Romans 2:13 and the Covenant of Works
February 11th, 2010
“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified” (Romans 2:13). This verse is among the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible. Some find in this verse the doctrine of justification by works plus faith, while others – rightly insisting that justification is by faith alone (Rom 3:28, et al.) – understand the Apostle to be speaking of works as the fruit of faith (i.e. justification is by faith alone, but that faith is never alone in the person justified.). Both approaches miss the Apostle Paul’s point entirely.
Properly interpreting this verse does not depend so much on the grammar as it does on the context and it illustrates how far afield we can go by viewing verses as mere proof-texts without proper consideration for their context. Paul is not here discussing the relationship of works and saving faith. He approaches this subject in chapters 6 and 7. His topic is the condemnation of the law and verse 13 does not represent a parenthetical comment on another subject, but it is rather the crux of the matter.
To understand Paul’s argument we must follow it from the beginning. In Romans 1:16-17 Paul states his purpose in giving a full presentation of the Gospel and presents his thesis statement, “the just shall live by faith.” The section that follows, however, does not speak of the grace of Jesus Christ, but of “the wrath of God” (v. 18). God’s mercy has no meaning if it were not for God’s holiness and his righteous judgment and wrath against sin. Grace is nonsense without law.
As the first chapter unfolds Paul parades the sins characteristic of the gentiles. When he wraps up his case against the heathen he then rather surprisingly states that this sinful condition belongs to all people universally. “You who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things” (2:1-2). Such a bold statement needs explanation, so he continues by quoting the Old Testament: God “will render to every man according to his deeds.” That is, one’s works, or obedience to the law determines where one will be for eternity. He will “render” as a waged earned. This is what he explains later, “now to the one who works, his wages is not reckoned as a favor, but what is due” (Rom 4:5).
Paul continues to tighten the screws – “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitions and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (7-8). These verses present parallel ellipses. This suggests that we must supply the same word/concept for both. We know that God graciously grants eternal life to those who believe, but we cannot say that he graciously grants wrath and indignation. It should be clear that the word to be supplied is “earn” or “merit.” By our deeds we will either merit eternal life or eternal death. Paul is not here speaking of “evangelical obedience” as verse 12 makes clear with its emphasis on the law which will judge both Jew and gentile.
At last we arrive at verse 13 where Paul argues that it is the “doers of the law who will be justified.” Paul’s point here is not to safeguard the doctrine of justification by faith from the error of antinomianism. Paul has not even mentioned justification by faith! He does not even begin to address the gospel in general, the atonement of Christ, or justification by faith until the pivotal point in chapter three.
Paul makes a play on the verbs of hearing and doing. Many of you are probably aware that “to hear” in Hebrew idiom is a synonym for “to do.” If you hear the word of God, then you do the word of God. Paul is saying “it is not those who make a solid effort to do the law, but those who REALLY DO the law – as in every jot and tittle, in thought word and deed, perfectly and perpetually – who will be justified.”
James makes the same point when he writes “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). The point Paul and James are making is that the law is rigid, and in its very nature excludes grace.
Paul continues by addressing how it is that gentiles are condemned under this law. They did not receive it engraved on tablets of stone as the Jews did, but God wrote the law on their hearts. God will judge those who know right and wrong from nature by what they know and did not do (2:14-15).
Here we understand clearly the nature of the relationship that God established with Adam in the beginning. “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with the power and ability to keep it” (Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1). Although we no longer have the power and ability to keep God’s law, yet, by virtue of our creation, we – with Adam – have the law written on our heart, and this law will accuse or defend us on the Day of Judgment.
Everything in Paul’s argument is driving to the conclusion that “we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all are under sin” (3:9), that “there is none righteous, not even one” (3:10), so that “every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God” (3:19). The law brings only wrath and condemnation. Although “the law promised life” (Rom 7:10), as sinners we can never cash in on that promise. Commenting on Romans 2:13, John Calvin writes,
That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works. They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. For the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, – That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law (Commentary on Romans).
Paul still holds in his mind what he wrote earlier, that “the doers of the law will be justified” when he states the conclusion of the matter, “by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (3:20).
The next verse represents the pivot point. When Paul writes “but now apart from the law” (3:21) he begins his exposition of another way of salvation, which is by grace. Even as the law excluded grace, so grace now excludes the law. “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). As the corollary to law is merit, the corollary to faith is grace. The law is not of faith, and grace is opposed to merit. “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom 11:6).
If anyone should keep the law then they are rightly said to merit God’s approbation. “The one who works, his wages is not reckoned as favor, but as what is due” (4:5). God would justify such a person according to their righteousness. But as sinners we have no claim to such a reward. But by faith we receive the grace of God through Jesus Christ. “To the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (4:5).
The corollary to the covenant of works/grace is this sharp distinction between law and gospel. The law through its doing promised life on the basis of merit. The gospel through faith promises life on the basis of grace. Such a distinction between law and gospel is essential for our understanding of the gospel, and why the Protestant Reformers taught it as such.
For further study on Romans 2:13 see the commentaries on Romans by John Calvin, Charles Hodge and Robert Haldane, and Geerhardus Vos, “Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification.”
Well said Josh
I learned from the best
[...] Romans 2:13 and the Covenant of Works Posted on March 9, 2010 by R. Scott Clark It has been suggested in recent years that the true sense of Rom 2:13 is that it intends to say that there are two stages to justification, an initial justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and an alleged “final” justification (of which Scripture as understood by the Reformed confessions knows nothing) in which our “Spirit-wrought” sanctity will have a role. In this scheme God is supposed to recognize what is intrinsically true of us and declare us righteousness partly on the basis of Christ’s righteousness for us and partly on the basis of our inherent, Spirit-wrought sanctity. This quasi-Romanist view is being peddled as if it were Reformed. OPC pastor and WSC grad Joshua Martin dissents from this view and explains why here. [...]
Great post!
Don’t know if the length of this comment will be annoying, but as we used to say in the Navy, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission!”
Anyway, I’ve cut and pasted below a paper I delivered to our Asheville (NC) area PCA Pastors group some time ago, backing up your exegetical points.
Jeff Hutchinson, February 2, 2005
Romans 2:6-16
Do Believers “Receive Eternal Life According to Their Works”?
And Is There a “Future Justification for the Doers of the Law”?
Romans 2:1-16 (ESV)
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things. [3] Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [4] Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
[6] He will render to each one according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality.
[12] 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. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] 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. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Introduction:
Romans 2:6-16 teaches the Law, as a Covenant of Works, not the Gospel, as a Covenant of Grace. It teaches that God is just, rewarding the righteous and punishing the sinner. The perfect man will receive eternal life according to his perfect works, the perfect doer of the law will be justified; only those will escape the judgment of God according to their own works or doing of the law.
Romans 2:6-16, despite the emphatic teachings of some, the more tentative suggestions of others, or the relative uncertainty of still others, is not teaching “the gospel;” it is not teaching the so-called “good news” that “believers receive eternal life according to our works,” and that Judgment Day includes “a future justification for believers, the doers of the law.” Several simple exegetical arguments prove the point:
1. The overall structure of the book: The gospel is summarized in 1:16-17 (“the power of God for salvation…is revealed”), with 1:18 then beginning a new section (“the wrath of God is revealed”). 3:21 (“But now”) is the transition back to the gospel, and connected to 1:16-17. Clearly, then, the section in between (1:18-3:20) is about the wrath of God being revealed, not about the mercy and salvation of God being revealed.
2. No mention of Christ the Savior in the surrounding context: The only mention of Christ anywhere in this section (1:18-3:20) refers to Him in His role as Judge, not as Savior (2:16). Again, the immediate context is not dealing with the gospel of mercy and salvation, but with the revelation of God’s wrath.
3. Clearest reading: The simple formulas, “He will render to each one according to his works” (vs. 6), and “the doers of the law who will be justified” (vs. 13), are straightforward summaries of the principle of justice, the Covenant of Works. Notice first of all that they do not mention Christ, and so it is hard to see how they can stand as “summaries of the gospel” (unlike, say, Rom. 1:1-5, or 1 Cor. 2:2). Further, those who wish to interpret the first formula as if it is saying something like, “God will render to each one according to his works, and for the believer, this means that by His grace and Spirit He enables His people to do good works that will then be rendered with eternal life,” and who wish to interpret the second formula as if it is saying something like, “God by His grace and Spirit makes His people true doers of the law who will then be justified accordingly,” are by the nature of the case diverging from the clearest and most straightforward reading of the texts, and requiring a much more nuanced reading.
4. Flow of thought (I): Paul has just taught that we are all lawbreakers, not doers of the law (1:18-32). He then extends the net to include all those who aren’t yet convinced of that (2:1-5). For 2:6-16 to then be about the way of salvation for such sinners, without a clear transition or mention of Christ and His cross, is nonsensical.
5. Flow of thought (II): In the immediately preceding verses Paul piles up implication upon implication [“you have no excuse” (2:1), “the judgment of God rightly falls” (2:2), you will not escape judgment on the basis of the things you have done (2:3), stop presuming upon the kindness of God (2:4), you are storing up wrath for yourself (2:5)], all begging the question, “WHY?” Why don’t I have any excuse? Why will God’s judgment fall rightly on me? Etc. And so Paul gives the answer: Because “He will render to each one according to his works” (2:6f).
6. Terms of Contract (I): The requirement that a person seek for God’s glory “by patience in well-doing” (ESV) / “by patient continuance” (NKJV) / “by persistence” (NIV) is an essential part of the contract; and not fine print, but explicit (cf. Gal. 6:10; Jer. 18:7-10; Ezk. 33:12-20). Lifelong, continual, and perfect obedience is required. As Jonathan Edwards wrote, a ship crossing the Atlantic that only sinks once is still a sunken ship.
7. Terms of Contract (II): The alternative “but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth” describes all of us. This is not a “tipping point” contract either, but an “either/or.” A person is either a continual well-doer or someone who is self-seeking. Before the tribunal of God no one is both.
8. Scripture interpreting Scripture (I): 2:6-16 cannot (and would not) contradict 3:10ff. Certainly “there will be…glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good” (2:9-10), but Paul soon reminds us that “no one does good” (3:12).
9. Scripture interpreting Scripture (II): Similarly, 2:6-16 cannot and would not contradict 8:7-8. Certainly “the doers of the law…will be justified” (2:13), but Paul soon teaches that the sinner’s mind “does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
10. Logical implications (I): If 2:6-16 was teaching that there is “a future justification for the doers of the law,” then there would be an obvious advantage to being a Jew, and the question of 3:1 (“Then what advantage has the Jew?”) never would have come up.
11. Logical implications (II): Similarly, if Paul had been teaching in 2:6-16 that some were going to be judged righteous according to their (Christian, Spirit-given, by grace alone) works, the objection of 3:5 (“But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?”) never would have come up. No reasonable person would question God’s righteous character if some men were able to keep His law. It is precisely because NO NATURAL MAN can keep the covenant of works that the question arises, “Wait a minute, is God giving us fair rules here?”
12. Logical implications (III): The slanderous charge, “Paul’s gospel means that we should just do evil that good may come” (3:8) would never have crossed anyone’s mind if 2:6-11 was teaching that we must do good in order to receive good from God.
13. Paul’s recapitulation: In 3:9 Paul writes, “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.” Where else would he have made this charge, that all are under the power of sin, except 2:6-16, the most natural and nearest referent? Therefore, 2:6-16 is not and cannot be teaching that some (the “doers of the law”) are not under the power of sin! For all are under the power of sin, and Paul had already made that charge, in 2:6-16.
14. The show stopper: Romans 3:20 is the summary statement of this section of Paul’s argument. Notwithstanding all the erroneous and too-clever-by-half attempts to redefine “works of the law,” Romans 2:6-16 cannot be teaching the opposite. Romans 2:6-16 is not, does not, and cannot be teaching that some (mere) human beings will be justified in God’s sight by being doers of the law. It is not, does not, and cannot be teaching that believers receive eternal life according to their works. “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.”
Conclusion:
Believers do not “receive eternal life according to our works,” we receive eternal life according to Christ’s righteous works on our behalf, which righteousness is given “by His grace as a gift,” and “received by faith” (3:24-25).
Judgment Day does not include “a future justification for believers, the doers of the law.” Judgment Day includes a future acknowledgment and acquittal, openly before all mankind, of the already justified, the already acknowledged and acquitted, those who were not “doers of the law,” but who, by faith, received the righteous doing of the Law by Christ on their behalf.
So, in brief, Rom 2.13 is not the Pauline equivalent of Jms 2.24. Is this correct?
It’s the Pauline equivalent of James 2:10.
P.S. to my earlier post: for readers who may not know, Norman Shepherd states, “Romans 2:13 is really the Pauline equivalent of James 2:24″ (The Way of Righteousness: Justification Beginning With James [La Grange, CA: Kerygma Press, 2009], p. 40).
You said: “but those who REALLY DO the law – as in every jot and tittle, in thought word and deed, perfectly and perpetually – who will be justified.”
My response is based on your quote of Calvin on Rom 2:13. Calvin confuses “fulfill” with “keep 100% flawlessly.” The former Christians can and must do, the latter isn’t an issue in Paul’s mind, and rather a phantom that haunted Luther. Rom 13:8-10, among other places, explicitly say that as a Christian, one is called to ‘fulfill the Law’, and this is how Rom 2:13 is to be understood (see especially Rom 2:29, where only a Christian can fulfill the Law).
Also, you said: Here we understand clearly the nature of the relationship that God established with Adam in the beginning. “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with the power and ability to keep it” (Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1). Although we no longer have the power and ability to keep God’s law, yet, by virtue of our creation, we – with Adam – have the law written on our heart, and this law will accuse or defend us on the Day of Judgment.
My response: This really doesn’t fit with the flow of the discussion, for it is injecting foreign concepts into the exegesis. The “Law” Paul is fighting against is the Mosaic Law, not some “law in general,” much less a ‘covenant of works’. Places like 1 Cor 9:20f explicitly contradict many of the notions WCF 19.1 teaches.
Unfortunately, I don’t see an option of “email me of follow up comments,” so I fear I will miss any comments people might have.
Nick, your suggestions are completely contrary to the context of the passage. To suggest that perfect obedience is a “phantom that haunted Luther” is contrary to the entire conclusion to the argument, which Paul states in Rom 3:9-20. The purpose of the law is that “every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (v. 19-20).
Your other suggestion that Paul is only speaking against the Mosaic law will not work, for Paul is the one who brings the Gentiles into the discussion, stating that the law of creation is written on their heart, and who includes both Jews and Gentiles as being “under sin” because both are under law.
Your appeals to Rom 13:8-10 and 1 Cor 9:20 are non sequiturs. In Romans 13 Paul teaches that love is the fulfillment of the law, and of course Christians are called to obey God’s law. It would be a strange religion indeed if adherents were taught disobedience to deity! What Paul denies is that we can fulfill the law so as to be justified by it. In 1 Cor 9 Paul speaks of Jews who are “under the law” – who have not come to faith in Christ and who are committed to the laws of Moses. To reach them Paul consigned himself to the Mosaic regulations so as not to incite unnecessary scandal. There is nothing contrary here to the covenant of works idea expressed in WCF 19:1-2 and in Reformed orthodoxy.
Josh- nicely stated. I have come to think of Romans 2:13 as a sort of krux interpretum. You can understand a great deal about a man’s overall theology by how he understands this verse. I appreciate your lucid comments. You would think Reformed churches would get this!
May the Lord bless your efforts to exalt our Lord’s righteousness given to us freely as a gift apart from the Law.
Cheers
M
Hi Josh,
thanks for the excellent exegesis here. I have always maintained that Rom. 2 is a re-iteration of the principle of the Covenant of Works, although I wasn’t sure how much of the Reformed tradition embraced that interpretation.
Mark, good to hear from you.
Daniel, good stuff. I have added you to our blogroll.
while I’m no expert on your background, judging by this post I would say your appeal to a law/gospel and grace vs. works dichotomy is misleading and un-Pauline, it is also destructive to a Christian’s faith. While yes the point of the law is to lead us to Christ, that doesn’t mean that the sole function of the law is to condemn. That is one of the purposes of the law, but not the only one. Your exegesis must account for all of Scripture- ascribing to Adam a “covenant of works” is completely external to the Genesis text, nowhere in there do we see any mention of such. In every covenant from Adam through the New Covenant there are boundaries, expectations set in place that are necessary for the covenant to be sustained but that are not the foundation of the covenant itself.
Secondly, Nick’s appeal to Romans 13 is an appropriate rebuttal to your all too nice and neat law/grace dichotomy. if I am understanding you correctly, that the law serves to condemn us only, and that romans 3:9-20 is Paul’s only statement about the function of the law then you do injustice to the letter of Romans. In fact there are multiple functions ascribed to the law in Romans: exposing our sin (7), pointing us to Christ (chs. 3 &11), and as a positive ethical guide (13).
Notice that in chapter 13 Paul explicitly mentions the very same commandment that he gave as an example in chapter 7 that lead him to despair-coveting. It is hard to imagine Paul reciting that exact commandment in a positive way, as an exhortation, if he only had a negative view of the law that lead to despair and helplessness. There Paul encourages them to be doers of the law without even flinching. A theology that think grace and law stand in absolute contradiction make God to contradict Himself. He gave the law and the law expresses His character. Those who live by grace in a relationship with him are set free not only to love him but to do his law-imperfectly yes, but nonetheless to do it and to love and to seek his grace where we fall short AND where we do well.
[...] leave a comment » Here. [...]
Jonathan, I never said, nor would I ever say, that the law has the *sole* function of condemnation and driving the sinner to Christ. Why would you think that? My argument was that the function of the law mentioned in Rom 2:13 is the same as in Rom 3:9-20. In both Lutheran and Reformed theology the moral law has three functions: (1) to restrain sin, (2) to condemn/drive to Christ, (3) and as the rule of Christian obedience/gratitude. Certainly the third use of the law is in view in Romans 12-16 just as the second use of the law is in view in 1:18-3:20.
As for your second point, that “life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF 7:2) sure sounds to me like the burden of Gen 3, and the interpretation of the rest of Scripture (Hos 6:7; Rom 5:12-20). You can call this what you like, but the Reformed tradition refers to it as a Covenant of Works (WCF 7.1-3; 19:1-2) and as a Covenant of Life (WLC Q&A 20), and with good reason (if you care to study the matter further).
@Josh:
thanks for the compliment
Haven’t you overlooked the fact that a change of the law has been made AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion and ascension? “a change of the law also.” Heb. 7:12b. Paul refers to this change as an addition to the law Rom. 5:20. What you folks are misunderstanding is that the crucifixion of Jesus in regard to the fact that his life was lost by bloodshed carries the preexisting requirement of God’s oath to give an account directly to God.
“And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.
I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from
EACH man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of
his fellow man.”
Therefore one word has been added to the law of God for God’s set purpose for each man. Neither the law written at Sinai nor the addition given through the apostles allows disobedience of God, but the feature of the one word of law which has been added by Jesus’ crucifixion allows the forgiveness of all sins by the faith of obeying Jesus in only one Way. For the only Way any natural born man can be born of God is by the faith of obeying the Lord’s command confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus’ life was lost by bloodshed and be baptized into this Way. But if you refuse you will not escape the punishment of eternal death which is the other sharp edge of this law that has been perfected by Jesus’ crucifixion. A man can only live by every word that has proceeded from God’s mouth.
[...] April 15, 2010 by tchomp http://discoveredeemer.com/?p=223 [...]
Theodore, the “change in law” you refer to (Heb 7:11-12) refers to the passing away of the old covenant – and the replacement of the Levitical priesthood for the heavenly ministration of Christ (not the addition of a single law!) Nothing in your presentation follows, and your theory of the death of Christ strikes me as wholly unique. Certainly it bears no resemblance to Isaiah 53 and other relevant texts, which present the death of Christ as a substitutionary atonement. Finally, Scripture does not teach that the new birth is effected by the activity of man, but rather ascribes it to the sovereign work of God (Jn 3:9; 6:44, 63-65; 1 Pe 1:5, Js 1:18, etc.), resulting in repentance and faith (Acts 5:31; 13:48, etc).