Paul and the Faithfulness of God

Not sure how I missed this news, but N. T. Wright’s volume 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God not only has a title, but also a cursory list of topics. Although Wright references volume 4 in a few places in his first three volumes, I’ve not taken the time to synthesize what has been revealed so far. Here’s the quote from the Center of Theological Inquiry:

Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Volume IV of Christian Origins and the Question of God) combines history and theology (exegesis being a branch of both), using the worldview-analysis outlined earlier. I shall examine (i) Paul’s characteristic praxis, stories and symbols, and his answers to the key worldview questions; (ii) his theology in terms of the revision, by means of Christ and the Spirit, of the central Jewish topics of monotheism, election and eschatology. At each point we see Paul in implicit dialogue and/or confrontation both with other Jewish readings of scripture and with hellenistic and Roman ideologies. His central aim was to found and maintain united and holy Christ-communities as a sign of new humanity to the wider world.

Theologically, this demonstrates a deep inner coherence throughout Paul’s theology, reconciling otherwise puzzling topics (e.g. the classic stand-off between ‘justification’ and ‘being in Christ’), and reframing ‘ethics’ and ‘ecclesiology’ in a more central and positive role than usual. Historically, I shall reconstruct Paul’s worldview and mindset in terms of a complex but coherent relationship (part derivation, part confrontation, part creative engagement) with the multiple worlds of C1 Judaism, Hellenism and Roman imperialism.

David Mathis on N. T. Wright

Second, Wright is bogging down the discussion by continuing to take dikaiosunē theou as a technical term for God’s covenant faithfulness without providing a convincing rationale. His justification-revision project may be crumbling on simple linguistics. In taking dikaiosunē theou as a technical term, Wright seemingly grants himself the freedom to disregard context when it fits his designs. (The phrase “technical term” in Wright nearly functions as a kind of signal to the reader that he is importing concepts not natively found in the text at hand; the phrase “controlling narrative” appears to be another such marker.) He uses dikaiosunē and pistis interchangeably when it fits his system and differently when it does not (p. 203). Wright cannot maintain “righteous” as “covenantally faithful” throughout his exegetical chapters, as his treatment of a key text like Romans 3:25–26 demonstrates (p. 206).

Along these lines, Wright’s explanation of 2 Cor 5:21 remains unpersuasive because he has not established that dikaiosunē theou means covenant faithfulness. Point after point, his exegesis is predicated on his understanding of dikaiosunē theou, but he provides no OT (or other) support for his view, merely assuming it as fact (p. 217). He then uses the phrase to draw in the “controlling narrative” of Israel and Abraham where it is not demonstrably in the apostle’s mind.

Read the rest here.

New Books

I ordered the following books this evening.  I’m trying to read more history to help me with a history project as well as post-graduate studies.  Any observations or suggestions are welcome.  I had wanted to purchase more tertiary sources such as the IVP black dictionary series but it was my birthday so I got the ones I wanted instead of needed.  I thought a picture of the Seyoon Kim book would summarize the content of the purchases for the most part (aside from the Sailhamer and Walton books).

1. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the OT - John Walton (368 pp.)
2. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity – Oskar Skarsaune (455 pp.)
3. Judaism in the Greek Period – G. H. Box (239 pp.)
4. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity – Paul Barnett (448 pp.)
5. Introduction to OT Theology: A Canonical Approach – John Sailhamer (332 pp.)
6. Pentateuch as Narrative - John Sailhamer (544 pp.)
7. Christian Origins – Jonathan Knight (455 pp.)
8. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in Paul and Luke – Seyoon Kim (228 pp.)
9. History of Rome – Michael Grant (537 pp.)
10. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context: The Argument of Romans - Thomas Tobin (496 pp.)
11. Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus – Klyne Snodgrass (846 pp.)

McSpadden Book Bindery

I sent my Key Word NASB off to McSpadden to be rebound this past weekend.  I’m not requesting anything fancy, only a new leather cover — it was in sad shape.  I’ll post a few photos of their work when I get it back.

1,396

That’s the total number of pages I’ve read — of the required reading — so far this semester.  The figure is inflated slightly for some very relevant side reading (i.e., Barth’s Church Dogmatics and the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology), but by only 15 pages.  Almost half of the required reading this semester has been for my Hermeneutics class, which has truly been helpful.  There’s still much more required reading left to do, and this count does not include personal studies.

New Books

I wasn’t planning on any new book purchases until my birthday (which is around the corner), but while I was at Mardel’s this week I noticed a deal I couldn’t pass up.  I picked up the 4 volume Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (NT) set for $49.99 (the list price on this set is $159.99).

Also on order are a couple of books on Rome:  Christian Meier’s Caesar: A Biography, and Scullard’s From the Gracchi to Nero.

More of Wallace on Wright

In conclusion, covenant faithfulness is a subtheme of Rom 3.1–8, but it is found only in the first half of this pericope. Indeed, Paul uses πίστις θεοῦ in 3:3 in the sense of “God’s faithfulness.” The very fact that Paul has as part of his lexical stock πίστις θεοῦ in the sense of ‘God’s faithfulness,’ and uses it in this pericope, argues against δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ meaning the same thing in 3:5. Paul speaks of God’s covenant faithfulness because he must show that both Gentiles and Jews are sinners. In order to show that for Jews, he must declare that God is faithful even though God’s people were not. This establishes that Jews, too, are sinners, just like the Gentiles.

Daniel Wallace is top-notch. I’d buy his Romans commentary.

Daniel Wallace, N. T. Wright, and Justification

One of the discussions that seems to be largely missing from the New Perspective camp is how other first-century writers viewed Paul’s view of salvation. I’m not speaking about the apostolic fathers, but other New Testament authors. We have probably three books that interact with Paul’s view to some degree: James, 1 Peter, and Hebrews. The New Perspective folks put such an emphasis on God’s covenant faithfulness as the essential meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that they consciously place notions of forgiveness, individual salvation, and final eschatological realities as quite subordinate to this motif. But an examination of Jas 2:14–26, 1 Peter 1:3–9, and Heb 10:1–25 clearly shows an emphasis on ‘salvation’ and ‘forgiveness of sins.’ In Jas 2, the author is most likely reacting to Pauline slogans that made their way into James’s churches devoid of their actual content. But the key point is that James is talking about final salvation and its present evidence among believers. First Peter was written in conscious imitation of Paul’s letters, most likely because Peter used one of Paul’s associates to help pen it. The emphasis on Gentile salvation, forgiveness of sins, and even heaven, are evident in verses 3 through 9 of chapter 1. Hebrews was probably penned by an associate of Paul after Paul had died, and has the earmarks of being a theology of the cross in which obedience to the Law is viewed as belonging to a previous dispensation. (These points will not be elaborated here, but see my introductions on each of these books, posted at bible.org.) In other words, all of these authors put an emphasis on soteriology more than sociology. This is not to say that Wright’s sociological emphasis is wrong, just that it is overdone. If other Jewish Christian authors did not read Paul the way that Wright does, perhaps the claim of the NPP folks that only their view adequately deals with the Jewish background for Paul is, in the least, overstated.

It is painfully obvious that the righteousness of God in 1:17 has to be the answer created by the problem of the wrath of God in 1:18. If it is true that Paul in Romans is fundamentally speaking about vindicating the righteousness of God in Paul’s gospel then 1:16–17 is giving us the theme of the letter. But 1:18 begins by laying out the problem. Yet here we see clearly that Paul is not going to be soft on sin, nor on how God deals with it. His wrath is all that humanity deserves. The sociological view of God’s righteousness simply is not a sufficient answer for the problem of our depravity in 1:18–3:20. God’s faithfulness won’t cut it, since we’re dealing with sin and how it separates us from God, not covenant faithfulness and how God relates to his people (at least, that’s not the initial issue). The reason that covenant faithfulness is not in view here is because Paul is not speaking about those who are ‘in’; he is establishing the fact that God is a holy God and that we are alienated from him.

To argue that God’s faithfulness to Christians (?) is in view in Rom 1:17 is to miss the point that Paul makes in 1:18–3:20. Paul begins by giving the theme of the letter: “the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel.” When this introduction is completed, he launches into an extended statement of humanity’s utter sinfulness. But he does so by juxtaposing vv. 17 and 18:

“The righteousness of God is revealed [δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται] in the gospel from faith to faith” (v. 17)

“The wrath of God is revealed [ἀποκαλύπτεται ὀργὴ θεοῦ]… against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people” (v. 18)

Paul’s connection of God’s righteousness, the gospel, and faith is the solution to the problem of God’s wrath against sinners. His diatribe against the sinfulness of humanity surely is meant to counter those who would see his gospel as a compromise on holiness because it did not require Gentiles to be circumcised or obey the Law. He speaks in no uncertain terms that God is absolutely holy, leading to his major point in 3:21–26 that our only access to this God is through his Son.

Read the entire paper.

(HT: Nick Norelli)

Michael Horton on N. T. Wright and Imputation

“Biblicism,” the assumption that a concept must be stated in so many words in the Bible in order for it to attain the status of a biblical doctrine, is apparent in Wright’s rhetorical question: “if ‘imputed’ righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (46). How would Wright defend the doctrine of the Trinity?  Or the hypostatic union in the incarnation?  Systematic and historical theology appeal to a host of concepts and terms that are not found expressly in Scripture that are nevertheless crucial for stating precisely the intention of the whole teaching of Scripture on a given topic.  Indeed, Wright employs many constructions that articulate a biblical view that cannot be found in exactly the same words in the Bible. http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/99.html

________________

(The page numbers are from Wright’s new book on justification.)

HT: Michael Horton @ http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog.html

10 Random Beliefs Meme

Jason tagged me with the meme that’s been going around.  I’ve offered some serious responses, some humorous:

1. I believe wisdom will do more for a man than education — since I do not have any, however, I will be pursuing a PhD.
2. I believe Aristotle’s definition of truth is lacking substance (what is, is, and what is not, is not — did the guy really define anything?)
3. I believe Norman Geisler is a good theologian.
4. I believe my wife will have a greater reward in Heaven than me.
5. I believe a daughter is a gift from God.
6. I believe the NET Bible is pure greatness — except for John Doe in Ruth 4:1.
7. I believe Bible software is tremendously overrated — which is why I do not own any.
8. I believe we can learn a lot more from the people God has put in our lives than we think we can.
9. I believe Tom Clancy needs to quit living the high life from his video-game money and write another great novel.
10. I believe no man can serve two masters –  I say this as both a full time student and employee.