Yet more on justification

I'm still thinking about justification a lot trying to get things straight. I've still got some reading to go. I've just started Justified in Christ which is promising looking collection of essays. Sinclair Ferguson wrote the introduction and seemingly contradicts the viewpoint of Bill Dumbrell which I quoted in the first post documenting my 'quest'. Sinclair Freguson says that:

[For Tom Wright and Jim Dunn] when Paul speaks about justification he is not in fact talking about "the way in" but describing [I think they would say 'declaring'] the status of those already in [... in contrast] evangelicalism has always maintained that the "way in" is justification by faith.

I don't know what to make of this. I would presume that if you think justification is 'forensic' (as Ferguson does) then the natural understanding would be that it is declarative. So the question is when does this justification happen? - in the past (around the time of the new birth) or about the time of the bodily resurrection? But, is this is a false question.?Can it not be both? We are justified 'in Christ' and specifically in his resurrection (cf. Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16). When do we participate in Christ's resurrection? In part following our new birth and fully when Christ comes again. Wright probably focuses too much on the justification of the church in the eyes of the world and so looks almost (perhaps only) to the future. However I don't think it can be an either/or, it is a past(in Christ), present (in the breaking in of Christ's life in new birth), and future (in the raising of the dead) event.

But Ferguson is also suggesting that justification occurs before salvation, and the quotation from Calvin on the cover says the same:

those who were lost have their sins buried and are justified before God, because, as he hates sin, he can love only those whom he has justified.

But what does Paul have to say? Here are a few verses that may help:

'as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.' (Rom 5:18)

'And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.' (Rom 8:30)

'For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.' (Rom 10:10)

'so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' (Titus 3:7)

It is clear that justification and salvation/glorification/life are all so wrapped up together so as to be inseparable which seems to make this discussion seem slightly pointless (and after reading Seifrid I now recognise that the reason for much of the theological hair-spliting is because what God is doing is being downplayed at the expense of a human perspective of what is happening with us). Romans 8:30 is particularly interesting though. According to Don Carson 'calling' in Paul means 'effective calling' not just the free offer of the gospel. Therefore, justification happens between new birth and glory. So after you are through the doorway but before the mud has been shaken from your feet and you have been given some clean clothes (although that's only the best of a bad load of illustrations).

Through all of my thinking on this issue though I am sure of one thing. It is God who justifies and our concern should not be the seeking of justification as an abstract thing - and sadly it is sometimes put forward in that way. Our concern should be hearing the word and responding with faith. Our concern is that the gospel that 'Jesus is Lord' is declared and God is made known for his mercy and his judgment. As Seifrid says, first and foremost it is God that is justified in our justification and it is God's justification that ought to be our obsession and delight. Let us not seek to be justified (and if we are seeking justification by our faith then we are turning faith into a work I believe) but seek God and his glory (in which we participate when we are glorified - like everything it is not something that we own but something we share in as we share in Christ).

So those are my preliminary conclusions at this juncture. I hope I've expressed them well.

PS on related matters Piper's forthcoming book on Tom Wright's doctrine of justification is forthcoming and getting very positive reviews from some sensible people (the latest is here). I'm really thankful to God because his last foray on imputed righteousness was a an awful piece of writing. I read the book before it was published in the UK because I was looking forward to it so much but he was out of his depth and it showed. In focusing in narrowly on Tom Wright alone, and putting in the hours seems to have paid off this time. If anyone can be trusted to put God's glory at the centre in a discussion justification it must be John Piper.

Back to work

After that flurry of blogging (if you can call collecting excessive numbers of quotations blogging) I'm going to have to get my head down to study. No longer am I concerned whether 'the law' in Paul means 'the Mosaic covenant', 'the Torah', 'a set of moral commands', or 'the Scriptures'; for the next week or so 'the law' is whatever our judges, our Parliament, or the EU says it is.

But while I'm away please feel free to add your twopence worth on the doctrine of justification in the comments. I'd be interested to know what you think.

Quotable: CH Dodd on 'ethical religion'

CH Dodd argues that the gospels, the epistles, and the Pentatuach all combine 'ethics' and 'religion' in the same way:

first the proclamation, then the beginning of instruction in morals, first kerygma [preaching], then didache [teaching], seems to have been thoroughly characteristic of the Christian mission.

[...]

This way of approach to ethics was sharply distinguished from that of contemporary Greek moralists, who from the time of Aristotle had set our to provide a self-contained and self-justifying system of ethics. For Christianity, ethics are not self-contained or self-justifying; they arise out of a response to the Gospel.

(p. 10, Gospel and Law)

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)

Quotable: Moo on overhhistoricizing

Douglas Moo in his commentary on Romans states that:

We moderns must beware the tendency to overhistoricize: to focus so much on specific local and personal situations that we miss the larger theological and philosophical concerns of the biblical authors. That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately those of the church - and the world - of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death. Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Wesley, whatever their failings as exegetes, saw this; and perhaps they understood more clearly than many of their latter-day critics.

(p.22, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)

This ties in (unintentionally) with the comments in my previous post.

New Perspective v. Old Perspective

What's behind the current debates? Here are a few ideas:

• History v. Theology: If you look at the main proponents of the NPP they all come from a study of Paul that is focused on the history of the early church (this is especially the case with Dunn and Wright), more traditional perspectives often visit the NT looking for theology instead.
• Gospels v. Paul: Sanders, Dunn and Wright have all spent as much time in the gospels as with Paul, traditional Protestants from Luther onwards has always had Paul as their first love.
• Horizontal v. Vertical: NPP proponents are very concerned with reconciling different people (Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles - esp. clear in earlier writings), where as traditional protestantism has been concerned primarily "how can I find a Gracious God?".

That's not in anyway a complete list but it's what comes to mind at the moment.

Favour in God's eyes

Peter Leithart comments:

By definition, justification must be by grace. Since the eyes are organs of judgment in Scripture, to find "favor in one's eyes" is to be justified. Plus, "favor" just means "grace."

We can put it more strongly: Justified by grace is redundant, since "justified" means "grace in one's eyes."

The author of Genesis says:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

[...] Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

(Genesis 6:5-9)

John Calvin comments on Genesis 6:8:

['Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord'] is a Hebrew phrase, which signifies that God was propitious to him, and favored him. For so the Hebrews are accustomed to speak: [...] here Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly and homily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world; whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy. Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world.

I'm thinking about justification at the moment. The only one of these three quotations I totally understand is John Calvin's so I think I've got some more thinking to do.

Quotable: Leithart on the Beatitudes

Peter Leithart comments:

The Beatitudes are a description of Jesus. He is meek (11:29). He mourns for Jerusalem (26:36-46). He fulfills righteousness (3:15). He is merciful (9:27; 15:22). And for His trouble He is persecuted, reviled, slandered, and killed. Yet, He is blessed above all men, for in His resurrection He receives the kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled, sees God, is declared Son of God.

Much as the Beatitudes are good news for us, they are good news only if we are in Jesus participating in his poverty as well as his glory.

To him be the glory.

Another theory about Romans

If Romans was a very obedient church (as I suggest in my previous post) and Paul was concerned to justify 'his gospel' against detractors (as I suggest here), perhaps large swathes of Romans are written to show that Paul is not an antinomian, and not just Romans 6. However, while he is keen to show this he remembers his experience with the Galatians and wants to make clear that obedience is 'of faith', and this means that obedience must take into account that Jesus has come and so obedience is to what James calls 'the law of liberty' and Paul 'the law of faith'.

Interesting fact

• 26% of the uses of the word 'obedience', and 27% of the uses of the word 'obedient', in the (ESV) bible can be found in Romans.

A theory about the Roman church

The Roman church was a very obedient church (1:8; 6:17; 16:19). However they had a judgemental spirit that was leading to divisions. They certainly did about others having different gifts (12:2-7), eating the 'wrong' foods (14:1-4), and observing certain days (14:5-9). Perhaps certain churches were also involved in judging the Jews, and others the gentiles. Certainly Paul seems concerned to show that both have a place in God's plan. The long list of people Paul greets in chapter 16 suggests to some that there were a lot of small churches in Rome. Perhaps they did not all get along. Perhaps this problem of judgementalism is behind the numerous references to judging yourself as well as others in the early chapters of Romans.

I don't know if my theory is correct. I'll keep on thinking about it.

Paul's concern in Romans

Peter Dray has had me thinking about Romans. I always think the beginning and end of a book are the best bits to find out the author's concerns, and when I looked at Romans sure enough the first and last few sentences contain several similar themes. I think it's likely that the same themes found at both the beginning and end of the letter they will continue throughout the book.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

[...]

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

(Romans 1:1-6; 16:25-27)

So here are themes I see in both the beginning and end:

• Paul teaches the true gospel ('a servant of Christ Jesus...'; 'my gospel').
• The gospel is about Jesus ('concerning his son'; 'the preaching of Jesus Christ').
• Gospel was promised in the OT ('promised beforehand through his prophets'; 'through the prophetic writings').
• Mission is to 'all nations' (i.e. including the gentiles).
• The goal of mission is 'the obedience of faith'.
• The ultimate goal of mission is God's glory ('for the sake of his name'; 'to the only wise God be glory').

Things that only occur in one or the other:

• Jesus was descended from David.
• Jesus was declared to be Son of God by resurrection.
• Roman church is called to belong to Jesus.
• God will strengthen the Roman church.
• Mystery (of God's purposes for the gentiles) has been revealed.
• God is the only wise one.

So in summary I think Paul has two main concerns in writing Romans.

1. Justify himself and his gospel against his detractors, principally by showing it is rooted in the OT.
2. Encourage the Romans to get behind his mission to all nations - in particular Spain (15:24) - by showing them God's plan for the gentiles.

I don't think that will surprise many, but never mind - novelty is not the goal.

Justification as aquital not forgiveness

I've been thinking that through lack of disciplined thinking my understanding of justification is in need of some sharpening up. This is thanks largely to a post by Tim Suffield and Michael Jensen's continuing review of Chris Wright's Mission of God. Michael Jensen has been pointing out a lot of Chris Wright's 'conceptual confusions', and I've been thinking that if I were ever to write anything it would be infested with the same problem. So, anyway, you may find me blogging a little on Justification for a while. Today I read this:

If the meaning of justification is forensic, then the understanding of justification is basically 'acquittal'. To be justified is thus to be the recipient of God's favorable verdict in regard to our final state. Justification, whose basis is forgiveness, is not itself forgiveness (with which it is often popularly identified), but the declaration that forgiveness, which confirms our new relationship with God, has been granted. The judge has pronounced in our favor! True, by our acquittal we have been forgiven, but justification is the recognition that forgiveness has occurred, not forgiveness in itself. Forgiveness is the gift, justification its recognition. Justification says that, as a result of forgiveness, we are now in right relationship with God.

Justification by grace through faith announces that we have moved from under the wrath of God to new life in Christ. The basic movement has occurred through the work of the Spirit in regeneration and it is this movement which justification recognizes. [...] Justification is the declaration of our change in status from sinner to membership of the new people of God.

(p. 53, Romans: A New Covenant Commentary, William J. Dumbrell)

I'll have to keep this in mind.

Ephesians and Paul's Theology

It is simply a travesty that the name "Paul" for most people, summons up a pastiche of Romans and Galatians while the other letters are relatively neglected. Ephesians 2.8-10 might make the cut but not much else.

I say it is a travesty because the evidence indicates that Ephesians was probably Paul’s generic tract–a circular letter meant to summarize the Gospel for any Christian in particular rather than an ad hoc letter dealing with a specific pastoral agenda for a particular church. Thus, if one wants to understand the foundations of "Pauline Theology," Ephesians would be the natural place to begin. (source)

Mightily interesting comment. It is common to believe that Ephesians is a circular letter but this is the first time I have read the corollary that therefore it is in Ephesians rather than Romans that we should look for the summary and structure of Paul's theology.

Why has this not been brought to my attention before? Perhaps because despite the strength of Evangelical scholarship the framework still being operated in is a liberal one where the authenticity of Ephesians is denied. Perhaps though the obsession with 'discovering' Paul's theology is a framework from liberal biblical studies anyway.

Still, its a statement worthy of further thought.

Trueman on the legacy of the Bash-camps and MLJ

What a disaster! Apparently Jim Packer and Carl Trueman are the only people who got it right about British evangelicalism!

Just in case I want to put my hands on it in the future, Carl Trueman has some thoughts about the "Spirit of '66". They may be right, they may be wrong, but they are certainly stimulating.

