God’s righteousness is then covenant orientated; it is God demonstrating his faithfulness to his covenant. He initially chose Israel to be his people; a people who were to be a light to the nations, and, although Israel failed in its mission, God, however, has remained faithful, and he has through Jesus, the faithful Israelite, done what fallen humanity was incapable of doing.
Of course, both Reformed Baptists and paedobaptists believe in God’s faithfulness to his covenant; it is what God secured in his Son’s preceptive and penal obedience to his covenantal requirements. None would disagree with Wright in maintaining that there must be covenant faithfulness before there can be salvation. As we will see, however, Wright’s idea of covenant faithfulness and that of Reformed Baptists is markedly different. The latter’s understanding of the old perspective takes umbrage with him because, not only has he mixed up the covenants, but he has essentially limited God’s faithfulness, separating it from his faithfulness to himself as the just God, denying entirely the imputation imputation of God’s righteousness in Christ.
Wright and Justification
Justification for Wright is very different from what one finds in orthodox Protestantism. It is not concerned with how sinners find favor with God, indeed, it is not even about soteriology, but, rather with ecclesiology, with the identification of those who are in the covenantal family. Furthermore, justification has nothing to do with the imputation of righteousness, but with God finding one to be in the right because one is counted among the covenant people.
Carl Trueman, while he does not specifically mention Wright, clearly has him in his sights when referring to the new perspective’s deviant understanding of justification:
To put it bluntly, it seems to me that the current revision of the doctrine of justification as formulated by the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on Paul is nothing less than a fundamental repudiation not just of that Protestantism which seeks to stand within the creedal and doctrinal trajectories of the Reformation but also of virtually the entire Western tradition on justification from at least as far back as Augustine.75
Wright believes the Reformers saw in first century Judaism a people who were seeking acceptance with God through their good works, and, no doubt, he would fully endorse the words of Duncan:
At the heart of the NPP’s critique of both Protestant and Catholic teaching interpretation of Paul is the charge that Reformational-era theologians read Paul via a medieval framework that obscured the categories of first century Judaism, resulting in a complete misunderstanding of his teaching on justification. The ideas of “the righteousness of God,” “imputation,” and even the definition of justification itself-all these have been invented or misunderstood by Lutheran and Catholic traditions of interpretation.76
Again, Wright agrees with Alister McGrath in his two-volume work on justification, where he states the doctrine:
Has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship with God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.77
Are we seriously to believe that the old perspective’s understanding of justification is “independent of its Pauline origins”? That “Imputation is nowhere to be found, in either the teaching of Paul or anywhere else in the New Testament? I have no doubt that McGrath’s words fit a number of views on this doctrine from the church’s long history, however, I find it hard to accept that such a critique can be applied to the Reformed position. One could well ask what it is that makes McGrath’s interpretation true, while others, as qualified as him, argue the opposite? While I agree that there is more to our salvation than justification, for example, regeneration, adoption etc., which, it should be noted, the Reformers would not deny, it is Wright’s understanding of this doctrine that falls short of the mark. He tells us that: “I want my people to understand and hear the whole word of God, not just the parts of it that fit someone’s system.”78 I don’t believe there is any who would not acquiesce with this. However, at the subconscious level, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for one to put aside all previous ideas. One finds that Wright has contorted the word to make it fit his own system; effectively he has taken a preconceived idea and has galloped through the New Testament with it.
Although agreeing with the Reformers that justification is expressed forensically in the terms of the law court, Wright denies any two-way exchange:
In the Hebrew law court, the judge does not give, bestow, impute, or impart his own “righteousness” to the defendant. That would imply that the defendant was deemed to have conducted the case impartially, in accordance with the law, to have punished sin and upheld the defenceless innocent ones. “Justification” of course means nothing like that. “Righteousness” is not a quality or substance that can thus be passed or transferred from the judge to the defendant. The righteousness of the judge is the judge’s own character status, and activity, demonstrated in doing these various things. The “righteousness” of the defendants is the status they possess when the court has found in their favour. Nothing more, nothing less. When we translate these forensic categories back into their theological context, that of the covenant, the point remains fundamental” the divine covenant faithful is not the same as human covenant membership.79
To be accepted by God there must be both the forgiveness of sin, and also the imputation of that which Christ secured by his active obedience. This is why the believer’s possession of Christ’s righteousness lies at the heart of the Reformed Baptist understanding of justification. The words of Owen are particularly pertinent here
It is not enough to say that we are not guilty. We must also be perfectly righteous. The law must be fulfilled by perfect obedience if we would enter into eternal life. And this is found only in Jesus (Rom 5:10). His death reconciled us to God. Now we are saved by his life. The perfect actual obedience that Christ rendered on earth is that righteousness by which we are saved. His righteousness is imputed to me so that I am counted as having perfectly obeyed the law myself. This must be my righteousness if I would be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil 3:9).
The holy character of God cannot, as Wright claims, just find in favor of the sinner, he can only do this if an actual righteousness is present. To do otherwise would be to undermine his holiness. Again, to quote Owen:
For that any may be reputed righteous—that is, be judged or esteemed to be so—there must be a real foundation of that reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as any man may be reputed to be wise who is a fool, or be reputed to be rich who is a beggar. Wherefore, he that is reputed righteous must either have a righteousness of his own, or another antecedently imputed unto him, as the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore, to impute righteousness unto one that hath none of his own, is not to impute him to be righteous who is indeed unrighteous; but it is to communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.80
Maintaining Christ’s redemptive work to have only secured the forgiveness of sins is to grossly misconstrue the true nature of justification. In the words of John Murray:
. . . it is prejudicial to the grace
