Did Matthew and Paul have opposing views on justification by faith? It is no secret that the Christian community has wrestled with “reconciling” Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith” (particularly in Romans 3:20-5:21) with other writers in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew, James).  In an article examining Christian salvation in the Synoptic Gospels, Neufeld writes,

“The First Gospel has generated the most scholarly discussion, because, of the Synoptics, Matthew most overtly affirms Moses’ Law and bases kingdom entrance on obedience. Neither of these fit easily into the traditional Protestant gospel.”[1]

However, is there an actual difference or only a perceived difference between Matthew and Paul arising from varying factors such as literary genre and style, specific audiences and occasions for writing, etc? It is my conviction (as well as the general Christian conviction) that the NT authors are united in their understanding of the roles of faith and obedience in the doctrine of justification.

Justification in Matthew

The OT proposes faith to not only encompass belief, but also faithfulness, loyalty, and allegiance. This is observable in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew 1:20-23 records Joseph’s angelic vision regarding the supernatural conception of Mary’s child. The angel commands Joseph to name the child “Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” In Matthew 1:24, Joseph’s belief in the words of the angel resulted in righteous behaviour. Not only do we see an early example of a man who demonstrates faith working in obedience, but Matthew also makes us aware of who Jesus is and what he came to do – “saving his people from their sins” is not an altogether divorced concept from Paul’s teaching on imputation[2] in justification based upon the work of Christ (Romans 4:1-8). Further, John the Baptist preached repentance and fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:2, 7-10). Repentance should not be thought of something separate from faith – it is trust that leads to a change of heart. This hand-in-hand relationship between faith and obedience can be observed throughout Matthew’s gospel (e.g., 4:20, 22; 13:44). Two remaining matters must be noted: 1) nature of narrative and 2) Matthew’s emphasis on a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees. First, one should not expect a doctrinal excursus in Matthew on justification. It isn’t his purpose nor the purpose of narrative genre to examine doctrine in the way that an epistle does. Rather, Matthew seeks to offer his readers with a record of the person, life, ministry, and redemptive acts of Christ with narrative emphases on Christ’s teaching (see 5:1-7:29; 10:1-11:1; 13:1-53; 18:1-19:1; 24:1-26:1) and on eschatological judgment and salvation based upon faithfulness and obedience (25:31-46). On this latter note, we move into the second point, conclude and transition by stating that Matthew’s emphasis on obedience for salvation in the eschaton does not deny that a person must believe in Jesus as the one who has come to “save his people from their sins” and has come to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28), but rather faith and repentance are necessary precursors to this obedience. The people who follow Messiah must be distinguished by a better righteousness than that of the religious leaders of the day.

Justification in Paul (Romans)

A similar example may be observed in Hebrews 11. There, we read that “by faith” many people recorded in the book of Genesis (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph) followed God in obedience and righteousness. However, in Genesis, only Abraham’s belief is highlighted (Genesis 15:6)! It shouldn’t be assumed that faith was not beneath and upholding the obedience of these people. One can deduce from the narrative that all of these people trusted YHWH, and their trust resulted in obedience.

It is this one example of “mentioned-faith” in Genesis that Paul picks up on in his discussion of justification in Romans 4. Abraham, who is the father of those who believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised, served as the perfect OT example/illustration to help instruct a Jewish-Gentile Christian congregation on what it means to be credited with righteousness following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The death and resurrection provided God “the judicial means” to remain just while justifying sinners (Romans 3:26). By faith in the gospel, a positional shift takes place in which God looks upon the individual’s faith and credits it as righteousness (rewardable behaviour even?) because even though the sinner can do nothing to earn such a judicial decree, satisfaction of wrath and provision of righteousness has occurred in the work of Christ. Yet, one must not think that Paul avoids obedience (Romans 1:5; 5:19; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19; 16:26) and its relationship to faith and righteousness. Indeed, he views the goal of his apostleship to speak of what Christ had accomplished through him “in order to bring about the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed” (Romans 15:18).

