NT Wright and the Hebrew Law Court analogy

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (John 5:45)

Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (Hebrews 3:5-6)

In James R White's interaction with and discussion of NT Wright's doctrine of justification, Dr. White focuses on Tom Wright's idea of the "law court" analogy, in which NT Wright states that his "law court" analogy is to be that of the Hebrew law court where there is a judge and the defendant, 2 parties only. Dr White focuses on the idea of the newness of the New Covenant in his interpretation of Romans 8, in which clearly there is a third party, the mediator, present. From a Reformed (non-Baptist) perspective, do we or should we go along that line of argument? Or is there a better line of argument against NT Wright's portrayal of what the law court analogy in Scripture teaches?

It is my opinion that there is a better way to go about defending the historic reading of the law court analogy, through looking at the Hebrew law court itself. Is NT Wright true when he says that the Hebrew law court has only 2 parties? True, there seems to be only two parties present (the judge and the defendant), but is that really the case?

To truly understand the Hebrew law court, we must understand the Old Covenant. The Law or Torah was given by God to Israel. God's decrees, statutes and commandments were given to Israel as their covenant document (c.f. M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King). This was the way Israel ought to live her life as God's covenant people. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant or the Mosaic Covenant. He was the mediator between God and Israel, receiving the Law from Mount Sinai. What Moses received was the constitution of Israel, the basis for all of Israel's laws. As John 5:45 assumes, Moses was the covenant mediator of the Old Covenant. He who received the Law mediates Israel's covenant to God under that economy. Heb. 3:5-6 assumes that Moses was a covenant head and mediator just as Jesus is a covenant head and mediator, and then contrasts the two mediators and the two covenants they mediate.

If Moses is the mediator of the Old Covenant with its laws, then Moses is the mediator in the Hebrew law courts under the Mosaic economy. Moses' mediatory office however focuses on the principles of works found in Lev. 18:5: "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD." The Mosaic economy is strictly legal without mercy. The one who does the Law shall live, while the one who violates the Law dies. Moses in this sense mediates death. This is not to say that the Law is evil, as Rom. 7: 7-14 shows. Rather, because of sin and wickedness, all are under the curse of the Law.

Therefore, in the Hebrew law court, there are not just 2 parties. Moses is present as a mediator everytime the Law is used. The Law in the Hebrew law court therefore brings the mediation of Moses as the covenant head, in typological form, in its deliberations and judgments. If the accused is guilty, Moses "mediates" punishment to him. If the accused is innocent, Moses "mediates" life in the form of acquital. There therefore IS a mediator in the Hebrew law court, the head of the Old Covenant Moses. That is why the Pharisees could set their hope on Moses, while Jesus state that Moses will condemn them instead.

We could very well therefore grant NT Wright his appeal to the Hebrew law court. The problem is that Wright does not truly understand the Old Covenant, and thus his view of the Hebrew law court is defective.

Justification Debate: White vs Wright

On Unbeliever radio, James R White debated N.T. Wright on the issue of justification recently, which can be heard here. Dr. White has also started a discussion of NT Wright's JETS article on his Dividing Line here.

ADD: The second discussion by Dr. White on the JETS article can be heard here.

NT Wright wrong on the person and work of Christ?

Is NT Wright right on the person and work of Christ? While he strongly defends the resurrection, there may be more to Wright's Christology than meets the eye, as Rachel Miller muses.

2 Cor. 5:21 and the imputation of Christ's righteousness

... This passage [2 Cor. 5:21] teaches that Christ's participation in human sin enables humans to participate in the righteousness of God through union with Christ. The word ginomai ("become") is not a synonym for logizomai ("count"). So Paul does not say that "God imputed our sin to the sinless one, and imputed God's righteousness to us." We can say what the text says, no more and no less: Christ was made sin probably in the sense of carrying, bearing and taking sins upon himself, and those are in Christ share in the "righteousness of God."

[Michael F. Bird, "Progressive Reformed View," in James K. Beiby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic), 149]

-

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. (2 Cor. 5:21)

He made the one who knew not sin to be sin for our sake, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21 Own translation)

The attack against the very idea of Christ's active righteousness continues. The so-called "Progressive Reformed" view (certainly "progressive" but not Reformed) joins with the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision in denying the very idea that Christ has an active righteousness which is imputed to believers. Rather, "Progressive Reformed" proponent Micheal F. Bird proposes that our faith is counted as righteousness before God, with 'righteousness' being understood as a status before God not a property transferred from Christ to believers (pp. 147-8).

In reducing all things to relational categories, Bird likewise does the same in his interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21. For Bird, 2 Cor. 5:21 shows Christ to be "carrying, bearing and taking sins upon himself" and we "share in the 'righteousness of God.'" However, is that a viable interpretation of the text?

We note there in 2 Cor. 5:21, the two clauses are parallel to each other. Therefore, however one wants to interpret the action of "making sin," the exact same interpretation is to be applied to the action of us "becoming." Bird's semantic argument is discounted as nobody is saying that λογιζομαι is the same as γινομαι. The issue has always been the interpretation of this verse, not merely the form of this verse.

The traditional interpretation has been that Christ was imputed our sins, and therefore in the same manner Christ's righteousness was imputed to us, thus preserving the parallelism. If we adopt Bird's proposed alternate interpretation, then the question is asked, "In what sense does Christ carry and bear our sins?" If Christ actually became our sin, then that would mean that Christ was actually sinful on the cross, which is a heretical notion. If Christ merely died to pay the penalty for sin but did not actually carry sin, just its penalty, then to preserve the parallelism, we must also say that believers do not actually become the righteousness of God, but merely enjoy the rewards of righteousness. To throw the word 'union' around is vacuous, for what kind of 'union' are we talking about? If we partake of the 'righteousness of God' via 'union,' then does that therefore make Christ sinful as He partake of our sins via 'union'?

This type of sloppy exegesis by Bird is sad. If speaks of a failure to think through the logical conclusions of one's interpretation. Was Christ actually sinful at the Cross when He bore the sins of the world? How does Bird's language of "Christ's participation in human sin" and his interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21 not leave him open to the charge of denying that Christ has always been sinless?

2 Cor. 5:21 has always been one of the key verses used to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. It is so not because λογιζομαι or any of its cognates is found in the verse, but rather that such is the best interpretation of the verse in light of its grammatical form and coherence with other aspects of Systematic Theology.

Paper: The Receiving of the Spirit: Monergism in Gal. 3:1-5

For my exegetical paper last semester, the passage I have chosen is Gal. 3:1-5. As most of us would probably know, many passages in Romans and Galatians lie at the heart of the controversy over the so-called "New Perspective on Paul." While the interpretation of this particular passage, Gal. 3:1-5, is not as hotly contested as passages such as Gal. 2:16, the implication of the teachings of Gal. 3:1-5 I am convinced has a lot to speak to us to the issues involved.

In this light, now that my exegetical paper has finally been released, I would like to share it with everyone here. Do note that as this is just a paper not a book, so do not expect me to interact and refute every single argument related to the New Perspective on Paul or anything along that line. The goal of the exegetical paper is to exegete the passage, not primarily to exegete it as a polemic against the New Perspective heresy.

An excerpt:

The book of Galatians is a fascinating polemical work from the pen of the Apostle Paul. According to New Testament Scholar James D.G. Dunn, in Galatians we have “theology in the raw, red-blooded theology, quintessential paulinism.” F. F. Bruce states that Galatians widely holds “primary of importance among the writings of Paul,” having close affinity with Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The still ongoing debate engendered by the New Perspective on Paul has focused on various texts in Romans and Galatians especially with regards to the phrase


ε


ξ εργων νομου. This phrase as well as the parallel phrase πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου has been much debated. In the midst of this debate, the significance of the passage of Gal 3:1-5 has been less noticed. In this light, I would like to look at the passage of Gal. 3:1-5 and see what it teaches us with regards to the issue of salvation and the law.

[more]