The Believer and the Judgement Seat of Christ

I hope you would agree that the following two statements are true: a) The believer is justified by faith alone. b) The believer will be judged according to his works. Agreed? Good. After all, Scripture teaches both. Have a look at Galatians 2:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.  So, there we have it. We are justified by faith and we will be judged according to our works. End of post.

But hang on a minute. Justification means that in advance of the Day of Judgement God has declared the believer righteous on the basis of the finished work of Christ. We stand acquitted before God with no fear of condemnation on Judgement Day, Romans 8:1. How exactly does that fit with what the Bible says about the Christian being judged according to his or her works?

1. Justification on the basis of works

N. T. Wright attempts to resolve the issue by saying that justification in the present anticipates God’s future verdict on the believer on the basis of a life of good works. He cites Romans 2:13 as evidence for his claim[1]. But in this text Paul is not teaching that anyone will actually achieve justification by works. He wants his readers to understand that simply having and hearing the law of God (as with the Jews) won’t put anybody right with God. The law must be obeyed. The trouble is that no one has obeyed the law. Both Jew and Gentile are subject to the judgment of God on account of their sin, Romans 3:9, 19-20.

But Wright is not simply advocating justification by works, as if we could save ourselves by our own efforts. The thing is that for him justification is not so much about the sinner’s right standing before God, as the true identity of the people of God. Because we believe in Jesus, God declares that we belong to his people. The evidence that we belong to his people is a life of Spirit-enabled good works. And so Wright can say,

The Spirit is the path by which Paul traces the route from justification

by faith in the present to justification, by the complete life lived, in the

future.[2]

Do you see what Wright has done? Justification is no longer by faith alone. Future justification is “by the complete life lived”. In putting it like that Wright has undermined what the Bible says regarding justification apart from works, Romans 3:28, 4:5, Galatians 3:10-14[3]. We are justified by faith alone. God declares the believer righteous before him solely on the basis of the obedience and blood of Christ. That’s it. Granted, those who have been united to Christ for justification have also been called to live a life of good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). But future justification is not on the basis of good works. The sinner is justified and only ever will be justified because of what Christ has done for us, not because of what the Spirit is doing in us.

Judgement according to works does not mean justification on the basis works. More on that later.

2. Justification by faith and the Day of Judgement

So, what is the relationship between the believer’s present justification by faith and the Day of Judgement?

The New Testament makes the contrast between what is true of the believer presently “by faith” and what will be true of him “by sight”. Consider 2 Corinthians 5:7[4]. Now the believer is “justified by faith”. On the day of judgement the Christian will be “justified by sight”, or visibly justified.

What does that entail? Although justified by faith, the believer still dies. The body or the “outer man” does not yet partake of the benefits of saving union with Christ. Visible justification will consist of the believer being bodily raised from the dead. Paul contrasted Jesus’ condemnation by the Jewish rulers (Acts 13:27-29) with the fact that “God raised him from the dead.” (Acts 13:30). Christ’s resurrection is described as his justification in 1 Timothy 3:16[5]. There is a tight link between Christ’s resurrection/justification and that of the believer, Romans 4:25, 8:33-34. Now we are justified by faith. We shall be publicly and visibly declared righteous at the resurrection. This is the “hope of righteousness by faith” (Galatians 5:5).

‘Justification’ necessarily brings with it the resurrection from the dead, and nothing less. The display of God’s saving righteousness in the resurrection of Christ anticipates the end of history, when he will triumph over the world in bringing his ‘sons’ to glory.[6]

Christ will raise his people from the dead at the last day. Their resurrection will involve their final justification, “whom he justified, these he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). As Richard Gaffin concludes,

believers in union with Christ, will appear at the final judgement as already resurrected bodily... they will appear there as already openly justified.[7]

With that in mind the believer can look forward to the Day of Judgment with joyful hope and bold confidence.

3. Judgement according to works

Where does the fact that the believer will appear before the judgement seat of Christ already justified leave “judgment according to works” (2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:11-12)?[8]

1)      Good works are the evidence of genuine justifying faith

While the believer is justified by faith alone, the faith that alone justifies does not remain alone. Faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). On the Day of Judgement God will assess the presence of true saving faith according to the evidence of good works. That is the searching message of Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31-46. The fact that we are going to be judged according to our works calls for sober self-examination lest our faith be found spurious before the judgement seat of Christ, Matthew 7:21-23. 

2)      On the day of judgement the Lord Jesus will evaluate our service and stewardship

James warns, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” Paul reminds Timothy of his accountability to the Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Timothy 4:1-5.  In 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 the apostle urges Christian workers to build wisely on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Our efforts will be tested by the fire of God’s judgement. Be sure to build for eternity, doing God’s work in God’s way. Faithful service will be amply rewarded, 1 Peter 5:4

3)      On the day of judgement the Lord Jesus will reward believers for their labours

Clearly all believers will enjoy the blessings of eternal life and resurrection glory in the new creation. But Scripture also seems to suggest that the Lord will bestow special privileges upon those who have served him faithfully.[9] Look up Matthew 25:14-30. The faithful servants who wisely invested their master’s money were rewarded proportionately (see also Luke 19:11-27).

Now, we must insist that these rewards are gifts of grace. They are not earned on the basis of merit. We could do no good apart from Christ, John 15:5. Yet, the Lord delights to acknowledge the loving service of his people. We are not told what form these rewards will take. Perhaps those who have served most faithfully will be granted higher privileges in the new creation? We don’t know. One thing’s for sure, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV). 

Let every believer so live as to hear the words of the Master saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.” (Matthew 25:23).*

* A draft article for Grace Magazine. 

---

[1] What St Paul Really Said, Tom Wright, Lion, 1997, p. 126-127.

[2] Paul: Fresh Perspectives, N. T. Wright, SPCK, 2005, p. 148. See John Piper’s interaction with Wright on this point in his The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, Crossway, 2007, p. 103ff

[3] I am aware that for Wright “works of the law” mean Jewish identity markers such as circumcision rather than an attempt to earn salvation by works. See The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, Cornelis P. Venema, Banner of Truth, 2006, p. 169ff for a cogent response.

[4] Compare the “inner man/outer man” contrast in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18. See By Faith Not Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Paternoster, 2006, p. 80-108.

[5] The word is sometimes translated “vindicated in the Spirit” (NIV, ESV), but KJV/NKJV accurately translate, “justified [dikaioo] in the Spirit”.

[6] Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, Mark A. Seifrid, IVP/Apollos, 2000, p, 76

[7] By Faith Not Sight, Gaffin p. 99.

[8] See The Gospel of Free Acceptance, Venema, p. 257ff.

[9] See The Promise of the Future, Cornelis P. Venema, Banner of Truth, 2000, p. 405-419. 

Anselm on the death of Christ and the day of judgement

Reading Robert L. Reymond's The Reformation's Controversy with Rome: Why it Must Continue, (Mentor, 2001), I came across this quote from Anselm, the great medieval Archbishop of Canterbury. Reymond cites it to show that the doctrine justification by faith alone in Christ alone had not entirely disappear in the Dark Ages. (Quoted on p. 76 - see note 75). Anselm is writing to console the dying who, conscious of their sins, feared appearing before God on the day of judgement.

Question: “Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee?”

Answer: “I believe it.”

Question: “Dost thou thank Him for His passion and death?

Answer: “I do thank Him.”

Question: “Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by His death?”

Answer: “I believe it.”

And then Anselm addresses the dying man:

“Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in His death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to His death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if He shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou, ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If He say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say, ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and Your merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that He is wroth with thee, say, ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again, ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and me.’” (see Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687)

Likewise, in his controversy with Franciscian Friar John Vincent Cane, John Owen cited the schoolman Ferus as saying, ‘If you desire to hold the grace and favour of God, make no mention of your own merits.'  He also reminded Cane of the example of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, who, on his death bed ‘renounced all merit of good works, as a proud figment, and gave himself up to the sole grace of God in Jesus Christ, on whose purchase of heaven for him he alone relied.’ Owen urged his opponent to likewise forsake his supposed merits and trust solely in the righteousness and blood of Christ as the grounds of his justification before God.

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness

My beauty are, my glorious dress;

Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,

With joy shall I lift up my head.

(Ludwig von Zinzendorf, 1700-1760)

A footnote on Justification and Sanctification

I'm currently reading and enjoying Kevin Vanhoozer's latest, Remythologising Theology. The book has proper footnotes rather than endnotes. Endnotes are a bit of a pain as it means having to flick back to the end of the book to look up the note. Life's too short for that.

I would be an exaggeration to say that some of the best material in the book may be found in the footnotes, but they are always worth a glance to the bottom of the page. Here is a choice note on justification and sanctification, where Vanhoozer elaborates on this point,

Participation in the triune God - otherwise known as salvation or eternal life - ultimately hinges on the nature of one's communion with Christ. Subsequent doctrines - justification, sanctification, ecclesiology, to name a few - all work further variations on the essential evangelical communicative act that is God's being "for us."122 (p. 279)

Footnote 122 then reads,

Justification and sanctification have to do with the way in which God "communicates" his righteousness and holiness to the ungodly. God declares those those who place their faith in Christ forgiven and directs and enables them to live accordingly by having the Spirit minister the gospel to them. In this way the forgiving word of Christ "dwells richly" in them (Col. 3:16). By means of word and Spirit, then, God calls or gathers a community of the word, a company of communicants (the church). In each case - declaring righteous, enabling holiness, summoning fellowship - we see that Christian doctrine is essentially a schema of triune communicative action, a description of what God is doing in, with, and through is Word.

Vanhoozer's emphasis is reminiscent of Calvin's insight that on union with Christ the believer receives the "double benefit" of justification and sanctification. The two aspects of salvation are distinct. Justification is a declarative act of God, while sanctification is a transformative act of God. But they are inseparable because union with Christ is union with the complete and undivided Saviour,

These benefits [justification and sanctification] are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.....Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker of his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [I Cor. 1:13]. (Inst. III.16.1)

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 3

In the previous two parts of this review series I gave attention to the key issues that led to Beckwith deciding to return to the Roman Catholic Church, namely sola scriptura (here) and justification by faith alone (here). In this final post I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Of course, in a sense, the writer is free to call himself what he wishes. My only concern is whether his self-designation is meaningful.

Evangelical and Catholic?

It is in the last chapter of the book that Beckwith addresses the issue of his identity as an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Quite rightly he points out that 'Evangelical' has its origins in the biblical word, Evangel meaning 'Gospel' or 'Good News' (p. 128). But does Beckwith as a Roman Catholic still hold to the biblical Gospel? Now, there is a huge amount of common ground between Evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both groups hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as set out in the historic creeds, we agree that Jesus is a divine person with a human nature in accordance with the definition of Chalcedon, we confess together that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead and so on. But there are important differences between Evangelical Protestants and their Roman Catholic counterparts.

The crucial difference is over the issue of whether we are saved through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. For all that Roman Catholics may say about the good works of the saints being grace-enabled, any talk of human "merit" tends to undermine the gracious character of salvation. According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, "no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification...". However, the Catechism goes on to say that, "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (see here)." Note, "we can merit for ourselves and for others...the attainment of eternal life". Should the faithful fail to merit the attainment of eternal life, then after death they will have to spend time in purgatory, where they will purified from remaining sin before entering heaven. Time in purgatory can be shortened through the meritorious works of others such as prayers for the dead, penance, and the Eucharistic sacrifice (see here).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of "merit" suggests Christ's obedience and blood are not sufficient to save his people from sin. While salvation is initiated by grace, the full reward of everlasting life is dependent on the meritorious good works of the believer. Any such idea is contradicted by countless Scriptures, Ephesians 2:8-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10, Hebrews 9:13-15. The Gospel is good news because God justifies the ungodly freely by his grace, Romans 1:16-17, 3:24-26, 4:5. Good works are the believer's grace-enabled response to the transforming power of grace. They do not help to "merit" everlasting life. We are saved by grace alone in Christ alone. Christians will certainly be judged by Christ according to their works (2 Corinthians 5:10). The Lord will hold his people to account for their actions. But the believer will stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Romans 8:31-34). It is because they are justified by faith in Christ alone that they will be welcomed into the eternal inheritance of the saints.

I submit that because official Roman Catholic teaching undermines the Gospel of salvation revealed in Holy Scripture that it is not meaningful for Beckwith and other Roman Catholics to label themselves "Evangelical Catholics". In the words of Paul, the gospel of Roman Catholicism is a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). Indeed the Council of Trent explicitly anathematises justification by faith alone, a doctrine that lies at the heart of Evangelical theology (see here). In terms of church history the designation "Evangelical Catholic" is hard to swallow. Evangelicalism as a movement has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. In church-historical terms, Beckwith may as well call himself a "Protestant Catholic".

Beckwith left the Roman Catholic Church in his teenage years and became an Evangelical Christian because Rome could not satisfy his spiritual longings at that time. Despite his being elevated to the position of President of the Evangelical Theological Society, he returned to Rome for basically the same reason. It is pretty sad that Evangelicalism apparently failed to offer sufficient theological vision and spiritual depth to feed his soul. I submit that the wider Evangelical world needs to return to the deep riches of the historic Reformed faith. Perhaps there are some encouraging signs of this happening in the States (see Colin Hansen's Young, Restless, Reformed here and also have a look at Hansen's piece on Evangelical and Catholics in Christianity Today here). I am grateful to Francis Beckwith for entering into a friendly dialogue with me (here, here and here) as he picked up on my reviews.

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 2

In part 1 of this review series I introduced the book and suggested that two substantive doctrinal issues led Beckwith to question his Evangelical Protestant faith and consider reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church: the doctrine of Scripture and justification by faith alone. In part 1 I homed in on what Beckwith had to say on sola scriptura. I was glad to see that the author read the post and thought it "fair minded" (see here), although he disagrees with my conclusions (see his response). Now I would like to look at the reasons Beckwith gives for his change of mind on justification by faith alone. In the final part of the series I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'.

Justification by faith alone

Beckwith does not intend to present a full apologia for the Roman Catholic view of justification in these pages. He simply wants to let his readers in on the processes of his own thinking as he moved from a Protestant to Roman Catholic position. He came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic view has greater explanatory power in relation to the biblical material than the Evangelical Protestant teaching. This is a strong charge given the Evangelical insistence on basing doctrine on sound biblical exegesis. But what of his arguments? In the space of a blog post I can't respond to every point he makes. For the sake of brevity I especially want to zoom in on what he has to say between the relationship between justification and sanctification in Roman Catholic and Protestant thought.

As far as I can see "sanctification" not clearly defined, but the assumption seems to be that in the biblical texts he quotes, "sanctification" means spiritual transformation or the life of good works that is included in justification. (He cites, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Titus 3:5-8 etc - see p. 103-106) There are two problems with this construction. The first is that Beckwith fails to distinguish between positional or definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification. In the texts cited, positional sanctification is invariably in view. As Reformed Theologian John Murray pointed out, "it is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms that refer to sanctification are used not of a process, but of a once-for-all definitive act (see here)." In the texts cited justification is placed alongside definitive sanctification because on union with Christ the believer is at one and the same time declared righteous and set apart to God as holy. In the texts listed above Paul is not conflating justification and the life of sanctified good works. The key idea is position or status not process, hence the aorist tense of the verbs in question. But even here, justification and definitive sanctification remain distinct aspects of salvation, otherwise why would Paul bother to distinguish between them?

Second, Beckwith suggests that in understanding justification forensically, Protestants have difficulty with the Bible's teaching on transformative sanctification. But this is not the case. We hold with Calvin that in Christ the believer receives the "double benefit" of forensic justification and transformative sanctification (Romans 5 & 6). If Roman Catholics including Beckwith said that salvation has both forensic and transformative aspects, I would agree. The wider category of salvation includes both justification and the grace-enabled life of good works. But justification is the forensic aspect of salvation and it should not be merged with regeneration or transformative sanctification. Paul insists again and again that the believer is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Galatians 2:16, 3:10-14) and sets faith against works in the context of justification (Romans 4:5).

It is wrong of Beckwith to suggest that Evangelical Protestants have a problem integrating the Bible's teaching on the need to work out salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13). Maybe the sectors of Evangelicalism in which Beckwith moved did not have an especially great emphasis on progressive sanctification, but the Reformed tradition has always been keen to stress the importance of the life of godliness and the value of good works - see Westminster Confession of Faith XVI. The voluminous Puritan writings on practical piety are enough to silence Beckwith's charge. (See Volumes 6 & 7 of the Works of John Owen, or take a look at J. I. Packer's Among God's Giants for a contemporary appreciation of the Puritan and Reformed teaching on holiness). Contrary to what Beckwith would have us believe (p. 113), there is even even room in Reformed theology for the deification of the believer, when understood in the light of Scripture. Here is John Calvin,

"Peter declares that the purpose for which believers are called is, that they may be “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Pet. 1:4). How so? Because “he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe,” (2 Thess. 1:10). If our Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness, with the elect, nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them; and what is better still, will, in a manner, become one with them, let us remember that every kind of happiness is herein included. But when we have made great progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the mystery, we are still halting at the very entrance". (The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXV:10)

The trouble is that Roman Catholic theology has the tendency to synthesize the different aspects of salvation so that hardly any distinction is made between regeneration, justification and transformative sanctification. The quote from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church on pages 107-108 bears this out (paras 1989-1982 here). It is as if all the different features of salvation have been placed in a Vatican blender and reduced to an undifferentiated soteriological gloop. For Beckwith as a Roman Catholic, "justification includes sanctification" (p. 103 - his own emphasis). More than that, Beckwith agrees with the Catholic teaching that in justification God makes us "inwardly just" (p. 110), making justification virtually equivalent to transformative sanctification. But in Holy Scripture these terms do not all mean the same thing. Regeneration or being born again (John 3:3) is the initial act of saving transformation. Transformative sanctification is the ongoing process of spiritual renewal. Justification is the forensic declaration that the believing sinner is right with God on the basis of Christ's finished work. These key theological words are not interchangeable. Substitute "sanctifies" for "justifies" in Romans 8:33-34 and the force of Paul's argument is blunted. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. It does not refer to the ongoing process of the believer being conformed to the image of Christ, although that too is an integral feature of salvation (Romans 8:29). Distinguishing between justification and sanctification is not as Beckwith suggests another instance of "bifurcation" in Protestant thought. It is simply a matter of being sensitive to clear biblical distinctions in order to preserve the integrity of the different aspects of salvation. A salvation I stress that is not received in disparate bits and pieces, but complete and entire on the believer's union with Christ.

As Beckwith acknowledges (p. 108ff), one of the main Protestant objections to Roman Catholic teaching on justification is that the inclusion of good works in justification effectively undermines the believer's assurance of salvation. How can the Christian ever be sure that he has done enough good works to merit acceptance by God? Beckwith tries to meet this objection by suggesting that even in Protestant teaching, "good works are a necessary condition for true justification." (See p. 109). It is true that good works validate the believer's claim to be truly justified because the faith that alone justifies does not remain alone. As Paul says, "faith works by love" (Galatians 5:6). It is here that the teaching of James comes into its own (James 2:17). But good works do not constitute a condition for justification. The sinner is justified by faith in Christ's finished work alone. That is the primary basis of the believer's assurance, Romans 5:1. But Beckwith makes a salient point when he says that, "The Protestant can repeat the sinners prayer and answer the altar call until the cows come home. But if she shows no evidence of 'good works', her eternal fate remains in serious doubt (p. 110)." There is certainly more to genuine saving faith than saying the "sinners prayer". Such an approach betrays the fact that the wider Evangelical world has a superficial understanding of conversion. The more biblical teaching of Reformed theology insists that salvation in Christ includes forensic justification and the new life of good works. The one is never present without the other. But good works are not needed to supplement the work of Christ in order to help merit salvation. We are saved by grace alone. That is why we reject Catholic practices such as penance, the confessional and prayers for the dead.

In conclusion I suggest that the little word alone stands at the heart of the difference between Evangelical Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformed Churches hold that on the basis of Scripture alone that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone to the glory of God alone. That is what the Reformers understood so well in their controversy with the Roman Catholic Church. If Beckwith felt he could no longer hold to the solas of the Reformation then he did the right thing in retuning to Rome.

N. T. Wright at Helm's Deep

Paul Helm has concluded his four-part series on N. T. Wright and justification by faith alone. Check it out for an acute theological analysis of the differences between Wright's 'new perspective' stance and the classic Reformed position on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

1. Wright in General
2. Why Covenant Faithfulness is not Divine Righteousness (and cannot be).
3. Wright and Righteousness
4. Wright and the Reformation

"On the Reformed view, Christ’s imputed righteousness is ‘alien’, external, the righteousness of another, and even when imputed, it will always remain alien. God justifies the ungodly as ungodly. The widely-used illustration, that Christ’s righteousness is credited to my account, is misleading. (If I’m credited, mustn’t Christ be debited?) To repeat, in the imputation of righteousness, nothing moves. Imputation is not an electronic moral transfer. Righteousness is not transmitted, transfused, or relocated in any way. (Any more than if I receive free insurance cover I receive a transfusion of some mysterious substance called ‘insurance’.) The believer’s imputed righteousness remains inalienably Christ’s perfect righteousness. What is true is that by an act of the unspeakable mercy of God the believer is shielded by, or seen through, or covered by, the righteousness of another." (From Wright and the Reformation ).

Alien?

It has become fashionable to question the traditional Protestant teaching on the imputation of the 'alien' righteousness of Christ to the believer. Richard Gaffin recently wrote that,

"righteousness, as imputed, is, in an absolutely critical sense, anything but 'alien'. Here imputation, realised in union with Christ, results in a 'fellowship of righteousness' [Calvin's words]. It is an imputed righteousness, which does not, indeed cannot, exist apart from that union. Why? Because it is not an abstract entity but his righteousness that is imputed to me, reckoned as mine." (Always Reforming, editor A. T. B. McGowan, IVP, 2006, p. 286).

I found myself nodding in agreement when I first read that statement. It is certainly true that Christ's righteousness has become ours because of our union with him. He is "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:6). So far, so good.

But reading John Webster's Holiness gave me pause for thought. Webster insists that the holiness of the church and the individual believer is an alien holiness. Now, Protestant theology has long held to the alien nature of justifying righteousness. This safeguards the gracious character of justification. We are justified by Christ's righteousness, not by any works of our own. But Webster insists that holiness too is 'alien' partly because he wants to distance himself from social trinitarianism. That school of thought tends to overemphasise the Church's participation in the life of the Trinity. The distinction between God's intertrinitarian fellowship and the Church can therefore become dangerously blurred. This is what leads Webster to posit that the Church's holiness is in fact an alien holiness. Her holiness is the gift of God's electing grace, effected by the cleansing power of Christ's blood, created and sustained by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

"The Church's holiness is therefore an alien sanctity. Because the Church is holy by grace, and because grace is a movement of relation and not a mere handing over of a commodity, then in the case of the Church the attribution of holiness is not a matter of straightforward ascription of a property. God's holiness is proper to him; indeed, it is him, for he is originally holy. The holiness of the Church by contrast, is not a natural or cultural condition. As with all the predicates of the Church, the Church is what it is spiritually, that is, by virtue of the presence and action of the triune God. (Holiness, John Webster, 2003, SCM Press, p. 62-63).

This stress on the alienness of the Church's sanctification reminds us that holiness cannot be possessed or domesticated by the Church. She is holy by virtue of the gracious activity of God.

So, maybe there is some value in retaining the notion of alienness. Yes, we are united to Christ so what is his has become ours. We are righteous and holy in him. But our union with him is not ontological, it is soteriological. The distinction between the believer and Christ remains intact. It is his righteousness and blood alone that saves, apart from anything that we have done. In this sense, righteousness and holiness are properly alien to us. They certainly lie outside of us until we are united to Christ by faith. I am not suggesting for a moment that Gaffin's construction would deny this last point. He emphasises that it is Christ's righteousness as imputed that is not alien to the believer. But even when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, we are accounted righteous in him and because of him not for anything in us. The older language of alienness reminds us that both righteousness and holiness are gifts of grace, not achievements of the believer.

The Future of Justification by John Piper

This newly published book by John Piper, The Future of Justification, A Response to N. T. Wright, is now available for free from the Desiring God website, here.

These are Piper's words from the introduction,

"My little earthly life is too far spent to care much about the ego gratification of scoring points in debate. I am still a sinner depending on Christ for my righteousness before God. So I am quite capable of fear and pride. But I do hope that, where I have made mistakes, I will be willing to admit it. There are far greater things at stake than my fickle sense of gratification or regret. Among these greater things are the faithful preaching of the gospel, the care of guilt-ridden souls, the spiritual power of sacrificial deeds of love, the root of humble Christian political and social engagement, and the courage of Christian missions to confront all the religions of the world with the supremacy of Christ as the only way to escape the wrath to come. When the gospel itself is distorted or blurred, everything else is eventually affected. May the Lord give us help in these days to see the word of his grace with clarity, and savor it with humble and holy zeal, and spread it without partiality so that millions may believe and be saved, to the praise of the glory of God’s grace".

The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ by Cornelis P. Venema

The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspective on Paul by Cornelis P. Venema, Banner of Truth Trust, 2006, 337pp (here).

The new perspective on Paul has thrown into question the way in which Reformation theologians interpreted the writings of the apostle. It is argued that the Reformers misunderstood Paul's teaching on justification by faith and the role of the law. Although new perspective scholars do not agree on everything, they unite on the principle that Paul is best understood against the background of Second Temple Judaism. The 16th century debates over justification between the Reformers and Roman Catholicism are really besides the point.

The problem is that some new perspective advocates (who tend to be specialist New Testament scholars), do not always have a firm grasp of the Reformers' understanding of Paul. Venema writes as a systematic theologian. He is able to set his discussion of the new perspective against a broad theological backdrop. The writer begins by setting out exactly what the Reformers had to say about justification by faith. He gives us a clear picture of Reformation teaching, basing his account on the confessions of the period and examples of Reformed interpretation of Paul's writings. He concludes that the Reformers taught that justification is God's declaration that a sinner is right with him on the basis of the finished work of Christ. This righteous status is received by faith alone, apart from human effort.

New perspective scholars such as Tom Wright often point out that Paul was not combating Pelagianism in his letters. But neither were the Reformers combating a form of "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" Pelagianism in Roman Catholic doctrine. Rome teaches that we are justified by grace. But the initial justification has to be supplemented by works. The problem is semi-Pelagianism - a system of grace plus works. Pelagianism teaches that salvation may be achieved simply on the basis of works. In a helpful chapter, Can a Lonely Faith Save, Venema reflects of what the Epistle of James has to say on the subject of the relationship between faith and works in justification. Genuine faith is made manifest in good works.

Having set out the Reformation's perspective, the writer seeks to describe the work of three leading new perspective writers: E. P. Saunders, J. D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright. Venema gives a clear, concise and fair analysis of the distinctive contributions of these three representative scholars. Saunders argued that Paul was not fighting against legalistic Pelagianism in his doctrine of justification. Palestinian Judaism did not teach salvation by works. They advocated a form of "covenant nomism" that stressed that Israel was God's covenant people by gracious election. But their covenant status had to be maintained by obedience to the law. The "works of the law" that Paul complained about in Romans and Galatians were "boundary markers" like circumcision that excluded Gentiles for membership of the people of God. The issue was not salvation by works. Dunn and Wright disagree with some aspects of Saunder's reconstruction of justification and the law, but they accept that Second Temple Judaism was not a legalistic, Pelagian religion. But as Venema points out - if Saunders is right then first century Judaism was, like Roman Catholicism, semi-Pelagian. It taught that people get into the covenant by grace but stay in by works. Perhaps the Reformation understanding of Judaism as proto-Roman Catholicism was not too wide of the mark?

According to the new perspective emphasis, justification is not primarily about the sinner's status before a holy God. It concerns the question, "Who are the people of God?" Faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah is the boundary marker of the new covenant. Jewish nationalistic boasting in the works of the law was contrary to God's intention of gathering Jew and Gentile into one body in Christ. If the issue was nationalism as Saunders claims, then he may have absolved first century Jews of the charge of legalism, only to leave them saddled with the accusation of racist exclusivity.

Venema makes some shrewd observations about new perspective methodology. He agrees that Paul needs to be understood against his first century background. But he argues that historical reconstruction must not be allowed to prejudge Paul's meaning. His writings must be allowed to speak for themselves. Venema quotes Saunders' treatment of Jesus' denunciation of the legalism and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Saunders is reluctant to admit that Second Temple Judaism could have been guilty of those attitudes. Should historical reconstruction be allowed to have such a determinative role in Biblical exegesis?

The writer then goes on to reflect on the exegetical issues surrounding the "works of the law" and "the righteousness of God" in Paul's letters. Venema pays careful attention to the key Pauline texts and argues that the "works of the law" have a broader meaning than simply Jewish "boundary markers". In Romans especially, Paul was out to demonstrate that the law condemns all sinners because no-one has fulfilled the law's demands. What guilty sinners need is a saving righteousness from God apart from the works of the law.

Venema appreciates the new perspective insight that the "righteousness of God" is God's covenant faithfulness. But this does not exhaust Paul's meaning. In his covenant faithfulness God constitutes his people in a right relationship with himself by imputing to them the righteousness of Christ. A whole chapter is devoted to a defence of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The basis of our justification is the obedient life and substitutionary death of Christ. Jesus' righteousness is put to the account of all who believe in him.

The issue of justification and final judgement according to works is discussed with particular reference to the views of Tom Wright. According to him, justification has a forensic element, but the primary focus is on membership of the people of God. At the last judgement professing Christians will be assessed on the basis of the whole life of faith. Their works as well as their initial justification will form the basis of God's judgement. Venema shows that this position undermines justification by faith alone. We will be judged according to our works, but works do not augment our initial gracious justification. They simply demonstrate that the believer has a genuine, living faith.

Throughout the book, Venema writes irenically and is respectful towards those with whom he disagrees. He does not claim to have said the last word on the new perspective controversy and is aware that more, detailed work needs to be done. He is grateful for some of the gains of the new perspective. But Venema has shown that the Reformers had a better overall grasp of Paul's teaching than they are sometimes given credit for. By looking at the issues from the standpoint of systematic theology, Venema has brought an interdisciplinary approach to a subject that is often seen as the preserve of historical revisionists and New Testament scholars. Those who simply tend to write off the older perspective will benefit from Venema's assessment of the Reformation and new perspective on Paul. Everyone interested in following the controversy over Paul's doctrine of justification will benefit from this constructive engagement with new perspective teaching.

Letter to Diognetus on the sweet exchange of justification

Here is another example of Patristic teaching on justification by faith alone. We don't know the author, but the letter was written circa 100-150AD (see here).

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.

From The Letter to Diognetus, chapter 9.

Clement of Rome on justification by faith alone

Just to show that the Reformers did not invent justification by faith alone, here is a very old (and perceptive) perspective on Paul (AD 96):

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Letter to the Corinthians chapter 32

Philip Eveson's The Great Exchange Online

In an earlier post, I referred readers to The Great Exchange by P. H. Eveson. The writer is Principal of the London Theological Seminary. The first time I heard of the 'New Perspective on Paul' was in his lectures on Galatians during my time at the Seminary (1988-90). His assessment of the NPP, is now available online here.

A New Perspective Poem

In response to Chris Tilling's Paul, Judaism and Methodology (a poem), here's my attempt at a poetic evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul.

N. T. Wright’s the doyen of New Perspective Theology.
He says, “It’s all about the exile, don’t you see.”
Paul wasn’t bothered by the introspective conscience of the West,
Palestinian Judaism liked grace best.

The Reformers thought that Judaism was into merit,
But they were as wrong as a blind ferret.
Best to follow Saunders E.P.
He’s the man to set your mind free.

But is faith really just a boundary mark?
Those NPP boys are in the wrong ball park.
Cos none can be saved by the works of the law.
By grace through faith, that’s what Paul saw.

If we get in by grace and stay in by law,
That still leaves us feeling sore.
We can’t stay in by what we do.
We need a covenant that’s, like totally new.

Don’t be taken in, don’t be a fool!
Maybe NPP isn’t so cool.
Wright’s a scholar, bishop and very nice man,
But he’s quite wrong on justification.

Maybe NPP is just a fad,
Like the kipper tie worn by your dad.
So think about it, proceed with caution,
And read The Great Exchange by P. H. Eveson.

Contours of Pauline Theology by Tom Holland

Mentor, 2004

The main thesis of this book is that we cannot understand the apostle Paul unless we grasp that his thought was fundamentally rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures. Holland wants to refute once and for all the idea that Paul jettisoned the Jewish roots of Christianity in order to make the fledgling faith acceptable to a Gentile audience. The author argues that Paul did not Hellenise Christianity. The apostle remained faithful to his Old Testament heritage as he preached Jesus the Messiah to the peoples of the ancient world.

.

In a chapter Paul and the Prophets, Holland seeks to demonstrate that Paul's Epistle to the Romans is structured around quotations and allusions to Isaiah and other key Old Testament texts. Paul not only cited Isaiah, he drew his theological categories from the Prophet. In Isaiah and the Servant the writer develops a case for understanding Paul's use of the word "servant" against the background of Isaiah's Servant Songs rather than the Greek notion of bondservant. Paul saw himself as a servant of the Lord in the Isaianic sense. His task was to proclaim the light of the gospel to the Gentiles in continuation of the ministry of Jesus, the Servant of the Lord. There is helpful material in this chapter, but Holland takes his case too far by arguing that the great Servant Song in Isaiah 53 was not used by the apostles to interpret the death of Christ. Matthew 20:28, Philippians 2:7&8 and Acts 8:32-35 would suggest otherwise.

.

Holland's key idea is that Paul's thinking was radically shaped by Old Testament teaching on new exodus and the passover. Accordingly, Christ's work on the cross is understood as a passover sacrifice that accomplishes the "new exodus"; the redemption of the world from the power of sin, death and Satan. The writer detects the influence of Ezekiel's vision of the new temple on Paul's view of the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice. Ezekiel's apparent conflation of the Passover with the Day of Atonement is claimed to be the source of Paul's teaching in Romans 3:25&26. .

>

A recurring theme in this book is that interpreters have tended to view Paul through the lenses of Western individualism. Holland tries to redress the balance by insisting that the 'body of sin' in Romans 6:6 should be understood corporately as humanity under the power of sin and the Devil. He also tries to argue that baptism in Romans 6 and the 'harlot' of 1 Corinthians 6:15ff are corporate categories. I did not find Holland's exegesis altogether convincing. There is certainly a corporate dimension to Paul's thought (Romans 5:12ff, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4 etc). It would have been better if the author had spend more time unpacking these passages rather than trying to establish a corporate meaning of texts that are better understood on an individual or personal level.

.

One can hardly write a book about Paul's theology without interacting with the so-called 'New Perspective on Paul'. Holland devotes a chapter to Justification and the New Perspective. He criticizes E.P. Saunders for misreading the intertestamental literature. Saunders quotes the literature too selectively to prove his case that the Jews did not rely on their works for acceptance with God. Holland suggests that N.T. Wright has misunderstood both Paul and the teaching of the Protestant Reformers. Wright holds that faith in Jesus as Lord is the 'boundary marker' that shows that the believer is in the covenant. Faith has replaced 'works of the law' such as circumcision, which were the boundary markers of the Old Testament. For Wright, justification concerns the question: "Who are the people of God?" rather than, "How can a sinner be right with God?". It is primarily about ecclesiology not soteriology.

.

Holland sees justification as God's declaration that he has taken his people into a covenant relationship with himself. Contrary to Wright, justification does not simply act as a boundary marker, denoting those who are in covenant. Justification brings the people of God into the covenant. Justification is a corporate category. God justifies his covenant people rather than individuals. Christians appropriate this justification personally when they believe in Christ. Holland maintains the Reformer's insight into justification as a forensic declaration that sinners have been put right with God apart from their works. But he insists that justification is also relational - because it refers to the creation of a covenant between the Lord and his people. An appendix on The Reformed Faith and Justification discusses this matter further. The downplaying of the individual aspect of justification by faith in Holland's treatment is to be regretted. Paul is capable of describing justification in deeply personal language (Galatians 2:16 & 20).

.

In chapters on The Firstborn and the Jewish Cult and The Firstborn and the Colossians Hymn, Holland makes a case for setting the description of Christ as the 'firstborn over all creation' against the background of the Passover. He shows that the firstborn child was a representative figure in the Old Testament. The firstborn Israelite children were spared at the original Passover. The Levites were offered to God as a substitute for the firstborn. The firstborn son was given a double inheritance, so he could act as redeemer, should other members of his family need to be freed from debt or slavery. As 'firstborn of creation', Christ acts as the representative and redeemer of the people of God. These chapters make an original and helpful contribution to our understanding of Christ's role as redeemer of the cosmos.

.

The Contours of Pauline Theology is a helpful exploration of the Old Testament roots of the apostle's theology. Holland succeeds in demonstrating that Paul was a true Hebrew Christian and no Hellenist. He exposes some of the flaws in 'New Perspective' thinking. His own proposals on justification demand careful thought and attention, but many will find his emphasis on corporate justification hard to swallow. As has been suggested, the author sometimes over-eggs his pudding by taking his arguments too far. Holland does not have the literary flair of Tom Wright (few do!) and the book sometimes lacks verve and clarity. But this work is the fruit of much study and reflection. It should be read by all who wish to keep abreast of the ever challenging and stimulating field of Pauline Theology.

Sola Fide - The Heart of the Gospel

Click here for Phil Johnson on justification by faith alone.

The Solas of the Reformation - Sola Fide

Faith Alone!

Martin Luther tried as hard as he could to save himself as a devout monk. But he despaired of finding salvation by works. He came to understand that justification – a right standing before God was obtainable by faith alone.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the righteousness of God and the statement ‘the just shall live by faith’ (Romans 1:17). Then I grasped that the righteousness of God is that righteousness by which though grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on new meaning, and whereas before ‘the righteousness of God’ had filled me with hate, not it became inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.

This is the Bible’s teaching,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

Justification is God’s declaration that the sinner is righteous in his sight.,

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness (Romans 4:5.)

The basis of justification is the death and resurrection of Christ,

who was delivered up because of our offences, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:25.)

Christ alone saves us by faith in him alone.

This foundational doctrine of the Reformation needs to be safeguarded today. Biblical scholars such as Tom Wright, the current Bishop of Durham teach the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”. The “New Perspective” makes justification a matter of “Who are the people of God?” not “How can a sinner be right with God?” This view is becoming increasingly influential. But it robs the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith of its God-ward emphasis. Justification is primarily about God declaring a sinner righteous in is sight, not who belongs to the people of God.

Justification does impact on the doctrine of the Church – all believers have access to God in prayer through Christ. We need no priestly intervention. Christian Ministers are gifted and called to preach to and lead they people of God. But all Christians believers constitute a “royal priesthood” with access to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:9).

Justification by faith alone safeguards the free, gracious aspect of the gospel. We are justified apart from our works. But the faith that alone saves does not remain alone. The faith that justifies works through love (Galatians 5:6).

Justification is the basis of assurance,

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ (Romans 8: 31-35)

Luther was racked with guilt when he was a devout monk, because he could never be sure that he had done enough to satisfy God. Justification by faith alone points us outside of ourselves, away from our works, moods and feelings to Christ. He has satisfied God’s justice. His righteousness is counted to us by faith. Therefore we can by joyously confident that we are accepted in the Beloved.

.

N. T. Wright on justification here

Justification & the resurrection of Christ here

See The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson, Day One Publications, for an evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul.

.

This is part 3 of a series on the "sloas" that arose from a couple of posts on Biblical Protestantism (see below)

Don Carson on Justification in Evangelical & Catholic dialogue

I recently came across this essay by Don Carson that deals with justification by faith in the context of Evangelical and Catholic dialogue. Carson brings Biblical clarity to a discussion that is often mired in a well-meaning fog of muddle and confusion.

The essay is in the form of a 28 page Adobe Acrobat document. Read it here .

Paul: Fresh Perspectives by N. T. Wright

N. T. Wright is something of a controversial figure. He is lionised by some as the doyen of "New Perspective" scholarship. For precisely the same reason he is distrusted by others, especially because of his views on justification by faith alone. As an "old schooler" who appreciated Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK 2003), I approached this book with a mixture of expectation and caution. As may be expected from Wright, this book is very well written. The author writes with verve and originality and expresses his ideas in crystal clear prose.
.
The introductory chapter attempts to set Paul within the context of 1st Century Judaism and Roman and Greek culture. Here, Wright also discusses the current state of Pauline studies in terms of perspectives old, new and different. The following chapters on Creation and Covenant, Messiah and Apocalyptic and Gospel and Empire show the way in which Paul took these traditional Jewish themes and reworked them around Jesus Christ over and against the paganism of his day. Each chapter brings fresh insight to these subjects. Next, Wright considers Rethinking God, starting from the roots of Paul's theology in Jewish monotheism and tracing the development of the apostle's trinitarian thinking. Paul rethinks the God of Israel in the light of the coming of Messiah and the work of the Spirit.

.

Justification Redefined

In some ways, the next chapter, Reworking God's People is the most controversial. It is here that Wright's "new perspective" thinking, that informs the whole of the book comes to the fore. Not that Wright accepts Saunders' reading of Paul uncritically (p. 12). He insists rightly that,

.

'justification' does not itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from unbelief, idolatry and sin into faith, true worship and renewal of life. Paul clearly and unambiguously, uses and different word for that, the word 'call'. (p. 121)

.

According to Wright, justification is concerned with the question, 'Who belongs to the people of God?' Justification serves as a badge of membership for God's people both Jew and Gentile.

.

Justification, for Paul is a subset of election, that is, it belongs as part of his doctrine of the people of God. (p.121)

.

Justification certainly has implications for the question, 'Who belongs to the people of God?' Peter's refusal to have table fellowship with Gentiles in Galatians 2 was a denial of the fact that,

.

a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; by by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Galatians 2:16.)

..

But, is Wright right to define justification primarily as a badge of covenant membership?

.

Justification Defined

The verb, "to justify" means "to declare righteous",

.

If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked... (Deuteronomy 25:1.)

.

Paul works within the same legal framework when he says, "It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns?" (Romans 8:33 & 34.)

.

Wright tends to see Paul's argument in Galatians in terms of the themes of exodus and exile. The "curse of the law" that Christ bore in Galatians 3:13 is explained in terms of the curses of the covenant, especially exile, as set out in Deuteronomy 28. He says,

.

The point about 'the curse' , and the Messiah's bearing it on behalf of others is not that there is a general abstract curse hanging over the whole human race....the curse is the curse of exile (p. 139).

.

The curse which has come upon Israel has thus caused the promises made through Israel [for the Nations] to get stuck; and it is this curse from which...the Messiah has redeemed 'us'. (p. 140.)

.

The problem here is that Wright has so stressed the important themes of exodus and exile that he has screened out the wider Biblical teaching. The "curse" is first mentioned in connection with the fall, where the ground is cursed for Adam's sake (Genesis 3:17.) This is a general concrete curse that affects man's life on earth. The curse described in Galatians 3:13 is that of Deuteronomy 21:22 & 23, where a transgressor of the law is hanged on a tree as one accursed by God. The context is that of the judicial punishment of a lawbreaker, not the curse of exile. Christ became a curse "for us" because he was condemned to die on behalf of those who had broken God's law, whether Jew or Gentile. To suggest that Christ became a curse simply to unblock the promises made through Israel is reductionistic.

.

The people of God comprises of sinners who have been justified by faith in the Messiah. But justification is not a mere "badge of membership". It is God's declaration that a believing sinner is righteous on the basis of Jesus' death and resurrection.

.

I wonder if Wright has really understood the traditional Reformed understanding of justification when he can say,

.

It is ironic that some within the 'old perspective' on Paul, by continuing to promote the wrong view of justification as conversion, as the moment of personal salvation and coming to faith rather than God's declaration about faith, have reinforced as well a polarisation between Jesus and Paul... (p. 159 & 160).

.

There is some real theological confusion in this sentence. No mainstream Reformed statement on justification regards justification as a synonym for conversion. Conversion is about faith and repentance. Justification is God's declaration that those who believe in Christ are right with him.

.

Some Healthy Emphases

Throughout the book, Wright is very clear on Paul's teaching about the resurrection of Christ and the renewal creation. Chapters 2 and 7 are especially helpful on this theme. The concluding Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church includes a discussion of the relationship between Paul and Jesus and makes some very valuable practical points. Wright criticizes the arrogance of the Enlightenment that puts "I" at the centre with Descartes' "I think therefore I am." He also distances himself from postmodernism saying,

.

Welcome to postmodernity where even Descartes last bastion turns out to be an unreliable kaleidoscopic mirror. (p. 172).

.

The distinctive Christian position is "I am loved therefore I am".

.

This challenging and thought-provoking book is well worth reading. It certainly gave me some fresh perspectives on important Pauline themes. But I am not convinced that Wright is right on justification by faith.