A Move in the Wright Direction?

Yesterday, Justin Brierley, from Unbelievable?, posted this interview he conducted between N. T. Wright and James White on the subject of justification. As someone who has followed the so-called New Perspective(s) on Paul discussion, I listened rather intently to the whole discussion, twice. Overall, it was an informative interchange. Fortunately, White continually pressed Wright on the grounds of justification (i.e., what is the ultimate reason a person is justified), both present and future. Unfortunately, the listeners did not receive a clear answer on this point from Wright (yet again).

Delightfully, Wright took issue with a comment made by Brierley. Here is the transcript of their exchange from the 20:42 mark:

Justin Brierley: If I can try and, try and, spell this out–and you will have to correct me–can we say then that justification, then, as far as Paul was concerned, was about membership more than personal salvation, if you like?

N.T. Wright: Eh-Eh... This is precisely the either/or that we have to avoid...

Justin Brierly:...okay...

N.T. Wright:...because the membership question is the membership in the family of Abraham and the purpose of Abraham’s family was to undo the sin of Adam...
(Emphasis mine)

After hearing Wright's remarks on this point, I could not help but think back to his book, What Saint Paul Really Said because Wright makes the same point in this book that he rejects in the interview. He writes on page 119:

In standard Christian theological language, [justification] wasn't so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church. (Emphasis mine)

(Is it just me, or does this comment from Wright's book sound virtually identical to the restatement made by Brierley that Wright rejected?)

On the one hand, it is good that Wright seems to be now distancing himself from the false dicotomy (i.e., justification is either about who is 'in' or it is about who is 'saved', but not both). On the other hand, however, this is a false dichotomy that he himself established in What Saint Paul Really Said. One would hope that Wright would have acknowledged that he has changed with reference to this point and that he would clarify that he understands things differently now, after listening to critics and upon further reflection. The impression one gets after listening to the conversation with White is that Wright has always been saying the same thing on this point. The above quote from What Saint Paul Really Said seems to imply that this is not the case. The New Perspective discussion would be greatly advanced if both sides could openly admit when they have changed on this or that point. In this way, new ground could be covered instead of retreading old paths.

Book Review: Jonathan Edwards and Justification edited by Josh Moody

If you follow Jonathan Edwards studies, it’s no secret that Edwards’ doctrine of Justification has been under fire since the 1940s. Examples abound, even in popular Reformed writings. R. Scott Clark has written in an online forum that “At best, Edwards was at times confusing about justification. At worst he was contradictory and unconfessional re the same.” J.V. Fesko devotes a few pages of his otherwise wonderful book Justification to Edwards and concludes: “It does not seem possible to argue that Edwards’ construction is within the confines of Reformed orthodoxy…at minimum, a cloud of ambiguity hangs over Edwards’ doctrine of justification” (39). There are others who argue that Edwards was unambiguously Reformed in his view of justification and that there is no question of the quality of Edwards’ orthodoxy.

In this latter category belongs a new book from Crossway, Jonathan Edwards and Justification. Josh Moody, the editor, as well as the other contributors are all convinced that Edwards has been fundamentally misunderstood by a wide swath of scholars, beginning with Perry Miller during his much lauded rediscovery of Edwards in the 40s and 50s.

Central to this misunderstanding, they argue, is the misreading of much of Edwards' terminology.  Among the most “troublesome” aspects of Edwards’ expression of justification is his usage of the word “infusion.” Moody helpfully explains the misunderstanding:

When Edwards talks about infusion and the like, what he is referring to is not the infusion of righteousness that the Westminster divines spoke against, but rather the experience of the new creation, the experience of having Christ in us, and us being in him. This supernatural event takes place when someone becomes a Christian – that is what Edwards is describing… (14)

Moody ably defends this thesis in his own chapter, and also helpfully lays out Edwards’ understanding of justification based on Edwards’ quaestio, his Justification by Faith Alone, and some of his Miscellanies. There is also discussion of Edwards’ ordo salutis. The charges of “confusion” and “ambiguity” are hard to be sympathetic with once one understands that Edwards absolutely does not root justification in personal holiness. Rather, Moody points out that there is a strong emphasis in Edwards on union with Christ as the ground of our justification.

[At one point Moody warns that anything from Edwards’ Miscellanies ought to be regarded as less significant than his printed writings. Moody helpfully quips, “If I am held to the stake for every semiformulated idea I have ever penned in private journals, I had better get rid of some of them before I pass through the veil.”]

Intrinsic to Moody’s case in defense of Edwards is that there is not always a 1:1 relationship between Edwards’ terminology and historic Reformed terminology. The above mentioned reference to “infusion” is a prime example of this. Moody admits that Edwards was a creative thinker and was writing in a context of apologetic against enlightenment thinkers. As such, he offered up-to-date arguments and not simply dogmatic restatements. He was writing for a creative an sophisticated era, and so he often used created and sophisticated language in addressing the challenges of his time.

In Kyle Strobel’s chapter, he argues that “Edwards’ development of soteriological loci under his analysis of the person and work of Christ and the nature and gift of the Spirit.” This is a significant chapter for coming to understand Edwards’ view of the roles of the Trinitarian persons in planning, accomplishing, and applying salvation. In the end, Strobel concludes that Edwards does not deny or undermine the forensic nature of justification because, “For Edwards, the only true ground for forgiveness is Christ himself. Because salvation, in its entirety, is found in Christ, union, we could say, grounds the application of redemption.”

Rhys Bezzant’s chapter, “The Gospel of Justification and Edwards’ Social Vision” explores the ministry context in which Edwards was writing and explores his doctrine of justification within those related pastoral themes. One comes away quite convinced that the portrayal of Edwards as a preacher of subjective change is an unfair caricature, to be sure. His chapter is interesting and contributes to the wider discussion of Edwards’ views.

Samuel T. Logan Jr. spends his chapter discussing what it meant for Edwards in terms of obedience, for someone to be justified. What does a justified person act like? He bases his answer largely in an overview of Edwards’ Religious Affections. It is clear from Logan’s chapter that for Edwards (echoing the rest of the Reformed tradition) there is no justification where there is no growth in the Spirit. This is because “The more a true saint loves God with a gracious love, the more he desires to love him, and the more uneasy is he at his want of love to him; the more he hates sin, the more he desires to hate it, and laments that he has so much remaining love to it…” This “relish for more relish” is something which, according to Edwards, only the regenerate person understands. Likewise, where this is missing, justification is also missing. This is hardly a crypto-Catholic understanding of justification.

The book ends with Doug Sweeney’s chapter, which is simply put, my favorite part. It is a joy to read, and I highly recommend that others actually skip to this one after reading Moody's excellent first chapter. In the fifth chapter, Sweeney spends a great deal of time establishing Edwards’ Reformed bonafides.  He discusses the fact that yes, Edwards does point to faith as “the qualification which God has a primary Respect to in Justifying men.” However, Sweeney helpfully points out that “godly love is implied in saving faith and so is spoken of in Scripture as a condition of salvation – not a condition that secures justification before God, but a condition without which one does not have genuine faith” (143). Sweeney also points out the emphasis within Edwards on union with Christ as the ground of the believer’s righteousness before God. This is very much in keeping with the Reformed tradition of Calvin.

I would like to think that Jonathan Edwards and Justification is a solid step towards answering the concerns of men like Fesko, Clark, and others. This is not a substantial volume in terms of size, but it very clearly makes a strong case for the orthodoxy of Edwards’ teaching on justification. Edwards was a creative thinker who used less than conventional language at times to clarify his doctrine. This does not place him outside of Reformed Orthodoxy, but it does mean that he needs to be read more slowly, with an eye to the apologetic context in which he wrote and preached.

You can find Jonathan Edwards and Justification here.

[I received a copy of Jonathan Edwards and Justification for review purposes from the publisher and was not required to give a positive review as a condition for my receiving it.]

Calvin's Duplex Gratia Deus: No Justification Without Holiness

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30; NASB).

According to Lane Tipton, this is Calvin's favorite verse regarding the issue of union with Christ. I decided, based on this comment, to take a look at Calvin's actual commentary on the verse, and I did not come away disappointed. In these verses, Calvin sees with clarity the functions which Christ fulfills when we stand in union with him. Calvin sees here a duplex gratia Deus (a twofold blessing of God) which one receives when brought into union with Him. By being placed into Christ by God's doing, Paul says, Christ becomes to us wisdom, expressed through his becoming to us justification and sanctification. Regarding Paul's statement that by union with Christ, he becomes to us righteousness:

[H]e says that he is made unto us righteousness, by which he means that we are on his account acceptable to God, inasmuch as he expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. For as the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both through Christ.

Calvin then comments on his statement that through union, Christ becomes for us sanctification:

he calls him our sanctification, by which he means, that we who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by his Spirit renewed unto holiness, that we may serve God. From this, also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God's unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.

We then see that Calvin most clearly believes this to be a 'checkmate' against the charge of Rome that our understanding of justification is a "legal fiction" as well as the charge of anti-nomianism.

Those, however, that slander us, as if by preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of sins.

Lest any accuse Calvin of bringing together justification and sanctification:

Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other.

So for Calvin, there is no separating justification and sanctification, but there is also no confusing the two, either. They are distinct works, and they always will be.

Finally, we see that we don't need to take Lane Tipton's word for it that this is Calvin's favorite verse regarding this subject, because he tells us himself:

In fine, of all the blessings that are here enumerated we must seek in Christ not the half, or merely a part, but the entire completion. For Paul does not say that he has been given to us by way of filling up, or eking out righteousness, holiness, wisdom, and redemption, but assigns to him exclusively the entire accomplishment of the whole. Now as you will scarcely meet with another passage of Scripture that more distinctly marks out all the offices of Christ, you may also understand from it very clearly the nature and efficacy of faith. For as Christ is the proper object of faith, every one that knows what are the benefits that Christ confers upon us is at the same time taught to understand what faith is.

For myself, as I have spent the last several days studying the doctrine of union with Christ as expounded by Calvin, I can't help but sense my focus shift from the doctrine of justification to the person of Jesus Christ himself in a greater degree. Whereas before, I held a more Lutheran understanding of justification, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that if, in fact, justification is the entire story, then our focus becomes the doctrine which gives root to all the benefits of salvation. In the Reformed understanding as I see now that Calvin taught it, our focus is on a person, and all the gifts that we enjoy result from our union by faith in Him. In that respect, I see tremendous pastoral benefits related to better understanding the nature of the Christian's union with Christ.

Jonathan Edwards un(?)-Reformed Doctrine of Union With Christ

In Resurrection and Eschatology, there is an essay by Jeff Waddington about Jonathan Edwards' doctrine of justification, which I have particularly found enlightening. I have long been exposed to claims that not only was Jonathan Edwards un-Reformed in his doctrine of justification, but that so was John Calvin (because he believed that justification and sanctification were concurrent blessings to the believer).

Waddington wrote this essay in regard to claims by Thomas A. Schafer that Jonathan Edwards' doctrine of justification was "ambiguous and somewhat precarious." Schafer writes:

In view of the circumstances surrounding Edwards' discourse on justification and its prominence among his first publications, the almost total lack of emphasis on the doctrine in the great works of his last twenty years needs some explanation

So there is innuendo being set forth on Schafer's part that Jonathan Edwards is decidedly non-Reformed in his understanding of justification. Schafer's case is threefold, but I am for the most part interested in the first point of Schafer's which Waddington spends a great deal of time carefully dismantling. The charge which Waddington deals with is the claim that Edwards' doctrine of union with Christ compromises Edwards' Reformed pedigree.

Waddington argues - quite ably - that Schafer has not made his case. Edwards' supposedly troublesome statement is that

what is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge. (Edwards, Justification by Faith)

As somewhat of an outsider to many of the debates that go on in the Reformed world, I only have a peripheral awareness of certain disputes which are ongoing, and I have recently come to understand that this 'union with Christ' issue is a matter that is fiercely debated today. It is not my place, at this point, to endorse one view or another (since I'm too new to the debate to fairly set out a view of my own). My point here is to affirm Waddington's case that this view of Edwards' is, in fact, not a novelty among Reformed theologians. Waddington quotes Calvin, to support his case, with Calvin discussing the importance of union between believers and Christ:

as long as Christ remains outside us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us. (Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1)

Waddington concludes this point in defense of Edwards by stating that, "with John Gerstner, we would argue that his especially clear emphasis on union with Christ only enhances [Edwards'] treatment of justification and gives it a rather solid foundation" (Pg 489).

By the way, I wish to commend to you the entire volume of Resurrection and Eschatology. I have only read a few of the twenty-two essays contained within it, but so far it has all been tremendously instructive. In addition to Waddington's essay which I have been referring to, I have also benefited a great deal from G.K. Beale's essay on the authorship of the book of Isaiah.

"Who Could Fulfill It But a God?"

Jesus, whose blood so freely streamed
To satisfy the law's demand
By thee from guilt and wrath redeemed,
Before the Father's face I stand.

To reconcile offending man,
Make Justice drop her angry rod;
What creature could have formed the plan,
Or who fulfil it but a God?

No drop remains of all the curse;
For wretches who deserve the whole;
No arrows dipped in wrath to pierce
The guilty, but returning soul.

Peace by such means so dearly bought,
What rebel could have hoped to see?
Peace, by his injured sovereign wrought,
His Sovereign fastened to the tree.

Now, LORD, thy feeble worm prepare!
For strife with earth and hell begins;
Confirm and gird me for the war,
They hate the soul that hates his sins.

Let them in horrid league agree!
They may assault, they may distress;
But cannot quench thy love to me,
Nor rob me of the LORD my peace.

-William Cowper
Olney Hymnal, Hymn 22; "JEHOVAM-SHALEM"

Union with Christ and Justification

Last year, during the Gospel Coalition, Phil Ryken gave a wonderful talk on union with Christ and justification. The audio from this talk can be found here. He has, in this article, summarized union with Christ in these words.

To summarize, the great doctrinal realities of justification and union with Christ are closely inter-connected. Justification is one of the leading benefits of being united to Christ. The faith that justifies does so only and precisely because it also joins us to Christ. The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation. The declaration of our righteousness has a proper juridical basis in our true and covenantal connection to Jesus Christ. Indeed, union with Christ is the matrix in which imputation occurs. It is on the basis of our spiritual and covenantal union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us.

If You Are Late to the Discussion

Back in June Christianity Today posted a primer on the current justification debate, particularly the one going on between John Piper and N.T. Wright. This primer is a great introduction to the main points of contention between Piper and Wright. If you are new to the "New Perspective on Paul" controversy, this is a great place to start. Some of the issues addressed in this article are the problem, the righteousness of God, the Gospel and the future justification. It is these last two issues, the Gospel and future justification that are of particular interest to me.

The primer summarizes Piper and Wright's understanding of the Gospel in the following way.

Piper: The heart of the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. What makes this good news is that Christ's death accomplished a perfect righteousness before God and suffered a perfect condemnation from God, both of which are counted as ours through faith alone, so that we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth.

Wright: The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.

The primer concludes with the area that I am most concerned with in the New Perspective, that of future justification.

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.

Justification without Christ

I found this video clip interesting because N.T. Wright discusses justification, but he makes no indication of Christ! How one can talk for any length of time about justification and not mention the work of Christ is beyond me. Take a look for yourself.





(HT: Burk Parsons)

How the Benefits of the Gospel relate to Christ in Calvin’s Theology: Part Two

A couple of remarks are in order before the post:

1. This is the second part of my Senior paper at the Moody Bible Institute. Part one can be found here.

2. Note how Calvin is not afraid to sum up the gospel as "repentance" (sanctification) and "forgiveness of sins" (sustification). This is the duplex gratia; but it was never intended to exclude other graces such as adoption, glorification, or any other ordo salutis category. For Calvin, all of these other benefits could be subsumed under the two chief benefits, one being regenerative and the other forensic. Thus, for Calvin, there is no need to remind people of the other benefits of the Gospel, for when we say justification or forgiveness of sins, we mean to include adoption. And when we talk about the grace of regeneration or sanctification, we mean to include glorification. I, for one, find this extremely helpful both pastorally and theologically. It really does take into account the interpenetration of the different benefits of Christ's person and work as well as the inseparability of the the forensic and regenerative categories taught in Scripture.

The Duplex Gratia and its Relationship to the Unio Mystica

For Calvin, the gospel benefits can be boiled down to one two-fold grace, justification and sanctification. Calvin expressly sets this down when in Book Three of the Institutes, following his discussion of the way the believer receives the grace of Christ, begins to discuss the grace we actually receive from Christ. Calvin writes,

Even though we have taught in part how to possess Christ, and how through it we enjoy his benefits, this would still remain obscure if we did not add an explanation of the effects we feel. With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31). Any discussion of faith, therefore, that omitted these two topics would be barren and mutilated and well–nigh useless. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins—that is, newness of life and free reconciliation—are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith.[1]

Again, Calvin sums up the benefits of the Gospel later in book three,

I believe I have also explained what faith itself is, and those benefits of God which it confers upon man, and the fruits it brings forth in him. Let us sum these up. Christ was given to us by God's generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace [duplicem gratiam]: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's Spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.[2]

Thus, it is not a stretch to affirm that for Calvin the benefits of the Gospel are principally justification and sanctification. Justification is “that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness” and sanctification is being “sanctified by Christ's Spirit [that] we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.” The point must not be missed—for Calvin, the Christian life and the Gospel, for the Christian, consists in nothing more than receiving Christ and thus the two benefits of the duplex gratia. To put it more theologically, there is an aspect of the believer’s redemption which is forensic (justification) and that which is regenerative or transformative (sanctification).

A second point must be taken into account, namely, the bond of this duplex gratia. The bond by which the Christian receives the duplex gratia is union with Christ. In fact, this is precisely what we would expect after determining the nature and function of the unio mystica. It would be nonsensical to expect Calvin to speak any differently, because it is only though participating in Christ’s death and resurrection by faith resulting in union with Christ can the Christian receive the duplex gratia. Thus, Calvin scholar Mark Garcia suitably writes, “it appears both the formal and the functional importance of Calvin’s union idea within his soteriology is better reflected if his framework is referred to as an unio Christi-duplex gratia rather than simply a duplex gratia framework.”[3] The duplex gratia, or for that matter any Gospel benefit, ought not to be spoken of in Calvin’s theology without relating it to both the unio mystica and the historia salutis connected to it! For Calvin, no Christ means no justification or sanctification.

There are other implications one might expect the duplex gratia to have in its relationship to the unio mystica at this point. That is, if the Christian receives Christ by faith at the initial ingrafting into Christ (intermediate mystical union), then doesn’t the Christian receive all the benefits of redemption simultaneously? In other words, if Christ, not the benefits, is what the Christian is united to, then would not all the grace that Christ was and is for us in his death and resurrection becomes ours? Of course, Calvin notes the distinctiveness of both justification and sanctification, but are they simultaneous and inseparable as one would expect?

First, note that for Calvin, that the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification is exactly that, “a grace.” In the Latin the phrase duplex gratia is singular because both justification and sanctification find their ground in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The inseparability of both graces can be seen not only in the very grammar that Calvin uses but also in his various comments found in his commentaries. In his commentary on Jeremiah 24:7 Calvin writes, “But these two things, the reconciliation of God with men and repentance, are necessarily connected together, yet repentance ought not to be deemed as the cause of pardon or of reconciliation, as many falsely think who imagine that men deserve pardon because they repent.”[4] Although Calvin is quick to point out that repentance is not the cause of our justification, he is not afraid to speak of the inseparability of both justification and sanctification.[5] Calvin will “never separate” them “as some inconsiderately do.”[6] The inseparability of both benefits of redemption is emphasized again and again in Calvin’s writings.[7] Although they are inseparable benefits, for Calvin, it is a chief concern not to mix the two benefits. Thus in his commentary on 1 Cor 1:30 he writes,

“Those, however, that slander us, as if by preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of sins. Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other. What, therefore, Paul here expressly distinguishes, it is not allowable mistakenly to confound.”[8]

Justification and sanctification, although tied together by the bond of union must be kept distinct because, according to Calvin, Paul himself distinguishes the two benefits in the passage commented on.

Not only are these benefits inseparable, but they are simultaneousness as well. Calvin argues this simultaneity of the reception of the duplex gratia in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:10 noting,

“God accomplishes in us at one and the same time (simul) two things: being renewed by repentance, we are delivered from the bondage of our sins; and, being justified by faith, we are delivered also from the curse of our sins. They are, therefore, inseparable fruits of grace, and, in consequence of their invariable connection, repentance may with fitness and propriety be represented as an introduction to salvation, but in this way of speaking of it, it is represented as an effect rather than as a cause.”[9]

Calvin, in this comment particularly emphasizes the simultaneousness of being delivered from the bondage (transformative/sanctification) and the curse (legal/justification) of sin. At this point, it may be helpful to remind the reader that Calvin does not see these benefits as unrelated to Jesus himself.

In various places Calvin argues that to separate one of the benefits from the other is to tear Christ asunder. This phrase of “tearing Christ to pieces” has rich heritage in Reformation theology among both Protestants and Catholics.[10] Calvin uses the phrase quite often, especially when discussing the inability of separating justification and sanctification.[11] In response to the Lutheran Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), Calvin’s apparent antinomianism leads him to retort against Osiander saying,

“To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts [, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.”[12]

The use of this metaphor points to the larger theological picture, namely, the fact that Christ is both our justification and sanctification. This is why, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Calvin speaks of justification and sanctification as the “two offices of Christ” corresponding with the offices of Priest and King, respectively. Thus, those who argue that a Christian can be justified without sanctification inevitably dethrone Christ who cannot be torn apart! In more contemporary language, “You can’t have Christ as Savior without him being your Lord.”[13]

To summarize thus far, then, according to Calvin, the benefits of the Gospel are chiefly justification and sanctification. Both the forensic aspect of salvation (justification) and the transformative aspect (sanctification) are intimately bound in an indissoluble tie which cannot be broken because Christ himself would have to be torn apart. This two-fold grace is thus only received when the believer is first engrafted into Christ.

---

[1] Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.1.

[2] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1.

[3] Garcia, Life in Christ, 3.

[4] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations Volume Third trans. John Owen, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. X (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 231.

[5] E.g. Calvin, Institutes, 3.16.1

[6] Ibid., 336.

[7] Cf. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 277.

[8] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians trans. John Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XX (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 93-94.

[9] John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians, 275.

[10] Gracia, Life in Christ, 228-241.

[11] Cf. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 217; 290; 294.

[12] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6.

[13] Of course, Calvin would not have been dealing with the same “Lordship” debate that raged in the 80’s and 90’s between John Macarthur, Charles Ryrie, and Zane Hodges, but surely there is application in what he says for the debate.

The Unio Mystica and the Duplex Gratia in the Soteriology of John Calvin

This is part one of a series of posts on Calvin's theology of union with Christ and it's relationship to the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification. I have not forgotten the posts on the Mosaic Covenant, but they will have to wait until this paper is done. These are posts are only drafts of my paper, and thus any feedback would be encouraged.

Introduction
No one reading John Calvin’s theological treatises can read him without seeing the absolute necessity of both justification and sanctification (or typically “regeneration” in Calvin’s language) in the Christian’s life.[1] However, the question of how these two soteric blessings of the ordo salutis[2] relate to one another has not only been an area of disagreement between Christian theologians (e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant) but even among those seeking to discern Calvin’s own position. Although most Calvin historians have generally agreed upon the importance of both the forensic (e.g. justification) and transformative (e.g. sanctification/regeneration) aspects of redemption in Calvin’s theology, Calvin scholars have disagreed on how justification and sanctification relate both to each other and how these two benefits relate to Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ.[3] Thus Cornelis Venema writes, “Perhaps the single most controversial question, however, in the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” [i.e justification and sanctification] is that of the relation between justification and sanctification.”[4]

In what way does sanctification relates to justification and in what manner does justification and sanctification relate to Calvin’s theology of participation into Christ? These are the primary questions this paper seeks to address. Consequently, I will seek to place Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification and justification in proper perspective to the unio mystica as well as inquiring into the nature of the relationship justification and sanctification in Calvin’s soteriology. In this paper, I will argue that Calvin’s ordo salutis, or application of redemption, cannot be properly understood without first recognizing the architectonic principle of the unio mystica as the means of the believer’s receiving Christ and subsequently the principal grace of justification and sanctification. Secondly, I will argue that for Calvin, justification does not have some sort of “power” to bring about sanctification in the believer; rather, only through our union with Christ’s person and work can a person be sanctified. In fact, without first properly understanding how justification and sanctification relate to the unio mystica, the subsequent question of the two benefits relationship to one another, cannot be properly answered. To put it as bluntly as possible, if you misunderstand the duplex gratia’s (the two-fold grace of justification and sanctification) relationship to the unio mystica, you will inevitably misunderstand the relationship that justification and sanctification have to one another in Calvin’s thought.[5] In other words, Calvin’s ordo salutis cannot be understood without recognizing how it relates to the historia salutis.[6]

The Unio Mystica in Calvin’s Theology
Princeton seminary professor David Willis once wrote:
Calvin’s doctrine of the union with Christ is one of the most consistently influential features of his theology and ethics, if not indeed the single most important teaching which animates the whole of his thought and his personal life.[7]

Other Calvin scholars have also recognized the important role union with Christ plays in Calvin’s theology.[8] Calvin himself testifies to this importance explicitly when he writes in the Institutes, “That joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union [unio mystica]—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.”[9] As we shall see, the way that the unio mystica functions in Calvin’s soteriology explains to a large degree the nature of the union. This is a point that seems to be overlooked by those who claim that some Calvin scholars have overemphasized Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ.[10] The importance that Calvin places with respect to the believer’s union with Christ cannot be overemphasized; rather it is of the “highest degree of importance.”

In seeking to understand the nature of this unio mystica, we must first discern its function in Calvin’s theology. In book three of the Institutes entitled, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ: What Benefits Come to Us from It, and What Effects Follow”, Calvin suggests at the outset that “First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[11] In other words, Calvin would have the believer understand that it is not enough for Christ to have accomplished salvation pro nobis (for us) in redemptive history. Although according to Calvin “we steadfastly hold that in Christ’s death and resurrection there is righteousness and life for us” if Christ remains extra nos or outside ourselves, what Christ did in the cross and resurrection is of no value to us.[12] We may put it in these terms: What God accomplished by Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) is useless to man (ordo salutis) if Christ remains extra nos. The question that book three of the Institutes proposes can be states thus: What is the relationship between the historia salutis or the history of redemption and the ordo salutis or applied redemption. For Calvin it is clear, the only way one can receive the benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection is through our being made partakers of Christ’s body and blood which is nothing else but the unio mystica. Calvin forcefully puts it this way, “And indeed, I do not see how anyone can trust that he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, unless he relies chiefly upon a true participation in Christ himself. For those benefits would not come to us unless Christ first made himself ours.”[13]

At this point is should be clear enough—Calvin believes union, participation, or partaking of Christ, in short the unio mystica, is logically prior to the Christian’s reception of the benefits of redemption. The unio mystica is the bond which connects the Christ pro nobis to the Christ in nobis. Note as well that this logic cannot be reversed. Participation in Christ is not the result of the benefits of redemption but rather it is the means of receiving the benefits of “righteousness” and “life.” For Calvin, there is no salvation for the Christian without the unio mystica. The reason seems quite evident, namely, the Gospel’s substance is Christ’s person and work. The effects of partaking in the substance of Christ’s person are “redemption, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal life, and all the other benefits Christ gives to us.”[14] The fine Calvin scholar, Francois Wendel, summarizes this point well when he writes,

[According to Calvin] No doubt Christ, by his death, has obtained for us the possibility of effectually receiving the benefits that God intended for us, but this, according to Calvin, is as yet no more than a kind of potential grace, which man, while he is a sinner and therefore separated from Christ and a stranger to him, cannot receive automatically. The benefits that the Christ won on our account do not remain abstractions. Contact with God can be established only on the personal plane and by the inter-mediation of Christ. It is therefore indispensable for us to begin by entering into relations with Christ…[15]

Now that the function of the unio mystica has been explicated, one is now able to discern its nature.[16] In letter correspondence between Calvin and the Italian Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) during March and August of 1555, Calvin affirms Vermigli’s distinction of three types of union with Christ.[17] The first type of union is a “very general and feeble” incarnational union.[18] Calvin in response to Vermigli affirms this type of union with no further comment when he writes, “that the Son of God put on our flesh in order that he may become our Brother, partaker of the same nature…” although it is not his intention to discuss this type of union any more in his letter to Vermigli, suggesting its generality and “feebleness.”[19] This incarnational union, however, is important to take note insofar as it is the ground of the subsequent communion the believer has with Christ. Although all men without exception participate in Christ’s flesh in this “incarnational” manner, it is not until the “moment we receive Christ by faith as he offers himself in the Gospel, [becoming] truly members in his body,” that Christ’s person and work becomes effectual in the believer.[20]

This definitive, that is immutable, second intermediate or mystical union, thus grounds the “life” which “flows from him [Christ] as from the head.”[21] This, flowing of Christ’s life into the believer, is something that occurs subsequent to this “intermediate union” and is ongoing in the life of the believer. This succeeding third union with Christ can thus be termed a “Spiritual union.” It is Spiritual because it is through the Spirit of Christ that we commune with Christ’s person in heaven. Both this intermediate (mystical union) and subsequent ongoing participation in Christ (Spiritual union) is described variously in Calvin’s writings as the relationship between the head and its members[22], a husband and wife[23], the corner-stone and subsequent stones built upon the chief corner-stone[24], the first-born among many brethren[25], and the vine and branches[26]. All of these metaphors point to both the definitiveness of this union with Christ that believers have by faith (mystical union) and the subsequent participation (Spiritual union) they have in Christ’s person and work.

In short, the nature of this unio mystica (including both the mystical and Spiritual union, see footnote 16) can be summarized as that Spirit-wrought ingrafting into Christ by faith, grounded in the union which the believer has in the flesh with Christ, whereby all of the benefits of Christ’s person and work are communicated to the believer, resulting in an ongoing fellowship and communion with Christ who is in heaven.[27] Calvin would more than likely add that this unio mystica is a profound mystery which on the one hand ought to be marveled rather than inquired into more deeply, and on the other hand ought to be sought after for the sake of “feel[ing] Christ living in us.”[28]


[1] It ought to be granted that “the Reformers all but universally agreed that conversion brings both justification and sanctification” A. N. S. Lane “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification?” in ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 216. Note as well Ronald S. Wallace’s very chapter structure (Chapters 1-3) at the beginning of his book Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock,1997).
[2] The term ordo salutis can and has been used in various ways. I will be using it in its broader sense as synonymous with applied redemption as opposed to its more narrow sense of the logical or sometimes even temporal logic of the individual blessings of applied soteriology (e.g. regeneration, adoption, justification, sanctification, glorification)
[3] E.g. some have argued for a relative priority of justification as it relates not only to the transformative benefit of sanctification but also to union with Christ itself. Michael S. Horton argues this very thing in his book Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007). Horton writes, "Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former" (pg. 143) Cf. J. V. Fesko in Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008) where he writes, “[For Calvin], justification, not union with Christ, is the foundation upon which the believer’s salvation is established.” (pg. 279) Suffice it to say, I think this view of Calvin is a Lutheranizing of Calvin instead of a proper understanding of Calvin.
[4] Cornelis Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The "Twofold Grace of God" and the Interpretation of Calvin's Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 23.
[5] I would suggest that most of the problems in Calvin studies related to the issue of the relationship between justification and sanctification occur because of a defective view of the role of the unio mystica in Calvin’s theology.
[6] The term historia salutis, first coined as far as I can tell from the Dutch Reformed scholar Herman Ridderbos, refers to the history of redemption or redemption accomplished in contrast to the ordo salutis or redemption applied. Thus, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection would be considered historia salutis whereas the believer’s appropriation by faith of Christ’s person and atoning work would refer to ordo salutis.
[7] Quoted in W. Duncan Rankin’s article “Calvin’s Correspondence on our Threefold Union with Christ” in ed. Robert L. Penny, The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 233.
[8] See for example Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2008); Marcus Peter Johnson, “Eating by Believing: Union with Christ in the Soteriology of John Calvin” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2007); Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, where the whole book is structured around the believer’s union with Christ as the ground of the Christian life (see particularly pages 17-27).
[9] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.10.
[10] This opinion has been supported particularly by Thomas Wenger, "The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations," JETS 50/2 (2007): 311-28.
[11] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1.
[12] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.12.
[13] Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.11.
[14] Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.11.
[15] Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development in His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 234. Italics added.
[16] Calvin does not often delineate between “mystical union” and “spiritual union”. These are often used as synonyms. However, Calvin does distinguish the two in the letter correspondence with Vermigli which is discussed in this paper. Thus, after discussing this letter, I will not continue differentiating the two unless noted.
[17] In the foregoing discussion of the letter correspondence between Vermigli and Calvin, I follow very closely the discussion in Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence”, 232-250; Garcia, Life in Christ, 273-287; B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1993) 128-129. Because of the deficient English translations of the letter (cf. Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence”, 236), I will be quoting from Rankin’s, Garcia’s, and Gerrish’s English translations from the original Latin works.
[18] This is Vermigli’s language found in Garcia, Life in Christ, 281.
[19] Calvin quoted in Garcia, Life in Christ, 284.
[20] Calvin quoted in Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude, 128.
[21] Ibid. 128.
[22] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, 3.1.3; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XXI (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 286-287.
[23] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.3, 2.8.18; Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 318; John Calvin, A Sermon of M. Iohn Caluine vpon the Epistle of Saint Paul, to Titus, trans. L.T, (London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579) n.p, http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm, accessed Tuesday, ‎April ‎14, ‎2009.
[24] Calvin, Institutes, 3.15.5; Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 245.
[25] Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, 3.1.3; John Calvin, Epistle of Paul to the Romans, trans. Henry Beveridge, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XIX (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 318.
[26] John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. XVIII (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 106-107.
[27] I did not have time to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit and faith in the unio mystica. See Garcia, Life in Christ, 163-165, and William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2008) 14-16.
[28] Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, “For my own part, I am overwhelmed by the depth of this mystery, and am not ashamed to join Paul in acknowledging at once my ignorance and my admiration. How much more satisfactory would this be than to follow my carnal judgment, in undervaluing what Paul declares to be a deep mystery! Reason itself teaches how we ought to act in such matters; for whatever is supernatural is clearly beyond our own comprehension. Let us therefore labor more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.” 325; Cf. Calvin quoted in B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude, “…the sacred unity by which the Son of God engrafts us into his body, so as to communicate to us all that is his. Thus we draw life from his flesh and blood, so they are not undeservedly called our “food.” How it happens, I confess, is far above the measure of my intelligence. Hence I adore the mystery rather than labor to understand it.” 128.

Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

I received in the mail today from the U.K. a copy of N.T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. This new book by Wright is mainly a response to John Piper's book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. As of yet I have not read the book, but there are two thing that struck me from the start. First, the name on the book is not N.T. Wright but Tom Wright. I have no idea why this is, but it seemed strange to me that it was not published under the name N.T. The second thing that struck me was a "blurb" on the back by Scot McKight which reads:

Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Reformed--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.

This is ironic to me. Apparently, McKight has not read any of Wright's critics. For example, Dr. Guy Waters' book is full of exegesis. Piper's book, which Wright is responding to, is mostly explanations of the biblical text. McKight has either not read these works or he is deliberately misrepresenting them because these books clearly do not show that they are "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." Anyway, I look forward to read what Wright has to say on this important doctrine of justification. 

One Punk Under God

I was recently introduced to Jay Bakker and his show on the Sundance channel, One Punk Under God. Jay would be, though I am not sure if he would use this title of himself, part of the Emergent Church. I recently heard an interview with Bakker on Larry King Live in which he listed Brian McLaren as someone he think is on the right track and this is clearly seen in his views and opinions.

For starters, Bakker's church, Revolution, meets in a bar and he encourages his members (as he says, anyone who walks in the door is a member) to buy drinks during the church service. I can only assume that meeting in a bar is an attempt to be "relevant." The strange thing is, I do not see the Bible holding up "relevance" as a virtue.

Another issue that puts Bakker in the Emergent camp and that has put him in the hot seat are his views on homosexuality. Bakker is pro-homosexual. He thinks that it is not a sin to be gay and on top of that, he is pushing for "gay rights" on marriage (is marriage a right???). The way to solve the problem, according to Bakker, is to read the text on homosexuality "in their historical context." As if that solves everything. It is not like those who view this act as sinful do not read the relevant passages in their historical context, but I digress.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I think we should not be irrelevant, but the problem, that can be seen in Bakker, is relevance is elevated to an unbiblical level. When truth is sacrificed on the altar of relevance you have neither relevance nor truth. There is nothing that is more relevant to a sinner, dead in his sin's, than the truth of the Gospel. The truth that Jesus Christ can bring their dead heart back to life. The truth that God, because of his Son, can look at you in all your guilt and blame and declare, based on another's right standing, you are right with me. This verdict is truth. When truth is sacrificed, you lose any and all ways of being relevant to a dying and broken world. Now, do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that Bakker would disagree with this (I have no idea what his views on justification are), but I am saying that truth is at the heart of Christianity. If we give up truth (in any area) for relevance, we are headed in a direction that the Bible warns us not to.

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?

Calvin has this to say in his commentary on Romans 8:22.

The first and the chief consolation of the godly in adversities, is to be fully persuaded of the paternal kindness of God; for hence arises the certainty of their salvation, and that calm quietness of the soul through which it comes that adversities are sweetened, or at least the bitterness of sorrow mitigated. Hardly then a more suitable encouragement to patience could be adduced than this, a conviction that God is propitious to us; and hence Paul makes this confidence the main ground of that consolation, by which it behoves the faithful to be strengthened against all evils. And as the salvation of man is first assailed by accusation, and then subverted by condemnation, he in the first place averts the danger of accusation. There is indeed but one God, at whose tribunal we must stand; then there is no room for accusation when he justifies us. The antithetic clauses seem not indeed to be exactly arranged; for the two parts which ought rather to have been set in opposition to each other are these: “Who shall accuse? Christ is he who intercedes:” and then these two might have been connected, “Who shall condemn? God is he who justifies;” for God’s absolution answers to condemnation, and Christ’s intercession to accusation. But Paul has not without reason made another arrangement, as he was anxious to arm the children of God, as they say, from head to foot, with that confidence which banishes all anxieties and fears. He then more emphatically concludes, that the children of God are not subject to an accusation, because God justifies, than if he had said that Christ is our advocate; for he more fully expresses that the way to a trial is more completely closed up when the judge himself pronounces him wholly exempt from guilt, whom the accuser would bring in as deserving of punishment. There is also a similar reason for the second clause; for he shows that the faithful are very far from being involved in the danger of condemnation, since Christ by expiating their sins has anticipated the judgment of God, and by his intercession not only abolishes death, but also covers our sins in oblivion, so that they come not to an account.

A Nugget From Piper On N.T. Wright

In this excerpt, Piper is taking issue with Wright's charge that imputation makes no sense in the New Testament's courtroom metaphor:

But there's a catch. In God's courtroom, the Judge is omniscient and just. Now everyone in the first century would agree that in a courtroom where the Judge knows everything and is just, there can never bee a case where there is a discrepancy between the truth of the charge and the truth of the verdict. In this court, what would be the basis of saying, "I bestow on you the status of righteous, and I find you guilty as charged"? How could such a finding be intelligible, not to mention just? One right answer that I think Wright would agree with is that this is what the atonement is all about. Christ died for our sins to provide a basis for this finding, and therefore, though guilty, the court can exercise clemency (or in God's case, forgiveness) because of Christ and we go free.

John Piper in The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Pg. 73-74)

Gaffin on Union with Christ

At the same time, however, various considerations already adduced point to the conclusion that Paul does not view the justification of the sinner (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness) as an act having a discrete structure of its own. Rather, as with Christ’s resurrection, the act of being raised with Christ in its constitutive, transforming character is at the same time judicially declarative; that is, the act of being joined to Christ is conceived of imputatively. In this sense the enlivening action of resurrection (incorporation) is itself a forensically constitutive declaration. This does not at all mean that Paul qualifies the synthetic character of the justification of the ungodly. The justifying aspect of being raised with Christ does not rest on the believer’s subjective enlivening and transformation (also involved, to be sure, in the experience of being joined to Christ), but on the resurrection-approved righteousness of Christ which is his (and is thus reckoned his) by virtue of the vital union established. If anything, this outlook which makes justification exponential of existential union with the resurrected Christ serves to keep clear what preoccupation with the idea of imputation can easily obscure, namely, that the justification of the ungodly is not arbitrary but according to truth: it is synthetic with respect to the believer only because it is analytic with respect to Christ (as resurrected). Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps the most prominently) is the central motif of Paul’s applied soteriology.

Richard Gaffin
Resurrection and Redemption, p. 132

Jonathan Edwards: Advice in Controversy

I am grateful to John Piper for including this quote from Edwards in his section on dealing with controversy in his new book The Future of Justification. This represents a delightful middle-ground which is surprisingly charitable. Maybe I've always just pictured Edwards as more of a hard-head than this:

How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness—or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves—or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice—or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main—or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning—or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it:—how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.

Jonathan Edwards, "Justification by Faith Alone" in Sermons and Discourses, 1934-1938, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 19 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001], 242.

Galatians 3:10 and Works of the Law (Part 4)

e;rgwn no,mou in the New Perspective
There are many who are labeled as advocates under the title of “The New Perspective on Paul”—E. P. Sanders, N. T. (Tom) Wright and James D. G. Dunn. Since the literature on this topic is broad and each of these men has a slightly different take on this issue, it seems best to handle the works of Dunn, since he has written widely on this topic, especially as it relates to Galatians 3:10.

In his influential work The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Dunn deals in length with “works of the law.” Dunn sums up his understanding of works of the law with these words,

The phrase “works of the law,” does, of course, refer to all or whatever the law requires, covenantal nomism as a whole. But in a context where the relationship of Israel with other nations is at issue, certain laws would naturally come more into focus than others. We have instanced circumcision and food laws in particular.[1]

Here Dunn puts the phrase “works of the law” in the category of that which sets Israel apart from other nations. That is, “works of the law” are what identified Israel as the people of God. This is why, for Dunn, the phrase “works of the law” is in essence covenantal nomism, which

is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandment, while providing means of atonement for transgressions…Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace.[2]

In other word, Dunn understands “works of the law” as that which keeps one in the covenant, but not how one enters the covenant. “The phrase [works of the law] means most naturally ‘deeds or actions which the law requires.’” [3] For Dunn, Paul is not arguing against how one finds a right standing before God. Rather, Paul is arguing how one finds their standing in the people of God. “Paul meant those who, in his judgment, were putting too much weight on the distinctiveness of the Jews from the Gentiles, and on the special laws which formed the boundary marker between them.”[4] In other words, what Dunn says is that Paul is arguing against making works of the law the grounds for who is in and who is out of the covenant people of God. Works of the law, then, as Dunn understands Paul, are not what sets apart the people of God, faith in Christ is. For Dunn “the problem that Paul raises in Galatians 3:10-13 is one of identity or state, not of activity: the debate is ecclesiological, not soteriological, in nature.”[5] This is the key to Dunn’s understanding. He puts justification in the realm of ecclesiology and not soteriology—church membership and not salvation.

However, as we have seen, this understanding of Paul in Galatians 3:10 does not seem to advance Paul’s argument. Rather, it seems to retard it. As we stated above, the reason Paul quotes the Old Testament passage is to show that “works of the law” are in the realm of things done. Further, these things done are done to gain a right standing before God. They do not serve as a boundary marker to show who is in and out of the covenant people. If Paul only had in mind covenant membership, his Old Testament quotes seems to be out of place because he would not need to say that people who do not “continue in everything that has been written in the Book of the Law” are cursed. Rather, all Paul would need to affirm would be that people need to follow certain key outward laws—i.e. circumcision and the dietary laws.

Further, Dunn argues specifically against the traditional understanding of Galatians 3:10. He argues that the law never required perfect obedience. That is, the implied premise for Paul, as stated above, is not that the law cannot be accomplished. He argues that,

The mistake, once again, has been to read into the argument the idea that at this time the law would be satisfied with nothing less than sinlessness [perfect obedience]…Paul was able to describe himself as “blameless” before his conversion; not because he committed no sin, not because he fulfilled every law without exception, but because the righteousness of the law included use of the sacrificial cult and benefits of the Day of Atonement.[6]

We have answered this objection above, but again it should be noted that this argument assumes that the Old Testament sacrifices were in and of themselves efficacious, which the New Testament declares they were not. In addition, this principle is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. When Paul “describe[d] himself as ‘blameless’ before his conversion” it is best to see this as the heart of an unregenerate Pharisee who does not see the law in its proper light: as consisting of more than external actions.

_______________________

---

[1] James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 358.
[2] Ibid., 338-339.
[3] James D. G. Dunn, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians, 135.
[4] Ibid.,172.
[5] Guy Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response,109.
[6] James D. G. Dunn, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians, 171.