Join My Community!
Tag Archives: N.T. Wright
Reading the Psalms with Purpose: Two Scholars Point the Way (Brueggemann & Wright)
I have not read the Psalms through in quite some time and am rather glad. This is because I have always read the Psalms in an uncritical and purposeless fashion. For me reading the Psalms went something like this:
… Blah, blah, blah… the fool says in his heart there is no God… blah, blah, blah… My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?… blah, blah, blah… The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want… blah, blah, blah… The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it… blah, blah, blah… (Taken from Psalms 14, 22, 23, 24)
The “Blah, blah, blah” represent all the bits that didn’t compute with my concept of God or my theology, nor do they fit neatly in my high view of Scripture.
I think for example of Psalm 18:24:
The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness.
That sounds very Pelagian to me. Are not our righteousness like filthy rags? Isn’t there no one righteous, no not one? Or how about this one:
I hate those who cling to worthless idols. (Psalm 31:6)
What?! Are we not to “love the sinner but hate the sin”? This Psalm does not just tell us to hate the idol worshipping, but even the person performing the idolatrous act. Or how about this one:
You sold your people for a pittance, gaining nothing from their sale… All this happened to us, though we had not forgotten you or been false to your covenant. (Psalm 44:12-17)
Here the Psalmist is blaming God acting unjustly, frivolously selling them for “pittance” all the while not only did they do nothing wrong to deserve such injustice, but in fact they went above and beyond by remaining faithful to God’s covenant! “Yet” the Psalmist continues, “for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughter” (Psalm 44:22). In other words, God! This is your fault because you are unjust!
Ya, I would have skipped over many, many of the Psalms in previous years. But two works of recent years have influenced my current readings of the Psalms, the first is The Message of the Psalms by Walter Brueggemann and the second is Paul: In Fresh Perspective by N.T. Wright.
Orientation to New Orientation – Brueggemann
Walter Brueggemann sees – broadly, he admits – a theological pattern which can be loosely traced throughout the Psalms which are reminiscent of that most famous Christological hymn of Philippians 2:5-11. He calls this pattern “Orientation”, “Disorientation” and “New Orientation”.
[Orientation] Human life consists in satisfied seasons of well-being that invoke gratitude for the consistency of blessing… [Disorientation] Human life consists in anguished seasons of hurt, alienation, suffering and death… [New Orientation] Human life consists in turns of surprise when we are overwhelmed with the new gifts of God, when Joy breaks through the despair. [The Message of the Psalms, p.19]
Consider how this plays out in the life of Christ in the classic Christian hymn of Philippians 2:5-11:
Orientation: “Though he was in the form of God…”
Disorientation: “[He] emptied himself.”
New Orientation: “Therefore God has highly exalted him…” [p.11]
The same pattern is emblematic of the larger biblical narrative, Creation, Fall, Recreation. Christians told this story in song, the Christ Hymn. This story may be seen in the Psalms as well.
Representative Psalms of Orientation are Psalm 2; Psalm 16; and Psalm 23.
Representative Psalms of Disorientation are Psalm 3; Psalm 6; Psalm 10; Psalm 26; and Psalm 44.
Representative Psalms of New Orientation are Psalm 18; Psalm 27; Psalm 31; Psalm 40 and Psalm 45.
Creation and Covenant – Wright
There is another theme, another story which the early Christians knew well because like the Psalms, the theology of early Christians was sung in another great Christological hymn, Colossians 1:15-20. The theology embedded in Christian song – and in Jewish song before it via the Psalms – is the theme of Creation and Covenant. Wright explains:
First the covenant is there to solve the problems within creation. God called Abraham to solve the problem of evil, the problem of Adam, and the problem of the world… But, second, creation is invoked to solve the problems within the covenant. When Israel is in trouble, and the covenant promises themselves seem to have come crashing to the ground, the people cry to the covenant of God precisely as the creator. – Paul: In Fresh Perspective, p. 24
Wright explains how Colossians 1:15-20 is more or less divided into two halves: verse 15-17 reminds the reader of God the creator all things “in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” through Jesus Christ who is the very image of the invisible God. But then (verse 18-20) the text turns and appeals to God the covenant maker: “He is the head of the body, the church… and through him to reconcile to himself all things…”
Psalms 19 is a perfect thematic example of how this same theology motif was embedded in the great songs (i.e. the Psalms) of Israel’s tradition. Psalm 19 is also more or less broken up into two halves. Psalm 19:1-6 reminds the reader from the start that God is the God Most High (not just another “god”): “The heavens declare the glory of God”. But then (Psalm 19:7-14) the Psalm turns and reminds the reader not just that God is “God Most High”, but more specifically that God Most High is in fact their God; he is the God who established a covenant relationship with Israel.
Other thematic examples of Psalms of “Covenant and Creation” aside from Psalm 19 (which may be the most convenient to point out) are Psalm 9; Psalm 24; Psalm 29; Psalm 33; and maybe Psalm 37.
I found the theological insights from these two scholars very helpful in guiding me to read the Psalms with purpose. To look for deep rooted theological themes embedded within Israel’s tradition which bleeds through their worship hymns.
[P.S. You'll notice that I did not source any Psalm above Psalm 45. That is because today's post was based on Days 39 & 40 of my 90 (or whatever) day challenge through the bible: Psalm 1-45].
Tagged N.T. Wright, Psalms, Walter Brueggemann
Wright is Wrong says Schreiner; Schreiner is Wrong says Me! (Part 2)
Thomas Schreiner
As I said in part 1, the word on the street was that Thomas Schreiner had got Tom Wright to change his mind during their debate on Justification (a greatly exaggerated word to be sure). At best Wright opted to use a different phrasology on a particular (and by comparision, a rather minor) point in order to clarify himself, but nothing of substance has changed.
When I came across Schreiner’s article, Wright is Wrong on Imputation, I had assumed that perhaps Schreiner got Wright to admit he was wrong on this central issue within the Justification debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. But not knowing that, I read Schreiner’s article expecting to read something convincing and devastating to Wright’s theology of the doctrine of Justification. This was not to be the case. It was in fact a rehashing of the same old (and unconvincing) points. I suppose the article was written to reaffirm “Imputation” among those who already hold to it, for surely it could not have been written to convince those who have been persuaded by Wright’s arguments!
Schreiner is Wrong on Imputation
In the article Schreiner summarizes Wright’s views and then launches on the offensive claiming “Wright’s interpretation is wrong and confusing on several levels”. I hear this all the time from Wright’s critics; that his interpretation is “confusing”. Well yeah, it would be to you because you disagree with him. But his view’s are not confusing to me because 1) I understand what he is saying and 2) I see it’s biblical foundation.
In any case, let’s look at Schreiner’s main points of contention one at a time:
1. Justification is a Legal Declaration
Schreiner writes:
Wright leads us astray when he says that justification is a legal declaration and hence it is not based on one’s moral character.
First Schreiner admits Wright’s point that justification is not based on our moral character quoting Romans 4:5 which says
To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
But Schreiner believes that because Wright separates “moral character” entirely from the court-room metaphor, he fails to see the “role that Christ’s righteousness plays in imputation.” He quotes Deuteronomy 25:1 to back up (what he believes to be) the fact that in the Old Testament law court a judge rendered a verdict based on a persons moral character, otherwise the judge would be unjust (since he would be acquitting a guilty person). But the passage in Deuteronomy does not say that a person is acquited because he is morally righteous, but because he has been found “innocent” by the judge. This is an important distinction to be made because to be found “innocent” in a particular trial and having a righteous character are not the same thing.
For example, if a person is on trial for murder and the judge has found that person “innocent” or “not guity” it does not mean that the person on trial is righteous in his moral character in every aspect of his life. It only means that when all of the evidence is brought in, the judge has weighed it and has declared the man justified on that basis of that evidence in that particular case. The man may be found innocent of murder which the trial was about, but that does not mean the man is not a liar or a thief; it does not mean that the man – in order to be declared innocent in the murder trial – is a perfect and righteous man. It only means that the evidence found that he did not murder. The judge does not judge based on the man’s moral character, but on whether or not he committed the crime. And this brings me to my first contention to what I believe is missing in Schreiner’s interpretation of Justification:
The evidence that the Righteous Judge is looking for in the divine law court is not that a person has a righteous moral character, but that the person has faith in Jesus the Messiah.
I find it astounding that Schreiner (Piper, Sproul and the others) would miss the key role that faith plays in the Justification debate. All are guilty, no one is righteous (“no, not one!” – Romans 3:10). God’s not looking for righteous people because there are no righteous people. God is looking for unrighteous people (the only kind of people there is) who have faith in Jesus the Messiah, as Schreiner pointed out:
To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. – Romans 4:5
The evidence which the Righteous Judge is looking for is faith.
2. The Unrighteous Are Clothed, Not Imputed
Next Schreiner correctly points out the rub of the issue: how God can declare sinners to be righteous? Wouldn’t that make God an unjust Judge?:
So how can God be righteous in declaring the wicked to be righteous? The answer of Scripture is that the Father, because of His great love, sent His Son, who willingly and gladly gave Himself for sinners, so that the wrath that sinners deserved was poured out upon the Son (Rom 3:24-26).
For Schreiner, it is clear that a persons moral character plays a “vital role in Justification”. So far so good because now we have come – at least in part – to the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ. But we need to remember that we have rejected Schreiner’s previous premise. God’s not looking for a righteous person, he’s looking for an unrighteous person who’ll have faith in the righteous Messiah. Christ paid the price for humanity (beyond a scriptural doubt) and God the Righteous Judge is looking for the evidence of “faith” by which he can declare a person justified or guilty. We should remember then that the vital point in the passage of Romans 3:24-26 is the role which faith plays in Justification, as the text makes abundantly clear: “As to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus”. God is just not by justifying the wicked or by justifying the righteous but by justifying those who have faith in the faithful Messiah.
The point Schreiner is drawing out is the substitutionary death of Jesus by quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And again in Philippians 3:9:
[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.
Now let’s put these two verses in the context of Schreiner’s overall argument. Schreiner opens up his post by stating that Wright believes that the doctrine of
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer [is] an artificial construct, an idea from systematic theology that does not truly come from the Bible.
The entire article has been written to prove that the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness does in fact truly come from the Bible. Now we have come to the end of the article and I am still asking, Schreiner, where is it? Schreiner has assumed that if God declares a person righteous who is wicked that he must impute Christ’s righteousness on to that person, but that is an assumption, an “artificial construct, an idea from systematic theology”, but where is it in the Bible?
Schreiner rests his case on the two passages just listed, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9. And this brings me to my second contention to what I believe is missing in Schreiner’s interpretation of Justification:
Those who are declared righteous are done so because they are found “in Christ” by faith. When a person has faith they “clothe” themselves with Christ or “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27; Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:3) so that when God sees them, he sees not them, but his righteous Son. It is not by “imputation” but by “participation”.
Again I find it absolutly astonishing that such revered biblical scholars as Schreiner, Sproul and Piper would cling so desperately to the theological construct of “imputation” rather then to reach for the precise biblical categories which Paul himself reaches for: the doctrine of “in Christ”.
In case you have any doubt, read 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9 again. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes that God made him who knew no sin to be sin so that “in Him” he might become the righteousness of God. In case you missed in: “IN HIM“. It’s that little phrase which all of Wright’s critics just keep on ignoring as they continue to reach for the sub-biblical category of “imputation”. In other words, Paul only becomes the righteousness of God when he is in Christ, the Righteous One. When Paul is in Christ God does not see Paul, He sees Christ because Paul has put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).
I’m afraid Philippians 3:9 fairs no better for Schreiner, Sproul or Piper because that nagging little biblical category is found there too: Paul writes that he might gain Christ and “be found in him” not having a righteousness of his own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
If Schreiner, Sproul, Piper and others in the Reformed tradition would begin to put the Scriptures first and reach for biblical categories rather then theological constructs of their tradition; if they would understand the vital role faith and participation share in the doctrine of Justification, they just may begin to get things right.
As Wright correctly points out:
For Paul, “justification” was something that happened “in the Messiah.” The status the Christian possesses is possessed because of that belongingness, that incorporation. This is the great Pauline truth to which the sub-Pauline idea of “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” is truely pointing. – Justification p.142
[If you liked this article you'll love N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul and the Scarecrow]
Tagged N.T. Wright, Thomas Schreiner
Wright is Wrong says Schreiner; Schreiner is Wrong says Me! (Part 1)
Thomas Schreiner
Back in November of 2010 N.T. Wright and Tom Schreiner debated the subject of Justification at the Evangelical Theological Society conference. I’ve been too busy to do much hunting on the happenings at the debate and the fallout afterwards.
But I remember a lot of buzz flying around about how Schreiner got Wright to admit he was wrong and change his views. I have since discovered that said buzz was greatly exaggerated. I have not seen official papers from the conference, but the word on the street has it that Wright adopted the phrase “according to our works” rather then “on the basis of our works” when discussion future justification. Fine. But his critics have been so over zealous to cheer victory that they failed to notice that this terminology played so far in the background of the debate as to hardly be recognized in any discussion that had gone before. If anything it testifies to Wright’s humility as I witnessed it first hand at Wheaton after listening to Kevin Vanhoozer give his fantastic talk (watch here).
But again, Wright’s critics ought not cheer too quickly. For as Marc Coretz opens a post titled “NT Wright at ETS (part 1)“:
Free advice: If you ever have the opportunity to debate N.T. Wright, don’t. He’s probably smarter than you and he’s almost certainly funnier than you.
Marc also observed from the conference (in a comment in the same post):
In case I forget to comment on this later, Wright spoke very highly of the paper Vanhoozer delivered at the Wheaton conference a while back. He basically said that Vanhoozer’s comments were spot on.
I remember watching Wright’s expressions with great intrigue as he took in Vanhoozer’s suggestion of “adopotion” as perhaps the missing link in Wright’s understanding of Justification. I too was blow away by that part Vanhoozer’s paper.
In any case, from reports I’ve read – aside from those anti-Wright bloggers who got themselves hung up on the “according to our works” phrase – nothing significant of Wright’s view of Justification has altered. If anything, with each debate we find Wright better articulating his views; simplifying his terms and explaining their definitions and usage with greater ease.
Perhaps it can be argued (and I think this is absolutely the central issue) that the central issue of the debate is over Wright’s rejection of the theological construct of “Imputation”. It is this – more than anything else – that has caused so many in the Reformed camp (Sproul, Piper, Schreiner et cetera) to rise up and set Wright straight. That was the cause which the ETS conference occasioned.
Is Justification about getting saved or about being saved (soteriology or ecclesiology)? Is it about a persons moral character or a judicial declaration? Are we imputed God’s righteousness (or Christ’s righteousness) or is it through Union with Christ that we are declared Justified?
An article by Thomas Schreiner has come to my attention titled “Wright Is Wrong on Imputation“. In it Schreiner seeks answers these central questions about Justification to show where Wright is wrong. I’ll respond to that article to show were Schreiner is wrong.
Tagged N.T. Wright, Thomas Schreiner
The Darkside of Christmas – N.T. Wright
Christmas – the most wonderful, magical time of the year. Wouldn’t you agree that there is something “special” about this beautiful season. When I think about it, I get teared up. When I think about Him, and why he came, I get all teared up. Probably more then Easter, Christmas holds a certain amount of wonder for me. I think the two are connected, Christmas and Easter. I read this by N.T. Wright and found it an appropriate reminder of what Christmas is all about: Christmas…
… a season of nostalgia, of carols and candles and firelight and happy children. But that misses the point completely. Christmas is not a reminder that the world is really quite a nice old place. It reminds us that the world is a shockingly bad old place, where wickedness flourishes unchecked, where children are murdered, where civilized countries make a lot of money by selling weapons to uncivilized ones so they can blow each other apart. Christmas is God lighting a candle; and you don’t light a candle in a room that’s already full of sunlight. You light a candle in a room that’s so murky that the candle, when lit, reveals just how bad things really are. The light shines in the darkness, says St John, and the darkness has not overcome it. - N.T. Wright, For All God’s Worth, p.3
This Christmas let the reason, the light, shine. For that to happen we need to remember that the world is full of darkness. Christmas is a joyful event because a world in exile, a dying world, was in need of a savior. And he came.
Tagged N.T. Wright
Small Faith Great God by N.T. Wright
One day, perhaps some time between morning prayes and breakfast, N.T. Wright took up his pen and wrote another book.
It’s good to see the good scholar continue to journey down the corrador from the halls of academia to pews in church. As I’ve absorbed his material over the years there two things which strike me the most: 1) he is committed above all to the God Jesus Christ and prima scriptura through which God has exercised his authority; and 2) that he always writes in a pastoral spirit, knowing full well that what we believe affects how we live. To that end, pastor Wright has spent most of his time struggling with his own Reformed tradition in an exhaustive attempt to get things back on track.
Phrases such as “sola scriptura” and “sola fida” have been used so cavalierly that their intended mean have almost been sucked from them completely. To begin to fix the problem Wright first devoted his energy to scholarly circles in works such as Climax of the Covenant, What Saint Paul Really Said?, and Justification. Of course the latter two have been absorbed by lay-theologia-type-people like myself who enjoy getting down into the nitty-gritty stuff of theology. But by and large, it seems much of Wright’s work (For Everyone Series excluded) has not been too accessible among, shall we say, none-reflective or pop-culture Christians. The regular church folk who are content knowing that they are “saved and going to heaven” (yes, they need to read Surprised by Hope), and that is all the thinking they really want to do. (As they search for the latest book by Max Lucado, John Ortberg, Joel Rosenberg or Joel Osteen).
But now Wright has (finally) written a book which – though laced with good theology no doubt – can be catagorized and placed on our Christian Living section in the bookstore (right next to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life perhaps?). This is exciting because I believe of all the scholars I’ve read who are living, N.T. Wright has put the pieces together the best, and now his influence may extent beyond the countless reflective believers in the evangelical world, but also to those who stick to books by Chuck Colson, Joyce Meyers, Beth Moore and John Piper.
I have not yet read Small Faith Great God, but from the excerpts I’ve seen and the write-ups which have been given to me, it sounds clear that Wright is addressing a belief which is completely out of control in the evangelical world of North America. When people think about faith it is often spoken of in such a way as to strongly suggested (if not explicitly stated) what we need to have faith in our faith. In this book Wright pulls the rug out from underneath that concept, and turns it on it’s head. It is not “faith” we need to believe in. It is God.
Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? By wait. I believe there maybe something else going on here. N.T. Wright is not just challenging the charismatic notion of “having faith in our faith” (a la Joyce Meyers), he is also (perhaps prominently) taking those who are “stuck on Reformed” (like “stuck on neutral”) to task for their nation often strongly suggested (if not explicitly stated, a la R.C. Sproul) that we are justified by faith by believing in Justification by Faith. Contrary this error, N.T. Wright is showing that it is not “Justification by Faith” we need to believe in so that we are “Justified”. Rather, we are called to have faith in God. We should not think of our faith as being “Great” or “Small” faith. What we need to start thinking about is who we are placing our faith in. A “Great God”.
I may have to recant some of this after I actually read the book. In any case, pick it up, read it and let me know what you think.
Tagged N.T. Wright, Small Faith Great God
The Intention of the N.T. Writers by N.T. Wright
Blah… I’m not writing a post, only directing you to one.
Craig Adam’s quoted N.T. Wright’s book The Last Word, to the effect of Wright explain how the N.T. writers were conscious of the fact that what they wrote was akin to O.T. authority and that the early church recognized this fact.
Click Here to read the excerpt.
Tagged N.T. Wright
N.T. Wright on Genesis 1-3
Be Ready To Share Your Thoughts…
The Discussion Begins… NOW!
- Do you believe “Myth” negates “Reality/Fact/History”?
- How does Wright’s Beethoven Symphony illustration play into an interpretive approach to Genesis 1-3?
- Does Wright’s approach to Genesis result in a distinguished understanding of eschatology, or can his eschatology be held even if his Genesis approach were rejected? (See Surprised by Hope)
- Wright says that “we need to lighten up about these words, and maybe find some other words”. What words would you suggest to replace ones like “myth” or “history” when discussion Genesis 1-3?
