Featured FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

FOUR REASONS WRIGHT IS WRONG

Professor Wright asserts that Paul in Romans and Galatians is not repudiating a personal moral righteousness by works in order to be justified but is repudiating one must be a covenant keeping Jew in order to be justified before God. He claims that Jews did not keep the Law in order to be justified but in order to identify with the covenant people of God. However, Wright is wrong for four reasons:

1. If justification is not by personal righteousness, where then does the Bible teach it is not if not in Romans and Galations? Wright's denial that they are trying to be justified by works is admission that justification by works is wrong but he has neutered all passages that would teach it is wrong!

2. In Romans and Galatians Paul's use of "works" is always pitted against grace (Rom.3-4; 11:6; Gal. 2:15-21) and yet Wright claims that our works identify us as new covenant people of grace as it identified the Jews as old covenant people of grace. Yet, in Romans and Galatians Paul's concept of works is contrary to grace.

3. Paul's use of "works" with regard to Abraham in Romans and Galatians is PRE-COVENANT as his justification preceded his circumcision which was the sign of the covenant. Hence, in Romans 4:1-5 'works" cannot refer to the covenant but to personal acts of righteousness.

4. The definition of works by Christ demonstrate it refers to a personal moral righteousness or lack thereof (evil works) in Matthew 15:17-18. Christ defines evil works as originating in the heart - the seat of human morality rather than with covenant identification as Wright wrongly supposes. In the discussions between the Lawyer and rich young ruler with Christ there is clear evidence that both Christ and the Jews viewed the law as a moral basis for obtaining righteousness to obtain eternal life. The only problem is that Christ demonstrated the fallen man is incapable of meeting the law's requirements to be justified for eternal life.

 

Thank you for the website reference. A very good summary. I will respond to it later.

 

1. "The law court setting gives ‘righteousness’ the idea of the standing of a person in relation to the court’s decision.In the Hebrew court there were no public prosecutors: all cases had to be brought by a plaintiff against a defendant. Righteousness is the status which results, for either party, if the court finds in his favour. Since the standard of judgment is the covenant law of God, ‘righteousness’ can acquire the sense of ‘behaviour in conformity with the covenant requirements’, bringing about the possibility that right covenant standing can be observed in ordinary behaviour. In addition, the judge, or king, must conform to a different sense of righteousness: he must try cases fairly, i.e. he must be true to the law and/or the covenant, must condemn evil, show no partiality, and uphold the cause of the defenceless. This complex meaning explains the occasional instances when the Septuagint uses dikaiosynē to translate not sedeq and its cognates but other roots such as hesed (grace, covenant mercy), mišpāt (judgment, justice), etc."

The Jewish law court setting is established by God and His law is the basis for determining on the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL who is right and who is wrong. The Plantiff is the proscecutor who brings the charge. The court,based upon God's standard of righteousness, determines if the charge is right or wrong and thus if the defendant is right or wrong. The plantiff is not on trial any more than a prosecutor would be on trial. It is his case against the defendant that is being tried by the court. The Court views the evidences brought forth by two or three witnesses and makes its declaration of guilt or innocency based on the evidences determined by its standard of righteousness - the law. The Jewish law court dealt with individual personal morality and gave a declaration of either innocency or guilt followed by the appropriate judicial consequences.

More significantly, the Jewish law court deals with the INDIVIDUAL and MORAL righteousness. Wright is adding confusion here by bringing in the idea of "covenant" relationship which is with the NATION of Israel when the law court deals with INDIVIDUALS and personal righteousness under moral law as applied to civil cases. It is not the Jewish court but the divine court of God which deals with covenant violations by Israel as a nation. The Jewish law court is strictly individualized and deals with personal moral violations of God's law. This law court is applied equally to the "stranger" within their midst.

These two settings (lawcourt and covenant) combine to produce the developed covenantal theology which underlay Judaism at the time of Jesus.

I believe he is confusing individual morality that is dealt with by the Jewish law court with national covenant violation which is dealt with by the divine court. Significantly, many individuals within the nation may be guilty of violating the national covenant and yet God will deliver the nation if the majority of the nation is obedient to the covenant. Such is not the case with the Jewish law court.



To have ‘righteousness’ meant to belong to the covenant, the boundary marker of which was the Torah, and the hope of which was that God, in accordance with his own righteousness, would act in history to ‘vindicate’, to ‘justify’, his people (i.e. to show that they really were his people) by saving them from their enemies.

This is simply not true as he is applying and merging two different things. This is true on a national level and God may deliver Israel IF the nation as a whole is keeping his covenant in spite of many indivudalized violations. The Jewish law court is concerned with the individual not the nation. The Divine court with regard to the NATIONAL COVENANT is concerned with corporate violations. God's law court with regard to individuals whether Jew or Gentile is like the Jewish law court.



These meanings are reflected particularly in Matthew, where ‘righteousness’ is shorthand both for the saving plan of God (Mt. 3:15) and for the covenantal obligations of his people (5:20; 6:1), and Luke, which emphasizes the ‘righteous’ standing of many of the key actors in the drama (Lk. 1:6; 2:25; 23:50; Acts 10:22). Jesus himself is sometimes called ‘the righteous one’, in virtue of his being the one designated by God as his true covenant partner (e.g. Acts 3:14; 7:52, 22:14, Jas. 5:6). The Jewish belief that God would judge the world justly is echoed repeatedly in the NT, e.g. 2 Thes. 1:5-6; Rom. 2:1-16; Heb. 12:23. But the fullest development comes in Paul, particularly with his exposition in Romans of the righteousness of God.

He is simply wrong here! The lawyer and Rich young ruler demonstrate that the law was viewed as a means to determine personal moral justification without any regard or reference to the national covenant relationship. The final day of judgement is like the Jewish law court rather than the national covenant divine administration.

 

The issue is simple from my perspective. Covenant righteousness in the OT is a NATIONALISTIC thing whereas moral righteousness has been, is and always will be an INDIVIDUAL thing and that is what the final day of judgement is concerned with. Israel as a NATION can be righteous even though many INDIVIDUALS within the nation openly violate the covenant. Indeed, Israel at its best has always been lacking in covenant righteousness with regard to all Jews. However, the Jewish law court and the final day of judgement deal with individual moral righteousness.

 

If individuals are not justified on the basis of personal moral righteousness or GOOD WORKS then where are the Scripture texts that teach this? Wright has removed Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-5 from that list by insisting that phrases like "justified by faith without works" and like passages do not refer to justification by personal moral righteousness but to covenant identification with the people of God?

 

Precisely! But NT Wright disputes that is the meaning of "justified by faith without works."

They are one and the same when they are defined by God's own righteousness. It is all about God's image in man. It is not merely about imparted righteousness by being created in Christ Jesus but about reversing the legal condemnation in Adam.

 

Jon, I don't know how you would be derailing it as it is part and parcel with this thread.

 

Go for it brother! I would be interested in seeing the angle you are coming from.

 

I reject any and every doctrine that depends upon secular history to understand and/or to define it as that is simply an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture as the final authority for doctrine and practice. If we are talking about a custom secular history may be helpful but when we are speaking of the most important doctrines in God's Word, it is inexcusable to claim that it cannot be properly understood apart from a secular source.

 

For a lack of a better term, this statement is oxymoronic! I don't mean that as insult but as an honest evaluation, as it is a logical contradiction. First, you state that our "unrighteousness" is not a "moral" one but then state it is manifest as "immorality." The term "immorality" has no meaning apart from what is defined as "moral" as it is the failure to measure up to the standard that defines "moral." The term "unrighteousness" has no meaning apart from "righteousness" as it is failure to measure up to the standard that defines righteousness. In both cases the standard is God's own moral nature that is merely revealed in the law and expounded in the prophets but most clearly revealed in the LIFE of Christ (Rom.3:20-21).

The law of God manifests the moral nature of God (Rom. 3:20-21). The Civil and Ceremonial laws are mere applications of moral law. It is God's own righteousness that sin comes short, as the holiness of God - his righteousness is the glory of God (Rom. 6;23).

Anything, and everything that is inconsistent with God's command is immoral as all of God's commandments have their basis in the moral nature of God.

 

The bible says that is impossible for God to lie! Why? Lying is a manifestation of an immoral nature. God's nature is "holy" and so we are to be "holy" and that is defined in moral terms which have their defining standard in the moral law.

 

Jon, if you read what I said carefully, that is precisely what I said. Morality has its ultimate standard in the nature of God whereas the law is a written revelation, but the more perfect revelation is the life of Christ. This is precisely what Romans 3:21-22 states (which I repeated more than once).