Central to the idea of justification is that the obedience[4] of Jesus Christ, born under the Law[5], is credited, imputed or reckoned to our account[6]. Unless we keep all[7] the requirements of the Law we are under the curse[8] of the Law even if we have broken it in just one part[9]. The reality is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; all are ‘under sin’ in terms of its power and penalty. God is right (just) to punish us as our sins deserve. But God is a God of grace as well as justice.
Before I continue, I need to make a comment about the Greek words behind our words ‘justify’ and ‘righteous’. Perhaps you already know that in Greek ‘justify’ and ‘righteous’ have the same root. The Greek word ‘to justify’[10] is the same as if, to coin a new word, we could say in English ‘to righteous-ify’.
In English we use the word ‘righteous’[11] as an adjective: ‘He is a righteous man’ and ‘righteousness’[12] as a noun: ‘The righteousness of God’. But when we use the cognate[13] verb we turn to ‘justify’ rather than a word that would preserve the common root as is in the Greek.
So what? Well let’s just say at the very least that when we are talking about justification we are talking about being made righteous in the sight of God.
And don’t forget when you are reading words like righteousness and justification (especially in close proximity such as in Galatians and Romans) you need to be aware that they share this root that is evident to the (original) Greek reader: if not to us!
Justification is not simply the notion that we are forgiven by God. Certainly those who repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ alone are forgiven, but as John Piper puts it:
“The saving work of Christ includes not only his bearing the penalty for our sins, but also becoming a perfect righteousness for us which is imputed to us through our union with him” (John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, p. 51).
Traditionally theologians have differentiated the way in which, by his death on the cross, Jesus both suffers punishment for sins and also makes righteous those who believe. The former is his passive obedience in which he receives in himself the punishment (hence ‘penal’) our (hence ‘substitution’) sins deserve. The latter aspect refers to the fact that his righteousness, a life of perfect obedience to all the requirements of the Law of God, is credited to our account by faith. This is called his active obedience.
But just because theologians have traditionally taught this does not of course, ipso facto, make it true or Biblical.
However, I think there are good reasons to hold onto this traditional understanding; at least in principle. Before looking at a few texts that teach it I’d like to offer what I’ll call a couple of methodological considerations.
The first is this: if the Church has taught and carefully[14] formulated a doctrine that has stood the test of time, we should acknowledge that the onus is on us (those who would propose a new reading) to show that it is a much better reading and is clearly understood from the text. If I am to overthrow the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer’s account, as traditionally understood since the Reformers, then I need to do so in a way that the Church today says, ‘Ah yes I see that makes much better sense than the old doctrine.’ The new interpretation should enlighten places that hitherto were in darkness; not muddy the waters when they were previously clear.
Just before we began our studies of Descartes, my philosophy teacher said to us: (and the principle stands for all the ‘greats’) “You may not finally agree with him, but he has claimed the attention of great thinkers for 500 years. He at least deserves a careful hearing.”[15] In other words, don’t be too dismissive too quickly. Likewise, we should ask of the doctrine of imputation why it was believed by many godly men for so many years.
Second, is it just possible that we live in an age when novelty is revered above tradition? Is it possible that the current Zeitgeist militates against conservative readings? Of course, there is no valid argument that begins with the premise: we live in novelty-loving days, this reading is non-conservative, therefore, because this reading is non-conservative it is false. A new reading could be a truer reading. There is yet more light to come forth from God’s Word. But, and this leads to my third methodological consideration, is such a radically novel construction a possibility?
Third, then, do we really believe that the Reformation was not a substantial return to true, Biblical Christianity? If imputation is dropped, then justification is threatened[16]. If the traditional understanding of justification goes then so does assurance[17]. Once you eject one sandbag of doctrine from your Christian hot-air balloon, you find they are all tied together and unintentionally all come out. You may not personally experience the disastrous consequences, but it will happen eventually. Is it really possible that the Reformers made a mistake on such a fundamental issue? Sure, one can argue over their understanding of, say, the Lord’s Supper, church polity and other important things. But if Luther is wrong on justification, what can we be sure he was right on? Was the Reformation itself a mistake?
What Justification is not
Justification is not the infusing[18] of Christ’s (or God’s) righteousness into the believer. It is not that, in the twinkling of an eye, as it were, we are metaphysically[19] changed from a sinner into a saint. What changes is not us in ourselves but our status or standing before an all-holy God. Romans 4:5 states:
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (KJV)
We are not justified as godly, because we are godly, or because we have become godly. God justifies the ungodly. The ungodly sinner is declared or reckoned righteous. It is the faith of the (sinful but repentant) believer, according to Scripture, that is ‘counted for righteousness’. Righteousness is counted or credited to the account of the believing sinner[20]. This righteousness is most certainly not our own[21] but Christ’s.
It is not even that God, bringing about a transformation in our lives by grace, counts our good works in Christ as the grounds of being credited righteous. No, we believe and our faith is counted for righteousness. Ephesians 2:8-10 states:
Paul explicitly excludes all works as in any way being taken into account for salvation. Note too, that this is a past event[22]: ‘you have been saved’, not ‘you are being saved’ or ‘you will be saved’. The ‘good works’ that we ‘walk in’ are due to a new nature given us by God and form no part of our justification. Our justification is a changed legal status before God. Even our faith is a gift of God so that he gets all the credit and all the glory.For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Of course, a person who truly believes in Christ alone will not only have ‘faith’. Such a ‘faith’ (that is a mere profession of the lips) is not a genuine saving faith. We are ‘created…for good works’[23] as Paul puts it. As the Westminster Confession puts it:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love (my emphasis)[24].
The faith that is ‘receiving and resting on Christ’ is never a mere profession of faith with the lips. The kind of ‘faith’ that is not attended by good works pleasing to God is, as James puts it, ‘dead’[25].
True faith, faith that has laid hold of Christ, has received him and is resting on him and his righteousness is a faith that unites us to Christ.
Union with Christ by faith is the faith that has eschewed and renounced any hope that any thing in themselves counts before God. This faith recognises even our good works outside of Christ as filthy rags[26].
By this true union to Christ by faith the believer bears fruit to the glory of God[27].
Why Must We Keep Justification Separate from Sanctification?
Some will say that we cannot see the difference in anyone’s life between justification and sanctification, so to separate them (artificially) in theology is to ‘split hairs’. The usual complaint will be that we are ‘counting the angels on the head of a pin’.
But we must keep justification separate from sanctification because there is always the risk of polluting the pure waters of the gospel of grace with the muddy boots of our works. If I mix them in my theology then I may look to them as the grounds of my acceptance before God. I will then lack assurance[28] and the certainty of justification. We must always guard against the pride that is deeply rooted in every heart and whispers to the soul, ‘you are not really so bad after all.’
If you are not convinced ask yourself this: why did Paul make such a big deal of separating the two in Romans and Galatians? Paul doesn’t really get to sanctification until chapter 6 of Romans. In Galatians he pronounces anathema on those who mix the works of the Law with the free gospel of grace.
Paul himself gives the answer to the Galatians: ‘so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you’ (Gal.2:5). The true gospel (all others are not ‘gospels’ at all, but distortions) must be received, preserved, defended and passed on intact. Its purity must be kept lest we be brought again into slavery (cf. Gal.2:4).
What is justification? It is that Christ died for the sins of those who repent and put their trust in him alone. He was cursed that we might be blessed. By his stripes we are healed. But more than that, it is the changed status of the believer from condemnation to peace and reconciliation with God. This declaration over the believer’s life is a sign, as it were that says, ‘Not Guilty, but Righteous’. This declaration comes by faith in Christ and is a laying hold of his righteousness. By this faith comes union with him and all the benefits and blessings that entails.
It must also be said that the motivation, the well and spring of good works comes from justification by faith alone. It is because I know, according to his promise in the gospel, God in Christ is for me (will not bring me into condemnation) that I am motivated (in gratitude and due to the new nature which changes my affections) to good works. To make or suggest ‘works’ play any part in the ground of my right standing or salvation will not actually be a motivation to good works; even though it may seem to be from a worldly perspective. The impetus will be lost; if not in the individual, then in the next generation. In the end the church will, as Luther predicted, fall.
There is much more to be said about the Christian life but this article is not about the Christian life as a whole. Perhaps it is fitting to allow Paul a final word about how we live once we have this changed status and have become a ‘new creation’:
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal.3:2-3)
Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him (Col.2:6)
[1] http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bfj/books_bfj.pdf
[2] In brief, Roman Catholicism holds to semi-Pelagianism. While officially it claims to believe in ‘grace’, that grace is not really grace because works are added to it. A believer must, according to Rome, maintain the status of being in grace through meritorious works and the sacramental system. The Council of Trent, in response to the Reformation pronounced a curse or anathema on al those who hold that a person is justified solely on the basis of grace through faith apart from works. As I understand it, if Trent is right I will burn in eternal hell.
[3] I’m aware that this sentence appears hermeneutically and philosophically naïve to some. I am conscious that we all, myself included, bring presuppositions to the text. However, being conscious of this, being willing to submit to Scripture itself, making room for the context of the passage in question and believing in the power of the Spirit to break through and transform my pre-understanding of the text gives me confidence that I am not doing the equivalent of looking into a ‘mirror’ when reading the Biblical text.
[4] Romans 5:19
[5] Galatians 4:4
[6] Romans 4:5
[7] Galatians 5:3
[8] Galatians 3:10
[9] James 2:10
[10] Gal.2:16 ειδοτες δε οτι ου δικαιουται (dikaiountai) ανθρωπος εξ εργων νομου The word ‘justified’ here is δικαιουται from the root δικαιοω (dikaioo) ‘to be righteous’ ‘to justify’
[11] Rom. 3:10 οτι ουκ εστιν δικαιος (dikaios) ουδε εις
[12] Rom.1:17 δικαιοσυνη (dikaiosune) γαρ θεου εν αυτω αποκαλυπτεται
[13] I.e. coming from the same word
[14] Consider that the Westminster assembly contained the leading English theologians of its day and sat for over a year in its deliberations. Consider that the Baptist Confession of 1689 saw fit not to change its section on justification in any substantial way. Consider too that the (Lutheran) Augsburg and the Swiss Reformed Helvetic Confession taught much the same thing. Of course, they might all have been reading Paul wrong. But we cannot be too hasty to presume we know better. We must go to the text of Scripture in the final analysis.
[15] As an aside, I disagree with Descartes’ methodology which begins with autonomous Reason (i.e. Reason not subject to Scripture, but Scripture subject to Reason). I also disagree, in general, with his philosophy.
[16] If our standing, our status, before God is not founded wholly on Christ’s merits then our justification, our being declared righteous in God’s sight, is on shaky ground. If we admit our works or anything in us such as our faith, even to the slightest degree, enhances or maintains our status before God, then we are always in danger of being found wanting due to our imperfection.
[17] If I look inside myself for any assurance and not seek it entirely in the work of Christ alone on my behalf I can have no final assurance I will hear Christ’s words at the Judgment, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father…’ (Mt.25:34)
[18] See The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI (Of Justification)
[19] That is, we are not changed in our being or nature.
[20] In Romans 4 Paul argues this from the cases of Abraham an David. It was Abraham’s faith that credited to him as righteousness. His faith was the means by which God changed Abraham’s status before God. Paul again cites Genesis 15:6 in Galatians 3:6.
[21] Philippians 3:9
[22] Note the past aspect of verses 5-6.
[23] Paul says we are a ‘new creation’ (Gal.6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17) when we are united to Christ by faith. It is as the new creation created by God that we walk in the works God has prepared in advance for us. Those works (the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ Gal.5:22) give evidence that we are truly united to Christ.
[24] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI (Of Justification), II. The proof texts are James 2:17 and Galatians 5:6 “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
[25] James 2:17, 26
[26] Isaiah 64:6
[27] John 15:5
[28] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI (Of Justification), V., links the (theoretical doctrine of) justification with (the practical comfort of) assurance. It says: God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure; and in that condition they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they
humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
( Matthew 6:12; 1 John 1:7, 9; John 10:28; Psalms 89:31-33; Psalms 32:5; Psalms 51; Matthew 26:75 )
