Of all the authors who are to some extent identified with the "new perspective
on Paul," perhaps none is as prolific or popularly known as Nicholas Thomas
("Tom") Wright. Though Wright prefers not to be identified with some
monochrome development known as "the new perspective," he clearly
writes as one convinced that a return to the older, Reformation view would be
to turn back the clock.1 In the light of the writings of Sanders, Dunn, and
others, Wright is convinced that we need to take a "fresh" look at
the biblical, and especially Pauline, texts, without the encumbrance of the
traditional formulations and confessional (especially polemical) positions of
the sixteenth century.
Unlike some of the prominent authors associated with the new perspective,
Wright regards himself as an evangelical whose commitment to the great tenets
of Christian orthodoxy is unswerving. Though he acknowledges that he no longer
sees things in black and white as he once did, Wright affirms that he remains
a "deeply orthodox theologian" who wants to present a fresh reading
and defense of the gospel to the (post-) modern world.
In 1999 Christianity Today featured Wright in an article by Tim Stafford,
who described him as "a bighearted, friendly bear of a man, who loves to
talk, loves to debate on television, loves to preach, and thoroughly enjoys
being dean of Lichfield Cathedral near Birmingham, England."2 As this description
suggests, Wright represents a rare combination of scholarship and churchmanship.
Not only is he the author of a number of wideranging studies in the New Testament
scholarship, but he is also an Anglican divine who is deeply committed to the
ministry of the gospel within the church.3 In addition to his advocacy of a
new reading of the apostle Paul, Wright is known for his contributions to New
Testament studies generally, and to the contemporary "third quest"
for the historical Jesus. One reason Wright is regarded highly by many evangelicals
is his defense of such things as the physical resurrection of Christ, and the
historical reliability of the main lines of the New Testament witness concerning
Christ. Due to Wright's scholarly reputation and success in advocating positions
that are relatively conservative by the standards of critical scholarship, he
enjoys considerable favor among evangelicals. Wright's views regarding Paul's
gospel and the doctrine of justification, therefore, are especially appealing
even within the evangelical and Reformed community.
Wright and the "New Perspective"
Despite Wright's reluctance to identify himself with anything so monolithic
as "the new perspective on Paul," he is persuaded that the writings
of Sanders and other advocates of a new perspective require a fresh reading
of Paul. The contributions of Sanders and Dunn to a new view of Judaism and
the historical context for reading the New Testament and the writings of the
apostle Paul, have altered irrevocably the landscape of biblical studies. Consequently,
any simple return to the past, particularly to the debates and positions of
the sixteenth century Reformation, would be an irresponsible approach for contemporary
New Testament studies. So far as Wright is concerned, the new approach to Pauline
studies is here to stay. This is true in at least two crucial respects.
First, Wright fully agrees with the position of E.P. Sanders, James D.G.
Dunn, and other authors identified with the new perspective, that Judaism at
the time of the writing of the New Testament was not a form of legalism. The
idea, which played such an important, even decisive role in the Reformation
understanding of the apostle Paul, that the Judaizers taught salvation on the
basis of works righteousness, is largely a fiction. Sanders and others have
conclusively demonstrated that Judaism emphasized the grace of God as the basis
for his covenant with Israel. The role of works in Judaism was merely one of
"maintaining" the covenant relationship, and not one of establishing
the basis for "entrance into" fellowship with God. This means that,
whatever the apostle Paul's problems with Judaism were, they could not be directed
to legalism, since we know that no such legalism was advocated by Judaism in
Paul's day.
Wright's endorsement of Sanders' new view of Judaism and its importance for
understanding Paul's gospel is unmistakable. As he puts it, "the tradition
of Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false
Judaism for him to oppose."4 This tradition of Pauline interpretation,
because it identifies Judaism as a form of legalism that anticipated the Medieval
Roman Catholic teaching of salvation by faith plus works, fails to identify
properly the true target of Paul's polemic in his presentation of the doctrine
of justification. Indeed, the Reformation's understanding of the gospel of free
justification amounts to what Wright terms "the retrojection of the Protestant
Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the role of Catholicism
and Christianity the role of Lutheranism."5 Because the Reformation misunderstood
the problem to which Paul was actually responding, it failed to grasp the real
meaning of Paul's teaching on justification by faith.
Second, in addition to his agreement with Sanders' general description of
Judaism as a nonlegalistic religion, Wright also makes considerable use of Dunn's
interpretation of Paul's dispute with the Judaizers and their understanding
of the "works of the law." The problem with the Judaizer's appeal
to the "works of the law" was not its legalism, Wright insists, but
its perverted nationalism. The Pauline expression, "the works of the law,"
does not refer to a legalistic claim regarding how sinners can find favor with
God by obeying the law, but to the nationalistic Jewish claim that God's covenant
promise only extends to the Jews. The "works of the law" are what
Dunn calls "boundary markers," those acts of conformity to the law
that served to distinguish the Jewish community from the Gentiles.
If we ask how it is that Israel has missed her vocation, Paul's answer is
that she is guilty not of 'legalism' or 'worksrighteousness' but of what I call
'national righteousness', the belief that fleshly Jewish descent guarantees
membership of God's true covenant people.
Within this 'national righteousness', the law functions not as a legalist's
ladder but as a charter of national privilege, so that, for the Jew, possession
of the law is three parts of salvation: and circumcision functions not as a
ritualist's outward show but as a badge of national privilege.6
The problem Paul confronted in his dispute with the Judaizers was a "boasting"
in national privilege, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that the covenant
promise extends to Gentile as well as Jew.7 The Reformation claim, therefore,
that Paul was opposing legalism when he articulated his doctrine of justification
misses the mark rather widely. Paul was not opposing legalism, but nationalism.
Consequently, the Reformation's reading of Paul transposes his understanding
into a radically different key, when it treats the Judaizers as prototypes of
a Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by (grace plus) works.
Wright's View of Justificationby Faith
Wright's understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith assumes
these two pillars of the new perspective. Whatever the apostle Paul might mean
by his insistence that justification is by faith and not by works of the law,
it cannot be that sinners (whether Jew or Gentile) are unable to obtain favor
with God on the basis of their obedience to the law. Though this may well be
true, no one in Paul's day would have thought otherwise. Paul's doctrine of
justification must be read in the historical context of the first century, and
in the light of the Old Testament's teaching regarding the promise of the covenant.
When Paul's gospel is read in this way, which requires that we set aside the
mistaken approach of the Reformation, we will find that "what Saint Paul really said" was rather different than what many have historically
claimed.
The "gospel" according to Wright
Before taking up directly Wright's view of justification, it is important
to note that he regards the doctrine of justification to be a subordinate theme
in Paul's understanding of the gospel. Though it is often assumed that the gospel
is a "system of how people get saved," Wright insists that this seriously
misrepresents the real meaning of the gospel (p. 45). The gospel does not answer
the question of the guilty sinner, "how can I find favor with God?"
(compare, e.g., Luther), but rather it answers the question, "who is Lord?"
One of the unfortunate features of the Reformation and much evangelical thinking
is that it reduces the gospel to "a message about 'how one gets saved,'
in an individual and a historical sense" (p. 60). In this kind of thinking,
the focus of attention, so far as the gospel is concerned, is upon "something
that in older theology would be called an ordo salutis, an order of salvation"
(pp. 40-1). According to Wright, this kind of an approach can only distort Paul's gospel and fails
to do justice to the broader historical background and significance of Christ's
saving work. All of the focus in this approach to the gospel is narrowly fixed
upon the issue of the individual's relationship with God, and not upon the reach
of God's worldtransforming power proclaimed in the gospel concerning Jesus Christ.
Because of this inappropriate focus upon the salvation of individual sinners,
the older Reformation tradition was bound to exaggerate the importance of the
doctrine of justification. Even were its understanding of justification correct
(which it is not), it tends to focus upon what is only a subordinate theme in
Paul's proclamation of the gospel.
If the gospel according to Wright is not primarily about how people get saved,
then what is its primary focus? Wright answers this question by insisting that
the basic message of the gospel focuses upon the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Paul's new vocation involved him not so much in the enjoyment and propagation
of a new religious experience, as in the announcement of what he saw as a public
fact: that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead by
Israel's God; that he had thereby been vindicated as Israel's Messiah; that,
surprising though it might seem, he was therefore the Lord of the whole world.
(P. 40)
We will have occasion to return to the question of what Wright means by the
cross of Christ, especially in terms of its importance for justification. Here
it only needs to be noted that Wright insists that the principal message of
the gospel is that Jesus is Lord and king. Through the cross and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, the one true God, who is the creator of the world, has won
a "liberating victory ... over all the enslaving powers that have usurped
his authority" (p. 47). Though Wright does not often clearly define what
he means by the lordship of Jesus Christ, he does offer the following summary
description:
Paul discovered, at the heart of his missionary practice, that when he announced
the lordship of Jesus Christ, the sovereignty of King Jesus, the very announcement
was the means by which the living God reached out with love and changed the
hearts and lives of men and women, forming them into a community of love across
traditional barriers, liberating them from paganism which had held them captive,
enabling them to become, for the first time, the truly human beings they were
meant to be." (P. 61).
The great theme of the gospel is this message of Jesus' lordship and its
life and worldtransforming significance. This, rather than the salvation of
individual sinners, is the real interest of Paul's preaching.
Justification is about who belongs to God's family
If the gospel, according to Wright, is not about how people get saved, but
the proclamation that Jesus is Lord, this has implications for our understanding of what Paul means by justification.
This doctrine, though an essential, albeit subordinate theme in Paul's preaching,
does not address the issue of how guilty sinners can find favor or standing
with God. This would be to assume that Paul's gospel focuses upon the salvation
of the individual rather than upon the lordship of Jesus Christ and the consequences
of that lordship for the realization of God's covenant promises. However, when
we view the gospel in terms of the lordship of Jesus Christ, the proper meaning
and place of the doctrine of justification becomes apparent. "Let us,"
says Wright, "be quite clear. 'The gospel' is the announcement of Jesus'
lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham,
now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him.
'Justification' is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith
belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other" (p.
133). As this statement suggests, justification has to do with the question,
how does the work of Christ confirm that all people, Jews and Gentiles alike,
belong to the one family of God?
1 "A Reformation & Revival Journal Interview with N.T. Wright: Part
One," Reformation & Revival Journal 11/1 (Winter, 2002): 117-39. The
language, "turning back the clock," is Wright's (p. 128).
2 Christianity Today (Feb. 8, 1999), p.43.
3 Among Wright's substantial volumes in New Testament studies and in the contemporary
"third quest" for the historical Jesus, are the following: Jesus and the Victory of God, vol.2 of Christian Origins and the Question
of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); The New Testament and the People qf God,
vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); and Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992).
4 "The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith," Tyndale Bulletin
(1978): p.78.
5 "The Paul of History", p. 80.
6 "The Paul of History," p. 65.
7 What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 128-9. Cf. N. T. Wright, "The Law in
Romans 2," in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D.G. Dunn (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 139-43. In the following, references to What Saint Paul
Really Said will normally be cited in parentheses in the text of my article.
Dr. Cornelis Venema is the President
of Mid-America Reformed Seminary where he also teaches Doctrinal
Studies. Dr. Venema is a contributing editor to The
Outlook
