Justification and New Perspective 5

Hey Scott,

First, thanks for posting this conversation.

Second, in this passage, 'Wright begins with a sketch of what Jews in the 1st Century were hoping for, and he makes his oft-made point: it was going to heaven when they died' -- shouldn't that be 'it was NOT going to heaven when they died'?

In the Grace of the Three in One,

Jack

Scot, in sketching Ephesians being the lense to read romans and galatians through, was not Ephesians written after the other two. I would love a link to the most accurate chronology of the NT writings if possible, the net is full of gobbly- goop.

I'd like to pose a hermeneutical question. If Ephesians is written roughly 3-5 years later than Romans and Galatians, and (as Wright encourages) is the lens through which to read these earlier writings, can we rightly view Ephesians (and other later Pauline writings) as a more seasoned form of Pauline theology? What I mean is, can we assume that Paul's later writings were written in part to bring clarification to earlier writings?

The hope today is that each one of us mature in our spiritual life as God opens the eyes of our heart more and more to His truth and plan. Is it reasonable to expect the same of Paul? And, if Paul matured spiritually, could he have written in such a way that didn't abandon earlier theology, but rather displayed a more concise, clear theology?

Specifically to Comments 3 & 4, I wouldn't get bogged down on issues of dating and authorship, as Wright is not here making a claim regarding historicity and publication but of interpretation. It is an interesting thought-experiment which he suggests: What if we read Ephesians having never read Galatians or Romans at all? This is a different question than perhaps the one you are assuming. (I am not being critical of your comments, but rather am trying to clarify what it appears that Wright is saying.)

Once we have done this, NTW contends, then we see ecclesiology emerging (if I may use that term so early in the day) along with Paul's understanding of justification. Now that we have a sense of how Paul envisions this, we can work it back into texts such as Galatians and see how it is connected in Pauline thought all along. That is the contention. And, I must admit, The Bishop does a solid job in pulling it off.

On Daniel 9:
I believe Daniel 7 is pivotal to understanding the Gospels (Son of Man). If we grapple with what is happening in Dan7 then we can see the implications through to Dan9. And that is what NTW is contending - the ascension and sovereignty of the Son of Man leads to the outworking into the world. But Daniel has not seen this dominion realized in his experience, it led him to this prayer. Jesus' and Paul's contemporaries still had not seen it realized.

We have in part . . .but . . .

Scot,

I would like to hear your opinion on Wright's point #2.

Wright makes this point a lot and I don't know what sources he uses to back it up. It is key to his Christian Origis and the Question of God series and a big part of his "fresh" perspective on Paul.

What biblical or extra-biblical support do we have for Wright's assertion that "everyone" (or even "a lot of people") believed that Israel was still in exile at the time of Jesus?

I was clued in to the value of Ephesians for NPP and also for our own corner of theology (Messianic Jewish theology) in a lecture series by Mark Kinzer two years ago (author of Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism).

Ephesians is quite a valuable book for our perspective (reclaiming the place of Israel in the central narrative thread or canonical narrative of the Bible).

It is also, as you say here, a great corrective to the more polemical and rhetorically charged writings of Romans and Galatians (of course, Romans 11 is great from our MJ perspective also).

I think rhetorical criticism is very helpful in reading Romans and Galatians (for a far out suggestion, try Mark Nanos's book on Romans and Galatians and for a more "palatable" one, try Ben Witherington's rhetorical commentaries).

Derek Leman

An interesting study which also plays well into the discussion on Ephesians:

William W. Klein, 'The New Chosen People' (Wipf & Stock, 2001 reprint). Valuable insight into Ephesians 1 (and other passages), but which helps to work within the one-story-of-God's-people motif.

"[W]hat happens to Romans or Galatians if we read them through the lens of the theology of Ephesians? Instantaneously, Romans and Galatians would become more ecclesial. Why, Wright is asking, do so many critics of the new perspective have a theology that does not really make way for the ideas of Ephesians -- like cosmic redemption and that God's plan was to include Jews and Gentiles in the people of God and the powerful role of the Holy Spirit?"

As I've been reading and reviewing Piper's book on my blog, I've been struck by his heavy reliance on one book--Romans. Moreover, he relies almost exclusively on just two chapters in this book (3 and 4). And it might be fair to say that if Piper knew just two verses (Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:6), he would be able to arrive at the understanding of justification he advocates. Ephesians (which, among other things, celebrates the inclusion of Gentiles in God's covenant of grace) does not seem to play an important role in Piper's thinking.

Also, Piper does little with the references to circumcision that come between 3:28 and 4:6, and after 4:6. If Paul does not have Gentile inclusion in mind, then why these references? Paul seems to draw a comparison between Abraham and Gentiles of faith (Abraham was not circumcised when he was justified; Gentiles need not be circumcised to be justified; faith, rather than circumcision, is evidence of membership in God's covenant family). By ignoring the many references to circumcision in Romans 3 and 4, Piper can more easily define justification individualistically and abstractly, pushing the doctrine of imputed righteousness (which has nothing to do with the issue Paul faced on the ground--namely, reconciling two different people-groups, Jews and Gentiles). Even when Piper exegetes Acts (Acts 13, no less), he ignores the matter of Gentile inclusion!

It's becoming clear to me that Wright and Piper ultimately disagree because they differ in their use of Scripture. Wright is attentive to context--literary, canonical, and historical. Piper is not, instead simply prooftexting.

Joe B:

Right, the issue is not simply that Piper relies too heavily on one book (Romans). I'm almost finished reading and reviewing Piper's book on my blog, and it has become clear that he relies heavily on one particular interpretation of just one part of Romans (3:28-5:1). And even in this small section, he emphasizes verses selectively (Romans 3:28 and 4:6 come to mind), without attention to their immediate literary context.

The NT and the People of God pp 271-272 (for the reference). He uses Ezra 9:6-15, Neh 9:6-38, and Dan 9:3-19 as witnesses for this view.

Is righteousness central at all in any of these? The passage from Nehemiah especially witnesses God's grace.

This is for Michael Metts.
If you think of the Torah in terms of a covenant (i.e. - a legally binding agreement) with terms and conditions, most of which are in the instructions of the Torah (and here I think it's important that we remember that Torah means "instruction" not "law".) We can see how righteousness (or justice, since in both Greek and Hebrew they are related ideas, not separate) is absolutely important in these contexts, exactly because Grace or even Mercy are also being shown. Mercy is only mercy when the subject is justice, and Chesed (Grace) is only Chesed (i.e. - covenant faithfulness, or justice) in terms of a covenant, an agreement between the two sides. Therefore, exactly when we are talking about Mercy and Grace, we are, in Wright's understanding, talking about God's justice and his faithfulness to his covenants, often in spite of the unfaithfulness of other party in the covenant. God's justice is to see his part of the covenant through, and so that will sometimes reflect itself in wrath and sometimes in mercy, but it will always reflect covenant faithfulness and justice on God's part.
Taking your Nehemiah 9 section, look at the end of verse 8 - "And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous." This is the concept of righteousness on God's part that Wright is using, and I believe that it is central to these passages. See also in the Dan. 9 reference, vs. 4, 14 & 16. (Dan. 9:16a "O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem.") Righteousness, covenant faithfulness and mercy are almost always linked, not just in Paul, but before them, in the Prophets. In that sense, the "new perspective" even predates Paul, it goes back to the prophets. ;)
Hope this helps.

Grace and Peace,
Jaime