Comments on: Future of Justification 16: Self-Righteousness

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:10:26 +0000

Thanks for this, Trevin. Piper makes a great point here that shouldn’t be overlooked in the discussion.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:43:38 +0000

My comment is about “works of the law”. Growing up as a Calvinist in the Reformed tradition, my initial reaction to the “new perspective” view on Paul was that it was not what Paul’s letters referred to. When doing my Post-Graduate study in New Testament studies in the 1990s, however, I saw that the texts of Romans and Galatians pointed to a possibility that I (along with John Calvin) had got it wrong. What I find confusing in retrospect, is what now look to me unfortunate English translations of particular Greek phrases in, for example, the NIV. Where Paul’s Greek says straightforwardly, “from/out-of works of the law” [ex ergwn nomou], the NIV team felt a need to elaborate with phrases like “by observing the law” (Gal 2.16, three times). This 20th century post-Reformation editorializing makes the issue harder for the (post-)modern ear to hear what Paul was saying to his churches.

As the blog entry correctly recognizes, talking about grace but acting as if grace never existed is anathema. I find it poignant to remember that this is the way that Saul the Pharisee had formerly been viewing the Gentile hoardes. He did not believe that the grace showed by God to Saul’s own ethnic group was applicable to other ethnoi (=Greek for Gentiles). Then following his Damascus Road episode, he realized that he had been honestly but actively opposing God’s plan to expand the narrow ethnic scope of salvation, and in so doing earned a very personal debt that could only be overcome by grace abounding.

By: Tom Oury

Tom Oury — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:58:38 +0000

Trevin, great post. Thanks! I’m enjoying your bolg a great deal. I felt Piper’s critique of Wright on 1st century Judaism was ‘thin’ and focussed on ‘casting doubt’ on Wright’s conclusions in favor of the traditional caricature of 1st century phariseism as primarily ‘works oriented legalism’. This caused me to pick up a book I had read about 10 years ago by Tom Hovestol, Extreme Righteousness. Tom does a great job of showing how we evangelicals are the ‘Pharisees’ of today, and his book stimulates some very good personal applications from the study of the Pharisees in the new testament. Thanks again for your blog!

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:03:15 +0000

Thank you for this post Trevin. I read it before; but now that I am reading “What Saint Paul Really Said” it is helping me to see some of the benefits of reading Wright for myself. I think Piper is correct but I too think that Wright has a point in saying that “Works of the law” mean badges of membership. This post will help me to read Wright in a discerning manner but in a profitable manner as well.

By: brannon

brannon — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:17:14 +0000

Trevin, great thought there at the end.

By: Kathy Hanson

Kathy Hanson — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:46:55 +0000

Great post, Trevin. From what I have read from Wright, I would say he would agree wholeheartedly with you and Piper. The definition of legalism that I find Wright explaining is not “good works = salvation and right standing,” but rather badges of exclusion = membership in the covenant community (circumcision and Torah keeping) which decay into self-righteousness that replaces faith in Jesus. In Piper’s application of modern badges of exclusion, I think Wright would have no quibble.