Saturday, June 09, 2007

Review: Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Part 2 of 2

See the first part of this review here.

(Some of my points below have been informed by Michael Bird's helpful review article of VanL's book, forthcoming in BBR. I heartedly recommend it to all interested in this book. I will keep detail out of this reflection on the book as Mike has rather stolen my thunder!)

Having summarised VanL's argument we can now ask: What is one to make of his bold thesis? To be honest, I cannot really give a final definitive statement about my reaction to his thesis for quite a while; it will need to sink in and then be tested over a longer period of time together with a close examination of the primary material. Indeed, whatever one finally makes of VanL's reading of the second Temple Jewish texts and Paul, his thesis drives one back to the primary material, and this is always a good thing. Furthermore, his argumentation throughout has been one of clarity and focus and it impressively covers a wide range of material. This is a book that one will not be able to simply quickly dismiss, and it is one to which I will return to on a regular basis as I seek to understand Paul. Indeed, I admire VanL's courage and the sweep of his paradigm disrupting vision. May his clan increase!

Having said that, I have some misgivings which at the moment I can really only formulate as questions I need to take back to the primary material. But let me try to spell them out anyway.

First, one wonders if he rather neglects to seriously deal with texts that would appear to fly in the face of his of view of the Jewish literature. Off of the top of my head, not only Ezekiel 16, but also Deut 7:7, a passage I suspect he doesn't entirely convincingly 'explain away'. Following Bird's review article, I also note 1 Esdras. There is also the significance of the broader scriptural narrative (the Exodus comes before the giving of the law, i.e. grace comes before the law), a matter that the focus of his study perhaps wasn't best suited to encompass. While it may be responded that these few 'problem texts' are just blips compared to the rather consistent picture VanL paints, it may be wise to hold these other texts in play and not force all second Temple Judaism in one direction. Hence 'variegated nomism' has been pursued by Carson and co in response to Sanders' 'covenantal nomism'. Besides, I'm not yet persuaded that VanL's thesis best explains the nature and variety of Jewish material, so these 'problem texts' may well not just be infrequent blips. As I said: I need to sit on this for a while!

Second, a reason to keep a more variegated notion in view is that Paul arguably embodies a different type of Judaism to the one described by VanL. For example, my present reading of Rom 4 and Abraham has Paul making a point that would very much set him at odds with his Jewish milieu, if VanL's reading is to be believed. There it speaks of the 'one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly' (4:5). Besides, Paul's rhetoric in Rom 1-3 is largely to demonstrate that all have sinned; yet it is these sinners who are now dikaioed by God's grace as a gift (3:23-24). Quid pro quo?

Certainly VanL's focus on the 'day of the Lord' texts and the 'Two-Ways, Two-Spirits ideology' in Gal 5-6 are important points, yet my feeling at the moment is that VanL dissolves the texts in only one direction. I tend to see these matters as part of the logic of the content of the new covenant and the promise of the Spirit (and the shape of Rom and Gal and the point of 2 Cor 3), and so would want to posit a logical coherence between these matters and a covenantally framed justification. This means that I presently see no need pit an eschatological and forensic justification by faith against judgment according to works in the sense urged by VanL.

Naturally VanL's reading is in strong variance not only with all Reformation theology, but also present day Catholic scholarship which by and large accepts a forensic meaning of the dikai- terms. He is well aware of the boldness of his thesis at this point, but it is also the one that may prove to be the most unsuccessful. I refer people to Mike Bird's review article for more on this point.

While VanL's thesis explains much of the evidence well, one needs to be able to answer all of the pertinent questions to understand Paul. For example, earlier reformed exegesis could explain certain passages in Paul rather well with their more anthropological focus. However, where they lacked explanatory power was with the concrete social Jew-Gentile relationships in relation to the matter of justification in Paul's letters, a matter the 'New Perspective' has done a fine job of thrusting back onto stage. Could it be that VanL's thesis explains only some of the Pauline material leaving big questions unaccounted for? In this respect it could be asked if VanL's thesis can really explain the fierce nature of Paul's rhetoric against 'works of the law' in Galatians (Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, 12). I suspect VanL's thesis cannot, and this causes me to wonder if the whole thesis is problematic, despite its explanatory power with regards other matters.

Furthermore, but without going into exegetical detail, it is likely that Paul's words in 1 Cor 5:5, that 'you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord', would cohere more plausibly with an understanding of justification with direct eschatological implications. To that one could make mention of Rom 10:10.

VanL's thesis leaves me with numerous unanswered questions, a desire to get back to the primary material and a fresh enthusiasm to grapple with Paul's teaching concerning righteousness. While many of my points above are critical, I do not pretend to have grasped the issues as profoundly as VanL. I write these issues down in order to think aloud through VanL's bold and challenging thesis. This is one of the most exciting and stimulating books on Paul and justification I have had the pleasure to work through in a long time.

Labels: ,


At 6/09/2007 3:59 AM, Anonymous Kevin Davis said...

Curiously, we see the same tension in Jesus' soteriological passages as that in Paul. On the one hand, Jesus strongly preaches (pro VanL) that one is judged on works (Mt. 25, most famously); however, Jesus offers forgiveness to the repentant thief on the cross and assures him of eternal life (contra VanL) with no regard to his works. I know this study is about Paul, but for constructive dogmatics, the Christian has to consider the Gospels as while.

Here's another thought: The Roman Catholic construal could perhaps offer a solution. The Catholic position holds that man's conforming to Christ is available as a free gift but nurtured through a life "in the Spirit" such that victory over sin (available, once again, as a gift b/c of Christ's resurrection/victory over death) is actually achieved in this life in full or, through postmortem purgation, in the afterlife. Thus, those who enter the beatific vision will have (through both the Cross of Christ and his/her own cross) achieved righteousness (thus satisfying Mt. 25, Rom. 2, etc.) but a righteousness that is (in essential respects) given.

At 6/09/2007 4:09 AM, Anonymous Kevin Davis said...

By the way, we obviously can't exegete Tridentine Catholicism out of Paul, but this is precisely because Paul did not resolve these issues. This is not to say that Paul would not recognize the Roman Catholic position as most faithful to the whole of his thought (even if the Church has too often forgotten the giveness of salvation and tended toward Pelagianism); indeed, the congruency of Paul and Trent is what the Catholic must hold.

At 6/09/2007 4:56 AM, Anonymous J. B. Hood said...

Don't you hate it when Mike Bird tackles something? It makes you feel like an ignoramus.

Seriously though, great review and response. I think you're dead-on with the 'narrative' movement of the canon. While this is not legit in much of the scholarly world, I think we do well to consider it as it percolates up in individual texts like those you point out among others. For instance the macro/micro angle are both true of the exile, esp reflected in Daniel 9 type texts (we don't deserve it anyway, please!) and Ezek's dead bones which come to life, no thanks to them.

Oh, and if you can host a response to Bird (or just you) by VanL, I'll fulfill this month's pledges to CTRVHM. otherwise I may have to let my seed lie fallow, and fail to obtain my blessing.

At 6/09/2007 10:12 AM, Anonymous Michael F. Bird said...

Good review. We are on the same wave length. VanL's boldness and his meticulate analysis of primary source material is great. I still think he falls short in several crucial areas. Also, my art. is submitted to BBR, not forthcoming yet. The editors may mock and deride my article yet!

At 6/13/2007 7:34 PM, Anonymous Kevin Bywater said...

Thanks for your review thoughts, Chris. I recently took up a test case regarding VanLandingham's thesis, focusing on what he deemed "the best evidence" for his thesis: the Testament of Abraham. I appreciated his work, though I concluded that his thesis fell short of persuasion. For whatever they may be worth, my thoughts may be found here:

At 6/13/2007 11:35 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Thank you all for your comments, I'll have a look at your page, Kevin, thanks!

At 6/13/2007 11:35 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...



Post a Comment

<< Home