Justification and Romans 3:19-4:8

While the doctrine of justification was not an issue early on in the Church, receiving scant attention until the Protestant Reformation, it is a teaching that has great implications to the Christian religion. The major basis for the understanding of justification comes from the book of Romans, especially Romans 3 and 4.

Clement of Rome briefly talks about justification:

"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever." - First Epistle to the Corinthians (approximately 97 A.D) by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXXII

But yet only a couple chapters earlier Clement speaks of justification by works.

"Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." - First Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXX

It seems, according to some, that Clement contradicts himself here. This just demonstrates that the understanding of justification is not simplistic. Other early church fathers also seem to indicate that justificaton is from a combination of faith and works. Later theologians, such as Martin Luther, conclude justification was based solely upon faith in Christ (but the faith that saves is one that works). More recently, many assert justification is based upon a faith that may or may not also be accompanied by works.

All this creates a tension between James and Paul, as Paul is the basis for justification by many theologians. James writes "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 - NASB) In addition Psalms 106:30-31 proclaims that Phinehas was credited with righteousness as a result of interposing for the plague that had come over Israel.

So what does Paul mean in Romans 3:19-4:8? Since it has been variously translated, exegesis becomes much more important. First though, let us not presuppose that Paul and James must be in exact agreement (they may be, but such an assumption forces the Bible not to contradict, instead of allowing it to be what it is). But in turn, let us have the assumption that they would likely have some beliefs in common since they were contemporaries and had contact with each other.

Before starting though, the translation I am giving is based upon the NET Bible (available at http://www.bible.org/index.php?scid=3), except where indicated. Within using the NET I have made modifications (keeping in mind the Greek) so as make it a bit more understandable to the average person (NET has a good ease of read) but likewise allowing for what I believe is a better way to get at the real meaning. Such changes which will be noted by bold text.

Also, a warning. This is fairly length, but I will not split off the post in order to not split up the thought process in reading it. If you want to read it through but don't have the attention span (like I don't often times), you may want to read a bit, take a break scan over what you just read then start from there (don't worry. It took me about 3 hours of stopping and going. If you can't read it all at once, its not a big deal).

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is judged as righteous before him by the works of the law. That is because through the law comes the knowledge of sin, but now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown" -- Rom 3:19-21 (NET with changes in bold)

"Judged as righteous" (dikaiow) is traditionally translated as "justification." However, I changed it so as to be less ambiguous to the casual reader and be more easily able to relate it to "righteousness" (dikaiosunh), which is a term that used by Paul also in these verses. I also did not keep with the NET translation of "declared righteous" as I think that is a bit ambiguous as to what I believe the meaning is.

The meaning of the word "justification" is a matter of debate. Augustine argues that it means that one is declared righteous but also to make righteous. However, Protestants have understood it to refer to the idea of a judge who acquits a person of wrong doing, making it essentially synonymous with forgiveness. It is argued that this is the way the word is used in Greek literature, and while it does carry this forensic sense, it is also used in other manners, such as to declare the ethical state of a person. Such is the clearly the use in some instances such as in Romans 2:13 (considering the context). It is also used in that manner in the Septuagint (LXX) in Exodus 23:7 which says in the LXX "You shall abstain from every unjust thing: you shall not slay the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts." (compare with the Masoretic/traditional texts). So we are left with somewhat of an ambiguity with the word in Romans 3:20 and other places without considering context. However, one might say the usage in Romans 2:13 gives us a sense of how Paul uses it later on, but we should let context dictate that ultimately.

We also see the main idea that Paul teaches against in Romans 3:20 is justification by "works from the Law", or as it is more literally rendered "works of the Law." Many have taken "works of the Law" more loosely to refer to all works, but then this means Paul needlessly qualifies the types of works as being that of the Law. Instead, we should take it at its face value and that is the works that are derived from the Law.

We should also keep in mind that the Pharisees and other Jewish sects derived many precepts from the Law that were not explicitly mentioned in the Law. So whereas some might see Paul as essentially nullifying the commandments of the Law (which seems to be in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19), it is more probable in my mind that Paul is talking about the observance of behavioral codes that are from the Law, both explicitly in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) but also those that were derived from it. In that then, one can more easily align the idea of Romans 2:13 and 3:20 by saying the former is talking about the observance of the meaning of the Law, whereas 3:20 is more about the ritualistic observance in a specific manner. This will also fit in last verse of Romans 3 where Paul says they maintain the Law.

Traditionally, there is a sentence break between the end of verse 20 ("...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - NASB) and the beginning of verse 21 ("But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..." - NASB). This leads some to conclude that the ending of verse 20 is the explanation of why the works of the Law do not justify anyone. However, this is probably not the correct understanding of the text because if the sole fact that the Law brings about knowledge of sin, it is a huge leap in logic from that to conclude that justification can not come from the Law. However, if one includes verse 21 (and what follows) as part of the logical argument by Paul against justification by the works of the Law, then it is much easier to see how that conclusion is drawn. If that is the case, then Paul states that justification (being judged as righteous) is not by works of the Law because its role was to show sin, but instead righteousness is to be attained through a different manner. The righteousness of God is the means to justification, and not the works of the Law.

This leads us then to consider what the meaning of the "righteousness of God" is. If one were to draw a conclusion just from Romans 3:19-21, one would say then by nature of the contrast between works of the Law and righteousness of God that the "righteousness of God" refers to the code of conduct one is to follow that comes from God. However, some might say it is not referring to an ethical code, but rather the righteousness that God credits to our account (as some might say, "Christ's righteousness imputed to us"). In Romans 1:17 though, the "righteousness of God" is contrasted with the "unrighteousness of men" in Romans 1:18. Considering that "of God" and "of men" are both genitives in the Greek, it would follow that one understands them in a similar way. Therefore, if "unrighteousness of men" refers to the evil behavior that men have, the "righteousness of God" refers to the holy behavior that God has, thus giving it an ethical meaning. Furthermore, the phrase is also used by James where he says that the "anger of men does not achieve the righteousness of God" (James 1:20 - NASB), where the phrase is clearly used regarding ethical considerations.

Considering all this then, Paul's argumentation is that justification is not by works of the Law because justification is obtained through the ethical code that God follows, or being like God in behavior. This brings to mind the saying "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 9:2 - NASB) and also the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:48 which are "Therefore you are to be perfect exactly like your heavenly father is perfect" (My rendition). All this also implies that justification is more of the declaration of an ethical status instead of acquittal of past sins.

the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown, namely, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe (for there is no distinction because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), being freely judged as righteous by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, - Rom 3:21b-24 (NET with changes in bold)

The phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ" has been a phrase that has recently been under much debate regarding to how one should render the Greek. Traditionally, this was translated as "faith in Christ," talking about ones own belief regarding Christ (and taking it as the type of belief that John frequently refers to, such as in John 3:16). In addition, there are others who would render it as "the faithfulness of Christ" (such as how the NET Bible itself does). The correct translation is debated because of two factors. First, the Greek word pistis can be understood as referring to faith, the cognitive aspect of a person, or faithfulness, which is talking about the behavioral aspects. Further more, "Jesus Christ" is in the genitive, which in certain instances, such as here, can be understood as an objective genitive ("faith in Christ") or as a subjective genitive ("faith/faithfulness of Christ").

First, is pistis to be translated as faith or faithfulness here? It is to be understood as faith because Paul goes on to establish that justification is not by the law in Romans 4 by the fact that Abraham believed (similar word in the Greek, only in verb form) God and that belief was credited to righteousness. Faithfulness, while it might be implied by the concept faith, is not the idea that Paul is talking about in Romans 3-5 when he uses the word pistis.

Secondly, should we render the phrase as an objective or subjective genitive? Consider in Romans 4:12 the similar construction of faith + a genitive is taken as a subjective genitive when it says "the faith of our father." One would not think to say that faith was placed in Abraham, but rather that they mimicked the faith of the father Abraham. Taken the genitive consistently in that construction, one would translate it as the "faith of Christ." In addition, the genitive is used in a similar way with the "works of/from the Law" and the "righteousness of/from God." Furthermore, if it is translated as "faith in Christ" then Paul becomes rather redundant in Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16 where there is a clear instance of referring to the faith that people are to have, therefore it seems more reasonable to take it as referring to the faith that Jesus Christ had.

So what do we make of the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ?" What does it have to do with us? Paul uses it to refer to the example of faith that we are to follow. Paul exhorts the Philippians to have the same "attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5 - NASB). Furthermore, the Apostle Peter shows Jesus as an example in 1 Peter 2:21-25 while specifically referencing the trust that Christ had in God (1 Peter 2:23). So it is not a far cry to say that "the faith of Jesus Christ" refers to the faith that Christ had in God that we also are to have. This is not foreign to Paul at all, as Paul clearly calls for us to mimick the faith of Abraham in Romans 4. Just as we are to be "of the faith of Abraham" (Romans 4:16), we are to be of the faith of Jesus Christ.

This interpretation also explains Romans 1:17 which says "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith" (NET). By the faith of some, such as Christ (and Abraham) the righteousness of God is shown to others who have faith. Christ in His humanity came to earth and displayed by His faith the way God is perfectly, because He is the image of God Himself. Thus, it is by Jesus Christ's faith that the way of righteousness is revealed to us.

[Jesus Christ is] "whom God displayed publicly through faith as a mercy seat by His blood in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because by God's forbearance He disregarded the previously committed sins for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and the one who judges those who have the faith of Jesus as righteous" - Rom 3:25-26 (My own rendition)

This is a verse that I think has been totally missed by most translations. Most translations render "mercy seat" (hilasthrion) as "propitation," which gives the connotation of a sacrifice. However, I believe "mercy seat" is a better translation, in which case it refers to the place that atonement is made. If this is the case, then this an allusion to the mercy seat in the Old Testament. So lets establish the significance of the mercy seat.

In Leviticus 16:15 it is said that the mercy seat is the place where the blood of the sacrifices was to be sprinkled. However, there is something more significant I believe about the mercy seat. In Leviticus 16:2, it is said that the presence of God will appear over the mercy seat in a cloud. Furthermore, in Exodus 40:34-35 and 1 Kings 8:10-12, the cloud is referred to as the glory of the Lord. So one would said the glory of God was where the mercy seat was.

Now lets apply this back to the text here. If this is indeed the idea that Paul is alluding to, then he is describing Jesus as the place where atonement is made, and also where God's glory is. John describes Jesus (the Word) as the glory of God in John 1:14. Hebrews 1:3 also says that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. As for the definition of glory, it may be describes as the visible power and/or presence of God.

So it follows if Jesus is the glory of God, then He is fit to reveal the righteousness that God has. He perfectly reveals God's righteous nature that we are to live by. Thus, Paul uses the mercy seat to allude to Jesus being the glory of God.

It goes on further to say that God disregards (or as some translations render it, "passed over") the sins that had been committed. Now the word there for disregards (paresis) does not indicate forgiveness, but rather it indicates a temporary overlooking on the part of God. What is the significance of this? Recall back to the mercy seat that no one, except Aaron, was to enter into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat was located. And he could only enter with a sacrifice of a bull, as stated in Leviticus 16:3. To do otherwise would mean death for him because God's presence was there. So if Jesus Christ is the glory of God, then it would follow to be in His presence would mean to suffer death. But yet, God overlooks the sins of people in order to allow Christ to demonstrate God's righteousness. If Christ could not appear before people without them dying, they could not see the very nature of God that we are to emulate.

As a side note, this would probably explain the meaning of "fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23. It refers to the fact that none can come into the presence of God because of their sin, just as is implied by Leviticus 16:2-3. Because of our sins, we naturally would not be able to come into God's glory, but we would fall short and only be allowed outside the holy of holies.

Also note that God is said publicly displayed Jesus through faith. The context seems to fit the idea that Jesus was publicly displayed as a mercy seat through faith. In other words, by the faith of Jesus, Christ's faith in God was the means by which He demonstrated all the righteousness of God, but also by Christ's faith He was obedient to the cross so that He would be the place where atonement is made.

"Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of the works? No, but by the principle of faith! For we consider that a person is judged as righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law." - Rom 3:27-31 (NET with changes in bold)

I do not have too much to say regarding this, as it seems to my fairly self explanatory. However, I will make one remark.

Notice the phrase "Of the works?" Most translations render this as "Of works?," but there is an article there in the Greek. I think it has specific importance because by including it, Paul is not talking about any works, but of THE works. The article in Greek is often times anaphoric (which means to refer back), so it is probably that Paul is speaking of the works that he had been talking about in this section, the works of the Law. Thus we need not conclude that it means works generically (though it possibly could still from a grammatical standpoint).

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered has found? For if Abraham was judged as righteous by the works ||, he has something to boast about -- but not before God." - Rom 4:1-2 (NET with changes in bold and deletion indicated by ||)

In these verses we have the hypothetical objection someone might bring in response to Paul. It is of especial importance that one notes that this is a response to the fact that boasting is excluded, which we can see from the final statement of the object "he has something to boast about." The claim is that Abraham has been seen as righteous/obedient before God throughout the Old Testament and it was by works (see for instance the sacrifice of Isaac, as James discusses in James 2:21. See specifically Genesis 22:12 and 16-18), which was evidenced by the covenants God made with Abraham. The idea is then, if one can obtain justification by works, then we have something to boast about.

Notice that the objection does not say "by works of the law" (the NET Bible adds it, but it is absent from the Greek). Rather, this is plain justification by works. And then Paul gives his response. He doesn't say "he wasn't justified by works", but instead he responds that Abraham could not boast before God. Paul could have easily destroyed this objection by stating and proving that general works had nothing to do with justification. And yet, Paul doesn't, but instead simply claims there can be no boast before God. This sets up follows from Paul's pen.

For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who judges the ungodly as righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness, - Rom 4:3-5 (NET with changes in bold)

Here the word "For" (gar) indicates Paul's rationale that Abraham could not boast before God. He quotes from Genesis 15:6 in order to demonstrate how Abraham could not boast. In the verse, it is demonstrated that God declared Abraham as righteous on the basis of his faith. If a trust in the promise that God made (which is the type belief that Abraham is said to have) justified someone, then there must be a time that works were not necessary for justification (not that I did not say "never necessary"). This point, Paul establishes in the following verses.

It has often times be assumed by many that "the one who works" refers to the person who lacks all faith and is essentially unsaved. But this does not fit into the design of the apostle. The objection was regarding Abraham and the idea that if he is justified by works, he could boast. It is more natural, then, that "the one who works" refers to a person who is obedient to God, just as Abraham was. This does not involve a drastic shift in thought, but allows Paul to answer the question about what Abraham had found. Also, we must allow the possibility that Paul brings up the idea of a person who works in a metaphorical manner and not to be taken strictly literal.

So if this refers to obedient people like Abraham, what does it mean. If Abraham was justified by works, the reason God declares him as righteous is because that is what is due to him. Abraham indeed had all the works necessary to demonstrate oneself as a righteous man.

Paul does not stop there though because if that is all there is to it, then Abraham could have boasted before all, including God. Instead though, Paul gives the opposite; the one who does not work. Who could this be describing? If the one who works describes the person who is obedient as Abraham was, then the one who does not work probably refers to those who have not been obedient to God. It is said that this person is ungodly, and yet the man is justified before God.

In my opinion, this refers to person who was condemned in their sinful lifestyle. They had just repented of their sins before God, but they have had no opportunity to do works of righteousness. They had no works to their credit before God. But yet, God declares them as righteous on the basis of their faith. God sees the trust the person has in God as revealing of righteousness, even though the person had no opportunity to do righteous works. In other words, the man is in good standing before God and it is due to God's grace to accept the person's faith as righteous. Because of this fact, if a man is justified before God, God was gracious to him to declare him as righteous before the man even had the works to demonstrate that. Thus, God is the one who brings a man to righteousness, He initially is the source, not man, and therefore no man can boast.

This brings to remembrance the idea of the tax collector who went home justified before God after his repentant heart, whereas the Pharisee who followed the works of the Law did not (Luke 18:10-14).

his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David himself also speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not credit sin." -Rom 4:5b-8 (NET with changes in bold)

In verses 6-8, Paul endeavors to vindicate the teaching that a man may be justified by God before he has any works. He quotes Psalm 32:1-2, which is a Psalm written by David. In that Psalm, if one reads it through, it is a psalm of a penitent who had fallen into some sin and was under the wrath of God with no forgiveness from Him. But yet after he confessed his sins, God forgave him of his guilt (Psalm 32:5). Such a man who was in a state of disobedience that God would not forgive him his sins is a man whose works are not such that he can be seen as righteous by God. It is in that way then that Paul can state that Psalms 32 backs up the idea that righteousness can be accredited apart from works (and therefore according to faith). And it is implied that God credits righteousness because:

1) God speaks of the person who God does not credit sin. If righteousness and sin are contrast, one could conclude that a man that God does not credit sin to, He credits righteousness to.
2) Secondly, as the end of the Psalm in 32:11, it is said that the man who is righteous should rejoice and the upright in heart should shout for joy. Thus, this final verse implies the righteous state of David after his repentance for his sin, even though he had no works.

So in quoting Psalms 32:1-2, Paul proves that justification can be obtained without works. He did not prove it by referring to the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 because it could not be established that this was at a time where Abraham lacked works. It only showed that a man could obtain justification on the account of faith. Therefore, Paul must go further to prove his point that a man who has no works can be justified before God and therefore can not boast before God.

So in summary: Paul establishes that a man can by justified by emulating the faith that Christ has. He disproves that works of the Law (of Moses) justifies a person, but never states that works in general never justify. He instead says that a man can be justified before God on the account of something that is not a work, that is, on account of faith. It is not said that faith itself is the means by which that if a person have he must be justified, but only that if a man is to be justified, he can and will be justified by faith, and a faith that emulates the faith of Christ and Abraham.

I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary.