73. Wright, WSPRS, 51.
74. Ibid., 113.
75. Truman, “The Portrait of Martin Luther”.
76. Duncan, “The Attractions of the New Perspectives on Paul,” 16–30.
77. McGrath, Iustitia Dei. A History of the Doctrine of Justification, Vol. 1, 1–2.
78. Wright, WSPRS, 167.
79. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul” 3:38–39.
80. Owen, Works, 5, 166.
81. Murray, Collected Works, 2, 218.
82. Wright, The letter to the Romans, 493.
83. Wright, WSPRS, 99.
84. Wright, WSPRS, 98–99.
85. Carson, “Atonement in Romans” 132.
86. Campbell, A Faith To Live By, 166–167.
87. Wright, WSPRS, 98.
88. Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 104.
89. Ibid., 105.
90. Gathercole, “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul” 229.
91. Owen, Works, 10, 598.
92. Wright, WSPRS, 119.
93. Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology, 209.
94. For example, see Revolution 105–6.
95. Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology, 170.
96. Ibid., 209.
97. Ibid., 210.
98. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, 67.
99. Ibid., 119.
100. Ibid., 120.
101. Ibid.
102. Calvin, Institutes XI, 3: 1.
103. Luther also believed in a righteousness that is imputed to the believer, see, R. Scott Clark’s article entitled: “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine if Justification?” in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 7:3/4, July/October 1976, pp. 269-310. In this Clark examines Luther’s mature writings and unambiguously shows that he believed in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer.
104. Calvin, Institutes III, XI, 2.
105. Ibid., III, XI, 2.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid., III, XI, 4.
The Covenant of Works
According to Wright, “covenant theology is one of the main clues, usually neglected, for understanding Paul.”109 This again strikes me as something of an odd statement, especially in light of the fact that both Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists ascribe to covenant theology, and, indeed, base their entire understanding of God’s dealings with man in a covenantal context. What Wright obviously means is that the old perspective has not adopted his understanding of covenant theology.
Reformed covenant theology was not invented in the 16th and 17th centuries, but refined and systematised. Wright, however, seems only too willing to distance himself from this, and, indeed, admits that he has done little reading in this area: “Like many New Testament scholars, I am largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the fathers and reformers. The Middle Ages and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had plenty to say about Paul, but I have not read it.”110 He caricatures the covenant of works, which he refers to as a “works contract.”111 In its place, he speaks of “a covenant of vocation,”112 as if this is something that is neglected by the covenant of works proponents. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. The epithet, “unbiblical,” as I hope to show, is more applicable to Wright’s position.
A covenant is essentially a mutually agreed promise that is based upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. It essentially has three parts: first, there is a promise made, second, the conditions are stipulated, and thirdly, there is a penal sanction laid down in case one party fails to abide by the conditions. God entered into a covenant with the first man, Adam, telling him that he could eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:16,17). While not called a covenant in Scripture, it clearly had the necessary ingredients. Wilhelmus a Brakel provides a succinct definition of the covenant God made with Adam:
The covenant of works was an agreement between God and the human race as represented in Adam, in which God promised eternal life upon condition of obedience, and threatened eternal death upon disobedience. Adam accepted both this promise and this condition.