I have been refamiliarising myself with Tom Wright's stimulating reading of Paul in recent days by listening again to his series of lectures on Romans. I think I am clarifying more in my mind where I think he occasionally takes wrong turnings, and reminding myself again how I need to read Paul with much more focus on the OT background.
The most important wrong turn I think Wright makes is in deciding who's side God is on in the metaphorical law-court and is summarised in this quote:
...in Daniel chapter 7 you have exactly this scenario of God as the judge surprisingly vindicating Israel as his oppressed people and judging the wicked beasts who have been attacking her. That is the apocalyptic scenario of the covenantal law-court. Or if you like, the covenant scenario interpreted as a great law-suit. Now of course there are passages in the Old Testament which also speak of God and Israel being at law with one another, but that is essentially a secondary thing.
(Romans in a Week, Lecture 3: Romans 1:1-3:20, Part II)
Again and again, as I read the Prophets I am struck by the opposite. The Prophets, unlike so many other religious people, do not focus on condemning those outside their group and argue how God is on their side against those outside, but rather the opposite. Israel is singled out for the harshest criticism and the most devastating judgements.
Yes, God does promise to take Israel's side against her enemies, but only after he has judged them.
Wright in the same lecture helpfully draws attention to how the Isaiah/Ezekiel quote in 2:24 functions in Paul's argument. Paul backs up his argument that those 'who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law' by quoting the Prophets' statement that 'the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you' (Ez 36:23; Is 52:5). When you consider their original context we see that Paul is arguing that the Jews should know that they broke the law because they were sent into exile as judgment by God upon them. But in quoting this passage he is also alluding to God's message in both OT passages that for the sake of his name God is going to redeem his people from the place of being judged by him, to the place of restoration. There is hope on the other side of judgment which has to be grasped by faith.
In the law-court Paul is clear who's side God is on, and it is not ours. God inflicts wrath on us (3:5) not our oppressors. The 'but' of 3:21 is precious though. For God's judgment (his righteousness) is revealed apart from the law, in Christ who died for our trespasses (4:35). God is now 'for us' (8:31).
God's righteousness is a saving righteousness not because our enemies are judged but because we are judged in Christ who was raised for our justification.
Seifrid says it better than me:
justification comes only through condemnation, life only through death. The way in which Paul connects the opening discussion in verse 18 to verse 17 signals this relationship: '...the righteous one shall live by faith, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ...' If he had been thinking of a strict antitheses, one would have expected here a concession, an 'even if'. God's saving righteousness is revealed in the gospel precisely because God himself comes to his own righteousness in the cross of Christ. This simultaneous justification of God and the sinner drives Paul's argument in 1:18-3:26. (p. 48, Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification, Apollos)
Apologies to those who are fed up of me banging on about the same things. But I don't think I will ever tire of it (by God's grace).
hi dave!
ReplyDeletei won't have time to write on this for a while, but just to say, this post leapt out at me, as I've been meditating on Joshua 5:13f recently (especially while thinking about grace & legitimation). Esp in context of Deut 9, “so are you for us or for our nemies?” “No”!
For everything he writes, I love Tom Wright for constantly pointing me away from myself and back to Israel, of whom we are doubly ridiculous beneficiaries of doubly outrageous grace & mercy(Eph 2, Romans). Yet it's through Israel.
Grace is for the nations but it's so focussed on Israel that it sometimes makes the "marriage" between the LORD and Israel like reading some bronte story about an arranged marriage, where both parties' affections are elsewhere, yet one is faithful and the other isnt!
and thank you SO much for the book. Really generous, and thoughtful too - couldn't have asked for a better gift, once again, and a real delight to discover. hope to see you in 2009.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteIt's comments like that which keep me blogging.
Those passages are great to meditate on. Really the only response is to take off your shoes or lay prostrate on the ground like Moses and Joshua. God is so much greater than I often give him credit for.
I'm with you on Tom Wright. I realise I've been a little critical of him in the last few posts but he has taught me so much, and there is still much I need to learn from him. Listening to these lectures again I realise that I really need to start reading a bit of serious biblical theology again. Goldsworthy and Alexander's recentish books may need to be moved up my reading list. Salvation is through Israel! It is doubly outrageous grace! I was reading Ephesians this week and you can tell that Paul is thinking exactly the same as you. God is doubly gracious... his gift in Christ is so great ('the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus') that it overflows the vessel of Israel and spills out onto us Gentiles.
I like the Bronte marriage illustration. Although you scare me sometimes with your breadth of learning. Which brings me onto that I am waiting for you to respond to Rosemary's comment on your legitimation post because that would help clarify things for me.
The gift was no big deal though. I'm sure you could have asked for a bigger gift, but the book is great. I think I read it 5+ times last year. Beautiful and fresh from the realisation of grace. Great stuff.