"justification is the heart of the gospel"?
Do we really want to say this? It sounds so evangelical, so Protestant, even so orthodox. But do we really want to say this?
Do we really want to say this, when Paul's "justification" language and themes are almost entirely found in two letters (Gal and Rom) while his "gospel" language is spread more evenly throughout several? Do we really want to say this, when Paul himself summarizes the "gospel" variously, and frequently in ways which do not employ "justification" language or concepts? Do we really want to say this, when Paul himself outlines the essence of the unified apostolic gospel as the death and resurrection of Christ - with nary a "justification" to be found (1 Cor 15:1-11)?
Do we really want to say this, when Mark sketches out his account of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" by narrating the public career, death, and resurrection of Jesus - without even mentioning "justification" let alone outlining a doctrine of justification? Do we really want to say this, when the Synoptic Gospels characterize Jesus' public teaching as "the gospel" - a teaching emphasizing the kingdom of God and the son of man but with little or no mention of "justification" motifs? Do we really want to say this, when John develops as rich a soteriology as one can find in the New Testament - without ever employing the language of "justification"?
Paul outside Galatians and Romans certainly seems at times to be attempting to get at "the heart of the gospel," but perhaps he's missed the point in these other letters, or I'm missing the point in them. Mark, John, and others in the New Testament - even Jesus himself, as portrayed by the Evangelists - certainly seem at times to be attempting to present "the heart of the gospel," but maybe they're just mistaken, or I'm mistaken in hearing them this way. I certainly don't think so.
It seems to me that the only way one could say this - that "justification is the heart of the gospel" - is if one either: a) puts on blinders to the soteriological and "gospel" diversity within the New Testament (or within Paul's letters, for that matter); or b) defines "justification" so broadly or "gospel" so narrowly that the terms become synonymous by definition and not by exegesis. Yes, Paul's doctrine of justification is a crucial explanation of "what is going on" in the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen. But it is neither the sum total of the gospel, nor is it the heart of the gospel to the exclusion of other apostolic explanations.
See also my follow-up post: so what is "the heart of the gospel"?
Do we really want to say this, when Paul's "justification" language and themes are almost entirely found in two letters (Gal and Rom) while his "gospel" language is spread more evenly throughout several? Do we really want to say this, when Paul himself summarizes the "gospel" variously, and frequently in ways which do not employ "justification" language or concepts? Do we really want to say this, when Paul himself outlines the essence of the unified apostolic gospel as the death and resurrection of Christ - with nary a "justification" to be found (1 Cor 15:1-11)?
Do we really want to say this, when Mark sketches out his account of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" by narrating the public career, death, and resurrection of Jesus - without even mentioning "justification" let alone outlining a doctrine of justification? Do we really want to say this, when the Synoptic Gospels characterize Jesus' public teaching as "the gospel" - a teaching emphasizing the kingdom of God and the son of man but with little or no mention of "justification" motifs? Do we really want to say this, when John develops as rich a soteriology as one can find in the New Testament - without ever employing the language of "justification"?
Paul outside Galatians and Romans certainly seems at times to be attempting to get at "the heart of the gospel," but perhaps he's missed the point in these other letters, or I'm missing the point in them. Mark, John, and others in the New Testament - even Jesus himself, as portrayed by the Evangelists - certainly seem at times to be attempting to present "the heart of the gospel," but maybe they're just mistaken, or I'm mistaken in hearing them this way. I certainly don't think so.
It seems to me that the only way one could say this - that "justification is the heart of the gospel" - is if one either: a) puts on blinders to the soteriological and "gospel" diversity within the New Testament (or within Paul's letters, for that matter); or b) defines "justification" so broadly or "gospel" so narrowly that the terms become synonymous by definition and not by exegesis. Yes, Paul's doctrine of justification is a crucial explanation of "what is going on" in the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen. But it is neither the sum total of the gospel, nor is it the heart of the gospel to the exclusion of other apostolic explanations.
See also my follow-up post: so what is "the heart of the gospel"?
Labels: justification, paul and his letters, the gospel
posted by Michael Pahl at
8/29/2007
11 Comments:
I think there are two gospels in the NT.
Jesus offered the gospel of the (physical) kingdom, but this was rejected.
The new gospel then became the way to enter the (spiritual) kingdom of God.
During the Tribulation, the gospel of the (physical) kingdom will be preached again.
Some people think that both "gospels" should be merged into one.
See http://www.misguidedsaint.com/2006-11/07/two-gospels-rick-mckinley%E2%80%99s-beautiful-mess/ for example.
By
Ross Nixon, at 7:25 PM
Ross, I can understand the temptation to see two distinct gospels, but I don't see it. It seems to me that the Evangelists use the terminology of "gospel" for their portrayal of Jesus (in Mark) or Jesus' teaching (in the Synoptics) precisely because they see these as organically connected with the "gospel" preached in their own day. Luke in particular provides a telling example of this: he uses "gospel" and "word" terminology both for Jesus' central preaching of the kingdom in Luke and for the apostolic kerygma about Jesus in Acts. My own research into all this, attempting to set both Jesus' "gospel" and the apostles' "gospel" firmly in their first century (esp. Jewish) context, leads me to see much greater convergence between them than has often been thought. To put it simplistically using your categories, I find Jesus' "gospel" to be more "spiritual" than is sometimes thought and the apostles' "gospel" to be more "physical" than is often thought.
By
Michael Pahl, at 8:19 PM
Interesting how 1 Thessalonians doesn't even mention "justification" lexically or conceptually, and this letter is often thought to reflect Paul's missionary preaching.
By
Sean, at 6:43 AM
Good point, Sean. There are several instances in Paul's letters where he seems to be reminding his readers of his missionary preaching - e.g. 1 Thess 1-2; Gal 1-2 (or all?); 1 Cor 2, 15; etc. (and depending on how one views authorship, 2 Thess 2; Col 2; Eph 2-4; etc.) - and in Romans of course he seems in part to be providing a taster of his missionary preaching. It's interesting that in all this, "justification" only comes up in the contexts in which there are strong Jew-Gentile issues with a vocal Jewish presence in the audience. It would seem that Paul's teaching on "justification" was only one of several windows he used to look into the gospel.
For myself, I would also see "gospel" concepts (if not language) as relating to more than simply Paul's missionary preaching, but even also to his ongoing teaching (cf. e.g. 1 Cor 2).
By
Michael Pahl, at 9:06 AM
Hi Michael,
Interesting post! Does the fact that justification isn't mentioned in Paul's gospel summary in 1 Cor 15:1-11 mean that the concept wasn't thoroughly present? After all, Christ was "raised for our justification?" Do we really want to be so atomized in our theology that we don't make the connections Scripture itself makes? Surely the theology of Scripture is an inter-connected matrix of truth, which shouldn't be torn apart from itself. The Bible, wholly considered, doesn't think of the resurrection apart from justification. So, why should we?
Do we really want to say that justification isn't the heart of the gospel when Paul anathematizes teachers who made but a tiny little change in adding the single work of circumcision to Christ's finished work? What other error did Paul anathematize? It would seem justification is somewhat crucial in Paul's estimation.
Mark may not mention the term "justification," but neither does it mention, much less outline, the doctrine of the Trinity. Does this mean that the Trinity should be gutted from the gospel as well?
Surely there is a difference between employing the language of "justification" and the meaning of "justification," though that difference amounts to something very small if the places where the meaning of justification is employed represent to the author what is central to the gospel. John insists on union with Christ by faith, teaches that only the elect believe, and that those who believe are kept (Jn 10). Union with Christ and his righteousness are the theological foundation of preservation and perseverance. John 3:16 teaches that whoever believes will not perish (the result of condemnation) but have (or possess) eternal life (which is what justification is; the right/possession of eternal life). The central Johanine motif of "believing for life" is conceptually identical to Paul's "justification by faith alone."
To say that justification is at the heart of the gospel is not to say that it is equal to the gospel or that the gospel excludes everything other than justification. Rather, it simply asserts with Paul that those who distort justification by faith alone, even a little, so maim and distort the gospel itself that it actually becomes another gospel which is not really another at all(Gal 1:8-9, and chs 2, 3, 4).
In Imputed Righteousness,
Tom
By
Tom, at 3:01 PM
Tom, thanks for your detailed reply. A few comments in turn:
- I'm not sure what the connection is that you're making in your first paragraph. I've never said that resurrection was not significant for Paul's doctrine of justification, nor have I said that New Testament soteriology was not "inter-connected." However, if you mean that we must make logical connections between doctrines and concepts that Scripture itself does not make, such that we make central things which Scripture does not describe as central, then I'm skeptical.
- As for the second paragraph, I myself say that Paul's doctrine of justification is "crucial." My point in the post is essentially to say that it does not itself circumscribe every "crucial" aspect of the gospel - it is not itself "the heart of the gospel."
- I'm not advocating that justification be "gutted" from the gospel, so your third paragraph shoots at a target I never made.
- Your fourth paragraph, it seems to me, is guilty of what I describe in my post as widening "justification" such that everything related to the gospel is included in it. Is "justification" simply equivalent to "union with Christ"? You include the little phrase "and his righteousness" in there - but that's exactly where Paul goes but John doesn't. And I find your last sentence there telling (even if I agreed that those Johannine and Pauline motifs are precisely "identical," which I don't): why not say, "The central Pauline motif of 'justification by faith alone' is conceptually identical to John's 'believing for life'" - and thus say "'believing for life' is the heart of the gospel"? The answer, it seems to me, is that we begin with Pauline categories as the heart of the gospel, and then define the heart of the gospel in Pauline categories.
Thanks again for the detailed response. You have some good critique in there which provides a good caution for me in how I express my thoughts on this.
By
Michael Pahl, at 3:39 PM
Hi Michael, thank you for your reply to my response. It clarifies your position a bit. Allow me to make one more pass at this to explain my previous objections. First, if the resurrection is the heart of the gospel and if justification is inextricably bound up with and inseparable from the resurrection, such that the resurrection cannot be thoroughly comprehended or explained apart from justification, then justification is the heart of the gospel as well as the resurrection and any discussion of the resurrection should bring to mind thoughts of justification, among other things. In other words, even though Paul doesn’t specifically mention the term “justification” in his brief summary of the gospel, the fact that he speaks of the “resurrection” means that justification is intended as well, since Paul himself teaches that the resurrection and justification are tied together.
Please allow me also to clarify that I would not say that a doctrine must “circumscribe” every aspect of the gospel to be at its heart. Rather, a doctrine at the heart of the gospel is one that is necessary for the life of the whole, and one which if destroyed kills the whole gospel. In other words, to distort or destroy the biblical doctrine of justification is to kill the gospel itself (see Galatians). The gospel can live without a limb (the correct doctrine of the church) or without a kidney (the biblical teaching on the millennium), but the gospel cannot live without a functioning heart. And, while there is more to the heart of the gospel than the doctrine of justification, there is certainly not less. The book of Galatians appears to bear that out sufficiently, since the specific gospel denying error of the Judaizers had to do with justification.
Please forgive my statement about your “gutting” the gospel. I should have spoken of your “gutting” justification from the “heart” of the gospel. My point was that just as the Trinity is at the heart of the gospel, such that the gospel cannot live without the doctrine of the Trinity, so also the doctrine of justification is at the heart of the gospel as well. And, since the Trinity is neither defined nor detailed in any discussion of the heart of the gospel in Scripture, should we gut the Trinity from the heart of the gospel, just as you would gut justification from its heart? I’m not suggesting that someone needs to understand the intricacies of trinitarian theism to believe the gospel, only that a knowledgeable denial of trinitarianism, and JBFA, kills the gospel itself.
With respect to my fourth paragraph, I’m not raising Paul or John to any level of prominence over the other. Rather, I’m arguing that neither Paul’s nor John’s doctrines can be understood sufficiently without respect to the other in a thoroughly biblical and Christian theology. So, when we read Paul on justification, we should read him in light of John, just as we should read John on “life” with due reference to Paul. The Bible is the product of a single divine mind, just as it is the product of many created minds. So, I’m simply suggesting that we should recognize both the unity and diversity of the categories used by both Paul and John. I’m not suggesting that John’s statements about believing for life mean the same thing a Paul’s statements about justification, only that there is significant overlap, and that John’s doctrine of believing for life is certainly not less than Paul’s doctrine of justification. John means more than Paul since to “believe for life” is not simply to believe for the “right to life,” but to believe for the experience and enjoyment of it as well.
My thesis is that if the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone is compromised, the gospel itself is killed (Galatians 1:8-9, chs 2, 3, 4). Therefore, JBFA is at the heart of the gospel, along with the Trinity, the cross, the resurrection, the promise of a new creation, etc.
By
Tom, at 9:31 AM
Let me sum up and put it to you in the form of two questions.
I would define the “heart” of the gospel as (1) that which is necessary to the gospel’s life and (2) that which, if removed, kills the gospel.
Would you say that defined in those terms justification is "at the heart" of the gospel? In other words, do you think a person could understand and deny the doctrine of JBFA and yet still believe the true gospel?
By
Tom, at 9:59 AM
Tom, thanks for your further comments. A few comments in reply:
- By changing the phrase "justification is the heart of the gospel" to "justification is at the heart of the gospel," you've altered the issue. I have said that Paul's doctrine of justification is a crucial explanation of what's going on in the gospel - I could well say it is "at the heart of the gospel." But I object to someone saying (as I've heard people recently say) that justification "is the heart of the gospel" - as if everything that really matters in the gospel is summed up in "justification."
- A second thought that comes to mind (and one that I'd need to think through more) is this: is the doctrine of justification at the heart of the gospel, or is justification at the heart of the gospel? Perhaps that distinction makes a difference in this discussion, perhaps it doesn't, but it strikes me as a potentially important nuance here.
- My key issue (again) is with claiming justification as the heart of the gospel and thus either subsuming all other crucial elements under the rubric of "justification" (and thus making justification itself so broad it's almost meaningless in itself) or ignoring all other crucial elements of the gospel. There are several things that Jesus and the apostles claimed put people "beyond the pale," and the "justification" and "works of the Law" issue in Galatians is only one of many. For example, Paul argues vigorously against the "Colossian heretics" for the full sufficiency and supremacy of Christ in Colossians in such a way that the denial of those things calls their salvation, their soteriology - their gospel - into question.
The way I might put it is something like this: The heart of the gospel is 1) Jesus himself, 2) his death for sins, and 3) his resurrection on the third day (Cor 15:3-4). There are several apostolic interpretations of these three core elements which are direct implications of these elements, such that if any of them is outright denied by someone that person's understanding and expression of the gospel is called into question: 1) Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God; 2) Jesus' death for sins as sacrificial atonement, new-covenant ratification, liberating redemption, spiritual victory, and suffering exemplar; and 3) Jesus' resurrection on the third day as divine vindication and new-creation transformation. (Perhaps others could be in this summary as well.) Paul's doctrine of justification is a crucial apostolic interpretation of "what's going on" in saying that "Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day," particularly in explicating the "sacrificial atonement," "liberating redemption," "divine vindication," and "new-creation transformation" aspects of these events.
I hope this helps clarify my position on things, although maybe it simply confuses it more!
By
Michael Pahl, at 11:11 AM
As much as I appreciate much from Martin Luther (from my limited knowledge of that) as well as from Dietrich Bonhoeffer (whose books do seem to hold justifation of faith and its application high), I do agree that while justification just like all the rest is related to every other truth of the gospel, it is not the only major facet of this great salvation we have and that has come in Jesus and in the kingdom of God and the new creation that begins now with that.
By
Ted M. Gossard, at 6:16 PM
(Actually I'm thinking of "Life Together" by Bonhoeffer, though I've read more from him and want to read it all.)
By
Ted M. Gossard, at 6:18 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home