This morning my son Nicholas (age 6) described to me how to use food coloring to make a flower turn two different colors. He then told me that he wanted to do this with grass. I wanted to help him understand that the dark color of grass would make it harder to see the color change, so I asked him, “What color is grass?”

Without a moment’s hesitation he answered, “Brown.”

My wife burst out in laughter, and I hung my head in defeat. The reality of our lawn the past two summers trumped the answer I hoped for. I only wish that the reality of the text of the Bible was allowed to trump our doctrines, our expected answers. But reality is just crazy talk.

Some in the cessationist camp have felt that we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. That is, we believe that the sign gifts have ceased, but then we act like the Holy Spirit has ceased as well! Can one be a cessationist and still believe that the Holy Spirit does anything today? Maybe even something miraculous? Maybe even something subjective? What does the Holy Spirit do today? I had the privilege to get together with a group of pastors (all cessationists) recently to discuss this issue and it was fascinating to see the variety of opinions among them. Cessationism is certainly not a monolithic entity. Another group of cessationists (this group consisting of academics) asked the same questions and the result of their inquiry was a fairly recent book entitled Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? Here are some of the highlights of the book.

Soapbox alert! One of my personal problems is with Christmas carols that end up being heretical. I still sing them, but I mutter to myself. I suppose we can say that they are just poetry and so have poetic license, but this seems to be stretching it. Here are two examples.

 Hark the Herald Angels Sing

"Veiled in the flesh the Godhead see"

The problem with this is simply that Jesus was not "God in a bod" or "God in a spacesuit". Jesus was not simply veiled in flesh, he was human. This is the view of docetism (denying the human side of Jesus) or Apollonarius (denying a human mind to Jesus),  both views which were condemned in the early church. I understand what Wesley was trying to say here, and I don't think he was heretical. But I do think it is poor theological imagery.

Silent Night

Why was it silent? Did Jesus not cry when he was born?  Was he not human? Because he was God did that mean he didn't do the things that humans do?

OK getting off my soapbox.  

            The edition of On the Unity of Christ by Cyril of Alexandria which I read has a useful historical background introduction at the beginning of the book. This introduction covers both the life of Cyril as well as giving an overview of his theology. This kind of introduction, which the other books did not have, was a very helpful contribution for me. The only critique I had of the introduction was the strong pro-Cyril attitude. The author is out to rescue the name of Cyril, and so he makes Nestorius the “bad guy” of the story. Unfortunately, there is no discussion at all in regards to the issue of what Nestorius himself actually believed based on the material he wrote near the end of his life, which sounds very little like the Nestorius that Cyril argues against. While it very well may be that Nestorius has changed his mind, it would only be fair at least to include information about these writings and the current historical debate on the exact content of Nestorius’ belief in the introduction. 

The style of the book itself is refreshingly set up as a dialogue between two conversation partners, although since they are never identified it is apparently purely a rhetorical effect. Cyril, as the title indicates, argues for the unity of Christ, as opposed to a conjunction of the two natures as Nestorius argued. Since this work is probably a later work, it is apparently written not against Nestorius himself but against continuing Antiochene influence in the church. Cyril’s argument is fairly clear throughout the work and easy to follow, especially since he repeats himself on occasion. He not only argues against Nestorius and Apollonarius, but he also argues against the later error of Eutychus by saying that the two natures are neither confused or mingled (terminology that appears in the Creed of Chalcedon itself). Cyril’s methodology includes every Scriptural and logical argument he can think of, which are then put into an order which I was not able to discern upon a first reading.

The work by Basil is considerably different than that of Cyril. Basil is fighting the group which stated that the Holy Spirit was fundamentally different than God. While Basil never calls the Holy Spirit “God” he makes it clear throughout his work that this is what he believes, and the lack of a direct statement is theologically astute because it protects Basil from modalism. The specific issue Basil is discussing is the use of prepositions in doxological statements. Basil bases his argument upon extensive discussion of these prepositions as they are used in Scripture as well as a broad array of Scriptural arguments for the Trinity as he understands it. His argument is quite logical and progresses step by step through all the evidence he presents. While he does spend an excessive amount of time on prepositions, this is no grammatical text, but a pastoral desire to see follow people God in a better fashion.

The work by Athanasius begins with an introduction by C.S. Lewis, a note from the translator and a survey of the life of Athanasius. Athanasius wrote On the Incarnation when he was still young and before the Arian controversy had broken out, but the book fits the theology of the rest of his life quite well. The book is in the form of a letter to a certain Macarius in which Athanasius undertakes to explain the Christian faith and the Incarnation in particular. Methodologically he uses the entire metanarrative of history to show how the incarnation is needed. He begins with creation and the fall, demonstrates how the incarnation was needed to fix the divine dilemma, discusses the death and resurrection of Jesus and ends with refutations specifically of the Jews and the Gentiles. I enjoyed reading how Athanasius fit the incarnation into the whole Bible, including the Old Testament: it was not simply a truncated view of the New Testament. The book ends with an appendix which is a letter Athanasius wrote Marcellinus about the interpretation of the Psalms. In this letter he tells his reader the kind of time of life to read virtually every Psalm, based on what is found in the Psalm. While modern readers will debate about whether he was exactly right with each psalm, I think that he has understood the psalms much better than most moderns: the psalms are not to be read simply for intellectual knowledge.

The final two books are compilations of primary sources based around a theme. The first theme is the Trinitarian controversy and includes a selection of writings from most of the main individuals in the debate, including Arius, Alexander, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, as well as the decrees of the council of Antioch and Nicea. Before the writings a historical survey is given to help the reader place the selections into their historical context. The historical overview of the Trinitarian controversy tended towards extreme language at points. A prime example of this is the claim that “[n]o doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament” (2). While it is true that the wording of Nicene is not found there, Nicene does not seem to be a conceptual advance over the New Testament, only a linguistic development. 

The purpose for putting this collection together was multifaceted. It was desired to give English readers a way to read about the debate from the participants themselves instead of being filtered through a secondary interpretation. One of the main hoped for results is increase a sense of the ecumenical spirit as the readers grapple with the diversity that was present in the early church (vii). The methodology is an essentially chronological selection of important texts from the debate, beginning with an historical overview but otherwise presenting no comments on the texts.

Several of the selections were highlights for my reading. The canons of Nicea (51-56) were helpful in illuminating what other issues were important to the bishops of the day, such as castration of bishops, the lapsed, the prohibition of bishops from moving from city to city, and whether one should kneel or stand for prayer. The letter by Eusbius to his church was a fascinating exercise in politics, as Eusebius tries to convince them that his own version has won the day. He goes so far as to explain how to get around the anathematizing of “before he was begotten, he was not”: even before he existed in actuality, he existed in potentiality (60). Athansius coins a great phrase: “Arian-maniacs” (65) This is a helpful book for understanding the debate. Apparently Princeton uses this book in their MDiv theology classes.

The last book was centered around the Christological controversy. Similar to the other volume, it opened with an historical overview and then without further comment presented the works of the major players in the debate, such as Melito, Irenaeus, Origen, Apollinaris, Theodore, Nestorius, and Cyril.

Several of the writings contained interesting points. Melito’s thoughts on the Passover intrigued me for reasons other than Christology.  His homiletics shown through brilliantly with such examples as the Egyptian man who claimed that he was third born, so that the angel of death would not kill (but the angel knew he was lying, so his plan did not work) (36). Melito says that “the events which happen are unimportant apart from their character as parables and as preliminary sketches” (37), a comment which sounds almost modernistic liberal, as he argues that the historicity of the events do not matter. Athanasius remarked that the phrasing “he bore” (Matthew 8:17) is important: if it was simply “he cured”, then it would simply be someone from the outside doing something to us, and would leave us to sin again, instead of fundamentally taking care of the problem (89-90).

Several characteristics appear throughout most of these primary sources. Most of the writers do not treat their opponents in a kind manner. For example, Cyril has strong words throughout his work for his opponent, such as the comment that a certain idea “is nothing but foolishness and stupidity, the frenzy of a crazed mind” (53). These writers treated theology with the utmost importance and worked very hard to convince others of the correctness of their viewpoint.

Another common characteristic is that the authors display a stunning acquaintance with the Bible. In the days before computers and the printing press, their knowledge of verses and ideas from diverse place in the Bible is very impressive. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they practice the same kind of procedure as I have heard too often in evangelical pulpits: the preacher has a great idea and needs to find a text to give authority to his idea.

The hermeneutics of these authors is a fascinating subject. They make some good arguments from contexts of which I would not have thought, although sometimes I would not make the same argument. Cyril argues against the conjunction idea of the incarnation by appealing to psalmic passages where the psalmist says he is bound to God. Since the psalmist is not thereby worshipped, then neither should the son who is conjoined to God. But since the son is indeed worshipped, the conjoining idea is wrong (73).

Many of the logical arguments used by the fathers were also somewhat suspicious in my ears. For example, Athanasius argues for the orthodox view on the basis of its lacking a specific name. As soon as a group gets a name (Arians, Marcionites, Valentinians, etc.), they have passed over into heresy. But a Christian is simply a Christian, because they follow Christ and not a person (64-65).

One of the greatest contributions of reading these authors is that we get a sense of the times and how people thought. Seeing Scripture and theology from other perspectives helps to show us blind spots in our own theology and understanding. While the effect is much more dramatic if we travel to other countries, a similar effect can be found by reading the primary sources in history. Part of this effect is seeing what kinds of beliefs are automatically assumed by them, such as the impassibility of God by Cyril (117). An underlying anti-Semitism can be seen on occasion, such as the reference by Basil to the Jews of Stephen’s time as “Christ-killers” (45). Basil assumes it is clear that salvation is through baptism. “How are we saved? Obviously through the regenerating grace of baptism” (46).  Basil assumes that slavery can be a good institution on occasion (80). The repeated references by Arius to Alexander as “Pope” was disconcerting at first (29). It is easy to forget that “Pope” was not always limited to the bishop of Rome.

In contrast to the previous thought, on the other hand, it is also interesting how some things never change. Even though many assumptions are different, many of the same battles are being fought today. For example, Athanasius records the various views of the creation of the world, which sound fairly similar to some of the battle lines today in that very area (26-27).

I am taking a PhD class on Pauline Justification this semester with Doug Moo. For those of you who are interested, here is our work load and class outline.

Part One: Background. We read hundreds of pages of statements about justification from Aquinas to Calvin to various confessions and discussed those viewpoints in class, culminating in the recent ecumenical statements about justification. Then we looked at righteousness in the OT and examined many of the contexts in which it is found. One of the primary questions for the OT data is to what degree righteousness  is connected with covenant. For this section we read a variety of essay, such as some from the two collections of essays in Justification and Variegated Nomism. We also read the entire book by Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul.

Part Two: New Perspective on Paul. Each of us in the class were assigned an author who has an interesting view of justification, including Peter Stuhlmacher, James Dunn, NT Wright, John Piper, Mark Seifrid, Richard Moore, and Kent Yinger. We then read everything that those authors wrote about justificaiton, wrote a 2000 word review article and presented it to the class. I read NT Wright, and my paper will be appearing here shortly.

Part Three: Exegetical Survey. We just go through the relevant passages in Greek, such as those in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans.

Part Four: Seminar Presentations. Each of us writes a research paper on some topic related to Pauline justification and present it to the class.  

N. T. Wright is a very important figure in the debate about justification going on today. While N. T. Wright may not be the founder of the New Perspective on Paul, he seems to be the one who has brought it to the church. I have many friends who have never heard of E. P. Sanders or James Dunn but who love N. T. Wright. He is one of those unique individuals who seem to be equally at home in academia as in the church. His series Christian Origins and the Question of God demonstrates his academic ability and the influence his work has had on a wide variety of scholars. But he also actually lives in the real world, as he is not only the active bishop of Durham but also has written a sizeable number of popular level works.¹ This ability to write for a popular audience in clear terms has helped New Perspective on Paul views to spread to a much wider audience than they would have otherwise.²

Having said this, Wright dislikes being put into the broad “NPP” category and takes many opportunities to show how he differs from E. P. Sanders and James Dunn.³ He says he came to his view on his own before E. P. Sanders published his watershed work Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.⁴ Wright began his justification journey because he was confused as to how to reconcile the anti-law view of Galatians with the pro-law view of Romans. One night he read Romans 10:3 in a new light, seeing the righteousness of God not as a moral issue but as an “ethnic status based on the performance of Torah,"⁵ and everything came together for him. He read the entirety of Galatians that night and his new outlook on righteousness helped him to understand it in a way that made sense to him.

