Distinction between Justification and Sanctification

Paul Helm has a good post on Calvin's Stroke of Genius in articulating the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification. I agree with the distinction, and I think it is impossible to explain the charge of antinomianism that Paul had to respond to (Rom. 3.7-8; Acts 21.21; Jas. 2.14-26) if he was merging sanctification and justification.

But a larger problem that looms on the Reformed side is how one integrates eschatology into their understanding of justification and sanctification. Calvin never covered this point as far as I can tell, and I have noticed a number of Reformed authors implying or insisting that to attribute to justification a not-yet or future element is tantamount to embracing a Tridentine view of justification. However, I submit that justification has a future element (see Rom. 2.13-16, 10.9-10, Gal. 5.5, etc) and many commentators such as G.Vos, G.E. Ladd, H. Ridderbos, and L. Morris have appropriately articulated it. I think there is fundamental misunderstanding in some circles that to postulate a future or not-yet dimension to justification is to engage in a double-justification - one by faith and another by works (as Martin Bucer held) - or to see justification as a process of becoming just (e.g. Trent). But this is hardly a necessary corollary; eschatology pervades the entire matrix of Paul's theology, ethics, and view of ministry. It is not to be feared or explained away.

Forthcoming WUNT Monograph

My good friend Preston Sprinkle, now teaching at Cedarville University in the USA, will have his Ph.D Thesis (written at Aberdeen) published in January of next year with Mohr-Siebeck in the WUNT series.

Preston M. Sprinkle
Law and Life: The Interpretationof Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul (WUNT; Tuebingen:Mohr-Siebeck, 2008).

This thesis examines the interpretation of Lev 18:5 (“…which if a person does he will live by them”) in early Judaism and in Paul. This passage from Leviticus, used in later OT tradition (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; Neh 9:29), became one of the more important verses from the Hebrew Bible for early Jewish reflection on the notion that obedience to the Mosaic law will lead to eternal life. The apostle Paul cites the passage on two occasions (Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5) and his interpretation of it is highly debated. While scholars often discuss its meaning in Paul, a thorough examination of Lev 18:5 in the OT and early Judaism has been virtually ignored. This thesis, then, seeks to contribute to our understanding of Paul’s view of the law in relation to early Jewish soteriology through the lens of their respective interpretations of Lev 18:5.

First, I look at the original context of Lev 18, along with its later interpretations in Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint. Second, I examine its interpretive tradition in early Judaism (200 B.C.E.–100 C.E.). The documents examined here include the Damascus Document, the Words of the Luminaries, the Psalms of Solomon, Philo’s De Congressu, and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. Many of these documents understand Lev 18:5 along similar lines: obedience to the law is a necessary pre-condition for the attainment of eternal life. Third, I examine the use of Lev 18:5 in Paul, where it is cited on two occasions and each time opposed to other OT passages, Hab 2:4 (in Gal 3:11–12) and Deut 30:12–14 (in Rom 10:5–8). Paul opposed Lev 18:5, we argue, because it expresses a soteriological formulation that is contrary to the gospel of faith. Leviticus 18:5 requires human deeds as a pre-condition for eternal life, while the gospel of faith testifies to God’s unilateral saving action. Following our study of Paul, we conclude with a comparison between early Jewish and Pauline views of Lev 18:5. Here, we note the similarities and differences between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries on this passage and offer some implications for Paul’s view of the law.

Roger Olson on Calvinism

Roger Olson of Baylor University said : "The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil."

If I may retort: "The God of Arminianism scares me; I am not sure how to distinguish him from a wicked Surf Life Saviour who would like to save me from drowning in the ocean, but only on condition that I swim out to meet him half way".

HT: Justin Taylor

That said, Roger Olson's book Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities, is (I'm told) the best expression of Arminian Theology to date.

CT Article: From the Seminaries to the Pews

Over at Christianity Today there is a sequal to Simon Gathercole's article (What Did Paul Really Mean?) called: From the Seminaries to the Pews: The 'new perspective on Paul' gets the popular treatment by Collin Hansen.

Jack Spong's New Book

There can be no doubt that Bishop Jack Spong is an absolutely brilliant man! Think about it - he has found a way to get paid a bucket load of money for writing absolute drivel, while the rest of us soldier away at doing lengthy, rigorous, and in-depth scholarly research only to earn enough royalties to buy a Happy Meal at McDonalds.

Anyway, my good friend Ben Myers has a review of Spong's latest book which is both irenic and penetrating in his assessment of Spong.

Peter Stuhlmacher on Biblical Theology

This quote ain't bad for a German guy:

"The longer I work in this area, the more it amazes and worries me that both the world of biblical scholarship and the Church no longer only accept with gratitutde the biblical Word of God, but also continually rebel against its claims and authority" (p. ix.)

"The unity of the New Testament, which cannot be separated from the Old, lies in God's gospel of Jesus Christ" (p. xii).

Peter Stuhlmacher, How to Do Biblical Theology (PTMS 38; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995).

Howard Marshall's new book

The Christian understanding of the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ and its relationship to the salvation of sinful humanity is currently the subject of intense debate and criticism.The papers covering this important area are expanded versions of the 2006 series of Chuen King Lectures given in the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

In the first two chapters Howard Marshall discusses the nature of the human plight in relation to the judgment of God and then offers a nuanced defence of the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for sinners. The third chapter examines the place of the resurrection of Christ as an integral part of the process whereby sinners are put in the right with God. In the final chapter argues that in our communication of the gospel today the New Testament concept of reconciliation may be the most comprehensive and apt expression of the lasting significance of the death of Christ.

I. Howard Marshall is Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Honorary Research Professor at the University of Aberdeen.

I have seen the third chapter of this book and it is well written and persuasively builds a case that justification is indebted to the resurrection as well as the cross (for those who have read SROG, you'll know that such a conclusion is dear to my heart). The book is available directly from Paternoster.

John Webster on the Historical Jesus

I am in Edinburgh for the Dogmatics Conference (Dorothy, we ain't in biblical exegesis-land anymore!). John Webster's paper, "The Eternal Begetting of the Son" finished with this statement:

"The only historical Jesus there is is the one who has his being in union with the Son of God who is eternally begotten of the Father. Those who pore over the gospels searching for another Jesus (whether their motives be apologetic or critical) pierce their hearts with many pangs, for they study a matter which does not exist."

Blogs by my Students

Over the summer several of my students at HTC have started blogs, including:

The Word Alone by Daniel Patterson

Reformed Christian UK by Stephen Barton

Eldership Matters by Peter Wilson (who is getting ready to start posting)

In addition, David Kirk is blogging his way through Neil and Wright on the history of NT interpretation.

Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish-Christian Gospels

Every weekend I try to take home one to two journal articles to read. This weekend it has been:

Peter Balla, "Does Acts 2:36 Represent an Adoptionist Christology?" EJTh 2 (1996): 137-42.

Andrew Gregory, "Jewish-Christian Gospels," ExpTim 118 (2007): 521-29.

A few things come up for mention:

1. Adoptionism.

Does Acts 2.36 and Rom. 1.3-4 teach that Jesus only became the Son at his resurrection? Balla clearly thinks not since he finds enough evidence that Luke already believed that Jesus was the Messiah and Son prior to the resurrection. For Luke the term "made" (epoieesen) means "made known" rather than "made into existence". But was the same view held by the early church? Well, that depends on what one thinks of the speeches in Luke-Acts (see Martin Dibelius, F.F. Bruce, Marion Soabards, and Colin Hemer on that one). I tend to think that Luke has represented fairly accurately the kerygma of the early church, he certainly doesn't Paulinze the other Apostles, despite the fact that Paul is his hero. Early Christian exegesis of Psalms 2 and 110 was not necessarily taken in an adoptionist direction, but focused on (a) public nature of God's work in vindicating and enthroning Jesus, and (b) the kingly nature of Jesus' reign from the Father's side. On Romans 1.3-4, where Jesus is "designated (horizo) the Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead" is not the refering the conferal of sonship not otherwise possessed, but the translation of his sonship to a new eschatological function that he did not previous discharge (see commentaries by Dunn and Moo).