Relationship between Faith and Obedience in Justification

Therefore, do Matthew and Paul speak as one? Can Paul’s emphasis on the positional, judicial, and immediate nature of his doctrine of justification by faith be reconciled to Matthew’s narrative emphasis on the nature of one’s righteousness and its ability to stand at the eschaton?  I believe so. James is helpful here. In chapter 2 of his epistle, we are again given the example of Abraham whose faith was tested,

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?  You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works.  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:21-24).

True, justifying faith is a faith that results in obedience, faithfullness in righteousness, which is a faith that will stand before the Judge in the eschaton. Paul and Matthew would agree.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation Foundations of Evangelical Theology, ed. John S. Feinberg. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997.

Neufeld, Edmund K. “The Gospel in the Gospels: Answering the Question “What Must I Do to Be Saved?” From the Synoptics.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 2 (2008): 267-96.

Ortlund, Dane C. “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (2009): 323-339.

[2] Imputation is that necessary action of justification in which our sins are no longer counted against us, and righteousness has been credited to us in Christ.

This post came to my mind while I was doing some work in the Apostolic Fathers. Read what is written here in The Shepherd of Hermas, and happy blogging! I look forward to our discussion:

Shep. 29:1 ¶ {Mandate 4.1.1} “I command you,” he said, “to guard purity, and let no thought enter your heart about another man’s wife or about fornication, or about some such similar evil thing, for in doing this you commit a major sin. But always keep your mind on your own wife and you will never go wrong.
Shep. 29:2 For if this desire enters your heart, you will go wrong, and if others things as evil as this enter, you commit sin. For this desire in a servant of God is a major sin, and if anyone does this evil deed, he brings death on himself.
Shep. 29:3 So beware; have nothing to do with this desire; for where holiness lives, there lawlessness ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man.”
Shep. 29:4 I said to him, “Sir, allow me to ask you a few more questions.” “Speak,” he replied. “Sir,” I said, “if a man has a wife who believes in the Lord, and he finds her in some adulterous situation, does the man sin if he continues to live with her?”
Shep. 29:5 “As long as he is unaware of it,” he said, “he does not sin. But if the husband knows about her sin and the wife does not repent, but persists in her immorality, and the husband continues to live with her, he becomes responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.”
Shep. 29:6 “So what, sir,” I said, “should the husband do, if the wife persists in this passion?” “Let him divorce her,” he said, “and let the husband live by himself. But if after divorcing his wife he should marry another, then he too commits adultery.”
Shep. 29:7 “So then, sir,” I said, “if, after the wife is divorced, she repents and wants to return to her own husband, she will be taken back, won’t she?”
Shep. 29:8 “Certainly,” he said. “If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and brings a major sin upon himself. In fact, the one who has sinned and repented must be taken back. But not repeatedly: for there is only one repentance for God’s servants. So, because of the possibility of her repentance, the husband ought not to marry. This procedure applies to wife and husband.

When I signed up for the class, I thought that it would be a refreshing course since last semester I took a class on Angelology, Anthropology, and Hamartiology (Angels, Man, and Sin). The class was great and my professor was very thorough. But, as the name suggests, I left the class feeling depressed most days. All the discussion regarding the world’s condition and the universe’s perpetual state of darkness apart from God can be very–how should I say–disheartening. So, a class on Salvation was a way to move past the problem to the solution.

It’s been great so far. My professor is in his 80′s, has already retired, and is back for a short season while the seminary gets out of its financial crunch. Yet, I have found him to be delightful and his enthusiasm for the content gives me a boost to endure the late hour class. One thing he said is what I’d like to reflect on for the moment and I hope that these short words can lift the spirits of all who read, and encourage you to pursue the living Christ more and more each day.

“Don’t ever get over being saved,” Dr. Robert Lightner says. Read that again. This time, say it. Isn’t that convicting! On our best days, I think we easily acknowledge that we “aren’t over it.” But on our worst days, I think we don’t even get close to remembering the depths of God’s love for us. The reality is that it’s easy to get over it. We like the material, the visible, and the immediate. God saves us and…we’re still here, living with the same family, going to the same school, and hanging out with the same friends. And if you got saved while you were young, then you figure that church is a way of life and that your salvation is part of life. But, it’s not. There are some who aren’t saved. There are some that will not be saved. Every one of us, needs to be reminded that salvation was a gift that we were given. Everyone of us needs to be reminded that we can’t ever let this gift seem blasé. It means too much to “get over.”

