Justification: Key Questions
An Overview of the Scriptural Data
You can listen to the audio narration of this article here.
Introduction:
In our prior article on justification, we explained the differences between the Reformed and Roman views of justification. Understanding each side of a debate is absolutely crucial. Now, it’s time to look at the pivotal texts of Scripture to see which side is correct. Because the debate can be narrowed down to a handful of propositions, we’ll look at the texts which pertain most directly to these propositions.
1. Is justification substantive or forensic?
In other words, is justification our becoming actually righteous, as the Romanists argue, or is it our becoming legally righteous, as the Reformed argue? Given our different understandings of the term, we must first investigate how the biblical writers would have understood it. The Greek word translated “justify,” dikaioo, was originally a technical legal term. Its Hebrew equivalent, tzedakah, is also used in a forensic sense. Some clear examples are Exodus 23:7, Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15, and Isaiah 5:23 (respectively):
Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty…
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to Yahweh.
Who justify the wicked for a bribe…
In each passage, not only is the legal, courtroom context obvious, but also evident is the distinction between what a person is substantively (e.g., wicked) and forensically (e.g., innocent).
This is the Old Testament context Paul had in mind when he writes Romans 8:33-34, where he indisputably uses courtroom language and imagery:
Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
Note also Paul’s frequent use of terms like “law” and “judge” in his discourses on justification. The forensic character of justification fits well with the Scriptural imagery thereof. In marriage, a picture of the gospel (Ephesians 5:32), a wife receives the property and status of her husband by the simple declaration: “Man and wife.”
2. Is justification the infusion or imputation of righteousness?
The second debated term, closely related to the first, is “impute,” (often rendered “reckon,” “credit,” or “count”). It’s used in Scripture to denote an objective declaration about someone without a subjective change in that person. In Hebrew, hashav, translated “impute,” is used in Genesis 31:14-15, Leviticus 17:3-4, and Leviticus 25:31 (respectively):
Rachel and Leah said to him, “Do we still have any share or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not regarded by him as foreigners?
If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of Yahweh, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
But the houses of the villages which have no wall around them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the jubilee.
Each time, the word is used to denote an objective change in status before a judge or reckoner without any subjective change in the object. Rachel and Leah were as much their father’s daughters as ever, yet he reckoned to them a different status. The man to whom bloodguilt is imputed was just as guilty of sin before the imputation as after. And the nature of the field in question did not change as a result of the jubilee; rather, its status changed.
Again, this is the context Paul has in mind when he uses the Greek equivalent, logizomai, in Romans 4:3-8:
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.
Here, we see Paul discuss the two elements of justification Reformed theologians have historically articulated: the positive imputation of righteousness to Abraham and the negative non-imputation of sins in which David rejoices.
3. Is faith the sole instrument of justification?
The instrument via which God imputed righteousness to Abraham was faith, which is Paul’s main theme here. Paul states quite plainly “that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” (Romans 3:28). Both Romanists and Reformed hold the work of Christ is the sole meritorious cause of justification; the difference is over the instrumental cause. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott explains:
The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. [The Council of Trent] defines that Faith is a necessary pre-condition for justification (for adults).1
Of course, subsequent justifications would be obtained through penance, according to the Roman system.2 How then do Roman Catholics square this with Paul’s declaration in Romans 3:28, which asserts faith to be the instrument of justification? They argue the phrase “works of the law” refers to works of the ceremonial law, not works of the moral law. Thus, moral works may be a cause of our justification. There are a number of problems with this argument.
It ignores Paul’s constant, emphatic dichotomy between faith and works (ex. Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). The distinction Paul draws is always between faith and works, never between works of the ceremonial law and works of the moral law.
In Romans 3:20, Paul says, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Does knowledge of sin come via the ceremonial or moral law? We’d both agree it comes primarily through the moral law, hence we can conclude Paul means “works of the moral law.” This comports with Paul’s larger point in this verse, which is that the first use of the law is not as an instrument of justification but rather condemnation. Since Paul is making the same argument in verse 28, we can safely assume he has the same definition in mind.
The phrase “works of the law” also occurs in Galatians 3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’” Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26, which he says is the curse which falls on those relying on works of the law for their justification. Yet in the context (Deuteronomy 27:15-26), the entire list of commands this curse is affixed to is constituted of moral commands alone. Hence, when Paul uses the phrase “works of the law,” he obviously comprehends moral works.
The New Covenant sacraments correspond to the Old Covenant sacraments (baptism to circumcision and the Eucharist to Passover). But if Paul says Old Covenant sacraments cannot justify, what warrant is there for assuming New Covenant ones can, especially since the alternative Paul prescribes to circumcision is not baptism but faith?
Thus, since Paul opposed faith to all works, only faith can be the instrument of justification.
4. But what about James 2?
Inevitably, a Roman Catholic would bring up James 2, likely with the words,
Actually, the Bible does specify another ground for justification aside from faith: works, in James 2. In fact, James explicitly states “A man is not justified by faith alone.”
While a favorite of Romanists, the entire passage of which this verse is a part (James 2:14-26) is rarely examined in its entirety. James opens the passage with verse 14, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” Notice the phrase that faith; unlike Paul’s contrast between faith and works, here James is contrasting a dead, spoken-only faith and a living, work-producing faith. James then provides an example (vv. 15-16) of the futility of saying without doing. Wishing hungry and cold brethren fullness and warmth without feeding and clothing is useless: “So also faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” James condemns dead faith, which is evidenced by a lack of good works. This is seen yet again in verse 18: “But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” James is talking about works not as the grounds of our justification but as visible evidence of a living faith (hence the words show me).
James uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab to show “that faith apart from works is useless,” and sandwiched between these two examples is verse 24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” To assert that James is now suddenly removing himself from his case against dead faith and for works as the evidence of faith and now entering the Pauline discussion of the means of justification before God is to insert tremendous discontinuity into the text. Furthermore, since James concludes this section in verse 26 by reiterating his original thesis saying, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead,” we must understand this middle portion in a manner consistent with his thesis, conclusion, and overall theme: evidence of faith.
Because James uses the same word as Paul, “justification,” many wrongly assume they are using the term in the same sense. But “justification” has other senses (as any Greek dictionary or lexicon will show), one of them being a sense of confirmation, vindication, or public proof. This is the sense Jesus employs when he says (Matthew 12:37), “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned,” and (Matthew 11:19), “Wisdom is justified by her children.” Jesus is not here saying that our words are the instrument of our justification (otherwise he would be contradicting James’ entire point), nor that wisdom is declared righteous before God via her children. Rather, the contents of our words will confirm our status as evidence for or against us on judgement day, and wisdom is publicly vindicated by the results of her actions. This is the sense of the term “justification” James is using here, and it comports with his argument as a whole: The evidences of faith are good works, and thus one’s status as a Christian is justified (that is, confirmed, vindicated, publicly proven) by one’s good works.3
Thus, James is not teaching against justification by faith alone. He is arguing that said faith must be a living and true faith to avail its possessor of justification. And it is from this passage whence comes a common refrain among Reformed Christians on the subject of faith and works: “We are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone.”
Conclusion:
Obviously much more could be said about these questions, and we welcome further discussion. The next installment in the series will be a discussion of the history of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Was it something Luther came up with by himself, or does it have a centuries-long history prior to him?
Editor’s Note: The thumbnail image is a painting called The Scapegoat, by William Holman Hunt (1855). According to God’s instructions in Leviticus 16, on the Day of Atonement, a goat would be selected by lot to be driven out into the wilderness. Beforehand, the high priest would lay his hands on the goat’s head and confess all the sins of Israel. Thus, the goat would bear the people’s sins. This prefigures of the imputation of our sins to Christ which is the judicial basis for God’s mercy to us: “You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.”
#/media/File:Holman-Hunt-Scapegoat-(Manchester).jpg){kind=link}
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 4th ed., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960. Pg. 251.
Perhaps the best summary of the issue is that given by Francis Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Question 16, Section XXII:
Since Paul and James were inspired by the same Spirit, they cannot be said to oppose each other on the doctrine of justification, so that one should ascribe justification to faith alone and the other to works also. The reconciliation is not difficult, if the design of each be considered and the natures of faith and of justification (concerning which both treat) be attended. Paul disputes against the Pharisees, who urged the merits of works; James disputes against the Libertines and Epicureans, who, content with a profession of faith alone, denied not only the merits of works, but also their necessity. Against the former, Paul rightly urges faith alone for justification. Against the latter, James properly commends the necessity of works for the confirmation of justification. Paul speaks of a living and efficacious faith; James of an idle and dead faith which cannot be demonstrated by works (2:18); Paul of justification a priori and constitutively; James of the same a posteriori and declaratively; Paul properly constitutes the former in faith alone; James rightly places the latter in works, by which the reality of our faith and justification is declared not only before men, but also before God. Therefore, when faith is said “to have wrought with works in Abraham, and by works to have been made perfect” (v. 22), this ought to be understood in relation to the efficacy of faith, which exerted itself by works and by which also it was consummated and made perfect. It ought not to be understood essentially, for this it has by its own nature (but declaratively) because it is proven to be perfect and sincere; just as “the power of God” is said to be “made perfect in our weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), i.e., known and declared to be perfect.
Article by A.C. Join us on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, YouTube, or feel free to: