poj
THE PROBLEM OF JUSTIFICATION
by Ray Shelton
The English word “to justify” means etymologically “to make just”. This raises the problem of justification: Is justification the act of making the individual righteous or is justification the act of declaring the individual righteous?
The Roman Catholic answer is: justification is making righteous. They teach that the individual is made righteous by the infusion of God’s grace through the sacraments which enables the individual to earn righteousness or merit whereby at the last judgment the individual receives eternal life if he has done enough righteous acts to merit it.
The Protestant answer is: justification is declaring righteous. Appealing to the Scriptures, particularly to the letters of Apostle Paul to the Galatians and the Romans, such as Rom. 4:5, which says [ton dikaiounta ton asebe] “him [God] who justifies the ungodly”, they argued that God does not make righteous the ungodly but declares righteous the ungodly when they believe. Justification is by grace (Rom. 3:25) and not by meritorious works. Justification is also through faith. The believing sinner is declared legally righteous because God has imputed or placed on his account the righteousness or merits of Christ that Christ earned for him by Christ’s active obedience. By His passive obedience on the cross, Christ paid the penalty of sins and satisfied the justice of God; and by His active obedience, Christ has earned eternal life by the good works that He did during His life on earth. Justification is therefore the act of declaring legally righteous or just the believing sinner not upon the basis of believer’s righteousness but upon the basis of the imputed merits or righteousness of Christ.
Sanday and Headlam in their commentary on Romans raised a logical objection to this forensic concept of justification. Recognizing the forensic conception of justification, they interpreted it as a fiction. Justification by faith means that the believer, by virtue of his faith, is accounted or treated as if he were righteous in the sight of God. The person who is accounted righteous is in reality actually not righteous but is in fact ungodly (Rom. 4:5), an offender against God. Since God treats a man as though he were righteous when he is in fact ungodly, “the Christian life is made to have its beginning in a fiction.” [1]
Vincent Taylor, seeing the incongruity of such an interpretation, denied that justification can be regarded as fictitious and interprets the doctrine in terms of a real imparted righteousness. Justifying faith must issue in a real righteousness, not a righteousness that is merely imputed. “Righteousness can be no more imputed to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. If through faith a man is accounted righteous, it must be because, in a reputable sense of the term, he is righteous, and not because another is righteous in his stead.” [2] “In Pauline thought, in the spiritual moment when a man is justified, he is no longer ungodly or a sinner, in a sense proper to the justifying act of God, he is truly righteous.” By this Taylor means that “he really is righteous in mind and purpose, although not yet in achievement.” “He is really righteous because, through faith in Christ the Redeemer, he gains a righteous mind.” By justification God in Christ “does for us what we cannot do for ourselves and thus creates in us a righteous mind for which we can claim no credit.” [3]
Norman Snaith criticizes Taylor for not going far enough when he removes justification from the sphere of a forensic righteousness. Snaith agrees with Taylor that justification has nothing to do with an imputed righteousness, but he thinks that Taylor has not entirely emancipated himself from confusion in interpreting justification as the impartation of a righteous mind. Snaith insists that justification has nothing to do with righteousness at all, and that righteousness is not a condition of salvation. Both the Reformed view and Taylor’s view are erroneous in assuming that God require some kind of righteousness as the condition of salvation. Righteousness is a result of salvation and not a condition of it. Snaith says that to make righteousness a condition of salvation is to make God subservient to a Necessity outside of Himself; both God and man must both bow to Righteousness.
“As long as we insist upon Righteousness, in whatever way, as a condition of salvation, we do not recognize God as sovereign Lord. Though we honor him as such with our lips, we still tend in our theology to insist that he must satisfy Righteousness before he can be Mercy. Even a fictional Righteousness will do, but he must satisfy some Righteousness. Either it is a Righteousness to which God and man alike both must bow, or it is one half of God which must first be satisfied before the other half can accomplish its (his) saving work.” [4]
George Ladd comments:
“Snaith insist that justification is a salvation word that requires no righteousness as its condition, either imputed or imparted. The only thing required for justification (salvation) is faith, and Paul spent most of his life combating the error that salvation is by righteousness.” [5]
George Ladd rejects these teachings of justification as distortions of biblical teaching of justification on two grounds: theological and exegetical. Ladd writes:
“Justification is theologically grounded, for it involves the basic question of the character of God and his relationship to mankind…. The uniform biblical view is that God is at the same time the lawgiver, the judge, and the jury…. God is the Redeemer and Savior; God is also a just and holy judge, and it is a sub-biblical view that minimizes or subordinates the second element to the first. Righteousness is no necessity external to God. God is righteousness; God is holy love. It is a caricature of the biblical doctrine of God to speak of him as part love and part justice as though God were divided; God is perfect love and perfect justice; and all of God is love and all of God is justice.”
