Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing (Greek) Word – Part 1.
For it is not merely the hearers of Torah whom God considers righteous; rather, it is the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in God’s sight. (Rom. 2:13, Complete Jewish Bible)
Alone – When Skip extended an invitation to contribute to Today’s Word, I knew I would have some difficulty in matching his knowledge of the original languages. So rather than write about a Greek or Hebrew word that is in the Scriptures, I’m going to write about a word that can be found in the Scriptures, but not in the usual place that people expect it or are taught to expect it.
When Martin Luther confronted his own life, the Scriptures in which he was trained, and the then-current practices of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sale of indulgences, he reacted. When asked at one time why he was so vehement in his attack upon the Pope and the church, his reply was along the lines that God always sent the thunder before he sent the gentle rain. And Luther was aware he was no gentle raindrop that could be pushed aside by anyone when he was convicted from the Scriptures alone.
So Luther, in his rejection of the then-current idea that man could contribute to his own salvation by buying indulgences, or even doing any other good work, put two words together than have framed the meaning of the Protestant Reformation since that time. Luther was convinced that there is nothing that man could do that would, in effect, earn him frequent flyer points which he might use if not for the whole journey into heaven, at least part of the way on his own efforts. We are justified, thundered Luther, by faith alone. And when he turned to Romans 3:28 and found the word “alone” was not there, he added it into his original German translation of Sha’ul’s letter. Later it was removed for the obvious reason that it wasn’t in the Greek text.
But the damage had been done. For when Luther argued for “faith alone” he was immediately confronted with the words of James, “you are justified by your works.” For Luther, this amounted to a contradiction in Scripture and his solution to this perceived contradiction was to suggest that the letter of James did not belong in the canon of Scripture, a rather convenient solution.
Apparently Luther had forgotten the words that Rabbi Sha’ul had written earlier in his letter that are our text for today. It is “doers of what Torah says” who will be justified, writes Sha’ul. And you notice that these words are echoed in James’ letter when he writes, “You see that a person is declared righteous because of actions and not because of faith alone” (James 2:24).
What are we to do, then, with the idea of “justified by faith alone?” After all, the only time in Scripture that the words “faith alone” appear together are in the phrase written by James, but then these two words are used negatively: you are not saved by “faith alone.”
Were both Sha’ul and James teaching that justification is something that is earned by works, good deeds, the keeping of Torah? I am sure they were not. But I am also just as certain that the words “justified by faith alone” create a much bigger problem than that which they were trying to solve. For if justification is by “faith alone” then duty and obligation to Torah take a backseat position in the life of the follower of the Messiah, rather than the front-seat position
In part 2, we’ll see how Rabbi Sha’ul deals with this issue of “faith alone.”
Ian Hodge
Topical Index: faith, alone, Romans 2:13, Luther
Ah, my dear Mr Hodge. I so thoroughly appreciate your Missing Word for Today (MWT). I found it enlightening.
Can’t refrain from wondering if the adding of this word did not contribute to our misunderstanding of “grace” …
And while we are on the topic of missing words: I recently had the privilege of helping my son find a poem that “clearly shows God’s love and mercy”. My sleuthing on the internet did not give satisfying results, so I turned to the Scriptures (finally), and I found that God’s love and God’s mercy are not mentioned in the same context. BUT the concept of “God’s mercy is shown to those that love Him and obey His Torah” is mentioned several times. (Also, Yeshuah taught that loving Him, means obeying Torah.)
Thus, we somewhere and somehow, have added to God’s mercy context that He did not.
Seeing that my Hebrew is confined to learning the Alef-Beit, my results may be tainted. Could you please verify if I am correct in saying that HaShem’s Love and HaShem’s Mercy is two different subjects according to the Scriptures and are not subjects that are bound together in the Scriptures.
Also, HaShem’s Mercy is available to those who LOVE HIM and is concept that is only understandable to those who LOVE HIM (and showing it by obeying Torah).
I also could not find when and where we started using the two characteristics of HaShem as one concept. It puzzles me how easily I have taken to expressions without knowing if there is actual Biblical basis for it.
Hi Ilze,
Thoughtful question. But sometimes you have to take a step back and recall the genuine difference between YHVH and those made in his image – an image (analogue) not a duplicate. YHVH is always everything that he is. If he could be otherwise, he would then not be YHVH. He is love and he is merciful (and Truth, etc). He is not one at one time and the other at another time. Thus while the Scriptures are YHVH speaking to us as we are, just because attributes of YHVH are separated does not mean they are not bound: it is just the different issues are presented in different places.
For when Luther argued for “faith alone” he was immediately confronted with the words of James, “you are justified by your works.”
Hi Ian,
I enjoyed reading your contribution earlier this morning, but lost my comment before sending it 🙂
As a child growing up in a neighborhood with mostly mostly Catholics and various forms of Protestants
I always thought of “faith” as either the religion in which one believed or the intensity of one’s “belief” in God
I tended to think of Luther a the founder of Luthernism, which was a form of Protestantism, and a reformation of Catholicism
My mother told me at an early age that Jesus was neither Catholic nor Protestant; that he was a Jew
Because I was very attracted to Catholicism as a child, I tended to think of Jesus as part of the Trinity
When I was in college, I tended to think of Luther as the founder of Protestantism, because of the following
“Roman Catholic theology stated that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man; justification rather depends only on such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man.”
In my mind, Luther was a “revolutionary” and although I was attracted to revolutionary thinkers, I did not like Luther
Luther argued
Against the teaching of his day that the righteous acts of believers are performed in cooperation with God, Luther wrote that Christians receive such righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ but actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to Christians (rather than infused into them) through faith.[40]
In college I was attracted to aspects of dialectical materialism, in which there is also a kind of trinity:
– Thesis
– Antithesis
– Synthesis
I concluded the following about religion in Western Civilization
– Thesis is Judaism
– Antithesis is Catholicism
– Synthesis is Protestantism
Interesting.
Growing up more-or-less Protestant, I learned to contrast ‘our views’ view with Catholics. Catholics were only slightly less legalistic than the Jews, they substitute the authority of Christ for that of the Pope, and they didn’t revere the bible because they put their own traditions on an equal ground, ect, ect.
However, as the years have gone by – I started to recognize that the legalism (outward obedience without the inward), the substitution of authority, and the reverence of tradition – is a part of every denomination! Now I’m excited to discover threads of truth in the writings of people from many different denominations.
“Now I’m excited to discover threads of truth in the writings of people from many different denominations.”
Hi Gabe,
I have also found “threads of truth” in the behavior of people from many different religions
That is to say I can “connect” with them and have found them to be very trustworthy
For me, it is not so important what other people think, but it is very important
That people, myself included, say what they mean and do what they say
HI Michael,
There is a book, “Not By Faith Alone” by Robert A. Sungenis which has the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. It essentially argues the same case as I have here: keeping the law is necessary, but not meritorious. Thus, faith = the transformed life. This appears to be the fairly consistent historical testimony of those who express faith in God, but there are times when it was “bent” to make money. Luther confronted one of those times.
As for dialectical materialism, the key is knowing when to stop. When is there, or what is a synthesis that no longer demands the dialectical process?
“the key is knowing when to stop. When is there, or what is a synthesis that no longer demands the dialectical process?”
Hi Ian,
In my view, for individuals, the dialectical process never stops until we die
And dialectical materialism applies to history (but let’s don’t open that “can of worms”)
For example, while I can agree with you that faith = the transformed life
What is a transformed life, but a static concept?
Faith on the other hand would seem to be more like “transforming” life
Whether that is following the Torah or trying to focus on God
Faith is a contradictory process that never stops
Except at those times when we lose faith
You’re right. Transforming life, but there has to be some part of it transformed! 🙂
“some part of it”
Hi Ian,
Good point! 🙂
It’s “like that” above
Like the OM in some
Great sleuthing Ian! Can’t wait for Part II.
The law referenced in Rom. 2:13 is not Torah. The law was changed after Jesus’ ascension by adding a word to the law. Heb. 7:12.