Channels, Fall 2016

Page 28 Reis • Justification by Faith: A “Both-and” (2Cor. 3:9; Gal. 3:10, 21-22) – to make possible clear recognition of human sinfulness (Rom. 3:20; 7:7-13).” 28 According to Paul, those who do not submit to the law cannot be right- eous in his own term, which is the case of all human beings (Rom 3; 8:7-8). However, he does say that, if there is such case, it is “the doers of the law who will be justified (Rom.2:13)”. Thus, it is not wrong to affirm that the doer of the law, the one who persists in doing good, will receive eternal life. “To deny, then, that one can be justified by ‘works of the law’ is, essentially, to deny that one can be justified by doing good. Hence, ‘works of the law’ here is not only referring to boundary markers but it is excluding the role of ‘good works’ in providing salvation.” 29 Another similar example is found in Titus 3:5, where the parallel term “works done in righteousness” is used to indicate that one cannot be saved by them. The addition of the phrase, “in righteousness”, points away from the boundary marker interpretation since it focuses on the nature of works – whether they are righteous or not. 30 Justification and God’s Righteousness Both terminologies, “the righteousness of God,” dikaiosune theou, and “justification,” dikaioo, are essential concepts for the development and understanding regarding the Paul- ine doctrine justification. Much controversy revolves around these two terms. Depending on how one defines them, important conclusions can be made regarding the nature of justi- fication. For this reason, understanding the NPP interpretation of both terms is crucial in order to comprehend their main conclusion that justification has to do with “a post-conver- sion declaration that one is a member of the people of God rather describing the process of how one becomes part of the people of God.” 31 The following section will provide a brief ex- position of Dunn’s and Wright’s views regarding the “righteousness of God” and “justifica- tion.” Dunn initiates his argument by claiming that both terms ought to be interpreted in light of their underlying Hebrew roots instead of a Hellenistic background. The latter perceives “righteousness” as an idea or ideal that can be measured against the individual or his ac- tions. The former emphasizes the relational concept of “righteousness” highlighting the in- dividual’s responsibility to meet his or hers obligations within the covenant relationship. 32 In light of this thought, Dunn defines God’s righteousness as his faithfulness to his people. In other words, the “fulfillment of his covenant obligation as Israel’s God in delivering, sav- ing, and vindicating Israel, despite Israel’s own failure.” 33 In addition, he defines “justifica- tion” as the act of God accepting “persons without reference to whether they have been born into a particular race, or not (Rom. 9:6-8); without reference to whether they have maintained the traditional and distinguishing customs of that race, or not (Rom 9:9- 28 Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme (Grand Rapids: MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2013), 82-83. 29 Ibid. 30 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Justification: the Saving Righteousness of God in Christ,” JETS 54 (2011): 27. 31 Michael F. Bird, “What is there Between Minneapolis and Saint Andrews? A Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate,” JETS 54.2 (June 2011): 303. 32 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341. 33 Ibid., 342.