The mandate of your committee is to study the New Perspective on Paul, concentrating on the teaching of justification by faith, and report back this year. Below is a brief analysis of the NPP and a short response. Following this is a more lengthy presentation and critique of the views of N. T. Wright, an Anglican bishop and New Testament Scholar. Rather than provide an in depth analysis of the New Perspective on Paul—which would involve summarizing a lengthy history of academic New Testament scholarship, as well as a presenting the positions and details of a number of authors, most of which we deem irrelevant to the interests of Synod—your committee has chosen to study and report on those points and persons of the NPP that are showing some measure of impact among the Reformed. With this in mind, we have focused on the most essential, influential and controversial claim, namely the “Sander’s thesis.” The fundamental aspect of this claim is that first century Judaism was a religion of grace. The bulk of the report focuses on N. T. Wright. He is the foremost representative of the most palatable version of the NPP, having a measurable impact within Reformed and evangelical circles. In presenting a synopsis of the NPP with a concentration on Wright’s views we believe we will have represented to Synod what is necessary to know about the NPP in regards to justification.

The New Perspective on Paul[1]

· The New Perspective on Paul is actually a variety of perspectives the essence of which calls into question the Reformed reading of Paul’s doctrine of salvation and justification. It originated within the realm of the historical-critical tradition and is now a well established orientation to Paul’s letters within New Testament academic scholarship. It began to make significant impact on the evangelical/Reformed community within the last decade or so.

· Its leading scholars are E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright. The foundations for this perspective had already been laid by previous scholars such as Krister Stendahl, but it great catalyst was Sanders. In 1977, Sanders, published his major work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [2] in which he argued that, contrary to the Reformation paradigm, first century Judaism did not operate upon a merit-based theology, but was, rather, a religion of grace. This premise has consequently led to a reevaluation of Paul’s conflict with Judaism and the early Christian Judaizers.

· NPP writers generally hold that Paul was in agreement with the main points of contemporary Jewish soteriology. His quarrel with the law and Judaism was not with legalism as articulated by the Protestant Reformers, but with either the Jewish denial of Christ as Messiah (Sanders’ position) or, as in the case of Dunn and Wright, that Judaism was dominated by ethnocentric tendencies. These tendencies were influencing Jewish Christians over against Gentile Christians. In this case Paul was not exercised about matters of salvation—at least not directly. Being the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was concern with the burning question of how Gentile Christians were to be accepted into the church. In his original context, then, Paul addressed his teaching of justification by faith at the problem of racial and religious/ethnic segregation. Salvation was not the issue.

· Since Paul is not, or at least not primarily, using “justification” to address the problem of salvation by works, it follows that justification cannot be thought of as an element of soteriology–or least not as central to the gospel. The questions that Paul is considering in the matter of justification is not “how can I be saved?” but “how can I be in or know that I am it the covenant people of God?” Justification is now thought to be less about soteriology and more about ecclesiology.

We recognize that this summary of the NPP is extremely brief, but it captures the core of the NPP. What is evident about the NPP is that much rides on how we understand the soteriology of first century Judaism.

The “Sanders Thesis.”

As noted above, E. P. Sanders set forth the case that 2^nd Temple Judaism was a religion of grace. On the basis of extensive research of rabbinic literature of the period (from about 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.), Sanders claimed that 1^st century Judaism universally exhibited a pattern of religion that he calls “covenantal nomism.” Sanders provides a complex picture of “covenantal nomism”, but in simple terms it means that the religion of Israel focused on the covenant in which keeping the law was for the purpose of staying in the covenant, not for piling up merit. One got into the covenant by the grace of God and one stayed in the covenant by obedience to the law. If one transgressed the law, atonement was sought and made through sacrifice. Sanders acknowledges that statements from the Rabbinic sources exist that indicate merit-theology. But these are exceptions to the norm, which was grace. The result of this thesis for our interpretation of Paul, therefore, is that Paul’s statements against Judaism can no longer be understood as keeping the law in order to gain one’s acceptance with God. Because the rejection of this notion of Jewish legalism changes how ones thinks of nature of Paul’s conflict, it has lead to a re-interpretation of justification itself. This is not to say that everything rides upon how one conceives of first century Judaism. But it is evident that how we understand the soteriology of Judaism is of central importance. The question we address below is “was there legalism in Judaism of the first century?” We answer in the affirmative that, contrary to Sanders, legalism was prevalent in first century Judaism.

Before looking at some of the evidence, we should note that we are not suggesting that Judaism was only or completely a graceless religion. This is neither necessary nor true. Many Reformed and evangelical critics of Sanders acknowledge that he has done a service in giving a fuller picture of the Judaism that has been hitherto seen. The old picture, perpetuated especially by German scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and Joachim Jeremias--that Judaism was nothing more than a manifestation of a full fledged Pelagianism--does not hold water.[3] Many, if not most, critics of Sanders maintain that first century Judaism amounted to a form of synergism and thus, more or less, depending upon the place and Jewish group--it was not monolithic--refer to it as Semi-Pelagian. Guy Waters writes, “…according to Sanders own evidence ancient rabbinic Judaism is a Semi-Pelagian religion. In this religion, to be sure, the language of the grace of God is not absent…nevertheless…it is ultimately synergistic.”[4] And, we would add, if ultimately synergistic, then it was ultimately a form of works-based soteriology, that is, legalism. This is seen in and outside the New Testament.

