And so we reach the final chapter of the main part of John Piper's book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Don't get your hopes up too much--there's still a conclusion and 6 appendices to go :-)
Chapter 11 is titled, "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 Israel. Accordingly, Wright understands the verse to say this:
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 Israel but all humanity.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment