Book Summary and
Review
John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright
Prolegomena
I am
chomping at the bit to dig into John Piper's new book The Future of Justification: A
Response to N. T. Wright. In biblical studies, this is the
equivalent of a cafeteria fight--"A fight, a fight," and everyone
scrambles from the table to watch.
And of course when the two people are notorious opponents, the fight becomes
all the more salacious, like in Matrix
when Neo and Morpheus are fighting in the virtual room.
Now neither Tom Wright nor John Piper would approve of this description of
their disagreements. Indeed, I consider both of these to be godly men who will
not only be in heaven but who, dare I suggest, may even be entirely
sanctified--even though neither of them believe in the doctrine. Piper is
gracious in his introduction to Wright, and indeed sent an earlier version of
the book to Wright, who sent back an 11,000 word response.
[I feel compelled to make the major disclaimer that I detest Piper's particular
version of Calvinism and his theology in general, but that is not my topic
today. As he sees Wright a threat to sound theology, I see him as an enormously
negative influence on American pop-theology]
But as extensive an influence as Piper has, he has seen the impact Wright is
having on his circles. Piper explains that no one from his church has ever come
up to him with one of James Dunn or E. P. Sanders' books. But they have come up
to him with a rather large volume written by Wright. He feels the need to
respond.
I should say that neither of these individuals represent
my understanding exactly. As I read through Piper's introduction, I found
myself sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing with his initial thoughts. I'm
of course very sympathetic to aspects of the new perspective on Paul and
Judaism. But I also agree with Piper that at times, Wright is in his own world.
And I laughed to myself when I read Piper's comment that Wright sometimes
leaves his readers, "not with the rewarding 'ah-ha' experience of
illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity" (24). I know that
feeling when reading Wright--what is he saying here?
__________________
Introduction
The tone of
the introduction is humble. I infer that Piper recognizes that Wright is an
intellectual powerhouse. Piper's a preacher. I'm not calling him uneducated by
any means (he actually has a ThD). But he's tussling
with perhaps the most renowned Bible scholar of this century so far--not his
usual fare.
A number of Piper's comments also said to me, "I'm too old for this."
:-)
Let me briefly list the main aspects of Wright's
thoughts on justification to which Piper will take exception in the book:
1. That the word "gospel" does not mean for Paul "how to get
saved"
I agree with Wright against Piper here.
2. That justification is not about how you become a Christian
I agree more with Piper than with Wright here.
3. That justification is not the gospel
Technically, I agree with Wright.
4. That we are not justified by believing in justification
OK, agree with Wright
5. That the imputation of God's righteousness does not make sense
Generally agree with Wright, as Paul uses the words.
6. That future justification on the basis of the complete life lived
Agree with Wright on this comment, but recognize
Piper's point that Wright has redefined justification in a strange way.
7. That Judaism was not about "legalistic self-righteousness"
I agree more with Wright than Piper.
8. That God's righteousness is His covenant faithfulness to
I agree more with Wright than with Piper.
So on the whole, I will agree more with Wright than
Piper on justification, although Piper I think rightly recognizes a number of
eccentricities to Wright's reconstruction of Paul.
"On Controversy"
Between the Introduction and Chapter 1, Piper has a brief section called
"On Controversy," where he gives his perspective on a fight like this
one.
First, he has a somewhat "Wesleyan" quote from John Owen (1655):
"When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the
mind embraceth... when not the sense of the words
only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts... then
shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all assaults of men"
(28).
I felt that I should point that out :-)
But of course he turns next to one of the fathers of
twentieth century American fundamentalism, J. Gresham Machen,
who left Princeton and was one of the founding faculty of Westminster
Theological Seminary in
The Machen quotes of interest to Piper, however, are
about his attitudes toward the controversies of his day:
"The New Testament is a polemic [attacking] book almost from beginning to
end" (28).
"Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost
be said, is born in controversy" (29).
"Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy ...
there comes the salvation of souls" (29).
Piper runs with one of Machen's themes in the rest of
this section. Machen was recounting a professor
encouraging fellow teachers to focus on 1 Corinthians 13 as the essence of
Paul's teaching and to avoid controversy. Machen then
noted that 1 Corinthians 13 itself could not be
understood without noting the controversy Paul was addressing over spiritual
gifts in the chapters before and after.
So Piper follows this lead: "it is remarkable how many of Paul's letters
were written to correct fellow Christians" (30).
"... truth frees us from the control of Satan" ... "For the sake
of unity and peace, therefore, Paul labors to set the churches straight on
numerous issues--including quite a few that do not in themselves involve
heresy" (31).
___________
So how might we respond to Piper's thoughts here?
First, I am of course very interested in truth and would not be blogging on Piper's book if I did not desire to dismiss
error. I also affirm orthodox Christian belief and am mindful of the serious line those cross who do not affirm it. I also believe at the
same time that Piper (and Machen at least in these
comments) have not accurately expressed the priorities
of the apostle Paul.
So we must ask exactly what the nature of the controversies was that Paul
attacked:
a. 1 Thessalonians--Paul does address a misunderstanding of doctrine, but he
does not "attack" those who do not understand. He writes so that they will not be troubled about those who
die before the second coming. His
purpose is to encourage, not to fight.
b. 2 Thessalonians--Paul does indeed warn the audience about false information,
but he does not "attack" anyone. He writes so that they will not be troubled by those with
false teaching. His purpose
again is to encourage the Thessalonians. His indirect response to a
"rumor" about his thoughts is not in the form of a polemic.
c. Galatians--Paul is here polemical. He both attacks false teaching and shames
the audience for their susceptibility to it.
But before we are deceived into thinking this instance is a straightforward
illustration of Piper's orientation, let us remember a few very important
aspects of Paul's argument in Galatians.
First, the issue is not abstract doctrine, but the manner in which Gentiles
might not be accursed. In other words, the destiny of people is at issue, as
well as Paul's own apostolic authority with his churches. Galatians is far more
than a mere contention over doctrine.
Second, we should remember that Paul's debates in Galatians are not with
non-believers but with other believers who do not agree with him. Indeed, he
even recounts disagreements with Peter and James, and never says that they came
to see it his way. It is canonically clear to us that he was right. But at the
time it was perhaps just as likely that it looked to
many he was wrong.
Third, Paul indicates in Galatians that the entire law is summed up in the word
to love one's neighbor (Gal. 5:14). When all is said and done, love holds the
ultimate place in his ethic, and his "doctrinal" treatments play a
secondary role. Paul's correction of "doctrine" (in itself hardly the
most appropriate word) is usually the servant of another, more affective goal
like unity in fellowship (in contrast to unity of doctrine).
d. 1 and 2 Corinthians
While Machen's critique of a fellow scholar seemed
justified, 1 Corinthians 13 is in fact Paul's solution to the Corinthian
problem over spiritual gifts--love. Paul does in fact correct the Corinthians
significantly. But his correction is not
primarily about doctrine. The proposition of 1 Corinthians (1:10)
is for them to be of the same mind, but anyone who thinks "mind" here
is intellectual agreement or agreement on doctrine hasn't read very far into 1
Corinthians.
The disunity has to do with pride in leaders, boasts over spiritual knowledge
and spiritual gifts, not disunity over
doctrine. They do misunderstand resurrection, but Paul does not
indicate that this is the key to the disunity in the congregation. There is a
good deal of behavioral instruction in 1 Corinthians. In short, theology serves
ethics and body cohesion in 1 Corinthians.
2 Corinthians has a majorly affective dimension.
Related words referring to comfort are used almost 10 times in the space of
about 5 verses in the first chapter.
e. Romans
Romans is Paul's most theological letter, and yet we misunderstand it if we see
it as Melanchthon did--as a compendium of Christian doctrine. Paul is preparing
to visit churches he has never visited before. He is hoping they will help him
on his way to
In other words, Romans is a defense of the gospel that Paul preaches as he
introduces himself to the churches at
It is mistaken to think of Romans primarily as a
polemic on the topic of doctrine. It is more of an apologetic, a defense of his
doctrine.
f. The Prison Epistles
Of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon,
only Colossians has majorly to do with issues of
knowledge. Ephesians is primarily about the unity of Jew and Gentile, not
doctrine per se. Philippians is about unity, but not unity of doctrine. When
Paul urges them to have the same "mind" as Christ, it is the attitude of self-sacrifice (Phil. 2:3-4).
Philemon is about forgiving the slave Onesimus. None
of these books is fundamentally about Paul sparring over doctrine.
Even Colossians discourages far more than the adoption of a belief.
"Philosophy" in Colossians cannot be taken in the sense we use it but
is more of a set of religious beliefs and practices. Indeed, the group in
question has visions and seems to follow certain ascetic practices.
g. The Pastoral Epistles
It is really in the Pastoral Epistles that we get a shift toward an emphasis on
sound teaching. Yet 1-2 Timothy and Titus are hardly the place to start looking
at Paul's theology. Even when we assume that Paul wrote them, we can't ignore
how significantly their content differs from the teaching of Paul's other
letters. Indeed, they scarcely contain any discussion of the doctrine of
justification that drives Piper's book.
So while we have no problem with Piper defending his understanding of Paul, it
is a serious defect of Piperism to think that it was
all about the doctrines for Paul. Doctrine played a supporting role in the
world of Paul's writings. More than anything else, Paul used theology in the
service of things like ethics, body cohesion, and the inclusion of Gentiles
within the body of Christ.
And that is the Wesleyan priority--heart first, head second. A personal
relationship with Christ and a life lived that coheres with it, these are our
priorities. We are interested in the head of course--but we have our priorities
straight.
Chapter 1 "Caution: Not All Biblical-Theological Methods
and Categories Are Illuminating"
1. There is a truly
ironic element that has peeked through a few times even in the brief 38 pages
of this book I have read. The following statement is typical:
"I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to
new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own
love of novelty and are eager to test all
their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries" (italics
mine, 37-38).
In the context of this statement, Piper is discussing a quote from Wright in
which Wright admits to being energized by his new reading of Paul. Piper
suggests that Wright might unbeknowingly be
fascinated with the new over the time-tested true.
Now of course Piper admits in a footnote that this is not how Wright perceives
his delight at the "freshness" of his reading of Paul. I know what
Wright is saying. Wright is saying that his interpretation works so well in
reading the text in context that it is exciting in a way that the text wasn't
to him before.
Piper's warning is fair enough to consider at some point--is Wright
subconsciously enticed by the new when there was nothing wrong with the old
interpretation. Wright of course would say no, this is not what's going on. I
suspect that the freshness we will find in Wright is more
light in a dark room than a quest for novelty for its own sake.
But what is so fascinating about Piper's comments is his appeal to the magisterium,
to tradition as the arbiter of interpretation! Has Piper suddenly turned
catholic?!
Here is Piper again: "It is sobering to hear him [Wright] say, for
example, 'The discussions of justification in much of the history of the
church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot--at least in terms
of understanding Paul--and they have stayed there ever since" (37).
Ha! Didn't Erasmus say something like this about Luther--"It is sobering
to hear Luther saying..."
I welcome Piper's recognition that the consensus of the church counts for
something in the appropriation of Scripture. It cannot change the original
meaning of the Bible, but in my theology it does have a strong say in how we
read it as Christians.
But on this point a blind spot in Piper's own pre-modern approach to Scripture
is exposed.
2. In a very brief four pages, Piper in his own way recognizes the problem of
biblical theology. He is wrestling with the complications of reading the NT in
the light of its first century background. His three brief warnings are fair
enough:
a. What if you
misunderstand the first century source?
Piper's argument here is that the first century texts are less studied than the
NT ones and therefore are more prone to misunderstanding than the biblical
ones, for which we also hopefully have the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
There is a legitimate warning here. Sometimes scholars have taken a
hypothetical reconstruction of some extra-biblical text and then shoved it down
the throat of a biblical text. However, we are just as prone to bring clearly
anachronistic "definitions" to the biblical text that are simply part
of our own tradition and have no clear connection to what people were thinking
in the first century.
When there is so much disagreement among Christian groups, it behooves those
who would be theological leaders in their traditions at some point in their
life to examine the historical categories they have inherited. Most Christian
traditions are, from a standpoint of probability, more likely to be wrong than
right on the beliefs that are particular to their tradition, simply because
they are in the minority on those ideas. This is not an argument for abandoning
distinctives, only a pointing out that we as individual traditions are most likely to be eccentric
at our points of uniqueness.
The idea of the illumination of the Spirit here is fascinating. I have come to
a conclusion of late when it comes to a wide variety of Reformed thinkers from
Barth to Van Til to Platinga
and Wolterstorff to Vanhoozer to Smith to Piper. Here
I am thinking of the way in which their "Reformed epistemologies"
hang in air without support, without the need to be supported by argument or
prop. I am speaking of their underlying sense that the Spirit illuminates to
where their foundations are somewhat intuitive, "properly basic."
What occurred to me is that this approach to truth is of a piece with the
spirit of their theology, namely, its predestinarian
orientation. While they might not articulate it in this way, I believe there is
at least a subconscious tendency to hang the foundations of their view on air
because of the sense that God will cause
the elect to resonate with these truths.
A recent conversation with a scholar from the Reformed tradition brought this
home. This person has a colleague who would like to believe in Christianity,
but simply cannot bring his mind to do so. This Reformed scholar was somewhat
at a loss as to what to do with the colleague. All he knew to do was to give
the individual things to read. But clearly the person knew enough already to
respond. God simply had not led him to respond at this point, in this person's
Reformed theology.
Now there are similar issues for Wesleyan-Arminians with regard to free will,
so I am not claiming to be without difficulties. I am simply pointing out that
the Reformed tradition lends itself to inaction when it comes to proofs because
of its overall paradigm.
b. What if we assume a first century source
represents a first century view when it was only one first century view among
many?
Again, this is a fair enough warning. Whether it applies to Wright, however, we
will have to see in specific cases.
c. What if an individual author departs
from the first century view?
Now this comment, although Piper does not really explore it, is a crucial
question for all biblical interpreters. After we have examined all the first
century literature that we can, we have to leave room for innovation on the
part of the NT author. More importantly, as Christians who believe in
revelation, we must leave room for divine supervention
in the meaning of the text.
For lack of better terms, we must leave open the possibility of the
supernatural and not limit our interpretation to the natural. What I am calling
a "natural" interpretation is one that asks, "What is the most
likely meaning of this text in the light of the paradigms and definitions of
the time?"
This issue arose recently in a paper I delivered on Hebrews. In that paper, I
suggested it would be quite unlikely that the earliest Christians would have
immediately thought that Christ's death atoned for all the sins of all time and
that there was no longer any need for sacrifice. I suggested that this idea may
not have coalesced until the time of Hebrews, although it is possible that Paul
held this view as well.
Now my reading of early Christianity here is a natural one--it is based on the
views we find in books like 2 and 4 Maccabees toward the "atoning"
value a noble human death might have. A good question was asked by a Christian
in the audience, however. If I might rephrase it, it went something like this:
"Wouldn't we as Christians expect God to reveal the unprecedented nature
of Christ's death to the apostles?"
This was a great question for a believer. Although he didn't put it in these
terms, he was pointing out that the "natural" reading of the first
century evidence might not be sufficient in the light of a
"supernatural" situation.
My method is, first, to attempt a natural reading of a biblical text--its most likely meaning in its original historical-cultural
context. When that interpretation differs from the traditional Christian
reading of that text, caution lights go off that say to take care and double
check.
[I might add as a sidenote that I can distinguish the
original meaning from the canonical one, so I do not feel a need to choose
between the two so that the text has a single correct meaning. For me it can
have an original meaning that was appropriate for its place in the flow of
revelation and a canonical one that has as much to do with the consensus of
Christendom under the leadership of the Holy Spirit]
When the natural does not seem to account for what's going on, then I take
recourse to supernatural explanations.
Let me put this method into perspective. It was once traditional to think that
thunderstorms were spiritual storms in which either God was angry or demons
were at play. It was once traditional to see sickness as punishment for sin.
Perhaps sometimes God does direct storms or make people sick for sin. But most
of the time, I suspect barometric pressures and fronts and germs and viruses
are responsible.
The distinction between natural and supernatural is clearly a modern one and
one that needs to be seriously questioned. But it was not born of whim or
fancy, and we would not have cell phones or satellites if we continued to think
that physical events are simply the whim and fancy of angels and demons.
The freshness of which Wright speaks is the realization that, most of the time,
the biblical texts fit very well within their historical contexts. When at
What I have concluded is that God revealed the Bible in terms that the original
audiences could understand. The words of the Bible are incarnated truths, not
truths in some bubble. If these words were not intelligible within first
century paradigms, then the very audiences they say they addressed could not
have understood them.
Chapter 2 "The Relationship between Covenant and Law-Court
Imagery for Justification"
Justification
as Covenant Membership?
In this chapter Piper deals with what indeed is one of Wright's more
idiosyncratic views, namely, "Justification is not how someone becomes a
Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian" (What Saint Paul Really Said, 122, 125).
Or in another place Wright says, "Justification, for Paul, is not (in
Sanders' terminology) how one 'gets into' God's people but about God's
declaration that someone is in" ("New Perspectives on Paul," in Justification in Perspective, 261).
In other words, to use E. P. Sanders' words, N. T. Wright denies that
"justification" is "transfer terminology," to "make
righteous."
I agree with Piper that Wright's understanding of Paul on this topic is
peculiar and confusing. Wright's varied ways of circling around this concept
are like someone whose attempts to explain something only confuse you more.
Piper argues that Wright's understanding of justification, "conflates
implication and definition." In other words, certainly justification implies that a person is now part of the
people of God. But Wright doesn't want to say that. For Wright, justification
seems to indicate that one is already in. For Wright, justification is the declaration that you are in.
At the same time, Wright sees justification as
law-court language as well. Piper quotes Paul
in Fresh Perspective when Wright says that "belonging to the
covenant" (i.e., what Wright believes justification declares) means
"forgiven sinner" (121). I find this confusing, and I am not alone.
Where I think the confusion lies is with Wright's idiosyncratic views of
covenant, something I'm sure Piper will give us ample opportunity to examine.
Let me try to "de-covenantify" Wright's
language so that his views seem more plausible in relation to Paul.
What if Wright were to say that justification is a declaration of our
innocence, the verdict of "not guilty" pronounced at our trial? In
that sense, the verdict would presuppose forgiveness. The verdict would
presuppose atonement. But the verdict would not be exactly identical to
forgiveness or atonement. It would be the pronouncement of a legal verdict, a
declaration if you would, that presupposed those things.
If this is what Wright is saying--but obfuscating by introducing his covenant
ideas into the mix--then his comments begin to make more sense.
The problem is of course that legal language (from an illocutionary standpoint
:-) is not simply language of assertion or declaration. The pronouncement of a
verdict establishes that
declaration as the official status of the defendant. In that sense, to limit
justification to a declaration is inadequate. The innocence of the defendant is
legally established in the declaration.
Piper does not express his objection to Wright with this clarity, but he
rightly points out passages in Paul that redirect Wright's focus:
"God reckons righteousness [dikaiosyne]
apart from works"
(Rom. 4:6)
"A person is justified [dikaioo] by faith apart from works of law"
(Rom. 3:28)
Piper rightly sees that these are roughly equivalent statements and thus that
to justify is to "reckon righteous" (Piper prefers the NASB
translation "credit righteousness"). Paul's use of Psalm 32 in Romans
4 further clarifies what this involves:
"Blessed are those whose lawless
acts have been forgiven
And whose sins have been covered.
Blessed is the one to whom the Lord
does not reckon sin" (
Wright is probably correct to steer us away from seeing such language in
isolation from the Jew-Gentile issue. But it remains to be seen whether he has
done this in a way that helps or truly clarifies these nuances in Paul's
thought. I'm sure there is more to come on this topic.
Penal Substitution
I'm sure it made great sense to Piper to discuss Wright in relation to penal
substitution in this chapter. Penal substitution plays such a focal role in
Piper's theology that he can hardly think of justification without thinking
about who is paying the check for this "credit" we get. In that
sense, I think the explanation of justification I have made above is not
exactly the way Piper thinks of it.
Penal substitution is the idea that, in some way, Jesus took the punishment for
our sins on the cross.
Piper takes some time in this chapter to discuss what has been a very
controversial matter in his circles, namely, Wright's endorsement of a book by
Steve Chalke entitled The Lost Message of Jesus. In a now famous line in that
book, Chalke suggests that if the cross was a
personal act of violence on God's part, it makes a mockery of Jesus' teaching
to love your enemies and is tantamount to cosmic child abuse (182-83 of Chalke's book).
Wright has made a lengthy blog
response to this controversy, indicating his support of penal substitution
as a biblical idea and defending Chalke as a believer
in it as well. Piper is skeptical whether Chalke
believes in it and while accepting that Wright does, once again suggests that
Wright's comments on the subject have been confusing.
Wright himself suggests that there is more than one understanding of penal
substitution and that Chalke simply does not have the
form most vigorously argued in certain evangelical circles (e.g., Piper's).
Certainly the idea of penal substitution is major
for Piper's theology. Piper is a "7 point Calvinist," by which I mean
he thinks God not only has predestined those who will be saved but also those
who will be damned, Adam (6th point), and even Satan (7th point). The
affirmation that God is love is devoid of any familiar meaning in this system.
We might summarize Piper's theology here as "God so loved himself that He
sent His only Son (admiring Himself greatly for so doing), that whoever He has
chosen to save will irresistably believe and so have
eternal life." Love has no meaning whatsoever in Piper's system. It
amounts to little more than divine masturbation.
So Piper will not be able to see the real tension between the biblical
affirmation that God is love (presumably using that word in its normal sense
rather than some convoluted way that alters it beyond recognition) and the
orthodox perspective that God had to
punish sin. This is the orthodox Christian perspective, although books such as
Joel Green and Mark Baker's Recovering
the Scandal of the Cross, show how
Piper's version of it is an extreme form of the idea.
I personally think Green and Baker's book represents the opposite extreme.
Nevertheless, they raise very important and significant questions. For example,
it seems to contradict the sovereignty of God to suggest that He would not be
allowed, by divine fiat, to forgive us of our sins without someone needing to
pay. Jesus' parables do not in any way point to a doctrine of penal
substitution. For example, the father of the prodigal son does not tell the
prodigal that he'd be glad to welcome him back... as long as he can find someone to pay back the debt he has incurred.
Rather, the father seems to have the authority to pronounce the son forgiven,
period.
For this reason, it seems clear to me that while penal substitution is one
appropriate way to understand Christ's atonement, it is not the only one or
even the central Christian one. Piper's views on atonement are extreme and
ultimately unbiblical in focus.
Chapter 3 "The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification and the
Meaning of God's Righteousness."
1. Piper begins the
chapter by touching on Wright's sense that justification language is
"eschatological," that is, that it is most literally oriented around
the final law-court scene at the judgment. By the way, here is
the link to one of Wright's most direct treatment of this topic.
I imagine that Piper will return to this aspect of Wright's thought. The things
that Paul has to say about "final justification," in my opinion,
undermine Piper's theology, namely, Paul's indication that our works will play
a role in our justification at the judgment. Indeed, I suspect Paul's comments
may undermine Wright's theology as well on this point.
For the moment, however, Piper merely questions whether comments like these are
too sweeping: "Justification ... in its Jewish context ... refers to the
greatest lawsuit of all: that which will take place on the great day when God
judges all the nations" (57). Piper responds that "it is misleading
to create the impression that when the word justification
is used, the first or main thought coming to anyone's
mind would be final, eschatological judgment" (58).
Now of course the real question for us is not the most frequent use of the word
justification in Webster's AD50
Jewish Dictionary. The question is how Paul used the word. I think Piper may be
right that Wright sometimes makes sweeping generalizations like this that we
might easily question. In this chapter, Piper only gives some examples--I
presume from the Septuagint (I didn't look them up)--showing that Jews could
use the word "to justify" in the present tense.
Like I said, I hope Piper doesn't sweep this topic under the rug in the rest of
the book (I'm not expecting him to). In this chapter he merely says,
"There are references in the future tense; however, not even all these are
obviously a reference to the last judgment" (Rom. 2:13; 3:20; Gal. 2:16;
Matt. 12:37). Instead, "in the theological sense in the New Testament, it
far more often refers to the present
reality of justification, not the future" (58).
I agree that it often refers to "initial" justification in the
present and past tenses. At the same time, I believe Romans 2 and 2 Corinthians
5 will significantly undermine Piper's understanding, whenever he comes to
treat them.
2. By far, however, Piper gives the bulk of the chapter to the question of
God's righteousness. Using the law-court scene, Wright argues that it makes no
sense to think of a judge in some way transferring or imputing or imparting his
or her righteousness to the defendant. As Wright says,
"That makes no sense at all" (60). It is a "category
mistake." A judge might pronounce a verdict on the guilt or innocence of a
defendant. A judge does not transfer his or her innocence--in actuality or
theory--to a defendant.
Wright's illustration is powerful and convincing. It is of course another
question when we ask whether it is the right illustration to unlock what Paul
was thinking. But no doubt recognizing the power of Wright's claim, Piper
immediately turns back to the Protestant magisterium.
How could Christians for 1500 years since Augustine have been
wrong on justification, "Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox" (60).
Look, an appeal to the consensus fidei in Piper!
Further, Wright is setting himself up to be a kind of Martin Luther figure in
Christian history, Piper argues, drawing on a comment Wright makes in the piece
I linked above. So Piper might say in the words of Senator Lloyd Benson some
years ago, "Son, I knew Martin Luther, and you're no Martin Luther."
In the end, of course, it is the text of Paul in dialog with his
historical-cultural milieu that we are pursuing in this blog series.
Now Piper embarks on his own "common sense" thinking. It doesn't make
sense, Piper argues, to define God's righteousness as the fact that God keeps
covenant, judges impartially, deals properly with sin, and advocates for the
helpless (62). Piper reasons, these are things that God's righteousness does, not what it is. They do not tell us what the
"right" is in God's righteousness.
Piper then acts like he is going to tell us exactly what God's nature is, what stands behind His
righteous actions. Here Piper presents several OT passages of key interest in
his dissertation about God's glory and name, finally to conclude that "the
righteousness of God consists
most basically in God's unswerving commitment to preserve the honor of his name
and display his glory" (66). (big surprise). No,wait, where is the nature of
the "right" in God's righteousness Piper was going to tell us about?
But you have to give Piper credit for what he says next: "All of this
would not matter much for interpreting Paul if there was no clear internal
evidence that he thought this way about the righteousness of God" (66). I
agree. In fact, this is why I am basically ignoring Piper's common sense
argument and stroll through OT passages about how God blots out sin for his
name's sake. Unless we have good reason to think Paul reasoned Piper's way, unless we have good reason to
think these passages stand directly in the background of Paul's thoughts on the
righteousness of God, Piper has just wasted three pages of my time.
On the one hand, Piper's study of the glory of God and the name of God in
Romans is significant. Paul does refer to the glory of God in Romans 1:23 and
the name of God in 2:23-24. We would not want to deny that God is glorious for
Paul or that it is essential to honor His name.
Piper correctly demonstrates a connection between God's righteousness and His
glory by showing the parallel between Romans 3:5 and 3:7 (69):
3:5--"If our unrighteousness shows
the righteousness of God..."
3:7--"If through my lie God's
truth abounds to his glory..."
Where I disagree is when Piper then equates
God's righteousness with his glory (is glory finally the content of the
"right" in righteousness Piper was going to tell us about?). God's
righteousness is glorious to be sure, but it isn't
his glory or the value of His name.
Indeed, we depart company with Piper when we get to the interpretation of
Romans 3:23: "All [i.e., both Jew
and Gentile] have sinned and are lacking the glory of God."
Piper of course does not translate the verse in this way. For him, "all
have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God," a statement that we lack the glory of God because we
have exchanged it for the glory of corruptible humanity (66-67).
I appreciate the attention Piper has given here in tracing the word glory
through Romans 1 to 3. But I'm not sure what it would mean to "fall short
of" the glory of God in this vein. Is it a shorthand for "fall short
of [recognizing] the glory of God"? Or does Piper mean to say that we fall
short of attaining God's glorious standard of righteousness (similar to the NLT
translation)?
In the end, I agree with Dunn that Paul has Psalm 8 in view here: "What are mortals, that
you think of them; the sons of mortals, that you visit them? You crowned them
with glory and honor and put everything under their feet."
1 Corinthians 15 shows that this passage forms a significant part of inner
logic of the problem and solution of humanity. Indeed, this logic stands behind
Hebrews 2:5-10.
So what Paul is saying in Romans 3:23 is that all have sinned and, as a result,
lack the glory God intended humanity to have in the creation, the glory of God,
a glory God created humanity initially to have (or in Piper's scheme, that God
pretended to create humanity to have, only to take away). It is no surprise
that Piper would not lean toward this interpretation, for it shows far too much
true interest and investment in humanity on God's part for Piper's liking.
We observe a similar concept avoidance in Piper's understanding of Romans 9:23:
9:23--"To make known the riches of
His glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory..."
Piper assumes that the glory for which God created humanity is God's own glory. No doubt that is true
too. But the parallelism with 9:22 "vessels made for destruction"
implies that here, as in 3:23, the vessels of mercy were prepared for them to have glory. In other words,
it is the glory of humanity that Paul is thinking in the last part of this
verse, not God's own glory.
As we said above, Piper's conclusion is that the righteousness of God is
"God's unwavering commitment to his glory," "his unwavering
allegiance to uphold the value of his glory" (70).
Now there's no question in my mind that no human deserves God's favor in Paul's theology. There's no question
in my mind that everything for Paul ultimately must bring glory to God. But
Piper has jumbled some things together here and made a big jump in the process.
First, the only textual evidence Piper has really presented to the effect that
Paul used the phrase "the righteousness of God" in connection with
God's glory is in Romans 3:5 and 7, where we might just as well see God's
righteousness as glorious
rather than as His glory itself. The most glaring omission in this discussion,
understandably, is Romans 1:17.
And even if God's righteousness were His glory, this would be different from
saying that His righteousness is His
commitment to His glory. I imagine Piper might clarify some of
these things for us. If so, let me say of him what he said of Wright--if I am wrongly understanding him, he sure could have represented
the righteousness of God in a clearer manner.
3. It seems to me that Wright has shifted slightly over the years in the way he
talks about the righteousness of God. In What
Saint Paul Really Said, he clearly leans toward understanding the
righteousness of God as God's covenant faithfulness in action. But I noticed in
his more recent Paul in Fresh Perspective
that he is now using the phrase "covenant justice" (e.g., p. 30).
Looking at Romans 3:25, Piper rightly recognizes that justice must be a part of
what God's righteousness involves (67-68). God offers Christ as an atoning
sacrifice to show His righteousness even though He passed over sins that had
been committed. Indeed, although Piper doesn't mention it, the fact that Romans
1:18--
"the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven"
--follows 1:17--
"in [the gospel] the righteousness
of God is revealed"
shows that the wrath of God is associated with His righteousness (just as Piper
points out his glory is associated with it). Piper wouldn't point this out, of
course, because he no doubt takes Romans 1:16 in the Reformation way--not as a
reference to God's righteousness, but to human righteousness from God.
So God's justice is indeed a part of God's righteousness. On this we agree with
Piper. Of course, Wright does too. Piper dismisses Wright's claim that covenant
fidelity is God's righteousness includes
His justice (70 n.18). But I've already mentioned that
Wright can use the phrase "covenant justice," by which He no doubt
means that the covenant not only included God's merciful faithfulness to Israel
but also His justice when they sinned.
With the mention of Romans 1:15-16, however, we get to the heart of the matter.
"I am not ashamed of the gospel
[of Jesus Christ], for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has
faith (Jew first, and also to the Greek). For in [the gospel], the
righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith..."
It is now the majority position of Pauline scholars that the phrase, "the
righteousness of God" here refers not to a righteousness
from God, as the NIV translates
it, but to God's righteousness. The major turning point came with the discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The document called the Covenant of Damascus, for
example, strikingly states that "My justification is in God's
righteousness."
But Piper might question how relevant such a source is, which is a valid question. What convinced me was not the Dead Sea
Scrolls, but Isaiah. How many times in Isaiah 40-66 is God's righteousness in
synonymous parallelism with His salvation!
Here's just one example in Isaiah 51:5:
"My righteousness draws near. My
salvation has gone forth."
Notice that, as in Romans 1:16-17, God's righteousness is connected to His
propensity to save His people. Isaiah also connects it to His justice and His
glory as well. Piper gets these latter connections. He would probably allow me
to connect it to God's salvation too--as long as I made it clear that such
salvation brought God glory in the process.
In that sense, Piper's understanding of
God's righteousness is just plain too one-sided. It recognizes the punative side of God's righteousness and the fact that His
righteousness is glorious. But it does so in a way that trivializes Paul's
sense that God's righteousness includes His propensity to save.
I should also mention that Wright is more correct than wrong to process God's
righteousness through
Chapter 4 "The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification and the
Necessity of Real Moral Righteousness"
1. Piper's preceding chapter, chapter
3, made me think. In it Piper did some good exegetical spade work. He showed
that there was a connection in Paul's mind between God's glory and His
righteousness (chiefly Romans 3:5 and 7). He made a case for the "glory of
God" in Romans 3:23 being us falling short [of recognizing] the glory of
God--at least I think that's the case he was making. I didn't end up agreeing
with him on this point, but he rightly pointed out how significant the category
"the glory of God" is in Paul's language.
But then I believe Piper went over the top. It is one thing to recognize God's
righteousness as glorious. It is quite another to jump to the conclusion that
God's righteousness is "his unwavering allegiance to uphold the worth of
his glory" (e.g., 79 in recap). With a night of sleep under my belt, here
is a list of exceptions I take to this jump:
a. For one, Piper has not really given us any more of
a definition of what the "right" in God's righteousness any more than Wright has. I put a smiley face
in the margin of my book on page 78 after he recaps his critique that Wright
tells us what God's righteousness does rather than what it is. Then Piper says
it "is his unwavering allegiance to
do what is right." HA! Physician heal
thyself.
By the way, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I don't have a horse in that
race. I am not concerned to define what the essence of "right" is in
God's righteousness. There's so much extraneous philosophical baggage and
presupposition in Piper's whole logic here that in my mind is foreign to Paul.
I am content to define God's righteousness in Paul as God's propensity not only
to judge sin but to save His people and, indeed, the whole world. And yes, His
righteousness is glorious. I'm sure I could improve on the definition, make it
neater. But as far as accounting for how Paul uses the concept, this definition
seems to account for all the ways Paul uses the phrase and concept.
b. I do not believe that Piper has shown that the key to understanding sin in
Paul's thought is a failure to acknowledge God's glory. He has shown us Romans
1:23--they exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for the images of.... But Paul is not defining sin
here. Piper has taken one aspect of human sinfulness and made it the
fundamental definition of human sinfulness. He's shifted Paul's emphasis. We do
much better to operate with a basic definition of sin in Paul's writings as
"doing wrong" and go from there, rather than starting eisegetically with some very well developed theology of sin
and reading it into all the other places where the word group is used.
Piper has shown us Romans 3:10-11--No
one is righteous... no one seeks God... But Paul is not
defining the nature of sin here. In fact, it's not even him freely composing
these words--he's quoting the OT. The dot-dot-dot shows that Piper has taken one element in a poetic presentation of
human sinfulness and in so doing has placed undo emphasis on it.
c. Piper predictably underestimates the most important part of God's
righteousness in Paul's writings, namely, God's propensity to save His people.
Yes, God's righteousness also involves His wrath and justice... oh, and it is
glorious. But Paul is not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). You see, he
says, the gospel reveals the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17).
2. With Piper having gone over the top in chapter 3, I found myself unable to
find anything helpful at all in chapter 4. This is the first chapter where this
has been the case. In all the other chapters I have at least partially agreed
with him or found something of exegetical merit. Not chapter 4.
Piper's subconscious knew what people like me would say (or else one of his
many proofreaders pointed it out to him). He protests on p.76: "This
question is not driven by logic."
It is. In fact, the entire chapter is driven by Piper's reasoning rather than
by anything Paul has to say. And I'm going to have to start counting the number
of times he mentions the 1500 years thing. Are we at 3 or 4 times now. The discussion just can't have been that off track for
1500 years (80 n.5)! Celibacy of
priests and purgatory, anyone?
His reasoning is this:
1. Judges can't give a verdict of "not guilty" when the defendant is
guilty. They can show clemency, but this is not what it means "to
justify."
2. Since God is omniscient, He knows the true status of the defendant.
3. Therefore, God can only justify the human defendant if He finds true moral
righteousness in him (or her, Piper predictably assumes the defendant is a him but no doubt would on follow up admit that there are
also female defendants as well).
4. This true moral righteousness results from the imputation of Christ's
righteousness to the defendant.
There's not much Scriptural argument in this chapter. It is rather a
presentation of Piper's theological reasoning. I don't think Paul would
recognize most of it.
Point #1 reflects Piper's extreme understanding of penal substitution. God just can't pronounce someone not guilty if they're guilty.
He's not sovereign enough to do that (note to those who didn't recognize this
sentence as sarcasm: this sentence was sarcasm).
The primary Pauline Scripture that Piper brings into discussion in this chapter
is Romans 4:6-8:
Just as also David speaks of the
blessedness of the person to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
Blessed are those whose lawless acts
have been forgiven
And whose sins have been covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does
not reckon sin.
There is no mention of Christ in these verses. Indeed, it is faith in God that Paul consistently discusses
throughout this chapter, not faith in Christ. Similarly, Christ does not do
anything in this chapter. God does it to Christ--God raises him up for our
justification.
Note: God doesn't deliver him up
for our justification!!! God raises him for our justification. Piper would of
course want to word it differently: God sacrificed Christ so that he could
justify us.
The mechanism of righteousness in Romans 4 is not Christ's imputed moral
righteousness--where is THAT in this chapter? It is human faith in God, faith in a God who justifies the ungodly
(4:5), gives life to the dead (4:17), and who raised Jesus from the dead
(4:24). That faith is reckoned for righteousness (4:5).
Paul does use penal imagery, sometimes.
But it is not even the dominant image in his logic. We skew Paul's logic
elsewhere when it is not a part of his argument and we make it a part of his
argument.
Piper has already shown us in an earlier chapter the parallel between
"reckoning righteousness" in 4:6 and justification in 3:28. Here in
4:8 Paul thus explains what justification means in negative terms--not to
reckon sin. To find the defendant "not guilty" or
"innocent." Nothing is said of Christ's innocence being necessary
in the process.
As I've said in other contexts about other things, Piper would not have written
Romans 4 this way. If his understanding of imputation was as important to Paul
as it is for him, it would be here as part of the argument.
So Piper has not read this chapter at all on Paul's terms but has instead
foisted his foreign theological baggage on Paul.
Chapter 5 "Justification and the Gospel: When is the Lordship of
Jesus Good News?
In this chapter Piper
is reacting to Wright statements like the following:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not
what Paul means by 'the gospel'. It is implied by the gospel... But 'the
gospel' is not an account of how people get saved" (What Saint Paul Really Said, 132-33).
Piper, more than anything else, has one major problem with this statement: if
Paul had Piper's theology, he doesn't think this statement would be true. Oops.
The bottom line, Piper insists, is that the gospel is "an absolutely
terrifying message to a sinner who has spent all his [or presumably her] life
ignoring or blaspheming the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and is
therefore guilty of treason and liable to execution" (86). So how can the
fact of justification in the face of such guilt not be a part of the good news?
Once again, as with Reformed theology in general, we see that the driving force
behind Piper's issue is logical and rational rather than biblical. There are
three major problems with Piper's thinking here, in addition to the fact that
admitting he's wrong requires him to admit he has been somewhat off in his
preaching for the last 50 years.
1. The first problem is linguistic.
There's a reason why Piper tries to undermine the idea of reading the words of
the NT in the way people used words in the first century world--because it
exposes the fact that "1500 years" of Christian theology often did
not read the Bible's words in the way Paul and other NT author's meant them. It
exposes the pretenses of Reformers like Calvin to get back to the Bible alone as
only less developed interpretations than the Roman Catholics--but still
significantly developed by tradition.
a. But unfortunately for Piper, both the most likely Jewish and Greco-Roman
backgrounds for the word euangelion
don't come out in favor of his position. If we go Greco-Roman, Wright correctly
notes that the word "gospel" was often used in a political context to
announce things like the birth of a successor to the throne or a stunning
victory in battle.
That doesn't of course mean Paul couldn't
use the word in relation to justification by faith. But we would expect the
unusualness of such a reference to stand out in his writings. But what we find
instead is that the gospel is "the
gospel ... concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David ... and set
apart as Son of God in power by the resurrection of the dead"
(Rom. 1:2-3).
Sorry Piper. He tries to make an end run around Paul's own words by turning to
a sermon in Acts. But even there justification is not what is said to be the
gospel. It is the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus as cosmic king that is
said to be the gospel, not justification by faith, which as Wright says is
implied in the gospel, not what the word gospel
itself refers to (Acts 13:32-37).
Piper also turns to 1 Cor. 15, but stops the quote in mid-stream. Like Marcion who chopped up Paul's writings to say what he
liked, Piper effectively reduces 15:1-5 to "I want to remind you of the
gospel ... that Christ died for our sins." Sounds
extremely convincing because Piper has omitted the rest of the passage
(although even here we should note that this statement says nothing about
justification). What follows must also be the gospel--"that he was
buried" (great news!). And of course we finally get to the heart of the
gospel message, "he was raised on the third day."
Piper also argues that Paul includes justification in what he means by the
gospel by noting that Romans 10:10 mentions justification after 10:9:
"one believes and is
justified."
Piper brings this up because Wright connects to the content of the gospel to
10:9 (although we should note that Paul does not actually use the word gospel here):
"If you confess with your mouth
that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."
But Wright agrees that justification is
implied in the gospel, so 10:10 says nothing more than Wright says.
Piper is blurring cause with effect, as he has elsewhere accused Wright of
doing.
b. Of course as Wright points out, the most likely background for the gospel
language of both Paul and Jesus is in the middle part of Isaiah (just as we saw
with Paul's imagery of the righteousness of God). Isaiah 52:7 says,
"How lovely on the mountains are
the feet of them who bring good news [euangelion in the Greek
translation] ... who proclaim
salvation, who say to
We see this same connection between the gospel--the salvation of God--and the
reign of God in Romans 1:16--"I am
not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to salvation."
