The Righteousness of God revealed

Mark Seifrid writes that:

It is clear from these contexts that when Paul speaks of the ‘righteousness of God’ he does not refer to an abstract divine attribute, but to the event of God’s justification over against fallen humanity, which paradoxically is also the justification of the fallen human being.

He sees 'the Righteousness of God' as something that cuts two ways for us sinful human beings. On the one hand it is God's retributive justice in which his wrath is rightfully poured out, but on the other hand it is also his salvific justice in which he saves his people as he promised.

If the book of Romans has as a theme the Righteousness of God being revealed (1:17), then it is noteworthy that the next verse says God's "wrath is revealed", and that "because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed" (2:5). These are all retributive meanings of the Righteousness of God.

But then the turning point comes in the great "but now" of Romans 3:21, where the wrath meets the salvific faithfulness to his promises:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (3:21-26)

Now, in Christ, the Righteousness of God can have a salvific meaning for us.

I think Seifrid gets the meaning of the Righteousness of God better than any other, and I think that is because he is unwilling to give it an exact definition but is an unusual kind of theologian who can accept the paradox and point to Christ instead of a form of words:

Paul’s language obviously includes the idea of retribution…Any interpretation of God’s righteousness or justification in purely salvific terms is forced into the untenable position of ignoring a significant element of Paul’s language and argument as it appears in Romans…For Paul, God’s righteousness is revealed in the event of Christ’s cross and resurrection. Here the contention between the Creator and the fallen creature is decided in God’s favor and yet savingly resolved…There is no definition of ‘righteousness,’ not even in narrative terms, which adequately accounts for the simultaneity of righteous wrath and the gift of righteousness of which Paul speaks (Rom. 3:4-5; 3:21-26). The Christ-event itself supplies the final definition of the language.

Exactly right!

Quotes taken from here, which is from a great collection of big quotations on the meaning of the phrase provided by various theologians.

Words in Romans 3:1-20

Again, a friend showed me part of what is going on in Romans. Romans 3:1-20 is saturated in talk about talk.

v. 2: The Jews have the Oracles of God, God's word in the OT.

v.4a: People speak lies, but God is true.

v.4b: God's "words" will be "justified" and shown to be true.

...how?

v.5: Our lies actually serve to show the truthfulness of God, because God has previously declared us liars.

v. 7: So, through my lying "God's truth abounds to his glory".

v.7: But we don't take this easily and still we question why we being condemned. We continue to question God, to put him in the dock and charge him with claiming to be just when actually he is not being. We call God a liar.

v.8: This is slander against God and is mirrored in slander against his apostles. But as has been said, that person is condemned by their own words.

v.11-18: In the OT God speaks judgement, particularly against the use of the mouth ("throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceives. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness")

v. 19: Why does God speak like this? "so that every mouth may be stopped."

No more questions.

Actually, genuine questions are good...

Why should we celebrate the justification of God in his contention against humanity? The answer must be Jesus. It is because God's justification is in the incarnate Christ it is also the justification of sinful humanity too! Our justification is God's justification.

In faith, one takes the side of God in his claim against one's self, giving God justice. At the same time, one takes hold of God's gift in Christ, whom he has 'put forward' as an atonement and in whom he has taken the side of the sinner. In Christ and in faith, the justification of God the Creator meets the justification of the godless.

(Mark A. Seifrid, p. 18, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2)

Calvin and Luther's anthropology of the Christian

Some interesting selections from Mark Seifrid's article "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel" that relate to discussions among some blogs about whether we are simul iustus et peccator (e.g. here and here). I've collected some links to Mark Seifrid articles here.

In such passages as Gal 5:17-26, "flesh" and "Spirit" do not appear there as capacities or qualities of a unified human person, but two different descriptions of the whole person. The old, fallen human being in Adam exists along with the new creation that God has made us to be in Jesus Christ. We must hasten to add that the relationship between the two is unequal. Our sinful self, which is incapable of faith and obedience to God, has been crucified with Christ (see, e.g., Gal 5:24-26; Rom 8:7-8). Although our fallen person, "the flesh," remains present until the end of our earthly life (Rom 7:24), that fallen existence is present now only as a conquered reality. [...]

The Christian life consists in our "putting to death" our former self [i.e. us as "sinner"] by our new self [i.e. us as "saint"], present in the Spirit who dwells in us (Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-17).

As is the case with Scripture and our understanding of God, so it is with us for Luther: the unity of our person lies outside of us in Jesus Christ. We grasp it now by faith, but it is only in the resurrection that it shall become visible. Calvin regards regeneration to effect a new state within the human being, which is partially present and active. The "flesh" likewise is present as a power that exerts partial influence on us. [...] Luther, as we have seen, finds a radically different anthropology in Scripture. The old, fallen creature exists as a whole alongside the new creature, who is likewise a whole.

A few notes on not coveting

Listening to: Belle and Sebastian: The Life Pursuit

Mark 10:19 (parallel: Luke 18:20)

The Christianity Explored booklet asks "What did Jesus expect the man to notice about his list of the commandments in Mark 10:19?" I can't remember what it exactly wants to answer to be, but you have commands 5-9 listed - i.e. not the first table and not the command not to covet. I think Jesus was pointing out to the rich young man that while he had not done the external acts prohibited by the second table of the law, he had not obeyed the spirit of them.

I have been challenged before that honouring your father and mother is not an external act but, like coveting, is about the state of your heart. But Exodus 21:15-17 expounds the commandment as not striking or cursing your parents. Deuteronomy 27:16 talks about not dishonouring and Matthew 15:4 (parallel: Mark 7:10) expands on honouring by saying that it is not reviling. All of which suggests it was seen more as an external act.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers [5th commandment], for murderers [6th], the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [7th], enslavers [8th? cf. Deuteronomy 24:7], liars, perjurers [9th], and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Again the absence of the 10th commandment not to covet is notable. Also interestingly, I believe the Reformers considered this passage to be mainly about the 'civil use of the law'.

Hosea 4:2

there is swearing, lying [9th], murder [6th], stealing [8th], and committing adultery [7th]; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.

... no commandment to honour father and mother, or not to covet.

James 4:2

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.

James sees coveting as the cause behind murder. Justifiably you could also quite easily see that it is the cause of breaking all the rest of the second table, or at least commandments 6-9. This is anticipated in part within the 10th commandment itself which lists some of the things we may covet - i.e. wives who we may commit adultery with and possessions we may steal.

Romans 7

When Paul chooses to explain how the law works to bring knowledge of sin, he picks the commandment not to covet. Mark Seifrid commenting on this passage explains this not an insignificant choice:

All other transgressions against other (the dishonouring of parents, murder, adultery, theft and false witness, and so on) have their root in coveting, which is the antithesis of the love commandment. In this commandment the whole weight of the law comes to bear on us.

(p. 117, Christ Our Righteousness)

The missing commandment

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 13:28-31)

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 8:8-10)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Galatians 5:13-14)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

Does anyone else find it odd that of the two greatest commandments which sum up the law, Paul and James say only the second is necessary to 'fulfil' the law. To love your neighbour as yourself keeps the whole law according to Paul. But what about the God-ward commandment, which is the first not just in order but priority?

While that may just seem an oddity, the fact we are still required keep such a sweeping commandment creates an additional problem. We often remind people that nobody loves God with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength. But isn't the second great commandment equally impossible? It is very nice of God to 'let us off' having to keep the first commandment, but the second will break us as well. Not very freeing is it?

Yet Paul in Galatians says that loving our neighbour as ourselves is living in freedom. James says we have to do what the 'law of liberty' says (1:25) which is presumably the same as the 'royal law' of 2:8. However, we may feel that far from being free we are still living under subjection to commands and laws if we have to obey this great (OT, indeed Mosaic) commandment. True, it seems we are given a little more freedom to work out what loving our neighbour may mean in practice. Rather than having it spelled out in detail for us (e.g. command to leave the edges of the field for the poor, Leviticus 19:9) we can decide the best way to help to help our neighbour ourself. But when Paul talks about freedom, he means more than this. He means freedom from the curse of not keeping the law and freedom from the sin it enlivens.

Perhaps the solution is contained in Luther's famous observation, in The Freedom of the Christian, of how we are both free and enslaved as Christians:

A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.

A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.

The first statement concerns our God-ward relationship. The second statement our human-ward relationships. They relate to what Luther described as two different kinds of righteousness.

The distinction between two kinds of righteousness rests upon the observation that there are two dimensions to being a human creature. One dimension involves our life with God, especially in the matters of death and salvation. The other dimension involves our life with God’s creatures and our activity in this world. In the former we receive righteousness before God through faith on account of Christ. In the latter, we achieve righteousness in the eyes of the world by works when we carry out our God-given responsibilities.

(Charles Arand on Melancthton's Apology)

These two dimensions of life are not unconnected, as Jesus demonstrates clearly when he answers the question 'Which commandment [singular] is the most important of all?' with two commandments. However they are ordered and distinguishable.

Only being righteous in the first (vertical) dimension can lead to being righteous in the second. But being righteous in the second cannot bring righteousness in the first. As Luther says: 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works' (Freedom of the Christian). This is because it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and the judgment of men is meaningless (Luke 16:15). It is our relationship to God which defines whether we are righteous or not.

But God's justifying declaration, like all his words is creative. So righteousness in the first dimension not only can but will lead to righteousness in the second dimension. That is why Paul can express such incredulity when despite being justified before God we are not acting as just people in the world, and why James says that Abraham's 'faith was completed by his works' (2:22). If God has declared us righteous in Christ by faith, in the promise of baptism, then we must be righteous not just before God but before men.

This certainty that one kind of righteousness will lead to the other is why (human-ward) works do not supply something that (God-ward) faith lacks, but instead 'perfect' or 'complete' faith. As Seifrid comments on James' statement that we are justified by works:

His formulation is important: he does not say that they were justified 'by faith and works', but they were justified by works alone! Justification ultimately must be by works, because works are faith's perfection [...] works that justify are never alone. They are an outworking of faith, which is present with them

(pp.180-181, Mark Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness)

So works do not fulfil a law which has not already been fulfilled by Christ who is received by faith. Instead they complete what has already begun, in one sense what has already happened, in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why James says that in Abraham's work of offering up Isaac 'the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"' (2:23). What God had promised before the act (that Abraham was righteous) was being played out (fulfilled) in his obedience through his faith in that promise. God did not lie in speaking when Abraham was a sinner, but created the reality.

This word is perhaps what James is talking about in 1:23-25. He says:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

The word tells us who we are in Christ Jesus. We are righteous in God's sight because Jesus loved God with all his heart, mind and strength. We can forget that truth and so don't live like it is true. But if we remember that image of ourselves, and believe it, we will act like it.

Does that makes sense? I've sort of skated along at quite a rate pulling in quite a bit of stuff, and maybe haven't been quite as focused as I should have been.

Further thoughts here.

Who's side is God on?

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).

Reflecting again on Tom Wright's Paul

Tom Wright has written a new book on Justification, in part to respond to John Piper.

I was listening to Tom Wright on Romans the other day and he observed that 'Righteousness of God' had three dimensions:

1. Covenant
2. Law-court
3. Eschatology

The key to the current debate is that he makes the covenantal dimension of Paul's Righteousness/Justification the 'fundamental' dimension (to quote his lecture). Most of the focus in debate has been on word studies of the dikaiosune (Righteousness/Justification) word group. There are places where this word group seems to be fundamentally covenantal (e.g. Second Isaiah) but the chips are (in my mind) stacked in the traditional interpretation's favour because the language is from the law-court in the first place (at least). To settle things though the debate has to be far wider and involve the whole of Paul's theology and ask: 'where is the centre of Paul's theology?' Once you have answered that as 'the covenant' then you can do as Wright does and 'translate back into covenantal categories' (p.43, Letter to the Romans) any language which is not covenantal in the first place. Of course if the law-court is central then you can do the same in the other direction.

I am persuaded for the moment to give the law-court pole position in this contest (see here for why) but suspect that the answer may be simpler. If you were to ask the mythical average man in the pew what was the centre of Paul's theology he would immediately answer Jesus Christ, or particularly Jesus Christ crucified. And here perhaps is the answer. Neither the law-court nor the covenant are central, they are both interdependent but separate metaphors which are trying to describe something bigger than both of them, that 'in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself'.

In my head I keep on coming back to Mark Seifrid's comment that only in Jesus is there synthesis when 'the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea' (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2). I don't know if Seifrid would agree with how I spin him but there we go.

Again and again, I learn that theologians (and more often I) sometimes lose the wood for the trees. We do so love to replace Christ with an idea.

Taking sides

In faith, one takes the side of God in his claim against one's self, giving God justice. At the same time, one takes hold of God's gift in Christ, whom he has 'put forward' as an atonement and in whom he has taken the side of the sinner. In Christ and in faith, the justification of God the Creator meets the justification of the godless.

(Mark A. Seifrid, p. 18, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

PS. I'm still hoping for book recommendations...

Random Law and Gospel things

1. Hosea

Reading Hosea 1 last night I was painfully aware of my whoring after other gods. That I didn't believe Jesus was the source of all good and went looking for it elsewhere. That word of judgment felt so real, and so final, because I could see that the rest of my life I would just not stop repeating. But then God said "I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People 'You are my people'" (2:23). That word would have no comfort if you were not called Lo-ruhama ('No Mercy'). If God has mercy on you before then there is no word of mercy for you now. That is law and Gospel in action.

2. The cross drawing threads together

One thing that has always struck me about the OT is the finality of many of the pronouncements of punishment. So often it seems that this is not just discipline, this is judgment. It is not a warning of what may happen, but it is a dark promise of what is going to happen. And yet contradictions to these dark words always surface. This has always caused me a little bit of a problem. The doctrine of law and Gospel has helped sort this out for me. Mark Seifrid tends to put it better than most when he comments that there are different and contridictory words from God in the bible to us, but no resolution of them apart from in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. For example in commenting on the Sander's characterisation of Second Temple Judaism as Covenantal Nomism he argues that Sanders' has actually reduced Second Temple Judaism to Covenantalism without the Nomism. In contrast in the past scholars have focused on the Nomism without the Covenantalism. "In other words in the rabbinic materials, 'covenantalism' (Sanders' 'covenantal nomism') stands alongside 'nomism' without the overarching synthesis which Sanders has proposed". "Rather than striving to produce a system in which all contradictions were eliminated, the rabbis view salvation from (at least) these two independent perspectives". Only in Jesus is there synthesis when "the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea" (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

3. Law and Gospel as uses or effects

Something that has also helped me understand the doctrine of law and Gospel is the realisation that the same words in scripture can function as both. Stephen D. Paulson provides some helpful examples in a great essay (if you can get hold of it):

The two classic examples of this in Luther are his use of the first commandment and the proclamation of the cross and resurrection. "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" produces both fear and love, and in one word or phrase gives both law and gospel grammatically. Its function will depend upon the receiving of faith or the hearing apart from faith. One hears the "I am" as the basis for the "you shall," and the other vice versa.

By the same token, the proclamation of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, though one sermon or word, has very different effects. When Peter says, "let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), the hearers "were cut to the heart." A short time later, and in very different circumstances, the same sermon is preached and, "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44), and the hearers were heard extolling god in tongues.

(p.174, 'Law and Gospel: Two Preaching Offices", Dialog, Vol 39, No.3, Fall 2000)

4. Barth's Gospel-Law

One thing I have gathered in my limited reasoning is that Barth famously reversed the traditional order of law and Gospel. I have for the first time come across a hint of why, in his brilliant little book Dogmatics in Outline that I am reading:

Gospel and law are not to be separated; they are one, in such a way that the gospel is the primary thing, that the glad tidings are first in the field and, as such, include the law. Because God is for us, we may also be for Him. Because He has given Himself to us, we may also in gratitude give Him the trifle which we have to give. (p.19)

So the reversal comes from one of Barth's primary concerns that God reveals himself to us, and before that we can have nothing to do with him. God is gracious to reveal himself and so obviously before he does that the law doesn't come into it.

I am glad that I have the first inkling of what Barth was trying to get at.

The real unity of the Bible

I love biblical theology. But I do think it has limitations, and it should not be made an end in itself. There is someone more fundamental than a story.

Mark Seifrid gets it:

It is worth reminding ourselves that just as Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, and four Gospels. The Psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations, are the differing ways in which God encounters his people.

[...]

The narrative is held together, not by a "strong historical continuity" as [Tom] Wright claims, but by the love and power of the Creator alone. That brings us finally, and decisively, to the human encounter with the God who, out of unconditioned love, forgives sin, promises salvation and blessing, and in Jesus Christ has brought his promises to fulfillment. In the gospel, God reveals himself to us beyond all other encounters with him as our loving, forgiving, and saving Creator.

(pp.24-25, "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright", Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 72:1, January 2008)

Online Mark Seifrid resources

[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].

Mark Seifrid is Mildred and Ernest Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Articles

• "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Still Fresher Reading of Paul" 2006 Symposium on Exegetical Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana (17 January 2006) published as "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright" in Concordia Theological Quarterly (Vol 72:1, January 2008)
• "The Gospel as the Revelation of Mystery: The Witness of the Scriptures to Christ in Romans" in SBJT 11/3 (Fall 2007)
• "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel" in SBJT 10/2 (Summer 2006)
• "Justified by Faith and Judged by Works: A Biblical Paradox and Its Significance" (SBJT Winter 2001) - a revised version of his faculty address
• "The Waiting Church and Its Duty: James 5:13-18" (SBJT Fall 2000)
• "The 'New Perspective on Paul' and Its Problems" (Themelios, Issue 25-2, Feb 2000)
• "Faith, Hope, and Love: Paul’s Message to the Church at Thessalonica" (SBJT Fall 1999)
• "Salvation, BF&M Article 4 Summary" from An Exposition from the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000
• "'The gift of salvation': Its failure to address the crux of justification" (JETS, December 1999)
• "Natural Revelation and the Purpose of the Law in Romans" (TynBul, 49.1, May 1998) [pdf] [doc]
• "Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History" (TynBul, 45.1, May 1994) [pdf] [doc]

Audio

• Discussion with Albert Mohler, Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification, video and MP3 (3 September 2009)
• Discussion with Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: "Assessing the Piper-Wright Debate on Justification", MP3, (15 April 2009)
• Sermon: "The Radically Realistic Gospel: Romans 7:7-25", MP3, (1 June 2008)
• Sermon: "The Parable of the Talents", MP3, (1 July 2007)
• SBTS Faculty Address: "Justification by Faith", MP3, (16 February 2000)

Reviews by Seifrid

• The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation by Mark Nanos (Trinity Journal, Fall 2004)
• Leben aus den Verheissungen: Traditionsgeschichtliche und biblisch-theologische Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gottes Verheissungen im Frühjudentum und beim Apostel Paulus, by Gerhard Sass (RBL, 2000)
• Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds by Kent L. Yinger (RBL, 22 June 2000)
• Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings By Jeffrey A. D. Weima (JETS September 1998)

Reviews of Seifrid

• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Simon J. Gathercole (Beginning With Moses / Themelios Vol. 26 No. 2)
• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Kim Riddlebarger (Modern Reformation, March/April 2002 Vol: 11 Num: 2)

Paul's problem with the law

The OT seems never appears to see the law itself as a problem. As Peter Enns comments:

the general tenor of the OT regarding [Torah/Law], however it is to be defined in each particular instance, is positive. The law is the psalmist’s delight (Ps 1:2; 119:70, 77, 92, 174). It is an object of devotion (2 Chron 31:4) and of careful study and observance (Deut 6:25; 31:11-13; Josh 1:8; Neh 8:3, 13). It is a source of wonder (Ps 119:18) and grace (119:29). It is precious (119:72) and true (119:142). It is not only to be obeyed, but loved (119:97, 113, 163, 165). The prophet looks forward to the day when the law of God will become part of the very inner fabric of God’s people: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jer 31:33). It is to be taught to the children (Deut 31:13; cf. 11:19-21). This positive view of the law may be best understood in the context of covenant. The law is an expression of God’s love for and commitment to his people. While enjoying a special relationship with Yahweh, the Israelites received the privilege of conducting their entire lives in accordance with his standards of conduct, which are themselves reflections of his character (VanGemeren, 24-35).

("Law of God" in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 893-900.)

So when we consider Paul's problem with the law it can be tempting to shift his target from the law to a misunderstanding of the law, and this has been done by Christians of all traditions from all times. However Paul's problem can never be avoided in this way; whether by arguing that he was actually arguing against legalism (e.g. Dan Fuller), obedience without the Spirit (e.g. Scott Hafemann), or nationalistic pride (e.g. Tom Wright and Jimmy Dunn). It's not just me who thinks this. Heikki Räisänen agrees:

Heikki Räisänen objects to Dunn's claim that the Jews misunderstood the law in overly ethnic terms according to Galatians 3: "It is altogether impossible to read chapter 3 as an attack on just a particular attitude to the law. Why should the death of Christ have been necessary to liberate men from an attitude of theirs?" (p. 39, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

So does Andrew Das:

[Dunn argues that] the eschatological Spirit has liberated humanity "from that too narrowing understanding of the law's role" in terms of "pride in national identity" (p.387). Where does Paul address a mistaken understanding of the Law in Romans 7? (p.149, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

And so does Mark Seifrid:

Hafemann [and Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit! (p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, Mark Seifrid)

In the light of this there can be only one conclusion for someone who accepts the authority of the whole bible and that is that:

1. The law, while good, was not a perfect and full solution to humanities problem (and God's problem with humanity); and
2. The status of the law has now changed with the coming of Christ

To deal with Paul's language surrounding the law you do have to have to take into account both how there has been a problem with the law from the beginning, and yet that the problem has qualitatively changed with the coming of Christ.