Within the NT we find several passages that picture this form of legalism within Judaism. We will define legalism succinctly as the effort to make a contribution to one’s redemption or salvation. It is helpful to understand that such legalism can be manifested either in barefaced or in subtle ways. Recognizing that either a blatant manifestation or subtle manifestation of legalism still constitutes a form of legalism is important because, according to Moises Silva, Sanders fails to see legalism in Judaism because he seems to acknowledge only when it is brazen. After acknowledging some of Sander’s contribution, Silva maintains that he “shows very little sensitivity, however, to some subtler concepts (and others not so subtle) that lie at the very root of legalism.”[5] The NT often presents the legalism of Judaism in its more subtle shape. We will briefly look at three NT passages.

a. Matthew 15:1-20

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

It is evident to all but the morally degenerate that legalism can only operate in the realm of an imperfect standard. The bar of ethical perfection must therefore be lowered if one is to contribute something towards his own salvation. This is exactly what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of doing; they were reducing the law of God to ceremonial practices in order to be clean before God. Through their vain traditions, the Pharisees robbed the law of its force and its purpose. The result was an externalism that left them unclean and defiled before God in spite of all their washings and ceremonies. They considered themselves clean, but Jesus, by pointing to the depth of sin, exposed the vanities of their washings and their implicit Semi-Pelagian view of sin. It is not that which enters into the man that defiles the man, but that which comes out of him. Sin does not lie in the external act but in the wickedness of the heart, the stew from which all sins arise. This matches the description of Christ in Mathew 23:27 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Thus the Pharisees exhibit two points which are the hallmark of legalism: they lower the standard and they failed to comprehend the gravity of sin. This is legalism at its root and branch.[6]

b. Luke 18:9-14

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

In this passage Jesus apposes legalism, that is, those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” This statement is Luke’s definition of legalism. To illustrate it Jesus appeals to the Pharisee as the paradigmatic legalist. His audience was composed of those familiar with the Pharisees, so His depiction of them as self-righteous was not a mere abstraction–it was a real life example that would not have been thought slanderous. Indeed there were probably those who smarted under his arrows. Why would Jesus oppose legalism here, before a general audience, if it did not exist in Judaism? Why would he naturally appeal to the Pharisee if the Pharisee were looking to God’s grace? Indeed, the very rebuke of not understanding mercy dictates that the whole notion of grace and mercy was a problem with the Pharisaical means of salvation.

In addition to the blatant manifestation of legalism in Judaism, there was also its subtle form. The Pharisee does not claim any merit of his own, but gives God glory for everything that he is. There is no humility here, and certainly not brokenness nor a sense of unworthiness. But he does give God credit for it all. Yet Jesus maintained that such a one trusted in himself, even though he gives credit to God. His error was much deeper than that of outward pretense. Blinded to his own arrogance and the horror of his own condition, he relied on himself.

At best, the Pharisee reflects a synergistic outlook rather than that of grace. He feels himself righteous before God on the basis of his God given virtues rather than God’s provision of sacrifice. He does not take credit for his virtues, but thanks God for them. This is the divine side of the synergism. But then he catalogues all the virtues for which he is thankful. He is not an extortioner, unjust, an adulterer, and certainly not like the publican who was at the place of worship the same time he is. He then speaks of the outward ceremonies that he performs which are even more than the law commanded: he fasted twice on the Sabbath and gave tithes of all. This is the human side of the synergism and it receives the greater emphasis. Though the Pharisee rightly thanks God, his point of reference is on his own virtues (the gifts of God) and the publican. He was not focused on God or even on the sacrifice. He was focused on his virtues.

This parable, then, was spoken by our Lord against those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” It is opposed to anyone who trusts anything in themselves, including the works of God for which they feign to be thankful. No matter how commendable and admirable internal righteous affections may be, and though they may be the work of God, they cannot be the basis of any trust concerning righteousness. What could be more obvious? The contrast between the self-righteousness of the Pharisee and the total reliance of the publican is precisely the difference between legal and evangelical righteousness promoted by the Reformers and taught in all of Scripture. The publican did not even offer his contrition and poorness of spirit to God as a ground of righteousness, but simply called upon the mercy of God.

c. John 5:37-40

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honor from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus clearly depicts the rulers as trusting in Moses for eternal life. Jesus clearly teaches that the grace and mercy of God as found in God’s Messiah is evident even in Moses. What more could He be contrasting than precisely “justifying oneself” over and against God’s gratuitous justification. It’s hard to see how one could avoid understanding Christ to be condemning legalism. Note the reason for the law keeping was for eternal life; they trusted in Moses. This was more for them than a matter of staying in the covenant and maintaining covenant identity or trying to set up the conditions for national deliverance. Many were in the covenant, but most were not as scrupulous. Not so these leaders. They searched the Scriptures focusing on the commands of Moses. Why? So that by knowing and scrupulously keeping the law of Moses, they might receive honor from men and eternal life from God.

Jesus declares null and void the faith that the Jew placed in the Scriptures given by Moses and his [the Jew’s] observance of the commandments given by Moses—for this is the meaning of “think ye have eternal life.” This faith was declared null and void, not because there was a failure to follow them zealously, nor a failure of great sincerity. The failure of such was simply because it was directed at the wrong “objective correlative” of faith. Faith in the teachings of Moses as lawgiver and the law given could never bring life. Not because grace and the Messiah are not taught by Moses, but because the faith was not directed to the life-giving element. This life-giving element was the promise concerning Jesus Christ, without which all observance of commandments and days and ceremonies were vain indeed.

In conclusion, we note that many other passages could be appealed to bolster the points we have already. But this brief sample of passages is enough to show that there was legalism in Judaism and the so-called “Sander Revolution” along with its consequent re-interpretation of Paul is unfounded and an over reactionary rush to judgment.

III. N.T Wright on Justification

A. Wright’s Methodology

The key to understanding Wright’s views of justification is to be aware of his exegetical methodology. As will become abundantly clear, both in theory and in practice, Wright understands Paul’s first century Jewish worldview (with the broad story that structures it) to be critically important for understanding Paul’s terminology. This worldview approach drives Wright’s exegesis rather than the text itself.

On Wright’s approach to interpretation, the most important factor in exegesis is to know the writer’s worldview and accompanying narrative, because these are the more fundamental categories for understanding. Thus Wright provides extensive analysis of phenomena of worldview in general and the 2^nd Temple Jewish worldview in particular.

All worldviews, explains Wright, can be divided into three levels. The first level is the worldview itself, which he defines as the “tacit and pre-theoretical point of view [which] is a necessary condition for any perception and knowledge to occur at all.”[7] Worldviews consist of “four constituent elements: symbols, praxis, stories, and assumed questions and answers (the latter may be itemized: Who are we? Where are we? What’s wrong? What’s the solution?).” “Symbols” are the signs in which the relationship between the signified and the signifier is by cultural convention and is a matter of social interpretation and agreement. “Praxis” is the “way-of-being-in-the-world.” Stories are the narrative structure or framework of the worldview. Human beings live a storied existence; all our actions and words have a story behind them.[8] Characteristically Wright remarks, “Narrative is the most characteristic expression of worldview, going deeper than the isolated observation or fragmented remark.”[9] Finally the purpose of a worldview is to answer the questions above to the satisfaction of the individual and the group.

All of these then “generate” observable and discussable things such as “aims and intentions” “basic and consequent beliefs.” These constitute the second and third levels of worldview respectively.

According to Wright, “[Worldviews] are not usually called up to consciousness…But worldviews normally come into sight, on a more day-to-day basis, in sets of beliefs and aims which emerge into the open, which are more regularly discussed, and which in principle could be revised somewhat without revising the worldview itself.”[10] These basic beliefs and aims give rise to the third level, consequent beliefs and intentions.[11] Most discourse, including that of theology, takes place right here, with both the worldview with its basic beliefs and aims being assumed. Paul’s statements in his epistles, therefore, are generated from his worldview, especially it narrative structure. Such statements are the consequent beliefs and intentions derived from his sub-conscious worldview. Thus it becomes imperative for the interpreter of Paul to know his worldview and properly relate it to his actual statements.

According to Wright, the governing narrative of Paul’s thought is to be found in the “generally accepted” subconscious worldview of 2^nd Temple Judaism. Wright says, “As soon as we reach implicit narrative, and with it the level of worldview, we must see Paul’s story is the essentially Jewish story, albeit manque’—or, as he would have said, straightened out.”[12] Paul’s Christian story and his prior Jewish story essentially agree.

Wright gives us a brief outline of the Jewish worldview and story. First, “the symbolic world of Judaism focused on temple, Torah, land, and racial identity.” Second, “the assumed praxis brought these symbols to life in festivals and fasts, cult and sacrifice, domestic taboos and customs.” Third,

“the narrative framework which sustained symbol and praxis, and which can be seen in virtually all the writings we possess from the Second Temple period, had to do with the history of Israel; more specifically, with its state of continuing ‘exile’ (though it had returned from Babylon, it remained under Gentile lordship, and the great promises of Isaiah and others remained unfulfilled) and the way(s) in which its god would intervene to deliver it as had happened in one of its foundation stories, that of the exodus.”

Fourth, “its fundamental answers to the worldview questions might have been: We are Israel, the true people of the creator god; we are in our land (and/or dispersed away from our land); our god has not yet fully restored us as one day he will; we therefore look for restoration, which will include the justice of our god being exercised over the pagan nations.”[13] This, in brief, is the cognitive and mental construct—the lens--which is needed in order to understand the worldview into which and by which the New Testament writings were produced.

To understand the teachings of Paul, we need to see through this “lens” by means of comparison and contrast with the above “dominate” worldview of the collective Jewish consciousness. The technical process Wright proposes for us—and this is the heart and soul of his hermeneutical method—is to find the similarity and dissimilarity the “outer” writing of Paul has with the 2^nd Temple narrative and in what way a “new story” is generated from these particular elements. “The task I see before us now is to show how the actual argument . . . , the ‘poetic sequence’ . . . , relates to this underlying ‘narrative sequence,’ that is, the theological story of the creator’s dealings with Israel and the world, now retold so as to focus on Christ and the Spirit.”

How does Wright work this out in practice? Let take an example from Wright’s treatment of Galatians 2, where Peter is given back to separating himself form Gentiles .[14] Wright states concerning the phrase “truth of the gospel” that:

“The ‘truth’ in question is not simply a set of correct propositions, but an entire worldview, seen graphically in its characteristic praxis. Paul’s reconstrual of the Jewish worldview necessarily involved one aspect of praxis which broke the bounds of previous Jewish ways: those who hailed the Messiah Jesus as their Lord formed a single family, whose common table functioned as a vital symbol. Remove that symbol, cease that praxis, and the entire worldview is under threat.”

Reconstrual equals “retelling” the story so as to “focus on Christ and the Spirit.”

Wright is here asserting that Peter’s problem was not that he was acting contrary to the Synodical decision made at Jerusalem “to lay upon you [the Gentiles] no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you” (Acts 15:28, 29). Paul is not rebuking Peter for “laying a burden” upon the Gentiles, but of threatening a “vital symbol” in the story. That “symbol” or “praxis” was a “common table” that signified a “single family” formed by the Messiah Jesus, the “common” Lord.

What the “surface” language seems to teach us, namely, that Peter was repudiating grace and justification by faith, the worldview/narrative analysis shows us was really about eating food in common as a mark of unity and common family. From this analysis, it would be indifferent whether everybody was eating kosher food or non-kosher, as long as everybody was eating together. That is, at issue is not the validity of the dietary laws themselves, the danger of accepting the dietary laws as commanded in Scripture, and a return to a covenantal condition impossible for anyone to keep. The problem was not that Peter was slinking back into dietary conformity to a set of rules which had been abolished by the coming of Christ. The problem was that Peter was breaking the taboos of the “new family” as told by the “reconstrual” of the old story and in so doing was disrupting the “truth of the gospel.” The new worldview being forged from the old was being “threatened.”

This is how the process of narrative analysis leads to some interesting conclusions about the definition or “meaning” of particular terms well used within Christianity.

Wright’s approach to Scripture, along with that of the NPP as a whole, undermines the perspicuity and final authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). This is so because, as Guy Waters states, “[the] NPP operates with the mistaken principle that interpretation of Paul is to be controlled by a scholarly reconstruction of Judaism.”[15] We cannot understand Paul apart from a specialized competence, in this case a specialized knowledge of Second Temple Judaism.[16] Bible students without such specialized training “are therefore placed at the mercy of an academic elite. Further, it is of the nature of academic discourse to be indefinite, to resist closure, and to prize innovation over tradition.”[17] This means, that if Scripture’s interpretation depends upon such specialization and scholarship, then such scholars have become a kind of necessary priesthood. The Scriptures, might be affirmed, as ultimate and final, but this scholarly priesthood has the final say on what they teach. Practically speaking, if Wright’s approach to Scriptures and his own exegetical conclusions are correct, then it follows that the ordinary reader must turn to Wright to understand the Scripture. Confidence in perspicuity is significant diminished and Wright, and his fellow NPP scholars, has become a necessary authority at least equal to that of Scripture. For how can the Scripture hold any authority if not essentially understood apart from these scholars?

B. The “Righteousness of God.”

It is Wright’s worldview/narrative analysis which leads him to redefine Paul’s important phrase the “righteousness of God,” dikaiosune theou (found seven times in Paul’s letters). Generally speaking the Reformed have seen the phrase as referring to the righteousness which God gives, and which avails before God’s tribunal. It has been variously understood as the status which results from justification or the grounds of justification, i.e. the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Wright sees “the righteousness of God” at the heart of Paul’s theology and the central theme of Romans. In keeping with his telling of the predominant Jewish story being told in Paul’s day, Wright clearly and consistently defines dikaiosune theou as God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises to undo sin and bring justice to the world.

The phrase “the righteousness of God”…summed up sharply and conveniently, for a first-century Jew such as Paul, the expectation that the God of Israel, often referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures by the name YHWH, would be faithful to his promise made to the patriarchs [emphasis ours].[18]

For a reader of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, ‘the righteousness of God’ would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant.[19]

Wright argues that this meaning is not just derived from the contemporary Jewish background but that it has biblical backing especially within the prophetical books.

