The race is on to finish Paul 2...
______________
Enveloped in Paul’s thoughts about God’s plan for the Gentiles are some familiar verses. We have heard them in terms of “getting saved,” about “becoming a Christian,” about “getting to heaven.” For example, Romans 10:13 says "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," quoting Joel 2:32. Romans 10:9 features in the “Roman road,” a series of verses from Romans meant to lead a person through the logic of becoming a Christian. On the Roman road, Romans 3:23 first tells us that “all have sinned,” which of course includes me. Then Romans 6:23 tells me that the “wages” for my sin is death. But Romans 5:8 gives me hope—even though I was a sinner, Christ died for me. Finally, we come to our verse from this passage, Romans 10:9: “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Hopefully the last few chapters have made it clear that, while this way of using these verses is not completely off, it approaches these verses a little differently than Paul did. For Paul, all these statements had to do with the question of whether Gentiles, non-Jews, could escape God’s coming judgment. This is what being saved and salvation means for Paul. It refers to escaping God’s wrathful judgment on the day when Christ returns to the earth and everyone gives him an account for the deeds they have done on earth—including believers for the things they have done after God forgives their sins (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). In that sense, no one is literally saved yet because salvation is something that is yet to come, on the Day of Judgment. When we speak of “getting saved,” we are really speaking of our assurance of something that has not yet happened.
So in Paul’s mind, the “all” in “all have sinned” meant "both Jew and Gentile" rather than just Gentiles—all, both, have sinned. And Paul’s arguments about the wages of sin and Christ dying for the ungodly were situated in his mind in a story in which the Jewish Law set the standard for sin and Israel would eventually recognize that Jesus was its messiah. Later Christianity has universalized Paul’s thinking in ways that are not wrong, but are slightly out of context. The Law becomes the universal moral law rather than the Jewish Law. The “all” in “all have sinned” shifts to the individual trying to be justified and ultimately saved, rather than the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
So Romans 10:9 is also situated in a passage where Paul is asking why it is that so many Gentiles are headed for salvation while most Jews were not. Why? Paul says it is because they insisted on doing it their way rather than God’s way. God's way was to make the world right with him through trust in Jesus, but the Jews by and large wanted to be right with God through keeping the Jewish Law (9:30-33). They stumbled over God's plan for "righteousness," in this case a right standing before God, through Jesus (9:33). They tried to establish a right standing before God on their own, rather than what God had in mind (10:3). [1]
Christ is thus the goal of the Law, that to which the Jewish Law points (10:4). Some traditions take the phrase "Christ is the end of the law" to mean that Christ brings an end to the law. But it is far more likely that Paul is saying Christ is the goal, the telos of the Law. As Paul says in Galatians 3:24, the Law was a guardian, a tutor for the Jews to be ready for Christ (NASB). But now that Christ has come, born under the Law to redeem Jews under the Law (4:4-5), faith has come and neither Jews nor Gentiles need the tutor any more (3:25). We have "grown up" in the maturity of salvation history now to have the status of sons and daughters who no longer need the Law as our guardian...
[1] The parallelism of 10:3 pushes us to take the phrase, "the righteousness of God" in 10:3 in reference to human righteousness more than God's righteousness as in 1:17. Of course Paul may intend a double entendre, as he may in Romans 3:21. Some like N. T. Wright insist that Paul always must mean God's righteousness when he uses the phrase (What Saint Paul Really Said ***), but this approach seems excessively rigid. Wright and others are correct that the background of the phrase pushes us toward God's righteousness as the default. But ultimately the immediate literary context must cast the deciding vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Theology grants questions, as much as answers, because it is speculative. No 'truth" in the here and now, unless there is "restorative justice" as Mark pointed out in the previous post, which leaves one to question what is the distinction of "the gospel" to humanitarian endeavors? or are there "image bearers", as most Christian believe in the "holiness tradition", and other evangelical traditions, as to "the gospel", ambassadors for Christ. It seems that "Paul" uses democratic ideals to interpret spiritual faith. The context for Paul was under oppressive rule, not the liberal democracies we have in the West today.
As Augustine was the one who spritiualized "the gospel" in the West, which was after Rome had fallen, is "the gospel" in the West becoming a 'Marxist gospel" where there is no distinction between the have's and the have nots? Then, where is the Protestant work ethic and free markets, and private property, etc. that we have known to bless man materially?
I'm not suggesting I have any answers, I certainly don't, and this is why I ask the questions...
Professor Schenck,
I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspectives with those Wesleyans who are fortunate enough to have found your blog. You have enabled this retired Wesleyan professor to grow intellectually and spiritually. In other words, you have done me a great service.
Thank you.
In Christ,
John C. Gardner
I'm surprised. This is basically the old perspective with a brief nod to the new perspective, the latter seen as an interesting historical detail but not really relevant enough to adjust any established soteriology. :-|
@Angie, I think we already see evidence of spiritualising the Gospel in the canon itself.
Compare the beatitudes of Luke and Matthew: Blessed are the poor (in spirit). Or again John's other worldliness, Hebrew's allegorising of sacrifice or Paul's [new] gospel of atonement which he calls "my gospel" having little to do with Jesus' gospel of the kingdom...
I suspect this is a result of a disappointment at the Kingdom not coming in power in a recognisable and timely way. We had hoped he was the one who was going to redeem Israel and restore it's kingdom but...
Marc, I would love some new perspective push back. My sense is that this passage is a little bit of a thorn in the side of NPP purists. i did try to word things a little differently. But Dunn does not deny that works of Law are not only focused on works of the Jewish Law.
The Jew/gentile question was a problem for the early Christians, that Paul was certainly addressing. But, I think the New Perspective wrongly takes metaphor concretely. Christians are not Israel, except metaphorically. So, there is no continuity from Jews to Christians, and Torah is finished. The saved always were saved by faith, that is the continuity in God's ways, that Torah is written on the heart of
Christians is also metaphor, Christians aren't under Torah, even an internal one, but have a different principle of life. The point of Jews under Torah was to have a presence in the world of information about God and what he was doing, till Jesus. After Jesus, there was fuller information. The Jews were not, as N.T. Wright says, a saved people doing Torah from gratitude, but a paradigmatically unsaved people being condemned by Torah. And Paul was trying to get the Jews to see they had a mistaken idea about in what sense they had been special people, that is, he wanted to get across to them that they were only really special in that they had God's 'oracles', or special information about God as a witness
in the world.
Annonymous,
Your prescription is just another way to look at "God", which ends up authoritatively detemining what is, and what should be.....why not argue on the ideals of our society which values divesity in regards to such "faith"?
'God' by definition means an ultimate. Ultimates limit diversity of understanding, ways of being and seeing and understanding....
annyonmous,
on the other hands, one's "god' is his conscience. That is what internalizing one's culture of reference.
In America, we allow for differences as to cultural values, as culture is determined by one's religious understanding. The 'Jew" (metaphorically) is the strict or orthodox, while the gentile are those considered "outside the faith"....of the "jew's" understanding..
Law guards the important values of a society, which is what the Jewish Torah did for their religion, but the Jews have interpreted Torah differently, just as any other religion has various intepretive ways of understanding thier tradition/law...
Laws in the nation-state were to allow for the diversity of viewpoints. Our laws were based on an understanding of human nature and a balancing of power in regards to those in leadership and limiting of government, overall. The Enlgihtenment gave us liberal tradition, while "tradition" (British common law and Puritanical prudence) gave us foundations.
Ken, I was pondering your new book's title from the New Perspective which says that Grace is not something new but that Jews knew that they are graciously elected. So what, says NPP, is this "grace" which Paul is announcing? It's basically old news but for a new audience. And that's the primary gain of the NPP in a nutshell. Romans is not primarily arguing from "legalist" to believer but from Jew to Gentile, from exclusivism to universalism.
The change of reference from Moses/Torah to Jesus/Faith is not the "good" part, as in "phew, we're free from the difficult Torah" as so many modern evangelists preach yet Paul never says. The good news is "Hey, you Gentiles*, can get in on the grace extended hitherto only to Israel" with the proviso "Israel has been misapplying this grace but you are to apply it correctly".
I think if you unpack that you get most of Paul's theology. It's primarily about scope (all people) and secondarily but importantly about mode (faithfulness in service not holy huddle rituals).
* This may be why the Gospel to the Gentiles (ala Paul) is different from the Gospel to the Jews Jesus preached.
Marc, I didn't get to pick the title, but I believe they took it from "grace and peace." I don't like the second title, "Soldier of Peace," but alas.
I accept your understanding of grace, but we do find comments both in Galatians 6 and Acts 15 that do sound like some Jews found it difficult to keep all the expectations of some toward the Law. I imagine there were special difficulties in a Diaspora setting.
In short, I probably am somewhere in between Sanders and Dunn on a NPP spectrum that has Sanders on one end and Wright on the other.
Post a Comment