The New Perspective: Justification, Part 3 (we finally get to justification)

Justification is, of course, a major New Testament theme, especially in Romans and Galatians. Wright insists on redefining the term contrary to 500 years of Reformation history.

He sees “justification” as coming from the terminology of the law court. When a man is tried by a judge and found innocent, in the First Century, he was declared “justified” by the judge.

Hence, “justification” is not the process of gaining faith or even being saved. Justification is the judge’s declaration that the accused has been vindicated.

[J]ustification, for Paul, is not … how one ‘gets in’ to God’s people, but about God’s declaration that someone is in. In other words, it is all about assurance – as we should have known from reading Romans. I’ve said it before and this is the place to say it again: if we are thinking Paul’s thoughts after him, we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. If, in addition, we believe in justification by faith itself, we believe that, amazingly considering what God knows about us, we are now and for ever part of the family to every member of which God says what he said to Jesus at his baptism: you are my beloved child, with you I am well pleased.

Well, I’ve long taught the Jesus’ baptism is of a type with Christian baptism. We are immersed, we receive the Spirit, we are declared God’s child, and we are declared well pleasing!

I mean, this just so Church of Christ! We will come back to these thoughts.

Wright explains justification also in more cosmic terms–

Justification is ultimately about justice, about God putting the world to rights, with his chosen and called people as the advance guard of that new creation, charged with being and bringing signs of hope, of restorative justice, to the world. Let’s put the justice back in justification; and, as we do so, remind ourselves whose justice it is, and why.

Now, this is, I think, exactly right.

And so, let’s consider one of the key verses relied in the substitutionary atonement theory–

(Rom. 4:3) What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Well, without a doubt, Abraham received righteousness, meaning righteousness credited to him that he didn’t deserve. But this doesn’t mean that the righteousness received was Jesus’ righteousness. It could simply be forgiveness.

As Alan Rouse correctly points out in a comment posted on this site, in the Greek, “justification” and “righteousness” have the same root. Indeed, they can even be the same word.

And this leads to some interesting translation challenges, as in Hebrew, “justice” and “righteousness” are two different words that are very often used in parallel as near synonyms, especially by the prophets. “Justice” carries more of an emphasis on fair courts and fair treatment, while “righteousness” carries more the thought of good personal behavior–but this is just a flavor, not a true distinction.

But in the New Testament, both Hebrew words are replaced by the same Greek word, so “the righteousness of God” and the “justice of God” become much the same thing, referring back to both flavors.

Hence, in considering God’s covenant faithfulness–the righteousness of God–the phrase could just as easily be translated “the justice of God.” Just so, Romans 3:26 can be variously translated–

(Rom 3:26 NIV) he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

(Rom 3:26) he did it to demonstrate his [righteousness (as in the KJV)] at the present time, so as to be [righteous] and the one who [declares righteous] those who have faith in Jesus.

Translated this way, the passage isn’t speaking of how God wrestles with doing right by condemning us and then declares us innocent because of Jesus’ merits, it’s talking about God’s covenant faithfulness–his righteousness–which compels him to declare those with faith righteous in fulfillment of his covenant with Abraham!

As Wright says,

‘Righteousness’ in Paul is partly a courtroom status and partly a covenantal status, the former being a metaphor to help understand the significance of the latter.

And so, we begin to understand Wright’s theology a little better, by realizing how much the concepts of “justify” and “declare righteous” and to be “just” and to be “righteous” overlap, indeed, are the same word loaded with two similar but different meanings. You see, it’s often not so much a choice, as both meanings in interplay with each other.

Now, let’s consider the justification passages in Romans and see if they fit Wright’s theories. Romans 3 is, of course, the central passage.

(Rom. 3:22-31) This [fidelity of God to his covenant] comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are [declared vindicated] freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his [status as a just judge (or righteousness, as in the KJV)], because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26 he did it to demonstrate his [status as a just judge (or righteousness)] at the present time, so as to be [a just (or righteous) judge] and the one who [declares vindicated] those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is [declared vindicated] by faith apart from observing the law. 29 [Or] Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will [declared vindicated] the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Actually, this is really not all that problematic. But as so interpreted, the passage tells us how the saved are declared saved (by faith). It doesn’t tell us how they become saved.

Also, notice that the NIV omits the “or” in verse 29, which is present in the Greek, because the word implies that the Jews were already being saved by faith, which is contrary to Reformation theology, but quite consistent with Wright’s views.

Now consider chapter 4–

(Rom. 4:2-5) If, in fact, Abraham was [declared vindicated] by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who [declares vindicated] the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Again, this is not all that problematic. It does affirm that we are declared righteous because of our faith, not because of Jesus’ merits.