This independent arrival at the New Perspective on Paul is important for Wright since it means that he is not simply following Sanders or Dunn, but came to his view through a study of the text.⁶ Wright desires to show that he is not being trendy or rejecting the Reformation, but is just doing what Luther or Calvin would have done, which is paying close attention to the text. He still views himself as a Reformed theologian, he is just “moving some of the labels around in obedience to Scripture”.⁷ This claim to be a consistent Reformed theologian has been challenged by several, however, who do not appreciate his moving around the labels on the theological shelf. While Wright has been skewered by the liberal side of the spectrum for his views on Jesus, he receives considerable more criticism from the conservative side for his view on Paul and justification.

1. Douglas Wilson comments about Wright that “one of the gentleman's strengths appears to be that he can write faster than I can read” (“N. T. Wright and All That,” Anvil 13.3, n. p. [cited February 8, 2008], Online: www.credenda.org/issues/13-3anvil.php).

2. Just for some examples of this widespread appeal, Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said is ranked #11,572 (#1 in books on the theology of Paul) on Amazon.com, while James Dunn’s Theology of Apostle Paul is at #65,357. Wright’s bestselling book is Simply Christian, which is currently at #997 (cited 2-9-2008).

3. N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 243-264, 246-248, “The Shape of Justification,” n. p. (cited February 11, 2008), online: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html.

            Wright does not claim to deny the content of the classic doctrine of justification by faith alone, as he affirms many aspects of it. What he does claim is that this doctrine is not what the words usually translated as “justify” are talking about in the New Testament.¹ Justification according to N. T. Wright seems to me to boil down to three essential foundations, although these are not entirely separate and other aspects could also be considered foundation. These foundations are seeing justification as forensic, keeping the focus upon the covenant and viewing justification as past, present, and future.

            The first major foundation for Wright is that justification for Paul is based on a forensic background, especially in the Second Temple Jewish law court.  This law court had three parties: the judge, the plaintiff and the defendant. The righteous of the judge is quite different from the righteousness of the latter two. The judge is righteous when the case is handled in a correct and impartial manner. The plaintiff or the defendant, on the other hand, is righteous in a different sense. Their righteousness does not refer to their moral standing, but to the “status as a result of the decision of the court”.²

The second foundation for Wright’s view of justification is the covenant. The covenant allows him to put justification into the meta-narrative of the Bible, so that it is not an afterthought or an appendage, but an integral part of the Bible as a whole. The sin in Genesis 3 ruined what God had designed in Genesis 1-2, and the nations continue in directions opposed to God in the subsequent chapters of Genesis 3-11. The covenant with Abraham is not made because God has given up on the nations, but the point of the Abrahamic covenant is to save the nations: “Abraham emerges within the structure of Genesis as the answer to the plight of all humankind."¹ The story of the Old Testament is the story of the covenant and God’s faithfulness to it.² The righteousness of God in the Old Testament is to be understood, according to Wright, through the lens of covenant. Righteousness is God’s covenant faithfulness or loyalty, his dedication to stand by his promise.³ 

           Wright moves to the New Testament through the literature of the Second Temple Period. God had not been shown to complete the covenant, and so the Jews were waiting for covenant faithfulness of God to be shown to them and for the exile to be ended. As mentioned earlier, the idea of righteousness was also influenced by the Second Temple Jewish law court: God is the cosmic judge who will make all things right. There is tension between these influences: God must show covenant faithfulness to Israel and he must also be the righteous judge and punish guilty Israel.⁴ How would these conflicting roles be resolved? The conclusion of this covenant faithfulness and righteous judge is what God did in Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is Lord, which is the content of the gospel for Wright.

1. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 262.

2. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 118-120.

3. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” 252-254; Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 100-103.

4. N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and Reflection,” in The New Interpreters Bible, 13 volumes (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 10: 398-401; Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 117-118.

5. Wright, Romans, 10:402, Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” 248-249.

            The third foundation which influences Wright’s view of justification is the time frame of justification. In traditional Protestant theology justification is a one-time event that happens at the beginning of salvation. But for Wright justification is past, present, and future.

“This declaration will be made on the last day on the basis of an entire life (Romans 2:1-16), but is brought forward into the present on the basis of Jesus’ achievement, because sin has been dealt with through his cross (Romans 3:21-4:25); the means of this present justification is simply faith”.¹ 

Justification is past in that it is based on the work of Christ. It is present because it is a forensic declaration that the person is now a member of the people of God on the basis of faith. It is future, most controversially, because of the future judgment before God when the works of a believer will be examined. There is no possible discrepancy between present and future justification because the Holy Spirit will work on the person so that they will, without a doubt, produce the good works that lead to a positive judgment later on in the future justification.²
 

Wright builds on all of these foundations when he defines justification according to Paul. “It is God’s declaration that a person is in the right—that is, (a) that the person’s sins have been forgiven and (b) that he or she is part of the single covenant family promised to Abraham”.¹ The quotation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4 is not to be separated from its context in Genesis, but is to be connected with the covenant. Abraham is not a random example, but chosen specifically show Paul’s point about the covenant. Those who are justified are like Abraham not only in their faith but also in that they have become part of his family.² 

Wright says that the initial moment of relationship between the believer and God is not justification, but is referred to by Paul as the “call”. Following the train of thought in Romans 8:29-30, he sees justification as based upon the call and thus reflecting reality.³ Faith is not something done to enter the covenant people, but it shows that one has become a member of the covenant family, in contrast to the Torah and the works therein which many Jews were using as a badge of membership in the people of God.⁴
 As mentioned earlier, justification actually happens twice: once in the future on the basis of the whole life of the person and once in the present in anticipation of the future justification.⁵ 

The result of Wright’s view of justification is that it has profound implications for table fellowship in the church. The boundary lines in the church are not between Jew and Gentile and between other nationalities and social groups, but between those who live holy lives and those who are still living in the flesh.⁶ Jesus Christ is true Israel, and all who belong to him are right with God.⁷ 

            As almost all reviewers say about Wright, there is much here to appreciate. One aspect that I particularly appreciated was his emphasis on the worldwide focus of the Abrahamic covenant, a focus I learned from another Wright.¹ To think that God has given up on the nations and is now focusing upon Israel purely for Israel’s sake is to badly misread the text. Other aspects of Wright’s view which are worthy of appreciation are his coherent meta-narrative and his close attention to the text. 

            There are a variety of areas where I have concern with Wright’s view. His covenant reading of the Old Testament is helpful but overdone. While some have argued that covenant is the center of the Old Testament, there are too many loose ends to make it work, loose ends which Wright does not deal with. This is particularly evident in his wholesale understanding of צדק  as covenant loyalty, when the word group cannot be limited to such a narrow range.

I think that the basis for the future justification is weak. I do not think that Romans 2 requires a future justification since the futures can be read in other ways and not as temporal futures. Not only is there difficulty exegetically with future justification and go against the large stream of interpretive history, it also leads to problems about the ground of present justification and imputation.  

            Wright’s view of imputation is not immediately clear. He rejects the imputed righteousness of Christ except in a very specific sense, saying that neither 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 nor 2 Corinthians 5:21 prove the point.¹ But he also says that our incorporation into the Messiah takes care of the same area: when God looks at us, he sees Christ, but not simply the imputed righteousness of Christ.² Based on the law court metaphor, Wright argues that it is to mix categories to say that the people have the righteousness of God: God’s righteousness is his covenant loyalty; it is not something that can be given to the people.³

This view of imputation and future justification leads to what seems to be somewhat of a conflict in regards to the ground of justification. Is the person justified because of what Jesus did or because of the future justification or some combination thereof? What is the relationship between the work of Christ and the future justification? He says that “justification by faith… is the anticipation in the present of the justification that will occur in the future, and gains its meaning from this anticipation”.⁴ This seems to drift towards some kind of works salvation, since justification is based on the whole life, although Wright strongly denies accusations of works salvation.⁵

One further disquieting feeling I have when reading Wright is related to one of his strengths: his presentation of a coherent meta-narrative. Being trained as a chemist, I like a well-ordered system as much as anyone. But my postmodern side makes me question well-ordered systems, such as the one Wright presents. The very lack of loose ends makes me wonder what has gotten chopped off to make everything fit into the box. But then, maybe I am just too postmodern.

Some of you, Charlie in particular, thought this post series was finished...but that was only wishful thinking.  In this, the last in this series, I attempt to provide some thinking about the application of this paper.  I have not forgotten those of you who have commented on the previous entries.  I will do my best to respond to you within the next 2 months.  Actually, in Charlie's case, this may provide some manner of response.