Believing in Everything

David Wells:

G. K. Chesterton once observed that when God and his truth vanish from a society, it would be natural to think that people would no longer believe in anything at all. That, however, turns out not to be the case. Now they believe in everything.  

How else do we explain the remarkable circumstance of highly sophisticated people, secularized or postmodern, who can assault any and every religious belief but who, at the same time, can indulge fantasies about aliens? Or sightings of Elvis? Or the most far-fetched conspiracy theories, like that the Bush administration actually planned and carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? Or, on a more mundane level, how can these highly sophisticated people also think that every religious belief, no matter how unlikely, has validity as long as someone holds it sincerely? However, in this atmosphere, where everything is believed and anything is believable, at least to someone, nothing can act as a norm. All that is left is power. And, in a fallen world, we do well to be cautious when all there is, is power.

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 71.

Man's Ineffably Profound Fitness

Defining in what the image of God consists has proven more challenging than might be expected. I think this definition given by John Piper is as good as any I've seen:

"The image of God in man is man's ineffably profound fitness to image forth Christ's glory through everlasting joy in God."

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 39.

Hermeneuticotheological Methods of Liberation Theology and Evangelical Theology in the Latin American Context

Here is the first paper I wrote for my first class, under Professor Gene Green, in the graduate program I did at Wheaton College. It's by no means the best piece of writing I've done. Yet, after a fashion, I have a peculiar affection for it. Mind you, as it was the first paper I produced, there are formatting issues, not least with how I cited my sources.

Introduction and Background: Liberation and Evangelical Theologies in Latin America

Both evangelical theology (ET) and liberation theology (LT) have left their mark on Latin America in the past several decades.  The rise of each, although occurring at about the same time and because of some of the same cultural precursors, has occurred because of diverse influences and convictions.  Likewise the hermeneutical and theological methodologies deployed by each, while developing side by side and bearing some similarities, have come about because of diverse influences and convictions.  This essay attempts to think through and assess the foundational assumptions and principles of each method and offer some biblical-theological reflections.

Vatican II (1962-1965) with its watershed statements about political, economic, and social problems in the world and Gutiérrez’ A Theology of Liberation appear to be two important loci for the beginnings of LT.  Vatican II spawned a conference of Latin American Bishops held in Medellín in 1968 that resulted in “a new hermeneutic” that interprets the Scriptures “from below.”[1]  Theologian Gustavo Gutiíerrez, among others, began to guide this interpretation of Scripture “from below,” not least through his book A Theology of Liberation.[2] 

As Gutiérrez put it when LT was on the ascendancy, “The historical womb from which liberation theology has emerged is the life of the poor and, in particular, of the Christian communities that have arisen within the bosom of the present-day Latin American church.”[3]  This statement highlights the crucial place of the Latin American context, with all its sociopolitical and socioeconomic realities, and the crucial place of the poor in the Latin American church.

           

Evangelical theology has its roots in the movement of Protestantism to Latin America in the nineteenth century through Protestant missionary labors[4] and its present shape, power, and influence in the formation of the Latin American Evangelical Fraternity in 1970, led by René Padilla and Orlando Costas.[5]  Earlier in the twentieth century, the historic worldwide missionary conference of 1910 that was held in Edinburgh was attended by some evangelicals who understood that Latin America needed the gospel despite the majority position that it did not because of widespread Roman Catholicism.[6]  These evangelicals stirred up Protestant missionary longings and labors in subsequent years.    

           

In this essay, unless otherwise noted, the words hermeneutical and method are being used as they seem generally to be used in the literature: that is, rather loosely to mean something like the standpoint from which and the way in which one goes about doing theology.  The word theology is used diversely in the literature.  For example, Gutiérrez defines theology thus: “critical reflection on humankind, on basic human principles.”[7]  Compare now, for example, the definition given by Costas: “The term ‘theology’ means literally a rational discourse about God.”[8]  He then expands on this and calls it “the intelligence of faith” and “that reflection which seeks to understand the content of faith and its implications for life.”[9]  Costas uses the word according to its etymology and historical usage.  Liberation theologians tend not to use it this way.  Instead, they tend to give it an anthropological and sociological meaning.  Praxis, an important term, is defined differently by different people as well.  Costas, for example, an evangelical, defines praxis “as action based on reflection, or the actualization of theory.”[10]  Liberation theologians define praxis in a fairly narrow way, generally speaking, as liberating action for the poor, and make reflection a second stage.  Their definitions tell one about their respective methodologies. 

Some say that the hermeneutic or method of LT is simply the theory of the popular reading among base ecclesial communities of the poor in Latin America.[11]  Others, however, do not directly equate LT with popular reading of the Bible among the poor since there are professional liberation theologians with sophisticated training and methods and more pastorally oriented liberation theologians who have considerable training doing LT.  This essay deals primarily with what has been called the professional level of doing theology and not so much the pastoral or popular levels, though it interacts with these some.  However, as Boff and Boff stated in 1987, “Liberation theology is a cultural and ecclesial phenomenon by no means restricted to a few professional theologians.”[12]  And people doing LT are by definition interacting with the base ecclesial communities of the poor, or they are not engaged in LT.     
                                                                                 

This essay also focuses on the hermeneutical and theological methods of LT and ET during their more formative, foundational stages, that is, in the 1970s and 1980s.  In more recent times LT has become rather passé or, perhaps better said, has been displaced by what is called cultural criticism.[13]  Yet its influence has not totally disappeared. 

Apolitical Churches the Most Political of All?

Russell Moore:

The most self-consciously "apolitical" churches are typically the most political of all. The Southern Presbyterian Church and Baptist churches of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demanded a "spirituality of the church" that addressed only evangelism and discipleship, not "politics." Of course, they did address politics. When a "simple gospel-preaching" church in 1856 Alabama or 1925 Missisippi calls sinners to repentance for fornicating and gambling but not for slave owning and lynching, that church isn't "apololitical." That church is implicitly blessing the status quo.

—Russell D. Moore, "Evangelical Retreat?" First Things (December 2013): 49.

How to Guard the Gospel

In his second epistle to his protégé Timothy, Paul tells the young pastor, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim. 2:7). It is precisely in dependently pondering God's speech that the light of understanding often breaks into the darkness of our lack of understanding (see also Ps. 119:130).

Well, I'm not a pastor. I'm no Timothy. But I do often lack understanding. And thinking over God's Word is how that lack is supplied. Recently, as I was pondering a portion of 2 Timothy while walking on the treadmill in my dimly lit study, light poured into my mind. Understanding was given. Light shone where formerly there was darkness. 

And what I saw was as invigorating as it was illuminating. I learned how we are to guard the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. "Guard through the Holy Spirit the good deposit" (2 Tim. 1:14). But how do we do that? How do we do anything by the Holy Spirit? How do we act through the agency of another person? On the treadmill, light came in considering the relation of v. 13 to v. 14 in 2 Tim. 1:13-14. What one sees (do ponder long and hard with me, if need be) are the parallel elements of vv. 13–14, and how they are mutually interpreting. 

I'll lay them out so you can see what I'm seeing, and then I'll explain what I am seeing. I'm providing my own translation here, but you can see this in virtually any English translation. Here vv. 13–14 are in block diagram form and then side-by-side in columns so you can see the parallels more readily. 

v. 13—Hold fast the pattern of sound words, 
                                       which you heard from me,
                  with the faith and love 
                                           that are in Christ Jesus.

v. 14—Guard the good deposit 
                  through the Holy Spirit
                                           who dwells in us.

v. 13	v. 14
Hold fast	Guard
the pattern of sound words	the good deposit
with the faith and love	through the Holy Spirit
that are in Christ Jesus	who dwells in us

You can now see the corresponding elements. The phrase "which you heard from me" is the only element in v. 13 that doesn't have a corresponding element in v. 14 (at least not in the Greek, though some English translations supply it). And that's okay. Paul is not trying to be poetic like that.

The "pattern of sound words" and "the good deposit" correspond to each other and refer to the Gospel of Christ. "Hold fast" and "guard" are saying essentially the same thing. These commands tell Timothy what he is to do. He is to hold fast and guard the Gospel, which Gospel is here described as a "pattern of sound words" and as "the good deposit." This should be clear enough.

What then is illuminating and invigorating is seeing the parallel between "with the faith and love" and "through the Holy Spirit." Both of these phrases tell Timothy the means or manner by which the holding fast and guarding are to be carried out. So "with the faith and love" is the manner or way or means that Timothy is to "hold fast the pattern of sound words." And "through the Holy Spirit" is the manner or way or means that Timothy is to "guard the good deposit."

If you're tracking with me, perhaps you see where this is going, perhaps you're beginning to see in the light of this parallel as you ponder what Paul has penned. By seeing the corresponding elements, we can see that we avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit's provision to guard the Gospel, to hold fast to the Gospel, by the means of faith and love. Do you see that in the parallel? Look. Ponder. Long and hard. The Lord will give you understanding in everything.

So how do we guard the good deposit through the Spirit? How do we do this in his power? We do it with faith and love. Without faith and love, Timothy cannot, and we cannot, hold fast to the Gospel, we cannot guard the Gospel through the Holy Spirit. However, as we walk in faith and love, the Holy Spirit is at work to keep us keeping the faith.

The other parallel elements speak of the metaphysical or supernatural sphere where the task of holding fast and guarding the Gospel plays out. I use local language ("sphere") because Paul does ("that are in Christ Jesus" and "who dwells in us"). But we are speaking here of almost unspeakable glories: being in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Faith and love come by being in Christ. And the Holy Spirit dwelling in us comes also by being in Christ. And there—in Christ—the Holy Spirit moves in faith and love. And he moves with faith and love in us in Christ Jesus to enable Timothy and to enable us to hold fast and guard the Gospel of God. Which holding fast and guarding gets at a central theme of this second epistle to Timothy, Paul's last letter, written with his life-blood as he waits in prison for his execution as a criminal (2 Tim. 2:9; 4:6).

So there you have it: pondering what Paul has penned, and God giving understanding. In this new light, then, in this new understanding given by God, let us guard the Gospel through the Spirit's power, that is to say, "with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus."

Misplaced vs. Well-placed Shame

Piper:

The biblical criterion for misplaced shame and for well-placed shame is radically God-centered. The biblical criterion for misplaced shame says, Don't feel shame for something that honors God, no matter how weak or foolish or wrong it makes you look in the eyes of other people. And don't take on to yourself the shamefulness of a truly shameful situation unless you are in some way truly woven into the evil. The biblical criterion for well-placed shame says, Do feel shame for having a hand in anything that dishonors God, no matter how strong or wise or right it makes you look in the eyes of others.

—John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God (Colorado Springs: Multonomah, 2012), 133.

Delight Turned into Sacrifice

Why poetry for the Christian? Why even bother? Apart from its aesthetic value, it doesn't seem to have the powers of other modes of communication to transform and renew the mind. And that's the goal, isn't it—conformity to the mind of Christ? So why bother? Let's press on with producing more crystal-clear prose in doing the Lord's work.

Or so it might be thought.

Some might think: Why not just sermons, systematic theologies, lectures, and discursive? Surely poetry can't communicate as much and as clearly as more didactic modes of communication. Or can it? Or can it perhaps communicate even more, passing on to the soul what other modes could never dream of communicating? Perhaps it has unique powers able to penetrate deeper, at least in certain respects.

Think about it. And you decide. Read some powerful poetry that communicates familiar and precious truths. And consider this first stanza of George Herbert's poem The Church-Porch:

Thou, whose sweet youth and early hopes enhance
Thy rate and price, and mark thee for a treasure;
Harken unto a Verser, who may chance
Rhyme thee to good, and make a bait of pleasure.
     A verse may find him, who a sermon flies,
     And turn delight into a sacrifice.

—George Herbert, The Complete English Poems (New York: Penguin, 1991), 6.

The Evangelical Tendency to Avoid Doctrinal Disputes

Piper:

The increasing abandonment of truth and moral absolutes in our culture, as militant diversity threatens all firm conviction, has dramatically influenced the evangelical mindset. The political spin doctors who specialize in deflecting attention away from truth onto feelings and relationships and styles have their counterpart in the evangelical tendency to avoid doctrinal disputes by casting issues in terms of demeanor and method rather than truth. Serious disagreements are coverered over, while vague language and pragmatic concerns preserve hollow unity at the expense of theological substance and biblical clarity and power.

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 24.

Sunk Down Dumb?

Calvin commenting perceptively and powerfully on 2 Tim. 1:7: 

God governs his ministers by the spirit of power that is the opposite of the spirit of fearfulness. It follows from this that they should not relapse into laziness but should rouse themselves in great assurance and eager activity and display in visible results the Spirit’s power. . . . Here his special concern is with ministers, and he exhorts them in the person of Timothy to rouse themselves to active deeds of valour: for the Lord does not wish them to perform their office coldly and without vigor, but to press on powerfully relying on the efficacy of the Spirit.  

From this we learn that none of us possesses in himself the loftiness of spirit and unshaken confidence needed in the exercise of our ministry; we must be endued with new power from on high. The hindrances are so many and so great that no human courage can be adequate to overcome them. Thus it is God who equips us with the Spirit of power. For those who otherwise show great strength immediately fall when they are not sustained by the power of the Spirit of God. 

Second, we infer that those who are timid and weak like slaves so that, when need arises, they do not dare take any action for the defense of the truth, are not governed by the Spirit who rules over the servants of Christ. Thus it follows that very few of those who are called ministers of Christ today give any sign of being genuine. For how often is there to be found among them one who relies on the power of the Spirit and confidently sets at nought all the powers in high places that range themselves against Christ? Do not most, nearly all, care more for their own interests and their own leisure? Do they not sink down dumb as soon as any trouble breaks out? The result is that in their ministry there appears none of the majesty of God.

 —John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (eds., Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F; trans. Smail, T. A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 294-295.

Mi Amor

I love you to the bottom, Emily, mi amor. And I'm so thankful for your sweet love. It's better than the best of wine!

I rejoice this day in our "uncommon union." And I rejoice that over six years ago we wed with this banner over our marriage:

           It's not about me;
           it's not about you.
           It's about the glory of God!

And I'm rejoicing all the more that that banner still stands over our marriage, to your great joy, and to my great joy, and (we pray) to the great joy of the generations!

Carson on Commentaries

In this post, D. A. Carson speaks about how to use commentaries.

Two Things That Governed Owen's Pastoral Ministry

Owen:

I acknowledge that these are the two things whereby I regulate my work in the whole course of my ministry. To impart those truths of whose power I hope I have had in some measure a real experience, and to press those duties which present occasions, temptations, and other circumstances, do render necessary to be attended unto in a peculiar manner, are the things which I would principally apply myself unto in the work of teaching others; for as in the work of the ministry in general, the whole counsel of God concerning the salvation of the church by Jesus Christ is to be declared, so in particular we are not to fight uncertainly, as men beating the air, nor shoot our arrows at random, without a certain scope and design.

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 263.

The NT in a Flash

Andy Naselli, professor of NT and theology at Bethlehem College and Seminary, provides an  overview of the New Testament in ten minutes.

What Manner of Woman Is This?

The poise and ease with which my wife recently took care of a diaper gone bad (and I mean really bad) is a marvel of creation, almost otherworldly. 

I panicked. She performed. Flawlessly, seamlessly, promptly, as though she'd dealt with this dirty deed ten thousand times before. But I know she hadn’t. And she sang with cheer while going at the whole mess.

And by diaper gone bad, I mean as in defiling a great deal in its wake besides the diaper, leaving one usually delightful and cute little girl soiled and smelly, and toys and bed sheets and crib smeared with the unholy. 

What manner of woman I married is truly beyond mortal reckoning. But I know this: she is to be praised. May God “give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” (Prov. 31:31). 

The Righteousness of God Revealed

Here is my translation and exegesis and brief application of Rom. 3:21-26 (which I produced for a Greek exegesis class I took at Wheaton College under the tutelage of Professor Doug Moo):

Translation

²¹ But now, apart from the law, a righteousness from God has been manifested,

²² even a righteousness from God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who are believing;

²³ for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God,

²⁴ being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

²⁵ whom God displayed publicly as a propitiatory sacrifice by his blood through faith, in order to demonstrate his righteousness, because of the passing over, in God’s forbearance, of the sins previously committed,

²⁶ for the demonstration of his righteousness at the present time, in order that he might be just even in justifying the one who has faith in Jesus.

Introduction

Leon Morris calls this “possibly the most important paragraph every written.”[1] Luther, less reticent than Morris, calls Rom. 3:21-26 "the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible."[2] Can one overstate the place and importance of Paul's gospel paragraph in Romans 3? Hardly. For here “Paul brings out something of the grandeur of Christ's saving work. He speaks of the righteousness of God, the sin of man, and the salvation of Christ. He views this salvation in three ways: as justification (imagery from the law court), as redemption (imagery from the slave market), and as propitiation (imagery from the averting of wrath).”[3] So this paragraph packs quite a load, stacked with thick theology whose depths one never reaches through to the bottom, laden with dense debates whose pages press on with no end in view. To undertake to unpack this passage in a puny paper leaves one feeling frustrated from the get-go.

As Stuhlmacher has said, "Anyone who wants to become acquainted with Paul's gospel must above all study Romans."[4] After all, Romans is fundamentally, chiefly, centrally (whatever else it addresses) about the Gospel of God (Rom. 1:1). And we might add that anyone who wants to study Paul’s Gospel must above all study Rom. 3:21-26, the heart of this magnificent epistle. But before getting to the heart of the letter, we must briefly find our way there on the path Paul takes us.

The thesis statement of the letter, as virtually all are agreed, comes in 1:16-17. Here Paul provides a summary of what will be argued with lumbering, brain-breaking literary logic. Paul wants to get to Rome to preach the Gospel, about which he has no shame, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is believing. For therein “a righteousness from God” is revealed, which mountain-like expression Paul will climb starting in 3:21. But before he gets there to the good news, his audience needs to get the bad news. So in 1:18-3:20 the whole world is indicted, every mouth stopped. First, Paul’s indictment primarily goes after the godless and lawless Gentiles (1:18-32); then, he lays low the privileged Jews and levels the playing field (2:1-3:20). His aim is to make it clear that all—no exceptions!—are under the power and penalty of sin (3:9). The law itself makes crystal clear that Jews are included, effectively stopping the Jewish as well as the Gentile mouth, making plain that no flesh will be justified in God’s sight by the works of the law, since its aim was to make sin known, not deliver from its power and penalty (3:19-20). That deliverance had to wait for a fresh and foretold manifestation of “a righteousness from God” in the promised Messiah.

Preaching at Westminster Chapel in London in the 1950s, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said this of Rom. 3:21:“There are no more wonderful words in the whole of the Scripture than just these two words, ‘But now.’”[5] Describing the sharpest turning point in redemptive history, Νυνὶ δὲ are undoubtedly two of the most wonderful words in Scripture. For with these words, we turn with the turning of the ages from the fading old covenant era of the law marked by sin, bondage, judgment, and death; and we turn to the enduring new covenant era of the Spirit marked by righteousness, freedom, justification, and life.

Exegesis[6]

3:21     Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν,

This δὲ speaks of a radical contrast, indicating that, the law having done its appointed work (3:19-20), it was “now” high time for the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to be revealed in history—“apart from that law.” Taking νυνὶ temporally, not logically,[7] the time is eschatological, like the “fullness of the time” in Gal. 4:4.[8] The main verb πεφανέρωται and the contextual contrast with the period of the law support this. The phrase χωρὶς νόμου[9] probably modifies the main verb rather than the subject, underscoring that this righteousness came with the Gospel. The law’s bearing witness to this righteousness confirms this, taking μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν as modifying δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, not the main verb. It is not the manifestation to come witnessed so much as this righteousness-gift itself. The expression τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν refers to the whole OT (e.g., Mt. 5:17; Lk. 24:44; Acts 28:23). Moses bore witness to this righteousness (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Deut. 9:4; 30:12-14).[10] The Prophets bore witness as well (e.g., Ps. 31:1; 142:2; Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2, LXX; Rom. 3:10-18).

The verb πεφανέρωται recalls 1:17 where ἀποκαλύπτεται is present tense, probably stressing the ongoing nature of the revelation in the Gospel proclaimed. Here Paul deploys the perfect (πεφανέρωται), probably either an intensive or extensive perfect,[11] pointing up a whole state of affairs that came with the coming of the Gospel and the shifting of the ages in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which state persists in the present age inaugurated by Jesus and his Spirit. The only other instance in the NT of πεφανέρωται comes in Heb. 9:26, which also highlights the shift in ages with νυνὶ δὲ and the manifestation of the Gospel.[12]

Now, the term bearing most on the passage’s meaning—δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ—has been hotly disputed. The δικ- word group and the צדק root and its cognates occur more than 800 times[13] in the OT and NT and have diverse translation values.[14] English Bibles translate the relevant terms variously as “just,” “right,” “justify,” “justice,” “righteousness,”” vindication,” “justification,” and so on.[15] By itself, δικαιοσύνη may be understood as just practice or equitable judgment, as juridical correctness, or as upright behavior in relation to some standard.[16]

This understanding of δικαιοσύνη as uprightness in relation to some standard[17] has been challenged by those who see it as a relational term dependent on the Hebrew root צדק that, it is said, denotes the correctness of actions in social relationships.[18] See, for example, Kasemann’s and Dunn’s commentaries.[19] But Seifrid states that a number of recent studies “have concluded on the basis of both etymology and usage that the concept of a standard or norm is generally associated with the צדק word-group.”[20] While Seifrid’s point holds, Bird probably speaks rightly in saying: “In so far as righteousness relates to God’s people [via the covenant and Torah], the norm of righteousness is then provided by the covenant relationship so that there cannot be any strict bifurcation between a norm and a relationship.”[21] In fact, much of the righteousness language comes in covenantal contexts (e.g., Ps. 89; Isa. 40-66). Therefore, it is not strictly relational, but juridical and moral, coming in a relational covenantal context. 

The term δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not occur in the LXX.[22] Nor does an equivalent expression occur in the MT (e.g., ץדק אלהים or צדק יהוה; Jer. 23:6 comes close with יְהוָ֥ה צִדְקֵֽנוּ). The closest expression is δικαιοσύνη κυρίου (only 1 Sam. 12:7; Mic. 6:5) and δικαιοσύνη modified by a personal pronoun (e.g., δικαιοσύνη σου in Ps. 35:7). There are more than a dozen such instances that apply to God. Some occur in parallel with or in contexts of salvation (e.g., Pss. 39:9-11; Isa. 46:12-13; 63:3); some in connection with steadfast love or faithfulness (e.g., Pss. 35:11; 97:1-3; 102:17-18); some in royal contexts highlighting God’s reign over the nations (e.g., Pss. 21:32; 96:6); some in contexts of pleas for vindication (e.g., Ps. 34:24, 28); some in a covenantal context harking back to God’s promises and commitment to his people (e.g., Isa. 41:8-10; 51:1-6); and some in judicial contexts with moral overtones (e.g., Mic. 6:5; 7:9). Oftentimes many of these ideas overlap (e.g., Ps. 39:9-11; 97:1-3; 102:17-18; Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2); sometimes the texts press toward Rom. 3:21-22 (e.g., Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2).

Contrary to a common assertion, the righteousness language in parallel with the salvation language does not equate the two; it only shows they are related. Supporting this, the LXX translators never use the σωτ- root for צדק- terms.[23] The OT leaves tension between God’s righteousness as against sin and as providing salvation and vindication. It only, finally, finds resolution in the wake of the work of Christ, when the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is manifested and demonstrated publicly in the Gospel.

The first instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the NT occurs in Rom. 1:17. The term (or a very similar construction) occurs also in Rom. 3:5, 21-22, 25-26; 10:3 (twice); and 2 Cor. 5:21. Other similar constructions occur in Matt. 6:33; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9; and 2 Pet. 1:1. Apart from Matthew’s use, these other constructions and the 2 Cor. 5:21 use are forensic, an alien righteousness being bestowed in Christ.[24] In Rom. 3:5, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ really has to mean something like “God’s faithfulness to his own person and word.”[25]

According to Wright, Rom. 1:17, as an introductory statement, “is necessarily cryptic, and needs to be interpreted in the light of what comes later.”[26] Though this is probably stated too strongly, there is wisdom here. The full significance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is only unpacked as Paul’s argument progresses. Yet, at least two textual features in the context point in the direction of a status of righteousness bestowed.

First, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ being revealed in the Gospel is the reason that “it is the power of God for salvation.” So δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ should not be equated with the power of the Gospel, nor with the Gospel itself, nor with the salvation it brings, which salvation is its effect. It is in (ἐν) this Gospel (Rom. 1:2-4) proclaimed that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ “is being revealed.” So δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is distinct, though not separate, from the Gospel andfrom salvation. 

Second, understanding 1:18 as the reason why the Gospel was needed, the context of God’s wrath being revealed against all ἀδικίαν tilts the interpretation toward a status bestowed based on an alien righteousness. If ἀδικίαν flared up God’s dander, the most natural way out would be through a righteousness before God that removes wrath and brings peace (5:1).

Twice “the righteousness of God” comes in Rom. 10:3. Paul witnesses to his fellow Jews’ unknowing zeal for God (10:2). He explains (γὰρ) in v. 3: “The righteousness of God” is contrasted with Israel’s “seeking to establish their own righteousness,” defined in 9:31-32 as a righteousness they sought to establish by “pursuing a law that leads to righteousness,”[27] “as though it were by works”(cf. Phil. 3:9). The law, if done, would result in life (Lev. 18:5).[28] But that was not the aim (τέλος)[29] of the law. Paul explains (γὰρ): “For the goal of the law is Christ for righteousness”[30] (Rom. 10:4).  Thus “they did not submit τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ” (10:3). They were ignorant of τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην that was the aim of the law, and the δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ to which they did not submit was “Christ for righteousness.” Interpreting δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ as righteousness given as a gift (taking τοῦ θεοῦ as a genitive of source) is confirmed by the contrast with “a righteousness of their own” (10:3) and the parallel with “Christ for righteousness.” This usage agrees with a forensic sense of a gift-righteousness in 3:21-22.

Paul’s use of δικαιόω also supports understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ forensically as a status bestowed. The verb occurs 27 times in Paul, 15 in Romans. In the LXX δικαιόω corresponds with צדק and is used consistently as “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify,” or to “vindicate.”[31] While it has a range of meanings in Hellenistic Greek, in Paul, following a common usage in the LXX, it always[32] has a forensic flavor, meaning “to be in the right” or “to be declared righteous.” This usage, not least because of δικαιόω in 3:24, favors taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ forensically, not as God’s saving righteousness or covenant faithfulness. Romans 8:33 confirms this interpretation, where a court room setting is clear and where being justified is contrasted with having charges brought against the elect (v. 33) and being condemned (v. 34). However, Seifrid argues cogently that all 27 occurrences of δικαιόω in Paul’s corpus “may be read in terms of vindication rather than the mere pronouncing of a verdict.”[33] So it is important not to reduce the notion of δικαιόω to a merely declarative verdict, losing some of the OT background of the language.

There are four main options for construing the genitive θεοῦ. It could be subjective (God exercises righteousness or faithfulness);[34] possessive (God’s inherent righteousness); objective (a righteousness availing before God); or a genitive of source (a righteous status from God).[35] The possessive and objective do not fit best because this righteousness is a gift received through faith (vv. 22, 24).[36] The two main options, then, are righteousness as a status bestowed and righteousness as God’s action. Although there is ample OT background for righteousness as God’s activity, it does not seem to be the dominant idea here.[37] For, as noted in 1:17, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is distinct from the Gospel and salvation. Moreover, righteousness coming through faith as a gift (v. 22) pushes the interpretation toward something actually given rather than something done by God.

