Recent N.T. Wright Interview on Justification & NPP

[_Rick_C]

I just found this recent interview. Here's the link for text and/or mp3.

N.T. Wright on Justification & New Perspective on Paul
Asbury Theological Seminary
Nov. 2007

This is one of the better Wright sessions I've heard. Maybe the best!
Recent...and covers the broad spectrum of N.T.'s thought.
Posted here as NPP is related to Calvinist/Arminian/(Protestant) issues.
I gladly voted "Right" and Brother Wright is a great blessing, imo!
Even if you don't agree with him, please give this a listen.
He covers a lot of basic things in theology & life...summarizing in depth!
(think: Wesleyan Quadrilateral...even if yer not Wesleyan...it fits in there)....
Anyways, enjoy! This is areally good one!

[Guest]

His view of the "gospel" is spot on -- some of his views on justification I'm not sure I understand fully but don't sound quite right.

Trevin Wax: Could you give us a brief definition of “the gospel”?

N.T. Wright: I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about “the gospel,” he means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it.

The reason that’s good news… In the Roman Empire, when a new emperor came to the throne, there’d obviously been a time of uncertainty. Somebody’s just died. Is there going to be chaos? Is society going to collapse? Are we going to have pirates ruling the seas? Are we going to have no food to eat? And the good news is, we have an emperor and his name is such and such. So, we’re going to have justice and peace and prosperity, and isn’t that great?!

Now, of course, most people in the Roman Empire knew that was rubbish because it was just another old jumped-up aristocrat who was going to do the same as the other ones had done. But that was the rhetoric.

Paul slices straight in with the Isaianic message: Good news! God is becoming King and he is doing it through Jesus! And therefore, phew! God’s justice, God’s peace, God’s world is going to be renewed.

And in the middle of that, of course, it’s good news for you and me. But that’s the derivative from, or the corollary of the good news which is a message about Jesus that has a second-order effect on me and you and us. But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you. That’s the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.

It’s very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It’s the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation.” That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.

[Guest]

I don't know what to think of his view on justification. He seems very good at not giving straight answers, but I've also heard people accuse Steve Gregg of the very same because they don't understand where he's coming from. It seems that Wright disagrees with being saved by the believing the Gospel. "Faith, Wright argues, is not the mechanism by which one is ‘saved’ but rather shows that one has been justified."

So faith comes after being justified? This certainly is a very Reformed idea. We exhibit faith as a result of God's prior work in us, showing we are already justified. This seems to disagree with Romans 4 which states that Abraham's faith was then credited as if it were actual righteousness:

Rom 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

In this case, faith comes first and is accounted as if it were righteousness. It's accounted that way because it (faith) is not righteousness.

and:

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

While belief does show a change, it seems that initial belief is required to be justified.

It seems that N.T. and Paidion are in agreement that if we are declared to have "God’s righteousness", it would be a legal fiction. I'm not sure why NT thinks that if God condsiders my sins covered and not to be counted against me, how this is not like God's righteousness? Jesus said "why do you call me good? There is no one good but God".

Like I said, I'm still trying to sort out where N.T. stands on this. Until I'm clear on his view, I don't know if I can take your poll. There are certainly things N.T. says that I agree with, but this subject, and the idea he has that the Jews were not legalists (thinking the law was needed for salvation) but rather believed all along that they were saved by grace apart from the law is strange, to say the least.

[Guest]

There are certainly things N.T. says that I agree with, but this subject, and the idea he has that the Jews were not legalists (thinking the law was needed for salvation) but rather believed all along that they were saved by grace apart from the law is strange, to say the least.

I haven't read what he's said to elaborate on this point, but I'm familiar with his teachings in general on the subject -- I took it to mean that he felt that the "plan" including the law for the Jews was the same with respect to grace and that the legal obedience etc. was meant for their identification/distinction as God's people but leaving the position open that the Jews corrupted God's system in that regard.

Do you know whether he takes that position, or something more general with respect to the jews and the law?

[Guest]

I took it to mean that he felt that the "plan" including the law for the Jews was the same with respect to grace and that the legal obedience etc. was meant for their identification/distinction as God's people but leaving the position open that the Jews corrupted God's system in that regard.

Do you know whether he takes that position, or something more general with respect to the jews and the law?

From what I can gather, he believes the Jews did not think that keeping the law would earn them a place in God's kingdom, but rather that the law was a "badge of membership", so keeping to law was to them a way to show God has already accepted them, not that they would be accepted under the conditions stated in the law. I just don't understand why he would think that. Maybe I just don't understand his use of terms, which he doesn't always define.

[Guest]

I think Wright is right that Jews didn't really think they could 'earn' their way into God's kingdom by adhering to the law. The Jews, in their thinking, didn't need to earn their way into the kingdom for the very reason that they were Jews. They kept the law as a way to demonstrate what was already true. Jesus message wasn't radical because it was grace-based instead of works-based. It was radical because it re-defined who 'Israel' was.

[_Rick_C]

Briefly, to summarize NTW's view of justification.

He uses a British expression (or idiom) that we don't use in the USA: "to put to rights." In the interview he also explains it, (iow), "to fix everything up." So, justification, Wright says, is God's saying to us "Everything has been made right between us. Every problem between us has been fixed."

The traditional Protestant view sees justification as God's own personal righteousness being "imputed" into us. (Btw, Wright doesn't deny that this does happen to us in some sense and I've forgotten the text he alludes to on this).

NTW sees justification with God as the judge, and ourselves, as sinners (before believing the gospel), standing in the courtroom: guilty. But through the merits of Christ, and upon our placing our faith in him, God says, "You are my child." Our sins have then been forgiven and we have entered into the community of the people of God.

Where NTW differs with the traditional view is this: God, as judge, does not impute his own righteousness into us (though this does occur in some sense, according to NTW). When a judge declares someone innocent; the judge's own personal attributes aren't imputed into the defendent. The judge simply declares, "Not guilty." The now-not-guilty defendant has not had the actual personal attributes of the judge (himself) imputed inside of him.

NTW, I must point out, certainly believes we receive a new nature (2 Co 5:17)! It's just that justification, itself, is an act of God--who is a much more righteous judge than any human judge!--wherein he declares, "You are not guilty through the merits of my Son and are now one of My People!"

[Guest]

I think Wright is right that Jews didn't really think they could 'earn' their way into God's kingdom by adhering to the law. The Jews, in their thinking, didn't need to earn their way into the kingdom for the very reason that they were Jews. They kept the law as a way to demonstrate what was already true. Jesus message wasn't radical because it was grace-based instead of works-based. It was radical because it re-defined who 'Israel' was.

I'm just not sure how this works with what Paul states time and time again that it's not through the righteousness of the law but it's righteousness that is by faith. He gives this as the very reason Jews have stumbled over Christ in Romans 9:31-33. Romans 4 is an example where we are declared "not guilty" after believing, and this being imputed to us because we believed. Not before we believe, as NTW says in the interview. So I'm still confused.

[Guest]

Briefly, to summarize NTW's view of justification.

He uses a British expression (or idiom) that we don't use in the USA: "to put to rights." In the interview he also explains it, (iow), "to fix everything up." So, justification, Wright says, is God's saying to us "Everything has been made right between us. Every problem between us has been fixed."

The traditional Protestant view sees justification as God's own personal righteousness being "imputed" into us. (Btw, Wright doesn't deny that this does happen to us in some sense and I've forgotten the text he alludes to on this).

NTW sees justification with God as the judge, and ourselves, as sinners (before believing the gospel), standing in the courtroom: guilty. But through the merits of Christ, and upon our placing our faith in him, God says, "You are my child." Our sins have then been forgiven and we have entered into the community of the people of God.

Where NTW differs with the traditional view is this: God, as judge, does not impute his own righteousness into us (though this does occur in some sense, according to NTW). When a judge declares someone innocent; the judge's own personal attributes aren't imputed into the defendent. The judge simply declares, "Not guilty." The now-not-guilty defendant has not had the actual personal attributes of the judge (himself) imputed inside of him.

NTW, I must point out, certainly believes we receive a new nature (2 Co 5:17)! It's just that justification, itself, is an act of God--who is a much more righteous judge than any human judge!--wherein he declares, "You are not guilty through the merits of my Son and are now one of My People!"

NT Wright has also said (from the book What St. Paul really said p.98):

"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 plaintiff of the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed across the courtroom"

He takes great issue with having God's righteousness imputed to us. Ok, well, I guess one doesn't have to say it's God's righteousness, but it is still not ours. It's still imputed to us as if we were righteous. So maybe it doesn't need to be addressed "who's righteousness". But this doesn't solve the issue. How can a just judge declare sinners righteous? He says it cannot pass across the room like a gas, but then how does it pass from Jesus to us? How does the merits of Christ, in the courtroom scene, transfer to me? You see, the problem still remains.

[_Rick_C]

My understanding of NTW's view of (first century) Jews.
Let's do some historical-grammatical interpretation and "go back" to, how about, 25 AD. For illustrative purposes, I'll pretend I'm a Jew living then. Here's my story:

"I was born a Jew. Our God chose my ancestors to be His Own Special People. He has given us laws to live by. Since we are His Own, we love and obey Him. Ever since I was born, I have been taught the ways of our God and live under His gracious guidance, care, and protection."

Did you guys see that?
Okay, did "I" (in my above illustration), have to "get saved" or do anything at all in order to become one of the People of God? No, I was born into the family!

NTW sees first century Jewish obedience to the law as their inward and outward "badge of covenant membership" as opposed to their "having to earn salvation" (the legalistic traditional Protestant view).

The Jews didn't obey their God's laws to become Jewish or to "earn God's salvation"---it was simply what they did. "We're Jews who live for our God" {think: holy lifestyle, they wore it like a "badge"}. Make sense yet?