Justification and God’s Kingdom by Seyoon Kim: A Review Article

Seyoon Kim, Justification and God’s Kingdom (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). 192 pp. + xii.

This is a small book, both physically (4.5” x 7”) and in terms of length (162 pages excluding bibliography and indexes). But that doesn’t mean it is any less scholarly. For its small size, the book is packed with extensive footnotes interacting with key Pauline interpreters. I wasn’t aware that Mohr Siebeck published scholarly books in this small format, but I like it. It is most welcome, in contrast with the seeming proliferation of ever larger tomes. The author calls it “an extended theological essay … rather than an exhaustive monograph” (p. viii).

The author is Seyoon Kim, Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. The book grew out of two lecture series he gave in recent years: an intensive course and lecture in 2017 at the Lutheran School of Theology, Gothenburg, Sweden, to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation; and few years before that, a 2012 lecture series on justification and sanctification that he was invited to give in South Korea. In recent years in Korea, there was a widespread sense that Christians (especially political leaders and business people) were not living righteously and ethically. The breakdown in ethics was believed to be due to an emphasis in the Korean churches on the doctrine of justification and a comparative neglect of the doctrine of sanctification. It was in response to this situation that he revisited Paul’s doctrine of justification, “suggesting that the problem arose partly because that doctrine was not properly taught” (p. vii).

Summary of Dr. Kim’s Argument

In the Introduction, Dr. Kim notes that Albert Schweitzer had argued that the forensic doctrine of justification by faith cannot produce ethics. This problem led Schweitzer to downgrade the doctrine of justification to a subsidiary crater within the main crater of Paul’s theology, the mystical doctrine of redemption through the being-in-Christ. According to Schweitzer, Paul derived his ethics from the main crater of mystical union with Christ, not from the subsidiary crater “from which no ethic could logically be derived.”¹ Dr. Kim does not agree that justification and ethics are so distinct for Paul, and he wants to show how Paul’s doctrine of justification, rightly understood, does produce ethics.

In Ch. 1, Dr. Kim notes that in Paul’s opening to his letter to the Romans, Paul gives two definitions of the gospel—Rom 1:3-4 and 1:16-17. The first definition is Christological—the content of the gospel is God’s Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and raised to the position of exalted Lord by the Spirit of holiness. This Christological definition of the gospel focuses particularly on the affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God, the Davidic Messiah appointed by God to rule over the nations in fulfillment of OT prophecy (2 Sam 7; Psalms 2 and 110). The second definition explains the gospel in terms of justification by faith, which Paul then extensively elaborates in the heart of the letter (especially Rom 1–8). When Paul nears the conclusion of his letter to the Romans, he circles back to the Christological definition of the gospel in Rom 15:7-12: “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles” (v 12).² Romans 1:3-4 and 15:7-12 form an inclusio, enveloping the entire epistle within these two affirmations that Jesus is the Son of God who rules over Israel and the nations. For Dr. Kim, this suggests that the two definitions of the gospel cannot be separated but form a unity. The gospel of the Lordship of Christ as the King through whom God reigns in his kingdom and the gospel of justification by faith are one and the same gospel.

In Ch. 2, Dr. Kim looks at some other passages where Paul unpacks his gospel of the kingdom in greater detail, particularly 1 Cor 15:20-28; Phil 2:6-11; and Col 1:13-14. In these passages, Paul emphasizes the Lordship of Christ, his kingly rule as the exalted Son of God. More specifically, Paul formulates the gospel in terms of a “lordship-change” (a term coined by Ernst Käsemann). This concept of “lordship-change” gives Paul’s gospel a pronounced apocalyptic flavor. The gospel is the announcement of God’s action of delivering us from Satanic powers through the atoning death of Christ. This is perhaps most clear in Colossians: “[God the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:13), and in the next chapter: God “stripped the principalities and powers [of their power] and exposed them publically [as powerless], leading them [as defeated enemies] in his triumphal process in [Christ]” (Col 2:15; Kim’s translation and interpretive glosses; p. 27). The apocalyptic and the juridical aspects of the gospel go together. It is precisely through his penal/inclusive substitutionary death that Christ gains the victory over the forces of evil (Christus victor) and secures our forgiveness. But since Paul’s gospel is set within the apocalyptic context of Christ’s victory over Satanic powers, the gospel is not only juridical announcement of acquittal and forgiveness but also a “lordship-change” in which we are brought out of the domain of darkness and brought into the kingdom of God where we are made obedient subjects under the Lordship of Christ. This provides the missing link from justification to sanctification.

In Ch. 3, Dr. Kim argues that justification has an already/not-yet structure. The “already” of justification is tied to baptism and our initial appropriation of his atoning death and resurrection, while the “not-yet” of justification is tied to the present intercession of Christ as God’s exalted Son. The function of the intercession of Christ is to sustain us (by means of the Spirit who empowers us to the obedience of faith) in our state of justification. Dr. Kim relies on a number of passages to support this idea of the intercession of Christ. A key passage is Rom 5:8-10, where Paul affirms that we are justified by Christ’s atoning death (“justified by his blood,” v 9) and sustained in the state of justification by his present intercession (“we will be saved by his life,” v 10). Dr. Kim also appeals to Rom 4:25, which contains an allusion to Isa 53:12, which in turn mentions that the Suffering Servant “makes intercession for the transgressors.” Another key text is Rom 8:33-34, which explicitly connects justification with the intercession of Christ at the right hand of God. Christ is presently interceding at God’s right hand to keep us in the state of justification by empowering us to actualize our justification in the obedience of faith with a view to our final justification at his coming.

This brings us to the crucial Ch. 4. In this chapter, Dr. Kim expounds Rom 1:17, where Paul speaks of the revelation of “the righteousness of God” in the gospel. Here Dr. Kim adopts a modified version of N. T. Wright’s interpretation that Paul is saying that the gospel is the proclamation of God’s covenant faithfulness with Israel and with creation. Because the righteousness of God is his saving covenant faithfulness, the revelation of God’s righteousness is effective and brings about the restoration of people to a right relationship with himself. In an extended footnote (pp. 56-57 n5), he interacts critically with my work on “the righteousness of God” in the OT and in Paul.³ He thinks I made an important contribution in highlighting the judicial/forensic meaning of the righteousness of God, but that I went too far in denying the covenantal and relational aspect, that is, the restoration of sinners to a right relationship with God. Dr. Kim glosses Paul’s phrase “from faith to faith” (Rom 1:17) as Paul’s starting with the covenantal/relational aspect (“from faith”) and moving to the judicial aspect (“to faith”). In this way Paul “combines both the forensic sense of acquittal and the relational sense of restoration to the right relationship with God” (p. 57 n5). Dr. Kim thinks this dual meaning makes sense because God’s righteousness (understood as his covenant faithfulness) is directed toward human beings and has an effect on the believer. That effect is fundamentally relational, i.e., being transferred from the lordship of Satan and being restored to a right relationship with God (“lordship-change”). N. T. Wright went too far in affirming only the relational dimension; I go too far in affirming only the judicial dimension. Dr. Kim does not deny the judicial aspect of “the righteousness of God” but wants to hold a both/and view that recognizes both the judicial and the relational dimension.

In Chs. 5-6, Dr. Kim focuses his attention on the “already” of justification. For him it means that when a sinner believes the gospel he or she is made righteous, “not in the sense of moral transformation but in the relational sense” (p. 59). For Dr. Kim “justification involves not just acquittal of sins but also restoration to the right relationship with God” (p. 60). Another way to see this is to examine a soteriological metaphor complementary to justification, namely, adoption. Like justification, adoption has a strong relational dimension, for when we are adopted into God’s family, we not only receive the fatherly care of God but are also engaged to “rendering filial duties to him” (p. 62). “Justification is truly a change of lordship” (p. 61), a transfer from Satan’s lordship to the righteous reign of God. So even though justification is not itself a moral transformation it involves a restoration to a right relationship with God that “sets the believer toward living for a moral transformation in obedience to God’s kingship” (p. 60 n3). This lordship transfer is effected in baptism, the moment when the process of becoming a believer is consummated. We are transferred into God’s kingdom and initially justified “through faith that is enacted in baptism” (p. 69).

Having examined our initial justification at baptism, in Chs. 7-8 Dr. Kim moves on to discuss the present and future phases of justification. “Justification is not something that is completed at the point of our conversion or baptism” (p. 73). Rather, it is something that must be sustained throughout our lives and then brought to consummation at the last judgment. Dr. Kim points to a number of Pauline passages in support the idea of a future justification: all the verses that speak of the necessity of standing blameless before Christ at the last day (1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:10; Col 1:22; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23), the verses which speak of a future judgment according to works (Rom 2:5-16; 14:10; 1 Cor 3:10-17; 2 Cor 5:10), and the verses where Paul warns that professing Christians who persist in the sins of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21). Dr. Kim describes the present process of justification this way:

When justification is seen only in the forensic terms of acquittal, it is not easy for us to conceive of the present stage of our salvation as the present phase or process of our justification. But when justification is seen as having also the relational sense of restoration to the right relationship with God, i.e., transference from Satan’s kingdom into God’s kingdom, it is quite understandable: ‘the present phase of justification’ is the phase in which the Lord Jesus Christ sustains us in God’s kingdom, i.e., in our restored right relationship with God … by ruling over us through his Spirit, and we existentially actualize our (baptismal) justification by renewing our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in trust in and obedience to his rule (p. 77).

That is the present phase of the process of justification. What about its future phase at the day of judgment? Dr. Kim explains: “Judgment according to our works is nothing but an examination as to whether we have faithfully stood or persevered in the state of justification, availing ourselves by faith of the sustaining grace of the triune God or rendering ‘the obedience of faith’ to his saving rule, during the interim period between our baptism and the last judgment” (p. 115). A point that Dr. Kim emphasizes is that it is possible to lose the status of justification and to “fall back into Satan’s kingdom” (pp. 91, 108, 114) and so be disqualified from eschatological inheritance. Thus Paul exhorts us to “persevere in the state of justification by availing ourselves by faith of the sustaining grace of the triune God and bearing ‘the fruit of righteousness’” (p. 115). Believers “stand in the right (i.e., covenantal) relationship to God through their ‘obedience of faith’ at present” (p. 150). However, this does not make salvation ultimately by works, since the Spirit empowers us to obey and bear the fruit of righteousness in the “not yet” time between our conversion and our ultimate glorification. Kim emphasizes “the present saving activity or power of divine grace that not only obliges but also enables believers to render fitting ‘obedience of faith’ to the Lord and bear the ‘fruit of righteousness’” (p. 99 n4).

To sum up: In response to Schweitzer’s claim that the forensic doctrine of justification by faith is incapable of producing ethics and righteous living, Dr. Kim argues for a more comprehensive understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification than usual in traditional Protestant readings of Paul. That more comprehensive understanding begins with the foundational starting point that justification is not merely a judicial declaration but also a relational change. It doesn’t involve merely forgiveness of sins or acquittal, but also restoration to a right relationship with God and lordship-transfer from Satan’s kingdom to the kingdom of God. Because justification has this powerful relational dimension, it must not be reduced to a one-time, completed declaration at conversion or baptism. Rather, it partakes of the already/not-yet structure of NT eschatology, so that it has three phases: (1) an initial starting point, the lordship-change that occurs at baptism, (2) a present process of remaining in the state of justification by living in obedience to the Lordship of Christ, an obedience that is itself by grace through the enabling of the Spirit, and (3) an eschatological consummation at the day of judgment. Dr. Kim calls this “the three stages of justification” (p. 138). Furthermore, justification is simply Paul’s way of re-presenting Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom and the call to entrance into and submission to the saving reign of God and consequent discipleship. If justification is viewed exclusively in terms of a one-time judicial act of acquittal at conversion, Schweitzer would be right to argue that justification is not capable of producing ethics and righteous living. But since justification is both relational and a three-stage process within the already/not-yet structure of NT eschatology, the doctrine of justification, properly understood in this more comprehensive, relational, already/not-yet context, does in fact produce ethics and righteous living.

There are some additional chapters (e.g., one helpfully critiquing N. T. Wright’s conception of Paul’s doctrine of justification as too narrowly focused on membership in the people of God), that I must leave out of my summary. But the above will suffice as an overview of Dr. Kim’s main thesis, to which I now turn to evaluate and critique.

Evaluation and Critique

We must recognize that Dr. Kim has a very valid concern. In some Protestant readings of Paul, the doctrine of justification has been presented as if it were the sum total of Paul’s soteriology, to the virtual neglect of a number of critical components: (a) effectual calling and sanctification, (b) Paul’s warnings to be careful about the possibility of being disqualified from inheriting the kingdom through walking in the flesh, and (c) his teaching that there is a future judgment in which we must give an account for how we have lived in the body. Dr. Kim points to these data and argues in effect: One cannot say that for Paul, salvation is solely a matter of accepting and believing in the gospel, and that a person can have certainty of salvation at the final judgment simply because he or she confessed faith in Christ at conversion or baptism. Look at all these passages that talk about the necessity of sanctification, of the warnings that those who live impenitently in sexual immorality or idolatry will not inherit the kingdom, and the serious talk about a future judgment according to works. To pick only the passages where Paul talks about our assurance of final salvation on the basis of Christ’s atoning death and the forgiveness of sins received by faith alone apart from works, and to neglect all these other passages, is to give a one-sided presentation of Paul’s gospel. If the gospel is reduced to justification by faith alone, as if that is all there is to the gospel, then Schweitzer’s charge that there is no path from justification to ethics and righteous living would be vindicated. I am sympathetic to Dr. Kim’s concerns, and I appreciate how he has drawn our attention to Paul’s full-orbed soteriological concerns, which are not only about justification but also about sanctification and the eschatological consummation of salvation. All of this data must be brought together into a coherent synthesis if we are to understand Pauline soteriology. However, I believe Dr. Kim has made a fundamental mistake in his starting point (the relational interpretation of justification) and therefore in his conclusion (that justification is not complete at conversion but involves a present process leading to a future consummation on the day of judgment).

Justification as Restoration to Right Relationship

Crucial for Dr. Kim’s thesis is the idea that justification is not only judicial acquittal but restoration to a right relationship with God by means of being transferred into the kingdom of Christ (hence a “lordship-change”). But what is the basis for this idea? Dr. Kim just asserts the relational interpretation of righteousness and justification language with little lexical or exegetical basis. This is not to say he has no exegetical basis for speaking of lordship-transfer. Rather, it is to say he has not demonstrated that Paul understood justification itself as a lordship-transfer and restoration to a right relationship with God. Appealing to the fact that Paul explicitly speaks of lordship-transfer (e.g., Col 1:13) doesn’t address the question, because the term δικιαόω (or cognate words based on the ΔΙΚ- root) is not used in connection with the concept of lordship-transfer. Possibly Dr. Kim didn’t feel the need to make the lexical case because he assumed Käsemann had already done so. But Käsemann himself actually did not really make a very strong case; he rested his case primarily on the work of Hermann Cremer.⁴ But I subjected Cremer’s theory that “righteousness” is a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff) to a rigorous examination and critique.⁵ The lexical evidence is overwhelming that Paul’s “righteousness” and “justification” language is judicial rather than relational.

A. The Verb “Justify” in the LXX and in Paul

In extra-biblical Greek, the verb δικαιόω has three main meanings: (1) in non-judicial settings, “to make/set something right,” (2) also in non-judicial settings, “to deem someone/something to be right or correct,” and (3) a judicial meaning, “to do right or justice to someone,” usually by punishing them.⁶ But in the LXX, the Classical non-judicial usages are absent, and the third meaning (the judicial one) is present but with a positive meaning, “acquit,” “recognize and declare someone to be right, innocent, or righteous.”⁷ The reason this has occurred is due to the influence of Hebrew. The verb δικαιόω is typically used in the LXX to render the verb tsadaq in Hebrew, which has a positive judicial sense. As a result of this stereotyped equivalent in the LXX, δικαιόω in Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jewish circles took on the positive judicial meaning of the underlying Hebrew verb.⁸ It is a new application or extension of the third meaning in extra-biblical Greek, shifting the sense from a negative to a positive judgment.⁹ Crucially, neither the LXX nor Hellenistic Jewish Greek literature uses δικαιόω with the meaning “restore to a right relationship.”

Some key occurrences of δικαιόω in the LXX may be cited to demonstrate that it means “acquit.” For example, it is used in the passages where God commands the judges of Israel to uphold justice in their judgments. When there is a legal controversy between two individuals, Israel’s judges must not accept bribes, which would cause them to pervert justice. Israelite judges must not acquit (justify) the impious person:

“You shall not acquit the impious person (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβη) for the sake of bribes” (Exod 23:7 NETS).¹⁰

“Woe to your strong ones who drink wine and the powerful ones who mix the strong drink, who acquit the impious one (οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ) for the sake of bribes and take away the right of the righteous one!” (Isa 5:22-23 NETS modified)

Another important instance of the verb δικαιόω in the LXX is found in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple. Solomon asks God “to declare righteous a righteous person (τοῦ δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον)—to give him according to his righteousness” (3 Kgdms 8:31-32 NETS). This instance is important because it shows that the language of human judges “justifying” people is also applicable to God the Judge of all the earth.

Scholars recognize that Paul’s soteriological usage of δικαιόω is not determined by its secular usage in Greco-Roman contexts (where it often means “punish”) but rather by the OT/LXX.¹¹ Even in non-soteriological contexts, his usage operates within a distinctively judicial frame:

“Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, ‘That you may be justified (δικαιωθῇς) in your words, and prevail when you are judged’” (Rom 3:4).

“For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (δεδικαίωμαι). It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor 4:4).

God himself can be justified in the sense of being proved to be in the right in his judgments. Paul believes he will be acquitted by the Lord in the face of the charges of his critics at Corinth. He is clearly operating with an understanding of the verb influenced by the LXX.

Paul even seems to allude to the OT passages warning human judges against justifying the ungodly, but flipping that prohibition on its head and declaring that God does just that: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ) his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

A significant semantic feature of the LXX usage is that the verbs “justify” and “condemn” are set in opposition as antonymns. Judges must justify the righteous and condemn the impious. Justification (a positive legal verdict) and condemnation (a negative legal verdict) are correlative:

“Now if a dispute occurs between people and they enter into litigation and they judge and justify the righteous one (δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον) and condemn the impious (καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς) …” (Deut 25:1 NETS).

In keeping with the LXX usage, Paul employs the same lexical opposition between justifying and condemning:

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies (ὁ δικαιῶν). Who is to condemn (ὁ κατακρινῶν)? Christ Jesus is the one who died” (Rom 8:33).¹²

The way both the LXX and Paul use “condemn” and “justify” as correlative antonyms implies that both are judicial concepts. It is hard to see how condemnation can be viewed as a relational concept. It is a negative judicial verdict in which one is judged to be a law-breaker and treated as such (e.g., punished). If condemnation is a judicial concept, then so is its opposite, justification.

B. “Credit Righteousness”

In addition to the verb δικαιόω, Paul uses another important phrase to describe God’s act of justifying sinners: “credit righteousness to one” (λογίζομαι δικαιοσύνην + dative pronoun). Paul did not invent this collocation but found it in his Greek Bible in Gen 15:6: “Abram believed God, and it was reckoned [or credited or counted] to him for righteousness (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην)” (NETS). In Romans 4:1-25 and Galatians 3:6-9, Paul quotes this crucial proof text in support of his claim that people are justified by faith, not by works. This phrase provides an interpretive gloss on the verb δικαιόω. For Paul, to say that God “justifies” the ungodly is equivalent to saying that God “credits, reckons, or counts righteousness” to them. Paul rephrases Gen 15:6 as follows, slightly changing the construction: “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness (ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην) apart from works” (Rom 4:6). Similarly, a few verses later he says, “The purpose was to make [Abraham] the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well (εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι καὶ αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην)” (Rom 4:11). The act of “crediting righteousness” to someone isn’t a relational idea. There is no hint here that it has anything to do with being transferred from Satan’s kingdom into the kingdom of God and restored to a right relationship with God and subject to the Lordship of Christ. That may in fact happen immediately with or as a result of justification, but it isn’t what it means to say that “God justifies the ungodly.” Justification is a strictly judicial reckoning of righteousness. God credits righteousness to us; we are now deemed as perfectly righteous in his sight. Those who are ungodly in themselves are now reckoned as righteous—they have righteousness counted to them—not because of their new obedience or good works, but for Christ’s sake alone.

C. Nouns for “Justification”

Paul can say that God “credits righteousness” to someone, but he can also drop the verb “credits” and speak simply of “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) as a stand-alone term for the legal status that the justified possess. His gospel proclaims “the righteousness of God” as a free gift for all who believe (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21).¹³ He glories in “the righteousness from God” (ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη) that he possesses in Christ (Phil 3:9). He speaks of those who receive “the free gift of righteousness” (ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) (Rom 5:17). And he says that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) to all who believe” (Rom 10:4), that is, Christ is the one in whom the law’s aim is realized, resulting in “righteousness” for all who believe.¹⁴ Other instances of this usage of the noun as a stand-alone term for the righteous status of the justified include Rom 5:21; 8:10; 9:30; 10:6; 10:10; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 3:9; Gal 2:21; 3:21; 5:5. We must also observe that twice Paul uses the noun δικαίωσις, likely formed from the verb. Christ “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (δικαίωσις)” (Rom 4:25; the second occurrence is in the following chapter, Rom 5:18). No Greek lexicon or English translation renders δικαίωσις as “restoration to right relationship.”

“Justification” in Paul’s vocabulary does not denote restoration to a right covenant relationship with God, in which we are now submitting to his will—as important and necessary as that is as part of our entire salvation. Justification itself is a divine judicial verdict in which we are reckoned as righteous “before God” (Gal 3:11). God makes that verdict, not because of anything in us, even the good works wrought in us by the Spirit, but because of Christ. Indeed, God looks at us as righteous because he looks at us “in Christ” and legally represented by him, so that we are reckoned as if we had fully kept the law and satisfied its curse.

Much more could be said about the lexical semantics of Paul’s justification terminology, but the above is sufficient to make the point: lexically, the words and phrases for justification (δικαιόω, λογίζομαι δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνη, δικαίωσις) in Paul do not denote restoration to a right relationship, but a judicial verdict of righteous status and divine approval. If Dr. Kim is wrong about this crucial lexical issue, his starting point is wrong, and then his proposal for establishing a logical link from justification to sanctification/ethics loses much of its force.

Final Justification according to Works

We must look at another critical element of Dr. Kim’s construction of Paul’s soteriology—his emphasis that justification must be understood in terms of the already/not-yet structure of NT eschatology. He writes: “Justification at baptism is only a prolepsis or anticipation of the end-time justification, and therefore justification should also be seen within the general ‘already – but not yet’ structure of NT eschatology” (p. 73). According to Dr. Kim, at the day of judgment, God will determine whether we have persevered in the state of justification by means of the obedience of faith. He refers to this judgment according to our works as “the consummation of our justification” (e.g., pp. 88, 89, 114, 116) or as “end-time justification” (pp. 73, 115).

There is no doubt that Paul’s doctrine of justification must be understood in light of the NT’s already/not-yet eschatological structure. But Dr. Kim’s construction is not the only possible one. We can get a handle on this issue by considering the way Paul shifts the tense of justification in Romans from the future to the present. He begins with the future tense in Rom 2:13 and 3:20, before his major “but now” shift at 3:21ff. Before speaking of the righteousness revealed in the gospel, when he is still making the case that all mankind is under sin, he speaks of hypothetical justification by works in the future tense. He says, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified [δικαιωθήσονται – future passive]” (Rom 2:13). He is clearly looking ahead to an eschatological verdict at the day of judgment, in accordance with standard Jewish apocalyptic eschatological expectation. In saying that the doers of the law will be justified, Paul is setting forth the standard that God expects. He expects people to do the law, and on that basis he will declare those who do the law to be righteous in his sight.

Of course, Paul immediately goes on to argue that, in fact, no one can be justified that way. After the fall of Adam, all are under sin and none are righteous: “By works of the law no human being will be justified [δικαιωθήσεται – future passive] in his sight” (Rom 3:20). All of this is set in the framework of the Jewish expectation of a future justification at the day of judgment, before bringing the gospel into view. But then Paul does bring in the gospel with the eschatological “but now” (νυνὶ δέ):

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified [δικαιούμενοι – present participle] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:21-24).

The shift from the future passive to “but now” with the present participle is correlated with a shift from justification by works to justification by faith. What the Jews expected to occur at the final judgment (justification by works) is now understood by Paul to have been brought forward into the present (justification by faith). As George Eldon Ladd put it: “The doctrine of justification means that God has pronounced the eschatological verdict of acquittal over the person of faith in the present, in advance of the final judgment.”¹⁵

Rather than saying, “The ‘not-yet’ of justification is future judgment,” we should instead say, “Justification is the ‘already’ of future judgement.” And because the eschatological verdict of acquittal has already been pronounced over us in the present, in advance of the final judgment, we can face the final judgment with unshakeable assurance. This is precisely what lies behind Paul’s a fortiori argument: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, [how] much more [surely] shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God [at the day of judgment]” (Rom 5:9 ESV; words in brackets added by me). Paul never says we must “actualize” or “persevere” in the state of justification by means of Spirit-empowered obedience in the hope of being finally justified at the day of judgment. Those who are in Christ have already been judged, and have received a favorable verdict—not because of their obedience, but because of Christ’s.

It is telling that Dr. Kim makes no mention (at least in this book) of the polemical thrust of Paul’s doctrine of justification vis-à-vis a widely held Jewish understanding. I have already quoted Rom 3:20, but it is so important, it bears quotation again to remind us of that polemical thrust: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” This is the grand conclusion of the first stage of his argument (Rom 1:18–3:20). Paul makes the same polemical point in other letters. At the Antioch incident he confronted Peter, saying, “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). Paul isn’t only concerned to affirm that we are justified by faith in Christ. He takes pains to reject and refute the notion that people are justified (i.e., are deemed righteous before God) by “works of the law,” that is, by doing the good works of obedience required by the law.

Of course, there is vigorous debate over the precise meaning of “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου). The advocates of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) (e.g., James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright) say it has to do with the boundary markers that kept the Jewish people distinct from the Gentiles (circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath). They also translate the verb “justify” as “declare one to be a member of the people of God.” Combining the two, Paul is then interpreted by the NPP as saying that people are counted as members of the people of God, not by observing the boundary markers of Jewish law, but by the badge of faith in Christ. This interpretation opens the door for the NPP to speak of a future justification on the basis of the whole life lived. But that option isn’t open to Dr. Kim. In his earlier book, Paul and the New Perpective, he rejected the NPP interpretation of ἔργα νόμου.¹⁶ So he does not have that way out. Thus, if he wants to say that our justification is consummated at the day of judgment when God looks at our life as we were sustained in justification by means of Spirit-empowered “obedience of faith,” he has to provide a way around Paul’s “by faith, not by works” polemic. How does Dr. Kim avoid the conclusion that, on his interpretation of Paul, end-time justification is ultimately not by faith alone, apart from works, but by faith plus works, or by “the obedience of faith”? If this does not contradict Paul’s teaching that we are justified by faith, not by works, he needs to show how.

Presumably Dr. Kim would respond that, well, Paul does in fact teach a future justification according to works, even if this seems to be in tension with his polemics against justification by works. Yet I see no warrant for interpreting the judgment according to works passages in Paul as in any way a component of justification—as if our justification is not complete until it reaches that eschatological, consummation stage, where God justifies us “according to our works.” Most of the passages cited by Dr. Kim don’t use the language of justification. The two main verses that seem to link “justification” with future judgment (Rom 2:13; Gal 5:5) don’t, on further inspection, teach a future justification of Christians according to works. Let’s look at these two verses briefly.

Romans 2:13 says: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται). The future passive, “will be justified” (δικαιωθήσονται), might seem at first glance to support the idea of a future justification at the day of judgment. Furthermore, this is the only verse that explicitly connects future justification with works, “the doers of the law will be justified.” But as argued above, the context demands that we take this statement as an empty set or hypothetical. Paul is arguing that if a person wants to be justified or deemed righteous before God by keeping the law, they must keep the law perfectly. But Paul clearly thinks there are no doers of the law who are righteous by keeping the law. “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10). The doers of the law would be justified, if there were any doers of the law. But there are none, and so he concludes, “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).¹⁷ And as we have seen, this negative conclusion sets up the “but now” contrast in 3:21ff in which Paul says that now a way for sinners to be deemed righteous before God has been revealed in the gospel—and that is the way of being righteous by faith in Christ, not by works.

The other proof-text Dr. Kim uses to support the concept of future justification is Galatians 5:5: “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness” (ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα). The key phrase is “the hope of righteousness” (ἐλπὶς δικαιοσύνης). Kim’s interpretation takes “hope” in the sense of the subjective attitude of expectation of future good, and the genitive “of righteousness” as denoting the object of the verbal idea represented by the noun “hope,” as if to say, “we are hoping for a future verdict of righteousness.” But that is not the most natural way of understanding the syntax. To begin with, the direct object of the verb “we eagerly wait” (ἀπεκδεχόμεθα) is the noun “hope,” not “righteousness.” Paul doesn’t say, “we eagerly wait for a future verdict of righteousness.” Rather, he says, “we eagerly wait for the hope.” This grammatical observation pushes us to see “the hope” here, not as the subjective attitude of expectation, but as the objective thing hoped for, the eschatological hope itself—the resurrection of the body. This is not uncommon in Paul; for example, he speaks of “the (eschatological) hope laid up for you in heaven” (Col 1:5; cp. Col 1:23; Eph 1:18; 4:4; Titus 1:2; 2:13; 3:7). The genitive “of righteousness” would then denote the source or legal basis of our eschatological hope. If righteousness obtains eschatological life (Rom 5:18; 8:10; 10:5), then it also obtains the eschatological hope. Galatians 5:5 could thus be paraphrased: “We are eagerly waiting for the (eschatological) hope that (imputed) righteousness obtains.”

Nowhere does Paul teach a “future justification” on the basis of our righteous living as Christians. Certainly, Paul does believe in a future judgment according to works. After the resurrection, all believers will be called before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body (Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10). Righteous living is the evidence of our justification, and at the last day Christ will openly vindicate his people before the moral universe by showing that all whom he justified he also sanctified by the power of the Spirit. But we will not be “justified,” that is, counted righteous and accepted before God, on the basis of our sanctification. Paul makes clear what our final approval at the day of judgment will be founded on—not our own rigtheousness, but the righteousness that comes from God as a gift. He says that he himself desires “to be found in him [at the day of judgment], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law (μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου), but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God (τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9). For Paul, then, sinners who put their trust in Christ are justified now, as a definitive, once-for-all, completed verdict, and will stand before God at the eschatological judgment having (ἔχων) a righteousness that will elicit divine approval and acceptance.

Since our progress in sanctification is always imperfect, it is not able to provide the legal ground of justification or righteousness before God. Justification is a divine declaration of someone as perfectly righteous in his sight and thereby entitled to the eternal inheritance which is only for the righteous. But how can God, in keeping with his perfect justice, declare us to be righteous? On what legal basis does he make that declaration? It can’t be on the legal basis of our imperfect sanctification and new obedience, for if judged by the strict standard of God’s moral perfection, holiness, and righteousness, even our best works would fall short. It must be on the basis of the obedience and death of Christ. It can’t be in any way based on our works. It is based on the justice-demonstrating propitiatory sacrifice of Christ (Rom 3:24-26).

The future judgment of believers according to works, then, cannot be viewed as in any way the consummation of our “justification” because God’s perfect justice is not satisfied by our new obedience and Spirit-wrought good works. This is not to say there is no such thing as judgment according to works for the Christian. Paul clearly affirms that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor 5:10). The quality of our works will be tested by fire and all that we have done that is mere wood, hay, and straw will be burned up (1 Cor 3:12-15). But we will be judged as those already justified and raised. Paul’s statement that he makes it his aim to please Christ in view of our being called before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:9-10), is preceded by and grounded in his discussion of bodily resurrection in 2 Cor 5:1-8.¹⁸ We won’t be judged in order to determine whether we should receive a final verdict of justification, but rather in order to receive the reward of Christ’s approval of our works and ministry. “Judgment” is not the same thing as “justification.”

Justification and Sanctification

Finally, we must address the important issue of the relationship between justification and sanctification. Dr. Kim rejects the traditional distinction between justification and sanctification in the ordo salutis and essentially conflates them into one process that begins at baptism, continues through the Christian life, and is consummated at the final judgment. That is why he can speak of “the process of justification” and the necessity of “actualizing” and “persevering” in the state of justification by means of the obedience of faith. Whether he acknowledges it or not, Dr. Kim is calling into question the central insight of the Reformation in the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. Alister McGrath argues “the essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration.”¹⁹

Dr. Kim is right to observe that salvation for Paul unfolds in three stages: (1) effectual calling and justification at conversion, (2) the life-long process of sanctification and perseverance in faith working by love, and (3) eternal salvation at the end. We can agree on that. But—and this is critical—never does Paul refer to this whole process using the term “justification.” Rather, in his soteriology, justification is reserved for the initial declaration of forgiveness and righteousness for the sake of Christ at the beginning of salvation. True, for Paul, progressive sanctification and persevering in faith and obedience to the end are not optional. All those whom God effectually calls, he also justifies, and all whom he justifies he also sanctifies. But Paul’s doctrine of justification is not the whole of his soteriology but takes a foundational place within a broader soteriological scheme that stretches from predestination in eternity past to glorification in the future. This is Paul’s golden chain of salvation: all whom God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world will in time be effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified (conformed into the image of Christ, made holy), and finally glorified (Rom 8:29-30). All the elect and only the elect are those whom God has predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. He has furthermore provided for the application of redemption to all his elect—effectually calling them, justifying them, sanctifying them, and finally glorifying them. The process of sanctification and final glorification are the means by which they are conformed to the image of Christ. It is not possible for someone to experience part of the process—say effectual calling and justification, and then subsequently to fall short of final glorification. None but the elect are called, justified, and glorified. All the elect are called, justified, and glorified.

We may go a step further. Justification and sanctification are inseparable, not only because of God’s electing grace and the Spirit’s sovereign work of applying all the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ to all the elect, but also because of the logical or causal connection between justification and sanctification in Paul’s theology. Paul views the transformative benefits of salvation (effectual calling and sanctification) as tied to the forensic benefits (justification and adoption), as the following passages show:

Romans 5:18: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life (δικαίωσις ζωῆς) for all men” (NIV 1984; cp. BDAG δικαίωσις). The judicial verdict of condemnation brings death; the judicial verdict of righteousness brings eschatological life.

Romans 8:9b-10: “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (διὰ δικαιοσύνην).” The Spirit’s life-giving and life-changing power is present in all who belong to Christ because of (imputed) righteousness. When a person is reckoned as righteous, they are entitled to the blessings that righteousness brings, which includes the Spirit and spiritual life.

Galatians 4:4-6: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because (ὅτι) you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” By being born under the law and perfectly fulfilling it, Christ has granted us sonship or heirship of the eschatological inheritance. And then, because we are sons, the Spirit has been sent into our hearts. Being granted the status of heirs is the legal basis of the subsequent reception of the gift of the transforming Spirit.

Justification is the ground of sanctification. The forensic is the basis of the transformative. The righteousness of Christ is the foundation for the gift of the Spirit. Therefore, sanctification inevitably follows justification because justification is the legal basis or cause of sanctification. The Pauline doctrine of justification, rightly understood, is not guilty of Schweitzer’s charge. It is not “a conception of redemption, from which no ethic could logically be derived.”

Conclusion

Dr. Kim rightly objects to one-sided readings of Pauline soteriology that reduce salvation to justification, ignore sanctification, and have no logical basis for ethics and righteous living. I fully appreciate Dr. Kim’s concern to answer Schweitzer and show that justification does indeed lead to ethics. But Dr. Kim’s solution is the wrong one. The starting point that leads him down the wrong path is reading “justification” in relational terms as restoration to a right relationship with God. This results in conflating justification and sanctification, undermining the purely gratuitous and forensic nature of justification. Dr. Kim’s reformulation of justification in terms of the “already/not-yet” gives up too much, abandoning the most valuable achievement of the Reformation’s reading of Paul—the discovery of the truth that our acceptance before God and assurance of entrance into the eschatological inheritance is not based on our sanctification (as necessary as it is), but solely on Christ who “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Yes, we must always emphasize that all who are justified will also be progressively sanctified and conformed into the image of Christ, and that without that progressive sanctification no one will see the Lord. Nevertheless, justification itself, the declaration that we are righteous in God’s sight, is a strictly legal declaration of righteousness, received by faith alone, apart from works. We are deemed righteous in God’s sight, not because of anything done by us or wrought in us, but solely because of Christ, our righteousness.

Endnotes

“The doctrine of righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater, which has formed within the rim of the main crater—the mystical doctrine of redemption through the being-in-Christ …. Since Paul habitually thinks of redemption on the lines of the mystical doctrine of the being-in-Christ, it does not matter to him that in the subsidiary doctrine of righteousness by faith he has shut off the road to ethics …. But those who subsequently made his doctrine of justification by faith the centre of Christian belief, have had the tragic experience of finding that they were dealing with a conception of redemption, from which no ethic could logically be derived.” Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. William Montgomery; New York: Henry Holt, 1931), 225. ↩
All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted. ↩
Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (WUNT II/386; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). ↩
For Käsemann’s dependence on Cremer, see my “Response to Two Reviews of The Righteousness of God,” JBTS 1.1 (2016): 59-72. http://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JBTS-1.1-Article-5.pdf ↩
Irons, The Righteousness of God, Ch. 4. An abbreviated argument may be found here: Irons, “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources (Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4; ed. Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014), 135-145. ↩
LSJ s.v. δικαιόω. ↩
See the article on “Δικαιοσύνη, κτλ,” NIDNTTE (ed. Silva), 1.724-725. ↩
David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 108-109 ↩
Irons, The Righteousness of God, 76-77. ↩
NETS = A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). ↩
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 79-80; James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul (WUNT II/461; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 3-5. ↩
Cp. Rom 5:16; 2 Cor 3:9 where Paul sets up the same antithesis between “condemnation” and “justification,” although using cognate nouns instead of verbs. ↩
Irons, The Righteousness of God, Ch. 6: “Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul.” ↩
Charles Lee Irons, “The Object of the Law is Realized in Christ: Romans 10:4 and Paul’s Justification Teaching,” JSPL 6.1 (2016): 33-54. ↩
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; ed. Donald A. Hagner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 488. ↩
Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 57-66. ↩
For a detailed defense of the empty-set interpretation, see Irons, “Romans 2:13: Is Paul Coherent?” https://www.academia.edu/5260501/Romans_2_13_Is_Paul_Coherent ↩
Note the inferential particle διό (“therefore, for this reason”) at the beginning of 2 Cor 5:9-10. “Therefore [in view of our confident hope in the resurrection of the body just expounded in 2 Cor 5:1-8], whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” etc. ↩
Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 217. ↩