Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Protestant Justification vs OT and Romans

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Protestant Justification vs OT and Romans
  • Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:29:05 -0500



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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page