Category Archives: N.T. Wright & NT Theology

The Righteousness of God and the NT context

So more from here:

The second plenary address—delivered by Frank Thielman, Presbyterian professor of divinity at Beeson Divnity School—focused on Romans 1:16-17. Thielman offered a mediating position that suggested several intended meanings from Paul for the contested and consequential phrase “righteousness of God.” Original hearers, Thielman said, would have understand this phrase to refer to the saving activity and gift of acquittal from God on the basis of faith. They also would have understood that God is fair, even-handed, and equitable in the way he distributes salvation.

Thielman cited the first commentary on Romans, written by Origen, who spoke and wrote the same Greek language as Paul. Origen understood the apostle to teach that the “righteousness of God” means all, whether Jew or Gentile, may find salvation in the gospel. Thielman illustrated his point by citing several coins used in the Roman Empire. Nero, emperor during the end of Paul’s ministry, appeared on one coin with the word dikaiosune, which we translate in Scripture as “righteousness.” It would seem, Thielman said, that Nero seeks to portray himself not so much as just but equitable in how he distributes grain harvested in Egypt.

Is it really likely, though, that Paul would use one phrase and intend several meanings? Thielman said this practice was common in ancient writing. So Paul did in fact reveal in this famous passage that God counts believers acquitted, as Martin Luther realized. But the inspired apostle also taught that God is fair, and he powerfully rescues his people.

I find it interesting that this blog entry presents no evidence whatever for Luther’s interpretation but only for the one that has come to be identified with N. T. Wright for rather slight reasons.  Thielman’s “mediating position,” as far as what is communicated to us, doesn’t seem that mediating to me. Thielman seems to be of much closer to the opinion as Sinclair Ferguson’s:

Elijah had come to God and said, “Lord, You promised. I believe this is Your word. It must be so. Let it be so in answer to my prayers.” Daniel’s praying was of the same order as his appeal to the “righteousness” of God eloquently testifies (vv. 7, 16). The Old Testament term “righteousness” has a specifically covenantal orientation. The young Martin Luther could not see this when he struggled to understand what Paul meant by “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17). Of course, Luther was not helped by the fact that his Latin Bible translated Paul’s Greek word dikaiosune (righteousness) as justitia (justice). Luther’s mistake has sometimes been repeated by evangelical Christians. Often righteousness has been thought of merely as the equivalent of the just punishment of God. Preachers therefore may often accompany the use of the phrase “the righteousness of God” with the gesticulation of a clenched fist. It is clear even from this passage, however, that this is to reduce the full biblical meaning of God’s righteousness. Daniel sees the righteousness of God both as the basis for God’s judgment of the people (v. 7) and also as the basis for his own prayer for forgiveness (v. 16). How can this be? In Scripture, “righteousness” basically means “integrity.” Sometimes it is defined as “conformity to a norm.” In the case of God, the norm to which He conforms is His own being and character. He is true to Himself, He always acts in character. God has expressed the norm of His relationship to His people by means of a covenant. He will always be true and faithful to His covenant and the promises enshrined in it. Plainly, God’s righteousness is His faithfulness to His covenant relationship (Sinclair Ferguson, Daniel (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988; b0ldface added).

For those who are interested, here‘s my biblical study on the righteousness of God.

Recent presentation by NT Wright on justification

N.T. Wright presented the third plenary paper at the Evangelical Theological Society titled, “Justification Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” And, he started things off by commenting on the title of the paper. He noted that some might assume this was a reference to the fact that the debate seems to be going on and on. But, the real purpose of the title was to say two things about justification. First, as an allusion to Hebrews 13:8, it points to the fact that justification is rooted in Jesus Christ, who is himself the same yesterday, today, and forever. Everything that we can say about God’s people, we say in virtue of who we are in relationship to him. And, second, the title refers to the “triple tense” of justification: we have been justified, we are currently being assured of our justification, and we will be justified in the eschaton. Wright argued that although we often speak of the three tenses of salvation, we rarely apply that same thinking to justification where it is equally important….

Read the rest: NT Wright at ETS (part 2) « scientia et sapientia.

Wright has never meant anything else

Nevertheless, Wright conceded in his exchange with Schreiner that if he did use the phrase “on the basis of” that he would want to “nuance” it to mean “in accordance with” works. Don’t miss that. Wright believes that justification is in accordance with works, not on the basis of them. This is huge in my view, and I don’t want anyone to miss the significance of this statement. This brings him much closer to the traditional Protestant position (and the biblical one too!), and that is no small matter considering how the debate has unfolded thus far.

via » N.T. Wright on Justification at ETS | Denny Burk.

Anyone who didn’t already know that this was Wright’s meaning has not been reading him or has been reading him with gargantuan levels of bias against him.

Not getting Schreiner’s point

A Justification Debate Long Overdue – The Gospel Coalition Blog.

One brief part of the blog entry:

Wright says Israel’s fundamental problem was failing to bless the world. But Paul focuses on Israel’s inherent sinfulness.

How are these points mutually exclusive?

And doesn’t Paul specify how Israel’s sinfulness relates to the Gentiles?

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Additionally Paul does not argues simply that Israel is sinful but that Israel is apostate and that God has used Israel’s apostasy to bring blessing to the Gentiles. It is in this context that Paul mentions how Israel’s sin means that it has not brought blessing to the Gentiles in the expected way. Schreiner’s reductionism leaves a great deal of Paul’s letter out of consideration.

In any case, for those want to read what might be a perspective closer to Wright’s see the following:

Israel’s failure to keep the law

The difference death and resurrection make: boasting in God as a teacher of the nations

Romans is about the Climax of sin leading to salvation

Do evil that good may come

What Paul should have written

My Favorite Anglican Pastor/Scholar – Part 3

PART ONE / PART TWO

Wright’s public conversation about which god, if any, is the true God who made and is responsible for the world centers from beginning to end on the New Testament documents and how they can possibly be accounted for.

N. T. Wright introduces his subject by retelling the parable of the wicked tenants and the vineyard. The NT documents are the vineyard and the question is who are the proper tenants, who the proper landlord, and what the proper rent. (BTW, this is all massively based on memory; I simply don’t have time to do serious book reviews these days.) He spends a large part of the book dealing with philosophical issues regarding scholarship in general and the history of first-century Palestine in particular. He advocates “critical realism.” “Critical” refers to the fact that there are no “neutral” observers of brute data, contrary to the enlightenment myth of rational scholarship. “Realism” refers to the contention that the world really exists and that we all live in it and can, in principle, talk about it and even be challenged by one another. The consequence of “critical” is that we must not only allow, but expect, a scholar’s basic values and commitments to affect his perceptions and conclusions. The consequence of “realism” is that it is still worth talking to him about what really happened to Jesus.

There is some great stuff here about worldviews and how stories are basic to them, but I don’t trust myself to summarize it.

Wright’s basic question is, given what we know about ancient Christianity and ancient Judaism, how do we account for the birth of the Church? The idea is to work back to Jesus as a middle term between first-century Judaism and late-first century Christianity. Wright, thus spends a great deal of time analyzing the basic similarities and differences between Judaism and the Church.

One of Wright’s most helpful points is his summarizing of the Jewish worldview. He is able to reduce it to a few points without at all seeming reductionistc. The basic points are creational monotheism, eschatology, and election.

Creational monotheism distinguishes Israel’s theology from pantheism and polytheism. There is one God who created and is responsible for all things.

Several points strike me as memorable and worth passing on here.

First, this is a political slogan as much as a theological doctrine (think of the riot in Ephesus and the chant, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians”). Monotheism means God is king and Caesar is not. (Thus the similarity and difference with the Church’s gospel, which is, “Jesus is Lord” and Caesar is not.) For Israel in the first century this entailed a variety of disputes, riots, outlaw bandits, and outbreaks, and ultimately outright war with the pagan world empire Rome (another note of dissimilarity: while we see similare accusations on the part of Rome against Christians, we see a much differnet view of social ethics).

Second, God’s unity never precluded the possibility of Trinitarian theology. It was a unity over against all other powers, real or imagined, not a unity within God’s substance or personality.

Third, it entails comprehensive providence. While God could do obvious miracles Wright shows that all Jews viewed ordinary events in history as also God’s work, including both natural occurences and human decisions.

Fourth, it entails that God is committed to doing something about the presence of evil in the world, which leads us to the next part of Israel’s world view.

TO BE CONTINUED

RePost: My favorite Anglican Pastor/Scholar – Part 2

Though I don’t recommend reading them in order, I’ll start with the first in Wright’s series “Christian Origins and the Question of God.”

Earlier, I claimed that every literate Christian will want to read N. T. Wright, specifically his series of “big books.” The reason for this is because Wright takes on modern unbelief, as represented particularly in the Jesus Seminar, with a great deal of success. Reading Wright allows you to immediately converse with the person who goes to Barnes & Noble and reads books from the religion section. He does this way that is a model of courteous Christian debate with non-christian worldviews.

When I first discovered him, reading Wright was like being shown a hidden room in my house containing hi-tech weaponry (Hello, Homeland Security agent; this is only a metaphor). I have loved Biblical Theology for many years, but I had never realized what power it offered me for apologetics. When you think about it, however, modern unbelief has a great deal to do with fragmenting the text. Showing that the text of Scripture has real unity could not fail to have apologetic value. Wright woke me up to what I had not understood. He carefully and cogently shows how the text makes sense on its own terms nad vindicates traditional Christianity while, at the same time, offering us all challenges to be further conformed to the Word of God.

One oddity in Wright’s series is that he does not capitalize the word, “god.” The reason for this, he explains, is that the whole debate is over who God is. To act like we are all talking about the same person would be deceptive and confusing.

TO BE CONTINUED

John Murray on justification in union with Christ

It is in Christ that we are justified (Acts 13.39; Romans 8.1; First Corinthians 6.11; Galatians 2.17). At the outset we are here advised that it is by union with Christ and by some specific relation to him involved in that union that we are justified

(p. 126, 127)

See also: Ridderbos on the justification of the ungodly in union with Christ.

Peter Leithart, John Calvin, and Westminster on justification as a legal benefit of union with Christ

Real Union or Legal Fiction?

Wright’s lecture on Paul’s Gospel

Introduction

Thank you for your warm welcome and generous hospitality. It is an enormous pleasure for Maggie and myself to be here in Monroe for the first time. I am particularly grateful to those who have worked very hard to set this conference up and make it all happen.

I want in this opening session to set some parameters for our subsequent discussion, and in particular to put some cards firmly and clearly on the table about my starting points, my fixed points in reading Paul, and my aims in expounding his theology. I am aware – and it is a matter of some irony in my mind – that my own views on Paul have been the subject of far more interest and debate in America, and within churches other than my own, than they have in England, or within worldwide Anglicanism. I do sometimes catch myself wondering, ‘Why should I worry if one branch of American Presbyterianism wants to fight another branch about whether I’m a good thing or a bad thing?’; rather as though two baseball fans were to argue about the respective merits of a cricket player. One answer is, I guess, that since I think my own reading of Paul represents a historically grounded and theologically accurate and sensitive understanding I naturally hope that other Christians of whatever tradition will find what I say fruitful, and I grieve that anyone should get into trouble in their own denomination, whatever that may be, for embracing a viewpoint which ought at the very least to be within anybody’s limits of orthodoxy. I suppose, though, that part at least of the reason I am concerned about all this is that within my own church I have engaged in a lifelong struggle to get Paul back on to the agenda, and to allow his vision of God in Christ, of the cross and resurrection, and justification by faith, to become once more part of the bloodstream of a church that was founded on them but has done its best to forget the fact. My church grew directly out of the sixteenth-century Reformation, and even where I have disagreed with some of the Reformers’ particular proposals I believe I have remained true to their foundational principles. And, indeed, I want now to begin the first section of this lecture with a quote from the first and perhaps the greatest of the English reformers, the one from whom I most securely learnt the formal principle which underlies all my reading not only of Paul but of the whole of scripture.

