I noticed that the third and final book in my Paul series is now available through Amazon. It is called Paul: Prisoner of Hope and covers Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and the Pastoral Epistles. Two devotional books are also written and on the way.
The earlier two volumes are, first of all, Paul: Messenger of Grace, which covers 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.
Two devotional Bible study books go with it (one on 1 Thessalonians, one on Philippians).
Finally, there is my book on Romans, unfortunately named Paul: Soldier of Peace. It has been selling pretty well so seems to have scratched an itch somewhere.
Two devotional Bible study books go with it (one on the first 8 chapters, the second on the rest).
The Jesus series is up to bat now. Immense thanks to Wesleyan Publishing House for doing this series with me!
Showing posts with label Life Reflections on Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Life Reflections on Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Paul the Apostle 2
Finishing up this intro to Paul, finishing up this section from yesterday.
... It is conventional to speak of Paul's three missionary journeys, although Acts does not actually number them. At some point while Paul was part of the ministry at Antioch, he and another apostle named Barnabas embarked on a missionary journey west to the island of Cyprus and then north to the south central part of Asia Minor--modern day Turkey. These cities in Asia Minor seem to be the places to which Paul would later send his letter to the Galatians.
But in between this "first" missionary journey and his second, several key things would happen. First, the question of whether Gentile believers needed to be circumcised to be saved came to a head. Both Paul and the leaders of Jerusalem--James and Peter--agree that they do not. Acts 15 portrays this decision as a fairly public one, while we get more the of a somewhat private agreement from Galatians 2.
However, this question was only one among many. Even if Gentiles could be saved without fully converting to Judaism, how could Jewish and Gentile believers fellowship together if Gentiles did not follow at least some purity rules? I believe that conflicts along these lines were also part of the reason why Paul and Barnabas did not embark on their second journey together, in addition to disagreement over whether Mark should accompany them. The Jerusalem church also seems to have disagreed with Paul as well.
So Paul embarked on his "second" journey with another co-worker, Silas, along with a young man called Timothy. The journey started with villages that they had visited before but before long they found themselves in Macedonia and Greece, where they founded churches in Thessalonica and Corinth. It was probably at Corinth that Paul wrote what would be the first of the letters we now find in the New Testament, 1 Thessalonians. [1] Paul would spend a year and a half in Corinth.
Paul did not likely write letters because he preferred to communicate in that way. Rather, his letters were a substitute for his presence and he sent them in the hands of individuals he knew would represent him well as they read them. The vast majority of people at the time could not read, so they would be dependent on others reading the letters out loud publicly, probably in worship. Paul's letters were thus "oral documents," written but meant to be read aloud.
On Paul's so called "third" journey focused on the city of Ephesus, on the west coast of Asia Minor. Paul would spend almost three years there. From there he certainly wrote 1 Corinthians, but I have argued that Paul also wrote Galatians and perhaps Philippians from Ephesus as well. I side with those who think Paul was actually imprisoned at Ephesus at least once and perhaps even twice, even though Acts does not mention it.
After leaving Ephesus, Paul would write both 2 Corinthians and Romans. He wrote 2 Corinthians on his way to Corinth and then Romans once he was there. He was on his way ultimately to Jerusalem with an offering he had been collecting for the church there. We do not fully know what happened, except that in Jerusalem he was arrested and that he used his Roman citizenship to get to Rome. This is the point of Paul's story where the previous volume ended and where this one begins.
[1] Many of course consider Galatians to be Paul's first letter, thinking he wrote it not long before the "Jerusalem Council" of Acts 15.
... It is conventional to speak of Paul's three missionary journeys, although Acts does not actually number them. At some point while Paul was part of the ministry at Antioch, he and another apostle named Barnabas embarked on a missionary journey west to the island of Cyprus and then north to the south central part of Asia Minor--modern day Turkey. These cities in Asia Minor seem to be the places to which Paul would later send his letter to the Galatians.
But in between this "first" missionary journey and his second, several key things would happen. First, the question of whether Gentile believers needed to be circumcised to be saved came to a head. Both Paul and the leaders of Jerusalem--James and Peter--agree that they do not. Acts 15 portrays this decision as a fairly public one, while we get more the of a somewhat private agreement from Galatians 2.
However, this question was only one among many. Even if Gentiles could be saved without fully converting to Judaism, how could Jewish and Gentile believers fellowship together if Gentiles did not follow at least some purity rules? I believe that conflicts along these lines were also part of the reason why Paul and Barnabas did not embark on their second journey together, in addition to disagreement over whether Mark should accompany them. The Jerusalem church also seems to have disagreed with Paul as well.
So Paul embarked on his "second" journey with another co-worker, Silas, along with a young man called Timothy. The journey started with villages that they had visited before but before long they found themselves in Macedonia and Greece, where they founded churches in Thessalonica and Corinth. It was probably at Corinth that Paul wrote what would be the first of the letters we now find in the New Testament, 1 Thessalonians. [1] Paul would spend a year and a half in Corinth.
Paul did not likely write letters because he preferred to communicate in that way. Rather, his letters were a substitute for his presence and he sent them in the hands of individuals he knew would represent him well as they read them. The vast majority of people at the time could not read, so they would be dependent on others reading the letters out loud publicly, probably in worship. Paul's letters were thus "oral documents," written but meant to be read aloud.
On Paul's so called "third" journey focused on the city of Ephesus, on the west coast of Asia Minor. Paul would spend almost three years there. From there he certainly wrote 1 Corinthians, but I have argued that Paul also wrote Galatians and perhaps Philippians from Ephesus as well. I side with those who think Paul was actually imprisoned at Ephesus at least once and perhaps even twice, even though Acts does not mention it.
After leaving Ephesus, Paul would write both 2 Corinthians and Romans. He wrote 2 Corinthians on his way to Corinth and then Romans once he was there. He was on his way ultimately to Jerusalem with an offering he had been collecting for the church there. We do not fully know what happened, except that in Jerusalem he was arrested and that he used his Roman citizenship to get to Rome. This is the point of Paul's story where the previous volume ended and where this one begins.
[1] Many of course consider Galatians to be Paul's first letter, thinking he wrote it not long before the "Jerusalem Council" of Acts 15.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Paul the Jew 1
I am very grateful to Wesleyan Publishing House for publishing soon to be three books on Paul's letters. Although there is a wealth of books out there on Paul, I was convinced that a lot of the great insights on Paul these last thirty years have not made it to the pew, including the Wesleyan pew. What started out as a single book project, "Life Reflections on Paul's Life and Letters," has now become three books! The first reflects on Paul's Earlier Letters. The second ended up just being reflections on Romans.
Now the third one is being proofed, Paul: Prisoner of Hope. It will cover the later letters of the Pauline corpus. As often happens, I got long winded and these chapters, which were originally meant to be part of the second volume, became a third volume in their own right...
... which means I quickly need to write a new "first chapter" for the third volume that catches a reader up to speed with the other two books, just in case someone starts with this one. I've decided to do so in three sections: Paul the Jew, Paul the Christ-follower, and Paul the apostle. Today is Paul the Jew.
______________
Chapter 1: Introducing Paul
This is the last in a series of three volumes reflecting on Paul's life and letters. Accordingly, this book starts near the end of a discussion that has already extensively covered Paul's known ministry. The first volume, Paul: Messenger of Grace, reflected on Paul's early life, as well as on some of his early letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, since I wonder if it was written while Paul was at Ephesus. The second volume, Paul: Soldier of Peace, reflected extensively on his letter to the Romans.
In this book, we finish reflecting on the remaining letters of the Pauline collection: Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral letters, and we will cover 2 Thessalonians and Philemon here as well. However, since you may not have read the two previous books on Paul, I want to take a few pages to summarize some of the key dimensions of Paul's life and ministry up to this point. Most of the letters in this volume differ in some interesting ways from Paul's earlier ones, and it is helpful to have an idea of the starting point before looking at the variations!
1. Paul the Jew
Paul was a Jew, just as Jesus was a Jew. Christians throughout the centuries have often seen this fact as irrelevant, as if when Paul became a Christian, he abandoned his Jewishness entirely. He is thought to have changed religions and perhaps even become a model for anger or hatred against Jews today. It is unfortunate, but evil hearts throughout the centuries have often used such ideas as an excuse to persecute or even slaughter Jews. [1]
In part as a result of the Holocaust, the last few decades have seen a careful re-examination of some of these assumptions. What we have found is some glaring holes in this way of looking at Paul. For example, Paul identifies himself as an Israelite and a "Hebrew" in more than one place long after after he believed in Jesus (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5; Rom. 11:1). In fact, Acts 23:6 has Paul identifying himself as a Pharisee in the present tense over twenty years after he became a Christ follower! [2]
It is only because Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions today that we tend to see Paul as changing religions or converting from one religion to another. Paul would not have seen it that way. For him, the Jews remained the natural branches of the tree, with Gentiles being grafted in (Rom. 11:17-21). One of the most obvious mistakes is to think of "Paul" as his Christian name, as if Paul threw away his Jewish name Saul when he "converted." Acts continues to call him "Saul" well over ten years after he believed on Jesus.
If the prevalent picture drawn of Paul's Jewishness has often been skewed, even more so has the picture of Judaism. [3] The old story was that Judaism was a legalistic religion that believed you had to earn your salvation by good works. Our hero Paul then comes along and realizes that works play no role at all in getting right with God. We are made right with God by faith alone, purely as a matter of God's grace.
This interpretation of Paul has of course everything to do with the argument between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's. But it seriously skews Paul's argument with other Christians in the first century. The people Paul spars with in Galatians were other Christian Jews--including Peter and James--and, even then, he was arguing on the proper understanding of Jewish faith rather than in terms of Christianity versus Judaism as a separate religion. He was arguing over the proper interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, the only Scriptures that existed at the time.
It is also important to recognize that these arguments are not the central topic of Paul's letters as a whole. They come up primarily in Romans and Galatians, where the question of how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God is at issue. Even there, the topic is not "Can a person earn their salvation?" but "Does a Gentile need to convert fully to Judaism to be saved?" The works under discussion are not primarily good works, but "works of law"--especially the ones like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile ethnically.
A thorough look through all the Jewish literature of Paul's day reveals both that there was a wide spectrum of Jewish beliefs at the time and that all or nearly all of them saw God's grace as the ultimate basis for right standing before him. [4] Further, as the Wesleyan and other traditions have always argued, how one lives remains an element in final salvation for Paul, not in terms of how good a person is but in terms of walking in faithful relationship with God. The older Lutheran version of Paul was thus wrong on both ends--wrong about how grace-less Judaism was and wrong about how works-less Paul was. [5]
[1] An early reflection on this dynamic, written by a Jew in part while on the run from the Nazis in France, was Jules Isaac's Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971 [1948]).
[2] Of course, we have to interpret this fact carefully. Paul was a master at rhetoric, and Acts tends to give a "conservative" portrait of Paul. It is doubtful that Paul would have normally identified himself as a Pharisee at this point in his ministry.
[3] The work that broke the dam on this issue was E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977).
[4] 4 Ezra, from about AD100 is sometimes mentioned as an exception.
[5] Like any tradition, present day Lutheran interpreters of Paul do not simply repeat the interpretations of Luther. They have assimilated the discussions of the last thirty years into their interpretations.
Now the third one is being proofed, Paul: Prisoner of Hope. It will cover the later letters of the Pauline corpus. As often happens, I got long winded and these chapters, which were originally meant to be part of the second volume, became a third volume in their own right...
... which means I quickly need to write a new "first chapter" for the third volume that catches a reader up to speed with the other two books, just in case someone starts with this one. I've decided to do so in three sections: Paul the Jew, Paul the Christ-follower, and Paul the apostle. Today is Paul the Jew.
______________
Chapter 1: Introducing Paul
This is the last in a series of three volumes reflecting on Paul's life and letters. Accordingly, this book starts near the end of a discussion that has already extensively covered Paul's known ministry. The first volume, Paul: Messenger of Grace, reflected on Paul's early life, as well as on some of his early letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, since I wonder if it was written while Paul was at Ephesus. The second volume, Paul: Soldier of Peace, reflected extensively on his letter to the Romans.
In this book, we finish reflecting on the remaining letters of the Pauline collection: Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral letters, and we will cover 2 Thessalonians and Philemon here as well. However, since you may not have read the two previous books on Paul, I want to take a few pages to summarize some of the key dimensions of Paul's life and ministry up to this point. Most of the letters in this volume differ in some interesting ways from Paul's earlier ones, and it is helpful to have an idea of the starting point before looking at the variations!
1. Paul the Jew
Paul was a Jew, just as Jesus was a Jew. Christians throughout the centuries have often seen this fact as irrelevant, as if when Paul became a Christian, he abandoned his Jewishness entirely. He is thought to have changed religions and perhaps even become a model for anger or hatred against Jews today. It is unfortunate, but evil hearts throughout the centuries have often used such ideas as an excuse to persecute or even slaughter Jews. [1]
In part as a result of the Holocaust, the last few decades have seen a careful re-examination of some of these assumptions. What we have found is some glaring holes in this way of looking at Paul. For example, Paul identifies himself as an Israelite and a "Hebrew" in more than one place long after after he believed in Jesus (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5; Rom. 11:1). In fact, Acts 23:6 has Paul identifying himself as a Pharisee in the present tense over twenty years after he became a Christ follower! [2]
It is only because Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions today that we tend to see Paul as changing religions or converting from one religion to another. Paul would not have seen it that way. For him, the Jews remained the natural branches of the tree, with Gentiles being grafted in (Rom. 11:17-21). One of the most obvious mistakes is to think of "Paul" as his Christian name, as if Paul threw away his Jewish name Saul when he "converted." Acts continues to call him "Saul" well over ten years after he believed on Jesus.
If the prevalent picture drawn of Paul's Jewishness has often been skewed, even more so has the picture of Judaism. [3] The old story was that Judaism was a legalistic religion that believed you had to earn your salvation by good works. Our hero Paul then comes along and realizes that works play no role at all in getting right with God. We are made right with God by faith alone, purely as a matter of God's grace.
This interpretation of Paul has of course everything to do with the argument between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's. But it seriously skews Paul's argument with other Christians in the first century. The people Paul spars with in Galatians were other Christian Jews--including Peter and James--and, even then, he was arguing on the proper understanding of Jewish faith rather than in terms of Christianity versus Judaism as a separate religion. He was arguing over the proper interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, the only Scriptures that existed at the time.
It is also important to recognize that these arguments are not the central topic of Paul's letters as a whole. They come up primarily in Romans and Galatians, where the question of how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God is at issue. Even there, the topic is not "Can a person earn their salvation?" but "Does a Gentile need to convert fully to Judaism to be saved?" The works under discussion are not primarily good works, but "works of law"--especially the ones like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile ethnically.
A thorough look through all the Jewish literature of Paul's day reveals both that there was a wide spectrum of Jewish beliefs at the time and that all or nearly all of them saw God's grace as the ultimate basis for right standing before him. [4] Further, as the Wesleyan and other traditions have always argued, how one lives remains an element in final salvation for Paul, not in terms of how good a person is but in terms of walking in faithful relationship with God. The older Lutheran version of Paul was thus wrong on both ends--wrong about how grace-less Judaism was and wrong about how works-less Paul was. [5]
[1] An early reflection on this dynamic, written by a Jew in part while on the run from the Nazis in France, was Jules Isaac's Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971 [1948]).
[2] Of course, we have to interpret this fact carefully. Paul was a master at rhetoric, and Acts tends to give a "conservative" portrait of Paul. It is doubtful that Paul would have normally identified himself as a Pharisee at this point in his ministry.
[3] The work that broke the dam on this issue was E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977).
[4] 4 Ezra, from about AD100 is sometimes mentioned as an exception.
[5] Like any tradition, present day Lutheran interpreters of Paul do not simply repeat the interpretations of Luther. They have assimilated the discussions of the last thirty years into their interpretations.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Priority of Doing over Knowing (Romans 2)
I've been scrambling to finish the first devotional that goes along with my forthcoming second book in the Paul series, this one on Romans. As I was writing the devotional on Romans 2:1-16, it struck me that the main point of this section is that doing the good is far more important than knowing the good. While this seems common sense to me as a Pietist, a good deal of Christendom has somehow talked itself out of this basic ethical truth.
In fact, it was with great delight that I recognized again how these verses undermine the high Protestant Reformation (remembering that I'm one of those bastard children of the Reformation they call Arminians). Like it or not, Paul says that God judges people according to their works in 2:6 (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10)--Christians included.
1. Law cannot mean the entirety of the Jewish Law or else the idea of Gentiles keeping it would not make sense (2:14).
2. Keeping the Law thus relates to the fulfillment of the righteous requirement of the law in Romans 8:4, a subset of the broader Jewish Law that later Christians termed "the moral law."
3.The irony is thus that those who did not know the Law (Gentiles) now keep the Law, while many of those who knew the Law (Jews) were for all intents and purposes "de-circumcised" for that reason.
Luther was thus only right about "works" in relation to initial justification, not final justification. And Calvin (and N. T. Wright) was wrong to think that the works would always follow sufficiently to guarantee final justification.
But the spark for the post was not this old theme of mine. It was the clear priority Paul gives in these verses to doing the good over knowing it. Truth is important, but virtue takes primacy of place over truth.
In fact, it was with great delight that I recognized again how these verses undermine the high Protestant Reformation (remembering that I'm one of those bastard children of the Reformation they call Arminians). Like it or not, Paul says that God judges people according to their works in 2:6 (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10)--Christians included.
1. Law cannot mean the entirety of the Jewish Law or else the idea of Gentiles keeping it would not make sense (2:14).
2. Keeping the Law thus relates to the fulfillment of the righteous requirement of the law in Romans 8:4, a subset of the broader Jewish Law that later Christians termed "the moral law."
3.The irony is thus that those who did not know the Law (Gentiles) now keep the Law, while many of those who knew the Law (Jews) were for all intents and purposes "de-circumcised" for that reason.
Luther was thus only right about "works" in relation to initial justification, not final justification. And Calvin (and N. T. Wright) was wrong to think that the works would always follow sufficiently to guarantee final justification.
But the spark for the post was not this old theme of mine. It was the clear priority Paul gives in these verses to doing the good over knowing it. Truth is important, but virtue takes primacy of place over truth.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Second Paul Volume Done!
Well, only six months late--and almost a year since I finished the first volume--I have finished Paul: Soldier of Peace. (The first volume was Paul: Messenger of Grace) It will probably be July before it comes out. I'm even more excited about this book than the first, even though I'm sure I could have done better if I'd taken even just another week. But it must be done!
I believe this book will pretty much be the only book out there that brings Wesleyan (revivalist) theology into dialog with the developments of the last thirty years of Pauline studies (admittedly, I have not yet dived into the new Romans commentary from Beacon Hill). Certainly there are scholarly commentaries that dialog with recent developments in Pauline studies (e.g., Robert Jewett's Romans commentary in the Hermeneia series, probably the current gold standard). And there have always been Wesleyan interpretations of Romans.
What I don't think exists are Wesleyan treatments of Paul that fully take into account the immense changes in Pauline studies in the last thirty years. I suspect the first five chapters of this book on Romans will be astoundingly eye-opening to a Wesleyan audience that just has no idea. If I had the resources, I would put a copy in the hands of every Wesleyan pastor.
The last five chapters look at the most disputed writings of Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals). Here I don't think I have dodged any of the landmines, although I leave it up to the reader to decide what they think on issues like pseudonymity. What I have not done is wished the issues away. There is just no getting around the fact that the Pastorals and Ephesians are significantly unlike Paul's central writings in many respects. If we are actually interested in listening to what they have to say, we have to take the differences into account, whether we think Paul has changed his mind or his secretary or whether we think these documents were written to convey Paul's voice to a generation some time after his death.
Now the able hands of Kevin Scott at Wesleyan Publishing House will take off the rough edges ;-) Thanks to all the great help there and for all the sharpening those of you in blogland have brought to the writing as well.
I believe this book will pretty much be the only book out there that brings Wesleyan (revivalist) theology into dialog with the developments of the last thirty years of Pauline studies (admittedly, I have not yet dived into the new Romans commentary from Beacon Hill). Certainly there are scholarly commentaries that dialog with recent developments in Pauline studies (e.g., Robert Jewett's Romans commentary in the Hermeneia series, probably the current gold standard). And there have always been Wesleyan interpretations of Romans.
What I don't think exists are Wesleyan treatments of Paul that fully take into account the immense changes in Pauline studies in the last thirty years. I suspect the first five chapters of this book on Romans will be astoundingly eye-opening to a Wesleyan audience that just has no idea. If I had the resources, I would put a copy in the hands of every Wesleyan pastor.
The last five chapters look at the most disputed writings of Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals). Here I don't think I have dodged any of the landmines, although I leave it up to the reader to decide what they think on issues like pseudonymity. What I have not done is wished the issues away. There is just no getting around the fact that the Pastorals and Ephesians are significantly unlike Paul's central writings in many respects. If we are actually interested in listening to what they have to say, we have to take the differences into account, whether we think Paul has changed his mind or his secretary or whether we think these documents were written to convey Paul's voice to a generation some time after his death.
Now the able hands of Kevin Scott at Wesleyan Publishing House will take off the rough edges ;-) Thanks to all the great help there and for all the sharpening those of you in blogland have brought to the writing as well.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Social Gospel (5.3)
Desperately trying to finish my second Paul book... still. Here's an excerpt from a section on Romans 13.
____________
A final argument that is sometimes used is an artifact of American history and perhaps to a large degree an explanation for why so many Christians can go against the clear tenor of Scripture on this sort of topic. In the early 1900s, helping the poor among Christians became associated with what was called a “social gospel.” Those who most emphasized helping others were “liberal” Christians, often Christians who questioned things like the virgin birth or the divinity of Christ. As is often the case, we disassociate ourselves not only with the things we disagree with in others, but also with good aspects of their thinking that we might just as well agree with. Such was the case in mainstream evangelical circles of the mid-twentieth century with regard to helping the poor and needy.
The Wesleyan tradition of which I am a part did not fully participate in this reaction, nor of course did Christians from other countries. The Salvation Army, the Free Methodist Church—it would be hard to say that this over-reaction had much of any impact on them. The Wesleyan-Methodist tradition was born with an emphasis on social action, abolition, and the women’s rights movements. Thankfully, our isolation from the broader discussion largely kept our food pantries intact. If we have been affected, it has only been of late because of the political climate of the last few decades.
But is essential to realize that the social gospel message of mainline churches in the early twentieth century was not a reaction against the truth. It was all that was left of the truth. After so many mainline churches had lost their belief in miracles, in the divinity of Christ, in the revelation of Scripture, all they had left was the Christian ethos of loving our neighbor. There was nothing wrong with these drives. It was all they had left of Christianity, the only thing that motivated them to continue to call themselves Christians. Let us therefore not be deceived by the accidents of history into abandoning one of the central messages of the Bible and of Jesus' ministry.
____________
A final argument that is sometimes used is an artifact of American history and perhaps to a large degree an explanation for why so many Christians can go against the clear tenor of Scripture on this sort of topic. In the early 1900s, helping the poor among Christians became associated with what was called a “social gospel.” Those who most emphasized helping others were “liberal” Christians, often Christians who questioned things like the virgin birth or the divinity of Christ. As is often the case, we disassociate ourselves not only with the things we disagree with in others, but also with good aspects of their thinking that we might just as well agree with. Such was the case in mainstream evangelical circles of the mid-twentieth century with regard to helping the poor and needy.
The Wesleyan tradition of which I am a part did not fully participate in this reaction, nor of course did Christians from other countries. The Salvation Army, the Free Methodist Church—it would be hard to say that this over-reaction had much of any impact on them. The Wesleyan-Methodist tradition was born with an emphasis on social action, abolition, and the women’s rights movements. Thankfully, our isolation from the broader discussion largely kept our food pantries intact. If we have been affected, it has only been of late because of the political climate of the last few decades.
But is essential to realize that the social gospel message of mainline churches in the early twentieth century was not a reaction against the truth. It was all that was left of the truth. After so many mainline churches had lost their belief in miracles, in the divinity of Christ, in the revelation of Scripture, all they had left was the Christian ethos of loving our neighbor. There was nothing wrong with these drives. It was all they had left of Christianity, the only thing that motivated them to continue to call themselves Christians. Let us therefore not be deceived by the accidents of history into abandoning one of the central messages of the Bible and of Jesus' ministry.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
$9.99 special on my Paul book...
This was the promo that went out today from my publisher: ;-)
_____________
Learn from Paul's Life and Letters
NEW!
SALE! Only $9.99! (Reg. $14.99)
Act Now! Sale ends Nov. 12.
Click HERE or call 1-800-493-7539.
Table of Contents and a FREE Excerpt! (This is the first chapter of the book)
Author Kenneth Schenck bridges time and culture to bring you Paul—Messenger of Grace. Immerse yourself in the world of one of history’s most polarizing figures to learn about his background, his conversion, his missionary journeys, and his letters. But this is not just a history book; each chapter concludes with the author’s reflections about how Paul’s life and letters can help shape our lives more into the image of Christ.
Paul—Messenger of Grace covers the earlier part of Paul’s life and ministry including the Bible books of 1Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians.
Preview the Messenger of Grace Bible Studies!
Coming December 2010!
__________
There are two 5 week Bible study books in association with the book, both coming out next month, one on 1 Thessalonians and the second on Philippians.
_____________
Learn from Paul's Life and Letters
NEW!
SALE! Only $9.99! (Reg. $14.99)
Act Now! Sale ends Nov. 12.
Click HERE or call 1-800-493-7539.
Table of Contents and a FREE Excerpt! (This is the first chapter of the book)
Author Kenneth Schenck bridges time and culture to bring you Paul—Messenger of Grace. Immerse yourself in the world of one of history’s most polarizing figures to learn about his background, his conversion, his missionary journeys, and his letters. But this is not just a history book; each chapter concludes with the author’s reflections about how Paul’s life and letters can help shape our lives more into the image of Christ.
Paul—Messenger of Grace covers the earlier part of Paul’s life and ministry including the Bible books of 1Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians.
Preview the Messenger of Grace Bible Studies!
Coming December 2010!
__________
There are two 5 week Bible study books in association with the book, both coming out next month, one on 1 Thessalonians and the second on Philippians.
Friday, October 29, 2010
My Paul book is out! (volume 1)
Paul: Messenger of Grace, is now available (also here if you want to go straight to the publisher). It covers:
Paul's early years, Paul's turn to Christ, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians. After giving my sense of the historical, I then reflect some on current issues in dialog with Paul's letters.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Romans 5-8 Introduction (1)
Romans 1:16-4:25 is arguably the first major section of Romans, and it deals with the fact that Christ is the solution God has on offer to the sin problem that all humanity--both Jew and non-Jew--have. Paul begins with the key verses of Romans, which sum up the entire situation (1:16-17). Then he unfolds the coming judgment of God on everyone (1:18-3:20), with no one good enough to escape on the basis of their own goodness, not even the most law-observant Jew. Then he presents God's gracious solution, namely, faith in what God has done through Christ as the only solution (3:21-4:25).
The result is that, "since we have been justified through faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (5:1). Our trust in what God has done through Jesus--"through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand" (5:2)--has led God to declare us right with him, to "justify" us. We now are at peace with God. We are not facing the wrath of God, "being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness" of humanity. "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (5:9).
God did not have to do any of these things. He had no obligation to humanity to fix its problem. What he has done through Christ is rather a demonstration of his righteousness (1:17; 3:25-26). The action of Christ and the action of God are so inextricably intertwined that Paul can move from one to the other without pause. God has demonstrated his love toward us in the fact that while we were ungodly sinners, Christ died for us (5:6-8).
Romans 5-8 then unpack some of the implications of what God has done through Christ. They step-back and unpack the implications of Romans 1-4. The first verses of Romans 5, as you can see above, give a quick summary of our new situation--we have been reconciled to God! The second half of Romans 5 then steps back and puts what Christ has done into a historical perspective. [1] Christ's act of obedience corresponds to the disobedient act of the first human, Adam. Adam caused the sin problem with his act of sin. Christ solved the sin problem with his act of faith. [2]
Romans 6 and 7 then step-back and ask about sin and the Jewish Law going forward. If only Christ's death makes a person right with God, then what is the place of the Jewish Law? Why did God institute it in the first place? And if we are not truly judged by the Law, then can we continue sinning just as before, only without any consequences. These chapters can be very confusing, and may indeed have been confusing even to the original audience (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul's answer is that the Law got us ready for Christ and that he actually now enables us to keep its essence, something we ironically were not able to do when we were under the Law.
Romans 8 then triumphantly puts it all together in a climactic celebration of freedom from condemnation, and it looks forward to the final redemption of our bodies and indeed the whole creation. Christ has made us right with God, but we remain in this situation of flesh still. God wants to give life to our mortal bodies even while we are still on earth (Rom. 8:11-13). But we especially look forward to the coming redemption of our bodies and the whole creation when Christ returns (8:22-23). Regardless of current suffering, nothing can compare to what is to come (8:18).
[1] The biblical authors, as is the case with most of us, did not distinguish strongly between history and the story of the Old Testament. Indeed, some Christians today, called fundamentalists, make it a key item of faith that the stories of the Bible equate exactly with history.
Unfortunately, dogmatism on these sorts of things has rarely made anyone more godly or resulted in greater unity or faith. Rather, it has more often engendered needless argument and unnecessary division. What is worse, it seems to impose foreign expectations on the biblical text that, in the end, result in far more Scripture-twisting in the name of a modern debate, rather than a stance of truly listening to what the biblical texts seem to have been saying.
[3] See the previous chapter for discussion of the "faith of Jesus Christ."
The result is that, "since we have been justified through faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (5:1). Our trust in what God has done through Jesus--"through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand" (5:2)--has led God to declare us right with him, to "justify" us. We now are at peace with God. We are not facing the wrath of God, "being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness" of humanity. "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (5:9).
God did not have to do any of these things. He had no obligation to humanity to fix its problem. What he has done through Christ is rather a demonstration of his righteousness (1:17; 3:25-26). The action of Christ and the action of God are so inextricably intertwined that Paul can move from one to the other without pause. God has demonstrated his love toward us in the fact that while we were ungodly sinners, Christ died for us (5:6-8).
Romans 5-8 then unpack some of the implications of what God has done through Christ. They step-back and unpack the implications of Romans 1-4. The first verses of Romans 5, as you can see above, give a quick summary of our new situation--we have been reconciled to God! The second half of Romans 5 then steps back and puts what Christ has done into a historical perspective. [1] Christ's act of obedience corresponds to the disobedient act of the first human, Adam. Adam caused the sin problem with his act of sin. Christ solved the sin problem with his act of faith. [2]
Romans 6 and 7 then step-back and ask about sin and the Jewish Law going forward. If only Christ's death makes a person right with God, then what is the place of the Jewish Law? Why did God institute it in the first place? And if we are not truly judged by the Law, then can we continue sinning just as before, only without any consequences. These chapters can be very confusing, and may indeed have been confusing even to the original audience (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul's answer is that the Law got us ready for Christ and that he actually now enables us to keep its essence, something we ironically were not able to do when we were under the Law.
Romans 8 then triumphantly puts it all together in a climactic celebration of freedom from condemnation, and it looks forward to the final redemption of our bodies and indeed the whole creation. Christ has made us right with God, but we remain in this situation of flesh still. God wants to give life to our mortal bodies even while we are still on earth (Rom. 8:11-13). But we especially look forward to the coming redemption of our bodies and the whole creation when Christ returns (8:22-23). Regardless of current suffering, nothing can compare to what is to come (8:18).
[1] The biblical authors, as is the case with most of us, did not distinguish strongly between history and the story of the Old Testament. Indeed, some Christians today, called fundamentalists, make it a key item of faith that the stories of the Bible equate exactly with history.
Unfortunately, dogmatism on these sorts of things has rarely made anyone more godly or resulted in greater unity or faith. Rather, it has more often engendered needless argument and unnecessary division. What is worse, it seems to impose foreign expectations on the biblical text that, in the end, result in far more Scripture-twisting in the name of a modern debate, rather than a stance of truly listening to what the biblical texts seem to have been saying.
[3] See the previous chapter for discussion of the "faith of Jesus Christ."
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Reflections (13)
Christians have drawn on a number of images over the years to get at the significance of Jesus' death on the cross. Unlike Christian beliefs about Jesus, the church never settled on just one picture. He satisfied God's anger. He took our place. He showed us God's love and how to obey. He defeated the evil powers that rule this age. These are all lenses through which Christians at different times have explained what Jesus did on the cross. All of them have truth to them.
But the image that I think might speak most to our current age is reconciliation. In a broken world where AIDS has left thousands of orphans in Africa, we understand the longing for a father. In an America where a child is as likely to grow up in a broken home than in one where your parents have been together your whole life, we understand alienation and distance. We understand brokenness and the need for reconciliation. Some of the images Christians have used throughout the centuries may have strong features of other times--how many of us have ever seen a sacrifice? But we "get" alienation and the need for reconciliation.
Atonement is reconciliation that takes place because of some sacrifice, some offering. God himself made the sacrifice. Jesus gave himself as the offering so that we might be reconciled to God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19). The righteousness of God in Romans is God's propensity to reach out and rescue his people and, indeed, the world. In a world of profound alienation, this message still rings out as immensely good news!
But the image that I think might speak most to our current age is reconciliation. In a broken world where AIDS has left thousands of orphans in Africa, we understand the longing for a father. In an America where a child is as likely to grow up in a broken home than in one where your parents have been together your whole life, we understand alienation and distance. We understand brokenness and the need for reconciliation. Some of the images Christians have used throughout the centuries may have strong features of other times--how many of us have ever seen a sacrifice? But we "get" alienation and the need for reconciliation.
Atonement is reconciliation that takes place because of some sacrifice, some offering. God himself made the sacrifice. Jesus gave himself as the offering so that we might be reconciled to God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19). The righteousness of God in Romans is God's propensity to reach out and rescue his people and, indeed, the world. In a world of profound alienation, this message still rings out as immensely good news!
Monday, July 26, 2010
Faith Reflections (12)
Previously on Paul.
Accordingly, the picture of God's anger is probably much more to help our understanding than a literal picture of God. It is an "anthropomorphism," a humanizing of God that helps us catch a glimpse of something beyond our comprehension. It is God's baby talk to us in terms we can understand. The Old Testament in particular uses these sorts of images, like God's nose getting red with anger or him being jealous or changing his mind. [1]
As with all such pictures, we can take the illustration too far. An example is the very widespread emphasis on something called "penal substitution" in some parts of the American church today. Certainly Christians believe that God is just, that God will one day punish the wicked and reward the righteous. Under the influence of Paul's letter to the Romans, Western Christianity in particular has come to emphasize that everyone is wicked and no one is righteous. God's justice thus dictates that he will one day punish everyone.
However, we have seen in Romans an even greater emphasis on the "righteousness of God" or, as James 2:13 puts it, that "mercy triumphs over judgment." God is both merciful and just, but the New Testament regularly sees the merciful aspect of his character as primary and the "judgmental" aspect of his character as secondary. We thus should reject the common picture of God we often hear today of a God who is a slave to his justice. The fundamental question here is this--did God have the authority simply to forgive us without Jesus dying on the cross or did someone have to pay for us to be forgiven?
It makes much more sense to see Christ's death more as a demonstration of God's justice--which is how Romans actually states it--than as a necessity of God's justice. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, the father does not have to find someone to pay for the sin of the son. He has the authority simply to forgive him. [2] Any picture of God that is less than God in this story is a skewed one.
And so the modern view of penal substitution has taken the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament and the secondary emphasis of the New Testament and has blown the image of God's anger into a skewed picture indeed. God is now a slave to very rigid rules of justice. Someone has to pay--God cannot simply forgive someone. And it has to be the party that did the offence--no one can pay for us. So Jesus has to become human so that one of us is paying and yet indeed someone is paying the bill of justice. And, yes, every last dime of the bill must be paid.
Suffice it to say, this is a skewed picture of God that has little basis in the New Testament. Rather, the God of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant has the authority simply to wipe the slate of the servant's debt clean on his own authority. In the New Testament, God sends Jesus to reveal God (John 1), to preach the good news to us (Acts 10:36), to free us from the slavery of death (Heb. 2:14), and, yes, to die for sins (Rom. 8:3). But nowhere is the image of Jesus dying for sins developed along the lines we have been mentioned.
This picture of God has implications--bad implications for how we relate to others, raise our children and so forth. It can foster an attitude that is unhealthy, even devilish. Justice is indeed the default. Wrongdoing should have consequences and even when a person is truly repentant for doing wrong, it can still be important to experience consequences. Something about the order of things, something about human nature truly benefits from such consequences.
But such consequences are beneficial. They actually help us. It is the difference between discipline and punishment. The legalistic sense of God's justice fosters an attitude of punishment. I know this feeling as a father, the anger of justice that can well up inside of you because of a child's open disobedience. It says, justice must be satisfied, and it pushes to immediate and swift punishment.
But Jesus' death on the cross was not some legalistic playing out of God's justice. It is a demonstration without which it would be very difficult to experience the depth of our alienation from God and the depth of God's love for us. It is not God making sure someone gets it so that his justice is satisfied. It is God reaching out to us in the most powerful way possible to show us the disorder of our world and the magnitude of setting things back in order.
Over the years as a parent I have learned about God as I have learned to be bigger than the affrontery of disobedience. Can I see in my child's disobedience his or her need rather than my offence at being disobeyed? In the public schools, in society at large, when we see defiance and wrongdoing, can we see with compassion a world that desperately needs God's help? I have come to see that the God who is out of control and must swiftly punish sin is not a big enough God. It is a Zeus.
The Christian God is not this god. The Christian God is a God who is too big not to be able to handle our disobedience. He is a God who looks on us in compassion when he sees how stupid we are to disobey, how we are hurting ourselves in our ignorance. He is big enough to take it. Indeed, he made the world in such a way that we would be able to choose whether to obey or disobey him. He is a God who disciplines to make us better, not who punishes because cannot help himself...
[1] If God knows everything at every point of his existence, then he cannot literally change his mind. Such pictures of God were very intelligible to the ancients, and God used them to speak to ancient Israel. However, from the standpoing of fully developed Christian understanding, they are still too much like a Zeus or a Marduk.
[2] And here let us add to our list of books to master Paul Joel D. Green and Mark D. Baker, Rediscovering the Scandal of the Cross (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000).
Accordingly, the picture of God's anger is probably much more to help our understanding than a literal picture of God. It is an "anthropomorphism," a humanizing of God that helps us catch a glimpse of something beyond our comprehension. It is God's baby talk to us in terms we can understand. The Old Testament in particular uses these sorts of images, like God's nose getting red with anger or him being jealous or changing his mind. [1]
As with all such pictures, we can take the illustration too far. An example is the very widespread emphasis on something called "penal substitution" in some parts of the American church today. Certainly Christians believe that God is just, that God will one day punish the wicked and reward the righteous. Under the influence of Paul's letter to the Romans, Western Christianity in particular has come to emphasize that everyone is wicked and no one is righteous. God's justice thus dictates that he will one day punish everyone.
However, we have seen in Romans an even greater emphasis on the "righteousness of God" or, as James 2:13 puts it, that "mercy triumphs over judgment." God is both merciful and just, but the New Testament regularly sees the merciful aspect of his character as primary and the "judgmental" aspect of his character as secondary. We thus should reject the common picture of God we often hear today of a God who is a slave to his justice. The fundamental question here is this--did God have the authority simply to forgive us without Jesus dying on the cross or did someone have to pay for us to be forgiven?
It makes much more sense to see Christ's death more as a demonstration of God's justice--which is how Romans actually states it--than as a necessity of God's justice. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, the father does not have to find someone to pay for the sin of the son. He has the authority simply to forgive him. [2] Any picture of God that is less than God in this story is a skewed one.
And so the modern view of penal substitution has taken the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament and the secondary emphasis of the New Testament and has blown the image of God's anger into a skewed picture indeed. God is now a slave to very rigid rules of justice. Someone has to pay--God cannot simply forgive someone. And it has to be the party that did the offence--no one can pay for us. So Jesus has to become human so that one of us is paying and yet indeed someone is paying the bill of justice. And, yes, every last dime of the bill must be paid.
Suffice it to say, this is a skewed picture of God that has little basis in the New Testament. Rather, the God of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant has the authority simply to wipe the slate of the servant's debt clean on his own authority. In the New Testament, God sends Jesus to reveal God (John 1), to preach the good news to us (Acts 10:36), to free us from the slavery of death (Heb. 2:14), and, yes, to die for sins (Rom. 8:3). But nowhere is the image of Jesus dying for sins developed along the lines we have been mentioned.
This picture of God has implications--bad implications for how we relate to others, raise our children and so forth. It can foster an attitude that is unhealthy, even devilish. Justice is indeed the default. Wrongdoing should have consequences and even when a person is truly repentant for doing wrong, it can still be important to experience consequences. Something about the order of things, something about human nature truly benefits from such consequences.
But such consequences are beneficial. They actually help us. It is the difference between discipline and punishment. The legalistic sense of God's justice fosters an attitude of punishment. I know this feeling as a father, the anger of justice that can well up inside of you because of a child's open disobedience. It says, justice must be satisfied, and it pushes to immediate and swift punishment.
But Jesus' death on the cross was not some legalistic playing out of God's justice. It is a demonstration without which it would be very difficult to experience the depth of our alienation from God and the depth of God's love for us. It is not God making sure someone gets it so that his justice is satisfied. It is God reaching out to us in the most powerful way possible to show us the disorder of our world and the magnitude of setting things back in order.
Over the years as a parent I have learned about God as I have learned to be bigger than the affrontery of disobedience. Can I see in my child's disobedience his or her need rather than my offence at being disobeyed? In the public schools, in society at large, when we see defiance and wrongdoing, can we see with compassion a world that desperately needs God's help? I have come to see that the God who is out of control and must swiftly punish sin is not a big enough God. It is a Zeus.
The Christian God is not this god. The Christian God is a God who is too big not to be able to handle our disobedience. He is a God who looks on us in compassion when he sees how stupid we are to disobey, how we are hurting ourselves in our ignorance. He is big enough to take it. Indeed, he made the world in such a way that we would be able to choose whether to obey or disobey him. He is a God who disciplines to make us better, not who punishes because cannot help himself...
[1] If God knows everything at every point of his existence, then he cannot literally change his mind. Such pictures of God were very intelligible to the ancients, and God used them to speak to ancient Israel. However, from the standpoing of fully developed Christian understanding, they are still too much like a Zeus or a Marduk.
[2] And here let us add to our list of books to master Paul Joel D. Green and Mark D. Baker, Rediscovering the Scandal of the Cross (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000).
Friday, July 16, 2010
Righteous by Faith (10)
Click here for the previous post.
Romans 3:28 captures Paul's bottom line well: "a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law" (NRSV). As a reminder, to be "justified" is to be considered righteous by God, to be found "not guilty" or "innocent" in his divine court. It is to be reckoned as "right" with him. The "works of law" here could in theory be any part of the Jewish Law, but we have followed those who primarily see Paul thinking of those aspects of the Jewish Law that Jews might boast the most about--the ones that distinguished them in their minds from non-Jews. [1]
But what does Paul mean by "faith." The word faith itself has a number of possible meanings, which we have already seen. It can mean "faithfulness," as in Romans 3:3. It can mean an almost purly mental belief, as when James talks about how the demons "believe" (pisteuo) in one God (Jas. 2:19). Maybe the majority of times in the New Testament it has a sense of confidence or trust, such as when Jesus says we might move mountains if we had enough faith (e.g., Matt. 17:20).
So what sense does Paul have in mind when he says that it is a person's "faith" that justifies them, not their "works of Law"? We are so used to thinking Paul has been talking primarily about faith in Jesus Christ that our knee-jerk reaction is usually to say that it is a trust in Jesus that Paul has in mind here. And faith directed toward Jesus is clearly part of Paul's equation to be sure (e.g., Gal. 2:16). But as Paul unpacks his argument in Romans 4, it is not faith directed toward Jesus that is Paul's focus. It is faith in God the Father. [2]
So Paul gives Abraham as a model of faith in Romans 4. But it obviously is not Abraham's faith in Christ that is the model but rather Abraham's faith in God. No one earns a right status with God but this status is for the one who "trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (4:5). Abraham was considered to be righteous "in the sight of God, in whom he believed [=had faith]--the God who gives life to the dead and calls thigns that are not as though they were" (4:17). And God will justify us too, "who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (4:24).
As Paul unpacks how faith justifies a person in Romans 4, it is never Christ who is the object of such faith, but God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead. We see this pattern in Paul's thought also when we look at Romans 10:9, which gives us the path to salvation: "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe [=have faith] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Here again, it is our faith that God raised him from the dead that effects salvation...
[1] circumcision, purity laws, food laws, sabbath observance, and so forth.
[2] This is again one of the many observations that I think add up to Romans 3:22 being primarily about Jesus' faithfulness rather than human faith. Jesus is the secondary object of faith for Paul, after God the Father.
Romans 3:28 captures Paul's bottom line well: "a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law" (NRSV). As a reminder, to be "justified" is to be considered righteous by God, to be found "not guilty" or "innocent" in his divine court. It is to be reckoned as "right" with him. The "works of law" here could in theory be any part of the Jewish Law, but we have followed those who primarily see Paul thinking of those aspects of the Jewish Law that Jews might boast the most about--the ones that distinguished them in their minds from non-Jews. [1]
But what does Paul mean by "faith." The word faith itself has a number of possible meanings, which we have already seen. It can mean "faithfulness," as in Romans 3:3. It can mean an almost purly mental belief, as when James talks about how the demons "believe" (pisteuo) in one God (Jas. 2:19). Maybe the majority of times in the New Testament it has a sense of confidence or trust, such as when Jesus says we might move mountains if we had enough faith (e.g., Matt. 17:20).
So what sense does Paul have in mind when he says that it is a person's "faith" that justifies them, not their "works of Law"? We are so used to thinking Paul has been talking primarily about faith in Jesus Christ that our knee-jerk reaction is usually to say that it is a trust in Jesus that Paul has in mind here. And faith directed toward Jesus is clearly part of Paul's equation to be sure (e.g., Gal. 2:16). But as Paul unpacks his argument in Romans 4, it is not faith directed toward Jesus that is Paul's focus. It is faith in God the Father. [2]
So Paul gives Abraham as a model of faith in Romans 4. But it obviously is not Abraham's faith in Christ that is the model but rather Abraham's faith in God. No one earns a right status with God but this status is for the one who "trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (4:5). Abraham was considered to be righteous "in the sight of God, in whom he believed [=had faith]--the God who gives life to the dead and calls thigns that are not as though they were" (4:17). And God will justify us too, "who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (4:24).
As Paul unpacks how faith justifies a person in Romans 4, it is never Christ who is the object of such faith, but God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead. We see this pattern in Paul's thought also when we look at Romans 10:9, which gives us the path to salvation: "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe [=have faith] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Here again, it is our faith that God raised him from the dead that effects salvation...
[1] circumcision, purity laws, food laws, sabbath observance, and so forth.
[2] This is again one of the many observations that I think add up to Romans 3:22 being primarily about Jesus' faithfulness rather than human faith. Jesus is the secondary object of faith for Paul, after God the Father.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Faith of Jesus Christ (9)
Previously on Paul.
So what does it matter if Paul grammatically meant to say that the "faith of Jesus" is how we come to be declared "right" with God? He still taught that we must direct our faith toward Jesus. And even if this grammatical expression did not invoke Jesus' faithfulness, he clearly saw Jesus' obedience as an element in the equation. Is this debate simply a squabble between scholars that, aside from our desire to know what Paul really was saying, does not really make much of a difference in what we believe?
It probably does not change too much the individual things we believe. What it changes is the overall emphasis and picture, and I personally find the changed overall picture to ring much truer to Paul. It shifts several aspects of Paul in particular that move us away from some of the extremes we have inherited from history and arguably back to Paul himself.
For example, if Romans 3 and Galatians 2 use the "faith of Jesus" as the starting point, then our understanding of Paul shifts just the right amount away from our faith and on to Jesus. The Protestant emphasis on justification by faith was an important corrective in the 1500s, but in the intervening centuries pushed Protestants more and more to a "me" centered path to God. My faith is significant in Paul, to be sure. But if Paul's initial focus was on Jesus' faithfulness, then we have a better balance of emphasis that seems to fit Paul and his time very well indeed.
Related to the human focus is also a kind of individualism that the Protestant emphasis on my faith tends to foster that does not ring as true to the group orientation of Paul's world. I as an individual believer become more the focus rather than what Jesus has done. It seems to fit Paul's world much more, as we will see in the next chapter, if his focus is much more on our incorporation into Christ and into what he has done.
Another shift that seems to fit Paul and earliest Christianity better is a slight shift of focus from faith in Jesus to faith in God the Father. It is not that Paul does not still speak of our faith in Jesus. Directing our faith toward Christ Jesus remains a crucial element in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 no matter how one takes the phrase "faith of Jesus." But a careful look at what Paul says elsewhere reveals a consistent priority of God the Father over Jesus. After every knee bows in the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2:11), after everything is put under Jesus' feet (1 Cor. 15:28), God the Father is still the one to whom Jesus is servant and subject.
Throughout Romans 4, it is God that is the object of faith. It is God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). It is God who calls into existence the things that do not exist (4:17). It is God who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24). Christians understand Jesus to be God, "eternally begotten of the Father," as the Nicene Creed of AD381 would put it. So we sometimes do not hear carefully the emphasis of Paul's writings at his stage in the flow of revelation. The "faith of Jesus" interpretation seems to recover Paul's balance of where faith is directed a little more accurately. Yes, it is directed toward Christ, but it is even more directed in Paul's language toward God the Father.
Finally, the "faith of Jesus" interpretation recovers a greater sense of the importance of the life of Jesus and of his humanity rather than Paul simply being interested in Jesus' death. Again, because we rightly believe Jesus to be the second person of the Trinity, it is all too easy for us to forget that we also believe he was fully human. Paul and the New Testament authors did not have this problem. Hebrews, for example, can speak of Jesus learning obedience through the things he suffered (Heb. 5:8) and being tempted like us (4:15).
None of these shifts proves that the "faith of Jesus" interpretation is correct. But they do contribute to a picture of Paul's thinking that, I think, fits not only Paul's time better but also things he says elsewhere. It fits with the fact that faith for Paul is primarily directed toward God the Father. It puts the focus of justification more on Jesus than on us as individuals. And it appropriately includes the human struggle and obedient action of Jesus in the equation of salvation.
So what does it matter if Paul grammatically meant to say that the "faith of Jesus" is how we come to be declared "right" with God? He still taught that we must direct our faith toward Jesus. And even if this grammatical expression did not invoke Jesus' faithfulness, he clearly saw Jesus' obedience as an element in the equation. Is this debate simply a squabble between scholars that, aside from our desire to know what Paul really was saying, does not really make much of a difference in what we believe?
It probably does not change too much the individual things we believe. What it changes is the overall emphasis and picture, and I personally find the changed overall picture to ring much truer to Paul. It shifts several aspects of Paul in particular that move us away from some of the extremes we have inherited from history and arguably back to Paul himself.
For example, if Romans 3 and Galatians 2 use the "faith of Jesus" as the starting point, then our understanding of Paul shifts just the right amount away from our faith and on to Jesus. The Protestant emphasis on justification by faith was an important corrective in the 1500s, but in the intervening centuries pushed Protestants more and more to a "me" centered path to God. My faith is significant in Paul, to be sure. But if Paul's initial focus was on Jesus' faithfulness, then we have a better balance of emphasis that seems to fit Paul and his time very well indeed.
Related to the human focus is also a kind of individualism that the Protestant emphasis on my faith tends to foster that does not ring as true to the group orientation of Paul's world. I as an individual believer become more the focus rather than what Jesus has done. It seems to fit Paul's world much more, as we will see in the next chapter, if his focus is much more on our incorporation into Christ and into what he has done.
Another shift that seems to fit Paul and earliest Christianity better is a slight shift of focus from faith in Jesus to faith in God the Father. It is not that Paul does not still speak of our faith in Jesus. Directing our faith toward Christ Jesus remains a crucial element in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 no matter how one takes the phrase "faith of Jesus." But a careful look at what Paul says elsewhere reveals a consistent priority of God the Father over Jesus. After every knee bows in the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2:11), after everything is put under Jesus' feet (1 Cor. 15:28), God the Father is still the one to whom Jesus is servant and subject.
Throughout Romans 4, it is God that is the object of faith. It is God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). It is God who calls into existence the things that do not exist (4:17). It is God who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24). Christians understand Jesus to be God, "eternally begotten of the Father," as the Nicene Creed of AD381 would put it. So we sometimes do not hear carefully the emphasis of Paul's writings at his stage in the flow of revelation. The "faith of Jesus" interpretation seems to recover Paul's balance of where faith is directed a little more accurately. Yes, it is directed toward Christ, but it is even more directed in Paul's language toward God the Father.
Finally, the "faith of Jesus" interpretation recovers a greater sense of the importance of the life of Jesus and of his humanity rather than Paul simply being interested in Jesus' death. Again, because we rightly believe Jesus to be the second person of the Trinity, it is all too easy for us to forget that we also believe he was fully human. Paul and the New Testament authors did not have this problem. Hebrews, for example, can speak of Jesus learning obedience through the things he suffered (Heb. 5:8) and being tempted like us (4:15).
None of these shifts proves that the "faith of Jesus" interpretation is correct. But they do contribute to a picture of Paul's thinking that, I think, fits not only Paul's time better but also things he says elsewhere. It fits with the fact that faith for Paul is primarily directed toward God the Father. It puts the focus of justification more on Jesus than on us as individuals. And it appropriately includes the human struggle and obedient action of Jesus in the equation of salvation.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Faith of Jesus Christ (8)
Previously on Paul. I was unhappy with the last version... I felt like I need to relegate my arguments for the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" interpretation of Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 more to the endnotes. So I continue today where my revision starts. I also made my normal Monday post on the chapter, "The Priority of the Heart" in the ongoing series, A Great Time for the Wesleyan Tradition.
________
... Yet over time I have come to fall off the log also with those who think Paul, in both Romans and Galatians, started his argument by mentioning Jesus' faith, Jesus faithfulness and obedience to die on the cross. Both sides have made their cases, and neither side has a silver bullet. Where you end up is inevitably your sense of how all the little pieces add up and your overall sense of Paul's thinking in general. If you want to know some of the specific details that led me to this conclusion, I mention three key ones in the endnotes. [1] Here let me just lay out how I like to think Paul's argument runs in Romans 3:21-26.
We start in verse 20. No one, neither Jew nor Gentile, will be declared right with God on the Day of Judgment because of how well they have kept the Jewish Law. "Works of Law" is not just good works for Paul here. True, Paul does not think that anyone can earn or deserve a "not guilty" verdict from God just by how good they are (see Rom. 4:4; 10:32). But it is quite possible that the phrase "works of Law" was one that would have immediately have made a Jew think of the kinds of squabbles Jewish groups had over what did or did not make a person unclean. [2] God will not find the Gentiles worthy because of their "works," and God will not find the Jews worthy just because they are circumcised and have been careful about what they eat or touch.
But God is still a righteous God. Verse 21 speaks of how God has demonstrated that he is still righteous, still in the business of saving his people. He has shown his righteousness in a new way, a way that does not involve the Jewish Law--the covenant rules between God and Israel. But the Law--the first five books of the Scriptures--do witness to this new way, as do the Prophets--the second half of the Jewish Bible. [3] This new way is "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," that is, through the faithful, atoning death of Jesus on the cross. [4]
This new way to be right with God is now available to all who have faith, both Jew and Gentile. Everyone in both groups has sinned, with the result that they now lack the glory God intended for humanity (3:23). But anyone from either group can be justified easily, be deemed right in God's eyes, "not guilty," "innocent of all charges," because of God's grace. God's grace is his undeserved favor, his willingness to give us a status we do not deserve.
God has demonstrated that he is still just, that the cosmos is still in order, by offering Jesus as a sacrifice, a sign of God's own faithfulness. [5] His righteousness is proved on every side. He saves his people by providing them a path to redemption, yet he also demonstrates his justice in passing over sins (3:25-26). And God does this to everyone who is "from the faith of Jesus" (3:26). I wonder if Paul means this phrase as a double entendre, rather than us having to decide whether he is thinking of the faithfulness of Jesus or our faith in Jesus. It is both. Those who are from the faith of Jesus are those who have been justified on the basis of Jesus' faith and who at the same time have directed their faith on Jesus.
tomorrow: what difference does it make?
[1] The rest of last week's post and additional thoughts on 2 Corinthians 4:13.
[2] See especially the first volume in this series, Paul: Messenger of Grace, pp. ** in the discussion of Galatians. In particular, one of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was called "Some of the Works of the Law" (4QMMT), and it is an argument over purity at the temple. See James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today ()*** When Paul uses this phrase in Galatians, he is especially thinking of things like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile.
[3] The collection of writings the Jews considered Scripture at this time basically consisted of three groups: 1) the Law (Torah, the first five books, the Pentateuch); 2) the Prophets (the "former prophets" of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and the "latter prophets" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets); and the Writings (a miscellaneous collection headed off by the Psalms but whose precise contents were not completely agreed on). See Luke 24:44.
[4] Although I cannot prove it, I wonder if the expression, "through the faith of Jesus" was commonly known in early Christianity, to where a Christian audience would immediately know it referred to Jesus' obedience to death and the atonement it entailed.
[5] On the whole, I think it is more likely that the phrase "through faith" in 3:25 is a reference to God's faithfulness rather than our human faith.
________
... Yet over time I have come to fall off the log also with those who think Paul, in both Romans and Galatians, started his argument by mentioning Jesus' faith, Jesus faithfulness and obedience to die on the cross. Both sides have made their cases, and neither side has a silver bullet. Where you end up is inevitably your sense of how all the little pieces add up and your overall sense of Paul's thinking in general. If you want to know some of the specific details that led me to this conclusion, I mention three key ones in the endnotes. [1] Here let me just lay out how I like to think Paul's argument runs in Romans 3:21-26.
We start in verse 20. No one, neither Jew nor Gentile, will be declared right with God on the Day of Judgment because of how well they have kept the Jewish Law. "Works of Law" is not just good works for Paul here. True, Paul does not think that anyone can earn or deserve a "not guilty" verdict from God just by how good they are (see Rom. 4:4; 10:32). But it is quite possible that the phrase "works of Law" was one that would have immediately have made a Jew think of the kinds of squabbles Jewish groups had over what did or did not make a person unclean. [2] God will not find the Gentiles worthy because of their "works," and God will not find the Jews worthy just because they are circumcised and have been careful about what they eat or touch.
But God is still a righteous God. Verse 21 speaks of how God has demonstrated that he is still righteous, still in the business of saving his people. He has shown his righteousness in a new way, a way that does not involve the Jewish Law--the covenant rules between God and Israel. But the Law--the first five books of the Scriptures--do witness to this new way, as do the Prophets--the second half of the Jewish Bible. [3] This new way is "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," that is, through the faithful, atoning death of Jesus on the cross. [4]
This new way to be right with God is now available to all who have faith, both Jew and Gentile. Everyone in both groups has sinned, with the result that they now lack the glory God intended for humanity (3:23). But anyone from either group can be justified easily, be deemed right in God's eyes, "not guilty," "innocent of all charges," because of God's grace. God's grace is his undeserved favor, his willingness to give us a status we do not deserve.
God has demonstrated that he is still just, that the cosmos is still in order, by offering Jesus as a sacrifice, a sign of God's own faithfulness. [5] His righteousness is proved on every side. He saves his people by providing them a path to redemption, yet he also demonstrates his justice in passing over sins (3:25-26). And God does this to everyone who is "from the faith of Jesus" (3:26). I wonder if Paul means this phrase as a double entendre, rather than us having to decide whether he is thinking of the faithfulness of Jesus or our faith in Jesus. It is both. Those who are from the faith of Jesus are those who have been justified on the basis of Jesus' faith and who at the same time have directed their faith on Jesus.
tomorrow: what difference does it make?
[1] The rest of last week's post and additional thoughts on 2 Corinthians 4:13.
[2] See especially the first volume in this series, Paul: Messenger of Grace, pp. ** in the discussion of Galatians. In particular, one of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was called "Some of the Works of the Law" (4QMMT), and it is an argument over purity at the temple. See James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today ()*** When Paul uses this phrase in Galatians, he is especially thinking of things like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile.
[3] The collection of writings the Jews considered Scripture at this time basically consisted of three groups: 1) the Law (Torah, the first five books, the Pentateuch); 2) the Prophets (the "former prophets" of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and the "latter prophets" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets); and the Writings (a miscellaneous collection headed off by the Psalms but whose precise contents were not completely agreed on). See Luke 24:44.
[4] Although I cannot prove it, I wonder if the expression, "through the faith of Jesus" was commonly known in early Christianity, to where a Christian audience would immediately know it referred to Jesus' obedience to death and the atonement it entailed.
[5] On the whole, I think it is more likely that the phrase "through faith" in 3:25 is a reference to God's faithfulness rather than our human faith.
Friday, July 09, 2010
The Faith of Jesus Christ (6)
Previously on Paul.
The Faith of Jesus Christ
The first three chapters of Romans, especially Romans 1:18-3:20, present the human problem. God will judge both Jew and non-Jew on the basis of how they have lived in this life (Rom. 2:6). But both Jew and Gentile have done wrong, have sinned, are alienated from God. The default human situation is that both Jew and Gentile stand apart from God on a trajectory to receive God's wrathful judgement on the Day of Wrath.
Romans 3:21-4:25 lay out God's solution to this conundrum. On the one hand, God is a God of justice (Rom. 3:25-26). I personally believe he could simply pardon all humanity on his own divine authority, but such an action would leave us without a clear sense of his justice or of the serious breach of cosmic order that currently exists. But God is also a faithful, saving God. The "righteousness of God" is wrath toward those who stand apart from him (Rom. 1:18). But the righteousness of God is to act to save and make a path of reconciliation to those who will avail themselves.
The solution to the human sin problem is the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22). I have a hunch that Paul intended a double entendre, a double meaning with this phrase. It could mean either "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" or our faith in Jesus Christ. I wonder if Paul meant the Romans to hear both. The solution is the faithful obedience of Jesus to the point of death, the faithful death of Jesus through which God atones for the sins of humanity, and our trust in what God has done through Jesus.
In Romans 3:21-22, Paul says that God has now revealed his righteousness apart from the Law, namely “through faith of Jesus Christ to all who have faith.” [1] Almost all translations render this phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ,” but you can see that someone might very easily take it to say “through the faith of Jesus.” Many interpreters now take the expression that way. [2] Paul would thus be saying that God has now shown his righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus, through Jesus' obedience unto death (cf. Phil. 2:8; Rom. 5:19). The experts are divided on the issue, and the Greek is genuinely ambiguous. [3]
[1] My translation.
[2] Perhaps the best known current proponent of this interpretation is Richard B. Hays. In the first volume of this series, Paul: Messenger of Grace, we mentioned Hays' The Faith of Jesus Christ as one of the many books one might read to master Paul (The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]).
[3] The best known proponent of the traditional reading “faith in Jesus” is James D. G. Dunn, whose rebuttal is printed at the end of the revised edition of Hays’ Faith of Jesus Christ (Faith, 249-71). The first volume of my Paul series was in part dedicated to Dunn, under whom I studied. This volume is in part dedicated to Hays.
The Faith of Jesus Christ
The first three chapters of Romans, especially Romans 1:18-3:20, present the human problem. God will judge both Jew and non-Jew on the basis of how they have lived in this life (Rom. 2:6). But both Jew and Gentile have done wrong, have sinned, are alienated from God. The default human situation is that both Jew and Gentile stand apart from God on a trajectory to receive God's wrathful judgement on the Day of Wrath.
Romans 3:21-4:25 lay out God's solution to this conundrum. On the one hand, God is a God of justice (Rom. 3:25-26). I personally believe he could simply pardon all humanity on his own divine authority, but such an action would leave us without a clear sense of his justice or of the serious breach of cosmic order that currently exists. But God is also a faithful, saving God. The "righteousness of God" is wrath toward those who stand apart from him (Rom. 1:18). But the righteousness of God is to act to save and make a path of reconciliation to those who will avail themselves.
The solution to the human sin problem is the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22). I have a hunch that Paul intended a double entendre, a double meaning with this phrase. It could mean either "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" or our faith in Jesus Christ. I wonder if Paul meant the Romans to hear both. The solution is the faithful obedience of Jesus to the point of death, the faithful death of Jesus through which God atones for the sins of humanity, and our trust in what God has done through Jesus.
In Romans 3:21-22, Paul says that God has now revealed his righteousness apart from the Law, namely “through faith of Jesus Christ to all who have faith.” [1] Almost all translations render this phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ,” but you can see that someone might very easily take it to say “through the faith of Jesus.” Many interpreters now take the expression that way. [2] Paul would thus be saying that God has now shown his righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus, through Jesus' obedience unto death (cf. Phil. 2:8; Rom. 5:19). The experts are divided on the issue, and the Greek is genuinely ambiguous. [3]
[1] My translation.
[2] Perhaps the best known current proponent of this interpretation is Richard B. Hays. In the first volume of this series, Paul: Messenger of Grace, we mentioned Hays' The Faith of Jesus Christ as one of the many books one might read to master Paul (The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]).
[3] The best known proponent of the traditional reading “faith in Jesus” is James D. G. Dunn, whose rebuttal is printed at the end of the revised edition of Hays’ Faith of Jesus Christ (Faith, 249-71). The first volume of my Paul series was in part dedicated to Dunn, under whom I studied. This volume is in part dedicated to Hays.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
All Have Sinned (5)
Previously on Paul.
... The very familiar verse Romans 3:23 sums up this entire section: "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God."
The second half of this verse is often mistranslated or misunderstood. The New Living Translation, for example, translates it to say, "and fallen short of God's glorious standard," as if the problem Paul has in mind is our human inability to reach God's standard of absolute perfection. But this line of thinking misses Paul's understanding of glory as something humanity lost with Adam's sin and something we are regaining and will definitively regain at the resurrection.
We can make a good argument that Psalm 8 stands behind this verse, especially the part that says God created humanity with the intent of crowning us "with glory and honor" (Ps. 8:5). [1] When God created humans, he put them in a position of glory and honor within the creation. But when Adam sinned, he lost that glory for humanity. When we sin like Adam did, we also illustrate why we currently lack the glory God intended for us.
Part of our restoration, whether for believers who are alive at the time of Christ's return or for those he resurrects, involves "glorification," the restoration of humanity's glory. As Hebrews puts it, Christ is "bringing many sons to glory" (2:10). Or as Paul puts it, we are going to "share in Christ's glory," a "glory that will be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:17-18). Even in the meantime, we are already "being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory" (2 Cor. 3:18).
Both Jews and Gentiles have lost this glory. Ever since Augustine, Christians have tended to read the "all" in "all have sinned" in individualistic terms. All individuals have sinned. Certainly Paul would agree that all individual human beings have sinned. But this is a subtle shift from what Paul's argument was really about, namely, the fact that both Gentiles and Jews had sinned. "All" in the argument meant "all groups," not just Gentiles, but Jews as well. [2]
When Paul says "all," he is summarizing his earlier argument. For Jews hearing Romans, the first chapter would repeatedly cue in their minds the kinds of sins that Gentiles do. They "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (1:23). The kind of self-righteous Jew Paul pictures in 2:17 would have "Amened" Paul at this point. "You preach it, Paul. Those sinful Gentiles are going to fry!"
Paul goes on in Romans 1:27 to speak of men who "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Again, sexual immorality was one of those stereotypical sins Jews assumed all Gentiles were doing. Homosexual sex was just one consummate example of the kinds of sexual sins a self-righteous Jew might point out to emphasize how sinful those Gentiles were. "Yep, preach it, Paul. Those sinful Gentiles are going to fry!"
But Paul is engaged in a sting operation. The point of Romans 2 is that Jews are just as sinful as those stereotypically sinful Gentiles. In fact, Paul knows some Gentile Christians who have the Law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They put the imaginary, self-righteous Jew Paul has been picturing to shame. They have "circumcised hearts," which makes them truly circumcised in God's eyes, while the condemning Jew Paul pictures proves to be uncircumcised in heart before God (Rom. 2:28-29).
So Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that God's judgment is coming on all ungodliness, not only on ungodly Gentiles who worship idols and are sexually immoral, but on all Jews as well. All groups have sinned--Jews as well as Gentiles--and all equally face God's wrath. This is the problem we all face. And all can also participate equally in the solution: the faith of Jesus Christ!
[1] We know that Psalm 8 featured in Paul's thinking about Adam because he alludes to it in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that God is putting everything under Christ's feet (1 Cor. 15:27). Hebrews 2:5-11, which probably was written by someone associated with the Pauline mission, may give us a fuller version of Paul's thinking here. You can see my understanding of it in my sense of what stands behind Romans 3:23b above.
[2] This was one of Krister Stendahl's main points in his groundbreaking lecture, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West."
... The very familiar verse Romans 3:23 sums up this entire section: "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God."
The second half of this verse is often mistranslated or misunderstood. The New Living Translation, for example, translates it to say, "and fallen short of God's glorious standard," as if the problem Paul has in mind is our human inability to reach God's standard of absolute perfection. But this line of thinking misses Paul's understanding of glory as something humanity lost with Adam's sin and something we are regaining and will definitively regain at the resurrection.
We can make a good argument that Psalm 8 stands behind this verse, especially the part that says God created humanity with the intent of crowning us "with glory and honor" (Ps. 8:5). [1] When God created humans, he put them in a position of glory and honor within the creation. But when Adam sinned, he lost that glory for humanity. When we sin like Adam did, we also illustrate why we currently lack the glory God intended for us.
Part of our restoration, whether for believers who are alive at the time of Christ's return or for those he resurrects, involves "glorification," the restoration of humanity's glory. As Hebrews puts it, Christ is "bringing many sons to glory" (2:10). Or as Paul puts it, we are going to "share in Christ's glory," a "glory that will be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:17-18). Even in the meantime, we are already "being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory" (2 Cor. 3:18).
Both Jews and Gentiles have lost this glory. Ever since Augustine, Christians have tended to read the "all" in "all have sinned" in individualistic terms. All individuals have sinned. Certainly Paul would agree that all individual human beings have sinned. But this is a subtle shift from what Paul's argument was really about, namely, the fact that both Gentiles and Jews had sinned. "All" in the argument meant "all groups," not just Gentiles, but Jews as well. [2]
When Paul says "all," he is summarizing his earlier argument. For Jews hearing Romans, the first chapter would repeatedly cue in their minds the kinds of sins that Gentiles do. They "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (1:23). The kind of self-righteous Jew Paul pictures in 2:17 would have "Amened" Paul at this point. "You preach it, Paul. Those sinful Gentiles are going to fry!"
Paul goes on in Romans 1:27 to speak of men who "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Again, sexual immorality was one of those stereotypical sins Jews assumed all Gentiles were doing. Homosexual sex was just one consummate example of the kinds of sexual sins a self-righteous Jew might point out to emphasize how sinful those Gentiles were. "Yep, preach it, Paul. Those sinful Gentiles are going to fry!"
But Paul is engaged in a sting operation. The point of Romans 2 is that Jews are just as sinful as those stereotypically sinful Gentiles. In fact, Paul knows some Gentile Christians who have the Law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They put the imaginary, self-righteous Jew Paul has been picturing to shame. They have "circumcised hearts," which makes them truly circumcised in God's eyes, while the condemning Jew Paul pictures proves to be uncircumcised in heart before God (Rom. 2:28-29).
So Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that God's judgment is coming on all ungodliness, not only on ungodly Gentiles who worship idols and are sexually immoral, but on all Jews as well. All groups have sinned--Jews as well as Gentiles--and all equally face God's wrath. This is the problem we all face. And all can also participate equally in the solution: the faith of Jesus Christ!
[1] We know that Psalm 8 featured in Paul's thinking about Adam because he alludes to it in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that God is putting everything under Christ's feet (1 Cor. 15:27). Hebrews 2:5-11, which probably was written by someone associated with the Pauline mission, may give us a fuller version of Paul's thinking here. You can see my understanding of it in my sense of what stands behind Romans 3:23b above.
[2] This was one of Krister Stendahl's main points in his groundbreaking lecture, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West."
Monday, June 21, 2010
All Have Sinned (4)
Previously on Paul. Not much time today. I'm off to Montreal as an observer at the biennial Association of Theological Schools meeting. We (Wesley Seminary at IWU) will apply for associate membership at the next meeting, Lord willing. On Friday the question of adjusting residency policies will be introduced. Currently the standard is two years, although some established schools like Asbury have an appropriate exception to require only one year. This is the direction I believe ATS needs to go for seminaries and the MDIV degree itself to revive and thrive. I am fairly confident this will be the decision at the next meeting.
_________
So the idea that everyone has sinned at some point in his or her life was not a new idea Paul came up with. Mainstream Jews would have completely agreed with Paul on this point, not to mention his Christian opponents. [1] Mainstream Jews would have completely agreed with Paul that it was only because of God's grace that Israel enjoyed the special relationship with God they had. They did not earn this special relationship even if God expected them to keep the Law to maintain it. And even if specific Israelites might fail him, God would preserve a righteous remnant within Israel forever.
The disagreement thus was not that "all have sinned" but on what the implications of that sin were and on what God in his righteousness was doing to address that sin. In a nutshell, Paul argued that Jewish sinfulness was no different from Gentile sinfulness, that Jews did not get a pass on their sins simply because they were Jews. Even more importantly, God had determined only one way to make things right with him, and it was not keeping the Jewish Law. The faithful death of Jesus Christ was the only way God was accepting at this time.
Paul spends almost the first three chapters of Romans spelling out the problem and implications of the fact that "all have sinned." After the usual introductory material of 1:1-15 and the key verses of 1:16-17, Paul dedicates Romans 1:18-3:20 to the sin problem of humanity both for Jews and non-Jews alike. [2] The very familiar verse Romans 3:23 sums up this entire section: "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." [3]
...
[1] For example, one Qumran hymn says, "What is flesh compared to this? ... He is in iniquity from his maternal womb, and in guilt of unfaithfulness right to old age" (1QH12.29-30).
[2] The "prescript" or greetings of Romans are in 1:1-7. Then the "thanksgiving" section continues at least through verse 15, where Paul thanks God for the Romans. 1:16-17 are then the key verses of the letter.
[3] My translation.
_________
So the idea that everyone has sinned at some point in his or her life was not a new idea Paul came up with. Mainstream Jews would have completely agreed with Paul on this point, not to mention his Christian opponents. [1] Mainstream Jews would have completely agreed with Paul that it was only because of God's grace that Israel enjoyed the special relationship with God they had. They did not earn this special relationship even if God expected them to keep the Law to maintain it. And even if specific Israelites might fail him, God would preserve a righteous remnant within Israel forever.
The disagreement thus was not that "all have sinned" but on what the implications of that sin were and on what God in his righteousness was doing to address that sin. In a nutshell, Paul argued that Jewish sinfulness was no different from Gentile sinfulness, that Jews did not get a pass on their sins simply because they were Jews. Even more importantly, God had determined only one way to make things right with him, and it was not keeping the Jewish Law. The faithful death of Jesus Christ was the only way God was accepting at this time.
Paul spends almost the first three chapters of Romans spelling out the problem and implications of the fact that "all have sinned." After the usual introductory material of 1:1-15 and the key verses of 1:16-17, Paul dedicates Romans 1:18-3:20 to the sin problem of humanity both for Jews and non-Jews alike. [2] The very familiar verse Romans 3:23 sums up this entire section: "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." [3]
...
[1] For example, one Qumran hymn says, "What is flesh compared to this? ... He is in iniquity from his maternal womb, and in guilt of unfaithfulness right to old age" (1QH12.29-30).
[2] The "prescript" or greetings of Romans are in 1:1-7. Then the "thanksgiving" section continues at least through verse 15, where Paul thanks God for the Romans. 1:16-17 are then the key verses of the letter.
[3] My translation.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Righteousness of God (3)
Previously on Paul.
__________
Most scholars would also recognize today that while Luther's sense of "initial justification" was mostly accurate to Paul, his sense of what the phrase "the righteousness of God" meant in Romans 1:17 was probably wrong. The Roman Catholic Church took it to mean the justice God distributed toward believer and non-believer alike. Luther took it to be a "legal fiction," God considering us righteous even though we are not, a righteousness from God.
But the Jewish background to the idea of the righteousness of God points in another direction. For example, Psalm 98:2 says that "The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations." See how much this verse has in common with Romans 1:17? [1] It mentions God's righteousness and speaks of it being revealed. It also has a sense of this revelation going out to all the nations, just as Paul understood the gospel to be for the Gentiles as well as Jews. [2] The verse does not speak of us becoming righteous, but of God's righteousness as he brings about the salvation of Israel.