“The theological difficulty raised by both Taylor and Snaith rests on a misunderstanding. The description of justification as involving a fictitious righteousness is erroneous. The forensic righteousness of justification is a real righteousness, because a man’s relationship to God is just as real as his subjective ethical condition. A man’s relationship to God is no fiction. God does not treat a sinner as though he were righteous; he is in fact righteous. Through Christ he has entered into a new relationship with God and is in fact righteous in terms of this relationship. The impartation of ethical righteousness, the righteous mind and will described by Taylor, belongs to the category of regeneration in its broadest connotations. As we will see, the subjective aspect and the objective must not be confused; and the doctrine of justification has do with man’s standing, his relationship to God and God’s attitude toward him.28” [6]
“When Christ was made to be sin (II Cor. 5:21), God did not merely treat him ‘as if’ he were a sinner. Rather, God made the (ethically) sinless one to be a sinner (forensically). Thus the man in Christ is actually righteous, not ethically but forensically, in terms of his relationship to God. Righteousness is both an ethical quality and a relationship; and the latter is no more a fiction than the former. The latter has to do with justification; the former with santification. Justification, therefore, is not an ethical quality nor anything that a person has of his own. Nor is it a matter that can be subjectively experienced. It is a righteousness that he possesses by virtue of the favorable verdict of the divine law court to which he is accountable. Nor is it the equivalence of innocence, for it goes beyond the stage of innocence. When all the evidence is in and the case has been adjudicated, the God of the universe who is both lawgiver and righteous judge pronounces the verdict of acquittal. Therefore, in the sight of God a man is not a sinner but a righteous man.” [7]
Thus Ladd rejects the Reformation position that the believer is both a saint and sinner; that is, legally by the righteousness of God (the justice of God) the believer’s standing with God is that he is righteous by the imputation of the righteousness or merits of Christ, while his real state is that he is a sinner.
The Protestant Reformation actually began when Martin Luther rediscovered the meaning of the righteousness of God in Paul’s letter to the Romans. This discovery was made at the end of a long and troubled search which began when at the age of 21, on July 17, 1505, Luther applied for admission to the monastery at Erfurt of the Augustinian Friars known as the Black Cloister because of their black habit. They were also known as the Augustinian Hermits. Having recently been made a Master of Arts at the University of Erfurt, Martin had gone home to Mansfeld on a vacation during the month of June, 1505. On July 2, when returning to Erfurt from Mansfeld, at a distance of about five miles from his university, close to the village of Stotternheim, he was overtaken by a thunderstorm. When one of the lightning bolts nearly struck him, he cried out in terror, “Help, St. Anne, and I’ll become a monk.” Later, in his DeVotis Monasticis (“Concerning Monastic Vows,” 1521) Luther explains his state of mind at that time.
“I was called to this vocation by the terrors of heaven, for neither willingly nor by my own desire did I become a monk; but, surrounded by the terror and agony of a sudden death, I vowed a forced and unvoidable vow.” [8]
Accordingly, he sold his books, bade farewell to his friends, and entered the monastery. Luther observed the canonical regulations as prescribed in the constitution of the Observatine section of the Augustinian Order of Mendicant Monks. He says:
“I was an earnest monk, lived strictly and chastely, would not have taken a penny without the knowledge of the prior, prayed diligently day and night.” [9] “I kept vigil night by night, fasted, prayed, chastised and mortified my body, was obedient, and lived chastely.” [10]
The purpose of it all was justification, being righteous with God.
“When I was a monk, I exhausted myself by fasting, watching, praying, and other fatiguing labors. I seriously believed that I could secure justification through my works …” [11] “It is true that I have been a pious monk, and followed my rules so strictly that I may say, if ever a monk could have gained heaven through monkery, I should certainly have got there. This all my fellow-monks who have known me will attest.” [12]
But all these observances did not bring peace to his troubled conscience. He says:
“I was often frightened by the name of Jesus, and when I looked at him hanging on the cross, I fancied that he seemed to me like lightning. When I heard his name mentioned, I would rather have heard the name of the devil, for I thought that I had to perform good works until at last through them Jesus would become merciful to me. In the monastery I did not think about money, worldly possessions, nor women, but my heart shuddered when I wondered when God should become merciful to me.” [13]
Later in 1545 in the famous autobiographical fragment with which he prefaced the Latin edition of his complete works, Luther thus described his feelings:
“For however irreproachably I lived as a monk, I felt myself in the presence of God to be a sinner with a most unquiet conscience, nor could I believe that I pleased him with my satisfactions. I did not love, indeed I hated this just God, if not with open blasphemy, at least with huge murmurings, for I was indignant against him, saying, ‘as if it were really not enough for God
that miserable sinners should be eternally lost through original sin, and oppressed with all kind of calamities through the law of the ten commandments, but God must add sorrow on sorrow, and even by the gospel bring his wrath to bear.’ Thus I raged with a fierce and most agitated conscience…” [14]
These inward, spiritual difficulties were intensified by a theological problem. This was the concept of the “righteousness of God” (justitia Dei). His religious background made him intensely aware of the justice of God, and he had learned the Greek concept of justice as found in book 5 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Thus encouraged by the use of justitia in Gabriel Biel and other nominalists, he thought of God’s justice as being primarily the active, punishing severity of God against sinners as he explains in his exposition of Psalm 51:14 in 1532:
“This term ‘righteousness’ really caused me much trouble. They generally explained that righteousness is the truth by which God deservedly condemns or judges those who have merited evil. In opposition to righteousness they set mercy, by which believers are saved. This explanation is most dangerous, besides being vain, because it arouses a secret hate against God and His righteousness. Who can love Him if He wants to deal with sinners according to righteousness?” [15]
This conception blocked his understanding of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
“All the while I was aglow with the desire to understand Paul in his letter to the Romans. But … the one expression in chapter one (v.17) concerning the ‘righteousness of God’ blocked the way for me. For I hated the expression ‘righteousness of God’ since I had been instructed by the usage custom of all teachers to understand it according to scholastic philosophy as the ‘formal or active righteousness’ in which God proves Himself righteous by punishing sinners and the unjust …” [16]
But God used this passage to change his understanding of the righteousness of God and to solve his inward, spiritual difficulties.
“Finally, after days and nights of wrestling with the difficulty, God had mercy on me, and then I was able to note the connection of the words ‘righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel’ and ‘just shall live by faith.’ Then I began to understand the ‘righteousness of God’ is that through which the righteous lives by the gift (dono) of God, that is, through faith, and that the meaning is this: The Gospel reveals the righteousness of God in a passive sense, that righteousness through which ‘the just shall live by faith.’ Then I felt as if I had been completely reborn and had entered Paradise through widely opened doors. Instantly all Scripture looked different to me. I passed through the Holy Scriptures, so far as I was able to recall them from memory, and gathered a similar sense from other expressions. Thus the ‘work of God’ is that which God works in us; the ‘strength of God’ is that through which He makes us strong; the ‘wisdom of God’ is that through which He makes us wise; and the ‘power of God,’ and ‘blessing of God,” and ‘honor of God,’ are expressions used in the same way.” “As intensely as I had formerly hated the expression ‘righteousness of God’ I now loved and praised it as the sweetest of concepts; and so this passage of Paul was actually the portal of Paradise to me.” [17]
This discovery not only brought peace to Luther’s troubled conscience but it was the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Luther’s protest against the errors of the Roman church stems from this discovery. But his discovery was lost by those who came after him, the Protestant scholastics. Luther’s use of the scholastic distinction of active and passive righteousness tended to obscure the Biblical concept of the righteousness of God. Luther obviously rejected the active sense; but the later Lutheran protestant scholastics interpreted Luther as accepting both senses. Because their explanation of the death of Christ was still grounded in the legalistic concept of justice, that is, that Christ died to pay the penalty for man’s sin which the justice of God requires to be paid before God can save man, they had to retain the active sense also. Thus Luther’s discovery of the Biblical understanding of the righteousness of God was obscured and eventually lost.
Martin Luther, using the scholastic distinction between the active and passive righteousness, rejected the equation of the righteousness of God to the active righteousness, whereby God proves Himself to be righteous by punishing the sinners and the unjust. But Luther equated the righteousness of God to the passive righteousness, whereby God gives righteousness to the one that is passive, does no works to receive it, but receives it by faith. That is, Luther gave the impression that the righteousness of God is the righteousness from God. The later Prostestant Scholastics interpreted this righteousness from God as the merits or righteousness of Christ earned by Christ’s active obedience. They also accepted the active righteousness interpreting the righteousness of God as the justice of God that was satisfied by the passive obedience of Christ on the cross paying the penalty for man’s sin that the justice of God required before man’s sin can be forgiven.
Thus by identifying the righteousness of God with the passive sense, Luther gave the impression that the righteousness of God is the righteousness from God, that is, the righteousness that man receives from God through faith. But the righteousness from God is not the righteousness of God. These are different though related ideas and must be carefully distinguished. The righteousness from God is the righteousness of faith (Phil. 3:9), because God reckons faith as righteousness ( Rom. 4:3-5). Paul writes in his letter to the Philippians,
“3:8bFor his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, in order that I may gain Christ 3:9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith, the righteousness from [ek] God that depends upon [epi] faith, …” (Phil. 3:8b-9).
This righteousness from God is the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13) which is that right personal relationship to God that results from faith in the true God (Rom. 4:3). To trust in God is to be righteous (Rom. 4:5). Paul writes in his letter to the Romans,
“4:3For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ 4:4Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 4:5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness …. 4:13The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” (Rom. 4:3-5, 13)
That is, the righteousness of faith is not merit placed to the account of the believer, but the right relationship of the believer to God by faith. And this righteousness of faith is the righteousness from God. The righteousness of faith is the act or choice of a man to trust God and the righteousness of God is the act or activity of God to set a man right with God Himself by faith. Since this act of faith by a man is possible only when God acts to set a man right with God Himself, the righteousness of faith is the righteousness from God ( Phil. 3:9).
The righteousness of God is God acting to set man right with God Himself, and, as we shall see below, it is synonymous with salvation (Psa. 98:2; Isa. 56:1).
