The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification in a Patristic Perspective: A Critique of Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei

This article is the author's translation of "Luthersk retfærdiggørelseslære i patristisk perspektiv—en kritik af Alister McGraths Iustitia Dei," which was previously published in Emissio, vol. 9. (2023).

Introduction

Alister McGrath, professor at Oxford University, is rightfully known for his contributions to the study of church history through his authorship of multiple books and articles. Among these Christian Theology: An Introduction stands out as a widely used work, especially among seminarians.

McGrath has studied the topic of justification for decades, first publishing his book Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification in 1986. Since that time he has continuously revisted the subject. The fourth edition of Iustitia Dei, published by Cambridge University Press in 2020, contains multiple important changes and additions. Like many of McGrath’s other works, Iustitia Dei has been influential, especially in the realms of dogmatics, church history, and in the ecumenical dialogue between Roman Catholics and various Protestant traditions.

The fourth edition of the book is especially interesting because McGrath rejects one of the foundational contentions defended by him in the third edition. In this previous edition, he argued that δῐκαιοῦν, to justify, in its semantic range leans toward a forensic meaning, i.e. its connotations were that of the judicial acquittal. According to McGrath, as he concluded in the third edition, one of the main causes for the later divergence in the understanding of justification was a  misunderstanding of the Latin translation of the term. Here an etymological understanding of the verb to justify, iustificare, became normative in the Western understanding of justification. The term iustificare is a compound of iustus and facere, i.e.,  just and to make, hence justification was understood as the process by which sinful man is made more just, a so-called factitive understanding of justification.

Yet, according to Professor Mark McInroy, McGrath has now so decisively abandoned this understanding that “earlier editions of this work [Iustitia Dei] can no longer be considered to be reliable in their judgements at points of importance.”[i] Such a shift has naturally resulted in a renewed interest in McGrath’s book, especially in Roman Catholic circles. Among others Roman Catholic theologian Matthew Thomas’s book Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception comes to conclusions that are similar to those drawn up by McGrath.

The Patristic Understanding of Justification

One of the foundational contentions in McGrath’s revised fourth edition consists in the proposition that the primary understanding of justification in both East and West was one of transformation and inner renewal.[ii] According to McGrath, Christians in the the patristic era saw justification “primarily as a ‘making righteous’ through the impartation of an inherent righteousness to a believer.”[iii] In lieu of this understanding, McGrath judges the Protestant notion of justification as a “decisive shift in both the conceptualities and vocabulary of the Christian theological tradition.”[iv]

This conclusion is highly misleading though, as it builds on an analysis suffering from decisive deficiencies. McGrath’s discussion of the patristic understanding of justification in the period up to 300 AD is confined to Irenaeus and Origin, with brief references to Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis. From there Augustine of Hippo, Ambrosiaster, and Marius Victorinus are briefly mentioned. Though McGrath concedes that multiple early patristic authors used the phrase “justification by faith alone,” such as Hilary of Poitiers, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster etc., he firmly denies that these authors were “anticipating either Luther’s notion of faith, or his generalized interpretation of ‘law.’”[v] Here McGrath advocates a strict reading of the church fathers in line with the New Perspective on Paul where he, in agreement with Professor Thomas’s work, interprets the church fathers’ rejection of works of the law as limited to ceremonial and cultic laws and regulations, such as circumcision, new moon festivals or reverence for the Sabbath.[vi]

Yet this analysis, as mentioned above, suffers from critical shortcomings. It is, for example, inexplicable why McGrath completely omits any discussion of the First Epistle of Clement, in which is found the absolute earliest reception and discussion of Pauline theology and, especially, of justification. The letter is usually dated to the mid-90s, though a minority of scholars date it prior to the destruction of the Temple. The letter is also particularly relevant because the discussion of the doctrine of justification historically has concerned itself to a large degree with interpretations of various passages of Paul’s epistles, especially his Letter to the Romans. The First Letter of Clement therefore occupies a preeminent place of importance because it contains the earliest presentation of the Pauline doctrine of justification by the Roman church itself, by those who had received the Epistle to the Romans and hosted Paul during his stay in Rome.

The doctrine of justification is discussed in the letter’s thirty-second chapter. It states: “And we, therefore, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, we are not justified through ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or deeds which we accomplished in holiness of heart, but through the faith by which all those since the beginning the Almighty God has justified. To him be the glory forever, amen.”[vii]

The letter describes the sinner’s justification as a result of God’s will and how he is not justified by himself but by God through faith. One should notice the negations preceding the positive presentation of justification. It is by faith, and not in any manner grounded in “ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or deeds which we accomplished in holiness of heart.” This is revealing, for if it is denied that justification is caused by or contingent upon piety or deeds done in holiness of heart, then it follows that justification cannot be caused by inner renewal or transformation.

Against such an understanding, the author of First Clement writes that justification is by faith and not by deeds done in holiness of heart. This assertion is particularly important in interpreting the letter, because such deeds presuppose an already believing individual. For no unbeliever or unregenerate person can accomplish good works and even less so deeds done in holiness of heart. Clement’s all-encompassing “piety” and “deeds accomplished in holiness of heart” demonstrates that he is not merely excluding ceremonial works of the law but every kind of good work done by the believing Christian.

That McGrath wholly omits such a central part of the patristic data is troublesome and surprising given how frequently the letter is treated in contemporary scholarship (e.g., Brian Arnold’s Justification in the Second Century, or Jordan Cooper’s The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul, etc.).[viii] Thus, the omission leaves McGrath’s presentation quite one-sided and prevents engagement with scholarship critical of his thesis.

McGrath also wholly omits the Epistle to Diognetus, another early patristic text that the two prior works also treat. The text is authored by one Mathetes, though this is merely Greek for disciple so it is likely a pseudonym. Relevant for the issue here is the following passage from the letter’s ninth chapter:

But since our unrighteousness was fulfilled and it became perfectly clear that its reward, punishment and death, was waiting, and the time came which God had appointed to make known at last his goodness and power. Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate or reject or bear a grudge against us but he was patient and bore with us, having mercy he himself experienced our sin, he himself gave his own son, a ransom on our behalf, the Holy for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else than that one’s righteousness could cover up our sin? In who else than in the Son of God alone could our lawlessness and ungodliness possibly be justified? Oh, the sweet exchange! Oh, the fathomless creation! Oh, the unexpected benefits that the lawlessness of many should be concealed in the one righteous, and righteousness of the one should justify many lawless.[ix]

This significant passage describes in detail the so-called “sweet exchange.” The letter is somewhat difficult to date but seems to have been penned around the start or middle of the second century. In the quotation above, the author answers why the arrival of Christ had not occurred earlier. This was due to the sin of man not having yet reached it full measure, which was required before the coming of Christ. We see in the quotation that the motifs of exchange and imputation are employed, the holy for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the immortal for the mortal. Furthermore, the letter describes how the sinner’s transgressions were laid on Christ, and how “the lawlessness of many should be concealed in the one righteous,” the one being Christ.

Here the concept of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is presented, a righteousness that covers the unrighteousness of the sinner. For though a Protestant understanding of justification does not deny that a certain inherent righteousness can be reached, it also states in agreement with the Epistle to Diognetus that the actual righteousness of the sinner whereby he is justified consists instead in the righteousness of Christ that covers him and hides his insufficiencies. That is the sweet exchange. The sinner’s guilt and insufficiencies are imputed to Christ and laid upon him, though Christ does not inherently become a corrupted sinner, and Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to the sinner and covers him, though he internally does not attain a perfect inherent righteousness. This sweet exchange is found witnessed to for the first time in the Epistle of Diognetus.

The epistle clearly draws on the Pauline language of Galatians 3:27, Romans 6, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Philippians 3:7f. These passages describe the righteousness of the believer as consisting not in his own inherent righteousness but in the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the believer. Paul writes in Philippians, “I count them as rubbish [his good deeds], that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (NKJV). One should also notice in what manner the Epistle of Diognetus describes the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. First it describes the righteous then the righteousness of the one. The focus of the passage is drawn toward the righteousness of Christ which stands central as that by which the many lawless sinners are justified.

These are two early examples of significant texts, both written prior to 300 AD, which seem to strongly lean toward a Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone. Yet they are completely skipped over by McGrath’s analysis, even though these texts play a major role in the current scholarship on patristic soteriology. The problematic nature of this omission is intensified by McGrath’s general and unsupported assertions presented multiple places.

Among others he writes that “one of the defining characteristics of the Protestant Reformation is a decisive shift in both the conceptualities and the vocabulary of the Christian theological tradition.”[x] Such generalized assertions are unconvincing when compared to some of the patristic sources that McGrath omits. The conception of the sweet exchange is but one example of an important overlap between parts of the patristic tradition and the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, whose conceptualization of justification was strikingly similar. Evidence for this can be found in many places in Luther’s writings, most notably in On the Freedom of a Christian from 1520, and his later Commentary on Galatians from 1535. Neither in concept nor in vocabulary can it be claimed that this understanding originated with the German Augustinian monk. As we have seen, one can find it witnessed to by the ancient church. Consider a comparison of the quotation from the Epistle to Diognetus above and the following passage from Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, chapter three, verse thirteen:

So making a happy change [literally “happy exchange,” feliciter commutans nobiscum] with us, he took upon him our sinful person, and gave unto us his innocent and victorious person: wherewith we being now clothed, are freed from the curse of the law. For Christ was willingly made a curse for us, saying: as touching mine own person, both as human and divine, I am blessed and need nothing; but I will empty myself and will put upon me your person, that is to say, your human nature, and I will walk in the same among you, and will suffer death to deliver you from death. Now he thus bearing the sin of the whole world in our person, was taken, suffered, was crucified and put to death and became a curse for us. But because he was a person divine and everlasting, it was impossible that death should hold him. Wherefore he rose again the third day from death, and now lives for ever; and there is neither sin nor death in him any more, but mere righteousness, life and everlasting blessedness.[xi]

It is clear that Luther and the epistle are in substantial agreement concerning the believer’s union with Christ and its implications for justification.

Marius Victorinus and Deeds of the Law

Lastly a couple of comments should be added regarding McGrath’s treatment of the church father Victorinus, born ca. 290 AD, who was a famous Roman rhetorician and translator of Greek works into Latin. Augustine of Hippo was familiar with him, and discusses Victorinus’ conversion to Christianity in his old age in detail in his Confessions 8.2. Victorinus was also famous for his commentaries on the Pauline epistles, which have only very recently begun to be translated into English.[xii] Victorinus’s exposition of the phrase “works of the law” and his understanding of justification are highly significant, not least of all because he, along with Ambrosiaster, provides the earliest exegetical and systematic treatment of the Pauline corpus.

Though it would be anachronistic to speak about the church fathers as either Lutheran or Roman Catholic, it remains relevant to study whether traces of substantial theological continuity between a specific church father’s thought and later confessional traditions exist. As mentioned above, McGrath sees a continuity of thought between the church fathers and the later Tridentine understanding of justification, and he adds Victorinus to this consensus, writing that

Marius Victorinus likewise insisted that “it is faith alone that brings justification and sanctification.” Victorinus is unclear about how justification and sanctification might be related; he is, however, quite clear about the fundamental detachment of the Christian hope of salvation from a Jewish cultic milieu and its attending observances. In using phrases such as fides sola or sola fide, such early Latin-speaking Pauline commentators were not anticipating either Luther’s notion of faith, or his generalised interpretation of “law.”[xiii]

This analysis longs for any kind of justification, and McGrath does not mention or go into dialogue with any of the recent treatments of Victorinus’s theology. This is problematic because time and time again McGrath seems to draw one-sided conclusions by either ignoring or omitting scholars and sources opposing this thesis. In his extensive introduction and commentary on Victorinus’s Commentary on Galatians, translator Stephen Cooper draws the exact opposite conclusion of McGrath, writing:

The sense of iustificatio dei here [in Victorinus’s theology] can best be captured by translating the phrase as “God's justifying action,” what Luther called “the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith.” This is the iustificatio which Victorinus formulates as the object of Christian hope; and it stands in contrast to “works,” which—as he constantly repeats—provide justification to no one. This is why his talk of faith and justification always implies grace, even when not specifically mentioned.[xiv]

Victorinus’s own comments are themselves also quite clear and make it difficult to recognize McGrath’s presentation. In his commentary, Victorinus explains at length his understanding of the law, which in no way is a reductionistic limitation to Jewish cultic and ceremonial laws alone. It is difficult to understand how McGrath can draw such a conclusion when Victorinus himself in the beginning of his commentary, writing on Galatians 2:7, declares that faith alone justifies, not just apart from deeds of the law, as McGrath writes, but also apart from works: “for faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification. Thus any flesh whatsoever—Jews or those from the Gentiles is justified on the basis of faith, not works or observance of the Jewish Law.”[xv] Victorinus’s universalizing understanding of the law is also underscored in that he notes how (quite akin to what Luther would also claim twelve hundred years later) the law was given to reveal all sin and to accuse the sinner, who is justified by faith apart from the law. Victorinus writes:

“For if a law were given which could provide life, justice would indeed be based on the Law.” We have said that the Law given by Moses teaches nothing but sins—what sins are—and advises how they are to be avoided. Scripture contains nothing apart from its task of establishing all its precepts under sin, about sin. This Law was not given, he says, as if it were such as could provide life. Were the Law given along those lines, justice would indeed be based on the Law. As it is, however, the Law was not given along those lines. It was not given for life to be sought from it, but so that it might in its scriptural form teach about all the sins and show how they are to be avoided. So justice is not based on the Law—that is, neither justification nor salvation come from there but are based on faith, as was promised.”[xvi]

This understanding is repeated and elaborated on multiple time throughout the commentary, such as at Galatians 3:22, wherein Victorinus summarizes the main part of Scripture as being the revealer of sin and contrasts this to faith alone which suffices for the justification of sinners:

[…] that the whole of Scripture would be about sin; and that all the things which are under sin be contained in it, so that what was promised would come about based on faith, and the inheritance be given to those who believe based on faith in Jesus Christ. So what is he doing, or what did he accomplish, by means of all this? That faith alone in Jesus Christ would suffice [fides sola sufficiat] for our justification and liberation.[xvii]

Professor Dongsun Cho, who has authored a longer article on the doctrine of justification in the thought of Victorinus, concurs and finds a substantial overlap between the Protestant understanding of fiduciary faith, justification by faith alone, forensic justification, imputation of the righteousness of Christ, etc., and Victorinus’s own understanding.[xviii] 

Conclusion

It is disappointing that McGrath’s treatment fails to engage with this discussion. This choice inevitably leads to conclusions being drawn on a deficient selection of primary and secondary sources. The resulting analysis becomes misleading as it fails to engage with, and be informed by, sources that contradict it, whether that be primary sources such as First Clement, the Letter to Diognetus, etc., or modern treatments such as those of Jordan Cooper, Michael Horton, Dungson Cho, Brian Arnold, or D.H. William.

McGrath’s conclusions should therefore be rejected as they are drawn from a biased and partial selection of church fathers that fails to accurately represent patristic thought and cannot support such wide and generalizing assertions as those made by McGrath. His treatment of specific church fathers should also be questioned, such as his treatment of Victorinus, which presents a view of Victorinus’s theology difficult to square with his own writing on the relevant issues.

[i] Mark McInroy, “Review of ‘Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification,’ by Alister E. McGrath,” Church History vol. 90 no. 1 (2021): 192. 

[ii] Alister E McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 4th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020) Kindle location 446-478. 

[iii] Ibid. 460. 

[iv] Ibid. 445. 

[v] Ibid. 1492.

[vi] Ibid. 1444.

[vii] Rick Brannan, ed., ”First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians” in The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation, trans. Rick Brannan (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017) 33.

[viii] See Brian Arnold, Justification in the Second Century (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), and Jordan Cooper, The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013). 

[ix] Rick Brannan, ed., ”Epistle to Diognetus” in The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation, trans. Rick Brannan (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017) 285-286.

[x] McGrath, 457. 

[xi] Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1535, ed. Philip S. Watson (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1953) 276.

[xii] See, for example, Marius Victorinus, Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians, trans. Stephen Andrew Cooper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 

[xiii] McGrath, 1488. 

[xiv] Marius Victorinus, 157.

[xv] Ibid., 282.

[xvi] Ibid., 296. 

[xvii] Ibid., 297. 

[xviii] Dungsun Cho, ”Justification in Marius Victorinus’ Pauline Commentaries,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry vol. 11 no. 1 (2014): 9-10. 

Mikkel Søtbæk earned his BA and MA in theology from the University of Copenhagen doing both his theses on patristic theology. He currently works as a lay catechist for Lutheran society in Denmark and runs a small family farm with his wife and four children.