Grace Bible Church Gillette, Wyoming

1. The LORD answered Habakkuk’s first complaint of God’s indifference to injustice (Hab 1:5-11). After which Habakkuk had a second complaint regarding God’s decision to use a wicked people (Chaldeans) to discipline a sinful Judah (Hab 1:12-17). Habakkuk then prepared himself, waiting diligently for a response and a reproof from the Lord (Hab 2:1)

2. The LORD did indeed answer Habakkuk a second time just as He answered Job (Job 40:1-7). The LORD would answer with five woes of judgment against the wicked Chaldeans (Hab 2:5-20), giving evidence that God did not overlook their sin.

3. However, before giving the woes, the LORD gives instructions to the prophet Habakkuk, including a warrant to live by faith.

4. [2] The LORD instructed Habakkuk to “record the vision.” This reiterated that Habakkuk was a prophet and that being a prophet, he would receive a divine message from the LORD (cf. Hab 1:1).

a) Habakkuk was to “record” (kathab - write) and “inscribe” (bōr - write upon stone or other material) God’s words because that is what a prophet does. The prophet does not give his own interpretation of the words of God (2Pe 1:20). Rather He is moved to write and/or speak the very words of God (2Pe 1:21). This is an example of the inspiration of Scripture (2Ti 3:16).

b) God gave His divine revelation through means of a “vision” (chazon - lit. to see, in a more technical sense, a divine revelation seen while awake cf. Ex 24:9-11). If Habakkuk was to be able to record the vision, He had to have been given the divine ability to record it infallibly.

c) The purpose was so that God’s people (“the one who reads it”) would be able to know and trust God’s infallible message. Then they would be able to spread (“run”) God’s infallible message.

5. [3] Though Habakkuk knew, God reiterated that His message given infallibly through the prophet, would come to pass with absolute certainty (cf. Dt 13:1-5; Dt 18:20-22).

a) Note the number of words to assure that God’s revelation would come to pass, “appointed,” “hasten,” “not fail,” “certainly,” and “not delay.”

b) Therefore Habakkuk and the righteous were to “wait” for the finality of God’s plan and the judgment against the Chaldeans.

6. [4] Waiting for God’s promises to come true was what separated the righteous from the wicked.

a) The wicked Chaldeans were “proud” (aphel - swell, presume). This indicated that their souls were not “right” (yashar, straight or right) with God or within themselves as God had originally created man.

b) However, in contrast, “the righteous will live by his faith.”

(1) The “righteous” are the tsaddiq (morally straight) who have faith in God and are faithful in obedience and sacrifices.

(2) If the wicked are proud, then the righteous would be humble.

(3) The soul of the righteous is right with God and within themselves.

(4) They live by faith (emunah - firmness, faithfulness, certainty, “through faith” cf. Heb 11:1).

(5) Habakkuk and the righteous would have to live through God’s discipline of captivity. They would have to have faith in the faithfulness of their covenant God. In addition, they would also have remain faithful to God, which is a fruit of genuine faith.

c) Habakkuk is quoted three times in the NT.

(1) Ro 1:17 (Ro 1:16-17) - Both Jews and Gentiles are saved (righteous, justified) though faith in Christ.

(2) Gal 3:11 (Gal 3:6-11) - No one is justified by the Law, but by faith in Christ. This was illustrated in Abraham’s justification by faith (cf. Rom 4;1ff) and is a reality for those are included in Abraham’s blessing by faith in Christ (Ro 4:23-25).

(3) Heb 10:38 (Heb 10:36-39) - Those who have faith in Christ will not only be justified, but will faithfully persevere to the end.

II. THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL (JUSTIFICATION)

A. The Historical Christian Position on Justification

1. No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone--the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther rightly said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine. (MacArthur, Jesus’ Perspective on Sola Fide)

2. Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive--if not the single most important doctrine to get right. This is the doctrine that makes authentic Christianity distinct from every other religion. Christianity is the religion of divine accomplishment--with the emphasis always on Christ's finished work. All others are religions of human achievement. They become preoccupied, inevitably, with the sinner's own efforts to be holy. Abandon the doctrine of justification by faith and you cannot honestly claim to be evangelical. (ibid.)

3. Definition of Justification - When a sinner places his faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, not only are his sins forgiven, but he is judicially declared by God as “righteous” through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

B. The New Position on Justification

1. Reputable historical NT scholar Nicholas Thomas (“NT”) Wright, former Anglican Bishop of Durham, known for refuting the “Jesus Seminar” group on the historical Jesus, published a controversial book called, “What Paul Really Said.” This was published in 1997 and he has continued to prolifically publish articles and books on the subject.

2. In his book “What Paul Really Said,” Wright gives the history of the new perspective on Paul and the meaning of “righteousness” in his epistles. He lists, for example, Albert Schweitzer, W. D. Davies, Ernst Käsemann, E.P. Sanders, and James D. G. Dunn (who coined the phrase “New Perspective”) as the main influences in developing the New Perspective. What these men have in common is not only historical scholarship, but also a repudiation for many of the essential Christian doctrines, including inspiration.

3. Wright claims to maintain an evangelical position on Christ’s atonement, faith, and the inspiration of Scripture. However, he agrees with much of the ideas that spring from the New Perspective (e.g. NT Wright, “Paul: In Fresh Perspective”).

C. NT Wright’s Position on Justification

1. According to Wright, the concept of “justification by faith” was itself a historical re-interpretation, in that it was heralded by those facing particular factions of their own day (e.g. Augustine vs. Pelagianism, Luther and Calvin vs. Catholic Church).

a) Wright also claims that our misunderstanding of Judaism reached its zenith with Luther and the Reformers—in other words, historic Protestantism. Wright thinks evangelicals in particular have perpetuated the misunderstanding because of our systematic and theological approach to interpreting the New Testament. We’re guilty of thinking in Greek categories rather than Jewish ones. We have been too prone to read Augustine’s conflicts with Pelagius and Luther’s conflict with Rome back into the biblical text, and that has corrupted and prejudiced our understanding of the Jewish culture surrounding Paul. (Phil Johnson, What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul)

2. Not only does this perspective affect the doctrine of “justification by faith” (more on this later) but it consequently questions the evangelical understanding of Paul dealing with works salvation vs. faith salvation, a relationship with God, and an emphasis on getting to heaven.

a) I am convinced, Ed Sanders is right: we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism [works salvation] (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 32)

b) [When Paul spoke of] “the works of the law, he did not have in mind the moral requirements of the law of God. Rather, he was speaking of the badges of Jewish nationalism—circumcision, the dietary laws, the priesthood, the holy days, and whatnot. (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 120).

c) Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian or attains to a relationship with God. The problem he addresses is: should ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, [the problem] has to do, quite obviously, with the question of how you define the people of God. Are they to be defined by the badges of the Jewish race, or in some other way? (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 120)

d) This point is clearly of enormous importance, but I cannot do more than repeat it in case there is any doubt: Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, timeless, ahistorical system of salvation. They were not even primarily interested in, as we say today, ‘going to heaven when they died. (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 32)

3. But what about the doctrine of justification by faith? What does Wright state regarding the doctrine of justification by faith? Wright maintains that the historical re-interpretation by the Reformers “distorted” and actually did “ violence” to the doctrine.

a) The classic Reformed understanding of justification “does not do justice to the richness and precision of Paul’s doctrine, and indeed distorts it at various points. (ibid. 113)

b) This way of reading Romans has systematically done violence to that text for hundreds of years, and … it is time for the text itself to be heard again…Paul may or may not agree with Augustine, Luther, or anyone else about how people come to a personal knowledge of God in Christ; but he does not use the language of ‘justification’ to denote this event or process (ibid., 117)

4. To Wright, justification has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology. In other words, it has more to do with the church rather than salvation, with identification rather than how to be saved.

a) Justification” in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about “getting in,” or indeed about “staying in,” as about “how you could tell who was in. (ibid. 119)

5. Justification by faith according to Wright has to do with the identification of a covenant family member, regardless of ethnicity.

a) What Paul means by justification … is not ‘how you become a Christian’, so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’ … [Justification] is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences. (ibid. 119)

6. In Wright’s view, justification by faith is not the longstanding concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner. He does not like the term “imputation.”

a) If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever 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. (ibid., 98).

Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516