#92. Romans 3:24 – You are Justified (Not Pardoned) (Justification Series, Part XV)

Part III: Our Justification, Confirmed

Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ’s faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and are wanting of the glory of God.

Being justified gratuitously in His grace…

You are innocent.

Yes, I said it. After examining, in summary, all human error, rooted in our irreverent and unjust qualities, under Master Sin, and examining the contrastive righteousness of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ which manifests it, Paul, and myself, must conclude that you are innocent.

Do you feel any different?

No?

That’s okay. You don’t have to “get it” all at once. There’s a reason this study is slow and plodding. I want you to really ruminate on the practicality of this conclusion: your Maker deems you innocent of any wrongdoing. The following studies will build from the prior ones, by emphasizing your lack of action for this conclusion to be reached, complemented by Christ’s one decision to save you from sin and death. We will further see God’s attitude in doing this, and how His perspective of you is shifted in light of such blessing.

As we consider this, also think about the revolutionary nature of God’s dealing with sin in this manner! In the past, the most God could do was pass over the death penalty by tolerating us in our ignorance. Surely, there is little joy either ourselves or God could gain from such an impasse, and until the cross we, the human race, could only eat guilt for breakfast, and shame for dinner (some mad-lads would reverse this, and who could blame them?)

Yet now, because of the cross, God can justify the sinner! He can re-interpret our unjust acts, not solely as acts tearing us down, but preparing us, and building us, for righteousness!

A simile may be drawn to working out. When you exercise, your muscles are torn down. You wear them out, so that the skin tissue is stretched and shredded, and left sore for a day (maybe two, if you’re out of practice.) This, in the moment, may be annoying, but your body naturally repairs itself. Your skin tissue mends, stronger than before – and you become prepared for more strenuous labor.

This is how God is utilizing our sins. I preface: this is God’s utility, not ours. We do not use sin this way, for sin is sin. When we fail, we are educated, just as your body is educated under major exercise. But we are destined to sin until these bodies die. Not one day passes on this earth in which we do not sin, while in these mortal frames. Thus it is, indeed, revolutionary that God would utilize something that has been so destructive to us, for us! To recognize our justification is to recognize that the actions committed in Romans 1:18-3:20, while not in themselves “good,” compose an experience given with a view to our growth, even when it does not always appear so.

“But What About the Bad Guys?”

There is much to discuss. The most primitive remark from religious zealots is this: “I can’t tell a serial killer that they are justified! They would go on killing, and God would do nothing about it!” This objection is best suited for Romans 6:1, and we will cover it in more detail at that time. For now, I say that such a claim mischaracterizes what is being revealed. Justification is not a license to kill. It is given with God’s express intent to build up the saint in grace. To refuse to acknowledge this is a strawman, and only serves to hinder productive conversation. Such an objection, in truth, is arguing against God’s methodology.

Indeed, God gives the greatest counterpoint to this objection: Paul, the writer of Romans, was indeed a serial killer (Acts 9:1.) Yet news of his justification did not exacerbate his bloodlust. It quenched it. You see, the premise of justification must recognize sin (1:18-32, 3:10, 20.) It must see sin as the enemy, and cannot evade its existence, or downplay it. It must see the fault, or else “justification” itself cannot be imparted or understood.

Ergo, no, “any old serial killer” would not be “justified” whilst stabbing <insert most innocent person you can think of here.> The rapist would not be justified whilst taking advantage of another. Mostly, at its core, the objection is supposing human action merits justification. The objector points at the worst tragedy, and the most tragic character, and says, “How could God justify that person?” Yet this question supposes that God is, at this very moment, seeking to justify based on the severity of the sin – hence it is a strawman, and does not concern us. It is an early attempt to suppose “antinomianism,” the theory that one must continue sinning more and more in order to receive more grace. Those that label believers with this are dare I say worse than the antinomians, for the antinomians are logically mistaken – yet the labelers actively lie on our name to detain the truth in injustice, and maintain irreverence toward the plain statements above.

By Way of Comparison – Pardon

Why do objectors deem it fit to mischaracterize justification? Because these objectors are quite drawn to the circumcision message – that other evangel taught by Jesus and Peter. In Jesus’ evangel, human action is still taken into account, and the great scope of Paul’s message cannot be seen, since the law and its precepts stand front and center in the circumcision teachings.

The doctrine of justification is uniquely Pauline. No other inspired writer attests to this doctrine. While most carefully reflect upon John, or Peter, or James, few seem to note that these writers are expressly writing to and for Israelites, or the “circumcision,” and not to you or me today.

We may, then, consider the first major distinction between Paul and every other New Testament writer by reflecting on their contrastive messages of “salvation.” For the circumcision writers, the Jews were to be pardoned of their sins when prerequisites were met. The difference between these terms, “justification” and “pardon,” are both wide and resolute. They are employed at completely different points in the text, intentionally distinguishing between the two. If God is a perfect Writer, then He should know better than all others how to utilize these two differing terms.

Objectors, of course, will treat “pardon” and “justify” as interchangeable terms. But there is no grounds for this word salad, and can only smudge the facts into falsehoods. Justification should not be dimmed by relation to “pardon,” but enhanced by it.

Your average lawyer is leagues ahead of the religionist in this regard. To test this, go up to any lawyer (or any participant or fan of courtroom drama,) and tell them that “pardon” and “justify” were one and the same. They would probably ask you if you’d ever been in a courtroom before. And, if you have, they would probably look at you like you’re a special kind of stupid.

To “pardon” is an executive action, in which one remits the guilt of another. A pardon officially forgives an individual for a criminal conviction, and relieves them of some, maybe all, of the legal consequences. Civil rights are also restored. Yet this does not remove the conviction from one’s record. For example, if one is “pardoned,” and then applied for a job, the employer who conducts a background check would find their conviction a matter of public record. In most cases, a pardon even requires one to admit their guilt in front of a judge or jury, before the pardon can be given!

When the basics of pardon are known, it becomes abundantly clear that “justification” could never operate under the same premise. Unlike “pardon,” to be justified is a judicial decision. In a court, one admits to an unlawful action. Yet they then argue that breaking that law was necessary, and even appropriate, given the circumstances. It completely negates the wrongfulness of the conduct, and absolves one of both civil liability and guilt.

We can very clearly see, then, the distinction between “pardon” and “justification.” A “pardon” takes into account one’s wrongdoing, while “justification” claims that your wrong was right, under the proper pretext.

The Scriptures

Hitherto we have been using the general definitions of both “pardon” and “justification” as mankind employs them in a modern court. Yet even when we examine these words in the text, their meaning shines in similar fashion. The difference is not the meaning of the words themselves, but the righteousness of the Judge and Executive.

Let us, then, examine the Greek words for which these English words were used. The verb form of pardon in Greek is aphiemi. It appears a whopping 145 times in the scriptures, and 129 of these occurrences are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Guess how many times Paul, in contrast, uses this verb?

Only five times!

If “pardon” were Paul’s message, simply, you should at the very least find this word appear half, or even a quarter as often as the four accounts employed it! Yet we see that, like “repentance,” Paul has comparatively little to say concerning the pardon of an individual. His problem extends far beyond the history of the Hebrews, extending instead to the root issue, on which all other problems from mankind stems. This requires a far greater solution than a “pardon” – one which must extend back to the motivations of the One Who creates all, and explain His reason for the employment of sin itself.

Obviously, it would be too great a pitstop to pause our study of Romans to consider every use of “pardon.” But there are a few key passages which reveal its meaning to us. Most evidently, Jesus uses “pardon” best in a parable to Peter, in Matt. 18:21-22–

Peter said to [Jesus], “Lord, how many times shall my brother be sinning against me and I shall be pardoning him? Seven times?”

Jesus is saying to him, “I am not saying to you ‘Till seven times,’ but ‘Till seventy times and seven.’

Notice that Peter did not say, “how many times may I justify my brother?” But “How many times shall my brother be sinning?” Pardon must, by definition, take both sinning, and a probationary period into account. To demonstrate this, please take a look at the following parable Jesus gives, lovingly titled the “Ten Thousand Talent Debtor,” in Matt. 18:23-35–

“Therefore likened was the kingdom of the heavens to a man, a king, who wants to settle accounts with his slaves. Now, at his beginning to settle, one debtor was brought to him who owed ten thousand talents. Now, at his not having wherewith to pay, the lord orders him to be disposed of, and his wife and children and all, whatever he has, and payment to be made. Falling down, then, that slave worshiped him, saying, ‘Lord, be patient with me, and I will pay you all!’ Now, having compassion, the lord of that slave dismisses him, and remits [aphiemi, also pardons] his loan.

“Yet, coming out, that slave found one of his fellow slaves, who owed him a hundred denarii, and, holding him, he choked him, saying, ‘Pay, if you are owing anything!’

“Falling down, then, his fellow slave entreated him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you all!’ Yet he would not, but, coming away, he casts him into jail, till he may pay what he is owing.

“Then his fellow slaves, perceiving what is occurring, were tremendously sorry, and coming, they elucidate to their lord all that is occurring.

“Then his lord, calling him to him, is saying to him, ‘Wicked slave! That entire debt I remit [aphiemi, also pardon] to you, since you entreat me. Was it not binding on you also to be merciful to your fellow slave, as I also am merciful to you?’ And, being indignant, his lord gives him up to the tormentors till he may pay all he is owing him.

“Thus shall My heavenly Father also be doing to you, if each one should not be pardoning his brother, from your hearts.”

In light of our present subject, the force of this parable is easy to see. The concept of pardon is figured as something which is given with a probationary period, and revoked when conduct is wanting.

The final verse of the passage is also telling. God followed through on both the pardon and its revocation in the book of Acts, called the “Pentecostal” administration (which you may learn more about in chapters 17-25 of God’s Timeline.) At the end of Luke, Jesus cried on the cross, “Father, forgive [aphiemi, also pardon] them, for they know not what they are doing!” Thus at the beginning of Acts, the Jewish nation had been pardoned.

As we know now, a pardon comes with a probation. Thus the Israelites were entreated by Peter, in Acts 2:38–

Peter is averring to them, “Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit.”

Let us relate this to Jesus’ parable. Jesus had two debtors in view – one who owed much, and one who owed little. The one who owed much was undoubtedly the Jewish nation, who had murdered their own Messiah without basis in cold blood. The one who owed comparatively little was the nations, who, for all their deeds, had not yet been brought into close companionship with God as the Jews were, and who were never placed under law.

Thus, when the Jews were pardoned their debt by the One they owed, and Jesus proceeded anyway to begin sharing the evangel of the kingdom abroad, beginning in Acts 9, the leaders of the Jewish nation, both political and religious, continued to breathe out murder and hatred against the nations for their lawless behavior. This is typified in the wicked slave choking the slave who owed little.

You may believe that only a portion of the Jewish nation felt this way. I would retort that the vast majority of the Jewish nation felt this way. For example, who is Jesus speaking to when He gives His parable?

Peter. Peter was very wishy-washy when it came to actually pardoning the nations. In fact, there is evidence that Peter even had trouble going to the proselytes (those of the nations who had converted to Judaism.) Throughout Acts 10, Peter needed a vision which showed that God had pardoned the eating habits of the nations (Ac. 10:9-17,) a nudge from the spirit (Ac. 10:19-20,) to go speak with a man of the nations. Yet one of the first things he says when he’s in a room with the guy is, “You are versed in the fact how illicit it is for a man who is a Jew to join or come to another tribe” (Ac. 10:28.) And he still needed Cornelius’ testimony in order to, in retrospect, say something relatively obvious (Ac. 10:30-35.)

And this was just one guy! When he finally did go, his brothers, who had received little of this coercion, were just as antagonistic to the idea (Ac. 11:3.) And, of course, don’t even get me started on the Jews’ antagonism to Paul’s message. Almost every page of the latter half of Acts conveys the vile hatred of the Jews against those their allotment was supposed to bless. We read, in Acts 22:21-22–

[The Lord] said to me [Paul], ‘Go! For I shall be delegating you afar to the nations.’”

Now they heard him until this word, and they lift up their voice, saying, “Away from the earth with such a one, for it is not befitting for him to live!”

Wow. Truly remarkable! So those in the Jews’ citadel listen to Paul for a ridiculously short amount of time (for twenty prior verses, equivalent to around 3-4 minutes.) They hear the word “nations,” cut him off, and deem him unbefitting of life (the word “unbefitting” only ever appearing one other time, in Romans 1:28 – describing many of the actions which those in the citadel were not only doing, but endorsing. The irony!)

With this continual evidence to show their lack of maturity on this matter, it is no wonder that Paul concludes the book of Acts with a revocation of the pardon Jesus gave, saying to the small Jewish gathering in Rome–

“Ideally the holy spirit speaks through Isaiah the prophet, to your fathers, saying, ‘Go to this people and say, “In hearing, you will be hearing, and may by no means be understanding, And observing, you will be observing, and may by no means be perceiving,” For stoutened is the heart of this people, And with their ears heavily they hear, And with their eyes they squint, Lest at some time they may be perceiving with their eyes, And with their ears should be hearing, And with their heart may be understanding, And should be turning about, And I shall be healing them.’

Let it be known to you, then, that to the nations was dispatched this salvation of God, and they will hear.”

Indeed, after re-offering the kingdom and the King of Israel to Israel twenty more times throughout the entirety of Acts, only to be rejected on every occasion, God officially revokes the pardon offered at the end of Luke’s first treatise.

Truly, it was dire straits for humanity. The nation that’s supposed to be the fountain of blessing for this troubled earth is herself troubled! So troubled, in fact, that she would rather extinguish and/or dominate the nations deemed second class humans, instead of heed her King’s words. How, oh how, was humanity to be blessed?

- GerudoKing