The Grounds of Justification

The Grounds of Justification November 25, 2014

Markus Barth (Acquittal by Resurrection) sharply raises the question of the justice of God’s verdict of justification. How can God pronounce the guilty innocent, the ungodly righteous? Barth raises the stakes by insisting that the justice should be evident to all: “If after the proclamation of a verdict, one party only . . . feels satisfied, while the other party and the public shake their heads in astonishment, the verdict’s rightness and the judge’s justice are rendered suspect” (92). Can the theology of justification fulfill that criterion?

It has to be admitted that there has been a lot of head-shaking over the Protestant theology of justification. To many, it looks like a sleight of hand; or, if the basis is the punishment of an innocent man, positively unjust. 

Barth’s comparatively brief answer to his own question is not entirely satisfying, but he makes the crucial points, which are: First, “the legal ground of justification – and the reason to praise God as the justifier of the wicked – lies in Jesus Christ exclusively” (94); and, second, “it likes in his death and resurrection, not in his teaching, or in our obedience to it” (94). And, given Barth’s theme, the accent should be placed on “resurrection,” without which, Paul says, we’re “still in our sins.”

Barth explains the point in terms of intercession: “When by the resurrection, the function of the corpus delicti has been reversed, because the victim’s blood stops crying for revenge and calls for mercy by pleading in favor of the trespassers, then the judge does the right thing, reveals his righteousness, and deserves acclamation in acquitting and releasing the culprits.” Jesus is precisely such an advocate for sinners, and His blood speaks “better” than Abel’s, “not for revenge and remembrance of sin, but for mercy and grace and ‘remembering the sins no more.’” Thus Jesus, the “murdered and raised child” becomes the chief evidence of the innocence of the perpetrators, their advocate (94-5).

That still has the feel of a sleight of hand: After all, even though Jesus is raised, his murderers are murderers. Barth emphasizes that the risen Christ offers forgiveness and reconciliation to His enemies, which resolves the problem a bit. It’s as if Jesus says, “Yes, you killed me, but look, I’m back, better than ever, so we’re all good.”

Even if that doesn’t nail the logic, Barth is exactly right to emphasize that the resurrection has to be integral to justification. Without it, we won’t be able to demonstrate the justice of justification in a universally comprehensible way.


Browse Our Archives