----- 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.
