Wright on Justification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Introduction)
What I mean by this is when Paul’s letters are discussed; it is usually the case, with certain contemporary reformers, that these letters are almost always interpreted in light of Luther’s contentions with Erasmus, or Augustine’s contentions with Pelagius. While those subjects are fine to research in and of themselves, my question is always, what do these contentions have to do with Paul’s epistles? Paul is clearly not writing his letters to Galatia, or Corinth, etc. to deal with these same contentions. Therefore, why would anyone force these contentions upon the text of Paul?
In this work, Wright sheds light on certain epistles of Paul which have been, for lack of better term, misinterpreted (perhaps misapplied) in recent commentary history to fit a “reformed mold,” if you will. Having read Wright's work, for the second time now (once before seminary once after), and also having heard certain popular reformed evangelical thinkers respond to it, I think Wright has been wrongly assessed by these thinkers. In this work, Wright is not denying nor rejecting the “reformed doctrine of justification,” rather he is simply declaring that Paul is not communicating this doctrine in his epistles which many contemporary reformed thinkers have concluded that he is. I believe Wright has shed some very important light on these texts that perhaps has long been overlooked; perhaps this is so due to a search for passages (proof-texting) in order to 'prove' a particular doctrine (i.e. the reformed doctrine of justification).
To this end, I will proceed to comment on Wright’s work and would appreciate your thoughts as well, especially those of you who are currently doing work on Paul’s epistles in your doctoral programs.
27 Comments:
Erm, when you say that the idea of a transfer of righteousness is nonsense, methinks you _are_ denying the reformed doctrine.
Anon,
Well, I never said a "transfer of righteousness" is nonsense - also, a "transfer" of righteousness is not the reformed doctrine of justification - unless you have an explanation for why you think it is, do you?
Mr. Baggins,
(any relation to certain hobbits?)
;-)
I actually would enjoy participating in the discussion group you mentioned, however, I am very limited in time these days due to my current job hunt, so I am afraid I cannot at this time.
Feel free, however, to make any comments here regarding my posts on Wright - I will eventually be able to respond, and always enjoy the discussions - maybe when I land a job and get adjected I can contribute my thoughts - if you guys will let me in the future.
baggins,
that las comment should include the word "adjusted" and not "adjected" (whatever that means)
;-)
You didn't get me - it's Wright who says that the idea of imputed righteousness is nonsense. He lampoons it as if the judge was sending gas across the courtroom, remember!
"Wherefore, in order to accomplish a full expiation, he made his soul to "'asham", i. e., a propitiatory victim for sin, (as the prophet says, Is. 53: 5, 10,) on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us. The Apostle declares this more plainly when he says, that "he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) For the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity."
That's a guy who knows what Reformed theology is. If the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not part of the Reformed doctrine of justification, then I guess we'd all better head up to Durham to do penance right now.
(The quote's Calvin, BTW).
Here's Hodge, A:
"The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, and of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punishment due to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to his righteousness."
Hodge, C:
"this idea of imputation is one of the most familiar ideas in the Bible and is expressed in numerous instances where the word is not used."
If you think that Wright doesn't disagree with the Reformed doctrine of justification, then you need to do some more library time to find out just what that doctrine is!
Anon,
First, why don't you reveal yourself so we can all see who you are?
Second, where does Wright declare that the idea of imputed righteousness is nonsense?
You declare, "He [I'm assuming you mean Wright] lampoons it [I'm assuming you mean imputed righteousness] as if the judge was sending gas across the courtroom, remember! [I'm not sure what the "remember" refers to - ??? Unless you are an SES student, or ex-SES student who had certain classes with me - and that is what remember is - you are being quite vague here]
Third, where are you quoting Calvin - from what work? (site your references)
Lastly, why would Paul be discussing imputation in Galations? What does imputation have to do with whether an ex-pagan should be circumsized or not?
Siting from Calvin, or Hodge or any other Reformer or thinker for that matter only proves that those particular theologians held to a particular view, it does not get to the heart of what Paul is addressing.
When you declare, "If you think that Wright doesn't disagree with the Reformed doctrine of justification, then you need to do some more library time to find out just what that doctrine is!"
Remarks like that are ad hominem attacks against me - not very charitable on your part - and doesn't lend to your case at all.
This looks like an interesting series, thanks for doing it.
Anonymous - Wright does not deny that we are declared to be righteous in Christ. What he does deny is that we are given God's own righteousness, and he reaches this conclusion on exegetical grounds, and it needs to be refuted exegetically. There are no instances in the NT where dikaiosune theou is spoken of as being transferred to believers. God's righteousness is bound up with his role as judge and creator - this is not imputed to us. But this does not mean that we have no righteousness at all.
In Wright's system God does declare us to be righteous because we are in Christ, but this is not the same thing as saying he makes us righteous in exactly the same way that he is.
Steven,
I appreciate your comments. Also, very good point when you declare, "There are no instances in the NT where dikaiosune theou is spoken of as being transferred to believers."
This was the very thing that clinched Wright's assessment/argument for me; albeit there were other factors/things, that one was the biggest. This is also one of the things that led me to think that contemporary reformers were potentially misreading the text.
Mike Bird has written on this very subject recently, in an article that attempts a sympathetic bridge-building between Wright and those who are 'Wright will go to hell':
"Incorporated Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical
Discussion Concerning the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in Justification." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47.2
[2004]: 253-75)
Really worth a read.
Todd you said...
"In this work, Wright is not denying nor rejecting the “reformed doctrine of justification,” rather he is simply declaring that Paul is not communicating this doctrine in his epistles which many contemporary reformed thinkers have concluded that he is."
Todd- I am curious if you and/or NT Wright don't think Paul is teaching or alluding to justification by faith alone in his letters, then how do we understand verses like: Gal 3:6?
Phil 3:9, 2nd Cor 5:19-21, Col 1:22, Romans 4:3 and especially 4:5 and others. Is this what you call proof-texting? It seems to me that Paul explains at least (In the plain reading) what I think is the Reformed View of Justification-
It seems to me that when you say, he is not denying or rejecting the Doctrine of Justification, but that Paul is simply not discussing it as modern reformed folk might think- You are saying it doesn't exist in the text? Am I reading you wrong?
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Who's Righteousness is it that I have had reckoned to my account?
Gage
Gage,
Wright doesn't deny justication by faith alone either. What he does say is that it occupies a slighlty different place in the order of salvation.
Put simply, in Jewish thought there would be a great Last Day of Judgment in which God would judge the world. He would condemn the guilty and declare the faithful to be righteous, and it would be the righteous who would inherit the world to come.
Until that day comes, those who believed they would be vindicated and declared righteous at the last day demonstrated their confidence that they would be vindicated by God by observing the works of the law. The Jews who were zealous for the law in the present were doing so out of confidence that they would be justified at the last day. Paul says however that it is not the works of the law that show that one belongs to the group of people who will inherit the world to come, but faith in Jesus Christ.
So in this system one shows oneself to belong to the people of God who will be vindicated at the last day ("justified") not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Your faith in Jesus Christ in the present is a sin that you be finally be saved at the last day.
In the Reformed position (although this itself is variegated) faith is something that gets you in to the covenant people, whereas Wright argues the NT teaches that faith shows that you already are in. Wright would say that what "gets you in" in the NT is a response to the preaching of the Word enabled by the Holy Spirit. Faith/faithfulness is an evidence of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:23) and that you have believed the Gospel.
As for the rightouesness reckoned to you, in Wright's system God will simply declare you to be righteous in the end-time courtroom (as opposed to condemning you) because you belong to Christ. This is not the same thing as God giving his own righteousness to you however, and it is difficult to find this in the NT.
Gage,
Glad you have visited my blog, and revealed yourself; now the context of your comments make much more sense (I’m assuming the “remember” remark was referring to the time when you, David Piske and myself were discussing this very book at care group - ?)
Before I answer your questions (which I certainly will) . . . you never answered mine – where does Wright declare that the notion of imputed righteousness is nonsense? I really am interested to know where you read these very words from Wright.
Gage,
Ok, well then I am confusing you with the "first" anonymous commenter - my fault, I apologize.
Hmmm . . . oh well, not sure who the first anonymous commenter was then - so be it.
Well, give me some time and I'll post a response to your comments - however, several of your "verse concerns" will be discussed in upcoming posts. Once again, ignore the confusion between you and the first anonymous commenter.
Gage,
I'm going to answer your questions a little bit at a time (as time permits me to do so) since you have posted a great deal of information and concerns.
You declare, "To summarize your quote… It seems to me that you accuse contemporary reformers of interpreting their Bible through the Reformers lens. Can’t the same accusation be leveled at the feet of Wright himself? Can he alone interpret free of the tyranny of history?"
Essentially I narrowed down my comment to Reformers and not the whole of Church history as you seem to be implying that Wright would have to have with him as he interprets scripture. There is a big difference between the two. Your applying the whole of history to Wright as he interprets is very broad and my declaring that contemporary reformers bring certain reformer's contentions to the text is much more narrow.
Certainly Wright would say (and in fact does say) that we take our "baggage" to the text. This is, to a certain degree, inevitable. However, there is a differnece between attempting to read and interpret Paul within Paul's historical context as opposed to reading and interpreting Paul within a Reformation context.
To take Luther's contentions with Erasmus, etc. and impose that upon the text of Paul is very poorly performed hermeneutics.
Furthermore, what do you mean by the "tyranny of history?" Do you see Church history, or history in general as pajorative? Certainly you would agree that Church history is vital to our understanding of the gospel and the Word of God, would you not?
(As time permits I'll get to some of your other questions)
Gage, do have a read of the article I linked to above, you'll find it very helpful. If you need a pdf, ask the author - he may send you one.
Gage,
you stated: "Brother- to deny imputation is scary to me. I know there are many other issues that are fruitful to discuss, but it seems to me that the Central Issue is imputation and Wright flat denies it."
Do you think imputation is the gospel?
Is an understanding and embracing of the doctrine of imputation a necessary condition for someone to become (or convert) a Christian (become "saved" so to speak).
Chris,
can you provide a link here to Mike Bird's article? There is no link where you first mentioned it. I am very interested in reading it.
Hi Todd,
Sorry, by link, I didn't err, mean link! I just meant reference. But ask Mike and he may send you a pdf.
All the best,
Chris
BTW, I think I know what gets hits now! Just post on Tom Wright!
Gage,
You did not answer my questions.
Do you think imputation is the gospel?
Is an understanding and embracing of the doctrine of imputation a necessary condition for someone to become a Christian (become "saved" so to speak)?
Gage you state/answer: “Is an understanding and embracing of the doctrine of imputation a necessary condition for someone to become a Christian? Obviously, not- hence little children and many housewives would not be saved as an example (Obviously we are not justified by our knowledge of justification alone). However, to deny imputation is to deny what is the logical outcome of trusting in Christ alone.”
I agree with your answer here, Gage. The gospel is certainly not the doctrine of imputation, imputation is merely the result (or effect) perhaps of someone hearing the gospel message (the proclamation of Jesus as Lord). However, whenever you continue on and declare “to deny imputation is to deny what is the logical outcome of trusting in Christ alone” I must say that by a person’s doing so all they are “denying” is the effect of the gospel, not the gospel itself. For someone to think that by denying imputation one should doubt or question whether they are truly a Christian seems to confuse the effect of hearing and responding to the gospel with the gospel itself.
While I myself do not deny imputation as a possible result of the hearing and embracing of the gospel, I am not of the opinion that anyone who rejects the doctrine of imputation is denying the gospel message and thus has “forfeited” their salvation. I understand, especially knowing you and your family as well as I do, why this might disturb or disrupt your reformed theology/thinking.
Keep in mind, that I am not rejecting imputation (but you will probably think I am by virtue of me suggesting that Wright may in fact be correct). I have spent the last 6 or 7 years trying to find that very language in Paul’s epistles presented in the fashion which contemporary reformed theologians have declared that it is in the texts of Paul. Moreover, after over ten years of studying Luther’s theology I have concluded that he came to the conclusions he did, within his reading of Paul’s epistles, based upon his own circumstances and contentions with the Roman Catholic Church, and not necessarily based on the historical context of Paul. Since Luther, reformers (especially those in the last 50 years) it seems have done the same thing.
I see this occur with newly converted reformers (i.e. Calvinists) . . . they go to the Bible and look for texts that support their newly found views of Calvin, etc. So there is much more going on here than just a mere reading of N.T. Wright (which I will actually post in my upcoming article titled “after thoughts”). Anyway, I will do my best to answer all your questions/objections that you have posted here but there is a lot, so you might want to call me so we can talk about this on the phone – otherwise, I’ll trickle out answers as I can here.
You go on to say "For someone to think that by denying imputation one should doubt or question whether they are truly a Christian seems to confuse the effect of hearing and responding to the gospel with the gospel itself." That's a straw man Todd- I never said that. I didn't say "if one deny's imputation then one should doubt or question whether they are truly a Christian. (Although if one denies that he has had the meritorious works of Christ credited to them, what will he claim before God?)
Gage, as to the above - I never said that you said that - I am coming to those conclusions on my own based upon my thought regarding the issues themselves. Just to get that clarified. The last part of your comment simply sparked my thought regarding that issue.
You declare: "Although if one denies that he has had the meritorious works of Christ credited to them, what will he claim before God?"
As to that comment I would respond that one who has heard the gospel, believed and embraced it can now be assured that they are a part of the Kingdom of God.
Wright would claim (to your above comment) that God is actually the one who makes the proclamation in the eschaton (and the here and now) who belongs to Christ and His Kingdom (just to give you his answer). Moreover, in Wright's thought on these issues we do not earn our salvation by anything we do (i.e. works), contrary to what Guy Prentiss Waters has mistakenly declared in his response to NPP.
Also, Brother, you have not worn out your welcome here at all. I appreciate your comments and thoughts, so feel free to continue with them, just keep in mind that I can only answer when I have the time.
N.B. since Guy Prentiss Waters book has been mentioned, and I do recommend anyone who is interested should read it, let me provide a link to a fairly thorough review of Waters's work here . . . http://www.rabbisaul.com/watersreview.htm
Gage declares: "If I did the same thing with Wright- many would jump to his defense. If I did the same thing with Wright I could say, "He's only concerned with being ecumenical so much so that he denies imputation, and only exegetes the epistles through his ecumenical eyes." I could say, "His ecumenical leanings are effecting his view of the epistles." It's easy to question someone's exegesis by saying they just didn't understand the historical context or are effected by their own historical biases!"
You are correct about that Gage, and I agree with you. However, the question remains, whether it is Wright or Luther coming to the text of Paul one of them must be correct or they are both wrong. That is essentially what it boils down to.
You also declare, "That is interesting to me Todd. Would you also characterize Luther's conclusions about the depravity of man in "Bondage of the Will" to be merely a product of his conflict with Rome rather than a correct understanding of Romans 1,2 and 3? Do you honestly relegate Luther to one who didn't understand the historical context?"
Actually that was his conflict with Erasmus (who was not necessarily representing Rome per se), but yes, if Luther is "using" the texts of Paul to prove his point to Erasmus and not to understand the historical context in which Paul wrote his letters, then Luther is practicing improper hermeneutics, and thus runs into problems.
For anyone interested . . . Here is a link to Mike Bird's article that Chris Tilling mentioned above:
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/47-2/47-2-pp253-275_JETS.pdf
Hey, online! Great!
BTW, this is the 35th comment on this post. That's gotta be some kinda record for the likes of us, isn't it?!
36.
OK, I'll shut up and leave.
Well Chris, let's go for broke! Comment number 37!
8-)
Post a Comment
<< Home