Jonathan Edwards
CONDEMNED YET ACCEPTED
Wherefore? because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” It is very unreasonable, on several accounts, to suppose that when the apostle says “by their own righteousness,” he refers only their ceremonial righteousness. For when the apostle warns us against trusting in our own righteousness as a basis for justification, doubtless it is fair to interpret the expression in the context and in validation of other Scripture.
Here we are warned to refrain from thinking that we obtain God’s favor and blessing as a result of our own righteousness. Deuteronomy 9:4-6, “Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations, the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which he swore unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it, for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people.”
None will pretend that here the expression “thy righteousness” signifies only a ceremonial righteousness, but will acknowledge that it refers to all their virtue or goodness and the inward goodness of the heart, as well as the outward goodness of life. This reference is made clear at the beginning of the 5th verse, “Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart;” and also by the end in the 6th verse, “Not for thy righteousness, for thou art a stiff-necked people.” Their stiff-neckedness was their moral wickedness, obstinancy, and perverseness of heart. On the contrary, by “righteousness” he means their moral virtue and rectitude of heart and life.
I would argue that when we find the expression “our own righteousness” in Scripture in relation to the favor of God, and when we are warned against looking upon it as a means to obtain favor, “our own righteousness” does not signify only a ceremonial righteousness, but all manner of goodness of our own.
In the New Testament, the Jews are also condemned for trusting in their own righteousness. Luke 18:9, etc. “And he spake this parable unto certain that trusted in themselves that they were righteous.” This refers primarily to moral righteousness, as appears in the parable in an account of the prayer of the Pharisee. The things he mentions as those he trust are chiefly moral qualifications and performances. For example, he says that he was not unjust, an extortionist, or an adulterer, etc.
But we do not need to go to the writings of other penmen of the Scripture if we will allow the apostle Paul to be his own interpreter. When he says that we are not justified or saved by our own righteousness, he does not mean only a ceremonial righteousness. He is not describing a way of practicing religion and serving God in a manner of our own choosing, without divine warrant or prescription. Rather, when he speaks of our own righteousness, he is describing righteousness of our own doing, whether it is a service, righteousness of God’s prescribing, or our own unwarranted performing. The nature of our righteousness or obedience is unimportant. If it is our own doing, it is excluded by the apostle as being a means to justification, as is evident by Titus 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done.”
9. The apostle, when he denies justification by works of the law and our own righteousness, does not mean works of the ceremonial law only. Titus 3:3-7, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Works of righteousness that we have done are here excluded. The apostle makes clear that we are neither saved nor justified by them. “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The apostle reiterates several times that “works of righteousness which we have done” does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. It appears by the 3rd verse, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” The apostle observes that they breached the moral law before they were justified. In the 5th verse, he notes again that their works of righteousness had nothing to do with being saved or justified.
But we do not need to delve into the context when it is obvious from his words that the apostle does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. If he had only said, “It is not by our own works of righteousness,” we would understand simply that he had meant righteous and good works. We would not say that it is by our own righteous works that we are justified. We would not bother to examine any particular kind of righteous works, because to be specific would certainly contradict such a general assertion. But the words, “works of righteousnes,” are modified and amplified to be more strong, plain and determined in their meaning by those additional words, “which we have done.” The choice of words demonstrate that the apostle intended to exclude our own righteous or virtual works universally.
We will use an example to make this distinction in language clear. If we say that a precious jewel could not be procured by money, we would understand simply that it cannot be purchased. The statement can be made stronger and more specific if we add words that claraity conditions: this precious jewel cannot be procured by money that men possess. In considering all possible meanings, it would be unreasonable to say that the meaning was limited to, “the jewel could not be procured by brss money.”
Interpreting this text as referring to works of the ceremonial law is even more unreasonable when one realizes that these works were indeed not works of righteousness at all, but only falsely supposed to be so by the Jews. Opponents of this doctrine cite this misassumption as the very reason that we are not justified by them. They assert that either they are not works of rightouesness, or (the ceremonial law being now abrogated) there is no obedience to them.
ABSURDITY!
How absurd is it to assume that when the apostle says we are not justified by our own works of righteousness, he meant only works of the ceremonial law? Wordks of ceremonial law are not even works of righteousness. To illustrate this, let us return to our lesson in the precious jewel. If the jewel could not be procured by money that men possess, how ridiculous would it be to leap to the conclusion that it could not be procured by counterfeit money, because it is not money? What Scripture will stand before men if they take liberties in broadly interpreting it? What one text is there in the Bible that cannot be interpreted until it is explained completely away and perverted in meaning any way men please?
If, by examining the expressions the apostle uses, we agree that he intends only to oppose justification by works of ceremonial law in this text, then we also must agree that he means to oppose because they are works of righteousness of our own doing. But if the apostle argues against our being justified by works of the ceremonial law of nature and kind in relation to works of our own doing, then it will follow that the apostle’s argument is strong against ceremonial law of all nature and kind, even that of our own doing.
Even if this was the only reference of its kind to justification, this would clearly and invincibly prove that we are not justified by any of our own goodness, virtue, righteousness, excellence, or righteousness of anything that we have done in religion. Standing alone, this text builds a full and strongly asserted case. But in fact, this text is supported by an abundance of other texts by the apostle. In all, he denies justification by works of the law.
The apostle teaches in verse 5 that God does not save us by “works of righteousness that we have done.” He adds that we are “justified by grace” in verse 7. In these verses together, the apostle opposes the idea of salvation by works. The words “grace” and “works” mean the same. Romans 11:6, “And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 4:4, “Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” And the same “works” in Romans 2:24 are called “works of the law, being justified freely by his grace.” Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.”
He makes an important distinction between the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of the law. God grants salvation according to His mercy, and justifies us by grace, as opposed to saving us by works of righteousness that we have done.
10. When the apostle says that we are not justified by the works of the law, he does not mean only works of the ceremonial law. Saints in the Old and New Testaments support his position. If men were justified by their sincere obedience, it would follow that before the ceremonial law was annulled, men were justified by the works of the ceremonial law, as well as moral law. For if we are justified by our sincere obedience to the law, then it does not matter whether the commands are moral or positive, as long as they are God’s commands. Our obedience is obedience to God. And so the case must be just the same in the Old Testament, when the works of the moral and ceremonial laws were evaluated by the measure of the virtue of obedience in each. It is true their obedience to either moral or ceremonial law (while it was still binding) would have nothing to do in the affair of justification unless it was sincere.
In the New Testament, if obedience qualifies a person for justification, that obedience would be to all God’s commands now in force, to the positive precepts of attendance on baptism and the Lord’s Supper and to moral precepts. If obedience is, in fact, the qualification for justification, it is not because it is obedience to a particular kind of command, but because it is obedience. By this supposition, the saints under the Old Testament were justified, at least in part, by their obedience to the ceremonial law.
But it is evident that the saints under the Old Testament were not justified in any measure by the works of the ceremonial law. This may be proved even by our adversaries’ interpretatio nof the apostle’s phrase, “the works of the law,” when they assumed that he refers only to works of the ceremonial law. Let us consider David, who was in no way justified by the works of the ceremonial law. Romans 4:6-8, “Even as Daniel also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Clearly, the apostle is referring to justification. In context with the preceding verse, he is speaking of forgiving iniquities and covering sins. Our adversaries mistakenly think that forgiving iniquities and covering sins are all that are necessary for justification. In the apostle’s writing, David says that he was without works.
From the beginning of the 32nd Psalm, David speaks of his own sins being forgiven and not imputed to him. “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old; through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid; I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” We understand the apostle’s position on respecting works, when he says, “David describes the blessedness of man to whom the LORD imputes righteousness without works,” The passage does not describe or define the “works.” Indeed, they could have been all manner of works or only works of the ceremonial law. Yet it is evident that David was not justified by works of the ceremonial law.
So, here is the argument. If obedience is the condition of justification, then under the Old Testament, men were justified partly by obedience to the ceremonial law. Therefore men’s own obedience is not the condition of justification.
11. There is further evidence that when the apostle speaks of the two opposite ways of justification — one by the works of the law and the other by faith, he does not mean only the works of the ceremonial law. Romans 10:5-6, “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doth those things, will live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise . . . “
Two things are evident:
First, the apostle speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification: one by the righteousness that is of the law, the other by faith. And therefore, it must be the same law of which he speaks. Evidence is found in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he says the Jews had “not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” Clearly, the apostle is still speaking of the same thing.
Second, Moses, when he describes the righeousness of the law, or the way of justification by the law, says, “He that doth those things, shall live in them.” He does not speak primarily or only the works of the ceremonial law. Indeed, God never made such a covenant with men. He never said that men who kept the ceremonial law should live in it. There was never a time when men conducted themselves in ceremonial law and were justified. David confirms this.
The apostle says that when Moses speaks of righteousness that is of the law, he cannot mean only the ceremonial law. Therefore, when the apostle speaks of justification by the works of the law as opposed to justification by faith, he does not mean only the ceremonial law. He includes the works of the moral law to which Moses referred. “He that doth those things, shall live in them.” The apostle further argues against obedience to the law as a qualification for justification in last verses of the preceding chapter, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law . . .” And in the 3rd verse of this chapter, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”
And further, how can the apostle’s description of Moses and this way of justification by the works of the law consist in the Arminian scheme? The Arminian point of view is that of justification by the virtue of a sincere obedience. They believe that this is the true and only way of justification under the gospel. Obviously, the design of the apostle is to describe both the rejected legal and the valid evangelical ways of justification, so that they are distinguished from each other. But how is it that “he who doth those things, shall live in them?” How is it possible that justification by works of the law is different from that in which Christians under the gospel are justified according to their scheme? According to them, the precepts of the gospel state that he who does those things, will live in them.
The difference lies in the things to be done, not that doing them and living in them can be mutually exclusive. The apostle says that the righteousness of the law is described thus: “He that doth these things, shall live in them. But the righteousness of faith saith thus, plainly intimates that the righteousness of faith saith otherwise, and in an opposite manner.” Because the apostle quotes Moses as saying these things about moral and ceremonial law, it is even more absurd for the Arminians to suppose that he used the quote to make a distinction between justification by ceremonial obedience and sincere, moral obedience.
Thus I have spoken to a second argument to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own. To suppose otherwise is contrary to the doctrine directly and compellingly written by the apostle Paul in his epistles.
(To be continued …)
warriorprincess4yeshua.blog 