Over the past months, author and blogger, Andrew Perriman, has been consistently writing about the topic of justification, especially as found in Romans. His newest published work is The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom. I read and reviewed the work in the latter part of 2010.
I was over at his blog this week and found two interesting posts on justification. In the first, Perriman shares his thoughts as he reviews the positions of N.T. Wright, Michael Gorman and Douglas Campbell.
Perriman summarises the discussion around justification:
In scripture “justification” is a very simple notion. It has to do with whether a person is right or—more importantly—will be shown to be right in some concrete respect, regarding what they think or believe or do. It takes on a particular theological character because in scripture the concrete context in which a person thinks or believes or acts is for the most part subject to theological interpretation….
….The question of whether a person—or for that matter, God himself—is right or justified arises critically in the story of God’s dealings with his people Israel in relation to the nations. That is a theological narrative, so “justification” becomes a theological concept. …At the heart of the matter are some very practical and pressing questions. Will Jesus’ disciples be shown to be right for having broken ranks with mainstream Judaism? Will the Gentiles who convert be shown to be right for having abandoned worship of the gods of the empire? These are not abstract questions.
The basic issue that we have to address is this: What is the concrete context in which the question of whether a person is “right” or “righteous” becomes important?
He, then, goes on to challenge the usual Reformation view of justification within Paul’s letter to the Romans, that view being:
justification is a person’s relationship to God as judge: justification is the means by which a guilty sinner is acquitted—not on the basis of works done but on the basis of Christ’s atoning death.
Perriman’s major goal is to embed his discussion of justification within the historical narrative of Scripture. Thus, he notes:
Paul is firmly convinced that the fundamental rightness of God has been revealed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is the good news that he proclaims to the peoples of the Greek-Roman world. It will be the means of “salvation” both for the Jew and for the Greek (Rom. 1:16-17), but salvation is required by the fact that both the Jew and the Greek face a day of wrath (Rom. 1:18; 2:1-11)—the sort of historical crisis by which a nation or an empire or a culture is overthrown—which will be the climax to a long story of conflict between the God of Israel and the gods of the nations.
The distinction between the Jew and the Greek is important. If God is to show himself to be right or righteous with respect to the nations, he must first show himself to be right or righteous with respect to his own people. The Jews must first be held accountable for their own idolatry and wickedness because they should have provided a benchmark of right worship and behaviour in the midst of the nations (Rom. 3:6, 19)….
….In the first place, the Jews stand condemned because it has become clear that they will not be shown to be right before the nations. Why? Because their “works” do not meet the requirements prescribed in the Law. They cannot expect to be “justified” by their works—not because “justification by works” is in principle wrong but because their works are evil; they are no better than the rest of humanity. Indeed, on this day of wrath they will be put to shame by some Gentiles whose works are righteous (Rom. 2:15-16). We should keep in mind that this is not a final judgment: it is a socio-political crisis or transformation through which YHWH will be shown to be sovereign over the nations of the ancient world. Public outcomes, public opinions, matter.
But an alternative outcome is also envisaged. The God of Israel has put forward Christ Jesus as evidence, as a reason to believe—under the actual conditions of the failure of Israel—that sooner or later he will be shown to be right, he will be vindicated, in his controversy with the gods of the nations. That eschatological vindication—the victory of YHWH over the nations—will be realized through the witness of communities of those who have believed in and proclaim this “good news” of the coming reign of God. These communities will be justified, as this narrative of wrath plays itself out, only by virtue of the fact that they have trusted in the “evidence” of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which means, practically speaking, through their participation in the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection. These communities will be the means by which the God of Israel is vindicated amongst the nations, but only if they are willing to suffer as Jesus suffered in hope of being vindicated as Jesus was vindicated.
Even more, Andrew Perriman shares what he believes is the problem with the new perspective. He states:
So I agree with N.T. Wright that this whole thing is essentially about how God remains true to himself, which means how he remains true to the promises made to Abraham and in particular to the promise that his descendants would inherit the world. But I think that the question that drives the argument about the justification of those who have faith is not “How is membership of the covenant people to be defined?” but “How will the covenant people survive the coming day of wrath?” Only that community which puts its trust exclusively in the prior faithfulness of Jesus as defining a way of salvation will not be condemned along with Israel, first, and then with the pagan world.
To end, he summarises with these words about the theological juggernaut known as justification:
Paul’s argument about justification makes best sense when we set it in the context of a narrative about the transformation of the status of the people of God in the ancient world, culminating in the confession by the nations of the oikoumenē that Jesus and not Caesar is Lord. That was the outcome that finally demonstrated the rightness of the course pursued by those communities which faithfully participated in the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection…
…There are many ways in which we may seek to justify ourselves: by superiority of moral character, by good works, by rational argument, by force of numbers, by appeal to tradition, by the denigration of non-believers, and so on. But in the end, we will only ever be justified by our perseverance in the belief that the God who created all things, raised Jesus from the dead as the beginning of new creation, and will finally make all things new.
As I said, there is a second article you might be interested in. It is well worth your time to engage with Perriman’s ‘fresh perspectives’ on justification and the gospel. But beware, it will probably stand in grave contrast to our normal approach to justification.
The Prodigal Thought 
Scott L,
Thanks for this, since I’m so much into Paul and Justification. I was pretty much in agreement until his thoughts on Romans 2:15-16, not referring to the final judgment but that “day” when YHWH will be showed to be sovereign over the nations of the ancient world. Is there such a day that can be circled on the Jewish calendar?
Next, I’ll have to chew on his definition of Justification. But it doe make sense in light of the immediate Roman 1:18ff.
I read both of Andrew Perriman’s articles. While interesting, he deviates from N.T. Wright’s views, not only on the NPP (including how it’s categories are defined), but “what Paul really said”. One example: Wright interprets the Gentiles in Rom. 2:13-14 to be already-believing-Christians. On this, Perriman wrote: Gentiles outside the people of God may well do good works, and they may count themselves justified on that account when this judgment comes (Rom. 2:13-16). So you can see how far apart they are in exegesis. Perriman is closer to ‘traditional’ thinking overall.
“How is membership of the covenant people to be defined?”
Wright says Paul defined it in justification (meaning roughly): “God has declared one to be-in-the-right, as a member in His covenant.”
“How will the covenant people survive the coming day of wrath?”
Wright says that while justification ‘means’ one thing, it has two phases: 1) As declared in the present, and, 2) Final justification, wherein the justified with be judged on the “basis of the whole life lived.” Critics of Wright have accused him of teaching “justification by works.” But of course, they have interpreted him wrong, imo!
The best summary I’ve found that clarifies these things (and a lot about NPP) is What N.T. Wright Really Said (an analysis of last Nov’s ETS theme on ‘Justification’ — on a Calvinist’s blog! @ Justin Taylor).
P.S. I feel weird and sort of hypocritical posting stuff about what Andrew Perriman wrote on this blog. (But this seems inevitable these days, with billions of links all over the place)….
Btw, I say “Wright says” a lot, as I agree with his theological interpretations on many, if not most, points.
Andrew Perriman wrote: But I think that the question that drives the argument about the justification of those who have faith is not “How is membership of the covenant people to be defined?” but “How will the covenant people survive the coming day of wrath?”
In my reply (above) I wanted to convey the two-phases of justification, a la Wright, who sees present and final (or eschatological) justification. There’s no dichotomy between the two. Only temporal (time) distinctions.
While Andrew Perriman made some interesting observations about inclusion of Gentiles, and so on, I felt he presented with (something like) an ‘eschatological grid’. Interesting points to ponder, but going a bit beyond what’s actually in the text(s).
‘Just felt like I should post this, in case Andrew Perriman drops by.
TC –
You need to really read Perriman’s book, The Future of the People of God, to lay out more. I think you read my article-review on it.
Anyways, though many people would have a hard time accepting this, Perriman would argue that the outworking of the setting up of western Christendom and the establishing of the gospel in the ‘then-known-world’ a few centuries after Paul, this was the outworking of the actual judging of the gods of the nations and the justification and vindication that Yahweh (and His Messiah, Jesus) is the true God of the world.
Rick –
If I recall correctly, Perriman would distinguish between Paul’s use of Gentiles and Paul’s use of the word Greeks. But as to those distinguishings, I would have to re-read parts of his book.
But, yes, Perriman takes things even further than Wright and the NPP. He is looking to ground the text 100% in its historical narrative, rather than always given it a ‘global’ or ‘universal’ perspective, especially as the reformed view does heavily.
Scott –
Actually, I’ve read several of Perriman’s blog articles and bookmarked some for reference. ‘Not sure how I came across his blog, possibly from here(?). I just read your review of his The Future of the People of God. It’s surprising, if you think about it, how much info you can get from book reviews! Especially if you read *one-star* to *five-stars* (pro & con).
I’m amillennial/partial-preterist <— ('labels', beliefs in 'categories'). I'm working on ironing-out the Already/Not-Yet 'tension'. How much is Already: already? What's Not-Yet: how much of it has come? And, while I consider myself 'partial-preterist', I'm more like a '3/4ths-preterist(?)', as I see some parts of Rev 21-22 referring to right-now/Already.
Andrew Perriman's eschatology, from what little I've read, seems to be more toward a 'full-preterist' position (with the 'prophetic significance' of the Great War, circa 70), combined with the Historicist school of eschatology (prophecy being 'fulfilled in stages' throughout Church History).
Like you, Scott, I'm attempting to overcome bias when reading the text (as you mentioned in the review with your having inherited a Reformed bias, as noted in when reading Romans 5). I'm 'suspicious' of any 'system' that might limit or cloud my thinking.
At any rate, whether Andrew–(or any of us for that matter)–are being influenced by 'schools of thought' too much, we may miss the meaning of the text. But whoever tries to engage with original context (authorship and hearing) can't be all bad!
Thanks!
Rick –
I believe Perriman does not try and identify himself with the typical labels (preterist, etc) or millenial views. Having said that, he does recognise a future aspect of some of prophecy, mainly some of John’s Revelation. I need to read his The Coming of the Son of Man to probably get more clarity (or have a coffee with him next time he comes to Brussels).