Wright on Justification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Part 3)
While I focused my attention of Wright’s view of Paul's justification in Galatians, in his work What Saint Paul Really Said Wright also delineates his views of Paul's justification in the epistles to the Philippians, Romans and Corinthians. However, Wright is very brief and to the point on each of these letters; but he does have commentaries on several of these letters providing more detail about the text than what he provided in What Saint Paul Really Said.
Summing up this section of his work, Wright provides three categories that he thinks Paul’s view of justification entails; Covenant, Law Court, and Eschatology. Here is how Wright describes each:
Summing up this section of his work, Wright provides three categories that he thinks Paul’s view of justification entails; Covenant, Law Court, and Eschatology. Here is how Wright describes each:
- “Covenant. Justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated and those who insist on worshipping false gods will be shown to be in the wrong.”
- “Law Court. Justification functions like the verdict in the law court: by acquitting someone, it confers on that person the status ‘righteous’. This is the forensic dimension of the future covenantal vindication.
- “Eschatology. This declaration, this verdict, is ultimately to be made at the end of history. Through Jesus, however, God has done in the middle of history what he had been expected to do—and, indeed, will still do—at the end; so that the declaration, the verdict, can be issued already in the present, in anticipation."
[All three of the above are direct quotes from What Saint Paul Really Said William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1997; (p. 131)]
These three categories are the thrust of what Paul is trying to communicate, especially in Galatians, regarding all those who believe the gospel message and are justified. As Wright explains, those who hear and embrace the gospel message as their own are demarcated as members of the true family of Abraham and thus their sins are forgiven them.
posted by T.B. Vick | 9:50 AM
6 Comments:
Gage declares:
"The Ground of Justification
Paul argues from the words of David: (1) that righteousness is reckoned (imputed) to the believing sinner apart from his own works, and quotes from the Psalmist showing (2) that the believer's sins are not reckoned to him (see Psalm 32:1,2). The reason the believer's sins are not imputed to him is that they were imputed to Christ (see Isaiah 53, cf., I Peter 2:24,25)."
Gage, in Romans 4 Paul is communicating the basis of "righteousness." He uses Abraham as an example of this, especially since the Jews were looking for righteousness through the Torah. Paul is saying that the only basis for Abraham's righteousness is that he believed God (4:3). In these passage, and this is very important, Paul quotes from Gen. 15:6, this is the second time Paul has used this verse from Genesis. The first time he used it was with the Galatians and their being threatened by the Judaizing heresy (Gal. 3:6). Note the text Paul uses in Romans (4:3) declares Abraham believed God not believed in God. All this is emphasizing belief not faith.
Thus Abraham’s believing God was reckoned to him as righteousness. The Greek word reckoned here is elogisthe meaning “it was reckoned or it was considered.” Paul is using this singular verb in the passive indicative aorist tense. This verb stems from the Greek word logizomai, which means “reckon”, “calculate”, “take inventory”, “count”, or even “consider,” none of these usages means “to cover” or “transfer” or “impute” (in the sense that the Luther would imply to it). It is usually always translated in this passage as “reckon” which is most closely related to “to consider.” Or possibly “credit” which would be more along the lines of “count.” Also, do you see in Romans 4:4 that “reckoned” is used again, only this time with regard to wages? Is Paul saying here that a person who works his wages are not “imputed” as a favor, but as what is due? That verbiage makes no sense at all. Paul is using an illustration of actual physical labor, and the money (wages) that someone is paid because he is due such money. What does this have to do with imputation? Nothing, and the same word is used. It is instances like these (and others) that have caused me to reconsider what Paul is communicating in this and his other Epistles.
Essentially Paul’s over all thought in Romans 4 (which evolves around Gen. 15:6) is God has never in the past and will never in the future “credit” righteousness on the basis of keeping the Law (Torah). However, in Galatians this is the same issue that is being dealt with when the Judiazers come around and say “you must be circumcised in order to be a true “person of the covenant” or a genuine “member of the Kingdom of God”; a focus that was clearly on “being righteous by Torah.” This is being emphasized by the Jewish Judiazers because they thought they had a higher standing before God than the Gentiles because the Gentiles were not circumcised.
The interesting feature about Paul’s example is the fact that he uses Abraham. Why not Moses, he was called righteous in the same sense Abraham was. Why not one of the Prophets, they were called righteous as well. There is, I think a two fold reason for Paul’s using Abraham. First, Abraham proceeded the Torah, and second, he was the first to ever be circumcised (an act that was a sign of God’s covenant, and an act that proceeded the Torah). So his actions could only be considered “righteous” due to his believing God and obedience to God and all that apart from the Torah.
Also (and with this I’ll stop for now), I really would like for you to explain why in Romans the very first instance of the word “justification” used by Paul in chapter 2:13 reads as follows – “It is not the hearers of the law who will be just (or righteous) before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” Why does Paul make this claim?
Once again, Gage, I do appreciate all your comments on these issues -you have given me much to think and rethink about!
Gage,
The problem I have with your practice of using isolated verses just to demonstrate that a particular Greek word is used (i.e. logizomai) in the sense you are declaring that it is used is not only dangerous to the text, but is the very thing the heretics of the early church did to "prove” their points (e.g. Arian did the same thing). Do not read anything into that comment, I am not calling you a heretic, nor am I implying that you are a heretic I am simply saying they did the same thing. So merely using single passages from the text does nothing for the overall context of Paul’s letters.
Simply stating that certain single verses use the Greek word you have in mind 1) ignores the entire context, and 2) demonstrates that you have to isolate texts in order to "show" that the word is used in the sense you think it is.
The Reformers define "imputation" as a doctrine that means that the righteousness of Christ is like a covering over an individual (i.e. a sheet, if you will), that when God looks at that individual He sees His own righteousness. Thus, the word, defined, is an actual "covering" putting something on top or over something.
However, when logizomai is used the connotation (implication) of the word is contingent upon the context. For example, look at Hebrews 11:19 – The verse reads, “He [Abraham] considered ( which is the wordlogizomai) that God is able to raise men even from the dead;” Same Greek word is used here – do you think this word means “impute” here? Because the way you are using this single word in the single texts that you throw out is a hermeneutic that demands that you do that every time (when you use it in that fashion). I cannot tell you how many times Dr. Tom Howe hammered us in our Greek and Hermeneutics classes for doing the very thing you are doing in your comments.
I am not denying that perhaps Luther (and you) are seeing logizomai as “imputation” in these verses. But, in the over all context of Paul’s letters, you have to do some “hermeneutical gymnastics” in order to explain other texts in light of the way you have interpreted the verses you isolate. This is also, very much so, the case when you get to the book of James. In one sense I cannot help but think that Luther wanted to take James out of the Bible because it simply did not jive with his notion of “imputation” the way he was applying to the other Epistles. Moreover, the commentaries I have read from contemporary reformed thinkers have really contorted and mangled in some cases, the over all text of James just to make it jive with their theology.
BTW, yes, I meant preceeded - that was a typo on my part.
"Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account."
(Romans 4:8 NASB).
Gage states:
"Our legal standing is the issue here. We have a stark choice when we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God has made Him to be sin for us. Either it is legal imputation, or it is a statement of His commission of sin. There is no other option. Our choice is between blasphemy (Christ is a sinner) and the gospel(our sin was imputed to Christ) . Imputation alone protects the character of Christ. Without it, Paul has said that Christ is a sinner, but with imputation He is the sinless sinbearer of the sins of others."
Thank you for your thoughts Gage - the above is a good point which I will delve into quite eagerly.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Reading back over your comment that I pointed out above, Gage. When I say I'll delve into this quite eagerly I meant the verse you are using - 2 Cor. 5:21 to prove your point - "Either it is legal imputation, or it is a statement of His commission of sin. There is no other option. Our choice is between blasphemy (Christ is a sinner) and the gospel(our sin was imputed to Christ)."
But once again, this is why I asked you in a different thread of comments if you thought imputation is the gospel - which you answered by saying "no, imputation is not the gospel - however, re-reading your above comment several times - you have contradicted yourself here by claiming that the gospel is imputation - "the gospel(our sin was imputed to Christ)"
These are, in fact, the "difficulties" that always seem to raise their ugly head in single verse quoting and applying entire doctrines to that single verse.
Gage,
Like David said, I know the reformed view, the biblical texts, etc. backwards and forwards - you are not telling me anything I have not already heard, considered, or studied. Albiet you have misunderstood a few of my points.
You declare: "I’m curious to know Todd, should I look at Genses 1:1 and say that we cannot determine from that verse that God created the Earth. Or should I could look at John 1:14 and say “well it seems to me that the plain reading is that Jesus, “the Word” became flesh, but I can’t prooftext, so I’m not sure about the Humanity of Christ” That would be silly would it not?"
The above is simply an absurd distortion to what I was declaring about "verse quoting" without context. I made it quite clear that context was crucial, but never declared that quoting a single verse was necessarily wrong unless you built an entire doctrine around it and ignored its context.
Along the same lines as what you are saying above regarding Gen 1:1 and John 1:14 - it would be like me quoting John 6:53, "Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.", . . . and then tell you that this is literal, since it actually says you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, therefore why do you not believe transubstantiation? It says it, right there in the text - the actual body and blood of Christ.
The same principle applies, Gage, and yet you would never embrace that Catholic doctrine which is built around that text. Why not? It is the same hermeneutical principle you are using.
I appreciate the comments, but I have nothing else to add and frankly, it has become fruitless anyway.
David declares: "Nor importantly is the NPP bound by theological rules that say Christ can't become sin since that's indeed what 2COR5:21 says. And Paul simply says it again in Gal 3:13 that Christ became 'accursed' for us because 'Cursed is anyone who hangs on the tree.' The Law curses him. That's why it is scandalous to Jews to have a crucified Messiah. It's really scandalous, no need to take the edge off. He is clearly put to shame and abandoned on the cross and dies (also something God's not supposed to be doing...tsk,tsk, maybe it was simply a 'declared' death?)."
This is a very good point David. In fact, I have gone back to Luther's works and begun to re-read his theology of the Cross - some of which I will post in the next few days. However, Luther would agree with your comments above emphatically.
Post a Comment
<< Home