God’s ‘righteousness’ especially in Isaiah 40-55, is that aspect of God’s character because of which he saves Israel despite Israel’s perversity and lostness. God has made promises; Israel can trust those promises. God’s righteousness is thus cognate with his trustworthiness on the one hand, and Israel’s salvation on the other.[20]

Notice as well that on this definition, the righteousness of God is always salvific for the Jewish nation.

Wright indicates that in the history of interpretation there have been basically two schools of interpretation concerning “the righteousness of God.” The phrase has been taken to mean either the status that God gives the sinner or it refers to God himself. Wright insists that it is the latter.

If and when God does act to vindicate his people, his people will then, metaphorically speaking, have the status of righteousness…But the righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness. That makes no sense at all. God’s own righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, because of which he will (Israel hopes) vindicate her, and bestow upon her the status of ‘righteous’, as the vindicated or acquitted defendant. But God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing[21]

Wright sees three major background concepts contributing to the common Jewish (and Paul’s) understanding of the phrase. The first of these is the covenant which God set up with Abraham. The covenant, repeatedly explains Wright, was God’s answer to Adam’s sin. By means of the covenant, God intended to “put the world to rights.”[22] Wright explains, “The covenant…was established so that the creator God could rescue the creation from evil, corruption, and disintegration and in particular could rescue humans from sin and death.”[23] However, the covenant people, Israel, have failed to keep the covenant and were sent into a state of exile—a state in which they still remained until God, in righteousness (=faithfulness to the covenant), came to vindicate his people. This expected vindication was seen in terms of the Jewish law-court metaphor, which is the second component of the righteousness of God. We have more to say on this element below. For now we note, that in Jewish expectation this metaphor factored in the expectation that God as judge would vindicate his people over against that of pagan overlords. The third component was the ‘future element’ of eschatology and this future element was expressed in apocalyptic language—language which Paul echoes when he says the righteousness of God is revealed (apokalyptetai).[24] This was simply the hope that God would at last act to vindicate his people simultaneously revealing the secret plan that he had been hatching all along.[25]

According to Wright, Paul not only retained these three components but retained their same Jewish emphasis as well. In other words, Paul did not see the elements in a different ordering so that the law-court metaphor was at the forefront of his understanding. Like his fellow Jews, God’s covenant faithfulness was still the basic meaning of “the righteousness of God.” Thus, generally speaking, for both Jews and Christians the righteousness of God refers to God’s covenant faithfulness, primarily expressed in his vindication of his people (i.e., justification), which would also be the great long awaited unveiling of the plan of God.

Does Wright think that Paul at all diverged from the Jewish understanding? Yes. His fellow Jews had a nationalistic view of God’s covenant faithfulness. For them the righteousness of God had to do with God’s vindication of them over Rome. In the gospel this truncated perception changes along two lines. First and foremost, God’s faithfulness was expressed in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. He fulfilled God’s plan to undue sin through the covenant, by crucifixion. Second, the gospel teaches that the God’s faithful action to fulfill his covenant promises extends to Gentiles as well as Jews. This Christological twist does not change the basic definition however; it is clear from Wright’s definition that the “covenant meaning” played the largest role in determining the meaning of the phrase. And the law court metaphor gave the righteousness/faithfulness of God its particular color.[26]

Wright does not hold that every instance of “the righteousness of God” refers to God’s covenant faithfulness. Concerning Philippians 3:9 --“and may be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by [on the basis of] faith”—Wright says that this instance means the status that comes from God. Paul has the Hebrew law-court background in mind, rendering it impossible for scholars to treat 3:9 as a yardstick for Paul’s other uses of the phrase. A ‘righteousness from God’ is the status of righteousness which God the judge hands down, while the righteousness of God is his own covenant faithfulness.[27] He interprets Romans 10:3 in the same way. And unbelievably he takes 2 Corinthian 5:21--“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”—to mean Paul’s own apostolic ministry, which exhibits the faithfulness of God. The apostolic ministry “is itself an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God. What Paul is saying is that he and his fellow apostles, in their suffering and fear, their faithful witness against all the odds, are not just talking about God’s faithfulness; they are actually embodying it.”[28]

Remarkably, Wright does little to support his covenantal reading of the “righteousness,” beyond saying that this is the meaning of “righteousness” found in Isaiah 40-55 and assuming the covenant meaning. He states that this covenantal reading of the righteousness of God is an established fact. Clearly on Wright’s reading Paul’s supposed background understanding of covenant dominates his understanding of “the righteousness of God.”

C. Wright on Paul’s doctrine of Justification

We will analyze Wright’s teaching on justification along three well worn lines: Wright on the nature of justification, then on its grounds, and then on its means. Before this though we would point out what has already been said above. Justification is not the “righteousness of God.” Justification is the result of God’s faithfulness (i.e., righteousness) but they are not to be confused.

1. Wright on the Nature of justification

We will start with a negative. For Wright justification is not primarily about salvation or the gospel. Or put differently justification is not the heart of the gospel. Wright maintains that the gospel and justification, though related, should not be conflated. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is Lord; justification says that one may know he is in the covenant by faith. Justification is an implication of the gospel, but not its essence. When dealing with questions of salvation Paul appealed to the gospel not to justification.