The good news is that because God reigns, He is bringing salvation. Mark 1:15
indicates this very well when it says, "The
time has been fulfilled and the
In general, Wright is far more right than Piper on this point. The word gospel is never used anywhere in the NT
in reference to justification by faith, which is entailed in the gospel but is
never what any NT author has primarily in mind when they use the word.
I will say that I'm not sure why Wright is so emphatic on this point (I think I
understand why Piper is). Clearly salvation in general is closely related to
good news of the reign of God and Christ (more closely than the doctrine of
justification). There seems to be a point where we are splitting hairs.
2. The second problem with Piper's argument has to do with the evidence of
Paul's attitude toward his past.
I was not surprised to find Piper quoting 1 Timothy
1:15-16, where Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. As I've said before,
however, 1 Timothy is quite different in many ways from Paul's earlier writings
(view of law, view of singleness and widows, view of women in general,
embarrassingly to Piper, Paul never mentions justification by faith). It is methologically problematic in the extreme to use 1 Timothy as the lens through which we read Paul's other
writings, since it is in so many respects the "odd man out." And
anyone who knows honor-shame cultures (or has been to a testimony meeting
recently) knows that recounting one's past sinfulness
can actually, in a very strange way, serve as a badge of honor.
The bottom line is that Paul does not talk in his writings as if he had been a
despicable sinner before he converted. This is not the tone that slips out of
his subconscious throughout his letters. It is hard for Piper and the old guard
to kick against these pricks of the new perspective, but on this one the new
perspective has it right.
It is a notorious, yet obvious blind spot on the part of pop-interpreters of
Philippians to assume that Paul was "leaving behind" and
"forgetting" his despicable past in Philippians 3. But that's not
what Paul says at all. What he
says is "whatever was to my gain,
I now consider loss" (3:7). In other words, he speaks of his Pharisee past
not in terms of failure and miserable depravity, but of things he might have
actually put on a resume.
Krister Stendahl long ago
noted how infrequently Paul uses words like repentance
and forgiveness. On the
contrary, he is constantly telling his churches to imitate his way of living.
These are highly strange phenomena if, as Piper wants to be the case, Paul
wallowed in a pool of self-deprecation for his past sinfulness before the king.
Undoubtedly some will (tiringly) mention Romans 7,
perhaps the passage in Paul most persistently and blatantly read out of
context. Given the surrounding context of 7:7-25, Paul simply cannot be talking
about his current struggle with sin. Take 6:17:
"Thanks be
to God! Although you used to be slaves to sin ... you have been set free from
sin."
Does this sound similar to, say, the climax of
7:24-25? "Who will rescue me from
this body of death? Thanks be to God! Through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Romans 7:7-25 is a dramatic portrayal of a person who wants to obey the law,
but is unable to do so because he or she is a slave of sin (7:25b). But you
simply can't read the argument in context and conclude Paul is talking about
his current experience. Throughout Romans 6-8 he repeatedly speaks of slavery
to sin in the past tense, except in this brief passage where he is unfolding
what 7:5 looks like:
"When we were in the flesh, the passions of sins [aroused] through the law used to
work in our bodies..."
But this is past tense for us now: "The
law of the Spirit of life in Christ has set you free from the law of sin and
death" (Rom. 8:2)
Once we recognize this fact, there is nothing in the context to indicate that
Paul is reminiscing about the "bad old days" either. In Philippians
3:6 Paul says of his Pharisee days that "as
far as the righteousness according to law is concerned, I was blameless."
Indeed, that's why the Pharisees had so many rules--so that the law could be
kept perfectly in concrete terms.
In short, Paul just doesn't care to wallow in the despicability of his past
sin. He never does it. Piper simply wouldn't write Paul's letters the way Paul
did.
3. The third has to do with the priorities of Paul's gospel.
Justification by faith has been considered the center of Paul's theology by
many Protestants since Luther. Of course many voices in the twentieth century
pointed out that the doctrine is mostly confined to Romans and Galatians, where
Paul is in dialog with the impact of Jewish Christians who did not agree with
the way Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles.
What seems to be the case is that Paul did not spend a lot of time emphasizing
justification by faith when he was with Gentiles who were largely unaffected by
his debates with Jerusalem and Antioch. The idea is completely tangential in
Paul's letters to churches like those at
I think Paul did preach the coming wrath of God to his Gentile audiences.
Idolatry and sexual immorality were probably mentioned as some of the main
pretexts for their coming judgment. I think it ridiculous, however, to think
that Paul preached total depravity of their fallen human nature to them. Maybe
Augustine the fourth century Gentile would have.
The solution Paul preached was baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, whom God
raised from the dead and appointed cosmic king. You would bow to him before he
came or you would bow to him forcibly when he came, your choice. Paul did not, however, seem to emphasize human sinfulness per se in
his preaching.
And I think it ridiculous to think he presented some theory of tranfering Christ's righteousness to them. We barely hear
Paul say (and in the few places he does it is serendipitous) that Paul believed
Jesus to be without sin!
Not promising for a theology that sees Christ's sinlessness
as the key datum in atonement and justification!
Chapter 6 Justification and the Gospel: Does Justification Determine Our
Standing with God
In this chapter Piper
swings back around to the question of whether justification actually does
anything or whether it is simply a declaration. As such, most of the chapter is
repetitive of quotes from Wright to which Piper has already taken exception.
I've already suggested that when justification is taken as a legal pronouncement,
it is both declarative and enacting. So we could simply stop there and call it
a chapter.
Well, there are a few new angles Piper explores with us, and since you're
paying for this, I should probably write a little more :-)
1. One aspect of justification in Wright that Piper explores a little more in
this chapter is his sense that it functions to bring "assurance,"
although it doesn't do anything.
2. A second aspect is Wright's sense that the "call" of God is what
"converts" us. It is, in Piper's words, an "effectual" call
rather than a general summons. When we are called, we are in the family of God.
For Wright, justification then adds nothing more. It merely declares what the
call has done by the power of the Holy Spirit.
This fits with something that Wright says elsewhere that Piper does not discuss
in this chapter, namely, Wright's idea that faith is a "badge of covenant
membership." Faith does not cause justification for Wright. Rather, faith,
like justification, indicates that one has already become a member of the
people of God.
I came across this idea in Wright several years ago while Tom Seat (now an MDiv
student at
I might add as an aside something I wish I had known when I lived in England,
namely, that the Anglican Church signed the Westminster Confession at the Synod
of Dordt against the Arminians. In short, the
Anglican Church has a Calvinist edge.
In the end, I will reject Wright's understanding both of faith and
justification here. Simon Gathercole, as Piper quotes, has rightly pointed out
the apparent sense of Romans 5:1--"Since
we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God."
In a footnote, Piper notes that Wright's commentary on Romans seems to take
this verse in its normal sense, which puzzles Piper, as it does me. This is the
problem with writing so much, Wright is an apt target
for deconstruction.
I conclude as before, therefore, that
Paul speaks of human faith as the trigger for justification in its legal sense
of both declaring a person innocent and making it so in the "eyes of the
law."
As a footnote to this, I do think Paul can understand the phrase "the
faith of Jesus Christ" in relation to Christ's faith and faithfulness, but
I see his faith language as a both/and rather than either/or. I might also add
that this discussion can quickly be taken in overly individualistic terms. Our
goal here, however, is not to lay out Paul's theology systematically but to evaluate
the dialog between Piper and Wright on specific points.
Of interest to me in relation to this chapter is Paul's sense of the
"call." Piper and Wright seem to substantially agree with each other
that the call, for Paul, is an effective call. Paul certainly seems to use this
language. In my opinion, however, there is a disconnect
between Paul's language of predestination of this sort and the actual process
of joining the people of God and how one is to conduct the mission.
In evangelism and conversion, Paul is an Arminian. In language of
predestination, he is a Calvinist (although even here I don't think he speaks
so much of individuals as of the called, plural). Functionally, predestination
language is "after the fact" language. To connect the two sets of
language as Augustine and Calvin did is thus to skew Paul one way or the other.
So as far as Piper's argument against Wright's understanding
of justification in this chapter, I believe Piper is more correct than Wright
here.
Chapter 7 "The Place of Our Works in Justification."
I have found the
chapters in Piper's book thus far to be of varying value. A couple I have felt
were without merit. On the other hand, a couple have
presented good scholarly cases for a dissenting view from Wright. This is one
of those chapters. Although I come down on the side of Wright, Piper has made a
good case for his interpretation of Romans 2. He loads his gun with the likes
of Moo and Schreiner.
I would divide this chapter into two parts. The first deals with the
interpretation of Romans 2. The second shows the consistent Reformed
expectation that works must follow as a result of justification (though
certainly not as a ground or basis for it).
1. Every attempt to create a biblical theology must come to grips with certain
passages that, either superficially or substantially, seem to conflict with the
final conclusion for which one is arguing. For the Protestant view of
justification by faith, Romans 2:5-10 are such verses:
"According to your (sg) hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up for
yourself (sg) wrath on the Day of Wrath and the
revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay to each person
according to his works--
a) on the one hand, to those who seek
glory and honor and immortality with the endurance of a good work, eternal
life;
b) on the other hand, to those who both
disobey the truth out of selfishness and obey unrighteousness, wrath and rage;
b') tribulation and hardship on every
living human who does the evil, both Jew first and Greek,
a') and glory and honor and peace to
everyone who does the good, both Jew first and Greek.
Piper, following the traditional interpretation, and bolstered by commentators
like Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner, argues that before Paul is done, he will
argue that no one, Jew or Greek, actually fall into the "a"
category--at least not at the point where Paul's argument is in Romans 2.
In the traditional approach to Romans 2, Paul is setting up his argument. There
is no impartiality with God. Either Jew or Gentile could in theory be right
with God on the basis of their deeds. We will all be judged on the Day
according to our works. But when we get to chapter 3, we realize that no one
actually can. In that sense, Romans 2 is about the plight of humanity, a
humanity that will have to stand before God and give an account--but none of us
have a good account to give!
The real crux of the disagreement between Wright and others like Moo and
Schreiner comes when we get to Romans 2:13-16:
"For the hearers of the law are
not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. For
whenever Gentiles--those who by nature do not have the law--do the things of
the law, these are the law for themselves, although they do not have it, who demonstrate
the work of the law written on their hearts, with their conscience at the same
time witnessing and either accusing or even excusing between each of their
thoughts on the Day when God will judge the hidden things of mortals..."
Wright, among others, takes the Gentiles in question here to be Christians. In
other words, they demonstrate the law written on their hearts in the manner of
Jeremiah 31--"I will write my laws upon their hearts."
Piper disagrees and makes a cogent argument that these are unbelievers who like
Romans 1:20 know the invisible truth of God. Piper notes that "or even
excusing" seems to reflect a less than optimistic attitude about their
chances at the judgment.