Read the rest at: Paul in Different Perspectives by N.T. Wright.

I had completely forgotten that this excellent lecture was available online.  I have the DVD somewhere an am thinking of viewing it with my boys now.  Great stuff.

Also, check out John Armstrong’s blog today.

RePost from 2005 or earlier: Impute means Ascribe, Reckon, Regard, Attribute

Here is Mirriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary tenth edition:

impute 1: to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly 2: to credit to a person or a cause : Attribute (Our vices as well as our virtues have been *imputed* to bodilty derangement–B. N. Cardoxo) syn see Ascribe.

Unlike words like “Trinity,” or “Atone,” impute is a normal word translating a normal word used in the Bible. In Greek, the word is logizomai. Webster shows how “impute” is a fine word to use as a translation. This definition works perfectly for Romans 4 where we read

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Notice here that there is nothing inherently transitive about the word logizomai (“count” in the ESV–another perfectly good translation).

So far so good. What has been odd to me is that some treat the English word “impute” as if it were inherently transitive. They point out that logizomai is not inherently transitive (i.e. it works with a sentence dealing with the possibility of reckoning one’s own sins to ones own account) and go on to claim that imputation is not important to Paul’s soteriology. Of these, there seem to be two types. Those who simply leave things vague and those who strongly state and argue from Scripture that believers are represented by Christ so that his righteousness is ascribed, reckoned, attributed, etc, to sinners so that they have right standing with God even though they don’t derserve it (i.e., N. T. Wright). While the first of these could be dangerously confusing (though my perception of vagueness may only reflect my lack of familiarity with and understanding of the posiiton). The second of these is merely frustrating because they are obviously affirming nothing less than imputation.

But the frustration increases all the more when Reformed guardians, instead of pointing out the confusion, spread it and harden it into novel boundary markers, by accusing the second of this group of “denying imputation.”

A related problem here is a shallow view of how the Bible relates to theology. People are being (mis)led to believe that our theological formulations come and are supposed to come straight off the page. If we have a “doctrine of imputation,” then the word “impute” in Scripture must contain and imply the entire doctrine. But doctrines are never simply definitions of words but shorthand headings for longer statements gleaned from a great deal of Scripture. As those living after the publication of The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, I thought we all knew better than to do word-level exegesis and theology. Apparently, the news hasn’t spread. This is odd, since D. A. Carson’s essay in Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates is quite good about acknowledging that we cannot simply read the imputation of Christ’s righteousness straight out of any passage in Paul or anywhere else. The doctrine is not to be derived in that manner.

(By the way, this excellent piece was marred by what appears to me to be calculated cruelty toward Don Garlington designed not only to disagree with him, and not in any way to refute him, but to dehumanize him in the minds of Carson’s audience. Since I am endorsing the article in general I can’t ignore that problem.)

Teaching people to read the doctrine of imputation out of a prooftext using the word logizomai creates triple trouble. On the one hand, it systematically distorts the actual content of the Bible as it ought to be read on its own terms. Secondly, it makes anyone who does read the Bible accurately appear to be an imputation-denying heretic even when he actually affirms the doctrine and grounds it in Scripture. Finally, it makes the doctrine actually appear to be false by anyone who sees the false foundation but doesn’t consider that there is another one available.

I recently had the rather sad experience of listening to a sermon railing against this statement:

This justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify “righteousness” into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books

[Update: the above (and below) is from Rich Lusk in his essay in the book, Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons] Here is the quotation with some context:

This justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify “righteousness” into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books. Rather, because I am in the Righteous One and the Vindicated One, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me; what I need is a share in the forensic verdict passed over him at the resurrection. Union with Christ is therefore the key.Note well, this does not downplay the significance of the active obedience. Without it, Jesus’ body would still be in the tomb. But to be precise, I am not justified by a legal transfer of his “obedience points” to my account. I am justified because the status he has as The Sinless One, and now as The Crucified and Vindicated One, has been bestowed upon me as well.

Allow me to illustrate. Suppose a woman is in deep, deep debt and has no means at her disposal to pay it off. Along comes an ultra wealthy prince charming. Out of grace and love, he decides to marry her. He covers her debt. But then he has a choice to make about how he will care for his bride. After canceling out her debt, will he fill up her account with his money? That is to say, will he transfer or impute his own funds into an account that bears her name? Or will he simply make his own account a joint account so it belongs to both of them?

In the former scenario, there is an imputation, a transfer. In the second scenario, the same final result is attained, but there is no imputation, strictly speaking. Rather, there is a real union, a marriage.

I would suggest the first picture (the imputation picture) is not necessarily wrong, though it could leave adherents exposed to the infamous “legal fiction” charge since the man could transfer money into the woman’s account without ever marrying her or even caring for her. It could become, as Wright has said, “a cold piece of business.”

The second picture (the union with Christ picture) seems more consistent with Paul’s language, and for that matter, with many of Calvin’s statements. It does not necessarily employ the “mechanism” of imputation to accomplish justification, but gets the same result. Just as one can get to four by adding three plus one or two plus two, or just as one can get home by traveling Route A or by Route B, so there may be more than one way to conceive of the doctrine of justification in a manner that preserves its fully gracious and forensic character.

For Calvin, the central motif of Pauline theology is not “imputation,” but union with Christ….

The writer goes on to quote Calvin, but anyone familiar with Calvin already knows this is true. What I find more troublesome is that few seem to grasp that the Westminster Standards fit perfectly with this central Pauline motif. There is simply no getting around it: the marriage picture is a picture of precisely what Reformed Theology has taught both in Calvin and in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

And it is imputation. No one has any rational right to start screaming about “denying the Gospel.” What they should be upset about is the misconstrual of the word “imputation” that somehow identifies it with the more impersonal illustration. Instead, we seem to have a North American changeling of Reformed theology within Evangelicalism that is pushing a heavily nominalist version of orthodoxy as the only allowable version. I am still trying to figure out everything about how this happened. Reformed theologians as far apart from each other as John Williamson Nevin and Robert Dabney both seemed to see it coming. Sadly, one of the best historical studies of it, William Evans dissertation on “Imputation or Impartation” has never been published or made widely available.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly obvious that in the marriage scenario the wife acquires a status and possession from somewhere other than herself or her own resources. This is truly an alien righteousness. In other words, it is just as much an “imputation” as the first scenario. To treat it as an alternative makes no sense. Imputation should not be saddled with a prevailing image of God doing math in his head. That is simply not the doctine. If it were, then eternal justification would be true, or else justification at the time of the cross. But justification is accomplished through uniting sinners to Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them (WCF 11.6).

WLC Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

WLC Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

WLC Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Notice that the marriage scenario comes directly from the Westminster Assemblies doctrinal statements. And that justification is simply a manifestation (Q. 69) of that union.

It has been a true tragedy that the idea seems to be floating around in the Evangelical world that justification is merely a matter of God doing math in His head (and, correspondingly somehow, saving faith gets degraded into the sinner doing math in his head). But those problems should not be laid at the feet of the term “imputation.” Head and body, husband and wife, are reckoned, regarded, or counted as one person. All who are in Christ share his verdict at his resurrection. At his resurrection the Father declared that Jesus was right with him, that he had led a totally faithful life and even willingly died the death we deserved. Thus, in Christ, we are reckoned as utterly faithful and having already passed through the curse our sins deserved. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.

Imputation, in other words, is simply the legal aspect, property, or attribute of being united to Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith.