I. New Testament Teaching
CHAPTER IX
JUSTIFICATION (2)
I. NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING
IT IS IMPORTANT TO APPROACH the subject of justification in the New Testament by way of the Old Testament and later Jewish writings. Many have fallen into serious error by taking it for granted that everyone knows what ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ mean, even if there may be room for a little discussion on ‘justification’. In the Scriptures ’righteousness’ does not have exactly the same meaning as it has come to have in western civilization of the twentieth century, or that it had in profane Greek of the first. The words of this group were associated in non-biblical Greek with ethical conduct. Thus δ
xαoσύνη was one of the four cardinal virtues, and the adjective δίxαoς denoted the sort of conduct associated with this virtue.
xαoσύνη was one of the four cardinal virtues, and the adjective δίxαoς denoted the sort of conduct associated with this virtue.But, while it is true to say both that the New Testament inculcates the very highest ethical standards, and that these standards may sometimes be indicated by words from the righteousness word-group, yet the characteristic meaning of the word-group is to be derived from Hebrew rather than Greek roots. We have seen that in the Old Testament the righteous man is the one who is accepted before God, the one who secures the verdict of acquittal. This sort of thinking was developed and elaborated by the Rabbis. They pictured a great assize when all men would be tried before God. Some would be accepted as righteous, while others would be condemned as wicked. It is from minds accustomed to this way of regarding righteousness that the New Testament terminology is derived. Basically the righteous man is the one who is accepted before God, the one who conforms to His way.
Now if a man is accepted, is truly accepted before God, he finds himself in such a relationship to the heavenly Father, the fount of all love and holiness and purity, that he can never be the same man again. In scriptural language, he is born again, and the new life he now lives is one in which ethical qualities have a prominent place. This being so there is room for confusion between the qualities denoted respectively by the Hebrew and the Greek ways of looking at the terms in question. It may be true that, ultimately, the Christian comes to practise what is involved in the Greek understanding of δxαoσύνη, but his starting-point is the Hebrew idea. The New Testament can scarcely be understood until that is realized.
xαoσύνη, but his starting-point is the Hebrew idea. The New Testament can scarcely be understood until that is realized.
a. δίxαoς
G. Schrenk begins his treatment of δίxαoς in the New Testament by underlining the distinction from the usual Greek usage upon which we have been insisting. ‘The New Testament δίxαoς is separated by a deep gulf from the Greek ethical ideal, from the contemplative method which isolates man in his deeds as self-sufficient.’ Later he says: ‘In substance the New Testament δίxαoς is broadly determined by the Old Testament.‘491 This is borne out by an examination of the passages in which the term occurs.
oς in the New Testament by underlining the distinction from the usual Greek usage upon which we have been insisting. ‘The New Testament δίxαoς is separated by a deep gulf from the Greek ethical ideal, from the contemplative method which isolates man in his deeds as self-sufficient.’ Later he says: ‘In substance the New Testament δίxαoς is broadly determined by the Old Testament.‘491 This is borne out by an examination of the passages in which the term occurs.It is possible to get a wrong impression if we make our beginning with the statements of Pilate’s wife, of Pilate himself, or of the centurion at the cross, all of whom refer to Jesus as ’righteous’ (Mt. 27 : 19, 24 ; Lk. 23 : 47). In such passages we discern something akin to the Greek conception of righteousness. But these are not the typical New Testament statements, and we go astray if we take our standard from them, and then proceed to force other passages into this mould.
Rather must we begin with passages like Matthew 25 : 31f., which pictures a great assize in the typical Jewish fashion and refers to those who are acquitted as ‘the righteous’ (see particularly the culmination of the scene, ‘these shall go away into eternal punishment : but the righteous into eternal life’). Again, the story of the Pharisee and the Publican is introduced with: ‘And he spake also this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous’ (Lk. 18 : 9). Similarly the Jewish spies, sent forth to trap Jesus into an unwary statement, ‘feigned themselves to be righteous’, and in this character commended the Lord for teaching the way of God truly (Lk. 20: 20f.). In both these incidents the Jewish colouring is unmistakable, and it would be a violence of exegesis to interpret ’righteous’ in other than the usual Jewish sense. (Cf. also Mk. 2:17; Lk. 14:14; 15: 7, etc.)