But if we come to Paul with these questions in mind – the questions about how human beings come into a living and saving relationship with the living and saving God – it is not justification that springs to his lips or pen.[29]

Why does Wright drive this wedge between justification and the gospel? Along with other New Perspective writers, Wright understands the nature of the Galatians controversy to have been about Gentile acceptance into the covenant people of God. Thus Paul was combating Jewish ethnocentrism and exclusivisim. Judaizers were requiring Gentile Christians to do those particularly Jewish works of the law which marked out those belonging to the covenant community; namely, circumcision, food and Sabbath laws. Wright does not see Paul, when speaking of justification, moving much beyond these issues to broader and more important questions of salvation. So contra Jewish nationalism or exclusivism, Paul strenuously maintained that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection membership in the covenant is signified by faith only. To use a prejudicial word but one that Wright himself uses, Paul had ecumenical purposes in mind when he insisted on justification by faith.[30] This was because the nature of the covenant was to create the one family of God.

Justification, in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial difference, as together they wait for the final new creation.[31]

Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other.[32]

In Wright’s words, justification is about ecclesiology more than soteriology.[33]

Like dikiaosune theou, justification is righteousness language, and as such reflects a covenantal, Hebrew law-court, and eschatological background.[34] The covenant is that overarching concept of justification and of all of Paul’s theology. God set up the covenant to undo Adam’s sin. But Israel herself failed in her vocation. But where Israel failed, her Messiah succeeded. By his death and resurrection Jesus has begun to reverse the effects of sin. Justification is essentially forensic for Wright; it reflects the technical language of the Hebrew law-court, which had settings and procedures that distinguish it from contemporary Western counterparts. Wright explains,

In the lawcourt as envisaged in the OT, all cases were considered “civil” rather than “criminal”; accuser and defendant pleaded their causes before a judge. “Righteousness” was the status of the successful party when the case had been decided; “acquitted” does not quite catch this, since that term apples only to the successful defendant, where as if the accusation was upheld the accuser would be ‘righteous.” “Vindicated” is thus more appropriate. The word is not basically to do with morality of behavior, but rather with status in the eyes of the court—even though, once someone had been vindicated, the word “righteous” would thus as it were work backward, coming to denote not only the legal status at the end of the trial but also the behavior that occasioned this status.[35]

Why is Wright so careful to detail the Hebrew law-court setting so as to distinguish it from contemporary (and past) settings? The answer lies in the last sentence of the above quotation: “The word [righteous] is not basically to do with morality of behavior, but rather with status in the eyes of the court….” That the verdict does not reflect or say anything about the morality of the one justified is Wright’s “key” point whenever he describes justification in light of the Hebrew background.

[Justification] doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she is good, morally upright or virtuous; simply that he or she has, in this case, been vindicated against the accuser.[36]

It would be a mistake to think that with this emphasis on justification as a declared status Wright is teaching something close to traditional Reformed doctrine. To be sure, Wright is seeing justification as ‘forensic’ and he distinguishes his from all ‘subjective’ readings of justification and so putting himself out of accord with traditional Roman Catholicism. However, these quotes are two edged because they say that the verdict of the judge did not say anything about its moral basis. Wright’s clearest statement of his point is in the following words…

Of course the word dikaios, ‘righteous’, in secular Greek as in English, carried moralistic overtones. Granted this, it is not hard to see how it could come to refer not just to a status held after the decision of the court, but also to the character and past behaviour of either the plaintiff or the defendant. But the key point is that, within the technical language of the law court, ‘righteous’ means, for these two persons, the status you have after the court finds in your favor. Nothing more nothing less.[37]

The effect of this thinking is to sever the verdict from a positive righteous basis. Thus far, though, we note that, for Wright, justification is the status that one has after the judge has decided in your favor, neither more nor less. Such a status carries no “moralistic overtones.”

What does Wright say is the content of the status that the judge declares? What does it mean to be declared “righteous”? Traditionally, the content of the justifying verdict is that one is righteous; he or she conforms to the will of God. Wright’s definition, however, involves the convergence of the covenant background with the technical law-court metaphor. The terminology itself, i.e., righteous, bears the meaning of one being in the right, but when this is hashed out theologically (with the covenant in view), “being in the right” translates into a declaration that one is a member of the covenant. The following statement is consistent with statements on justification found elsewhere in Wright’s relevant writings.

This is the meaning of Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith.” The verdict of the last day has been brought forward into the present in Jesus the messiah; in raising him from the dead, God declared that in him had been constituted the true, forgiven worldwide family. Justification, in Paul, is not the process or event whereby someone becomes, or grows, as a Christian; it is the declaration that someone is, in the present, a member of the people of God”[38] [our emphasis]

Wright guards against misconceptions by noting that the declaration is not about how one enters the covenant or becomes a Christian.[39] Justification is the judge’s declaration that states that something is the case; it changes nothing, nor makes anything happen.[40] But more importantly, for Wright, justification is not only forensic language but “membership language”. It is God’s last day declaration that one by faith is in the right, that is, a member of the single covenant family of Abraham. It’s a declaration primarily about one’s status in the covenant. Justification does not refer to a process of becoming right; it is not God’s verdict upon the believer’s possession of a perfect righteousness; nor is justification about entering into a saving relationship with God. It is the judge’s verdict that the believer is a member of the covenant, and in terms of Paul’s argument, how you can know that you are already in the covenant, i.e., by faith only.

Wright also includes the forgiveness of sin with the declaration. For to be in the covenant is to have one’s sins forgiven, because the covenant was given by God and fulfilled by Christ for the purposes o f putting the world to rights, that is, of undoing sin and creating a unified new humanity.[41] But the centerpiece of Wright’s view of justification is that about covenant membership. Again, he says, that justification “is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community….”[42] Or take Paul’s conclusion in Romans 3:20,‘Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for by the Law is the knowledge of sin.’ Wright sums up his view as follows, “His point…was that all who attempted to legitimate their covenant status by appealing to possession of Torah would find that the Torah itself accused them of sin.”[43] Wright sees Paul addressing Jews in this statement, who were depending on “works of law” (=Jewish boundary markers) to demonstrate that they were members of the covenant, and that therefore should receive the verdict of the court. But Paul negates such an approach. The overarching concept of justification in Paul’s mind was the covenant, by which God intended to put the world to rights.[44] Jewish exclusivism undermined the purposes of the covenant to create one worldwide family. Justification by faith is who one knows that he or she is part of that family.

Wright’s third element of justification is that it is an eschatological verdict; it’s part and parcel with the final judgment. In long awaited faithfulness God would finally act to vindicate his people Israel at the final judgment and thus save them. Paul maintains this basic Jewish outlook but adds a somewhat subversive twist: the verdict happens in the present for those who believe the gospel of the Messiah Jesus. “It is part of the Pauline worldview in which the creator of the world has acted, uniquely, climactically and decisively, in Jesus Christ, for the rescue of the entire cosmos, and is now, by his Spirit, bringing all things into subjection to this Jesus.”[45] Wright holds that the present justification is the end-times verdict which has been brought forward into the present. As such it anticipates the verdict yet to come.

Wright understands justification to occur twice or in two stages. There is an initial/present justification and a future/final justification. Each justification has its sign or basis, “Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly (according to 2:14-16; and 8:9-11) on the basis of the entire life.”[46] The two justifications are related says Wright, “Justification by faith…is the anticipation in the present of the justification which will occur in the future and it gains its meaning from that anticipation.”[47] And, says Wright, the future verdict will have the effect of reaffirming the present verdict.[48] It seems accurate to say that, for Wright, present justification is a precursor or antecedent to future justification. Whether thought of as an “anticipation” or a precursor, it is clear that future justification is the more important, because it is final and ultimate. For Wright, present justification affords the believer the knowledge that he is a member of the covenant, his sins are forgiven, and the Spirit of God indwells him.

Wright insists that the works that form the basis of future justification are not meritorious. Rather they are demonstrative—“effective signs” that one is in Christ.

The ‘works’ in accordance with which the Christian will be vindicated on the last day are not the unaided works of the self-help moralist. Nor are they the performance of the ethically distinctive Jewish boundary-markers (Sabbath, food-laws, circumcision). They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation.[49]

In short, such works show the believer’s faithfulness to the covenant. At this point Wright’s language comes to the similar language in Reformed systematics, which speak of believers’ works as having a demonstrative (as apposed to meritorious) function at the judgment. But Wright also speaks of such works as being the basis for the future verdict. Wright is not misspeaking here.

Wright supports this thesis that there will be a future justification of the believer by appealing to typical Pauline statements about future judgment according to works, such as 1 Thess. 2:19, “For what is our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?” (cf. Phil. 2:16). Wright comments, “[Paul] looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favorable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ…but on the basis of his own apostolic work.”[50] Paul clearly appeals to things he does now which will “count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him.”[51]

Wright primarily bases his case on Rom. 2:13 “(for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified….” On Wright’s interpretation Paul is here referring to the Spirit-wrought works of the believers. Paul was combating certain Jewish attitudes that mere possession of the Torah, and hearing it read in synagogue was enough to “carry validity with God.” To counter this, Paul appeals to God’s impartial judgment both of Jew and Gentile alike. He asserts the principle that God’s judgment will be just, and verse 13 under girds this point. Only doers of the law will be justified because, “Torah was meant to be obeyed, not merely listened to.” Wright appeals to Rom. 8:1-4 and 10:5-11 to explain what doing the law to be justified means. Here (in Rom 2:13) Paul is content to state briefly what he will say with greater detail later: mere ethnic identity and possession of torah “will be of no avail at the final judgment if Israel has not kept Torah. Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession.”[52] Commenting on Rom. 8:4 “that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”, Wright says that the once death dealing commandment now brings life because of the indwelling Spirit, implying that believers are now able to keep the law unto life, which is what the law was intended to do (Wright sites Lev. 18:5 and Deut 30:15-20). They now fulfill the law--its righteous requirement. Wright translates Paul’s Greek word (dikaioma) as “righteous verdict.” And this righteous verdict is fulfilled “in us.” “The life the Torah intended, indeed longed, to give to God’s people is now truly given by the Spirit.” Does this not nullify the present verdict of justification by faith? “As I pointed out earlier, this in no way compromises present justification by faith. What is spoken of here is the future verdict, that of the last day, the “day” Paul described in 2:1-16. That verdict will correspond to the present one, and will follow from (though not, in the sense, be earned or merited by), the Spirit-led life of which Paul now speaks.”[53]

Has Protestantism, therefore, missed the boat, on Paul? Wright will not go that far. He thinks that that the traditional reading is half way right. It “gets at” Paul but not wholly. At times Wright is more pointed: the popular (read Reformed) understanding of justification has distorted Paul.[54] In fact, to read Romans in the traditional way is to do the text systematic violence.[55] While the traditional reading agrees with Paul’s theology of salvation—that it is not by works but by faith – it’s not what he means by justification.

Wright makes the unsupported claim that the church has failed to get Paul right because it was misdirected by Augustine. Consequently it has not hitherto fully understood Paul against his Jewish context.[56]

If it is true that Paul meant by ‘justification’ something which is significantly different from what subsequent debate has meant, then this appeal to him is consistently flawed, maybe even invalidated altogether. If we are to understand Paul himself, and perhaps to provide a Pauline critique of current would-be biblical theology and agendas, it is therefore vital and, I believe, urgent, that we ask whether such texts have in fact been misused. The answer to that question, I suggest, is an emphatic Yes.[57]

The result of this misuse is that Paul has been only partly understood at best. [58] The previous quote should alert against attempts to harmonize the Reformed understanding of Paul with Wright’s.

2. Wright on the grounds of justification.

The traditional language here has been to say that the meritorious ground of justification is the person and work of Jesus Christ, and this work has been referred as his satisfaction and righteousness, or passive and active obedience. Essential to the Reformed view is the doctrine of imputation: the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Christ’s redemptive work is appropriated in the believer’s union with Christ. Ultimately the basis in not multifaceted; it is singular, Sola Christo.

Wright consistently maintains that justification has a two-fold basis: the death of the Messiah and the work of the Spirit in the believer. This translates into justification having an objective as well as a subjective basis. Regarding the objective basis, we recall, that justification for Wright concerns God’s law-court declaration that one is already a member of the covenant. But for one to enter the covenant his or her sin must be dealt with objectively, says Wright. This God has accomplished through the Christ’s death and resurrection.

Justification is not only God’s declaration on the last day that certain people are in the right: it is also his declaration in the present that, because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the person who believes the Gospel is in the right”[59]

Thus, Christ’s death and resurrection, by removing sin, renders one fit to enter the covenant. Atonement and justification are not the same; rather justification presupposes atonement.

Further justification takes place on the basis of the subjective work of the Spirit. One must believe in the gospel and this can only happen by virtue of the Spirit’s work within the believer.

Justification takes place on the basis of faith because true Christian faith-belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead- is the evidence of the work of the Spirit, and hence the evidence that the believer is already within the covenant.[60]

This subjective work of the Holy Spirit is the basis for both present and future justification. Regeneration results in faith, which is the basis for present justification. Sanctification results in a transformed life, which forms the basis of future justification. Wright sums up his basic view, “Because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God rightly declares that Christian believers are members of the covenant family. The basis of justification is the grace of God freely given to undeserving sinners”[61] [emphasis ours].

In should be note that Wright is saying more than that Holy Spirit plays a role in the believer’s justification. All acknowledge this. The difference of Wright from the Reformed appears to be in his emphasis that the Holy Spirit’s work is a basis for justification. The Reformed have been careful to steer away from such language because of its potential to confuse justification with sanctification.

3. Wright’s Rejection of Imputation

Wright vigorously denies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, a doctrine which lies at the heart of the Reformed system of salvation. On the basis of Paul’s supposed Jewish background, Wright rejects the traditional doctrine completely and in clear categorical terms.

If we use the language of the law court, it make no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom…To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works.[62]

This clear rejection strongly indicates that differences between the Reformed and Wright are fundamental.

Though Wright does not delineate his reasons in a single place in a consecutive fashion, one can derive from his various writings four reasons for his rejection of imputation. First, the Hebrew law court metaphor that informs Paul’s view of justification rules out imputation. The idea of the judge imputing his own righteousness to the defendant or plaintiff is foreign to Paul’s Jewish way of thinking about the law-court. Wright simply asserts that this was not the way the Hebrew law court worked. When referring to the judge’s righteousness, such language contemplated the justice and equity of the judge’s decisions. But the judge is never thought of as giving his righteousness to another. This is the point of the previous quote.

The second reason concerns the rule of Christ’s obedience.[63] Traditionally this rule is thought to include the law of God, along with the special will of the Father, which included those s