The front of the shop contained rather mundane supplies of flea powder, fish flakes, and other [...]]]> From The Briefing:

One lazy afternoon in 1999, travel writer Bill Bryson discovered a shop that sold pet supplies and pornography.¹ It was at the far end of the main street of an unassuming Australian country town called Young.

The front of the shop contained rather mundane supplies of flea powder, fish flakes, and other pet accessories. But at the back of the shop, behind a small wooden gate, there was a whole section devoted to the sale of explicit pornographic material. Bryson was apparently baffled by the existence of such a bizarre establishment. But I think I can explain what it was doing there.

If memory serves me correctly, there was a period during which various local planning laws existed to get rid of the ‘adult’ industry in Australian towns. The lawmakers didn’t ban small stocks of pornography in shops that existed for other purposes (e.g. newsagents²). But they did try to make sure that all such stocks were strictly controlled. No shop was allowed to have pornography comprising more than a certain small percentage of its total stock. Therefore, no dedicated ‘adult’ stores could exist. The laws were designed to create a safe and wholesome town environment by ensuring that the sale of explicit material couldn’t become a business in its own right (remember, at this point the internet was still taking off).³

But what actually happened? Did the laws work as intended? Not quite. Instead, bizarre shops started to spring up, shops like the one Bryson encountered. The shops still had pornography as their real core business, but to get around the planning laws, the stores put up not-very-subtle ‘fronts’. A shop that advertised pet supplies out the front could ‘legitimately’ claim that it was not really an adult store, since its main purpose was something else. And since there were more individual packets of cheap flea powder and fish flakes on the shelves than there were magazines out the back, the stocks of pornography technically came under the legal limit. But everybody knew what the shops were really for. The laws, despite their good intentions, had failed.

This is a clear illustration of a problem that crops up whenever we try to use laws to make things better. These planning laws were good. They were worthy manifestations of our community’s desire to uphold marriage as the proper context for healthy sexual expression, and to limit the harm and exploitation that arises when this context is ignored. I’m glad the lawmakers did what they did. But the legislation couldn’t, by itself, get to the heart of the problem. The laws couldn’t make men love their families more. They couldn’t convince people that being a real ‘adult’ is about care and responsibility, not self-gratification. The letter of the law did nothing to make people love the spirit of the law. It just brought about grudging compliance and tragically comic workarounds that exploited loopholes. A good law doesn’t make people good.

This isn’t just a problem for Australian planning laws. In fact, the problem also crops up when we try to put God’s law at the centre of our lives. In Romans 2:17-24, the apostle Paul has a debate about this very issue. Paul and his debating partner were Jews. This means they were law-people, and glad of it. The God of the entire world had especially revealed himself to Israel through the law of Moses. Jews had a fantastic privilege: they knew God’s will in the law. They knew what was good and right and proper, because the Creator himself had told them all about it. Jews were also equipped to teach other people all about this great revelation of God’s will. But Paul insists that God’s law-revelation has a fundamental problem. It’s not that the law is bad; actually, the law is great. But the problem is that the law won’t change the heart. God’s good law doesn’t make God’s people good. In fact, as Paul goes on to show in Romans 3, the law does something else entirely. In the end, the law makes our sin and hypocrisy crystal clear. It silences every mouth, and holds us accountable to God (Rom 3:19-20). The law doesn’t save us. Instead, it shows up our failure, and points to something greater: the forgiveness and transformation that we find in Jesus Christ, through the word of the gospel and the Spirit of God.

A heart that relies on the law to find salvation before God is a bit like that store at the end of the main street in Young. It might look respectable and well-ordered. It might seem quite attractive to a casual passer-by. It might have a plentiful stock of law-compliant good deeds on the shelves. And yet there are those sealed sections, the bits at the back. At one level, these sealed sections might seem small or insignificant compared to the much more obvious good deeds that can be pointed to as examples of that heart’s own inherent goodness. But in fact, it is these back sections that truly show up the heart’s real orientation. And if we admit it, there’s a bit of that hypocrisy in all of us, isn’t there?

Simply knowing God’s character and will, even his character and will as expressed in the pages of the Bible itself, will not solve our biggest problem. If we want actual forgiveness, salvation, and transformation, we need something far more radical and powerful than God’s law. We need God himself to forgive us. We need the cross of Christ. And we need God to change our hearts, imperfectly now, and soon our whole heart, soul, and strength perfectly on that last day.

¹ Bill Bryson, Down Under, Black Swan, London, 2001, pp. 109-110.

² Newsstands to American readers.

³ I’m relying on my memory of news reports. I’ve tried hard, but haven’t been able to track down the laws that were in effect twelve years ago.

The three debates that I’ve noticed it being used in are as follows:

Thanks Wordle:

Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle [...]]]> A short while ago I wrote a post claiming that Paul doesn’t ever teach that the Gentiles are included in Israel. I said:

Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians … Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.

The natural counter to this claim is: “What about the allegory of the olive tree in Romans 11? Doesn’t that clearly assume that the Gentiles join Israel?” This question is based on a common assumption that the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 refers to Israel, and that the image of the Gentiles being “grafted in” to this olive tree (e.g. 11:17) must therefore refer to the Gentiles joining Israel. That is, the olive-tree analogy is commonly read ecclesiologically.

But really, this ecclesiological reading of the olive tree doesn’t work when you start to read the passage carefully. I think that it makes far more sense to read the olive tree theologically (with, of course, implications for both Israel and the Gentiles). That is, the all-important root of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 doesn’t stand for Israel, but for God’s promises of salvation (and I think especially his promises to Abraham, who is not only the father of Israel but the father of many nations, see Romans 4).

I’ve just read an article by Nikolaus Walter which makes this point very clearly. Since the article is in German, I thought I’d translate some of the key points for English readers:

When interpreting an allegory, we must always be controlled by the question: What does the author probably want to say in the given context, and what lies beyond his immediate horizon? The main problem for the interpretation of Romans 11:17-24 seems to me to be the question: Who or what is Paul speaking about when he talks about the olive tree with its root, trunk and “sap”; i.e. the olive tree along with the “fatness” which proceeds from the root, which is of course the distinguishing honour of the olive tree and makes it suitable as an allegory of salvation?
[pp. 179-180]

In my opinion the olive tree, or the trunk, and particularly the root, “is” not = Israel, despite Jeremiah 11:16 ff. For “Israel” is in fact what has branched out of the olive tree, which currently–by virtue of its non-acceptance of Christ Jesus–is in its greater part excluded from the olive tree (Rom 11:25 b).
[p. 180]

If the cultivated olive tree, its root and the fat which flows from it into the branches (or fruits!) (Rom 11:17) is to point concretely at anything, then it points above all to God–to his election and promises and the grace of salvation which flows out from him–but it should not be immediately identified with Israel as a people. Israel, which until now has been that which branches out of the olive tree, has grown on this cultivated olive tree; it has its own history of God and salvation in its past and as its foundation; however it “is” not itself this foundation; the root, the trunk, the fat.
(pp. 180-181)

And now they [the Gentiles] are through God’s salvific action in Christ planted not in Israel, but rather they are included in the salvific activity of the God of Israel.
(p. 181)

The often-applied sentance Rom 11:18 b does not imply that the Gentile Christians are supported by Israel as their “root”. Rather, what is actually said to the Gentile Christians is that they should not boast with respect to the now-broken-off branches, i.e. with respect to Israel; for even they, the Gentile Christians, “support” not the root, but rather are supported by it (but not by the broken-off branches); i.e. they have not become branches on the olive tree and participated in its “fat” by their own power, but rather they are “supported” by God and his gracious election enacted in Jesus Christ, just as formerly Israel was and also yet again will be.
(pp. 181-182)

Walter, Nikolaus. “Zur Interpretation von Römer 9-11.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 81 (1984): 172-195.

We are, of course, included in the promises given to Abraham (Rom [...]]]> Μὴ γένοιτο! No way! Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians.

We are, of course, included in the promises given to Abraham (Rom 4:11, 16; Gal 3:7). But being a child of Abraham is not the same as being a member of Israel. That’s why Paul says that Abraham is the Father of many nations (Rom 4:17-18), not that Abraham is the father of one nation, Israel, that has somehow been redefined or expanded to include other nations. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.

The idea that the Gentiles are included in Israel is one of the (if not the) fundamental exegetical mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul.

PS that’s probably why Paul almost always speaks of the church using familial terms, such as “children” and “sons”, rather than political terms (i.e. as a “people”, which is a political word).

Gadenz, Pablo T. Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11. Edited by Jörg Frey, WUNT II.267. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, esp. page 82.

I’ve just picked up a copy of Douglas A. Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009). Initially, I was a bit daunted. It’s a very big and scary book, running to 1218 pages. But I’ve just realised that [...]]]> Here’s something I’d like to say:

I’ve just picked up a copy of Douglas A. Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009). Initially, I was a bit daunted. It’s a very big and scary book, running to 1218 pages. But I’ve just realised that I don’t need to read it all to understand its meaning! I have a theory about the book, that makes more and more sense the more I think about it. The book can’t be Doug Campbell’s own position. It’s too full of overly complicated theories and uncalled-for denunciations. On my reading of Campbell, his whole book is actually a presentation of the position of one of his opponents, whom he wants to discredit simply by quoting at length. Campbell’s own position only truly shines through in his very last, highly ironic, sentence, where he sums up his opponent: “It seems that beyond our European conceits, the real Paul awaits us.”

Did I say that?

As you can see, the New Perspective claim that “the righteousness of God” is a cipher denoting “God’s [...]]]> Here’s a very insightful post from Lee Irons critiquing the theory that “righteousness” means “covenant faithfulness”. I’ll quote a sizeable chunk of Irons’ conclusions because they’re highly relevant to both of my series on righteousness and covenant:

As you can see, the New Perspective claim that “the righteousness of God” is a cipher denoting “God’s saving faithfulness to his covenant” rests on the outdated Lowthian theory of Hebrew synonymous parallelism. Rather than equating “righteousness” with “faithfulness” (or “salvation”), it is better to see the instances in the Psalms and Isaiah where these terms are used in parallelism as “binoculars” in which these different concepts mutually interpret one another and lead to a picture that is larger than the sum of its parts.

God’s salvation is the result of his faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham. God’s salvation is also an expression of his righteousness, because he executes salvation in a manner that is consistent with his justice and holiness; indeed, salvation itself is an essentially judicial activity, for salvation comes through judgment. For example, at the Exodus, God’s deliverance of his people was accomplished by judgment on the Egyptians. At the cross, salvation was accomplished because the judgment we deserved was borne by Jesus as our substitute.

In other words, when “God’s salvation” or “God’s faithfulness” and “God’s righteousness” are found in parallel, the conclusion we are to draw is not that the word “righteousness” itself means “salvation” or “faithfulness,” but that God’s saving activity comes in fulfillment of his covenant promises and is an expression of his righteousness. Especially in those cases where “salvation” and “righteousness” are parallel (see, e.g., Psalm 98:2; Isaiah 51:5-8; 56:1), the point is that God’s salvation has a strongly judicial dimension.

To conclude, the static Lowthian theory of synonymous parallelism has been superceded in the last 30 years by a more nuanced understanding, and this scholarly shift in the interpretation of Hebrew poetry undermines one of the pillars of the NPP. When properly understood, Hebrew parallelism provides no support for the theory that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a cipher for God’s faithfulness to his covenant.

In Galatians 3:17, Paul goes [...]]]> We have seen that the “seed” of Galatians 3:16 is referring to Genesis 17:8. In Galatians 3:16, Paul is explaining to the gentile Galatians that the “seed” of Genesis 17:8 is the “one” nation Israel, not the “multitude” of nations who will also have Abraham as their father (Genesis 17:5).

In Galatians 3:17, Paul goes on to explain that the covenant has already been ratified. When was this covenant to Abraham and his seed “ratified by God” and thus made inviolable (3:17)?

(This post is part of a series)

As we have seen in our survey of the Old Testament, a solemn oath or ceremonial act is needed to make a covenantal relationship of obligation legally binding. The covenant of land in Genesis 15 was ratified by the events recorded in the chapter—the passing of the flaming torch through the pieces, followed by solemn promises. But it is only after the Aqedah (binding) of Isaac that God finally makes a solemn oath that “in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:16–18). Almost paradoxically, the primary act of loyal devotion that made Abraham and his seed a fitting covenant partner with God—a fitting agent for blessing to the whole world—was the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice the seed himself. It is only when the seed is placed on the wood and a sacrifice is made that God ratifies his covenant, emphatically vowing to make Abraham’s seed numerous and victorious (Gen 22:17) and thereby to bless the world through Abraham’s seed (22:18).[1] Hahn presents a strong case that this is the “ratification” Paul has in mind, and that the Aqedah is the type for his exposition of Jesus’ crucifixion and the subsequent blessing to the nations in Galatians 3:13–14.[2] In Genesis, the covenant of international blessing is ratified after Abraham’s supreme act of loyalty in being willing to sacrifice the “seed” of the promise by binding him “upon wood”:

Thus, the sense of [Galatians 3:]13–14 is that the death of Christ ἐπὶ ξύλου allows the blessing of Abraham after the Aqedah (Gen 22:18) to flow to the ἔθνη through Jesus Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).[3]

Hence it is “Christ” who is supremely the seed, the one in whom all nations are blessed (Gal 3:16).[4] This accords with the flow of biblical thought. Psalm 72 focusses the international scope of the promise to Abraham and his “seed” directly onto an ideal Davidic ruler (cf. 2 Sam 7). It is this Messiah-king “in whom all the nations will be blessed / bless themselves” (Psa 72:17, cf. Gen 12:3, 22:18).[5] Christ is the seed who fulfils the covenantal oath that God swore to Abraham by his obedience to death on the cross.

The larger import of this for Paul’s argument with his opponents is that the covenantal obligations laid upon Abraham (circumcision) and his national seed (the law) as a prerequisite for international blessing are not laid upon the nations as a prerequisite for their own blessing.[6] Abraham’s seed has fulfilled the covenantal obligations. The multitude of nations, therefore, are not called to enter this covenant, but to find blessing in the “seed”, to be “immersed” into Christ, to be “clothed” with Christ (Gal 3:27). This comes about by the Spirit and by faith in Christ (Gal 3:14). The blessings include justification (Gal 3:24), sonship (Gal 3:27) and unity with God and others in Christ (Gal 3:28). Hence it is faith in Christ, not covenant membership, that makes the Gentiles “seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). Being the “seed of Abraham” does not mean that the Gentiles are subject to the covenantal obligations, for these obligations have been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, being the “seed of Abraham” means that the Gentiles are now sons of God in the fullest sense, heirs of the inheritance that has now come in Christ (Gal 4:1–7). Even the Jews who were members of the covenant must also be in the “seed” by faith (Gal 2:16, 3:11). Hence Abraham’s international fatherhood is not by means of common covenantal membership, but by means of a common faith in the God who achieves his astounding promises (Gal 3:7, 9), and a common blessing of righteousness; the characteristics that Abraham had before any of the covenants was made (Gal 3:6, Gen 15:6).

[2] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 90–94.

[3] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 93.

[4] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 96–97.

[5] Williamson, Abraham, 167–70.

[6] If this were so, then Carol K. Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis”, in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 143–64 (esp. 158–61) would be correct in concluding that Paul saw a real contradiction between the unilateral covenant of Genesis 15 and the bilateral covenant of Genesis 17.

Full bibliography

Paul calls himself: apostle, servant, minister, preacher, master builder, from the tribe of Benjamin, prisoner, teacher, Hebrew, aroma, Jew, Israelite, temple servant, from the circumcision, manager, [...]]]> From the Sola Panel:

I’ve just read through the Apostle Paul’s letters and noted all the words he uses to describe his ministry. It’s a fascinating and humbling list.

Paul calls himself: apostle, servant, minister, preacher, master builder, from the tribe of Benjamin, prisoner, teacher, Hebrew, aroma, Jew, Israelite, temple servant, from the circumcision, manager, nobody, debtor, father, ambassador, vessel, the least of all saints, seed of Abraham and assistant. He also likens himself to a messenger, farmer, miscarriage, shepherd and mother.

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit assign or enable Paul’s ministry by loving, revealing, sending, guaranteeing, setting apart, confirming, making known, displaying, giving, giving over, approving, strengthening, showing mercy, accomplishing, working in, considering, willing, leading in triumphal procession, opening doors, making sufficient, calling, comforting, leading, laying upon, speaking in, receiving, shining, assigning, appearing, standing by, entrusting, filling, rescuing, dwelling, compelling, commending, certifying, commanding, setting, publicizing, anointing, guarding and graciously giving to Paul.

Paul describes his ministry as taking captive, a necessity, a defence, apostleship, pleasing, betrothing, confirmation, begetting, making known, a new covenant, administration, ministry, teaching, imparting, handing over, service, an athletic course, authority, working, evangelism, seeking, death, laying a foundation, treasure, priestly duty, destruction, assignment, fruit, announcement, gaining, preaching, speaking, worshipping, temple service, testimony, admonition, building, management, presentation, convincing, fulfiling, enrichment, nourishment, ambassadorship, offering, sowing, a battle, fighting, saving, guarding, running, being a prime example, publishing, planting, illumination, grace, and a gift of God.

Paul likens his ministry to those who struggle, compete, thresh, plow, contend, focus on the altar, toil, box, run, plant and cherish.

Paul describes his message as truth, revelation, how to please God, knowledge, teaching, glory, commands, promise, gospel, reconciliation, healthy, testimony, secret, fragrance, instruction, tradition, how to walk, faith, wealth, enlightenment and God’s word.

As he performs his ministry, Paul acts with love, holiness, sincerity, truth, blamelessness, genuineness, uprightness, knowledge, righteousness, glory, power, purity, freedom, hope, desire, energy, hard work, determination, madness, authority, life, readiness, worthiness, tears, speech, patience, foolishness, yearning, weapons, devotion, confidence, boldness, gentleness, abundance, faith, spirit, purpose, respect, a rod, speech, his flesh, signs, wonders, wisdom, prudence, compassion, conscience, his body, discipline, fear, assurance, joy and kindness, sharing his life, not being burdensome, being renewed, overflowing, enslaving his body, imitating Christ.

Paul also struggles, despairs, weeps, spends, thirsts, works, forfeits, dies, toils, hungers, suffers, journeys, burns, groans, trembles, escapes, fears and fills up the lack in Christ’s affliction; he is bound, destroyed, perplexed, weak, homeless, ignorant, sleepless, exposed, persecuted, afflicted, slandered, unpaid, cast down, treated as the dregs, treated as scum, treated as deceitful, boxed, thwarted, hindered, abandoned, stoned, torn away, seized, beaten, poor, adrift at sea, offered as a libation, branded, turned away, distressed, humbled, flogged, abused; he endures riots, chains, pressure, prison, responsibility, danger, the lion’s mouth, discipline, trouble, dishonour, need, cold and birth pains.

In the course of his ministry, Paul commends, asks, hears, curses, endures, opposes, receives, eagerly expects, defends, doubts, sends, gives opportunities, speaks foolishly, baptizes, sees, wishes, knows, gives opinions, informs, bows his knee, writes, prays, shows, commands, punishes, pursues, is content, approves, enters, strains forward, hopes, gives thanks, lives, courts favour, seeks after, considers, marvels, reaps, visits, opens his heart wide, boasts, cuts down, judges, forgets, speaks, blesses, considers, grieves, learns, testifies, solemnly charges, calls witnesses, regrets, remembers, reminds, conforms, supposes, knows, puts under oath, gives instructions, comforts, appeals, encourages, convinces, has confidence, walks, abounds, believes, fulfils, longs, endeavours, opens his mouth, behaves, understands, commends himself, seals, completes, sets forth, gives an example, spares, fears, thinks and forgives.

Paul’s supporters give to him, pay him, supply his need, administer, are concerned for him, refresh him. They are his brothers and sisters, acceptable, pleasing, useful, an aroma, temple servants, fragrance, a sacrifice, Paul’s partners.

Those who rightly receive Paul’s message are beloved, holy, brothers and sisters, a vineyard, a field, written on his heart, glorious, Jews, Gentiles, from the uncircumcision, elect, Paul’s hope, a letter, workers, co-workers, zealous, in his heart, a blessing, witnesses, imitators, infants, mourners, a building, faithful, a flock, poor, earnest, Paul’s crown, Paul’s certificate, children and Paul’s joy. Paul boasts in them, longs for them and blesses them. They recognize him, receive him, follow his example, obey him, help him, live with him and die with him.

Paul’s rivals are false brothers, masquerading as apostles, false apostles, super apostles, masquerading as ministers of righteousness, ministers of Satan, would-be law teachers, false workers, evil workers, Jews, the mutilation, dogs, from the circumcision, enemies of the cross.

Paul describes the people who work with or for him as beloved, saints, strugglers, brothers and sisters, followers, the Man of God, apostles, kinsmen, genuine, administrators, ministers, servants, workers, pray-ers, comrades, partners, managers, comforters, the circimcision, faithful, fulfilling, labourers, soldiers, children, entrusted, examples, assistants, guards, gifts, kindred spirits, fellow workers, fellow competitors, fellow soldiers, fellow prisoners, fellow sufferers, fellow servants.

But whatever accusation anyone could possibly throw at us along these lines has nothing on William Wrede, whom I’m reading to get a bit more acquainted with late 19th-century [...]]]> Sometimes I’ve heard evangelicals (like myself) accused of being narrow-minded, sectarian, intolerant; acting as if they, and they alone, understand what the Bible is all about.

But whatever accusation anyone could possibly throw at us along these lines has nothing on William Wrede, whom I’m reading to get a bit more acquainted with late 19th-century liberal scholarship on Paul. To Wrede, for example, we can attribute the influential idea that Paul was the real founder of Christianity (as opposed to Jesus), because Paul’s theology was at most points opposed to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In his book Paul, Wrede has some startling and often quite interesting insights into the apostle Paul’s letters. But what was most startling to me was this claim:

At this point [i.e. as Wrede begins to expound Paul's doctrine] the reader who desires to follow us is expressly begged to discard, as far as he possibly can, any conceptions he may have formed of Pauline doctrine. Among all the innumerable Christians of the various churches, who believe that they share Paul’s views, there is to-day no single one who could be said to understand them in the sense in which they were really meant; and the same is true of those who regard themselves as opposed to the apostle’s teaching. At most a few members of certain small societies approximate to a true understanding of it (page 85).

In short, Wrede is saying, “I am the only person in the entire world who really knows what Paul was on about. So listen to me, and me alone, if you want to understand the Bible here.”

There’s arrogance for you.

Wrede, William. Paul. Translated by Edward Lummis. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Reprint of Wrede, William. Paul. Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1908. Translation of Paulus. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1905.

However, it’s been frustrating going. Not only does he appear to be consistently misrepresenting his opponents (which is frustrating enough), he also misrepresents the Bible at a key point.

On [...]]]> I’m currently reading through Tom Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. He writes lucidly and engagingly, with a grand vision and a ready wit.

However, it’s been frustrating going. Not only does he appear to be consistently misrepresenting his opponents (which is frustrating enough), he also misrepresents the Bible at a key point.

On page 69, speaking particularly about the Hebrew background to the term ‘righteousness’, Wright says:

‘Righteousness’ within the lawcourt setting [. . .] denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favour. Notice, it does not denote, within that all-important lawcourt context, ‘the moral character they are then assumed to have’, or ‘the moral behaviour they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.’

Notice his claim, which is quite central to his entire view of justification. Wright says that when the term ‘righteousness’ (Hebrew root צדק, Greek root δικαιο*) is used in a lawcourt setting in the Old Testament, it doesn’t mean the moral character of the defendant, but it does mean the outcome of the court’s decision, the ‘verdict’.

Now let’s look at a couple of passages in the Old Testament where the lawcourt setting is in view:

If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting (δικαιώσωσιν / הִצדִּיקוּ) the innocent (δικαιον / צַּדִּיק) and condemning the guilty, …

Deuteronomy 25:1

And

If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, then hear from heaven and act and judge your servants, repaying the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating (δικαιῶσαι / הַצדִּיק) the righteous (δικαιον / צַּדִּיק) by rewarding him according to his righteousness (δικαιοσύνη / צְדָקָה).

2 Chronicles 6:22-23

In both of these passages, righteousness within the lawcourt setting most definitely denotes the moral character that a person is assumed to have, i.e. ‘the moral behaviour they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.’ In the second passage, the verdict comes from God himself.

In other words, Tom Wright is plain wrong at this point. Justification and righteousness aren’t merely about the verdict. In these passages (and in others), the verdict of ‘righteousness’ is based on the prior fact of ‘righteosness’, which has a moral character to it.

And this isn’t just a minor oversight or a side issue. This point is a key plank in argument for his view of justification (which I don’t have time to go into here). Wright is claiming that his own view of ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’ is properly based in biblical exegesis of the actual terms themselves, whilst his opponents are importing unbiblical views into their theological understanding.

I wrote about N. T. Wright a few years back, and from reading his latest book, so far I’ve seen very little to change my view of where he’s coming from.

The [incident] involving rugby league personality Matthew Johns was predatory, degrading and offensive, federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis says … “I think that’s offensive and inappropriate for our sporting role models.”

But where does that leave the Apostle Paul?

The comment quoted above is typical of the huge [...]]]> My post on the Sola Panel yesterday:

The [incident] involving rugby league personality Matthew Johns was predatory, degrading and offensive, federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis says … “I think that’s offensive and inappropriate for our sporting role models.”

But where does that leave the Apostle Paul?

The comment quoted above is typical of the huge volume of condemnatory statements being made about Johns in recent days in response to the revelation that he had participated in distasteful sex acts in the past. The lascivious details of the incident have been repeated ad nauseum by media outlets. Johns’ behaviour, while strictly ‘legal’, has been rightly rejected as unconscionable. He has been sacked or suspended from many public positions where he might be seen as a role model by younger players or viewers. You can’t have such a person acting as an ambassador for your cause or a host of your TV show.

This is why the Apostle Paul’s position is so surprising. Remember that sordid episode in his early career? Not only did he stand by and approve while a saintly Christian leader was violently executed by a gang of religious leaders (Acts 7:58-8:1), he embarked on a personal vendetta against Christians, doing his utmost to wipe them off the face of the map. His actions, while strictly legal, were utterly unethical (Acts 9:1-2). He was persecuting the Lord himself (Acts 9:4-5). Paul himself admits that his behaviour made him the lowest of low-life scumbags (1 Cor 15:9, Eph 3:8).

So how did God respond to Paul’s predatory behaviour? Did God sack him from his position as a member of his chosen people Israel? Did God issue public statements of condemnation? No! In fact, God gave Paul a promotion! God appointed Paul to be his very own personal ambassador to the world—a role model for billions of Christians ever since:

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ … (Paul, Eph 3:8)

What’s the difference between God and Channel 9, Johns’ former employer? How could God possibly countenance such a low-life scumbag as his personal ambassador? And why would I want to teach my kids to listen to anything Paul says?

The answer lies at the very heart of the message that Paul was commissioned to preach. It was a message of forgiveness, reconciliation and transformation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn’t sweep sin under the carpet or leave the victims in the lurch; he paid the ultimate price for sin and satisfied the justice of God. He brings real forgiveness and real repentance (not half-hearted apologies), and restores even the worst of sinners to the status of being a glorious co-heir of God. That’s why Paul, the worst of sinners, is the perfect ambassador for this message.

Today, millions of Christians across the globe will join together to celebrate the end of the world as we know it. I’m talking, of course, about Good Friday—the celebration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is an event of cosmic significance—an event in which the world as [...]]]> My post on the Sola Panel today:

Today, millions of Christians across the globe will join together to celebrate the end of the world as we know it. I’m talking, of course, about Good Friday—the celebration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is an event of cosmic significance—an event in which the world as we know it came to an end and the new creation came into being.

Do you see it?

Jesus did. As Jesus was about to die, he started speaking about the end of the world—the sun and moon being blotted out, the stars falling from heaven, the coming of the Son of Man in clouds with great power and glory (Mark 13:24-27). In John’s Gospel, Jesus teaches that the event of his own crucifixion is the judgement of the world as we know it (John 12:31-33).

Paul saw it too. He believed that Jesus’ death was the reconciliation and renewal of the entire cosmos:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20 NIV)

It doesn’t necessarily feel like the world has ended, does it? The world as we know it is a world of death, sickness, bushfires, wars, struggles against deeply ingrained sin, pain, and frustration in our relationships and work. Where is this new world? In one very real sense, it’s in the future. There is a time at the end of history when this cosmic reconciliation will be fully revealed for all to see (1 Thess 4:16-17). Death will be reversed, and we will live with God forever. But the reason that we can be confident—that we can encourage one another with these words (1 Thess 4:18)—is because this future hope isn’t just a vague wish that God will do something in the future. It is, rather, a physical revelation of a reality already achieved in Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Thess 4:14).

Why? It’s because, of all those things that are wrong with our world (wars, abuse, sickness and even death), for those who trust in Jesus Christ, the most terrible, horrible aspect of that old world has been done away with. In Jesus’ death, God’s judgement on sin has come and gone. Jesus has taken the penalty for sin. And as we trust in Jesus through God’s Spirit, our own judgement is complete, done, over. His death for sins has, in the most fundamental sense, rescued us from the present evil age (Gal 1:3-4).

Physically, we still live in this unrighteous and death-bound world. Horrible things still happen. We still cry out for justice to be done. We still sin, we still need forgiveness, and we still struggle to live in trusting obedience to God. But our fundamental reality, by faith in Jesus Christ, is that we are already living in a new creation. We don’t look forward to a fearful expectation of the judgement to come. Instead, we look back—back to the new world that has come—the righteousness that is in Christ (1 Cor 1:30), the judgement on sin that he has already suffered, and the forgiveness that is thereby secure and complete. And we also look forward to that future where our salvation from God’s wrath will be fully revealed, where our physical natures will catch up to our spiritual reality, and where the new world in Christ will be seen for what it is. So now we cling to Christ and keep looking back to the end of the world.

Have a joyful Easter and a Great Friday.

Moore College 2nd Year 2008 Houseparty, Wollongong Surf Leisure Resort, Fairy Meadow, 23-24 February 2008.

Power point file with visual aids also available.