Available at Monergismbooks.com for purchase or at Desiring God as a pdf download.
Chapter 3 is entitled ‘The Law-Court Dynamics of Justification and the Meaning of God’s Righteousness.” The main points of this chapter that Dr. Piper addresses concerns Wright’s concept that justification happens at the final judgment, and the imputation of God’s righteousness to sinners through Christ. A key point of this chapter is Wright’s definition of God’s righteousness, and Dr. Piper’s definition of God’s righteousness.
Briefly, a key to Wright’s explanation of the law-court understanding of justification is the fact that the law-court scene in view is the final judgment. Piper, of course, argues that justification is a present reality as well as a future one. In fact, Piper states, most of the instances of justification in Paul are present tense, and most of them do not refer to a future event at the end of the age.
Wright draws out a very controversial implication and states that God’s righteousness cannot be imputed to the defendant just as a judge cannot transfer his righteousness from himself to the defendant. If this is true, then the last 1,500 years of Protestant-catholic debates have been misguided at best. In fact, the purpose of the Reformation was misguided. This is a remarkable claim to make about church history, making Wright somewhat of a modern-day Luther. However, before we all get behind Wright as the new Luther, Dr. Piper sees several problems with Wright’s conclusions.
One is that Wright’s definition of righteousness does not go deep enough. Piper states that Wright’s definition doesn’t go to the level of what God’s righteousness actually is, but simply stays at the level of what God’s righteousness does. Piper states, “He defines God’s righteousness by saying that it keeps covenant, judges impartially, deals properly with sin, and advocates for the helpless. None of those is what righteousness is, but they are some of the things righteousness does.” So the crucial question is, What is it about God’s righteousness that inclines Him to act the way He does? Piper answers this question this way: “The simple way is to say that God’s righteousness consists in his unswerving commitment to do what is right. In other words, behind his doing what is right is a knowledge and love of what is right that is so full and so strong that it consists in an inviolable allegiance or commitment or faithfulness to do what is right.”
But what is the “right” that God is so committed to? In classic John Piper, he defines what is right as God Himself. In other words, God’s unswerving commitment to what is right is His commitment to preserve the honor of His name and to display His glory. Piper states, “Righteousness is God’s inviolable faithfulness to uphold the value of his glory.” Piper explains in more detail:
My point is that Paul operates with the Old Testament understanding that the deepest meaning of God’s righteousness is his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory. The belittling of his glory by all humanity is the problem Paul sets up in Romans 1-3. Then, as he presents God’s solution, he describes sin in terms of belittling God’s glory (3:23), restates the problem as the passing over of these God-belittling sins, and gives the glorious answer in the vindication of God’s righteousness, that is, his unwavering commitment to act for the glory of his name.
Therefore, when Wright sets up the law-court scene in which the righteousness of the Judge and the righteousness of the defendant are different, Piper believes that he has created an artificial setup. Piper explains:
For both the defendant and the judge, righteousness is “an unwavering allegiance to treasure and uphold the glory of God.” This is what makes God and humans “righteous.” Therefore, it may turn out in this law-court that it is indeed conceivable for the Judge’s righteousness to be shared by the defendant. It may be that when the defendant lacks moral righteousness, the Judge, who is also Creator and Redeemer, may find a way to make his righteousness count for the defendant, since it is exactly the righteousness he needs-namely, an unwavering and flawless and acted-out allegiance to the glory of the Judge.
Whereas Wright sets up the law-court scene with definitions that do make the imputation of God’s righteousness to sinners appear to be nonsense, it is, John Piper believes, only because Wright has a shallow definition of God’s righteousness. Looking at God’s righteousness for what it is rather than simply what it does, the imputation of righteousness to the sinner makes sense.
