Paul writes:

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3.28.

Some claim that this merely means that Paul is saying here that we are justified only by faith, but that (as he or others teach elsewhere in Scripture) such a justifying faith is never alone.

But this is flatly impossible to Paul’s argument in Romans 3 and 4. According to this view, one can be initially justified by faith alone, but later, in the process of sanctification, one will exhibit “the works of the law,” and if one does not do so, one may not be an heir of eternal life at all. But Paul would call such a doctrine “another gospel” and say that anyone preaching it must be “anathema.”

Paul is quite clear, in Romans 3 and 4, that when he claims that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” he means one is justified and will inherit eternal life if one is a believer and never attempts to obey or submit to the works of the law in any way. Actually, that is putting it too lightly. For Paul, as we see in Galatians, any attempt to become complete as a Christian by adopting more obedience to the works of the Law is itself an attempt to be justified by the Law and means one has fallen from grace and is cut off from Christ (Galatians 3.1-3; 5.2-4).

This is made quite clear by Romans 4 when Paul invokes the example of Abraham who was counted righteous when he was uncircumcised. One could claim that, because Abraham eventually got circumcised, so should all believers mature to the point that they too submit to the flint knife (no wonder Paul was accused of wanting to please man [Galatians 1.10; to many Jewish Christians it looked like Paul was degrading God’s standards and offering “cheap grace”). But Paul uses the example of Abraham to prove that this is not the case. Once one is counted righteous one needs no further growth in that status. There is nothing more to be done. Abraham got circumcised for unique reasons having nothing to do with further sanctification in general. The lesson from Abraham is that Gentile believers are justified and never need to act like anything but believing Gentiles. Not only are they uncircumcised, but they never need to be circumcised, to want to be circumcised, to mature to some alleged higher life of which circumcision is a part, or to glorify those who are circumcised as a higher class of Christian.

While circumcision is the issue in Romans 3 and 4, Paul also mentions the issue of Mosaic diet (and calendar briefly) in Romans 14. None of these are ever to be required as some sort of mark of the Christian life. It is noteworthy that, as emphatic as Paul is about justification “apart from works of the law,” he allows those raised in the Law to continue to follow it. He exhorts the Gentiles not to “despise” those who cannot eat as freely as they do (Romans 14) and not to be “arrogant” toward those who are of the circumcision (Romans 11). Indeed, while justification is “apart from the works of the Law” Paul can, within a couple of sentences, go from repudiating the idea that one must be of the law to be an heir of Abraham to claiming both those of the Law and those not are alike heirs together. Romans 4.14-16 (NASB; emphasis added):

For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

The above quotation proves, incidentally, to those who are not merit legalists, that Paul has not been referring to any Jews (if any such existed) who were trying to earn favor with God by their good works. If that is what he was referring to in Romans 3.28, then here in Romans 4.14-16 he is telling us that those who have adopted the agenda of earning salvation by good deeds are heirs of life along with those who trust in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Every Protestant, at least, will recognize that this is not what Paul is saying (Romans 3.28 itself should help everyone recognize this is not what Paul is saying). Plainly his point is:

For if Jews [only] are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to believing Jews, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

The nuance “believing Jews” in my paraphrase is established by Romans 3.1ff where Paul points out widespread unbelief and apostacy among the Jews which everyone could recognize. Notice that his point is not simply that everyone sins. If you listen to any Evangelist preach about how we are all sinners you will see a world of difference between how one proves such a point, and what Paul is arguing here. Paul doesn’t ask the Jew if he has lusted in his heart or lost his temper with his wife. That every individual sins is simply a point Paul takes for granted and expects his reader to take for granted as well. The point is that Israel is as much apostate and faithless as the other nations. Not every Gentile practiced and/or approved homosexuality (see Romans 1.18ff) and neither did every Jew steal or commit adultery (Romans 3.16ff). His point is about corporate entities–that identifying with them is hopeless because all alike, both Israel and all the other nations, are under God’s wrath and curse for sin.

Paul argues that even Jews themselves are not saved by being Jewish: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Pauls overarching argument in Romans is that the Law, while good and holy, was given by covenant to Israel in order to build up sin so that it would reach the point that sin would be utterly sinful and God could condemn it in the flesh of Jesus on the cross (Romans 8.1-3). While it is true that no one can obey God perfectly, that is not precisely his concern here. The point is that Israel has been unfaithful which leads to the paradoxical miracle that God has been faithful in bringing salvation through Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Thus, simply being a Jew is not enough. One must be a Gospel-believing Jew. But while being a Gentile is obviously not enough either, being a Gospel-believing Gentile is perfectly sufficient and nothing else matters. Jews can go on being Jews and still be justified. If they want to keep celebrating Passover, as has been their custom, then that is fine. Despite Paul’s strong statements, he allows that Jews have the same right to continue their traditions as any other nation. The point, of course, is that this no longer matters for God’s people. Israel is simply one nation among many within the Church.

Happily, those who teach that “we are justified by faith alone but such a faith is never alone” are not meaning to directly contradict Paul’s Gospel, and do not do so if understood properly. In fact, they are simply articulating Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2.8-10. I strongly concur with the teaching. But Paul’s statement in Romans 3 is not identical and we should be clear about Paul’s argument lest we get confused about the Gospel and its ramifications.