We are working our way through Tom Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
, and discussing the new perspective. Wright's a book is an apologetic for his views, and a response to the critique of his book by John Piper.The question: What does "the righteousness of God" mean?
Piper understands God's righteousness as God's concern for God's own glory (see Piper's The Future of Justification, 62-71). Wright thinks Piper's wrong, "not massively wrong, just out of alignment and lacking in precision" - 64). How so?
1. There is a huge mass of scholarship on "God's righteousness" and, as Wright observes the idiosyncratic focus of Piper's revisionist definition, "I am not aware that any other scholar ... who thinks that 'God's righteousness' actually means 'God's concern for God's own glory'" (64). Nearly all think it refers to conformity to a norm and therefore of God's conformity to God's own norm. Wright quotes JI Packer who is on Wright's side here. God's plan is to put things to rights through Israel (and through Christ) and his righteousness is his fidelity to that covenant promise. [I must confess that Piper's definition is a revisionist definition wherein he captures the meaning of a biblical term into the grid of his theology, and it is a theology that deserves respect but which is asked to do what it need do here: let the word mean what it means and then show that fits into his focus on "glory of God" in his theology.]
2. Double imputation theology struggles to make sense of righteousness as God's concern for his own glory. Romans 4:20-22 distinguishes glory from righteousness. The covenant God has made is to bless the world through Abraham and his family. God's righteousness is to be faithful to that covenant promise. [Not sure Tom is all that clear in this 2d point.]
3. Piper does not adequately engage Romans 3--4 to examine Wright's own thesis that God's righteousness refers to his covenant faithfulness. God has a plan to save the world; Israel is the linchpin; Israel failed to be faithful; what is needed is a faithful Israelite; Jesus Christ is that faithful Israelite. This faithful one removes the curse against Israel's unfaithfulness.
4. Piper downplays the lawcourt metaphor and here again Wright gets into it with Piper about double imputation, in particular the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner. Wright argues that the "righteousness" of the vindicated defendant is not the same as the judge's. It's about a person's standing in the view of the court and law.
5. Piper sees the issue to be God's concern for himself. But the biblical framing of issues is God's unwavering gracious concern for everything else (70). This, too, Wright says often enough will redound to God's glory. The theme of God's covenant faithfulness and righteousness has a biblical direction toward others, not toward God himself (though it does bring glory to God). Wright: "God's concern for God's own glory is precisely rescued from the appearance of divine narcissism because God, not least God as Trinity, is always giving out, pouring out, lavishing generous love on undeserving people, undeserving Israel and an undeserving world" (70-71).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Some footnotes to Scot's 5 points above:
1) Piper's definition of God's righteousness is simultaneously idiosyncratic (in that no other scholars seem to share it) and culturally-determined (by the conservative fundamentalist Reformed theological house in which he resides). His definition seems to read the Reformation slogan "for the glory of God alone" back into biblical texts (which is not to say that the Bible makes no mention of God's glory, as it certainly does).
2) If God's righteousness is a concern for God's own glory (as Piper claims), then does it make sense to say God's righteousness has been imputed to us (as Piper also claims)? As someone imputed righteousness, am I concerned for God's own glory (which may or may not be my own, as it is God's glory, but has been imputed to me), or am I concerned for my own glory (as God is concerned for God's own glory)?
3) In his exegesis of Romans 3-4 (which he uses selectively, relying heavily on Romans 3:28 and 4:6), Piper ignores almost completely the many references to circumcision, which support the New Perspective's contention that Paul is here primarily concerned about Gentile inclusion.
4) I would say that Piper interprets the forensic metaphor differently, rather than "downplays" it (he devotes three consecutive chapters to it). Piper interprets the righteousness of the judge (God) as the same as the righteousness of a defendant (a sinner). Wright observes that in a courtroom, the judge pronounces a verdict, which does not involve imputing his own righteousness to the defendant. Rather, the judge declares a defendant not guilty. Thus, justification is declarative. Piper argues that it is also effectual--that is, it has the effect of imputing righteousness to the sinner.
5) Piper's description of God's righteousness does make God appear narcissistic. Also, it's uselessly abstract. What are we to do with the notion that God is concerned for God's own glory? What does that mean? What difference does it make to a life of discipleship? Wright's covenantal faithfulness of God has a relational component that makes it more relevant to the practice of the faith in our daily lives.
I've expanded on all of these themes on my blog.
Is anyone else concerned that Wright's "divine narcissism" language might inflame the already heated debate to new levels, at least with respect to Piper? I agree with the merits of Wright's views (including on this issue), but the rhetoric? When I read that in the book, my immediate thought was of Piper tearing his robes and shouting "blasphemy!" It seemed like it might be pouring flames on gas-soaked tinder.
Scot,
Keep up the great work with this New Perspective series. It has been chosen as the Paul Post of the Week for 2 weeks running.
Scot,
In a "Community Called Atonement", you speak of double imputation. Can you explain how you differ from both Piper and Wright.
Phil
Scot,
In a "Community Called Atonement", you speak of double imputation. Can you explain how you differ from both Piper and Wright.
Phil
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.