Ryan P.

Tinetti H-448 Research paper 12 November 2009

Questioning Justification: Chemnitz and Wright in Dialogue I. Introduction The era following Luthers death was one of tumult and theological controversy. The Lutherans found themselves defending the Reformation doctrine from every sideand even from their own ranks. To list just a few examples: Johann Agricola pushed the bounds of Christian freedom in the Antinomian controversy, Matthias Flacius threatened the integrity of Gods human creature in so emphasizing mans depravity, and Andrew Osiander confused justification and sanctification in positing a kind of theosis. The Reformation spurred at least as many threats to its doctrine from within as from without. Recently, the Reformation heritage has sensed another threat from within, and once again to its bulwark: justification. The article that is the standing or falling of the Church has countered all comers to this point, but the emergence of the so-called New Perspective on Paul1 has stirred especial alarm. Protestants of all stripes have been quick to respond, sensing a threat to the chief article.2 More recently, popular Evangelical author John Piper challenged principal exponent of the New Perspective, N.T. Wright, and Wright has since obliged with a response of his own in his book Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision.3 Silent in this tte--tte, though, is the voice of anyone from the
1

It is Protestant scholars who have championed the New Perspective; a few of the notable names include Richard Hays, James Dunn, and E.P. Sandersso far as I know, all Methodists. 2 Among the voluminous literature, a pair of helpful recent articles in Concordia Journal are A. Andrew Das, Beyond Covenantal Nomism: Paul, Judaism, and Perfect Obedience, CJ 27 (2001): 234-52, and Thomas R. Schreiner, An Old Perspective on the New Perspective, CJ 35 (2009): 140-155. 3 John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007); N.T. Wright, Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009).

Tinetti

tradition that helped recover the article of justification in the first place: the Lutherans! For an issue with such historical precedents, clearly a historical perspective is warrantedand it seems only fitting to add a Wittenberg voice to the conversation.4 Who better than Martin Chemnitz, who himself wrote systematically and at length on the chief article in his Loci theologici?5 My goal for this essay, then, is to delve deeper into the profound theological genius of Martin Chemnitz on justification by bringing his old 16th century perspective to bear on the new perspective, putting Chemnitz into dialogue with a representative figure of the latter, N.T. Wrightand to ascertain their commonalities, contrasts, and complements along the way, allowing the historical perspective of Chemnitz to inform this present theological issue. II. Commonalities With the heated rhetoric of present debates between advocates and detractors of the New Perspective, one would expect decisive distinctions and clear-cut contrasts. There is some of that, to be sure (especially on the fringe), but not nearly so much as is assumed. Moreover, we do well to hear Wright himself when he insists, The most important thing about the new perspective[is] that there is no such thing as the new perspective.6 Let us cautiously attend, then, to the commonalities between this new perspective and the old.

4 5

Incidentally, Wrights views have also been sometimes characterized as Osianderian. For the purposes of this essay, I have used the edition extracted from the whole: Martin Chemnitz and J.A.O. Preus, trans., Justification (St. Louis: CPH, 1985). 6 Wright, Justification, 28 (emphasis original).

-2-

Tinetti

To banish any heretical name-calling from the beginning, Wright is plainly orthodox, confessing the Triune God and his gracious, one-sided action for mankind. Furthermore, he is wholeheartedly committed to the Reformation conviction of justification sola fide. Perhaps anticipating this concern, at the outset of his book he writes, Salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone.7 For Chemnitz, nearly every page is splashed with talk of sola fide, so to take but one example: Faith is the unique means and instrument through which we lay hold on the righteousness of Christ, receive it, and apply it to ourselves.8 Faith is a presupposition for both menthough Chemnitz, in his context, needs to take greater pains spelling out just what that means. Concomitant with this common holding to sola fide is a shared view of the center of the Scriptures: Christ. Whatever charges may be levelled against Wrights theology, cross-less or Christless should not be one of them: The death and resurrection of the Messiah arethe turning point of historyIsraels history, the worlds history, even (if we can speak like this, not least in the light of the incarnation of Jesus) Gods history.9 So, too, Chemnitz finds in Jesus death and resurrection the center of the biblical narrative: The sum, the end, the goal, and the boundary of all Scripture is Christ in His office of

Ibid., 10. Wrights mention of sovereign grace of course alarms Lutherans to another doctrinal issueviz., Calvinismbut as it happens, though Wright sympathizes with Calvin, he is himself an Anglican bishop. 8 Chemnitz, Justification, 86. 9 Wright, Justification, 106.

-3-

Tinetti

Mediator.10 Both men unequivocally view Jesus as the radiating sun of the Scriptures orbit.11 Moving now specifically to the articulation of justification proper, Chemnitz makes the point repeatedly that the article is understood only within a judicial framework. It is manifest that Paul is using the word justification in the forensic or legal sense, when he deals with the doctrine or article of justification.12 For Chemnitz, the logic of justification itself demands this courtroom setting, as illustrated in this rhetorical tour de force: Paul everywhere describes the article of justification as a judicial process wherein the conscience of the sinner, accused before the tribunal of God by the divine law, convicted, and subject to the sentence of eternal damnation, flees to the throne of grace and is restored, absolved, and freed from the sentence of condemnation and received to eternal life for the sake of the obedience and intercession of the Son of God, our Mediator, which is laid hold of and made ones own through faith.13 Contra his Roman Catholic opponents, Chemnitz also makes it clear that this righteousness is emphatically declarativenot inherent: In the common Greek language the word dikaio;w is never used with the meaning the papists attach to it of infusing righteousness as something positive and inherent.14 Wright couldnt agree more: Righteousness within the lawcourt settingdenotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favor.15 And again, Righteousness in that lawcourt sense does not mean either morally good character or performance of moral good deeds, but

10 11

Chemnitz, Justification, 102. Cf. Wrights doxological conclusion: The Risen Son is the fixed point in whose orbit we move, the one who holds his people by his power and sustains them by his love, the one to whom, with Father and Spirit, be all love and all glory in this age and in the age to come (252). 12 Chemnitz, Justification, 70. 13 Ibid., 69. 14 Ibid., 63. 15 Wright, Justification, 90 (emphasis original).

-4-

Tinetti

the status you have when the court has found in your favor.16 Chemnitz couldnt put it any better: justification is all about Gods declaration Not guilty on account of Christ.17 It is also worth noting here, though it does not figure prominently in either of their treatments, substitutionary atonement is upheld by both Wright and Chemntitz.18 Though they have differences in their understanding of law (no;mo~/hrwt), both Chemnitz and Wright assert what in Lutheran parlance is known as the Second (or Theological) Use of the Law. So Wright writes, What the law does is to reveal sin. Nobody can keep it perfectly.19 And again, Israel cannot claim that Torah sets it apart from the rest of the nationsThe law itself says: you are guilty too.20 Likewise Chemnitz: The Law, in the First Table, accuses as sin all unbelief over against the Word of God.21 The law, according to both theologians, accomplishes its chief purpose when it leads the people of God to the Savior, Jesus. Finally, it is interesting to note that both Chemnitz and Wright share a commitment not only to the content of their arguments, but the methodwhich itself suggests their shared allegiance to sola Scriptura.22 Chemnitz is relentless in defining his terms, guarding against the remotest threat of equivocation. He even goes so far as to say that the neglect of correct language was the source and spring of all errors under this article (i.e.

16 17

Ibid., 92. Wright also makes the point that the image of the courtroom is no mere metaphorsimply one among other for how God forgives people their sins (251). Incidentally, this will put him in some tension with Chemnitz; see below. 18 See Wright, Justification, 207, and Chemnitz, Justification, 186. 19 Wright, Justification, 118. 20 Ibid., 200. 21 Chemnitz, Justification, 29. 22 On this point, Wright likes to say that his fresh readings are following the Reformation practice of putting all traditions to the test in light of Scriptureeven Reformation traditions!

-5-

Tinetti

justification).23 And again, he admonishes linguistic care, for it is so necessary that without it the sound teaching on this locus cannot be preserved.24 For his part, Wright also recognizes the importance of words and their meaning, especially within their historical context; he asserts the importance of paying close attentionto what the words themselves actually meant, in their Old Testament roots, their intertestamental uses (Jewish and Greco-Roman) and their specific contexts within Paul himself.25 In my estimation, such commitment to integrity of meaning is promising for future dialogues. III. Contrasts With this broad and substantive common ground established, we are able to consider in proper perspective the contrasts between Chemnitz and Wright. It should be said that not all these contrasts are necessarily mutually exclusivethat is, there is room for mutual exchange, and I will attempt to highlight some of these areas in the conclusion. The first and most basic contrast between Chemnitz and Wright is the question for which they contend justification provides the answer. For Chemnitz, this question arises out of the individuals anguished conscience, and he or she is compelled to ask, Is God favorable toward me?26 This underlies all mankinds religious machinations; only justification can put a stop to our scheming and put the anxious conscience to rest. Interestingly, with respect to understanding justification, Wright explicitly disavows the question (which he attributes to Luther and is reminiscent of Chemnitz), How can I find a

23 24

Chemnitz, Justification, 15. Ibid., 136. 25 Wright, Justification, 87. 26 Chemnitz, Justification, 94.

-6-

Tinetti

gracious God? He asserts that this approach implies the belief that the whole of Christian truth is all about me and my salvation.27 For Wright, justification instead provides the answer to the question, How will God keep his promises to Israel and for the world? It takes the whole book to unpack this, but in short, justification is God putting to rights (Wrights characteristically British phrase) sinful creation in Jesus. The chief article is thus eschatological, cosmic, and Christologicalnot to mention juridicial.28 The second salient contrast, clearly connected to the first, is the place and prominence in justification that each theologian ascribes to Israeland the OT more generally. The references to the Old Testament in Chemnitz are few and far between, and mostly limited to proof texts for sola fide. His most sustained discussion is in his chapter on justification controversies, when he surveys corruptions of the doctrine in the Old Testament.29 For Chemnitz, then, the OT is mostly illustrative of justificationits upholding, and its perversion. Wright, on the other hand, sees justification and the Old Testament as belonging intimately together: Pauls doctrine of justification is therefore about what we may call the covenant the covenant God made with Abraham, the covenant whose purpose was from the beginning the saving call of a worldwide family through whom Gods saving purposes for the world were to be realized.30 Wright returns to this theme again and again, insisting that justification is not part of a non-historical soteriology31 but is, rather, rooted in the single scriptural narrative.32 While the OT no doubt gives examples of justification by faith, it is chiefly about a
27 28

Wright, Justification, 23 (emphasis original). See the summaries in Ibid., 9-14 and 249-252. 29 Chemnitz, Justification, 45-48. 30 Wright, Justification, 12. 31 Ibid., 61. 32 Ibid., 101.

-7-

Tinetti

promise made by God and awaiting fulfilmentwhich is found in Jesus, the eschatological climax of Israels long history as the covenant people of the Creator God.33 This contrast between Chemnitz and Wright is essential to grasping all their differences. A third and final contrast that stands out is their respective interpretation of e[rgoi no;mou, works of the law. In this case, Wright determines that such works answer the question, How can you tell in the present who will be vindicated in the future?34 Drawing especially on 2nd temple literature (Apocryphal texts, Qumran scrolls, etc.), he holds that the works of the law functioned as boundary-markers which distinguished the true people of God from the world.35 Their function, then, might be analogous to what we call marks of the Church; as Wright puts it, The works in question will not earn their performers their membership within Gods true, eschatological, covenant people; they will demonstrate that membership.36 In this interpretation, works of the law are chiefly a horizontal phenomenonthough with obvious implications for the vertical.37 For his part, Chemnitz interprets works of the law in the more conventional, vertical sense of works righteousness. Hence, when Paul says that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3v28), Chemnitz asserts that he is excluding from justification not only the ceremonial laws of Moses, not only the works of the unregenerate or the

33 34

Ibid., 108. Wright, Justification, 146. 35 Wright doesnt delve into the distinctions that Chemnitz will make between the cermonial and moral law, although the works he discusses mostly fall under Chemnitzs category of the former. 36 Ibid. 37 It occurred to me that there are parallels here to the 16th century debate over election: How is one reckoned among the elect (i.e. Gods chosen people)? Inasmuch as Wright privileges the OT context this should perhaps not be surprising, Israels election being such a key theme there.

-8-

Tinetti

unbelieving, but we must understand that he also excludes the works of which follow.38 And so, The absolute heart of the article of justification is this maxim of Paul that the Law with its works is excluded.39 The basic contrast between Chemnitz and Wright on works of the law is therefore whether they ought to be interpreted as primarily vertical or horizontal: for Chemnitz its the former, for Wright the latter. IV. Conclusion: complements and the way forward In the question of justification, does the 16th century have any applicability for the 21st? I believe it does. In this essay, I have brought together N.T. Wright and Martin Chemnitz, in the hopes that their clash might make some sparks to enlighten the way forward. In conclusion, having delineated areas of commonality and contrast, I would like to point up some complements between their respective views on justification, allowing a historical (i.e. backward-looking) perspective to inform our future dialogues. Justification is clearly not either corporate or individual. In the tradition of Luther and the Reformations correction of medieval abuses, Chemnitz highlights the individuals forgiveness before God. Rightly so; as Wright himself grants, Discovering that God is gracious, rather than a distant bureaucrat or a dangerous tyrant, is the good news that constantly surprises and refreshes us.40 The historical perspective of the 16th century reminds us why this is of utmost importance. But in our cultural context, focus on the individual easily slides into individualism, and Wright and the New Perspective are right to direct us to the corporate dimension of justification as well. This isnt only a cultural
38 39

Chemnitz, Justification, 159. Ibid., 153. 40 Wright, Justification, 40.

-9-

Tinetti

corrective, however; Paul himself attests that Jesus gave himselfto cleanse for himself a people of his own possession (Titus 2v14). Ultimately, Wright does not call AC IV into question so much as summon us to keep it bound to AC VII & VIII; as the saying goes, extra ecclesiam salus nulla. The New Perspective needs the pastoral concern that characterized the Lutheran Reformation of the 16th century, and Chemnitz in particular. All theological reflection has its aim and goal the edification of the Church (and her individual members!), and so its first responsibility is to recognize pastoral possibilities and pitfalls. Wrightthough writing as a pastor41regularly degrades such concern. For instance, he criticizes some of his opponents for cobbling together interpretations with the glue of piety and pastoral concern.42 If our interpretations are wanting, let that be the result of such concern. Chemnitz may be guilty of this, appealing to the troubled conscience almost ad nauseum, but he is nothing if not sensitive to the plight of the pew sitter. He is correct to maintain, This battle [over justification] is not an unimportant one but concerns weighty and serious matters, namely, how consciences can possess sure and firm consolation.43 New Perspective and Old Perspective advocates alike do well to heed this counsel. We Lutherans need to follow Wright in recapturing the central role of Israel in Gods story and, indeed, in justification. I do not think it is too much to say that, without Israel, justification is not part of a story at all, but becomes a kind of theological system. Chemnitz recognized the narrative of promise and fulfilment in the Scriptures, but in his

41 42

Ibid., 27. Wright is Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. Ibid., 36. 43 Chemnitz, Justification, 112.

- 10 -

Tinetti

16th century context what was called for was more rigorous systematizing.44 The marginalization of the narrative came home to roost, though, with Enlightenment liberal Lutheransparticularly Rudolf Bultmanns Christianized existentialism, against which we continue to fight. In recapturing the deep covenantal theology of the Scriptures, justification will only be that much more meaningful when we hear at the Lords Supper that we are drinking our Lords blood of the new covenant (diaqh;kh).45 *** I hope to have demonstrated in this all too brief essay that the 16th century has importance for the 21st in the Church. Martin Chemnitzs voice speaks so loudly it is still heard clarion clear in the present day. Chemnitz helps us to put in proper perspective the debate over justification within so-called new perspectives, assessing their merits and faults against his time-tested work. He is not without weaknesses of his own, however, and so this (artificial) dialogue has helped to elucidate neglected aspects of our own confession of justification. Ultimately, with Wright and Chemnitz labouring for the same una sancta, the Church stands that much stronger on its foundation of Christ crucified and his once-and-for-all work on behalf of his fallen creation.

44 45

See, e.g., his discussion of the seed on page 46. The Divine Service helps us a great deal in this regard. In singing the great psalms of Luke 12the Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittuswe praise the God who has kept his promises to Israel. Incorporating an Old Testament reading with Lutheran Worship was also quite the boon!

- 11 -