Paul Right Off the Grill and Still Hot

In the next section (pp. 185-190), I continue to be edified by what Wright affirms, and mystified by what he denies. This is the section where he discusses the surrounding context of Romans 3:28, which says, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Describing the run-up to this statement in the first chapters of Romans, Wright says, “Clearly nomos means ‘Torah’ throughout” (p. 185). But, as we have seen, this is not true. There are places prior to this where nomos clearly does not mean Torah. The law speaks to those who are under the law (Rom. 3:19), and the nomos speaks in the form of a grim litany from Psalms and Isaiah. In that list Paul doesn’t quote Moses once, which should be relevant, depending on where Wright sets the boundaries of Torah. I generally use the word Torah to describe the law of Moses. But however elastic the Torah might be, it certainly does not stretch to include the “law unto themselves” (Rom. 2:14) that Gentiles could glean from the stars and from their hearts. I believe that Wright has clearly overstated his exegetical point here.

At the same time, he clearly wants to get past the current wrangles, a point he has made more than once.

“In other words, let’s go beyond the new perspective/old perspective divide: both are necessary parts of what Paul is actually saying” (p. 186).

The problem is that Wright considers the old perspective (that is a necessary part of what Paul is teaching) to be an old perspective that has to abandon the idea of imputed righteousness. But that guts the old perspective, while trying to keep the name. I am not exactly sure what Wright could mean by “old perspective” here, given what he goes on to say.

“The idea that what sinners need is for someone else’s ‘righteousness’ to be credited to their account simply muddles up the categories” (p. 187).

“‘Imputed righteousness’ is a Reformation answer to a mediaeval question, in the mediaeval terms which were themselves part of the problem” (p. 187).

Speaking of muddle, here is where more muddle comes in. Logidzomai and the dikai-word group are not medieval terms; they are Pauline. Concepts that are medieval are expressed by words like merit and account. Putting the merit of Christ’s obedience in my account is the kind of extra-biblical extension that Wright is objecting to, and I share that objection. But for God to impute the disobedience of Adam to his descendants is Paul, straight out of the can. For God to consider all of us righteous because one was righteous (Rom. 5: 17-18) is Paul right off the grill and still hot.

The reason I think Wright is confused about all this (and not in the position of one who denies imputation straight out) is because he consistently affirms in tangled backhanded ways what he thinks he must be rejecting.

“Justification by faith on the basis of Jesus’ faithful death and triumphant resurrection, revealing the ‘righteousness’ of the creator God” (p. 189).

Okay, fine. What does “on the basis of” mean exactly? I hear the proclamation that Jesus died and rose. What does that have to do with me? God promised that a Messiah would come, and He did, and so God is “righteous.” So what? God can be righteous all day long that way, and I am still going to Hell. Christ ascended into Heaven. Great. Good to see that somebody gets to go there. When I look at that message, and I believe it, on what basis does God declare me to be “in the right?” On what basis does God drop the charges against me? Because I believed something in my head? Good for me, but how does God remain just by declaring a wretch like me to be “in the right,” just because that wretch (like me) thought something?

Wright affirms that in His death, Christ was dying as a substitute. What does the word substitute mean? How does the substitution work? In a game of basketball, when one player substitutes for another, he goes in and the other one comes out. If Christ substituted for me that way, then I do not understand how His playing in the game counts as my playing in the game. But there is another kind of substitution, that of covenantal representation. I have a representative in Congress who votes there on my behalf. He represents me, substitutes for me. What he does, I am considered to have done. Paul teaches in chapter five that this kind of federal representation is the basis of Christ’s substitution for all who believe.

Adam was my representative in the Garden of Eden, and in that situation I did poorly, as it happens. But the last Adam came to another tree four thousand years later. I did a lot better that time.