“In thee, O Lord, do I seek refuge; let me never be put to shame; in thy righteousness deliver me!” (Psa. 31:1)
“In thy righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline thy ear to me, and save me!” (Psa. 71:2)
“143:11For thy name’s sake, O Lord, preserve my life! In thy righteousness bring me out of trouble! 143:12And in thy steadfast love cut off my enemies. and destroy all my adversaries, for I am thy servant.” (Psa. 143:11-12)
Thus the righteousness of God is often a synonym for the salvation or deliverance of God. In the Old Testament, this is clearly shown by the literary device of parallelism which is a characteristic of Hebrew poetry. [18] Parallelism may be defined as that Hebrew literary device in which the thought and idea in one clause is repeated and amplified in a second and following clause. This parallelism of Hebrew poetry clearly shows that Hebrew poets and prophets made the righteousness of God synonymous with divine salvation:
“The Lord hath made known His salvation: His righteousness hath he openly showed in the sight of the heathen.” (Psa. 98:2)
“I bring near my righteousness, it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry; and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” (Isa. 46:13)
“My righteousness is near, my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.” (Isa. 51:5)
“Thus saith the Lord, keep ye judgment and do justice [righteousness]: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” (Isa. 56:1; See also Psa. 71:1-2, 15; 119:123; Isa. 45:8; 61:10; 62:1)
From these verses it is clear that the righteousness of God is a synonym for the salvation or deliverance of God. In the Scriptures, the righteousness of God is not an attribute of God whereby He must render to each what is he has merited nor a quantity of merit which God gives, but is the act or activity of God whereby He puts or sets right that which is wrong. [19] Very often in the Old Testament the Hebrew nouns, tsedeq and tsedaqah, translated “righteousness,” is derived from the Hebrew verb, tsadaq. [20] Although the Hebrew verb is usually translated “to be righteous” or “to be justified,” the verb has the primary meaning “to be in the right” rather than “to be righteous.” (Gen. 38:26; Job 11:2; 34:5) [21] The causative form of the verb hitsdiq generally translated “to justify” means not “to make righteous” nor “to declare righteous” but rather “to put in the right” or “to set right.” (Ezekiel 16:51-55). Thus it very often has the meaning “to vindicate” or “to give redress to” a person who has suffered wrong. Thus the Hebrew noun tsedeq usually translated “righteousness” means an act of vindication or of giving redress. When applied to God, the righteousness of God is God acting to put right the wrong, hence to vindicate and deliver the oppressed. Thus in the Old Testament the righteousness of God is the action of God for the vindication and deliverance of His people; it is the activity in which God saves His people by rescuing them from their oppressors.
The righteous acts of the Lord, or more literally, the righteousnesses of the Lord, referred to in Judges 5:11; I Sam. 12:7-11; Micah 6:3-5; Psa. 103:6-8; Dan. 9:15-16, means the acts of vindication or deliverance which the Lord has done for His people, giving them victory over their enemies. It is in this sense that God is called “a righteous God and a Savior” (Isa. 45:21 RSV, NAS, NIV) and “the Lord our righteousness” (Jer. 23:5-6; 33:15-16). A judge or ruler is “righteous” in the Hebrew meaning of the word not because he observes and upholds an abstract standard of Justice, but rather because he comes to the assistance of the injured person and vindicates him. For example, in Psalm 82:2-4:
“82:2How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? 82:3Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice [judgment] to the afflicted and destitute. 82:4Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”
(Psalm 82:2-4 NAS. See also Psa. 72:4; 76:9; 103:6; 146:7; Isa. 1:17.)
For the judge to act this way is to show righteousness. (See Psa. 72:1-3.) A judge in the Old Testament is not one whose business it is to interpret the existing law or to give an impartial verdict in accordance with the established law of the land, but rather he is a deliverer and thus a leader and savior as in the book of Judges (Judges 1:16-17; 3:9-10). His duty and delight is to set things right, to right the wrong; his “judgments” are not words but acts, not legal verdicts but the very active use of God’s right arm. The two functions of a judge are given in Psalm 75:7: “But God is the judge: he puts down one and exalts another.” Since this a statement concerning God as a judge, it could be taken as a general definition of a Biblical judge. In Psa. 72:1-4 these two functions of the Biblical judge are given to the king of Israel.
“72:1Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son. 72:2He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. 72:3The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. 72:4He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.” (Psa. 72:1-4 KJV)
These same two functions of the judge are ascribed to the future ruler of Israel, the Messiah, according to Isaiah 11:3-5.
“11:3And His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what His eyes see, or decide by what His ears hear;
11:4but with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and He shall smite the earth with a rod of His mouth; and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. 11:5Righteousness shall be the girdle of His waist and faithfulness the girdle of His loins.” (Isaiah 11:3-5)
His righteousness is shown in the vindication of those who are the victims of evil, the poor and meek of the earth.
“And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5).
There is a difference between justification in the Old Testament and that in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, justification is the vindication of the righteous who are suffering wrong (Ex. 23:7). God justifies, that is, vindicates the righteous who are wrongfully oppressed. Justification requires a real righteousness of the people on whose part it is done. In Isa. 51:7 the promise of deliverance is addressed to those “who know righteousness, the people in whose hearts is my law.” Similarly, in order to share in the promised vindication, the wicked must forsake his ways and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and return unto the Lord (Isa. 55:7). But in the New Testament, justification is not just a vindication of the righteous who has been wronged (this view is in Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 5:6; 6:33; Luke 18:7), but it is also the salvation of the ungodly who are delivered from their ungodliness and unrighteousness. Thus, Paul says that God is He “that justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). But justification not only saves the ungodly from their sins, it also brings them into the righteousness of faith. To be set right with God is to have faith in God. “Abraham believed God, and it [his faith] was reckoned unto him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3, 9; cf. Rom. 10:9; Phil. 3:9).
The Greek verbal noun dikaiosis, translated “justification” occurs in the New Testament twice only at Romans 4:25 and 5:19. The majority of occurences of the Greek verb dikaioun usually translated “justify” is in Paul’s letters to the Romans (fifteen times) and Galations (eight times). Outside the Pauline letters, the Greek verb is found in the New Testament eleven times in all, and most of these occurences are not relevant to the theological issue. James is the only New Testament writer besides Paul who explicitly discusses justification, and he clearly does not mean what Paul meant by it. Thus, the doctrine of justification is peculiar to Paul, although the basic idea which Paul expounded by means of it is fundamental to the whole New Testament and was taught by Jesus Himself. Instead of a doctrine of salvation by one’s own merits and works, Jesus Himself taught a doctrine of justification of sinners by the righteousness of God. It is the theme of such parables as the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32; note that the Pharisaic doctrine of merit upheld by the elder son, vv. 25-39), the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14; note the Greek verb dedikaomenos in verse 14), the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mat. 20:1-16), and the Great Supper (Luke 14:16-24). Paul alone of the New Testament writers picked up and developed the Isaianic concept of divine righteousness (Isa. 53:11), which works salvation. Paul conceived of the righteousness of God, after the manner of Isaiah, as an energizing power of God (Rom. 1:16-17) that sets a man right with God, saving him by faith.
The revelation of the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17) is justification (Rom. 3:24). As we have seen, the righteousness of God is the act or activity of God whereby God sets man right with God Himself. Hence, the revelation of the righteousness of God is this act of setting right, and this act of setting right is called justification. Justification is not just a pronouncement about something but is an act that brings about something; it is not just a declaration that a man is righteous before God but is a setting of a man right with God: a bringing him into a right personal relationship with God. Justification is then essentially salvation: to justify is to save (Isa. 45:25; 53:11; see Rom. 6:7 where dikaioo is translated “freed” in RSV). This close relationship between these two concepts is more obvious in the Greek because the words translated “justification” and “righteousness” have the same roots, not two different roots as do the two English words.
The righteousness of God is not opposed to the love of God nor does it condition it. On the contrary, it is a part of and the proper expression of God’s love. It is the activity of God’s love to set right the wrong. In the Old Testament this is shown by the parallelism between love and righteousness.
“But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear him, and His righteousness to children’s children.” (Psa. 103:17; see also Psa. 33:5; 36:5-6; 40:10; 89:14; 143:11-12.)
God expresses His love as righteousness in the activity by which He saves His people from their sins. In His wrath, He opposes the sin that would destroy man whom He loves. In His grace, He removes the sin: the grace of God is the love of God in action to bring salvation (Eph. 2:4-5: Titus 2:11). Thus the grace of God may properly be called the righteousness of God. For in His righteousness, God acts to deliver His people from their sins, setting them right with Himself. The righteousness of God is God acting to put one into right relationship with Himself and is a synonym for salvation.
“3:24Being justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 3:25whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” (Rom. 3:24-25 ERS).
Justification is the free act of God’s grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7). The source of justification is the love of God. And the love of God in action to bring man to salvation is the grace of God (Titus 2:11). Hence justification is the true expression of the grace of God and the act of the love of God. Because justification is a gift (Rom. 3:24; 5:15-17), justification is free and is not something that can be earned (Rom. 4:4; 11:6). Being a free act of God’s grace, justification has nothing to do with the works of the law (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; see also Eph. 2:2-9; Phil. 3:9; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5). The whole legalistic theology is a misunderstanding of the righteousness of God and justification by faith, and is therefore unbiblical and false. The Scripture nowhere speaks of the righteousness or merits of Christ and of justification as an imputation of the merits of Christ to our account. The Greek word (ellogoo) which means “to charge to one’s account” occurs twice in the New Testament (Rom. 5:13; Philemon 18), and in neither occurence is it used to define justification. The introduction of such a legalistic righteousness, even if it means the merits of Christ, into the discussion of the righteousness of God and of justification by faith obscures the grace of God and misunderstands the law as well as the gospel of the grace of God. In principle, the grace of God has nothing to do with legal righteousness and merits. Grace and works (merits) are mutually exclusive and are opposed to each other.
“But if it is by grace, it is no more on basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Rom. 11:6)
The attempt to combine them reduces grace to something that is not grace. The grace of God is no longer God’s love in action to set man right with God Himself, but is something given in the sacraments so that one is enabled to earn salvation, or the unmerited favor of God that imputes the merits of Christ to the account of the believing sinner. God does not give man His grace so that he can earn merits by his works to gain eternal life nor to declare that he is legally righteous before God, entitled to eternal life. The grace of God is God’s love in action giving eternal life to be received by faith; the grace of God makes the spiritually dead alive (Eph. 2:4-5), setting them right with God, saving them from death to life. Eternal life is the gift of His grace and it is received by faith. Neither was eternal life earned by the active obedience of Jesus Christ nor did Jesus Christ satisfy the demands of the law, either in precept or penalty, in our place. Christ fulfilled the law (Matt. 5:17), but not for us. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say that Christ fulfilled the law for us. Neither did he fulfill it legalistically. Not because Christ was not able to do it but because God does not in His love and grace operate on the basis of law or legal righteousness. Christ fulfilled it by love, for “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:8, 10).
“For the one who died has been justified from sin.” (ERS) [ho yar apothanon dedikaiotai apo hamartias] (Rom. 6:7).
Justification as God’s act of setting man right with Himself brings man into faith, which is to be set right with God. Thus justification is through faith (dia pisteos, Rom. 3:30; Gal. 2:16) and out of or from faith (ek pisteos, Rom. 3:26, 30; Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 24). Thus justification is salvation from sin to righteousness.
B. Justification by faith is salvation from wrath to peace with God.
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:1 KJV)
“Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God.” (Rom. 5:9)
But justification as salvation is not only the deliverance from sin to righteousness but also the deliverance from wrath to peace and from death to life. Justification as deliverance from wrath to peace is set forth by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:24-25:
“3:24Being justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 3:25whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” (Rom. 3:24-25 ERS; see also Isa. 32:17)
Here in these verses, Paul connects justification with redemption, the liberation aspect of salvation, and with propitiation, the sacrificial aspect of salvation. Redemption is the deliverance from sin by the payment of a price called a ransom which is the death of Jesus Christ. And propitiation is the deliverance from the wrath by the sacrificial death of Jesus (“His blood”) which turns away or averts the wrath of God through faith in that sacrifice (“through faith in His blood”). Christ’s death as a propitiation turns away God’s wrath from the one who has faith in that sacrifice. The wrath is turned away because the sin has been taken away by the death of Christ as a ransom, by which a man is redeemed or set free, delivered from sin. When sin has been removed there is no cause for God’s wrath. No sin, no wrath. Man is saved from wrath because he is saved from sin.
“4:24It [righteousness] will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 4:25who was put to death for our offenses and raised for our justification.” (Rom. 4:24-25).
“So therefore as through the offense of one to all men unto condemnation, so also through the righteous act of one to all men unto justification of life.” (Rom. 5:18).
Justification is also deliverance from death to life. Man is delivered from sin to the righteousness of faith because he is delivered from death to life. As sinners, we were enemies of God, but through the death of God’s Son we have been reconciled to God and are now no longer enemies. To be reconciled to God means we have passed from death to life and we are saved in His resurrected life (“having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Rom. 5:10; see also II Cor. 5:17-21). We are delivered from death by being “made alive together with Him” in His resurrection (Eph. 2:5). He was “raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Thus justification is “justification of life” (Rom. 5:18). To be set right with God is to enter into fellowship with God. And this right relationship to God is life. Justification puts us into right relationship to God and hence is a justification of life. Fellowship with God is established when God reveals Himself to man and man responds to that revelation in faith. Life is a personal relationship between God and man that results from this revelation and the faith-response to it. Apart from this revelation the response of faith is not possible, and this revelation is the offer of life and the possibility of faith. But life is not actual unless man responds in faith to the revelation of God Himself. Life is received in the act of faith. Since God’s act of revelation is first, and man’s response in faith is second and depends upon God’s revelation, life results in the righteousness of faith and man becomes righteous because of life. Justification as the revelation of the righteousness of God brings about life and thus the righteousness of faith.
The righteousness of God is God acting in love for the salvation or deliverance of man. This righteousness of God has been manifested, that is, publicly displayed, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22). God was active in Jesus Christ, particularly in His death and resurrection, for salvation (Acts 4:12; I Thess. 5:9; I Tim. 2:10; 3:15; Heb. 5:9). Because He is the act of God for our salvation, Jesus Christ is the righteousness of God (I Cor. 1:30). The gospel or good news is about this manifestation of the righteousness of God. The gospel tells us about God’s act of salvation in the person and work of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:3-4; Eph. 1:13). God acted in Him to deliver man from death, from sin, and from wrath. But since wrath is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18) and sin is caused by death ( Rom. 5:12d ERS), salvation is basically the deliverance from death to life. Man cannot make himself alive. Only God can make alive, for He is the living God and the source of all life. Because God loves man, He did not leave him in death but has provided for him deliverance from death by sending His Son into the world (John 3:16). God in His love for man sent His Son to become a man — Jesus Christ, the God-man (John 1:14). He was the perfect man; He lived in perfect fellowship with God and perfectly trusted God throughout His entire life (John 1:4; 8:28-29; 12:50; 16:32; 17:25). But He came not just to be what we should have been or just to give us a perfect example. He came to die on our behalf in order that we might have life in Him. Jesus said,
“10:10I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly. 10:11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” (John 10:10-11 KJV)
The Apostle John wrote,
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.” (I John 4:9)
He entered not only into our existence as man, but he entered into our condition of spiritual and physical death. On the cross, He died not only physically but spiritually. For only this once during His whole life was He separated from His Father.
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46 KJV)
He was forsaken for us; He died for us.
“Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us” (I John 3:16).
But God raised Him from the dead. He entered into our death in order that as He was raised from the dead we might be made alive with and in Him (Eph. 2:5). Hence Christ’s death was our death, and His resurrection is our resurrection (II Cor. 5:15). He became identified with us in death in order that we might become identified with Him in His resurrection and have life. He became like us that we might become like Him. As Irenaeus (125-202 A.D.), the second century Christian theologian and bishop of Lyon, said,
“…but following the only true and steadfast teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”
He tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9).
“2:14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him that has the power of death, that is the devil, 2:15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.” (Heb. 2:14-15)
He acted as our representative, on our behalf and for our sake.
“For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for (on the behalf, huper) all, therefore all died,” (II Cor. 5:14)
that is, in Christ who represents all. Adam acting as a representative brought the old creation under the reign of death. But Christ acting as our representative brought a new creation in which those “who have received the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life” (Rom. 5:17).
“15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 15:22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:21-22)
“Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.” (II Cor. 5:17)
(Jesus said) “Because I live ye shall live also.” (John 14:19 KJV)
Acting through our representative, God has reconciled us to Himself through Christ, that is, God has brought us into fellowship with Himself.
“5:18But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ … 5:19to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” (II Cor. 5:18-19; see also Rom. 5:10-11; I Cor. 1:9; I John 1:2-3).
This representative work of Christ should not be understood as a vicarious act, instead of another, but as a participation, a sharing in the act of another. Christ took part or shared our situation. He entered not only into our existence as a man, but also into our condition of spiritual and physical death. On the cross, He died not only physically but also spiritually (Matt. 27:46). We were reconciled to God through the death of Christ because He shared in our death (Rom. 5:10; Heb. 2:9). But He was raised from the dead, and that on behalf of all men (II Cor. 5:15). He was raised from the dead so that we might participate in His resurrection and be made alive with Him (Eph. 2:5-7). His resurrection is our resurrection. He was raised from dead for us so that we might participate in His resurrection and life, both spiritually and physically, in Him. Since spiritual death is no fellowship with God, being made alive with Christ we are brought into fellowship with God. Hence, we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:17-19). Reconciliation can therefore be defined as that aspect of salvation whereby man is delivered from death to life.
The source of this act of reconciliation is the love of God. It is a legalistic misunderstanding of reconciliation which says that God was reconciled to man. The Scriptures never say that God is reconciled to man but that man is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:18-19). The problem is not in God but in man. Man is the enemy of God; God is not the enemy of man. God loves man, and out of His great love He has acted to reconcile man to Himself through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is true that God in His wrath opposes man’s sin and in His grace has provided a means by which His wrath may be turned away. But this aspect of salvation is propitiation, not reconciliation. Reconciliation should not be confused with propitiation. God in reconciling man to Himself has saved man from death, the cause of sin ( Rom. 5:12d ERS), and hence He has removed sin, the cause of His wrath — no sin, no wrath. Propitiation is salvation from wrath to peace with God, and propitiation is salvation from wrath to peace with God because of redemption which is salvation from sin to righteousness. And redemption is salvation from sin to righteousness because of reconciliation which is salvation from death to life,
Since salvation is from death to life (reconcilation), from sin to righteousness (redemption), and from wrath to peace with God (propitiation), these are the three aspects of salvation. And these three aspects of salvation are the three aspects of justification.
God has acted in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of man from death, sin and wrath. Since wrath is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18) and sin by death ( Rom. 5:12d ERS), salvation is basically from death to life and then from sin to righteousness and then from wrath to peace with God. Reconciliation is salvation from death to life; redemption is salvation from sin to righteousness; and
propitiation is salvation from wrath to peace.
These three aspects of salvation are accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Propitiation is the sacrificial aspect, redemption is the liberation aspect, and reconciliation is the representative aspect of His work of salvation. This threefold act of God for the salvation of man is the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God (=salvation) has been manifested (publicily displayed) in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-26). The gospel tells us about this act of God, about this manifestation of the righteousness of God. In the preaching of the gospel, the righteousness of God is being continually revealed or actualized (Rom. 1:17). That is, God is exerting His power for the salvation of man in the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). This revelation of the righteousness of God is justification by faith. The results of this act of God is not a legal fiction, a legal relationship, but real personal relationship to God, spiritual and eternal life. Justification is not just a legal declaration or imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the merits earned by Christ’s active obedience, but the act or activity of God that saves one from death to life, from sin (trust in a false god) to righteousness (faith and trust in the true God), and from wrath to peace with God through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-25; 5:1; 5:9).
Legalism misinterprets the righteousness of God as justice, that is, as that principle of God’s being that requires and demands the reward of good work (comformity to the Law) because of their intrinsic merit (remunerative justice) and the punishment of every transgression of the law with a proportionate punishment because of its own intrinsic demerit (retributive justice). According to this view, for God to do otherwise He would be unrighteous and unjust. Absolute justice, which according to this point of view is the eternal being of God, is said to require and demand, of necessity, the reward of meritorious good works and the punishment of sin. It was this legalistic concept of justice that gave Martin Luther so much trouble.
In the English language, the use of “justify” to translate the Greek verb dikaioo and the use of “justification” to translate the Greek verbal noun dikaiosis seems to imply that the righteousness of God is the Greek-Roman concept of justice. The English language has no verbal noun or verb of the same root as the English word “righteousness” to translate the Greek verbal noun or verb. This deficiency of the English language does not mean that the righteousness of God is the Greek-Roman concept of justice.
From this legalistic point of view, man needs to be saved because he is guilty of breaking the law. Salvation is accordingly conceived of as a removal of that guilt. Justice requires that the penalty be paid before the guilt can be removed. It cannot be forgiven freely but only can be taken away by the paying of the penalty which alone can satisfy justice. Because of the enormity of the guilt – it is against an infinite moral being – finite man himself can never pay the penalty and go free. From this legalistic point of view, man’s sin demands an eternal punishment, and being finite he cannot meet the infinite demand of justice. If he is to be saved at all, he must be saved by another – one who is man like himself but without sin, but also one who is God who alone can meet the infinite demand of justice. Where is such a one to be found? Only God can provide that one, and God has provided the perfect sacrifice to pay the penalty by sending His Son to become man. His death is the perfect sacrifice. It can remove the guilt by paying the penalty. In His death he endured the eternal punishment due to man’s sin.
But from this legalistic point of view, it is not enough just to be declared not guilty; man must also have a righteousness which merits eternal life. He must not only have no guilt, no demerits, but he must also have a positive righteousness, merits placed to his account. Since man cannot earn this righteousness (merits) himself because of his sinful nature (he is not able not to sin and not able to do righteousness – good works which merit eternal life as a reward), someone must earn this for him. According to this legalistic theology, salvation is not only a vicarious satisfaction of the demands of justice and the law, but it is also vicarious law-keeping. Christ’s life of active obedience under the law provides the righteousness (merits) we need; Christ earned for us eternal life by His active obedience to the law. And by His passive obedience of death on the cross He paid for us (vicariously) the penalty of our sins. Therefore, the one who receives in faith Christ’s work for him is declared not guilty, and Christ’s righteousness (the merits of Christ) is imputed to his account. He is justified because Christ has satisfied the demands of justice and the law against him. He is legally entitled to eternal life if he will receive it from Christ who earned it for him. Thus salvation is understood legalistically. It is a legal transaction – a fire insurance policy that another paid for and gives freely to man if he will take it.
This is a consistent and logical explanation of salvation by Christ. There is only one difficulty with it – it is not true. Yes, Christ died for man to take away his sin. The fact of Christ – who He is and what He did – is true, but the explanation is wrong – it is legalistic. Salvation is not by meritorious works, even though another – even God – performs them. God is not the kind of God that the legalist thinks He is. He is not a God of law and justice but a God of love. Yes, God is just, that is, fair, but not in a legalistic sense. God is fair because he loves all men alike and therefore treats them impartially, without regard to their merit (Matt. 5:45). The problem solved by Christ’s death was not in God but in man. God did not have to be reconciled and His justice satisfied before man could be saved. On the contrary, it is man who needs to be reconciled to God; it is man who needs to be changed. Man is dead and he needs to be made alive. The problem is in man – he is dead and he needs life. Man does not need a lawyer; he needs someone to raise him from dead. Only God can do that, and He has done it through His Son’s death and resurrection. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (II Cor. 5:18-19; see also Rom. 5:10-11) – not reconciling God to the world. And since man sins because he is dead (Rom. 5:12d ERS), by making him alive with Christ God saves him from sin to righteousness. He saves him not just from the guilt of sin but from sin itself. And He saves him not just from breaking the law but from trusting in false gods. God saves man to trust in God Himself – the only real righteousness. Legal righteousness (merits) is not enough. For the real law wants faith, trust in and love of God – “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” (Deut. 6:5 KJV). And since death is what hinders this, God removed this hindrance and barrier by the death and resurrection of His Son. He entered into our death so that we could enter into His life – through His resurrection. Being made alive with Him, we can now trust, love, and worship Him. So then as sin flows out of death, righteousness flows out of life – out of Jesus Christ who is the life. Life is not some thing, but is a person – Jesus Christ – and to know Him and God through Him is to be alive (John 17:3). And to know Him and His love is to trust Him. This trust is a real righteousness (Rom. 4:5).
Martin Luther recovered the Biblical concept of the righteousness of God and of the justification by faith. But his followers obscured this understanding of these concepts by the legalism of their theology and legalistic understanding of righteousness and justification. And this legalism not only affected theology but the whole life of the church. The result of this legalism was dead orthodoxy and a cold, unloving Christianity. To correct these effects there arose in the church various movements such as pietism, the evangelical awakening, revivalism, etc. None of these movements went to the source of the deadness, coldness and unlovableness but just reinforced the cause — legalism.
The great outpouring of the Spirit starting at the beginning of the twentieth century has been hindered and limited by the constant relapses into the same legalism. And the source of this legalism in practice is the legalism of the theology. The theological legalism produces the practical legalism. The answer to the legalism of the theology is not no theology, but a non-legaistic theology, a Biblical theology. With the present move of the Spirit, the time has come to clear the legalism out of our theology and again recover the Biblical understanding of the righteousness of God and justification by faith. This paper is an attempt to make a beginning at this theological renewal.
ENDNOTES
[1] William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1896, 1911), p.36.
[2] Vincent Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation
(1941), p. 57.
[4] Norman H. Snaith, The Distincitive Ideas of the OT
(1944), 165.
[5] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 444.
[6] Ibid., p. 445.
“28This interpretation of righteousness is splendidly asserted by Bultman, Theology of the NT, I, 270-79.”
[8] Quoted in Albert Hyma, New Light on Martin Luther
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), p. 16.
[9] Luther, Commentary on the Gospel of John
Weimer ed., XXXIII, 561. Dated 21, 1531, quoted in Hyma, p. 28.
[10] Luther, op. cit., dated October 28, 1531, p. 574,
quoted in Hyma, p. 28.
[11] Luther, Exposition on Psa. XLV, p. 29.
[12] Luther, Answer to Duke George’s Latest Book
quoted in Hyma, pp. 28-29.
[13] Luther, Sermon on Matthew XVIII-XXIV, pp. 29-30.
[14] Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XV,
Luther: Lectures on Romans
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), pp. xxxvi-xxxvii.
[15] What Luther Says, Vol. III,
Complied by Ewald M. Plass
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 1225.
[16] What Luther Says, Vol. III, p. 1225-1225.
[18] Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), pp. 281-282.
See also Gleason L. Archer, Jr.,
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), pp. 418-420.
[19] Alan Richardson,
An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament,
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), pp. 79-83, 232-233.
[20] C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
(London and Glasgow: Fontana Books, 1959), p. 38.
[21] C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1964), p. 46.