.⁷ Paul wants such Jewish Christians to understand that the principle by which God judges is not the hearing of the law, but the doing of the law.

Counterargument:

In fact, even if there were Jewish Christians who argued that one had to hear the law to be included in the covenant, it’s hard to see why Paul would counter this claim by arguing that it’s the doers and not the hearers who are justified. It’s hard to see why Paul would argue this way because we know from Galatians 3:10–14 that Paul does not think the doers of the law are justified. There Paul says that all who rely on the works of the law are cursed. He goes on to agree with the notion that one must do the law to live but says that no one is justified before God by the law. Now, if Paul can say in Galatians 3:11 that no one will be justified by the law, how can he say in Romans 2:13 that those who do the law are justified?

Response to Counterargument:

There is no conflict between Romans 2:13 and Galatians 3:10–14. In Romans 2:13 Paul says that the doers of the law are justified before God. And in Galatians 3:12 Paul writes that the law is not of faith, rather the one who does them shall live by them. In other words, the law has to do with doing. So there is agreement between Romans 2:13 and Galatians 3:10–14 in that both passages confer that that the law has to do with what one does, as opposed to what one merely hears. Of course, in Galatians 3:11 Paul adds the important clarification that no one is justified before God by the law.

Now one might ask, is there a conflict in the fact that no one is justified before God by the law, and Paul’s statement in Romans 2:13 that the doers of the law are justified? The conflict is only apparent. That is, while both passages agree that one who is justified by the law must do the law, Paul never says in Romans 2:13 that in fact, no one is justified by the law. That is, in Romans 2:13 Paul articulates the principle by which people are justified, but he will soon explain that all have sinned (Romans 3:23), which implies that no one will be justified by the law. On the other hand, in Galatians 3:10–14, Paul articulates both the principle by which people are declared righteous, and the fact that no one will be justified by the law.

Explanation:

When Paul says that the doers of the law are justified, we can detect from the context that he is saying that obedience to the law is the standard by which God justifies. For Paul says in Romans 2:12 that all who have sinned under the law will be judged through the law.⁸ In other words, the principle for judgment is disobedience to the law. And if disobedience to the law is the standard for judgment, then doing the law is the standard for justification. In other words, Paul explains that the doers of the law are justified in order to emphasize that the principle by which God judges is disobedience, and the principle by which he justifies is doing the law.

Counterargument:

According to this argument Paul introduces abstract principles by which God judges and justifies. That is, Paul is not saying that God actually justifies those who do the law, but that the abstract principle through which God would offer justification is to those who do the law. The problem with this argument is that in Romans 2:14, Paul explains that the Gentiles sometimes do by nature what the law requires. Thus, the reason Paul says that God justifies the doers of the law is to show that some of the Gentiles will be justified before God because, even though they don’t have the Mosaic law, they naturally do the law.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Paul says the Gentiles sometimes do what the law requires, he is not saying that therefore the Gentiles are justified. Rather, he is continuing to emphasize his theme that the Jews should not think that they are justified simply because they are God’s people. Rather, God is impartial, and he justifies based on works. In fact, even the Gentiles sometimes do things that are excusable because obedience to God’s will is what matters, and not one’s ethnicity. Still, Paul says not that the Gentiles are fully justified but that they will be judged according to the gospel (Romans 2:16).

The weakness of this view is that it assumes Paul presents the abstract principle by which God judges, but he may also be saying that some who do the law will be justified. That is, maybe Paul’s point is that some will be justified by doing the law, which implies the abstract principle. Unfortunately, this view never helps us decide between these options.

Explanation:

 Paul says that the doers of the law will be justified. We know from Paul’s letter to the Galatians that the purpose of the law is to bring people to faith.⁹ For in Galatians he explains that the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we may be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24). Given that the law was our guardian until Christ, we can deduce that the doers of the law are those who are led to repentance and faith. For to do the law is to realize that it is impossible to do the law apart from Christ. So those who do the law and are justified are those who realize it is impossible to do the law repent, put their faith in Christ, and are justified by Christ.¹⁰

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this argument misunderstands Paul in this section. For while it may be true that the law is meant to lead to repentance and faith in Christ, this does not seem to be what Paul is getting at in Romans 2:13. Paul does not seem to be offering a carefully articulated statement of the gospel; that will come later. Rather, he seems to be explaining to the Jewish Christians in Rome that God shows no partiality when it comes to judgment and justification. The reason Paul does this is because there was a segment of Jews who believed that because they were part of the covenant, that is, hearers of the law, they were essentially assured salvation.¹¹ This segment would expect the Gentile Christians to follow Jewish customs. Paul is explaining that these Jews are wrong, for God does not judge or justify based on covenantal status, that is, hearing the law. Rather he judges based on one’s wickedness and justifies based on one’s works of the law. Now, Paul will eventually explain that no one is righteous (Romans 3:23), which implies that no one will be justified by works of the law. But at this stage he is simply explaining that God is impartial, which allows for the Gentiles to be God’s people through Christ, without becoming Jewish.

Explanation:

When Paul says that the doers of the law will be justified, we can detect what he means by considering James 2:20–26. For James writes something similar, stating that faith apart from works is useless. Paul is saying the same thing here. That is, Paul is saying that when we place our faith in Christ, we are divinely empowered to do the law, so that faith is demonstrated through doing the law. Those with faith are divinely empowered to do the law and will be recognized as justified.¹²

Counterargument:

While it may be that Paul’s comments reflect James’ in some manner, his intentions may not be to articulate the details suggested by this argument. That is, it is reasonable to think that the Christians in Rome were influenced by the Jerusalem church where James was a leader. As such, the Christians in Rome would be familiar with James’ teaching that faith apart from works is dead. Now, Paul is offering his presentation of the gospel to the Romans, and since he wants them to receive his teaching, he may be purposely using language from James to win them over. The Roman Christians would be familiar with statements like the doers of the law are justified, which would warm them to Paul’s teaching.¹³ Still, it is doubtful that Paul intends to articulate the theological nuance that James presents in James 2:20–26. Rather, he simply means to connect with his audience as he works toward presenting the gospel.

This view is an example of eisegesis. That is, instead of understanding what Paul intends to mean based on the context of Romans 2:13, this view puts a meaning onto Paul based on his broader teachings.