Wright’s statements are baffling in several ways. One way is that the Jews of Romans 2:17-24 do indeed claim to be successful moralists. They teach morality, but do not teach themselves (v. 21). They preach against stealing, but steal (v. 21). They oppose adultery, but commit adultery (v. 22). They denounce idolatry, but commit idolatry (v. 22). They boast in the law, but dishonor the law (v. 23). And in all this, they cause the Gentiles to blaspheme God (v. 24). How Wright can use this paragraph to distinguish moral boasting from racial boasting escapes me (as does the distinction itself).
So what is Piper telling us? Do people get to make a living in unrepentant robbery while preaching against robbery and remain members in good standing at Bethlehem Baptist Church? Does Piper regard double-living adulterers who claim to be Christians to be heirs of the Kingdom?
Nothing in Romans 2 mandates that anyone think the Jews were trying to be good enough to win God’s favor. Quite the contrary, Paul condemns them as a nation (the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of this behavior: it is done openly and is a matter of public knowledge) because they are living like unregenerate hypocrites. They think merely possessing the Faith is enough rather than actually living it. OK, Paul said they think possessing the law is sufficient, but it all sounds remarkably like James.
Piper claims to be “baffled” by Wright. Having won my respect as a scholar in the past, I confess I am having a failure of the imagination now in trying to picture Piper as baffled by this. Whatever. I think I have much more right to be baffled by this response than he does in regard to Wright.
To be continued (I’m starting a Piper v. Wright category).
I think there is a hidden assumption that for Romans 2 to “preach” it has to apply to subtle immorality not (what appears prima fascie) the gross immorality that Paul actually talks about. This runs through the puritain view of the NT, as Jordan has sometimes pointed out, where the “righteousness” of the pharisees is actually pretty good on the surface at least, and so “exceeding” it requires herculean efforts that we can’t accomplish and therefore must turn to Jesus.
I’ve heard sermons that address the disconnect here. “And you may answer, ‘no, Paul, I don’t rob temples or commit adultery or steal, so what’s the point?’ But now we also know that Jesus says that the secret desires of the heart to do these things mean we really are as condemned as those who blatantly do these things. There are ‘none righteous’.”
Remember, “John Piper is Bad” so yes, he robs temples and is an adulterer. (even though he isn’t)
Piper states “How Wright can use this paragraph to distinguish moral boasting from racial boasting escapes me (as does the distinction itself).”
I think Piper and Wright both believe that the Pharisee both boast morally and racially, but in general Piper emphasizes the moral over the racial, while Wright does the opposite (so he doesn’t completely distinguish the two). I think it’s ok to debate which is more foundational, but I think ultimately what matters is the application of “don’t following the Pharisees and trust in God through Christ and Spirit for salvation”- a statement I believe both piper and Wright would agree to.
Pingback: The Boars Head Tavern » Blog Archive »
Mark,
I think you’re right about the label “racial”, I think there is a larger “thing” going on then say one’s individual race. I agree that Romans 2 can’t prove that Pharisee were strict legalist. I believe Pharisee’s “works” were only wrong because they failed to see the eschatological time frame of Christ and the Spirits coming, but instead they held and try to remain faithful to the Law (works), which was graciously given to the Jews (national) through a covenant. So I see 3 problems in the Pharisees:an eschatological, works in relationship to the Mosaic law, and national one. I still think the Pharisees were “legalist” in the sense that they relied on the possession and works of the Mosaic law to be justified, but within their eschatological and national failure as well.
BTW, have you heard of Chris Vanlandingham’s Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. I just finished reading it this weekend, and he tries to challenge EP. Sander’s covenant nomism, by stating that both election and eternal life giving at the last judgment are based on one’s merited works (Chris isn’t afraid to use the word “merit”). Then he goes on to say that Paul believes in the same thing for a Christian, that is, the Christian merits eternal life based on their own merit. Then finally, Chris tries to intergrate justification by faith and eternal life by works, by stating that justification needs to be refined, which he redefines as to “make righteous” and never “forensic”. I think this is a person that Piper should be legitmately concerned with (if any) and not Wright. Interesting stuff, you might want to check him out.
Blessings,
Dan
1. I think the label “racial” is problematic to describe the phenomena.
2. But moral boasting that one has been faithful to the covenant is commended to believers:
Nehemiah 13.22: “Then I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves and come and guard the gates, to keep the Sabbath day holy. Remember this also in my favor, O my God, and spare me according to the greatness of your steadfast love.”
Psalm 7.8: “The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.”
Psalm 18.20: “The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.”
2 Tim 4.7,8: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.”
In none of these cases (and there are many more examples) is anyone in danger of making their righteousness the meritorious ground of their standing before God. But Paul doesn’t ever explain that there is some theological problem with the content of the Pharisaical boasting. He simply says they are boasting in possessing the Law without following the Law. They are antinomians who believe they are exempt from judgment because God chose them.
Really john gerstner?? he holds to some kind of merit theology? I thought he would have similar views as sproul.
What’s scary is that V’s erroneous view sounds a lot like something Gerstner taught…
Mark —
Is it possible that you are right and yet Dr. Piper is not wrong? Let me see if I can sketch this out for you and not offend. If this makes an offense, let me say it is not my intention.
Let’s start here: I would agree with you that the right-hearted faith of Israel ought to have been the kind of faith James is on about. The example of Abraham in James 2 really trumpets that — that the right kind of faith, the faith which actually saves, is a faith which works. I think Dr. Piper would also say as much, but I cannot speak for him.
But the question really is if the nation of Israel at the time of Christ was manifesting that faith or if they were manifesting another kind of faith, which we can only call “idolatry”.
See: as I read Dr. Piper’s criticism, he is concerned that the somehow Sanders and Bishop Wright have excused the Jews in Palestine for being what they were — when Jesus roundly condemned them. Calling them sons of Satan and condemning them under the “seven woes” seems to me to be sufficient evidence that Jesus condemned them and whatever system they were demonstrating.
This hinges on something important: if the -right- faith was that “doers of the word” faith, and Jesus condemned what the Jews were doing, the Jews -could not- have been demonstrating a “doers of the word” faith.
It is this problem — that Jesus and Paul are “on the same team”, and that the Jewish leaders of the same time were not “on this team” — that I think Dr. Piper is trying to highlight, contra some of the statements and positions of Wright.
I am re-reading my Wright this week to try to get in the middle of this issue. When I think I am better prepared to get after this, I will try to stop back.
“See: as I read Dr. Piper’s criticism, he is concerned that the somehow Sanders and Bishop Wright have excused the Jews in Palestine for being what they were — when Jesus roundly condemned them. Calling them sons of Satan and condemning them under the “seven woes” seems to me to be sufficient evidence that Jesus condemned them and whatever system they were demonstrating.”
But on this point, Wright and Sanders have virtually nothing in common. Piper’s essay equivocates between the question as to whether the Pharisees were guiltless (Sanders, feeling free to disagree with Paul and Jesus would say yes) and whether they were merit legalists (both say no).
See below my statement about everything I agree with in Piper’s essay.
Wright simply does not challenge the fact that the Jewish leaders were not on Jesus’/Paul’s team. He affirms it. Jesus was a prophet (more than one but not less than one) who confronted Israel about her faithlessness.