| Here is my summary of Wright's paper. I will be publishing my thoughts on it sometime soon. No New Perspective on N.T. Wright The slew of reviews and critiques of Wright’s writings are innumerable, however, I would like to add to the discussion a few thoughts of my own. N.T. Wright’s article, “New Perspectives on Paul” which was written in 2003, is N.T. Wright’s most systematic treatment of the historic ordus salutis with specific regard to the idea of justification. In this paper, he argues, among other things that, “when, through God’s effective call in the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, someone comes to believe that he is the risen Messiah and Lord, God thereupon declares in advance what he will declare on the last day when he raises that person from the dead: This person is in the right, their sins have been forgiven, they are part of the single, true, worldwide covenant family promised to Abraham, the sign of the coming new creation and the counter-sign to the boast of Ceasar…Justification is ultimately…about God putting the world to rights.” Before I look at thesis statement in particular, let’s look at some of the ways Wright himself describes his views of different theological terms. The Gospel N.T. Wright proposes that “when Paul refers to ‘the gospel’, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all, rather to the proclamation that…Jesus Christ is Lord.” This “proclamation” for Wright involves what he calls two aspects, “derivation and confrontation.” Derivation in that God’s covenant keeping faithfulness has resulted in Israel’s history coming to a climax. It is confrontational in that as opposed to Caesar, or any other power Jesus is king and Lord. Wright in opposition of those that would say that this proclamation that ‘Jesus is Lord’ is a “take-it-or-leave-it offer of salvation of a way to salvation,” writes that the proclamation is a “royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form of that this submission and obedient submission takes is of course faith.” The Righteousness of God Concerning the phrase "the righteousness of God," in contrast to the position that argues that when Paul uses the phrase “the righteousness of God,” refers to the “status which God’s people have from him,” Wright posits that Paul is rather emphasizing the covenant faithfulness or righteousness of God himself (as attributive to God). However, it is important to emphasize at this point that Wright is not denying that a righteous status is given to believers but rather that the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Paul is not referring to that (however he never does explain where in scripture this imputed(?) righteous status is actually given but rather goes on to deny it!). According to Wright what is God’s covenant fidelity? He explains it as God upholding his covenant to save Israel and to eventually save the whole cosmos. Final Judgment According to Works Up to this point Wright has avoided most of the real controversial topics however he becomes very controversial when discussing this subject. He begins by saying that, “Paul, in company with mainstream second-temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led—In accordance, in other words, with works.” One can hear the chants already, “Burn Him!” The main text he appeals to is Romans 2:16 where it says the “doers” of the law will be justified. What are these works of the law? Well, according to Wright they are, “the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation.” He summarizes and concludes his position like this, “the things he(Paul) does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day.” Justification Paul’s usage of the term “justification” according to Wright is not what Protestants have typically said. His proposal has been, “that Paul uses ‘vindication’ language, i.e. the dikaioo word-group, when he is describing, not the moment when, or the process by which, someone comes from idolatry, sin and death to God, Christ and life, but rather the verdict which God pronounces subsequent upon that event.” What is the dikaiosis, or vindication? For Wright, it is two-fold but not to be separated. First, it is God’s declaration that a person’s sins have been forgiven, or that they are in the right. Secondly, it is that the person is “part of the single covenant family promised to Abraham.” This point is very important to Wright. He explains over and over that, “Justification is not, ‘how someone becomes a Christian,’” but rather a “declaration about the person who has just become a Christian.” Wright draws three conclusions to his view of justification. First, His view of Messianic headship does the job regarding what traditional protestants have argued with regards to justification namely, imputation of an alien righteousness. He however goes on to say, “But Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ.” So even though theologically we can admit some imputation based on covenant headship, Paul doesn’t ever teach any form of Christ being our blood and righteousness. Secondly, according to Wright, justification is not how one gets in to God’s people but about God’s declaration that someone is in. Thirdly and most provocatively, because of this reinterpretation of Paul, justification is not a divisive point between Catholics and Protestants but rather an ecumenical idea. |
