Corpus-Paul

[Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>]

John Brand wrote:

> John responds:
> Are you able to see an OT view of justification in a Protestant 
> interpretation of Romans, Tim?
>  

What exactly is a "Protestant interpretation"? It sounds suspiciously 
like an interpretation intended, a priori, to support a theological 
viewpoint. In short, it sounds like eisegesis.

> A. Justification in the OT is a verdict based on a righteousness that 
> is intrinsic while the Protestant verdict is based on the sacrifice 
> of Christ.
>  

What exactly is the Hebrew word for "justification"? So far as I can 
tell, the word cannot be found in Hebrew. So, what is "justification" so 
far as the OT concerned?

> Deuteronomy 24:10 "When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort ... 
> If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge ... when the 
> sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may 
> sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for 
> you before the LORD your God." 
>  

No "justification" here. Are you talking about the Hebrew concept of 
"rigtheousness" and calling it "justification"?

> B. Because A is true it follows that the OT justification is never 
> perpetual; thus, for example, in the Book of Judges, God hands the 
> people over to their enemies as his response to their turning to 
> other gods. 
>
>  

Still no "justification". The statement above is suspiciously eisegetical.

> In Protestant theology the verdict that justifies is based on the 
> unchanging righteousness of Christ and is, therefore, perpetual. This 
> is the reason why the Jew is perceived to be outside of the covenant, 
> is it not?
>
> Let's look at a classic OT case of judge, judgment and justification:
>
> 2 Chronicles 6:22-24 “If a man sins against his neighbor and is made 
> to take an oath, and he comes and takes an oath before Your altar in 
> this house, then hear from heaven and act and judge Your servants, 
> returning punishing the wicked by bringing his way on his own head 
> and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his 
> righteousness."
>  

No "justification" here either. So how is it the "classic" case?

> If we were to recover a first communication situation for Romans 
> rather than applying a retrojection of Protestant theology, we would 
> be more on the mark if we were to take Paul to be applying an OT view 
> of justification than a later development.
>
> Thus, when Paul says 'in the gospel' (defined 1:2-4) 'a righteousness 
> (dikaiosune with hebrew referrent of zedaqah) of God is revealed ... 
> just as it is written 'the just shall live by faith' we would have to 
> take Paul in the OT context. What does that mean in terms of 
> Habakkuk's argument?
>
> There are two men in Habakkuk 2:4 one whose soul is upright and the 
> other whose soul is not. The just is delivered from the proclivity 
> that characterizes the proud man in Habakkuk 2 because his soul is 
> upright rather than because he has made a sacrifice.
>
> How does this apply to Romans? 

It doesn't. The OT doesn't talk about "justification" in Pauline terms. 
And it certainly, most certainly, cannot be morphed into some sort of 
neo-lutheran, neo-protestant "doctrine of justification by faith alone". 
It disserves the OT when it is treated so violently (read- eisegetically).

Best

Jim

--
Jim West

Biblical Studies Resources -  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Biblical Theology Weblog -  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com