Similar Posts


  1. Yes, we can get really tangled! That’s why I decided not to get involved in your Participatory Bible Study discussion. I don’t think you need to reject the use of legal language (as a model) for justification to have serious doubts about PSA.

    But I suppose I might ask whether, in legal terms, someone who has been “justified” is more like someone who has been found guilty but their penalty has been paid or more like someone who has been acquitted. PSA implies the former. I would understand “justified” as meaning the latter – that the sinner is found “not guilty” despite having broken the law, but without any injustice being done.

    If I relate this to modern law, I might suggest that a mechanism would be that the sinner is acquitted on a legal technicality. But perhaps in suggesting this I am committing the same error as those who modelled PSA theory on 16th century justice.

    Is this a profound observation? I’m not sure.

  2. For what it’s worth, I’m not disappointed not to get into a discussion of that. I’d almost have to simply refer people to Martyn’s Galatians commentary, and he isn’t even discussing PSA, but rather only Paul’s word usage.

    It’s pretty complex and I’m enjoying studying my way through Galatians with his commentary, but it would be almost impossible to discuss some of the material without both persons having the commentary to reference.

Comments are closed.