If the discussion about the “bread of life” discourse is already challenging enough, this next discussion is the equivalent of “hold my beer.” That is, the debate over justification by faith versus justification by works (or sometimes defined as works of the Law).
The “works” position is often the most contentious part of the debate, as the word works tends to be conflated with varying definitions. Watch any Catholic scholar versus Protestant scholar debate on this topic, and the definitions of works can get slippery and confusing: What does “works” mean outside of works of the law? Aren’t there also works of the flesh? Or how about works that equal moral obedience?
This long standing, divisive issue has had a monumental impact on the growth of the Church and its relationship with numerous other Christian denominations. However, while this is now largely an issue between Catholics and Protestants (or least what gets the most attention), its roots go back to the first Christians: A few – yet widely influential – Christian groups in the First Century were at odds over what constituted justification, and to what degree Jewish law should be involved. Most of this rivalry was between Christians from heavily Jewish backgrounds and Gentiles brought into the faith (Brown 469, 470).
One stand-out example of this rivalry — and which remains a key source for the justification by faith versus works debate — is Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In this letter, Paul does not mince words as he chastises the Galatians for embracing a remarkably different gospel from what he preached to them. Namely, having probably encountered Jewish Christians sometime after Paul’s departure, the Galatians now welcome Jewish Christian beliefs and have included circumcision a part of justification (Brown 469).
And here is where the debate gets complicated: Jewish Christians, who still held to the Abrahamic covenant (and Mosaic as well), understood circumcision as central to being incorporated into the covenant. After all, because Jesus himself was a Jew, was most likely circumcised, and did not specifically abrogate circumcision (Brown 470), then where does Paul get the gumption to change the Jewish understanding of covenant law?
According to Paul, Jesus not only fulfilled past covenants, but that this new covenant offered faith in Christ as justification for salvation (Brown 469). Further, as Paul claims that the gospel he received is from divine revelation and not from humans (Brown 471), he puts Christ’s death and resurrection at the forefront – that this act alone is how God’s will has guaranteed the world’s salvation (Senior 1647).
So, what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate (with apologies to the movie, “Cool Hand Luke”): While Paul insists that he has preached the correct gospel, that it does not depend on the other apostles, and that he and Jerusalem authorities had even reached an understanding about circumcision versus justification (Brown 471, 472), the Galatians feel a bit duped by the whole experience (Brown 468, 469). Was this because Paul simply did not see the subject as relevant, or that he purposely left it out so that he could promote the gospel he received? Or both?
Whichever reason, Paul tries to set the record straight in his letter: He explains that the Jews who accepted the gospel, just as he was once a Jew and then became Christian, already know “that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ…” (Galatians 2:16). Paul then ties a ribbon around this by saying, “For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ, yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me…” (Galatians 2:19-20).
Still, this topic remains hotly debated and has had a ripple effect throughout Judeo-Christian belief systems. For example, take the fact that Paul goes rogue in his preaching the gospel, even chiding the other apostles along the way for having mixed views about Gentiles (Senior 1647). This alone has fueled many a disagreement. Not just about justification through faith versus works, but also the authority of the Catholic Church versus other denominations. If Paul was going around abrogating Jewish law and pointing out inconsistencies among the apostles, what was Peter doing – as an authority figure – to deal with the situation?
Opponents of Catholic belief see this as possible evidence that the Church has never had the authority it claims (and perhaps without being familiar with the Church Fathers). Opponents combine this with the “justification versus works” debate to show how Catholic Tradition is basically an extension of archaic Jewish customs, and that Catholicism is a “works based faith.” But to circle back to an earlier point, what “works” are we talking about? And if we are talking about works of the law, how do we reconcile this argument, once and for all?
Works Cites
Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Ignatius Press. Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. Ignatius Pr, 2016.
Senior, Donald, et al. The Catholic Study Bible. Oxford University Press, 2016.