FIRST POST
SECOND POST
FOURTH POST
FIFTH POST
In his post (and pdf file) A righteousness from God, Kim Riddlebarger states (p. 9, 10):
While there are a number of arguments raised in favor of this view, the main reason we are told that this reading should be adopted is because Paul supposedly uses the phrase in Romans exactly the way in which it was used throughout Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism. Indeed, a number of Old Testament passages connect the righteousness of God and his faithfulness to the covenant as well to his creation (see Psalm 98:1-2; Isaiah 46:13; 51:5-8; 56:1; 62:1).
Indeed they do–and perhaps there are many others that do so as well. Here is my series of posts on the righteousness of God which begins with the OT passages:
However, this is not the only line of evidence that Paul, in Romans 3, is referring to God’s own righteousness. Rather, the evidence comes from the immediate context.
Consider Romans 1.17-18:
For in it [the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
So in the Gospel the righeousness of God is revealed and also (in the Gospel?–Romans 2.16) the wrath of God is revealed. Does the wrath here refer to God’s own character or to a legal status of being wrathful imputed to people?
Consider also I think it is quite traditional (and pretty obvious) to see Romans 3.21-26 as a reference back to Romans 1.17. Rut Romans 21-26 hearkens back to Romans 3.1ff. I wrote about these passages last April:
PAUL IN ROMANS
So how is Paul thinking of “the righteousness of God” in his epistle to the Romans? Romans 3.1-6:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words,/ And mightest prevail when Thou art judged.” But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise how will God judge the world? (emphasis added).
Notice that, as in the Psalms, “the faithfulness of God” and “the righteousness of God” are virtually synonymous expressions. In any case, this is certainly talking of God’s own character, not a status that he gives to us.
(Let there be no confusion: I am not denying that sinners who are to be saved from the Wrath of God must and do receive a verdict from Him which entails a righteous status. I am not denying that this is God’s verdict on Christ reckoned to his people. I am siimply saying that “the righteousness of God” is not how Paul is teaching us those great and essential truths. He has other concerns in this passage.)
Given Paul’s use of the phrase in Romans 3.1-6, we have every reason to expect the meaning to remain consistent with this passage just a little later on in Romans 3.21-26:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just [righteous] and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Again, we see here that “the righteousness of God” is his own character, his faithfulness, demonstrated in his work of salvation for his people–displaying Christ publicly as a propitiation in his blood. It is really violently discontextual to claim that “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” refers to imputed righteousness. I have come to (provisionally) agree with Wright and Richard Hayes that the phrase “faith in Jesus Christ” ought to be translated as “the faith of Jesus Christ.” Paul is speaking of Christ’s obedience rather than our trust by which we receive Christ and his righteousness. But that really doesn’t matter. The traditional translation still demands that “the righteousness of God through faith” be seen as parallel with “Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” The propitiatory work of Chist is a manifestation of God’s righteousness–his faithfulness to his people to save them from their sins.
Romans 1.16-18a:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…
Remember Isaiah 56.1b: “For My salvation is about to come / And My righteousness to be revealed.” The Gospel declares the death and resurrection of Jesus and in doing so reveals God’s righteousness. Notice Paul’s parallelism between “the righteousness of God is revealed” and “the wrath of God is revealed.” Obviously, “the wrath of God” is not something imputed to sinners so that they are reckoned as being wrathful with God’s own wrath. Rather, it is God’s character manifested toward them. That is yet another contextual cue demanding that we understand “the righteousness of God” to refer to his own character which compelled him to act on behalf of his people.
Finally, one needs to remember that the close proximity of references to God’s righteousness and those to justification are perfectly understandable without any notion of a transfer of “righteousness” from God to the sinner. (To repeat yet again: I am not denying that Jesus’ righteous status is shared with His people. It most certainly is. I am simply denying that Paul is speaking of such imputation in these specific passages.) Consider Psalm 35.24: “Judge me, O LORD, according to Thy righteousness.” Though two different word groups are used, the Psalmist is plainly asking for justification and believes it will be given to him on the basis of God’s righteousness. But there is no transfer imagined here. The point is that God’s character and integrity guarrantee that he will vindicate those who belong to him. Likewise, in Isaiah 45.24, 25, the righteousness of God means he can be trusted to fulfill his promise so that “all the offspring of Israel” will be “justified.”
(Regarding the two different word roots for “judgment” and “justification,” one should note that these are both present in Romans 2 and 3 and thus the forensic meaning of justification is, in part, established by the courtroom language of “judgment” use in those chapters.
Of course, God’s righteousness also demands that sinners be punished. Romans 3.21-26 acknowledges this fact. What makes God’s righteousness a basis for hope for sinners, instead of fear, is that God made a covenant to deal with sin and justify sinners who entrust themselves to him. God’s righteousness demands that He keep His promises as well as punish sin.
More later.
Thanks for that description. I haven’t read the whole KR article, nor the whole Wright argument, as … I wanted to hear things through Reformed eyes that’re both understanding and sympathetic.
I would tend to agree with the idea that Paul is talking about His inherent righteousness being revealed to the world through faith and justification. But I think that is the point which progressed through the Reformation — if God’s righteousness is **being revealed** by His declaration that we are righteous, then the visible outpouring of His inherent righteousness is the declaration of our righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.
Yet we still try to split these two. Wright does it so sharply it just downright hurts me to read it now. To paraphrase, ‘The righteousness of the judge is not the same as the vindication of the accused.’ Um, maybe they’re not *identical*, no. But one’s based on the other. To me that’s the point of imputed righteousness (neglect for a moment the modern “righteousness exchange” which gets me twisted into a Scriptural difficulty as well). God declares us righteous out of His righteousness, and He is in union with us. We are family now. That radically changes the way I am judged in His court. I am not simply in a law court — I am actually in the court of the King, My Father, Who makes Law with His very Words.
And so when I see Wright making the distinction he’s made at 3:21-22, I think, “Yeah! This makes so much sense!” And when Paul argues on this basis (“for…for” 3:22b, :23) “declared righteous freely by His grace” 3:23, I think, “Yeah, that makes so much sense!” But when Wright splits the two so radically, “This cannot be God’s righteousness”, I think, “Wait a minute, didn’t Paul just say one on the heels of the other?” And it seems Paul thinks it’s so obvious, that he barely talks about how! On what basis? On union — this is not some derivative appeal, this is **a real union**. It’s a familial, ‘we all hang together’ union.
As I’m not reading in this right now, I’m not sure how fast the world is spiralling out of control on these matters. I’m so pleased to be redeeming souls and not pitting systematics against history right now. But I worry for the scorched earth that is showing up time and again even to me.
Praise God He has made a pocket of peace in our denomination so far.