The Justification of Speech
Jesus tells us,
“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).
These are among the most sobering words in all of Scripture.
Two difficulties confront us here: one doctrinal and the other practical. Although it would be a great mistake to infer that one is merely “theoretical” and that only the other is of ultimate concern. In fact, our two difficulties are tangled together, and when once we untie the doctrinal knots, we will be prepared to discover comfort to the soul that would otherwise be merely wishful thinking. The first concerns the notion that since our words “justify” us at the Last Judgment, that therefore we cannot possibly be justified by faith alone; and the second has to do with the experience of that Day itself, and what seems to be a most unbearable prospect.
The Analogy of Faith and the Two Senses of the Word ‘Justify’
Passages such as this about “every careless word” (Mat. 12:36), or as Jesus puts it elsewhere, our “secrets revealed” (Lk. 12:2-3; cf. Rom. 2:16), just as with texts speaking of God rendering according to works (e.g. Rom. 2:6, 13)—at first glance, these may not seem consistent with Christ bearing our shame or with justification by faith alone. But what is inconsistent is not the verses themselves, but our immediate inferences about them.
Let us remember that principle called the “analogy of faith,” namely, that we interpret Scripture with Scripture, and that, by letting the more clear passages determine the sense of the less clear passages. We may recall that one kind of passage can be clearer than another by 1. its comparative brevity, 2. its unanimous translation, 3. its obvious context, 4. its straightforward genre, 5. its greater frequency, 6. its necessity or universality, or 7. its conformity to the law.
In the case of “justification passages,” let us borrow from that third category. Context, context, context. In other words, we might just want to ask about the two (or more) passages that are being compared: Are these even speaking about justification in the same sense as each other to begin with? In my experience this question is either neglected or dismissed from the start. That is rather unreasonable given the whole point of the claimed contradiction.
R. C. Sproul commented on this verse, that “Jesus was not speaking here about the doctrine of justification. He was talking about manifesting what is in the heart.”1 Someone may claim that this is special pleading: “The word is what it is!” However, a simple comparison to another verse and a little bit of common sense will make us blush to argue in this way any longer. The verse I have in mind at first comes from Luke’s Gospel. These are more words of Jesus, where He says,
“When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just” (Lk. 7:29).
I understand why the ESV rendered edikaiōsan here “declared just” rather than “justified,” to avoid confusion in the modern English ear, but the root word dikaioó can mean either legally acquit, declare righteous, or recognize to be righteous. And in case you are wondering—no, there is not a different Greek word used in any of the New Testament passages. So you are stuck with this single word across the board. It can be either forensic or else moral. So how do we tell in each case? Very simple. Context.
Now does anyone want to seriously argue that God needs to be “justified” by man in the sense of being declared innocent of charges against him? Would anyone want to apply to be the judge in that case! Very well, then let us not be so obtuse. In fact, we use this English word “justify” in evidential matters all the time. Everyone from mischievous children to even more mischievous politicians justify their actions. That is to say, they excuse themselves. A logician has a justification column in deduction. So there is “truth justification.” A coach’s call to go for it on fourth down in his own territory is justified on account of having a horrible punter and only two minutes left in a game. The concept turns out to be commonplace and wide-ranging.
Perhaps you have been in conversations with Roman Catholics or those of other traditions, who will appeal to James 2:24 to show that we are actually justified by our works. “James couldn’t be any clearer,” they say, “since his statement is that, ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.’”
We have no need to smooth out those words, or in any other fashion to explain them away. The context of James 2:14-26 makes plain that he is using the word “justify” to mean “prove” or “show.” Note his words in verse 18, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” This is the context. The works are not to “show God,” who needs no better view from his judgment seat, but rather “Show me.” This use of “justification” is not about our legal ground with God (as Paul’s context is) but about how we discern whether or not we are pretending. That is so clear that I would dare say that the person who reads this passage through, and still insists that James is talking about the same legal grounding of righteousness as Paul discusses, is simply a dishonest reader.
But What Does This Imply About the Final Judgment?
Our doctrine may be settled here, yet not our hearts. Who has not had at least the passing thought that all of the words we have ever spoken will be paraded for all the world to see on that day?
Revelation 20:11-15 shows the “White Throne Judgment” and John 5:29 already speaks of “the resurrection of judgment.” So both the righteous and the wicked will be present on a single Day. 2 Corinthians 5:20 alludes to this as well: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
The Reformation Study Bible has this helpful note on that passage:
“Degrees of reward in heaven are taught in this verse. Though Christians have their sins forgiven and will never suffer the punishments of hell (Rom. 6:23; 8:1), they will all nonetheless stand before Christ at the Day of Judgment, to receive various degrees of reward for what they have done in this life (Matt. 6:20; Luke 19:11–27; 1 Cor. 3:12–15). This judgment will include a disclosure and evaluation of the motives of our hearts (1 Cor. 4:5).”
Again the analogy of faith is not silent on placing the information in 2 Corinthians 5:20—which is a comparatively small glimpse—inside the much plainer panorama of grace. If it is abundantly clear from passages like Romans 3:27-28, 4:4-5, Galatians 2:16-17, 3:6-12, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 3:8-9, and Titus 3:5-7, that one is justified by faith alone, rather than by one’s own works, and if a demonstration of works that follows from that is not incompatible in any event, then there simply is no good reason to try to force a contradiction into any of this.
To put it in the language of the passages describing Judgment Day, there is nothing incompatible between our salvation being safe and secure—by grace alone, through faith alone, in the merits of Christ alone—and all of the diverse elements implied in the other set of texts. There can be one way of salvation, yet a diversity in acclamation on that Day, as well as a diverse capacity in souls for glory in the everlasting state. This is an answer that opens up other questions, no doubt, but it at least gives a framework for gospel comfort and God-fearing speech going together.
What will that look like exactly? Speaking for myself, I must say that I don’t know. Could it be that each person’s every word will be drawn forth and viewed? Could it be that for believers, such a record will be hidden given Christ having already taken our shame? Or is it that “warts and all” will be exposed, and yet divine mercy be all the more magnified by putting it all away in an instant? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that at some point, every hint of shame will have its termination point: “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).
If we can take such refuge in Christ, what then is the import of this passage? Have we smoothed over its rough edges? Not at all. Simply because a thing does not condemn, it does not follow that it should not still pierce.
The Emphasis in Our Speech is the Gospel We Preach
The imagery that Jesus used here is part repetition of the tree and fruit imagery from back in Chapter 7 of Matthew’s Gospel. However, Jesus also adds a piece of imagery that one may recall a hint of in Chapter 6 — that of our treasure. There it was said that, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:21). Here, after reading 12:36-37, we might conclude that “where your words are, there your treasure is; and therefore, there your heart is also.”
So it is indeed a warning passage. Those whose speech would never commend Christ to the lost, nor as the ultimate treasure one hopes to gain, such a one leaves no mystery about it. His speech points entirely in the other direction. But even true believers can be convicted in the present and be brought to greater levels of repentance for having been careless in many of the same ways. It is no empty word of warning for either the sheep or the goat.
Here is the justification of speech. Our words testify. They demonstrate. They prove out the reality of that faith (or else its fraud). Our speech is not an alternative gospel. They are never a substitute for the Word Himself, but it is just because Christ has provided “the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:24) that the saints have conquered the enemy “by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Rev. 12:11). The evidence of this being our reality is more than our words, but it is never less.
____________
[1] R. C. Sproul, Matthew (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013) 394.
