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.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…