The Saving Righteousness of God
Michael F. Bird
Paternoster/Wipf & Stock 2007
This is an important if rather technical work from a talented Australian theologian on the much debated areas of Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Bird's book is irenic in tone, in fact it's practically a call for a cease fire in the hostilities between the Old Perspective and the New Perspective on justification.
Bird charts a "third way" that is basically still the Old Perspective but augmented (and I use that word deliberately as opposed to "diminished") by some valid New Perspective insights. Such an approach is risky - it always risks being attacked on two fronts, as being not true to either perspective. But Bird is a careful exegete and willing to be critical of both sides.
Some of the chapters have appeared in some form within theological journals and periodicals, but have probably been revised for publication here, and there is also a fair amount of new material.
Of particular interest was Bird's concept of "incorporated righteousness" rather than imputed (traditional Protestant theology) or infused (traditional Roman Catholic theology) righteousness in the doctrine of justification. If I read Bird correctly, he has no problem with, and agrees with, imputation as a systematic theology category, but he thinks this is not how Paul himself understood our becoming righteous. In a way, Paul's scheme is simpler. We are righteous because Christ is righteous and we are "in Christ" - incorporated into Christ, in union with Christ. I found Bird's analysis interesting.
The end result may be the same, but there is a difference between Christ giving us his righteousness and us benefiting from his righteousness by being united to him. Either way we are righteous through an alien righteousness being reckoned to us, but there are differences too. One is like a cosmic set of accounts being drawn up and righteousness being transferred from one account to the other. The other is much more relational and organic. It's like the difference between handing someone one of your umbrellas and a raincoat to protect them from the rain, and inviting them to come into your house. Either way you are kept dry, but the methods are very different.
The other chapters were interesting too, particularly his analysis of the close link between Christ's resurrection and our justification (cf Romans 4:25). Rather than looking at Christ's life in terms of merit that can then be passed around the faithful, Bird sides with the New Perspective and sees it in terms of fulfilling his mission as Messiah and being the one faithful Israelite. Then the resurrection is seen as Christ's own vindication and justification first and then ours through union with him. If Christ's resurrection becomes our justification, it is difficult to see how our future justification can be based on works as N. T. Wright posits. Indeed Bird comes fair and squarely down on the side of the Old Perspective when he states that our future justification is based solely on Christ's death and resurrection. Our works, for Bird, are evidential and not instrumental in our justification.
I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.
'I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.'
ReplyDeleteI agree. I also found his more popularly aimed, 'A Bird's Eye view of Paul' stimulating and informative, and to my mind very close to the money.
Thanks for your comments. I've still to read "A Bird's Eye View".
ReplyDeleteHi John (been a while) and James!
ReplyDeleteIn my study on this topic of imputed righteousness, the Greek term “logizomai” is the English term for “reckon/impute/credit/etc,” (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular lexicon here is what it is defined as:
—————-
QUOTE: “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
—————-
The lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham’s faith is “logizomai as righteousness,” it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) “I am deceiving myself.” This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where “logizomai” appears, here are some examples:
——————-
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
——————-
Notice in these examples that “logizomai” means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul ‘reckons’ faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 4:4 the worker’s wages are ‘reckoned’ as a debt because the boss is in debt to the worker, not giving a gift to him. In 6:11 the Christian is ‘reckoned’ dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul ‘reckons’ the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the “alien status” way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn’t really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 4:4 the boss gives payment to the worker as a gift rather than obligation/debt; (3) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (4) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven’s glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says “faith is logizomai as righteousness,” I must read that as ‘faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act’, and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham’s heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and “that is why his faith was credited as righteousness” (v4:22). This is also confirmed by noting the only other time “credited as righteousness” appears in Scripture, Psalm 106:30-31, where Phinehas’ righteous action was reckoned as such. This is confirmed even more when one compares another similar passage, Hebrews 11:4, where by faith Abel was commended as righteous.
Nick
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough I was wondering just the other day what had happened to you. Hope you are well.
We have discussed this topic a little in the past. I would love to do so again, however, at the moment time is against me . Perhaps James will 'show you the light'on this topic.
In the meantime I refer you to the discussion at Berith Road where my basic point was in context of Gen 15:6,
'The OT has examples of A being reckoned for Non-A. EG Leah and Rachel assert their father reckons them as strangers when they are not (Gen 31:15). The question is whether Paul sees Faith being a little righteousness standing for full righteousness or something of one species standing for another. Paul's whole thrust in Romans is to give no place to human righteousness. All righteousness must be God's alone. Thus, I believe, to give faith the category of righteousness is to miss Paul's stark contrast. If Abraham is righteousness is even in part because he is righteous (in believing) then justification is his due not by grace and he has something to boast about before God. To introduce faith=right is both foreign to Paul's intent and indeed in my view undermining of that intent.'
See http://berithroad.blogspot.com/2010/01/imputation-of-faith-in-genesis-15-6.html
Thank you John, I understand what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteMy response is as follows:
(1) Romans 4:4 - which is smack dab in the middle of the critical context of 4:3,5 - plainly is using logizomai as I argued.
(2) The OT does have examples of 'X being reckoned as ~X', but that is a tiny minority of the time it's used, and a clear contrast is made in each case. Context must guide, and no such indication occurs in Gen 15:6.
(3) Going over your example: in fairness one can read Gen 31:15 as either (a) they were reckoned strangers because they truly were disinherited, or (b) one can say the father wrongly reckoned them as strangers (cf Rom 2:3 where a man wrongly reckons he can judge others while getting away with the same sins); either reading fully supports the usage I'm arguing.
(4) The classical Protestant interpretation of "faith reckoned as righteousness" is "faith *transfers* righteousness," yet the term is *never* used like that in the OT nor NT. The interpretation "faith *itself* is reckoned as righteousness" is condemned by Protestant Confessions.
Nick
ReplyDeleteLaying aside the 'imputed' issue for the moment, why does faith save?
Faith saves because it's the 'root' at which a relationship with God forms. One cannot follow God unless one first believes in Him (Heb 11:1,6). Faith is a supernatural virtue that enables man to believe in God. As an example, a telescope enables man to see things he otherwise cannot see, but once he sees them can begin to focus his mind on them.
ReplyDeleteNick
ReplyDeleteI was hoping you would say the value of faith lies in its object. It is not just any old faith that saves but faith in Christ, and properly in his death and resurrection.
That is the force of Paul's logic in Roms 3:21-28. You quote 3:28 yourself.
'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.'
Paul's 'conclusion' is based on the previous texts which affirm faith centred on Christ's accomplishment on the cross brings a righteous verdict.
At the end of ch4 faith in resurrection is emphasized.
Rom 4:16-25 (ESV)
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring-not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”-in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Faith counts for righteousness to all who like Abraham believe in the God who raises the dead - the resurrection of Jesus.
Paul cements the two (death and resurrection) in Roms 10. There he speaks of the 'word of faith' (the gospel).
Rom 10:8-10 (ESV)
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, 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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Saving faith centres on trusting in Jesus dead and resurrected.
If we get this right then whether it is proper to view 'faith' as having some inherent righteousness is fairly insignificant.
I am of the opinion it is a mistake to emphasize its worth, especially in Romans, where Paul is at pains to stress that nothing that smacks of personal worth or boasting is acceptable to God. That, to my mind is the point of 4:1-8. Faith does not look to itself as meritorious but looks to God to justify. A point Paul underscores by stressing that God 'justifies the ungodly'.
I'm not sure what you mean by "any old faith," because there is only one faith, a divine gift of God, and it enables man to know and assent to Divine Truths. It cannot be faith and not have it's focus upon Christ.
ReplyDeleteI believe if one defines faith according to Biblical lines (e.g. Heb 11:1,4,6), there is no such difficulty or threat of "boasting". Further, if faith were an empty hand, it would make no sense for Scripture to speak of "weak faith" and "strong faith" and "growing in faith" and such.