Justification and New Perspective 19

Just to play the Devil's advocate* (or OPP advocate, depending on how feisty you're feeling), couldn't it be argued that Jesus is that blessing promised to Abraham? If Jesus fulfills the blessing of Abraham's covenant, then what does that covenant have to do with us?

What does scripture say about Jesus' role in Abraham's covenant?

*please note, I don't hold onto this as a position, just mindful inquiry.

I think RJS has hit it. Wright is on to something, but he misses a significant part of the chapter if he ignores Abraham as a pattern of personal faithfulness. To illustrate that this is not simply an OPP vs. NPP issue, James Dunn emphasizes the pattern of Abraham's faith (see Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, esp. 226-240). In fact, Dunn makes the case that it was common in the Judaism of Paul's day to use Abraham as a model of personal faithfulness (Sir. 44:20; 1 Macc 2:52). Therefore, according to Dunn, Paul is picking up on this existing discussion and using it for his purposes.

I think this is similar to the discussion on "faith of Christ": this is not strictly and OPP vs. NPP issue, because Dunn is on the opposite of Wright in both cases.

The Grand Story cannot be ignored.

I would like someone who favors the OPP (the Old Reformed Perspective on Paul and justification) to give evidence to “the animating issue [of] personal redemption from the works-principle of distorted humans” in the experience of Abraham. What “works-principle” did his “faith” save him from? If there isn’t one, then why does the OPP insistently read that “works-principle” into the Gospels and the Pauline texts? The OPP’s trivialization of the place of Abraham in the grand narrative sweep of God’s Story by reducing Abraham to a mere “illustration” of some humanly-crafted model of justification is thoroughly indefensible. NT Wright’s exegetical finesse within the biblical narrative regarding Abraham offers a stimulating, comprehensive theology over against the OPP’s flat-footed stomping through the Bible, cutting and pasting this text and that while ignoring important this text and that, in order to prop up a 16th century systematic theological (traditional) construct. The more this conversation continues the more evident it is that *sola scriptura* is not the animating issue of the OPP.

Wright 'Justification', chapter 7, Romans, part VI, on Romans 4.
Wright needs to acknowledge that he himself stresses Paul's reinterpretions of what was promised to Abraham (eg land becomes world), so should be more careful what conclusions he draws going back to the actual words to Abraham (pp.193-4 GB, Scot gives p.220 USA).

I like where Wright says Jews struggle for admittance to God's people, Romans 4.12.

I don't agree where Wright says the main theme of Romans 4 is Abraham's single family. For one thing, Wright is too simply historical, and needs to say more about what the significance of apparent epochs in salvation history might mean: Abraham is (metaphorical) father of all who have faith, so is also father of those before him who had faith, eg Abel, so Abraham's family is not only the gentiles who believed subsequent to Jesus. I think the main theme is salvation by faith, not that the law is exclusive of gentiles, and that since the promise is by faith it can be sure even to Jews who do not keep Torah.

Wright's exegesis of Romans 4.2-5 is unacceptable. Wright does not allow that Jews under Torah were working for reward from God, but here Paul says that that is what it actually comes to (see Piper's 'Future of Justification', available free online, footnote 7, p.150).

In Romans 4:6-8, David is said by Wright to be blessed because he was forgiven. But he leaves out that Paul says David thought he was blessed because he was forgiven when he had failed to do the works he should have done (Piper FJ, pp.145-8, footnote 4 on David, but also a critique of Wright's exegesis on Romans 3:27-30. Note that Wright, in 'Justification', does not answer Piper on his exegesis, Wright simply blithely repeats the same exegesis of Romans he has given for over 35 years. One would have thought this an ideal opportunity for Wright to prove his accusation that his opponents are blinded by their doctrine and don't go back to the Bible. I get the impression Wright's exegeses are skewed by his commitment to his grand scheme.).

David (#7),
One small part of God's promise to Abraham had to do with "land." How can you miss the world-wide scope of God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17? "Land" isn't even brought up by Paul in Romans 4.

Where do you see "reward" in Romans 4:2-5? I don't see "reward" or its cognates anywhere in the text. Maybe you're working from a faulty NIV text, I don't know. If you're playing "wages" against the NIV's "credited as righteousness," then you're introducing a concept("reward") into the text that's not there.

Brian (#10),
I know what you mean...sometimes I think I get a little edgy myself in commenting or too edgy, but I like to 'stir the pot' to see what rises. I like the information that you bring to the table and I benefit from your insights. So, yes, I am sharpened by your push-backs. God bless you.

David (#12),
Again, I don't see how Paul's reference to Abraham has *anything* to do with forgiveness of sins. The David reference certainly might be more pertinent, but Abraham.

Misthos as you know is clearly an economic term for wages earned, not a reward graciously given. Neither Wright nor Paul states "that Jews under Torah were working for reward from God."

The general arch of Romans seems to leans in NTW's direction. While Romans does certainly talk about faith[fulness] (see the many uses of the word pistis/os) and how one is made right with God, this message is not large enough to make sense of the whole letter, particularly how ch. 9-11 and ch. 14-15 fit into Paul's tight knit argument.

Paul's letter seems to seek to answer the question, "Has God been faithful to his covenant that he made with his people since so many of them have not believed?" His answer to that question is ALL about Abraham. The large arch of the letter is about how God's plan all along was to work through the family of Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. He has been faithful to that covenant indeed. If the disbelief of many Jews meant salvation for the Gentiles, how much more blessing will there belief bring?

It is a bit of a false dichotomy to make an either/or distinction between Abraham as our example of faith[fulness] and Abraham as the thread that holds the whole Christian story together. However, the example theme is clearly a subcategory under Paul's main point about Abraham as the means blessing all the families of the earth.