Same theology but different prooftexts

Jon asks when do words become terms, but a more basic question is when do silences become terms?  I ask this because, time and again, the meaning of “the righteousness of God,” is treated like an unquestionable litmus test of orthodoxy even though the Westminster Confession and Catechisms never use the term.

The righteousness of Christ is given to us.  Paul says so in the third chapter of his letter to the Philippians:

For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness from God that is through faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Notice that this expression is completely different from the one used in Romans.  Rather than speaking of God’s own righteousness (the righteousness of God), he writes of a righteousness that is from God (the Greek word for from, ex, is added here).

Now, many of the Westminster prooftexts probably assume the term “Righteousness of God” in Romans, is the same as “righteousness from God” in Philippians 3, but 1) no one in Reformed churches is required to believe that the prooftexts are always the best to support the doctrine that is stated and 2) the term “righteousness of God” is never used, but rather, as I’ve already written, “righteousness of Christ.”

As N. T. Wright writes, after mentioning Philippians 3,

…the gospel of Jesus reveals God’s righteousness, in that God is himself righteous, and, as part of that, God is the one who declares the believer to be righteous. Once again we must insist that there is of course a “righteous” standing, a status, which human beings have as a result of God’s gracious verdict in Christ… He has been true to the covenant, which always aimed to deal with the sin of the world; he has dealt with sin on the cross; he has done so impartially, making a way of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike; and he now, as the righteous judge, helps and saves the helpless who cast themselves on his mercy (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 107).

3 thoughts on “Same theology but different prooftexts

  1. JWDS

    Which book is that from? And how is that not essentially an agreement with the imputation of the active obedience view? Christ was true to the covenant, and on the basis of this he has a righteous standing that belongs to his people. Different terms, same idea: it is righteousness that is reckoned, rather than infused, given because Christ was worthy and we are not. I’m content with a properly understood use of terms like “merit” and “imputation of the active obedience,” but I also have no problem with Wright’s terminology here.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *