“Justification” is a scriptural term, one used very often, but not as much as the term, “salvation.” When someone is justified, he is saved, but that doesn’t explain his entire salvation. It’s the first part of salvation. When someone is justified, he is said to be “declared righteous.” That is the language of justification. John Owen wrote in 1797:
[I]t is the righteousness of Christ, and not our own, on account of which we receive the pardon of sin; acceptance with God; are declared righteous, and have a title to the heavenly inheritance.
For the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, unto a person in himself ungodly unto his justification, or that he may be acquitted, absolved, and declared righteous, is built on such foundations, and proceedeth on such principles of righteousness, wisdom, and sovereignty, as have no place among the actions of men, nor can have so, as shall afterwards be declared.
I readily allow that there is a very great agreement between justification and pardon, in their efficient, impulsive, and procuring causes, in their objects, or subjects, in their commencement, and manner of completion: the same God that pardons the sins of his people, justifies them, or accounts them righteous; the same grace, which moved him to the one, moved him to the other; as the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins, so by it are we justified; all who are justified are pardoned; and all who are pardoned, are justified, and that, at one and the same time; both these acts are finished at once, simul & semel, and are not carried on in a gradual and progressive way, as sanctification. But all this does not prove them to be one and the same, for though they agree in these things, in others they differ; for justification is a pronouncing a person righteous according to law, as though he had never sinned; not so pardon: it is one thing for a man to be tried by law, cast, and condemned, and then receive the king’s pardon; and another thing to he tried by the law, and, by it, to be found and declared righteous, as though he had not sinned against it.
Divines generally make justification to consist in the remission of sins, and in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; which some make different parts; others say, they are not two integrating parts of justification, or acts numerically and really distinct, but only one act respecting two different terms, a quo & ad quem; just as by one, and the same act, darkness is expelled from the air, and light is introduced into it; so by one, and the same act of justification, the sinner is absolved from guilt, and pronounced righteous.
DECLARED RIGHTEOUS
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar, not, however, by any exterior imputation of the wisdom of God (Trent, Sess. VI, can. x). To this idea of inherent holiness which theologians call sanctifying grace are we safely conducted by the words of Holy Writ. To prove this we may remark [on] the word justificare.
Our word justification (from the Latin justificare composed of justus and facere, and therefore meaning “to make righteous”), just as the Holland rechtvaardigmaking, is apt to give the impression that justification denotes a change that is brought about in man, which is not the case. In the use of the English word the danger is not so great, because the people in general do not understand its derivation, and in the Holland language the danger may be averted by employing the related words rechtvaardigen and rechtvaardiging.
MADE RIGHTEOUS
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This is good! So why do you think a lot of people in these contemporary mega churches have the concept of salvation bring a process vs. instantaneous conversion? Do these churches teach that? Or is it a hangover from their Catholic background prior to being disgruntled with Catholicism and leaving?
I think the idea of process comes the “made righteous” definition and the instantaneous comes the “declared righteous” definition.
What say ye?
Anonymous,
I’m not in a mega church, but I would think that most of them believe, “declared righteous,” but they have a different problem than churches that teach salvation by works, because, yes, they see “made righteous” and a process for justification like Roman Catholicism. Thanks.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your point about “made righteous” referring to sanctification, but how would you explain the first half of the verse, “made sinners”? Obviously we are not made sinners gradually over a period of time. We have a sin nature by birth. For sake of being parallel, could not “made righteous” in Romans 5:19 be referring to the moment one is saved?
Hi, Luke. I’d suggest that Adam’s sin did not effectually make me a sinner at the point in time that he sinned, but it did prophetically in that my future nature as a sinner was assured at that point in time.
Likewise, Christ’s obedience did not effectually make me righteous at the point in time that He obeyed. But it did prophetically in that my future nature as a righteous person was assured at that point in time.
The first was completely fulfilled when I came into this world. I was a sinner. The second is still not completely fulfilled, but its completion is just as assured as the first.
Hi Luke,
Some commentators/theologians/preachers argue for forensic righteousness in Romans 5:19 and others argue for actual righteousness/sanctification/glorification there. Is forensic justification “being made righteous”? What’s the point of saying it means “declared righteous” if it means “made righteous.” Do the two not make any difference, the two ways of saying or defining it?
I believe Romans 5:18-19 state two consequences from Adam and Christ. 18 presents condemnation from Adam and justification from Christ. 19 presents ‘made sinners’ from Adam and ‘made righteous’ from Christ. They are not stating identical consequences. The first deals with man’s legal guilt and the second deals with his inherited sin nature.
For a man to be constituted as righteous, he is by nature righteous. Sin does not have power over him or reign over him any more.
Men were already sinners under Adam because they were of the human race, but they were also born with a sin nature, made sinners. As sinners, they would sin. Being made righteous, as righteous, they would do righteousness.
When someone believes in Jesus Christ, he not only is “declared righteous,” but he is “made righteous,” so that he will live a righteous life.
The use of the future tense “shall be made righteous” is consistent with this.
Kent, do you hold to the Federal Headship view?
A.W. Pink speaks to these same verses.
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). Here is cause for humiliation which few think about. We are members of a cursed race, the fallen children of a fallen parent, and as such we enter this world “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18), with nothing in us to prompt unto holy living. Oh, that God may reveal to you, dear reader, your connection with the first Adam, that you may realize your deep need of clinging to the last Adam. The world may deride this doctrine of representation and imputation, but that only evidences it to be of God. If the gospel (the genuine gospel) were welcomed by all, that would prove it was of human manufacture; for only that is acceptable to fallen roan which is invented by fallen man. That the wise of this world scoff at the truth of federal headship, when it is faithfully presented, only goes to manifest its divine origin.
“By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Rom. 5:18). In the day that Adam fell, the frown of God came upon all His children. The holy nature of God abhorred the apostate race. The curse of the broken law descended upon all Adam’s posterity. It is only thus we can account for the universality of depravity and suffering. The corruption which we inherit from our parents is a great evil, for it is the source of all our personal sins. For God to allow this transmission of depravity is to inflict a punishment. But how could God punish all, unless all were guilty? The fact that all do share in this common punishment proves that all sinned and fell in Adam. Our depravity and misery are not, as such, the appointment of the Creator, but are instead the retribution of the judge.
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). The word “made” in that verse calls for a definition and explanation. It does not refer directly and primarily to the fact that we inherit from Adam a corrupt and sinful nature—that we learn from other Scriptures. The term “were made sinners” is a forensic one, and refers to our being constituted guilty in the sight of God. A parallel case is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” Clearly those words “made him [Christ] to be sin” cannot refer to any change which our Lord underwent in His nature or character. No, rather the blessed Savior so took His people’s place before God that He was treated and dealt with as guilty: their sins were not imparted, but imputed to Him.
Anonymous,
(And I would say this first statement to Luke too. Calling Romans 5:19, made righteous, justification, is not some kind of major problem for me. I just don’t think it is, as I’ve explained. It’s obvious that made righteous is at least directly related to justification and coming out of justification.)
When Romans 5:12 says “all of have sinned” in Romans 5:12, I think that is headship. There is also in Adam all die and in Christ all made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22. I think what happened can be explained in more than one way. ‘By one man sin entered into the world’ could be explained as we all came through Adam’s loins, which is comparable to Hebrews 7:9-10, the concept being established in Levi being in the loins of Abraham. Both work to me, and I have never decided which one it is or both. I believe there is original sin through Adam.
Perhaps 2 Corinthians 5:21 parallels with Romans 5:19 since they both say “made righteous” or “made the righteousness,” but I don’t think it helps his argument, because “made” is a different Greek word in 2 Cor 5:21, ginomai, so it’s apples and oranges. The “made righteous” in Romans 5:19 is only there in the NT.
I don’t disagree at all that sanctification is an implication of justification. Romans 8 confirms that. But the context of Romans 5 is justification. I did a little bit of research for my own benefit, not necessarily to prove anyone wrong, and found that Thayer’s lexicon suggests that the usage of “made” in 5:19 means “to set down as, constitute, equivalent to to declare, show to be.” It doesn’t seem that Paul is emphasizing the temporal aspect in chapter 5 like he does in chapter 8. He is using the phrase “shall many be made righteous” to refer to those who will be justified in the future based on the work of Christ. To make a distinction between “made” and “declare” with one referring to to justification and the other to sanctification in this context goes beyond authorial intent, at least that’s what I would contend.
I’m not trying to split hairs here, nor am I trying to sound like I have it all figured out. I have never actually thought about this point prior to reading the article, so in a sense I am navigating these discussions to help solidify my understanding of an amazingly powerful passage.
Hi Luke.
We both believe in justification and sanctification, but I’m saying that “declared righteous” is justification and “shall be made righteous” is sanctification/glorification. “Declared righteous” is odd here considering that the passive is used. That makes a difference, which is why BDAG says in the passive it is “be made.” James 4:4 is an example of this, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Literally, it is “be made the enemy of God.” Louw-Nida on kathistemi – cause to be, make (Ac 7:10, 27, 35; Ro 5:19+).
To put it a different way, the means is first one man’s disobedience and second one man’s obedience. The effects are judicial first condemnation and judicial second justification. The effects are constitutional first made sinners and constitutional second made righteous. The judicial is saved from the penalty and the constitutional is saved from the power and then presence.
The end of Romans 5 starts segueing to Romans 6. A person is dead to sin and alive unto God. His nature has changed.
Kent,
Like you mentioned, I don’t think we fundamentally disagree about justification and sanctification. Just a healthy discussion about the technicalities of the passage. I appreciate your insight.