Back to life

Yes, I'm blogging again. The reason why I haven't been is because I've been very busy and the internet was taking up too much of my life. I think it's good for me though, and you never know it may be appreciated by others as well.

But I'm going to determinedly keep all posts as short as possible, which I'm sure any readers will be thankful of as well. This means there will be a lot of unexplored thoughts.

Elevation

And after that the Levites shall go in to serve at the tent of meeting, when you have cleansed them and offered them as a wave offering. For they are wholly given to me from among the people of Israel. Instead of all who open the womb, the firstborn of all the people of Israel, I have taken them for myself. (Numbers 8:15-16)

'Wave offering' is a poor translation. As usual the NRSV has it better with 'elevation offering'. This can be defined a "ritual [that] marked a change in ownership of the sacrifice from the offerer to God".

Although offered by Israel though the Levites are already God's following the passover.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:11-13)

Similarly the church offers the sacrifice of their bodies (Romans 12:1). Although they are already God's possession.

You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

There is freedom here though (1 Corinthians 7:22-23).

Concentric circles

The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, each man in his own camp and each man by his own standard. But the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel. And the Levites shall keep guard over the tabernacle of the testimony.” (Numbers 1:52-53)

The Israelite camp was like concentric circles. At the centre was the Ark and this was surrounded by the Tabernacle itself. The Levites surrounded the Tabernacle and the rest of Israel surrounded them. Each circle protected the next from God's wrath at the unclean entering God's holy presence. Israel is protecting the rest of the world in the way it camps. Israel have their priests, but they are also priests to the rest of the world.

I wonder if it is significant that when the Ark precedes the rest of Israel it is usually (maybe always, I don't know) when they are confronting the world.

Gifts from God

the Lord has made Zion forget festival and Sabbath, and in his fierce indignation has spurned king and priest. The Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary;(Lamentations 2:6b-7a)

Festivals, sabbath days and the temple were a gift from God and not something he needed. How often do we make God's gifts our gifts to him?

Pining for books

I'm pining at the moment for some serious theology reading. It's been too long! Far too long!

I'm sorry... I just had to share my frustration. I feel rootless - cut off from nourishment while other commitments devour my time, and TV picks off what's left before I notice what's happening. I should stop moaning and do something about it, but I must return to my essay instead!

Not very Philippians 4:8, sorry. I'll retreat into the woodwork again.

What do we actually mean by....

I'm currently burried under work, but I wanted to link to this post by Tim Chester. If you don't already read his blog you ought to, and stop wasting time around this neck of the woods. He has just posted a very suscinct definition of what we (should) mean by submission/headship within marriage:

• The wife puts her husband’s will before her own.
• The husband puts his wife’s interests before his own.

Brilliantly put I think.

Common grace

Great film, suffused with music to make you worship God. And all from a "unprincipled, spoiled, conceited brat" (in the words of Archbishop Colloredo in the film).

PS sorry for the lack of blogging. It's probably going to be a permanent problem.

Rejecting YHWH as king

In 1 Samuel 8 the elders of Israel gather and ask Samuel to appoint them a king to judge them. It is easy, as with most sins of Israel in the OT, to hear this and move quickly to identify what their sin is and wag your finger, while at the same time not really accepting how logical, even righteous, the sin may seem.

The chapter begins:

When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. (vv.1-3)

There are three things worth noting here and in the verses that follow.

1. Samuel was old, and Israel respected him as a fair judge.
2. His sons had been appointed by Samuel to judge Israel and yet they were wicked, and exploited the people.
3. They wanted Samuel to anoint what would be in effect his successor.

Interestingly though, only one reason behind the elders decision is emphasised in 1 Samuel 8, and it is summed up in the repeated phrase: 'that we also may be like all the nations'(v.5 and v.20). Moses preached that it should be the nations that are jealous of Israel not the other way round; and they should be jealous because 'what great nation is there that has a god so near to it' (Deut 4:7).

The Great Evangelical Bible Swindle

For what it counts, I think Michael Jensen has provided a much needed call for change.

Quotable: Leithart on 1 John 4:8

[John] doesn't say, "The one who doesn't know love doesn't know God." He says, "The one who doesn't love doesn't know God." The test of knowing God is not "knowing love" but "loving." It's an active, pragmatic test, a test that has to do with practice.

(source)