This psalm is not the only place where God's "righteousness" and his "salvation" are mentioned parallel to one another. [3] The second half of Isaiah (chaps. 40-66) was of great significance to the earliest Christians, and Paul himself occasionally alludes to these chapters (e.g., Rom. 15:21). These sorts of parallels between God's righteousness and the salvation he is bringing permeate them. The Greek version of Isaiah 51:5 Paul used says, "My righteousness draws near quickly, my salvation will come out like a light. The Gentiles will hope on my right arm." [4]
With such a consistent Old Testament background--also found in some of the Jewish literature of Paul's own day [5]--Paul almost certainly inherited a sense that the expression, "the righteousness of God" referred to God's righteousness as God's propensity to save Israel. Paul of course did not have to stop with what the phrase had meant before him, but it is pretty clear what his starting point was.
So when Paul says that "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel" in Romans 1:17, he is talking about God's relationship with his people and in particular God's propensity to save his people, God's "saving righteousness." Righteousness is a relational term in Jewish thought. It is not about some abstract quality God has but about a specific way that God relates to his people and the world. It is a word that can refer to God's justice, as we will see in Romans 1:18, where Paul goes on to talk about the wrath of God toward ungodliness. But in Romans 1:17 Paul is talking about good news, how God has acted through Christ to bring salvation to his people, which now includes not only believing Jews, but believing Gentiles as well.
So Paul starts with the way Jews already thought of the righteousness of God, God's faithfulness to Israel both in judgment and salvation. Then he Christianizes the concept. Now it is only through Christ that this righteousness comes to God's people. And now God's people is not exactly the same as Israel but only includes believing Jews and is extended to include believing Gentiles as well.
And just maybe, Paul exploits the ambiguity of the phrase "the righteousness of God" so that when he gets to Romans 3:21, he not only alludes to God's righteousness. Maybe Luther was not so far off here as we think. When Paul says, "now, apart from law, righteousness of God has been disclosed," [6] maybe he intended the Romans to hear a double meaning, a double entendre. Not only has the righteousness of God" been revealed in a new way through Christ, God's righteousness. But maybe he means his readers also to hear that a "righteousness" is now available for us "of God," that is, "from God."
[1] We should add here to our list of key books on Paul, Richard Hays' celebrated Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1989). In this book, Hays explores passages in Paul that may "echo" passages from the Old Testament. An echo is something a little weaker than a full blown allusion, where it is clear an author quite intentionally is pointing toward a specific Old Testament (or other) text.
[2] The next verse reads, "He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to the house of Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God."
[3] Many will know that Hebrew poetry does not rhyme sounds, but ideas. The verses we are discussing here use "synonymous parallelism" where one line is followed by another line that roughly says the same thing.
[4] My translation.
[5] The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, think of God's righteousness in similar terms. For example, "if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my salvation always; and if I fall in the sin of the flesh, in the justice of God... will my judgment be... he will judge me in the justice of his truth, and in his plentiful goodness always atone for my sins; in his justice he will cleanse me from the uncleanness of the human being" (1QS11.12). Translation from Florentino G. Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 99.
[6] My translation.
__________
Most scholars would also recognize today that while Luther's sense of "initial justification" was mostly accurate to Paul, his sense of what the phrase "the righteousness of God" meant in Romans 1:17 was probably wrong. The Roman Catholic Church took it to mean the justice God distributed toward believer and non-believer alike. Luther took it to be a "legal fiction," God considering us righteous even though we are not, a righteousness from God.
But the Jewish background to the idea of the righteousness of God points in another direction. For example, Psalm 98:2 says that "The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations." See how much this verse has in common with Romans 1:17? [1] It mentions God's righteousness and speaks of it being revealed. It also has a sense of this revelation going out to all the nations, just as Paul understood the gospel to be for the Gentiles as well as Jews. [2] The verse does not speak of us becoming righteous, but of God's righteousness as he brings about the salvation of Israel.
This psalm is not the only place where God's "righteousness" and his "salvation" are mentioned parallel to one another. [3] The second half of Isaiah (chaps. 40-66) was of great significance to the earliest Christians, and Paul himself occasionally alludes to these chapters (e.g., Rom. 15:21). These sorts of parallels between God's righteousness and the salvation he is bringing permeate them. The Greek version of Isaiah 51:5 Paul used says, "My righteousness draws near quickly, my salvation will come out like a light. The Gentiles will hope on my right arm." [4]
With such a consistent Old Testament background--also found in some of the Jewish literature of Paul's own day [5]--Paul almost certainly inherited a sense that the expression, "the righteousness of God" referred to God's righteousness as God's propensity to save Israel. Paul of course did not have to stop with what the phrase had meant before him, but it is pretty clear what his starting point was.
So when Paul says that "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel" in Romans 1:17, he is talking about God's relationship with his people and in particular God's propensity to save his people, God's "saving righteousness." Righteousness is a relational term in Jewish thought. It is not about some abstract quality God has but about a specific way that God relates to his people and the world. It is a word that can refer to God's justice, as we will see in Romans 1:18, where Paul goes on to talk about the wrath of God toward ungodliness. But in Romans 1:17 Paul is talking about good news, how God has acted through Christ to bring salvation to his people, which now includes not only believing Jews, but believing Gentiles as well.
So Paul starts with the way Jews already thought of the righteousness of God, God's faithfulness to Israel both in judgment and salvation. Then he Christianizes the concept. Now it is only through Christ that this righteousness comes to God's people. And now God's people is not exactly the same as Israel but only includes believing Jews and is extended to include believing Gentiles as well.
And just maybe, Paul exploits the ambiguity of the phrase "the righteousness of God" so that when he gets to Romans 3:21, he not only alludes to God's righteousness. Maybe Luther was not so far off here as we think. When Paul says, "now, apart from law, righteousness of God has been disclosed," [6] maybe he intended the Romans to hear a double meaning, a double entendre. Not only has the righteousness of God" been revealed in a new way through Christ, God's righteousness. But maybe he means his readers also to hear that a "righteousness" is now available for us "of God," that is, "from God."
[1] We should add here to our list of key books on Paul, Richard Hays' celebrated Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1989). In this book, Hays explores passages in Paul that may "echo" passages from the Old Testament. An echo is something a little weaker than a full blown allusion, where it is clear an author quite intentionally is pointing toward a specific Old Testament (or other) text.
[2] The next verse reads, "He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to the house of Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God."
[3] Many will know that Hebrew poetry does not rhyme sounds, but ideas. The verses we are discussing here use "synonymous parallelism" where one line is followed by another line that roughly says the same thing.
[4] My translation.
[5] The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, think of God's righteousness in similar terms. For example, "if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my salvation always; and if I fall in the sin of the flesh, in the justice of God... will my judgment be... he will judge me in the justice of his truth, and in his plentiful goodness always atone for my sins; in his justice he will cleanse me from the uncleanness of the human being" (1QS11.12). Translation from Florentino G. Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 99.
[6] My translation.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
The Righteousness of God (2)
Previously on Paul.
...Romans 1:17 says that the "righteousness of God" is revealed in the gospel about Jesus the king. In this expression alone we can trace the birth of Protestantism out of Roman Catholicism, as well as some of the disagreements among later Protestants. Up until the 1500s, almost everyone in the Western world defined themselves as Christian, and the only church in the West that existed was the Roman Catholic Church. [1]
Enter on the scene a German monk named Martin Luther in 1517. It was this year that Luther publically questioned some of the practices of the church of that day. But this moment in history was preceded by some personal breakthroughs that Luther experienced. One of them had to do with his understanding of Romans 1:17 and the phrase, "the righteousness of God."
At that time, Latin was the language of both the scholar and the church, and the Catholic church read the Scriptures in Latin. The vast uneducated majority of Christians thus did not hear the Bible read in their own languages. In Latin, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is "iustitia Dei." You can see that the first word looks a lot like the English word "justice."
And this is exactly how the Church took the word. The gospel reveals the justice of God. Now this is a possible meaning of the word for "righteousness" (dikaiosyne). [2] And it is true that God is just. But most interpreters prior to Luther took the verse to be about God distributing His justice both on believer and non-believer. Luther, who had a heightened sense of his own moral imperfection, found this verse troubling. At the time he believed in purgatory, a place where we burn off our remaining sinfulness and imperfection at death. The prospect of the "justice of God" thus was not good news to him.
His breakthrough was the realization that he could also take the phrase "the righteousness of God" as a reference to a "righteousness from God," that is, as a reference to God declaring us as righteous. Luther's theology of "justification" was born, for him the act of God declaring us righteous or innocent in the divine court. For Luther, we humans will never be acceptable to God in terms of our own goodness or morality. We come to God as sinners and we remain sinners even after we come to Christ. One of his most famous statements is that we are "at the same time righteous and a sinner, as long as we are always repenting." [3]
Some of Luther's thinking here seems true of Paul while other parts do not. For example, you will search long and hard to find any expectation or justification for sinning as a Christian in Paul's letters (cf., for example, Rom. 6:1-2, 12, 15). In the next chapter, we will see how Romans 7 is often, yet quite mistakenly, taken as a Christian's inability to stop sinning. Paul's position on this issue is not even close to ambiguous. Paul expects Christians to live righteous lives and those who do not are in serious danger of not being saved in the end.
Luther was correct, however, in the way he understood Paul's language about how a person comes to be right with God in the first place. Paul taught that a person becomes right with God, that is, is "justified," on the basis of faith--one's trust in what God has done through Jesus the Christ, Jesus the king (Rom. 3:28). We will talk a little more about the role of faith in Paul's theology in the next section. For now, it is enough to say that such faith for Paul was first and foremost centered on God the Father and what He had done through Jesus. However, God had accomplished these things through raising Jesus from the dead and by establishing Jesus as Lord of the cosmos. Therefore, Paul could also speak of our faith being directed toward Jesus, as well as on God the Father.
Unfortunately, in English we cannot see that the word "to justify" (dikaioō) is closely related to the word for "righteousness" (dikaiosynē). To justify is thus to "declare righteous." Luther rightly understood this word to be a legal term. [4] God pronounces us "not guilty." God declares us innocent in the divine court. He "justifies" us.
But Luther was only right about the moment of our initial faith in what God has done through Christ. The real trial, the actual moment of God's assessment that really counts, is at the judgment. Paul tells the believers at Corinth in 2 Corinthians 5:10 that they "must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ so that each might give an account for the things he or she did with their body." He also says something similar in Romans 2 where he says that on the Day of Wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, God will pay each person according to the works they have done (2:5-6). Contrary to Luther, we might first be justified with God on the basis of our faith, but we will not be finally justified if our actions did not conform to God's righteous expectation from that point to our final time of judgment. [5]
Most scholars would also recognize today that while Luther's sense of "initial justification" was mostly accurate to Paul, his sense of what the phrase "the righteousness of God" meant in Romans 1:17 was probably wrong...
[1] In the east, of course, most Christians were Orthodox from the year 1054 on, when the Eastern and Western churches formally split from each other.
[2] In fact, most translations translate dikaiosyne as justice in Romans 3:26.
[3] simul iustus et peccator, semper repentans.
[4] Luther's understanding on justification had a major impact on John Wesley. Wesley's understanding of justification is basically that of Luther. It is on the question of sanctification after justification that they differed drastically.
[5] Certainly in Paul's earlier writings like 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, this judgment would seem to take place at the time of Christ's return and the resurrection. Most would say this timing continued throughout all Paul's writings. Some have argued, however, that 2 Corinthians sees this judgment taking place right after death and that Paul's sense of the immediacy of reward shifted a little during his time at Ephesus.
...Romans 1:17 says that the "righteousness of God" is revealed in the gospel about Jesus the king. In this expression alone we can trace the birth of Protestantism out of Roman Catholicism, as well as some of the disagreements among later Protestants. Up until the 1500s, almost everyone in the Western world defined themselves as Christian, and the only church in the West that existed was the Roman Catholic Church. [1]
Enter on the scene a German monk named Martin Luther in 1517. It was this year that Luther publically questioned some of the practices of the church of that day. But this moment in history was preceded by some personal breakthroughs that Luther experienced. One of them had to do with his understanding of Romans 1:17 and the phrase, "the righteousness of God."
At that time, Latin was the language of both the scholar and the church, and the Catholic church read the Scriptures in Latin. The vast uneducated majority of Christians thus did not hear the Bible read in their own languages. In Latin, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is "iustitia Dei." You can see that the first word looks a lot like the English word "justice."
And this is exactly how the Church took the word. The gospel reveals the justice of God. Now this is a possible meaning of the word for "righteousness" (dikaiosyne). [2] And it is true that God is just. But most interpreters prior to Luther took the verse to be about God distributing His justice both on believer and non-believer. Luther, who had a heightened sense of his own moral imperfection, found this verse troubling. At the time he believed in purgatory, a place where we burn off our remaining sinfulness and imperfection at death. The prospect of the "justice of God" thus was not good news to him.
His breakthrough was the realization that he could also take the phrase "the righteousness of God" as a reference to a "righteousness from God," that is, as a reference to God declaring us as righteous. Luther's theology of "justification" was born, for him the act of God declaring us righteous or innocent in the divine court. For Luther, we humans will never be acceptable to God in terms of our own goodness or morality. We come to God as sinners and we remain sinners even after we come to Christ. One of his most famous statements is that we are "at the same time righteous and a sinner, as long as we are always repenting." [3]
Some of Luther's thinking here seems true of Paul while other parts do not. For example, you will search long and hard to find any expectation or justification for sinning as a Christian in Paul's letters (cf., for example, Rom. 6:1-2, 12, 15). In the next chapter, we will see how Romans 7 is often, yet quite mistakenly, taken as a Christian's inability to stop sinning. Paul's position on this issue is not even close to ambiguous. Paul expects Christians to live righteous lives and those who do not are in serious danger of not being saved in the end.
Luther was correct, however, in the way he understood Paul's language about how a person comes to be right with God in the first place. Paul taught that a person becomes right with God, that is, is "justified," on the basis of faith--one's trust in what God has done through Jesus the Christ, Jesus the king (Rom. 3:28). We will talk a little more about the role of faith in Paul's theology in the next section. For now, it is enough to say that such faith for Paul was first and foremost centered on God the Father and what He had done through Jesus. However, God had accomplished these things through raising Jesus from the dead and by establishing Jesus as Lord of the cosmos. Therefore, Paul could also speak of our faith being directed toward Jesus, as well as on God the Father.
Unfortunately, in English we cannot see that the word "to justify" (dikaioō) is closely related to the word for "righteousness" (dikaiosynē). To justify is thus to "declare righteous." Luther rightly understood this word to be a legal term. [4] God pronounces us "not guilty." God declares us innocent in the divine court. He "justifies" us.
But Luther was only right about the moment of our initial faith in what God has done through Christ. The real trial, the actual moment of God's assessment that really counts, is at the judgment. Paul tells the believers at Corinth in 2 Corinthians 5:10 that they "must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ so that each might give an account for the things he or she did with their body." He also says something similar in Romans 2 where he says that on the Day of Wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, God will pay each person according to the works they have done (2:5-6). Contrary to Luther, we might first be justified with God on the basis of our faith, but we will not be finally justified if our actions did not conform to God's righteous expectation from that point to our final time of judgment. [5]
Most scholars would also recognize today that while Luther's sense of "initial justification" was mostly accurate to Paul, his sense of what the phrase "the righteousness of God" meant in Romans 1:17 was probably wrong...
[1] In the east, of course, most Christians were Orthodox from the year 1054 on, when the Eastern and Western churches formally split from each other.
[2] In fact, most translations translate dikaiosyne as justice in Romans 3:26.
[3] simul iustus et peccator, semper repentans.
[4] Luther's understanding on justification had a major impact on John Wesley. Wesley's understanding of justification is basically that of Luther. It is on the question of sanctification after justification that they differed drastically.
[5] Certainly in Paul's earlier writings like 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, this judgment would seem to take place at the time of Christ's return and the resurrection. Most would say this timing continued throughout all Paul's writings. Some have argued, however, that 2 Corinthians sees this judgment taking place right after death and that Paul's sense of the immediacy of reward shifted a little during his time at Ephesus.
Monday, June 07, 2010
The Righteousness of God (1)
The last bread crumb on this trail was posted as "The Bottom Line." I am not happy with it, but I'll get discouraged if I don't move on. I vent a little in the notes below. I'll take it out before publication but it is an expression of my frustration at those who practice theological interpretation while pretending to do historical-cultural interpretation.
The Righteousness of God
The key verses of Romans are 1:16-17: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God leading to salvation for all who have faith, both to Jew first and to Greek, for the righteousness of God is being revealed in it, starting with faith and ending with faith, just as it is written, 'But the one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live.'" This highly compact statement of Paul encapsulates the key ideas Paul is about to argue in the first four chapters of Romans. It sets down key words and phrases, like "gospel," "salvation," "faith," and the "righteousness of God."
The gospel for Paul is the "good news." He starts off the letter by mentioning that God set him apart as an apostle commissioned to spread this good news (1:1-2). What is the good news? It is the good news "concerning God's Son" (1:3). The good news is that God has enthroned Jesus as the Messiah, the promised king. God has appointed him "Son of God in power" by raising Jesus from the dead (1:4). And part of the good news is all that goes along with Jesus ruling--including salvation! [1]
In Paul's understanding, Son of God meant that Jesus was God's appointed king of the universe. [2] For Paul, when God raised Jesus from the dead and seated him down at his right hand in the highest heaven (e.g., Acts 13:33), God was enthroning him as "Son of God in power" on the throne of the universe. "Son of God" is kingship language, meaning that God has delegated to Jesus the task of judging and ruling the nations.
Salvation is about being saved in the coming judgment of God. The idea of being saved involves being saved from something. We often say we are saved from our sins, but this expression is a shorthand for being saved from the consequences of our sins. After all, it is not like our sins are following us trying to get us. No, when Paul and other New Testament authors talk about salvation, they are primarily referring to escaping God's wrath on judgment day, also called the Day of the Lord. [3]
The word faith (pistis) and its verb form, "believe" (pisteuo), wander between a sense of trust to a sense of faithfulness and of course to a sense of belief. While these English translations are all different (trust, faithfulness, belief), they are all nuances of the same Greek word. When Paul talks about the "faith of God" (Rom. 3:3), he obviously means the faithfulness of God. When Paul talks about our faith, he can mean things like our belief that God raised Jesus from the dead (e.g., Rom. 4:24) or he can mean our full commitment to and trust in the fact that Jesus is our Lord (e.g., Rom. 10:9). In the next section of this chapter, we will talk about whether Paul also mentions on a few occasions the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
But this section is about the righteousness of God...
[1] N. T. Wright does an excellent job of focusing the good news of the gospel on the fact that Jesus is king (e.g., What Saint Paul Really Said, ***). But he is also quite dogmatic and rigid that this good news is not salvation. One gets the feeling that something more is going on in his mind than just what Paul meant by the word gospel. With Wright, one sometimes gets the feeling that his Reformed Anglican theology is secretly hiding below the surface, steering some of his more emphatic and idiosyncratic points. He looks to be doing historical-cultural interpretation before your eyes, but the direction of his pen is often directed as much by his covert theological impulses.
[2] If we are to get into Paul's head on these sorts of things, we have to forget for a minute some of what we know as Christians from God's continued revelation these last two thousand years. On the one hand, it would be foolish for us to reinvent the wheel. God helped the Christians of the first five centuries to unpack and unfold the significance of Jesus, asking questions that went way beyond anything on the minds of the first Christians. How exactly does Jesus' humanity and his divinity fit together, for example? The answers to which God led Christianity are the common Christian understandings of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. It would be silly--not to mention dangerous--to try to rehash these questions all over again.
But the legitimacy, probably even primacy of these Christian readings do not change the fact that what was going on in Paul's head when he wrote words like "appointed Son of God in power" had their first meaning in what words meant in Paul's day. For example, at the time of Paul, "Son of God" was an expressoin that could be used of any of the kings of the Old Testament and language of "bowing the knee" (worship) was appropriate to them. The royal verses Paul and other New Testament authors apply to Jesus were applied to Old Testament, human kings as well.
So 2 Samuel 7:14 was originally about Solomon and implied that he was God's representative, a human representative of God's authority on the throne of Israel. When Hebrews 1:5 quoted this verse, its author may not have been thinking quite as much about Jesus' divinity as we do when we read it. We know Jesus is fully God, begotten of God the Father from eternity past. But it is not at all clear that God had led the New Testament authors to figure quite this much out at that time. Christians came to these understandings through the continued direction of the Holy Spirit as they reflected further on the words of Scripture.
It is thus with mixed feelings that we read studies like Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel. Bauckham's studies are a strange mixture of good theological readings of New Testament texts like Hebrews 1 and yet he cannot seem to free himself from the impulse to find these meanings by way of classical historical-cultural interpretive method. The result is brilliant and ingenious interpretation that, again, may very well be more steered by Bauckham's theological tendencies than by his surface level interpretation.
[2] Ephesians 2:8, which says, "we have been saved," is quite unusual for Paul's writings. As we will see later in this book, Ephesians is not typical of Paul's writings in the varied imagery it uses. For this reason, John McRay's Paul: His Life and Teaching is well-intentioned but probably misguided to use Ephesians as the launching point for summarizing Paul's theology.
The Righteousness of God
The key verses of Romans are 1:16-17: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God leading to salvation for all who have faith, both to Jew first and to Greek, for the righteousness of God is being revealed in it, starting with faith and ending with faith, just as it is written, 'But the one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live.'" This highly compact statement of Paul encapsulates the key ideas Paul is about to argue in the first four chapters of Romans. It sets down key words and phrases, like "gospel," "salvation," "faith," and the "righteousness of God."
The gospel for Paul is the "good news." He starts off the letter by mentioning that God set him apart as an apostle commissioned to spread this good news (1:1-2). What is the good news? It is the good news "concerning God's Son" (1:3). The good news is that God has enthroned Jesus as the Messiah, the promised king. God has appointed him "Son of God in power" by raising Jesus from the dead (1:4). And part of the good news is all that goes along with Jesus ruling--including salvation! [1]
In Paul's understanding, Son of God meant that Jesus was God's appointed king of the universe. [2] For Paul, when God raised Jesus from the dead and seated him down at his right hand in the highest heaven (e.g., Acts 13:33), God was enthroning him as "Son of God in power" on the throne of the universe. "Son of God" is kingship language, meaning that God has delegated to Jesus the task of judging and ruling the nations.
Salvation is about being saved in the coming judgment of God. The idea of being saved involves being saved from something. We often say we are saved from our sins, but this expression is a shorthand for being saved from the consequences of our sins. After all, it is not like our sins are following us trying to get us. No, when Paul and other New Testament authors talk about salvation, they are primarily referring to escaping God's wrath on judgment day, also called the Day of the Lord. [3]
The word faith (pistis) and its verb form, "believe" (pisteuo), wander between a sense of trust to a sense of faithfulness and of course to a sense of belief. While these English translations are all different (trust, faithfulness, belief), they are all nuances of the same Greek word. When Paul talks about the "faith of God" (Rom. 3:3), he obviously means the faithfulness of God. When Paul talks about our faith, he can mean things like our belief that God raised Jesus from the dead (e.g., Rom. 4:24) or he can mean our full commitment to and trust in the fact that Jesus is our Lord (e.g., Rom. 10:9). In the next section of this chapter, we will talk about whether Paul also mentions on a few occasions the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
But this section is about the righteousness of God...
[1] N. T. Wright does an excellent job of focusing the good news of the gospel on the fact that Jesus is king (e.g., What Saint Paul Really Said, ***). But he is also quite dogmatic and rigid that this good news is not salvation. One gets the feeling that something more is going on in his mind than just what Paul meant by the word gospel. With Wright, one sometimes gets the feeling that his Reformed Anglican theology is secretly hiding below the surface, steering some of his more emphatic and idiosyncratic points. He looks to be doing historical-cultural interpretation before your eyes, but the direction of his pen is often directed as much by his covert theological impulses.
[2] If we are to get into Paul's head on these sorts of things, we have to forget for a minute some of what we know as Christians from God's continued revelation these last two thousand years. On the one hand, it would be foolish for us to reinvent the wheel. God helped the Christians of the first five centuries to unpack and unfold the significance of Jesus, asking questions that went way beyond anything on the minds of the first Christians. How exactly does Jesus' humanity and his divinity fit together, for example? The answers to which God led Christianity are the common Christian understandings of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. It would be silly--not to mention dangerous--to try to rehash these questions all over again.
But the legitimacy, probably even primacy of these Christian readings do not change the fact that what was going on in Paul's head when he wrote words like "appointed Son of God in power" had their first meaning in what words meant in Paul's day. For example, at the time of Paul, "Son of God" was an expressoin that could be used of any of the kings of the Old Testament and language of "bowing the knee" (worship) was appropriate to them. The royal verses Paul and other New Testament authors apply to Jesus were applied to Old Testament, human kings as well.
So 2 Samuel 7:14 was originally about Solomon and implied that he was God's representative, a human representative of God's authority on the throne of Israel. When Hebrews 1:5 quoted this verse, its author may not have been thinking quite as much about Jesus' divinity as we do when we read it. We know Jesus is fully God, begotten of God the Father from eternity past. But it is not at all clear that God had led the New Testament authors to figure quite this much out at that time. Christians came to these understandings through the continued direction of the Holy Spirit as they reflected further on the words of Scripture.
It is thus with mixed feelings that we read studies like Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel. Bauckham's studies are a strange mixture of good theological readings of New Testament texts like Hebrews 1 and yet he cannot seem to free himself from the impulse to find these meanings by way of classical historical-cultural interpretive method. The result is brilliant and ingenious interpretation that, again, may very well be more steered by Bauckham's theological tendencies than by his surface level interpretation.
[2] Ephesians 2:8, which says, "we have been saved," is quite unusual for Paul's writings. As we will see later in this book, Ephesians is not typical of Paul's writings in the varied imagery it uses. For this reason, John McRay's Paul: His Life and Teaching is well-intentioned but probably misguided to use Ephesians as the launching point for summarizing Paul's theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
