WITH JUSTIFICATION
Monday June 1, 2009
N.T. Wright, Justification. God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2009), 279 pages, $25.00 list price. It is never an easy thing to write a rebuttal book if you are genuinely a Christian person. ...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture
Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.
Books by Ben Witherington
More on Christianity
Beliefnet's Christian section offers quotes, articles, videos, a variety of blogs.
Tom's office is messy :)
You know what they say, tidy desk, cluttered mind, untidy desk, organized mind (and scholar at work)
BW3
Ben, no coffee this morning???
Thanks so very much for this insightful and informative review!
Very helpful review. BW3 readers: You will want to join the lively conversation on Wright's new book at Jesus Creed as well at http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/. I'm sure Ben won't mind me pointing you in that direction.
Thank, Ben. Keep up the great reviews. Very helpful!
Really appreciate the review, Ben. I just finished the book myself, and found it terrifically inspiring. But it's also challenging; not something to be read casually. It took me about a month to get through it, because I had to find times when I could, with a clear head, actually sit down with Bible open and pen in hand, to really follow some of the ideas he presents (not as dense as "Climax of the Covenant", but definitely tougher than, say "Simply Christian", "Surprised by Hope", or any of the "For Everyone" series). But I love the way Bishop Tom pulls together the scriptural narrative around God's covenant faithfulness, and, in the process, sheds light on everything from the call-to-discipleship that ought to be implicit in justification, to the place of 'Israel after the flesh' (past and present), to understanding the role and funcion of 'church', to the work of the Spirit that enables us to begin to experience already (even in terms of our moral choices) the reality of what is to come in the final, total transformation of Creation.
IMO, the book brings a very welcome clarity to the whole flow of God's dealings with, and purposes for, Israel -- and through Israel, for us all.
Thanks Ben for your insight on this topic.
I haven’t yet read Wright’s book but is he saying that while “initial right-standing” is by faith through grace, “final right-standing” is by faith through grace AND an evaluation of works? Would he say that while the Holy Spirit drives and enables sanctification, it is possible to lose final right-standing if one’s life is devoid of good works? Or will one continue to be in right-standing but just not reap any rewards in the coming Kingdom?
Eric you need to read the book, but what you've articulated is closer to my view than Tom's.
BW3
I think there is not clarity enough yet in these issues. But, that there is more of polemic than discussion in Wright, and his biblical exegesis is not actually very good.
Sorry, the "Your Name" post was mine. As I was writing, I got a "refresh text" message, and my name somehow got deleted.
What is clear to me is that the phrase imputed righteousness is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and it is doubtful even the concept can be found even in Paul, as Wright points out in his book.
BW3
I know some of the fiercest critics of Tom Wright. Unless they are given an unusual measure of grace, which would require them to drop the radical misunderstanding of his very clear position they advocate, then I do not expect them to ever hear him at all. Sadly, this is much more about "hearing" than it is about real clarity. We should welcome the discussion but when critics do not even bother to state a person's position with care it is another matter altogether.
Thank you for your charity and clarity. I know you are not in entire agreement with NTW but you read him correctly and encourage us to all learn from his valuable insights, much as he would you I am quite sure. When will we learn that good theology is always ecumenical?
Amen to that last comment John. I learned a great wealth of things studying Reformed theology at GCTS and I am grateful for that education even though as an exegete I found it problematic in various ways. I still benefit a lot from listening to insights from Reformed scholars, not least because they take the Biblical text seriously.
BW3
Amen! John H. Armstrong....AMEN!!
Great Review Dr. Witherington. I look forward to reading Tom's book.
Dr. Witherington,
I purchased a copy of Piper's The Future of Justification and look forward to purchasing Wright's response. Have you read Piper's book? What did you think of it?
In your second paragraph you seem to equate those "attacking" Wright's work ("strongly attacking it") with those attacking him ("he is being attacked by...Don Carson, John Piper," etc.). Isn't there a difference between the two? (I hope there is!)
One more question. Has anyone who's disagreed with Wright's views on justification actually understood him? It seems that everyone who disagrees with him is charged with not understanding him.
I really don't understand the reasons behind the criticism that these people levy at people like N.T. Wright. You would think that serious seekers of the truth would be more than willing to always be re-evaluating their theological viewpoints to make sure that what they believe is actually true. It almost seems like these kind of people are more interested in their personal point of view than the truth.
Also, I'm trying to register on this site, but it is saying something about me giving a bad URL in which I don't understand what the problem is or how to fix it.
Any suggestions?
The irony at this point is that Tom is better understood by some Arminian scholars than by some Calvinist ones though he has more in common with the latter.
BW3
Well said, Ben.
Funny how the issues we addressed as GCTS students thirty plus years ago are still the issues we face today.
Having been raised within the uber-Reformed world, I look back at my NT classes where contextualization and the new Paul were taught, and remember that not as a radical departure from the "truth", but rather an honest, fair, respectful way to approach the Scripture, and consequently, life.
What I learned from Drs. Scholar and Fee, in particular, have me intellectual tools that I use to this day in all areas of the work I do.
Thanks for taking me back to the future that is today.
Ben,
Great review! I'm enjoying your new site--looks great1
Eric: "I haven’t yet read Wright’s book but is he saying that while “initial right-standing” is by faith through grace, “final right-standing” is by faith through grace AND an evaluation of works? Would he say that while the Holy Spirit drives and enables sanctification, it is possible to lose final right-standing if one’s life is devoid of good works? Or will one continue to be in right-standing but just not reap any rewards in the coming Kingdom?"
I think Eric hit the nail on the head with these questions. If Wright insists that the final justification is based on the whole life lived , in other other words - by works, then he cannot logically maintain that it is brought to the present in the form of initial justification by faith. If Wright is closer to the Reformed view that the evaluation of works (or life) in the final assize has nothing to do with one's own standing before God but only to do with rewards or the lack of it in the kingdom , then perhaps the word 'justification' is not appropriate for what is happening in the final judgement for Christians.
On this point at least, the Reformed critics may be right that Wright is not very clear what he means and can be misleading with certain of his landmark phrases such as 'final justification by the whole lived'. What do you guys think?
Sorry, that last post in response to Eric was from me. The name did not get through first time.
Donner
Ben - thanks for this review - I was particularly happy to hear your comment on Romans 4 regarding Abraham's faith being reckoned as righteousness (with no 'imputation' of God's or Christ's righteousness in sight in the chapter)... Was this similar to Robert Gundry's argument some time ago?
Donner and Eric - I think part of the problem is the model of the 'law court' being assumed in the question compared with what I understand to be Wright's reading. The logic actually is fine. In the final judgement (which is about setting things right as much or (much) more than either receiving or escaping retribution a la our law courts - god's is more like a royal court) God will vindicate before all, especially enemies, those who are His; those who were 'in the right'; those who showed pistis, faith, fidelity. Just as in the case of Abraham, that faith was manifest in actions consonant with belief and trust in God. (Some moralistic scale of performance is not the point here.) In the very public judgement, God can say (this is how I understand the argument of Romans 2 et al to be working out) that those Gentiles who loved God from the heart and so manifested a 'circumcised heart' in their actions because of their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of the Spirit are counted among God's people, his saved, vindicated, forgiven people. This judgement or pronouncement on faith (plus its evidences) at the End is preempted (one might say) by a judgement or pronouncement on that confession of faith right from the start. This is because of the real expectation, given the work of the Holy Spirit, that 'faith working through love' will become evident, and this love-working faith is the true marker in the present time of belonging to the eschatological people of God rather than circumcision.
A strong Calvinist would surely have to insist that these works just will be evident as part of the 'perseverance of the saints'. Arminians might say the possibility of a betrayal of the Lord is a possibility (particularly in the light of Hebrews 6 et al).
In all this, judgement and justification is not about standing before God with a kind of scorecard. "Faith - 50 points, Works - 30 points... adds up to... sorry, not good enough..... you needed 100 percentage points like Jesus. In fact you should have held up his scorecard as your own."
Reformed theology has tended to make the medieval form of the question of merit front and centre; as our main problem to be overcome through a legal solution. This way of looking at sin is reductionistic and (gasp) doesn't take sin seriously enough. It also leads to a truncated version of the penal and substitutionary aspects of Jesus' journey to and experience of the cross. And so it's no wonder the life of Jesus and the resurrection fade into the background when 'Latin' forensic views dominate the picture. Rant ends... :-)
Grace and peace
Ian Packer
Director of Public Theology
Australian Evangelical Alliance
Sydney
Thanks Ian, that clarifies a lot! It seems then that Wright is referring to 'works' that justifies in the last day as the sort of works that evidence faith rather than merit the right standing.The final declaration of the believers as being a part of God's eschatological people would then serve as a public confirmation of their righteous status that has been there all along from the day they believed but now confirmed by the works of the Spirit in their lives. Is this right?
If that's ranting, well, pls go on indefinitely! : )
Ian Packer: Wright tackles this on pp.158-68, Section II, Romans (GB edition, with US edition some 20 pages later). Most of that is taken up with the warnings to get doing things (especially a none too carefully selected ragbag of things pp.161-2, beginning citations at Rom 14.10-12 through this and that to Rom 2.1-16). The couple of pages saying it is the result of the Spirit's working in us do not address the issue at all adequately, nor Wright saying these will be works of love, not grudging duties. There's not enough of substance there for us now to say "Oh, right, so that's how it is, that's all right then!" What if we don't get doing things, what if a lot of what we do is sinful? These last are par for the course with Christians in practice.
In the case of Rom 4 (Abraham's faith) my problem with seeing faith itself as credited as righteousness is that it seems to suggest faith as a sort of meritorious work. The Reformed view, if i understand it correctly, is that faith is an instrumental cause rather than the meritorious cause of the imputed/credited righteousness. The latter then must by inference come from outside ourselves - that is, if not the righteousness of Christ and his achievement on the cross on our behalf, what would it be? IOW, what balances the ledger here is not so much our faith (which is but our humble assent and reception of the gift of righteousness)but Christ's righteous, meritorious works through his life, death and resurrection. So that's how I understand the argument goes.. any rejoinder to this from Wright's way of reading?
Not seeking to argue so much as to understand, thanks!
Thanks.
Donner
This thread should lay to rest any doubt that Calvin got it right. How could 95% of those who profess Christ possibly understand the Bible they read when the best Christian scholars around are themselves hard at work to discover the context which in turn changes the supposedly "plain meaning" of the text into something else? If God doesn't effectively save, then no one can be saved because only the best and the brightest can possibly figure out what Paul and Peter and the rest really meant. The average Joe who reads his NIV or KJV or ESV is just wasting his time.
I'm enjoying the back and forth but, really, what Ben and Tom are saying is that you've got read Greek and Hebrew and the odd bit of Aramaic and know a lot of history and the rules of rhetoric to truly understand the Bible. If that's true, then the common man is deluding himself when he thinks he "gets" the Bible.
Ironically, this discussion makes a powerful argument for Roman Catholicism.
Take heart, my friend Winifred, the bible as the great Augustine once said, is a huge ocean - there are depths in there that can drown an elephant (as huge as Wright and Ben : ) ), but there are shallow beds too where common folks like you and me can wade in.
I think NT Wright nails it when he says we are not justified by 'justification by faith' or our understanding thereof. Rather we are justified by faith (alone) in Jesus the Christ. Period. He is more than mighty to save. None of these intramural debates, important as they are in helping us understand the fuller implications of our life in Christ would jeopardize our justified status in the least, really.
Though I find NTW obscure in some ways (mostly my fault - lack of training in the original languages, historical background, etc), his many works have illumminated so much of the bible concerning Jesus and concerning Paul, I am reading it with a great deal more breadth and depth, i never knew were there before.
Blessings on your journey of learning and faith,
Donner
Dr. Witherington,
I responded on my blog today about McKnight's series on justification and the NPP. Thought you would be interested.
http://hope-theologian.blogspot.com/2009/06/james-cones-doctrine-of-justification.html
Winifred, I have had similar fears in that it can seem that the great mysteries of the gospel are only open to those with the intelligence and learning to really delve and explore the historical context which includes the Greek and Hebrew languages. However, if you reflect upon the image of the body of Christ, isn't it possible for those of us who are only perhaps a hand or foot, to be blessed and encouraged by those who are more closely related to the intellect? And similarly those who are called to work with our hands and feet have a part to play in helping folk such as NTW make the connection between the Father sending Jesus and Jesus sending me today in my small corner of the world.
If your reference to Roman Catholicism (a subject about which I know very little) is pointing towards the authority of the church, then I think I would agree - perhaps with a broader definition of church which is catholic with a small 'c'. If we didn't worry so much about each individual having an absolutely 'orthodox' definition of faith, but learnt to work towards a community that reflects orthodoxy, we may perhaps find ourselves truly able to say that there is no 'Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, neither male and female'.
It's so funny to me, the depths that some of Wright's critics go to preserve their traditional interpretations. They make it into such a confusing mess, accusing Wright of privileging new ways of thinking. The simple fact remains, that in the time of the reformers like Luther, Calvin, etc. no one really new much of anything about 2nd temple Judaism. I don't blame them for getting a lot of things wrong, for they simply didn't have the advantages offered by all this material we are able to read and discuss.
Many critics of Wright actually appeal to tradition history (i.e. all these great Christian thinkers couldn't have gotten it so wrong) in order to argue against an attempt to frame Paul within his historical context. That's a problem.
I struggled sometimes with NTW's perspective on justification and thought it was too one sided and driven by constructed historical background of which there are still many different views. However, now that im theologizing in an conservative Muslim inviroment it makes so much sense to have a full story where you can draw from the full biblical texts and make sense of them. The über-reformed people talk often in schematic ways which might make sense to systematic and individual Christianity but to the people here this logic makes no sense. What is sin what is righteousness, why should one have to die etc. I'm living here in a society where social bonds are much stronger, family belonging or tribal belonging mean everything eg. security, basic needs etc. As the people of JC's time they memorise their holy texts. They need to be drawn into a full story that starts in the bible and not with western theological history. That's where NTW helped me even as I still might not agree with much what he says, he helps me to explore and repaint my understanding of Isa.
Dr. Witherington,
I really enjoy reading your blog, and your books. However, I have no tolerance for your caricature of grouping Piper with Wright's nasty critics. In fact Piper has been criticized by a few of, what you call the "Uber Reformed," because of his complementary remarks about Wright. Your problem with Reformed Theology causes you to collapse all critics of Wright as if they are all knuckle dragging idiots (I do not think Moo and Schreiner approach Paul in a decontextualized fashion). I find this to be dishonest, and not up to the standards of your scholarly works.
In Christ,
Blake Reas
Raleigh NC
I've read very much of Wright and his view of the authority of the Bible seems to be this (in my words). "I believe what Paul (for example) really says. But to get at what Paul really said, it is necessary to get into his cultural, historical and thought world. And to do that, it is necessary to dig into first-century second-Temple Judaism to get Paul write." I too was stunned by some of what Piper said (in his online free pdf book) about not needing to go beyond the Bible to understand the Bible. I read those sentences several times and yet that's what he said. I know it's easier not to do the hard work that Wright and you do to understand what the Bible says. But that work has to be done! I thank God for such scholars as you and Wright. And btw, you've convinced me that the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel according to John is Lazarus.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.