Some argue that Paul’s[1] use of δικαιόω in Titus 3:7 is akin to ‘regeneration’ and thus is an example in Paul of a transformative justification. Even Calvin thought such a reading of Titus 3:7 possible.
If we understand ‘regeneration’ in its strict and ordinary meaning, it might be thought that the Apostle employs the word ‘justified’ instead of ‘regenerated;’ and this is sometimes the meaning of it, but very seldom; yet there is no necessity which constrains us to depart from its strict and more natural significance.[2]
My purpose in this paper is to argue that δικαιόω in Titus 3:7 should be given its ordinary signification in Paul as a strictly forensic meaning of ‘declare righteous’ as it does elsewhere in Paul. The text of Titus 3:4-7 follows:
4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,
5οὐκ (ἐξ) ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ⸀ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς
ἀλλὰ (κατὰ) ⸂τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος⸃
ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς
(διὰ) λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως
πνεύματος ἁγίου,
6οὗ ἐξέχεεν (ἐφ’) ἡμᾶς πλουσίως
(διὰ) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν,
7ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι
κληρονόμοι ⸀γενηθῶμεν (κατ’) ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου.
4 But when the kindness and love towards humanity of our Saviour God appeared, 5 not from those works which we did in righteousness but according to his grace, he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and of renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour, 7so that, being justified by his grace, we might become heirs, according to hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7, my translation).
Paul moves from plight (verse 3) to salvation (verse 4-7). Note the before in verse 3 (γάρ ποτε, ‘for formerly’) and the after contrast in verse 4 (ὅτε δὲ, ‘but when’. The section is a trustworthy saying (verse 8), and gives the reason (note γάρ) for the exhortations to be gracious to all people. The Christians aren’t so different from everyone else, and what distinguishes them is God’s grace and mercy. So they should be peaceable and merciful. The love towards humanity (ἡ φιλανθρωπία verse 3) is the reason that Christians are to demonstrate humility to all people (verse 2).
In verse 4, the mild adversative δὲ notes the contrast between the former way of life of Christians, and the new situation God has effected by his grace. The temporal note ὅτε (‘when’) most probably refers to the reception of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the lives of Christians, rather than the incarnation or appearance of Christ,[3] though of course the gospel depends on the historical facts of the Christ event. The manifestation of God’s kindness and love towards humans to which Paul refers Titus is the gospel message. It is manifested (ἐπεφάνη) in the preaching of the gospel.
The main verb is aorist ἔσωσεν, and its subject is God the Father. He saved us. The source or reason for this salvation lies within God, and has to do with the character of God. God shows kindness (χρηστότης), love towards humanity (φιλανθρωπία), and mercy (ἔλεος). That is the source of salvation. Likewise, the tense form of all the verbal forms in the passage (ἐπεφάνη, ἐποιήσαμεν, ἐξέχεεν, δικαιωθέντες, γενηθῶμεν) are aorist.
In verse 5, God saved us not because of our works. Paul explicitly excludes works from the instrumentality of our salvation (ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς) by the clause οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς. The works excluded are done ‘ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ’, that is, ‘in the state of being a δίκαιος’.[4] This is firstly because the Christians weren’t righteous previous to their salvation, as verse 3 indicates.
However, there is another implication of the phrase ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς, which Calvin among others brings out. Calvin argues that the statement about justification does not merely limit the exclusion to works done in the past, but future righteousness is also not to be admitted into consideration for our salvation.[5] Likewise, Knight sees the possibility that ‘Paul is telling the Christians that neither their present good works (cf. v. 8; Eph. 2:10) nor any pre-Christian efforts at good works are the basis for God’s kindness and love toward them and for God saving them’.[6] Paul thereby excludes all righteous deeds, whether before or after conversion. The repudiation of human merit is universal, relating both to works in the past and the future works of righteousness.[7] ‘The thought is widened out to exclude any kind of actions done “in righteousness”.’[8] All moral effort viewed as a means of salvation are opposed– not just works in general, but works done in righteousness.[9]
After the denial of works as the cause of justification, the instrumentality of Christian salvation is expressed as διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου. God saves according to his own mercy, but through the instrumentality of the washing of regeneration and renewal. The word λουτροῦ could refer to either a laver or bath, the receptacle in which the washing occurs,[10] or the action of washing itself.[11] Following Dunn and most modern commentators, ‘“Washing” is the sense we find in the four other occurrences in biblical Greek (S of S 4:2; 6:6; Ecclus 34:25; Eph 5:26).’[12] The word παλιγγενεσίας refers to regeneration while ἀνακαινώσεως refers to renewal. They are most likely overlapping terms, referring to the same action.[13] The genitival πνεύματος ἁγίου refers to the agent of the regeneration and renewal. Nevertheless, the subject of ἐξέχεεν is God the Father, who richly pours out the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν). Thus, salvation involves all members of the Trinity, as indeed does the outpouring of the Spirit. The Spirit is the effective cause of regeneration and renewal (expressed by the genitive), who is himself poured out by the Father through the agency of the Son. Both Son and Father are referred to as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, our Saviour.
In verse 7, the referent of the demonstrative pronoun ἐκείνου is either θεοῦ in verse 4 or Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 6. The arguments in favour of God the Father as referent is (1) it keeps the subject of the verbs consistent through verses 4 to 7; (2) It is the Father whose character has been expounded with the words χρηστότης, φιλανθρωπία, ἔλεος, and so it would seem fitting that τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι would refer to the Father’s grace; and (3) the Father is said to justify elsewhere (Romans 8:33). However, in favour of Christ being the subject is the proximity of διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. I lean toward the subject being God the Father, but it matters little, given that both Father and Son are referred to as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.
In verse 7, we find a purpose and result clause ἵνα with aorist participle and aorist subjunctive finite verb. The ἵνα might refer back to either ἔσωσεν or ἐξέχεεν, both having God the Father (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ) as their subjects, or it might refer back to the whole of verses 4 to 6. The ἵνα clause does not necessarily require the definition of δικαιωθέντες by λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου. Usually in Paul, the instrument of justification is expressed as faith, which is arguably the result of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. So even if the ἵνα refers to all of verses 4-6, the relationship between verse 6 and verse 7 need not be identification (regeneration = justification), but, consistent with Pauline theology elsewhere, it might simply show that one of the purposes of regeneration is justification, which elsewhere is expressly stated to come through the instrumentality of faith. So Dunn:
God’s purpose in the act of salvation is our justification and adoption; the means by which he achieves that purpose is ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit’ […][14]
Faith, of course, has a relationship to regeneration. One strand of Pauline teaching is that regeneration enables faith (compare Ephesians 2:5, 8-10). Then, the relationship between regeneration and justification is not direct (‘regeneration’ is or equals ‘justification’, or regeneration directly causes justification as its instrument), but indirect (regeneration produces faith, and faith brings justification, yet faith here is an unexpressed middle term). The latter is consistent with Pauline theology.
As indicated above, Calvin allows the possibility that the word ‘justified’ in Titus 3:7 might mean ‘regeneration’:
[T]he context seems to demand that its meaning shall be extended further than to the imputation of righteous; and in this larger sense it is seldom (as I have said) employed by Paul; yet there is nothing that hinders the meaning of it from being limited to the forgiveness of sins’.[15]
The preceding context Calvin is alluding to is the clause ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου, ‘He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit’. However, co-location of regeneration and justification does not necessarily suggest that they are identical motifs, or that they condition or define each other. Rather, the co-location of regeneration, justification, and indeed sonship (through κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν), might alternatively be explained by Paul gathering distinct aspects of salvation into a trustworthy saying in short compass. Paul in a trustworthy saying worthy of remembrance seems to be bringing together numerous distinct but related motifs and themes related to salvation to give a well-rounded picture to commit to memory.
Calvin’s opposite instinct to limit the word δικαιόω to the imputation of righteousness and forgiveness (despite his observation as to what the context seems to demand) maintains the well-attested forensic usage of δικαιόω in the LXX and elsewhere in Paul and is much more likely correct. Ziesler holds that ‘a declaratory (not a demonstrative) one is equally possible, and is to be preferred as following the usual meaning in other literature’.[16] Knight is correct to note that δικαιόω has the usual Pauline sense, that they are ‘declared righteous in Gods sight and forgiven of sins. It thus refers to a judgment made by God in which already, here and now, God has acquitted sinners and pronounced them righteous’.[17] Marshall rightly rejects the view that the meaning is ‘having been made morally upright by his grace’.[18] The colocation of δικαιόω and the instrumentality of χάρις occurs also at Romans 3:24 so is not that unusual.
In the clause διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι, the anaphoric and personal demonstrative τῇ ἐκείνου most likely refers to τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ in verse 4 rather than Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in verse 6 or πνεύματος ἁγίου in verse 5. It is God who justifies (compare Romans 8:33, θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν), that we might become heirs. The way God saves in verse 7 is through justifying us through his grace. The way God saves in verse 6 is the rich outpouring of the Holy Spirit who regenerates and renews. They are two distinct but related aspects of salvation. The similarity of the description τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν applied to both God and Jesus Christ suggests the equality of the Father and the Son. In verse 4, God is saviour, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ⸀ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ ⸂τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος . Likewise God is savior through Jesus Christ who is our Saviour through δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι. This clause should probably explained by the ‘οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ’, which would reflect a typically Pauline expression of justification by grace apart from works.
The motif of adoption is suggested by κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν and is likewise a forensic category. The preceding aorist participle (δικαιωθέντες) either expresses attendant circumstances,[19] or perhaps logically but not temporally antecedent circumstances to the main aorist subjunctive verb κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν. Wallace observes that in the case of attendant circumstances, ‘the participle is something of a prerequisite before the action of the main verb can occur’.[20] In either case, the progression is from justification to inheritance (which itself connotes the Pauline motif of adoption). The grammar would therefore express the relationship between the foundational blessing of justification as remission of sins and imputation of righteousness, which culminates into the higher blessing of inheritance which connotes sonship.
The reference to hope (ἐλπίδα) in verse 7 suggests that we become heirs in the present, not the future, as who hopes for what he already has? (Romans 8:24).[21] It is most likely, therefore, that the reference to justification and becoming heirs are present consequences or results of regeneration and renewal. The mention of ‘eternal life’ (ζωῆς αἰωνίου) shows the end point of regeneration and renewal. Regeneration and renewal is fulfilled by and culminates in eternal life.
Calvin’s concession that justification may include regeneration in Titus 3:7 is indeed surprising, given that two years before the writing of his commentary on Titus he had written, ‘let Regeneration be what it may, we deny that justification is to be placed in it’.[22] Again, 10 years later in his final edition of the Institutes (1559), he would sharply criticize Osiander for mixing the gift of regeneration with the free justification by thinking they are one and the same.[23] Nevertheless, it is clear that a reading of Titus 3:7 is available to us that neither does violence to the text nor is inconsistent with Calvin’s general view of an exclusively forensic justification.
[1] Obviously I take the Pastorals as genuinely Pauline.
[2] Calvin, Comm 3:7 in CC 21:335
[3] The latter being the view of Alford, 3:423-4
[4] C J Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997), 212.
[5] Calvin, Comm Titus 3:5 in CC 21:331-2.
[6] G W Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: NIGTC (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1992), 340.
[7] Alford, 3:423.
[8] I H Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles: ICC (London/New York: T&T Clark, 1999), 314. I would add that that Pauline thinking was already that wide as the state because Paul wrote the Pastorals, contra Marshall, and that what was implicit in Romans 3:21-4:25, that post-conversion works are excluded from justification, is here made explicit by the same Apostle.
[9] ibid, 315.
[10] Eg Alford, 3:424.
[11] So J D G Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM, 1970), 168.
[12] Dunn, Baptism, 168. Also Marshall, 318
[13] Dunn, Baptism, 166.
[14] ibid, 167.
[15] Calvin, Comm Titus 3:7 in CC 21:335-6.
[16] J A Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: CUP, 1972), 155.
[17] Knight, 346.
[18] Marshall, 324.
[19] Dunn calls it ‘a coincident aorist participle’ for ‘no Paulinist would think to distinguish the event of being justified from of becoming an heir ‘in hope of eternal life’, or either from the event of becoming a Christian’: Dunn, Baptism, 167.
[20] D B Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 643
[21] ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς, ὃ γὰρ βλέπει τίς ἐλπίζει; || But hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he already has?
[22] John Calvin, Tracts and Treaties (Tr H Beveridge: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Soc, 1851), III.244 as cited by P Lilliback, ‘Calvin’s Development of the Doctrine of Forensic Justification’, in K S Oliphint, Justified in Christ (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 64.
[23] Ibid.