The ‘Wright’ View of Justification

Philip H Eveson, Principal of London Theological Seminary

The evangelical world is not as clear on the subject of justification as it used to be. One of the people responsible for muddying the waters is N T Wright, or Tom Wright (as he likes to be called in his popular paperbacks), the new bishop of Durham.

Why should we draw attention to the views of this Anglican cleric? For one thing, he comes from a Reformed evangelical background. He is also an internationally renowned authority on New Testament issues. What is more, he is no liberal academic but one who argues strongly for the bodily resurrection of Christ. In addition, he is an engaging speaker who can apply his scholarly insights to the life and ministry of the church. He has popularised his views on justification and claims that he is more biblical than the Reformers. Opinions are divided over him. Wild and often inaccurate accusations have been made, while other evangelicals are cautiously favourable toward his views.

What, then, is Wright saying on justification that is causing such a stir, and in what ways is he departing from the Protestant Reformed position?

Contrary to what evangelicals have always believed, Wright considers that justification by faith alone is not part of the gospel. It is ‘implied by the gospel’ but it is not the essence of the gospel. He maintains that Paul did not preach justification by faith to the pagan world of his day.

What is the gospel according to Wright? It is ‘not primarily a message about sinful human beings’ and how they might attain justification and salvation. Rather, it is the announcement concerning the person of Jesus, that he is Israel’s Messiah and Lord of the whole world. In the gospel, God’s own righteousness is ‘unveiled’, meaning that the gospel discloses God’s covenant faithfulness. It shows how God in his faithfulness to his promises to Abraham has acted decisively in Jesus the Messiah. It reveals to Jews that the promises they had cherished have now been fulfilled in a way they least expected. It also reveals to Gentiles that the God of Israel is the one true God and has acted in Jesus ‘to put the world to rights’.

In Jesus, the decisive victory has been won over the powers of evil on the cross and the resurrection represents the dawn of a new age. The announcement concerning Jesus poses a challenge to all other powers that claim our loyalty and presents us with a divine summons to turn from present allegiances and submit to this Lord and Messiah.

It is not what Wright affirms that is the main problem, but what he omits and denies. I am wary of those who emphasise the lordship of Christ and say little or nothing about him as Saviour. The very name ‘Jesus’ reminds us of what the gospel is about: You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). The essence of the gospel for Paul included the truth that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures … (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Wright believes that Justification is God’s declaration that those who believe are in the right, which for him means declaring ‘that they are God’s true covenant people’. He is adamant that it is not about how individuals are accepted by God, but of how the people of God are defined. He does not believe in Luther’s ‘wondrous exchange’. He claims that to reduce Paul’s thinking about the cross to terms of a law court exchange is to diminish and distort it. Justification is ‘not how God makes someone a Christian; it is his righteous declaration that someone is already a Christian.’ It is all about assurance; it is not about ‘getting in’, but the assurance that one ‘is in’ the family of God.

Thus Wright believes that justification defines the church. It is declaring who the people of God are. According to Wright, Paul in Galatians was not denouncing those who were teaching and believing in some kind of merit theology. His attack was directed at those who confined God’s people to one race.

In this short article it is possible only to raise concerns about his teaching.

1. While it is one of Paul’s intentions to show who are the true people of God it is not Paul’s only concern.
2. To define justification in terms of covenant membership is wrong. Covenant family membership is one of the results of justification.
3. How an individual is put in a right legal position before God is not a secondary issue in Paul’s teaching. It is not something taken for granted or ‘thrown in’ for good measure.
4. Wright uses the covenant metaphor to narrow our focus and to over–ride the law court and bookkeeping metaphors of Romans 4 for his own interpretative purposes.
5. It is not possible to separate conversion and justification in the way that Wright does. The human response to God’s summons involves faith, and it is faith in Christ that is the instrument of our justification. We are justified by faith.
6. He has a faulty view of justifying faith, describing it as our belief in Jesus as Messiah and Lord and our loyalty to him. But faith is self-despairing trust in Christ alone who died for the ungodly.
7. The Law of God is confined to Israel, and sin in terms of human rebellion against God is not stressed. Sin is personified as a mysterious power that distorts humanity. God’s wrath is against such evil in creation. The cross is not seen as the place where Christ received the punishment that sinners deserve, but where this power of sin is judged.
8. Wright’s teaching shifts the focus away from our position before God to our position in the church. His definition thus removes the great stumbling-block between Protestants and Roman Catholics.