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.


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…