It sounds strange to our ears to imagine the Jews thinking of works as being a way of being declared righteous, but Wright would argue that it wasn’t strange in the First Century. Indeed, a central aspect of Jewish thought was how to show themselves as God’s people in a pagan world–they were looking for boundary markers, things that would show their status as God’s people.

(Rom. 4:25; 5:1-2) He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our [declaration as vindicated]. 1 Therefore, since we have been [declared vindicated] through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

And this works just fine, too. If our vindication is due to being mystically joined in Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are certainly given peace “through our Lord” and we certainly “gain access by faith into this grace.”

(Rom. 5:18-19) Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [or justice] was [the declaration of our vindication] that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Notice that our salvation is credited, not to Jesus’ perfect life, but to “one act,” being his passion. Jesus’ obedience is strongly parallel to “one act” of disobedience, and thus likely a reference to the cross, not his meritorious life.

(Rom. 8:30)-33) And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also [declared vindicated]; those he [declared vindicated], he also glorified.

Wright likes to emphasize Romans 8:30, as the path is call, justify, glorify. There’s no sanctify. Paul sees us moving straight from vindication at baptism to vindication in heaven. Hence, the step that precedes “justify” is “call.” It’s the call where salvation occurs, according to Wright.

I have already described how Paul understands the moment when the gospel of Jesus as Lord is announced and people come to believe it and obey its summons. Paul has a regular technical term for this moment, and that technical term is neither ‘justification’ nor ‘conversion’ (though he can use the latter from time to time): the word in question is ‘call’. ‘Consider your call’, he says to the Corinthians; ‘God called me by his grace’, he says of himself.

Now, to the Western mind, “call” means “invite,” but Paul uses “call” only of those who’ve been saved. He never refers to someone who rejects the invitation as “called.”

(Rom. 8:33) Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who [declares vindicated].

Notice Paul’s contrast between bringing a charge (a law court term) and being justified. Nowhere else do I see Wright’s argument so clearly supported. Plainly, the response to a charge is a verdict.

Now, let’s try a few verses in Galatians–

(Gal. 2:16-17) [“We] know that a man is not [declared vindicated] by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be [declared vindicated] by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be [declared vindicated]. 17 “If, while we seek to be [declared vindicated] [by Christ’s faithfulness], it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

Now, this is a little trickier. The Romans passages don’t require such a serious re-thinking. This does. Verse 16 seems to say that the Jews were using their obedience to the law to demonstrate that they were in right relationship with God. But, Paul says, right relationship is only shown by faith (as demonstrated in baptism and resulting good works).

Verse 17 is quite controversial. The Greek certainly seems to say “be justified by Christ’s faith,” which seems odd, until we remember that “faith” can also be translated “faithfulness,” which makes this passage parallel to the idea of “the righteousness of God,” which is as good an explanation as I’ve heard. The NIV cops out and says “faith in Christ,” which makes sense also, but is clearly not what the Greek says.

(Gal. 5:4) You who are trying to be [declared vindicated] by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This language clearly hearkens back to the passage we quoted from chapter 2. Wright likes to explain that Paul was speaking of obedience to the law, especially the ceremonial elements, as “boundary markers.” If you try to prove yourself to be in covenant community by circumcision or Sabbaths, you’ve divided the covenant community by choosing the wrong boundary markers. Only faith (demonstrated by baptism and obedience) is the true marker.

Now, Wright teaches once saved, always saved (he’s wrong), and so he can’t really make sense of the plain declaration that the penalty for this is falling from grace, but otherwise, he’s making good sense.

But the seriousness of this problem of false boundary markers makes especial sense in Wright’s theology.

The united multi-ethnic church is a sign of God’s healing and remaking of the cosmos and also thereby a sign to Caesar and his followers that his attempted unification of the world is a blasphemous parody. This is part of what Ephesians and Colossians are all about, though that is another story. It is also, I believe, a point in urgent need of emphasis today.

If one of central points of God’s covenant was to extend God’s grace to all nations–as promised to Abraham–then any division within the Kingdom is particularly wicked and un-Godly. Unity is no mere abstraction. It’s one of God’s primary goals in sending Jesus! And so, division within the household is a particularly pernicious sin.

Now, I’ve hardly covered every verse that uses “justification” — but this gets almost all the references in Romans and Galatians, which should be enough to make the point.

However, this proves little about imputed righteousness! All this can all be true and God can still save us by imputing Jesus’ righteousness to us as well. There doesn’t have to be only one means or one story!

God willing, we’ll get to that question shortly, but not today.