Skip to main content

The Deliverance of God: A Statement of the Problem

I've finally begun reading The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, and I'm immediately seeing what all of the hoopla was about. I thought it might be worthwhile to blog through the book as I read it (so it will be "live blogged" in a sense), assuming I have the drive to keep it up. This means that you will probably see more evaluation of Campbell's argument from me only as we get deeper into the book. This book is almost 1200 pages if you include the end notes, so be ready for a long ride!

I wanted to start today with a brief discussion of the basic premise of the book and an overview of the first chapter. Campbell believes that we've largely misunderstood Paul at many key junctures. This has led to misunderstanding justification and the gospel. The order of the book is to first expose the weaknesses in our current understanding of Paul and then to help us reread Paul, especially keeping an eye open to the bigger picture of what he's doing.

Campbell begins the introduction by discussing what he sees as being at the heart of the conventional approach to Paul's letters and his gospel. At it's core, this approach has 'powerful commitments to individualism, to rationalism, and to consent, these being organized in turn by an overarching contractual structure' (7). These happen to be 'fundamental components within Western history and culture' that dominate large swaths of the world today (7).  This is what causes so much concern for Campbell. Our understanding of justification seems to be too compatible with how our society is structured. Paul's letters can in effect support these commitments because we too easily overlook their particularity (even scholars do this with Romans), seeing especially Romans as a fairly generalized argument on the nature of salvation rather than a circumstantial argument. If Campbell is right, and I think that he is assuredly at least partially so, then this is a big deal.

In chapter one Campbell lays out what he calls the justification theory of salvation. Here he lays out in propositional form and in very fair fashion what one would consider a very robust traditional explanation of the gospel according to Paul (it looks very much like a traditional exegesis of Romans 1-4). The story of Martin Luther's conversion would very nicely follow the flow of Campbell's argument. Along the way he deals with all of the presuppositions that gird the argument and the key metaphors that help explain it. The goal of this model (to greatly simplify what Campbell says) is to convince rational, self-interested, introspective individuals to realize their ethical inability and the certain retributive judgment of God that awaits them, so that they have no other choice than to believe certain things about Jesus, that his atoning death would count for them.

We'll pick up next time with chapter two and Campbell's analysis of this argument.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat