|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. BIBLICAL TEACHING ON JUSTIFICATION A. Jesus’ Understanding of Justification 1. Wright claims that the Bible is silent on
teaching justification. The reason was that justification was not the main
issue in the Bible nor was it the Jewish understanding concerning God’s
covenant people. 2. However, an illustration from Jesus’
teaching in Lk 18:9-14 shows the contrary. a) Jesus told a parable to people who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Lk 18:9). b) The parable was about two men, a Pharisee,
and a tax collector. The Pharisee saw himself as self-righteous because he
was not a swindler, unjust, an adulterer, or even a tax collector. In
addition, he carried out rituals such as fasting and paying tithes according
to the Law (Lk 18:10-12). c) On the other hand, the tax collector
considered himself a humble sinner in need of God’s mercy (Lk 18:13). d) Jesus’ conclusion was that the tax
collector, not the Pharisee walked away “justified.” One exalted himself with
self-righteousness while the other humbly admitted that he had no
righteousness in himself (Lk 18:14). e) Not only is the language regarding
justification self-evident of the old perspective justification, but the
interpretation of the new perspective justification does not fit the context. 3. In Mt 5:20, Jesus taught that a person’s
“righteousness” had to surpass that of the Pharisees if they wanted to enter
the kingdom of heaven. a) If “righteousness” refers to “covenant
membership,” then it does not follow that, the tax collector was “justified,”
but the Pharisee was not (Lk 18:9-14). b) Both the tax collector and the Pharisee
were Jews and would have possessed “covenant membership.” Yet the
righteousness of the tax collector surpassed the righteousness of the
Pharisee (Mt 5:20). B. New Testament Understanding of
Justification 1. Ro 1:16-17 a) Though
Wright intimates that he supports justification by faith, he maintains that
you cannot find it in Romans, the very epistle whose theme is “justification
by faith.” He claims it is time for for a new theme to be heard. 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. (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 117) c) The theological thesis throughout Romans
is, “justification by faith alone” (Rom 3:20-22, 26, 28; Rom 4:1-5; Rom 5:1).
Contextually then, it would seem likely that the key verses (Ro 1:16-17)
would represent this theme. d) Paul explained that the heart of the
gospel was based upon the righteousness of God (Ro 1:16-17). The
“righteousness of God” used in Ro 1:17, refers to the righteousness of Christ
which is judicially imputed to the believing sinner. In addition, it is by
faith alone. e) Hab 2:4 is quoted and the expression ek
pisteos is usually understood as the Reformation’s sola fide (“by
faith alone”). Furthermore, Paul uses this phrase (“by faith”) with the same
consistent meaning throughout the epistle (Rom 1:17; 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1;
9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23). 2. Ro 3:19-24, 28 a) According
to Wright, all the main passages that have been historically taken to mean
the old perspective justification, have been misinterpreted by the Reformers
and have been misinterpreted in their true context. b) In Philippians 3, Galatians 2 and 3, and
Romans 3 and 4, the wider question at issue is not first and foremost about
how I get saved, how I find a gracious God, how I go to heaven, or whatever.
I’m not saying any of that is unimportant or irrelevant. I am merely pointing
out, which anyone can see if they look at the texts, that the basic question
has to do with membership in the people of God, in Abrahams family, in
Israel. (Wright, Justification,
Yesterday, Today, and Forever) c) In Ro 3:19-24, we see the need for
justification, the means of justification, and explanation of justification. d) The need for justification is that
because all men are unrighteous (Jew and Gentile); they are silenced and
accountable before God (19). e) Furthermore, no man can be justified by
the Law, because no one can keep it perfectly. The Law was given to show man
his sinfulness (20). f) The means of justification must be
apart from the Law, since no one can keep the Law. This was stated in the Law
and the prophets cf. Hab 2:4(21). g) Therefore, justification can only be
obtained by faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (22). h) The explanation of justification is
that because all men are sinners, they fall short of the “glory of God (God’s
perfect standard of righteousness) (23). i) Since man is not and cannot be righteous
in himself or by himself, God must give righteousness to him as a gift of
grace. This gift of grace is called justification and is given to those who
have faith alone in Christ’s redemption alone (24). j) Are we misreading Paul when we think he
means that a person is justified by faith contrasted by and apart from the
works of the Law? Absolutely not. He concludes with that meaning in vs. 28. 3. Gal
3:10-13 a) According to Wright, if the righteousness
of God does not refer to the old perspective justification, then the phrase,
“works of the Law” cannot refer to attempting to obtain righteousness through
works. Wright does not view the “works of the Law” as moral requirements but
as something good in that it maintained the physical covenantal membership. 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) Galatians
was written because false teaching had infiltrated the church, teaching that
believing Gentiles needed to be circumcised (Judaized) in order to be saved. d) Paul argued that attempting to obtain
righteousness by the “works of the Law” only brought a curse to those who
could not keep it perfectly (10). e) It was evident from Scripture, that no
one could be justified by keeping the Law. Paul quoted Hab 2:4 to show that
one could only be justified by faith (11). f) Wright says that keeping the Law maintains
the badge of Jewish nationalism. Paul states that no one is “justified” by
the Law. If “justified means “badge of Jewish nationalism” (Wright’s view),
then no one can even maintain their badge of Jewish nationalism by the Law. g) Paul goes on to state that everyone is
under the curse of the Law (12). But logically according to to Wright’s view,
there can be no curse since it merely maintains the badge of Jewish
nationalism. h) Paul states that Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the Law and its moral requirements (13). Paul’s conclusion
therefore was that the Law cannot make a person righteous, but faith in
Christ does. 4. 2Co 5:21 a) In 2Co 5:20, Paul spoke of his ministry of reconciliation.
According to Wright’s reductionism, which reduces everything to “covenantal
membership,” Paul’s ministry, “including his suffering, fear and apparent
failure, is itself an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God (Wright, “What Paul Really Said”, pg. 104-105) b) Wright seems to suggest that he can see the
imputation of sin transferred to Christ in 2Co 5:21a. However, Wright does
not see the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in 2Co 5:21b transferred to
the believing sinner. He views it as an aspect of “covenantal membership.” c) 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 (Wright, “What Paul
Really Said”, pg. 98). d) However, it would be a natural
interpretation that if imputation is observed in 2Co 5:21a, it should also be
observed in 2Co 5:21b. e) In other
words, by imputation, God “made” (epoiēsen - aorist verb, “made”)
Christ guilty on behalf of man’s sin. But also by imputation, believers
“become” (genōmetha - aorist verb - become) the righteousness of
God in Christ. f) Furthermore, just because Wright does not see imputation in a
human court does not limit God from divinely imputing Christ’s righteousness
in His court. 5. Php 3:4-9 a) In a debate with James White on Premier
Christian Radio, Wright intimated that he does agree with the old perspective
concept of justification, particularly in Php 3:4-9. However, he does not
find the concept in other NT passages. Yet in another article, he states that
even Php 3:4-9 referred to Paul’s “redefined” “covenant membership.” b) …In Philippians 3, [Paul’s own]…
righteousness …is not his legalistic self-achievement. It is, explicitly, his
membership in physical Israel: circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; when it comes to the
law, a Pharisee; when it comes to zeal, a church-persecutor; when it comes to
righteousness under the law, blameless. Of course there is a sense in which
that contains something that could be called legalism, but it is not the
detached legalism of the proto-Pelagian[works salvation]. It is the
covenantal legalism of the Jew for whom the law is the way of demonstrating
and maintaining membership in the ethnic people of God. That is where Paul
started. That is what he gave up by discovering that the Messiah was the
crucified Jesus and that, in him, God had radically redefined the terms of
covenant membership (Wright, Justification,
Yesterday, Today, and Forever) c) In Php 3:4-9, Paul stated that he did not
put “confidence in the flesh” (Php 3:4). This referred to his achievements in
Judaism (Php 3:5-6) which gave him a “blameless” (Php 3:6)
“self-righteousness” (Php 3:9). d) Paul counted his self-righteousness, the
“righteousness which is in the Law” (Php 3:6), as “loss for the sake of
Christ” (Php 3:7). e) Paul was not giving up his membership to
physical Israel. In fact, Paul maintained that he was still a member of
Israel according to the flesh (Ro 9:3-4 cf. Ac 21:39). Rather he was giving
up “a righteousness of [his] own
derived from the Law” for “the righteousness which comes from God on the
basis of faith” (Php 3:9). f) Contrary to Wright’s view, when Paul
referred to “righteousness” found in Christ, he was not talking about a
redefined covenant membership, but the basis of forgiveness of sins, eternal
life, and Christ’s imputed righteousness. 6. Conclusion a) Differing from Wright’s covenantal membership view, Jesus
viewed justification by humble repentance and faith as opposed to man’s own
self-righteousness. The New Testament showed the distinction between God’s
righteous standard and man’s unrighteousness. It showed that man cannot gain
righteousness by keeping the moral requirements of the Law. Christ’s death
redeemed man from the curse of the Law and Christ’s righteousness is imputed
to the unrighteous sinner by faith. b) Therefore, Wright’s view is wrong. Justification
by faith is not his historical reinterpretation of covenant membership.
Rather, the Reformers rightly interpreted what Paul really said, namely, that
justification does have to do with getting into heaven, and that the church
stands or falls on this one doctrine. |
|
|
|
|
Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
