The Perversion of Galatians 2:20

How do you like my tat? While you might not be able to read it, on the top it says Galatians 2:20 which is my all-time favorite Bible verse or what some have called my "life verse."

About 12 or 13 years ago, as a Christmas present to myself, I went down to the Gunslinger Tattoo parlor in Washington, Pa. and asked Tracy, a skin-head heavily tatted artist, to design me a tat featuring Galatians 2:20. I had it put high on my arm since it was for my benefit only and not to be seen leaking below my golf shirt. I could envisage a funeral director in years to come shouting to his assistant, "Get me a Bible." I don't think my wife was too happy with my choice of a self-purchased Christmas present. Yet, it did make for an interesting conversation piece when a huge man standing next to me in the pool on a cruise ship asked, "What is Gal--a-tians two-hundred and twenty mean?" I looked at him eyeball-to-eyeball and quoted the passage.  He slowly moved away from me. I guess my tat is no longer for my benefit only since I am now sharing it with the world, at least to the exceedingly minute percentage of the world who might read my blog.  As my one daughter keeps telling me, "Dad, you're losing your filter."  Be that as it may. I'm 80, live with it!

I guess one might say this is more of a rant than a blog since I am not happy with those scholars who present to us modern English translations of the Bible, especially when they pervert, distort, mistranslate and virtually deem meaningless my favorite Bible verse which is now indelibly tattooed on my arm. Am I suggesting that the gang of biblical scholars, Hebrew and Greek experts and noted theologians who worked tirelessly translating the Old and New Testament into English got this verse wrong? Uh, well, yeah! 

O.K. Enough said. Let's get serious.  The NIV ("The New International Version" or what some have deemed "The Nearly Inspired Version.") translates Galatians 2:20. (In each example have underlined the relevant words.)

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." 

The ESV or English Standard Version says:

"I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."  

Virtually every modern English translation of Galatians 2:20 states that "I no longer live." But the 1611 King James Version and the American King James Version (1999) translates the text:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me." 

The Complete Jewish Bible puts it this way:

"When the Messiah was executed on the stake as a criminal, I was too; so that my proud ego no longer lives."

Martin Luther's 1545 German Bible is a great translation (if you can read it).

"Ich bin mit Christo gekreuzigt. Ich lebe aber; doch nun nicht ich sondern Christus lebt in mir." 

For those who can work with it, this is the Greek text. This is from the 1904 Nestle text. It is the same as Westcott and Hort, and there are no variant reading.

"Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι· ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστόs." 

O,K., so what's the big deal? The question is "do I live or don't I?" Most modern English translations say "I no longer live." The King James says, "nevertheless I live, yet not I." Luther says, "I live but now not I." What is the answer? Of course "I live." I am sitting right here typing on my computer. I might be super-spiritual and say "I no longer type but Christ who lives in me is now typing." Really?

In this verse the Apostle Paul is presenting a twofold understanding of the word "I." If you don't get that, you don't get the verse. Werner Elert, in his Structure of Lutheranism, defined these two "I's" as the "transcendental I" and the "empirical I." He explained how this twofold subjectivity related to the doctrine of justification. (See my earlier blog Werner Elert's Twofold Subjectivity.) 

Rather than considering what the translators have to say, what does the Apostle Paul say in his Greek text. Let me reiterate. There are no variant readings. All of the key manuscripts of the New Testament say the same thing. The key words in the Greek text are "zo de ouketi ego"

zo (ζῶ) is the present tense first person singular and means "I live" or "I am alive."
de (δὲ) is a conjunction which is usually translated "but."
ouketi (οὐκέτι) is an adverb and means "no longer."
ego (ἐγώ) This is the key word. It is a primary strong personal pronoun meaning "I" which is only expressed when emphatic. In his German translation Luther could not employ this nuance and simply used "ich" in both cases.  The Complete Jewish Bible speaks of "my proud ego." Of course, the word has been brought into the English language to indicate the “I” or self of any person or a sense of conceit or self-importance. The Apostle Paul is saying "Living as a Christian is not about me but about Christ. Yes, I live, but it's not I, but Christ." He goes on to say that "this life I live in the body, I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me."

Why is this important? After graduating from the Seminary and donning my brand new clergy shirt, I was ordained and installed into the ministry. As far as I was concerned this was all about me. As long as I was affirmed and commended, patted on the back and told what a good preacher I was, everything was fine. But I soon encountered a situation where I was severely criticized and could not deal with it. I mean I could not deal with it big-time and almost went "bonkers." I was not happy. I joined a clergy support group where we shared our individual woes in the ministry and attempted to shore-up each others insecurities. (I later referred to it as the 4P Club - the poor, pastors, pity, party.)

One Saturday afternoon a tall, skinny man stood at my door offering for sale a secular motivational program. I let him in and had a hard time getting rid of him. After completing his spiel, he said, "Pastor the real reason I came to see you is to tell you that Galatians 2:20 changed my life. I used to think that being a Christian was about my good works and good life. I really struggled until I discovered that being a Christian is not about me, but about Christ. For some reason I think you need to hear that." This man would not leave me alone. He called on a number of occasions inviting me to have lunch with him. Each time I got the same Galatians 2:20 admonition, "Pastor, it's not about you. It's about Christ."

Finally, after prayerfully considering that text and the other teachings of the Apostle Paul, I began to see what this man was talking about. Yes, I live. I preach, teach and write. I ministered to and interacted with people. There have been good times and bad times. There was praise and adulation. There was criticism and rejection. I have been blessed with a variety of gifts and cursed with a personality that is often considered brash and uncaring. Even though inflated ego and wounded pride are quick to manifest themselves, I constantly remind myself that it's not about me. It's about Christ. So I keep Galatians 2:20 on my mind, have it tattooed on my arm and can honestly say that in fifty-six years of being in the ministry, I wouldn't change anything.

The Apostle Paul had a great deal going for him. He was a learn-ed Pharisee trained at the feet of the great rabbi Gamaliel. He was a linguistic scholar, proficient in Hebrew and Greek and possibly Latin and Aramaic. He had much to brag about. As he expressed in Philippians 3:4-9, he had done everything right - a Hebrew of Hebrews. Concerning the righteousness of the law, he was blameless. Yet, in comparing his former identity with what he received in Christ Jesus, he regarded it all as refuse, garbage or manure. This is not to say that Paul's profound knowledge and scholarship were not useful. He was chosen to contribute twelve epistles to the New Testament. Yet throughout, there was one undeniable truth. His ministry was not about Paul, but about Christ.

I guess the greater the individual scholarship; the more letters than appear after the name; the more books that have been written and commendations received; the more difficult it is to see all that as refuse in the light of a new identity in the righteousness of Christ Jesus. After all, these are the vestiges of success and sources of pride. Perhaps that is why the translation of Galatians 2:20 has been perverted. To say "I no longer live but Christ lives in me" may be a pious thought but is really meaningless and contrary to the reality that the person, with his success and failure, acceptance and rejection, pride and guilt, does still live and has to deal with it.

Katherine Parr: A Queen for Our Time

Some years ago I watched a TV series titled "The Six Wives of Henry VIII." I became interested in the history of the Tudor dynasty (1485-1603) and did further research.

I happened upon a Wikipedia article on Katherine Parr, the sixth and final wife of the irascible King Henry VIII. The article stated that Queen Katherine, contrary to the beliefs of her husband, accepted the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith and expressed the same in her seminal work The Lamentation of a Sinner. I wanted to read this work but amazingly it was no where to be found on the Internet even though it was obviously old enough to be in the public domain. I discovered a huge volume written by Dr. Janel Mueller, a professor at the University of Chicago, containing all of the writings and correspondence of Queen Katherine, including The Lamentation of a Sinner. I ordered the volume and awaited its arrival.

Reading The Lamentation of a Sinner was somewhat astounding. I could not believe that a Queen of England would so abase herself and describe the ignominy of her former life and confess that she found a new life in her relationship with Jesus Christ. It certainly was not proper for a Queen of England to glaringly reveal her sins. The reaction of the embarrassed British nobility had to be scathing. What more, the Prefatory Letter, introducing the Queen's confession, was written by the noted diplomat William Cecil who happened to be Queen Elizabeth I right-hand man for most of her forty year-reign. Imagine the scandal if the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle wrote an expose' revealing the secrets of her former life as a Hollywood actress and claiming to be born-again! The royal family would go ballistic. What added to the scandal was the fact that Queen Katherine was acting contrary to the beliefs of her husband the King who had decreed that anyone embracing the theology of that German Monk Martin Luther could be burned at the stake. (Of course, Henry was known for executing wives who did not meet his expectations.)  Even though Katherine had written The Lamentation while Henry was still alive, she waited nine months after his death to have it published (November, 1547).


In adapting The Lamentation of a Sinner Dr. Mueller worked with the original 1547.edition which had to be a daunting task since trying to read Sixteenth Century English is beyond difficult. While she updated much of the wording, it still had an Elizabethan style. I thought it would be a neat idea to further update and adapt the English, add an Introduction, and make it available as a self-published work. But I needed Dr. Mueller's permission to do so. I found her email address on the University of Chicago website, asked permission, and she graciously consented.

I completed the task in 2017, self-published it through Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing and without any publicity or promotion, made it available.  I was amazed by the response. It has been discovered by over 600 purchasers, nearly 200 of them from the UK. If you "Google" The Lamentation of a Sinner you will discover that my little self-published copy is the only edition available. I can't believe that no publisher has picked up this work and released it for wider circulation as a little, hard-cover devotional. I later discovered that a second edition of The Lamentation was available on the Internet in the public domain if you took the time to search for it.  It is found in the third volume of the anonymous work titled The British Reformers.

I was very impressed by the theological understanding of this Queen of England. She clearly recognized that "self-accusation" was a prelude to embracing the righteousness of Christ. Her grasp of the finer points of the doctrine of justification by faith was quite profound. Read this little paragraph from The Lamentation:

Saint Paul says "we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the deeds of the law. For if righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain." Saint Paul means not a dead, human, historical faith, gotten by human effort, but a supernatural, living faith which works by love, as he himself plainly states.  This esteem of faith does not disparage good works, for out of this faith springs all good works. Yet, we may not impute to the worthiness of faith or good works our justification before God; but ascribe and give the worthiness of it totally to the merits of Christ's passion; and declare and attribute the knowledge and perception of those merits to faith alone. The very true and only property of faith is to take, apprehend, and hold fast the promises of God's mercy, which makes us righteous; and causes me to continually hope for the same mercy; and, in love, to do the many good works ascribed in the Scripture, that I may be thankful for the same."

In this single paragraph, Queen Katherine points out:

• The difference between historical faith (fides historica) and a living faith.
• The relationship between faith and good works.
• The place of faith in justification as instrument not cause. 
• The singular role of faith as apprehending the promises of God.

I decided to do a larger work on the life of Katherine Parr and after many months of research self-published Katherine Parr: The Life and Faith of a Tudor Queen. This work was picked-up by Amberley Press out of Gloucestershire in the UK and will be released under the title Katherine Parr: Opportunist, Queen, Reformer. This will be a hard-cover edition with thirty pages of color prints. Because of the impact of the corona virus in the UK, the publication date has been pushed back to November.

Katherine Parr was a remarkable woman. Her earlier work Prayers or Meditations was the first book published by a woman in England under her own name. In 1544 when King Henry went to war against France, Katherine was appointed Queen Regent and ruled England, only one of two queen consorts to be afforded this honor. Her influence upon the children of Henry, the future monarchs Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I, would influence the history of England for years to come. In my estimation, her treatise The Lamentation of a Sinner, which lapsed into obscurity, is one of the hidden gems of the Reformation. After the death of Henry in January of 1547, Katherine hastily married the rogue Thomas Seymour who had been a previous suitor. Katherine died in childbirth at the age of 37 on September, 5, 1547.

In September of 2018 Dianne and I took a trip to England. One day was set aside to visit the beautiful Cotswold region where Sudeley Castle is located. On the grounds of this castle, which is privately owned by Lady Elizabeth Ashcomb, is St. Mary's Church where the tomb of Katherine Parr is located.  During the English Civil War, St Mary’s Church was desecrated and together with the castle was left in ruins. In the years that followed, sightseers visited the church and castle.  In 1782 some visiting ladies noticed a panel on the church wall. A local farmer dug under the wall and found a coffin made of lead with the inscription “Here lyeth Quene Kateryn, Wife to Kyng Henry VIII” On opening the coffin it is said the wrapped body was still intact. It was unknown for over 200 years that Queen Katherine Parr, the sixth and final wife of King Henry VIII, had been buried there. It wasn’t until 1817 that the open coffin was removed to a stone vault. In 1863 Katherine’s remains were put into a new tomb in the newly restored St Mary’s Church beneath a marble effigy.


Visiting the tomb of Katherine Parr was an emotional experience.  I felt that I knew this woman having researched her life for nearly two years. I guess I had "fallen in love" with a woman who had been dead for nearly 500 years ago.  Of course, my wife Dianne of 56 years was not in the least bit threatened.

The Faith of Christ

Back in the 1950’s, there was a debate among theologians regarding the translation of certain key passages in Paul that had to do with justification by faith. The question was whether we should translate these passages as referring to Christ’s faith or to ours. Of course, most post-reformation translations take these passages as obvious references to our faith in Christ. In the Greek language, however, the construction could be translated either as a subjective genitive (Christ’s faith) or as an objective genitive (our faith in Christ). Interestingly, the King James Version translates them as referring to Christ’s own faith. Over the decades, the debate grew intense and scholars from around the world joined in. In fifty or so years a decided shift has taken place. At first the burden of proof was on those who thought the passages should be translated as referring to Christ's faith, and not to our faith in Christ. These days it is the other way around.

Here are the key passages. I will quote first from the New American Standard Bible:

Romans 3:22 “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe, for there is no distinction.”

Romans 3:26 “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who as faith in Jesus.”

Galatians 2:16 “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.”

Galatians 3:22 “But the Scripture has shut up all me under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

Ephesians 3:12 “in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.”

Philippians 3:9 “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”  

As you can see, far from being peripheral, these passages are at the center of Paul’s theology. The issue at hand challenges our understanding of the doctrine of justification at a fundamental level. 

I first discovered the debate when I was in seminary working on an exegetical paper on Ephesians 4:11-13. Verse 13 reads, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” In my paper, I argued that ‘of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God’ were to be interpreted as referring to Christ’s own faith and knowledge, as surely as ‘the fullness of Christ’ refers to his own fullness and not ours.   Over the years, I continued to follow the debate, which reached its peak in the 90’s, but is still brewing.  The major contribution to the debate was the excellent work of Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Eerdmans, 1983).

Three factors convince me that Paul is not talking about our faith in Christ, but Christ’s very own faith, such that we are justified by the faith and faithfulness of Jesus himself.

(1) It seems clear enough, as even the NASB translation reads, that Paul (in Ephesians 4:13) is speaking about our participation in Jesus’ own faith, knowledge and fullness. In his earlier prayer (3:14-19) Paul prays that we would come to comprehend and to know the love of Christ, that we “may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” In Colossians Paul says, “For in Him [Christ] all the fullness Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made full” (2:9-10). Clearly the fullness belongs to Jesus and is then shared with us. Jesus himself tells us that he came to give us not simply peace, but his own peace (John 14:27), and his own joy (15:11). And, of course, in his famous prayer it is abundantly clear that Jesus envisages the very love and glory of the Father and Son themselves dwelling in us personally (17:22-26). In Matthew, Jesus claims not only that all things have been handed over to him, but also that he alone knows the Father, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (11:27). The heart of the gospel is the fact that Jesus alone knows the Father, and he alone is filled with the fullness of God, and that he has come to share himself and all that he is and has (fullness, knowledge, peace, joy, glory, love, and faith, among other things) with us. Sharing in Jesus' own life and relationship with his Father and the Spirit is the point.

 (2) The genitive construction in Romans 3:26 (ek pisteos Jesou) is the same in Romans 4:16 where Paul is talking about Abraham’s faith (ek pisteos Abraam). The NASB does not translate the Abraham passage as 'our faith in Abraham,' but as “those who are of the faith of Abraham.” If the NASB were consistent, Romans 3:26 would read, “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus. 

 (3) In Galatians 2:16 we have a perfect illustration of what is called a chiasm. The verse reads, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law…” 

A chiasm or chiastic structure is Hebraic. It is named after the Greek letter ‘Chi’ which looks like an X in English. If you take away the right part of the X you are left with an arrow pointing to the right. In terms of a chiastic argument, the first point in the argument starts with the top left of the X, or arrow. The next point, which is the heart of the argument is the tip. The last point is a repeat of the first point and starts at the beginning of the bottom of the left side of the X. If this is all too confusing to you, let me put Paul’s argument in chiastic sequence.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law
but through faith in Christ Jesus
even we have believed in Christ Jesus,
that we may be justified by faith in Christ
not by the works of the Law.

Three times in this verse, Paul, allegedly, speaks of faith in Christ, which is redundant and superfluous, unless a chiasm is being employed, and he has in mind not our faith in Christ, but Christ’s faith or faithfulness. The verse works perfectly only when we understand that Paul is thinking about the faith of Christ. It would then read:

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law
but through the faith of Christ Jesus,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus
that we may be justified by the faith of Christ
not by the works of the Law.

The first and the last clauses speak of not being justified by the works of the law. The second and next to the last speak of being justified by the faith of Christ himself. The middle clause speaks of our trusting in Jesus’ faith and faithfulness. The point of Christian faith is not in the efficacy or power of our own faith but believing in the faith and faithfulness of Jesus himself, who stands in our place. We believe in Jesus and in his faith. This is the center, the tip of the arrow, of Paul’s chiastic argument. Jesus has taken his place on our side of the covenant relationship with God. And in our place, he has offered the perfect response of faith and faithfulness, wherein we are justified. We take our stand, according to Paul, upon his vicarious offering to the Father, upon his faith and faithfulness, that we may be justified not by our own works or faith, but by Jesus.’ We choose to be justified by Jesus’ faith and faithfulness, not our own. 

If we translate the key passages as references to Jesus’ faith in our place, it will look something like the following:

Romans 3:22 “even the righteousness of God which comes through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all those who believe, for there is no distinction.”

Romans 3:26 “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.”

Galatians 2:16 “nevertheless knowing that a man is no justified by the works of the Law but through faith of Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith/faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.”

Galatians 3:22 “But the Scripture has shut up all me under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

Ephesians 3:12 “in whom we have boldness and confident access through His faith/faithfulness.”

Philippians 3:9 “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”

Much of evangelical Christianity cannot rid itself of the notion that man's faith is a contributing factor in justification so the Greek genitive faith of Christ has been consistently translated as an objective genitive indicating that I am justified on account of my faith in Christ. Such is the hangover of the distortions introduced by “decision theology,” beginning with the heretical approach to evangelism introduced by revivalist Charles Finney in the nineteenth century whereby man become an equal participant with God in the salvation process.

Most certainly we are called upon to believe in Jesus and to grasp in faith everything that is found in Christ Jesus.  I have come to love the expression I have Christ, and if I have Christ, I have everything that is found in Him including His joy, His peace and His faith or faithfulness whereby I am declared righteous before my heavenly Father.

In 2005 a new translation of the Bible was introduced.  It is called the New English Translation or the NET and is readily available on-line. The translators of the Greek text accurately and consistently translate the genitive as subjective. Note Galatians 2:16:

Yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

While on the surface this appears to be a minute, technical issue but the implications are profound. This thing called Christianity is not about me but about everything that is found in Christ Jesus.

Having Been Justified

Romans 5:1-2: Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access to the grace in which we now stand.  And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

(Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ.)

The first two verses of Romans 5 are highly significant. Having put in place the truth of justification by faith beginning in Romans 3:21 and continuing through chapter four in which he affirms that Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness (vs. 3), the Apostle Paul begins the fifth chapter by listing the past, present, and future results of justification.

He begins with the word dikaiothentes which is translated "having been justified."  This is the aorist, passive participle of the verb dikaioo which means "to justify."

Verbs have both tense and voice. The tense indicates whether the action is in the present, the past or the future. I can say, "I teach" (present), "I taught" (past) and "I will teach." (future). The voice indicates whether I am the doer of the action (active) or the recipient of the action (passive). A verb can also be used as a participle, either as an adjective or an adverb.  If I say, "The professor, teaching his students, hoped they got good grades." Teaching is a present participle. If I say, "The professor, having taught his students," it would be a past participle. If I reverse the procedure and view it through the eyes of the students, I would say, "The students, having been taught by the professor, got good grades."  In that case, having been taught is a past, passive participle. Passive because the students were the recipients of the action.  It would be like saying, "The grass, having been cut by the lawnmower..." The grass just stood there, and the mower performed all the action.

The Apostle Paul's use of the past (aorist), passive participle is very significant.  It indicates clearly that the act whereby God declared the world of sinners righteous because of the righteousness and faithfulness of His Son Jesus Christ is a finished reality to be grasped by faith. This stands in contradistinction to the position of Rome in which justification is a process to be completed in the fires of purgatory.  Only after spending an indeterminate amount of time being purged of sin can the individual claim to be righteous before God.

The fact of dikaiothentes, "having been justified" is to be grasped and apprehended in faith before any progress in the Christian faith and life can be attained. As long as uncertainty remains regarding our righteous standing before God and our eternal destiny, the New Testament remains a closed book, and the teachings of the Apostle Paul will fall on deaf ears.  Realizing that you have already been justified and made right with God as a past act of God is not a doctrine reserved for the theological elite but is actually the starting point of the Christian faith. It is "Christianity 101." It is basic Christian truth.

Because the benefits of this truth are grasped in faith, the first result is peace with God. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:19 that God was active in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The conflict between man and God prompted by human sin are brought to a stunning conclusion through the Cross of Jesus Christ. Having been made right with God, guilt and shame are removed and replaced with peace. All this has taken place the past.

The present reality is that we have "access" by faith to this grace or undeserved past kindness of God. The primary meaning of the Greek word prosagoge translated "access" is actually the act of "bringing to or moving to". I like the term "delivering." God in the present has established a "delivery system" whereby His undeserved grace manifested in the Good News of justification and peace with God are delivered to us today, two thousand years after the fact. The primary "delivery system" is the proclaimed Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul declares that God has chosen to save the world through the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21). For this reason, Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power God for salvation (Romans 1:16).. The task of the preacher today is not the teaching of present-day principles for living a successful life but the past acts of God whereby we are forgiven and justified. God delivers the goods through preaching. Failing to preach these past acts of God disqualifies a person from being considered a pastor or preacher in the Christian Church.

In addition, God established the "delivery system" of the Sacraments. Baptism is the only means we know of whereby the past benefits of God's undeserved favor are delivered to an infant to be nurtured and built upon by parents, sponsors and the entire Christian congregation. In the midst of this present pandemic which has closed churches, I sincerely hunger and thirst for the Lord's Supper. I look forward to the day when I will again hear the words "Take and eat, this is my body. Take and drink, this is my blood given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins."

The purpose of this "delivery system" is to cause Christians to "stand" upon the grace of God. "Standing" is the posture of the Christian. In the section from Ephesians 6 in which the Apostle describes the armor of God, three times he encourages the Christian "to stand." Faith takes a position on the past acts of God and stands upon that position. It is at this point that the devil is the most active attempting to push the believer off of that position. While we have put on the full armor, we have only one offense weapon, the sword of the Spirit which is the truth of the Word of God.

In the past, God justified us, made us right with Him so that we might have peace with God. In the present, we take advantage of the delivery system, the Word and Sacraments, whereby the undeserved kindness of God is delivered to our front door, similar to a Fedex or UPS truck, so that we might stand upon that grace. In addition to this, as a result of having been justified, we have a future hope in which we can boast - our face-to-face experience of the glory and majesty of God! And the older you get the greater and more wonderful is that future hope.

In these two simple verses, the Apostle Paul masterfully sets forth the past acts of God, the present position of the Christian, and the future glory that awaits us.  .   

Werner Elert's Twofold Subjectivity

A Grid for Communicating Justification

 About 30 years ago, I came upon a compelling section in Werner Elert’s Structure of Lutheranism.  Elert defined a twofold subjectivity in man, claiming that such a distinction is necessary for an understanding of the great truth of justification by grace through faith, especially the way the very righteousness of Christ is applied to the believer. 

I found the wisdom of Elert challenging.  A fellow pastor/golfer and I became enthralled with this section from Elert and we walked the fairways of Bethpage State Park discussing “twofold subjectivity.”  While it made for great discussion, the golf game did suffer.  As a personal note, seeking to plumb the depths of Elert’s thinking regarding this subject has had an impact both upon my life and the way I communicate justification.  Perhaps, if you take the time to wrestle with the concepts you may discover a similar result.

Read very carefully a few sections from Elert and let’s see if we can practically unpack it.  I do not believe the doctrine of justification can be fully grasped without first understanding this “twofold subjectivity,” applying it and teaching it.  After exploring the concepts, I will share some insights for communicating twofold subjectivity as a grid for understanding the truth of justification.

   Elert writes:

 The Lutheran doctrine of justification distinguishes a twofold subjectivity of man.  This does not presuppose any critical power of discernment or special knowledge; it is connected to the elementary fact that man himself becomes the object of reflection.  If in his reflections, he thinks to a conclusion in the direction of what he is and in the direction of what he could or should be, he stands before that maze of destiny and guilt which was developed as the “primal experience….” Thus, there is a twofold subjectivity; the transcendental I as a “mathematical point” and the psychic I that is saturated with content…. That separation of I and I is carried through as self-accusation.  I myself am the object of my reflection because I am compelled to look at the concrete aspects of my life or, what amounts to the same thing, of my consciousness, with the eyes of God… Furthermore, this distinguishing of a twofold subjectivity is the formal presupposition of the doctrine of justification.  The subject of the faith that receives the “righteousness of God” is the transcendental I.  It is altogether empty, merely a “mathematical point”.  The righteousness adjudged to it is “alien” in the strict sense. (Elert, Werner, The Structure of Lutheranism [Vol. 1[, [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962], pgs. 140-141.)  

 The Transcendental “I”:

At first glance it seems difficult to wrap your mind around these concepts – transcendental “I” and psychic (or empirical) “I”.  Elert defines the transcendental “I” as “the ‘I’ that remains after the abstraction of the entire content of consciousness.” (Elert, pg. 79) What does he mean?

Think of a new-born baby.  All the parts are there, intellect, will, desire and emotions but the life of the infant is devoid of any content.  If you remove any genetic disposition or the fact that the “operating system” contains the virus of original sin, you would have a mere mathematical point with neither content nor extension.  The baby just “is” – a transcendental “I” – transcendental because there is nothing to see or assess.  There’s a person in there somewhere.  Herein is the wonder of the miracle of Infant Baptism.  God, in His grace, applies the righteousness of Christ to this “empty” vessel devoid of any empirical content. Of course, as the child grows and develops into adulthood, all kinds of content are applied and the psychic or empirical “I” is manifest.  The two “I’s” remain, evident in what is either the bane or blessing of self-consciousness. 

Self-consciousness is twofold subjectivity.  By being able to observe, assess and evaluate the concrete aspects of my consciousness I become both subject and object.  While there is no precise sedes for doing so, I believe that Adam and Eve prior to the Fall and the reception of the self-assessing knowledge of good and evil were not self-conscious.  They had a singular subjectivity with the consciousness of God.  The Divine question, “Who told you that you were naked” is compelling.  A dog, for example, has a singular subjectivity.  Dogs are not self-conscious.  They do not look in the mirror and lament a bad fur day.  Yet, the eyes of the dog are focused on the master.  In the same way, before the Fall into sin, the eyes of Adam and Eve were focused on the Master – their God who created them and loves them.  Elert writes, “the consciousness of man as the consciousness of himself is in original opposition to God.” (pg. 18)

  While he does not expound on the subject, he seems to be saying the same thing - self-consciousness is the result of sin.  If the Fall changed man’s God-consciousness into self-consciousness, it seems to me that the purpose of salvation, redemption and justification is to produce the opposite effect.   (While I have made some effort, Georg Hegel’s understanding of human self-consciousness and the fall into sin in Phenomenology of Spirit remains a mystery.  He does seem to be suggesting that “the fall” was a “fall upward” into self-consciousness.) 

The Psychic I:

This psychic “I” or empirical “I” is our conscious content or “bundle of stuff,” including personality, intelligence, feelings, emotions, desires, intentions, guilt, fears, anxieties perception of others and their perception of you, talents, skills, strengths, weaknesses et. al.  Being self-conscious we can evaluate and assess our stuff or, to use Elert terminology, the transcendental “I” assesses the content of the empirical “I”.   By nature, we are self-centered.  While no one is perfect, we want to feel good about our stuff.  We compare our stuff with the stuff of others.  We defend our stuff against criticism with, as Paul Tounier puts it, “the same energy we employ in defending ourselves against hunger, cold, or wild beasts.” (Tournier, Paul, Guilt and Grace, (New York: Harper and Row, 1959) pg. 81.)  If we think our stuff is better than the stuff of others we might become little arrogant or, if the reverse is true, somewhat threatened.  We try to make our stuff look good by tearing down the stuff of others, and so it goes, on and on and on.  It is all about my stuff!  

But when confronted with the Law and wrath of God, as Elert defines the “primal experience,” the transcendental “I” is called upon to judge the content of the empirical “I” by viewing the “stuff” through the eyes of God.  We thus become the objects of our own reflection.  Seeing this total content, our personal stuff, through the eyes of God, produces self-accusation.  We stand naked before a righteous God, devoid of any conscious content we can offer as proof of our own righteousness.  Thus, the transcendental “I” shrivels to a mere mathematical point, empty of all conscious content, prepared to hear the Good News of the Gospel and receive in faith the alien righteousness of Christ.

It is here there is a connection between Luther and the German mystics since both seek to obliterate the content of consciousness or deplete the empirical “I”, yet there is a vital distinction.  For the mystics, “self-emptying” takes place via the technique of thinking, by emptying the mind of all conscious content.  For Luther, the same result occurs via judgment – seeing oneself through the eyes of God. For the mystics, the intention is to enter a visionary mental state.  For Luther, the intention is to exchange the content of consciousness for the alien righteousness of God in Christ.

Elert explains:

 In his writing on the Liberty of the Christian Man…he (Luther) demands that the Gospel must be proclaimed in such a way “that you hear your God speaking to you, how all your life and deeds are nothing before God, but that you, together with everything in you, must perish eternally.  If you believe this aright – that you are guilty – you must despair of yourself… But in order that you may come out of and away from yourself, that is, out of your doom, He puts before you His dear Son…”  Luther demands “that you come out of yourself and away from yourself” and he does so in all seriousness… Luther’s penetration to this I is not renunciation it is judgment.  It is canceling of the sum total of the content of consciousness, not for the purpose of forgetting it, of “freeing oneself” of it, but of exchanging it for the “righteousness of God.”  Here self-judgment and the righteousness of God are in a relationship that is exactly reciprocal.  On the negative side, at least the process of justification can be referred only to the transcendental I, since self-judgment is passed on the sum total of the contents of consciousness and still is carried out by the I. (pgs. 80-81)

An Important Distinction:

The doctrine of justification by grace through faith entails the imputation and application of the righteousness of Christ (His active and passive obedience) to the believer.  Yet, how does that take place?  What is the psychology?  Elert’s twofold subjectivity, the distinction between the transcendental and the empirical “I”, answers those questions.  Without this distinction or a non-defined view of our personhood, we might receive in faith this alien righteousness of Christ and locate it alongside all the other seemingly positive aspects of our life.  Or, putting it another way, we might put the righteousness of Christ in our bundle along with all the other “stuff,” albeit minus those elements that we might deem sinful and for which we require absolution.  So, we might confess, “Alongside my pleasing personality, my joyful smile, happy disposition and wide variety of gifts and talents, I also have the righteousness of Christ.”  This is not the biblical truth of justification.  The Apostle writes Philippians 3:7-9: “But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

By looking at the content of my consciousness through the eyes of God I am confronted with the truth that all my life and deeds are nothing before God and that everything in me, my entire bundle of stuff, must perish eternally.  This is devastating!  Hopeless!  Anyone arriving at this conclusion without the alternative presented by the Gospel would probably resort to drugs, alcohol or suicide.  It is at this place, where the transcendental “I” is altogether empty, a mere mathematical point that the righteousness of Christ is proclaimed and faith grasps in hope.  The relationship between self-accusation and the righteousness of God is reciprocal.  Where self-accusation meets the righteousness of God in Christ is the point of faith.     

 Come out of Yourself:

Luther demands that you “come out of yourself and away from yourself.”  What does this mean?  Some try to “find themselves.”  Others don’t “feel good about themselves.”  One might be self-confident, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-effacing, self-righteous, self-reliant and have a great deal of self-pity but how do you “come out of yourself?”

Dr. Viktor Frankl, the noted Viennese psychiatrist, as a result of being in a Nazi death camp, devised the notion of self-detachment.  He wrote,

The more one is immersed and absorbed in something or someone other than oneself, the more he really becomes human… Human freedom implies man’s capacity to detach himself from himself… Self-transcendence and self-detachment are irreducibly human phenomena and exclusively available in the human dimension. (Frankl, Viktor, The Unconscious God, (New York: Simon Schuster, 1975), pgs. 79, 109, 111.)

 Of course, Frankl’s concepts have nothing to do with self-judgment, viewing the “self-stuff” of life through the eyes of God, or the alternative reception by faith of the righteousness of God.  His thoughts simply confirm the human reality of a twofold subjectivity.  

Blaise Pascal spoke about escaping oneself:

 As soon as we venture out along the pathway of self-knowledge, what we discover is that man is desperately trying to avoid self-knowledge.  The need to escape oneself explains why many people are miserable when they are not preoccupied with work, or amusement, or vices.  They are afraid to be alone lest they catch a glimpse of their own emptiness… For if we could face ourselves with all our faults. We would then be so shaken out of complacency, triviality, indifference and pretense that a deep longing for strength and truth would be aroused within us.  (Roberts, David, Existentialism and Religious Belief [New York: Oxford University Press, 1959] pg. 99.)

 At the very end of his classic volume Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes:

 But there must be a giving up of the self.  You must throw it away blindly so to speak.  Christ will indeed give you a real personality; but you must not go to him for the sake of that.  As long as your own personality is what you are bothering about, you are not going to Him at all.  The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, [New York: Harper Collins, 1982] pg. 190.)

  For Luther, “coming out of yourself and away from yourself” is not merely detaching from self, escaping from self or merely throwing self away, but of passing judgment on self by viewing self through the eyes of God leading to self-accusation.  I do not believe there is any place within Christian discourse for a positive view of the “self” concept.  It is the “self” that drives the human dilemma and underlines the root sin of human pride.  Martin Luther often spoke of the philauti – the lovers of self.  He writes:

 First of all we have the Philauti, those who are lovers of self, who are pleased with themselves; they claim that everything they do is done well and correctly. They consider heaven their exclusive privilege; they alone have identified the right way of life; they alone constitute the Christian church; they alone sustain heaven and earth. Compared with them, all other people are poor sinners, in a perilous condition, who must purchase from them intercessions, good works, and merit. They have brought it about that all other Christians are referred to as secular, but they are spiritual; one can hardly find words to express how this label tickles their fancy and how they consider themselves to be superior to all the other classes. (Luther, M. [1999, c1974]. Luther's Works, vol. 52 :Page 213. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)

 Discussing this villain of pride and conceit, Luther wrote: “we must pray God daily to suppress our self-esteem.” But before we toss “self” on the dung heap, we must make a distinction between man coram Deo (before the face of God) and man coram homnibus (before the face of men).  Before God, when confronted with His utter holiness, His Law, His wrath, His judgment there is no place for “self” to stand, no righteousness or goodness to claim.  “Self” stands accused.  “Self” shrivels to nothing.  But before men, within the natural realm or, if you will, the kingdom of the left-hand, there is a place for “self” to stand.  Being self-confident, having self-esteem are necessary positives for performance in the workplace or, for that matter, on the golf course.  Before God I declare that I am a poor miserable sinner, but when confronted with a three-foot putt I refuse to declare that I am a “poor miserable putter.” This distinction must be made.  BUT, what we deem of great value coram homnibus is still nothing before God. 

 Old Self/New Self??

With all this in mind, I am curious as to where the translators of the NIV and ESV came up with the idea of “old self” and “new self” in Ephesians 4:22-24, Colossians 3:9-10, and Romans 6:6: “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”  Why did they take the “old man” and “new man” of the Greek and turn it into "new self" and old “self?”  I’m sure it has something to do with the “self” emphasis that has permeated our culture. I do not have an “old self.”  I have Adam cemented to me through original sin producing a self-conscious, self-centered “old man.” I do not have a “new self” I have Christ cemented to me in faith producing a God-conscious, God-centered “new man.” Being baptized, I am to regard myself as dead to the old and alive to the new.

What about Galatians 2:20?

Both the NIV, the ESV and most other English translations translate Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” This is confusing.  “I no longer live,” and “The life I live in the body,” are contradictory.  Do I live, or don’t I? But note the KJV: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

The translation “I live, yet no longer I” is the most accurate translation of the Greek (zo de ouketi ego) and points to a twofold subjectivity.  To use Elert’s terminology, the “transcendental I” still lives but not by living in relationship with the “psychic I” or my bundle of stuff, but the life I live in this body, I now live in relationship with the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, who loved me and gave Himself for me. Luther states: 

Therefore, when it is necessary to discuss Christian righteousness, the person must be completely rejected. For if I pay attention to the person or speak of the person, then, whether intentionally or unintentionally on my part, the person becomes a doer of works who is subject to the Law…By paying attention to myself and considering what my condition is or should be, and what I am supposed to be doing, I lose sight of Christ, who alone is my Righteousness and Life. Once He is lost, there is no aid or counsel; but certain despair and perdition must follow. (Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26:  Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (Ga 2:21). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.)

Communicating Twofold Subjectivity:

I believe that any truth or doctrinal distinction I learned at the Seminary over fifty years ago has no practical value unless I am able to communicate that truth or distinction to the people in the pew.  When I hosted the radio talk show Issues etc., a conflict arose over the content of the program.  I wanted to do theological issues and one of the heads in communication wanted social issues.  He adamantly insisted, “You can’t teach theology to lay people.”  I responded, “If I can’t teach it, why did I learn it?”

So, while Elert’s terminology defining twofold subjectivity might even be difficult for the “seminary trained pastors,” the problem is not in the truth but in the words Elert uses to communicate that truth.  We must unwrap his concepts and bring them “back down to earth.”  Here are some thoughts:

Self-consciousness:  Everyone understands self-consciousness. “I’m thinking about myself.” “I’m feeling sorry for myself.”  Or as country/western star Toby Keith put it, “I Wanna Talk About Me.” There is an obvious I/Self relationship.  This clearly defines twofold subjectivity.  I am both subject and object.  A person might say, “I’m trying to find myself.”  You might respond, “Where did you leave it?”  There are those who are seemingly never happy.  They go from marriage to marriage, job to job, or, if you will, church to church and always find something wrong.  There is one non-variable.  Everywhere they go they take “self” along.  Might one eventually arrive at the conclusion, “Hey, maybe I’m the problem?”  Probably not…

Our Bundle of Stuff:  We all have our “bundle of stuff” that becomes the object of scrutiny, through our eyes and often through the eyes of other people.  Some of it appears to be “good stuff” – talents, abilities, pleasing personality traits, intellectual acumen, will-power, emotional sensitivity et. al.; while some of it is “bad stuff” – bad habits, critical spirit, boastful, lazy, procrastination, et. al.  On Sunday morning, we confess the bad stuff and receive absolution.  BUT what about the seemingly good stuff? What if we viewed all our stuff through the eyes of God, how would we look?  We would be forced to conclude that all of it is tainted by sin.  All of our stuff is nothing before God.  None of our stuff can pass “Divine muster.”   After passing through the scanner of Divine judgment, none of our stuff will make it through the jet way into eternity.  It all falls short of the glory of God.  Thus, Jesus said, “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.”  This defines Elert’s concept that through self-accusation the transcendental “I” becomes a mere mathematical point, devoid of all content – emptied of all stuff via judgment and accusation.

 Jesus’ Bundle of Stuff:  When we speak of the righteousness of Christ as in “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness,” we are not speaking of some abstract concept without content or extension.  Jesus lived a perfect life and was, in all points, in thoughts, words and deeds, obedient to the Law, both the letter and spirit, thus fulfilling the Law.  Jesus willingly went to the Cross and laid down His life to pay the price of our redemption.  This is the active and passive obedience of Christ and defines the content of His “bundle of righteousness.” As the Law passes total judgment on our bundle, the Gospel offers Jesus - His blood shed for our forgiveness and His “bundle of righteousness.”  So, when standing before God on Judgment Day which bundle will you present?  Your “bundle of self” thinking that perhaps you are good enough to stand before Him or the “bundle of the righteousness of Christ?”  “Midst flaming worlds in these arrayed with joy shall I lift up my head.”

Sanctification: When it comes to sanctification there is a great deal that can be done with the “two bundle” imagery including vine/branch relationship; fruit and Spirit of Galatians 5; old man/new man; significance of Baptism.  Repentance involving self-accusation, contrition and faith becomes far more comprehensive when the entire content of consciousness comes under scrutiny and viewed through the eyes of God. 

I offer these thoughts to you for your perusal.  There is much here to think about.  Perhaps your preaching and teaching of justification will be enlivened by viewing this incredible truth through the lens of twofold subjectivity.  Of course, as is the case with every Christian truth, before preaching it or teaching it to others we must first apply it to our own “self.”