The Fourth Century
in the Greek East
Early Christian reflection on the
doctrine of justification in the Greek-speaking eastern church in the fourth
century is of interest for many reasons. Yet perhaps the most important of
these is the linguistic continuity between the Greek text of the New Testament
and its Greek-speaking interpreters. An example will make this point clear: It
has become a commonplace in some quarters to suggest that the dik group
of terms—particularly the verb dikaioo, ‘to justify’—are naturally
translated as being ‘treated as righteous’ or ‘reckoned as righteous’, and that
Paul’s Greek-speaking readers would have understood him in this way. This may
be true at the purely linguistic level; however, the Greek Christian preoccupation
with the strongly transformative soteriological metaphor of deification appears
to have led to justification being treated in a factitive sense. This is not, however,
to be seen as a conceptual imposition on Pauline thought, but rather a
discernment of this aspect of his soteriological narrative.
Paul’s term ‘justification (Greek: dikaiōsis)’
appears to have been assimilated to this transformative narrative framework.
John Chrysostom considers this theme in his commentary on Romans, noting that
God’s righteousness is given to believers as a result of their faith. ‘For you
do not achieve it by toiling and labor, but you receive it by a gift from
above, contributing one thing only to your own resources—believing.’ (Chrysostom,
Homilia ad Romanos, II.1.17; MPG 60.409) Chrysostom develops this
further in his comments on Romans 3:25, picking up the idea of the declaration of
God’s righteousness. So how are we to understand this ‘declaration’ of the
righteousness of God? Chrysostom’s account affirms the declaration or
manifestation (endeixeis) of God’s own righteousness with its actualization
in the transformation of the nature of humanity. (Chrysostom, Homilia ad
Romanos, VII.iii.26; MPG 60.444)
It is like the declaration of God’s
riches, not only in that which God is rich, but also in that God makes others
rich; or in the same way about [the declaration of God’s] life, not only in
that God is living, but also in that God makes the dead to live; and of [the declaration
of God’s] power, not only in that God is powerful, but also in that God makes
the weak powerful. So the declaration of God’s righteousness is not only that God
is righteous, but also that God makes those that are corrupted by sin
immediately righteous.
Chrysostom clearly understands justification
to be a factitive term, designating a transformation of the believer. This is
not inconsistent with God announcing or proclaiming that the believer is righteous;
that declaration, however, is understood to be based on an actual change within
the believer.
The point here is that Pauline
language about justification is interpreted within a theological framework that
is pre-committed to a transformative understanding of the entire process of salvation.
From Athanasius onwards, the Greek Christian tradition, particularly at
Alexandria, tended to frame its soteriological convictions in terms of the
believer’s incorporation into Christ, grounded in the incarnation. The Son of
God became incarnate in order that we might be transformed our natures. (Athanasius,
De incarnatione Verbi, 9; PG 25.112a) ‘Christ gave life to our flesh in
the blood of his own body, and opens up for us a “new and living way through
the veil”—that is, through his flesh.’ (Athanasius, Contra Arianos II,
65; PG 26.285a) Like Greek-speaking theological writers before and after him,
Athanasius affirms the axiom quod est assumptum non est sanatum (what is
not assumed is not healed). (60) These theological assumptions shape Athanasius’s
reading of Paul, in effect acting as a filter which predisposes him to focus on
certain Pauline themes, and overlook others. The eastern tradition after Athanasius
placed an increased emphasis on the importance of the deification of humanity,
not least because of work of the Holy Spirit came to become an important ground
for affirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Although the language of justification
is encountered, the Cappadocian fathers tend to emphasise Pauline metaphors
which have a clear transformational element, such as sanctification, a ‘new creation’
and healing. These strongly factitive soteriological metaphors point towards a
transformative understanding of justification—even though the Cappadocian
fathers make relatively little use of this specific term. (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia
Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification [4th ed.;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 36-38)