Saturday, September 28, 2019

Michael Gorman on Justification Being Transformative, Not Merely Declarative/Forensic


In his recent book on Pauline soteriology, Michael J. Gorman wrote against justification being declarative/forensic merely:

. . . Pauline soteriology (theology of salvation) is inherently participatory and transformative . .  In my view, some interpreters in justification in Paul commit one or more methodological errors: . . . Some interpreters fail to make other sorts of connections and stop short of certain kinds of exegetical and theological conclusions because of fear of sounding, or even becoming, Roman Catholic or Orthodox (or Jewish?). For instance, a predisposition toward a “juridical” (forensic, legal) view of justification can obscure the connection between justification and justice, or rule out the possibility of seeing justification as that which actually makes people just. Theological concerns about “works-righteousness” or “synergism” may prevent an interpreter from seeing what Paul actually says . . . A strong case can be made that Paul’s understanding of justification is much more participatory and transformative than is often thought, especially by many Protestant interpreters. (Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], xviii, 17-18, emphasis added)

In support of such, Gorman continues:

A careful study of two critical passages in Paul’s theology and spirituality Galatians 2:15-21 and Romans 6—reveals that Paul has a basic soteriology of dying and rising with Christ that he associates with both justification by faith/faithfulness (Gal. 2:15-21) and baptism (Rom. 6). In each passage, Paul speaks of co-crucifixion with the Messiah Jesus:

For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I could live in relation to God. I have been crucified with the Messiah. (Gal. 2:19 MJG)

We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body defined by Sin would be destroyed, and we would no longer be enslaved to Sin. (Rom. 6:6 MJG)

In fact, there are multiple parallels between Galatians 2 and Romans 6, suggesting that justification and baptism are two sides of the same coin—the coin of initial participation, or conversion. Of these additional similarities, two are most important. First, co-crucifixion with Christ is immediately followed (implicitly or explicitly) by co-resurrection with Christ: resurrection to new life in covenant relation to God. Second, these realities of justification and baptism entail being transferred into Christ. Paul say both that we “came to faith [that incorporates us] into [Gk. eis] the Messiah” (Gal. 2:16 MJG) and that we have been baptized “into” (eis) the Messiah (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), into his “body” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Whether Paul is speaking of the internal confession of faith or the external confirmation of that faith in baptism, the reality is the same: co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ that means transfer into Christ and thus new life in him, which means also in his body, the ekklēsia. One would be hard-pressed to think of ways to indicate participation more strongly, yet succinctly, than with the trio of prepositions “with,” “into,” and “in.”

This initial experience of dying and rising that entails transfer and entry continues for believers once they are in Christ. The life of cruciformity is the natural outflowing of the initial co-crucifixion. That is why Paul can say, “I have been crucified with the Messiah” (Gal. 2:19 MJG), using the perfect tense; it is a reality with an initial starting point that continues into the present. Those who are in Christ have “crucified” the deeds that characterized their former way of life, and yet they must constantly “Put them to death” (Rom. 6:6-14; 8:10-13; Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5). The paradox . . .is that this life of constant co-crucifixion (cruciformity) is also suffused with the resurrection. (Ibid., 19-20, emphasis in original)

With respect to the problems of viewing justification as merely forensic, Gorman writes the following, with a focus on 1 Cor 6:9-11:

It may, however, be the case that justification as divine declaration and justification as divine transformative action are not distinct and mutually exclusive understandings of justification for Paul, or for us. If we think of a divine declaration as an effective word a performative utterance, then justification as divine declaration not only permits but also requires transformation. The neologism of Reformed theologian Peter Leithart is particularly helpful in articulating this truth; he understands justification as a “deliverdict,” a verdict that effects deliverance (Leithart, Baptized Body, 75-76; Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World, esp. 180-214, 333-54). Whether intentionally or not, with this term Leithart has brought together traditional Protestant approaches to Paul and apocalyptic approaches (which generally characterize justification as “deliverance” from apocalyptic powers), as well as other perspectives that stress justification’s transformative element. The theological states here are, in my view, quite high. The German Lutheran scholar Michael Wolter agrees; he breaks down the wall between “forensic justification” and “real participation,” claiming that “If God’s judgment about a person were not completely directly efficacious in reality and God’s pledge of salvation were not a salvific power that changes the person, God would not be God” (Wolter, Paul, 251).

A final example from Paul will help us see the close connection between the communal, the transformative, and (possibly) the declarative elements of justification according to the apostle. In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthian community that the practice of pursuing lawsuits against their siblings in the Messiah is a form of adikia (“injustice, unrighteousness”). Although this noun itself does not occur in the text (but see 1 Cor. 13:6), its cognate adjective adikos (“unjust, unrighteousness”), used as a noun, occurs in verses 1 and 9, and its cognate verb adikeō (“commit injustice, harm”) appears in verses 7 and 8. Paul’s arguments against this injustice culminate in his claim that the unjust (adikoi)—implicitly including the Corinthian litigants—will not inherit the kingdom of God (v. 9). The Corinthians, he says, used to practice injustice and other evils disqualifying people from the kingdom, but then he says, “You [the Corinthians] were washed . . . sanctified . . . justified [alla apelousasthe, alla hēgiasthēte, alla edikaiōthēte] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (v. 11 NRSV). That is, something happened of these Corinthians, including justification; the passive connotes an act from outside the self, an act of grace of God. Whether or not we see in this third passive verb a divine declaration, we cannot help but see a transformation. The unrighteous have become righteous; the unjust have been incorporated into the community of the just—the community of the Messiah and the Spirit were practices of justice have replaced practices of injustices. (Ibid., 144-46, emphasis in bold added, italics in original)

 Such should serve as a wake-up call to Protestants who hold to forensic justification.

For more, see, for e.g., my response to a Protestant apologist's attempt to defend the doctrine of imputed righteousness at: