1) N.T. Wright's view on justification handles our case before God as a civil complaint rather than a criminal complaint. He says our justification is when God's court, in a dispute between two opposing parties, finds in our favor. This dispute is not a moral dispute as in "I, the plaintiff, accuse you, the defendant, of breaking the law" but a "who's right/who's wrong" dispute. He argues, "JUSTIFICATION denotes, primarily, that action in the lawcourt whereby a judge upholds the case of one party in dispute before him (in the Hebrew lawcourt, where the image originates, all cases consist of an accuser and a defendant, there being no public prosecutor). Having heard the case, the judge finds in favour of one party, and thereby ‘justifies’ him" (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Justification.htm). In other words, in a dispute between two parties, justification is when God declares one party right and one party wrong and in God's court the Christian faithful will ultimately be vindicated. Wright sets this up as a dispute that will be resolved on Judgement Day. He says "justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the people of God will be vindicated and those who insist on worshipping false gods will be shown to be wrong" ("What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?", p131). There are two issues with this in my mind. The first issue is who Wright identifies as the accuser (the plaintiff). In his view it is idolators who are the plaintiffs and Christians who are defendants. In my opinion, one reason Wright is wrong here is because in the Bible it is not idolators that accuse Christians before God, it is Satan himself who is our accuser (Zech 3:1, Rev 12:10). Satan is the plaintiff. The second issue is the nature of the dispute. The judgement is not a question of "who's right?" and "who's wrong?" (as in a civil case) but rather "does the accused (defendant) hate God and love evil or do they love God and hate evil?" (as in a criminal case) The case of Job is relevant here. God asks Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." (Job 1:8), to which Satan replies, "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." (Job 1:10-11) So Satan seems to make the accusation that Job is a disobedient God-hater who loves evil. I agree with Wright that in the end Christians will be vindicated and declared to be "in the right", but I think this verdict will be a result of our being "in Christ" and therefore found to be morally blameless--people who fear God and shun evil (something that is only possible by a Spirit-regenerated life found through faith in Christ).
2) I think N.T. Wright's definition of God's righteousness is too shallow. I do not mean that in a derogatory way, but in a descriptive way. He says "God's righteousness refers to his own faithfulness to the covenant he made with Abraham" (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=1). If this is true then God's righteousness is dependent on the existence of the covenant and therefore God's righteousness was non-existent prior to the Abrahamic covenant. I just don't believe this to be true. Rather, I understand God's righteousness to be an immutable attribute of God that has always been and always will be--just like his love and his glory. It is not dependent on anything outside itself. I agree with John Piper who says God's righteousness "is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name in all he does. No single action, like covenant keeping, is God's righteousness. For all his acts are done in righteousness" (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=1). So while God's righteousness includes his faithfulness to the covenant he made with Abraham, it is not limited to that faithfulness. Why is this distinction important? Because Wright's understanding of justification is dependent upon his definition of God's righteousness. Due to his definition he argues God's righteousness cannot be transferred to believers. If God's righteousness is an action like faithfulness to a covenant then he argues it cannot be given to others. He says, "If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom." (N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p98). I believe Wright's error here is that he focuses on what God's righteousness does and not on what it is. Paul indeed says that Christ's righteousness is credited to us (Romans 4:22) which communicates to me that there is indeed a transfer taking place. Another key verse to make mention of is 2 Corinthians 5:20, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Wright suggests this verse actually means "for our sake God made Christ, who did not know sin, to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become God’s covenant-faithfulness." (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf) Yet when I read his interpretation of that verse I feel like he is massaging it a little bit too much to fit his paradigm.
3) N.T. Wright sees no connection between the problem of our sin and our need for justification. In his view, God justifies us on the basis of our being "in Christ", not on the basis of our moral standing. "The person justified is described as ‘just’, ‘righteous’ ... not as a description of moral character but as a statement of his status before the court (which will, ideally, be matched by character, but that is not the point)." (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Justification.htm) My reply to him would be, "Yes, but...our being 'in Christ' perfects our moral standing." You cannot separate the two. The easiest way to answer the question "Why are people justified?" may be to answer its corollary: Why are some people unjustified and therefore condemned? To me the Bible seems clear those who are condemned are so because of their imperfect moral standing (evil deeds). Consider Jesus' words in John 3:
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:18-19 (emphasis mine)Here Jesus explains that people are condemned because they do not believe. But why don't they believe? His answer is: because they love the darkness since their deeds are evil. The darkness hides the evil.
Also consider what Paul says in Romans:
5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. (Romans 2:5-8)Unjustified people are condemned because their deeds are evil. Since their deeds are evil they love the darkness because it allows them to continue doing evil deeds. So if people are condemned because of their imperfect moral standing, it follows that people are justified because of their perfect moral standing, and perfect moral standing is only possible through faith in Christ when his righteousness is credited to us (Romans 4:24).
Furthermore, a direct rebuttal to Wright's view is found in Acts 13, where Paul states, "Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39, emphasis mine) Paul makes it extremely clear that our justification equates to being "set free from every sin" through belief.
4) Finally, Wright says the gospel is not "a system of how people get saved" ("What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?", p45). Instead, to Wright the good news is the declaration that Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. He says, the "gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world" (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html?start=2). The byproduct of this gospel, he argues, is that people get saved, but the opportunity for salvation is not the gospel itself. I completely agree the gospel is the good news that Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, but I would argue the fulfillment of God's promise includes salvation. Referring again to Acts 13, Paul starts his message by defining the good news: "We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus." (Acts 13:32-33) But Paul doesn't stop there. He ends his message with the wonderful reality that "through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin" (Acts 13:38-39). So the full gospel message includes "Christ is King" and also "Christ is Savior". What's fascinating here is that this is emphasized by the very name "Jesus Christ". "Christ" comes from "christos", a Greek word meaning "anointed one". It equates to the Hebrew word for "Messiah" (John 1:41). The "anointed one" refers to a priest or king--both of which describe Christ's role. "Jesus" means "YAHWEH is salvation". Mary was told to name her baby "Jesus" because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20-21). This sheds light on why Christ said "Whoever believes in [God's Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18, emphasis mine). The name "Jesus Christ" is the gospel.
In light of Romans 10:9 it's questionable to me whether an individual has to know their sins are forgiven in order to be saved. However I do think forgiveness of sins and assurance of salvation is what makes the good news truly "good". The question should be asked about Wright's view: what's good about news that doesn't imply some potential benefit to the hearer? In order for the news that "Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise" to be good news I have to know how it affects me. It is indeed good news to those who believe, but it is terrible news to everyone who doesn't. That's why the gospel includes the declaration that through faith we (each person and individual) can receive freedom from slavery to sin and become children of God, which is indeed a message of salvation. I agree with Wright the gospel is not a message instructing people "how to get saved" simply because there is nothing to do in order to be saved. The gospel is a message that you either believe or you don't. And Paul knew by sharing this message with people some would be saved because they would believe the news.
There are other issues where I completely agree with N.T. Wright, like the historical resurrection, for instance. While I do not fully agree with his view on justification, I think his explanation of justification is a positively challenging one. It certainly forced me to try to figure out what I believe.
Why is it important to be clear about what justification is and what it does? First, it's important because justification is the moment at which you become reconciled to God and God becomes "for you". When you know God is for you can live empowered and confident as Paul did (Romans 8:31). Also, when sharing the gospel with someone we need to understand what the "good news" is and justification is a huge part of the message. People want to know how this good news affects them. Why is it relevant? The answer is because it offers freedom from sin and kingdom benefits. Justification is what makes the good news truly "good" for the individual. Understanding how justification works will help make us much clearer communicators of the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment