The New Perspective on Paul is a theological movement that achieved widespread popularity in the first decade of the twenty-first century. While the viewpoints among New Perspective proponents are not monolithic, all generally insist that the teaching of second temple Judaism should be the guiding standard for understanding the background of Pauline theology. New Perspective adherents also generally believe that historic Protestantism has fundamentally misread the Apostle Paul by reading Reformation-era debates back into his works. Consequently, theologians of the New Perspective have recast the Reformed understanding of justification and the gospel. Some New Perspective scholars have offered readings of Paul that are not substantially different from interpretations of Paul proposed by Roman Catholic theologians during the Reformation. Many New Perspective thinkers have asserted that “the gospel” is not the message about how an individual is saved; rather, it is has to do with how one identifies the members of the new covenant community. These theologians radically redefined the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many Reformed theologians offered strong and nuanced critiques of the New Perspective throughout the first two decades of the twenty-first century.

we are to claim 1 Corinthians 1:30 as a proof text about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, “we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ; the imputed sanctification of Christ . . . ” and so on.

Say what you will about Wright; he himself makes it abundantly clear that he does not like the notion of imputation, because he does not believe divine righteousness is something that can be reckoned, or put to the account, of the believer. And he is equally silent—ominously silent—about the biblical teaching that the believer’s guilt was imputed to Christ and paid for on the cross.

Now, that’s a longer summary than I wanted to give, but I think it’s all important ground to cover. To review, these are five key distinctives of Tom Wright’s perspective on Paul: He says we have misunderstood first-century Judaism. He says we have misinterpreted Paul’s argument with the Judaizers. He says we have mistaken what Paul meant by the expression “works of the law.” He says we have misconstrued Paul’s doctrine of justification by Faith. and He says we have misread what Paul meant when he spoke of “the righteousness of God.”

Therefore, he says, we have got the gospel all wrong. And he says this repeatedly. Page 60: “ ‘The gospel’ is not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved,’ ” in an individual and ahistorical sense.” Page 41; here is how Wright describes what he is convinced is a misunderstanding of the gospel: “In certain circles within the church . . . ‘the gospel’ is supposed to be a description of how people get saved; of the theological mechanism whereby, in some people’s language, Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness.”

“Some people’s language”? Wright himself disdains to use such language. He is careful to insist that he is not intolerant of people who do use that language. He goes on (p. 41): “I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel’. I just don’t think it’s what Paul means.”

But if that’s not what Paul means, it’s not what Scripture means. Is Wright suggesting that Protestants have historically proclaimed a “different gospel”? It would certainly be uncharacteristic of Tom Wright to anathematize anyone, but he does rather clearly imply that he thinks Protestants have been getting the gospel wrong since the 16th century.

He says he has no problem with what people mean when they say “the gospel,” and he also seems to try to stop short of explicitly denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the idea of propitiation, and the principle of penal substitution. But he does say that he can’t find those truths in Scripture. And if you’ll permit me to think in Greek categories for a moment, it seems to me that this is tantamount to suggesting that those doctrines are untrue.

Perhaps that’s too harsh a conclusion to draw, but frankly, if Wright had no agenda to undermine the heart of

documents of first-century Judaism illuminating the nature of the theological milieu, new perspective advocates argue that this literature reveals a totally different picture than is traditionally held. The Jews of Paul’s day were not crass legalists but were advocates of grace; they were simply out to protect their cultural identity. Sanders, for example, surveys the Tannaitic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha to reach his conclusions—conclusions with which Wright generally agrees. 

Yes, it is true that the reformers, Calvin included, did not survey this vast body of literature; indeed, they could not have explored some of the literature seeing that the Dead Sea Scrolls would not be discovered for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the reformers were nescient of the rhythms of first-century Judaism. The advocates of the new perspective do not take into consideration that the reformers were familiar with the writings of the apocrypha—the writings of inter-testamental Judaism. For example, Calvin interacted with the apocrypha in response to its use in support of various Roman Catholic doctrines. For example, Calvin writes: The piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that the had a firm hope of the final resurrection. When he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased.

Calvin recognizes that first century Judaism, at least as it comes through the apocrypha, contained superstitious practices. Yet, regarding the following words from the apocrypha, “For it is not because of any righteous deeds of our ancestors or our kings that we bring before you our prayer for mercy, O Lord our God” (Bar. 2.18; NRSV), Calvin can write that they are “very true and holy words.” Calvin, therefore, recognized, at least implicitly, that there were strands of orthodox theology in first century Judaism, what the new perspective advocates would perhaps call “proponents of grace.” Yet, these strands were not the only ones with which Calvin was familiar. He was also familiar with those strands that were, dare one say, …“Pelagian,” in nature.

We read the following in from the apocrypha: “If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given” (Sir. 15.14-17, NRSV; Vg. 14-18). To this passage Calvin responds: Granted that man received at his creation the capacity to obtain life or death.  What if we reply on the other side that he has lost this capacity?  Surely it is not my

Beyond the ‘New Perspective on Paul” delivered at Asbury Theological SeminaryMarch 6, 2008, based on his recent book from Eerdmans.

: “Once Again: Beyond the New Perspective”.

: F. Thielman, Paul and the Law, (Downers Grive; IV Press, 1994).

to the excessive individualism among many Protestants. It has reflected with some sense of guilt, and rightly, on Christian complicity in the Holocaust, and it recognizes the importance of Christian unity, bewailing, again rightly, the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide in a spiritually needy world. Its interpretations seems more influenced by such factors at crucial points than by what Scripture actually says.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in The Presbyterian Banner, May 2002.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia seems to burst on the reader like a sudden storm. The issues it raises still generate controversy, even after two thousand years of church history. In large measure this is because what was at stake when Paul wrote was the gospel itself. The question of whether human works were to play any part in the justification of sinners had to be answered clearly if the fledgling Christian movement was to prosper. And Paul was determined to answer it with total clarity. This explains the vigour and energy of his language, and the impact the letter has had down the centuries.Dr. Derek Thomas explains the issues dealt with in the letter and refutes the contentions of the so-called 'new perspective' on Paul. His book is an important addition to this expanding series of study guides.

Galatians: a letter that had great importance for the magisterial Reformers (Luther on Galatians is always in print) and in recent years has been at the heart of the debate on New Covenant theology and the New Perspective on Paul. Mark Johnston brings Paul’s letter back where it belongs—with a pastor’s heart and unerring clarity he makes this vital Scripture accessible to the ordinary Christian.

Historians and theologians have long recognized that at the heart of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation were five declarations, often referred to as the ‘solas’: sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and soli Deo gloria. These five statements summarize much of what the Reformation was about, and they distinguish Protestantism from other expressions of the Christian faith. Protestants place ultimate and final authority in the Scriptures, acknowledge the work of Christ alone as sufficient for redemption, recognize that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and seek to do all things for God’s glory.In Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification renowned biblical scholar Thomas Schreiner looks at the historical and biblical roots of the doctrine of justification. He summarizes the history of the doctrine, looking at the early church and the writings of several of the Reformers. Then, he turns his attention to the Scriptures and walks readers through an examination of the key texts in the Old and New Testament. He discusses whether justification is transformative or forensic and introduces readers to some of the contemporary challenges to the Reformation teaching of sola fide, with particular attention to the new perspective on Paul.Five hundred years after the Reformation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone still needs to be understood and proclaimed. In Faith Alone you will learn how the rallying cry of “sola fide” is rooted in the Scriptures and how to apply this sola in a fresh way in light of many contemporary challenges.

What did Paul really say? This question underlies the debates concerning the 'New Perspective on Paul'. This label embraces a loose collection of scholars who, over the course of the past century, have questioned anew Reformation-era conclusions regarding the message proclaimed by Paul. Because the debate regularly broaches foundational issues concerning the doctrine of justification, discussions often flare red-hot.Due to the diversity of the New Perspective proponents and the origins of the debate in academic circles, many pastors and teachers struggle to understand the main players or the points under contention. Helpfully, Waters' book combines a survey of the academic discussion with expositions of several major predecessors and proponents such as Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. As the title indicates, Waters both appreciates the diversity of the movement while also highlighting points of affinity. Beyond simple description, Waters also includes running interaction and critique of exegetical and theological conclusions. The final two chapters provide Waters' points of critique and address specific implications for Reformed Christianity.

A comprehensive restatement of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Fesko explains the doctrine in terms of the ordo and historia salutis, as well as in the light of recent challenges. A comprehensive defense of justification by faith alone Treats several theological traditions and current exegetical, theological, and ecumenical debates Includes discussion of the covenant of works, union with Christ, the New Perspective on Paul, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism Reflects a pastor-scholar’s sensitivity to the important issues "John Fesko has given the church a thorough and welcome treatment of the doctrine of justification. It is reliable, Reformed, and relevant. Now I know where to direct students, ministers, and interested congregants for a ‘one stop shop’ overview of justification by faith alone."—Guy Prentiss Waters, Associate Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi"Well informed, careful, and full of insight, this book is destined to become a standard work for all those who want a deeper understanding of this crucial doctrine. In addition to providing sound exegesis of relevant passages, Fesko is sensitive to important nuances in historical theology and contemporary discussions."—Michael S. Horton

which is totally antithetical to the idea. The phrase “justification by faith alone” is theological shorthand for saying justification is by Christ alone. Anyone who understands and advocates the doctrine of justification by faith alone knows that the focal point is that which justifies — trust in Christ and not trust in a doctrine.

One of the key terms in the phrase “justification by faith” is the word by, which signals that faith is the means or tool that links us to Christ and His benefits. The concept indicates that faith is the “instrumental” cause of our justification. What is in view in the Protestant formulation is a distinction from the Roman Catholic view of the instrumental cause. Rome declares the sacrament of baptism in the first instance and penance in the second instance to be the instrumental causes of justification. So the dispute of what instrument is the basis by which we are justified was and remains critical to the classical dispute between Rome and Protestantism. The Protestant view, following Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, is that faith is the sole instrument by which we are linked to Christ.

Closely related to this is the hotly disputed issue of the grounds of our justification before God. Here is where the biblical concept of imputation is so important. Those who deny imputation as the grounds of our justification declare it to be a legal fiction, a miscarriage of justice, or even a manifestation of cosmic child abuse. Yet at the same time, it is the biblical explanation for the ground of our redemption. No biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53, which the New Testament church singled out as a crucial prophetic explanation of the drama of redemption. The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith. We understand that believing the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Faith in a doctrine is not enough to save. However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema. The gospel is too important to be dismissed by tilting at scarecrows.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

order to enter into my rest, I cannot imagine anything other than an eternity of restlessness.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

that the distortion and falsifying of the gospel taking place in the Galatian church involved the application of redemption. Justification by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone, is as much part of the gospel as Christ becoming a curse for us on the cross (Gal. 3:13).

Finally, unless we are familiar with the context of Wright’s words quoted above, we may not notice a further sleight of hand taking place.

In the statement “when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people,” “justification” itself is being radically redefined. Here it no longer means “counted righteous in God’s sight although a guilty sinner in oneself.” It means “being regarded as members of His people.” Justification no longer belongs to the definition of the gospel as such, to pardon and acceptance, but refers to membership in the covenant community.

But this faces insurmountable problems. It is an eccentric understanding of Paul’s Greek terms. Were “justification” the antithesis of “alienation,” the argument might be more plausible. But “justification” is the antithesis of “condemnation.” Its primary thrust has to do with transgression, guilt, and punishment—relatedness to God’s holiness expressed in legal norms, not primarily relationship to the community.

Membership, therefore, is an implication of justification; it is not what justification means. That is why the gospel confession that “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3) must never be understood apart from the interpretation given it in 1 Corinthians 15:1–3—that “Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures.” This Paul specifically calls the gospel. It deals first and foremost with our sin, pollution, and guilt as the reasons for exclusion from the presence of God. Yes, justification is relational language. But it is no less forensic language for that reason—since it deals with our relationship to the holy Lord and Lawgiver!

It is right to be concerned that the objectivity of the gospel should never be swallowed up by subjectivity, or the church community destroyed by individuality. But the understanding of the gospel and of justification in Luther and Calvin, in Heidelberg and Westminster, provides all the necessary safeguards. The old wine is best. It satisfies both the requirements of biblical teaching and the deepest hunger of the awakened human heart.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

For years we have wrestled with the question as to whether we should produce an issue of Tabletalk devoted to the new perspectives on Paul on the doctrine of justification, and for years we concluded that many of our readers would be generally unaware of what has been, until recently, an academic discussion among studied churchmen the world over. However, with the release of N.T. Wright’s popular-level book What Saint Paul Really Said, coupled with his international ministry among laity and winsome personality, his popularity and teaching have spread like wildfire from the seminaries to the pulpits to the pews of churches around the world.

The first popular-level response to N.T. Wright’s teaching came from the pen of Dr. John Piper. With pastoral care, academic integrity, and unrelenting graciousness, Piper gave us The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright, which in turn elicited a response from Wright. In correspondence with Piper’s pastoral assistant David Mathis, we agreed it would be appropriate to provide readers with a word of introduction from Dr. Piper to help explain our purpose and to help set the needed tone for this special issue of Tabletalk. I am truly thankful for his words: “Nicholas Thomas Wright is an English scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England. He is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment. As critical as the articles in this magazine are of Wright’s understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the issue is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to the authority of Scripture; his defense of the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ; his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct; and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham — and more. My conviction concerning Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1, but that his portrayal of the gospel — and of justification in particular — is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful. In my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners, or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God.”

In quoting N.T. Wright directly and providing concise responses from some of the world’s most trusted churchmen, it is our sincere prayer that this issue will serve to equip the church to know and defend that precious doctrine upon which each individual stands or falls before the face of God, by faith alone and for His glory alone.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

difference did that make? (p. 29).

The same questions must be asked of Wright’s exegetical method. What pre-considerations does he employ when getting at the meaning of a text? Wright will insist that to understand the New Testament, for example, we need to read it in its first-century context. Yes! And to do that we need to study first-century Judaism, archeology, and the Greco-Roman worldview for starters. Yes! Such findings—for example, the view that second-temple Judaism was essentially a worksrighteousness religion—needs to be proved by careful study, something that the first volume of Justification and Variegated Nomism (ed. D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien, and M.A. Seifrid) does, though Wright says it doesn’t. And further, that means that lexicographical studies of the meaning of words—finding, for example, that substantial concurrences exist in the usage (and meaning) of words and phrases in the literature of the time must in some way reflect on how a word or phrase is employed in the New Testament. Yes, but not necessarily (the word agapē, for example is given an almost entirely new meaning in the New Testament), and John Piper’s strongly worded insistence that the usage of the word or phrase “right there in the Bible” must be given priority seems sensible and necessary as a controlling principle of interpretation (The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, p. 36, n. 5).

Of course, it all sounds as though Bishop Wright is claiming that unlike his opponents, his methodology is “back to the Bible” and, more significantly, “back to Christ.” Unlike the prejudicial interpretation of the Reformers and those who adhere to them today, his view begins with a tabula rasa, a fair-minded, non-prejudicial view that reads Paul firmly within the setting of the time rather than through the (distorted) lens of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century squabbles. That this sounds too clean, too innocent is a judgment that we must make for ourselves and to which the rest of the articles in this month’s Tabletalk must seek to convince. The stakes are high, for within the crucible of these debates is not some peripheral issue of little or no importance but the very doctrine of salvation itself, the answer to the most basic question of all: How can a sinner be saved? We are being asked to believe that the church has misunderstood the most foundational issue of all—until, that is, along came a bishop who saw things clearly.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

of Paul. The NPP says, effectively, if you'll just understand what justification is and how it works, there no longer has to be a division between Protestant and Catholic on the issue of justification. Now that kind of a rapprochment would be a fairly significant thing to deliver through your new hermeneutic, if you really could, and so some people are very intrigued and attracted to the NPP for that very reason. Wright, in fact, argues that it is literally a sin that a doctrine that was meant to unite the church (justification, in connection with Jews and Gentiles) has been allowed to divide the church (justification, in connection with Protestants and Catholics).

Then, fourthly and relatedly, the NPP purports to help us articulate an understanding of justification that has an inherent social dimension and thus secures a better theological foundation for social justice and ecumenism amongst evangelical interpreters of Holy Scripture. For Wright, justification is about our "horizontal" relationships with one another and our inclusion in the covenant community more than it is about an individual's "vertical" relationship with God. Hence, justification, is inherently, for the NPP, about the collective. It's not about individuals, it's about the community. Consequently, they argue that this understanding of justification better helps us to work for unity in the body of Christ, and to show how justification is a doctrine that ought to be drawing us together instead of dividing us and separating us.

The NPP In Their Own Words

Let me give you a taste of the NPP in the words of N.T. Wright. I'll start with an article that he wrote in response to Australian Bishop Paul Barnett of the Sydney Diocese who wrote an article called, "Why Wright is Wrong."9 In Wright's response (often cited by pro-NPP neophytes in internet discussion as definitive proof of his orthodoxy), he tries to explain, elaborate and clarify his position on justification:

By "the gospel" Paul does not mean "justification by faith." He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message-to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord-is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has ever heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine. To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just Judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham. That is what the word means in Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people get into God's forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but

but he also included everything written in the L aw. That is, anyone who tries to offer his own obedience to the L aw in the effort to be approved and declared as righteous (as obedient) in God’s sight would instead bring a curse upon himself.

[pullquote]

Third, when Paul illustrates what it means to rely upon works versus faith, he appeals to a time before God instituted circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath. Paul appeals to Abraham and Sarah’s sinful efforts to bring about the divine promise by their sinful efforts rather than by faith alone in the seed who was to come—Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16; 4:21–31).

And fourth, Wright opposes circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath against faith as the identity markers of Old and New Testament respectively. Wright’s definition, however, sets the Bible in opposition to itself. Was faith not an identity marker of the Old Testament saints? As the great hall of faith tells us in Hebrews 11, faith in Christ has always been the way to identify the people of God.

The choice of the proper definition of the phrase “works of the law” is not one between Wright and the Reformation but one ultimately between Wright and the apostle Paul—indeed, between Wright and Scripture itself. Paul goes to great lengths to refute the Judaizer’s sinful reliance upon their own obedience (their works of the law) because it was a matter of their salvation, not simply table fellowship. Paul’s extended argumentation in Galatians can be distilled into a statement from his letter to the Ephesians: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). In a word, it is Christ’s works that are the legal ground of our declaration of justification, not our own good works. The proper definition of the works of the law means the difference between justification and condemnation, heaven and hell.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

Gentiles, and Gentiles felt that in subscribing to these requirements they were surrendering their ethnic identity and becoming Jews. Indeed, Dunn argues the term "works of law" in Paul (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) focuses on those laws which create a sociological rift between Jews and Gentiles. What Paul opposed, then, was not legalism or meritorious worksrighteousness. He objected to the ethnocentricism and nationalism of certain Jews who were requiring Gentiles to become Jews in order to enter the people of God.

An Evaluation of the new perspective on Paul

The revolution in Pauline studies is salutary in that it stimulates us to examine the text afresh to discern what Paul actually says. The issues raised by Sanders, Räisänen, and Dunn cannot be explored in detail here, although I have examined their contribution in more detail elsewhere. At this juncture a few comments of a general nature will be made and it is hoped that they will at least prime the pump for further reflection.

E.P. Sanders

Sanders' work has provided an important service for all too often Judaism and particularly the Pharisees are portrayed in a caricatured manner. The impression given is that the Jews were consumed with pettifogging legalism and trivia, while Christians are spared from these faults. Reading the texts in this way blinds us the fellow-humanity of the Jews who are criticized. Nonetheless, Sanders goes to the other extreme when he attempts to establish the thesis that the Jews were not criticized for legalism at all. Surely Sanders is correct in emphasizing that one reason Paul rejected the law was the salvation historical shift between the Testaments. However, his claim that Paul only argued from solution to plight is questionable as Frank Thielman has demonstrated in his careful study of the OT, Second Temple Judaism, and Galatians and Romans. Sanders is less convincing in his attempt to peel away any anthropological dimension to Paul's soteriology. Here the criticisms of Robert Gundry and Timo Laato have laid bare a serious weakness in Sanders' study. Moreover, a careful study of a number of texts (Luke 18:9-14; Rom. 3:27-4:5; 9:30-10:8; Gal. 3:1-14; Phil. 3:2-11) indicates that there is a polemic in the New Testament against legalism. These passages cannot be explained away so easily. Salvation history and anthropology are not at loggerheads but they both play a role in Pauline theology. Our existential knowledge of human beings confirms what we read in the NT. Our fundamental problem is pride, the desire to be great and admired by others. Pride expresses itself in a variety of ways, but one channel for pride is religious observance. We are all tempted to esteem ourselves above our fellow human beings because we have lived a morally superior (so we think!) life to them. It would be very surprising if the Jews of Paul's day did not struggle with the same problem, for the desire to impress God and fellow human beings with our works is at heart a human problem (not a

the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” But, as Calvin points out, the previous verse removes all doubt of Paul’s meaning, for Paul says that just as those who “sinned without the law will also perish without the law,” so also those who “sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12). Paul’s point is to show their judgment under the law, not their justification. Calvin explains, “Here the apostle is casting down the foolish confidence of the Jews, who claimed for themselves the sole knowledge of the law, even while they were its greatest despisers.”[22]

Wright complains that the Reformed tradition has dismissed Romans 2:13 by describing it as hypothetical. To this we agree that Paul’s statement is not hypothetical. As a principle it is true; one is made righteous by doing the law. But the problem is that, as Paul goes on to insist, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (3:10-12). Douglas Moo points out that when you bring in Romans 3:20 you have a conflict with Romans 2:13 that must be accounted for. In Romans 2:13, Paul says, “The doers of the law will be justified.” In Romans 3:20, however, he says, “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” How do we understand the relationship of those two statements? Or as Moo asks, “Why doesn’t the covenant justify?”[23] Romans 3:10-12 provides the answer. The problem is our sin. This is why Paul presents his gospel in Romans 3:23-25 as an alternative to works-righteousness: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” This statement is not to be seen in continuity with Romans 2:13 but in contrast. Not being able to “do the law,” we can yet be justified through faith in Jesus Christ.

Our difference with N.T. Wright is not that he takes Romans 2:13 seriously and that we do not. Our difference is that we take seriously Romans 3:9-11, and he does not, at least in terms of its implications for Paul’s argument in Romans 2 and 3. Moreover, when it comes to the nature of our righteousness before God, it is Wright who does not take Romans 2:13 seriously when he denies the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Romans 2:13 argues that justification does demand righteousness and that righteousness comes from perfect obedience to the law. This is why N.T. Wright’s substitution of covenant righteousness in the place of the imputed righteousness of Christ simply will not do.[24] Paul lays out the formula in Romans 5:18-19, one of the Westminster Confession’s proof-texts for the imputed righteousness of Christ. In