Channels, Fall 2016

Page 32 Reis • Justification by Faith: A “Both-and” Additionally, Wright’s and Dunn’s view seems to neglect or, at least, soften the strong fo- rensic and moral connotations that the dikaio- terms present. “Righteousness” is often con- trasted with sin and evil (Deut. 9:4-6; Rom. 5:19, 6:13, 18-19; Heb. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:5), demon- strated by good works (Matt. 5:20; Rom. 2:13; I John 2:29). It also merits reward or recom- pense from God (Kgs 8:32; Job 33:26; Prov. 11:8; Matt 6:1). 52 Furthermore, Romans 1-3 demonstrates this strong language, emphasizing the forensic and moral connotation of the terms. The apostle Paul speaks on God’s judgment upon sinners (Rom. 2:1-5, 12, 16, 27; 3:6) while noticing that it is the “righteous who will be justified,” or vindicated, at the final judgment (2:13). 53 It is also important to notice that Paul uses the term “justify” in order to indicate that one is made “innocent” (Rom. 2:13; I Cor. 44). Therefore, Paul’s introduction of the concept “justification by faith” as a gracious gift in Rom. 3:23-36 stands in contrast with the universal human culpability before God because of the “unrighteousness” pre- sented throughout Romans 1-3. As a result, it is appropriate to say that there are evidences against the NPP position, which sates that the conception of being “justified” or made “righteous” before God in a forensic and moral sense is valid and should not be discarded. If this is the case, then the traditional reformed position, which affirms the idea of one “being made right with God” in a moral and transformative way through “justification”, is closer to the truth than the NPP interpretation. In terms of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the believer, Wright defends the posi- tion that one is declared righteous through the forgiveness of sins and the status of ac- ceptance into God’s family by faith in Christ. He intentionally argues against the notion of Christ’ s righteousness being imputed to the believer. In other words, he never denies the “reckoning of righteousness” to the Christian; he only believes that such is done differently than it is proposed by the reformed tradition of “double-imputation.” In response to his view, there are two important comments to make regarding the logic behind the analogy he uses to prove his argument and the importance of Romans 3:21-26 in conjuncture with 4: 3-8 in making a case for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. As addressed previously in the paper, Wright uses the analogy of the Jewish law-court to express that the righteous- ness of the judge is not transferred or passed to the defendant when the latter is counted righteous. Thus, the same happens to the believer who, by faith, is justified. The problem with Wright’s position is that, even though the analogy sets up the right context for the na- ture of justification, it does not take into consideration the distinction between the human judge in the analogy and Yahweh, the only Righteous Judge (2 Tim. 4:8). Once the All-know- ing, All-powerful, All-benevolent God is the judge of the matter, perfection is the standard required to declare someone righteous. God is different than a flawed or corrupted human judge who, for different reasons, is able to absolve the guilty and give him a righteous sta- tus. Yahweh must exercise justice and cannot leave the guilty unpunished (Ps.9:8). The Scriptures explicitly state that all humanity remains guilty before the Lord because of sin (Rom.3:23; Eph. 2:1-3). For this reason, in order to justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5) differ- ently from the judge at the Jewish law-court, God must grant something to the defendant who is inherently guilty of rebelling against the judge himself. This is where the analogy breaks down and Pauline’s justification proves to be different than any other human legal 52 Pounds, “Romans 4:1-4 as a Test Case for the New Perspective on Paul,” 221. 53 Ibid.