A reflection on my justification reading so far

The more I'm reading on justification the lines of debate are becoming clearer and clearer in my mind, although I haven't come to any conclusion yet. Also the more I read the more I'm struck by how a great many (from all sides of the debate) seem to cut off the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from their thinking. I can't think of anything stranger but it increasingly seems to me that the choice to make is not between numerous carefully systematised doctrines emphasising faith or works in justification but between a doctrine focusing on the work of Christ against a doctrine which doesn't have faith that Jesus Christ died and that this should be our starting point.

For all of Mark Seifrid's lack of eloquence he doesn't seem to make this mistake. So I can't help coming back to his writing, and his closely argued lecture which you can find here.

Quotable: Seifrid on the Law's Spirit Deficit

Hafemann [and Jimmy Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit!

(p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, IVP)

Mark Seifrid takes aim at Tom Wright's biblical meta-narrative

In 'The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Still Fresher Reading of Paul' Mark Seifrid says:

The narrative approach can be in its own way just as radically systematic as any doctrinal outline. It is worth reminding ourselves that just as the Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives, which not only complement one another, but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, four Gospels. The psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations are the differing ways in which God encounters his people. We no longer live in Eden, yet God’s quiet governance and preservation of the present world preserves the traces of Eden in it. In this fallen world, however, human beings encounter the God who works not only life and blessing, but also death and destruction, and that not in predictable retribution of evil, but seemingly without reason or cause (cf. Isa 45:7; 1 Sam 2:6).

It is strange that in the same essay Mark Seifrid then seems to criticise Tom Wright's for 'three interrelated tensions in Wright’s reading of Scripture':

1) the tension that we already have touched upon between conditionality and unconditionality within the promise to Abraham as Wright construes it; which leads, secondly, 2) to the central and fundamental tension between the purpose of God for Israel in the gift of Torah and God’s saving work in Christ; and finally 3) the instructive tension between the exclusivity of the gift of Torah to Israel and the universality of God’s saving purpose.'

Still I think its fair to ask whether...

One may therefore reasonably ask whether the implicit narrative which Wright proposes is present at all. Reading between the lines has its weaknesses and dangers.

Church unity and justification, is it illustrative or constitutive

Michael Bird comments

The error is frequently made of mistaking the context of justification with its purpose.There can be no doubt that justification and righteousness are rooted firmly in the debate concerning the identity of the people of God, but it is wrong to think that the verdict rendered in justification can be reduced to sociological descriptions of group-identity and self-definition.

[...]

Is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ illustrative of the effects of justification or is it constitutive in that God's saving righteous [sic] creates a new people, with a new status, in a new covenant, as a foretaste of the new age? I am persuaded that we must pursue the latter. Justification by faith means that God justifies the ungodly and calls our a new people to be the true Israel and the renewed human race.

(p.32-33, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective)

Mark Seifrid would disagree, and finds the unity of Jews and Gentiles illustrative...

The reason that the inclusion of Gentiles appears so regularly in connection with Paul’s teaching on justification is that their participation in the people of God was a visible expression of the justification of the ungodly (see Gal 2:11-21). Table-fellowship with Gentiles was therefore a call to mission, to the evangelization of the world, a call to an ever-expanding community. This community of Jews and Gentiles was not held together by any visible outward ties, but solely by the invisible bond of faith in the risen Messiah Rom 15:5-13). It was a community of forgiven sinners who came to one another not by means of an ideal of equality (defined on whose terms?), and certainly not by a common culture (cf. Rom 14:1-23), but through Jesus Christ alone. As Paul instructs his readers in Romans 9-11, Israel and the nations were, after all, God’s work. Their varying paths to Christ were the open, visible and necessary indications that God’s mercy, if it is to be mercy, must be radically free.

(The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Still Fresher Reading of Paul)