Everyone one us was on the “unsaved” side of the aisle, at one point in time. Whether you were there for 5, 10, or 50 years, doesn’t matter. That was our starting line. We lost the race before we even began. Romans 1-3 tells us that we were all “under sin,” and this section of the book appropriately labeled Condemnation ends with this fact about us “There is no fear of God in their eyes.” Everyone’s starting point is here. My starting point was here. The result: condemnation. Guilty and sentenced.

But, this is so easy to forget. It’s easy to forget that a sentence must be carried out. To be saved means to be rescued from having to fulfill this sentence. In a world filled with trials and appeals, we fail to remember that in God’s judicial system, the trial was finished and decided before we were done! Our sins are punishable by death! Oh, how miserable we were and destined for an eternity of fulfilling this sentence in hell!

Spend some time this week considering the miserable estate that we were in. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:11-22. We were without hope and without God in the world. In this passage, Paul reflects (really for our sake) on who we were before God. Think about those words, “without hope and without God, in the world,” and think about how that doesn’t describe you anymore. Take a week and reflect. Remember, “Don’t ever get over being saved.”

But before I lay my head on the pillow, I decided to finish up my reading of the gospel of Mark. I was in chapter 14 and figured that I would be done in about 20 minutes, so a short devotional seemed appropriate to end such a work filled day.

As I began reading, the first verse of 14 struck an emotional chord. It reads, “Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize [Christ] by stealth and kill him.” After His prophetic sermon, Mark inserts a parenthetical, shifting the attention away from Christ to his enemies’ visceral plot against Him. These men are not interested in learning from this great Man, nor are they interested in receiving the life He’s offered. In contrast, their aim is to destroy Him in an underhanded way; they want to get to Him “by stealth.” This is the backdrop to everything that unfolds in the narrative.

Then, for the remainder of the gospel, attention shifts from the Christ’s office as Prophet to His office as Priest. Christ as the ultimate sacrifice is the great Mediator between God and humanity. The job description: die in my place. Before the Passover, we encounter a woman who inaugurates His impending death. She pours a bottle of perfume upon His head. Jesus calls this, “She has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.” Imagine that! It’s the equivalent of being measured for my casket before I am dead! Or, it’s like asking me to pick out my own tombstone and write my own epitaph before I actually stop breathing! We all know that we will die some day, yet never “when.” Here Christ knows not only the time, but even the manner. He courageously faces the call of God and obeys death. The events preceding His death accentuate the fact that He is going to die. He succinctly says, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” This blood is being shed in my place. Jesus Christ is giving up His life, substituting Himself for me.

The next couple of pages are drenched in our Savior’s blood. We see Him being pummeled and led to execution by the Romans at the request of the people. He receives the punishment of a criminal, being crucified with them. He is treated like the worst of men and yet never returns insult for insult, nor does He promise impending judgment. Surely He could have and we might say that He should have. We would have, wouldn’t we? We would say something like, “Don’t you know who you are dealing with?” Or we would say (like Bill Cosby), “I brought you into this world and I’ll take you out!” Yet, Christ did not do this. He “entrusted Himself to Him who deals justly.”

I must admit, that I wondered at the graphic representation of the crucifixion. Surely today we wouldn’t allow our kids to watch a movie like this! Yet, I think that there is an emotional effect at such a representation. You read about the plot to kill this Man. You see the hypocrisy of those that accuse Him and you see the blood dripping from His body. His blood indeed is “poured out.” In all of this, we’re meant to step back and be in awe of the Man who could have avoided this. He didn’t die for His crime. He died for ours. We’re meant to be hit with an emotional blow that leaves us speechless, reverent, and perhaps even in tears.

The narrative leaves us with a picture of the “Son of Man” hanging on a cross, being held up by the spikes piercing His hands. How counterintuitive! “Son of Man” was a phrase of honor and power. This was supposed to God’s man who conquered evil and any force that opposed God. He is the wielder of supreme authority and has the right to judge all His enemies. Yet, we see quite the opposite. We witness Him being accused by evil men, standing speechless, meek, and gentle. However, as we observe this blameless One, we grow in our love for Him, amazed, like Pilate was, at the strength and perseverance to accomplish God’s will.

Our Savior mediated the will of the Father, and His will was to save the world. We read, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…” The means of doing so was the sacrifice of His Son. The Son obediently mediated this aspect of the Father’s will. He endured the pain and suffering of the cross’s execution. He persevered courageously and was raised on the third day to demonstrate the Father’s good pleasure in His good work.

As I sat up in bed, I realized how weak I am. My tendency is to avoid the pains of the cross as religiously as I can. I looked back at all those times I could have shared Christ or been identified with Him. Sometimes I endured and obeyed God; other times, I cringed and failed. Yet our Savior, knowing both the time and manner of death gave up His life in my place. Despite the pain, He obeyed God and stood up valiantly. In the end, He wins, is glorious, and is worthy of imitation. One day, we’ll see Him in all His glory and splendor as He said. “You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Until that day, imitate Him and follow His example. Remember that He did it first. Let us imitate the glorious Christ.

But what is honorable? Transporting to the 21^st century, we find that the life that Don Quixote engrossed in no longer exists. We can’t save distressed damsels or fight evil wizards. We can’t save the princess and save her kingdom (Princess Toadstool doesn’t count). So, in our day and age, what is a lifestyle of honor?

Well, let me propose, that what I am about to write isn’t really a new or revised characterization of honor. But it is God’s view of what an honorable man lives like. Above all, God’s view of honor must pervade our caricatures of what we think nobility is. The truth is that left to choose for ourselves, we never choose the things that God is pleased to bless. Nevertheless, our discussion of honor is neither comprehensive nor is it complete, but it is an aspect of honorable living that is from God. Being found in His Word, we can be sure of its truth and its applicability.

Proverbs 20:3 says this, “Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, but any fool will quarrel.” The first half of this verse seems counterintuitive for a man. People are not prone to “back down” or “keep away.” In fact, we are told quite the opposite while growing up. People must try to be the silverback gorilla in the pack if they’re going to survive. Standing tall is the only way to promote yourself and if someone opposes you, you must beat them to the punch. Our families and societies tell us that the only way to get ahead is by proactively fighting our opponents. And even if this is not your experience, it’s hard to deny the inner turmoil that develops whenever we are opposed. We have a need to fight!

But perhaps the most indicting thought of this verse comes in the second verse, “any fool will quarrel.” Fool? We don’t like this word; perhaps because we don’t use it anymore. Yet, the convicting thing is that in a biblical world-view (a lens through we view the world), the word “fool” or the corresponding adjective “foolish” are in the vocabulary. You see, in God’s eyes a person is either “wise” or is a “fool.” A fool is someone that lives contrary to God’s order in the universe, and the wise man (or woman) is someone that lives faithfully in line with God’s “way of the world,” letting His way dictate their own.

The fool lives according to his own passions and “know how.” Notice that what would be our first response is foolish. That urge to fight back and win isn’t from God; it is the way of our own passions and, in the eyes of God, is foolish! Oh, that my life would be non-quarrelsome!

What a contrast! The way of honor is contrary to a fool’s way! If we are to live as wise individuals, we will live seeking to make peace before we seek to fight back. This is difficult and counterintuitive because of the world’s relational paradigm. “Bite or get bitten.” “If you right, fight!” These slogans should not be the banners flown by the Christian. Our personalities should carry the aroma of peace and our life should reflect the epitome of self-control: our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we read in the gospels, Jesus rarely confronted his opponents, even though they sought to kill Him and smear His character. Peter says it this way, “And while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously (I Peter 2:23).” Our Example did it well and, in His perfect obedience, lived the supreme life of wisdom and honor.

Honor isn’t a character trait lost through the eras of human development. The golden age didn’t bury nobility with it and the 21^st century isn’t an age inappropriate for a life of honor. Unlike Don Quixote, we can live in the present age, enjoy the stage of life in which we are, and appreciate the developments brought about by the industrial/technological revolution. Living a life of honor is accomplished by fighting less and self-controlling more. Its lived by avoiding discord and promoting peace. With this comes the blessing of God and the removal of foolishness. Let us choose the way of honor.