Flying Monkeys and the New Perspective

Question #3: On what basis are we declared to be in the right before God?

Wright argues that the present verdict of justification is on the basis of faith and faith alone. But, says Wright, there is also a future verdict based on works. The present verdict gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it, that the Spirit will empower the believer to live a life in accordance with his present justification (251, 260 n.11).

This sounds very close to the traditional Reformation understanding that we are justified by faith alone and our works must give corroborating evidence that indeed we were truly saved. But this isn’t what Wright wants to say. He does not make clear the basis for the declaration of our innocence. He simply does not think that debating about the word “basis” is the way to clarity. (258 n.7).

Yet, how can we avoid talking about the “basis” of our justification? Is there a more important question than what is the ground of our right standing before God? Does God declare us to be in the right because of Christ’s work grabbed hold of through faith or because of present faith and future works. Wright is very nuanced here and we must try to be fair. He is not telling us to go earn our salvation. But it does seem to me that he is saying we are declared to be in the right before God, on the last day, on the basis of works, that works are not merely evidence of saving faith but are the grounds for God’s favorable verdict toward us. The word “basis” matters.

Question #4: Why not just say “imputation”?

I’ll get to this question in a minute, but first let me say I don’t agree with Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21, though I tried as best I could to take his advice and not just dismiss it out of hand because it would blow up my tradition. Wright argues that 5:21 is yet another two-pronged statement about the Messiah’s death on the one hand and, on the other, a statement of Paul’s apostolic ministry. So on this reading, Paul says nothing about being reckoned to have the righteousness of God. Instead he is saying that we embody God’s faithfulness as we proclaim the message of reconciliation.

I find this exegesis strained for several reasons. 1) Wright doesn’t think Paul could be imploring the Corinthians themselves to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). This is not an evangelistic sermon after all, Wright argues (162). But Paul is concerned that the Corinthians are deceived (11:2), that they are putting up with another Jesus (11:4), that he may have to mourn over many who have sinned and not repented (12:21). In other words, the Corinthians, like people in our churches every Sunday, need to be evangelized. Paul has every reason to urge some of them to get reconciled to God.

2) Wright imposes the larger context in such a way that crowds out the immediate context. Yes, Paul is arguing for his apostolic authority in chapters 2-6 (in the whole book really). But that doesn’t mean he can’t bring up the atonement in chapter 5. Reading through chapter 5 we find that Paul is talking about our heavenly dwelling, persuading others based on the fear of coming before the Lord, being made new in Christ, and being reconciled to God. This is all Old Perspective stuff! Heaven, reconciliation, faith. So it makes perfect sense that Paul would talk about the atonement and “how we get saved” in verse 21 (contra Wright, 166).

In the interest of long-windedness allow me to digress. My main critique of Wright is that he gets the big picture right but then forces that big picture on the individual verses in such a way that doesn’t do justice to all the important points Paul is making along the way. Often Wright says a whole book or an entire section is about this, therefore if you talk about this other specific thing, you aren’t really paying attention to the context. But the context in any given section may have its own crucially important point, a complementary or even more important point.

For example, the Wizard of Oz is all about Dorothy trying to find the Wizard who can help her get home. But along the way there are all sorts of other things that happen. They are part of the bigger story, but they have a point themselves. The scene with the flying monkeys is, on the most basic level, about how flying monkeys can really weird you out. But I can imagine Wright arguing, “But we must keep in mind that the Wizard of Oz is about the Dorothy-to-the-Wizard-so-she-can-get-home story. The flying monkey scene is not about how we must all avoid aerodynamic primates, it’s about how Dorothy’s attempt to reach the Wizard and through him to get home has once again been put on hold by the Wicked Witch.” Well, yes that’s true. But flying monkeys are still scary. It does no injustice to the rest of the story to think that monkeys zooming in the sky is freaky stuff. The scene is about the Witch trying keep Dorothy from reaching the Wizard and about how flying monkeys are scary. To leave this last crucial fact out in an effort to do justice to the Dorothy-to-the-wizard-so-she-can-get-home story does not preserve the story. It flattens it.

Paul is capable of defending his apostolic ministry and talking about some very specific theological truths in the midst of that defense. My contention, then, is that Wright cannot see the imputation trees because he only has eyes for the God’s single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world forest. But I digress.

3) I find Wright’s inner logic for verse 21 to be missing a step. According to Wright, God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us so that we could be reconciled to God and then in Christ embody God’s covenant faithfulness to others. But this reading has to supply the middle step; namely, that we are reconciled to God. So instead of 21b being about reconciliation through imputation, Wright assumes reconciliation so that 21b can be about something else, Paul’s apostolic ministry. It is an easier reading to see the righteousness of God in 21b as providing the remedy for the sin in 21a instead of thinking Paul’s parallelism in verse 21 must be dictated by the concerns of the larger unit.

Back to the original question: I confess to not always understanding why Wright won’t dare claim imputation. He acknowledges that God accomplished his purposes through Israel in the single person of Israel’s faithful representative, but then is quick to add that this doesn’t mean Jesus fulfilled the law in a way that can be “reckoned” to us (135). He pooh-poohs the idea of a simplistic exchange where Christ bears the curse of the law and we go free. But I fail to see how this is materially different from saying “the Messiah came and bore the covenantal curse in himself, so that the new covenant blessings might flow out at last to the world” (136). I don’t understand why Wright must put quotation marks around reckoned as if it is not a biblical category and a biblical word that deserves to stand on its own two feet.

Above all, I don’t understand how we are declared righteous without some sort of reckoning of righteousness. It’s all well and good that God would declare us to be in the right. But why? Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection no doubt. Ok, but why does that matter? Because he fulfilled the role of faithful Israel. Alright, so you’re saying he did what we we’re supposed to do so we could get covenant blessings and bore the penalty we deserved as covenant breakers? And how does this work without imputation? I’m not really sure. I imagine Wright is sure, but I’m not sure he should be so sure.