An Altogether Different World

"To take hold of the Son and to believe in Him with the heart as the gift of God causes God to reckon that faith, however imperfect it may be, as perfect righteousness. Here we are in an altogether different world—a world that is outside reason. Here the issue is not what we ought to do or by what sort of works we may merit grace and the forgiveness of sins. No, here we are in a divine theology, where we hear the Gospel that Christ died for us and that when we believe this we are reckoned as righteous, even though sins, and great ones at that, still remain in us" (Luther's Works, vol. 26, Lectures on Galatians 1535, p. 234). 

Personal Righteousness Delivers from Death

I'm reading through Ezekiel nowadays for my soul's breakfast most mornings. And I came across Ezek. 14:12-14 today:

And the word of YHWH came to me: "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the sovereign YHWH."

Despite what the false prophets were spewing about "peace" (Ezek. 13:10; cf. Jer. 6:14), Ezekiel had a God-given message of impending divine judgment for Jerusalem. Divine judgment was inevitable. And not even Noah, Daniel, and Job could deliver Jerusalem by their righteousness.

But, and here's what I really want to point out, the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job would avail to deliver their own lives (Ezek. 14:14).

Now, it appears to me that all too often today people speak as though Protestants have no room for personal righteousness as significant in the day of wrath (Prov. 11:4-6). I don't think that's the case, however, and certainly not for historic, classical Protestantism of the Puritan variety.

So I dipped into Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezekiel this morning to see how he interpreted the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek. 14:14. Would he simply say this is Christ's righteousness, period? Would he say this is merely hypothetical, or the like? Here's his commentary (italics original):

Though pious praying men may not prevail to deliver others, yet they shall deliver their own souls by their righteousness, so that, though they may suffer in the common calamity, yet to them the property of it is altered; it is not to them what it is to the wicked; it is unstrung, and does them no hurt; it is sanctified, and does them good. Sometimes their souls (their lives) are remarkably delivered, and given them for a prey; at least their souls (their spiritual interests) are secured. If their bodies be not delivered, yet their souls are. Riches indeed profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death, from so great a death, so many deaths as are here threatened. This should encourage us to keep our integrity in times of common apostasy, that, if we do so, we shall be hidden in the day of the Lord's anger (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, 4:651-652). 

So, here's a staunch confessional Protestant of the historic, classic variety expounding Ezek. 14:14 and saying our own personal righteousness and integrity matter in the day of judgment.

This is my heritage, whatever any might say of Protestantism. This is Protestantism, whatever may go by that name today.

Edwards on Righteousness and Covenant Faithfulness

Here's a quotation from Edwards' A History of the Work of Redemption that might surprise you:

By God's righteousness here [Isa. 51:8] is meant his faithfulness in fulfilling his covenant promises to his church, or his faithfulness towards his church and people in bestowing the benefits of the covenant of grace upon them. . . .

 So the word righteousness is very often used in Scripture for his covenant faithfulness; so 'tis in Neh. 9:8, "Thou hast performed thy words for thou art righteous." And so we are to understand righteousness and covenant mercy to be the same thing, as in Ps. 24:5, "He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and righteousness from the God of [his salvation]"; Ps. 36:10, "O continue thy lovingkindness to them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright"; and Ps. 51:14, "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, though God of my salvation; and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness"; and Dan. 9:16, "O Lord, according to thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away"; and so in innumerable places.

—Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (ed. John F. Wilson; vol. 21, Works; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 114-115.

Superabounding Grace

Commenting on the language of Rom. 5:17, 20, John Owen speaks of the natural tendency of the language, which natural tendency supports understanding the righteousness or justification taught in Romans 5 as imputed freely as a gift by faith apart from works. He says,

Where there is περισσεία χάριτος, and χάρις ὑπερπερίσσευουσα— “abounding grace,” “superabounding grace”—exerted in our justification, no more is required thereunto; for how can it be said to abound, yea, to superabound, not only to the freeing of us from condemnation, but the giving of us a title unto life, if in anything it is to be supplied and eked out by works and duties of our own?

—The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5, Works; Banner of Truth: Carlisle, 1998), 330-331.

Convinced Sinners Seeking Comfort and Acceptance

In the quotations that follow, John Owen speaks wisely to how we approach the doctrine of justification. He's talking about our posture before God in this matter. And in this section from his book on justification, he's inquiring into the cause or reason a person may be acquitted of sin and accepted with God. It spans a few pages, and I pull out and place here pieces of a common theme cropping up again and again in this section, which theme I think is almost entirely missing today in our posture in relation to this doctrine. And this is not a good thing, in case you're wondering.

Whether it be any thing in ourselves, as our faith and repentance, the renovation of our natures, inherent habits of grace, and actual works of righteousness which we have done, or may do? or whether it be the obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of the Son of God our mediator, and surety of the covenant, imputed unto us? One of these it must be—namely, something that is our own which, whatever may be the influence of the grace of God unto it, or causality of it, because wrought in and by us, is inherently our own in a proper sense; or something which, being not our own, not inherent in us, nor wrought by us, is yet imputed unto us, for the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our persons as righteous, or the making of us righteous in the sight of God. Which of these it is the duty, wisdom, and safety of a convinced sinner to rely upon and trust unto, in his appearance before God, is the sum of our present inquiry. . . . 

. . . Neither are we in this matter much to regard the senses or arguings of men who were never thoroughly convinced of sin, nor have ever in their own person "fled for refuge unto the hope set before them."  

. . . It is alone the relief of those who are in themselves . . . guilty before, or obnoxious and liable to, the judgment of God, that we inquire after. . . . 

. . . But, beyond what tends directly unto the guidance of the minds and satisfaction of the souls of men, who seek after a stable and abiding foundation of acceptance with God, we are not easily to be drawn . . . 

. . . That which alone we aim (or ought so to do) to learn in it and by it, is how we may get and maintain peace with God, and so to live unto him as to be accepted with him in what we do. To satisfy the minds and consciences of men in these things is this doctrine to be taught.

As I said, this feel is almost entirely missing in the present wranglings about justification. And it's a sign, if Scripture is to be the judge (and it is), that we're culpably overlooking what our posture must be as we approach God in this matter. Are we convinced sinners seeking relief? Or are we detached scientists studying a specimen?

—The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5; Works, Banner of Truth), 8-10.

Justification and Union with Christ

In thinking through Paul's articulation of justification in Romans (e.g., Rom. 3:21-22), it is vital to see that Paul sees "a righteousness from God" given as a gift for those who are united with him by faith coming in consequence of Jesus’ obedience, death, and resurrection (e.g., 3:24-25; 4:24-25; 5:9, 12-21). In union with Christ, Paul's most fundamental soteriological category, the sinner is seen as righteous.

It is also vital to see that although faith is stressed at length in 3:27ff, it is not seen as a work. It looks to God and his grace in the crucified and risen Christ (e.g., 3:22, 24; 4:5, 4:24). In fact, faith itself is seen as God’s doing (note the passive verb in the Greek in 4:20). Faith alone accords with grace (4:16), because its nature is to look away to what God, not man, has done and freely gives.

Justification and Church Membership

“Justification not only refers to the forgiveness of sins and acquittal of believers, but it also establishes the believer’s membership in the people of God" (Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, 152).

The Goal of the Law is Christ for Righteousness

Here's my translation of Rom. 10:4: "For the goal of the law is Christ for righteousness to everyone who is believing."

And here's Calvin unpacking of this text (simply marvelous!):

. . . those who seek to be justified by their own works are false interpreters of the law, because the law has been given to lead us by the hand to another righteousness. Indeed, every doctrine of the law, every command, every promise, always points to Christ. We are, therefore, to apply all its parts to Him. . . .

Thus the righteousness of faith (as we saw in the first chapter) is witnessed to by the law. This remarkable passage declares that the law in all its parts has reference to Christ, and therefore no one will be able to understand it correctly who does not constantly strive to attain this mark.

 —The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1960), 221-222.

I confess that this is my life, my joy, my salvation, my all!

Boundary Markers or Neither Good nor Bad Works?

How one should interpret the word "works" (Gk., ergon) when Paul speaks of our not being justified by works, or elected by works, depends on the context (as interpretation of any word always depends on context). And at least in some instances, the law of Moses is definitely not in view and so "works" cannot be restricted to, or mean anything like, "boundary markers," that is, sabbath, circumcision, and food laws; or faithfulness to the Mosaic law (as in the writings of James D. G. Dunn; see, for an example of the latter, his commentary on Rom. 9:11).

The reason for this, in some texts anyway, is that the "works" in view occur before the law was given. See, for example, Rom. 4:1-4; 9:11. Abraham did not have the Mosaic law, nor did Jacob and Esau (although Jacob and Esau would have had circumcision). So "works" in such contexts must have a broader meaning like "anything one does to try to earn or merit something" (as in Rom. 4:1-4) or "anything good or bad whatever, morally speaking" (as in Rom. 9:11).

A Sinner Pressed and Perplexed with a Sense of Guilt for Sin

What does the doctrine of justification primarily or fundamentally address? This question is important. If we answer that it addresses first and foremost the horizontal question of human relationships, the doctrine derails, the gospel aborts. But if we answer that it first and foremost addresses the vertical dimension of our existence, that is, our relationship with a holy and righteous God, the doctrine holds, the center stays. Then, and only then, certain horizontal entailments follow and function as they ought.

In volume 4 of his collected shorter writings, J. I. Packer says this:

The Augsburg Confession of 1531 states: "this whole doctrine [of justification] must be related to the conflict of an alarmed conscience, and without that conflict it cannot be grasped. So persons lacking this experience, and profane men, are bad judges of the matter." Calvin makes the same point in Institutio III.xii, a chapter on the theme that justification must be studied in the solemnising light of God's judgment seat (Honoring the People of God, 223). 

Packer then points out that "John Owen preserves this perspective when at the start of his classic treatise The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (1677) he writes":

The first inquiry . . . is after the proper relief of the conscience of a sinner pressed and perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification is the way and means whereby such a person doth obtain acceptance before God, with a right and title unto a heavenly inheritance. And nothing is pleadable in this cause but what a man would speak unto his own conscience in that state, or unto the conscience of another, when he is anxious under that inquiry (The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, 7). 

So if in our formulation of the doctrine of justification we move too quickly to discussions of what justification has to say about man's relationship with fellow man, we step in the wrong direction. And this is what has happened with the so-called New Perspective on Paul (which is now old, by the way), valuable as some of its insights may be. It has a hard time addressing the distressed sinner (for that is not what it's for, they say, lambasting Luther for being so psychologically sensitive); its gospel lacks the potency and effect of the biblical gospel. Without adequately addressing the distressed conscience before a holy and just God, the doctrine falls flat and fails to liberate for love. And I believe it also makes a man-centered age even more man-centered. However, it works the other way too. It's no coincidence, to my mind, that a fundamentally horizontal understanding of justification has arisen in a period of history marked by profound man-centeredness. Sure, Luther had a context. But so do we.

Insipid and Useless Notions on Justification

John Owen on handling the doctrine of justification with holy hands:

It is the practical direction of the consciences of men, in their application unto God by Jesus Christ for deliverance from the curse due unto the apostate state, and peace with him, with the influence of the way thereof unto universal gospel obedience, that is alone to be designed in the handling of this doctrine. And, therefore, unto him that would treat of it in a due manner, it is required that he weigh every thing he asserts in his own mind and experiences, and not dare to propose that unto others which he doth not abide by himself, in the most intimate recesses of his mind, under his nearest approaches unto God, in his surprisals with dangers, in deep afflictions, in his preparations for death, and most humble disputations of the infinite distance between God and him. Other notions and disputations about the doctrine of justification, not seasoned with these ingredients, however condited unto the palate of some by skill and language, are insipid and useless, immediately degenerating into an unprofitable strife of words. 

—The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5; Works, Banner of Truth), 4.

Pastoral Polemics

In his sturdy work on The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5, Works, Banner of Truth), John Owen models engaging in polemics in the presence and sight of God. In the preface, he tells us his aim in defending and teaching the doctrine (p. 4):

I have ascribed no opinion unto any particular person—much less wrested the words of any, reflected on their persons, censured their abilities, taken advantage of presumed prejudices against them, represented their opinions in the deformed reflections of strained consequences, fancied intended notions, which their words do not express, nor, candidly interpreted, give any countenance unto—or endeavored the vain pleasure of seeming success in opposition unto them; which, with the like effects of weakness of mind and disorder of affections, are the animating principles of many late controversial writings. 

To declare and vindicate the truth, unto the instruction and edification of such as love it in sincerity, to extricate their minds from those difficulties (in this particular instance) which some endeavor to cast on all gospel mysteries, to direct the consciences of them that inquire after abiding peace with God, and to establish the minds of them that do believe, are the things I have aimed at. . . .

Then in the first chapter on general considerations, Owen urges pastors and teachers to direct their energies toward the good conscience of the believer (p. 8):

Whereas we cannot either safely or usefully treat of this doctrine, but with respect unto the same ends for which it is declared, and whereunto it is applied in the Scripture, we should not, by any pretences, be turned aside from attending unto this case and its resolution, in all our discourses on this subject; for it is the direction, satisfaction, and peace of the consciences of men, and not the curiosity of notions or subtlety of disputations, which it is our duty to design. . . . For more weight is to be put on the steady guidance of the mind and conscience of one believer, really exercised about the foundation of his peace and acceptance with God, than on the confutation of ten wrangling disputers. 

So let's be found following Owen's model of pastoral concern in handling this holy and happy doctrine, shunning all temptations to display, vanity, and pride.

Sola Fide

No doubt many are aware that Luther's addition of the word "alone" in his translation of Rom. 3:28 caused quite a row. And to this day, it is frowned upon by Roman Catholics. A literal rendering of the verse reads thus: "For we reckon that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (translation mine). The word for "alone" is not there in the original. Yet Luther saw that the sense of the verse, the meaning intended, warranted it. 

But not all see this (I almost said, "not all have faith," 2 Thess. 3:2). Some still object to Luther's temerity to add a word where there isn't one to be found in the corresponding Greek. Moreover, increasing the temerity, it isn’t to be found anywhere in Pauline usage: Paul never explicitly says "justified by faith alone," or the like. To the shock of some Protestants, James alone does, only he adds the negative "not" to "justified by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). But that's another post for another time.

So it'll be of interest to some that others preceded Luther in this "temerity": namely, Thomas Aquinas, Origen, Theodoret, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chyrsostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, and Theophylact (Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, 360-361). These "fathers" used the "alone" language in their discussions of justification, and they weren't all expounding Jas. 2:24. It should be duly noted that Fitzmeyer, after listing these names in his commentary on Romans, appears to doubt the propriety of using "alone," stating that "it is a theological extension of Paul's teaching that presses beyond what he states" (362). He also asks "whether Luther meant by 'only' what his predecessors meant" (362). Nevertheless, such usage antedating Luther brings intrigue, even if only to point out that Luther was not the first to introduce it.

In any case, each has to reckon with whether or not Luther's translation and this Reformation sola bona fide comport with apostolic teaching. As for me and my house, the judgment of Moo undoubtedly stays the gospel course: “A serious erosion of the full significance of Paul’s gospel occurs if we soften this antithesis; no works, whatever their nature or their motivation, can play any part in making a sinner right with God” (Douglas Moo, Romans, 251).

The Central Place of the Whole Bible

From the margin of the Luther Bible of 1534, Luther calls Rom. 3:21-26 "the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible."

—Mined from Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 218.

The Most Important Paragraph Ever Penned

Can one overstate the place and importance of Paul's gospel paragraph in Romans 3? I'm talking, of course, about vv. 21-26. I doubt it. Leon Morris says this of that powerful paragraph:

In what is possibly the most important single paragraph ever written, Paul brings out something of the grandeur of Christ's saving work. He speaks of the righteousness of God, the sin of man, and the salvation of Christ. He views this salvation in three ways: as justification (imagery from the law court), as redemption (imagery from the slave market), and as propitiation (imagery from the averting of wrath).

—The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1988), p. 173.

The Centrality of Christ's Resurrection

It is not uncommon in Protestantism to hear preachers and teachers say that the cross of Christ is the center of the faith and the Gospel. If all that is meant by this is that the cross is essential and supremely important, fine. No quibbles here. But often the cross is spoken of as so central that the resurrection of Christ and other elements of the Gospel are made peripheral. At least this is functionally, if not confessionally, all too often the case. And it is an error.

Michael Bird says this good word about this error:

One of the benefits of the NPP has been to demonstrate that Jesus Christ's resurrection is far more integral to God's saving righteousness than is often supposed. N.T. Wright in particular sees Paul's theology constructed in such a way so as to emphasize that the resurrection of Christ is the apex of God's plan to redeem Israel from exile and to renew creation from the bondage of sin and death. This is a helpful corrective since Protestant theology has traditionally emphasized the cross as the immediate basis of justification and unfortunately marginalized the significance of the resurrection in Paul's gospel and soteriology. Accordingly, theologians have located justification as occuring primarily through the atoning and redemptive death of Christ. . . . The problem is that Paul's gospel knows no divorce between the cross and the resurrection and their ensuing effect. The resurrection figures equally prominently in Paul's most concise summaries of the gospel (The Saving Righteousness of God, 40-41). 

The resurrection is every bit as fundamental as the cross. Bird is right. Wright is right. And here is one of those places where the Church should thank God for Wright and embrace his teaching. And I'm convinced that the first Christians thought about these things far more organically than we tend to do in the West, we who divide things into bits and separate things God intends us to hold together.

Getting Acquainted with Paul's Gospel

"Anyone who wants to become acquainted with Paul's gospel must above all study Romans" (Peter Stuhlmacher, The Roman's Debate, 231).

The Fathers and Pistis Iēsou Christou

It is probably of no interest to most to know how much ink has been spilled over the Greek phrase pistis Iēsou Christou (πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). So I'll just say it's been a lot. But it is probably of interest to many what that phrase means, since it comes in crucial texts, such as Gal. 2:16, that expound how we are justified.

Until the 1970s, the universal view took it as an objective genitive: "faith in Jesus Christ." But since then many have taken it as a subjective genitive: "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ." Since Greek genitival constructions are inherently ambiguous, how can one know which is in view? (Before pressing on, let it be said that, theologically speaking, both are true. We are saved by faith in Christ and by the faithfulness of Christ.)  Well, the way to get at the meaning in a given context is to heed the flow of thought and compare the same or similar constructions in the near and more distant contexts. 


However, there is another consideration as well, like asking how native Greek speakers took the phrase. Fortunately, in this instance, we know the answer. As  Moisés Silva points out in Interpreting Galatians, the Greek fathers of the early church oftentimes, like exegetes of today, had differing opinions about the rendering of a word or construction. In discussing this, he uses Chrysostom as an example (p. 30):

When Chrysostom is aware of a problem—that is, a difference of opinion about the meaning of a word or a construction—we should take his opinion as only that, an opinion to be weighed and evaluated. However, in cases where we are aware of an ambiguity, while Chrysostom simply assumes that one of the possible meanings is the right one, that fact can become highly significant. In other words, his use of Greek at that point is very strong evidence for the way a native speaker would naturally understand the language.

He then discusses the bearing of this phenomenon on how we take pistis Iēsou Christou:

A recognition of this phenomenon can have substantive implications. Chrysostom and the other Greek fathers, for instance, evidently assume that πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive ("faith in Jesus Christ," rather than "faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ"), but the commentaries fail to point out the significance of that fact. Surely, very weighty arguments are needed to counter this evidence. In spite of it, however, some scholars argue that a subjective genitive is the more "natural" interpretation.

So maybe one of the lessons we might learn from Silva is not to be too impressed by scholarly statements like "the natural reading is thus and such." We probably also ought to be slow to move away from the way the Church has traditionally interpreted a text because of some recent scholarly innovation unless we really do have sufficient reason for doing so.  

A Due Apprehension of the Mystery of Grace

In the first part of Owen's work on justification (vol. 5 of Works), Owen pursues "general considerations" for a right apprehension of the doctrine. In a section in pursuit of exposing Socinian errors, which did not allow for embracing revealed truths that seemed contradictory to reason, Owen speaks of "a due apprehension of that harmony which is in the mystery of grace, and between all the parts of it" (49). He then says this:

This comprehension is the principal effect of that wisdom which believers are taught by the Holy Ghost. For our understanding of the wisdom of God in a mystery is neither an art nor a science, whether purely speculative or more practical, but a spiritual wisdom. And this spiritual wisdom is such as understands and apprehends things, not so much, or not only in the notion of them, as in their power, reality, and efficacy, towards their proper ends (49).

This is huge. The last thing we should want is a head stuffed with notions, even if true, without a Spirit-wrought and Spirit-taught apprehension of the mysteries held forth in the Gospel, an apprehension of "their power, reality, and efficacy, towards their proper ends." Enlighten the eyes of our hearts, O Lord! (Eph. 1:18).

The Imputation of Adam's Sin: A Gospel Fundamental

Satan seeks to overthrow the Gospel through various devices. Many of them seek to produce denial of the Gospel through denials of prerequisites for understanding the Gospel aright. John Owen exposes one of those schemes, namely, the denial of the imputation of Adam's fall and sin to humanity, a welcome denial in the modern world, sadly, even among so-called brothers.

He says this in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5, Works, Banner of Truth, p. 21):

By some the imputation of the actual apostasy and transgression of Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his sin became the sin of the world, is utterly denied. Hereby both the ground the apostle proceedeth on in evincing the necessity of our justification, or our being made righteous by the obedience of another, and all the arguments brought in the confirmation of the doctrine of it, in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, are evaded and overthrown.

Obviously denying a historical Adam would do the job as well. And many seek to do just that. But if Owen gets it right, and I'm convinced he does, how then do we need to think about defending and contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints? What are the fundamentals? (Essentials would be different.) What needs to be regarded as foundational because it supports the superstructure of the Gospel? After all, Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection make no gospel sense in the biblical sense without biblical foundations and a certain story line.