Strengths and Weaknesses of Luther’s View of Justification Presented in Class

Luther Paper

Submitted to Dr. John DelHousaye

Phoenix Seminary

Phoenix, Arizona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for

BI 595 Galatians, Martin Luther,

& the New Perspective on Paul & Justification

By

Justin G. W. Bellars

December 18, 2009

 Based on the discussions we had in class, there are a variety of strengths and

weaknesses in regard to Luther’s view of justification to be considered. The most glaring

of his weaknesses appeared to be in part attributable to Luther’s overwhelming sense of

anti-Semitism, as well as his severe distain for Papists and Anabaptists and a propensity

to both conflate and project his hostility for all three groups squarely onto Paul’s Galatian

opponents. In short, Luther “imputes” his own insecurities to the mind of Paul. The New

Perspective cites a weakness in forensic justification, which Luther mixes with

participationist justification in order to produce his thoughts on union with Christ. Yet

another apparent weakness in Luther’s view of justification is his invention of alien

righteousness. One additional weakness may be attributed to the lack of development in

the area of a believer’s identity in Christ. The primary strength of Luther’s view of

justification is the idea of Union with Christ. Each of these will be investigated further.

It seems that Luther’s anti-Semitic bias may have stemmed, in part, because he

was an Augustinian monk. It is readily understood that Augustine was an anti-Semite

who had likewise endeavored to write a commentary on Galatians. A second contributing

source for his prejudice, as discussed in class, is the postulation that Luther was enslaved

to the same racism that was rampant all over Europe in his day, such as the contemporary

attitude which led to the expulsion of Jews from Spain (1492). I believe this had a

devastating affect on the credibility of Luther’s hermeneutic.

Luther’s anti-Semitism was a weakness, because his bestowal of hate for Papists

and Anabaptists on the Galatian Pharisees (even Pharisees who believed in Jesus)

distorted the historical, contextual facts. In our class, it was suggested that Paul’s

hermeneutic began first with Jesus and then followed the trajectory of whatever was left
of his Pharisaism, whereas the Galatian opponents were following a reverse sequence that

attempted to dovetail Jesus onto the full corpus of Pharisaism. The use of “Iudazein”

distracts Luther (and others) from realizing that Paul is attacking Pharisaical teaching, not

Judaism (since what we contemporarily categorize by that moniker did not exist for

another 145 years). For Luther to conflate personal prejudices with a disregard for

historical context due to an irrational inclination to attribute all negativity summarily to

Iudaismos is to violate the commandments of Jesus in loving others and does the

Apostle’s message a disservice. This makes Luther and any concepts developed by way

of his prejudicial and hateful hermeneutic to be dangerous and subject to further scrutiny.

I see this as a glaring deficiency in Lutheranism as a whole.

Luther’s concept of forensic justification suggests that the righteousness that Jesus

has is imputed to us, such that when the Father looks at us, He sees the righteousness of

His Son, Jesus, in our stead. The argument from the New Perspective, particularly

Wright, is that this does not compute in the typical courtroom metaphor. A righteous

judge does not impute His own righteousness to the defendants of serious crimes ever,

and the notion that a righteous judge would ever engage in such an endeavor is seen as a

mockery of justice. Hence, the New Perspective of Paul would categorize this as a

weakness in Luther’s concept of justification, and phrased in this manner, I see it as a

weakness as well.

Luther’s concept of the alien righteousness of Christ appears to be a related

weakness in His view of justification. Luther argues that justification comes about from

the alien righteousness of Christ being imputed to believers in response to their faith in

Him. The controversy surrounding alien righteousness is that it is a framework that needs
to be added to the text. It gives the impression of a more eisegetical imposition than the

Biblical text affords. It is an argument from silence, since the mechanics of the process

are not clearly indicated by Paul’s writings or the rest of Scripture. N.T. Wright may have

a more textually-supported conclusion in stating that he believes the righteousness is a

“status” declaration pronounced by the judge onto those accused of sinfulness.

Unfortunately, Wright also goes a step beyond and reintegrates this into his covenant

theory, which is itself based on His own presuppositions.

Although I know Luther does it with good intentions, I believe his attempt to

demonize the Law overstates his case and could be considered a liability. Paul has both

positive and negative things to say about the Law. He speaks of it as a schoolmaster,

making it sound instructive, but then Luther appeals to the fact that seldom does a student

endear himself to the schoolmaster due to the schoolmaster’s harsh treatment of him.

Luther suggests that the Law inspires hatred of God, saying that sin is not only revealed

by the Law, but sin is actually “increased and magnified by the Law”. This is not

surprising, as I have noted that Luther seemed to put a lot of words in Paul’s mouth in his

commentary on Galatians. The fact that much of Luther’s commentary is written as if

quoting direct speech or the “thoughts” of Paul, makes me suspicious of the conclusions

Luther draws.

Union with Christ was seen as too mystical for many Protestants, but seems much

more in keeping with the collective nature of Israel than the more individualistic ideas

that emerge from the Western (overwhelmingly Gentile) church. Union with Christ

assumed entering and maintaining unity with Christ and those whom He called to be

Apostles. Paul’s concept of union was predicated on faith. This is a concept which I
believe Luther develops in a convincing way in his commentary on Galatians. The idea is

that Abraham had faith in God which was credited to him as righteousness, likewise so

did many other Biblical characters, such as Daniel; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego;

Mary of Bethany; and Cornelius. The faith that they had to believe in God positioned

them to receive God’s word and thereby enter into union with Him. For Cornelius, as for

us, the missing component to bringing those of us who have faith to believe in God into

union with Christ is simply the Gospel. As I reflect on growing up in an agnostic family,

this seems to make sense of how it was not until I came into contact with someone who

was able to articulate the Gospel and dialog about any doubts or questions I had, that I

was able to enter into union with Christ.

Union with Christ is particularly interesting in its “ontological dimension.”

Regardless of its “mystical” nature, I believe this is helpful, and thus a strength to

Luther’s view of justification, in that it suggests that Christ is present in the faith itself.

This implies that union with Christ forms out of the bond between the faith in which

Christ is ontologically present and those who share that faith. If our faith bonds us with

someone who is eternally justified and an intrinsic “part” or “substance” in our faith, then

it would make sense that we are justified in that faith. The confusing aspect is that this

seems to hint back to “alien” righteousness, which again is mystical speculation at best.

Aside from the permutations of thought that can follow from holding to a potentially

mystical component of faith like this, it does hold in line with the concept of “oneness”

that Jesus espouses in John 15, that He shares with the Father and likewise shares with

His disciples. The proposition that faith unites us to Christ is clearly a strength of the

Lutheran notion of justification.

 Luther could have drawn out the implications of Union with Christ to a larger

degree. Despite the progress he did make in this area, what appears to have been lacking

was some attention to the believer’s identity in Christ. The believer is not offered an

accurate representation of how he is truly viewed in the eyes of God. The metaphor that

was so aptly applied in class, was that Luther leaves a Christian with the impression that

he is something like skubalon “with whip cream on top.” This is a deficiency that was not

addressed by the Lutheran view of justification.

In conclusion, there are aspects of Luther’s model of justification that reveal their

deficiencies under scrutiny, such as his anti-Semitic outrage, his notion of forensic

justification, his theory of alien righteousness, and the somewhat double-minded

depiction of a Christian’s identity in Christ, while his ideas about Union with Christ seem

to be helpful and consistent in drawing from the “oneness” language proffered by Jesus in

the Gospels. Luther was noted in class to be “a really horrible exegete who happened to

stumble across some truth.” I see every reason to believe this after reading the first three

sections of his commentary on Galatians.

I see that there is need to review what has been commonly accepted. There is

reason to challenge tradition in a similar vain to what Luther attempted to do. Semper

reformatae may be helpful in revisiting material that may have been handled without

exegetical precision, but at the same time, I do not think that reducing Paul to a

sociological model (as the NPP does) is any more a sign of balance than an anti-Semitic

hermeneutic (as Luther did). If our justification stems from our Union with Christ, then

all of the deficiencies seem to become inconsequential. I would like to see this aspect

explored in greater depth. Perhaps that will be the next step after completing my reading
of Luther’s commentary on Galatians. In the meantime, this is all I can offer on the

subject.