|
|
|
Justification and the Righteousness of God |
|
|
|
Traditionally,
dikaioumai,
‘to be justified’, has been understood in general as ‘to be put in right
relation with God’. Arndt-Gingrich’s defines it, ‘to be acquitted, be
pronounced and treated as righteous, and thereby become dikaios (righteous), receive
the divine gift of dikaisunh
(righteousness).’ (Cole, p. 80). It has primarily to do with the individual
sinner’s status before the holy God. Dunn’s
interpretation, however, is that ‘justification’ in Gal. 2.16 is ‘something
Jewish’ and has to do with the covenant, to do with God’s chosen people. It
is ‘God’s acknowledgment that someone is in the covenant’ (p.190), in
particular, the acknowledgment that Gentile Christians, as Gentiles, are full
members of the elect (Gal. 3.28). Integral to the ‘people of the covenant’,
obviously, is the fact of the corporate whole, the community. His
thesis seems to be confirmed by five pieces of evidence in the rest of the
epistle. First is Paul’s lengthy exposition of the Abrahamic
covenant in Gal. 3.6 through 4.7. Justification has to do with who are the
‘sons (plural) of Abraham’ (3.7). Those who belong to Christ are ‘Abraham’s
offspring (collective singular)’, are ‘heirs (plural)’ (3.29). Justification
is to ‘receive the adoption of sons (plural)’ (4.5, cf. Rom. 9.4); to be ‘a
son (collective singular)’ and therefore to be an ‘heir (collective
singular)’ (4.7). In all these verses it is the corporate dimension (viz.
people of the covenant) that is dominant, not the individual. Secondly,
Gal. 3.26-28 is highly significant. Gal. 3.26 may be translated as
‘faith-children of God in the corporate whole that is the Body of Christ’
(Cole, p. 109). Also 3.29a: the literal ‘if you belong to Christ’ may be
paraphrased as ‘if you are part of Christ’s body’ (Cole, p. 111). Again the
corporate dimension is implied. Thirdly,
4.17: ‘They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out,
in order that you may seek them.’ We need to ask: ’From what, exactly, did
the Judaisers try to shut the Galatians out?’ The answer,
in light of the context, seems to be: from the company of the Elect, from
membership of God’s covenant people. Fourth is
Paul’s exposition of the two covenants in 4.21-5.1. Christians, both Jew and
Gentile, are children of the ‘ Finally,
the existence of the ‘Israel of God’ (6.16). ‘ Acknowledgment
of membership in the covenant is, however, not all there is to justification.
It is admittedly the primary aspect in Galatians. The traditional
understanding of justification as sins forgiven, acquittal, a right status, although
secondary in this epistle, is nonetheless an important and integral aspect
(see esp. 3.5,8,11). Even Dunn talks of ‘God’s
verdict of acquittal’ (p. 194). Luther was not wrong after all. The truth, in
this case, is not a matter of either/or but what is primary and what is
secondary in the particular epistle considered. Two other
secondary aspects seem to be intrinsic to justification: ‘living to God’
(2.19) and ‘life’ (3.21). In 2.19 Paul says ‘living to God’ is the result of
having ‘died to the law’. This death is through faith-union with Christ in
his death (2. 20). And the Christian’s righteousness is also through Christ’s
death -- in fact, the purpose of his death (2.21b). Therefore ‘living to God’
is a result of, or is tantamount to, possessing ‘righteousness’. And in 3.21,
‘life and righteousness’ are virtually synonymous. So ‘life’ may be the
foremost meaning of ‘justified’ in 3.24. ‘Life’ to Paul is, of course, more
than life as such (i.e. the merely biological). Put the other way, to be justified,
to be righteous in God’s sight, to have ‘righteousness’,
is to be truly alive. 1 Cor.
1.30 The
context of Christ, the ‘righteousness and sanctification and redemption‘ from God seems to be ‘the power and wisdom of
God’. There is in the believer’s experience really no impetus so powerful and
reassuring to live a life that is pleasing to God than ‘a right status’.
‘From God’ also suggests that it is a gift. ‘Righteousness’ as a virtue would
be indicated by the word ‘sanctification’. So the forensic aspect seems to be
dominant. 1 Cor.
6.11 In view
of the context of judges and law courts and the catalogue of sins (vv.9,10) ‘justified’ in this verse would be the traditional
meaning, i.e. forgiveness of sins, acquittal and a ‘right standing’. 2 Cor.
5.21 The
penal, substitutionary imputation of Christ’s
righteousness to sinners seems to be nowhere clearer than in this verse. As
it has to do with sin, the ‘acquittal’ aspect is, therefore, primary. Phil. 3.9 Here, the
following facets of ‘righteousness’ are dominant:
Romans 1.16,17 Contra
N.T. Wright, the gospel is surely about ‘the righteousness of God’ inasmuch
as it is about ‘His Son…Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.1.2-4). Indeed the
gospel, as it were, is a three-piece Chinese treasure box. The outermost box
is ‘concerning His Son...Jesus Christ our Lord’. Inside this is the second
box: ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1.16), and the innermost box is
‘the righteousness of God’ (Rom. 1.17). In this verse what is emphasized is
the ‘faith’ aspect. For the meaning of ‘the righteousness of God’ we have to
turn to Romans 3.21-27. Romans 2.13 and 3.20 ‘Justified’
here is in opposition to having ‘sinned’. The implied meaning is therefore
‘forgiveness of sins, acquittal and being in the right’. Romans 3.4 ‘Justified’
in this verse has the context of the tribunal, the law court and judgment.
This aspect, if not dominant, was at least present in Paul’s understanding in
Romans. Romans 3.5 Quite
certainly, the ‘righteousness of God’ refers to God’s attribute as righteous. Romans 3.21-27 (cf.
Phil. 3.9) The
righteousness of God (v. 21,22): Morris’ definition
seems to fit rather well in these two verses, ‘a right standing that comes
from God and is the gift of God’ (p. 34). In view of the emphasis on sin in
the preceding verses (1.18 – 3.20), summarized in 3.9 (‘both Jews and Greeks
are all under sin’) and 3.23 (‘for all have sinned’), the righteousness of
God as His covenant faithfulness to This
justification of sinners by God is solely the grace and gift of God,
reinforcing the idea of a legal ‘right standing’. ‘That it is a gift points
to a forensic activity. God gives the status of being “right”’ (Morris, p.
34). This gift
is possible only through the redemptive and propitiatory death of Jesus
Messiah (vv. 24 and 25a), and received ‘through faith’ (v.22, 25, 26), i.e. through
believing (v.22b) and grateful acceptance, for both Jew and Gentile without
distinction (v. 22,23). Verses 25,26 In the
death of Messiah God’s righteousness, i.e. His righteous attribute (so I
understand the word, cf. 3.5) is not compromised. In fact it is demonstrated.
How can this be? Isn’t God’s righteous nature compromised when ‘in His
forbearance, He passed over the sins previously committed’ and justifies the
sinner? Sins have to be dealt with. So the penal and substitutionary
nature of the atonement seems to be at back of Paul’s mind. Thus Morris
writes, ’when God saves, he saves in a way that accords with right’ (p. 33),
and ‘specifically we need to know that our penalty is paid and our acquittal
brought about in a way that is right’ (p. 71). So, to
know (in the heart) that God is righteous and justifies us sinners is to know
His saving power (Rom. 1.16) and to know Jesus Christ as Lord (Rom. 1.4).
This is the gospel. ‘The church stands or falls with Christ’ (D. Garlington). True. But it is in ‘justification’ that
Christ and God’s saving power become ‘real’ and ‘powerful’ to us. Luther’s
dictum is still correct: justification is indeed articulus stantis et cadentis
ecclesiae. Contra
N.T. Wright, justification by faith is therefore not a second-order doctrine.
The ‘righteousness of God’ is to Paul the core of the gospel. ‘Gunther Bornkamm is an example
of those who see justification by faith as central to Paul’s theology. He
calls it “the basic theme in his theology”, and maintains that “his whole
preaching, even when it says nothing expressly about justification, can be
properly understood only when taken in closest connection with that doctrine
and related to it”’ (Morris, p. 69, n. 39).
The
legal/individual dimensions of justification are prominent in this passage.
Also, we may confidently assume that the definition of justification found
here underlies the occurrences of ‘justify’ in the rest of the epistle, viz.
3.28; 4.2; 5.1; 5.9 (with its back reference to 3.25a); 5.16-19,21; 8.30,33
and of the ‘righteousness of God’ of 10.3. Titus 3.7 In view
of the sins detailed in verse 3 preceding, the meaning of ‘justified’ here
seems to be similar to that of 1 Cor .6.11. Compare
a) Titus 3.3 with 1 Cor. 6.9,10 and b) ‘the washing
of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit’ of Titus 3.7 with ‘you were
washed…you were justified…in the Spirit of our God’ of 1 Cor.
6.11. Conclusion In 1
& 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Romans and Titus therefore the traditional
understanding of justification as ‘forgiveness of sins, acquittal and a right
standing’ is primary in contrast to the ‘covenant’ emphasis of Galatians. Luther’s
exclusive focus on the individual/‘acquittal’ dimension of justification has
resulted in the Protestants’ neglect of the ‘covenant’ and other aspects. At
the time, however, there were circumstances that called for such particular
emphasis. Luther’s age was one where the Christian psyche was almost wholly
community-magisterial dictated, leaving no room for the self.
The other was the serious error of justification by faith plus good/religious
works (i.e. a form of ‘semi-Pelagianism’) of the
Roman Catholic Church. Bibliography Scripture
quotations are from the New American Standard Bible. R.A.
Cole, Tyndale NT Commentary on Galatians, IVP/Eerdmans Don Garlington, Review of Simon J. Gathercole’s ‘Where is boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5’
(on-line) Leon
Morris, NT Theology, Zondervan I would
like to thank elder Khor Tong Keng,
M.A., M.Div., for his perceptive comments, which I
have incorporated into this essay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
