Righteousness and Covenant Membership (Again)

Pauline studies is like the mafia, every time you think you're out they drag you back in. I would much rather be writing about Gospels. Any how, I cannot resist one thought. Over at Table Talk, Charles Hill has a review N.T. Wright's Justification. I think Hill is right that "righteousness" in Paul is not reducible to covenant membership. Paul did not need the word of the cross to know that God is the God of Gentiles too (though whether Wright actually reduces righteousness to that and nothing more than that is perhaps another question, elsewhere his definition appears broader, but I take the point as a valid criticism based on what I've also read Wright write). But then again, as I've consistently argued, one's status before God and one's identity in the people of God are indelibly connected. Reformed theologians should be the first to agree with this: God justifies the elect! Paul's primary contention in Galatians and Romans is not to refute a works righteousness merit theology, but Paul is arguing that one does not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul is certainly critiquing the view that one's status before God is determined by law keeping, but the law in question is also bound up with the election of the Jewish nation, their constitution, charter, covenant, and conduct - so it's also ethnographic and corporate. So I don't see how one can, or why one would want to, play off righteousness as a status with righteousness as something about group identity (and that applies to pro- or anti-NPP). Overall, Hill's discussion of the context of Romans 1-3 is correct, except for one thing. Hill writes:

"From Romans 2:25 Paul starts putting Jew and Gentile on the same level. Circumcision and being a Jew are spiritual things. Being a literal Jew had advantages so long as the advantages were used rightly. But the Jews were not faithful. (Nor can they accuse God, whose holy prerogative it is to judge mankind.)"

I grimaced when I read that "circumcision" and "being a Jew" were "spiritual things". It's partly true given 2.28-29, but not in 2.25-26. Cause I'm not circumcised (whoops, that's probably TMI for most of you), but I have been in the gym showers with men who are circumcised and their circumcision looks pretty real to me. And I've met a few Jewish people in my time and their Jewishness seems ethnic, cultural, and religious to me and not something that exists purely on a spiritual plain (note, I'm being facetious as ever, and I don't imagine that this is the sum of Hill's exposition of these verses). The words "Jew" and "circumcision" were prestige terms that one could claim, boast about, and appeal to as the grounds for one's status before God and membership in a community. What is interesting in Romans 2:25-29 (forgetting the controversy around 2.13-16 for now) is that this is where we find Paul's first reference to imputation! Paul there states clearly that the circumcised can have their circumcision came to naught if they fail to keep the law. Conversely, the uncircumcised can be reckoned (logisthesetai) as circumcised if they do keep the law (2.26). In fact, by the power of the Spirit that is exactly what these Gentile persons do and that is why I and others like Tom Schreiner think the Gentiles in Rom 2.25-29 are Christian Gentiles. These Gentiles have a circumcision of the heart (yes, a spiritual circumcision) that is better than a physical circumcision, importantly, this circumcision of the heart promised in the Torah gives everything that physical circumcision does and more. These Gentiles also receive praise from God (and I wonder if praise here might actually be almost salvific/forensic, i.e., acceptance, regard, and embrace by God). But if circumcision is a designation of the identity as a Jew and the benefits and privileges that go with it, then, the first thing imputed to Gentiles in Romans is membership in the covenant people.

To recap, I've argued elsewhere (e.g., SROG) that righteousness cannot be limited to covenant membership. However, I find it impossible to read Romans and Galatians without identifying Paul's language of righteousness with the ethnic, corporate, and ecclesial issues of the identity of the people of God beside the matter of the basis of their acceptance before God through faith in Jesus Christ. That is why a number of commentators as diverse as Peter O'Brien and Francis Watson and myself argue that justification has horizontal and vertical dimensions.

The Great Exchange

I'm reading through Michael Holmes' excellent translation of the Apostolic Fathers (3rd edition, Baker, 2007 - do buy this book) and read this amazing quote from the Diognetus:

"He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grduge against us; instead he was paitent and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guitless for the guilty, the unjust for the just, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners? (Ep. Diogn. 9.2-5).

If I didn't know better I would have sworn that I was reading either Calvin, Luther, Owen, or Piper.

The Saving Righteousness of God

Today I received in the post copies of my book, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007). I hope this book comes across as being soundly biblical, compelling in its arguments, gracious and fair in its criticisms of others, and a useful tool for the church in an age of controversy over Paul's theology of righteousness.

For those interested, you can order copies from Paternoster now. I imagine that it will be available from Amazon and Koorong shortly. Here are the endorsements:

"In a debate where the worst of Protestant in-fighting has been revived and the 'spirit of slavery' has been more influential than 'the Spirit of adoption', Michael Bird's treatment is more than welcome. His is a calm, judicious and eirenic voice amid the welter of paranoid accusation and counter-accusation, which ought to be heard widely, and - more important - ought to be heeded. Perhaps then the world will be able to say again, 'See how these Christians love one another' - without sneering!'

- James D. G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, University of Durham.

"For fair treatment and thoroughness of coverage, including that of literature which usually flies under most scholars' radar, this book is probably unmatched."

- Robert H. Gundry, Scholar-in-residence and Professor Emeritus, Westmont College.

"The so-called 'new perspective' continues to exercise a profound effect on studies of both Judaism and Paul. Students may well be confused by the complexities of the debate, but Michael Bird helpfully shows how fruitful insights can be derived from scholars on both sides of it. This fresh and sane approach to a difficult area will clarify the essential issues for students and preachers alike as they wrestle with expounding the thought of Paul for the contemporary church."

- I. Howard Marshall, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, Aberdeen University.

"The study of what Paul means by 'justification' has hopped its railed, and now scholars from opposing perspectives - traditional Reformed theology and the New perspective - have exited the train and are standing on opposite sides of the track tossing stones at one another. Michael Bird has called for a peace plan, and his proposal of an incorporated righteousness not only offers peace but can actually get the train back on its tracks so we can get on with moving the gospel into our world. This study deserves a 'nobel peace prize in Theology'".

- Scot McKnight Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies, North Park University, Chicago.

My deepest thanks to my family, friends, colleagues, students, several editors of journals and at Paternoster (Anthony Cross and Robin Parry), for the generous words of the above-named scholars, and esp. my daughters to whom the book is dedicated.

As Beethoven often wrote at the end of his compositions, SDG!