INTRODUCTION and PRELIMINARIES
[ ... ] even
if justification is only a very important part of Paul’s theology, rather than
the centre, we need to get it right. Yet
many interpretations of justification in Paul are foreign to the full scope of
the apostle’s thinking, reflecting a later urge on the part of Protestants to
distinguish themselves from Catholics by stressing “faith” over “works.” (Gorman, 2008, 112f)
Although he endorses Sanders as an early
attempt at connecting justification and participation, Gorman attempts his own
ecumenical understanding of justification.
My first task is to outline how Gorman differs in his interpretation of
Paul on justification to two other traditions, the traditional Reformation
perspective and the NPP. Then I will summarize
how these traditions and Gorman understand the antitheses works and faith as
means of appropriating justification.
Throughout, I will surmise how Gorman challenges other understandings.
I
will focus principally on Galatians and Romans in comparing Gorman’s
understanding of justification with the Reformation and NPP views. Justification is fully deal with by Paul only
in these two epistles. Furthermore, they
are widely regarded as authentically Pauline (Gorman, 2008, 7). Paul’s letter to the Galatians was written to
coverts from paganism, known personally to Paul from his second and third
missionary journeys (Acts 16, 6; 18,23; Stott, 1984). This personal connection explains the
passionate tone of Paul’s appeal to Gentile Christians to resist all enticement
to be circumcised and add to their faith observance of Jewish law (Gal.
5,2). Paul himself did not found the
church at Rome, and Romans has a less polemic, more systematic style. Yet it too was written in a real-world
context (Moo, 2002, 29; Horrell, 2006, 49), to a multi-ethnic fellowship of
house churches struggling to deal with the pastoral and practical concerns in
light of an increasing Gentile majority.
We note therefore before we proceed that Paul’s emphasis on
justification by faith is tied inextricably to the early church context of
Jewish-Gentile tensions (Wenham, 2002, 49; Moo, 2002, 27).
The
English term ‘justification’ needs mention before we can proceed to Paul’s
understanding. English-language
scholarship is hampered by the fact that there are two roots corresponding to
the Greek dik-, namely right- and just- (Wright, 1997, 100-103; Horrell, 2006, 75; Sanders, 1991,
54). Texts such as Gal. 3, 6-7
translated to English may fail to convey Paul’s consistency, or resort to
unnatural vocabulary like ‘to righteous’.
While neither right- nor just- words exactly fit Paul’s use of dik- words, I shall follow Gorman’s
flexible usage and employ both.
PART ONE: PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF
JUSTIFICATION
In Romans and Galatians, it seems that Paul
uses dik- words in various, perhaps
contradictory, ways. In Gal. 3,
juridical and participationist ideas are intertwined. Elsewhere in Galatians, justification is the
insistence that all who believe in Christ belong at table together (Gal. 6,
14-16). In Rom. 1, 16-17, Paul speaks of
God’s righteousness, and Rom. 2, 13, seemingly contrary to Paul’s message of
faith not law, must speak of our future justification. Gorman provides a broad
definition of justification which he claims covers all Paul’s wide-ranging
thinking, and also the traditional Reformation and NPP (and indeed Catholic) views. Thus, he implicitly challenges adherents of
both views to consider a fuller perspective, one more reflective of Paul’s wider
thinking:
Justification
is the establishment of right covenantal relations – fidelity to God and love
for neighbour – by means of God’s grace in Christ’s death and our
co-crucifixion with him. Justification
therefore means co-resurrection with Christ to new life within the people of
God now and the certain hope of acquittal, and thus resurrection to eternal
life, on the day of judgement. (Gorman,
2008, 116)
In order to compare Gorman with other views,
justification has to be analysed into constituent units. Here, his interpretation is compared to
others in smaller units: forensic, covenantal, eschatological and ethical
aspects.
Both Reformation and NPP scholars see a
forensic dimension to justification. Stott
(1994, 110) states that justification is a legal term, a judge’s pronouncement
about the verdict of a defendant, of which the opposite is condemnation. Gorman calls this a legal fiction (2008,
115). Wright details fully the legal
aspects of justification (1997, 97; 2009, 69).
Firstly, he accounts for the ways in which Second Temple Jews like Paul understood
dikaiosyne as relating to the Hebrew sedaqah elohim, e.g. in Deuteronomy,
Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel 9. To these
references I would add the ‘rib’ (disputation) theme of the Hebrew prophets,
e.g. Jer. 2,4ff. Wright first describes
righteousness as belonging to the judge, the ability and right to judge a
case. He also understands the declaration
of righteousness as a status granted the plaintiff or the defendant, amounting
to vindication. For Wright, these two
uses of the term are clearly different.
God’s righteous standing as judge is not the same as our legal status as
vindicated. For Stott, too,
righteousness is a status, but for him it is God’s same righteousness that is
imputed in humans, we having no righteousness of our own (1994, 21; also
Chester, 2005; Sprinkle, 2005).
Gorman
seems to agree here with Wright that God is righteous and, as a corollary, his
people will be righteous, without resorting to the ‘legal fiction’ of an
objective genitive translation of dikaiosyne
tou theou to denote imputed righteousness (Gorman, 2008, 114; Wright, 2005, 53). Gorman and Wright concur that the traditional
Reformed understanding is simply too individualistic, and that Luther like many
Westerners today read into Paul’s ecclesiastical correspondence their own
existential crises and psychological needs.
Wright expresses it thus: “We are in orbit around God and his purposes,
not the other way around.” (2009, 8).
But while Wright takes great pains to detail the forensic basis of
justification (1997, 97), Gorman challenges him too, stating that a forensic
definition is simply inadequate and that a much fuller picture must be painted
in order to understand Paul’s writings (2008, 118).
The NPP understanding of justification is
essentially covenant membership. Sanders
challenged old caricatures of Judaism as a legalistic religion aimed at
meriting one’s own salvation, and used new knowledge of Second Temple Judaism
to show a faith based on covenantal nomism (1977; 1991, 99). In essence, he claims that Jews did not consider
the law as a means of ‘getting in’ but of ‘staying in’ the covenant
community. This is Wright’s
understanding too (Thompson, 2010, 12; Horrell, 2006, 77). He sees dikaiosyne
tou theou as God’s covenant faithfulness (Wright, 2009, 46) and ably counters
claims from the traditional Reformation viewpoint that covenant does not
feature in Paul’s thinking on justification (ibid., 73), using references to
Abrahamic promise (Gal. 4, 21-31; Rom. 4).
Again, Gorman sides with Wright and
specifically challenges the Lutheran view, calling for greater inclusion in the
Christian community (2008, 130). In both
Galatians and Romans, the pressing concern is how to live together as Gentile
and Jewish believers (Gal. 3, 28; Rom. 3, 22), and specifically whether Gentile
Christians should be circumcised (Gal. 5, 2) and whether Jewish Christians
could keep table with non-kosher Gentile Christians (Gal. 2-4). Paul argues fiercely against the perceived
need to Judaize, as the only badge of covenant belonging should now be faith in
Christ (Gal. 5, 6).
In Rom. 8, 18-25, Paul outlines the future
direction of history, one of hope and renewal.
Gorman does not use the word ‘eschatological’ but does nonetheless refer
to future judgement and the vindication of God’s covenant people. For Wright, the pastoral issue is how we
might know now who belongs to God’s people, who will be vindicated at the end
(2009, 79). Gorman agrees with Wright
that justification, whether covenant membership or a broader concept, is
appropriated outwardly by faith. This is
far from the idea that we are saved and merely waiting to die and go to heaven,
a notion deplored by Wright (ibid., 9).
It is too easy to reduce any tradition to a caricature, and I certainly
do not advocate that Stott or Moo advance the idea, but there are Christians
within the Reformed tradition who would be shocked to be confronted with the
notion of ‘salvation not as an ahistorical rescue from the world but the
transhistorical redemption of the world’ (Wright, 1997, 118). Gorman argues for a view of justification
that is theo-political in scope and reaps change now on earth, rather than a
rapture-centred ‘escapist mentality’ (2008, 44; 170). Paul views all of history as God’s plan to
redeem creation, indeed to ‘right’ (justify) it.
Wright suggests that the fullness of
justification involves the three aspects discussed so far: forensic, covenantal
and eschatological (1997, 96). At this
point, Gorman goes one stage further. He
points to Paul’s transfer language to evidence his claim that what Protestants
often refer to as sanctification, and the Orthodox as theosis, belong to the same
package as justification (2008, 128-130).
Examples of transfer language include believing into Christ (Gal. 2,
16); being clothed in Christ (Gal. 3, 27); and being shaped in his image (Rom.
8, 29). It should be borne in mind that Gorman’s
context is an ecumenical one, and his stated aim is to bring together Catholic
and Protestant ideas, as well as the previously binary options of justification
or participation in Christ as the centre of Paul’s theology (2008, 116). In so doing, Gorman brings to the equation
the element of transformation. This is strong
in Catholic teaching, but the Reformed tradition tends to reject justification
as imparted righteousness, God’s actual transfer of righteous character into
Christians.
PART TWO: WORKS OR FAITH? APPROPRIATING JUSTIFICATION
We now come to the means of appropriating
God’s righteousness. For Paul, there is
clearly one right answer, faith, and one wrong answer, works (Gal. 2, 16; Rom.
3, 21-22). The NPP understands works of
the law, not as good deeds in general, and certainly not as efforts within a
legalistic Judaism hoping to merit one’s own salvation, but as specific markers
of Jewish identity, especially circumcision, Sabbath observation and keeping
kosher (Sanders, 1991, 108; Wright, 2005, 113).
This is in stark contrast to the traditional Lutheran view which
understands works as human efforts at earning salvation, which are destined to
fail (Stott, 1994, 117). While Gorman
himself says little about ‘works of the law’, there are two challenges here to
adherents of the Reformation perspective.
Firstly, good deeds are themselves no enemy of the gospel and are to be
a hallmark of genuine Christianity.
Gorman rails against ‘cheap justification’ (2008, 112), a legal fiction with
no justice or transformation. Secondly,
Christians are challenged to reassess their views on Judaism, and repent of
harsh and inaccurate anti-Semitic beliefs.
The antithesis of works is faith. For Paul, the badge of covenant membership is
not circumcision or any other ethnic boundary marker; it is faith in Christ (Rom.
3, 21f; Gal. 3, 21f). Here again we face
translation problems, for pistis
means both faith and belief. A more
pressing challenge is Gorman’s suggestion that we translate pistis not as faith at all, but fidelity
(123), or as Wright suggests ‘faithfulness’ (2005, 112). A criticism of Reformed theology is that it
can seem that one is only saved by mental assent to the doctrine of
justification by faith! Gorman’s
challenge here is that faith must be more than ‘intellectual affirmation’ or
trust; indeed, Pauline faith linked to justification is co-crucifixion with
Christ (Gal. 2, 19; Rom. 6, 6) as well as co-resurrection: “Christ was raised
for our justification” (Rom. 4, 25), and Christians too are raised to a new
life of community and ethical responsibility.
CONCLUSION
Scholars will continue to debate whether
Gorman or anyone else understands justification as Paul did. For Gorman, faithful participation, not older
ethnic markers, shows who God’s people are and therefore who will be justified. Gorman challenges other views of
justification in a number of ways. He
calls for a wider perspective, encompassing salvific elements of Reformed
thinking, the transformation involved in Catholic understanding, and the social
and covenantal emphasis of the New Perspective.
This is a strong call to battle against the confirmation bias that is prevalent
in Pauline studies. He also warns
against individualistic, escapist interpretations of justification. Gorman’s stated aim of holding together two
views on Paul’s theological centre, one justification and the other
participation in Christ, leads to a many-faceted, perhaps slippery,
presentation, unlike Stott and Wright’s more crystallized models. In his ecumenical context, he may well see
this as a strength rather than a criticism, for inclusion is a priority of his
in justification, and Paul knew all too well how messy inclusion can be.
Bibliography
Chester, T.
(2005) ‘Justification,
Ecclesiology and the New Perspective.’
In
Themelios, Vol. 30/2.
Gorman, M. (2008) Reading Paul. Oregon: Cascade Books.
Horrell, D.G.
(2006) An Introduction to the Study of Paul (Second Edition).
London:
T and T Clark.
Käsemann, E. (1959) Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Moo, D.J.
(2002) Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey. Grand
Rapids,
MI: Baker.
Sanders, E.P.
(1977) Paul and Palestinian Judaism.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Sanders, E.P.
(1991) Paul: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford: OUP.
Schweizer (1930) The
Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. (Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus.
Tübingen, J.C.B. Translated
by W. Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black, 1931.
Sprinkle, P.M. (2005)
‘The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of
Some
‘Pre-Sanders’ Thinkers.’ In Themelios, Vol. 30/2.
Stott, J.
(1984) The Message of Galatians.
Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press.
Stott, J.
(1994) The Message of Romans.
Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press.
Thompson, M.B. (2010)
The New Perspective on Paul
(Revised Edition).
Cambridge:
Grove Books.
Wenham, D.
(2002) Paul and Jesus: The True Story.
London: SPCK.
Wright, N.T.
(2009) Justification. London: SPCK.
Wright, N.T.
(2005) Paul: Fresh Perspective.
Fortress Press, 2005 co-edition SPCK,
2005.
Wright, N.T.
(1997) What Saint Paul Really
Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real
Founder
of Christianity? Oxford: Lion Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment