The Meaning of Justification

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

Roman Catholics and Protestants differ over the fundamental meaning of the verb ‘to justify’ as it is used in the Scriptures. Protestants define ‘to justify’ as ‘to declare righteous’ or ‘to estimate as righteous’:

“Question 70: What is justification?

Answer: Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.”

-Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 70 and 71

On the other hand, Roman Catholics define ‘to justify’ as ‘to make righteous’:

“2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.”

-Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraphs 2017, 2019, 2025-2027

So, which one is right? This article will prove that, when used in a soteriological context, the Protestant definition of justification is that which is found in both the Old and New Testaments. All Biblical quotes come from the NASB (emphasis mine):

Deuteronomy 25:1

“If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,”

1 Kings 8:32

“…then hear in heaven and act and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked by bringing his way on his own head and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.”

Commentary:

In both these cases, the Scriptures describe how proper justice is to be handled. The just judge is to declare the wicked guilty if they are guilty and declare the righteous innocent if they are innocent.

Job 32:1-2

“Then these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram burned against Job his anger burned because he justified himself before God.”

Commentary:

God was angry at Job because “he was righteous in his own eyes” (i.e. he declared himself to be not guilty of sin). It would make no sense for God to get angry at Job if Job made himself intrinsically righteous.

Proverbs 17:15

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.”

Commentary:

Here, Solomon tells his son that someone who declares the wicked ‘not guilty’ and the righteous ‘guilty’ is an abomination to the LORD. It would make no sense to say that someone who makes the wicked righteous is an abomination to God because that would obviously be a good thing.

Isaiah 5:23

“Who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!”

Commentary:

Again, this is the same condemnation of evil judges who declared the wicked to be righteous for a bribe. If these judges had made righteous the wicked through a merit system such as community service, then the judges should not and would not have been condemned.

Isaiah 43:9

“All the nations have gathered together so that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this and proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, or let them hear and say, “It is true.””

Commentary:

The key word here is ‘witnesses’. It is used in a judicial context of God condemning idol worshippers and convicting them of the sin of idolatry. He asks the idolaters to bring forth any witnesses that received a revelation from another true god so that He could declare them not guilty of any wrong doing.

Micah 6:11

“Can I justify wicked scales and a bag of deceptive weights?”

Commentary:

This is a condemnation of fixed balances used by wicked merchants designed to cheat people out of a fair deal. The question that God asks is, “Can I justify wicked scales?” The implied answer is no. It would make no sense to say that the word ‘justify’ here means to make righteous (i.e. to repair the scales so that they are fairly balanced) and still have God’s implied answer of ‘no’. Of course, God could actually fix the scales so that they are fair, but He could not declare the unbalanced scales to be fair because it is His nature to hate such a thing. In context, the only way to take the word ‘justify’ is in a legal or judicial sense.

Likewise, if justification is a legal or a judicial act as Protestants say, then one would expect other legal or forensic terms being used in a soteriological context, and so, we find that the Scriptures use terms like ‘pardon’, ‘acquit’, ‘accuse’, ‘charge’ (i.e. to bring a legal charge against), and ‘condemn’ (i.e. the opposite of justify) in a soteriological context.

Exodus 23:7

“Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.”

Commentary:

Here, the NASB translates the word as acquit (as does the Catholic NAB). Other translations put it as ‘justify’. It is very important to note that the word that was used in the Greek Septuagint for ‘justify’ in this verse was ‘dikaion’, the same verb used by Paul in his Epistles. It is clearly legal and judicial in context because the preceding verses are speaking of lawsuits and witnesses.

Exodus 34:9

“He said, “If now I have found favor in Your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go along in our midst, even though the people are so obstinate, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your own possession.””

Commentary:

It is worthy to note that this particular generation of the people of Israel was never made righteous, and they continued in their ungratefulness. However, God freely pardoned them and did not destroy them. In our own times, state governors sometimes pardon criminals on death row. They pardon them, not because they actually are righteous, but because there usually wasn’t enough evidence to legally send them to death row. Thus, they are declared not guilty based on the lack of evidence.

Numbers 14:19-20

“Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your lovingkindness, just as You also have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” So the LORD said, “I have pardoned them according to your word;”

Commentary:

This is another example of the LORD freely pardoning this generation of the people of Israel. That generation was never made righteous, but they were declared not guilty and spared from God’s wrath at that moment.

Job 9:20

“Though I am righteous, my mouth will condemn me; though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty.”

Commentary:

Here,Job claims that he is righteous and does not deserve punishment, but he despairs that God will declare him to be guilty.

Job9:28

“I am afraid of all my pains, I know that You will not acquit me.”

Commentary:

Job clearly believes that he is a righteous man, and in fact, he was (Job 1:1). However, he believes that God will not declare him to be ‘not guilty’.

Job 34:17

“Shall one who hates justice rule? And will you condemn the righteous mighty One…”

Commentary:

Elihu asks Job a rhetorical question: Will you condemn (i.e. the opposite of justify) God? Obviously, no one can make God less holy. Thus, it is clear that Elihu was asking Job whether he will declare that God is unrighteous.

Isaiah 43:25-26

“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins. Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; state your cause, that you may be proved right.”

Commentary:

These verses clearly put the realm of salvation in a judicial context. God asks Israel to argue its case before God so that they can be declared innocent of the charges of sin against them.

Zechariah 3:1

“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.”

Commentary:

Here we have God as the Judge, Joshua, the High Priest, as the accused, and Satan as the prosecutor/accuser trying to get God to condemn Joshua. God then rebukes Satan and says, “Is this not a brand plucked from the fire” (v.2)? Another way of putting this rhetorical question is: “Is this not one of my elect whom I have chosen to save?” God refuses to condemn Joshua not because he is actually righteous. In fact, the Scriptures say that Joshua was clothed in filthy garments (i.e. a sign of sin), and that God took away that sin by clothing him with ‘festal robes’. In other words, God declared Joshua righteous (v.2), removed his sin (v.4), and gave him a righteousness that was not his own to cover up his sinful human nature (represented by the festal robes and the clean turban; v.5). This is clearly a passage speaking of salvation in a legal or judicial context in which the entirety of salvation is the act of God.

Romans 8:33

“Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;”

Commentary:

Here, we have Paul using courtroom language to describe justification. This harkens back to the scene in Zechariah 3 where Satan is accusing one of God’s elect, trying to get God to condemn Joshua. None can bring a charge or accusation against God’s elect because God has declared them righteous. The next verse continues the legal context:

Romans 8:34

“…who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.”

Commentary:

Nothing can condemn (i.e. declare guilty) God’s elect because Christ is their advocate before the Father, and the Father has already declared them not guilty. The verb, justify, in verse 34, must be taken in a forensic manner because of the strictly legal context given.

1 Corinthians 4:4

“For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.”

Commentary:

Here, Paul is speaking of examining his own conscience, and he is not aware of any sins that he is currently in. However, just because he is not aware of any sin does not mean that he should be declared ‘not guilty’. It would make no sense to say, “For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this made righteous.” How can examining one’s conscience make one inherently righteous? It can’t. However, one can clear their conscience in the sense of ‘cleared of all charges’.

Despite the evidence that justification is a one time declaratory act by God of ‘not guilty’, Roman Catholic apologists continue to try to get around the works-free gospel that is clearly expressed in the Scriptures. Those arguments will be dealt with in the next article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/