SECOND POST
THIRD POST
FOURTH POST
FIFTH POST
In his post (and pdf file) A righteousness from God, Kim Riddlebarger states (p. 9):
In the last fifty-years or so, a growing number of critical Protestant scholars have embraced the idea that the righteousness of God, referred to here by Paul, does not at all refer to a status God bestows upon a sinner. Instead, this has to do with the activity of God, in which God’s sovereignty over all of the world is being revealed eschatologically through Jesus Christ. On this view, then, the phrase, diakiosune theou, should be rendered, “God’s righteousness,” and not a “righteousness from God.” In other words, in the gospel, God demonstrates that he is righteous. When Jesus dies on the cross and rises from the dead, God vindicates his purposes for his people Israel and demonstrates that he will now root out all evil and injustice from all of creation. In other words, God demonstrates his covenant faithfulness and justice.
I disagree with Dr. Riddlebarger (or at least with the impression I think readers will acuqire from his words) on a couple of points here.
First, there are plenty of scholars who believe that the cross and resurrection of Christ demonstrate that God is righteous because in those events, proclaimed in the Gospel, God actually “put forward” Christ “as a propitiation by his blood” (Romans 3.25) and “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8.3). “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3.26). This does not mean that Dr. Riddlebarger’s own preferred interpretation is incorrect, only that those on the other side of this question are neither skipping over the atonement, nor the justification of sinners so that they can stand before God. I’m not sure what Dr. Riddlebarger believes concerning these things but I’m afraid his description of the view he opposes might lead some to believe that they deny these central and Pauline truths.
Of course, there are Liberals who deny all sorts of doctrines in their scholarship, but that leads us to the other concern I want to address in this post.
Second, Dr. Riddlebarger assigns the position he opposes to “critical Protestant scholars” which, as I understand the expression, means liberal mainliners who Evangelicals must be suspicious of. But this position is also found among conservative Reformed scholars as the fruit of the trajectory set by the development of Biblical Theology. Thus, Sinclair Ferguson writes in his commentary on Daniel:
Elijah had come to God and said, “Lord, You promised. I believe this is Your word. It must be so. Let it be so in answer to my prayers.” Daniel’s praying was of the same order as his appeal to the “righteousness” of God eloquently testifies (vv. 7, 16). The Old Testament term “righteousness” has a specifically covenantal orientation. The young Martin Luther could not see this when he struggled to understand what Paul meant by “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17). Of course, Luther was not helped by the fact that his Latin Bible translated Paul’s Greek word dikaiosune (righteousness) as justitia (justice). Luther’s mistake has sometimes been repeated by evangelical Christians. Often righteousness has been thought of merely as the equivalent of the just punishment of God. Preachers therefore may often accompany the use of the phrase “the righteousness of God” with the gesticulation of a clenched fist. It is clear even from this passage, however, that this is to reduce the full biblical meaning of God’s righteousness. Daniel sees the righteousness of God both as the basis for God’s judgment of the people (v. 7) and also as the basis for his own prayer for forgiveness (v. 16). How can this be? In Scripture, “righteousness” basically means “integrity.” Sometimes it is defined as “conformity to a norm.” In the case of God, the norm to which He conforms is His own being and character. He is true to Himself, He always acts in character. God has expressed the norm of His relationship to His people by means of a covenant. He will always be true and faithful to His covenant and the promises enshrined in it. Plainly, God’s righteousness is His faithfulness to His covenant relationship (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988; boldface added).
Also, Reggie Kidd, a PCA minister and New Testament professor at Reformed Theological Seminary has similar thoughts as one can see in this essay under the heading “GOD’S OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
I am concerned about this mainly for the pastoral reason that I think, whatever the correct interpretation of Romans 1.16, lay people ought not be encouraged to believe evil things about their Reformed pastors. To me, it seems like Dr. Riddlebarger frames the debate in such a way as to lead readers who don’t know better to think that only higher critical scholars who have no concern for the essential Pauline teaching on the atonement and on justification could possibly disagree with him regarding Romans 1.17.
I will deal with more concerns I have with Dr. Riddlebarger’s essay when I have time. In the meanwhile, for those who want a see a positive case for how “the righteousness of God” is used in the Bible and Romans, please see my series of posts:
Interesting.
i find it revealing to juxtapose Riddlebarger’s claim that “And, unfortunately, in much of American evangelicalism, the gospel has
become a message about how the holy God makes himself acceptable to self-righteous sinners.”
(which is a fair travesty of what Wright is trying to communicate)
with soemthing like Tim Kellers sermon in an interfaith context [!] where the main thrust of his message is to declare that if you’re wondering how God can let things like this go on, the answer is that in Christ, he shows that he is involved in righting wrongs.
http://bbonecutter.typepad.com/the_boneman/2006/09/tim_kellers_int.html
I’d hope somehow Riddlebarger could allow Romans to teach at the same time that God is also demonstrating to a suffering world that God cares.
Sadly, artificial polarization is a handy way to get people on your side. I’m afraid to think of how many times I’ve used it.
And no one can deny that self-righteous unbelief motivates errors in scholarship. (After all, the Serpent’s whole sales pitch to Adam and Eve was to sell God as the bad guy.) But this sort of analysis can only be relevant if one has firmly established one’s position as the truth and that there is no legitimate reason to explain why others would disagree. I don’t think Riddlebarger has come close to meeting that burden, especially in dealing with other Reformed scholars like Sinclair Ferguson.