This is a good argument and one that I once accepted. It was the similarity of
Romans 2:15 to Jeremiah 31:33 that changed my mind. I note two things about
this passage:
a) Any law that Gentiles might keep must, de facto, be
some core law rather than the full Jewish law. I say this because a Gentile by
definition is uncircumcised and, thus, by definition cannot keep the law. The
examples Paul gives are stealing, committing adultery, and idol worship, things
Paul certainly expected his Gentile converts not to do.
b) Given that 2:5 refers to Judgment Day, Paul does consider works as a
necessary element in the (final) justification equation. If they're not there,
judgment ensues. In 2:15, Paul is speaking about Gentiles who will have those
works like not stealing and not committing adultery. They will have those works
because the law will be written on their hearts. And they will have those works
because of the Holy Spirit--an element in the equation that Paul does not
mention here but that is clear given things Paul says elsewhere and given the
parallel tradition we find in Hebrews.
2. The second concern Piper has in this chapter is to diss
something Wright said at a 2003 conference in
He then proceeds to quote the Lutheran Augsburg Confession (1530), the First Helvetic Confession in
It is of course when one looks at such things that one is reminded that Wesley
was just a "hair's breadth from Calvinism." That hair on this subject
largely had to do with his optimism with regard to just how many works might
follow justification by faith.
Let me step outside the bounds of both Wesley and Calvin (and Luther) to speak
for Paul, however, who really didn't get so bent out
of shape over these nuances.
Piper is right that the phrase Paul uses in 2:6 is different from when he is
contrasting justification by works from justification by faith. 2:6 uses the
phrase "according to works" while elsewhere, such as in 3:28, it is
"on the basis of works." But wait, let me
finish the phrase, "on the basis of works of law." Oh, and let me
finish the other phrase too, "faith of Jesus Christ."
Piper will get to these debates later in the book I know, but the phrase
"works of law" seems to be more than a reference to mere human
effort, the Protestant way of taking the phrase. I'll wait to talk more about
these things until Piper gets to them.
Perhaps Piper is right in the sense that it is a slightly different phrase.
Perhaps Paul doesn't want his audience to think he is talking about the same
thing in Romans 2 that he is in Romans 3. In the end, though, Paul doesn't seem
to have a problem with speaking of justification by works in a final sense,
given all the caveats of Romans 3 about no one ultimately deserving God's favor.
But given God's favor, indeed given God's empowerment, works are expected at
the Judgment. And Paul simply doesn't have a problem in that context of
speaking of it not just as co-instrumental. Frankly, in the context of final
judgment, works seem to take the prominent role!
This lends support to the view of the new perspective that "works of
law" in Romans primarily refers to the more ethnically unique parts of the
Jewish law. On the other hand, what Christians have long called the "moral
law" (an anachronistic term to be sure) appears to be the criterion by
which mortals will be judged on the Day.
Chapter 8 "Does Wright Say with Different Words What the
Reformed Tradition Means?"
I felt in this chapter
like I was listening in on someone else's conversation. None of it is
particularly new territory, but Piper is addressing an issue of great concern
in his circles. To his credit, he is open to the possibility that Wright is
saying the same thing that he believes, only with different words. In the end,
however, he concludes that Wright is saying something different in at least one
key respect.
Imputation
I thought the following quote from Piper gave the upshot of the distinction
between the two:
"... when Wright describes our works in relation to the final judgment as
'the things which show ... that
one is in Christ,' he does not mean what most Reformed exegetes have meant when
they speak like that.
They mean that the necessary
works--the imperfect but real life of love--at the last day show that there has been authentic faith
and union with Christ whose atoning death and imputed obedience are the sole
ground of acceptance and vindication, apart from any grounding in our
Spirit-enabled, imperfect deeds.
Wright, we have seen, does not believe Paul taught such an imputation of
Christ's obedience" (127).
Or, to put it even more specifically,
"In historic Reformed exegesis,
(1) a person is in union with Christ by faith alone.
In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his
(a) wrath-absorbing death,
(b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and
(c) his vindication-securing resurrection.
All of these are reckoned--that is, imputed--to the believer in Christ.
On this basis, (3) the "dead," "righteous," "raised" believer is accepted and assured of final
vindication and eternal fellowship with God" (124-125).
The difference between Reformed theology and Wright, Piper claims, is that
Wright has no 2b in his system. Wright does not see Paul claiming that Christ's
righteousness is imputed to the believer who is in Christ in the way Piper
does.
Implications
Piper sees three major implications of Wright's missing 2b:
1. The believer's status still stands before God's court without real perfect
imputed obedience.
How then can the holy God vindicate them?
2. That leaves only our own Spirit-enabled imperfect
obedience as Christians to stand before the holy God, even though
our past sins are taken care of.
3. Uncertain about how works play into our future justification creates doubts abou their role in our present justification.
Here Piper quotes Wright: "What is 'justification by faith' all about? Paul's answer is that it is the
anticipation, in the present time, of the verdict which will be issued on the
last day" (129).
Piper's argument is that
a). if present justification is by faith (as Wright
seems to affirm) and
b). present justification is an anticipation of future
justification,
c). how can Wright say that future justification is by
works?
Evaluation
I would agree that Wright's words are often difficult to pin down (he reminds
me of Barth, although I think Barth's ambiguity is more coherent than
Wright's). Let me here fully confess that someone could have a
hey day with my comments too if they started pulling contradictory
sounding sentences from the many words I've put on this blog.
I think, however, that some of the ambiguity here is not Wright's fault and
some of Piper's clarity is not to the Reformed tradition's merit. Rather, Paul
himself leaves us with many statements that sound to be in tension with each
other. Just as an example:
"We reckon that a person is
justified by faith apart from works of law." (Rom. 3:28)
"It is necessary for all of us to
appear before the judgment seat of the Messiah so that each might be paid back
for the things that they did with their body, whether good or bad" (2 Cor.
5:10).
In short, the charge of alleged discrepency between
present and future justification must lay first at Paul's door before one puts it
on Wright, who in his ambiguity is a fair reflection of Paul's own ambiguity.
Here I have some thoughts:
1. Perhaps God has inspired the Reformed (or Wesleyan) tradition to hear the
right meanings in and connections between Paul's words on this topic. But it is
important to recognize that the text of Paul himself on this topic has what
Paul Ricoeur called a "surplus of meaning."
There is more than one way to account for what, at least at first glance, are
comments that appear to be in tension.
These are "gaps" in the text (cf. Wolfgang Iser)
which can be filled in coherently, as the Reformed and Wesleyan traditions
have. But for me it is also important to recognize that we are the ones filling in these gaps.
Piper is deluding himself if he thinks his interpretation of imputed
righteousness comes from Paul himself. It comes from Christian tradition
filling in gaps in Paul's writings.
This is not a bad thing--it is in fact a necessary thing.
2. My sense in Paul is that he speaks broadly and generally. The Protestant
Reformation, along with Augustine, have polarized
Paul's language by making it more either-or in ways he didn't.
a. predestination versus free will (Augustine, Calvin,
and Wesley have filled in the philosophical gaps that sat loosely for Paul)
b. human depravity versus goodness (The Pelagian controversy polarized this
issue in ways it wasn't fully polarized for Paul)
c. faith versus works
Paul simply never uses the phrase "justification by faith alone." Paul never says that we are
purely justified by faith, understood not to involve works at all. Wright is correct over Piper that
for Paul faith involves human action (versus Piper on 130-131). Paul does not
worry about whether this faith is a "work" itself done by human
effort--these are much later debates.
We are justified by faith now--by trusting in what God has done by raising
Jesus from the dead. We will be justified by faithfulness then--with the
atonement of Christ in place for past sins, how we went on to live in the
Spirit. Paul doesn't work out the details.
Once again, we can discern that the primary fly in Piper's ointment is his undertanding of penal substitution in relation to God's
holiness. Christ has to take the last drop of our punishment and, conversely,
we have to have the last drop of Christ's righteousness.
Meanwhile, Paul doesn't care. Jesus dying for our sins is not a mathematical
equation to satisfy a wrath-number crunching God. Nor is God a righteous-number
crunching God. He's God. He is sovereign enough to forgive for free if He had
wanted to. The image of penal substitution is just one of several true pictures
of atonement.
But to make it a fully literal understanding of God--just as to make
predestination fully literal or depravity--is to skew Paul with other bad
theological consequences.
Chapter 9 "Paul's Structural Continuity with Second
In this chapter, Piper
presents--but largely does not evaluate--Wright's understanding of the phrase
"works of law." To a large extent, Piper in this chapter is
presenting some of the key distinctives of the so
called "new perspective on Paul." In particular, he is evaluating an
article Wright wrote comparing Paul with one of the
I have already mentioned this issue. Key here is the fact that Paul largely
does not contrast faith with works in the abstract, as Luther and the
Protestant Reformation did, indeed, as Augustine did. The phrase that Paul
primarily uses is "works of law."
Thus Romans 3:28--"So we reckon
that a person is justified by faith and not by works of law."
The law in question is certainly the Jewish law. For me, a crucial issue is
whether Paul here primarily pictures the "core law" that I have
argued he has in mind in Romans 2 or the fuller Jewish law with special
reference to the particulars that distinguished Jew from Gentile (circumcision,
sabbath observance, food laws). Certainly in Romans 2
he must have something like a core law in mind, since Gentiles do the things in
the law--something they by definition cannot do if Paul has things like
circumcision in mind.
Wright's Argument
Wright's argument is, first of all, an argument about Judaism. Following the
"new perspective," Wright does not believe that Judaism at the time
of Paul was a religion of legalism where you tried to earn God's favor. Rather,
1. God graciously brought
2.
3. Final justification would come on the basis of an entire life lived.
With this last point we should emphasize that Wright and Piper are talking
about the Second Temple Period (516BC-AD70). The OT in context has little sense
that history is headed toward some sort of culmination.
So Wright has 6 points in relation to 4QMMT, the key text of which reads,
"We have written to you some of the works of the law... You will rejoice
at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will
be reckoned to you as righteousness."
Here are Wright's points"
1. "Works of the law" here are in a covenantal and eschatological
context.
2. The works in question function as "boundary markers" of God's
people now anticipating the end time.
3. Paul replaced "works of law" in this scheme with
"faith."
4. Both Paul and this document are talking about community definition.
5. Paul's ethics though functions differently than "works" do here.
6. This document is not Pharisee, so we can't assume Paul's Galatian
opponents had this understanding of the structure of justification.
So Wright believes that Paul's understanding of justification has a similar
structure to that of this Jewish background, only with faith taking the place
of works of law.
So for the Teacher of Righteousness, the alleged author of MMT, 1) God's
promise led to the 2) establishment of the community of
For Paul, according to Wright, 1) God's promise led to the 2) establishment of
the community in Christ as fulfilled
I'll confess before we get to the next chapter that I think Wright has
seriously overread the parallel and is overloading
Paul's words with mega-extraneous meaning.
Chapter 10 "The Implications for Justification of the
Single Self-Righteous Root of 'Ethnic Badges' and 'Self-Help Moralism'"
This is one of Piper's
longer chapters. In it Piper takes on several elements of the so called new
perspective on Paul.
I continue to try to put my finger on why I don't really like the way Tom
Wright goes about doing exegesis a lot of the time--even when I agree with him.
I think I'm getting close. My sense is that he overloads passages with meaning
because of his "system."
There's a great rule for reading texts in context--don't see more meaning in a
text than is necessary for it to make sense. By contrast, Wright is in many respects
as much a theologian when he interprets as a straight exegete (we are of course
all theologians in our hermeneutic and application). In his own way Piper has
pointed this fact out (he does it far more than even Wright of course). Wright
reads the text from within a system he created back in his doctoral days. He
has only elaborated it in dialog with specific passages and history ever since.
In that sense I view Jimmy Dunn as a better exegetical model of the original
meaning than Wright is, which is why I wanted to study under him. Dunn sticks
to the text wherever it leads--at least as much as any of us can--and has
little time for the special pleading that is increasingly the name of the game
in the biblical studies guild.
Certainly the ideological critics have conquered the text in the name of
postmodernism and made it say whatever their ideology wanted it too. Yet
postmodernism has also afforded conservatives an opportunity to slough off
legitimate questions raised by modernist biblical scholarship. Others have
turned to Gadamer as a way of interpreting within
Christian tradition without regard for the original intent--a clever dodge but
still a dodge.
My scheme has been to 1) let the text say what it said, no matter how painful,
and 2) work out any problems when we move to theology. At times I let faith in
my tradition trump reason's evidence, but I do this with full disclosure to
myself. I realize this process has a tinge of the catholic to it, but I believe
this is the way forward, a la Mark Noll and others. I think Christianity is
ready for a synthesis that finally lets the Reformation reach equilibrium with
the church catholic.
1. "mercy,
not sacrifice"
This is not a major part of the chapter, but I wanted to put the funniest thing
in this chapter first so it doesn't get buried in minutia.
I couldn't believe that Piper quoted this verse in the way he does, when Jesus
tells the Pharisees of Matthew 23 to go learn what the Scripture means when it
says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." For Piper, this is Jesus'
"basic statement about the hermeneutic that guided the Pharisees' pursuit
of Torah" (157). More on Piper's skewed, even if
traditional understanding of the Pharisees below...
What was so funny was the way he turned this into an implied critique of the
fact that the Pharisees didn't see their total depravity and, thus, their need
for God's unconditional election. He doesn't put it this way, of course, but it
stands behind what he does say: "They say
that they are depending on God's grace. But Jesus said they are not"
(157).
HA! The context is an indictment of Pharisees who pay attention to small
details of the law and then miss the weightier ones--"justice, mercy, and
faithfulness" (Matt. 23:23). In other words, Jesus critiques them because they don't show the right works!!!
This passage has nothing to do at all with their absolute reliance on God's mercy. It's about the need for them to show mercy and thus to act righteously.
Frankly, Matthew and James are two NT texts Piper's theology should stay away
from for their own health.
As an aside, I had a graduate student once who strongly objected to my
translation of Matthew 6:1 as "do righteousness." His reasoning was
that it is impossible for us truly to "do righteousness." I was at
somewhat of a loss as to what to say to him. Sorry, that's what the Greek words
say.
2. the phrase "works of law"
The New Perspective
As we have seen, Wright views the phrase "works of law" as a
reference to "an ethnic badge worn to show that a person is in the
covenant rather than deeds done to show that they deserve God's favor"
(Piper, 145-46). In other words, Paul is addressing ethnic boasting rather than
"self-help moralism."
By "self-help moralism," Wright means the
attempt to earn God's favor by way of a person's good deeds and accomplishment
of the law. In other words, following Sanders, Wright does not believe that
Judaism in general at the time was "legalistic" but that Jews kept
the law in gratitude to God for his grace.
Once again, I find Wright's way of describing his position less than
communicative. As he does not see faith or justification as things that make a person right with God, he insists
that "works of law" were badges of covenant membership for mainstream
Judaism just as faith becomes for Christians. They show that a person is in but do not bring a person in.
I find Dunn's presentation of this new perspective on works of law much more
helpful. Like Wright, he thinks that by "works of law," Paul is
primarily thinking of boundary issues like circumcision, food laws, and sabbath observance--those aspects of the law that most set
off Jew from Gentile.
However, Dunn has made it clear in an introduction to a recent collection of
essays, The New Perspective on Paul, that
he would not limit the referent of the phrase "works of law" to these
items. They are simply the primary content Paul has in mind.
Both Dunn and Wright adduce the train of thought in Romans 3:27-30 in favor of
the idea that Paul is attacking a kind of "ethnocentrism" on the part
of the Jews, who see the fact that Gentiles do not perform "works of
law" as an indication of the superior standing of the Jews in God's eyes.
"Where therefore is boasting?
"It has been excluded?
"By what law? The law of works?
"No, but through
the law of faith. For we reckon that a person is justified by faith
irrespective of works of law. Or is God [the God] of the Jews only? Is he not
also [God] of the Gentiles?
"Yes, he is also [God] of the
Gentiles, since God [is] one who will justify the circumcision on the basis of
faith and the uncircumcision through faith."
Piper didn't finish out the train of thought. He omits the final verse of the
passage: Therefore, do we nullify law
through faith? Certainly not! But we establish law.
Dunn and Wright's understand Paul's train of thought like this:
a. A person is justified by faith apart from works of
law.
b. Otherwise, no Gentile could ever be justified.
c. And that can't be so because God is the God of the Gentiles as well as the
Jews.
d. Thus, "works of law" must be acts of law-keeping that distinguish
Jew from Gentile and
e. Thus, the Jews saw works of law as indications of God's sole approval of
them and rejection of the Gentiles. The inappropriate boasting here is thus
boasting in Jewishness as a path to justification and
the de facto exclusion of the Gentiles thereby.
This argument makes a good deal of sense, although I get uncomfortable when
such an anachronistic term like "ethnocentrism" gets introduced into
the equation.
Piper
Piper argues in reverse. The way in which God is one God is the fact that He
does not show partiality (as in Romans 2). "God is not a
tribal deity" (147). This shows why, moving back to vs. 28,
justification is by faith and not by works. "The focus in the argument is
not mainly on 'works of law' but on faith as the universally accessible and
universally humbling way of justification" (147).
This is a dubious way to go about exegesis, especially if you don't play it
back forward after you have rewound from the end. A train of thought runs
forward, not backward.
Schenck
I conclude with Dunn's somewhat nuanced understanding of this phrase. Certainly
from the standpoint of the words themselves, the phrase "works of
law" would seem to refer to performance of the law. And what law is Paul
most likely to have in mind? Why the Jewish
law, of course. Wright is correct to see Jewish particularism as an element in
the train of thought--Gentiles obviously don't tend to keep the law in
question.
I find the background of 4QMMT potentially helpful too. If in fact this
document reflects intra-Jewish arguments over the particulars of matters like
purity and such, then the phrase might immediately bring to mind these sorts of
issues--issues that were very particular to Judaism and the most ethnically
unique aspects of the Jewish law. This is true even if the phrase itself
potentially had broader connotations.
Indeed, if the word "Essene" is actually
related to the verb אשה, "to
do," it is possible that the idea of "doing" the law would have
immediately brought this whole set of issues to mind--the kinds of issues that
Essenes worried about.
The upshot of all this is that Paul targeted not so much "faith versus
works" in the abstract, (although this issue is raised by Paul's argument,
much as individual predestination is tangential but raised by Paul's corporate
argument in Romans 9-11). What Paul specifically had in mind was faith versus
works of a law that was the particular possession of
This of course has the effect of limiting salvation to the Jews, and it does
steer the question of boasting toward Jewish boasting in the (Jewish) law as an
indication that they are superior.
3. Was Judaism legalistic?
A significant portion of the chapter also takes on the new perspective's
presentation of Judaism as a religion of grace rather than legalism. I have
already mentioned a particularly ironic element in Piper's argument above in
#1.
Now I would agree that Sanders' description of Palestinian Judaism
is a bit simplistic, "canned," if you would. And Wright's
sense of law keeping as gratitude to God for His grace is even more myopic.
There were all sorts of Jews with all sorts of perspectives, even on the law. I
will begrudgingly conceed that a phrase from the
title of
But the "new perspective" is far more correct than the "old
perspective" that saw Judaism as a religion of works righteousness and
Paul as opposing this head on. Piper is right that works were in the mix of
God's favor for Judaism. But they were in the mix of God's favor for Paul too.
The pure abstraction of absolute faith
(created by God and thus not a work) versus any work at all is not Paul. Further, the intertestamental
texts often do emphasize God's grace. John Piper could have written half the
Thanksgiving Hymns from
As we mentioned under #1, Piper draws on Jesus' words against the Pharisees in
Matthew 23 to base his understanding of Judaism. Here is a good statement of
Piper's general perspective: "No doubt there were such grace-dependent,
gratitude-driven Jewish people, but it is doubtful that Paul and the Pharisees
whom Jesus knew and Paul's opponents in
In a way, I agree with Piper. I agree that the Jews didn't have his standard of
"grace-dependence." Yet I disagree in that many Jews were sufficiently grace dependent to be
acceptable to God. And the same
applies to Paul--he didn't have Piper's
standard of "grace-dependence," yet he was sufficiently grace-dependent to be
acceptable to God.
Would Piper agree, however, that there were Pharisees
who were sufficiently grace-dependent to be acceptable to God? In a footnote,
Piper acknowledges that we are reading Matthew's presentation of the Pharisees
and that there might, in theory, be a Matthean
perspective in play. He dismisses such speculation: "If I have to choose
which testimony to believe about the nature of the Pharisees, I choose to
believe the testimony of the early Christians, not the reconstruction of
twenty-first century scholars whose biases are no less dangerous than those of
early Christians" (155 n.18).
He is perhaps alluding to Sanders' claim that Pharisees were a Judean
phenomenon and that it is not likely that Jesus ever substantially came into
contact with them.
I protest, however, to Piper's reference to "the testimony of the early
Christians." Here he pretty much means the testimony of Matthew. When we listen to the
perspectives of each of the gospel writers, Matthew is clearly the harshest
toward the Pharisees. Piper could never make his claims from Luke-Acts or John.
