40 Bicycles

Justification Unpacked

We will now begin to unpack the elements of Paul’s doctrine of justification. In my approach to this subject I am deeply indebted to the following works: Tom Wright, What St. Paul Really Said; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology: Volume 1; Don Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians; Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul and his Galatians commentary and Peter Leithart’s fantastic article “Judge Me, O God”: Biblical Perspectives on Justification. As we do so I trust that we will be able to catch a glimpse of the multifaceted nature of the doctrine. The language of justification is complex, operating on a number of levels. The language of justification is generally understood to be forensic. Although the terminology of justification finds it origin in the law court, reading this language against the background of the OT we are led to see that the language of justification also operates on the planes of covenant and eschatology. In the Pauline corpus the concept of justification is inseparably related to the concept of righteousness. If we are to understand justification we must understand it against the background of the concept of righteousness, to which it is always correlative. Many Protestants have understood the language of justification against the background of the Roman law court. Whilst justification is certainly forensic language we should not immediately presume that any forensic system will enable us to fully appreciate what Paul means by it. By relating ‘justification’ to the concept of ‘righteousness’ we are better equipped to unpack the Pauline understanding of justification without placing it within an alien framework. As Don Garlington observes, ‘Strictly speaking, there is no independent doctrine of justification which is detachable from righteousness as a generic category.’ Righteousness in the Old Testament Protestants have often understood the term ‘righteousness’ to refer to conformity to the law in every detail. This understanding of ‘righteousness’ has in turn shaped the concept of ‘justification’. This understanding of ‘righteousness’ is quite alien to the biblical framework in which the term is employed. The language of ‘righteousness’ is central to the OT way of thinking. However, theologians have struggled to understand how this language operates. In the first volume of his Old Testament Theology, Gerhard von Rad discusses this problem. He argues that, by imposing Western presuppositions, violence has been done to the OT text. Within the West the language of righteousness has been understood to refer to ‘man’s proper conduct over against an absolute ethical norm, a legality which derives its norm from the absolute idea of justice.’ This absolute norm led to ‘absolute demands and absolute claims’. Understood this way, the question that remained to be answered was that of the identity of the absolute norm presupposed. Of course, no satisfactory answer could be given; the question was the wrong one to ask. In the OT actions were not measured against an absolute ethical norm, but were understood within the context of a relationship. ‘Righteousness’ referred to the fulfilling of the obligations of a relationship, not to the fulfilment of some absolute ethical norm. The righteous man is the one who satisfies the claims that a particular relationship (among the many relationships he is in) lays upon him. We can see this concept of righteousness in many places in the OT. One example will serve to illustrate. In 1 Samuel 24:17 we read (cf. 1 Samuel 26:23):—

Then [Saul] said to David: “You are more righteous than I; for you have rewarded me with good, whereas I have rewarded you with evil.”

David’s righteousness was his faithfulness to the relationship that existed between himself and Saul, his king. Such an understanding of righteousness can help us to understand uses of the terminology that would otherwise be deeply confusing (e.g. Genesis 38:26). Perverted forms of ‘righteousness’ can exist as this previous case illustrates. Understood this way, we can also understand the manner in which the language of ‘righteousness’ is used of God Himself. When God is referred to as ‘righteous’, He is fulfilling the claims of the covenant that He established with His people. God keeps His promises because He is righteous (e.g. Nehemiah 9:8). As the biblical language of righteousness is ‘relationship’ language, it is ‘covenant’ language. When a man keeps the obligations of the covenant, he is righteous. When God saves His people, He is being righteous and keeping His covenant promises. In this framework we can begin to understand how God’s forgiving of sinners is a function of His righteousness (e.g. 1 John 1:9). The Law Court When a man’s faithfulness to a relationship was called into question, it was within the setting of the law court that the situation was resolved. Within the Hebrew law court there were three principal parties: the judge, the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was the party bringing the accusation, the defendant was the accused party and the judge was the one who declared the defendant righteous or unrighteous. As ‘righteousness’ language is ‘relationship’ language, it functions in different ways, depending on which party it refers to. The ‘righteous’ judge is the judge who tries the case and executes the judgment according to the law. Within the setting of the law court, the ‘righteous’ defendant or plaintiff have that status as a result of the decision of the judge. The righteous judge vindicates or justifies the righteous party, bestowing upon that party a status that they did not possess before. The vindicated party is cleared of any blame. This clearing of blame constitutes the party as righteous. The parties in the case might seek to anticipate the future justifying verdict by appealing to the fact that they had been righteous in the relationship that was being judged. However, this should not be confused with the status of ‘righteous’ that is conferred upon a party by the court. The relationship between the court and the defendant should not be confused with the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. Whilst the defendant may have been righteous in his relationship with plaintiff, his righteousness in relationship to the court is only established by the final decision of the court. In the West we are too easily inclined to think of righteousness as some quality or substance. For this reason we fail to recognize the manner in which the verdict of the court can establish the status of the defendant. Either the justifying verdict must make the defendant righteous by infusing some substance into him or by transferring someone else’s righteousness like a piece of property. This is one of the principal reasons for N.T. Wright’s rejection of the language of imputation in its traditional Protestant use. Righteousness is not some substance that can be injected into someone or some object that can be transferred from one party to another. By its very nature, righteousness is bound to a particular party. The righteous status conferred upon the defendant by the court’s decision cannot be the judge’s own righteousness, nor can it be some quality within the defendant himself. The Nature of Judgment As righteousness language is relationship language, it is dynamic and ‘action-orientated’. The biblical nature of judgment, as it is also conceived of in the context of relationship, is also to be seen as dynamic and ‘action-orientated’. Protestants have all too often thought of justification in terms of a heavenly pronouncement that goes unheard on earth. However, in the OT the judgment of the judge was seen primarily in its execution rather than in its declaration. The judge was bound to execute justice and not merely to declare it. Consequently, God’s justification of His people would be seen in His deliverance of them. When David asked for God to judge and vindicate him (e.g. Psalm 7:8) he was looking for God to crush his enemies and to lift him up. David was not looking for some ethereal pronouncement; he was looking for a physical deliverance. While David was being defeated by his enemies, his righteous status before God was being called into question. If David really was one of God’s righteous people, why wasn’t God coming to the aid of his cause? David was calling God to reaffirm his righteous status by delivering him from his enemies. As God is the judge, His own righteousness is bound up in the vindication of His people. As God justifies His people, He is seen to be righteous. When his people were suffering defeat, God’s own righteousness was being called into question. If God really was the righteous Judge, why wasn’t He aiding and vindicating His people? God’s deliverance of His people served as a vindication of both Himself as the Judge and of them as the defendants. This two-sided nature of justification is seen in many places in Scripture. This is why the psalmist could appeal to God to judge him according to his [the psalmist’s] own righteousness (e.g. Psalm 7:8), but also according to God’s own righteousness (e.g. Psalm 35:24). The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the covenant people were both placed into question when the enemies of God’s people prospered. Both God and His people were justified in their respective covenant roles when God delivered the people from their enemies. Covenant and Eschatology We should not fall into the trap of believing that the language of righteousness should always be seen within the context of the courtroom. The language can function in many informal settings and is not bound to the formal setting of the courtroom. A person treating another person as a faithful friend is just as much a case of justification as the execution of justice in the courtroom setting would be. Righteousness language flourishes in informal contexts in Scripture. Whilst we might be tempted to presume that a legal metaphor is being employed, we should recognize that the language is far more flexible than we might originally be led to believe. For this reason, we need not be tempted, at every encounter with righteousness language in Scripture, to draw a mental picture of the courtroom. Whilst this can sometimes help to clarify matters, it is by no means necessary. Sometimes the law court metaphor can even break down (e.g. Romans 4:5 and the ‘justification of the ungodly’ cf. Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 17:15). It is important that we recognize that the language of righteousness can work happily against the wider background of the covenant. Indeed, this is the place in which we will most commonly find it. As Wright points out:—

…the covenant between God and Israel is the basic context of meaning within which righteousness-language finds its home; and … the law court is the metaphorical context which gives particular colour to that covenantal language…

Protestants have generally fallen into the trap of abstracting the language of righteousness from the covenant. Righteousness is conceived of as some substance or quality and rarely if ever presupposes a covenant relationship. Of course, this cannot but cause us problems. If the covenant provides the context in terms of which all of God’s dealings are to be understood, it is fatal to abstract justification from this context and hope to make sense of it. Once we recognize this, we will be more adequately prepared to understand further aspects of righteousness language. If OT righteousness language is to be understood in the manner that I have already outlined, we must recognize the strong relationship between justification and eschatology. Justification is far more than a bare declaration that someone is righteous. Justification necessarily involves putting things to rights. God’s justifying judgment is to be seen primarily in His execution of justice, rather than in the declaration of justice. In our day and age many people ask if God can be God if there is so much evil in the world. They wonder why bad things happen to good people. Surely God must intervene. These questions are not alien to the Bible. The doctrine of justification is the biblical answer to these questions. God will act to set things to rights. He will deliver those who trust in Him and destroy those who hate Him. He will vindicate His name from the accusations of the enemies of God’s people. He will make the difference between the righteous and the wicked clear (e.g. Malachi 3:13—4:3). Justification is the eschatological hope of the people of God. The covenant drama of the OT is played out against the metaphorical backdrop of the law court. As the God of the covenant and the righteous Judge, God’s righteousness is revealed over history in His dealings with men. The common OT phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ is used to refer to God’s eschatological vindication of His people as the righteous Judge and to His keeping of His promises as the covenant God. The covenant people believed that the righteous Judge who had made promises to His people would prove Himself to be righteous, vindicating His people by delivering them and setting the world to rights. Within the psalms and the prophets the eschatological nature of God’s righteousness is clearly seen. God’s righteousness is revealed by His promised salvation. In Isaiah 40—55 the theme of God’s righteousness is ever present. God has promised to redeem His people and set the world to rights. The revelation of God’s righteousness will occur when this salvation is accomplished. Summary To this point we have seen that, in the OT, righteousness language is covenantal language and law court language and should be understood to be eschatological in nature. God’s righteousness is his keeping of His promises to His people (covenant) and His vindicating of His covenant people against their accusers and enemies (law court); this is awaited as a future event of concrete deliverance (eschatology). Justification is, narrowly defined, God’s declaration that someone is righteous. This declaration takes the form of concrete actions. In a very general sense, God justifies people when he treats them as His faithful covenant partners (the law court metaphor can often be unhelpful in such situations; it has the tendency to formalize something that should not be viewed in such a manner). God can justify His people by delivering them from their enemies, making promises to them, by granting them access into His presence, or by a number of other ways. As justification is concrete in form, it can be more broadly defined as God’s setting to rights (or ‘rectifying’). The Relationship between OT and NT language Many people treat the OT and NT as separate and hermetically sealed units. The NT must be interpreted on its own terms and the OT on its own terms. The conceptual framework of the OT is radically different to that of the NT and one should not import concepts from one testament to the other. I am increasingly convinced that this approach is adopted because people are aware that their reading of the NT is quite alien to the covenantal framework of the OT. Last year I asked one of the most senior lecturers in the evangelical college about the relationship between the concepts of election in the OT and the NT. He responded by saying that whilst election in the OT was generally corporate in its nature, in the NT it is radically individualized and so we must keep the two firmly separate. The NT concept of election does not have a corporate aspect. He is a Reformed Baptist and he knew full well that key elements of his system would be under threat if he allowed OT concepts to trespass too far onto the pages of the NT. This serves as a good example of the approach taken by many. If you were to ask most people to develop the doctrine of justification from the OT they would probably quote Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4, verses quoted by Paul in Romans and Galatians. However, if you asked them to explain these verses in their original contexts, they would be hard pressed to do so. The manner in which the conceptual frameworks of the two testaments have been alienated from each other can be seen in many places. Ridderbos provides an example of this problem in his treatment of Romans 4:3’s quote from Genesis 15:6 in Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Ridderbos recognizes that

In the original context of Genesis 15:6 the words “righteousness” and “to reckon for” do not have the forensic significance that Paul, in harmony with the later legalistic-Jewish climate of thought, here attributes to them.

He criticizes those who read Romans 4:3-5 in the light of the original sense of Genesis 15:6 and those who would impose the meaning of Romans 4:3 back upon Genesis 15:6. Similar problems can be observed with regard to Habakkuk 2:4. Of course, this is closely related to the problem I outlined in my previous post: the first century Jewish context becomes more and more determinative for Pauline exegesis. Paul is primarily interacting with a Judaism that has become divorced from the OT pattern of religion, rather than with the actual meaning of the Scriptural text. Consequently, the beliefs that we hold about this form of Judaism become more and more central to the interpretative task. The study of Second Temple Judaism can shed much light on the NT text. However, when it starts to exert so powerful an influence upon our interpretation we should really begin to question the place that it has been given in our interpretation. The centrality of the supposed character of Second Temple Judaism to the structure of much evangelical thought can be easily recognized by the reactions to the New Perspective movement in many conservative circles. For some it appears that by denying their particular understanding of Second Temple Judaism, the New Perspective might as well have denied the whole faith! One of the greatest benefits of the NPP is seen is the manner in which it permits the Bible to be treated as one whole book. The conceptual framework of the NT is directly related to that of the OT. When Paul quotes an OT passage he wants his readers to consider the original context. Paul’s principal conversation partner is Scripture itself and not a peculiar variety of first century Jewish heretics. Far from hiding the text behind studies in first century Judaism, this approach has opened up the text to a level of interpretation previously impossible. Anyone who has read Richard Hays’ book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul will be aware of the huge benefits of this approach. Many scholars have sought to argue that Paul’s exegesis must be understood against the historical background of rabbinic midrash. Midrash has been used to give Paul the hermeneutical license that is presumed to be necessary to justify his interpretations. Hays rightly criticizes the tendency of the ‘midrash’ understanding of Paul to bring the hermeneutical task to a halt. Merely giving a name to Paul’s approach to interpretation is a far cry from giving a justification for it. Hays goes some way towards delivering Paul from the common charge of arbitrariness levelled against him. Wright goes even farther (at the end of The Climax of the Covenant) in justifying Paul’s exegesis. He argues that we should understand the narrative nature of Scripture to play a more determinative role in Paul’s hermeneutic than Hays has allowed for. Wright seeks to maintain that Paul’s exegesis, far from being arbitrary, appealed to the Scriptures in the public domain, and was not esoteric and subjective. Paul did not play fast and loose with Scripture. By bringing us back into contact with Paul, the biblical theologian, Hays and Wright have done evangelical scholarship an inestimable service. If they are right, an understanding of Scripture on its own terms will shed far more light on Paul’s exegesis than an understanding of the hermeneutical methods of Second Temple Judaism. The Righteousness of God in the NT I maintain that Paul uses the language of righteousness in a manner consistent with its OT use. I have no desire to present a full argument for this position. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I believe that a reading of Paul in the light of the OT use of righteousness language will make far more sense of him than the more traditional Protestant reading. I also believe that if we claim that Paul, whilst using the language of the OT, uses it with his own arbitrary meaning, we risk turning his epistles into esoteric texts. Paul stands as an heir to the OT understanding of righteousness. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who would argue that Paul uses the language in an idiosyncratic way. A further argument comes from the fact that righteousness language is clearly used in its OT sense in a number of places in Paul (e.g. Romans 3:5, 25-26). If we follow the traditional Protestant reading of Paul we will end up having to admit that Paul is writing in a very confusing manner. This is particularly seen in places such as Romans 3:21-26, where, if the common Protestant reading is correct, Paul switches the meaning of ‘God’s righteousness’ halfway through a sentence. Perhaps the deepest problem is seen in the fact that the general Protestant understanding of ‘the righteousness of God’ is not only unprecedented in the OT text, but is also foreign to its conceptual framework. When we see the degree to which OT Scripture permeates Paul’s letters, it is very hard to argue that his language is divorced from that of Scripture itself. In a number of the places in which Paul writes of righteousness, he is carefully echoing OT passages. One example is seen in Romans 1:16-17a:—

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed…

Reading this alongside some of the following OT passages, the parallels that can be seen are quite striking.

The Lord has made known His salvation; His righteousness He has revealed in the sight of the nations. He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.—Psalm 98:2-3

“Listen to Me, My people; And give ear to Me, O My nation: For law will proceed from Me, And I will make My justice rest as a light of the peoples. My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, And My arms will judge the peoples; The coastlands will wait upon Me, And on My arm they will trust.—Isaiah 51:4-5

Even Paul’s claim that he is ‘not ashamed’ can be seen to be related to OT language. Hays writes:—

With Isaiah, Paul could say, “I know that I shall not be ashamed [aischynthō], because the one who justifies me [ho dikaiōsas me] is near” (Isa. 50:7-8). Paul is not ashamed in relation to the gospel precisely because the gospel is God’s eschatological vindication of those who trust in him—and consequently of God’s own faithfulness. Significantly, Paul transforms Isaiah’s emphatic future negation (“I shall not be ashamed”) into a present negation (“I am not ashamed”). The present tense of Paul’s denial corresponds to the present tense of his declaration that the righteousness and wrath of God are being revealed (1:17-18); thus, Isaiah’s future hope rebounds through Paul’s voice into a new temporal framework defined by God’s already efficacious act of eschatological deliverance in Christ.

Summary and Conclusion If the OT language of righteousness provides the background for our understanding of the NT use of the language, we will see a number of results in our understanding of the concept of justification. Justification will be understood in a far more eschatological and corporate setting. The doctrine of justification is cosmic in proportion and not merely individual. The redemptive historical significance of the doctrine of justification will finally be appreciated. In Christ God has set the world to rights, anticipating the final eschatological justification. God’s demonstration of His righteousness is a demonstration of His covenant faithfulness. The accuser of the brethren has been cast done and the people of God have been vindicated once and for all in the middle of history. The case against the people of God has been thrown out of court and the courtroom has become the place of Christ’s intercession for His people. Following this approach we are able to avoid the separation of the OT and the NT and bring them together into one coherent document. We are enabled to progress beyond the narrow context of the Roman law court and develop a multifaceted doctrine of justification. We are also enabled to relate the doctrine of justification more clearly to Christ. It is the Christological heart of justification that I hope to move onto in my next post.