JUSTIFICATION,
JUSTIFY
was
only
those
of
high
rank
to
whom
this
indulgence
was
accorded.
In
the
case
of
St.
Paul
it
was
the
second
of
these
which
was
put
in
force.
As
regards
appeals
to
the
Emperor
(Ac
25<>-
'2),
the
following
conditions
appUed
when
one
claimed
this
right.
In
the
Roman
provinces
the
supreme
criminal
juris-diction
was
exercised
by
the
governor
of
the
province,
whether
proconsul,
proprsetor,
or
procurator;
no
appeal
was
permitted
to
provincials
from
a
governor's
judg-ment;
but
Roman
citizens
had
the
right
of
appealing
to
the
tribunes,
who
had
the
power
of
ordering
the
case
to
be
transferred
to
the
ordinary
tribunals
at
Rome.
But
from
the
time
of
Augustus
the
power
of
the
tribunes
was
centred
in
the
person
of
the
Emperor;
and
with
him
alone,
therefore,
lay
the
power
of
hearing
appeals.
The
form
of
such
an
appeal
was
the
simple
pronunciation
of
the
word
'Appello';
there
was
no
need
to
make
a
written
appeal,
the
mere
utterance
of
the
word
in
court
suspended
all
further
proceedings
there.
W.
O.
E.
Oesterley.
JUSTIFICATION,
JUSTIFY.—
Verb
and
noun
originate
in
Christian
Latin
(the
Vulgate)
;
Lat.
analogy
affords
some
excuse
for
the
Romanist
reading
of
'justify'
as
'make
just,'
by
which
sanctification
ia
in-cluded
under
justification.
Neither
the
Heb.
nor
the
Greek
original
allows
of
any
other
definition
of
'justify'
than
'count
just';
it
is
a
term
of
ethical
relationship,
not
ethical
quality,
and
signifies
the
footing
on
which
one
is
set
towards
another,
not
the
character
imparted
to
one.
The
Heb.
verb
(abstract
noim
wanting)
deviates
from
the
above
sense
only
in
the
late
Heb.
of
Dn
12^
(rendered
in
EV
'turn
.
.
.
to
righteousness
'
)
.
The
Greek
equivalent
had
a
wide
range
of
meaning
—
denoting
(1)
to
set
Tight,
correct
a
wrong
thing
done:
(2)
to
deem
right,
claim,
approve,
consent
to
anything;
(3)
to
do
right
by
any
one,
either
in
vindication
or
in
punish-ment
(so
'justify'
m
Scottish
law
=
'execute').
The
usage
of
the
LXX
and
NT,
applying
the
word
to
persons,
comes
under
(3)
above,
but
only
as
taken
in
bonam
partem;
in
other
words,
justification
in
BibUcal
speech
imports
the
vindication
or
clearing
from
charge
of
the
justified
person,
never
his
chastisement.
Justifica-tion
is
essentially
the
act
of
a
judge
(whether
in
the
official
orthe
ethical
sense),
effected
onjust
grounds
and
in
foro
(Dei,
conscientim,
or
reipublic(E,
as
the
case
may
be).
It
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
character
of
Father
and
the
office
of
Judge
in
God
consist
together
in
NT
thought.
We
have
to
distinguish
(1)
the
general
use
of
the
word
as
a
term
of
moral
judgment,
in
which
there
is
no
difference
between
OT
and
NT
writers;
(2)
its
specific
Pauline
use,
esp.
characteristic
of
Rom.
and
Galatians.
1.
In
common
parlance,
one
is
'justified'
when
pro-nounced
just
on
trial,
when
cleared
of
blame
or
aspersion.
So
God
is
'justified,'
where
His
character
or
doings
have
borne
the
appearance
of
injustice
and
have
been,
or
might
be,
arraigned
before
the
human
conscience;
see
Job
8',
Ps
51«
(Ro
3')
972,
Mt
11",
Lk
7«-
"s,
also
1
Ti
3".
Similarly
God's
servants
may
be
'justified'
against
the
misjudgments
and
wrongful
accusations
of
the
worid
(Ps
37«;
cf.
Ex
23',
Job
233-"
and
42'-9,
Ps
7»-"
3519-M
431
97»-i2
etc.;
and
in
the
NT,
Mt
13",
Ro
26-',
1
P
223;
cf.
1
Ti
3>»,
Rev
11").
Even
the
wicked
may
be,
relatively,
'justified'
by
comparison
with
the
more
wicked
(Jer
3",
Ezk
16"'-;
cf.
Mt
12"').
But
OT
thought
on
this
subject
arrived
at
a
moral
impasse,
a
contradiction
that
seemingly
admitted
of
no
escape.
In
the
days
of
judgment
on
the
nation
Israel
felt
that
she
was
'more
righteous'
than
the
heathen
oppressors
(Hab
1")
and
that,
at
a
certain
point,
she
had
'
received
of
J"'s
hand
double
for
all
her
sins'
(Jer
lO^*,
Is
402);
and
J"'s
covenant
pledged
Him
to
her
reinstate-ment
(Is
54'-"').
In
this
situation,
towards
the
end
of
the
Exile,
the
Second
Isaiah
writes,
'My
justifler
is
at
handl
.
.
.
my
lord
J"
will
help
me
.
.
.
who
is
he
that
counts
me
wicked?'
(Is
,508'-;
cf.
Ro
S"-'*).
For
the
people
of
J"
a
grand
vindication
is
coming:
more
than
this,
'J"'s
righteous
servant'
—
either
the
ideal
Israel
collectively,
or
some
single
representative
in
whom
its
character
and
sufferings
are
ideally
embodied
—
JUSTIFICATION,
JUSTIFY
is
to
'justify
many'
in.
'bearing
their
iniquities,'
this
vicarious
office
accounting
for
the
shameful
death
inflicted
on
him
(Is
53);
his
meek
obedience
to
J"'s
will
in
the
endurance
of
humiUation
and
anguish
will
redound
to
the
benefit
of
sinful
humanity
(cf.
53"'-
vrith
52"').
While
the
spiritual
Israel
is
thus
represented
as
perfected
through
sufferings
and
made
the
instrument
of
J"'s
grace
towards
mankind,
the
deepened
consciousness
of
indi-vidual
sin
prompted
such
expressions
as
those
of
Jer
17",
Ps
51=
130S
1432
(Ro
32s),
and
raised
the
problem
of
Job
25*,
'How
can
a
man
be
righteous
with
God?'
Mic
56-8
reveals
with
perfect
clearness
the
way
of
justification
by
merit;
Mic
7'-*
shows
how
completely
it
was
missed;
and
Mic
7i»-2»
points
to
the
one
direction
in
which
hope
lay,
—
the
covenant
grace
of
J".
'
The
seed
of
Israel
'
is
to
be
'justified
in
J"'
and
'saved
with
an
everlasting
salvation'
(Is
46"-
22-25);
the
actual
Israel
is
radically
vicious
and
stands
self-condemned
(59'2s.
Gi"-
etc.).
Such
is
the
final
verdict
of
prophecy.
Under
the
legal
regime
dominating
'Judaism'
from
the
age
of
Ezra
onwards,
the
principle
of
which
was
expressed
by
Paul
in
Gal
3'2
('He
that
doeth
those
things
shall
live
in
them'),
this
problem
took
another
and
most
acute
form.
'The
personal
favour
of
God,
and
the
attainment
by
Israel
of
the
Messianic
salvation
for
herself
and
the
world,
were
staked
on
the
exact
fulfilment
of
the
Mosaic
Law,
and
circumcision
was
accepted
as
the
seal,
stamped
upon
the
body
of
every
male
Jew,
of
the
covenant
based
on
this
understanding
(see
Gal
5').
Ro
7'-25
shows
how
utterly
this
theory
had
failed
for
the
individual,
and
Ro
93"-10'
asserts
its
national
failure.
2.
St.
Paul's
doctrine
of
Justification
is
explained
negatively
by
his
recoil
from
the
Judaism
just
described.
In
the
cross
of
Christ
there
had
been
revealed
to
him,
after
his
abortive
struggles,
God's
way
of
justifying
men
(Ro
72*
8').
This
was
in
reahty
the
old
way,
trodden
by
Abraham
(Ro
4),
'witnessed
to
by
the
law
and
the
prophets'
—
by
the
Mosaic
sacrifices
and
the
Isaianic
promises.
Paul
takes
up
again
the
threads
that
dropped
from
the
hands
of
the
later
Isaiah.
He
sees
in
'
Jesus
Christ
and
him
crucified'
the
mysterious
figure
of
Is
S3
—
an
identification
already
made
by
John
the
Baptist
and
by
the
Lord
Himself;
cf.
Ro
5>'-2i
with
Is
53".
Upon
this
view
the
death
of
the
Messiah
on
Calvary,
which
so
terribly
affronted
Saul
the
Pharisee,
is
perfectly
explained;
'the
scandal
of
the
cross'
is
changed
to
glory
(1
Co
123-ai,
Gal
22i>'-
S's
6",
2
Co
521).
The
'sacrifice
for
sin'
made
in
the
death
of
Jesus
vindicates
and
reinstates
mankind
before
God.
'Justification'
is,
in
PauUne
language,
synonymous
with
'reconciliation'
(atonement)
—
see
Ro
32"''-
5"
and
'5-21,
esp.
2
Co
5",
where
God
is
said
to
be
'reconciUng
the
world
to
himself
in
'not
imputing
to
them
their
trespasses
'
;
the
same
act
which
is
a
reconciliation
as
it
concerns
the
disposition
and
attitude
of
the
parties
affected,
is
a
justification
as
it
concerns
their
ethical
footing,
their
relations
in
the
order
of
moral
law.
The
ground
of
the
Christian
justification
lies
in
the
grace,
concurrent
with
the
righteousness,
of
God
the
Father,
which
offers
a
pardon
wholly
gratuitous
as
regards
the
offender's
deserts
(Ro
323'.
411,
58.
».
21
623
etc..
He
2=).
The
means
is
the
vicarious
expiatory
death
of
Jesus
Christ,
ordained
by
God
for
this
very
end
(Ro
Z"'-425
56.
t_
2
Co
5"-
»8;
cf.
Mt
2023
2628,
He
912.
23
jois,
1
P
22i
318,
1
Jn
V
4i»-
»,
Rev
1'
etc.).
The
sole
condition
is
faith,
with
baptism
tor
its
outward
sign,
repentance
being
of
course
impUcit
in
both
(Ro
B"-,
Gal
326(-;
Ro
62-
21,
1
Co
6",
Ac
2021
22«
26i8
etc.);
i.e.
the
trustful
acceptance
by
the
sin-convicted
man
of
God's
grace
meeting
him
in
Christ
(Ro
425
5',
Gal
22"'-etc.);
the
clause
'through
faith
in
Jesus
Christ'
of
Ro
322
is
the
subjective
counterpart
(man
meeting
God)
of
the
objective
expression
'through
the
redemption
that
is
in
Christ
Jesus
'
(God
meeting
man)
in
v.2«.
There
underUes
this
whole
doctrine
the
assumption
