N. T.

Wright, The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and

Reflections. Pages 393-770 in vol. 10 of The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in
Twelve Volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. Pp. xviii +
1011. $70.00, cloth.

(Originally published in Westminster Theological Journal, 2003, Vol. 65, No. 2, 365-69)

N. T. Wright has created quite a stir in American evangelical circles. On the one

hand, his work has been lauded as an academically competent defense of the historical

integrity of the synoptic gospels; moreover, an earlier work on Pauls theology, The

Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1992), was highly touted as a theologically and exegetically insightful, covenantal

analysis of Pauls thought by a reviewer in this journal (T. David Gordon, WTJ 56

[1994]). On the other hand, Wright has been condemned in no uncertain terms as an

agitator of the faith, one whose soteriology represents a departure from historic biblical

orthodoxyand that, too, in a review article in this journal (Richard B. Gaffin, WTJ 62

[2000]). Those familiar at all with the scholars who wrote these widely diverging

assessments of Wrights work will immediately recognize that the debate over N. T.

Wright is not one whose lines can be drawn based on commitment (or lack thereof) to the

doctrinal standards laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. As

the debate rages on, it is hoped that Wrights exposition of Romans, upon which so much

of the Reformation soteriology has been built, will help to clarify the issues at hand.

The introductory section is short, 17 pages including bibliography and outline,

which is likely a function of its place in a volume that also contains an introduction to

epistolary literature and commentaries on Acts and 1 Corinthians. Nonetheless, the

introduction truly serves its purpose, for the 10 pages covering The Shape and Theme of

Romans engage various facets of Gods righteousness that repeatedly undergird

1
Wrights exposition of the letter. He begins by explaining Gods righteousness as a

Jewish concept, related to larger fields of discourse, specifically covenant, law court, and

apocalyptic language/thought forms. In reference to the covenant, Gods righteousness

means Gods loyalty to the covenant (Wright uses the singular throughout) with Israel. In

the law court, a righteous judge is one who acts impartially and upholds the law. In

Wrights understanding of Second Temple Judaism, the covenantal and law court images

are linked, as the covenant is established to undo the consequences of sin and evil in the

worldthat is, to establish justice or righteousness. The recognition that the world needs

to be set aright and an unflagging confidence in Gods covenant-loyalty to Israel merge to

produce apocalyptic expectation: the hope that God will act suddenly and decisively to

judge the world and vindicate his people Israel.

In light of this Jewish background, Wright discusses the vision of Gods

righteousness recast for Paul as a Christian. Wright contends that Paul came to

recognize the death and resurrection of Christ as the apocalyptic moment for which Israel

had been waiting. This unexpected climax to Israels story causes Paul to rethink the

nature of the people of God: a people that is to include Gentiles, a people that is not to be

marked off from the world by Torah observance.

Narrowing his scope to Romans itself, Wright argues that Romans is about Gods

righteousness defined as Gods own righteousness, not a status conveyed to believers, and

he cites three lines worth of OT and Second Temple references as support. The polemical

edge of this claim is that Romans is not about justification, conceived of as something

that comes to individual believers (though this is one of its topics); in contradistinction to

this Reformation-tradition claim, Paul is working to explain to the Roman church what

2
God has been up to and where they might belong on the map of these purposes (10:404).

In other words, Romans is about historia salutis before it is about ordo salutis. The work

of God in history includes a subversion of the story told by Romea story of

worldwide peace brought by Caesar. This anti-Caesar subplot is also a recurring theme in

Wrights commentary.

The discussion of the letters theme is followed by a short section on the occasion

for Romans, a one-page annotated bibliography, and a two-page outline of the letter. In

assessing the comments themselves, we will have to restrict ourselves to a few topics that

will likely be of greatest interests to the readers of this journal.

One facet of this commentary that sets it apart from much contemporary

scholarship is the central role it gives to the idea of covenant in Pauls theology. Despite

the relative absence of the word covenant in Romans (it appears only twice, 9:4 and

11:27, the latter being an Old Testament citation), and in Paul more generally (only nine

times, across only five letters), Wright views Gods covenant with His people as the

indispensable building-block of Pauls thought. More specifically, it is the covenant that

insures the continuity of Gods redemptive purpose begun with Abraham (e.g., 10:464,

469). On the other side of the covenant coin, Wright also sets his theology over against

the return-to-the-land theology of dispensationalism (and modern liberal theology)

(e.g., 10:698).

As Wright unfolds his understanding of Romans, it is clear time and again that he

views this letter, and scripture in general, as normative for the church. It is therefore all

the more salutary to the reader, and important for assessing his theology, to hear the

Reformation solas echoed throughout the commentary. As is typical in Wrights work,

3
he appeals to scriptural interpretation as he challenges various theologies and

interpretations (e.g., 10:477-78, 616-17, 722). However one may differ with Wright on

the doctrine of scripture, his use of scripture is exemplary for anyone wishing to espouse

a sola scriptura posture. Further, Wright reflects on the Abraham narrative by saying that

forgiven sinners are rescued by grace alone (10:506; cf. 10:696). He is equally clear

with respect to justification per se: Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone

(10:548). When it comes to the necessity and sole-sufficiency of the work of Christ,

Wright clearly articulates solus Christus in a redemptive-historical framework: The

solution [to sin] is the same for all: grace, working through Gods covenant faithfulness,

resulting in the life of the age to come, through Jesus, Israels Messiah (10:525). Despite

the aversions of some of Wrights detractors, Wright understands Romans (and the entire

New Testament for that matter) as demonstrating the need of all humanity (Jew and

Gentile alike) for the saving work of God through Christ. Finally, Wright demonstrates

that the whole work of God in redeeming humanity through Christ is for Gods own

glory: Now, in hope, through the gospel of the Messiah, Jesus, the glory is restored (5:2;

8:30); but the glory remains Gods, Gods to give, Gods to be reflected back to God,

Gods own forever (10:696). Any reader of this commentary will find the watchwords of

the Reformation continually upheld and proved from the Pauline text.

This brings us to two, interrelated issues on which Wright has been challenged in

the Reformed community, namely, atonement and justification. In terms of the

atonement, if Wrights comments on Paul reflect his own theology, then his theology

must be labeled impeccable. First, in a lengthy comment on 3:25, Wright mounts a

powerful case for interpreting hilasterion in terms of a propitiatory sacrificethis over

4
against modern trends of seeing it merely as expiation (10:474-76). In addition, while

reflecting on that same passage Wright denies that Jesus sacrificial death was given to us

as an example; it is, rather, something done for me (10:478). Wright, moreover, looks

to 4:25, Jesus was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification, as

the grounds for the whole discussion of justification in ch. 4 (10:503). Finally, Wright

makes an appeal for Pauls atonement theology to be built from a combination of Rom

3:21-26; 4:25; 5:6-10, and 5:12-21 (10:531). He views 5:12-21 as an initial climax in the

argument, to which the earlier verses were heading and from which later sections flow.

Wright strongly upholds the one-time, epochal event of Jesus death on the cross as the

climax of Gods action to save humanity from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10).

In terms of justification, Wright has been strongly criticized on two grounds. The

first is that he views justification in mainly eschatological terms: it is a pre-participation

in the vindication of the final judgment (10:471). To be sure, the primary reason for

discomfort with Wright on this score comes from a lack of appreciation for that strand of

the Reformed tradition that comes to us by way of G. Vos, H. Ridderbos, and R. Gaffin

all of whom have made similar points. Nonetheless, in his commentary Wright leaves the

most serious question unanswered: How does he hold together the present, anticipatory

verdict of justification by faith alone with an affirmation that Rom 2:6 speaks of a real

(versus hypothetical) future justification on the basis of works? The second place where

Wright has been widely criticized is in his adamant declaration that justification is not

entry language, but rather describes Gods verdict on those who are already members

of the covenant people of God. Here the Romans commentary helps clarify what is

perhaps not as obvious elsewhere in Wrights writing. His point is that effectual calling

5
precedes justification in Pauls ordo salutis (10:481). It is the former that contains Pauls

theology of regeneration, the work of the Spirit which enables people to come to faith.

When this work of effectual calling has enabled a person to exercise faith, then the person

is justified in the sight of God.

One final note from the standpoint of the Reformed tradition should be sounded.

Given the sparse recognition that some facets of the diversity of the Reformed tradition

(and Westminster Calvinism in particular) receive, Wrights passive-righteousness-only

interpretation of Rom 5:18-19 is bound to raise some eyebrows. Such hesitancy from

Reformed readers is nothing that could not be alleviated by a good dose of Calvin (e.g.,

Institutes 2.12.4, 3.11.5, 6, 9, 12, 21, 22) or Gataker (An Antidote Against Errour

Concerning Justification [London: Henry Brome, 1679; microfilm repr. Early Christian

Books, 1641-1700, Ann Arbor, Mich: UMI, 1979]; 5, 15, 19, 20, 24-25).

As for an overall assessment of the commentary, it is well done. Wright does a

masterful job of cross-referencing Romans with itself, such that the richness of the letter

stands out in sharp relief. This will likely help those who use this commentary from

falling into the common trap of preaching various passages as though they were isolated

statements of doctrine. In addition, Wright provides a number of intriguing readings that

will likely challenge exegetes for some time to come. An example of this is his reading of

Rom 2:15, law written on their hearts, as referring to Gentile Christians (a reading once

suggested by Augustine). One complaint about the commentary stems from the way

Wright pawns off as obvious readings that are, in fact, quite novel to himself and

sometimes questionable. His idea that Rom 6-8 provides a sort of retelling of the Exodus

narrative is a case in point. At very best, the case is not proven; in no case is it obvious.

6
There are some minor typographical errors, such as the NRSV translations being labeled

as NIV on more than one occasion (10:414, 469).

The target audience of this commentary falls somewhere between scholar and

pastor. In that respect, it serves its stated aim of bringing the best of contemporary

biblical scholarship into the service of the church (10:xvii). Pastors will find this work

exegetically stimulating and will likely be challenged by the application points suggested

in the Reflections. It is the current reviewers opinion that the commentary could

confidently be given to an educated layperson for consultation, without fear that the

theology contained therein would lead the sheep astray from our Reformed fold.

J. R. Daniel Kirk

Duke University