4 atonement justification and contemporary debate

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENTLECTURE FOUR:

JUSTIFICATION & CONTEMPORARY DEBATES

Discussion:

Bird, Progressive Reformed View of Justification

Dunn, New Perspective View of Justification

Justification

Why talk about Justification at this point?

- It is not a “model” of Atonement (like Christus

Victor or Penal Satisfaction).

- It is a Biblical word (like Reconciliation,

Redemption, Salvation).

Review from Lecture #1:Some Biblical Words and Contexts:

Word: Context:

Justification Law Court

Reconciliation Relationships

Redemption Slavery / Commerce

Triumph; Victory Battlefield

Sacrifice Worship

Adoption Family

All are

borrowed

from the

ancient

world.

Justification

Why talk about Justification at this point?

- It is not a “model” of Atonement (like Christus

Victor or Penal Satisfaction).

- It is a Biblical concept (like Reconciliation,

Redemption, Salvation).

- Yet, it is related to the Penal Substitution

discussion from last time.

- And it is a subject of contemporary debate.

Justification

Some textual examples:

Luke 18

9 To some who were confident of their own

righteousness and looked down on everyone else,

Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the

temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax

collector.

11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I

thank you that I am not like other people—robbers,

evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.

12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would

Luke 18

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would

not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and

said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went

home justified before God. For all those who exalt

themselves will be humbled, and those who humble

themselves will be exalted.”

Romans 4

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather

according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in

fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had

something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What

does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it

was credited to him as righteousness.”

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited

as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one

who does not work but trusts God who justifies the

ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 4

23 The words “it was credited to him” were written

not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will

credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who

raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was

delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to

life for our justification.

Key Themes:

(1) Reckoning / Crediting / Imputing & Righteousness

(2) Substitution: Christ dies “for our sins”

(3) The relation between Resurrection and justification

James 2

21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous

(“justified”) for what he did when he offered his son

Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his

actions were working together, and his faith was made

complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was

fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was

credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called

God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered

righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Justification

Some textual examples:

Justification

Defining Terms:

- Justification / Justify “to declare righteous”

‣Gr. dikai- root words

‣Hb. tsedequah

‣Context: From the (Covenantal) Law Court.

Key: Wright will argue that we must not de-sacralize

this Law Court, Israelites were “declared righteous” in

relation to the Covenant (Torah) regulations.

Justification

Defining Terms:

- Faith / Faithfulness

‣Gr. pistis

‣Can mean either “trust/belief/faith” or

“Faithfulness”

‣ (This causes ambiguities)

Justification

Defining Terms:

- Works / “Works of the Law”

‣Gr. erga nomou

‣The Debate: Does Paul use this as a specific

reference to Jewish ethnic boundaries

(circumcision / food laws), or more broadly for

any moral requirements of God (deeds).

‣A similar debate surrounding Nomos (Law).

Justification

Defining Terms:

- The Reformation Perspective (on Paul)

Justification

Defining Terms:

- The Reformation Perspective (on Paul)

‣About how Individuals get right with God.

‣Jews teaching “earn your way to heaven”

legalism (via works of the law).

‣“Double-imputation”

‣Election seen in relation to Heaven / Hell.

Justification

Defining Terms:

- The “New” Perspective (on Paul)

‣Emphasis on People Groups (Jews/Gentiles)

‣Jews not “legalistic” in modern sense, rather

“ethnocentric” (erga nomou=ethnic boundaries)

‣Some in deny “double imputation” (e.g. Wright).

‣Election of people (groups) for a historical

purposes (not heaven and hell)

Warning!

All of these are sweeping

Generalizations!

Justification (Debated Issues)

“Works of the Law” (Legalism or Ethnocentrism)

- E.g: Galatians 2.16: So we, too, have put our faith

in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by pistis

Christou and not by the works of the law, because

by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Bird + Dunn are helpful here:

New and Old Perspectives need not be antithetical.

Paul is dealing with an “ethnocentric nomism” here.

Yet the NT also condemns the notion that our moral deeds

are what save us (see again, Lk. 18).

Luke 18 Pharisee + Tax Collector

9 To some who were confident of their own

righteousness…Jesus told this parable:

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went

home justified before God...

Horton (‘Justification: Five Veiws’, 111):

“It is the outcasts—the ungodly— whom God justifies

through faith in his Son…It is the prodigal who, expecting to

be no more than a servant…is welcomed to the feast…The

tax collector asked for mercy rather than for an approval of

his righteousness.”


“Works of the Law” (Legalism or Ethnocentrism)

- Conclusion: A False Dichotomy.

- Yet, the Reformation misconstrual of Judaism did

need to be balanced by the New Perspective.

- The real question, is the relation between “works”

and “future justification / judgement.”


“Works” and Final Judgement:

- In addition to texts which that that “by works no one

will be justified,” other texts point to fruit / works /

obedience as connected to the Final Judgement.

Matthew 25

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all

the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he

will separate the people one from another as a

shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He

will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come,

you who are blessed by my Father; take your

inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the

creation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to

Matthew 25

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to

eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I

was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed

clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked

after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did

we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give

you something to drink?…

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you

did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of

mine, you did for me.’

John 15

1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.

2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit,

while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so

that it will be even more fruitful…

4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch

can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine.

Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

Romans 2

6 God “will repay each person according to what they

have done.”[Ps. 62.12; Prov. 24.12]

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek

glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal

life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who

reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and

anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every

human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for

the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone

who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

11 For God does not show favoritism.

2 Corinthians 5

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of

Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us

for the things done while in the body, whether good

or bad.

Revelation 20

12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing

before the throne, and books were opened. Another

book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead

were judged according to what they had done as

recorded in the books.



- In addition to texts which that that “by works no one

will be justified,” other texts point to fruit / works /

obedience as connected to the Final Judgement.

- Some Different models:

Four Views:

Four Views:

Works determine rewards, not salvation.

Works provide evidence one has been saved.

The NT displays a tension here (Luther / Dunn).

Works merit eternal life, yet they result from the

transformative grace of God (Catholic Position).

• Trent: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by

faith alone,…let him be anathema.”

• “When God crowns our merits, he does nothing

else but crown his gifts” (Augustine).



- A Synthesis: Justification / Judgement involves

both a Present and a Future dimension.

‣Present: Luke 18.14: “This man…went away

justified before God.

‣Future: Romans 2.13: …it is those who obey the

law who will be declared righteous.





‣Present: We are justified in the present

through/by Faith / Belief. (dia / ek)

‣Future: The future judgment will be in accordance

with fruit / obedience / deeds (kata)





‣Present: We are justified in the present

through/by Faith / Belief.

‣Future: The future judgment will be in

accordance with fruit / obedience / deeds.

This may even help make sense of Paul and James

Genesis 15 precedes Genesis 22



- In Sum: Once again, New and Old Perspectives

need not be antithetical.

- Still, the Older (Lutheran) position did need to be

balanced, and Christians should read Jesus on this

subject instead of merely reading (certain sections)

from Paul.

- Finally: We must recall that such “works” are not

humanly accomplished, but are the fruit of the Holy

Spirit - thus all boasting is excluded (Bird).

Michael Bird (Saving Righteousness of

God)

Paul’s anthropological pessimism about the human

inability to keep the law is matched only by his

pneumatological optimism that Spirit-empowered

persons will be able to fulfill the requirements of the law

when they walk by the Spirit (Rom. 8.4; Gal. 5.25).



- In Sum: Once again, New and Old Perspectives

need not be antithetical.

- Still, the Older (Lutheran) position did need to be

balanced, and Christians should read Jesus on this

subject instead of merely reading (certain sections)

from Paul.

- Finally: We must recall that such “works” are not

humanly accomplished, but are the fruit of the Holy

Spirit - thus all boasting is excluded (Bird).


(Double) Imputation:

- Single Imputation: Our sins have been imputed

(charged) to Christ (2 Cor. 5.19; Is. 53, etc.).

- Double Imputation: Christ’s righteousness has been

imputed (charged) to us.

‣Enshrined in Westminster Confession.

Westminster Confession

Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely

justifies…by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of

Christ unto them…



- Single Imputation: Our sins have been imputed

(charged) to Christ (2 Cor. 5.19; Is. 53, etc.).

- Double Imputation: Christ’s righteousness has been

imputed (charged) to us.

‣Enshrined in Westminster Confession.

‣Yet the NT never asserts this directly (Wright).

N.T. Wright (What St Paul Really Said)

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no

sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts,

bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his

righteousness…Righteousness is not an object, a

substance or a gas which can be passed across the

courtroom.

Michael Horton(Justification: Five Views)

If guilt can be imputed from one person to another,

then why not righteousness?



- A Mediating Conclusion: It is because we are made

one with Christ (see Paul’s “in Christ” language)

that what is true of him is true of us.

Justification

Conclusion:

- While Justification is not a “model” or “theory” of the

Atonement, it’s (1) proximity to Substitutionary

models, and its (2) place in contemporary debates

makes it a necessary discussion in this course.

Education

4 atonement justification and contemporary debate