The Justice of God

7/27/2019 The Justice of God

1/95

theJ U S T I C EG )Da fresh look at the

old doctrine ofjustification by faith

[ J A M E S D . G . DUNN"ALAN M. S U G G A TE


2/95

The biblical the me of justif ication by faith is all toooften regarded as a consumer commodity, as a private trans-action between God and the individual. The result is that thesocial dimension is left, often with disastrous consequences,to market forces.Certain that justification is inseparable from justice,the authors of this book have teamed up to deliver an em-phatic restatement of the relational nature of justificationand its interaction with communal and social justice.In Part One James D. G. Dunn critiques Luther's"discovery" of th e doctrine of jus tif ication by faith, showinghow he overlooked the social dimension that is part andparcel of Paul's message. A careful look at Old Testamentthe mes recovers an und erst an din g of justification andjustice that has national and social as well as individualoutworkings.In Part Two Alan M. Suggate offers Nazi Germany,militarist Japan, and 1980s Britain as three modern casestudies that demonstrate (at times appallingly so) the dis-torted na tu re of jus ti ce tha t can resul t from an ina dequa teunde rs tand ing of justification. This analysi s clearly showshow a fresh restatement of the interaction of justificationand justice could have fruitful consequences for worldwidesocial justice.

JAMES D. G. DUNN is the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity atthe University of Durham, England. His numerous booksinclude Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Jesus' Call to Discipleship,and Christian Liberty: A New Testament Perspective.ALAN M. SUGGATE is lecturer in theology at the Universityof Durham, England. His published works include the bookWilliam Temple and Christian Social Ethics Today.Cover design by Lorraine White

ISBN 0 - 8 0 2 8 - 0 7 9 7 - 6

%WM. B. EERDMANSIX PUBLISHING CO.W m Grand Rapids, Michigan


3/95

THE JUSTICE OF GOD


4/95


5/95

THE JUSTICE OF GODA Fresh Look at the Old Doctrineof Justification by Faith

James D. G. Dunnand

Alan M. Suggate

WILLIAM B . EERDM ANS PUBLISHING COM PANYGR A N D R A PI D S , MI C HI GA N


6/95

Copyrigh t 1993 by James D . G. Dunn and Alan M . Sugg ate

First published 1993 by the Paternoster PressP.O. Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA3 OQS, UK

This edit ion published 1994through special arrangement with Paternoster by

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.255 Jefferson Ave. S.E. , Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

00 99 98 97 96 95 7 6 5 4 3 2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataDunn , James D. G., 1939-

The justice of G od: a fresh look at the old doctrine of justification by faith /James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate .

p. cm .Originally published: Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0 -8028-0797-6 (pbk. )

1. Justification History of doctrines. 2. Christianity and justice .I. Sug gate, Alan M . II. Title.

B T 7 6 4 . 2 . D 8 6 1 9 9 4234 ' .7 dc20 94 -16 690

CIP


7/95

ContentsIntroduction 1PA R T O N E A Fresh Look at the Biblical

Emphases 31 Martin Luther and the IndividualConscience 52 Justice for G entiles: Paul andJustification by Faith 173 The Justice of G od 31

PA R T TW O Three Case Studies 43Introduction 454 Germany: A Tale of Tw o Kingdoms 495 Japan: Imperial M issions 616 Britain: Free M arket and Faith 71Conclusion 81Questions for Discussion 83Suggestions for Further Reading 85


8/95


9/95

Introduction

What is 'justice'? Most people would be happy with ananswer in terms of 'fairness'. Justice is done when eachreceives his or her fair share or reward.What is 'justification'? The word is much lessfamiliar, but best known in Protestant circles, in thephrase 'justification by faith'. There it defines thedoctrine that God accepts individuals as they trust inhim and not on the basis of anything they do or havedone.What is the relation between the two? Most wouldfind the question difficult to answer. But the definitionsalready given suggest that the two stand in someopposition. A doctrine which denies that acceptabilityto God depends on what individuals do seems to runcounter to the idea of each receiving his or her fairshare or reward.The consequence is that very few have bothered toask whether there is or should be a closer and morepositive relation between justification and justice. Thetwo have been allowed to become unrelated concepts.Justification has become confined to the sphere ofreligion and individual piety. Justice has become amatter for the state. The result is an unhealthy compartmentalizing of religion and social obligation.


10/95

2 The Justice of GodBut are the tw o concepts unrelated? Should justification by faith be so divorced from social justice? If

instead of speaking of 'justice' we speak instead of'God's justice' what difference would that make? Doesthe rather dated Protestant talk of 'justification byfaith' have more to say to contemporary needs andconcerns than has been generally recognized?These are some of the questions which lie behindthis joint study. They em erged as the agenda for a studygroup set up to plan a sequel to The Kingdom of Godand North-East England (London: SCM, 1986), underthe auspices of the Scripture, Theology and SocietyGroup of The Foundation for the Study of Christianityand Society. After several false starts the format agreedwas that adopted in the following pages.The first three chapters are written by James D.G.Dunn, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at DurhamUniversity. In them the biblical foundations of thedoctrine of justification by faith are examined afreshand a fuller understanding of justification brought tolight in which the justice of God is shown to havenational and social as well as individual outworkings.The second part is written by Dr Alan Suggate,Lecturer in Theology at Durham University, whospecializes in Christian Social Ethics. Three case studiesshow how serious have been the effects of a misunderstanding of justification and of a false separationbetween justification and justice, and indicate clearlyhow a fresh restatement of the interaction of justification and justice could have considerable and fruitfulconsequences for international and social justice.


11/95

P A R T O N EA FRESH LOOK AT THE

BIBLICAL EMPHASES


12/95


13/95

C H A P T E R O N EMartin Luther and the Individual

Conscience

Some time in 1515 or 1516 Martin Luther made thegreat discovery out of wh ich the Reform ation was born.He discovered 'justification by faith' - a doctrine whichhas been at the heart of Protestant thinking ever since.It is not too much to claim that this single discoverydecisively transformed E uropean Christianity, and withit European history, both political and cultural. For itwas this doctrine which led to Luther's break with theChurch of Rome, and to church leaders and princesbeing forced to take sides for or against the Reformation, with all the consequences which followed.What was it that proved so important and had sucheffects?

Until that time Luther had been a devoted monk(of the Augustinian order), a gifted student (he earnedhis doctorate in 1512) and a devoted teacher of theBible. The problem lay in his own spiritual life. He hadno peace of heart, no quietness of conscience. Thedoctrine of human sinfulness depressed him, and noamount of penance and confession seemed able toremove his own sense of guilt before God. What hefeared most of all was 'the justice of God'. By this he


14/95

6 The Justice of Godunderstood the anger and judgment of God againstsinners. At that time, when life was often very short,the thought of death could be very frightening. Forafter death came the judgm ent. A nd for the guilty, hellloomed as a terrifying prospect.But then came the great discovery as he wrestledwith the words of Paul's letter to the Christians inR om e. T he sticking point for him was Paul's talk of 'thejustice of God' as revealed in the gospel (Romans1:17). How could God's just punishment of sinners be'gospel', that is, 'good news'? Let him tell his own storyin his own words:

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to theRomans and nothing stood in the way but that oneexpression, 'the justice of God', because I took it tomean that justice whereby God is just and deals justlyin punishing the unjust. My situation was that, althoughan impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinnertroubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that mymerit would please him. Therefore I did not love a justand angry God, but rather hated and murmured againsthim. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a greatyearning to know what he meant.Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that'the just shall live by faith' [Romans 1:17]. Then Igrasped that the justice of God is that righteousness bywhich through grace and sheer mercy God justifies usthrough faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn andto have gone through open doors into paradise. Thewhole of Scripture took on a new meaning, andwhereas before the 'justice of God' had filled me withhate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet ingreater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gateof heaven . . .[taken from Roland Bainton's Here I Stand (London:Hodder & Stoughton, 1951) p. 65, slightly adapted].


15/95

Martin Luther and the Individual Conscience 7So, what does 'justification by faith' mean? Whatwas Luther's great discovery? There was obviously an

absolutely crucial shift in his understanding of God. Itis summed up in the shift from talk of God's justice totalk of God justifying.It is important to recognize that the language in allthis is the language of the law court. Luther's problemhad been the mediaeval Church's emphasis on God orChrist as judge. The whole of life on earth was but apreparation for that final court of judgment, presidedover by the judge of all the world, which would settlewhere each person spent eternity. And there is noshortage of such talk in the B ible to feed such fears. W eneed think only of passages like Matthew 25:31-46,Mark 9:43-48, Romans 2:5-10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.The assumption, then , was that wh erever the N ewTestament spoke about God's justice, it was God'sverdict against sin and his sentence against the sinnerwhich was in view. For anyone with an unquiet conscience, Bible readings on God's justice were a fearfulexperience.The discovery which Luther made was twofold.First, that when Paul talks about God 'justifying', hehad in mind not so m uch G od's condemnation of sin ashis acquittal of the sinner. The distinctive feature of thegospel is not what it says about God's justice in passingsentence on human wickedness. Rather, the distinctivefeature is what the gospel says about God pardoningthe wicked. The judge can also pronounce a verdict of'Not guilty'.This also means, secondly, that the law courtmetaphor could not be pressed, as though it was theonly way of picturing God's attitude to his humancreation. G od was not only Judge, but also Father. A ndas in a family, relationships are not governed solely bystrict rules, as though a jud ge continued to act only as ajudge even in his own home and with his own family.


16/95

8 The Justice of GodGod is also kind and generous to his children. Heaccepts them as they are, with all their faults andfailings. He welcomes the sinner, warts and all.

W hat Luther realized is of tremendou s importance- that God's acceptance is the beginning of spiritualstriving, not its goal. Th e light which daw ned on Lutherwas that Christianity is not a matter of anxious strivingfor God's favour. It does not depend on our ability toplease God. It is not to be thought of as a doggeddiscipline in hope of winning God's final commendation. Instead, Christianity starts from the recognitionthat we can never work our passage to heaven. This isnot just because w e could not succeed if we did try, butbecause reliance on our own effort turns us away fromGod. Christianity starts from the amazing discoverythat 'G od justifies the ungod ly' (Rom ans 4:5). H e is theGod who offers to accept the wicked as they are, andstarts renewing them from there.

That is a tremendously powerful grasp of theChristian gospel. No wonder it lit the fires of theReformation in 16th century Europe. For countlessthousands terrified of hell, dismayed by the prospectsof purgatory, and put off by the abuses of the mediaeval church it was good news indeed. Christianity startsfrom the offer of God's unconditional grace - an offerextended to all, of whatever age, stage or condition.The insight granted to Luther has remained at theheart of Protestant Christian thought. 'Justification byfaith' is a sharp sword which punctures all inflatedthoughts of self-importance. It is a sharp knife whichcuts away all reliance on human effort, on humancleverness. It is a sharp spade which undermines anyattempt to build our own protective barriers or controlour own destiny. It cuts through all human pretence, allhum an self-assurance, all human boasting. G od acceptsnot the important, or the activist, or the clever, or thepowerful as such. It is the sinner he accepts. That is an


17/95

M artin Luther and the Individual Con science 9insight which has been applied over and over again inChristian critique of false religiosity and politicalsystems. It is an insight which must never be lost fromthe gospel.Christianity starts with the sinner opening anempty hand to receive G od's undeserved grace. It startswith Luther's recognition that God offers his acceptance as a free gift, the assurance that Go d's acceptancecomes before and is far more important than anythingwe can do either for ourselves or for him.

There is more to it, of course. For example, inChristian thinking 'justification by faith' is closely tied-in to belief about Jesus' death on the cross. Theteaching of Paul is that Jesus' death somehow makessatisfaction before God for the sins of others. And thatis why God can accept sinners without demandingpunishment for their sin. Bu t how this com es about hasbeen a matter of dispute between Christians. WasJesus' death a sacrifice, like the sin-offerings in thereligion of the Jews in what Christians call the OldTestament? But how did that make the difference forGod? Did Jesus somehow become a substitute forothers in his death, so that he took their place andreceived their punishment? Or is that falling back intothe danger of applying the law court metaphor toorigidly? And was the effect of his death once for all, orwas the sacrifice of his death somehow repeated in themass on Sunday? This last was a matter of sore disputebetween Roman Catholics and Protestants for severalcenturies.

There is also the question of whether God injustifying individuals makes them just or righteous, ormerely counts them as righteous. This too was an issuewhich split Roman Catholics and Protestants for centuries following the Reformation. Catholics insistedthat God's act of acceptance must make some actualdifference in the life of the individual (grace infused),


18/95

10 The Justice of Godotherwise the gospel becomes a sham. Protestants werefearful that such a teaching would result inevitably inindividuals once again claiming some merit for theirgoodness before God. Justification means graceimputed, otherwise the very basis of the gospel wasonce again under threat from human manipulation andpride.Fortunately such disputes have been largely overcome, with each side recognizing the importance of theemphasis made by the other. Important as they are, weneed not go into them further here. If readers so desirethey can pursue them further in the reading suggestedat the end.More important for the theme of this book is theother main aspect of Luther's rediscovery and restatement of Paul's teaching on justification and thesequence of ideas associated with it. This wholesequence starts with and focusses in the other part ofthe phrase which sums up Luther's discovery - justification by faith. What is faith? Faith is what we described above as the sinner's 'empty han d' stretched outto receive the undeserved grace of God. As Lutherrealized, the classic Christian description of faith isprovided by Paul in the same letter to the Romans,chapter 4. There Paul describes Abraham as the example of faith. And what was this faith? It was simplyAbraham's trust in God's promise. Paul draws out thissignificance by explaining the significance of theaccount in Gen esis - especially G ene sis 15:6: 'Abrahambelieved God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. '

The Genesis narrative made it all abundantlyclear. God had promised that Abraham would have ason. The promise seemed wholly unrealistic, since bothAbraham and his wife Sarah were long past the age ofparenthood (the one about 100 years old, the otherabout 90). Nevertheless, the text of Genesis states that


19/95

Martin Luther and the Individual Conscience 11Abraham believed the promise, and that it was byvirtue of this belief that God 'took him into partnership' (this is the imagery Genesis uses).

Faith, then, is not something one does; it is not amatter of human strength or human ability. The thingthat had been promised was humanly impossible. Sucha promise deserved nothing more, on a human scale ofvalues, than mockery and derision. But Abraham tookGod at his word; he looked not to the human situation(of his wife and himself), but relied solely on God(Romans 4:18-22). And God was able to work throughthat faith, through the relation of trust which hispromise had made possible for Abraham, and thus tofulfil his promise in the birth of Isaac.

Luther also noted that Paul's exposition of faithwas set in sharp contrast to 'works of the law'. This wasthe first link in the sequence of ideas building up to thecomplete Reformation understanding of 'justificationby faith'. By 'works of the law' Luther understood Paulto mean the hard work and achievem ents by which onemight hope to commend oneself to God. The imageryused by Paul in the same chapter contrasted 'justification by faith' with payment made for services rendered, with the wages wh ich the worker could expect asreward for his hard work (Romans 4:4-5). In otherwords, 'justification by faith' has nothing to do withhuman achievement; it is the very opposite of earningGod's acceptance.

It was this revelation w hich had brought such reliefto Luther. For he at once realized that this is what hehad been doing all along. By his penance and works ofself-discipline he had been trying to commend himselfto God, to build up credit with God. But no one canever m ake himself or herself good enough for G od . T hevery idea is absurd. Such perfection is beyond allhuman capacity. The only realistic hope of beingacceptable to God is if he 'justifies the ungodly'


20/95

12 The Justice of God(Romans 4:5) - that is, if he accepts the sinner whilestill a sinner. Faith is simply the acceptance of God'soffer to accept us as we are. Faith is the opposite of allhuman striving, and not least, the striving of religiouspeople to prove their religious worth before God!This application of Paul's contrast between 'faith',and 'works' to Luther's own situation as a devout butconscience-smitten monk, was, in effect, the secondlink in the development of the Protestant doctrine ofjustification. The application of language forged in thecontroversies of first century Christianity to the situation of a sixteenth century individual was to havemajor consequences for the doctrine.But Luther applied Paul's teaching not only tohimself. Paul's contrast betw een faith and works he sawas directly applicable to the mediaeval church as awhole. This we might say is the next link in thesequence of ideas involved in 'justification by faith'.For Luther realized that he had been misled by theteaching of the church of his time, particularly itsteaching on indu lgences. This was the belief, promotedfrom the Vatican, that the saints had built up a surplusof merit with God. This treasury of surplus merit couldbe drawn on , particularly by the P op e. A n 'indulgence'was the name given to such a transfer of credit from thetreasury of merit to an individual. Such an indulgenceensured remission of time spent by the sinful Christianin purgatory, and might even serve to remit punishm entfor sin entirely.

The point was, that such indulgences might beearn ed by diligent p en an ce, particularly by a pilgrimageto Rome - for example, by climbing the steps of theHoly Stairs on one's knees (a practice still followed bymany devout Catholics today). Or indeed, they couldbe earned by making a financial contribution (as a markof contrition and confession) to the Church. ThisLuther now saw as the attempt to gain salvation by


21/95

Martin Luther and the Individual Conscience 13works. The works themselves might be good works -acts of piety and contrition - just like his own acts ofpenance prior to his great discovery. But Luther nowsaw such teaching to be wholly opposed to the teachingof Paul. Acceptability to God did not depend on goodwork s, but could be received only by the em pty hand offaith. Justification was by faith alone and not by works.All this, as we have already said, still resonatesstrongly and speaks powerfully to the self-indulgentand self-righteous of the twentieth century. But it wasat this point that Luther's line of thinking began to goastray - and so also the Protestant doctrine of justification which stemmed from Luther. For in spelling outhis new insight into justification by faith, Luther madetwo assumptions, both of which can now be seen to bemistaken in some degree.First, Luther assumed that Paul, his beloved Paul,was writing about the same experience which Lutherhimself had undergone. He assumed that Paul too musthave gone through the same agonies of conscienceabout his sinfulness and inability to satisfy God whichhad racked Luther for so long. He assumed that Paultoo must have discovered the same liberating truth ofjustification by faith, that Paul came to regard hisprevious way of life (as a pious Jew ) as the way of goodworks. And so, for four centuries, a typical Protestantexposition of Paul's conversion would speak of Paul'stroubled conscience, and of the peace with God whichcame to him o n the road to D am ascus. T ypical too wasthe reading of Romans 7 as Paul's self-confessionbefore he m et the risen Christ - 'The good that I w ou ld,I do n ot; and the evil that I would no t, I do . . .W retched man that I am! W ho w ill deliver m e from thisbody of death?'

The trouble with all this is that when Paul speaksexplicitly of his own experience before he became aChristian there is nothing of all this. O n the contrary, in


22/95

14 The Justice of GodGalatians 1:13-14 he speaks with the echo of his earlierpride of his success as a practising Pharisee - Tadvanced in Judaism beyond many of my own contemporaries, so exceedingly zealous was I'. In Philippians3:6 he states qu ite simply that prior to his conversion heregarded himself as 'blameless as regards righteousnesswithin the law'. In other words, there is no indication orhint of a period of guilt-ridden anxiety, like thatsuffered by Luther. T his Protestant reading of Paul wasa reading back of Luther's own experience into Paul. Itwas a retrojection back into Paul's first-century self-testimony of what Krister Stendahl has called 'theintrospective conscience of the West'.

At this point the classical Protestant exposition ofjustification by faith has begun to miss the way as anexposition of Paul's teaching on the subject.The second assumption Luther made was that theJudaism of Paul's time was just like the mediaevalCatholicism of Luther's day, at least so far as theteaching about God's justice and justification wereconcerned. The second assumption was natural, giventhe first. If Paul had made the sam e d iscovery of faith asLuther, then he must also have been reacting againstthe same misunderstanding as Luther. That is to say,the Judaism of Paul's day must have taught justificationby works in a way wholly analogous to the teaching ofthe m ediaeva l Church about merit and the earning of orpaying for indulgences.And so, for centuries, the Judaism of Paul's dayhas been characterized as the prime example of anarrow legalistic religion. In particular the Pharisees,among whom Paul had numbered himself, have beendepicted in countless Christian textbooks and sermonsas narrow-minded, kill-joy bigots, who counted uptheir good works and reckoned on such to secure theireternal salvation, and who found the simple gospel ofJesus and Paul, that acceptability to God is a matter


23/95

Martin Luther and the Individual Conscience 15only of faith on the human side, an unacceptableaffront to Judaism and worthy of death.The trouble is that this depiction of Judaism madeno sense to those Jews who bothered themselves withthis Christian doctrine. T he Judaism they knew em phasized hum an repentance and divine forgiveness -language which Paul rarely uses. When we ourselvesread the scriptures of Judaism (what we call the OldTestam ent) the same point becom es clear. Judaism wasbased, after all, on the fundamental recognition thatGod had chosen and redeemed the people of Israelwhen they had absolutely nothing to commend them -when in fact they were merely slaves in Egypt. God'schoice of pure grace is at the basis and heart of Jewishreligion. C onsider, for exam ple, how the ten com mandments begin in Exodus 20. Before laying down the lawG od reminds his people: T am the Lord your G od , w hobrought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the houseof slavery.' In other words, grace comes before law.Obedience is called for as a response to that grace, notas a way to win that grace - a very Protestant doctrine.

Nor did God require a sinless perfection from hispeople or require that his forgiveness had to be earned .The whole sacrificial system, including the sin-offeringand Day of Atonement, was provided by God as ameans of conveying forgiveness to the penitent.Consider, for example, the repeated words in theinstructions regarding the sin offering in Leviticus 4:5:'The priest shall make atonement for him for the sinwhich he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.'Paul's understanding of the effectiveness of Jesus'death is based directly on such a theology of sinoffering.Indeed, Paul's whole understanding of God's justice as fundamentally an act of gracious generosity isderived directly from the Old Testament, particularlythe Psalms and Isaiah. There already we find an


24/95

16 The Justice of Godunderstanding of God's righteousness not in terms ofjust punishment, but rather as God's self-acceptedobligation to save those who trust him despite theirfolly (e.g. Psalms 31:1; 35:24; 71:15; 143:11; Isaiah51:5, 6, 8; 62 :1 -2 ). It was not Luther, or even Paul wh ofirst made the discovery about G od's justice and justification, but the great spiritual writers of the OldTestament.Here then we have something of a paradox.Luther's great discovery of justification by faith was apowerful word of G od for the time . It was rooted in theteaching of Paul, and it still speaks with tremendousforce to a self-centred individualism today. But it alsoinvolved a somewhat distorted reading of Paul's ownself-testimony and of the Judaism within which Paulgrew up. What then was it that Luther was missing?This is the question we must pursue in chapter 2.


25/95

C HA P T E R T WOJustice for Gentiles: Paul and

Justification by Faith

We have seen how Luther read back his own experience into that of Paul. We have seen how Paul'sexperience and Paul's protest against the Judaism of hisown day was understood in the light of Luther'sexperience and protest. But we have also noted thatLuther's reading of Paul was to some extent a misreading of Paul. Paul did not share Luther's experience ofan unquiet conscience before his conversion. AndPaul's teaching of God's generosity in accepting thesinner by grace was thoroughly Jewish in character.Can we correct or improve that reading? What consequences might a clearer insight into what Paul meantby justification and the justice of God have for a freshtheological appraisal of twentieth century politicaltrends?Having moved forward in time from Luther, let usnow try to move back behind Luther to Paul himself,from Paul as he w as understood in the sixteenth centuryto the Paul of the first century itself. To understand thisPaul we will have to fill in something at least of thebackground from which he came. To understand Paul'sprotest we must understand what it was that he pro-


26/95

18 The Justice of Godtested against. If it was not legalistic 'justification bygood works', then what as it?

The Jews of Paul's day took several things forgranted (and that, of course, includes Jesus and Paul).One of these was that God is one. Each day a religiousJew would recite the Shema: 'Hear O Israel: the Lordour Go d, the Lord is on e' (Deutero nom y 6:4). Jesus, itwill be recalled, voices this confession in reply to thequestion, 'Which commandment is the first of all?'(Mark 12:28-29). And Paul makes the confessionhimself with no less vigour: 'God is one' (Romans3:30); 'For us there is one God' (1 Corinthians 8:6);'One God and Father of us all' (Ephesians 4:6).

Another fundamental 'given' for Jews of Paul'sday was that Israel had been chosen by God as hisspecial people. Deuteronomy gives this classic expression:For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; theLord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples onearth to be his people, his treasured possession (7:6).When the Most High apportioned the nations,when he divided humankind,he fixed the boundaries of the peoplesaccording to the number of the gods;the Lord's own portion was his people,Jacob his allotted share (32:S-9).

This 'theology of election' is a theme which is constantly repeated in the Jewish scriptures (the OldTestament) and in the Jewish writings of the time ofJesus and Paul.The almost inevitable consequence was that Jewsthought of themselves as different from the otherpeoples of the ancient world - Israel, set apart to be apeople holy unto the Lord. This is a natural tendencyamong all nations and races. The Greeks divided theworld into G reek s and Barbarians - 'us' and the rest.


27/95

Justice for Gentiles: Paul and Justification by F aith 19So the Jews tended to divide the world into Jews andGentiles, or Jews and Greeks (since Greek was theinternational language and culture of the Mediterranean world at that time).The trouble was that Israel's theology of electiongave this sense of national and cultural distinctiveness areligious dimension too. Israel had been chosen by Godfor himself. The other nations he had given an inferiorstatus, having put them under the authority of othergods or angelic beings. But Israel the one G od had keptfor himself.This distinctiveness was marked out most clearlyby the law, the Torah - that is, the law given throughMoses (making up the first five books of the Bible). InJewish self-understanding the law had been given byGod as part of his choice of Israel. In choosing Israel tobe his own, God had made a 'covenant', or, we mightsay, a contract with Israel. Their part of the 'deal' wasthat they should live in accordance with the rulesprovided by Moses. God had promised, freely andwithout com pulsion , to be their G od - that is, to watchover them as their very own 'guardian angel', as ashepherd tends his flock. In return, Israel should live inthe way that was appropriate to a people whose Godwas the Lord. And that way was marked out by theTorah, the law.

Here again Deuteronomy is the classic expressionof this Jewish theological 'given'. The whole structureof the book gives it the character of a fundamentalstatement of the covenant (agreement) between Godand his people. It starts in chapter 5 with the tencommandments, and climaxes in chapters 27 and 28with the statement of the curses which would followdisobedience and the blessings which would followobedience. If Israel needed guidance on how to 'walk'as God's people, this was where they needed to look.N ot e again, in parenthesis, the undermining of any


28/95

20 The Justice of Godassumption that Jewish theology taught the need toearn God's favour by doing good works. Obedience tothe law, for any on e wh o took De uteron om y seriously,was not a way of winning God's acceptance. On thecontrary, God's acceptance was the starting point ofobedience. Obedience to the law was basically theresponse of gratitude for God's choice of Israeland covenant with Israel. In the terms laid down inDeuteronomy, one did not obey in order to enter thecovenant. One obeyed because one was already inthe covenant, part of the covenant people. Surprise!Surprise! Classic Jewish teaching here is very likeclassic Reformation teaching: that good works are theoutworking of G od's acceptance n ot the cause of it, thefruit and not the root.

Bu t to return to our brief exposition of Jewish self-understanding at the time of Jesus and Paul. Israel'ssense of distinctiveness from other nations thus had twoaspects to it which become important if we are tounderstand what it was that Paul began to protestagainst.One was the sense that the law was a kind ofdefensive barricade which surrounded Israel and protected it from the defilement of the other nations. Godhad separated Israel from the other nations, and thelaw preserved that separateness. This was why, forexa m ple, circumcision w as so important for most Jews.A s the R om an historian, Tacitus, put it: 'They adoptedcircumcision to distinguish themselves from otherpe op les by this difference.' This was why the distinctionbetween clean and unclean foods was so important; itreinforced the difference between Israel and thenations (see e.g. Leviticus 20:24-26). Again, this waswhy Gentiles were forbidden to enter the Templesanctuary in Jerusalem; Mount Z ion was the focal po intof God's dwelling on earth, and so the most holy of allplaces.


29/95

Justice for Gen tiles: Paul and Ju stification by Faith 21Th e Letter of Ar isteas, a Jewish docum ent w rittenprobably a hundred years or so before Jesus, gives aclear expression to this attitude.In his wisdom the legislator (M oses) . . . surrounded uswith unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent ourmixing with any of the other peoples in anymatter. . . . So, to prevent our being perverted bycontact with others or by mixing with bad influences, hehedged us in on all sides with strict observancesconnected with meat and drink and touch and hearingand sight, after the manner of the Law (139-142).

In other words, the law reinforced Israel's sense ofdistinctiveness and separateness. To be 'within the law'or 'under the law' was to live out one's life within theterms laid down by the law, under the law's protection,as provided by God for his people.The other aspect of Jewish thinking on electionand the law was the direct corollary of the first. For ifthe law marked out Israel, its distinctiveness andprivilege, then the Gentiles were outside the realm ofthat grace and favour. G od might still be concerned forthem, in appointing them their own guardian angels.But in relative terms the other nations were tremendously disadvantaged. The epistle to the Ephesiansexpresses the attitude clearly enough.Remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth . . .were at that time . . . aliensfromthe commonwealth ofIsrael, and strangers to the covenants of promise,having no hope and without God in the world (2:11-12).Moreover, to be outside God's chosen people wasto be outside the law. And to be outside the law was tobe, in an all too real sense, an 'outlaw', a 'lawless'person, a 'sinner'. So we find, quite often, in Jewishwritings of the period prior to Jesus and Paul the


30/95

22 The Justice of Godstraight identification: Gentile = sinner, one who doesnot know the law, or on e w ho knowing the law doe s notkeep it. Paul himself echoes the attitude when herecalls his confrontation with Peter in Antioch: 'We(Peter and Paul) are Jews by nature and not Gentilesinners' (Galatians 2:15). And Jesus too may havespoken in such terms: 'If you do good to those who dogood to you, what credit is that to you? For evensinners do the sam e' (Luke 6:33; M atthew 5:47 - 'D onot even the Gentiles do the same?').

In short, a fundamental conviction for Jews ofPaul's time was that God had chosen Israel to be hisown, and had given Israel the law to mark Israel offfrom other nations. An inevitable corollary was that theother nations, the Gentiles, were outside the scope ofGod's full favour, and unacceptable to him because oftheir lawlessness. In the light of this we can begin tounderstand what was the Judaism within which Paulwas trained, and what it meant for Saul the Jew tobecome Paul the Christian.Luther was right to see Paul's conversion as a keyto understanding Paul's doctrine of justification byfaith. What he failed to appreciate was the character ofthat conversion - what Paul was converted from, andwhat he was converted to.Paul tells us quite explicitly what he was convertedfrom. It was from being a persecutor of the followers ofJesus. When he recalled his 'earlier life in Judaism', thefirst thing that came to mind was his violent persecutionof the church of God (Galatians 1:13). When he recalledhis conversion , it was in terms of God's grace to him as apersecutor of the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:8-9).

The three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts have attheir centre the sam e question heard by Paul, 'Saul, Saul,why do you persecute me?' (9:4; 22:7; 26:14). And whydid h e persecute? Paul himself gives the answer: it was amatter of 'zeal' (Philippians 3:6).


31/95

Justice for Gen tiles: Paul and Ju stification by Faith 23Now the choice of that word was not accidental.Within the Judaism of Paul's day 'zeal' had a veryspecific sense. It meant wholehearted commitment tosafeguard the privileges and prerogatives of Israeldescribed above from any abuse or curtailment. Itincluded, in particular, willingness to use force ifnecessary to maintain Israel's set-apartness from theother nations. The ideal of such zeal was Phinehas. InNumbers 25:1-1:15 Phinehas is remembered as theone w ho had maintained Israel's separateness by k illing

an Israelite who took a Midianite woman into his tent.In Ecclesiasticus 45:23-24 this action is attributed toPhinehas's zeal. And in Psalm 106:30-31 this act is'accounted to Phinehas for righteousness'. It wasPhinehas's zeal which inspired the Maccabees to armedresistance against the attempts of the Syrian overlordsto eliminate Israel's distinctiveness in the 160s B C . A ndit was Phinehas's zeal from w hich the Zea lots took theirname, the freedom fighters who led the fight againstRom e in A D 66 in defence of the Lord G od's sole crownrights over Israel.

Paul evidently thought of himself as a 'zealot' inthe same tradition (Ga latians 1 3-14 ; A cts 22:3). H e toohad been willing to take up the sword in expression ofsuch zeal. That can only m ean that he had regarded thefollowers of Jesus as posing a serious threat to Israel'scovenant status and distinctiveness. He must have seenthe openness of these first Christians to receive Gentiles into their gatherings as something which brokedown the protective barrier of the law and underminedJewish set-apartness. For Jew s w ho b elieved in a JewishMessiah fully to accept Gentiles as of their ownnumber, without requiring them to become Jews, wastoo much of a contradiction for the pre-Christian Paul.Such was his zeal for the Lord and zeal for the law thathe was ready to persecute and 'destroy' the newmovement.


32/95

24 The Justice of GodPaul is equally clear on what he was converted to.In a word, he was converted to the Gentiles. Or, to bemore precise, he was converted to the equally burningconviction that the good news of Jesus was indeed,after all, for the Gentiles.In fact he never speaks of his conversion as a'conversion'. For Paul it was a calling or commissioning. The train of thought already cited from Galatians 1runs on: '. . . God . . . was pleased to reveal his Son in(or to) me, in order that I might proclaim him among

the Gentiles . . .' (1:15-16). Further in 1 Corinthians9:1-2 and 15:8-10 the appearance of Christ on theDamascus road is thought of exclusively in terms of itsconstituting Paul as apostle, or missionary; that is, asalways in his own self-understanding, 'apostle to theGentiles' .In other words, Paul was converted to the gospelthat he had persecuted so fiercely. Not surprisingly, itwas the element in the earliest Christian movementwhich he had found so offensive which became top ofhis ow n personal agenda in the com plete turning upsidedown of his 'conversion' experience. To recognize thathe had been wrong to persecute his fellow (Christian)Jew s for their op en ness to the Gentiles was to recognizealso that he must now proclaim that gospel himself.In the light of all this we can begin to see moreclearly what it was that Paul the Christian Jew protested against. What he protested against as a Christianwas what he had defended so vigorously as a Pharisee.This was the conviction that God's election of Israelmeant Israel's maintaining its set-apartness from Gentiles; that Gentiles as Gentiles were sinners and un

acceptable to God as such; that only by being orbecoming a Jew, coming 'under the law', could Gentiles participate in the blessings which belonged toIsrael through the covenant.The insight which came to him was that God's


33/95

Justice for Gen tiles: Paul and Justification by Faith 25purpose in choosing Israel in the first place always hadthe benefit of the Gentiles in view, the blessing of allnations. This he now saw to be the meaning of theoriginal promise to Abraham and the other patriarchson which the whole covenant was based: 'In you(Abraham ) all the families of the earth shall be b lessed '(Genesis 12:3). It is this insight which lies at the heartof his exposition in Galatians 3-4 and Romans 34and 9-11. To put it another way, Paul's conversion/commissioning made him see the force of Israel'scommission to be 'a light to the nations, that my(God's) salvation may reach to the end of the earth'(Isaiah 49:6). This was a passage wh ich almost certainlylay behind his own conviction that he must now help tofulfil that very role (explicitly in Acts 13:47).

This is what the doctrine of justification by faithmeant for Paul. Luther was right. It was out of hisconversion experience that the Pauline teaching onjustification gained its distinctive character. But thatdistinctive character centred on the affirmation that theunconditional grace of God had Gentiles in viewas much as Jews. The doctrine of justification byfaith came to expression in these key letters of Paul(Galatians and Romans) as his attempt to prove thatGod's covenant blessings were for Gentiles as well asfor Jews, that God was ready to accept Gentiles asG entiles, without requiring them first to b eco m e Jew s.The Christian do ctr ine ^fj ^if ic^ tio ji by iaith-begins asPaul's protest not as an individual sinner against aJewish legalism, but as Paul's protest on behalf ofGentiles against.Jewish exclusiyism.

The difference between the traditional Reformation doctrine of justification and the emphasis we nowsee to have been Paul's is perhaps clearest at twopoints.One is on the theme of Jewish 'boasting'. Paulcriticizes this on more than one occasion. Traditionally


34/95

26 The Justice of Godthe boasting criticized has been understood as theboasting of self-achievement. 'No one can boast beforeGod' can, quite naturally, and quite properly, be takento mean, There is no ground for boasting before Godin anything we are or do.' But when the relevantpassages in Paul are examined more closely it becomesevident that that was not quite Paul's point, howevertrue it is. When Paul introduced the theme in Romansit is quite clear what he had in mind - the boasting ofthe (typical) 'Jew' in his privileged position before Godover against the other nations (Romans 2:17, 23). Whenhe returns to the them e at the end of R omans 3 the ob jectis clearly to protest against such boasting: the boasting inview is the assumption that God is to all intents andpurposes God of Jews only (3:27-30). And later on hecriticizes his fellow Jews for seeking 'to establish theirown righteousness' (Romans 10:3). Here the meaningis 'their own' and not anyone else's, that is, 'their own'as exclusively the righteousness of Jews, a righteousness which Gentiles as Gentiles could not share in.

The other is the theme of 'justification by works'.On several occasions Paul contrasts his understandingof the w ay G od's acceptance w orks in practice with themore common Jewish understanding. That 'no one isjustified by works of the law but only through faith' isone of Paul's most fundamental assertions (as Lutherrecognized). It lies at the heart of the same letters,themselves the heart of Christianity's theological inheritance from Paul, Romans and Galatians (see particularly Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:20-30).But what is it that Paul was hitting out against?Again the Lutheran tradition is clear on the question.'Works of the law' denote the good deeds, the earnestefforts and strivings, by which we may hope to commend ourselves to God. To quote the prayer of thePharisee in Jesus' fam ous parable, T fast twice a w eek ,I give tithes of all that I get' (Luke 18:12).


35/95

Justice for Gen tiles: P aul and Justification by Faith 27Once again, however, the interpretation is slightlyskewed. 'Works of the law' is now recognizable as aphrase in use at the time of Paul. We have severalexamples of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There it refersexplicitly to the particular understanding and practiceof the law which characterized the Qumran com m unity.The Qumran people, it should be recalled, were Jewswho had set up a monastery in the Judean desert, inorder to separate themselves from the sin which theybelieved had corrupted the rest of Judaism. 'Works ofthe law' signified that practice of the law which distinguished them from other Jews. Each year theQumran covenanter had to be examined to see that hispractice of the law was in line with this distinctiveQumran interpretation.In other words, w e are back once again in the sam e'us'/'them' mentality, with 'works of the law' understood as that practice of the law which distinguishedand separated 'us' from 'them'. In Paul's case 'theworks of the law' was the practice of the law whichdistinguished Jew from Gentile, which set apart thepeople of God, as consisting of Jews practising the law,from all other nations. This is why the phrase in Paulusually seem s to h ave in view such practices as circum

cision and food laws in particular. For it was thesepractices of the law, perhaps more than any others,which marked out Jews as different from Gentiles inthe ancient Mediterranean world.We can now see more clearly what Paul wasgetting at when he created his classic antithesis: Godjustifies (accepts) people through faith and not by

virtue of works of the law. He was not hitting at peoplewho thought they could earn God's goodwill by theirachievements, or merit God's final acquittal on thebasis of all their good deeds. That theological insight istrue and of lasting importance. But it is not quite whatPaul was saying. Paul's point was rather that God


36/95

28 The Justice of Godaccepts Gentiles in the same way that he accepts anyperson - by grace through faith, through their o pen nessto receive what Go d wishes to give them . That is to say,God accepts Gentiles as Gentiles, without requiringthem to take on a Jewish life-style or change theirnationality or race.To sum up, justification by faith as Paul formulated it cannot be reduced to the experience of individual salvation as though that was all there is to it.Justification by faith is Paul's fundamental objection tothe idea that God has limited his saving goodness to aparticular people.What a tragedy that this expression of the Christiangospel has been so much neglected! H ad this dimensionof justification by faith not been so lost sight of in thecountry of Martin Luther, it would have been m uch lesseasy for Nazi racialism to prom ote its philosophy of themaster race and to embark on the genocide of the Jewsfifty years ago. It is this dimension of justification byfaith which has been so ignored in South Africa ofrecent years. A country which prides itself in its biblicalheritage has failed so signally for so long to recognizehow deeply its policy of apartheid offends and destroysthe gospel of justification. Sadly also some expressionsof contemporary Zionism have fallen into the sametrap, and in the break-up of Eastern Europe in theearly '90s the same distressing formula is beingrepeated.

Not that we should be too quick to cast the firststone, for many British missionaries in the 19th centurymade the same mistake. They confused Christianitywith Victorian culture and Victorian values. This mistake is often sadly repea ted in North Am erica today -the confusion of Christianity with the A m erican way oflife. Luther needed to discover justification by faith atthe individual level. Just as much today we need to


37/95

Justice for Gen tiles: Pa ul and Justification by Faith 29rediscover Paul's original teaching on the subject. Godaccepts all w ho be lieve and trust in him: G entile as we llas Jew, black and white, Palestinian and Israelite,central American and US citizen, Roman Catholic andProtestant, Orthodox and Muslim. But there is yetmore to be said.


38/95


39/95

C H A P T E R T H R E EThe Justice of God

There is one further dimension of our subject which wedare not forget. For this we must go back to the OldTestament. We have already seen the importance ofgoing behind the traditional Reformation understanding of justification by faith to the earlier context ofPaul. Now we need to go back behind Paul to theearlier language on which he drew: from Luther toPaul; from Paul to the Old Testament. Only so will webe able to gather up the various threads which togethermake up the pattern of divine justice as understoodwithin the biblical traditions.

The point is, that 'righteousness', or 'justification',is a thoroughly Old Testament concept. Luther wasable to give the idea of 'justification by faith' such acentral place in his reformulation of the Christianmessage, because Paul had made so much of it in hisoriginal statement of what Christianity was all about.But Paul had not invented the concept or language.When Paul brought the language of righteousness/justification to the fore it was the language of the OldTestament which he was using. As we shall see, Paulwas plugging into an important theme in Old Testament writings.


40/95

32 The Justice of God

Righteousness in relationshipTh e key to understanding the them e of righteousness inthe Bible, together with its related ideas of justice andjustification, is to recognize that we are dealing withconcepts of relationship. To appreciate the force of thispoint those of us who belong to the European traditionof thought need to take a conscious step out of ourtraditional way of thinking about such ideas. This isbecause our thinking in this area has been shapedprimarily by our heritage from the classical Greek andR om an period of our history. In Greco-R om an thought'righteousness/justice' was an ideal, to which all expressions of righteousness and justice were onlyapproximations. Righteousness/justice was an absolute

That also means that Paul was assuming theteaching of the Old Testament on that subject. Severalaspects of that teaching were not in dispute. Paul hadnothing new or different to say on these aspects. So hedoes not mention them . H e takes them for granted. H eassumes that the recipients of his letters, familiar asthey would be with the Jewish scriptures, would recognize the wider ramifications of the the m e. That is why itis not possible to read off a comprehensive doctrine ofGod's justice from Paul's letters alone. What was not indispute need not be discussed. But the fact that theywere not controversial (and so not written about byPaul) did not make them any the less important. It isthese 'taken-for-granted' elements of our theme,assumed and so unexpressed by Paul, which we neednow to investigate.

Two of them are of first importance for us. Thefirst is to recognize that in biblical thought righteousnessis relational. Th e second is that in the biblical thought ofjustice the vertical and the horizontal are inseparable.


41/95

The Justice of God 33ethical norm against which particular claims and dutiescould be measured.

On this understanding a just/righteous act orperson was one that measured up well against thestandard of right. Failure so to measure up to thisstandard involved ethical or criminal liability or guilt.'Justice' was like a divine principle of order which hadto be sustained and appeased lest disorder and anarchyprevail. Our legal system still shows the influence ofsuch Greco-Roman thought when we say such thingsas, 'The demands of justice must be satisfied.'But this is not the way H ebrew writers understoodjustice. In Hebrew thought righteousness is a conceptof relation. In Hebrew thought righteousness is something one has precisely in one's relationships as a socialbeing. That is to say, righteousness is not somethingwhich an individual has on his or her own, indepen

dently of anyone else - as could be the case with theGreco-Roman concept. Rather, righteousness is amatter of the responsibilities which arise out of socialrelationships. People are righteous when they meet theclaims which others have on them by virtue of theirparticular relationships.Thus, in particular, the king is righteous when he

fulfils his responsibilities as king towards his people.The servant is righteous when he obeys his master. Agood example is 1 Samuel 24:17, where king Saulconfesses that David was more righteous than he.Why? Because David had remained faithful to hisresponsibility towards Saul, as subject to God'sanointed ruler, whereas Saul had abused the responsibility of h is superior status and power. It was the specialresponsibility of the judge in ancient Israel to recognizewhat these various obligations were within the nationand to judge accordingly (e .g . E xod us 23 :7 -8 ; Leviticus19:15; Isaiah 5:23). In other words, righteousness andrelationship were two sides of the same coin.


42/95

34 The Justice of GodThe same is true, and pre-eminently so, of God'srelationship with his human creatures. In Hebrewthought God is righteous because, as Creator, hesustains his creation and makes it possible for hiscreation to thrive. Human creatures are righteous whenthey recognize their creaturely status, and honour andworship God as God. This is one of the points Paulalludes to briefly at the beginning of his great exposition of the Christian gospel in Romans 1:18-23.But in Jewish thought the more important relation

ship which God had undertaken was that with Israel.He had chosen Israel to be his own people, out of allthe nations of the earth. His righteousness here meanthis faithfulness to the obligation which he had takenupon himself in so choosing Israel. This was to supportand defend Israel, to save Israel even from its ownfailings. Israel's righteousness, in response, was to livewithin that relationship, to live in accordance with theterms G od laid dow n for that relationship. These termswere set out in the law, the Torah.Here, then, is where the tie-in between righteousness and law begins in biblical thought, a link which hascaused such confusion in Christian theology. Israel'srighteousness is first and foremost an expression of herrelationship with God. It is not seen as a means to theachieving of that relationship, but as the living out ofthat relationship. It was God who took the initiative infirst cho osing Israel, a slave p eop le of little c onsequence in the ancient near Eastern world. To thosealready chosen as his pe op le he gave the law. Only afterthe Exodus brought about by God's power, comes thegiving of the law at Mount Sinai. The human righteousness called for and provided for in the law (obligationsbut also means of atonement) is conceived first of allas the response to divine righteousness. The wholeposition is classically set out in Deuteronomy chapters5:1 to 29:1.


43/95

The Justice of God 35Moreover, Jewish thought emphasized the priorityand indispensability of God's righteousness still morestrikingly. For writers like th e Psalmist or the author ofthe second half of Isaiah were very conscious of Israel'sfailure to maintain its righteousness - to k ee p its side ofthe bargain with G od , as w e m ight say. S o it is in thesewritings in particular that we find the idea of God'srighteousness merging into the idea of God's salvation.They understood the obligation which God had takenupon himself to be such that God would continue to be

Israel's God even when Israel was unrighteous. Godwould sustain his side of the relationship even whenIsrael failed to uphold its side. God would continue tobe righteous despite Israel's unrighteousness.Thus, as already noted in chapter 1, we find thePsalmist calling on God to deliver or vindicate him inaccordance with his (G od 's) righteousness (31:1; 35:24;

71:2; 143:11). A nd m odern translations regularly translate 'righteousness' in the Hebrew and Greek as'deliverance', 'acts of salvation', 'vindication', and soon (e.g. Psalms 51:14; 65:5; 71:15; 98:2; Isaiah 46:13;51:5-8; 62:1-2; 63:1, 7). Here precisely is where Paulgot his concep t of divine righteou sness - G od 's uncon ditional acceptance of the sinner. The God who acquitsthe ungodly (Romans 4:5) is the God who delivers,saves, vindicates failing Israel. The Christian doctrineof justification arises out of the Jewish scriptural understanding of Israel's divine election. This is also whyPaul could argue as strongly as he did against what hesaw to be the misinterpretation of the Jewish scriptureson this point am ong his Jewish contem poraries (chapter2 above).Several important conclusions emerge from thisexamination of the background of Paul's teachingon divine righteousness. (1) The Jewish and earlyChristian understanding of God's justice put theprimary emphasis on the divine initiative, on God's


44/95

36 The Justice of Godreadiness to do for his human creatures what they couldnot do for themselves, on God's readiness to 'go thesecond mile' and more. The concept of justice is notone of an inflexible rule or norm, where failure has tobe punished unyieldingly, where the law must take itscourse. The metaphor of human relationship is morefundamental than that of the law court. In the lawcourt, strictly speaking, there is no place for forgiveness. But in the biblical concept of God's justice, ofdivine righteousness, it is the sustaining of relationshipthrough difficult circumstances, the healing of relationships suffering fracture by human failure, which is themore basic thought.

(2) In biblical thought human righteousness is anexpression of divine righteousness. Human justiceshould be a reflection of God's justice. That is to say,the responsibilities laid down in the law are a responseto God's initiative in rescuing Israel from Egypt andgiving the law to Israel. Human righteousness, strictlyspeaking, arises out of gratitude for God's initiative.This is also to recognize that the system of humanjustice is not a self-sustaining system. Because ofhuman greed and failure it cannot be self-sustaining.Left to itself it will always break down in disorder andchaos. From the Jewish and Christian perspective thesystem of human justice can work only if it is seen as areflection of God's justice. It can be sustained only bythe energy of gratitude to God and as a response to hisgenerous purpose in his dealings with humankind.

(3) The recognition that righteousness is a matterof relationship and not of the individual as an independent agent also helps resolve some of the old problemswhich plagued earlier discussion of justification byfaith. Is God's righteousness something he has inhimself (an 'attribute'), or something he gives to others(a status)? Does God simply lcounf someone asrighteous (even when that person is still unrighteous),


45/95

The Justice of God 37or does he actually make the person righteous? Itshould be clear now that the se questions arise out of theGreco-Roman context which shaped the post-biblicaldiscussion of righteousness/justification. But once wegrasp the relational character of the biblical conceptswe can see that these are non-questions. For God'srighteousness is his acting out of the obligation whichhe took upon himself in creating the world and inchoosing Israel to be his people. And it consistsprimarily in drawing human persons into the appropriate relationship with himself and in sustaining them inthat relationship. In such a relationship no humanpartner can remain unchanged.

Horizontal and verticalEqually fundamental to Jewish thought is the axiomthat responsibility towards one's neighbour arises outof Israel's relationship with God. God had chosenIsrael to be his people and had given them the law toshow them how to live as his people. Within thatrelationship the Israelites had a two fold responsibilitytowards God and towards their fellows. The point isthat the two go together. One could not be just beforeGod without being just to one's neighbour.This is already clear in the basic statement ofIsrael's responsibility under the law - the ten commandments (Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21).As is well known, the ten commandments come in twoparts, or two tables. The first deals with responsibilitytowards God - no other gods, no idols, keeping hisname and his sabbath holy. The second deals withresponsibility towards others - honour father andmother, no murder, adultery, stealing, false witness,coveting. Again the point is clear: the two go together.In Jewish thought the righteous person is one w ho lives


46/95

38 The Justice of Godin accordance with both tables of the ten commandments. It would not be possible to be just before Godby keeping only the first four commandments andignoring the rest, just as it would be impossible to bejust before God by observing the last six and ignoringthe first four. Vertical righteousness is not independentof horizontal righteousness.A good example of this interlocking character ofresponsibility towards God and responsibility towardsone's fellows is provided by Ezekiel 18:5-9.

If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right -if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyesto the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile hisneighbour's wife or approach a woman in her time ofimpurity, does not oppress any one, but restores to thedebtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his breadto the hungry and covers the naked with a garment,does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholdshis hand from iniquity, executes true justice betweenman and man, walks in my statutes, and is careful toobserve my ordinances - he isrighteous,he shall surelylive, says the Lord God.So too the vehemence with which the prophetsdenounced any attempt to pull apart religious andsocial obligation is a prominent feature within the OldTestament. Consider for example Isaiah 58:3-7.(Israel speaks) 'Why do we fast, but you do not see?Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?'(God replies) Look, you serve your own interest onyour fast dayand oppress all your workers.Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fightand to strike with a wicked fist.Such fasting as you do todaywill not make your voice heard on high.Is such the fast that I choose,a day to humble oneself?


