Future of Justification Intro
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements
On Controversy
Introduction
Chapter One: Caution: Not All Biblical-Theological Methods
and Categories Are Illuminating
Chapter Two: The Relationship between Covenant
and Law-Court Imagery for Justification
Chapter Three: The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification
and the Meaning of God’s Righteousness
Chapter Four: The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification
and the Necessity of Real Moral Righteousness
Chapter Five: Justification and the Gospel:
When Is the Lordship of Jesus Good News?
Chapter Six: Justification and the Gospel:
Does Justification Determine Our Standing with God?
Chapter Seven: The Place of Our Works in Justification
Chapter Eight: Does Wright Say with Different Words
What the Reformed Tradition Means by “Imputed Righteousness”?
Chapter Nine: Paul’s Structural Continuity
with Second-Temple Judaism?
Chapter Ten: The Implications for Justification of the Single Self-
Righteous Root of “Ethnic Badges” and “Self-Help Moralism”
Chapter Eleven: “That We Might Become in Him the Righteousness of God”
Conclusion
Appendix One: What Does It Mean That Israel Did Not “Attain The Law”
Because She Pursued It “Not By Faith But As Though It Were by Works”? Thoughts on Romans 9:30–10:4
Appendix Two: Thoughts on Law and Faith in Galatians 3
Appendix Three: Thoughts on Galatians 5:6 and the Relationship between Faith
and Love
Appendix Four: Using the Law Lawfully Thoughts on 1 Timothy 1:5-11
Appendix Five: Does the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness
Imply That the Cross Is Insufficient for our Right Standing with
God?
Appendix Six: Twelve Theses on What It Means to Fulfill the Law: With Special
Reference to Romans 8:4
Scripture Index
Person Index
Subject Index
Acknowledgements
On Controversy
Without repeating the more extended treatments [1]I have written, my aim here is to give a flavor of those reflections. It is important that we not only pursue “the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Phil 1:7), but that we do it in the right way—“in step with the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14). If Bible-believers are going to disagree about the meaning of the Bible, we should try to do it biblically. To that end, I offer the following encouragements.
Wise Words from Old Times
In 1655 John Owen published The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined. It contains one of my favorite exhortations, namely, that “we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for.”
[More important than all is] a diligent endeavor to have the power of the truths professed and contended for abiding upon our hearts, that we may not contend for notions, but that we have a practical acquaintance within our own souls. When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth—when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us—when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts—when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for—then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men.[2]
In 1752 Jonathan Edwards, having written an extended rebuttal to Solomon Williams titled Misrepresentations Corrected, wrote to the church that he had served for 23 years:
[W]hen I take notice of these things in his book, my aim is not to beget in you an ill opinion of Mr. Williams as though he were as corrupt in his settled persuasion, as one would be ready to think ... if it should be supposed, that he embraced all the consequences of what he here maintains. Men often don’t see or allow the plain consequences of their own doctrines. And therefore, though I charge very pernicious consequences on some things he says, yet I do not charge him with embracing these consequences .[3]
June 17, 1932 J. Gresham Machen delivered an address before the Bible League of Great Britain in London titled “Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith.” In it he said,
Men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.
Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul's teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter or I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.
In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth.[4]
Machen also reminds us that not just the heights of celebration in the truth but also the salvation of souls may well come through controversy for the cause of the gospel:
During the academic year, 1924-25, there has been something like an awakening. Youth has begun to think for itself; the evil of compromising associations has been discovered; Christian heroism in the face of opposition has come again to its rights; a new interest has been aroused in the historical and philosophical questions that underlie the Christian religion; true and independent convictions have been formed. Controversy, in other words, has resulted in a striking intellectual and spiritual advance. Some of us discern in all this the work of the Spirit of God. . . . Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, as Church history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation of souls.[5]
/Longing for the Day of Unity in the Truth[6]/
The heart wrenching truth of our day, and every day, is that Christians not only disagree with the world about the fundamental meaning of life, but also with each other—sometimes about serious matters. Therefore, we rejoice that it is God Himself who will fulfill his plan for the church: “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isa. 46:10). We take heart that, in spite of all our blind spots and bungling and disobedience, God will triumph in the earth: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations.” (Ps. 22:27-28).
Yet one of the groanings of this fallen age is controversy, and most painful of all, controversy with brothers and sisters in Christ. We resonate with the Apostle Paul—our joy would be full if we could all be “of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil. 2:2). But for all his love of harmony and unity and peace, it is remarkable how many of Paul’s letters were written to correct fellow Christians. One thinks of 1 Corinthians. It begins with Paul’s thanks (1:4) and ends with his love (16:24). But between those verses he labors to set the Corinthians straight in their thinking and behavior.[7]
The assumption of the entire New Testament is that we should strive for peace. Peace and unity in the body of Christ are exceedingly precious. Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters dwell in unity (Ps. 133:1)! “Seek peace and pursue it” (1 Pet. 3:11). “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). But just as clear is that we are to pursue peace by striving to come to agreement in the truth. “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable” (Jas. 3:17). It is first pure. Peace is not a first thing. It is derivative. It comes from hearty agreement in truth.
For example, Paul tells us to set our minds on what is true, and honorable, and just; and the God of peace will be with us (Phil. 4:8-9). Peace is a wonderful byproduct of heartfelt commitments to what is true and right. Hebrews speaks of the “peaceful fruit of righteousness” (12:11). Paul tells Timothy to “aim at righteousness . . . and peace” (2 Tim. 2:22). The unity we strive for in the church is a unity in knowledge and truth and righteousness. We grow up into the one body “joined and knit together” as we “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13, 16). “Grace and peace” are multiplied to us “in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2). And paradoxically, the weaponry with which we wage war for “the gospel of peace” begins with the belt of truth (Eph. 6:14-15) and ends with the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (6:17).
Why True Unity Flows from Truth
The reason for this is that truth frees us from the control of Satan, the great deceiver and destroyer of unity: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32; cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-26). Truth serves love, the bond of perfection. Paul prays for the Philippians that their “love [may] abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9). Truth sanctifies, and so yields the righteousness whose fruit is peace: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17; cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 5, 12).
For the sake of unity and peace, therefore, Paul labors to set the churches straight on numerous issues—including quite a few that do not in themselves involve heresy. He does not exclude controversy from his pastoral writing. And he does not limit his engagement in controversy to first-order doctrines, where heresy threatens. He is like a parent to his churches. Parents do not correct and discipline their children only for felonies. Good parents long for their children to grow up into all the kindness and courtesy of mature adulthood. And since the fabric of truth is seamless, Paul knows that letting minor strands go on unraveling can eventually rend the whole garment.
Thus Paul teaches that elders serve the church, on the one hand, by caring for the church without being pugnacious (1 Tim. 3:3, 5), and, on the other hand, by rebuking and correcting false teaching. “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Tit. 1:9; cf. 1:13; 2:15; 1 Tim. 5:20). This is one of the main reasons we have the Scriptures: they are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
“By the Open Statement of the Truth We Commend Ourselves”
Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace. They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them. They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ. But they are bound by their conscience and by the Word of God, for this very reason, to try to persuade the church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God’s word.
We live in a day of politicized discourse that puts no premium on clear assertions. Many use language to conceal where they stand rather than make clear where they stand. One reason this happens is that clear and open statements usually result in more criticism than ambiguous statements do. Vagueness will win more approval in a hostile atmosphere than forthrightness will.
But we want nothing to do with that attitude. Jesus refused to converse with religious leaders who crafted their answers so as to conceal what they thought (Mark 11:33). Our aim (if not our achievement) is always to be like Paul when he said, “But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2).[8]
Introduction
The Final Judgment feels too close for me to care much about scoring points in debate. Into my seventh decade, the clouds of time are clearing, and the prospect of wasting my remaining life on gamesmanship or one-upmanship is increasingly unthinkable. The ego-need to be right has lost its dominion, and the quiet desire to be a faithful steward of the grace of truth increases. N. T. Wright is about three years younger than I am, and I assume feels the same.
The risen Lord Jesus sees through all our clever turns of phrase—I am preaching to myself. He knows perfectly when we have chosen words to win, but not to clarify. He has planted a banner on the pulpit of every preacher and on the desk of every scholar: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”[9] We will give an account to the all-knowing, all-ruling Lord of the universe in a very few years—or days. And when we do, what will matter is that we have not peddled God’s word but “as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17).
The Fragrance from Death to Death and from Life to Life
Those of us who are ordained by the church to the Christian ministry have a special responsibility to feed the sheep (John 21:17). We have been made “overseers to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28 nasb). We bear the burden of being not only teachers, who “will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1), but also examples in the way we live, so that our people may “consider the outcome of [our] way of life, and imitate [our] faith” (Heb. 13:7). The apostle Paul charges us: “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching” (1 Tim. 4:16). We are “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy” (1 Cor. 4:1)—trustworthy in life, “in step with the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14), and trustworthy in teaching, “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
The seriousness of our calling comes from the magnitude of what is at stake. If we do not feed the sheep in our charge with “the whole counsel of God,” their blood is on our hands. “I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20 27). If we do not “equip the saints” by living in a way that exalts Christ, and by teaching what accords with the gospel, it will be laid to our account, if our people are “children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).
More importantly, eternal life hangs in the balance: “We are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:15). How we live and what we teach will make a difference in whether people obey the gospel or meet Jesus in the fire of judgment, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:7-8).
This is why Paul was so provoked at the false teaching in Galatia. It was “another gospel” and would bring eternal ruin to those who embraced it. This accounts for his unparalled words: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). Getting the good news about Jesus right is a matter of life and death. It is the message “by which you are being saved” (1 Cor. 15:2).
If Righteousness Were Through the Law, Then Christ Died for No Purpose
Therefore, the subject matter of this book—justification by faith apart from works of the law—is serious. There is as much riding on this truth as could ride on any truth in the Bible. “If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal. 2 21). And if Christ died for no purpose, we are still in our sins, and those who have died in Christ have perished. Paul called down a curse on those who bring a different gospel because “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Gal. 3:10), and he would spare us this curse. “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law” (Gal. 5:4). And if we are severed from Christ, there is no one to bear our curse, because “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). I hope that the mere existence of this book will raise the stakes in the minds of many and promote serious study and faithful preaching of the gospel, which includes the good news of justification by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16).
N. T. Wright
My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but that his portrayal of the gospel—an of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize. It may be that in his own mind and heart Wright has a clear and firm grasp on the gospel of Christ and the biblical meaning of justification. But in my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners, or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God.
Nicholas Thomas Wright is a British New Testament Scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England. He is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, ecumenical involvement, prophetic social engagement, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment.[10] As critical as this book is of
Wright’s understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the book is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham—and more. In this book, my hope, most remotely, is that Wright might be influenced to change some of what he thinks concerning justification and the gospel. Less remotely, I hope that he might clarify, in future writings, some things that I have stumbled over. But most optimistically, I hope that those who consider this book and read N. T. Wright will read him with greater care, deeper understanding, and less inclination to find Wright’s retelling of the story of justification compelling.
“This Whole Thing Is Going to Fly”
For the last thirty years, Wright has been rethinking and retelling the theology of the New Testament. He recalls an experience in the mid-seventies when Romans 10:3[11] became the fulcrum of a profoundly new way of looking at Paul’s theology. He was trying to make sense of Paul on the basis of the inherited views of the Reformation but could not.
I was reading C.E.B. Cranfield on Romans and trying to see how it would work with Galatians, and it simply doesn’t work. Interestingly, Cranfield hasn’t done a commentary on Galatians. It’s very difficult. But I found then, and this was the mid-seventies before E. P. Sanders was published, before there was such a thing as a “new perspective,” that I came out with this reading of Romans 10:3 which is really the fulcrum for me around which everything else moved: “Being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own.”
In other words, what we have here is a covenant status which is for Jews and Jews only. I have a vivid memory of going home that night, sitting up in bed, reading Galatians through in Greek and thinking, “It works. It really works. This whole thing is going to fly.” And then all sorts of things just followed on from that.[12]
What he means by “this whole thing” is a top to bottom rethinking of Paul’s theology in categories largely different from the way most people have read their New Testament in the last 1500 years (see note 36). When someone engages in such a thorough reconstruction of New Testament theology, critics must be extremely careful. Their job is almost impossible. The temptation is to hear a claim about justification or about the gospel that sounds so wrongheaded a quick critical essay contrasting the “wrongheaded” claim with the traditional view seems like a sufficient response. Wright is understandably wearied with such rejoinders.
When Global Paradigms Collide
The problem is that, in Wright’s reconstruction, the old definitions and the old connections have been rethought and changed. This may or may not mean that the old reality is lost. It may or may not mean that the new way of saying things is more faithful to the apostles’ intentions. It may or may not mean that the church will be helped by this new construction. But what is clear is that criticism of such global reconstructions require a great deal of effort to get inside the globe and see things from there. Whether I have succeeded at this or not, I have tried.
We all wear colored glasses—most wear glasses colored by tradition, some wear glasses colored by anti-tradition, and some wear glasses colored by our emerging, new reconstruction of reality. Which of these ways of seeing the world is more seductive, I don’t know. Since they exist in differing degrees, from one time to the next, probably any of them can be overpowering at a given moment. I love the gospel and justification that I have seen in my study and preaching over the last forty years. N. T. Wright loves the gospel and justification he has seen in that same time. My temptation is to defend a view because it has been believed for five hundred years. His temptation is to defend a view because it fits so well into his new way of seeing the world. Public traditions and private systems are both very powerful. We are agreed, however, that neither conformity to an old tradition nor conformity to a new system is the final arbiter of truth. Scripture is. And we both take courage from the confidence that Scripture has the power to force its own color through any human lens.
What Is Behind This Book?
For those who wonder what Wright has written that causes a response as long and as serious as this book, it may be helpful to mention a few of the issues that I will try to deal with in the book. These are some of those head-turners I mentioned above that tempt the critic to say, “He can’t be serious.” But remember, the shock may only be because we are, as he would say, looking at things in the old way and not in the way he has redefined them. On the other hand, there may be real problems.
The Gospel Is Not About How to Get Saved?
First, it is striking to read not what Wright says the gospel is, but what he says it isn’t. “‘The gospel’ itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world.”[13] For Paul, this imperial announcement was “that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead; that he was thereby proved to be Israel’s Messiah; that he was thereby installed as Lord of the world.”[14] Yes. That is an essential announcement of the gospel. But Wright also says, “‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved.”[15] “Paul’s gospel to the pagans was not a philosophy of life. Nor was it, even, a doctrine about how to get saved.”[16] “My proposal has been that ‘the gospel’ is not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved’.”[17] “The gospel is not . . . a set of techniques for making people Christians.”[18] “‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is . . . the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.”[19]
These are striking denials in view of 1 Corinthians 15:2, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you . . . by which you are being saved.” But be careful. Perhaps this only means that salvation results from believing the gospel, not that the gospel message tells how to be saved. Perhaps. But one wonders how the death and resurrection of Jesus could be heard as good news if one had spent his life committing treason against the risen king. It seems as though one would have to be told how the death and resurrection of Christ actually saves sinners, if sinners are to hear them as good news, and not as a death sentence. There is so much more to say. I am only illustrating the flashpoints. See especially Chapter Five.
Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian?
Second, Wright says, “Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.”[20] Or again, “‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people.”[21] “[Justification] was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’. In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.”[22] So the divine act of justification does not constitute us as Christians or establish our relationship with God. It informs or announces. “The word dikaioō [justifiy] is after all, a declarative word, declaring that something is the case, rather than a word for making something happen or changing the way something is.”[23]
This is startling because we are used to reading Romans 5:1 as if justification had in fact altered our relationship with God. “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” We thought that justification had brought about this fundamentally new and reconciled relationship with God. See especially Chapter Six.
Justification Is Not the Gospel?
Third, it follows then that Wright would say that the message of justification is not the gospel. “I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’.[24] “If we come to Paul with these questions in mind—the questions about how human beings come into a living and saving relationship with the living and saving God—it is not justification that springs to his lips or pen. The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection—‘the gospel’. . . is announced to them; through this means, God works by his Spirit upon their hearts.”[25]
This is astonishing in view of the fact that Paul brought his sermon in Pisidian Antioch to a gospel climax by saying, “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is justified (dikaiou/tai) from everything from which you could not be justified (dikaiwqh/nai) by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39). And again it is difficult to know how a sinner could hear the announcement of the cross and resurrection as good news without some explanation that by faith it makes a person forgiven and righteous before God. See more on this in Chapter Six.
We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification?
Fourth, part of the implication of what he has said so far is that we are not justified by believing in justification by faith but by believing in Jesus: “We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself—in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.”[26] This sounds right. Of course, we are not saved by doctrine. We are saved by Christ. But it is misleading, because it leaves the meaning of “believing in the gospel” undefined. Believing in the gospel for what? Prosperity? Healing? A new job? If we are going to help people believe the gospel in a saving way (not the way the demons believe, and not the way Simon the magician believed, Jas. 2:19; Acts 8:13, 21-23), we will have to announce the good news that Christ died for them, that is, we will have to announce why this death and resurrection are good news for them.
There is more than one way to say it. Many people have been saved without hearing the language of justification. So it is with “regeneration” and “propitiation” and “redemption” and “reconciliation” and “forgiveness.” A baby believer does not have to understand all of the glorious things that have happened to him in order to be saved. But they do all have to happen to him. And if he comes to the settled conviction, when he hears about them, that he will not trust Christ for any one of them, there is a serious question mark over his salvation. Therefore, it is misleading to say that we are not saved by believing in justification by faith. If we hear that part of the gospel, and cast ourselves on God for this divine gift, we are saved. If we hear that part of the gospel and reject it, while trying to embrace Christ on other terms, we will not be saved. There is more on this in Chapter Five.
The Imputation of God’s Own Righteousness Makes No Sense At All?
Fifth, Wright’s construction of Paul’s theology has no place for the imputation of divine righteousness to sinners. “If we use the language of the law-court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. . . . If and when God does act to vindicate his people, his people will then, metaphorically speaking, have the status of “righteousness”. . . . But the righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness. That makes no sense at all.[27]
But Wright would protest that if we leave it there, we quibble with words and miss the substance. With his new definitions and connections, he believes he has preserved the substance of what the Reformation theologians meant by imputation:
[Jesus’] role precisely as Messiah is not least to draw together the identity of the whole of God’s people so that what is true of him is true of them and vice versa. Here we arrive at one of the great truths of the gospel, which is that the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are “in him”. This is the truth which has been expressed within the Reformed tradition in terms of “imputed righteousness”, often stated in terms of Jesus Christ having fulfilled the moral law and thus having accumulated a “righteous” status which can be shared with all his people. As with some other theological problems, I regard this as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way, and the trouble when you do that is that things on both sides of the equation, and the passages which are invoked to support them, become distorted.[28]
I doubt it. But we will save the argument for Chapter Eight.
Future Justification on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived?
Sixth, Wright makes startling statements to the effect that our future justification will be on the basis of works. “The Spirit is the path by which Paul traces the route from justification by faith in the present to justification, by the complete life lived, in the future.”[29] “Paul has . . . spoken in Romans 2 about the final justification of God’s people on the basis of their whole life.”[30] “Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly (according to [Rom.] 2:14-16 and 8:9-11) on the basis of the entire life.”[31] That he means future “justification by works” is seen in the following quote:
This declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit—that is, it occurs on the basis of “works” in Paul’s redefined sense. And near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the call of the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.[32]
Again, beware of thinking this means what you might think it means. Remember he has redefined justification. It is not what makes you a Christian or saves you. It may be then that what is meant here is no more than what I might mean when I say that our good works are the necessary evidence of faith in Christ at the last day. Perhaps. But it is not so simple. There is more in Chapter Seven.
Nothing of the Self-Righteous and Boastful Legalism?
Seventh, Wright follows the New Perspective watchword that Paul was not facing “legalistic works-righteousness” in his churches. The warnings against depending on the law are not against legalism, but ethnocentrism. Wright is by no means a stereotypical New Perspective scholar, and goes his own way on many fronts. But he does embrace the fundamental claim of the New Perspective on Paul as articulated by E. P. Sanders:
[Sanders’] major point, to which all else is subservient, can be quite simply stated. Judaism in Paul’s day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. If we imagine that it was, and that Paul was attacking it as if it was, we will do great violence to it and to him. . . . The Jew keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace—not, in other words, in order to get into the covenant people, but to stay in. Being “in” in the first place was God’s gift. This scheme Sanders famously labeled as “covenantal nomism” (from the Greek nomos, law).[33]
When Wright did his own research, for example, into the mind of the Qumran sect represented in 4QMMT, he concluded that these documents “reveal nothing of the self-righteous and boastful ‘legalism’ which used to be thought characteristic of Jews in Paul’s day.”[34] In Chapters Nine and Ten, I will examine whether 4QMMT sustains this judgment. More importantly I will try to dig out what the implications are of the fact that a common root of self-righteousness lives beneath both overt legalism and Jewish ethnocentrism. Something was damnable in the Galatian controversy (Gal. 1:8-9). If it was ethnocentrism, it is hard to believe that the hell-bound ethnocentrists were “keeping the law out of gratitude, as a proper response to grace.” But we will have much more to say on this Chapters Nine and Ten.
Is God’s Righteousness the Same as His Covenant Faithfulness?
Eighth, I will mention one more thing that I think should be startling but no longer is. Wright understands “the righteousness of God” generally as meaning God’s “covenant faithfulness.” It does include “his impartiality, his proper dealing with sin and his helping of the helpless.”[35] But chiefly it is “his faithfulness to his covenant promises to Abraham.”[36] I am going to argue in Chapter Three that these descriptions stay too much on the surface. They denote some of the things righteousness does, but do not press down to the common root beneath these behaviors as to what God’s righteousness is. When Paul says, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21), one must break the back of exegesis to make this mean, “We become the covenant faithfulness of God.” This is exactly what Wright does—in one of the most eccentric articles in all his work.[37] Chapter Eleven is an effort to show that this unprecedented reinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not stand.
The Future of Justification
For these eight reasons, and more that will emerge along the way, I am not optimistic that the biblical doctrine of justification will flourish where N. T. Wright’s portrayal holds sway. I do not see his vision as a compelling retelling of what Saint Paul really said. And I think, as it stands now, it will bring great confusion to the church at a point where she desperately needs clarity. I don’t think this confusion is the necessary dust that must settle when great new discoveries have been made. Instead, if I read the situation correctly, the confusion is owing to the ambiguities in Wright’s own expressions, and to the fact that, unlike his treatment of some subjects, his paradigm for justification does not fit well with the ordinary reading of many texts, and leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ah-ha experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity.
The future of justification will be better served, I think, with older guides rather than the new ones.[38] When it comes to the deeper issues of how justification really works both in Scriptures and in the human soul, I don’t think N. T. Wright is as illuminating as Martin Luther or John Owen or Leon Morris. But that remains to be shown.
I end the Introduction where I began. My little earthly life is too far spent to care much about the ego gratification of scoring points in debate. I am still a sinner depending on Christ for my righteousness before God. So I am quite capable of fear and pride. But I do hope that, where I have made mistakes, I will be willing to admit it. There are far greater things at stake than my fickle sense of gratification or regret. Among these greater things are the faithful preaching of the gospel, the care of guilt-ridden souls, the spiritual power of sacrificial deeds of love, the root of humble Christian political and social engagement, and the courage of Christian missions to confront all the religions of the world with the supremacy of Christ as the only way to escape the wrath to come. When the gospel itself is distorted or blurred, everything else is eventually affected. May the Lord give us help in these days to see the word of his grace with clarity, and savor it with humble and holy zeal, and spread it without partiality so that millions may believe and be saved, to the praise of the glory of God’s grace.
----
[1] The fullest statements I have made about controversy among Christians are found in “Charity, Clarity, and Hope: The Controversy and the Cause of Christ” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006), pp. 403-422, and Contending for Our All: Defending Truth an Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athenasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006), especially the Introduction and Conclusion.
[2] John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae; or, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Vol. 12, The Works of John Owen, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1966), p. 52.
[3] Jonathan Edwards, Letters and Personal Writings, ed. by George S. Glaghorn, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 16 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 480-481.
[4] J. Gresham Machen, “Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, ed. D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2004), 148-149.
[5] J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (1925; reprint Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 42-43
[6] The remainder of this note on controversy is adapted from the Conclusion of John Piper, .
[7] He addresses the danger of boasting in leaders (1:10-3:23), the limits of sexual freedom (5:1-8), the extent of true separation (5:9-13), the proper handling of lawsuits (6:1-8), the goodness of sexual relations in marriages (7:1-16), the nature of Christian freedom (8:1-13), the proper demeanor for men and women in worship (11:2-16), how to behave at the Lord’s supper (11:17-34), the use of spiritual gifts (12-14), and the nature and the reality of the resurrection (15).
[8] These final paragraphs are based what I wrote earlier in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “Clarity Charity and Hope,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 404-406.
[9] These are the words of James Denney quoted in John Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 325.
[10] An abundance of information about Dr. Wright—as well as written, audio, and video materials by him—are available at http://www.ntwrightpage.com.
[11] “For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.”
[12] http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/travis_tamerius/interview_with_n_t_wright.htm
[13] N. T. Wright, “Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1: Starting Points and Opening Reflections,” at the Pastors Conference of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana. Accessed 5-11-07 at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Auburn_Paul.htm.
[14] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 46.
[15] Ibid., p. 133.
[16] Ibid., p. 90.
[17] Ibid., p. 60.
[18] Ibid., p. 153.
[19] Ibid., p. 133.
[20] N. T. Wright, Paul In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 125.
[21] What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 119.
[22] Ibid.
[23] N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” in Bruce L. Mc Cormack, editor, Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 258.
[24] What Saint Paul Really Said, pp. 132.
[25] Ibid., p. 116.
[26] “New Perspectives on Paul,” p. 261.
[27] What Saint Paul Really Said, pp. 98-99.
[28] “Paul in Different Perspectives.” Accessed 5-11-07 at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Auburn_Paul.htm.
[29] Paul in Fresh Perspective, p. 148. Emphasis added.
[30] Ibid., p. 121. Emphasis added.
[31] What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 129. Emphasis added.
[32] “New Perspectives on Paul,” p. 260. First two emphases added.
[33] What Saint Paul Really Said, pp. 18-19.
[34] N. T. Wright, “4QMMT and Paul: Justification, ‘Works,’ and Eschatology,” in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. Aang-Won (Aaron) Son (New York and London: T&T Clark, 2006), p. 106.
[35] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), p. 36.
[36] Ibid.
[37] N. T. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God” in David M. Hay, editor, Pauline theology, Vol. II, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 203.
[38] In a sobering review of Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, Scott Manetsch wisely writes, “Now more than ever, there is urgent need for evangelical Protestants in North America to ‘protest’ against theological superficiality, to eschew cultural faddishness and myopic presentism, and recover their historic roots, not only in the religious awakenings of colonial America, but in the Christian renewal movements of sixteenth-century Europe. Evangelicals who make this journey to Wittenberg and Geneva, to Zurich and Edinburgh and London will discover a world of profound biblical and theological insight, a rich deposit of practical wisdom, a gift given by God to his church for life and ministry in the twenty-first century.” Scott Manetsch, “Discerning the Divide: A Review Article,” in TrinJ, 28NS (2007) pp. 62-63.