For I tell you that unless your righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:20 NIV)
Addressing the gymnastics many Evangelicals engage in to get around Jesus’ teaching on justification in this text, Robert Sungenis, responding to the Protestant assertion that, as the Pharisees are those who do not have faith in Christ and thus do not have works of righteousness, wrote:
Edmund Clowney's treatment of Mt 5:20 is a good example of this kind of biased exegesis. Dealing with the issue of how one's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, Clowney writes, "but if the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees is not adequate for the standards of the kingdom, what hope can there be for harlots, tax-swindlers, and open sinners? . . . The righteousness of the kingdom cannot be the achievement of proud human beings. It is the fruit of grace for those who know themselves to be sinners . . . The defrauding tax-collector prays in deep contrition, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner,' and goes home justified through divine forgiveness and acceptance (Lk 18:9-14)" (Right with God, "The Biblical Doctrine of Justification By Faith," p. 39). Rather than answering the challenge posed in Mt 5:20 by addressing the context of Matthew 5-6, Clowney chooses to ignore this information and proceeds right to Lk 18:9-14 which, albeit an important text, concerns only one aspect of righteousness. The context of Matthew 5-6 goes beyond the initial dimension of forgiveness of sins. It emphasizes the positive dimension of living a holy and obedient life before God as the means to attain righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees. Clowney simply ignores this aspect. We don't have to consider ourselves "proud human beings" if we obey the law to enter heaven, provided we understand that the ability to do such works, and their evaluation, come from the grace of God. That is all Jesus is asking for. Again, we see that if the passage in view does not fit the mold of faith alone theology, the Protestant theologian interprets the passage to make it fit. No matter what illumination the context provides, the overriding concern is to preserve the tenets of sola fide. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 186-7 n. 230)
Much of this horrendous interpretation (read: eisegesis) comes down to the false doctrine of imputation. For a discussion to a recent Evangelical Protestant attempt to defend this doctrine, see:
Furthermore, as to Luke 18:9-14 and the publican and the Pharisee, such does not support sola fide. For more, see: