----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 23, 2004 10:05
Subject: [TruthTalk] Here is Part of the
Problem of Doing Things Lance's Way
N.T. WRIGHT ON JUSTIFICATION
by Charles E. Hill
There is so much in this book that is good and should
elicit a loud �Amen!� A balanced review of this book would focus on both its
strengths and weaknesses. Here, unfortunately, I shall have to be unbalanced.
The essential problem I have is that Wright, for whatever reason, wants to
redefine justification by faith. We�ll start with a few quotations:
��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. In Sanders� terms, it 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.�1
�Despite a long
tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not
the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a
relationship with God ... On anyone�s reading, but especially within its
first-century context, it [i.e., the problem] has to do quite obviously with
the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by
the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?�2
�What Paul means by
justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not �how
you become a Christian,� so much as �how you can tell who is a member of the
covenant family.��3
Notable also is his paraphrase of Philippians 3:9 in which
�righteousness� is replaced by �covenant membership:�
�He is saying, in effect: I, though possessing covenant
membership according to the flesh, did not regard that covenant membership
as something to exploit; I emptied myself, sharing the death of the Messiah;
wherefore God has given me the membership that really counts, in which I too
will share the glory of Christ.�4
THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION
Wright is right about justification being an eschatological definition, but
wrong about the content of that definition.
How does one go about determining the meaning of a word when it is called
into question? This happens with other controversies as well. When faced with
definitional problems, how should we attempt to resolve them?
One sort of mechanical but still indispensable way is to look at lexicons.
Lexicons are compiled by people who have tried to encompass all the uses, or
categories of uses, of words from the sources. Lexicographers are human and
fallible; they sometimes have biases and blind spots. And lexicons don�t give
you the particular contexts. But they are invaluable nonetheless as integrated
attempts at exhaustive evaluations of the meanings of words. Challenge: find a
lexicon which defines the Greek word dikaiosune (�righteousness�) as
�membership within a group� or dikaioo (�justify�) as �to make or
declare the member of a group.�
Another way is to look at previous and contemporary works, etc., to try to
establish current usage. The claim to have discovered and restored this broad
Jewish context is central to Wright�s attempt to redefine justification. He
essentially argues that in the Judaism which nurtured Paul and which Paul
addressed throughout his ministry, justification is all about covenant
membership in God�s Israel. Here I think he is radically wrong. He has
certainly not established this in his book. The covenant relationship may be
the context in which Jews discussed justification, but it was the context for
their discussion of everything!
When first-century Jews talked about justification by God, as far as I can
see (so far), it had to do with the last judgment, or with something in the
present which would anticipate or approximate the last judgment, and it was
about one�s standing before God in terms of sin. Judgment, even by Jews, was
viewed as a universal thing and thus as a universal human concern. Jews would
have all sorts of advantages on that day because they were Jews and members of
the covenant. But the real issue was: How are you going to escape the wrath of
God?
But the clearest road to the meaning of a word in a given author is the
context which that author gives you, assuming that he gives you a context. In
determining how the context points to a word�s meaning, we need to ask some
important questions: What is the author�s train of thought and how does this
concept fit within it? What words, phrases, or concepts does he equate with
the word? With what does he contrast it? What kinds of other words does he use
when he uses this word? This kind of information gives us the necessary
boundaries for defining the word. When we do this for Paul�s use of
justification, I do not see how we can follow Wright.
THE PROBLEM OF THE BROADER CONTEXT
Consider the broad context of Romans 1-5 as a test case for
Wright�s new definition of justification. In his treatment of Romans 3:21-31
Wright makes the whole issue one of covenant membership: �The passage is all
about the covenant, membership in which is now thrown open to Jew and Gentile
alike.�5 I beg to differ. Wright
concedes that it also has to do with dealing with sin, but his exposition does
not do justice to the issue of sin in the text.
Paul begins this long section in Romans by declaring that the gospel is the
power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and
also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). The gospel is the power of God for salvation.
Salvation from what? Romans 1:18 tells us: �For the wrath of God is revealed.�
The problem that sets up Paul�s exposition of the great, powerful gospel in
Romans is the wrath of God. It is the wrath of God from which we need
salvation through the gospel. It is not a theodicy, in which God and his
covenant faithfulness are on trial. Those on trial are human beings exposed to
the wrath of God because of their sins.
Paul then begins in Romans 1:18 to charge that because of their rampant
wickedness, the Gentiles are ripe for the wrath of God. This, presumably, will
get no argument from Jewish readers. Then in chapter 26 he brings our attention to
the coming judgment of God, writing, �On the day of wrath � God�s righteous
judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his
works� (Rom. 2:5-6). Having brought our attention to �that day when, according
to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus� in Romans 2:16,
he turns his attention in Romans 2:17 to the Jew who relies upon the Law and
boasts in God. Paul now dashes the confidence of presumptuous Jews by showing
that, though they have the law, they too are lawbreakers.
From Romans 2:25 Paul starts putting Jew and Gentile on the same level.
Circumcision and being a Jew are spiritual things. Being a literal Jew had
advantages so long as the advantages were used rightly. But the Jews were not
faithful. (Nor can they accuse God, whose holy prerogative it is to judge
mankind.) Paul then spends Romans 3:9-20 demonstrating powerfully from
Scripture that �all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin � so
that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable
to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law,
since through the law comes knowledge of sin� (Rom. 3:9,19-20).
Notice how the whole train of thought is controlled by the overarching
threat of the wrath of God upon sin. The pressing question from Romans 1:18 on
is how one will stand in the judgment of God. Paul has exacerbated the problem
by showing that the whole world is under sin. The question at hand here is not
the question of who is to be called the people of God or who belongs in the
covenant. Sin, or the wrath of God against sin, is the immediate problem � and
this problem is faced by Jews who are in the covenant as well as by Greeks who
are not. Righteousness is what all men need; sin is what all men have. Where
there is sin, there is no righteousness: �None is righteous, no, not one�
(Rom. 3:10).
Paul does not mention the covenant as a hypothetical vehicle for escaping
God�s wrath. But he does mention the hypothesis that works of the Law might
avail to justify one (declare one righteous) in his sight (Rom. 3:20). But
this hypothesis, if it is held by anybody, is utterly false and dangerous.
Here in Romans 3:20, �justify� can hardly mean �show that one
has already become a Christian and a part of the people of God.� Wright thinks
that the traditional Protestant view of justification by faith is an �abstract
doctrine.�7 It can only be abstract if
you also think that the coming judgment of God is abstract!
�But now� (Rom. 3:21) signals the turning point in Paul�s argument so far �
and what a turning point it is: �But now the righteousness of God has been
manifested apart from law.� That is, there is a way to a righteous standing
before God which is not dependent upon the false road of law-keeping. If
�righteousness of God� here means �God�s covenant faithfulness,� Paul�s
argument does not seem to make sense: it is not God who is on trial here. This
is why �righteousness of God� here and earlier in Romans 1:17 has
traditionally been seen as the righteousness which God bestows on us in Christ
as a gift: �the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
believe� (Rom. 3:22). This is an alien righteousness (cf. Rom. 10:3-4; Phil.
3:9).
Paul then goes on once again to place all men, Jews and Gentiles alike,
under sin:
�Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they
are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be
received by faith� (Rom. 3:23-25).
This continues his emphasis on
sin as the universal problem of all mankind (of those in the covenant as well
as of those outside the covenant), and on God�s gracious justification as
sin�s only solution. The propitiation language reaffirms and emphasizes that
the problem is not membership in the covenant per se but sin, which sin
results in God�s wrath, which wrath must be propitiated and is propitiated by
Christ�s blood.
In other words, the context which could validate Wright�s
view simply does not exist. He says, �Within this context, �justification,� as
seen in 3:24-26, means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to
be members of the true covenant family which of course means that their sins
are forgiven, since that was the purpose of the covenant.�8 In Wright�s construction,
forgiveness of sin has the character of a by-product, a bonus that comes with
covenant membership. The removal of one�s sins is not connected directly to
justification. Justification for Wright simply confirms an already-possessed
status as members of God�s covenant.
But in Paul, justification is the pronouncement of righteousness, and
righteousness has to do with sin and God�s wrath. How can God pronounce the
ungodly to be righteous? He sets forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation by his
blood, to be received by faith. Jesus� death as a propitiation is the basis
for justification, for dealing with sin and with God�s wrath. Membership in
the new covenant people is surely an outworking of this, but Paul clearly
describes justification as God�s answer to the universal sin problem, the
problem which otherwise prevents all persons, persons who were in the covenant
and persons who were not, from being �right with God� when they stand before
his judgment seat (Romans 2:2-16).
THE PROBLEM OF THE NARROWER CONTEXT
Contextual
Definitions
It is important to notice that in Romans 4 Paul essentially defines the
concept of reckoned righteousness. In verses 6-8 Paul demonstrates what
reckoned righteousness is from Scripture: �So also David pronounces a blessing
upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: �Blessed are
those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is
the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.�� David defines God�s
�reckoning righteousness apart from works� as the forgiveness of iniquities
and the covering of sins, as the non-reckoning of sins, and Paul adopts this
definition as his own. It is not �being in or out of the covenant� but �having
one�s sins forgiven.� The emphasis is on getting rid of the sin problem, not
on who�s in and who�s out of the covenant. In fact, Paul goes on to make the
point that the blessing of faith being reckoned as righteousness was given to
Abraham before he received circumcision and before, incidentally, he was part
of the covenant people (cf. Gen. 15:6).