- How do you read Genesis for all it’s worth?
Tagged Myth, N.T. Wright
Wright and Piper Go Face to Face (Nope: Piper Backs Out)
As is well known to casual readers of Covenant of Love, I am a fan of N.T. Wright and I do not appreciate John Piper very much. (I was a not a fan of John Piper long before these two came to clash.) At the Evangelical Theological Society’s 62nd Annual Meeting, the topic is Justification by Faith and both N.T. Wright and John Piper were invited to be plenary speakers for this event. Taking the position I do, the “dialogue” would have essentially amounted to Wright embarrising John Piper in my opinion. Even fans of Piper usually acknowledge that simply put, him and Wright are in completely separate leagues (Tom being in the Big Leagues and Piper in the Minors).
Still, I am amazed that some bloggers holdout underdog hopes with a great deal of misguided confidence that John Piper is more then up to the task, that he would somehow be able to sweep Wright aside, that it would somehow amount to little more than a walk in the park of Piper. I have no clever response to that, I simply stand in awe that someone could reasonably think such a thing.
But I saw Wright at the Wheaton Conferences. His respectability, his humility, his willingness to engage other perspectives, to think through reasonable critiques of his work by his opponents, and sometimes to consider their suggestions for further dialogue. I think the question of “who would win” or “who would lose” in a debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is, from Wright’s perspective and probably from the perspective of Wrightians, irrelevant.
John Piper has written against Tom Wright (The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and Tom has written a response (Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision). I think it would have been beneficial, even crucial, for these two men to have met and to get to know each other’s personalities. Who knows, maybe an unlikely friendship is lurking right around the corner.
Alas we may never know. For reasons which are unclear to me, the ETS announced:
We had previously announced that Pastor John Piper would be one of our plenary speakers at the November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta addressing the theme of “Justification By Faith.” Unfortunately, Pastor Piper has had to withdraw from his involvement in this meeting in conjunction with an eight-month leave of absence that he will be taking from his ministry assignments. (Here)
The last time I am aware that Piper took a leave of absence from his ministry responsibilities, it was to write a book against N.T. Wright (Future of Justification, p.10). Is it possible that he has chosen to forgo an opportunity to meet the good Bishop so that he might rather write another book against him? Nah, pure conjecture. I wish to attempt to give Piper the benefit of the doubt (however difficult that may be) and believe that he has not backed out of this engagement for fear of the humble Bishop or intimidation of the Bishops godly presence and vast knowledge.
In any case, Piper has been substituted by Thomas R. Schreiner, an expert in Pauline scholarship and (by all accounts) a better match with Tom Wright. Tom and Tom will share a discussion panel and engage each other on the subject of Justification by Faith. It is my hope that this discussion panel and lectures of Tom W and Tom S will be made available via on-line in the same way that the Wheaton Conference lectures were. The ETS meeting will be held in Atlanta GA on November 17-19, 2010. Praying for a good and fruitful engagement!
Tagged ETS, John Piper, N.T. Wright, Thomas R. Schreiner
Imputed, Imparted, Bequeathed or Passed Gas?
Here’s another controversal quote by N.T. Wright. Background: the subject of “the Rightousness of God” or “God’s Rightousness” must be seen as God the Judge who judges rightly. Therefore “God’s Rightousness” is his own, so to speak…
“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. Rightousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.” – What Saint Paul Really Said, p.98
I cannot see where the bible says that we have been “imputed” God’s rightousness. At least that is not the language which is used. I also don’t see anywhere where the bible says that everyone has been “imputed” Adam’s sin.
When it comes to God’s own Righteousness, he does not pass gas.
Tagged Impart, Impute, N.T. Wright
Justification: Identity Crisis
The appropriate place to begin if one is interested in understanding what N.T. Wright believes regarding Justification is to properly distinguish between the “biblical concept” of Justification, and the later church doctrine of Justification (sola fide). To this effect, Wright quotes Alister McGrath who is said to be arguably the world’s foremost scholar on the subject of the history of the doctrine of Justification:
“The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed within the Old and New Testament, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God’s saving action toward his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterize in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ.” – Quoted in Wrights Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision, p.79
I’ll break here as Wright does just to highlight the obvious of what McGrath is getting at. The idea (or notion or thought) of Justification in the scriptures is that it is one (and only one) aspect of the salvation process. Justification is not synonymous with salvation (Justification ≠ Soteriology). McGrath continues…
“The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship to God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of Justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of Justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.” – ibid, p.80
What McGrath seems to be saying is that we have a case of mistaken identity of which I am as guilty as anyone for perpetuating. I thought: “Justified by Faith” = “Saved by Faith”. And I was not alone. This case of mistaken identity is perpetuated almost every time the subject comes up in conversation. In chart format, the doctrine of Justification – if I understand McGrath correctly – is usually thought of like this:
| Galatians 2:16 | Ephesians 2:8 |
| [We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ… (NIV) | For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourself… [NIV] |
So that just as we are “justified” by “faith in Jesus Christ” and not by observing the law in Galatians, we are “saved through faith” and “not from yourself” (or, “by our works”) in Ephesians. The doctrine of sola fide is thought of in such a way that Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8 are two different ways of saying the same thing and the terms used are interchangeable.
| Galatians 2:16 | Ephesians 2:8 |
| “Justified” | “Saved” |
| “Faith in Jesus Christ” | “By Grace… through Faith” |
| “Not… by observing the Law” | “Not from yourself” |
So does this biblical support for sola fide (the doctrine of Justification) dislodge McGrath’s analyses? Does it support the view that the doctrine of sola fide accurately depicts the biblical concept of Justification despite McGrath? Well that depends on how Galatians 2:16 (and Romans 3:22) translates the phrase pistis Christou? (Yes, the old “pistis Christou” debate.) Here are your options:
| Galatians 2:16 NIV | Galatians 2:16 ISV |
| [We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. | Yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. |
The difference between the New International Version and the International Standard Version in translating this passage is not something which someone can simply shrug their shoulders at. The difference is drastic and the message could not be more different. The NIV is teaching that we are justified by BELIEVING in Jesus Christ whereas the ISV is teaching that we are justified because of Jesus’ own FAITHFULNESS (i.e. “obedience” or “works”). The first (NIV) is teaching that we are not justified by works but by faith. (There is a dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) The second (ISV) is teaching that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’ works. (There is no dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) You can already see that there is more at stake here then just “justification”. Regardless, N.T. Wright affirms the ISV’s rendering over the NIV here:
“This theme makes it very likely, in my view, that when Paul speaks in Galatians and Romans of pistis Christou, he normally intends to denote the faithfulness of the Messiah to the purposes of God rather than the faith by which Jew and Gentile alike believe the gospel and so are marked out as God’s renewed people.” – Wright, Paul: In Perspective, p.47
So now a paradigm shift has taken place. Rather than viewing Galatians 2:16 as simply another way of saying the same thing as Ephesians 2:8, the two are no longer a match. The one (Galatians) teaches that you are Justified because of what Christ did for you on the cross (i.e. his “faithfulness” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) whereas the other (Ephesians) is teaching that you are saved by grace through faith (or “believing the gospel”). The chart format reflecting this new paradigm which confirms McGrath’s analysis and Wright’s understanding of Justification is this:
| Galatians 2:16 ISV | Philippians 2:5-8 ESV |
| Yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
(Also, Romans 3:22 ISV God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction.) |
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. |
So what is the point? The point is that church doctrine has raised Justification up to be the center of Paul’s theology. It’s a categorical mistake with important implications. As Wright says:
“We find that [Justification], though it is indeed related closely to the whole theme of human salvation by God’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, does not denote that entire sequences of thought—so that to force it to do that is necessarily to invent all kinds of extra bells and whistles of which Paul was innocent—but rather denotes one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought.” – Justification, p.87
In other words, the biblical concept of Justification is not central to Paul’s theology (as the church doctrine of sola fide has made it) and it is not synonymous with salvation. Rather the biblical concept of Justification nestles itself nicely within the broader Pauline category we have termed “Participation” or “Union with Christ” or simply: “in Christ”.
Tagged Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright
