(Note: this was originally posted on April 29, 2006 on my wordpress.com blog. Somehow it failed to import here.)
Jeff’s two recent posts remind me of something that has been bothering me.
Awhile back I listened (actually several times) to Norman Shepherd’s lectures on justification for the Dabney Center in Monroe, Louisiana. While lecturing on James Shepherd spend a bit of time arguing that–and this is from by memory but I think it is a highly accurate paraphrase–justification in James 2 is not demonstrative but soteric.
In my opinion, this way of dealing with words is highly confusing even though it is treated as the key to precision in our circles.
There is no such thing as soteric justification as the meaning of the word. There is no such thing as demonstrative justification except as a redundancy.
We need, in my opinion, to stop asking “What is the meaning of this word?” and instead ask “What is the speaker/writer using this word to say?”
Take a word like “rescue.” We can have our reputation rescued from a neighbor’s slander by a widely trusted witness. A dog can be rescued from a mine shaft. People can be rescued from burning buildings. Jesus rescued his people from the wrath of God.
So is it helpful to say of this last sentence in the previous paragraph, “Here, Mark, is using rescue in the soteric sense,” or, “Here rescue has a soteric meaning”? No, here rescue means rescue just like in the other sentences in the paragraph. It is simply an unhelpful confusion to read the subject matter of the sentence into the definition of a single word within it.
Of course, words do sometimes have entirely different definitions based on context. Running for office, running to catch the elevator, and one’s nose running do involve different meanings of the same word. But I don’t think that issue applies to my use of “rescue” above. The meaning of the word has not changed. Rather, what the word is used to describe has changed.
So what about “demonstrative” v. “soteric” justification? We hear all the time that “soteric justification” is, in fact, “declarative” and/or “forensic.” So let’s switch “soteric” for “declarative.” Does this question make sense?: Is justification in James 2 demonstrative justificaiton or declarative justification?
If someone is justified, he is declared righteous and his righteousness is demonstrated in the act. If someone is demonstrated to be righteous, he is declared so in a courtroom setting, which is a justification. And this would also be forensic.
We keep acting like certain words inherently mean a paragraph of doctrine that we subscribe to. I think the Westminster Confession is being misread. Those are chapter headings, not words being defined by the subsequent paragraphs.
Of course, the catechisms make things worse in this respect by treating glossary knowledge as an essential key to true faith. I’m not denying that memorizing glossary definitions is a componant of a good education. Augustine was right that he learned some things by ostensive reference, but he still attributed too much to it when he insisted that, as an infant, such relating of words to objects was how he learned to talk. Learning a list of definitions simply is not as essential as we sometimes seem to think and it leads to these sorts of confusions.
After all, if you treat question 33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism as a definition you will end up making gross errors in your Bible reading.
Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
Reading this you will say blasphemous things about God (and incoherent ones) if you use it as a rule when your read Luke 7.29. Of course, the word-definition myth is so strong in Evangelicalism that many English translations will suddenly change the phrase “justified God” to something like, “declared God just” (ESV). Much of the evidence that would alert us to the difference between ordinary Biblical words and our theological terminology is hid from our eyes by translation style committees. This leads us all to be superstitious about these words, thinking they are sure shorthands for a great deal of doctrine. No. They are headings, not words that actually mean all that.
The ESV’s translation of Luke 7.29 is right in one way. To be justified means to be “declared just” or “righteous.” And, as a definition, Question 33 of the Shorter Catechism is simply wrong. An accurate answer to the general question What is justification? would be “vindication,” or “a declaration one is righteous.” But the question is actually not meant to be so general. The real question is What is justification in relation to what God does for sinners and how is he able to do such a thing?Thus, grace is meantioned, and the representative work of Christ, and God’s reckoning believers as righteous in Christ. But all of this gets misunderstood with this weird fascination with words and definitions.
(It is related I think to the “word-study” method of doing theology that Evangelical theologians are increasingly warning us about (if memory serves, I was first made aware of these issue by D. A. Carson’s excellent book Exegetical Fallacies.)
So what of justification in James? Instead of asking which alleged justification is meant by James, soteric or demonstrative, I would suggest the following questions that, I think, would be more helpful.
- Is James referring to a future verdict?
- Yes, he is saying that all people will come before God at the day of judgment and be either justified or condemned.
- Is James claiming that we are now in an limbo state regarding our status as righteous or condemned?
- No, he makes it clear that he regards believers as already righteous before God
- Is James claiming that those who are presently justified might be “unjustified” in the future?
- Inasmuch as James is writing to professing believers who may not be truly regenerate, there will be people who presently regard themselves as justified but who, through disbelief, ignore James’ warning and do not inherit eternal life. But those who are justified presently by a true faith will, by that faith, take James’ warning to heart and act upon it.
- Is this future justification uneccessary for believers.
- No, God does not lie. The future acquittal is necessary, and is provided through the sovereign grace of God who gives to his elect a true and abiding faith.
More should probably be said, but my point is that we can deal with the issues without having to talk about different meanings for justification. In every case, justify simply means to declare righteous.
Mark,
I agree with your basic point, but the situation is a little more complex than you describe.
First, my agreement.
Theologians tend to over analyze and make things more complex than they need to be. They also like to use jargon when there are perfectly good “ordinary” words that would do the job rather nicely.
I also agree that many people make the “etymological fallacy.” They think that the meaning of a particular word is governed by the meaning of its component parts. And the related fallacy is thinking that the meaning is determined by its dictionary definition.
The meaning of words is governed by the context and what the author is trying to say. The dictionary definitions are constructed from the range of uses that different writers use for the word. So, especially in the case of NT Greek, it is circular reasoning to say that a word cannot mean X because this author never uses it to mean X.
But words do have distinct meanings in different contexts. Your example with rescue shows how this is often transparent in our native language. To rescue a reputation is not the same thing as rescuing a dog. The first use is figurative. And rescuing people from God’s wrath is not exactly the same as rescuing people from a burning building.
And so, I don’t think we can make a blanket statement such as, “In every case, justify simply means to declare righteous.” This is just another form of the “dictionary” fallacy.
We come to a particular text aware of a range of meaning for a word. And then we allow the text to shape our understanding of the specific meaning of the word in that context.
And least that’s how I see it.
Rod
All the uses of “rescue” are analogous to each other. A “healthy” sandwhich is not the same as a “healthy” person, but there are analogies between the two uses of the words.
It sounds to me like Mark is saying that the use of justify in Paul and the use of justify in James are analogous. One isn’t talking of the bark of a tree and the other of the bark of a dog.
The bark of a dog and the bark of a tree are actually different words. They just happen to be spelled the same and pronounced the same.
I was distracted by the language aspect of the post and didn’t pay that much attention to the theological aspect.
I don’t agree with this statement, “Justify simply means to declare righteous.” In Luke 7:29 it means something different than in James 2. The meanings are related, but they are not the same.
Another way to say it is that if it means “to declare righteous,” then “righteous” means different things in the two cases.
Rod