As I embark on the third chapter of Wright’s Justification, I call to mind an observation that Michael Bird made in the paper he presented at ETS 2010 in Atlanta Georgia. And that is Protestant Evangelicals, particularly here in America, are worried that extra-biblical sources contemporary to or formative of the world that the New Testament was written in, but are more than willing to use 4th century, 16th century or later sources to compose the context in which one may read and interpret the New Testament and Paul. Michael Bird sums up John Piper’s objection to these sources in his paper (Piper’s objections can be read here),

Piper is both cautious and even dismissive of the use of non-biblical sources to illuminate a biblical text. He thinks that first-century ideas can “distort and silence” what the New Testament authors say for three reasons. First, the sources may be misunderstood because knowledge of extra-biblical literature is often tenuous. Second, the first century sources do not speak unanimously and no single source document can speak for what Jews of antiquity really believed. Third, scholars can misapply a first century document to a biblical text. Piper concludes that scholars, pastors, and lay people should have a “modest skepticism” when an over-arching worldview is used to give “new” or “fresh” interpretations to biblical texts that in their own context do not naturally provide grounds for these new interpretations.

While Bird is not completely sold on Wright’s interpretation of some of these extra-biblical sources (e.g. 4QMMT and “works of the law:), nor does he want to create the impression that the only people competent to interpret Scripture are those who have done extensive research into the historical setting of the New Testament. But I have to agree with Bird when he responds to Piper,

However, I cannot go along with Piper’s objections for three reasons. (1) Piper himself is willing to use new insights from extra-biblical sources to change old interpretations when it suits him. An example of this is 1 Cor 11:3 where the ESV changed the RSV’s “woman” to “wife” due to evidence accumulated by Bruce Winter who showed from inscriptions and literary evidence that only wives had to cover their heads. (2) While Piper is alarmed by the use of first-century Jewish sources to illuminate the New Testament, he shows not such alarm or caution in using seventeenth century authors or modern Baptist authors to understand the text. In other words, Piper doesn’t want us using Qumran or the Apocrypha to understand the New Testament, but he is perfectly happy using John Owen and Jonathan Edwards to do the same. Given that Reformed writers can distort the text or impose foreign frameworks upon it, why no caution here? (3) Study of the historical sources should be part of the study habits of every pastor. James Charlesworth has inherited five libraries of pastors who have retired and every single one of them had a copy of William Whiston’s The Complete Works of Josephus. How many of us were given copies of Alfred Eldersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah or Emil Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ and found them invaluable sources for our study? I believe that a reading of Jewish texts, social-science approaches, archaeology, and immersing ourselves in ancient world brings new light and deeper insight to the biblical text. My concern is that Piper wants to rule out of bounds a whole area of evidence because it might potentially falsify his traditional way of reading Paul. While I do not necessarily agree with N.T. Wright’s reading of sources like 4QMMT, I do believe that Wright represents a better strategy than Piper for reading the Bible.

It’s response number 2 that really served as a major rebuke to me personally. Now understand I have read most of the Mishnah, the oral traditions of Second-Temple Judaism written down and complied into a single volume by a Jewish Rabbi in the second or third centuries CE. I have read some Josephus and I loved reading Seutonius–the Roman historian. But for the longest time I have been guilty of looking not to those texts or historical surveys, like Bird has listed, to create the context and hermeneutical grid with which to understand the New Testament.

My question is how is it possible that Own and Edwards–the American Puritan that I love so dearly–be more competent to give the proper context to interpret Paul and those writings that are contemporary to Paul–aware of the same setting and issues of the world that Paul is writing in–or that form the worldview that Paul has? What’s a better way to understand the Puritanism of Colonial America: read writings from 2010 that come out of the Puritan settlements, or to read the writings that came out of Colonial America and the regions where the Puritans lived? Now which is better, to read the writings that come from the world Paul lives in, or even helps to form the world Paul lives in, or, to read writings that come fifteen centuries later?

When one thinks about it, it’s a no brainer. But Piper’s concern of misunderstanding still stands. Yet there is a serious debate as to whether Charles Spurgeon was a full five-point Calvinist or not (the guy who called Calvinism the knick-name of the Gospel)! We can misread a theologian who lived only a century or so ago. Misreading is always a risk we can run because the readers of these documents are fallible humans.

When it all comes down to it, reading the reflections of the men and women who have studied the Bible through the millenia are extremely invaluable. But these teachers and leaders were influenced by their times and the events and culture which surrounded them. But they do not share the worldview of the Biblical writers. They live in a time that has been conditioned by events throughout history of which the Biblcal writers were unaware. We cannot read the Biblical writers with these later worldviews or else we commit the fallacy of anachronism.

Furthermore, if our theory of inspiration says that the Spirit used the personalities to write his message to their contemporary churches, then why would we say that their personalities weren’t shaped by the worldviews of their day? Aren’t we moving towards a mechanical view of inspiration? That’s what it seems to me at least.

First comes on page 68 of SROG,

To use reformation theology as a litmus test for theological accuracy represents a departure from the Reformers themselves and places them upon a pedestal which they would not otherwise care to sit on

This quote comes in the introductory section of Bird’s chapter where he outlines the case for “incorporated righteousness” as the more appropriate Pauline concept as opposed to “imputed righteousness.” In the introduction Bird surveys the history of imputed righteousness and shows that the various theologians since the Reformation have not agreed on imputation and how justification works. Both within the Reformed camp and the Puritan camp there is disagreement. And this led to the quote above.

Bird is quite right on this. Too often I have been guilty of judging the correctness of one’s theology by how “reformed” one is, not knowing that “reformed” is not a firmly defined position in church history. In some ways I knew this and would reduce “reformed” down to “TULIP.” But this is no better. I can remember when I read a book by Ben Witherington III where he critiques “reformed theology” and he questioned imputation in the book of Galatians. I thought he was no longer orthodox, but I have repented of such stupidity.

And far too often I hear my fellow reformed brothers being guilty of this sin. If one’s theology doesn’t square with the Reformed tradition and the Reformers and/or the Puritans they weren’t as orthodox as if their theology had lined up. When I look at it, it almost seems like we reformed Christians have traded the Pope in Rome for a pope in Geneva or Wittenberg or North Hampton. The very theologians that we Reformed folk hold up as the standard doesn’t agree with each other and so which is the standard, and would they want to be such a standard as to be a second “pope?”

In Mark Seifrid’s book, Christ, Our Righteousness, I really liked this line on page 21,

The real cause for Paul’s rejection of the ‘works of the law’ lies beyond both self-understanding and ethics. As we shall see, faith for Paul is the correlate to Christ’s cross and resurrection. It is obedience to the promise of God fulfilled in that event (see e.g. Romans 4:13-25). One is justified not because of a mere inward disposition, but because of Christ in whom God has atoned for sin and effected a new creation. The content and basis of faith are definitive, and not merely its form. For this reason both existential and nationalistic readings of Paul fail. (emphasis mine)

As one can see Seifrid is critiquing the New Perspective on Paul and the reading of nationalistic righteousness in Paul’s letters. In regards as to how to define “righteousness” and that entire word group in the Greek and Hebrew is not what I want to talk about. Rather I just want to point out that Seifrid makes a point in the section that I have emphasized. Our formulations of “imputed righteousness” runs the great risk and is often guilty of divorcing justification from the actual work of Jesus on the cross and in the empty tomb. It is there and no where else that the New Testament locates our justification. As Seifrid goes on to say in this book that imputation and the traditional Protestant formulation of justification is not necessarily wrong but deficient. Imputation focuses on human beings and not upon Christ. As Seifrid says, “It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen” (175).

In Christ crucified is God’s verdict against us as sinners found and carried out. In Christ risen is God’s vindication of us as his people on the last day and the gift of the new creation in the form of the Spirit found.

As Bird says in SROG, imputation is an excellent systematic category to explain how our being in Christ results in our justification, but exegetically it is not found (SROG, 85-87). I agree with Bird also that incorporated righteousness stresses the union with Christ that Paul utilizes and that the NPP and Protestants like Seifrid are calling for a return to in our theology (SROG, 60-87).

Let us begin to speak of our righteousness being in Christ crucified and risen to be received by our union with the Messiah through faith. I feel being more precise in our theology will not only ward off false doctrines but also enable a more clear articulation of our theology to a world that needs clarity.

Christ’s redemption of fallen man includes not only his obeying the Divine law, making atonement for sinners, or in preparing the way for their salvation. His redemption is also actually fulfilled in the converting of sinners to the knowledge and love of the truth, in carrying them on in the way of grace and true holiness through life, and finally raising their bodies to life, and glorifying them. This is completed by actually pronouncing of the sentence upon them, and crowning them with honor and glory in the sight of men and angels.

It is necessary that Christ should do this in order to finish the work He has begun. Raising the saints from the dead, judging them, and fulfilling the sentence are parts of their salvation. Christ must be appointed Judge of the world, in order that he might finish His work (John 6:39-40; John 5:25-31). The redemption of the bodies of the saints is part of the work of redemption; the resurrection to life is called a redemption of their bodies (Romans 8:23).

It is the will of God that Christ Himself should fulfill that for which he died, and suffered so much. The very reasons He suffered and died were to complete and secure salvation for His people. This final salvation will be obtained at the last judgment, and not before.

When Christ had finished His appointed sufferings, God put the purchased inheritance in His hands to be kept for believers and be given to them at the Day of Judgment

Edwards hits on a really important point. We cannot talk about salvation in terms of the cross and sins being propitiated alone. Our redemption is still incomplete at that point, our salvation still lacking. Our resurrection is vital to our salvation and redemption. Until we are resurrected, judged, and the sentence carried out that is our receiving the glory and honor in being the people of God and members of Christ’s kingdom, we are not saved.

Too often we talk about “walking the aisle and gettin’ saved.” Salvation is a category that includes being raised up to new life on the Day of Judgment and entering into the new heavens and new earth. The walking the aisle is conversion, not salvation. One of N. T. Wright’s biggest problems with contemporary Christianity is that the term salvation has come to equal and mean certain parts of salvation, i.e. salvation = conversion or salvation = justification. Salvation is going from God-hater and being brought into his eternal kingdom in the new Jerusalem on new earth as a God-lover. It’s the whole thing, not part of it. I know that a person who is converted is so assured of his entrance into the kingdom that he is said to be saved. A square is indeed a rectangle. But a rectangle is not a square. I hope we do a better job of keeping this in mind.

How comforting it is for saints to know that their Redeemer is appointed to be their Judge. The same One who spilled His own blood for them has determined their ultimate fate. There is no doubt that they will obtain what has cost Him so much to purchase.

Oh, what joy it will be for them on that last day to lift up the…ir eyes and behold the very Person in whom they have trusted for salvation, fled to for refuge, and whose voice they have often heard, inviting them to Himself for protection and safety, coming to judge them.

It truly is a comfort to know that the one who died and rose for me is the one who will pass sentence upon me on the Last Day. I am confident that the Messiah will honor his own death and resurrection on my behalf when carrying out God’s contention against this evil age.

What kind of word is that? Even that which is preached among you concerning Jesus Christ, that he died for you sins and the sins of the whole world, and arose again on the third day that he make satisfaction by his death for sins of the whole world and by his resurrection bring us righteousness, life, and salvation…it is not through the works of the law, much less through his own righteousness, but through the suffering and resurrection of Christ, he is righteous and a saved person.

…He arose again from the dead, triumphed over all these adversaries and led them captive, not for his own person–for he never had any need of that–but for the benefit of us poor, condemned sinners. We believe on him, in order that those adversaries could not henceforth through all eternity do us any harm or condemn us, although they at times while we still live here terrify and torment us.

Here it seems that Luther is locating justification, “bring us righteousness,” in the resurrection and not the crucifixion of Jesus Messiah. Righteousness comes with life that is found in resurrection. A person must experience both the death and resurrection of Jesus by to be “righteous and a saved person.”

Furthermore, when I read this section I tend to think that may be Luther felt that the Christus Victor motif (CV) belongs more to the resurrection than to the death of Jesus. To be sure Luther says that Jesus surrendered to death and the adversaries who oppress the creation. But the victory comes not in his death to them but in his resurrection to life, thus defeating their oppression and death. As penal substitution (PS) seems to emphasize the death of Jesus and the resurrection supports the death, so it seems to me that CV should emphasize the resurrection of Jesus, with his death supporting it. In PS it is the death that achieves the desired effect and the resurrection provides the High Priest to present the offering in the heavenly Tabernacle and to intercede for his people. In CV it seems while the death allows Jesus to take on the powers and adversaries, it is the resurrection that defeats these enemies of God and creation. It is not in death that Jesus defeats Satan, but in resurrection life.

I find this to be a good middle road to allow the full weight of both motifs to give their voice to the symphony that is the work of the Messiah.

Lane Tipton of WTS-Philly really gets Calvin, especially Calvin’s views on justification and that union with Christ is the foundation for out justification. It’s like the person of Jesus should come before the benefits of Jesus and yet somehow I find many evangelicals missing that. Hmph.

H/T: Euaggelion

Doug Wilson, who is also going to be at the conference with Talbot, offers these words.

Wright’s articulation of present and future justification in Justification amplifies but does not modify his earlier statements and formulations. For Wright, justification is both a forensic and a transformational grace. The merits or righteousness of Christ are not imputed to the believer. The believer is united to Jesus Christ in his death and his resurrection and shares in the status of Jesus’ vindication. The believer’s sins are therefore forgiven. Indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, he has a new relationship with sin and righteousness, and is inwardly and progressively transformed. The verdict pronounced at the last day will be grounded upon the transformational work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. For that reason the basis of the verdict of future justification cannot be identified with the basis of the verdict of present justification. This fact raises the question how the two verdicts, in Wright’s understanding, can be the same verdict. If the basis of future justification is one’s works, and these works do not yet exist at the moment of present justification, then how can present justification and future justification be the same verdict? Furthermore, on what basis can one have assurance in the present that he will be justified in the future?

One verdict achieved in two completely opposite manners? That seems a little to out in left field for me. I just wish that those of us in the Reformed tradition would pay a little more attention to Wright. He gives some very true and important critques that show we need to reform our own Reformed doctrines.

May 21, 2009
May 26, 2009

The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul’s only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (Gal. 3:11, 12). For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again (Rom. 10:5-9). Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

Could this section from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.14) be what he would say to those who advocate the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), such as N. T. Wright? I came across this passage this morning before I went to work and the NPP was the first thing that came to mind.