We are working our way through Tom Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
, and how the new perspective (Tom Wright's version of it anyway) is playing out today.What about the Law then? How does Wright understand the Law?
Wright begins by sketching, in bold figure, how Luther saw the Law as the bad guy and then quotes Edmund Clowney, in a book edited by DA Carson, who says this of Calvin's view of the Law: "It was to a delivered people that God addressed the words of his covenant at Sinai." The irony, Wright observes, of it all: that is, the Calvinist view of the Law is not unlike Ed Sanders' "covenantal nomism": "now that you're in the covenant, here is the law to keep" (72).
Something I've often thought too: Wright observes that had the Calvinist view of the Law been the dominant one, there would never been a need for the new perspective. The new perspective responded far more to the Lutheran sketch of Judaism than it did to the Reformed view. Wright sums it up and says he can't tell if he's summarizing Sanders or Calvin!
He sketches the 2-volume set edited by Carson that, in some ways, confirms what Sanders argued for Judaism but which, in other ways, shows that Sanders may have played his hand too hard. The point is this: the Law followed covenant and followed election.
Wright now pushes back against Piper. Piper's theory is that Judaism and humans are essentially and incurably legalistic and works-righteousness-minded and self-justifying. Where, if the above sketch about law following covenant, does the idea of legalism and self-justification come if it doesn't come from a supposed interpretation of the Jewish world? This is a powerful pushback question from Wright.
Wright sketches how works fit into covenant:
1. The question is not about individual salvation but about God's purposes for Israel and the world. The Pharisees said those who obeyed the Torah would enter the Age to Come [this gets individualistic in Wright]. Those who would be vindicated then are those who obey Torah now.
2. 4QMMT connects, as does Paul in Romans 10, Deut 30 to specific works that indicate who will be justified.... Paul sees that Torah anticipated in Deut 30 to have been fulfilled in Christ.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
David (#20),
Is English your first language? I just reread my comments (#5 and #8) and Travis' (#19) and neither of us said or implied that the Jews in Jesus' and Paul's day believed they were "saved by Torah." How can you put those words into our comments? Read what we wrote. The Jews were saved by God and keeping Torah was an expression of love to God for their free, gracious salvation. Their faith expressed itself in obedience, just as Paul's gospel to the Gentiles required..."the obedience of faith," that is, "the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5). Neither did Travis and I write that all the Jews of Paul's day were saved. They had lost their mission given to them by God through Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations. They had reduced their mission to a self-absorbed, nationalistic favoritism and were demanding that Gentiles become Jews. This was a horrible, sinful distortion of their purpose for which they faced the terrible judgment of God (exhibited graphically in the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation of the Temple in 70 AD).
David (#20):
I have read the OPC response to Wright on the subject of justification. It seems to me to be a mostly accurate discussion of the differences between Wright's views and one part of the Reformed tradition's views (the room in the Reformed theological house that holds the doctrine of the Westminster divines to be infallible). I do not, however, find it to be a convincing refutation of the New Perspective.
The response in question seems mainly to want to maintain the status quo of the OPC; more specifically, it is intent on preserving the doctrine of "imputed righteousness." The irony is that this doctrine appears to be a kind of litmus test or boundary marker for some Reformed types (the New Perspective reads Paul as having been concerned primarily with removing boundary markers). A summary sentence near the end of the section you have recommended reads:
"[I]f Sanders or Wright is correct, then...Luther, Calvin, and the historic Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification is incorrect."
Do the authors of this response believe that Luther and Calvin were infallible? Surely they were correct about some things and incorrect about other things. Why is this concern expressed? Why not simply return to Paul, focusing on a direct encounter with the biblical text? And isn't it also ironic that the OPC, which thinks that Jews were legalistic about preserving their tradition, is greatly concerned about preserving its tradition?
The OPC response fairly summarizes Wright's understanding of righteousness as follows: "To be righteous is not so much a moral or judicial quality as a relational one; it means that one is in covenant with God." The OPC then contends that "righteousness is not covenant membership but rather adherence or conformity to an ethical standard." These two ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however. For Wright, covenantal faithfulness is "conformity to an ethical standard."
Ultimately, Wright and the OPC seem to differ mainly on the subject of "imputed righteousness" (the OPC response even admits that "works of the law" does refer to boundary markers, though it defines the phrase more broadly to include other OT commandments as well). The response in question would have been stronger had it focused less on criticizing Wright's argument and more on contructing a positive argument for imputed righteousness. As it is, the OPC's case goes like this: "[I]f Wright is correct in his assertion that righteousness is something that cannot be transferred, then what does Paul mean when he writes that those who are justified “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” (Rom 5:17; cf. Eph 2:8)? Paul, contrary to Wright, thinks that righteousness is something that can be passed across the courtroom."
This argument is a non sequitur. The statement "righteousness is something that can be passed across the courtroom" does not necessarily follow from the statement "[the justified] receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness." The OPC statement simply assumes that "the free gift of righteousness" is a thing that is imputed. It begs the question. Why does the OPC think Paul teaches imputed righteousness? Because Paul writes of "the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness." Why does the OPC think this statement refers to imputed righteousness? Because Paul teaches imputed righteousness. Why does the OPC think Paul teaches imputed righteousness?
And around and around we go in a circular argument. Nowhere does Paul expressly mention "imputed righteousness." Wright believes that to receive righteousness is to be declared in covenantal relationship--which does not require imputation. Nor does it require circumcision or a particular diet--hence Paul's dismissiveness regarding "works of the law."
Scot,
A very good post. Breaking this book down piece by piece has helped me not only get a better grasp of what Wright is saying but has also helped me in reflecting on my own theology and preaching.
(By the way, I like J. Frye's comment #21)
Thanks!
John (21). Paul thinks a small few Jews were saved by God, the ones who had faith. Judaism is defined by Torah not by faith, so Judaism was never enough for salvation. The Jews, as Jews, were not a delivered people (that is, not saved. Of course, at the beginning they were all delivered from Egypt.). Only those with faith were delivered (saved).
Josh (22): Wright defends his view, as all sincere people do, and keep them until understood to be inadequate.
Quote from Josh: "The OPC response even admits that "works of the law" does refer to boundary markers, though it defines the phrase more broadly to include other OT commandments as well".
DY reply: Dunn and Wright have had to broaden their outlook here, too. But the OPC don't place the same significance at all on what 'boundaries' comes to.
Wright denounces 'imputed righteousness' in a straw man version that the scholars don't assert.
David (24),
So, we both agree with Wright that the Jews were saved by faith, not by Torah-keeping. Their faith in YHWH that saved them led them to obey the Torah out of loving response. I am glad we agree.
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.