Romans 10:5-13

“For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭5‬-‭13‬‬ 

Lots of OT references here: Lev 18:5, Deut 30:12-14; 9:4; Joel 2. Lev 18 is about prolonging life in the Promised Land, so that’s a kind of salvation for the Jews. Paul is using that to make his point (how the NT authors use the OT is a whole nother kind of study). Digging into this “righteousness” is book worthy and very debatable. This is a classic NPP text, especially since it’s in the middle of Rom 9-11, where Paul is discussing his fellow Jews. Some would say the whole book of Romans is ethnic and not individual (New Perspective on Paul). Don’t think it’s an either/or. Could be both/and, since nations are composed of individuals. Paul’s point throughout these chapters 9-11 is something about God’s justice/redemption plan and the nation of Israel. 

I know we love these verses for their evangelistic flavor, and perhaps rightly so. I’m not going to diss on that, but there’s clear indications that Paul is focusing on the Jew/Gentile relationship. “There is no distinction.” “He is the same Lord of all” That’s the message of everyone who calls on Jesus will be saved, not necessarily an individual approach.

Paul contrasts salvation by law—whether strictly works salvation or more likely (again NPP) salvation by following Jewish boundary markers, “works of law.”—with salvation by believing. Word is near you, it’s in your heart, you’ve heard it. And with the heart, just believe. No national distinction. All who believe are saved.

Paul does have a confusing view of the law, and putting it together through Romans can break your mind. But it does appear that in 2:13; 7:10 that he really thought that perfect obedience would confer eternal life. But in the next breath he would clearly state that no one could obey perfectly. 

Paul uses the Deut 30 reference to talk about God’s grace. He comes near to His people in relationship, but not only through the law, but in a much more tangible way: Jesus. And we (or more contextually) the Jews) don’t need to ascend the heaven (code for the impossible) or raise Jesus from the dead (he already did that) to find Him. The message has reached them. They just need to believe it.

Lord Jesus: There is no verb written, so it’s best to assume Jesus is the object of what they are believing, and “Lord” is the complement. So it would be “believe Jesus [to be] Lord”. And in this sense, Lord is very likely a reference to YHWH. Quoting from Joel 3:5 in v. 13 confirms that Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH.

I don’t see a major distinction between the mouth confessing and the heart believing. It almost reads like a proverb with parallel structure. This isn’t two necessary steps/conditions to me. Maybe Paul is building off the OT texts. Since they mention both heart and mouth, so does he. We have multiple expressions for how an individual begins their faith journey. I’m not going to limit it to one or two.

Age of Accountability

There are multiple reasons why someone like me would avoid a topic like this: (a) I really don’t like debates, especially of an emotional nature, (b) it is 100% in the realm of systematic theology

So before I get any further, let me be very clear. Yes, I believe babies and children who pass away have gone to be in the presence of Jesus. 

The why and the how and the basis…that’s the issue here.

There’s certainly no biblical author that discusses the “plan of salvation for little ones” as part of their flow of thought. We do have certain examples of “households” being saved early in the life of the church (e.g., Cornelius, the Philippian jailor), but we are not told ages or any individual conversion decisions. These passages do lend weight to the idea of children being “saved,” but questions still remain.

Some also want to point to David’s time of confession after his grievous sin with Bathsheba. The child falls ill, and David begs for miraculous healing. God says, “No.” David responds that the child will not come back to him, but David will go to him. I definitely side with those who see David as simply predicting future death. It’s possible that looking back we can see future hope and seeing loved ones, but to insert this into David’s words is a bit much.

I’ve heard scholars argue from Matt 18-19, where Jesus says the kingdom of God is made up of children, or “those like children.” It’s obviously debatable. The likely conclusion of these paragraphs is that the kingdom of God is for those with child-like faith and dependence on Jesus. We need an attitude of ultimate humility, not pride/self-sufficiency. 

If we were to argue for a so-called “age of accountability,” I don’t see any biblical texts that support such a  a concept. Sure, we have prophets talking about “those who don’t know right hand from left hand” (see the end of Jonah for a good example). This phrase is debated, and it could refer to children or just those without spiritual discernment (i.e., not open to God’s truth/revelation). 

Wouldn’t the age of accountability be different for individual children (with more or less knowledge and moral wisdom as they developed)? Has it changed throughout history? Different for the genders? We can’t pick a random age/date out of the air and label it for all people throughout all time. 

My simple point is we don’t have revelation on the issue. So I have real hesitation being dogmatic on the salvation process of infants/children. We only invented this doctrine because of our strong stance on original sin/original guilt. I believe all humans are sinners, even from conception, and that Jesus is the only source of eternal life, but those truths don’t lead to happy conclusions. I’m not going to invent doctrines that Scripture doesn’t support, though.

So how do I reach any conclusions at all? If I don’t want to dive into philosophy and systematics, how do I reach hope and joy? Easy. 

I have confidence in the goodness of God. Does that resolve all the tension? Probably not. But I would rather rely on the character of God, His mercy, kindness, and love for His creation, than try to twist His revelation to make it fit my logic. He loves children. Jesus invited them nearer to Himself on every occasion. That doesn’t mean they have earned anything or are sinless by any means. 

I don’t know at what point God’s general grace requires someone to exercise his/her own faith in response to the gospel message. And I’m not trying to cross over into other debates regarding people who have never heard the gospel (or those who are mentally challenged, etc.). I’ll leave that for the theologians (or another post). It’s probably different for unique individuals. 

If I knew all the answers, I would probably think them unfair. I would probably argue with God. I would probably doubt His grace or try to make up different rules. So I’d rather choose to rely on that He knows what’s best with this question, do my best to disciple the ones around me, and leave any and all results to Him.  

God is good

Ephesians 2:8-10

 “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.”

— ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬-‭10‬‬

Eph 2 is an amazing chapter, and I don’t think it’s so clear a break as vv 1-10 are individual salvation and 11-22 are reconciliation of ethnic groups through Jesus. The New Perspective of Paul may have too much emphasis on the latter but classic Reformation interpretation may have too much emphasis on the former in all the traditional “salvation” passages in the NT. The early church struggled mightily in understanding how to morph the Gentiles into the Jesus community. New Perspective has much to offer in at least being sensitive toward the background situation.

“Are saved” is perfect tense, so “have been saved.” Something has been completed and results continue, but many uses of perfect tense. In this case, NET is taking as intensive perfect which emphasizes results (translates as present tense in English “are”). See Introduction to Perfect Tense.

“Works” is NPP vs typical reformed understanding. Jewish boundary markers vs. all moral attempts. In light of second half of chapter, one can make case for the Jewish boundary markers. Looking at v. 10, one can argue it refers to any work, because we can’t do anything good until God enables us to do it.

Workmanship, word study fallacy to say it means poem, but that is the Greek word behind the translation. 

These first 10 verses are a marvelous trajectory of being dead, no hope, in sins, and God makes us alive in Christ. It’s all His doing and for His glory. Debate in v. 8 whether grace or faith is “gift” Both are feminine words, so gender doesn’t help the grammar. Most likely, refers salvation as whole—the entire sentence. 

God did not just rescue us from death period. He saved us for something. There’s purpose now, and that’s for good works. Would need more context to see how this passage fits in Paul’s thought through Ephesians as whole.

1 Peter 1:1-5

 “From Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroad (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure! Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

— ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭5‬‬

Temporarily residing is ok, but it does take away from the exiles/foreigners idea that runs throughout NT. When Cyrus allowed Jews to return, only a fraction did. By 1st century, 3/4 of Jews were spread throughout Roman Empire (Diaspora), either they never came home or went to live elsewhere (business, travel, etc.). Peter uses this idea for Jewish Christians and by extension the whole church. This present age is not our home. We are exiles and temporary residents.

Set apart by. the Spirit, according to Father’s foreknowledge and by blood of Jesus. So much there, but not today.

Given a new birth into living hope…and into imperishable inheritance. Parallel seems to equate the two (apposition of two phrases). All of this made possible by Jesus’ resurrection. 

Reserved in heaven? Like a foreign place, up and away, shiny lights? Would need to keep reading in Peter to see his full view of the end (2 Peter has current one burning up).

Salvation revealed at last time. Perhaps this is the inheritance just mentioned. The bigger question is how can salvation come later? Thought this was a done deal. Technically, final judgment comes at the end. But Jesus’ resurrection gives us insight into what the verdict will be. Jesus’ life, death, resurrection pulls the verdict into our present, so we have confidence and “have been saved” “are “saved” but also “will be saved.” All three are found in NT.

And this isn’t just glorification. But anyway, all this because of Jesus, and all received through faith. And all mentioned for the sake of our current joy.

Romans 1:16-17

 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.””

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭17‬‬

Gospel is the means God used to save people. It is what He has chosen to do His work. People cannot be saved apart from the gospel (and I’m not going to get into people who haven’t heard… let’s just leave that to Gods character for now).

This verse is key to understand Romans. I try to have balanced approach. Since Reformation, interpretation has been individualistic. New perspective on Paul emphasizes ethnic approach of Jew/Gentile relations. V 16 supports this. I like a both/and but Paul’s main point and throughout first century may be the Jew/Gentile relations.

Righteousness of God is debated: could be his character, believers new identity, or Christs imputed righteousness. Cant solve that here. 

From faith to faith is just as hard bc prepositions can mean different things. Point is that those who enter Gods family or inherit His righteousness do so on the basis of faith, and both Jew and Gentile are equal in this regard.

Romans 10:9-10

 “because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬-‭10‬‬

Paul’s point throughout these chapters 9-11 is something about God’s justice/redemption plan and the nation of Israel. 

Some would say the whole book of Romans is ethnic and not individual (New Perspective on Paul). Don’t think it’s an either/or. Could be both/and, since nations are composed of individuals. 

Verses like this focus on individuals, but the context of the chapter is national. 

Paul contrasts salvation by law—whether strictly works salvation or more likely (again NPP) salvation by following Jewish boundary markers, “works of law.”—with salvation by believing. Word is near you, it’s in your heart, you’ve heard it. And with the heart, just believe. No national distinction. All who believe are saved.

V. 10 is almost like a proverb—parallel structure. Maybe we make too much of the different terms. And how each action results in different things.