I find it interesting that certain scholars (I think perhaps of Dunn in Unity and Diversity in the NT as one example but I'll have to check), argues that later Jewish Christology was adoptionistic (e.g. the Ebionites) and their christology was censured as heretical, and yet (so it goes), it was the same christology of the early church. If Balla's analysis is right, that assumption needs to be questioned. Mention should also be given to Richard Longenecker's book The Christology of early Jewish Christianity which is worth consulting.

2. Jewish Christian Gospels.

Andrew Gregory is a rising star at Oxford (he has red hair too which obviously counts in his favour). I'm awaiting his work on Jewish Christian Gospels which will be a good read no doubt. Anyone willing to amass together all the quotations of the Jewish Christian Gospels from the Church Fathers and try to make sense of them deserve a medal. I tried making a list once and got confused, dizzy, and bored, so I gave up. His Expository Times article is a good preview of what is to come.

One good thing that Gregory does is that he contests the view that there were three Jewish Christian Gospels: (a) The Gospel according to the Hebrews; (b) the Gospel of the Nazoraeans; and (c) The Gospel of the Ebionites. There are several issues here. First, the Gospel of the Ebionites is known only from Epiphanius and what he has to say on the topic does not always leave us with great confidence that he knows what he's talking about. Second, one or more of these Jewish Christian Gospels may be no more than a Hebrew version of Matthew with textual omissions (i.e. the virgin birth) and textual additions that were noted by the Church Fathers. This latter view may explain the Gospel of Nazoraeans. The number of Jewish Christian Gospels would be a wonderful Ph.D topic for some brave soul.

Jesus' Life, Death, and the Atonement

Steve Bryan in his (luke-warm) review of Scot McKnight's book, Jesus and His Death, in the March edition of JETS, has a very good introduction to his review:

In teaching courses on Jesus, I have often asked this question: "Would it matter if Jesus had died in a rickshaw accident in Calcutta or by a stray bullet in inner-city Los Angeles or as a tuberculosis victim in Addis Ababa as long as he died as the sinless Son of God?" My purpose in asking this question is to provoke students to consider the way in which evangelical soteriology is often abstracted from the historical circumstances in which Jesus lived and died, cut off from the story of Israel and often even from the story of Jesus' own life. Many evangelicals have never considered the way in which the individual confession that "Jesus died for me", or the universal confession that "Jesus died for the word" is tied in Scripture to the particular story of God's dealings with Israel. The reticence of evangelicals to take up the study of the historical Jesus is perhaps symptomatic of the real challenge that such study presents to evangelical theology. That is not to say that evangelical soteriology need be threatened by the study of Jesus as a person with aims and intentions that were sensible within a first-century Jewish context. Rather, it is simply to point out that much evangelical soteriology is formulated in such a way as to take little accont of Jesus' own understanding of his death. Against this tendency, Scot McKnight's work faces squarely the historical question of Jesus' understanding of his death. There is much to praise in McKnight's work, but its greatest contribution is the clarion call to anchor soteriology in the mission of Jesus, especially in Jesus' interpretation of his death.

Friday is for Quotes: J. Oswald Sanders

One book I try to read once every two years is J. Oswald Sanders' book Spiritual Leadership, which includes this quote:

"True Greatness, true leadership, is achieved not by reducing men to one’s service but in giving oneself in selfless service to them. And that is never done without cost."

I say this while preparing my sermon series on "Shepherding under God" which features three sermons on Ezekiel 34, John 10.1-21, and 1 Peter 5.1-5.

Why Scotland is the Place for Systematic and Historical Theology

I am proud to announce that HTC has just acquired the talents of Gerald Bray and Paul Helm as part-time lecturers in theology. They will teach in the Master of Reformed Theology course and also supervise Ph.D candidates (contact HTC if you'd like to do a Ph.D under their supervision). The UHI-Millennium Institute news is here and the brief reads:

HTC welcomes new chairs

Professor Paul Helm and Dr Gerald Bray have joined the staff of Highland Theological College UHI in a part-time capacity. Both are well-known scholars in the Reformed tradition with many publications to their names.

Professor Helm is a philosopher who formerly taught at King’s College, London, and at Regents College, Vancouver. Dr Bray taught at Oakhill Theological College in London and more recently at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama. He is currently director of research for the Latimer Trust.

The new chairs will each supervise three or four PhD students and will also teach two MTh modules (or BA hons modules) at HTC.

The Pistis Christou Debate at SBL

On seminar to attend will be:

The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies

11/16/2007, 12:30 PM to 5:30
PMRoom: 28 A - CC

Michael Bird, Highland Theological College
The Faith of Jesus Christ: Problems and Prospects (15 min)

Joel Willitts, North Park University
The Saving Value of "Faithfulness" in Jewish Traditions (30 min)

Stanley Porter, McMaster Divinity College
Lexical and Semantic Reflections on Pistis (30 min)

Douglas Campbell, Duke University
The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min)

Preston Sprinkle, Aberdeen University
Pistis Christou as an Eschatological Event (30 min)Break (15 min)

Ardel Caneday, Northwestern College, St. Paul
The Faithfulness of Jesus as a Theme of Pauline Theology (30 min)

Francis Watson, University of Aberdeen - Scotland
The Faith of Jesus Christ (30 min)

R. Barry Matlock, University of Sheffield
The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min)

Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland
The Faith of Jesus Christ in the Church Fathers (30 min)

Benjamin Myers, University of Queensland
The Faithfulness of Christ in the Theology of Karl Barth (30 min)

Historical Jesus Scholars and their Favourite Gospels

Recent work has left me thinking about how much of the differences among Historical Jesus scholars stems from their preference or favouring of one particular Gospel. For instance:

Albert Schweitzer - Gospel of Matthew

- Schweitzer held (I am pretty sure) to Matthean priority.

- Schweitzer's key verse is Mt. 10.23 which determines the program of Jesus' ministry in Schweitzer's view.

E.P. Sanders - Gospel of Mark

- Sanders favours the Farrer-Goulder option for the Synoptic problem.

- Sanders' Jesus is very much the Jesus of the Marcan outline, and I read somewhere that he has been criticised as such.

N.T. Wright - Gospel of Luke

- Wright is deliberately ambivalent about the Synoptic problem (though he favours Marcan priority) and he supposes that a good Historical Jesus hypothesis is one that does not depend on any particular view of the Synoptic problem

- The vibe I get in reading Jesus and the Victory of God, is that Luke is Wright's default gospel which is apparent especially in his discussions on Lk. 4.16-21, 12.1-59, 13.1-5, 33; 15.1-32; 17.20-22.

John Dominic Crossan - Gospel of Thomas + Q

- Crossan's view of the sources and strata of the Gospel tradition is well-known and frequently criticised (see Dale C. Allison's criticism in particular which are most penetrating).

- Crossan's Jesus is very much derived from the purported non-eschatological layer of Q and from Thomas (see criticisms by Mike Bird "Peril of Modernizing Jesus" EQ [2006] and Gerd Theissen's apt description of the "California Jesus").

Does anyone know of a scholar who privileges the Gospel of John (Ernst Renan?)?

Latest JSHJ

The latest issue of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (not available on-line yet) includes:

John H. Elliott

"Jesus the Israelite was neither a 'Jew' nor a 'Christian': On Correcting a Misleading Nomenclature"

Thomas Kazen

"The Coming Son of Man Revisited"

John P. Meier

"Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths? Part 1"

New books on Jewish Christianity

A couple of books about Jewish Christianity have come out, including:

Jewish Believers in Jesus
Skarsaune, Oskar and Reidar Hvalvik, editors
$49.95
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007
pp. xxx + 930

Description: Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries examines the formative first five centuries of Christian history as experienced by individuals who were ethnically Jewish, but who professed faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Offering the work of an impressive international team of scholars, this unique study examines the first five centuries of texts thought to have been authored or edited by Jewish Christians, including the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the New Testament Apocrypha, and some patristic works. Also considered are statements within patristic literature about Jewish believers and uses of oral traditions from Jewish Christians. Furthermore, the evidence in Jewish, mainly rabbinic, literature is examined, and room is made for a judicious sifting of the archaeological evidence. The final two chapters are devoted to an enlightening synthesis of the material with subsequent conclusions regarding Jewish believers in antiquity.

Jews or Christians?: The Followers of Jesus in Search of their Own Identity
Jossa, Giorgio
€69.00
Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006
pp. viii + 175

Description: When was Christianity born? When was it that Christianity, born as a particular current within Judaism, constituted itself as a religion different and separate from the Jewish religion? The question has been asked, and the problem has therefore been considered, since the historical-critical investigation of Christian origins began. However the problem has become acute only in the last few decades, because of the occurrence of a whole series of circumstances and of reflections that have deeply changed the historiographic understanding regarding Judaism in the first century, and thus the origins of Christianity as well. Traditional opinion considered the founders of Christianity to be Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus. Recent studies however affirm that a Christian religion as distinct from the Jewish religion can be spoken of only much later, and that for the entire first century, and for at least a part of the second century, Christianity was nothing more than a sect within Judaism. Dealing with the problem from an historical point of view, and thus considering not only Christianity of Jewish origin but also that of gentile origin, Giorgio Jossa demonstrates that the birth of a Christian identity as distinct from Jewish identity must actually be dated back to the first period of life of the community of Jesus.

These should be good to read, esp. the one edited by Hvalvik since I have appreciated and enjoyed much of his work on Christian origins and Jewish-Christian relations.

Honour and Shame in Mark's Gospel

When I was in theological college, I took a course on Jesus and the Gospels and my lecturer, Jeff Pugh, introduced us to social-scientific criticism of the New Testament. What I found particularly helpful was his interpretation of the Gospel of Mark through the categories of honour and shame. Jeff showed, with great pathos and pastoral effect, that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus enters into the competitive honour game of challenge-response in the honour stakes in his encounters with his opponents. In fact, as the credentials of his opponents gradually increases in the narratives (Scribes --> Pharisees --> Saducees --> Herodians --> High Priests --> Pilate), Jesus is up to the task. And despite the fact that Jesus' honour is overtly attacked, Jesus emerges as more honourable than his opponents because, despite their protestations, Jesus defends God's honour (see esp. Mk. 3.20-35). Indeed, seeking honour in servitude represents a whole new praxis for his followers to emulate (Mk. 10.41-44), and Jesus makes the "cross", the quintessential symbol of the dishonourable death, the criterion for honouring him and God.

In a fairly recent article, David Watson ('The "Messianic Secret": Demythologizing a Non-Existent Markan Theme,' Journal of Theology) writes:

"Mark not only proposes a new context for securing honour, but through the actions of Jesus promotes new criteria by which honor is established. God's own Son has shown a new way of living, and those who wish to be a part of this new community centered on Jesus must be ready to adopt a vision of honorable behavior quite different from that held by the vast majority of people in the wider culture. By enduring dishonor from outsiders, showing compassion and humility, becoming a servant, and putting others first - all of which Jesus does in Mark's gospel - Christians displayed honorable behavior according to the standards of their own group. Thus, they achieved honor among other Christians."

The Meaning of "Faith" in Paul

John Dominic Cross and Jonathan T. Reed say this about "Faith":

"Faith does not mean intellectual consent to a proposition, but vital commitment to a program. Obviously, one could summarize a program in a proposition, but faith can never be reduced to factual assent rather than total dedication. Faith (pistis) is not just a partial mindset, but a toal lifestyle commitment. The crucial aspect of faith as commitment is that it is always an interactive process, a bilateral contract, a two-way street. Faith is covenantal and presumes faithfulness from both parties with, of course, all appropriate differences and distinctions."

A Prayer for Monday

Mondays need prayer!

O Almight God, who by thy Son Jesus Christ didst give to thy Apostle saint Peter many excellent gifts, and commandst him earnestly to feed thy flock; Make, we beseech thee, all Bishops and Pastors dilligently to preach thy holy Word, and the people obediently to follow the same, that they may receive the crown of everlasting glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

- The Book of Common Prayer, p. 276.