Support for this interpretation may also be found in the “reckoning” (λογίζομαι, 11 times in Rom. 4), accounting, and law-court language. In Romans 4, Paul undergirds his teaching that faith is the sole means of justification for Jew and Gentile in 3:27-31: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (4:3). How to understand this reckoning comes clear in 4:4-5 where Paul deploys accounting terms. A status is in view, where the ungodly are counted as righteous. The “before God” law-court imagery (3:20; 4:3) and righteousness as a gift (5:17) confirm this.

3:22     δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ[38] Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή,

The δὲ (“even”) focuses attention[39] and specifies the general statement in v. 21. The δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ comes διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which phrase only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Gal. 2:16. This is a greatly debated phrase, in Galatians as in Romans. Should πίστεως be taken as “faithfulness,”[40] or as “faith”?[41] And what kind of genitive is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, objective or subjective, or otherwise?

In favor of taking πίστεως as “faithfulness,” the main point often made is that “faith” is redundant with πιστεύοντας in the following phrase. But this does not actually seem to be the case. Paul seems to want to highlight the means of being justified (“though faith”) apart from works (3:20, 28) before highlighting that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is universally available (“to all who are believing”). These are not saying exactly the same thing. Also against the objective genitive line, the conventional reading cannot explain how faith reveals δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ instrumentally.[42]

In favor of taking πίστεως as “faith,” the following context (especially 3:27-31, focusing on faith versus works; and 5:1, summarizing the previous major section) shows Paul’s burden to highlight how both Jew and Gentile experience δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ apart from works. The faith/works antithesis is so strong in this section, set up in 3:20, that strong contextual features must be present to depart from it. And as Dunn points out, everything Paul has said about “faith” in Romans 1 naturally moves his readers to assume the objective meaning.[43] Furthermore, whenever πίστις acts as an anarthrous head term with a preceeding prepositional modifier, it functions abstractly, favoring Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as the object of faith.[44]

As Silva notes, “because of the inherent ambiguity of genitival constructions, the phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ must be understood in the light of unambiguous constructions appearing in the context.”[45] It was argued above that there is good reason for seeing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a gift from God. If this is accepted, διὰ πίστεως should be seen as modifying an implied verb “is given” or “coming.”[46] That the gift idea is right is supported by 4:24 (“being justified freely by his grace”) and by further elaboration in 5:17 where“the gift of righteousness” comes with “the abundance of grace.”

The εἰς πάντας in NA²⁷ is supported by p⁴⁰, א*, A, B, C, P, Ψ, 81, 104, 630, 1506, 1739, 1881 al, Cl Did. Other manuscripts have εις παντας και επι παντας (א², D, F, G, 33, M, it, vg^cl, sy; Ambst).[47] A few witnessess have επι παντας. The external evidence favors the NA²⁷ text with early, quality attestation. The Majority text appears to be a conflation of the manuscript evidence, “producing an essentially redundant and tautological expression.”[48]

So this δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is “for all who are believing” (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας). Why? “For (γάρ) there is no distinction”(οὐ ἐστιν διαστολή; cf. 10:12). As Paul has argued up to this paragraph, “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (3:9), mouths stopped, unable to be justified by the works of the law (3:20). The present tense πιστεύοντας probably implies that Paul did not think of experiencing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as something happening only at the beginning of believing but as continuing lifelong as one goes on believing.[49]

3:23     πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

Paul continues the universal, all-inclusive scope with the subject “all” (πάντες). The γὰρ explains why there is no distinction. The aorist ἥμαρτον should probably be taken as a constative aorist,[50] although gnomic is possible.[51] Paul seems to want to stress humanity’s sinfulness (1:18-3:20), although a connection with sinning in Adam may be hinted at by the aorist (cf. Rom. 5:12).

The verb ὑστερέω occurs 8 other times in Paul (1 Cor. 1:7; 8:8; 12;24; 2 Cor. 11:5, 9; 12:11; Phil. 4:12). Although it can mean to fail to reach something (e.g., Heb. 4:1; 12:15),[52] in Pauline usage it arguably always means “lacking.” Seen in connection with the last use of “the glory of God” in Rom. 1:23, the best translation may be “lacking” τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. [53] The sense is that the glory of God’s image was marred and lost through sin.[54] This image is precisely what is restored in consequence of justification (“conformed to the image of his Son” in parallel with “those whom he justified, he also glorified,” Rom. 8:29-30).

3:24     δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

How δικαιούμενοι relates to what precedes is a syntactical conundrum noted by virtually all the commentators. Sanday and Headlam describe the main options.[55] It is most naturally taken with one or both verbs in v. 23, but this gives the main theme of the paragraph a subordinate role.[56] So some take vv. 22b-23 parenthetically.[57] The nominative masculine plural participle seems to refer to the immediately preceding πάντες. But of course this πάντες also refers to the πάντας of v. 22.

Perhaps δικαιούμενοι should not be linked too tightly with any one element. The connection seems looser and more inclusive. The participle agrees with the “all” of vv. 22-23, carries on the main theme of vv. 21-22 with the δικ- language, and flows from what v. 23 says about the state of all. So “being justified” fills out the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that set the agenda for this paragraph. Moreover, the justified are the sinful-and-lacking-the-glory-of-God “all”of v. 23, marked out by faith (v. 22).[58]

God’s justifying is further qualified: it is given “freely” (δωρεὰν), “by his grace” (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι), and “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). Since δικαιόω has been discussed, all that needs to be added here is that the participle is passive—God justifies the ungodly (cf. 4:5). The giving of an alien righteousness is God’s doing, compelled by nothing outside God, given δωρεὰν. It has nothing whatever to do with a one’s works but is entirely τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι (see esp. 11:6 where χάριτι and ἐξ ἔργων are antithetical; cf. 4:4, 16; Eph. 2:8; Tit. 3:7). Paul uses χάρις 24 times in Romans. But Rom. 5:15 and 17 are the only other places where χάρις and δωρεὰ come in the same verse. And God’s grace (“unmerited favor”) and gift given there (5:17) is τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης (objective genitive), the gift of an alien righteousness by the grace and through the obedience of the second Adam (5:15, 19).

The last phrase modifying “being justified” is διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Schreiner avers rightly that the note of fulfillment in 3:21 suggests interpreting ἀπολύτρωσις (and ἱλαστήριον) in light of the OT.[59] The term ἀπολύτρωσις occurs 10 times in the NT, 7 in Paul (twice in Romans; cf. 8:23). But does it merely mean deliverance, or deliverance through payment of a price? The word occurs in the LXX only in Dan. 4:34, but this does not help with NT usage. 

Morris has argued convincingly that the basic word λύτρον and its cognates in the LXX and its associated Hebrew equivalents “are properly applied to redemption by payment of price.”[60] Of the use of λύτρον and its cognates in the NT, he says that “the words associated with λύτρον consistently express the ransom idea.”[61] The broader thematic theological background for τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ is surely the exodus tradition (Exod. 12-15), not least as it comes through Isaiah 40-55 where deliverance from exile is described in terms of a second exodus.[62] That this is the likely broader background for Rom. 3:24 is supported by the righteousness language in Isaiah 40-55. So this redemption in Christ Jesus is a second exodus through his death (v. 25),  where deliverance from sin’s penalty (forgivesness, the “negative” side of “being justified”; cf. 4:7) is purchased by Jesus’ substitutionary blood (3:25; 5:9; cf. Eph. 1:7).

3:25     ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων

The relative clause beginning v. 25 looks back to “Christ Jesus” (v. 24). Syntactically, the clause enlarges upon how “being justified through the redemption in Christ Jesus” came about: God publicly displayed[63] (προέθετο) Jesus as a ἱλαστήριον. This word has been another battleground for fierce debate. It appears elsewhere in the NT only in Heb. 9:5, where it means “mercy seat”[64] or “atonement cover.”[65] In the LXX, ἱλαστήριον occurs 28 times, translating כפרת in all twenty instances in Exodus and Leviticus.  

Lexicographically, in both Hellenistic and Classical Greek, the word routinely refers to placating.[66] But there is little doubt the OT background is the mercy seat (Ex. 25; Lev. 16). Whether Paul’s audience would have recognized the reference to the mercy seat, Paul certainly made this connection (Heb. 9:5 supports this). Moreover, the mercy seat was the place on the Day of Atonement where sin was expiated and God’s wrath removed.[67] Beyond this, God’s wrath has hung over every head from Rom. 1:18 to 3:20, nothing explicitly addressing this perilous position before a righteous and wrathful God (until “now,” v. 21). The notion of removing wrath is therefore undeniably present, especially given the usage of ἱλαστήριον in Paul’s day.[68] Along with the reference to blood (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι),[69] an appropriate rendering is “propitiatory sacrifice.”[70]  

This propitiatory sacrifice occurs by means of Jesus’ blood.[71] “Blood” in the OT and NT dominantly refers to violent death or sacrifice.[72] Both referents are doubtless included here in Jesus’ death (cf. 5:9-10), the Day of Atonement looming as OT background (see also Isa. 53:5, 7, 11 with Rom. 4:25). The NA²⁷ editors had difficulty coming to a conclusion about the phrase διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως.[73] The external support is perhaps slightly better for including τῆς, but it is difficult to see why it would have been removed and easier to understand why it would have been added (for clarity). In any case, the sense would not change much. The phrase probably modifies “propitiatory sacrifice,” rather than the verb, the propitiation becoming effective through faith.[74] The faith focuses on Jesus’ blood, his death standing as a part for the whole work of redemption.[75] This is supported by noting that faith is in Jesus in vv. 22 and 26, and by noting the parallel in 5:9 (“justified by his blood”) along with 5:1 (“justified by faith”). Faith in Christ is faith in the Christ of the cross.

Paul then states God’s general aim (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) and the situation calling for it (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ) before specifying his aim in v. 26 (πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ ). God’s demonstrating his righteousness in the propitiatory sacrifice by Jesus’ blood was necessary (διὰ, “because of”[76]) because God’s patience did not give past sins their due as he passed over[77] a proper penalty.

3:26     ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ.

Trying to understand δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ here in vv. 25-26, noting that the grammar is not the same as in vv. 21-22 (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) may signal Paul is thinking slightly differently here. Moreover, the more specific aim[78] of God’s displaying his righteousness in v. 26—“that he might be just even in[79] justifying the one who has faith in Jesus”—points to a cosmic tension. How could the righteous and wrathful God be both just and count as just unjust sinners? The justification in verses 21-24 presents a cosmic crisis. God’s aim to be just even in justifying sinners shows that another nuance of righteousness is warranted here. Verse 25 answers this crisis—the propitiatory sacrifice in Jesus’ blood absorbed the just penalty of sinners’ sins (God is therefore seen as “just”) while providing the way for God to justify the ungodly who trust in Jesus’ blood (4:5; 5:9). The phrase ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ  indicates that this demonstration occurs in the eschatological new age that dawned in the Gospel  (as in 3:21; cf. 8:18; 11:5).

So “God’s righteousness” here must refer primarily to God’s inherent righteousness that, among other things, judges sin in accord with his character and word (cf. 3:5, where the meaning of δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ is similar).[80] Although some commentators take δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ as “covenant faithfulness” or “saving justice,”[81] the focus really must be on God’s distributive justice because of these clauses: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. Inasmuch as God is inherently righteous and will judge the world (Rom. 3:4-6), his apparent laxity with sins called his righteousness into question, as would his justification of the ungodly were it not for the cross. And inasmuch as God’s whole aim in all he does is to display and uphold his glory (references strewn everywhere in Scripture), Piper goes deepest (in heeding Scripture’s whole context and total witness) in explaining God’s righteousness as his unswerving allegiance to uphold the honor of his name.[82] And if God’s inherent righteousness moves him to always act according to his character and word, this would include his covenant faithfulness and saving justice, though these are not the foci here.

From the discussion above, there is sufficient reason to take πίστεως Ἰησοῦ  in v. 22 as “faith in Jesus.” So here τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, without parallel in the NT, should be taken as “the one who has faith in Jesus.” The construction οἱ ἐκ νόμου in Rom. 4:14 may in a sense be its antithesis.

           

Summary and Application

We began by observing the punch Paul’s powerful Gospel packs. After considering the central text of Romans in some detail, we end here as well. For there always exists, until the last day, a need for the revealed “righteousness of God.” Since all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God, if God is going to fulfill his promises of old to his people and to this world, he must provide a way for the ungodly to be accepted into his presence and family, whether Jew or Greek. He has done this by providing an alien righteousness in Christ for all who believe. But since this gift is given freely by his grace, not dependent on works, a cosmic crisis ensues. God’s righteousness is in the dock—where he himself has placed it—and through the redemption and propitiation in Jesus’ blood, it stands vindicated as just even in justifying the ungodly. What glory and wisdom in the cross! What ineffable grace! Small wonder then that Paul was not ashamed of this Gospel: it is the power of God to save ungodly people to the uttermost! Oh the depths of the riches!

Massive implications follow from this great gospel paragraph for all sorts of human cares and concerns: for race relations, for marriage muddles, for childrearing difficulties, for Christian nurture, for counseling conundrums, for psychological challenges, for ecclesiastical infightings, for seating arrangements, for the demands of love, for the pretensions of pride (corporate and individual), and much, much more. But one always stands atop the rest—the vertical dimension. That is, the perennial problem of sinful men and women justly judged and estranged under God’s righteous wrath. We must never forget what this paragraph addresses first: the horrible condition of humanity in Rom. 1:18-3:20 before God.

The so-called New Perspective on Paul, for all it virtues, tends to start and stay too much in the horizontal plane, whereas Paul starts with the vertical dimension, lives and moves and has his being there, and then deduces horizontal implications. And there is all the difference in the world! A right understanding of the righteousness of God revealed in the context of righteous wrath saves the Church from ten thousand errors in doctrine and practice. And so, though Luther’s view is often derided and dismissed in the world of academics, this exegisis affirms that Luther was right: what is revealed in Rom. 3:21-26 about the righteousness of God is the article by which the Church stands or falls. May God give his blood-bought, colorful bride, made up of Jew and Gentile, the courage and conviction to be unashamed of this Gospel.

Bibliography and Footnotes

The Fascination and Difficulty of History

"The reason history is fascinating is because people in other times and places are so like us. The reason history is difficult is because people in other times and places are so different from us."

—N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 50.

Sucking in Godliness at the Breast

Commenting on 2 Tim. 1:5 and the inducements Paul puts before Timothy to urge him to press on in the faith, Calvin says this of Timothy's grandmother Lois and mother Eunice:

"By [them] he was reared in his infancy in such a way that he could suck in godliness along with his mother's milk."

—John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (eds., Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F; trans. Smail, T. A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 292.

Courage to Be Protestant

The argument that David Wells makes in his book—The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World—comes, as you might expect, in the first paragraph of chapter 1 on page 1. And it is this:

It takes no courage to sign up as a Protestant. After all, millions have done so throughout the West. They are not in any peril. To live by the truths of historic Protestantism, however, is an entirely different matter. That takes courage in today's context.

But he also adds what might not be expected in the second paragraph:

But it [the argument] needs to be made not only with postmodern culture in mind but also with contemporary evangelicalism in mind. The truths of historic Protestantism are sometimes no more welcome in evangelicalism than they are in the outside culture. 

To my great dismay, I have found this to be true in my experience of modern American evangelicalism. And it has astonished me that so-called Protestants have been so ready to dispense with Protestantism.

Wells speaks to the what and how and why of all of this as well as anyone. And so I heartily commend the close reading of absolutely anything and everything he has written on this topic and on culture generally.

But be prepared: you just might have to gain a good deal of courage to soldier on if you become persuaded that he is correct in his assessment. And I'm afraid that all too many, not least among evangelical leadership, are unwilling to count the cost and embrace that cross. For that cross puts you out of step not only with the general cultural milieu but also with your own contemporary evangelical context. And the suffering and loss that come, in a variety of ways, with being out of step with much of evangelicalism are not easy to embrace.

Small wonder, then, that Wells speaks of the need for courage. And he is not alone in saying that courage is the "the need of the hour."

Thinking Much About and Of Oneself

Cornelius Plantinga:

Pride "is a blend of self-absorption—that is, narcissism—with an overestimate of one's abilities or worth—that is, conceit. So a proud person thinks a lot about herself and also thinks a lot of herself."

—Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 84.

Sin Defined Theologically

David Wells speaks of "the pictorial nature of the biblical vocabulary for sin" as it relates to God:

Sin is missing the target, falling short of a standard, and transgressing boundaries. However, the target that is missed, the path that is abandoned, the authority that is defied, the law that is transgressed are in each and every case God's. Sin is therefore going contrary to God, dismissing him, taking issue with him, defying him, refusing to submit to him, displacing him from the center of existence, ignoring him. It is, in short, arrogating to the self the place that only God should have.

—David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 189.