Wright makes better sense of Romans 4 than his detractors. The typical old perspective reading has Paul use Abraham as a subtopic in proving his thesis that humanity can only be made right with God by faith in Christ. Wright sees Romans 4 as an explanation of the Abrahamic covenant which is essential to God’s one plan to deal with sin through Israel. Wright’s reading is superior to the OPP because the OPP reading sees Abraham’s ungodliness relating to an ethical deficiency. However, Paul quotes Psalm 32, where David asks for forgiveness and yet identifies himself as godly. It is more likely that godly = being a Gentile. This makes sense of verse 10 and also the way that Abraham is described in the book of Hebrews and Genesis. It is interesting to note that the phrase “counted it to him as righteousness” is not only mentioned in Genesis 15:6 but also in Psalm 106:30-31 in reference to Phinehas. Phinehas was a circumcised believer who in his zeal for the covenant, slew a Gentile and a compromised Jew for unlawful intercourse. He was a Jewish covenantal hero. Paul is saying that Abraham has the same status as Phinehas – they are both faithful covenant members. Paul also mentions the justification of David. In order to understand this we need to see what Paul has said in Romans 2:25 that for the disobedient, circumcision becomes uncircumcision. David has put himself outside the covenant through his seduction of Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. But God can bring him back in through faith. Mark Horne says it best: “And Paul’s whole argument has been that Israel is corporately apostate and thus no different than the nations. Rather, Israel with the whole world is weak and ungodly (in the full sense of that word), and it was precisely at that moment that Christ died for us (“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”) (HT = Mark Horne.)
Read the whole thing: Why Wright is Right « City of God.
I will grant that it does seems to me that Reformed orthodox are quick to defend the orthodox view of justification in relation to Rom.4, such as justification as being imputed righteousness not merely forgiveness. I agree. But Gathercole will say in his Boasting book, that justification has both negative and positive aspects- forgiveness and imputed righteousness and that Rom.4 conveys both these negative and positive aspects. My point is simply this: what is the proper relationship between union, justification and forgiveness? It seems that in much discussion and debate on the subject, these relationships seem to be of little concern with both the traditional Reformed and the NPP and non-imputational views. In the non-imputational view, such as Gundry and Wright, they will be quick to point out the fitness of these non-imputational aspects so that that they are often correct in what they assert but wrong in what they deny. In reading the Vickers book and other things, it appears then to me at least that union with Christ is the foundation for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and this imputation is the foundation for God’s forgiveness. I am not trying to convey any temporal order since in the divine action of God with the believing subject these things are instantaneous. It would seem to me that any further discussion of one of these three should entail some discussion of the relationship with the others and that the non-traditional misconstrual of these issues even obligates such discussion. Wright is compelling in his narrative orientation of the Israel’s mission. But this is not enough. He fails to take other NT verses seriously. He fails to understand the Reformed view of imputation and he tends to have the hubris of “come to me you who are weary for the proper NT understanding since all these evangelical and Reformed folks, let alone the Reformed confessional tradition has got it all wrong and I have got it (W)right.” He fails to take sin and its consequences seriously and Wright misses the glory of the gospel. He seriously misinterprets Phil. 3:8-9- the “tou pistis” can appear so compelling but in the context as a whole, it comes up seriously short and leaves more questions than answers.
We see hubris in different places, Rob.
The point is not merely an issue in what Wright asserts, in this case covenant faithfulness. I don’t think those who hold to the traditional justification/ imputational deny this. The issue is whether this the sole way justification should be viewed. It is not an issue of whether non-imputational features figure in into the picture, such as forgiveness of sins. Again, these features are not denied. The issue is not even the narrative argument of Israel; this is a compelling feature no doubt. The issue is whether justification is solely to be seen in relation to the above mentioned features. The issue is a matter of justice: is the God who is perfectly holy and just able to merely forgive sins on the basis of covenant faithfulness? NT verses such as Rom4, Phil. 3:8-9, 2Cor.5:21 and others. When these NT verses are seen in relation the chief problem of sin and this matter of justice, Wright’s arguments, however well versed, clever, or nuanced at the end of day is simply not enough. The issue is the definition of the gospel seen through the lens of God’s justice and human sin and depravity. Wright just doesn’t get this and the traditional view does.