In his 2010 ETS address titled “Justification: Yesterday, Today, and Forever” (JETS 54.1 [March 2011], 49-63) N.T. Wright says this of the doctrine of justification:
“And the point about justification is that what God says of Jesus the Messiah, he says of all those who belong to Messiah. He says it yesterday, when Jesus died and rose again. He says it today, in and through Jesus who ever lives to make intercession for us. And he will say it tomorrow, when Jesus returns to judge and save, to complete his kingdom work on earth as in heaven. So the first point is that justification is anchored and rooted firmly in Jesus himself.”
I think this is a statement to which both “old” and “new” perspectives can say, “Amen”.
the archives near Emmaus 
Definitely Brian; we should all be able to say “Amen” to this. Sadly, we know that this is not the case, even though statements like this should dispell of any problems with Wright’s rejection of imputation languange. Since the important elements of imputation are not themselves rejected, one is left wondering why it is so important to hold on to the language of imputation itself; especially when Wright is seeking to draw our attention towards other important aspects of the letter to the Romans that imputation language might be missing, or possibly even distorting. I do appreciate the quote, and hope that after seeing it, that some people will have their understandings of Wright cleared up (at least a little bit) 🙂
As I understand Wright, he simply moves what many put in “imputation” over to Pneumatology. Is that where you’d locate it as well?
I really enjoy Wright and I always look forward to your Wednesdays with Wright. And amen to your quote. I think that really draws on our union with Christ.
Sort of in line with this post, are you familiar with the NPP anchoring their understanding of “the righteousness of God” on what some call an outdated understanding of Hebrew parallelism? For Wright it is based primarily on Psalms and Isaiah, which reduces/equates righteousness with faithfulness. True but not the whole story.
This of course brings light to bear on their view of justification being primarily about God’s covenant faithfulness, which I don’t entirely object to, but still lacking in some respects. If you have time, check out this short piece (from last year) by Lee Irons, on what he calls a “scholarly house of cards”.
http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/hebrew-parallelism-and-the-new-perspective-on-paul.html
@Casey: Thanks, I enjoy posting them!
I am not familiar with the discussion on Hebrew parallelism, but I will take a look at the article.
@Casey: I read it and it makes sense to me. I have long felt that the one area of Wright’s program that seemed to be a bit of a stretch was the “covenant faithfulness” = “righteousness” statement. I don’t say this because I don’t think it is included in God’s righteousness, but I am not sure it is a one for one definition.
Rather, it seems that any concept of covenant faithfulness is merely a by-product of God’s overall righteousness.
In Rom. 2.1-16, for instance, it would seem that Paul’s first attempt at unpacking the righteousness of God found in 1.16-18 is displayed as his right to “render to each person according to their deeds” (v. 6). As righteous judge this would seem to indicate that no one is judged unjustly.
So I guess covenantal faithfulness relates, but it doesn’t seem to be one and the same.
Interesting Brian. I’ve never explicitly thought about it as a subset of pneumatology, but I can understand why you would put it that way (in light of his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 especially). I think that there is probably some truth in that; but I’m not sure that he would put it that way.
The covenant definitely forms the foundation upon which anyone could even begin to talk of something like imputation in his thought. This seems to be because the covenant provides both atonement and a Christian ethic. Wright doesn’t believe that we need a “positive righteousness” imputed to us, because atonement removes all sin (which makes traditional imputation language somewhat redundant).
I guess that this makes “union with Christ” (in the form of covenant membership) the most dominant category, and so much as the covenant can function as “the realm of the Spirit”, I could see where pneumatology could be viewed as a category within which imputation fits in Wright’s thought. Those who are in the covenant, possess the Spirit, who grants us that “righteous status”, and much more.
It’s all kind of tricky to follow though when we try to understand Wright within classical systematic models; he tends to explode barriers and scramble our neat theological categories. Not that I’m telling you anything that you don’t already know; just kind of thinking out loud 🙂
Casey and Brian,
I ran through that article above and I was somewhat confused; but maybe I’m missing something. I’ve often heard many people claiming that equating “covenant faithfulness” with “righteousness” is a problem because “covenant faithfulness” is basically too small of a category to contain all that “righteousness” entails. But then, usually those things that people claim are missing from the concept of “covenant faithfulness” are not missing from Wright’s understanding of the terminology.
For instance, to claim that “covenant faithfulness”, from Wright’s perspective, leaves no room for issues such as judgment, justice, or sin (just a few things that I have heard people claim are lacking in Wright’s proposal) is entirely inacurate. In Wright’s thought, the covenant was the means through which sin would be dealt with, the world would be “set to rights”, and just judgment is made. It seems like “covenant faithfulness” is broad enough of an umbrella category to cover all of these things and more.
Maybe I am missing something here? Are there other things that you see lacking from “covenant faithfulness” that are not part of Wright’s proposal? Is it possible that some folks just don’t like his emphasis? Or possibly some folks have a different understanding of sin, justice, and judgment that we see in the cross? I’m starting to feel pretty stupid because I’m not sure what I’m missing 🙂
I meant to say in the last paragraph; ” Or possibly some folks have a different understanding of sin, justice, and judgment, than that which we see in the cross?
@Brian M.: It seems that Wright uses Pneumatology to present the actual change within the believer. Whereas traditional imputation language often talks as if Jesus’ “righteousness” replaces our wickedness in a legal sense, it seems Wright doesn’t see how this solves our problem of being wicked beings.
In other words, if we are still ontologically corrupt, yet legally vindicated, how does this allow us into the presence of God and into resurrected bodies? He seems to take his cue from places like 2 Cor and Eph where the inner person is redeemed fully while awaiting the resurrection so that the outer person can join the inner person.
This “regeneration” of the inner person is the work of the Spirit. So believers have more than some “imputed” righteousness which is Christ’s alone while remaining evil themselves, but they are actually conformed into Christ’s image by the Spirit.
I agree that “union with Christ” seems to be the perfect place to put this idea.
As far as what Wright contains in his statement “covenant faithfulness” you are likely correct that it includes those concepts. I hadn’t thought of that.
Brian,
I agree. What you are saying about pneumatology seems like an accurate understanding of Wright’s theology on this point. Thanks for explaining it so clearly. 🙂
@Brian: I do what I can. 🙂