ARE ROMANS 9:16 AND I CORINTHIANS 9:24 CONTRADICTORY?

Contradiction: Romans 9:16 versus I Corinthians 9:24

In I Corinthians 9:24, the apostle encourages the believer to “run in such a way that you may obtain it [the prize or crown].” However, in Romans 9:16, Paul informs us that “it does not depend on him who wills, nor of him who runs, but on God who shows mercy.” Regarding this second passage, Murray expresses the majority opinion on the subject: “The mercy of God is not an attainment gained by the most diligent labour to that end but a free bestowal of grace. No statement could be more antithetic to what accrues from claims of justice or as the awards of labour.”

Getting back to the apparent contradiction, Geisler resolves the problem in the following way: The first passage is speaking about rewards which do depend on our works (see I Corinthians 3:11ff and II Corinthians 5:10), while the last passage is speaking about salvation which is by grace and not by works (as in Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-10; and Titus 3:5-7).

Orr and Walther appear to agree with Geisler when they state, “Paul seems [in I Corinthians 9:24] to be thinking of heavenly honor (cf. Philip. 3:14); and he may have in mind something in addition to being saved, something to be granted to those who perform service beyond the requirements.”

On the other hand, the noted commentator Gordon Fee feels regarding I Cor. 9:24 that “this metaphor the Christian's 'crown' is not some specific aspect of the goal but the eschatological victory itself.” I personally side with Fee regarding the whole issue of “rewards in heaven.” Once we start working for some sort of extra glory or special privileges in the afterlife, we have totally lost sight of the only goal worth having – being in the very presence of God Himself.

As Merkel puts it, “In 1 Cor. 9:24-27 Paul compares the life of the Christian with an athletic contest. In both there is a victory to be striven for; both demand utter dedication and self-denial. But the aim is a high one...for the Christian there awaits an imperishable prize, to be with God for eternity (Rom. 2:7).”

Christians should keep this in mind when they start wondering if they will recognize their old friends and relatives in heaven, whether they will have their favorite pet dog with them, if their hidden talents will at last be recognized openly by the world, whether they will be entrusted to some special office or have a bigger house than others, etc. If we are working solely for our own privileges and glory rather than that of God, I think we will be sorely disappointed in what we encounter at God's hands.

Then, there is another way to look at I Corinthians 9:24: The object of this striving is neither to earn our own salvation or to earn a special prize in heaven. Instead, as Ringwald insists, the object “is the spreading of the gospel. It is not primarily a question of striving for the perfection of the individual..., a private salvation, but of the salvation of the elect of God, 'that we may present every man mature in Christ (Col. 1:28). So we are always dealing with an agon hyper, a struggle for, on behalf of, others (Col. 2:1f; 4:12; Rom 15:30).” Thus, there is also, according to St. Augustine, a certain time frame to keep in mind when comparing the two passages in question. He felt that the striving came after election, not before it.

Finally, we must deal with the possibility that both passages are dealing with the identical situation, the question of eternal salvation. And here we run into some really deep theology which I am incapable of understanding, much less communicating clearly to anyone else. It boils down to the old controversy between grace vs. works and the related question as to the possibility or non-possibility of a believer losing his or her salvation.

Anyone who is completely honest with himself in sincerely reading the whole NT and understanding it according to their best ability will have to admit that there seem to be passages that teach in the opposite direction from one another. Listen to what the following commentators say on the subject:

Orr and Walther on I Corinthians 9:27: “But does Paul actually mean that one can fail to obtain the prize? Some would say no, but usually because of a prior theological commitment, not because of what the text itself says...Paul keeps warning and assurance in tension...warns the Corinthians of their imminent danger if they do not exercise 'self-control' in the matter of idolatry; yet, as always..., he reminds them of their security in the prior activity of God, who has committed himself to them in Christ Jesus.”

Morrison on Romans 9:16: “It is not what people do that determines God's grace, and further...it is God's grace that enables him to 'run' as he should.” See Psalm 119:32 for the same idea.

Ebel on the word trecho (“run”): “It is found in Paul predominantly in the figurative sense. By using the vb., he expresses how the Christian life as a whole...is directed toward a goal (Gal. 2:2; 5:7; Phil. 2:16) and that, as in a context in a stadium, what matters is applying all one's strength and holding out to the end (I Cor 9:24ff; cf. Heb. 12:1). Rom. 9:16, by pointing to the mercy of God – which in the last resort, is alone decisive – represents the necessary corrective.”

Unfortunately, our Western mindset has a great deal of trouble wrapping its brain around such philosophical “tensions” and “correctives” within the biblical text that require us to simultaneously hold on to two seemingly opposite ideas at the same time. Instead, we either opt for a Calvinistic extreme which eliminates all human action and decision making from the equation entirely or a Holiness approach which may magnify the importance of human works to the point that God's overall leading in the process may be effectively ignored.

In conclusion, we should view all such “contradictions” in the Bible as faith vs. works, Jesus as man vs. Jesus as God, the Bible as a human product vs. the Bible as the Spirit-inspired word of God, etc. not as contradictions, but as paradoxes or antinomies instead – contradictions between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable.