Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 29 11;11:6).” 34 Notice that, in his definition, he elaborates primarily on the role of faith in making justification a possibility for everyone, but he never addresses the meaning of the act of justification itself. Is it a post-conversion declaration that one is now a member of God’s covenant family? Or is it the saving work of God welcoming the sinner into his family through the means of faith and forgiveness? It is difficult to know since Dunn emphasizes only the relational aspect of justification, where every human can be accepted into God’s family by faith. Although the meaning of the act of justification is not touched by Dunn, it is safe to say that his position would be similar to Wright’s considering that both are NPP scholars. Wright defines “the righteousness of God” as “that aspect of his character because of which, despite Israel’s infidelity and consequent banishment, God will remain true to the covenant with Abraham and rescue her none the less.” 35 In short, God’s righteousness is in his faithfulness to keep his covenant with Israel. Furthermore, Wright claims that one is able to clearly vis- ualize and understand his definition by considering the context of the Jewish law-court, which serves as background for Paul’s discussion concerning the dikaiosune theme. 36 He states this in the context of the law-court, where one is declared righteous apart from his moral character, but only indicates that he found favor with the court by receiving a status of “non-guilty.” Therefore, Wright continues, “the whole concept of God’s or Christ’s right- eousness being imputed into the believer is nonsense. While God does reckon righteous- ness for those who believe, that righteousness is not his or Christ’s; it is the act of God in forgiving the sinner and accepting him or her into his family.” 37 In terms of “justification,” Wright affirms that Paul, when using the word “ dikaioo,” is not addressing conversion itself but a declarative act that logically happens after it. 38 The rea- soning behind his definition is found in Paul’s use of “vindication” language that is common in the Jewish law-court context. Wright claims that, within the context of law-court, those who are pronounced “not guilty”, or, in a sense, “righteous”, receive a verdict functioning solely as a status that has no power to bring moral transformation in the life of the individ- ual. This only absolves the defendant. According to Wright’s view, the concept of a cove- nant is also crucial for the understanding of “justification.” This is because the declarative act demonstrates that “a person is in the right, that is, that their sins have been forgiven, 34 James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 205. 35 N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” 10 th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference (2003): 5. 36 Ibid., 6. 37 Ibid., 7; Here Wright defends his position by stating that the only biblical passages, I Cor. 1:30 and 2 Cor. 5:21, that seem to argue for “imputed righteousness” can be easily refuted and does not contain enough evi- dence to propel someone to hold a theological position based on them. According to Wright, the main point of I Corinthians 1:30 is “wisdom” and the other following three nouns are only a way of implying, “everything else as well.” If the imputation of righteousness is to be taken literally in the passage, then the imputation of “wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” should be valid as well. Moreover, in 2 Cor. 5:2, Wright claims that Paul is not making a statement concerning soteriology but of apostolic ministry. “To become God’s righteous- ness in him means that in Christ those who are called to be apostolic preachers actually embody God’s own covenant faithfulness.” 38 Ibid., 11.