It is clear that the Hebraic idea of the righteous as those accepted by God is to be found in the New Testament. But that is not to say that there is no advance on the Old Testament conception. In the New Testament the requirements for adjudging a man as righteous are different from those accepted in Judaism. Whereas, for the ordinary first-century Jew, the righteous man was the one who had performed many meritorious deeds, for the Christian he was one with faith in Christ Jesus. Thus St. Paul can quote from Habakkuk, ‘the righteous shall live by faith’, but he is not merely repeating a generally accepted idea. He has transformed the conception of faith, and conceives of it as a warm personal trust in Jesus as a living Saviour. A man becomes righteous, acceptable with God, when he has such a faith. We find similar citations of the passage from Habakkuk in Galatians 3: 11; Hebrews 10: 38, and in each case faith is understood in a Christian sense. The same thought is expressed in a different form in Romans 5: 19, ‘through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous’. Here again ’righteous’ is a term signifying those accepted by God, and the ground of this acceptance is the work of Christ. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that faith on the part of the recipient of the divine gift is implied here, just as the activity of Christ is implied in the passages we have just been considering where salvation is linked with faith.
It may be freely admitted that we do not find this expressed uniformly throughout the New Testament. St. Matthew’s Gospel, for example, is more closely identified with the Jewish conception than are the Epistles of St. Paul. But it is no part of our purpose to trace the growth of Christian doctrine. We are concerned, rather, to show what this conception means in its definitive Christian form. When we approach the New Testament with this in view we find, in the first place, that δί
αιος is characteristically used to denote those accepted with God, and in the second, that men are accepted with Him, i.e. are righteous, only on the grounds of their faith and of the work of Christ.
αιος is characteristically used to denote those accepted with God, and in the second, that men are accepted with Him, i.e. are righteous, only on the grounds of their faith and of the work of Christ.When we have grasped the fact that the righteous are those accepted by God, some of the controversy concerning imputed and imparted righteousness seems beside the point. What difference does it make whether we impute or impart a status? Denney has well said on this matter: ‘the distinction of imputed and infused righteousness is unreal. The man who believes in Christ the propitiation - who stakes his whole being on sin-bearing love as the last reality in the universe-is not fictitiously regarded as right with God; he actually is right with God, and God treats him as such. He is in the right attitude to God the Redeemer, the attitude which has the promise and potency of all rightness or righteousness in it, and it only introduces intellectual and moral confusion to make artificial distinctions at this point.’492 Those who come relying trustfully on the work of Christ for their acceptance with God are accepted as righteous, and if we bear in mind the essentially forensic nature of the term ‘righteous’ there seems little need to dwell unduly on imparted or imputed righteousness. By the same token it may be possible to cavil at Denney’s inclusion of a reference to ‘the promise and potency of all rightness or righteousness’, for men are justified on Paul’s view not on account of any merit of their own, potential or actual, but only on account of Christ’s work and of their faith.
The adjective δίαιος is applied to God in five passages (Jn. 17: 25; Rom. 3 : 26; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1Jn.1:9; Rev. 16: 5). In the first of these the reference is quite general, ‘O righteous Father, the world knew thee not’; but in the last of them the meaning clearly has to do with the process of judging, ‘Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge’. Here there can be no doubt but that God is shown to be righteous by the process of just judgment, and this accords with the expression ‘the Lord, the righteous judge’ (2 Tim. 4: 8). In 1 John God is spoken of as ‘faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins’, which we may well understand as indicating that God’s forgiveness is in accordance with the laws of His holy nature. The remaining passage is that in which St. Paul says that the propitiatory death of Jesus was ‘for the shewing of (God’s) righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus’. This is a critical passage for St. Paul’s view of justification, and it is clear that we must understand that God is δίαιος in the very act whereby He justifies sinners, namely in the atonement wrought on Calvary. We have seen that in the Old Testament God is thought of as acting in accordance with the eternal law of righteousness which is part of His very being, and it would seem that it is this which Paul is here affirming. The act of forgiveness is not one in which God treats the moral obligation as of comparatively little account. It is not the triumph of His love over His righteousness. God acts righteously and this in the very act of forgiveness. Nor is this an isolated thought. Throughout the New Testament there is the underlying thought that God is not capricious, but that He always acts in accordance with His holy nature. Sometimes this comes to the surface, as, for example, when Paul writes to the Thessalonians: ‘it is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us’ (2 Thes. 1 : 6f.). It is much more congenial to the modern mind to dwell on the love of God than to think of His righteousness, but we must bear both aspects in mind if we are to be true to the Scriptures. The New Testament regards the righteousness of God as something far too important to be ignored or glossed over. Even the act of forgiveness which might be thought of as an act of mercy is seen to be also an act of righteousness.
αιος is applied to God in five passages (Jn. 17: 25; Rom. 3 : 26; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1Jn.1:9; Rev. 16: 5). In the first of these the reference is quite general, ‘O righteous Father, the world knew thee not’; but in the last of them the meaning clearly has to do with the process of judging, ‘Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge’. Here there can be no doubt but that God is shown to be righteous by the process of just judgment, and this accords with the expression ‘the Lord, the righteous judge’ (2 Tim. 4: 8). In 1 John God is spoken of as ‘faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins’, which we may well understand as indicating that God’s forgiveness is in accordance with the laws of His holy nature. The remaining passage is that in which St. Paul says that the propitiatory death of Jesus was ‘for the shewing of (God’s) righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus’. This is a critical passage for St. Paul’s view of justification, and it is clear that we must understand that God is δίαιος in the very act whereby He justifies sinners, namely in the atonement wrought on Calvary. We have seen that in the Old Testament God is thought of as acting in accordance with the eternal law of righteousness which is part of His very being, and it would seem that it is this which Paul is here affirming. The act of forgiveness is not one in which God treats the moral obligation as of comparatively little account. It is not the triumph of His love over His righteousness. God acts righteously and this in the very act of forgiveness. Nor is this an isolated thought. Throughout the New Testament there is the underlying thought that God is not capricious, but that He always acts in accordance with His holy nature. Sometimes this comes to the surface, as, for example, when Paul writes to the Thessalonians: ‘it is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us’ (2 Thes. 1 : 6f.). It is much more congenial to the modern mind to dwell on the love of God than to think of His righteousness, but we must bear both aspects in mind if we are to be true to the Scriptures. The New Testament regards the righteousness of God as something far too important to be ignored or glossed over. Even the act of forgiveness which might be thought of as an act of mercy is seen to be also an act of righteousness.
b. διαιοσύνη
There are many passages in the New Testament where the use of διαιοσύνη is akin to that in Judaism. Thus, when our Lord says, ‘except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5 : 20),493 it is quite clear that righteousness is a concept common to Judaism and the new religion. But at the same time it must be recognized that there is a radical novelty. Granted the premises of the Pharisees, it is difficult to see how their righteousness could be exceeded. But Jesus did not grant their premises. He was not thinking as they were of the accumulation of merit by the performance of law-works, of punctilious conformity with the letter of the law. For Jesus, with His emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter, righteousness took on a new meaning. While there is undoubted continuity with Judaism, there is also a new departure. This is typical of the New Testament conception of righteousness. It cannot be completely understood apart from its Hebraic ancestry, and it cannot be completely explained by that Hebraic ancestry.
αιοσύνη is akin to that in Judaism. Thus, when our Lord says, ‘except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5 : 20),493 it is quite clear that righteousness is a concept common to Judaism and the new religion. But at the same time it must be recognized that there is a radical novelty. Granted the premises of the Pharisees, it is difficult to see how their righteousness could be exceeded. But Jesus did not grant their premises. He was not thinking as they were of the accumulation of merit by the performance of law-works, of punctilious conformity with the letter of the law. For Jesus, with His emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter, righteousness took on a new meaning. While there is undoubted continuity with Judaism, there is also a new departure. This is typical of the New Testament conception of righteousness. It cannot be completely understood apart from its Hebraic ancestry, and it cannot be completely explained by that Hebraic ancestry.Some suggest that the essence of the New Testament idea of righteousness is to be found in kinship with mercy. It is pointed out, for example, that in Matthew 6: 1 some texts read διαιοσύνην and others ἐλεημοσύνην, and it is inferred that in New Testament times righteousness was held to be nearly identical with mercy, the forensic idea being merely incidental. But this is an illegitimate use of textual criticism. Textual variants are not always, or even usually, synonyms. No more impressive is the appeal to the association of salvation with righteousness in Isaiah 40-66, and to such facts as the use of both διαιοσύνη and ἕλεος to translate ḥeṣed in the LXX. As we have seen, in the Old Testament the forensic idea is basic and the association with mercy incidental, and nobody who has taken the trouble to examine closely the ninety-two examples of the use of διαιοσύνη in the New Testament will doubt that the forensic use is primary there also. It is true that διαιοσύνη, especially as applied to the dealings of God with man, includes an element of mercy. But the primary conception is undoubtedly forensic. When, for example, St. Paul speaks of the righteousness which is by faith, he is not thinking in terms of mercy in men, but of their legal standing before God. Righteousness seems to stand occasionally in opposition to mercy, as in Titus 3 : 5, ‘not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us’, although it is true that it is human righteousness that is being contrasted with the divine mercy.
αιοσύνην and others ἐλεημοσύνην, and it is inferred that in New Testament times righteousness was held to be nearly identical with mercy, the forensic idea being merely incidental. But this is an illegitimate use of textual criticism. Textual variants are not always, or even usually, synonyms. No more impressive is the appeal to the association of salvation with righteousness in Isaiah 40-66, and to such facts as the use of both διαιοσύνη and ἕλεος to translate ḥeṣed in the LXX. As we have seen, in the Old Testament the forensic idea is basic and the association with mercy incidental, and nobody who has taken the trouble to examine closely the ninety-two examples of the use of διαιοσύνη in the New Testament will doubt that the forensic use is primary there also. It is true that διαιοσύνη, especially as applied to the dealings of God with man, includes an element of mercy. But the primary conception is undoubtedly forensic. When, for example, St. Paul speaks of the righteousness which is by faith, he is not thinking in terms of mercy in men, but of their legal standing before God. Righteousness seems to stand occasionally in opposition to mercy, as in Titus 3 : 5, ‘not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us’, although it is true that it is human righteousness that is being contrasted with the divine mercy.The whole idea of righteousness has been modified for New Testament writers because Jesus Christ has come into the world. ‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous’ (1 Jn. 3: 7) brings the very conception of righteousness into the closest of relationships to the life of the incarnate Lord. This again is a thought which recurs, and it underlies many passages where it is not explicit. For the early Christians all things were made new, their standards of righteousness included, because the Son of God had come into the world. Accordingly, there are many passages which exhort believers to lives of righteousness. Indeed, it is just as characteristic of the New Testament that righteousness in the ethical sense should be a distinguishing mark of those who are Christ’s, as it is that it is not their own righteousness that brings them salvation, but the righteousness of God. (Compare the aim of an upright life in Phil. 3 : 10ff. with the express disclaimer of the value of any ‘righteousness of mine own’ in verse 9.)
But although there is this clamant demand for right living, and although the righteousness terminology is used in part to express it, yet it remains true that this is not the characteristic nor distinctive use of this terminology. As in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally, the forensic basis of this word-group is the really important thing.
We see this in such a passage as Romans 9: 30-32: ‘What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling.’ The forensic idea is very strong here. The Gentiles did not seek before God that righteous standing which the Jews sought by the way of works of merit. Nevertheless they attained to righteousness, namely the righteousness that is of faith. The Jews who were very anxious to establish themselves as righteous before God failed to do so because they came by the way of law works instead of by that of faith, which is the way God has appointed. It is quite clear that righteousness is being used to denote a standing, a status, a verdict of acquittal, and not an ethical quality. In that righteousness plainly means here acceptance with God, ‘rightness’ before Him, we can see the Hebraic background; but in that this acceptance is to be found not in any works of merit, but only by the way of faith, we see the distinctively Christian contribution. The further reference to the ‘stone of stumbling’ is also integral to the Christian idea, for faith is not something grounded on mere subjectivism. It is something which operates on the basis of what Christ did on Calvary. The divine activity mediated to believers by their faith is essential to the Pauline conception of righteousness.
The point which is stressed over and over again is that this righteousness is not a matter of human merit, not a work of law. Paul was no stranger to the righteousness of the law, and he tells us that he had been ‘blameless’ regarding it. But his contact with Jesus Christ had changed his ideas. His aim now was ‘that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith’ (Phil. 3 : 6-9). Here he expressly disclaims the righteousness which is of the law, and elsewhere his words are, if possible, even stronger, as, ‘if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought’ (Gal. 2: 21; this seems to imply that righteousness not only is not, but cannot be, through the law).494 Or take Romans 4: 14f., ‘For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect; for the law worketh wrath’ (which again means that if men may attain righteousness by law works then the revelation in Christ is useless); or Romans 10: 4, ‘For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that >believeth’ (which makes it clear that there can be no way of law for the believer). It is hardly necessary to pursue the point further. It can scarcely be disputed that for St. Paul it was absolutely basic that no righteousness of human origin could avail in the sight of God.
We have already noticed that he speaks of righteousness as something which comes from God, and this is another point which means much to him. It is not peculiar to him, and we find it, for example, underlying the beatitude, ‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled’ (Mt. 5: 6). Here it is plain that the people in mind have realized that their own efforts do not, and cannot, produce righteousness before God, and it is He Himself who will fulfil their longing.495 So again when men are exhorted, ‘Seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness’ (Mt. 6: 33), righteousness just as much as the kingdom must be regarded as a gift to be sought from God. Similarly, when Noah ‘became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith’ (Heb. 11: 7), it seems that righteousness is regarded as a gift from God.
But it is in the writings of St. Paul that this thought receives its fullest expression. He speaks of grace reigning ‘through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom. 5: 21), where righteousness means very nearly the gift of eternal life. The thought of our dependence on God is implied also in the Pauline expression, ‘the righteousness of God’. Much has been written about this expression, and in particular controversy has raged about whether it should be understood as referring to a quality of God’s own nature, or whether it is a way of referring to the gift of righteousness bestowed upon believers. The considerations adduced by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam496 seem sufficient for concluding that both aspects are involved. On the one hand, passages like Philippians 3: 9 leave us in no doubt that it is a righteousness of God which is the apostle’s possession and whereby he is saved. On the other hand, we cannot overlook the fact that the New Testament consistently thinks of God as righteous, and there are not wanting passages where the expression ἡ διαιοσύνη τoυ
θεου must be held to indicate a divine quality (e.g. Rom. 3 : 5, 25f.). It would be true to say, with F. Delitzsch, that this is ‘the harmony of God’s actions with His law’,497 but this should not be understood in any static way. διαιοσύνη is a dynamic term bringing home to us that salvation owes its origin to God. We can be accounted as righteous only because of His activity. In the gospel, Paul says, there ‘is revealed a righteousness of God’ (Rom. 1: 17). The essential content of the gospel is closely related to the righteousness of God. This comes out again in Romans 3: 21f.: ‘But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested ... even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.’
αιοσύνη τoυ θεου must be held to indicate a divine quality (e.g. Rom. 3 : 5, 25f.). It would be true to say, with F. Delitzsch, that this is ‘the harmony of God’s actions with His law’,497 but this should not be understood in any static way. διαιοσύνη is a dynamic term bringing home to us that salvation owes its origin to God. We can be accounted as righteous only because of His activity. In the gospel, Paul says, there ‘is revealed a righteousness of God’ (Rom. 1: 17). The essential content of the gospel is closely related to the righteousness of God. This comes out again in Romans 3: 21f.: ‘But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested ... even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.’This righteousness is further defined by being brought into relationship with the death of Christ. The Lord’s death was for the showing forth of God’s righteousness (Rom. 3: 25f.). We are reminded of the conjunction of righteousness with salvation in the Old Testament (especially in Is. 40-66), but the thought here goes further, and that in more directions than one. Thus, whereas salvation in the Old Testament is concerned largely, if not exclusively, with deliverance from temporal ills, here it is concerned with expiation of sin.498 St. Paul is dealing with a more fundamental issue than were the men of the old covenant when they used this terminology. Then, too, as we saw when we were dealing with διαιοσύνη in the LXX, there is a difference with regard to the people being saved. In the Old Testament we have a picture of God delivering the downtrodden and oppressed, but it is always ‘the righteous’, oἱ δίαιοι, who are thus delivered. St. Paul’s thought here is in marked contrast. He is thinking of men who were utterly unable to achieve the status of ‘righteous’. A little later he speaks of God ‘that justifieth the ungodly’ (Rom. 4: 5), and that is his thought here too. The righteousness of God with which he is concerned is a righteousness which takes men in their sins, alienated from the mind of God, subject to the wrath of God, and justifies them.
αιοσύνη in the LXX, there is a difference with regard to the people being saved. In the Old Testament we have a picture of God delivering the downtrodden and oppressed, but it is always ‘the righteous’, oἱ δίαιοι, who are thus delivered. St. Paul’s thought here is in marked contrast. He is thinking of men who were utterly unable to achieve the status of ‘righteous’. A little later he speaks of God ‘that justifieth the ungodly’ (Rom. 4: 5), and that is his thought here too. The righteousness of God with which he is concerned is a righteousness which takes men in their sins, alienated from the mind of God, subject to the wrath of God, and justifies them.Not only is it a righteous thing that God intervenes to save His people. He saves in a manner which accords with right. The very act wherein He delivers men is one in which He shows Himself to be righteous. Paul says that God set forth Christ ‘to be a propitiation .. to shew his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God; for the shewing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus’. The fact that God had not always punished sin with full severity in the past, but had ‘passed over’ such sin, gave rise to the danger that He might not appear to men to be completely righteous. But now, in the cross, He has for ever removed that danger. He has shown Himself completely righteous.
This is not always recognized and, for example, C. Ryder Smith writes: ‘To put Paul’s meaning in modern terms, he is saying: “God pleased to make man so that it was possible for him to sin; He also made man so that every sin should spread its evil infection through the mass of mankind; we have just seen the hideous result (Romans i: 18 - iii : 18); God, who must have foreseen this, would not even be righteous if He did not find a way to save men from this; He has found such a way by sending His Son.”’499 But while there is truth in this, one cannot feel that it expresses Paul’s essential meaning. ‘How could God be righteous if He did not forgive?’ is the question before Ryder Smith. But the question that worried Paul was rather, ‘How could God be righteous if He did forgive?’ Ryder Smith’s paraphrase suggests that the end is all-important - it is the fact that men are saved that shows God to be righteous and the means are relatively unimportant. But Paul at this point of his argument is more concerned with the means than the end. It is not salvation in general, but salvation by the way of the cross that shows God to be righteous.
Classical Protestantism has understood this to mean that Christ bore the penalty of our sin, and that God in this way showed that the eternal law of righteousness cannot be allowed to suffer disrepute. 500 Calvin puts it thus : ‘As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it.’501 Or, to quote a later divine: ‘the plan of salvation which the Bible reveals supposes that the justice of God which renders the punishment of sin necessary has been satisfied ... the Scriptures recognize the truth that God is just, in the sense that He is determined by His moral excellence to punish all sin, and therefore that the satisfaction of Christ which secures the pardon of sinners is rendered to the justice of God. Its primary and principal design is ... to satisfy the demands of justice; so that God can be just in justifying the ungodly.’502 This kind of interpretation has been vigorously assailed, but it does appear to give the gist of the apostle’s argument at this point. It may well be true to say that there is more to the atonement than this. But, in view of the undoubtedly forensic colouring of the passage, and the general drift of Paul’s argument, we can scarcely deny that he is here giving expression to the view that Christ bore the penalty for man’s sin, and so showed the divine concern for law. This is admitted by such a theologian as Hastings Rashdall, although his own view of the atonement is so very different. He says: ’St. Paul does not quite say why God could not remit the penalty of sin without the death of His Son. But it cannot be denied that those theologians who declare that this would be incompatible with God’s justice - the justice which requires that somehow sin should be punished - or with the consistency which demands the infliction of the particular punishment which God had threatened, namely death - are only bringing out the latent presuppositions of St. Paul’s thought.’503
It is objected to this interpretation that the bearing of penalty by one in the place of another is not really just, so that when Christ suffers for us it is not a matter of fulfilling legal requirements. There is some force in this objection, and there would be more if we were dealing with a human law. But the fact is that we are not. The law in question is the law of God’s holy nature, and that nature is merciful as well as just. Thus God’s justice, while it is not capricious but works by the method of law, is a justice which finds a large place for mercy and is not hard, bare, and legalistic. At any rate, whether our legal categories can find a place for mercy or not, those of the Bible can and do. In the very passage we are considering there is a mention of the forbearance (ἀνοχή) of God which leads to the passing over of sins. Neither justice nor mercy must be whittled down; but neither must they be separated.
The forensic thought seems to underlie passages where righteousness is spoken of as a gift, e.g., ‘much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life’ (Rom. 5: 17). If righteousness is a gift, obviously it cannot be a quality of living. A standing before God seems the only interpretation adequate to the context. As G. O. Griffith says: ‘Certainly, if righteousness means “good works” it cannot be bestowed; but Paul’s point is that this is not what it does mean: fundamentally it means right relationship, and it is this that God provides.’504 So, too, when it is said that ‘him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5: 21), there is clearly a forensic thought, although it is probably true that more than that is intended to be conveyed by the expression.505 So is it in 1 Corinthians 1 : 30, where Christ is said to be ‘made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and >sanctification and redemption’.
We come now to the question of imputation which has seemed to very many to be a necessary corollary of the forensic view. Traditional Protestantism has made much of the doctrine of imputed righteousness and has given it precision by saying that the merits of Christ are imputed to believers. Thus Calvin can say ‘the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity’.506 But in modern times this position has been strenuously opposed, and for example N. H. Snaith maintains that, if we hold to imputed righteousness, ‘we have not emancipated ourselves from that very doctrine which Paul spent most of his life in combatting >- namely, that salvation is by righteousness’; and he goes on to say: ‘The fact of the matter is that God does not require righteousness at all, in any shape or shadow, as a condition of salvation. He requires faith.’507
It is very difficult to substantiate either extreme from Scripture. Against Snaith, righteousness is definitely said to be imputed to Abraham on the grounds of his faith (Rom. 4: 3), and the general principle is laid down that ‘to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness’ (Rom. 4: 5). The chapter then goes on to deal further with the subject, culminating in the statement that ‘it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned’ (verses 23f.). In view of plain statements like these it seems impossible to hold that Paul found no place for the imputation of righteousness to believers. On the other hand he never says in so many words that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to believers, and it may fairly be doubted whether he had this in mind in his treatment of justification, although it may be held to be a corollary from his doctrine of identification of the believer with Christ.508
But, if our primary idea is correct, then the basic thought in righteousness is of a standing with God,509 and we should think of a status conferred on men by God on the grounds of the atoning work of Christ. There is a sense in which it can be said to be imputed, for it is in no sense an ethical righteousness attained by the believer by the performance of good works, but rather a gift from without, from God. But it seems preferable to regard the idea of conferred status as primary, rather than to look at the whole subject through the comparatively few passages which speak of imputation.
Next we must notice that, while on the one hand St. Paul stresses the fact that righteousness is a forensic affair, on the other he insists strongly that it is attained only by faith, thus linking up the conception with the inner spiritual life of the believer. Both this inner experience and the outward status must be kept in mind (cf. Rom. 4: 11, 13; 9: 30; 10: 6; Phil. 3:9, etc.).
Among the Jews there could be no justification until the day of judgment (for as long as ever a man lived it was always possible for him to sin and fall away from his momentary right standing). That justification has such a future aspect is recognized (cf. Gal. 5: 5). But while this is not overlooked, it does not receive the emphasis in the Christian view. Rather the glorious truth insisted upon by St. Paul is that justification is a present experience. This comes out sometimes in specific expressions like the ‘now’ of Romans 3 : 21, or the frequent use of the present tense in alluding to justification. But it is not so much from isolated passages as from the general tenor of his teaching that we gather the importance of this truth. Because justification is an act of God rather than of man there is an assurance about it which means that it is not presumptuous to speak of being justified now. Justification is both present and future, but it is the present aspect which receives emphasis in the New Testament.
c. δίαιόω
We have seen that there is good ground for thinking that both δίαιος and διαιοσύνη are understood in the New Testament in terms of their forensic background. When we come to consider δίαιόω the forensic nature of the term is even clearer, and in point of fact it is difficult to explain any of the occurrences of the verb without recourse to the forensic.
αιος and διαιοσύνη are understood in the New Testament in terms of their forensic background. When we come to consider δίαιόω the forensic nature of the term is even clearer, and in point of fact it is difficult to explain any of the occurrences of the verb without recourse to the forensic.The continuity with the Jewish usage is to be discerned in a number of passages. Thus Jesus said ‘every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned’ (Mt. 12: 36f.). The idea is clearly that of an assize such as the Jews conceived of at the day of judgment, and the opposition of αταδιαισθήση to δίαιωθήση seems to put the matter beyond doubt. So is it in Acts 13: 39 and Romans 3: 4.
αταδιαισθήση to δίαιωθήση seems to put the matter beyond doubt. So is it in Acts 13: 39 and Romans 3: 4.This last passage refers to God as justified, which is enough to show that the meaning of the word must be something like ‘declare righteous’, for it is impossible to think that the apostle (or, for that matter, the psalmist Paul is quoting) meant that God was to be ‘made righteous’. He is affirming that in the process of judgment God’s words would show that He is righteous. We have another reference to God’s being justified (Lk. 7: 29), and one to Christ’s (1 Tim. 3: 16). This little group of passages is very important, for it shows, at the very least, that the New Testament writers could understand διαιόω as signifying ‘to declare righteous’ or ‘to show as righteous’.
αιόω as signifying ‘to declare righteous’ or ‘to show as righteous’.Equally conclusive are the passages wherein men are said to justify themselves, as in the case of the lawyer of Luke 10:29, or the Pharisees of whom Jesus said: ‘Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God’ (Lk. 16: 15). In this latter passage particularly it is quite plain that the justification in question is a declaring, or showing, to be just: the second half of the verse shows that there cannot be the thought of making righteous.
Not every one of the passages we have so far noted is forensic in the sense that it describes a court-room scene. It is obvious that a metaphorical element is quite common. But that should not blind us to the fact that, in each case, there is the implication of a judgment given and of a favourable verdict. The case is not unlike those of English verbs like ‘to judge’ and ‘to acquit’. These can be used in connection with matters far remote from law-courts. Nevertheless they are undeniably derived from legal practice and they retain the essential part of their legal significance. So is it with διαιόω. It may be used, it is used, in connection with matters where there is no formal giving of sentence in a law-court. But that does not alter the facts that the verb is essentially a forensic one, in the Bible as elsewhere, and that it denotes basically a sentence of acquittal. Thus it is that R. S. Franks can say: ’What St. Paul means by justification is simply the forgiveness of sins, expressed in legal terminology. Justification signifies the pronouncing of the sinner righteous before God.’510
αιόω. It may be used, it is used, in connection with matters where there is no formal giving of sentence in a law-court. But that does not alter the facts that the verb is essentially a forensic one, in the Bible as elsewhere, and that it denotes basically a sentence of acquittal. Thus it is that R. S. Franks can say: ’What St. Paul means by justification is simply the forgiveness of sins, expressed in legal terminology. Justification signifies the pronouncing of the sinner righteous before God.’510This comes out clearly in such a passage as Romans 2: 13, ‘for not the hearers of a law are just before God, but the doers of a law shall be justified’. Paul goes on to speak of ‘the day when God shall judge’. He is evidently arguing in terms of current Jewish ideas, and we have already seen that that meant that the justified were those acquitted at the bar of God’s justice. But quite apart from the fact that the words irresistibly recall Rabbinic conceptions, their plain meaning is that a certain class are reckoned as righteous, as acquitted.511 There is an ineluctable forensic element here. And this seems to be true whenever St. Paul uses the term. He has in his mind the thought that all men are tried before God, and by God. The verb denotes the giving of the verdict whereby they are adjudged righteous or acceptable with God.
There are several places where St. Paul makes it quite clear that this status is not achieved by human effort, by works of law. ‘We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’ (Rom. 3: 28) comes as the climax of his argument in the early part of Romans. His statements elsewhere are, if anything, even more emphatic. ‘Knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of law: because by works of law shall no flesh be justified’ (Gal. 2: 16, RV mg.). ‘Now that no man is justified by law in the sight of God is evident’ (Gal. 3: 11). Such statements rule out the remotest possibility of justification being wrought by merely human effort. St. Paul does not even speak of ‘the works of the law’, the Jewish law, but uses the anarthrous term ‘law’, law in general. No works of law can avail in the sight of God.
St. James takes up rather a different position when he expressly says that ‘by works a man is justified, and not only by faith’ (Jas. 2: 24), and when he uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab to reinforce his position. But it should be noted that he recognizes implicitly the place of faith. His polemic is directed not against faith as such, but against faith without works. He reiterates that that sort of faith is dead, ‘faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead’ (Jas. 2: 17, 26). Moreover the Epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works in the accepted sense; there is no thought of an accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love (2: 8f.), humility (4: 6f.) and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very like ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul. While we must recognize that James has expressed his point of view in very un-Pauline language, yet the fact remains that he does not replace Paul’s scheme of justification by another based on law-works. He does not mean by works what Paul means, and he does not mean by faith what Paul means. His demand is for a ‘faith that worketh by love’ (Gal. 5: 6), if we may borrow a Pauline phrase, and his polemic is directed against those whose faith is revealed to be a hollow sham, by the absence of lives of service.
When St. James speaks of ‘the implanted word, which is able to save your souls’ (Jas. 1: 21), he appears to be thinking of a divine activity operative in salvation, and this thought is brought out by St. Paul over and over again. This was part of the divine plan, for the Scripture foresaw ‘that God would justify the Gentiles by faith’, and so ‘whom he called, them he also justified’ (Gal. 3: 8; Rom. 8: 30). Again Paul can give a triumphant question and answer: ‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth’ (Rom. 8: 33). Not only is justification impossible by any works of law, by anything done in merely human strength. It is of the very marrow of Paul’s thought that it can be effected only by an act of God, and gloriously, it is so effected. This justification is, of course, associated with the cross, for we are ‘justified by his >blood’ (Rom. 5: 9).
This thought of justification by divine action is not unlike that suggested by Jesus in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The publican confesses his sinfulness and throws himself on the mercy of God. He relies wholly on God and produces no law-works whatever. Jesus says, ‘This man went down to his house justified’ (Lk. 18: 14).
It remains only for us to notice that, though justification is effected only by a divine action, it does not become operative in the lives of individuals until they exercise faith. This is to be found in many passages, the principle being: ‘to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness’ (Rom. 4: 5). Faith, of course, is not merely an intellectual adherence to a set of propositions, but the response of the whole man to the divine act on Calvary, as he trustfully commits himself to his Creator, and rests in Him for time and for eternity. This doctrine represented a radical novelty in St. Paul’s day, as G. O. Griffith reminds us: ‘It is often said that to speak of “justification by faith” is to use language which, to the modern man, is meaningless. What is as often forgotten is that such language was as meaningless to ancient man also, apart from the Gospel which gave it significance.’512 It is hardly fair to speak of the doctrine as one which was acceptable enough in the first century, but which cannot be accepted today because our thought-world is different. The thought-world of the first century was different also! But St. Paul made so much of this aspect of the gospel, even though the language was unfamiliar to his hearers, because it seemed an aspect which was vital. We may or may not like imagery with forensic associations. But the heart of the Christian gospel is that, while no works of our hands will avail to make us acceptable before God, we are acceptable if we come in faith on the grounds of God’s own action in Christ. And this great truth St. Paul delighted to express in the forensic language of justification.