-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +

+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

We have expounded this verse as part of our exposition of Romans 3:21-24 that we indicated was concerned with revealed righteous from God. We stated that the message of this section that God’s revealed righteousness that is independent of the law and obtained through faith in Christ, is necessary because all humans do not meet God’s approval. In our exposition of the verse 24, we considered the word “justified” that is translated from a Greek verb (dikaioō) that we stated means “to be justified,” that is, “to declare righteous and so acceptable to God.” However, we stated that we will consider the concept of justification in greater detail after we finished the exposition of the verse. It is with this greater detail that we commence our study this morning. In other words, we will consider in greater detail the doctrine of justification. This is a doctrine that we studied almost twenty-five years ago in our study of the book of Galatians. I will review completely what we studied then, with some modifications.

The Fall in the Garden created two fundamental problems with humanity. Humanity’s first problem is that sin corrupted their basic nature, polluting their moral character. It is because human’s basic nature is corrupt that God gave the promise of creating a new heart to Israel through Prophet Ezekiel according to Ezekiel 36:26:

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

It is for the same basic corruption of the human nature that Jesus Christ taught that a person must be born again to receive eternal life. Hence, this basic corruption of humans through sin is taken care of through regeneration (or new birth, impartation of new spiritual life) as Apostle Peter alludes in 1 Peter 1:3:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Humanity’s second problem is disobedience to God’s law, we became guilty (or liable to punishment) before Him. Job recognized this state of being guilty of humans when he asked that penetrating question of how a person can ever be righteous before God in Job 9:2:

"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can a mortal be righteous before God?

When Job stated I know that this is true, he was responding to what his friend Bildad had stated, especially facts that have to do with the justice of God. This justice of God, Bildad has indicated in at least two verses in Job 8:3,20:

²⁰“Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the hands of evildoers.

So, if God never perverts justice the problem remains as to how He can ever consider humans who are guilty before Him as righteous. It is this problem that justification is concerned with.

In the Hebrew of the OT, the basic word for “to justify” is a Hebrew verb (ṣāḏǎq) that means “to be just, to be justified, to be righteous, to be in the right.” The basic meaning of this word is “to be righteous,” where righteousness means conformity to an ethical or moral standard. Our word is a legal term that involves the whole process of justice. So, it can also be used to signify the outcome of the verdict, when a human is pronounced “just” and is judicially cleared of all charges. That the use of this word in the OT is legal or forensic is clear first from what God said He would not do for putting an innocent person to death as stated in Exodus 23:7:

Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

The same concept of judicially clearing a person of all charges is conveyed in Deuteronomy 25:1:

When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.

The word “acquit” or “acquitting” is literally “justify” or “justifying” or “declaring righteous” ‘to justify’ since it is the translation of the Hebrew word we have just defined. The word “innocent” is translated from a Hebrew adjective (ṣǎddîq) that means “just, lawful, righteous.” This word has the same root as the Hebrew verb that means “to be justified.” The root meaning of this word is “conformity to an ethical or moral standard.” The use of this Hebrew word in Exodus 23:7 and Deuteronomy 25:1 defines a righteous person as one who is declared by a judge to be free from guilt. This person is not one without sin but only in the judicial sense is the individual considered free from guilt of an offense. The function of a judge is to condemn or to acquit one charged of crime, hence when the judge declares a person righteous it means that the judge has conformed to a given standard or that the person has a right standing in relation to a given norm or standard. When a person is acquitted in a trial that does not mean that the individual is not guilty of the crime the person is charged with. Acquitting a person simply means that according to the norm or standard set for condemning an individual of a crime, the person does not meet that standard so is declared free from condemnation. You can understand this because there are several cases where it is obvious that a person committed a crime, but the individual is acquitted because there is no conclusive evidence that would convict that individual.

In the NT, two Greek words are related to the issue of justification. The first is the Greek verb (dikaioō) that means “‘to justify.” This word was used in classical Greek in a legal sense first to mean “to validate, to establish as right.” Then it acquired a general meaning of “to regard as right” with other senses of “to judge, to grant, to demand.” When the original legal meaning is applied personally, the meaning is “to treat one rightly, to secure justice for someone.” In the Septuagint, it is used as a forensic term to mean “to pronounce righteous, to justify, to vindicate, to acquit someone.” In the NT, it is the legal sense that predominates. It is never used in the sense of “to regard as fair and right,” as in Greek generally. Thus, in the NT it may, in addition to the legal sense of “to justify,” mean “to exercise righteousness, to vindicate God, to justify oneself, to represent oneself as righteous, to put into a right relationship (with God), to acquit, to treat and declare righteous, to show and prove right, to make or set free from.” The second is the Greek noun (dikaiōsis) that means “putting into a right relationship (with God), setting free, acquittal, vindication, justification.”

The Hebrew and Greek words used to express the concept of justification indicate that justification has to do with a person’s standing in relationship to righteousness. Furthermore, justification is forensic (legal) or declarative in nature in that a person is declared righteous. However, there are those who deny that these Hebrew and Greek terms are forensic in nature; instead, they claim that these terms refer to change that is brought in humans. There are at least two reasons to accept that the concept of justification in these Hebrew and Greek terms is forensic or declarative in nature. First, there are certain passages in the Bible that would not make sense if these Hebrew and Greek terms were not viewed as forensic or declarative in nature. A good example of such a passage in the OT is Proverbs 17:15:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.

A more literal translation of this verse is given in the NASB as He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. If, as some suggest that the Hebrew word translated “acquitting” or “justifies” means to make righteous in a moral sense were adopted in this passage, the whole verse would be unintelligible. This is because we would then have the meaning that “He who morally improves the wicked” is an abomination to Yahweh, something that would contradict the Bible. Another example from the NT is Luke 7:29:

(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

The expression acknowledged that God’s way was right is literally from the Greek they justified God. If we accept the argument that the Greek word (dikaioō) used here is not forensic or declarative in nature, the implication would be that the tax collectors made God morally righteous. This is an unthinkable implication. The only way for this Greek word to make sense is if it is understood in a legal sense so that the tax collectors vindicated God or attested that God is righteous. Second, the word “justify” is placed in juxtaposition with the word “condemn” in certain passages. Two examples suffice to illustrate this reason. In OT, we have already noted the use of “acquitting” or “justifying” next to the word “condemn in Deuteronomy 25:1. In the NT, a good example is Romans 8:33-34:

³³ Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-more than that, who was raised to life-is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Here the word “justify” and “condemn” are used in juxtaposition. Since the word “condemn” is judicial in meaning, it must also follow that “justify” is judicial in its use. With this overview of the Hebrew and Greek words used with respect to the concept of justification, we proceed to consider what it is.

What is justification? Several attempts have been made to define justification, as we will demonstrate. The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines it as follows:

Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

The Roman Catholic adds, Not the mere remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man. The Arminians state: Justification is a remission of sins and a sentence of pardon. One major problem of these definitions is the concept of pardon. There is no Biblical support to include the word “pardon” or “remission of sins” in the definition of justification. It is true that everyone justified has been forgiven and everyone forgiven has been justified, nevertheless, forgiveness or pardon is not a part of the definition of justification. Based on the Hebrew and Greek words that refer to justification and the Bible itself, a better definition is as follows:

Justification is a judicial act of God in which on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death He declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.

An alternative definition is well put by Grudem in his systematic Theological book as:

Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight.^¹

The definition we have given reveals that justification is a matter of declaring a person righteous as judges do when they acquit an accused. Furthermore, this definition reveals why the simple definition of justification as “just–as-if I have never sinned” is misleading since it contains half the truth of the concept of justification. God does not in reality consider believers as if they have never sinned, for that would be misleading. God recognizes the fact that believers have sinned but declares them righteous based on Christ’s work. Justification is concerned with a person’s relationship to God’s law. Hence, a person can be in the right relationship with God’s law, that is, become righteous in one of two ways. First, people could become righteous if they never violated any of God’s law in which sense they would be righteous and innocent having totally fulfilled the law. A second way to be righteous is for the prescribed penalty of violating the law to be paid. Then on account of that payment the offender can be declared free. Jesus Christ, on the cross, paid in full the prescribed penalty of man’s disobedience. Hence, on the basis of His death on the cross God would declare anyone who believes in Christ Jesus as righteous or as having met the requirement of God’s law. Of course, a simple way of thinking of justification is that of being in good standing with God because of Christ’s death on the cross for sins. In any event, this doctrine is important in the Christian faith, so we need to have historical perspective of it since a wrong understanding of it has led some to imply salvation by works.

The doctrine of justification by faith seemed not to have been well understood in the early part of the history of the church after the death of the apostles. Available records indicate that the apostolic fathers did not fully comprehend this doctrine, especially as laid down by Apostle Paul. Of course, we must admit that our statement is based on available writings of the apostolic fathers. So, it is possible that some of the apostolic fathers could have understood more than they wrote down as in some cases the purpose of their writing was not necessarily to defend the doctrine of justification. This is not to say that the apostolic fathers did not make any reference to justification by faith only that majority of them did not write much about it. Evidence of this doctrine of justification by faith is found in the writing of Clement of Rome as we read in chapter 32 of the Epistle to the Corinthians titled “We are justified not by our own works, but by faith”:

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

In spite of this statement of Clement of Rome, some scholars use his reference to Rahab being saved through hospitality and faith as an indication of his confusion about the doctrine. The first sentence of chapter 12 of the same epistle reads On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. We can hardly use this sentence to nullify his doctrine of justification by faith because in referring to Rahab he was not speaking of salvation in the sense of receiving eternal life but extolling the importance of demonstrating faith through good works. Having said this, the fact remains that there is no clear evidence from the other apostolic fathers that they understood this doctrine clearly or expounded on it. For one thing, they did not precisely distinguish between regeneration and justification.

In any case, there was at least one church leader in the fourth century that had a better grasp of the doctrine of justification, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa (A.D. 395 ff). He understood justification as a legal act distinct from sanctification. It was clear to him that salvation is a matter of grace of God and in no way dependent on man. However, he still adhered to some elements of Catholic theology. For example, he taught that in justification a good concupiscence and a good-will are infused, that justification grows, that our merits must be taken into the account even though they are God's merits, that the faith which justifies is a faith which works by love.

The greatest confusion regarding the doctrine of justification, perhaps, occurred in the Middle Ages. The teachings of the Scholastics contributed to this confusion. One of the popular figures of this period is Thomas Aquinas who maintained that the logical order of the elements of justification is in essence the making of a sinner just or righteous and the forgiving of sins. The Roman Catholic Church adopted his view so that it taught that grace is infused in person whereby the individual is made just, and partly on the basis of this infused grace, the person’s sins are pardoned. This teaching increasingly led to the understanding that individuals are justified in part on the basis of their own good works. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, there was confusion between justification and sanctification. For some of the Scholastics taught that justification was an instantaneous act of God while others described it as a process. Some of the confusions of this doctrine in the Middle Ages are apparent from the works of the council of Trent (A.D. 1547). For example, Canon 9 of chapter 16 states “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining of the grace of justification, and that is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will: let him be anathema.” Likewise, Canon 24 indicates that justification is a process that continues to be increased. Canon 24 states: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are a merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.”

The confusion regarding the doctrine of justification was the central focus of the Reformation period. The central figure of this period was Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, who attacked the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification that led to his severance from the Roman Catholic church. Martin Luther and the other Reformers corrected the error of the Roman Catholic Church by stressing the legal character of justification. They represented it, as an act of God’s free grace, whereby He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight but does not change us inwardly. They also rejected the idea that the basis of justification is in part in the inherent righteousness of the regenerate and in part good works, instead they stated that the basis is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. As for the means of justification, they emphasized that a person is justified freely by that faith which receives and rests in Christ only for salvation. In addition, they rejected the doctrine of progressive justification and maintained that it was instantaneous and complete and did not depend for its completion on some further satisfaction for sin. The view of the reformers was adopted by the Protestant churches without significant modification. A typical expression of this doctrine, which may be taken as representing evangelical Christendom, is the 11^th of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification." It is true that the Protestant churches adopted the view of the Reformers, but this view has been challenged. In the Middle Ages, the group known as Socinians opposed the Reformers asserting that sinners obtained pardon and acceptance with God through His mercy, on the ground of their own repentance and reformation. In the Modern time, the liberal theologians state that God justifies the sinner by the moral improvement of the sinner’s life. We should note that some Arminians (generally the Methodist and some Pentecostals) limit the scope of justification so as to include only the forgiveness of sins on the basis of the passive obedience of Jesus Christ. They exclude the adoption of the sinner in favor by God on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. That the sinner is therefore accounted righteous only on the basis of sinner’s faith or life of obedience. We included this historical development to help us understand why some groups of the Christian church place great emphasis on good works as a means of pleasing God.

To further help us understand the doctrine of justification, it is important to examine the nature and characteristics of justification. But before we consider the nature and characteristics of justification, it is important to note that Christianity is unique in that it alone teaches this doctrine in the form we have defined it in contrast to all the so-called world religions that seek justification by their efforts. In any case, there are certain characteristics of justification that help us to get a better understanding of the doctrine.

First, justification is purely a legal or judicial act of God in which He declares a sinner righteous before him. God in declaring the sinner righteous is not being deceptive, nor is justification a fictional act on His part. In effect, God does not pretend that the believer has not sinned. Instead, the reality is that because the sinner is in Christ, God sees Christ before He sees the believer. The believer in union with Christ shares everything that belongs to Christ just as Christ in identifying Himself with humans paid the penalty for humanity’s sins. Christ was never a sinner but because He took on human form, it was easy for our sins to be imputed to Him on the cross so that He was judged for them. It is the imputation of our sins on Him while He was on the cross that Apostle Paul described in 2 Corinthians 5:21:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The judicial imputation of our sins on Christ resulted in His atoning work on the cross so it follows that imputation of righteousness could come to the believer in a judicial manner. This concept is also given in Romans 8:3-4:

³ For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, ⁴ in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

We should emphasize that without union with Christ, the judicial act of justification would not make sense. The union of the believer with Christ is like the union of a man and a woman in marriage. When the two marry they merge their assets and have just one asset or a common asset. If a man or a woman is in financial debt and each agrees to marry the other, the asset of the one in good standing would help to nullify the financial debt of the other. Of course, if both are in financial bankruptcy, the situation becomes worse. In case of the union of the believer with Christ, the absolute righteousness of Christ cancels the debt that the sinner in Christ owed. Therefore, God could without compromising His character declare the sinner free of the condemnation of the Law because of Christ’s righteousness and total compliance to the Law in His humanity.

Second, because justification is a judicial act, it affects sinners’ state with God and not their inner condition. Hence, justification certainly includes forgiveness of sins of the believer and restoration into favor with God. The point is that justification deals with a person’s standing before God in relationship to His righteous demands. The inner condition of humans is, as we have mentioned, dealt with in regeneration. Hence justification and sanctification are not the same thing. There are at least four differences between the two. First, justification is concerned with guilt of sin while sanctification is concerned with the pollution of sin. Second, justification is an act that takes place in the courtroom of God whereby He declares the sinner righteous; hence it is an act that is external to the sinner. On the other hand, sanctification takes place inside of a human involving inward transformation so that a person gradually conforms in the individual’s character to that of Christ. Third, justification is a once for all completed action. It is not progressive. But sanctification is an ongoing process that would be completed in heaven. Fourth, justification is the work of God the Father while sanctification is the work of God the Holy Spirit. Anyway, the second characteristic that helps in understanding justification is that it is a judicial act that affects sinners’ state with God and not their inner condition.

Third, justification establishes peace between the believer and God. This is the assertion of Apostle Paul in Romans 5:1:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

An individual who understands that justification is an act of God whereby the person is declared righteous, that in of itself should bring a sense of peace and relief that works could not produce in a person. If a person is worried sick about the individual’s many failures or sins, to hear that God could declare the person righteous if the individual trusts in Christ is bound to be a greater relief of the soul than to tell the person to do something to earn favor with God. If you do not have the peace that comes from understanding that God has declared you righteous despite all your past sins, present or future sins then you have not understood the implication of the doctrine of justification. It seems to me that if anyone understands the issue of justification that the individual should be overwhelmed with a sense of relief and awe of a God who can find a way to declare a human righteous without compromising His holy character.

To further help us to understand the doctrine of justification, we should consider the elements of justification. There are two general elements of justification given negatively and positively. The negative element of justification consists of remission of sins and remission of punishment. The positive element of justification consists of restoration to favor with God. It is true that we will examine these two elements separately, the reality is that with God these two elements are inseparable. This is to say that because of the work of Christ on the cross, it is impossible for God to do one without the other. These two elements of justification were hinted in the OT with the Yahweh’s dealing with Joshua, the high priest, according to Zechariah 3:4:

The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you."

Joshua’s sin was forgiven as indicated by the taking off of his filthy clothes, but Yahweh did not stop there instead Joshua was dressed in another garments. The purpose of the new garments is implied to be acceptability of Joshua. Putting of new garments on Joshua is equivalent to God crediting us with righteousness as part of justification, as we read in Romans 4:22-24:

²² This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." ²³ The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, ²⁴ but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

In any case, what is described of Joshua, the high priest, points to the fact that justification involves both negative and positive elements.

Justification is linked to two negative facts in connection with God. The first is the forgiveness of our sins as mentioned in Acts 13:38-39:

³⁸ "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. ³⁹ Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Forgiveness of sins and rescue from the wrath of God are in a sense inseparable. To understand this connection, we only have to ask the question what is forgiveness? Before we attempt to define forgiveness, we need to comment on the words translated “forgive” in our English Versions. There are three Hebrew words used to describe it. The first is a Hebrew verb (kāp̄ǎr) that may mean “to cover” as it is used in the instruction of Yahweh to Noah about how to get the ark ready for the flood as we read in Genesis 6:14:

So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

The instruction coat it is literally cover it. The word means “to forgive” as it is used to described Yahweh’s action towards the Israelites in the desert as recorded in Psalm 78:38:

Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them. Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.

The second is a Hebrew verb (sālǎḥ) that may mean “to release, let go” as it is used to describe Yahweh’s action about a wife that the husband nullifies her vow as stated in Numbers 30:8:

But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

The word means “to forgive” as it is used in Moses petition to Yahweh on behalf of Israel as recorded in Exodus 34:9:

“O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes,” he said, “then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”

The third is a Hebrew verb (nāśāʾ) that may mean “to lift up,” that is, “cause to move up” as what happened to Noah’s ark during the flood judgment as stated in Genesis 7:17:

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.

The word may mean “to forgive” as in Pharaoh’s plea to Moses following the plague of locusts as recorded in Exodus 10:17:

Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me.”

These three Hebrew verbs are used in effect to convey the idea of removal of sins. The barrier between man and God is sin and these words indicate that this barrier has been removed.

There are three Greek words used convey the concept of forgiveness. The first is a Greek verb (apoluō) that may mean “to release a debtor,” that is, to cancel a debt and let the debtor go as it is used in the Lord Jesus’ Parable of the Unmerciful servant that received cancellation of his debt but would not do the same for his own debtor as stated in Matthew 18:27:

The word may mean “to free” in the sense of to release from a painful condition as it was used in the Lord Jesus’ healing of a woman that had been crippled for eighteen years as narrated in Luke 13:12:

When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.”

As a legal term, the word may mean “to pardon, to grant acquittal” and so it is used with the meaning “to forgive” in the instruction of the Lord Jesus described in Luke 6:37:

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

The second is a Greek verb (aphiēmi) that may mean “to leave behind, abandon” as was the action of Peter and his brother, Andrew, with respect to their fishing nets when the Lord Jesus called them to be His disciples as we read in Matthew 4:20:

The word may mean “to release from legal or moral obligation or consequence,” hence means “to cancel, remit, pardon” and so it is translated with the meaning “to forgive” in the Lord Jesus’ prayer to the Father on behalf of those who crucified Him as recorded in Luke 23:34:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

The third is a Greek verb (charizomai) that may mean “to give freely as a favor” and so means “to give graciously” as what God did for us with His Son as stated in Romans 8:32:

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

The word means “to forgive, pardon” as it is used for what God did for us according to what is stated in Colossians 2:13:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.

Again, these words indicate that something is removed and that thing is sin that forms a barrier between humanity and God. In this study, our intention is not to deal with forgiveness in a general sense but to relate it to God and the work of Christ. To help define what “forgiveness” is there are certain things we need to observe from the scripture regarding “forgiveness.”

Forgiveness is both a human and divine action, but we are concerned with divine forgiveness at this point. Hence, we define divine forgiveness as “that work of God motivated solely by his character whereby the guilt or punishment resulting from man’s sin is removed based on the death of Christ on the cross resulting in man’s restoration into fellowship with God.” This definition links the pardon of sin with removal of punishment. In fact, there are at least three negative results that forgiveness implies. First, forgiveness means that punishment is removed as we can deduce from what Yahweh said about Himself in Exodus 34:7:

maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

If the guilty is punished it follows that when forgiveness takes place every punishment is removed. Akin to removal of punishment, is the avoidance of God’s wrath as we learn from Deuteronomy 29:20:

The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.

It is the person who receives no forgiveness that will experience the wrath of God. A second negative result of forgiveness of sin is the removal of guilt. This is clearly indicated by David in his confession of sin in Psalm 32:5:

Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

Guilt carries with it the concept of deserved punishment. Guilt is the state of a moral agent after intentional or unintentional violation of law, principles, or values established by an authority under which the moral agent is subject. It is important to realize that “guilt” and “guilt feeling” is not the same. Guilt is a state of reality that exists after any sin. It may in fact not be accompanied by any guilt feeling. Guilt feeling is “a painful aggregate of emotion that usually includes anxiety in anticipation of punishment; shame with its sense of humiliation, and the need to hide.” Guilt feeling has no value of any kind. We know cases where people have committed some of the most heinous crimes without any guilt feeling. This, of course, does not mean that the state of guilt does not exist. Guilt depends on knowledge. But regardless of state of knowledge guilt carries punishment as it is clear from Luke 12:47-48:

⁴⁷ "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

It should be evident from this passage that ignorance is not an excuse to avoid punishment. When God forgives a person’s sins then, in a sense, the punishment attached to that sin is removed. There is a third negative result of forgiveness of sin, but we are out of time and so we pick up that in our next study.

1 Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 723.