47/95

The Justice of God 39Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?Will you call this a fast,a day acceptable to the Lord?Is not this the fast that I choose:to loose the bonds of injustice,to undo the thongs of the yoke,to let the oppressed go free,and to break every yoke?Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,

and bring the homeless poor into your house;when you see the naked, to cover them,and not to hide yourself from your own kin?Other good examples of similar prophetic indignationare Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 3. Evidently the temptation to pull apart obligation towards God from obligation towards other people was just as great in OldTestament Israel as it is today. And the propheticresponse is clear. It cannot be done. Vertical andhorizontal are interlocked. It is impossible to be just,acceptable before God, while at the same time beingunjust towards one's neighbour.

That is precisely why it is important to see 'justification' and 'justice' as interlocking concepts andrealities. In Hebrew and Greek they are derived fromthe same root. The separation which has been allowedto develop between our different English words -justify, righteous, justice - should never have beenallowed to happen. They belong together. It is notpossible to have justification without justice.

Particularly notable within the religion of Israel isthe strong sense of responsibility towards the disadvantaged of society. Within the more general obligation towards the neighbour there is a specialemphasis placed on obligation towards those who areunable to fend for themselves. Characteristically those


48/95

40 The Justice of Godin view are the widow, the orphan, the stranger and thepoor. So, for example, in Zechariah 7:9-10 -

Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments,show kindness and mercy each to one another; do notoppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor;and do not devise evil in your hearts against oneanother.This concern for the disadvantaged should not beconfused with a purely individualistic charity. It wasenshrined in civil law , and thus formally recognized as aresponsibility of society. H ere w e should no te above allDeuteronomy 24:10-22. Not least of interest andimportance is the practicality of its legislation.When you make your neighbour a loan of any kind, youshall not go into his house to take his pledge. . . . If theperson is poor, you shall not sleep in the garment givenyou as the pledge. You shall give the pledge back bysunset, so that your neighbour may sleep in the cloakand bless you; and it shall be righteousness to youbefore the Lord your God.You shall not withhold the wages of poor andneedy labourers, whether other Israelites or aliens whoreside in your land in one of your towns.

You shall pay them their wages daily beforesunset, because they are poor and their livelihooddepends on them; . . .You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphanof justice; you shall not take a widow's garment inpledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt andthe Lord your God redeemed you from there; thereforeI command you to do this.When you reap your harvest in your field, andforget a sheaf in the field , you shall not go back to getit; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and thewidow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in allyour undertakings. When you beat your olive trees, d o,


49/95

The Justice of God 41not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, theorphan, and the widow. . . . Remember that you werea slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this.A lso significant is the familiar imagery used in bothDeuteronomy and Zechariah. The poor were to beunderstood not simply as neighbour, but as brother(Deuteronomy 15:11; Zechariah 7:9-10). Israel's self-understanding as son to G od as Father was interdependent on recognition of the fellow Israelite, and particularly the disadvantaged member of the community, asbrother. Equally significant is the fact that this obligation to on e's neighbour was seen to em brace no t onlythe fellow citizen, but also the sojourner, the residentalien. 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself: I amthe Lord . . . . The alien who resides with you shall beto you as the citizen am ong yo u; you shall love the alien

as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: Iam the Lord your God' (Leviticus 19:18, 34).The Old Testament emphasis on the integrationand interdependence of the horizontal and the verticalin the m atter of justice and justification is thus clear. Soalso is the importance within the righteousness calledfor by God of the responsibility of the God-fearing

society for its weaker mem bers, unable to cop e on theirown.For their part Christians need only recall that Jesusunderlined both emphases. In answer to the question,'Which commandment is first of all?', he stressed thatlove of G od is the first priority. B ut at once h e coup ledwith that the call for love of neighbour as oneself. Thetwo together make up the sum and substance of the law(Matthew 22:35-40). For Jesus it was impossible toseparate the two, it was impossible to conceive of anacceptability before G od w hich did not include an actedout recognition of responsibility for the neighbour.Moreover, his parable of the Good Samaritan made it


50/95

42 The Justice of Godclear just how extensive that responsibility could be -crossing both religious and racial lines (Lu ke 10:29 -37 ).His followers must be prepared to count even theenemy as neighbour (Matthew 5:43-48).All this is of a piece with Jesus' openness to the'sinner', to those unacceptable in devout religiouscircles (Mark 2:16-17; Matthew 11:19). From here itbecomes an easy step to Paul and to Paul's insistencethat the gospel of justification is precisely for the'sinner', Gentile as well as Jew. Thus we begin to seemore clearly how the whole theme of justification,justice and righteousness is indeed all of a piece forJesus and Paul as well as for their Jewish forebears.To sum up then. The biblical understanding ofjustification/justice/righteousness is all of a piece. Inparticular, it involve s two important aspects: righteousness as essentially involving re lationships, arising out ofrelationships, expressed in relationships; and righteousness, as both horizontal and vertical, as involvingresponsibility to one's neighbour as part and parcel ofone's responsibility towards God. Unless these twoaspects of biblical thought are firmly grasped theconcept of righteousness, of justification and justice, isbound to become distorted. In Hebrew and earliestChristian thought it would not be possible for someoneto be righteous apart from, without reference to, thatindividual's responsibility to others; it would not bepossible to be righteous before God while involved inunjust relationships with fellow humans. And centralwithin this understanding of the justice looked for byGod was the recognition of society's responsibilitytowards the disadvantaged and the concern to conformsocial relationships to the model of the caring family.When talk turns to questions of justice, then, wedo well to ask: Whose justice - God's or ours?


51/95

P A R T T W OTHREE CASE STUDIES


52/95


53/95

Introduction

So far we have been exploring the meaning of the word'justification'. As we moved from Martin Luther backto Paul himself, and then back further still into the OldTestament, we saw that it is a word which contains acluster of ideas. It points first and foremost to God,who in his grace and mercy takes the initiative andaccepts us wh ile we are sinners. T he Christian life is nota matter of striving for God's acceptance of us; we arealready offered acceptance by G od - that is the start ofthe C hristian life, not its goal. Our task is to respond tothat offer and live our lives in faith, that is, trusting inGod's promises. Furthermore, that offer is open to allpe op le. T here is no question of it being confined to on egroup to the exclusion of oth ers; it is op en to absolutelyeveryone inclusively.

God's justification or righteousness is thereforedeeply personal. It is God acting to vindicate us whenwe do not deserve it, to draw us into a personalrelationship with himself. Moreover, we cannot enjoythis personal relationship on an individualistic basis, inisolation from others. Our relationship as people whoare justified by God is inseparable from our relation-Ship to our neighbour. Once again, this must be


54/95

46 The Justice of Godinclusive. W e must be concerned w ith the weak and thedisadvantaged - those who tend to be neglected in oursocieties. We must be concerned to include even ourenemies. The whole of the life of society comes underthe scrutiny of God. We must show our love of Godand neighbour not only in our dealings with thisneighbour or that, but in the very structures of communities, both national and international, which havesuch a powerful effect on the well-being of all theirmembers. It is woefully inadequate to suppose thatjustification is a private affair, only granting peace inthe heart of the individual and having nothing to dowith society. Justification is inseparable from justice.

It is perhaps hardly surprising that nations do notlive up to the demands of the gospel. Nationalism andracialism are all too common. The excitement of 1989,when the Berlin Wall was to dismantled and communism began to collapse in Eastern Europe, has givenway to dismay at the emergence of rampant nationalismand racialism. There is a proper place for nationalloyalty, but all too often it has overtones of superiorityand exclusivism. 'Ethnic cleansing' is a dismal additionto our vocabulary, and a nightmare for the sufferers inthe former Yugoslavia. The Church has an immenserole to play in combating these evils. It has to defendthe victims (often Muslims) and protest against allforms of discrimination.Y et it must be said that the actions of Christians -and even whole churches - often show that they havegreat difficulty in grasping the meaning of justification.Here also perhaps we should not be too surprised. It isa commonplace (and only a little introspection isneeded to confirm it) that though Christians are justified by God, they remain sinners, always in need offorgiveness. The battles fought by Martin Luther, byPaul, by Jesus, and by the prophets of the Old Testament imply that the Church must engage in a never-


55/95

Introduction 47ending struggle to grasp in heart and mind the m eaningof justification.An important point here is that it is not enough tobe able to state a doctrine of justification, or any otherdoctrine for that matter. The core of Christianity is notsimply doctrine, vital though that is, but devotion anddiscipleship in our whole life. We are called to respondto God's acceptance of us, and that involves a lifelongstruggle to becom e w ho w e are called to be and to growinto a perfect relationship with God and our neighbours. Doctr ines are necessary signposts along the w ay,though unlike signposts, they have to become part ofthe fabric of our lives. Each of us belongs to a certainculture at a certain point in history, and that is equallytrue of the Church. In the context where we are set weare called to live faithfully to God and his promises,shown supremely to us in Jesus Christ and the gosp el o fjustification, and to live responsibly in the world. Weare to worship, pray, study the Bible and Christianhistory. W e are at the sam e time to read the signs of ourtimes in the light of the gospel, and to act accordingly.And it is only as we immerse ourselves in all thosefacets of our Christian discipleship that we shall cometo know God and the full meaning of what he has doneand is doing for us.

O ne way in which we can b e h elped along Our wayis to hear about the experiences of other Christians,their struggles to live faithfully. There will never besimple applications from one situation to another, butwe can enter imaginatively into the situations of othersand so become more skilled at reading the signs of thetimes in our own culture. The next two chapters tell ofthe exp erience of Christians in two parts of the world inthe first half of this century. In each case there weremass failures of perception and action by Christians,but thetiext generation has tried to learn from thosefailures and strengthen the hold of the Church on the


56/95

48 The Justice of Godmeaning of justification. The two examples are Germany and Japan.

The third example is nearer home. It is a criticalreflection on the Thatcher years - an attempt to readthe signs of the times in the light of the gospel ofjustification. Mrs Thatcher's government pursued avery different set of policies from those of the consensus of the preceding years 1945-1979 and promoted avery different ethos. She herself aimed not merely ateconomic and political reforms, but also at renewingthe soul of the nation. How did that ambition relate tojustification and justice? This question is particularlyimportant becau se Mrs Thatcher is a Christian, as weremany Conservative MPs and ministers, and no government in recent times cared so much about the role ofthe Church in the affairs of the nation. Moreover, MrsThatcher clearly struck chords with many Christians inthe country. It was estimated that in 1979 64% ofChristians w ho vote d in the general election voted for aConservative candidate, and most of them maintainedtheir support right up to her departure from office inlate 1990. What, then, are we to think of her administration from the standpoint of justification?


57/95

C HA P T E R F OU RGermany: A Tale of Two Kingdoms

O ne of the great dangers of the Reform ation was that itwould become more and more negative towardsCatholicism. A Protestant is strictly one who speaks uppositively for a certain set of Christian convictions, asLuther demonstrated in his own life. He wanted topurify Catholicism, and he retained many of its beliefsand practices, much like the English King Henry VIII.But the temptation to launch attacks against Catholicism was very strong, and Luther cannot escape some ofthe blame for what happened after him. He was notabove intemperate attacks himself. Moreover the veryroute by which he recovered the doctrine of justification by faith held particular dangers. Such an introspective route could easily to lead to two unhealthydevelopments.

The first would be an erosion of the sense of theChurch as a corporate and a world-wide body . It wouldbe all too easy to start out from the question of myindividual faith, my private relationship with God, andto think of the Church as no more than an assembly oflike-minded individuals in a particular locality.

Secondly, the Catholic Church had a strong sensethat the corporate and institutional life of society was to


58/95

50 The Justice of Godbe lived in conformity with the laws of God. God, itwas claimed, in creating the world had built into it amoral structure, and it was the task of human beings intheir social lives to shape their institutions and theirlaws in accordance with that divine law. Emphasis onthe individual and the individual conscience could veryeasily obscure that sense of a divine law governing thesocial life of humanity.In short, the emphasis in Protestantism on thecondition of the individual soul and its relation withGod could weaken the sense of the corporate natureboth of the Church and of society.Now Luther himself did have a strong sense of theChurch as a corporate body. He also believed thatsociety should be governed according to the will ofGod. He had sharp things to say about the practice ofusury, and about the conduct of the princes of theGerman states. However, the very way in which hethought of the rejation of the Christian faith andpolitics could readily undergo a dangerous development.Luther distinguished between two kingdoms, thekingdom on God's right and the kingdom on his left.God was Lord of both kingdoms, but they were to berun on different, and indeed apparently contradictorylines. The kingdom on the right was essentially thekingdom of the Gospel, where the pure love of Godwas to be expressed. This kingdom came to be associated particularly with the individual Christian and theChurch. In this kingdom there is the preaching of theword and the administration of the sacraments, andthe conversion and sanctification of individuals in theChristian faith.The kingdom on the left refers to the public arena.Here Luther identified various orders, or structures oflife: the family and marriage, the economy, and thestate. This was really Luther's version of the Catholic


59/95

Germany: A Tale of Two Kingdoms 51idea that God has set up a certain moral structure forhuman life in society. It was the task of the princes ofGermany to rule in such a way that these orders weremaintained. Luther had a very strong sense of thesinfulness of human beings. He tended to look on thestate as charged by God to maintain these orders in agodless world. The state was essentially a dyke againstanarchy, and the prince was not to wield the sword invain. In the kingdom on the left the prince wouldprovide strong, coercive government.

There was therefore a sharp contrast, perhapseven a contradiction between the world of freedom andlove according to the G osp el on the right han d, and theworld of coercion in the pursuit of justice on the lefthand.In Germany in the centuries after Luther we findthat this distinction between the two kingdoms hardensinto a separation. Christians concentrated more andm ore on the bible, on preaching, and on the conversionand sustaining of individual souls. The conduct ofpolitics, an almost alien world, was left to the godlyprince.The difficulties of this position were rudelyexposed in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. Before that time Germany was a country ofinnumerable small states. Many Germans longed fornational unity. But it was only under Bismarck in thelate nineteenth century that this aspiration was satisfied. The British had long enjoyed national unity. Theirvast empire would have be en im possible without it. TheGermany of Bismarck Avas determined to catch up withthe other great powers and find an equitable place intheir company. The trouble was that Bismarck's powerpolitics were very hard to square with the Christianethic. The theologian Friedrich Naumann solved theproblem by entirely separating the two. He declaredthat he had ceased to judge German imperial policy by


60/95

52 The Justice of Godthe standards of the Sermon on the Mount. But thisseparation was unsatisfying and unstable.The Germans became intoxicated with the idea of'the people'. Indeed, this became a new order alongside the other orders of Luther. Naumann wrote,'Peoples are great corporate personalities . . . Powerlies in the devotion of the individual to the greaterwhole, to fellow-feeling with all who travel the sameroad of world history. As a people we are only parts ofa very slow movement. This long life from an originalpeople to a completely matured people is evident inwar more than at any other time.' Naumann waswriting in 1915.This concept of the people did not remain simply apolitical one. Politicians love to have the unqualifiedsupport of religion for their designs. Christians inGerm any leapt to provide it. On the very day when theFirst World War broke out Ernst von Dryander,Chaplain to the German court, declared, 'Looking tothe state which reared us, to the Fatherland wherein liethe roots of our strength, we know that we are goinginto battle for our culture against the uncultured, forGerman civilisation against barbarism, for the freeGerman personality bound to God against the instinctsof the undisciplined masses . . . and God will be withour just weapons. For German faith and German pietyare intimately bound up with German civilisation.'So the separation of the kingdoms was transformed into their unqualified alliance. Having concentrated for so long on the individual and the privatepractice of the faith, Christians seemed to have nocriteria for putting any bounds upon the state. Theysimply and abjectly endorsed the war machine.The surrender of Germany in 1918 was not therefore merely a military defeat. It threatened to be thecollapse of all meaning. One German wrote, 'TheGerman people have surrendered their inner honour


61/95

Germany: A Tale of Two Kingdoms 53and dignity, even their self-respect. The completedestruction of all moral precepts has catapulted us intoghastly depths.' German Christians were agreed thatthe crisis was fundamentally religious and moral. TheProtestant Church therefore had to rise to a supremechallenge and be, as one put it, 'a school of work,service, reverence and love of the Fatherland.' Theindividualism of the past seem ed too narrow, the familytoo limited. Yet culture and the state had been broughtto collapse. O nly the peop le had survived. The Germ andesire for community, service and sacrifice was nowpoured into the concept of the people.

Ev ents now took a very sinister turn. The Germ anpeople was not merely to recover its inner honour anddignity. The movement for the restoration of thepeople was marked by a strong ethical dualism. Itssupporters thought in terms of good and evil, light anddarkness, purity and corruption. The ideas expressedby von Dryander were as powerful as ever. TheGerm an peo ple stood on the side of good and light andpurity, and was capable of winning the battle againstthe forces of evil in the world.

But where was evil and darkness and corruptionembodied? What were the boundaries of this Germanpeople? The finger was pointed at the Jew. Somebelieved that traditional racialist ideas had bee n scientifically proved. 'The people is an entity created byblood', wrote Max Gerstenhauer in 1920. The Jewwould be the scapegoat for the loss of the war. 'Overmillions o f corpses surrounded Jby streams of blo od theuniversal Jew strides towards the throne of worlddom ination,' declared Th eodo r Fritsch. It was not longbefore one Adolf Hitler wrote, 'There is no makingpacts with Jew s. There can on ly be the hard either-or. Ifor my part decided to go into politics.'For

Documents

The Justice of God