Skip to main content

Galatians 2:15-21 and the Time of Justification

15 "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17 "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (TNIV)
There are many things that could be said about justification in this passage. Certainly there is a strong affirmation of justification being by faith and an emphasis on a corporate aspect of justification. What I'd like to point out in this post, though, is the time of justification.

Traditionally Reformed theology has a very strict ordo salutis in which justification is one piece of the puzzle in salvation (see Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray for a standard Calvinist presentation). It occurs at after one is born again and is the one time declaration by God that one is not guilty. The status that one receives because of the future not guilty verdict is 'justified.' There are passages like Romans 8:29-30 that might suggest the appropriateness of this type of scheme. Here, justification is understood to be a past event in the life of the believer.

I don't know if that will hold up when we look at how Paul talks about justification in this passage (my debt here is to Doug Moo in a lecture at Denver Seminary - though he didn't mention this specific passage). The first occurrence of 'justified' in verse 16 is a present indicative - thus justification is present. The second is an aorsit subjunctive, which means that there is no significance of time. The third occurrence, however is a future indicative. Justification, while not being by works, is something that happens in the future.

What is the primary sense of justification? I don't think we can answer that very easily. Each text has to be taken on a case by case basis being careful not to read in our understanding of justification that comes from systematic theology. Perhaps a fruitful way to go forward would be to examine what Paul is trying to do pastorally through talking about justification. That may help us see how past/present/future justification is understood to impact the believer in the present.

In the present text I think that Paul's uses in the first and third case (the two that involve time) are related. In the first he affirms that one is not justified (and hence part of the people of God - presently) by works. The third case affirms that final vindication does not come by faith. Both function similarly because they are phrased negatively (how one isn't justified) which I think shows that there is a close relation between justification in the present and justification on the last day. How close? I'll answer that in my 'Judgment and Justification' series.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat