By Angus Harley

N. T. Wright came into the public eye recently for his Anglican view on abortion that opened the door up to various secular concessions to abortion. Wright has always been a divisive figure. His doctrine of justification is noted for its rejection of the traditional view of justification by faith. In this article, I’m responding to a video of Wright that very, very briefly states his view of justification and his rejection of the traditional doctrine (the video lasts 6 minutes!).[1] Please bear this in mind, for I do not allow my comments to spill over into Wright’s other writings and speeches.

Wright’s view

To Wright, the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification by faith is a caricature of the bible’s teaching, a mere rough-hewn image of it, not very precise and detailed. The bible’s doctrine is that God’s righteousness is, predominantly, his covenant faithfulness. Another valuable element is that his righteousness is also judicial, although it receives far less attention in Wright’s talk. The ethical is blended with the legal, God’s covenant faithfulness with his role as judge. Wright goes to the OT and to Isaiah in particular for his template. Israel was sent into exile for its sin, punished there for its sin, and then returned from exile. In returning from exile, God demonstrated his faithfulness to his covenant promise, so that Israel returned as vindicated, having been forgiven by God and then restored to the land of Israel. Isaiah, in particular, draws attention to a rich vein of thought concerning the “atoning suffering of the people’s representative, the Servant”. Wright states Paul draws upon this whole theology to write up his doctrine of justification by faith.

All of this, to Wright, removes any room for the doctrine that Christ is counted righteous in the place of sinners. God’s righteousness is never attributed to Christ himself. Christ participates as the Mediator, rather, in God’s act of covenant faithfulness, for by him sin is dealt with. Christ righteousness is not imputed to sinners.

God sent his Spirit to empower the preaching of the Gospel of God’s covenant faithfulness. It brought with it faith. Just as with Daniel, in Daniel 9, the believer in the Gospel calls upon God to honor his covenant faithfulness.

Jesus’ “saving death” is called his pistis (a Greek term) or “faithfulness” to the covenant, “his succeeding where Israel had failed.”

Similarly, the pistis (“faithfulness”) of the believer is the “sign” that he is “enfolded in the pistis of the Messiah.” The Spirit, in the Gospel, produces, therefore, “Messiah-shaped people.”

Critique of Wright

NT primacy

As NCTers, we must be faithful to uphold NT interpretive primacy. The OT is a mere resource for the NT’s teaching; it does not give to us the pattern for interpreting the NT. The NT has interpretive priority because it is about a New Covenant initiated and sealed by the blood of Christ. The New fulfills the OT, for the Old was about the New. The New was not continuing the Old.

No mono-covenant

For that reason, we must dismiss Wright’s assumption that there is a straight-line of positive continuity between the Old Covenant order and the New Covenant. Just read Hebrews. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that the Old Covenant could not deliver from sin. Yet, Wright, in typical Anglican fashion, refers to a generic “covenant”. There is no New Covenant in the Old Covenant; nor is there any Old Covenant in the New Covenant. To be pointed: there is no mono-covenant that covers both covenants.

One righteousness in three modes

Another prominent failure is Wright’s view of three separate righteousnesses: God’s, the Messiah’s, and ours. However, a cursory look at the NT reveals that God’s righteousness is manifested in the Son and in believers. It is one righteousness from God, of him, that the Son embodies, and which is appropriated by faith. Not to be technical at all, but to speak quite loosely: it is one righteousness that has three ‘modes’, as it were. Wright ignores 1 Cor.1:30-31:

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

How did Christ manage to “become…righteousness”, a righteousness from God, if God has his righteousness and the Christ has his own? It is evident that Paul is teaching that Christ himself embodies the righteousness of God: he has “become” it! He is not merely the main player in God’s act of righteousness; nor is he noted for an independent act of righteousness. His righteousness is precisely God’s righteousness manifested in him- he has become God’s righteousness.

Romans 3:21-26 is equally as clear on this:

“21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

God’s righteousness was demonstrated in his Son. It is because Jesus himself is the sacrificial and redemptive embodiment of the divine righteousness from God, that by faith in him, the sinner is justified before God. The righteousness of God manifested and demonstrated in his Son is expressed in his death, through his blood. Let’s tease out the three modes referred to in this picture.

  • The source: righteousness is God’s;
  • The Mediator of God’s righteousness, the One who reveals it in and by his person and sacrifice: Jesus Christ;
  • The recipients of this Mediatorial righteousness of God: those of faith.

This divine righteousness revealed in the Son’s death is received by faith; it is not, therefore, that faith itself is a form of covenant faithfulness. See in this how Wright blurs the difference between faith and faithfulness. Although faith and faithfulness have some conceptual overlap, in Romans 3 there is nothing to suggest that faith is “faithfulness”, or that faith is in itself “righteousness”. The entire context is about the righteousness of God manifested in the Son’s cross. That is the only righteousness in focus! Just as important, look at how this cross and faith interrelate: faith in the present looks to the cross of the past. How is this possible? Because the Gospel is the cross proclaimed, bringing forward the cross of the past into the present. Faith is the act of believing this Gospel of the cross, of accepting God’s act of embodying his righteousness in the crucified Christ. In this way, there is only, ever, one righteousness: it is God’s; it is then embodied in his Son, in his death; which is appropriated by faith, by believers. There are not three acts of righteousness that work together, but one righteousness that has three modes.

We should also note that this union of God’s righteousness with Jesus’ redemptive death is said not to be united to the Law of Moses, to the Old Covenant. Nor is there any notion of a mono-covenant. The OT (“law and prophets”) served one end: to speak of this death and divine righteousness to come; the OT did not record these salvific events as having happened in Israel’s past.

Imputation

Wright, in the very short video, does not give us his own version of Paul’s use of ‘to impute’. He does, however, reject the traditional one. We must insist, of course, that the term is valid, as Paul uses it often (Rom.2:26; 3:28; 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, etc.; see Rom.5:13). God imputes righteousness on the basis of faith. However, we have to be very clear: faith is not itself the righteousness. Romans 4, and elsewhere, do not focus on David’s act of faith in itself as righteousness, but in the person and act in which faith is placed:

“just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”” (Rom.4:6-8)

David trusted God’s act of providing righteousness, of God’s blessing of David’s sins being covered. How can Wright miss, here, that faith is not specifically cited? Paul is not concerned with dissecting faith’s innate nature or value, but what faith takes hold of; so much so that, faith is not mentioned, but the blessing that faith reaches for is. This is to say that, when Paul writes that “faith is credited as righteousness”, he does not wish that we draw attention to Abraham’s ‘faithfulness’, nor to faith in itself. God counts, or reckons, Abraham to be righteous due to one simple fact: his faith takes hold of God’s provision of mercy and forgiveness in the sacrificial Son. The term ‘faith’ is shorthand for that reliance on Christ’s death, not for being in itself innately valuable as ‘righteous’ covenant faithfulness. And in case I’ve not been clear: the use of ‘to impute/credit/reckon’ is solely and exclusively to convey the singular and specific idea of God’s act of righteousness embodied in his Son’s death that is believed in by faith; his blood is our covering that brings God’s forgiveness to us. God’s righteousness is in Christ alone, by faith alone.

OT typology

Wright, being so pro-OT, should take a second look at the typological nature of the Old Covenant sacrificial system. The Jew entered into the tabernacle with a sacrifice, passed it off to the priest, who sacrificed it on an altar. Blood was shed. One death was required for another. The Pentateuch does not draw our attention to the ‘covenant faithfulness’ of the one offering up the sacrifice. The act of offering up is not the focus. The sacrifice’s role, nature, and value is the focus, because it ‘substitutes’ for the sinful offeror. This ‘switch’ or transaction, which does not pay attention directly to the offeror but the sacrifice and its function, is recognized by God, and is counted to the offerors’ favor, so that he goes free, and is, in the ceremonial sense of ancient Israel, considered to have had his sins taken away. This singular act of God’s ‘forgiveness’ (in the ceremonial sense) is achieved by the implementation of a substitutionary sacrifice, via a mediator (priest). It is not three different righteousnesses at work, but one through three functions or modes.

Isaiah

Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant and of divine righteousness does not quite work as Wright relates it. For one thing, Israel’s faithfulness is equated with a city that was righteous (Isa.1:21, 26; 9:7; 16:5; etc.). It’s faithfulness is not spoken of as being present in exile; faithfulness is a ‘city’ feature that is specifically related to Israel’s honorable status in Jerusalem before God, not to a dishonorable condition in Babylon. To be restored to that status of faithfulness, Israel was sent into exile to be punished, to pay for its sins. Israel’s sins whilst in exile were ‘paid for’, so that they were forgiven (Isa.40:1-2), at least in a nationalistic, this-world, manner.

Yet, all of this presumes a prior work: God’s act of providing forgiveness through the Suffering Servant. Isaiah 40:1-2 is to be understood in that light. For the Servant of Yahweh will, in the state of exile itself, suffer and die at the hands of the wicked. As a result, he will justify many from their sins:

“As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.” (Isa.53:11)

In this Servant-form alone will “Zion…be redeemed with justice And her repentant ones with righteousness” (Isa.1:27).

Let’s look at the three modes of righteousness. In Isaiah, it is of course God’s righteousness in action. However, it is via the Servant himself, for he embodies it:

“1 Who has believed our message?

And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot” (Isa.53:1-2)

The Lord’s arm indicates the manifestation of the God’s power, judgment, and salvation in his Servant (cf., Isa.51:9; 52:10; 59:16; 62:8; 63:5, 12), the one who “grew up before [Yahweh] like a tender shoot”. For God’s judgment and salvation will first be manifested in his Servant to bring forgiveness.

See, too, how the Servant and Israel are blurred together. How so? For one (the Servant) represents the other (Israel). Sacrifice, substitution, one righteousness. Thus, the third mode of Israel is linked to the other two (God and the Servant).

God’s righteousness in Isaiah has, therefore, two stages that are in very, very strict order: the Servant is punished for the sins of many; after this, the many returned to Jerusalem are constituted a faithful city. The faithful are not such in Babylon, only in Jerusalem. Prior to any covenant faithfulness in Jerusalem is therefore covenant punishment and forgiveness in Babylon.

Typologically, Israel in exile and Israel in Jerusalem foreshadows, respectively, Christ on the cross as the Servant and then Christ in glory, resurrected and reigning. The assembly, by faith, becomes one with Christ and God’s righteousness in him, just as Isaiah’s Servant was God’s righteousness, and was one with the nation of Israel.

Beware Wright!

  • Wright’s hermeneutic is driven by Biblical Theology, especially narrative. It is theologically hip to be all about Biblical Theology, and to dismiss Systematic Theology. Yet, Wright’s arguments show how Biblical Theology gets us only so far. Do not put all your eggs in its basket, brothers. More pointedly, Wright uses narrative as ‘the’ hermeneutical control.[2] This is super-dangerous, as it is a broad and sweeping model that is inherently general, and permits any amount of interpretations to exist. Our anchor is a combo of all the genres and forms of teaching in the bible, especially in the NT. These we must systematize.
  • Wright blurs where he should separate. As a result of his devotion to narrative, forgiveness, faith, righteousness, and covenant faithfulness are all blurred together in Wright’s thinking; Old Covenant is blurred with New Covenant; Israel is blurred with the assembly.
  • Wright separates where he should unite. There are not three righteousnesses, but one in three modes.
  • Wright is an Anglican and a scholar. Do not underestimate the first influence on Wright. He comes from a theological milieu in Anglicanism that is dominated by Liberals and Woke, with some moderates, and a shrinking constituency of conservative Evangelicals. Similarly, please understand that far, far too many in ‘Evangelical’ scholarship are keen to make an impression in the wider world of theology. Wright is such a fellow. It is now common in Evangelical scholarship to dismiss Adam, for example, as the one and only head of the entirety of humanity; or, as Wright, to consider that Adam and Eve were chosen out of many humans to lead humanity.

[1] Scott Mercer, “N. T. Wright on “Covenant of Works” and Imputed Righteousness,” YouTube April 19, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OSm6gj4E0A&ab_channel=ScottMercer

[2] A similar narrative-model is found in the New Exodus paradigm of Tom Holland. He is more appreciative of  theology than Wright, yet still manages to be controlled by a narrative paradigm.