Monthly Archives: January 2010

Schreiner on Judgment According to Works

Posted on by
4

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; …

10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

(Rom 2:6-7,10 ESV)

At first glance, what Paul says in Romans 2:7 (and 2:10) seems to be that you can earn your salvation by good works. The big problem with that, is that he categorically contradicts that idea elsewhere (for example, Rom 3:20 which states that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law). So what exactly does he mean?

Naturally, some are willing to suggest that Paul has indeed contradicted himself, but this seems like a colossal blunder to attribute to someone who is such a coherent thinker.

An alternative approach, is to assume that Paul is speaking hypothetically here. That is, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment”. In many ways, this is a good solution, since it harmonizes well with what Paul says later in chapter 3, while still fitting in with the overall argument of 2:6-11.

However, Schreiner has come up with an alternative and intriguing suggestion:

Paul elsewhere teaches that works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God (cf,. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21). Since Paul asserts that works are necessary for salvation and also that one cannot be justified by works of the law, it is probably that he did not see these two themes as contradictory.

He thus concludes:

in verses 7 and 10 Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit

Apparently he defends this view further in his commentary on 2:25-29, which I haven’t got to yet. In many ways, this idea is connected with his take on “the righteousness of God”, being both “forensic” (it is a declaration) and “transformative” (it actually changes us). Here again we see a synthesis between the two potentially competing concerns of salvation entirely based on grace not works, and a strong expectation that those who receive that salvation will indeed experience a transformation of behaviour.

Schreiner on Forensic and Transformative Righteousness

Posted on by
1

A key phrase for all who want to understand Romans is the meaning of the “righteousness of God”. There have been a variety of different understandings of this term, and in Schreiner’s commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series, he sets forth two main interpretations.

1. Righteousness of God = Believer’s Status

This is Luther’s understanding of the term (Schreiner also lists Calvin, Bultmann, Cranfield and Moo amongst others as proponents). Luther rejected two competing understandings of “the righteousness of God” that were common in his day:

  • that it refers to God’s justice whereby he judges all people impartially
  • that it refers to an infusion of righteousness that would effect inner transformation, or moral renovation

In other words, for Luther (and many others), “the righteousness of God” refers to, and only to, a declaration of right standing before God. It is a purely forensic (legal) term, meaning we are declared not guilty.

2. Righteousness of God = God’s Saving Power

This second point of view, growing in popularity (including Dunn, and Stott recently) does not deny that a righteous status is given, but sees the term “righteousness of God” as more broadly referring to God’s saving power. In other words, it is not only something God gives us but something God does in us.

3. Schreiner’s Synthesis: Righteousness as Forensic and Transformative

Schreiner initially sets out a strong case for a forensic understanding of “the righteousness of God”, from which he concludes that righteousness does indeed have a forensic dimension that is not intrinsic to human beings by nature, but is a divine gift.

But then he goes on to point to the large amount of evidence supporting the second point of view. He therefore concludes that the term “righteousness of God” is both forensic and transformative (though both senses are not always present every time the term is used). These two meanings are not incompatible since “those whom God has vindicated, he also changes”.

He explains the synthesis of these two positions a little more fully here:

The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ’s atoning death. Yet God’s declaration of righteousness – which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age – is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God’s grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God’s grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God’s saving work. … The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other.

What do you think? Is Schreiner trying to have his cake and eat it, or has he uncovered a false dilemma?

Perseverance in 1 Thessalonians

Posted on by
4

There must have been serious questions in Paul’s mind concerning the long-term viability of the church in Thessalonica. The church had barely been formed before Paul and Silas had to move on to Berea due to great opposition (see Acts 17:1-10). This fledgling young church was left in a hostile environment, without anyone obviously qualified to be their pastor, and reliant on a very brief (but intensive) period of teaching from Paul for their Christian doctrine.

Hence there is a strong theme of perseverance running through 1 Thessalonians (and 2 Thess, although I have mainly used examples from 1 Thess). Paul fears that the devil may tempt them to fall away, yet at the same time he has confidence in God’s power to sustain them. This is the paradox of perseverance for Paul – it is assured, but not automatic. His confidence in God does not lead him to be casual about continuing in the faith.

Perseverance is assured

Several verses in 1 Thessalonians demonstrate Paul’s confidence in God to sustain the believers despite the attacks on their faith. He has seen in the work of the Spirit amongst them evidence that they have been chosen (1:4,5). He knows that his evangelism there was not in vain (2:1). The believers do not stand firm in their own strength, but in the Lord (3:8). He knows that their final destiny is not wrath, but salvation (5:9). Ultimately, their perseverance depends on God’s faithfulness, hence it is sure (5:24, 2 Thess 3:3).

Perseverance is not automatic.

Yet, despite this confidence in the faithfulness of God, Paul was greatly concerned, even fearful, that the devil could have got in, and everything that had been done would end up have being “in vain” (3:5). In particular, he knew that suffering and persecution, could be causes of failure to persevere (3:4). It was therefore a source of overwhelming joy and relief for Paul to discover that the Thessalonians were in fact standing firm (3:7-10). He also recognises that he himself cannot presume on his own strength and is also in need of prayer (5:25).

Perseverance is through means of grace

So if perseverance is not automatic, how is it obtained? Paul sees three things as being crucial means of grace, by which God has ordained to keep his people close to himself..

First is constant and persistent prayer on behalf of others. Several times in the letter he expresses his continual prayers for them (1:2, 3:10) as well as encouraging them to be constantly in prayer (5:17) themselves. When he expresses the content of his prayers, it is that they will continually grow in love and holiness, and most importantly, that they will be blameless on the day of the coming of Christ (3:12-13). In other words, he prays that they will not just keep going until the end, but that they would keep growing until the end.

Second is the importance of encouragement and exhortations. This was Paul’s regular practice with all the churches he founded or visited (e.g. Acts 14:22). He did not just “teach” them, but got alongside them and urged them onwards. He was like a father in the way he lovingly but firmly encouraged them (2:11,12). Several times in the letter he urges them to keep going (e.g. 4:1). He expects that there should be constant progress in the Christian walk (4:10). Like riding a bike, forward motion is what will keep you from falling. Paul also calls all the whole community of believers to play an active role in encouraging one another to continue in the faith (5:11).

Third, and most importantly, though it is only obliquely referred to in this letter, through the work of the Spirit. It is God’s work to sanctify us (5:23), which he does through the Spirit who is the one who empowers us to live in purity (4:7-8). Indeed, he understands the sanctifying work of the Spirit to be a crucial component of our salvation (2 Thess 2:13)

Book Review – The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (Gordon Fee)

Posted on by
2

This is a replacement volume in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series (NICNT), provided by the series editor, Gordon Fee. His reputation as a biblical scholar and commentator is first-rate, and as one would expect, this is another fine contribution. The series now features the text of the TNIV, although commentators are free to disagree with the translation and provide their own preferred alternatives.

The introduction is relatively brief (there is a separate introduction for each book). 1 Thessalonians is dated around AD49, most likely sent during Paul’s visit to Corinth, and with Timothy delivering the letter in person.

1 Thessalonians

The structure of the book is simple, with the first three chapters forming a lengthy introduction consisting of thanksgiving, narrative and prayer, before the final two chapters address the reason for writing – to answer questions concerning the sanctity of marriage, the refusal of some to work, and the timing of the second coming.

Fee regularly points out the high Christology that is to be found in 1 Thessalonians, particularly in the way that Paul will echo Old Testament passages but use Lord to refer to Jesus (e.g. in 3:13). On top of this, in 1:3 and 3:11 he indentifies precursors of Paul’s inserting Jesus into the Shema which he does more explicitly in 1 Cor 8:6.

Contrary to most commentators, he argues for infant rather than gentle in 2:7 – Paul and his companions were innocent like infants. There are some helpful comments on perseverance on 2:11-12 and 3:5, noting that our perseverance depends ultimately on God’s absolute faithfulness (5:23).  He argues that the polemic of 2:14-16 does not fall on the entire Jewish community but on those who were specifically responsible for killing Christ. He shows how the crown in 2:19 refers to a laurel wreath at the Roman games, which Paul pictures as the Thessalonians themselves.

The “vessel” of 4:4 is considered to be a euphemism for the male sexual organ. He provides some helpful comments on how the Holy Spirit enables us to walk in holiness (4:7-8). I was a little surprised, given how much emphasis Green puts on the client-patron relationship as the background to the letter, that Fee does not interact with this possibility at all in 4:11-12.

Fee considers the question behind 4:13-18 to be “what has happened to those who died before the second coming”? He criticises those who try to speculatively go beyond the main point of this passage, with especially strong censure for the “Left Behind” interpretation. He diffuses the debate concerning “going to heaven” versus living on the new earth somewhat, by pointing out that for Paul, our final eschatological “geography” was a secondary concern, whereas his interest was primarily personal – we will be with the Lord.

The short section on prophecy in 5:19-22 is of interest as Fee brings a Pentecostal perspective to bear, noting that there is no hermeneutical justification for modern-day prohibition of prophecy. He argues, drawing on evidence from Romans and 1 Corinthians as well that prophecy seemed to be part of the normal activity of the early church, and reminds us that the solution to abuse is not disuse but proper use. He proposes two tests of prophecy: a test of content (is it doctrinally correct?) and purpose (is it given to edify?). In 5:23, whilst he acknowledges that Paul probably would have made some kind of distinction in meaning between soul and spirit, he is not thinking in terms of humans as a trichotomy here. With regards to the “holy kiss” of 5:26, Fee points out how it would have crossed social boundary lines of slave/free, rich/poor and Jew/Gentile (although he fails to mention male/female! – not sure what they did there).

2 Thessalonians

The introduction to 2 Thessalonians briefly sets forth 9 reasons for considering it to be authentically Pauline and dates it c. 50, shortly after the first letter. It is written in response to the news brought back from Timothy, that the “disruptive idle” were a bigger problem than first thought, that some were misrepresenting Paul’s eschatological views, and that the persecution had increased in severity.

In chapter 2, Fee is at pains to remind us that we do not have the “insider knowledge” that the Thessalonians and Paul shared, making it impossible for us to answer all the questions we may have without resorting to guesswork. Additionally, we need to recognise Paul’s purpose (to encourage believers facing persecution) in these eschatological passages is often far removed from our own (to gather information for our end-times theology). As such, he refrains from speculating on who the “Rebel” (man of lawlessness) is, and who or what is holding him back.

As with the commentary on first letter, Fee is eager to point out the high Christology and Trinitarian soteriology to be found in this early letter. The commentary also benefits from his extensive prior work on Pauline pneumatology, and his comments are incisive when it comes to the work of the Spirit. Having said that, I was hoping he would elucidate a bit more on how exactly the sanctifying work of the Spirit relates to our salvation in 2:13.

Another thread running through the commentary is Fee pointing out numerous places that are so authentically Pauline in theology, grammar, vocabulary and concerns that by the end he declares that the theory of 2 Thessalonians as a forgery no longer deserves any place in NT scholarship.

Conclusion

As with all Fee’s commentaries, this one is an excellent resource for any Bible teacher or student, and is easily equal to my previous favourite on Thessalonians (Green’s Pillar Commentary). Fee is thorough, without being long-winded. Despite it being a primarily exegetical commentary, he is not afraid to put a paragraph or two of application in at the end of each section, with suggestions of lessons the modern church needs to be aware of. Whenever he differs from the majority view in either translation or meaning, he always makes his case persuasively. The right amount of material is relegated to the footnotes, which mostly deal with further manuscript evidence or the views of other commentators, but occasionally provide some additional theological reflection.

Book Review – GodStories (Andrew Wilson)

Posted on by
2

After thoroughly enjoying Andrew Wilson’s previous book, Incomparable, I was very much looking forward to getting my hands on this one. In many ways, the format is very similar. There are lots of short three or four page chapters, each of which can be read standalone as a daily devotion. Interspersed throughout the book are “coffee breaks” which encourage you to reflect a while on what you have been learning.

The subject of GodStories is the gospel. The book presents the gospel as one big story, broken into lots of little stories. At first I thought this meant it would be a metanarrative type book, similar to Vaughan Robert’s God’s Big Picture, but although Wilson moves through the Bible in a roughly chronological manner, each of the little chapters is self-contained, and often draws out the New Testament fulfilment of the Old Testament stories immediately.

As with Incomparable, the book is written in a way that will be very accessible to teens and twenties, with plenty of illustrations drawn from contemporary films and culture. The book is broken up into five “acts” (a nod to Tom Wright?), which are:

  1. Creation and Fall
  2. Israel and History
  3. Poets and Prophets
  4. Jesus and Rescue
  5. Restoration and Hope

As well as taking you through some of the main storyline of the Old Testament (creation, fall, flood, Abraham, tabernacle etc), he dips into the prophets, again making some of the big themes from these difficult biblical books very easy to grasp. A number of chapters echoed the emphases of Chris Wright in his superb “Mission of God” book. Also there are shades of Tom Wright as he highlights similarities in the rhetoric used by the Roman empire to describe the emperor to those used by Luke and other New Testament writers.

The longest Act, “Jesus and Rescue” features several chapters dealing with various aspects of the atonement. There is some excellent material here, and Wilson is not afraid to tackle some theological hot potatoes such as penal substitution and the New Perspective on Paul. Whilst the majority of this book is theologically non-controversial, he’s not afraid to let his distinctives show from time to time.

One of his greatest strengths is to take deep theological truths and present them in a very straightforward manner, yet without dumbing them down. Some of his illustrations are brilliant, and I certainly plan to make use of a few of them for in my own teaching. Overall, this is a great follow-up to Incomparable, and I look forward to seeing what comes next from him.