Skip to main content

Judgment and Justification Part 5

One of the stickiest debates in all of New Testament scholarship is the debate over the Mosaic law. When Paul opposes works of law or Jesus opposes the Pharisees, what ae they opposing? We won't attempt a comprehensive answer to this question, but we do need to address it to some degree if we want to have a proper understanding of both justification and judgment. On questions of the law I would favor an approach probably within the New Perspective on Paul family, although my stance is a more mediating approach between perspectives old and new.

I do not believe that the term 'legalistic' is the best term to describe the approach of most first century Jews to the law (though that term may apply to the Essenes). One point at which I think this becomes clear is reading the Sermon on the Mount. If anything, at points it seems as if Jesus is opposing laxness and/or hypocrisy. With, that said, of course, any Jew in the first century would claim that one needed to keep the law to participate in God's eschatalogical salvation, which in a sense could be construed as legalistic, i.e., your performance has an effect on your salvation, but they did not generally believe that the law had to be kept perfectly, and they strongly believed that God was gracious and merciful towards them because of the covenant with Abraham. Some Jewish writings (like 4 Ezra) do seem to promote a 'merit theology' but that always needs to be understood within a wider covenantal framework.

When we get to Paul, again I do not find 'legalism' to be a helpful term describing the approach to the law that he opposed. A key passage for our understanding of these matters in Paul is Galatians 2:15-21. I've previously laid out my interpretation of that passage as a whole. The main issue in Galatians is whether or not Gentiles have to become Jews to become part of the people of God. Paul was combating, as Michael Bird puts it, 'ethnocentric nomism.' "Defined, ethnocentric nomism is the view that Jewish identity is the locus of salvation (hence ethnocentric) and that one must perform he law so as to enter the Jewish constituency and be vindicated at the eschaton (hence nomistic)" (The Saving Righteousness of God p. 117). Thus there was some link between law and the final judgment in the thinking of first century Jews, but I hesitate to call it legalism. With that said, I do firmly believe that the New Testament gives us the necessary ammunition to combat legalism today, but that takes us into the realm of systematic theology. One emphasis in Galatians, though, isn't on the fact the the Galatians are being pressured to follow a standard, it's on the fact that the standard erects a barrier between Jew and Gentile hindering God's family from becoming a world wide family. The other reason why nomism is so problematic to Paul is that it undercuts the sufficiency of the work of Christ and the Spirit.

One thing that this brief overview draws out, yet again, are the covenantal aspects of judgment and justification. In Galatians, Paul is answering the question, 'who are the people of God?' He answers that question by talking about justification by faith. This helps us to see that we shouldn't think of justification and judgment solely on the individual level. There are corporate, ecclesial aspects.

With this portion of the discussion under our belts we are now ready to jump headlong into our investigations into justification. Here we will take some time to examine several different and important views. In separate posts I'll treat Doug Moo, Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer (I'll take these two together because of certain similarities), NT Wright, and Michael Gorman.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…