On the contrary, the Protestant understanding is that upon trusting in all that God is for you in Christ, God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to our accounts. In other words, Protestants believe in a Treasury of Merit comprised solely of Christ's merit; that merit is transferred to our accounts upon faith and faith alone. We do not deny that the only kind of faith that justifies is the faith that produces charity and obedience to God; however, we affirm that it is on the basis of faith alone (not a faith that is alone, mind you) that God counts us righteous. I want to argue for the Protestant view by doing two things. First, we must establish what the Greek term dikaioo means, and secondly we must analyze how Paul uses the term.
The Greek for Justify
I think Luke 7:29 is the best NT verse outside of Paul to see what the term used for "justify" means.
"When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,"
Now the Greek literally says that the people "justified God". You cannot make God righteous; but you can declare Him to be righteous. This is further confirmed when we look at the Septuagint. Exodus 23:7 says this: "[7] Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. [8] And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
(Exodus 23:7-8 ESV)"According to Victor P Hamilton, "The LXX uses the verb dikaioo to translate...("I will not acquit")...It is the verb for "justify" that Paul uses in some of in some of His letters, especially in the opening chapters of Romans"). It makes no sense to not kill the innocent and the righteous because God will not make righteous the wicked; He clearly does throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Rather, God will not declare righteous those who are wicked. He's commanding the people to not falsely charge others because God is just; He will stand over the person in judgment. In fact, the word is used to mean "declare righteous" elsewhere (Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23). So then...how can Paul make the claim that God does justify the ungodly? We will address that question. But in answering how Paul understand justification, we have to note something first. The word "justify" outside of Paul itself means "to declare righteous" (i.e Luke 7:29, Exodus 23:7), not "to make righteous". This is a legal term, denoting a defendant being acquitted before a judge. There were other terms in use that Paul could have employed to denote being made righteous-but he chose to use a legal term that denotes a right standing before a judge. So let's go more deeply into this. Romans 4Does Paul understand justification this way? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes. In order to see this, we must examine Romans 4. [1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [6] just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: [7] “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; [8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” [9] Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. [11] He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, [12] and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.(Romans 4:1-12 ESV)Paul comes out of Romans 3 talking about how we're all under sin, and we've all fallen short. But since the righteousness of God has come through faith in Jesus Christ for all who have faith (see DA Carson's exposition of the text on youtube. It's like 9 minutes and I agree with it), that therefore we can be justified as a gift, by God's grace. Paul's further expounding on justification. If Abraham was "justified" (dikaioo) by works, he had something to boast about...but because he was justified by faith, he doesn't. What does that mean? ExegesisIn verse 3, Paul quotes Genesis in saying that Abraham believed God, and it was counted (logizomai) as righteousness. Let's survey the usages of the term "logizomai", as this will be central to understanding Paul's view of justification. Luke 22:37: For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
When the text says that Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors", the literal rendering is that He was regarded with the transgressors. It is a type of judgment that's being made of Jesus.
"Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”
-John 11:50
Likewise, Caiaphas the high priest says that his audience does not "understand" (i.e reckon, or count-referring to a judgment) that it is better for one man to perish than the entire nation.
Going back to Romans 4, the NASB literally renders logizomai as "impute", or "reckon", or more specifically, "credited". Abraham's faith was "credited" as righteousness. So with this understanding let's proceed with our exegesis of the text. Keep in mind that in Romans 3, Paul has just said that we are justified by grace as a gift...this will be useful in understanding his argument here. In verses 4-5, Paul draws on the analogy of a worker receiving his wages. To the one who works, his wages are counted not as a gift but as his due. What's the assumption here? Paul's arguing that a gift isn't something owed us; it's not our due. That's why he can contrast a "gift" and something that's "due". Whereas a gift is not our due, wages are. Thus, for someone to count a worker's wages as his due is to give that person what he deserves. You are reckoning the wages for what they are.
Note what Paul says in following. "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies (dikaioo) the ungodly, His faith is credited as righteousness." Remember, Paul has made the contrast between what is due us, and faith being credited as righteousness. To the one who does not work, but believes, their faith is imputed as righteousness. Since Paul is drawing a contrast in verses 4 and 5 between a "due" and a "gift", it follows that God credits faith as righteousness as a gift, not as our due. Whereas one ought to credit wages as a due, it is a gift to credit faith as righteousness. He is counting faith as what it is not (since He's not giving us what is due for faith, but He's giving a gift, which Paul contrasts with a due). God's crediting faith as righteousness. If righteousness (as in practical righteousness rather than imputed righteousness) were inherent to faith, then it would make no sense to say that God is crediting faith as righteousness as a gift rather than a due-as what it is not rather than what it is, since practical righteousness would be entailed in faith.
From this, we can draw out three conclusions. For one, Paul is using dikaioo exactly how it's normally used. He's using it to mean "declare righteous"-that's why Paul connects "the God who justifies the ungodly" to the one who's faith is "credited as righteousness". He's using it as a legal term to denote the forgiveness of sins before God, and the righteousness needed to be regarded as perfectly holy. Two, we can also surmise that Paul is in fact speaking of imputation, since God is imputing faith as something it inherently is not. John Piper gives an analogy where his son forgot to clean the room he promised to clean before going to a football game:
"'Barnabas, I am going to credit the clean room to your account because of your apology and submission. Before you left for school this morning I said, ‘You must have a clean room, or you won't be able to go watch the game tonight. Well, your room is clean. So you can go to the game.'
That's one way to say it, which corresponds to the language of Romans 4:6. Or I could say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' which would correspond to the language of Romans 4:3 and 5. What I mean when I say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' is not that the apology is the clean room; nor that the clean room consists of the apology; nor that he really cleaned his room. I cleaned it. It was pure grace. All I mean is that, in my way of reckoning ? in my grace ? his apology connects him with the promise given for a clean room. The clean room is his clean room.
You can say it either way. Paul said it both ways: “Faith is counted for righteousness” (4:3, 5, 9) and “God credits (or imputes) righteousness to us [by faith]” (4:6, 11). The reality intended in both cases is: I cleaned the room; he now has a cleaned room; he did not clean the room; he apologized for failure; in pure grace I counted his apology as connecting him with a fulfilled command that I fulfilled for him; he received the imputed obedience as a gift."
Piper adds the caveat that the analogy isn't to be pressed in every way, since it's not an allegory. But the point is this: God counts faith as what it (in and of itself) is not: namely righteousness. Is God lying in doing this? No. DA Carson explains why:
"For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that faith, because of its object, is imputed
to the believer as righteousness. It was because Abraham was “fully persuaded
that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom 4:21) that this faith
“was credited to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:22). These words, Paul immediately
adds, were written no less for us, to whom the Lord will impute righteousness
(Rom 4:24)—“for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from
the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification” (Rom 4:24-25). In short, righteousness is imputed when men and
women believe in this sense: we are fully persuaded that God will do what he has
promised. What God has promised, this side of the “But now” of Romans 3:21,
is the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. That is why there is no tension
between believing the God who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:24) and believing
in Jesus (Rom 3:26) whose death and resurrection vindicate God."
When God credits faith as righteousness, He's not saying "your faith is righteousness even though it isn't really righteousness", just as when Piper credits an apology as a clean room, he's not saying that the apology is a clean room. He's saying that he's going to treat the apology as though it was a clean room from his son in light of the fact that Piper will actually clean the room. In other words, his son's apology connects him with the reality of an actual clean room that's wholly provided for him apart from any practical obedience. Similarly, because faith connects us with One who is inherently righteous apart from any of our obedience, God can regard faith as righteousness. He's regarding faith as something it is not in one sense, since faith itself is not righteousness. But God can regard faith as righteousness because the object of that faith is righteous. God's not lying because He's not saying one's faith is actually inherently righteous; He's crediting faith as righteousness having already said that He's doing this as a gift in Romans 3. And once again, He can do that because faith connects us to the object of our faith-an infinite Treasury of Merit known as Jesus Christ.
The third thing we can surmise (which reinforces the second thing) is that faith excludes works as a category (and thus excludes practical holiness as it pertains to justification). Once again, note the contrast between verses 4 and 5: to the one who works...the one who does not work, but believes."
So to summarize, God is counting faith as what it inherently is not because of the object of our faith: Christ. This is a gift of sheer grace. Since faith unites us to Christ, it is on the basis of Christ that God can "impute faith as righteousness"-not because of faith itself, but because of the reality to whom we are irrevocably united. This faith excludes works; it is all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to God's word alone as our final authority, all to the glory of God alone!
No comments:
Post a Comment