Contextual Contrasts
In Romans 8:33-34 the opposite of �justify� (theos ho dikaion) is
�condemn� (tis ho katakrinon). In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the word
dikaiosis, which means �justification� or �acquittal.�9 In this verse, the opposite
of dikaiosis is katakrima, which means �condemnation.� The
opposite of �justification� is not �exclusion from the covenant people�; the
opposite of �justify� is not �declare non-membership in the covenant people.�
The issues which justification meets are sin, condemnation, and God�s wrath.
Ideally, we would want all three of these approaches � lexicography,
broader context, and narrower context � to coalesce, to be mutually
reinforcing. I think the traditional Protestant understanding of Paul�s notion
of justification as we have outlined it holds up extremely well here, but that
Wright�s definition fails in all three categories.
RECKONING AS RIGHTEOUSNESS
A special problem with Wright�s presentation in this
admittedly short book is his lack of treatment of the notion of righteousness
being �reckoned.� In places Wright polemicizes against the idea of imputation,
at least against the idea of God�s or Christ�s righteousness being imputed to
us.10 He must deal with some kind
of imputed or reckoned righteousness, however, because Paul explicitly uses
the terminology of �reckoned righteousness� in Romans 4. Here is how Wright
summarizes Paul:
�When Paul speaks of Abraham�s faith being �reckoned as
righteousness� (4:5), he means that faith in Jesus Christ ... is the true
badge of covenant membership ... the badge of the sin-forgiven family. The
emphasis of the chapter is therefore that covenant membership is defined not
by circumcision (4:9-12), nor by race, but by faith.�11
There are at least two significant problems with Wright�s understanding of
Romans 4. First, �covenant membership� is not the issue of the chapter; being
considered righteous before God is, and that because of the problem of sin.
Paul begins the chapter by continuing his discussion from chapter 3 about
being justified before God, and he goes to Abraham as his prime example for
his assumed Jewish audience at this point.
Second, Wright confuses the notion of reckoning with the notion of a badge.
This is another instance of �redefinition.� Faith, according to Wright, is the
true badge of covenant membership.
| PAUL: |
faith |
is reckoned |
as righteousness |
| WRIGHT: |
faith |
is a badge |
of covenant membership |
These are two entirely different concepts. Now, Paul says that there is a
�badge� of covenant membership, but that badge is circumcision. Listen to what
Paul says: �He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness
which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised� (Rom. 4:11). That is,
before Abraham got his �badge� of the covenant (i.e. circumcision), he had
already been justified by God through his faith. In Paul�s mind, faith is
reckoned as righteousness, the badge of which is circumcision (baptism).
The �badge� idea is expressed by Paul with words like �sign and seal� (Rom.
4:11). Faith is not said to be the sign or seal of righteousness, or of
anything else for that matter. Rather, faith is reckoned as
righteousness, it is counted as if it were righteousness itself. In
Romans 2:26 Paul had said that when an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of
the law, his uncircumcision will be �reckoned� as circumcision. It makes no
sense to say that his uncircumcision will be the �badge� of his circumcision.
This is simply not what �reckoning� means. Let�s illustrate the difference:
Money (paid in dues) is reckoned as membership at Costco. My Costco card is by
badge of membership. The reckoning of money as membership initiates and
sustains the relationship as a member. The card signifies the membership
already possessed.
What does this redefinition do for Wright? It keeps justification (reckoned
righteousness) at the point of �ecclesiology� rather than �soteriology.�
Justification is for him the presentation of your card at Costco: Are you a
member? Here�s my card. I pronounce you justified, come in. This happens every
time you go to Costco.
But for Paul justification is not a test of a membership already possessed,
a test which can be repeated each time your �righteousness� is called into
question. It is the eschatological pronouncement of God, once and for all,
that those who believe in Christ stand before God as fully forgiven, fully
righteous, on the basis of Christ�s propitiation for them. This reckoned
righteousness is not an abstract thing. Elsewhere Paul says that our
righteousness is not our own, not based on law or works, but is the gift of
God (e.g. Rom. 3.24; 4.4; 10.3-4; Phil. 3.9).
What difference does Wright�s redefinition of justification make? I think
it risks minimizing the importance of sin and of the atoning significance of
Christ�s death. I�m not saying he denies the atoning significance of Christ�s
death. But when you minimize the central importance of sin, you necessarily
call into question the centrality of Christ�s atoning death.
The membership concept can cloud the issue if it replaces or subsumes the
law court. You may want to be a member of Costco, or of the Country Club. But
as I see it, Paul says you have an antecedent problem which takes precedence
over all others. You have been hauled downtown and placed in front of a judge
and you have no money to post bail. The only club you can even think about
joining meets behind bars. Your only hope is in the court-appointed lawyer,
who alone can get a stay of execution from the judge. That lawyer is Jesus,
who takes your penalty upon himself.
The whole coherency of justification as meeting the problem of the wrath of
God against sin, and therefore as being absolutely grounded in the
substitutionary atonement by Christ which diverts that wrath from us, is lost
or obscured in the membership interpretation. These things may not yet be
denied by Wright, but there is no intrinsic connection between them and
justification, as I see it, in Wright�s view.
