Romans: Theology of Justification

Faith, that’s a very big question. I will offer you my basic view, which you may not find very satisfactory, but perhaps others will contribute their own perspectives.

I would say that the question of ‘justification’ arises in the first place because Israel faced the wrath of God - that is, they were on a road leading to war and destruction. I think that the war against Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 were the fulfilment of the conviction held by Jesus and the early church that Israel was under divine judgment because of sin.

Paul argues in Romans against those who believe that Israel will be saved from this destruction by ‘works of the Law’. The Law cannot justify Israel because it is the Law that condemns; it is the Law that now holds Israel accountable to God for its persistent rebelliousness. He is thinking of a courtroom situation: Israel faces condemnation; it cannot appeal to the Law, because it is the Law that pronounces judgment (‘the Law produces wrath’: 4:15).

So an alternative way of justification or salvation must be found, ‘apart from the Law’ (Rom. 3:21). Paul believes that this is the way of trusting in God, and he appeals in particular to Habakkuk 2:4 in support of his argument (Rom. 1:17; cf. Gal. 3:11). Habukkuk foresees a day of judgment when Israel will suffer disaster. But he is concerned for the righteous. What will happen to those who do not deserve to be punished? The answer that he hears from God is that ‘the righteous shall live by his faith’ - under these threatening circumstances the righteous will survive simply by trusting in God.

But Paul also believes that this way of justification apart from the Law was established through the faithfulness or obedience of Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22), who gave his life so that the people of God might not be finally condemned and might instead live. Others are justified, therefore, whether Jews or Gentiles, by directly associating themselves with him through baptism and pursuing the same path of trust in God. So the church has its origins in that part of Israel that was saved from the wrath of God not by keeping the Law but simply by having the faith to take the alternative path - the way of Jesus - that would lead to life.

Justification seems to have been presented to me as a forensic concept; as, in essence, that which gives me standing to appear before the bar.  Forensic standing is becoming a big issue these days, as the Supreme Court seeks to invalidate long standing law by eliminating the standing of parties which have traditionally sought enforcement of the law, e.g. environmental groups.

I pray "in Jesus name" because otherwise God wouldn’t listen.  Some ask others to present their prayers — those "justified" by beatification — the recognition of some special status by a body competent to discern such.

But about 20 years ago, I heard a sermon by some high Presbyterian poobah (of the Princeton, not Philadelphia variety), speak of justification in terms that suggest its meaning is better rendered by the word "validation", an important PoMo concept (though I insist I know PoMo almost exclusively in the form of a straw man constructed by Christian apologists).

Validation…. that which confers esteem, standing, or simply the right not to have ones presence challenged.  In the Mafia, by a Capo saying "He’s a friend of ours".  In the workplace, by a picture badge.  In the end times by the "666" tattoo.

My thought are drawn to Acts 10.  Cornelius got his parking ticket stamped.  And so began when Peter was robbed to pay Paul.

A puff away from 3 packs a day