Is There a Future Justification by Works at the Day of Judgment? # 11

by | May 24, 2010 | Systematic Theology

This will be my eleventh and last post on this subject.  I continue my critical review of Lee Irons exposition of Romans 2:13.  His comments as always are italicized.

Page 25

We come now to v 14 which is introduced with our third “for.” Like its predecessors, this “for” is designed to provide support for something stated earlier.  However, in this case, it links back, not to the immediately preceding verse (v 13) but to v 12a. This is evdent because now Paul is no longer talking about the Jews but the Gentiles. “Those who do not have the law” (v 14) are the same as “all who sinned apart from the law” (v 12a).  The best way to see the logical force of this third “for” is to observe that there is a chiasm in our paragraph:39

A. (v 12a) Gentiles (“all who sinned apart from the Law”)

B. (v 12b) Jews (“all who sinned under the Law”)

B.’ (v 13) Jews (“not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of the Law”)

A.’ (vv 14-15) Gentiles (“who do not have the Law”)

Here Irons is to be congratulated on giving what is no doubt the proper understanding of the structure of Romans 2:12-15.  I am a little confused as to how what he says here is consistent with his previous statements.  Earlier in his introductory abstract he has said, “Option 2 comes in two varieties: (2a) Gentile Christians are in view, or (2b) non-Christian Gentiles.”  Later he will say:  “This is the most common objection and it is consistent with either the view that the Gentiles of vv. 14-15 are Christians (Cranfield, Gathercole, Wright) or the view that they are non-Christians (Snodgrass).” (page 30)

The problem with this is that there is clearly a third point of view that opposes the hypothetical point of view.  Allow me be to designate this view 2c.  It is the view that “the doers of the law” in question were Jews genuinely converted by the types and shadow of the gospel found in the Old Testament.  It is unaccountable that Irons has omitted this view.  It is the most exegetically appealing and acceptable of the variations of the non-hypothetical view.  It is also the view of John Murray.

Pages 26-29

Here I simply want to express my admiration for and agreement with Irons’ interpretation of the Gentiles who do by nature of the law as a reference to unconverted Gentiles who occasionally and outwardly conform to the demands of the law.  I also want to concur with his exegetical intuition with regard to the work of the law being, as he says, not what the law demands, but the “the business, effect, or function of the Law.”  (28)

Page 29

I said at the beginning that in arguing for the hypothetical view, I do not want to be understood as saying that there will be no future judgment according to works. It is in fact a part of Paul’s gospel message, since it forms the necessary background against which the message of the atonement makes sense. The good news of God’s grace in Christ makes no sense apart from the bad news that there will be a day of judgment.

This statement is typical of Irons’ desire to avoid the assumed implications of his hypothetical view.  I simply want to note here that an essential part of the judgment described in the previous is the repeated emphasis that in that day those who have done good wil be rewarded.

2:7  to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

2:10  but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

It seems impossible to me to claim that there will be a future judgment according to works, while denying that half of what such a judgment clearly involves will ever take place.  Half of the immediately preceding description of the judgment will never occur according to Irons.

Follow Us In Social Media

Subscribe via Email

Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.


Man of God phone
Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Before critiquing theonomy, we need a good definition. Some people today who use the word “theonomy” don’t mean anything more than “God’s law” because the etimology of the word theonomy is “theos” which means God, and “nomos” which means law. They only want to affirm that God’s law is supreme over man’s law. And they’re right about that. God’s transcendent moral law is the norm that norms all norms. Governmental laws should always be consistent with God’s law and human law must never violate God’s law.

But in this post, I’ll be using the word “theonomy” in a more technical sense, which is rooted in the historic usage of the term.

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

It is always a humbling and learning experience to read the responses to a blog series on a controversial subject. Iron does sharpen iron, as the Bible says, and I learn much from those responses. Some postmils have taken a little umbrage at my description of Postmillennialism as a millennium involving a distinct, golden age following the one in which we live.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This