Jesus has Pharisee supporters in John (e.g., Nicodemus). And Acts seems to consider
the Pharisees who have believed to be "in" (Acts 15:5). Indeed, Acts
21:20 seems to indicate that the vast majority of
believers in
We cannot 1) equate Pharisees with all Jews or 2) deny that Matthew's
presentation tends toward one extreme and is not the whole picture even of
"the testimony of the early Christians."
With regard to Paul, I might note again that Piper turns to Ephesians and 1 Timothy with respect to Paul's view toward his
pre-Christian self. We can affirm by faith that Paul wrote these writings. But
that does not allow us to deny the significant differences between them and
Paul's earlier writings. You cannot start a theology of Paul from 1 Timothy or
you will end up skewing all his earlier stuff.
Similarly, I was flabergasted to see that John McRay used Ephesians as the template for his presentation
of the life and teachings of Paul. Ephesians is close to Paul's earlier
writings, but it is different enough that it should be treated as a variation
rather than the norm.
Take the following two statements:
"Therefore, since we have been
justified on the basis of faith, we have peace with God ... Therefore, how much
more since we have been justified by his blood, we will be saved through him
from wrath" (Rom. 5:1, 9), and "a person is justified on the basis of faith
irrespective of works of law (3:28).
"For by grace you have been saved
through faith... not on the basis of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph.
2:8).
Note 1) that Ephesians no longer uses the language of justification. Meanwhile,
2) while salvation is future tense in Romans, it is now past tense in
Ephesians. Further 3) works of law no longer is enmeshed in a discussion of
Jews and Gentiles but has become the more abstract discussion that we know so
well from Augustine to the present.
Again, the Devil is in the details. This is why Dunn is a better Bible
interpreter than Piper. Piper runs rough shod over important distinctions and poo-poo's them in the name of some alleged "higher
view of Scripture" that in practice is far more apt to rape the biblical
text.
4. A futile distinction?
Finally, Piper spends a good deal of time arguing that there is ultimately no
distinction between Wright's "racial boast" and "successful moralism." Both, according to Piper, amount to
self-righteousness: "ethnocentrism and legalism have the same root"
(157).
If one believes, as Piper does, that grace precludes merit to any human action
at all, then he is correct. However, the Bible does not know such an absolute
distinction.
Grace is a concept of ancient patronage. It was an informal relationship in
which a "have" helped out a "have not" disproportionate to
anything the recipient might give in return. But it was not absolute. Certainly
a "client" might seek out a patron. Certainly such "gifts"
often came with expectations in return and, in that sense, were not completely
unconditional.
Now we must let the NT itself tell us the degree to which it might modify this
socio-cultural background. Just because it happened this way in the Meditteranean world doesn't mean that it operates that way
in the NT.
But the texts of the NT fit remarkably well against this background, which was
current to the NT. Certainly God calls and elects in one set of texts. But then
"whosoever" solicits God's favor in faith. And there are definitely
expectations that God has in return for His grace. No one can give enough to
merit His grace, but He expects us to give.
Piper's distinctions are thus post-NT. Faith is the sine qua non of justification. No amount
of works add up to justification. And certainly, works of the Jewish law
do not add up to justification. God will justify the Gentiles through their
faith but He will justify the Jews also because of their faith, not because
they have kept the Jewish law.
But in the final analysis, at the final judgment, appropriate "works"
are also a sine qua non for
final justification. We can do our "after the fact" rankling in
theology class about whether the works are a result of justification rather
than a pre-requisite for it. But these are our arguments, not Paul's.
Chapter 11 "That in Him We Might Become the Righteousness of
God."
In other
words, Piper is going to address Tom Wright's interpretation of 2 Corinthians
5:21 in this chapter:
1. 2 Corinthians 5:21
"The one who had not known sin,
[God] made [to become] sin for us, so that we ourselves might become the
righteousness of God in him."
This verse is potentially a great test case in the pre-understanding that we
all bring to texts. My reaction to Wright's interpretation was pretty much the
same as Piper's when I first came across it. Isn't the meaning of this verse obvious?
Christ goes from righteous to sinful
(putatively).
We go from sinful to righteous
(putatively).
Morna Hooker wrote a famous article in New Testament Studies called
"Interchange in Christ" on this verse.
But Wright argues the following in What
Saint Paul Really Said. The phrase "the righteousness of
God" is a phrase with a history. Any Jew that heard it would immediately
have thought of God's faithfulness to His covenant with
Christ atones for our sin as a sin
offering...
which demonstrates God's righteousness,
His faithfulness to redeem Israel...
where Christ is understood to be the
embodiment of Israel...
and believers are all in Christ.
Now I would agree that "covenant faithfulness" probably is not the
most apt description of the righteousness of God here (as I mentioned in an
earlier post). I noted that in Paul: A Fresh Perspective Wright uses the phrase
"covenant justice," which is no doubt ambiguous but better in some respects.
But I eventually came around to agree largely with Wright, minus his more
idiosyncratic points. I take the train of thought to be:
Christ atones for our sin as a sin
offering...
which demonstrates God's righteousness,
which is not only his justice but also
His propensity to redeem and save not only
I agree with two out of Wright's three arguments for this interpretation of the
phrase "the righteousness of God" here (set out by Piper on p. 175):
a. Wright holds that
the phrase "the righteousness of God" is a technical term meaning
"covenant faithfulness."
I agree with this statement with the tweak I mention above. I already have
presented the argument that this phrase had a known definition in Paul's day in
my review of chapter 3.
I might say that I am open to the possibility that Paul intended some sort of a
double entendre here and in Romans. Since I think there was a default
dictionary entry for this phrase in Paul's dictionary, I come out with Wright
as far as the primary meaning of the phrase.
But it is certainly conceivable, given that human righteousness is also a major
feature of Paul's argument, that Paul meant the reader to see a double entendre
somewhat along traditional lines.
By the way, one critique of Piper's position--that this verse is about the
imputation of Christ's righteousness, a balanced exchange--is that the verse
does not speak of the righteousness of
Christ. It does not say, God made Christ
who had not sinned to be sinful so that we might take on the righteousness of
Christ. Rather, God offers
Christ as a sin offering (cf. Rom. 3:25) so that we might become God's righteousness. You see how Piper has
not seen the correlation correctly.
Piper rightly questions the role of the phrase "in him"
then--"so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." May
I not chastise Piper too much for his read of this verse for it is compact,
poetic, and very ambiguous from where we sit today. I
believe, however, that if we will look at this clause grammatically, we will
see what Paul is saying:
The heart of the clause, subject and verb is "we might become."
"The righteousness of God" is a predicate nominative with a modifying
word.
Now, "in him" is a prepositional phrase that is functioning
adverbially, that is, it tells us something about the verb "might
become." It does not modify "righteousness"--we do not become
the righteousness in him. Rather in him we
become the righteousness of God.
In other words, Paul is telling us where
we come to demonstrate the righteousness of God, namely, when we are "in
Christ."
After I have said that about 2 Corinthians 5:21, there are other verses that do
seem to imply that it is the fact that I am "in Christ" that I can be
justified. It is not a "real transference of righteousness" in the
manner of Piper's understanding of imputation, but it is a putative reckoning
of me as righteous in Christ.
Let me hold off on such verses for a few moments.
b. A second argument
Wright offers for his understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that this
understanding fits the train of thought in 2 Corinthians 5.
This fact pushed me over to Wright's side. If we think back to Romans 1:16-17
where Paul uses the phrase righteousness of God, there Paul says that "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the
power of God leading to salvation for everyone who has faith... For in it the righteousness of God is revealed..."
In other words, the aspect of God's righteousness that Paul highlights the most
in Romans is His propensity to save not only His people but in fact all
humanity. Now, what is 2 Corinthians 5 about:
"That God was in Christ,
reconciling the world to himself, not counting [humanity's] transgressions to
them and having placed the message of reconciliation among us" (2
Cor. 5:19).
Then I came to agree with Wright. This passage really is about God's
righteousness as it is properly understood against the backdrop of Isaiah and
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
c. Wright's third point
is that if 5:21 is about humans becoming righteous, then the idea just pops up
out of nowhere. Here I think Piper is right to suggest that the idea is not
foreign to the train of thought (e.g., 5:15). In fact, I have already mentioned
that I am open to overtones of these ideas latent in the verse, even if it is
not the primary sense.
2. Romans 5:18-19 and Galatians 2:20
I mentioned above that there are other verses that do indicate that we are
considered righteous because we are "in Christ" and in his
"faithfulness" in particular. This is slightly different than Piper's
argument, for a real and absolute transfer of Christ's righteousness is
essential to his system.
But he does correctly produce Scriptures that support the idea that we are
incorporated into Christ's faithfulness and
obedience.
He mentions Romans 5:18-19, for example:
Therefore then, as through the one
transgression all came under condemnation, so also through the one righteous
act all come to justification and life. For just as through the disobedience of
one person many were designated sinners, so also through the obedience of one
[person] many will be designated righteous.
To open up another can of worms, 5:19 here is so similar to Richard Hays
understanding of Romans 3:22 that it was a major factor in my finally accepting
his understanding of "the faith of Christ" in that verse:
"even God's righteousness
[demonstrated] through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah toward all who have
faith."
Notice the parallel:
5:19--Jesus' obedience leads to many being pronounced righteous.
3:22--Jesus' faithfulness leads to believers being justified (=pronounced
righteous).
A better verse, and of course one Piper would not agree supports his own
general trajectory for obvious reasons, is Galatians 2:20 in Haysian translation:
"I have been crucified with Christ
and I no longer live but Christ lives in me. And what I now live in flesh, I
live in the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for
me."
3. Philippians 3:9
I will close this review with a brief consideration of Philippians 3:9. This
verse is somewhat ambiguous on its own:
"...so that I might gain Christ
and be found in him, not having my own righteousness based on the law but [a
righteousness] through the faith of Christ, the righteousness from God based on
faith."
Let me give it my interpretive understanding:
...not having my own righteousness based on keeping the Jewish law but a
righteousness that has come through the faithfulness of Christ, a righteousness
God has declared based on my faith.
As I interpret it--and I recognize that it is ambiguous and that Paul might
simply be saying the same thing twice--there is first a reference to Christ's
faith and then one to Paul's:
my righteousness through faith of Christ
my righteousness from God through my
faith
Yes indeed, this righteousness I have is really Christ's righteousness, a
righteousness that is reckoned to me because I am in Christ.
4. Conclusion
While I disagree with Piper on many of his specific interpretations here, I'm
not sure I am that far from him on the question of Christ's righteousness
counting as my own. I think the main difference is that he is very concerned to
see this as a real and total transfer.
I'm not 100% sure I even know what a real transfer means. What I think it means
for Piper is that God must have absolute, mathematical justice and cannot
accept us without total mathematical righteousness. So Christ must take every
drop of punishment we should have and we must have every drop of his perfect
righteousness.
This is where the difference is. Piper is driven by theological concerns of
which Paul knows nothing.