Tuesday, August 03, 2004
N.T. Wright on Justification and Imputation Part VII
The ‘Works of the Law’
Anticipating Final Vindication The day would come when the true Israelites would be publicly vindicated by God. Whilst the precise identity of the group that was destined for final vindication was not public knowledge prior to the final vindication, many within Israel believed that it was possible to anticipate the verdict of the final judgment.There are important overtones of Paul’s statement [of Romans 3:20] here [in the theology of the Reformers and modern evangelicals], but they are not its fundamental note. If we play an overtone, thinking it to be a fundamental, we shall set off new and different sets of overtones, which will not then harmonize with Paul’s original sound.Wright is concerned that many within the Reformation tradition have tended to treat Israel mainly as the ‘classic example of the wrong way of approaching God’ and have consequently built a ‘Pauline’ theology ‘in which half of what Paul was most eager to say in Romans has been screened out.’215
[Paul] does not regard his contemporaries as proto-Pelagians, trying to pull themselves up by their own moral bootstraps in order to be good enough for God and to earn “works-righteousness” of that sort. Rather, they believed that God’s covenant with Abraham was their exclusive and inalienable possession, whereas Paul had come to believe that, through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the long covenant story as set out in the Scriptures had all along had a different shape.It should not be supposed that Paul perceived the error of the position of the Judaizers merely in terms of the sin of nationalism; he recognized that there were far more profound problems with their use of the Torah as a ‘charter of national privilege’ than mere nationalism. Their error may have taken a nationalistic shape, but Paul’s response is chiefly directed against their understanding of the place and role of the Torah, rather than against the sin of nationalism in general. The Role of the Torah Is God the God of the Jews Only? Wright believes that Paul attacked the Judaizers’ understanding of the Torah on a few grounds. Firstly, Paul realized that the Torah, when employed as a charter of national privilege, prevented the fulfillment of the promise of a worldwide family that had been made to Abraham.220
What Israel has sought, and what [Romans] 9:6-29 has been at pains to deny, is an inalienable identity as God’s people for all those who possess Torah, for (that is) ethnic Israel as a whole. Paul, assuming his whole argument to date, declares that this can never be the appropriate fulfillment of, or attainment to, Torah. The God who gave Torah is the God who made promises to Abraham, promises about a worldwide family. Unless we are to suppose (which Paul never does) that Torah was a bad idea that God subsequently abandoned …, we must conclude that God always envisaged a kind of Torah-keeping, a kind of law-fulfillment, of a different order from that pursued so vigorously by the zealous Jews of Paul’s day, including himself in his earlier days (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4-6).Paul recognizes that, were justification to occur by the ‘works of the Torah’, God ‘would be shown to be the God only of Jews.’221
Israel, says Paul, is ignorant of what God has righteously and faithfully been doing in her history. In seeking to establish a status of righteousness, of covenant membership, which will be for Jews and Jews only, she has not submitted to God’s righteousness. The covenant always envisaged a worldwide family; Israel, clinging to her own special status as the covenant-bearer, has betrayed the purpose for which that covenant was made. It is as though the postman were to imagine that all the letters in his bag were intended for him.At this point, we should observe that this is one of the reasons why Wright is concerned that we do not permit God’s cosmic restorative justice and His covenant faithfulness to become polarized; it is by means of His covenant faithfulness that God is setting the cosmos to rights. Retaining the essential relationship between the two is important if we are to appreciate the underlying reasoning in Paul’s argument against the Judaizers. Endnotes225
200 The New Testament and the People of God, pp.334ff. (return)
202 In many respects, the manner in which these symbols functioned could be compared to the manner in which symbols function within any group of people. Members of a particular nation, for example, are distinguished by their respect for a particular flag, their singing of a particular national anthem, their allegiance to a particular government, their sharing of a particular history, mythology and body of culture, their national customs and their particular cultural celebrations and cultural symbols. These various badges of membership do not serve to earn membership; they evidence membership (for example, an American’s celebration of July 4th does not earn him his American identity, but serves among other practices to mark him out as a true American). Of course, the analogy is far from perfect, given the role played by the marks of covenant membership in anticipating future vindication. (return)
203 Ibid. p.334. When Wright explains the workings of the sacrificial system he makes clear that the sacrifices did not work ‘automatically’; the individual needed to repent for the sacrifice to be efficacious for good in his case [Ibid. p.275]. (return)
206 Ibid. See also What St Paul Really Said, p.119 (return)
207 The Letter to the Romans, p.461, 480-481, 637, 649 (return)
208 See, for example, Philip H. Eveson, Justification by Faith Alone — In the Light of Recent Thought (Leominster: Day One Publications, 1996), pp.132ff.; Cornelius Venema, ‘Evaluating the New Perspective on Paul 4 — What Does Paul Mean by “the Works of the Law”?’; Douglas Kelly, ‘New Approaches of Biblical Theology to Justification’ (return)
209 For the position of Richard Hays and James Dunn, see The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume XI: 2 Corinthians — Philemon, p.239. For the position of Don Garlington see his book, An Exposition of Galatians: A New Perspective/Reformational Reading (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), p.109. (return)
210 See, for example, Paul For Everyone: The Prison Letters, p.23; New Perspectives on Paul, p.9 (return)
211 Although, as we shall later see, Wright does believe that there is a ‘doing of the Torah’ that is not limited to the Jew, this should always be held in balance with the fact that the Torah, in the sense that Paul frequently speaks of it, is only given to the Jews and the performing of it serves to separate Jews from Gentiles. (return)
212 The Letter to the Romans, p.493, 637 (return)
213 In passing, it should be observed that Wright questions the validity of reading the New Testament references to ‘good works’ as references to ‘living a good moral life’ or ‘obeying the law’. In Wright’s understanding they are better understood as good works of ‘giving practical help, particularly money, to those in need.’ [Paul For Everyone: The Pastoral Letters, p.158, 163]. (return)
214 The Letter to the Romans, pp.463-464 (return)
218 See, for example, What St Paul Really Said, pp.120-122 (return)
219 He writes:—
Paul is not addressing the more general “boast” of the moral legalist whose system of salvation is one of self-effort, but the ethnic pride of Israel according to the flesh, supported as it was by the possession of the Torah and the performance of the “works” that set Israel apart from the pagans. [The Letter to the Romans, p.480] (return)
221 Ibid. p.649. We will be returning to the ‘kind of Torah-keeping…of a different order’ that Wright speaks of in a later post. (return)
224 What St Paul Really Said, p.118 (return)