How Paul Understands Justification

[Drew]

This is the first of a number of posts where I give my opinion as to what Paul understood when he uses the term justification. It is only fair that I point out that my views are heavily influenced by the thinking of English theologian NT Wright. I trust we will not have to put up with any arguments of the form "you have been brainwashed by Wright" or "Wright is a heretic". Those have no place in what I hope can be a serious discussion. If the ideas presented here are wrong, then by all means, engage the content of the arguments.

Like many of his other concepts (e.g. the concept of law), Paul’s concept of “justification†is more complex than many make it out to be. More specifically, for Paul, justification has a non-trivial temporal structure. This relatively complex justification model stands in contrast with the model I suspect many Christians adopt – one where justification is essentially a one-time discrete event wherein the person justified undergoes an instantaneous transition from a state of “zero justification†to a state of full and final justification. Such a way of conceiving justification is often “received wisdom†which is never critically examined. So even though it is clear that justification need not necessarily have this character, people seem reluctant to take the necessary step of dropping pre-conceptions and deferring to Paul. We should, of course, be engaged in the task of thinking Paul’s thoughts after him, not trying to make Paul’s statements fit our thoughts.

As I hope to demonstrate, Paul’s model of justification can be synthesized from Paul’s understand of what God has done in the past, is doing in the present, and will do in the future. Because (on my view), Paul has such a strong sense of God’s ultimate purposes, it makes sense to begin with Paul’s view of the future and work backwards. A knowledge of where God is taking history will help us understand why He is doing in the present and what He has done in the past.

As perhaps best summarized in Romans 2, Paul envisions a global judgement of all mankind. At that judgement, some will receive wrath while others will be declared to righteous. Note that many translations use the phrase “will be justified†to describe the “favourable†outcome in 2:13. I suggest that all will agree that the scene described in chapter certainly appeals to a lawcourt motif.

However, taking due consideration of the entire corpus of Paul’s writings, we must acknowledge that the lawcourt metaphor does not exhaust Paul’s concept of justification. There is a strong, though often overlooked, theme of the Abrahamic covenant running through the first four chapters of Romans (if not other chapters). In fact, Romans 4 repeatedly appeals to the covenant – Paul is wrapping up his argument that Jesus’ achievement on the cross constitutes the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham.

 

[Drew]

This is the second of a number of posts where I give my opinion as to what Paul understood when he uses the term justification.

Consider the following text from Romans 4, noting the connection to the Romans 2 material specifically through reference to the issue of being declared righteous.

For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

In 2:13, we have a declaration of righteousness and here in 4 we have a declaration of righteousness. Granted, the former declaration is made in the future, whereas Abraham was credited with righteousness in the present (Abraham’s present of course). These distinctions in tense will be addressed later. For the present purpose, note how, in Romans 4, Paul connects being declared righteous to being a member of Abraham’s covenant family.

Abraham is characterized as a father of the family of those declared righteous. That this is specifically the family covenantally promised to him is underscored by references to the “promise to Abraham†and the reference to his “heir-shipâ€Â. This is covenant language, Paul is not talking about Abraham simply as a father of those who have faith in a sense other than a covenantal one.

Paul’s emphasis on the integration of the Gentile into Abraham’s family shows that, again, it is specifically Abraham’s covenantal family which is in view here. If Paul were simply asserting Abraham’s fatherhood of all believers, without reference to the covenant, Paul would not have engaged in such a detailed treatment of the Jew-Gentile divide (he also treats this divide toward the end of chapter 3). Paul’s point here should not be glossed over – the Gentile is being included under the embrace of the covenant promises.

 

[Drew]

This is the third of a number of posts where I give my opinion as to what Paul understood when he uses the term justification.

Paul clearly understands that being declared righteous is intimately tied to being considered a member of Abraham’s covenant family. Abraham here is not merely an example of someone who is justified by faith – Paul’s analysis demands a more covenantally nuanced reading. More specifically, Paul effectively identifies a declaration of righteousness with a declaration that one is a member of Abraham’s family.

It is therefore clear that Paul’s model of justification – the declaration that one is righteous – has a covenantal dimension that needs to be integrated with the lawcourt dimension as presented in Romans 2.

Galatians 2 adds to the case that Paul uses the term “justification†to denote covenant membership:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that (AO)a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by (AP)faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since (AQ)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2, particularly the part where this text is extracted from, involves a treatment of unity within the body. Paul vigorously opposes the manifestation of a Jew-Gentile division within the Galatian church. In the text above, Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the Law†is part of a denial justification by doing “good worksâ€Â, it is a denial that justification is a matter of being under the ethnic specificity of Torah. The fact that Paul caps his appeal for the dissolution of a Jew-Gentile distinction with an argument for justification by faith shows that he sees the nature of justification as endorsing such a dissolution. Thus, we legitimately understand Paul as asserting that to be justified means, at least in part, to be brought into membership in a single undivided family.

How can these two disparate conceptualization of justification be harmoniously brought together? The answer lies in proposing that the basic purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was to deal with sin and all its consequences. If God indeed established the covenant for that deep and fundamental purpose, we can indeed make sense of Paul’s appeal to both forensic and covenantal categories in respect to justifying the believer. More specifically, we can understand that both judgement of sin and the implementation restorative justice – both lawcourt concepts – have been effected through the means of the covenant.

 

[Joe67]

This is the second of a number of posts where I give my opinion as to what Paul understood when he uses the term justification.

Paul’s emphasis on the integration of the Gentile into Abraham’s family shows that, again, it is specifically Abraham’s covenantal family which is in view here. If Paul were simply asserting Abraham’s fatherhood of all believers, without reference to the covenant, Paul would not have engaged in such a detailed treatment of the Jew-Gentile divide (he also treats this divide toward the end of chapter 3). Paul’s point here should not be glossed over – the Gentile is being included under the embrace of the covenant promises.

Drew,

The dual name given to Jesus in the angelic communication with Joseph in the dream; Immanuel and Jesus. Immanuel is the common salvation, God our Savior. Jesus, for the family called to the priesthood of Melchizedec by the blood of Jesus.

Japeth, the common salvation, shall abide in the tent of Shem (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob); which is the calling into the royal priesthood which Peter and Paul testified.

How that fits into your basic point of Justification as testified by the apostle Paul: God's first communication with Abram was to the purpose that the nations would be blessed, and blessed through the Seed coming of Issac, and then through Jacob. Result is a family who God had chosen to be the priesthood for the whole earth, to serve the gentile believers in God.

Failure by national Israel, thus Jesus is now high priest and we are justified by his blood to serve with him on this earth as he serves in the presence of God, even for a thousand years (symbolic).

Joe

 

[Joe67]

This is the third of a number of posts where I give my opinion as to what Paul understood when he uses the term justification.

Paul clearly understands that being declared righteous is intimately tied to being considered a member of Abraham’s covenant family. Abraham here is not merely an example of someone who is justified by faith – Paul’s analysis demands a more covenantally nuanced reading. More specifically, Paul effectively identifies a declaration of righteousness with a declaration that one is a member of Abraham’s family.

It is therefore clear that Paul’s model of justification – the declaration that one is righteous – has a covenantal dimension that needs to be integrated with the lawcourt dimension as presented in Romans 2.

Galatians 2 adds to the case that Paul uses the term “justification†to denote covenant membership:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that (AO)a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by (AP)faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since (AQ)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2, particularly the part where this text is extracted from, involves a treatment of unity within the body. Paul vigorously opposes the manifestation of a Jew-Gentile division within the Galatian church. In the text above, Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the Law†is part of a denial justification by doing “good worksâ€Â, it is a denial that justification is a matter of being under the ethnic specificity of Torah. The fact that Paul caps his appeal for the dissolution of a Jew-Gentile distinction with an argument for justification by faith shows that he sees the nature of justification as endorsing such a dissolution. Thus, we legitimately understand Paul as asserting that to be justified means, at least in part, to be brought into membership in a single undivided family.

How can these two disparate conceptualization of justification be harmoniously brought together? The answer lies in proposing that the basic purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was to deal with sin and all its consequences. If God indeed established the covenant for that deep and fundamental purpose, we can indeed make sense of Paul’s appeal to both forensic and covenantal categories in respect to justifying the believer. More specifically, we can understand that both judgement of sin and the implementation restorative justice – both lawcourt concepts – have been effected through the means of the covenant.

Drew,

The law court dimension is within the covenant which in turn is within the family umbrella. The court and the covenant are ruled over by our Father. Those born of Abraham, but not part of the covenant through Isaac see God in a different dimension. Ishmael, the sons of Katurah (Midian, etc) and finally the grandson Esau who was not included under the umbrella. You really have to include Moab and Ammon the offspring of Lot, because even though we usually think only of Abraham, the Scriptures link it back to Terah and eventually Shem; the family of faith in contrast to the family of those who would shame their father.

We are talking spiritual allegory, not fleshly fulfillment. Justification is in sonship through the correct mother. Where do those born of the works of the law(flesh) go? Ishmael and Esau were both promised kingdoms, but not with Isaac or the family of Jacob. (once again we are talking symbolism). The Jew-Gentile divide was the product of clinging to Moses at Jerusalem. But Paul was humbled to shave his head in an effort to preach Christ to the professed believers in Jesus that were still at Jerusalem. To see the Christ of God as fundamentally Jewish is to see Christ after the flesh. We all have, at some point in our worship. This leads to the imitation of Jesus, whether it be oriental, latin, greek, modern or post-modern church. There is much ado about imitating Jesus for personal benefit, but the wheat and tares grow together. Jesus is now after the order of Melchizedec, which is none of the above. He is without evening and mornings (7 day worship cycle)and without human genealogy. Through the fatherhood of the holy Spirt, all nations are in his blood that was shed.

Above all, the covenant of God through the principle of faith(Abraham)is recognizable for the characteristics which it manifests. The fruits of faith (the spirit of faith/the law of faith)eventually bind the family of Jesus together, though sound doctrine has its proper place.

I am glad for your presentation. Please continue.

Joe