Finally, we get still further light on St. Paul's meaning as to justification from the fact that in Ro 4' he introduces, as synonymous with the im- putation of righteousness or justification, the OT idea of the forgiveness of sins (cf. also Eph 1'),
which links his teaching on at once to that of Christ Himself ; and it appears that the Pauline onceptions of justification and adoption are simjjly
the equivalent of the Fatherly forgiveness taught by Jesus (Kaftan, Dogmatik^- *, p. 523). The idea that forgiveness is something merely negative, while justification conveys a positive status, turns on an inadequate conception of the Biblical idea of forgiveness.
So far we have considered justificatidii ;is a Divine ojjeration ; it now remains to cdii^iilcr its practical issues, when it takes effect in the :i(iniis- sion of the sinner to fellowship with God. Faith now comes into view, not sim_i)ly as the reflexion of grace, but in its psychological nature as trust, including the submission of the will to God ; and the practical effects of justification appear as the unfolding of this trust in its various aspects. The first of these is the sense of present peace with God (Ro 5'), or the consciousness of acceptance with Him. Here appears a strong contrast with the Pharisaic theolo^, which, teaching not the justification of the sinner, but only of him who has kept the precepts, defers justification till the hour of death, ancl consequently demands in the present a condition of anxious fear lest in the end justification should not be attained (Weber, I.e. pp. 284, 334 ff. ; cf. Ro 8'=). Along with present peace goes patience in all present suflering (Ro 5- "• 5), in the belief that it is Divinely ordered for the best ends (8^), while there is at the same time a consciousness of the Divine love (5° 8'*"^'). Here appears a contrast to the OT point of view, from which temporal sufferings appeared as signs of the Divine displeasure. This contrast is strikingly brought out by comparing St. Paul's triumphant use of the quotation in Ro 8^" with its original despondent meaning in Ps 44--. While St. Paul finds it impossible tliat persecution should separate the believer from the love of God, the Psalmist sees in it a proof that God has cast off His people (cf. 44'). Finally, there is no fear of final punish-
nay
ment (Ro 5°), but rather a joyful hope tainty, of ultimate salvation (5- '» (P 8» **• »»)." The sum of all these things, in fact the whole conse- quence of justification, St. Paul expresses by saying tliat, for the believer, ' There is now no condemna- tion' (8'), or that he is not under law, but under grace (6'*). From this point of view the work of C'lirist appears as a redemption from the curse of the Law. Christ, in His death, bore its curse, and its power is therefore at an end (Gal 3"). St. Paul refers in this passage to the Jewish Law, as the antithesis with v.'* shows : ' Christ redeemed us [Jews] from the curse of the law . . . that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus.' But his idea of freedom from the Law is not to be limited to freedom from the Jewish Law. Though, historically, this special case was of the greatest importance, St. Paul means that the Christian religion is a religion not of law, but of grace. He also expresses the same idea in terras of the parallel conception of adoption, by saying that the believer has received, in place of the spirit of bondage, leading to fear, the spirit of adoption, ' whereby we cry, Abba, Father ' (Ro 8").
The doctrine of the Epistle of James on justification, whether the author has the PauHne doctrine or abuses of it in view or not [on the critical question connected with the Epistle see Moffatt, Historical ST-, p. 676, for a good statement of the alternatives ; also Sanday-Headlam, ' Romans,' p. 104 ; and W. Patrick, James the Lord's Brother], raises an important problem in connexion with it. It is to be noted, first, that the idea of faith in the Epistle is quite different from St. Paul's. When the author teaches that justification is not by faith only, but by works also, the faith he has in view is a mere intellectual assent to Christian truth, especially to the doctrine of the Divine unity (Ja 219). Further, his idea of works is not that of meritorious performance deserving reward, but of practical morality. He solves the problem of justification in reality by going back behind the legalism of the Pharisees, and behind the Law alto-
920
JUSTIFICATION
JUSTIFICATION"
gether, to the position of the OT prophets, in so far as they demanded practical righteousness as the condition of acceptance w-ith God. His doctrine and St. Paul's, therefore, touch no- where except in language ; in thought the.v are altogether apart. At the same time, the Epistle of James serves forcibly to raise the question, which St. Paul's doctrine is alwaj-s liable to provoke, viz. what safeguard it offers, while satisfjing the religious needs of man, for his moral interests. Reference has alreadv been made to the passage in which St. Paul speaks of opposition to his teaching ; it was its apparent autinomianism that provoked this opposition (Ro 38, of. Ui)-