Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification

In a growingly reignited debate within certain circles - from John Piper and NT Wright to the New Perspective on Paul and the so-called Federal Theology - this particular work warrants all the more needed attention for its invaluable perspective. It has become one of the standard treatments of the doctrine of "justification" from the perspective of historical theology. In it Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath demonstrates an encyclopedic knowledge and notes many important developments. In particular, McGrath shows convincingly that at least in terms of the Western tradition the Reformers abandoned the catholic consensus on the nature and meaning of the doctrine of justification. Luther's interpretation of St. Paul with respect to the doctrine of justification, McGrath shows, was novel and revolutionary.

If you are used to reading McGrath's other works (I have read about 6 or 8 of his other books), this one will surprise you. While most of his books are lucid and concise, to the point of bordering on being simplistic at points, Iustitia Dei is downright dense. I'm in the habit of reading some fairly technical works of historical theology, but this is one of the most challenging I have encountered in some time. This is the 3rd revision of McGrath's dissertation and is obviously meant to be his magum opus. It is truly complex and brilliant, and I frankly am undecided on what to think of most of it. It is worthy of a second read. One challenge is that you can't just skip to your favorite or most familiar time period in church history (early church, late Scholasticism, Reformation) and hope to understand his arguments there. He builds his argument (and vocabulary) on prior discussions. It is not that he is needlessly obtuse, or writes poorly. The book is well-organized and he writes clearly enough. It is just that he assumes alot of the reader -- that you will recall most of all the prior discussion, that you can handle lots of technical (largely untranslated) Latin phrases, and that you have at least a graduate-school level background in historical theology. In regards to his arguments: his characteristic moderation is evident everywhere. He goes to great pains to be fair to everyone discussed and to not advocate much for any school of thought or position. His goal seems to be to present the complex issues involved in an organized way, comparing and contrasting various competing camps. EVERY theological camp will find something here that strikes at cherished dogma. It is clear that NO camp (including my own) gets to make any tidy claims to absolute supremacy on the issue of justification. In general, the ones who will be most unsettled from an honest read here will be the dogmatic Lutherans (who see Luther's particulars on justification as the Archimedian point around which all other doctrine all rotate, the "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae") and the sort of Roman Catholics who have trouble dealing with historical development in doctrine. Probably the ones who will be least traumatized, but still challenged, will be the moderate Reformed types. Some random points that interested me: * It is beyond dispute: the emphasis placed on 'justification' and the orientation of all other doctrines around justification, was unique to the Reformation period. Other periods in church history, for example, gave less emphasis on justification by faith in favor of greater discussion of redemption, ransom, union with Christ, etc etc. NOT that the Reformation formulas on justification are wrong, just unusual and novel in their obsession and emphasis (growing from their context). * Interesting discussions of alternate emphases: Orthodox emphasis on the economic condescension of the Son leading to humanity;s participation in the divine b

McGrath wonderfully outlines the western theological history of the terms `justice/righteousness of God' and `justification by faith.' This book avoids polemics. Consequently you will find it immensely helpful. I have not formally studied Latin and only know it by analogy with my knowledge of three other Indo-European languages. My Hebrew once very good is now poor, generally forgotten from lack of use; my Greek, pretty good. Nevertheless, the work is quite accessible. I find McGrath's sections 1.1 and 1.2 most useful. In outlining the Hebrew `zdk' roots he notes that `conformity to a norm' sustains its fundamental meaning. The (masculine, zdk) `weights of righteousness' and `sacrifices of righteousness' simply mean `correct' or `appropriate.' In the feminine form, zdkh, meant `victory' in its earliest form (Deborah's song) so there is a sense of retribution for Israel's enemies but of salvation for Israel. This is the closest this root comes to `distributive justice' in either the OT or NT. As the `zdk' roots develop in Israel's history, what little notion of `distributive justice' it carried wanes as the notion `salvific justice' overtakes. Righteousness is violated when the `right order of affairs' no longer rules. So, when the poor are exploited, God's `zdkh' must deliver them. These roots defy criminal law court or `moral rectitude' language. When Judah discovers his own niece, Tamar, is pregnant by him, he declares `she is righteous and I am not.' When Saul commends David for his kindness in sparing his life he says the same. This is civil court language, not criminal: `in the case between us, you are in the right and I am not." (In fact if you know your Bible, the appellation `righteous' in the OT is just about always predicated of those with significantly compromised virtue.) When the LXX translators found the terms `zdk, zdkh' they appropriated the Greek `dik' roots. In classical Greek `dikaiosune' always meant `giving persons their due (i.e., punishment).' In the LXX it rather has salvific overtones so that sometimes the LXX translators used the term `eleemosyne' (mercy)! Quite a transition. In fact, the verb `diakaioun' never has a punitive connotation in the LXX OT. It always means `to vindicate' or `acquit.' When Jerome took the liberty of translating the `dik' roots into Latin, he used the juridical term `iustitia.' This carried heavy connotations of Cicero's `distributive justice,' giving each his due. And, with Augustine, the term `justify' came to mean `to make righteous,' i.e., morally virtuous. The rest of the text unpacks how this confusion has colored our understanding the terms `Righteousness of God' and `justification.' For my part, I think some of the `Fresh Perspective' folks have clarified this confusion, e.g, Tom Wright's commentary on Roman in vol 10 of the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary. Romans, and Paul's thinking in general, makes, I think, much better sense when `dikaiosune theou' (NB, in that *exact* c

This is a fine piece of historical theology. McGrath begins with a linguistic analysis of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin terms for justification, the concepts to which they refer, and the attendant difficulties of translation. He then discusses the patristic understanding of justification, which while largely undeveloped (they were intensely focused on Christology at the time) established the parameters of discussion for the medievals. As McGrath insightfully points out in his final chapter of vol. 1, justification was universally recognized as an ontological transformation; the debates were over the mode of justification and were primarily dominated by Pelagianism vs. Augustinianism. On the surface, the latter seemed to have won hands down, but the reformers detected a creeping Pelagianism in the via moderna commonly called nominalism. Volume 1 sets the stage for the second volume, which covers the doctrine of justification from 1500 - the present. By and far, the most important chapter in the first volume is Section 12 - Predestination and Justification.Vol. 2 begins with Luther's little Wittenburg revolution that took flight on anti-Pelagian wings and eventually built its nest in the tree of forensic solafideism. Next, McGrath examines the Reformed adoption of forensic justification and its integration with the covenant concept, all of which influenced the English Reformers and their Puritan countrymen. After a short chapter on John Henry Newman, the focus shifts to the German Enlightenment of Kant and Schleiermacher. The final two sections deal with Barth and with the contemporary development of the doctrine. I found both chapters insufficient. McGrath nowhere deals with Hans Kung's analysis of Barth, choosing instead to dismiss Barth as basically unconcerned with justification.Overall, I was disappointed with the general lack of coherence in the work. It had no grand unifying theme, and seemed to leave the impression that the historic development of the doctrine was random and irrational.Two warnings: first, your Latin had better be good before you attempt Vol. 1 and your German before vol.2; second, McGrath can sometimes be a real stylistic pain. I have rarely, if ever, encountered such an unbridled, prodigious and promiscuous use of the passive voice.

Combined from two volumes of the first edition, this second edition not only give you a comprehensive and continuous historical development of the Christian doctrine of justification, McGrath adds two more articles on his responses to "New Perspective on Paul" in recent Pauline scholarship and the recent agreement of Catholic church and Lutheran church on the understanding of "Justification" in this second edition. If you are interested in understanding more the rich meaning and implication of this crucial doctrine to Christian life both from the side of Catholics and Protestants, this book definitely meet your needs. It helps me a lot in making sound judgment on the issue whether there's really no fundamental difference between Karl Barth and the council of Trent (in general between Protestant tradition and Catholic Church) on the teaching of Christian doctrine of justification by faith, as Hans Kung had calimed that over thirty years ago.