What does it mean that obedience leads to righteousness?

Explanation:

We can detect from the immediate context that when Paul says obedience leads to righteousness, he means that obedience leads to right moral conduct.³ For in Romans 6:13 Paul exhorts the Romans to present themselves to God as those brought from death to life, and their members, as in their abilities and capacities, as instruments of righteousness. By exhorting the Romans to present their abilities and capacities as instruments of righteousness, Paul implies that the Romans should live morally upright lives. Likewise, Paul will go on in Romans 6:17–20 to explain that he is thankful that the Romans are obedient from the heart to become slaves of righteousness, which involves the sanctification of their faculties and abilities.⁴ Of course, sanctification of faculties and abilities has to do with right moral conduct. Given that the context surrounding Romans 6:6 has to do with right moral conduct, likely when Paul refers to obedience leading to righteousness, righteousness has to do with right moral living. So the result of obedience is right moral living.⁵

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul has made clear that no one will be righteous before God by works of the law (Romans 3:20). Specifically, in Romans 3:20 Paul explains that no one will be justified by works of the law, where the term he uses for being justified is the verb δικαιόω (to justify). And δικαιόω is related to the noun δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) that Paul uses in Romans 6:16, and is what obedience leads to. Since we know from Romans 3:20 that no one will be justified by works of the law, it is unlikely that obedience leads to right moral living, for obedience, which has to do with obeying the law, cannot justify.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument fails to notice that there is a difference between being justified by works of the law, and obedience that leads to right moral living. When Paul refers to being justified by works of the law he has in mind obeying the Mosaic law in such a way that one is considered judicially right before God. Paul has made clear that this is not possible, for all are under sin (Romans 3:9). This is not what Paul has in mind in Romans 6:16. Rather, here Paul explains that one could be a slave either to sin or to obedience, and that the result of one’s allegiance has consequences. In the case of allegiance to sin, the result is death, while the result of allegiance to obedience is right moral living. Of course, Paul is not saying that right moral living is what justifies one before God, for we know that one is only justified by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22). Rather, he has in mind that one who believes in Christ pledges allegiance to obedience, and this obedience turns out to result in right holy living.

Explanation:

Paul writes that slavery to obedience leads to righteousness. While it is tempting to think that Paul means obedience to faith leads to forensic justification, he likely has in mind that living obediently to God leads to right moral conduct. We can detect this because he makes a similar statement in Romans 2:13.⁶ There he writes that it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. In other words, right moral conduct consists in doing the law. Likewise, as Paul says in Romans 6:16, obedience leads to righteousness, as in right moral conduct.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that this argument seems to confuse right living with forensic justification. For in Romans 2:13 Paul certainly seems to have forensic justification in mind. We can detect this because he uses the future tense for the verb to justify, which suggests future, which is forensic, justification. That is, likely Paul is saying that those who do the law perfectly will be forensically justified. Of course, he also goes on to explain that all are under sin (Romans 3:9) so no one will be justified by works of the law (Romans 3:20). Now, if we use Romans 2:13 to understand Romans 6:16, this implies that Paul has forensic justification in mind, which means he is saying that obedience leads, in the future, to future justification.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that the verb to justify likely has to do with forensic justification, the underlying idea is related to righteous living. That is, the underlying idea of Romans 2:13 is that by doing the law, one lives a morally upright life, and because one lives a morally upright life, one is forensically justified. So living a morally upright life underlies future forensic justification, and it’s this morally upright living that Paul refers to in Romans 6:16. For the result of obedience, as with living according to the law, is morally upright behaviour. Of course, Paul never says that morally upright behaviour leads to forensic justification, because only faith in Christ leads to forensic justification. Rather, he is saying that the consequence of obedience is morally upright living.

The weakness of this view is that Paul associates righteousness with forensic justification earlier in this letter, which might imply that obedience leading to righteousness is faith leading to justification. Still, Paul also clearly refers to righteousness in the sense of behaviour later in Romans 6:18, so Paul’s earlier association of righteousness with forensic justification is not enough to overturn this view.

Explanation:

Paul writes that being a slave to sin leads to death, while being a slave to obedience leads to righteousness. We can understand what he means that obedience leads to righteousness because he has already characterized obedience as the obedience of faith.¹⁰ For example, in Romans 1:5 Paul explains that he was appointed an apostle by Christ in order to bring about the obedience of faith. Likewise, Paul concludes the letter by stating that the revelation of Jesus Christ has been made known to bring about the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26). So obedience has to do with the obedience of faith. Of course, we also know from Romans 3:21–26 that the obedience of faith is a technical idea related to the fact that we are not saved by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, obedience of faith does not have to do with acting righteously, or performing any kind of work, for Paul explains forcefully that no one will be justified by works of the law (Romans 3:20). Rather, obedience of faith has to do with believing the gospel, by which one is justified (Romans 3:26). Since obedience of faith is to believe the gospel, which leads to justification, likely when Paul refers to obedience leading to righteousness, he has in mind obedience of faith leading to justification.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul not only refers to obedience in terms of faith in his letter to the Romans, but he also refers to obedience in terms of behaviour. For example, in Romans 5:19 Paul explains that through one man’s disobedience (referring to Adam) many were made sinners. What he has in mind is Adam’s sinful behaviour. He then says that through one man’s obedience, the many will be made righteous, which is clearly referring to the perfect behaviour of Jesus Christ. Further, in Romans 15:18 Paul notes that he is tasked with bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and deed, which again suggests that obedience has to do with behaviour. Finally, in Romans 16:19 Paul says that the Romans’ obedience is known to all. Of course, if their obedience is known to all, this obedience is likely observable public behaviour. Given that Paul refers to obedience in terms of believing the gospel, as well as moral behaviour, this argument cannot conclude from Paul’s reference to obedience that he has in mind obedience of faith. For he could just as easily have in mind obedience in terms of behaviour.

Response to counterargument:

The reason the reference to obedience in Romans 6:16 likely has to do with faith in the gospel rather than behaviour is that obedience leads to righteousness. We already know from Paul that no one will be justified by works of the law (Romans 3:20), so we know that behaviour cannot lead to righteousness. Since the obedience referred to in Romans 6:16 does lead to righteousness, Paul cannot have in mind obedience in terms of behaviour. Since the only other type of obedience referred to in Romans is obedience in the sense of believing the gospel, and we know that believing the gospel leads to justification, the obedience leading to righteousness must be the obedience of believing the gospel.

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means when he refers to obedience leading to righteousness because he contrasts this with the fact that sin leads to death. By understanding what Paul means by sin leading to death, we can understand what he means that obedience leads to righteousness. So what does it mean that sin leads to death? When Paul refers to sin leading to death he likely has in mind eternal separation from God. Of course, if sin leads to death, which is eternal separation from God, and obedience leads to righteousness, it is likely that obedience leading to righteousness is the opposite of eternal separation from God. Thus, obedience leading to righteousness is eternal life with God.¹¹ So when Paul writes that obedience leads to righteousness, he means that obedience leads to eternal life with God.

Counterargument:

There is no clear contrast between sin leading to death and obedience leading to righteousness. Rather, if there were a clear contrast, we would expect Paul to say that slavery to sin leads to death, while slavery to God leads to life. Instead, he says that slavery to sin leads to death and slavery to obedience leads to righteousness. Of course, if there is no antithesis between sin leading to death and obedience leading to righteousness, then the fact that sin leads to eternal death does not inform what Paul means when he says obedience leads to righteousness.¹²

Response to counterargument:

That there is a contrast between sin leading to death and obedience leading to righteousness is obvious. This becomes clear when we analyze the Greek and notice that Paul repeats the same preposition and singular accusative case. First, he writes ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον, which means sin leading to death. Then he writes ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην, which means obedience leading to righteousness. Clearly there is a contrast between these phrases, with sin leading to a negative and obedience leading to a positive. To argue that there is no contrast between these is to assume that the contrast must be between slavery to sin and slavery to God. But such an assumption then includes the thought that there cannot be a contrast between slavery to sin and slavery to obedience, yet this thought needs to be proven.

The weakness of this view is that Paul prefaces the discussion of obedience leading to righteousness with the rhetorical question, Are we to sin because we are under grace? The question sets the context for a reflection on behaviour. For Paul is saying that we are not saved by our behaviour but by grace, which leads to the question, Then who cares about behaviour? Given that the context is about behaviour, when Paul refers to obedience leading to righteousness he likely has in mind behaviour.