Justification By Faith

Justification By Faith By Allen Dvorak I m not a lawyer. I don t even play one on television. Like many United States citizens, however, I am roughly familiar with the judicial process in a criminal case, mostly from television dramas (when I served on jury duty last year, the bailiff informed the jury pool that it doesn t really happen the way that television portrays it!). The defendant has been charged with having committed a crime, a violation of the law. The task of the prosecuting attorney is to present recognized evidence that the defendant did indeed commit the crime. Since the defendant is presumed to be innocent by the legal system, the role of the defense attorney is not to prove the defendant s innocence, but to show that the prosecuting attorney has not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt or, in some cases, accountability for a crime admittedly committed. Under normal circumstances, the question of guilt is decided by a jury of the defendant s peers, a group of citizens who listen to the evidence presented by both sides, prosecution and defense, and their arguments regarding the significance of that evidence. If the jury believes that the defendant is innocent of the charged crime, we describe the defendant forensically as acquitted. In the Bible, the same basic idea is conveyed by the forensic term justified. 1 In the judicial system of the United States, the freedom and perhaps even the life of the defendant hangs in the balance, depending upon the seriousness of the charged crime. According to the Scriptures, whether a person is declared to be spiritually justified has even greater consequences! The subject of justification by faith is indeed a broad one and no attempt will be made in this study to exhaust the subject. In light of the objectives set for this study, my strategy will be threefold: 1) Describe the Reformed theology ( old perspective ) view of justification by faith. 2) Identify and contrast the new perspective (NPP) view of justification. 3) Outline what the Scriptures teach about justification by faith, comparing that teaching with the summaries of the old and new perspectives on justification. Justification: The Old Perspective The emergence of a new perspective on Paul has caused Reformation theology to be designated the old perspective. The sixteenth century reformers departed from the 1 The parallel is not a strict one, as will be explained later. 159

doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in a number of areas, but failed, in my opinion, to return to the biblical perspective. The purpose of this study is to offer a brief summary of the teaching of reformed theology with regard to justification by faith. There was no one single cause for the Reformation Movement, but a key motivation was the emphasis on meritorious works prevalent in Roman Catholicism. 2 The leader of the Reformation in Germany was Martin Luther (1483-1546). 3 Luther s reform work lit the spark that in turn kindled reformation in other countries in Europe. Although he studied law at the University of Erfurt, Luther became a monk of the Augustinian Order and became influential in that order. Kenneth Latourette describes Luther s search for the assurance of salvation: He sought by the means set forth by the church and the monastic tradition to make himself acceptable to God and to earn the salvation of his soul. He mortified his body. He fasted, sometimes for days on end and without a morsel of food. He gave himself to prayers and vigils beyond those required by the rule of his order. He went to confession, often daily and for hours at a time. Yet assurance of God s favour and inward peace did not come and the periods of depression were acute. 4 Luther is quoted as saying, If anyone could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I. 5 James Atkinson also writes of Luther s search as a monk for God s pardon and peace : He faithfully obeyed his order, and observed punctiliously the spiritual techniques. Yet he found himself no nearer to God. He began to see that the way of the monk was merely a long discipline of religious duty and effort. Mysticism was an attempt to climb up to heaven Luther found one basic error in all these techniques of finding God. Ultimately they trusted in man s own ability to get him to God, or at least take him near enough for God to accept him. 6 Luther s conclusions about how men are justified were greatly influenced by his own experience in addition to his study of Scripture. Latourette completes our summary of Luther s journey: He held that seeking to amass good works by going on pilgrimages, fasting, confessing, and calling on the saints was evidence of a feeling of insecurity and lack 2 Mattox, 239. It seems to be the general consensus that the sale of indulgences in Germany was a specific catalyst for Luther s open opposition to the Catholic Church. 3 Latourette, 703-742. See also Mattox, 239-253; Cairns, 287-299; Dowley, 360-364. 4 Ibid., p. 705. 5 Galli, Mark. 6 Dowley, 364. 160

of oneness with God. Here, obviously, he was speaking out of his own bitter experience. 7 Of course, the ideas that man is saved by the redemptive work of Christ rather than by his own meritorious works, and the necessity of faith were not peculiar to Luther or Calvin, nor did these doctrines originate in the Protestant Reformation. Atkinson summarizes the similarity and differences between Protestant and Catholic thought as follows: The Protestant believed that by the action of God alone, in the death and resurrection of Christ, he was called from his sin to a new life in Christ. From this proceeded the fruits of the Spirit in loving acts. The Catholic equally believed he was saved by Christ. But he made good works parallel faith, and laid stress on the merit of good works. The Protestant was justified made acceptable to God solely by Christ. The Catholic modified this, by placing his own good works alongside. The Protestant did not disapprove of good works, but denied their value as a condition of justification. He saw them as the product and evidence of justification. 8 It is not hard to understand why both Martin Luther and John Calvin (1509-1564), reacting to the emphasis placed on good works by Roman Catholicism, would warmly embrace the view that justification is by faith alone (sola fide), i.e., salvation is only by divine grace, especially in light of Paul s writings in Romans and Galatians. The light came on for Luther after he delivered a series of lectures on those books in 1515-1517. 9 The Catholic Church s emphasis on good works was not the only impetus for reformation. Both Luther and Calvin believed in divine sovereignty and some form of predestination. 10 It could be argued that divine sovereignty is essentially the foundation for the whole system of theology known as Calvinism. 11 God s choice of the elect was a manifestation of His sovereignty. The choice of specific individuals to be saved (the elect) was according to the good pleasure of God and independent of any choices made by those individuals. Accordingly, the implication of divine sovereignty, to the Calvinist, is that these chosen individuals must be saved. After all, can God truly be sovereign if those whom He has chosen to be saved can, in fact, be lost? If their salvation is the will of God, can God truly be sovereign if any man can defy the will of God by making freewill choices that result in his damnation? The Calvinist reasons that the sovereignty of God must guarantee the salvation of the elect regardless of their moral behavior. The five cardinal tenets of Calvinism are intimately tied to one another. The human race became totally depraved when Adam, the federal head of our race, sinned. All men are thus unable to respond to the call of salvation by virtue of their own unregenerate nature 7 Latourette, 710-713. 8 Dowley, 373. 9 Latourette, 706. 10 It is commonly asserted that Luther believed in single predestination, while Calvin believed in double predestination (e.g., see Cairns, p. 309). Mattson makes a convincing case for Luther s belief in double predestination as well ( Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther s Doctrine of Predestination ). 11 Although the Scriptures certainly affirm the sovereignty of God (and a doctrine of predestination), I believe that Calvinism misunderstands the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will. 161

(Total Inherited Depravity). God, however, chose unconditionally (Unconditional Election) before the foundation of the world those who would be saved (and, by implication, those who would be condemned). Since the condemned will not receive atonement, Jesus died only for the elect (Limited Atonement). The elect will be enabled to come to Christ through the irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit (Irresistible Grace) and, once sanctified, can never so sin as to be lost again (Perseverance of the Saints). If one accepts the doctrine of total inherited depravity, the other four tenets seem logical enough! Furthermore, each of the five tenets emphasizes the action of God in man s salvation, while depreciating man s efforts/choice in his own salvation. The understanding of reformed theology of the concept of justification by faith would exclude water baptism as having anything to do with an individual s actual justification, since it is considered a work and Paul clearly teaches in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians that no one is justified by works (e.g., Romans 2:20; 3:28; Galatians 2:16; 3:11; Ephesians 2:8-9)! Although more will be said later on this point, suffice it to say at this juncture that what Paul actually affirmed is that man is not justified by works (the law) in the sense of trying to keep the law perfectly. The confusion of reformed theology with regard to the difference between basis and condition has led to much angst over the book of James, including Luther s depreciation of the book. The Imputation of Christ s Righteousness The specific mechanism of justification, according to reformed theology, is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Kent Yinger explains the forensic nature of justification and clearly distinguishes between Martin Luther s view of justification and that of Roman Catholicism in his day: Second, does the NPP deny forensic justification? For those unfamiliar with this terminology, part of the Reformation s genius was the discovery that God declares the sinner to be righteous based upon the work of Christ accepted in simple faith. Thus, justification refers to the declaration by God that a believing sinner is now considered righteous, acquitted. Forensic refers to a legal or law-court setting; thus, forensic justification is like a judge pronouncing the not guilty verdict. Unrighteous sinners can be pronounced not guilty or righteous because of Christ s death and resurrection. Sinners do nothing to attain this verdict, they simply accept it by faith in the gospel proclamation. Luther s Catholic opponents ridiculed this as a legal fiction and insisted that God does not merely declare a sinner to be righteous, but actually makes that sinner righteous. That is, in Roman Catholic theology, justification is not merely forensic, it is also transformative. For Luther, however, to make justification in any way dependent upon even the least bit of ethical transformation, even the least amount of good works in the sinner s transformed life, dashes all confidence in justification by faith alone. 12 In his seminal work The Institutes of the Christian Religion, published in 1536, John Calvin described justification as follows: 12 Yinger, 74-75. 162

Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. 13 Jared Moore summarizes the view of Luther and Calvin: They both believed in the imputed righteousness of Christ being credited through sinners being justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Sinners are saved by Christ s righteousness and obedience credited to them; instead of being saved through their own obedience. To these men, righteousness was declarative instead of infused as the Catholics believed. Due to man s total depravity, he cannot save himself. Thus, this imputed righteousness being found objectively in Christ alone was good news indeed. 14 Justification according to the old perspective involves a double imputation. Merrill Unger comments: This is a beautiful illustration of the principle of imputation by which the sinner's sins are reckoned or imputed to Christ's account, and His righteousness is credited or imputed to the sinner's account, all by faith. 15 Yinger also describes double imputation : If sinners are not in themselves righteous, and if God will not pronounce the wicked to be righteous ( for I will not acquit the guilty - Exodus 23:7), how will he justify the ungodly? The answer: God will take the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ and will credit ( reckon ) it to the account of the sinner. When God looks at the believer, he sees not a sinner but a person clothed in Christ s righteousness. An exchange has occurred: Christ takes the believer s sins, and the believer is credited with Christ s righteousness. Rather than pronouncing a sinner to be righteous, God sees a righteous one whom he rightfully acquits. 16 In a sermon on Faith and the Imputation of Righteousness, John Piper explains: 2 Corinthians 5:21, He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Here we have a double imputation. God imputed our sins to Christ who knew no sin. And God imputed his righteousness to us who had no righteousness of our own. The key phrases for us are the righteousness of God and in Him. It's not our righteousness that we get here. It is God's righteousness. And we get it not because our faith is righteous, but because we are in Christ. Faith unites us to Christ. And in Christ we have an alien 13 Calvin, 585. 14 Moore. 15 Unger, 745. Cited by Jones. 16 Yinger, 75-76. 163

righteousness. It is God's righteousness in Christ. Or you can say it is Christ's righteousness. He takes our sin. We take his righteousness. 17 Steve Jones continues the explanation of imputed righteousness, according to reformed theology: According to this view, a mysterious transaction takes place the moment I believe. The impeccable law-keeping and merit of Christ is transferred to me as if it were my own. And so we hear of being sinful in state but righteous in standing. We are the unrighteous in condition but the righteous in position. This is the teaching of Luther and Calvin and many well-intentioned teachers in our own day. They tell us that Paul unfolded the doctrine in his epistles, especially Romans and Galatians. 18 Luther described the situation of believers as being sinners in fact but righteous by God s saving intervention (simul iustus et peccator). 19 The imputation of Christ s righteousness is a point of contention between some old perspective theologians (e.g., John Piper 20 ) and some new perspective proponents. For instance, N. T. Wright comments, apparently somewhat tongue-in-cheek : and, But many almost all exegetes have supposed that we can do just that from the other Corinthian reference, 2 Corinthians 5:21: Him who knew no sin, on our behalf God made him sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. There you have it, exclaim [sic] everyone from Luther to John Piper: the wondrous exchange! He takes our sin, we take his righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, just as our sin was imputed to him when he died on the cross. What could be more straightforward? 21 John Piper insists that God requires a moral righteousness of us, and that since we have none of our own God must reckon or impute such a moral righteousness from somewhere else obviously within his scheme, from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. 22 Summary It must be acknowledged that not all followers of the Protestant tradition (reformed theology) believe exactly the same thing about justification, just as not all millennialists believe exactly the same thing about the events of the end times. An attempt has been 17 Piper, Faith and the Imputation of Righteousness. 18 Jones. 19 Fahlbusch, 35. 20 I mention Piper because he and Wright have responded specifically to one another s published work. 21 Wright, 135. 22 Ibid., 71. 164

made in this study to give a general idea of the thinking of reformed theology. As Dunn notes, justification of faith was understood in distinctively individualistic terms, being all about the individual finding peace with God. 23 Justification is seen by the old perspective in the context of the struggle between grace and merit, faith and works (in the sense of meritorious works). Against the backdrop of God s glorification in man s salvation and man s inability to do anything to save himself, the imputation of Christ s righteousness to the believer is affirmed as the means of the sinner s justification. Justification: The New Perspective It is likewise true that there exist differences of belief among proponents of the new perspective on Paul. As Yinger notes, the persons holding the NPP represent a fair variety of opinions on quite a number of issues. 24 For the sake of brevity, this study will attempt a general description of the meaning of justification according to the NPP, without a detailed explanation of some of the finer differences of opinion among its advocates. In general, the NPP affirms that Paul s argumentation in Romans and Galatians has been interpreted since the time of the Protestant Reformation under the influence of reformation issues and thus, misinterpreted. Although NPP proponents would concur with reformed theology that individual salvation is by faith only and not by works of merit, 25 they believe that Paul s focus in Romans and Galatians is on an entirely different matter. Perhaps the following Introduction and Summary of the NPP, found on the website entitled The Paul Page, will assist in determining the general tenor of the viewpoint: Over the last three decades, a revolutionary breakthrough in New Testament scholarship has been rocking the academic Christian world. The scholars at the forefront of the revolution E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others have been pioneering a new approach to the letters of the first-century apostle to the Gentiles, Paul of Tarsus. These Protestants are engaging first-century Judaism on its own terms, not in the context of the Protestant-Catholic debates of the sixteenth century. The result: A new historical perspective on the meaning of Paul s polemic against the Judaizers which occupies so much of his recorded correspondence. What is this new perspective? At its core is the recognition that Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before 23 Dunn, 196. 24 Yinger, 71. 25 For example, E. P. Sanders covenantal nomism the idea that good works are the consequence and outworking of divine grace, not the means by which that grace is first attained (Dunn, 199). See also Wright s agreement with John Piper on this matter (Justification, p. viii). 165

God. Paul s argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul s doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual s status before God. 26 Yinger likewise notes the fact that the NPP has a view of the Pauline doctrine of justification that is completely different from that of the old perspective : First, is justification by faith the organizing centerpiece of Paul s theology? This has generally been the way the Reformation tradition has understood Paul. It has not been the way NPP authors have read him. 27 He further summarizes the main lines of the NPP as follows: 1. First-century Judaisms were not legalistic, but were characterized by covenantal nomism saved by God s grace and obligated to follow his ways. 2. Since Jews were not espousing works-righteousness, Paul was not opposing legalism in his letters. 3. Instead, at issue was a question of social identity: Who belongs to the people of God and how is this known? i.e., does one have to be Jewish be circumcised, keep food laws, celebrate Sabbath, etc. in order to inherit the promises to Abraham? 4. Paul does not differ from most other Jews as to the roles of grace, faith, and works in salvation; where he differs is the conviction that Jesus is Israel s Messiah and the Lord of all creation. No longer is Torah the defining center of God s dealings; what counts now is belonging to Christ. 28 According to the NPP, Paul s teaching about justification by faith rather than by the deeds of the law was actually an affirmation that Gentiles did not have to become proselytes to the Jewish faith in order to be part of God s people. Yinger explains: So, for instance, when Paul speaks of justification through the law (Gal 2:21) or by the law (3:11), he envisions not the individual s effort to merit salvation by keeping the Law, but the Jewish conviction that membership in God s people belongs only to those identified with Torah; this salvation or justification is only through the (works of) law. 29 26 Author unknown. www.thepaulpage.com/new-perspective/introduction-and-summary/ 27 Yinger, 73-74. 28 Ibid., 30-31. 29 Ibid., 23. 166

Krister Stendahl framed this view as follows: the main lines of Pauline interpretation have for many centuries been out of touch with one of the most basic of the questions and concerns that shaped Paul s thinking in the first place: the relation between Jews and Gentiles the doctrine of justification by faith was hammered out by Paul for the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel. 30 To summarize, justification by faith is soteriological, individual and forensic, according to the old perspective. 31 According to the NPP, justification is social, communal and covenantal (Abrahamic). N. T. Wright As one of the leading voices of the NPP, the writings of N. T. Wright provide a comprehensive view of the doctrine of justification. In short, Wright sees the covenant with Abraham as the divine vehicle for setting all things right. Since all mankind and the earth itself had been cursed as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, God would bring blessing to the whole world through the promise to Abraham. That blessing was to come through Israel, but the nation failed to be faithful to God. What the nation did not do, the Messiah, in the person of Jesus Christ, did. As a representative of the people, He provided vindication, being vindicated Himself by God through the resurrection. The following statements from Wright will provide a more detailed summary of his view: The single-plan-through-israel-for-the-world was called into being by God as the means of addressing and solving the plight of the whole world. The covenant, in my shorthand, is not something other than God s determination to deal with evil once and for all and so put the whole creation (and humankind with it) right at last. When will it become clear to the geocentrists? Dealing with sin, saving humans from it, giving them grace, forgiveness, justification, glorification all this was the purpose of the single covenant from the beginning, now fulfilled in Jesus Christ. 32 The problem with the single-plan-through-israel-for-the-world was the through- Israel bit: Israel had let the side down, had let God down, had not offered the obedience which would have allowed the worldwide covenant plan to proceed. Israel, in short, had been faithless to God s commission. 33 30 Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, 1-2; quoted by Dunn, 196. 31 One of the primary features of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification is an emphasis on the plight of the individual before God, an individual quest for piety apart from concrete social structures (Mattison, A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul ). 32 Wright, 74. 33 Ibid., 83. 167

the task of the Messiah, bringing to its appointed goal the single-plan-through- Israel-for-the-world, was to offer to God the obedience which Israel should have offered but did not. 34 How then does this covenantal framework dovetail with the lawcourt framework of meaning? Answer: by understanding the ways in which the Jewish people, from early on but especially in the second-temple period, construed their own history in terms of God s ongoing purpose, and saw, in particular, cosmic history in terms of a great Assize, a coming moment when God would set all things right including vindicating his people. Here a passage like Daniel 7 comes naturally to mind, with the Ancient of Days taking his seat as judge, with the nations (in the form of the sequence of monsters) being judged and condemned, and with Israel (in the form of one like a son of man and/or the people of the saints of the Most High ) being vindicated, exalted after their suffering, like a defendant who has been on trial for a long time and is finally upheld. 35 The Messiah is therefore the one this is clearest in Paul, but there are significant antecedents in whom God s people are summed up, so that what is true of him is true of them. 36 Fifth, the resurrection of the Messiah is, for Paul, the beginning of the entire new creation. When God raised Jesus from the dead, that event was the divine declaration that he really had been his son all along (in the senses described above). The resurrection was the vindication of Jesus, his justification after the apparent condemnation of the court that sent him to his death. 37 Paul believed, in short, that what Israel had longed for God to do for it and for the world, God had done for Jesus, bringing him through death and into the life of the age to come. Eschatology: the new world had been inaugurated! Covenant: God s promises to Abraham had been fulfilled! Lawcourt: Jesus had been vindicated and so all those who belonged to Jesus were vindicated as well! And these, for Paul, were not three, but one. Welcome to Paul s doctrine of justification, rooted in the single scriptural narrative as he read it, reaching out to the waiting world. 38 And yet neither of them, nor the several other writers who take a similar tack, appear to be able to see that the key passages in Romans and Galatians are all drawing on, and claiming to fulfill [sic], two central passages in the Pentateuch: Genesis 15, where God establishes his covenant with Abraham, and Deuteronomy 30, where Israel is offered the promise of covenant renewal after exile. 39 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., 78-79. 36 Ibid., 82. 37 Ibid., 84-85. 38 Ibid., 80. 39 Ibid., 73. 168

Wright sees three aspects in the Pauline doctrine of justification: eschatology, covenant and lawcourt. He apparently believes in the forensic meaning of justification with respect to the individual: Third, Paul s doctrine of justification is focused on the divine law-court. God, as judge, finds in favour of, and hence acquits from their sin, those who believe in Jesus Christ. The word justify has this lawcourt as its metaphorical home base. For John Piper and others who share his perspective, the lawcourt imagery is read differently, with attention shifting rather to the supposed moral achievement of Jesus in gaining, through his perfect obedience, a righteousness which can then be passed across to his faithful people. 40 However, when Paul writes about justification in Romans and Galatians, according to Wright, he primarily has the covenant aspect of justification in mind, i.e., the acceptance of Gentiles into God s family on the basis of faith, rather than by means of becoming part of the Torah covenant. Paul s concern is more about Jew/Gentile relations than the justification of individuals. For example, Wright comments: Justification, denotes the verdict of God himself as to who really is a member of his people. 41 Wright also characterizes justification as the redefining of God s people. The faithfulness of the Messiah, in the sense described in the previous chapter his faithfulness to the long, single purposes of God for Israel is the instrument, the ultimate agency, by which justification takes place. The Messiah s faithful death, in other words, redefines the people of God, which just happens to be exactly what Paul says more fully in verses 19 20 (always a good sign). And the way in which people appropriate that justification, that redefinition of God s people, is now by faith, by coming to believe in Jesus as Messiah. The achievement of Jesus as the crucified Messiah is the basis of this redefinition. The faith of the individual is what marks out those who now belong to him, to the Messiah-redefined family. 42 It is not surprising, in light of Wright s view about the function of the faithfulness of the Messiah, that he understands the phrase pistis christou (see Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:22) in the sense of the faithfulness of Christ rather than in the sense of faith in Christ. 43 James Dunn holds a similar view of the meaning of justification: God s justification is not his act in first making his covenant with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God s justification is rather God s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant whether that is an initial 40 Ibid., x 41 Ibid., 101. 42 Ibid., 97. 43 Compare the NKJV and ESV with the NET on these verses. 169

acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God (God s saving acts), or his final vindication of his people. 44 How Many Paths? Another interesting aspect of the NPP is what is described as two-covenant soteriology. Dunn affirms that Paul was not so much converted as he was called, that we should speak of Paul as being converted within Judaism (to the role of taking the gospel to the Gentiles) rather than from Judaism. 45 If this is true, what are we to conclude about the status of Jews who believe in Jesus? Although apparently not all agree, Yinger states what appears to me to be a logical conclusion: In Sanders s work, Jewish covenantal nomism comes off so well, one wonders why anyone would find fault with it. As Sanders himself put matters, there really was no plight from which Paul felt he needed to be rescued as a Jew. Paul s gospel arose not so much from opposition to Judaism, but was a new parallel track or pattern of religion. Along these same lines, a number of scholars have suggested that Paul s gospel targeted Gentiles, not Jews. The Jewish way of Torah-observance remained, even in Paul s thinking, quite adequate for Jews. Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law (Rom 2:25). It was inadequate only when applied to Gentiles. For them Christ had opened a new Torah-free way through faith without circumcision. Thus, there are two saving covenants in operation since Christ the Torah covenant for Jews, and the Christ covenant for Gentiles. Both Dunn and Wright resist this conclusion. 46 NPP: The Imputation of Christ s Righteousness Not only do NPP advocates generally have a different understanding of the actual meaning/significance of the Pauline doctrine of justification (from reformed theologians), but some NPP proponents do not see, in the teaching of Paul, the imputation of Christ s righteousness to the believer. So, does the NPP deny this doctrine of imputation? The answer is, some do and some don t. For most, it appears to be somewhat beside the point for interpreting key Pauline texts. Thus, commenting on it was reckoned to him as righteousness in Rom 4:3, N. T. Wright comments, God counted Abraham s faith as constituting covenant membership. Since righteousness here for Wright does not refer to Christ s perfect obedience to the Law, but to covenant membership, the issue of crediting Christ s righteousness to Abraham s account is simply not in view. 47 N. T. Wright definitely does not see the imputation of Christ s righteousness in Paul s writings. He explains: 44 Dunn, 107. 45 Dunn, 197-198. 46 Yinger, 35-36. 47 Ibid., 76. 170

The basis for all this, in theology and eschatology, is the faithful, loving, self-giving death of the Messiah. This is the theological point of reading pistis Christou and its cognates in terms of the Messiah s own faithfulness; and this brings us as close as Galatians will let us come to what the Reformed tradition always wanted to say through the language of imputed righteousness. God always intended that his purposes would be accomplished through faithful Israel. That has now happened but in the single person of Israel s faithful representative. But this does not mean that he has fulfilled the law in the sense of obeying it perfectly and thus building up a treasury of merit which can then be reckoned to his people. That scheme, for all its venerable antecedents in my own tradition as well as John Piper s, always was an attempt to say something which Paul was saying, but in language and concepts which had still not shaken off the old idea that the law was, after all, given as a ladder of good works up which one might climb to impress God with one s own moral accomplishments. 48 Defining Words Justification In light of the importance of the biblical doctrine of justification, one might think that the word appears often in the English text of our Bibles, but that would be an incorrect assumption. The word justification only appears three times in the New King James Version, the New American Standard Version (1995 Update) and the English Standard Version. The passages in which it is found in those versions are listed below: who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification (Romans 4:25; NKJV) 49 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. (Romans 5:16; NKJV) Therefore, as through one man s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18; NKJV) The English translation justification is from the Greek word δικαίωσις in Romans 4:25 and 5:18. The Greek word in Romans 5:16 is δικαίωµα. A consultation of Greek lexicons, with regard to the meaning of δικαίωσις yields the following results: BDAG: justification, vindication, acquittal as a process as well as its result. 50 48 Wright, 113 114. 49 Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. 50 Arndt, 250. (BDAG) 171

Louw-Nida: to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else to put right with, to cause to be in a right relationship with. Some scholars, however, interpret δικαιόω, δικαίωσις, and δικαιοσύνη in the following contexts as meaning forensic righteousness, that is to say, the act of being declared righteous on the basis of Christ s atoning ministry, but it would seem more probable that Paul uses these expressions in the context of the covenant relation rather than in the context of legal procedures. 51 the act of clearing someone of transgression to acquit, to set free, to remove guilt, acquittal. 52 Vine: denotes the act of pronouncing righteous, justification, acquittal ; its precise meaning is determined by that of the verb dikaioo, to justify (see B); it is used twice in the Ep. to the Romans, and there alone in the NT, signifying the establishment of a person as just by acquittal from guilt. 53 Strong: acquittal (for Christ s sake): justification. 54 Liddell: a setting right, doing justice to: punishment, Thuc. 2. a deeming righteous, justification, 55 Newman: putting into a right relationship (with God); setting free, acquittal 56 The word δικαίωσις is not translated by any other English words in the major modern versions. Moving to the other word translated justification, a consultation of Greek lexicons, with regard to the meaning of δικαίωµα yields the following results: BDAG: to clear someone of a violation Ro 5:16 57 Louw-Nida: the act of clearing someone of transgression to acquit, to set free, to remove guilt, acquittal. 58 Vine: signifies an act of righteousness, a concrete expression of righteousness, as in the RV of Rom. 5:18, in reference to the death of Christ; 59 51 Louw-Nida, 34.46. 52 Ibid., 56.34. Both definitions - so also Swanson, J. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. 53 Vine, Vol. 2, 338. 54 Strong, Vol. 1, 23. 55 Liddell, 202. 56 Newman, 46. 57 Arndt, 249. 58 Louw-Nida, 56.34. 59 Vine, Vol. 2, 339. 172

Strong: an equitable deed; by impl. a statute or decision: judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness. 60 Liddell: an act by which wrong is set right: a judgment, punishment, penalty, Plat. 2. a plea of right, Thuc; justification, N.T.: 61 Newman: regulation, requirement; righteous deed, judgment; acquittal (Ro 5:16) 62 The word δικαίωµα, in contrast to δικαίωσις, is also translated by several other English words: regulations, statutes, decree, precepts, righteous and righteousness (ESV). Justify In contrast with the word justification, forms of the verb to justify appear many more times in our English versions. Typically a translation of the Greek verb δικαιόω, one should not be surprised that its meaning is closely related to the Greek words already considered (since they have a common stem). The most common translation of δικαιόω is justify, but it is rendered by several other English words in the ESV: freed, just, free, acquitted and vindicated. A search of lexicons reveals the following: BDAG: to take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause to render a favorable verdict, vindicate. to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right, 63 Louw-Nida: to put right with; show to be right; acquit; set free; obey righteous commands 64 Vine: primarily to deem to be right, signifies, in the NT, (a) to show to be right or righteous ; in the passive voice, to be justified, Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35; Rom. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; (b) to declare to be righteous, to pronounce righteous, (1) by man, concerning God, Luke 7:29 (see Rom. 3:4, above); concerning himself, Luke 10:29; 16:15; (2) by God concerning men, who are declared to be righteous before Him on certain conditions laid down by Him. 65 60 Strong, op. cit. 61 Liddell, op. cit. 62 Newman, op. cit. 63 Arndt, op. cit. 64 Louw-Nida, 34.46; 88.16; 56.34; 37.138; 36.22. 65 Vine, op. cit. 173

Strong: to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent: free, justify (-ier), be righteous. 66 Liddell: to do a man right or justice, to judge, i.e., 2. to deem righteous, justify, N.T. 67 Newman: put into a right relationship (with God); acquit, declare and treat as righteous; show or prove to be right; set free (Ac 13:38; Ro 6:7) 68 Observations Hopefully, the reader will pardon the extensive defining of words, but such is necessary in order to obtain a clear view of the subject at hand. Considering the definitions of justification offered by the various sources, two main ideas predominate: to cause to be in a right relationship with someone/something (cf. Louw-Nida, Newman) and the act of clearing someone of transgression (cf., BDAG, Vine). A survey of the definitions of the verb to justify reveal the presence of the same two ideas, 69 although most definitions lean toward the meaning of to acquit or to declare to be righteous. Of course, as the lexical definitions suggest, the meanings of words can vary with context and so it is incumbent on the Bible student to observe the use of words in their natural habitat. One of the difficulties with the word justification is that it is used only three times in the New Testament and it appears to me that the context of each of those passages offers little help in the determination of contextual meaning. The Biblical View of Justification In discussing the meaning of justification, N.T. Wright affirmed that: however much the post-augustinian tradition has used justification to cover the whole range of becoming a Christian from first to last, Paul has used it far, far more precisely and exactly. 70 What, then, is justification about? Most of the difficulties of the ongoing debate have arisen from the fact that the word, as McGrath points out, has regularly been made to do duty for the entire picture of God s reconciling action towards the human race, covering everything from God s free love and grace, through the sending of the son to die and rise again for sinners, through the preaching of the gospel, the work of the spirit, the arousal of faith in human hearts and minds, the 66 Strong, op. cit. 67 Liddell, op. cit. 68 Newman, op. cit. 69 Louw-Nida & Newman mention the idea of to put into a right relationship. 70 Wright, 70 71. 174

development of Christian character and conduct, the assurance of ultimate salvation, and the safe passage through final judgment to that destination. 71 Although BDAG included process as well as its result in the definition of δικαίωσις, I favor the idea of result over process, i.e., justification is literally the act of pronouncing one righteous, the act of acquittal. 72 For example, the verb to justify is sometimes used in Scripture as an antonym to the verb to condemn, suggesting that to justify means to vindicate or acquit, to declare to be righteous. That fact is clearly illustrated in these passages: If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, (Deuteronomy 25:1) He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15) 73 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:37) It is obvious, however, that the meaning of justification (the pronouncement of righteousness) and even the expression justification by faith speak implicitly of several other concepts/ideas associated with the pronouncement of righteousness. Paul identified one way in which a person could be pronounced righteous, i.e., free of guilt. If a person is a doer of the law, he will be justified. for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; (Romans 2:13) 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith. 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but the man who does them shall live by them. (Galatians 3:10-12) Justification in this way is a matter of debt. Paul illustrated this point in Romans 4. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. (Romans 4:1-4) 71 Ibid., 65. 72 Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:11 in which the verb translated justified is in the aorist tense and indicative mood, indicating point-in-time action rather than a process. 73 In Deuteronomy 25:1 and Proverbs 17:15, the LXX uses the word δικαιόω. 175

Abraham could boast of his righteousness only if he worked perfectly, i.e., he was completely free from sin. According to Galatians 3:10, the man who is justified by obedience to the law must obey perfectly! He must continue in all things. However, Paul also concluded that no one is justified in this way, i.e., justified by works. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20) knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Galatians 2:16) But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith. (Galatians 3:11) In Galatians 3:11, Paul quoted a statement from Habakkuk (2:4) as evidence that no one is justified by works ( the law ). In his comprehensive summary of the divine redemptive plan, Paul confirmed again that justification is not by perfect obedience, i.e., by works. We are justified freely by His grace. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:21-24) We have already noted Paul s contrast of grace with debt in Romans 4:1-4. If God s plan is justification by grace, justification by works is thereby eliminated. To borrow the language of Paul once again, boasting (the result of perfect obedience) is excluded. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:27-28) Similar, But Different An acquittal implies, at the very least, the accusation of sin. Paul labored in the first three chapters of Romans to substantiate the charge that all responsible individuals are guilty of sin so that he could point them toward God s grace. Note these summary statements: What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. (Romans 3:9) 176

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23) Although both are forensic terms, there are some significant differences between an acquittal in the United States judicial system and justification in a biblical sense, as noted earlier in a footnote. For instance, occasionally there are glitches in the U.S. judicial system because it is administered by fallible human beings. It appears to be common knowledge that jurors sometimes decide guilt or innocence on the basis of presuppositions or prejudices rather than on the basis of evidence. There are specific rules concerning what evidence is admissible in court. Sometimes evidence is available to prove the guilt of a defendant, but it is not admissible for some reason. He got off on a technicality. Along the same lines, not all the available evidence may be known in some cases or it is poorly presented by the prosecuting attorney. The judicial system acquits him of guilt, but he is, in fact, absolutely guilty! The court is concerned with the guilt of the defendant only as related to the specific charge(s) stated in the case. The defendant may be acquitted of the charge of murder, but still be guilty of lying, stealing, adultery, etc. The acquittal is specific to the charge(s), but not comprehensive. In light of Paul s affirmations about the universal problem of sin, every person who is justified by God is, in fact, guilty with reference to the charge of sin. In addition, the Judge of all men is neither limited in His knowledge of our behavior nor swayed by prejudice. His judgment is plenary, i.e., His determination of our guilt or innocence is not confined to some part of our lives (or limited to certain sins); instead every part of our lives is under consideration. If all men are guilty of sin, how can the God who will not justify the wicked (Exodus 23:7) pronounce them righteous? The universal sin problem and the just nature of God necessitate another idea associated with justification the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Paul introduced this idea in these passages, explaining at the same time how God can be both just and the justifier : 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26) 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. (Romans 5:9) 177

Jesus served as a propitiation, that which appeases and satisfies, by His blood. As the Hebrews writer explained, without shedding of blood there is no remission (9:22). Jesus was offered to bear the sins of many (9:28). Isaiah prophesied of the sacrificial work of Jesus: 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. (53:5) 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. (53:10-11) Suffering the punishment of an evildoer (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24), Jesus became an offering for sin. Through His sacrifice, the righteous demand of God s law, i.e., that sin must be punished, was satisfied and God could be just even as He justified (pronounced righteous) the one who has faith in Jesus. Justification is the result of grace (the grounds or basis) on the condition of faith (James describes the character of that faith). A Response to Imputed Righteousness It is not the purpose of this study to offer a protracted response to reformed theology s view of justification by faith. 74 Note, however, these brief observations made in response to the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Scriptures do indeed teach a doctrine of imputation (e.g., Romans 4:3-11). In Romans 4, Paul spoke of the imputation of faith and the imputation of righteousness. The Scriptures, however, do not teach the imputation of Christ s personal righteousness to the believer. In his article on justification, J. I. Packer clearly believes in the imputed righteousness of Christ, but he makes a valid and important point about the imputation of Christ s righteousness, i.e., Paul doesn t use the phrase! Through this one act of righteousness his sinless life and death the free gift came unto all men to justification of life (Rom. 5:18, RV). Thus believers become the righteousness of God in and through him who knew no sin personally, but was representatively made sin (treated as a sinner, and judged) in their place (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus Paul speaks of Christ Jesus, whom God made our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). This was the thought expressed in older Protestant theology by the phrase the imputation of Christ s righteousness. The phrase is not in Paul, but its meaning is. The point that it makes is that believers are made righteous before God (Rom. 5:19) through his admitting them to share Christ s status of acceptance. 75 74 The relationship between faith and works, and grace and law is addressed in other studies in this series. 75 Packer, 639. 178