Wright up close

|

In our last issue, we looked at the way in which the rise of ‘the New Perspective on Paul’ has led to a radical rethinking of the doctrine of justification; one that is at odds with the traditional evangelical understanding inherited from the Reformation. Perhaps the most vocal and best known proponent of this ‘New Perspective’ is Tom Wright, who has already been introduced. This article seeks to show that the ‘New Perspective’ (generally) and Tom Wright’s position (particularly) are far less Scriptural than the traditional evangelical understanding of justification.

Before going any further, we apologize for the ‘heady’ nature of much of the material that follows, and ask that readers patiently persevere with it. It’s a subtle and important challenge that lies ahead of us, which requires historical and biblical analysis. After this is done, the practical and pastoral problems can be properly understood and dealt with (as we intend to do in the third and final article in the next issue).

Points of appreciation

Not all of the insights and emphases of the ‘New Perspective’ are invalid or unhelpful. Some, in fact, serve to enhance and illumine our understanding of Paul’s teaching. Therefore, before launching into my critique let me touch on some points of appreciation.

  1. The first has to do with the significance of the covenant framework within which Paul’s doctrine of justification functions. This framework is especially clear in Galatians, which is fundamentally concerned with answering the question: ‘Who are Abraham’s true children?’, whilst demonstrating the priority of God’s covenant with Abraham over that made with Moses. The significance of the covenant is also clear in Romans (especially 9-11) and in the discussion of justification (ch 4). It is a key to the meaning of the theme phrase, ‘the righteousness of God’ (1:17; 3:21), which has as one of its leading connotations “God’s fidelity to his promise(s) to Abraham”.1 In my opinion, Wright’s emphasis upon the importance of covenant themes in Paul corrects the individualistic and ahistorical way in which his letters are sometimes read.
  2. Such an emphasis has contributed to a greater appreciation of the Jew and Gentile issue which regularly calls forth teaching from the apostle on the subject of justification (Gal 2:11-16; Rom 3:29-30). This issue is naturally highlighted by Paul’s covenant concerns, in that “covenant theology is essentially a way of describing God’s relationship with his people”,2 and therefore begs the question as to who those people are, and on what basis their identity rests. In view of this, even some of the most trenchant critics of the ‘New Perspective’ have conceded that traditional Protestant exegesis has often neglected this context.
  3. Wright’s identification of the presence and importance of the exile theme both in early Jewish writing and in Paul’s letters has been valuable. Although he makes more of it than is always warranted, it is there in a number of key passages (e.g. Gal 3:10-14; Rom 2:24; 15:8-9). In particular, the exile highlights a significant point of continuity between Israel’s plight, the prophetic hope and the work of Christ, and it uncovers the way in which Israel’s redemption from the law’s curse has opened the door for the Gentiles to be saved (cf. Isaiah 49:1-6; 52:15; 55:5).3

1. Salvation in early Judaism

Despite these gains, the New Perspective on Paul (and particularly on justification) contains several serious flaws. The most basic of these is the foundation stone (laid by Sanders—see Briefing #228) on which the whole of the New Perspective rests: the nature of salvation in early Judaism. Sanders is extremely eager to acquit Palestinian Judaism of any charge of legalism, hence his repeated assertion that “the intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it”.4 There is something important to be heard in this, as it warns against any caricaturing of Old Testament faith. However, Paul is not attacking the Old Testament, but the understanding of his Jewish contemporaries. The following observations suggest that their understanding did contain a strong element of legalism.

  1. On the basis of the existing evidence (even the literature which Sanders examines) there is good reason to conclude that Judaism was significantly more legalistic than Sanders allows—particularly when one takes into account the fact that popular expressions of religion tend to be more legalistic than official teaching. Moreover, in the literature Sanders does discuss he fails to come to grips with the ‘diluted value’ of words like ‘grace’ and ‘mercy’, which are frequently understood as being given in response to merit, not freely or unconditionally.
  2. Despite the breadth of Sanders’ work, he gives no systematic treatment of a number of Jewish works (e.g. Josephus, the Books of Maccabees, the Additions to Daniel, Tobit and Judith) which do seem to reflect ‘a sophisticated merit theology’. Even in those he does discuss, Sanders can’t escape the fact that in some sources (e.g. 4 Ezra) “one sees how Judaism works when it actually does become a religion of individual self-righteousness”.5
  3. Sanders opposes the charge of legalism because (in his terms) one ‘gets in’ to the covenant by birth and only ‘stays in’ by works. However, even this speaks of a very real ‘cooperative synergism’ (a combination of grace and works) which effectively gives works an instrumental role in the saving process. This becomes even clearer when the future aspect of salvation (i.e. final judgement and entrance into the world to come) is taken into account. In this light, performing works is seen not just as the way for Israelites to maintain their covenant status in the present, but as the way to secure their place in the covenant community of the future. Most advocates of the ‘New Perspective’ seem to have missed this important point.

Contrary to the assertions of the New Perspective, the Jewish literature betrays an unavoidable sense in which final justification is partially earned or merited. Whilst God’s grace is not absent from discussion, the pervading picture reflects a naïvely optimistic view of human nature, a weak view of sin and a ‘soft’ understanding of the demands of the law.6 These were precisely the assumptions with which Paul took issue.

2. The meaning of justification

Wright (in particular) gives an unacceptable meaning to ‘justification’. Because of the covenant context from which Paul’s doctrine of justification is drawn and the issue of covenant membership which it sometimes addresses, he concludes that justification should be understood to mean ‘God’s declaration of covenant membership’. He thus concludes that the doctrine of justification is “not so much about salvation as about the church”.7 This is highly problematic for the following reasons:

  1. Whilst it is true that a major concern of Paul in Romans and Galatians is to show who are the true members of the (new) covenant people, it is another thing to make this Paul’s total concern, and another again to define justification purely in these terms. For Paul, justification is a theological idea which has everything to do with salvation; it is the divine act of acquittal (Rom 2:13). Thus, in Romans 4, it is equated with God’s not reckoning sin (vv. 6-8), and in 5:16 and 8:33-34 it is the opposite of condemnation.
  2. The whole discussion of justification in Romans is set within the broader context of the wrath of God against all human sin (1:18ff) and the world’s accountability before God’s judgement seat (3:19-20; cf. Ps 143:2b). Despite Paul’s concern to highlight the differences between Jewish and Gentile failure at various points, the root problem is human disobedience. At this point Jew and Gentile stand together: both are under sin (Rom 3:9).
  3. Justification is essentially and primarily a ‘vertical’ event (between God and man). This can be seen in the fact that its first fruit is ‘peace with God’ (Rom 5:1) and its ultimate issue—salvation from his wrath (5:9). At times, Wright comes close to seeing this (particularly in his insistence on the legal nature of justification, and his acknowledgment that justification entails forgiveness of sins), but because of his emphasis on the covenant context of the term, and, in particular, questions concerning the nature of the church, such insights are not given their full weight, and Paul’s doctrine is effectively ‘horizontalized’. Philip Everson sums up the problem this way:

    It is true … that Wright mentions the legal background to the term ‘justification’ and that it is the Hebrew lawcourt scene in particular that is in mind. However, it is a particular aspect of this background, namely the covenant concept, which is used by Wright to understand the Pauline texts. This is not wrong in itself but what happens is that a subtle shift takes place in the meaning of justification whereby the word is no longer associated with that which is right in God’s estimation, with God’s broken law, with God’s justice and the punishment of sinners. All the emphasis falls on covenant community status, on God’s pronouncement of a person’s legal status within the righteous community. This is not the emphasis in the biblical understanding of God’s justification of sinners.8

  4. ‘Covenant membership’ is not what justification means. Wright has confused an implication of Paul’s doctrine with its meaning. Membership in God’s covenant family is an inevitable result of justification (clearly Paul’s point in Galatians), so that justification can rightly be seen as “the gateway through which people enter the covenant community”.9 But to confuse the ecclesiological ‘fruit’ with the theological ‘root’ is to endanger the very God-centredness of Paul’s doctrine, without which both the ecclesiological implications (e.g. the unity of the church) and the personal implications (e.g. assurance of final salvation) cannot be sustained!

3. The works of the law

The ‘New Perspective’ sells Paul short with the restricted meaning it gives to the phrase, ‘the works of the law’, and the view that Paul is only attacking a Jewish misunderstanding of the law. Even with passages like Romans 3:29-30, it is a mistake to conclude that the problem created by ‘the works of the law’ is simply one of Jewish exclusivism. The reasons for this are as follows:

  1. The most frequent meaning of the word ‘law’ in Paul’s writings is as a reference to the law of Moses. As this law was to be ‘done’ or ‘kept’, ‘the works of the law’ were not merely a few of the law’s demands (even though Paul’s opponents may have emphasized some more than others), nor were they a nationalistic distortion of it (although they were nationally distinctive). Rather, they were the sum of the deeds demanded by the Sinai covenant. Thus to be “of the works of the law” (Gal 3:10), or “under the law” (Gal 4:21), means to be bound to obey all the stipulations of this covenant (Gal 5:3).
  2. t follows that the ‘works of the law’ refer to ethical distinctives, not simply ethnic distinctives, morality and not just culture. This is a point which becomes clear in the writings of the Qumran sect, where that particular communities’ practice of the ‘works of the law’ was thought to set them apart from other Jews, not just Gentiles! This is not to deny that the ‘works of the law’ could and did function as ethnic boundary markers, but it is a mistake to equate function with definition, and therefore inadmissible to constrict the meaning of ‘the works of the law’ so that only those aspects of it which separated Jew from Gentile are thought to be in view.
  3. When Paul declares that “no one will be justified by the works of the law” (Rom 3:20), he is not simply saying that no one will be justified by being Jewish. Rather, he is pointing to the universal problem of human disobedience which renders both the Jew (under the law) and the Gentile (outside the law) subject to the wrath of God. This is incontestable in light of the fact that Paul’s whole argument hinges on the assertion that “no one does the law”. In fact, in 2:1-3:19 Paul has systematically worked his way toward this very conclusion, showing that the law is not done to the extent necessary to secure a righteous verdict on the last day. Romans 3:20, then, is not primarily a statement about a change in salvation history, but about the universal condition of humanity—demonstrating the extent of its bondage to sin (3:9).
  4. In this light, continued reliance on ‘the works of the law’ is shown to be a form of legalism.10 Dunn and Wright strenuously deny this conclusion, but it is actually implicit in their admission that Paul’s opponents were guilty of a wrong attitude to the law. This wrong attitude, shown in their confidence that their works could justify them, expresses not simply the sin of nationalism, but ultimately that of legalism. This is clear from the way Paul moves from Romans 3:29-30, through 4:1-3 into 4:4-5 (cf. 9:11-12, 32; 11:5-6). Moreover, it was this ignorant, legalistic attempt to establish their own (national and personal) righteousness (Rom 10:3; Phil 3:9), which blinded so many of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries to both the law’s revelation of sin and the manifestation of God’s righteousness exclusively in Christ. Legalism was thus the final explanation for their refusal to confess Jesus as Lord (cf. Rom 10:1-13).

4. The ground of justification

Wright’s understanding of Paul misses the mark on what has traditionally been referred to as the ‘ground’ of justification. Two points highlight the problem:

  1. It is important to see that when Paul’s doctrine of justification is held up against the ‘now’ and ‘not-yet’ tension that characterizes the Christian experience of salvation, the weight falls firmly on the ‘now’. In other words, Paul’s doctrine of justification is primarily backward looking. Thus, whilst there remains a future aspect to justification (Gal 5:5), justification, for the believer, is essentially a past event (Rom 5:1). Whilst it may legitimately be claimed that a similar kind of now and not-yet tension existed in Jewish understanding, Paul has clearly reversed the point of emphasis! The verdict of justification is decisively given in the present (because Christ has already died and been raised [Rom 4:25; 5:9]) and will be confirmed in the future (when God judges the world by Christ Jesus [Rom. 2:16]). Wright has this back to front.
  2. In view of this, it is highly questionable whether the terms ‘ground’ or ‘basis’ should be applied to anything other than the work of Christ. This, to my mind, is the most serious problem in Wright’s presentation of Paul’s doctrine. Wright speaks of two ‘grounds’ or ‘bases’ for justification; the one objective (the work of Christ for us), the other subjective (the work of the Spirit in us). In so doing, he slides into the error of Roman Catholicism, partially basing justification on regeneration. To make matters worse, he then posits the Spirit’s sanctifying work as the reason why the present verdict of justification is a correct anticipation of the future verdict. He says: “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”. 11 However, this overturns the logic of Paul’s doctrine entirely. The basis of justification does not lie in regenerative works or even in faith, but in the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ, embraced by faith and evidenced in regenerative works (certainly), but grounded in God’s grace from beginning to end (cf. Rom 11:6). Herman Ridderbos is therefore correct to say:

    Every attempt to make certain reductions from the absolutely unanalytical character of this justification of the ungodly, whether by understanding justification as an anticipatory pronouncement on the ground of the subsequent ethical transformation of the ungodly, or by looking on the judicial aspect of the work of God in justification in unity with the ethical aspect of the work of God in sanctification, indwelling, etc., must be rejected as a violation or obscuring of the specific significance of Paul’s pronouncement.12

As far as Paul is concerned, “the object of God’s justification, from whatever viewpoint one chooses to regard it, is not the righteous, but the ungodly”.13 Luther maintained that the Christian is both simil iustus et peccator (simultaneously justified and a sinner) and semper (always) iustus et peccator.

5. The nature and role of faith

A final problem with Wright’s position on justification concerns his understanding of the nature and role of faith. Wright objects to the traditional Reformed view in which faith is regarded as the means or instrument of justification because this (he believes) merges justification with the atonement and makes faith a luxury. Wright’s alternative, however, is to make justification contingent upon regeneration, insisting that justification is “on the basis of faith—faith being the evidence of new birth”.14 The problems here are at least four in number:

  1. Justification (according to Paul) does not take place ‘on the basis’ of faith, but ‘through’ or ‘from’ faith. Significantly, Paul nowhere speaks the language of being justified ‘on the basis of’ or ‘on account of’ faith15 In other words, against Wright, Paul consistently presents faith not as the (or ‘a’) ‘ground’ of justification, but as the ‘instrument’ whereby it is received.
  2. According to Galatians 3:3-5, 14 (cf. Eph 1:13), faith is the means by which the Spirit is received. Whilst other passages indicate that the Spirit also plays a role in bringing faith to birth (e.g. 1 Cor 12:3), Wright seems to have inverted Paul’s primary emphasis. Although in the believer’s experience justification and spiritual rebirth happen simultaneously (Titus 3:4-7; 1 Cor 6:11), the former has a logical priority over the latter.16 There is thus no room for the idea that regeneration is the basis of justification.
  3. On Wright’s view God justifies people (partly) because he sees evidence of a change within them. This is the error of Roman Catholicism, and stands in total contradiction to Paul’s affirmation that God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5) while we are still his enemies (Rom 5:10)! This takes place solely on the basis of the doing and dying of Christ—hence Paul’s uncompromising assertion that “we have now been justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9).
  4. As interesting as is Wright’s suggestion that justification by faith should be re-construed as ‘covenant membership demarcated by Trinitarian belief’, it obscures the essential nature of faith, which (for Paul) is trust (Rom 4:18-25). As Everson concludes: “When Paul discusses justification by faith in Romans and Galatians he is at pains to show that it is through faith in the sense of trust that we are justified”.17

Conclusion

Whilst there are other criticisms which could be levelled at Wright’s understanding of Paul at various points, the problems outlined here (I believe) highlight the main flaws in his reconstruction, and those of the ‘New Perspective’ as a whole. The problems are serious, and the pastoral implications (which we will explore further next issue) deeply concerning. In socializing Paul’s doctrine of justification, the New Perspective has effectively gutted it of its saving import and its central theological significance. Not surprisingly, the primary problem it addresses (the judgement of God) is eclipsed, and the ultimate solution it brings (pardon and acquittal) marginalized. Likewise, the cross of Christ is significantly diminished.18 In response, one is tempted to re-issue Anselm’s challenge: “You have not yet considered what a heavy weight sin is”.

All of this highlights our urgent need to reclaim and recover a correct understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification. For, as Peter O’Brien reminds us, this is essential if we are to gain “a true estimate of sin and a proper grasp of the significance of the cross”.19 Moreover, in Paul’s reckoning, the gift of justification is the foundational saving blessing of God from which all other blessings flow (Rom 5:1-11). To tamper with the foundation is to risk the collapse of the whole building! Herein lies the danger of the New Perspective. These were precisely the issues the Reformers saw so clearly, which is why they gave justification the place they did. We would do well to follow their lead.

Endnotes

1 See SK Williams, ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, JBL 99:2 (1980), p. 285.

2 WS Campbell, ‘Covenant and New Covenant’, in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds. GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, DG Reid). Leicester: IVP, 1993, p. 180.

3 NT Wright, The Climax of the Covenant. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991, p. 196.

4 EP Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM, 1977, p. 180. (Emphasis his).

5 Ibid, p. 409.

6 Sanders in fact notes the point that the Jews of the period consistently understood the intention to obey the commandments as sufficient to maintain their covenant status, because if God judged ‘strictly’, nobody could be saved. See Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 180-182.

7 NT Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said. Oxford: Lion, 1997, p. 119.

8 PH Everson, The Great Exchange. Bromley: Day One Publications, 1996, p. 143.

9 CG Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification. Leicester: Apollos, 1996, p. 282.

10 See BW Longenecker, ‘Contours of Covenant Theology in the Post-Conversion Paul’, in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought and Ministry (ed. R.N. Longenecker), Grand Rapids /Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997, pp. 140-141.

11 NT Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 129. (Emphasis mine).

12 H Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, p. 175.

13 Ibid.

14 NT Wright, ‘Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism’, in The Great Acquittal (ed. G. Reid). London: Fount Paperbacks, 1980, p. 16.

15 AA Hoekema, Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989, p. 189.

16 DG Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 2: Life, Ministry & Hope. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, p. 7.

17 PH Everson, The Great Exchange, p. 147.

18 It is disturbing (but again not totally surprising) that the substitutionary character of Jesus’ death is conspicuously absent from Wright’s latest work, and the doctrine of imputation strenuously denied. See What Saint Paul Really Said, pp. 98, 104-105, 122-123.

19 PT O’Brien, ‘Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues in the Last Two Decades’, in Right With God (ed. DA Carson). London: WEF, 1992, p. 85.

Comments are closed.