28 The Long Nineteenth Century

In one sense, the debates over justification within the western church may be regarded as an attempt to come to terms with the Pauline heritage, and to extract a coherent understanding of the grounds and nature of justification from this source. 4 Yet from the outset it was clear that there were issues that needed to be addressed. The language of ‘ justification’ , though prominent in some of the letters of Paul, is not used in other letters of the New Testament. The first letter of Peter, for example, despite its clear interest in exploring questions of salvation, makes no use of this soteriological metaphor. 5 This is a particularly important observation, given the clear interest in heilsgeschichtlich questions at points within the letter, 6 which are explored without reference to the notion of justification. The letters to the Colossians and Ephesians similarly show no interest in this soteriological metaphor, or the heilsgeschichtlich issues that are so prominent in Paul’ s letters to the Romans and Galatians. 7 The theologians of the early church clearly did not think of there being a ‘ Pauline’ theology which was distinct from that of other New Testament writings; they appear to have treated the New Testament as a whole as embodying the core themes of the Christian faith, rather than segregating its possible components, and saw exploration of its meaning to take priority over issues of historical interpretation. 8

Although an earlier generation of scholars assumed that Paul was not widely read within the western church until the fourth century, this view has now been generally abandoned. 9 The notion of a ‘ Pauline captivity’ was popularised by writers such as Stendahl, who argued that Paul was marginalised in the early church. 10 ‘ It has always been a puzzling fact that Paul meant so relatively little for the thinking of the church during the first 350 years of its history. To be sure, he is honored and quoted, but – in the theological perspective of the west – it seems that Paul’ s great insight into justification by faith was forgotten.’ 11 Yet this judgement has been successfully challenged, and is no longer generally accepted. 12

The accumulating evidence for this paradigm shift in scholarly thinking has led to the side-lining of this once-influential view. It is clear that, from the late first to the mid-second century, Paul is the most frequently cited New Testament source for writers wishing to engage contemporary debates. Even in writers who seem disinclined to cite Paul explicitly – such as Justin Martyr – there are clear and consistent indications of allusion and patterns of intellectual dependence which are best explained in terms of a direct knowledge of the Pauline corpus. 13 This is not to say that there existed some specific form of ‘ Pauline studies’ during the patristic age; this development dates from the nineteenth century. Early Christian writers commented extensively on the gospels and epistles, and did not develop the specialist disciplines familiar to us today. 14 The plurality of gospels and epistles was potentially a problem for early Christian writers, 15 and was generally accommodated by an assimilationist reading of his epistles.

As we shall see, many scholars regard the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith as offering a theoretical justification for the separation of Gentile Christian communities from Judaism, affirming continuity with the Jewish heritage, while simultaneously insisting that something new had occurred in Jesus Christ which allowed and required Christianity to break free from certain limiting constrictions of Judaism. 20 Yet the emerging Christian communities do not initially appear to have regarded precise and elaborate doctrinal formulations as essential to their self-definition, in that they were already distinguished from the world by sharing in their meetings and worship. ‘ Their doctrinal distinctiveness, however defined, was reinforced, sustained, perhaps even eclipsed, by their sociological distinctness as groups set, literally, apart from the world.’ 21

Lexical analysis of the New Testament shows that the term ‘ justification’ and cognates are found primarily, but not exclusively, in the Pauline letters. It is arguable that it is only in the Pauline letters – especially Romans and Galatians – that justification becomes a theme, an organising principle for holding together related notions. This book can be seen as an extended essay on the interpretation of Paul’ s concept of justification, by offering a critical evaluation of how this was undertaken in the past. It is impossible and inappropriate to make sweeping judgements about what Paul really meant about justification without a detailed study of how he has been interpreted in the past – a task which certainly discloses some rich exegetical possibilities, but at the price of highlighting the provisionality of such interpretations. The Christian church’ s attempt to grasp Paul’ s concept of justification is a journey in progress, which has yet to reach an agreed outcome or final destination.

Paul’ s use of the concept of justification is found particularly in two letters – Romans and Galatians – in which it plays a critical and constructive role in clarifying the connections and distinctions between Christianity and Judaism, particularly with regard to the relation of the ‘ works of the law’ and ‘ faith’ , and the historical relation of the church to Israel. To speak of Paul’ s concept of ‘ justification’ is, however, perhaps misleading; the noun (diakaiosis ) is found only twice in the Pauline letters. For Paul, justification is a primarily a divine action, and is thus best expressed as a verb (dikaioun ) designating God’ s powerful, cosmic and universal action in effecting a change in the situation between sinful humanity and God. 22

The present study cannot resolve these questions, although it can certainly complexify them. Its historical approach means it cannot offer a prescriptive account of what justification ought to be understood to be mean; its focus is rather the clarification of how the term has been understood in certain communities of interpretation. Such a historicisation of justification may irritate those who believe they know what the term really means; yet it will be liberating to others, as it indicates the historically situated character of theological reflection, thus enabling reconsideration of this interpretative issue through a process of constant theological vigilance and biblical reflection.

The remainder of this work will explore the way in which Paul’ s concept of justification was developed within the western theological tradition. In the case of this specific doctrine, the full exploration of its importance dates from the Middle Ages, rather than the early Christian era. In this chapter, therefore, we shall consider the way in which the debates of the patristic period laid the foundations for this later consolidation, having particular regard to the significant contribution of Augustine of Hippo . To begin with, however, we shall consider some trends in the pre-Augustinian tradition.

Three areas are of particular interest to historical theologians. First, for both apologetic and dogmatic purposes, Christian reflection about the identity and significance of Jesus Christ tended to draw on the language and conceptualities of Hellenistic philosophy – such as the Platonic concept of the logos , and the metaphysical category of ‘ substance’ . While these developments are understandable culturally, they are not without theological risks. However, it must be pointed out that early Christian theologians generally managed to define Christ’ s identity primarily in dynamic, narrative theological terms rather than in historically abstract metaphysical accounts of how divine and human natures might co-inhere. 26

The second is the tendency to ascribe Hellenistic cultural notions of perfection to God, leading to a notion of divine apatheia which many consider to be spiritually problematic. 27 The third, as we noted earlier, are theological notions concerning divine righteousness and justification, which involve complex negotiations between a theological and covenantal Hebraic context, and the more communal and utilitarian outlook of Hellenistic culture. 28 Yet in practice, such potential distortions or misunderstandings do not appear to have arisen, largely because early Christian theologians offered a somewhat limited engagement with the specific conceptualities of justification, tending to focus on its heilsgeschichtlich aspects – such as the question of the continuing place of Jewish cultural practices as identity markers in Christianity, or the relation of the faith of Christians to that of Abraham.

The process of development in early Christian doctrine is fundamentally concerned with the emergence and consolidation of the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. 29 While the importance of soteriological considerations, both in the motivation of the development of early Christian doctrine and as a normative principle during the course of that development, is generally conceded, 30 it is equally evident that the early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions primarily in terms of the concept of justification, seeing this as one of an ensemble of salvific metaphors deployed within the New Testament. 31

The importance of this observation relates to a growing tendency to see Irenaeus as the first theologian to work with a recognisable Pauline corpus. 33 Although Irenaeus clearly sees the interpretation of Paul to be integral to his work as a theologian, he nevertheless offers an account of justification which differs significantly from the Pauline corpus in terms of its emphasis. 34 Irenaeus is of particular importance in relation to his interpretation of the Pauline notion of ‘ works of the law’ – a notion that remains difficult to define to this day. 35 In both his major works Against Heresies and Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching , Irenaeus makes it clear that this is to be understood as including such cultic requirements as the observation of the Sabbath or the circumcision of males. 36 Christians have been liberated from any obligation to observe such responsibilities or burdens from their cultic past, not because these were cultic as such, but rather because they were to be seen as shadows and types that were now fulfilled by the cultic realities of the new covenant. Irenaeus refers to these as a ‘ yoke of bondage’ or ‘ laws of bondage’ , which have been abolished through the New Covenant. However, Irenaeus insists that the Decalogue remains binding for Christians, noting that in some respects Christ expands these requirements – such as extending the prohibition of adultery and murder to additionally include lust and anger. He also speaks of the ‘ natural [precepts] of the law (naturalia legis )’ , which underlie both the Old and New Covenants, though these are particularised in different manners, each adapted to their circumstances. These, Irenaeus insists, remain binding for Christians. However, Irenaeus distinguishes the cultic ‘ works of the law’ from natural and moral precepts. 37

Irenaeus’ s justification for the rejection of the ‘ works of the law’ – a term which he understands not as a generalised ethic of human achievement or merit, but specifically as the Mosaic laws apart from the Decalogue – is that these were intended to maintain a specifically Jewish way of living. 38 The ‘ works of the law’ were visible signs that were meant to distinguish the ‘ race of Abraham’ from other groups – such as the Egyptians. 39 The ‘ works of the law’ were an obligation imposed upon the rebellious people of Israel in the wilderness as a consequence of the hardness of their hearts; in contrast, God has given a new law which is appropriate for the changed condition of humanity as a result of Christ’ s incarnation. The ‘ works of the law’ no longer apply to Christians; rather, those who are justified by faith have been given a new law, shorn of such cultic obligations. 40

The New Covenant thus reflects the changed situation of humanity under Christ, which renders the Old Covenant obsolete, save as a ‘ type’ of that which is to succeed it. Other writers – such as Justin Martyr , in his Dialogue with Trypho – would make the point that, as Christ is the ‘ new Moses’ , he establishes a new law, which displaces that of Moses. For Irenaeus, this ‘ new law’ can be described as vivificatrix lex and as libertatis lex , to be contrasted with the burdensome laws of Judaism. Similar views are encountered in other writers of this period, such as the Greek-speaking Melito of Sardis. 41 Origen similarly interpreted the phrase ‘ works of the law’ as relating to aspects of Jewish cultural or religious observance: 42

Yet although many early Christian writers explicitly interpret the Pauline phrase ‘ works of the law’ in terms of Jewish cultural or religious observance, whether this is seen as the basis of justification or as its outcome, the increasing importance of a wider cultural milieu appears to have led to an expansion of the perceived range of this notion. Early Christian Christological reflection quickly moved away from an interpretation of the significance of Jesus Christ for Judaism to embrace a wider vision, expressed in terms of Christ as logos . 45 A similar process appears to have occurred as early Christian writers reflected on the theological equivalents of ‘ works of the law’ in Hellenistic culture, often proposing a ‘ natural’ concept of obligation as a more generic cultural counterpart to the specifically Jewish concept of ‘ works of the law’ . Since salvation was no longer ‘ tied to explicit Jewish identity’ , 46 the gospel need no longer be framed in terms of specifically Jewish concerns. Origen, for example, at points asserts the homonymity of the law of Moses and the laws of nature. 47 The cultural and ethnic universality of the Christian evangelium may thus have led to the notion of justification by faith being framed in terms of deliverance of humanity from fulfilment of any ‘ works’ in order to be justified before God – even though the specific form of those works might vary from one cultic or cultural context to another. 48

Origen , in common with other early Christian writers, did not hold that Judaism believed in justification through some form of generalised human achievement – an idea which came to be formulated as a cultically abstracted notion of ‘ justification by works’ . Yet as Christian reflection increasingly came to focus on the Gentile mission, the relocation of the Pauline notion of justification by faith in a Roman or Greek cultural context involved resolving the important hermeneutical question of what was the most appropriate cultural transposition of Paul’ s declaration that justification was by faith and not by ‘ works of the law’ . 49

Second-century Christian interpreters of Paul offered a combination of five arguments for suggesting that Christians were not under any obligation to observe the ‘ works of the law’ . 50

Paul’ s term ‘ justification (Greek: dikaiōsis )’ appears to have been assimilated to this transformative narrative framework. John Chrysostom considers this theme in his commentary on Romans, noting that God’ s righteousness is given to believers as a result of their faith. ‘ For you do not achieve it by toiling and labor, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own resources – believing.’ 55 Chrysostom develops this further in his comments on Romans 3:25, picking up on the idea of the declaration of God’ s righteousness. So how are we to understand this ‘ declaration’ of the righteousness of God? Chrysostom’ s account affirms the declaration or manifestation (endeixeis ) of God’ s own righteousness with its actualisation in the transformation of the nature of humanity. 56

The point here is that Pauline language about justification is interpreted within a theological framework that is pre-committed to a transformative understanding of the entire process of salvation. From Athanasius onwards, the Greek Christian tradition, particularly at Alexandria, tended to frame its soteriological convictions in terms of the believer’ s incorporation into Christ, grounded in the incarnation. 57 The Son of God became incarnate in order that we might be transformed in our natures. 58 ‘ Christ gave life to our flesh in the blood of his own body, and opens up for us a “ new and living way through the veil” – that is, though his flesh.’ 59 Like Greek-speaking theological writers before him and after him, Athanasius affirms the axiom quod non est assumptum non est sanatum (what is not assumed is not healed). 60 These theological assumptions shape Athanasius’ s reading of Paul, 61 in effect acting as a filter which predisposes him to focus on certain Pauline themes, and to overlook others.

The eastern tradition after Athanasius placed an increased emphasis on the importance of the deification of humanity, 62 not least because of the importance attached to the sanctification of humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit came to become an important ground for affirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Although the language of justification is encountered, the Cappadocian fathers tend to emphasise Pauline metaphors which have a clear transformational element, such as sanctification, a ‘ new creation’ and healing. 63 These strongly factitive soteriological metaphors point towards a transformative understanding of justification – even though the Cappadocian fathers make relatively little use of this specific term.

Ambrosiaster affirms that we are justified sola fide – in other words, by faith, and not by fulfilling the prescriptions of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision or new moon festivals or reverence for the Sabbath. Ambrosiaster thus does not criticise boasting of good works in general, but rather a specifically Jewish boasting based on obedience to the Mosaic law. In his commentary on Romans 4:5, Ambrosiaster appeals to the example of Abraham, whose faith in God predated the giving of the cultic law. 66 ‘ How then do the Jews believe themselves to be justified through works of the law (per opera legis ) in accordance with Abraham, when they see that Abraham was justified not by the works of the law but by faith alone (non opera legis sed sola fide iustificatur )?’ Ambrosiaster, like many Christian theologians of this period, sees faith as a free human response to God’ s promises of salvation. 67 While Augustine embraced such a traditional view of human freedom in his early writings, his later anti-Pelagian writings advocated the idea that humans were unable to believe until God graciously gives grace, thus creating such a capacity to believe.

Ambrosiaster notes an exegetical issue which does not appear to have been regarded as troublesome by earlier writers in the Latin West – the apparent tension between Romans 2:13, which affirms that ‘ it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified’ ; and the rather different point made in Romans 3:20, which insists that ‘ no one will be justified by the works of the law’ . Although Ambrosiaster’ s comments on this issue are brief, they nevertheless highlight a potential Christological solution to this issue: since Christ is the fulfilment of the Mosaic law, faith in Christ on the part of the believer can be said to fulfil the law. For this reason, Ambrosiaster glosses Romans 2:13 as follows: ‘ Paul says this because those who hear the Law are not justified unless they believe in Christ, whom the Law itself has promised. This is what it means to keep the law.’ 68

There is no hint in Ambrosiaster ’ s commentary of a supposed Pauline contrast between human achievements and faith; rather, a faith in Christ is being opposed to a dependence upon Jewish cultic observances. A rejection of justification by the ‘ works of the law’ is understood to refer specifically to the Jewish cult, and not to some de-historicised and generalised ethos of human achievement. If any perspective on Paul can be characterised as ‘ classic’ or an ‘ old perspective’ , it is what has been set out in this section, not those which emerged during the sixteenth century.

In his comments on passages relating to justification in this commentary, Ambrosiaster does not appear to treat this soteriological metaphor as possessing special privilege or significance. Indeed, his comments on Romans 5:1 often display a subtle transposition of the metaphor of justification into other concepts – such as salvation or reconciliation – which were perhaps more familiar to his readers. For the sake of clarity, I shall quote the Pauline text itself in italics, followed by Ambrosiaster’ s comments: 69

By the end of the fourth century, some fundamental building-blocks of the western church’ s views on justification had been set in place, including increasing theological interest in the Pauline epistles, with an inevitable sensitisation towards its vocabulary of justification, and a settled conviction that the concept of justification by faith – as opposed to opera legis – offered a firm foundation for clarifying the relation of the church to its Jewish origins. 72 A ‘ right’ relationship with God was the consequence of faith, not observance of Jewish cultic norms and conventions. Jerome can be seen as having solidified this latter point, particularly in his comments on the question posed in Galatians 3:2, ‘ Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?’ Jerome glossed ‘ works of the law’ with ‘ observance of the Sabbath, the superstition of circumcision and new moons’ . 73

Yet much remained unclear. Was faith itself a human achievement, or something that was given or enabled by God? As is so often the case, such questions tended to remain unresolved, until controversy forced their reconsideration. We now turn to consider how Augustine, partly in responding to the need for greater theological clarity in response to the Pelagian controversy , framed the western discussion of justification in a manner that would prove decisive for the development of the western theological tradition.