Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Pauline Satisfaction of the Divine Justice

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Pauline Satisfaction of the Divine Justice
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:59:21 -0500

Tim wrote:
> John, I am in agreement with the Heidelberg (which I think is an
> improvement on Anselm) on this point. (No huge surprise there; as you
> can see, I am a Reformed pastor.) I admit its particular *angle of
> approach* is not entirely Paul's (since its purpose is catechetical in
> a manner quite unlike his own exposition), but a necessary derivative
> (as I think) from his position.

John:
Exegetically, I am attempting to bring Pauline thought into accord with what
I
see happening in the prophets and developing in the Patristic Period. I see
some
good potential for a further accord in the writings of Calvin and in the the
theory
of the Heidelberg Catechism. However, there is a fuzziness in how the theory
is
worked out especially as it gets more and more simplified (i.e. Brights 'Four
Spiritual Laws,' Schuller's 'Ticket to Heaven'). Perhaps with your input, I
can
move closer to my goal of understanding this whole matter.

My intention is to more fully digest your 'Paul and Torah: An Introductory
Overview' and get back to you before my holidays begin next Wednesday.

Scholars generally are in agreement that the Patristic Era is not in accord
with
the teaching of Paul and that this is only recovered in the Reformation Era.
IMO
there is great potential in trying to bring Paul together with the Patristic
idea and
to show how these ideas are developed by Augustine and the Reformers. The
crisis in credibility that we are seeing in terms of NT thought viz a vis the
Jesus
Seminar and the New Perspectives in Paul movements (among a host of other
shoots off of an originally 'catholic' faith) might be quelled by a close
examination of the development of ideas through these periods to the present
day. Let me give you a little snap shot of what I am thinking through in this
regard.

In former posts I have touched on the Augustinian synthesis viz a vis his
bringing together the teaching of Mani, Cicero (Hortensia), Plato (Plotinus
and
Porphyry) and the Pauline Christ (see http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-285452-
6.pdf) which I think to a large extent, compromises the intent of Paul since
it
brings Pauline thought out of the original context of his thought in terms of
Moses and the prophets which I described in my post on Second Temple
Judaism. That is, Augustine's Replacement Theology will not allow the Jew to
be a Jew in the new covenant nor will he allow the Gentile any part of the
new
covenant without his first submitting to the sacrament of the church (i.e.
see
Spirit and the Letter.43ff). For Paul, the Gentile demonstrates that the new
covenant is already in action since he is responding to the dikaiwma tou
nomou
(Romans 2:26) which is what the empowering of the spirit enables him to do
more and more (8:4). This is not to say that nothing is happening when the
Gentile confesses that Christ has been raised (10:5ff). However, I see this
in the
context of doing all that the law requires so that the promise given to
Abraham
might be fulfilled (cf. Deuteronomy 30:11ff). The man who looks to the spirit
can do the dikaiwma tou nomou while the one who looks to himself cannot.

By taking the dikaiwma out of its context of self-sacrifice to arouse the Jew
to
jealousy and the Gentile to reason, I think Augustine brought confusion into
the
whole matter.

Augustine viewed the righteousness of God or the ground of justification as a
process viewed from its finished work in the elect so that they could be
partakers
of the 'city of God' where their true happiness is rather than so that they
could
fulfill the covenant in Abraham. Justification is viewed as a process making
men
just so that they could become a part of the heavenly Jerusalem:

"The characteristic medieval understanding of the nature of justification may
be
summarized thus: justification refers not merely to the beginning of the
Christian
life, but also to its continuation and ultimate perfection, in which the
Christian is
made righteous in the sight of God and the sight of men through a fundamental
change in his nature, and not merely his status." [Alister McGrath 'Iustitia
Dei: A
History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification' (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998) page 41]

The believer is 'made righteous' by the external application of a sacrament
which
is posited to cleanse him from original and actual sin. In terms of the
theory of
man's nature, man is naturally unable to fulfill the divine imperative.

In the Patristic Era the justification of the believer is set in the context
of a
means by which those without reason might become reconciled to reason. The
unconverted Gentile is viewed as participating in the divine logos and able
to
respond to the logos in such a way as to live 'reasonably' or according to
the
logos within him so that he is christian and he claims that this was the
teaching
he received from the apostles:

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have
declared
above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those
who lived reasonably are Christians, (First Apology.XLVI.4-5)

The satisfaction of the divine justice is posited as within the reach of
those who
are embued with the divine logos:

"Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and
love
only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, (1) if these be
worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of
those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of
truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to
choose to do and say what is right." (First Apology.II)

There is an agreement with Cicero (i.e. Laws.I-II) that through 'wicked
habits' a
man can become disconnected from the logos or become 'without reason' but
through the sacrament of baptism, for example, a man may be brought from
death to life:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and
undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to
entreat God
with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and
fasting
with them." (Ibid., LXI)

The man who is bound up by the epiqumatikon so that logistikon is held
captive,
is persuaded that the christian is right in his belief that Jesus is risen
from the
dead and will return to judge the world.

" Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in
the
same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated." (Ibid.)

This is a precursor to the view of Augustine and similar to the view of the
Mystery Religions in their view that the 'titanic' nature is put to death
through
rites such as baptism.However, it is tied directly in with other sacraments
of
obedience such as putting away evil deeds:

"And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is
declared
by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you
clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well;
judge
the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together,
saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white
like
wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if
ye
refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it." (Ibid.)

Justification is viewed as a process and the obedience of the regenerate is
integral to the process with the end in view of making the believer perfect
before
God and before men. Justin emphasizes that no one who does not live
according
to reason can fall back on the sacraments or presume on the divine grace:

"... evil spirits ... demand sacrifices and service even from those who live
unreasonably; but as for you, we presume that you who aim at [a reputation
for]
piety and philosophy will do nothing unreasonable." (Ibid.XII)

To use the metaphor of Jesus: "my sheep ... follow me ... listen to my voice"
(John 10:14). No one in terms of this metaphor can claim to be of the sheep
if
there is no corresponding following in terms of the commandment "love your
neighbor as yourself."

Paul can be set within this framework. In Galatians he is saying that those
under
the new covenant follow the law of Christ: love, joy, peace, etc. (5:22ff).
And
those who manifest the dominance of the flesh have no part in the kingdom of
God (v21).

Tim:
> It is clear enough that Paul understands Christ's sacrifice as a
> sin-offering (Rom 8.3), which is no surprise, given that his gospel is
> largely an exposition of Isaiah; Is. 53.10-12 identifies the Servant
> as a sin-offering and sin-bearer (as cf 53.4-6, 8).

John:
Peter interprets Isaiah sacrifice as the means by which others are drawn to
become sacrifices, themeselves (1 Peter 2:21 'leaving you an example that you
should follow'). In context the purpose of this self-sacrifice is that
agathopoiountas phimoun thn twn afronwn anqrwpwn agnwsian. Thus, the
believer himself becomes a sacrament that can bring a man from agnwsias to
gnwsian. This is what Paul teaches as well in that believers are to become
'living
sacrifices' (Romans 12:1) that will arouse the rebellious Jew to jealousy.

Here is where I find some accord in the Heidelberg Catechism since there is
the
idea that Christ is our prophet, and priest and king and that we as members
of his
body fulfill this function in the world:

"Question 31. Why is he called Christ, that is anointed?

Answer. Because he is ordained of God the Father, and [a] anointed with the
Holy Ghost, to be our [b] chief Prophet and Teacher, who has fully revealed
to
us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption; and to be
our
only High Priest, [c] who by the one sacrifice of his body, has redeemed us,
and
makes continual [d] intercession with the Father for us; and also to be our
eternal King, [e] who governs us by his word and Spirit, and who defends and
[f] preserves us in (the enjoyment of) that salvation, he has purchased for
us.

Question 32. But why art thou called a christian?

Answer. Because I am a member of Christ [g] by faith, and thus am partaker
[h]
of his anointing; that so I may [i] confess his name, and present myself a
living
[j] sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also that with a free and good
conscience I may fight against sin and [k] Satan in this life: and afterwards
[l]
reign with him eternally, over all creatures.
(http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#Q4)

Tim:
It should be
> stressed that the forensic background to Paul's thought is of course
> not identical to the Roman juristic categories presupposed by Anselm.

John:
It is also debatable IMO whether the forensic sense of dikaiow is always the
application in Romans. The stative idea is very clear in 2:13 'the just will
be
justified' (cf. 3:4). If cdq is taken as the hebrew referrent of dikaiow,
then the
idea of the righteousness as the basis for the divine judgment has to be
moved
away from the juristic categories of the Reformation era viz a vis imputatum
versus reputatum. God judges his people and hands them over to sin (i.e.
Judges
2:13-14) until they repent and cry out. Similarly, Paul uses the 'handing
over'
idea in Romans 1:18ff which IMO should be linked to Romans 7 where he cries
out for deliverance so that through the power of the Holy Spirit he is
enabled to
do the dikaiwma of nomos.

Tim:
>
> I should note that I take Paul's appeal to Gen 15.6 in Rom 4 (and Gal
> 3.6) as establishing that God accounts faith as righteousness; it is
> the righteous response that God in His own pistiV (faith[fulness])
> seeks from His covenant partner. Hence: the righteousness of God is
> revealed from pistiV to pistiV (Rom 1.17). PistiV on both the divine
> and human side maintain the covenantal bond. (I won't elaborate here,
> but this also underlies the entire subsection Rom 3.1-8, with its
> tangle of God's faith/faithfulness, righteousness, and truth [and the
> logia which express it]; and Israel's apistia
> [unbelief/unfaithfulness], unrighteousness, and "lie." Note the
> proliferation of pist- roots in 3.2.3 and dik- roots in 3.4-5.)

John:
I would appeal to the OT context of Paul's message which you have pointed out
is in part Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 is the response of the remnant to the dilemma
of
Isaiah 1:11ff where sacrifice is offered but there is no justice. This puts
God at
odds with his elect so that he must give them over to their sin until they
turn to
him. God is faithful to hand them over and he is faithful to give them the
Holy
Spirit (Isaiah 32:15) so that they are able to maintain the divine justice
viz a vis
Isaiah 53 and fulfill the purpose that he intended in the election of
Abraham. If
this is kept in mind, there is an accord with the prophetic and the Patristic
traditions.

Tim:
>
> But I would also add that I hold that faith-as-righteousness view *in
> connection with* the view that Christ was raised because of our
> justification (Rom 4.25) - i.e. our justification is a participation
> in His justification, so that it is also completely true to Paul to
> identify the believer's righteousness as Christ's righteousness. (One
> might say that I hold to the substance of the "imputation" view,
> without acknowledging that that is what Paul is precisely doing with
> the imputation language in Rom 4.)
>
John:
I think that John Calvin drives the point home very well: 'perseverance is a
gift'
(Institutes.III.xxiv.6); the faith of the elect is 'rooted in the word'
(Ibid.ii.31); and
the reprobate do not yield the love of sons (Ibid.III.ii.12).




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page