Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

I had inquired:

>> Does Paul believe that the righteous will be
judged?
>> Esler, for instance, thinks that Rom 8:33-34
indicates
>> there will be no judgment for the righteous, only
for
>> the wicked. The righteous, to be sure, will give an
>> account of themselves and receive their reward (Rom
2;
>> Rom 14:10-12; I Cor 3:10-15; II Cor 5:10), but they
>> are not judged, simply waved through (Conflict and
>> Identity in Romans, pp 161-162). What do others
>> think of this?

Sidney Davis responsed:

>The judgment referenced in the texts supplied by
>Esler seem to be used to portray a judgment between
>the righteous and the wicked. The "wicked" 
>are never portrayed or mentioned in these texts.
>It speaks of judgment between brother and brother,
>a judgment between good works and bad works, and 
>the judgemnt of the self before God. What ideas of
>judgment appear here? Is there a point of reference
>spoken to? It it possible these ideas are wholly
>to be understood within the framework of
>Judaism or the judaism of that time?

Sidney, thanks for replying. Esler's point,
essentially, is that a judgment requires that someone
lay a charge, and that Rom 8:33 implies that --
insofar as a Christ-believer is concerned -- no such
charge will be levelled. The judgment of Rom 2 would
thus apply only to the wicked (see Conflict and
Identity, pp 162, 265-266). "No one will bring a
charge against God's elect, since God is righteousing
them...Paul does not appear to envisage a judgment for
the righteous, even though they will appear before
God." (266) I'm not sure why you're having difficulty
with the view that the judgment of Rom 2 could be
included in the view of 8:33-34 (do I understand you
correctly?).

Esler's remarks first appear (p 162) in the context of
what Paul means by the term righteousness, which is
what prompted by inquiry to begin with. We often hear
of forensic (declaratory, judicial) and covenantal
uses of the term righteousness, but Esler sharply
argues against these categories. God does not declare
a person righteousess now, or acquit the person,
proleptically, for Rom 2 shows that there will be a
future judgment, that any acquital will be done then,
and that prolepsis is alien to Paul's thought (see p
161). Righteousness occurs in the present, to be sure,
but it is distinct from judgment/acquital, as Rom
5:9-11 makes clear (ibid).

Tom Wright is one of the strongest advocates for
covenantal and forensic interpretations of Pauline
righteousness. God's righteousness, he urges, is the
deity's faithfulness to his covenant promises, by
which he declares his people vindicated. (see What
Saint Paul Really Said, pp 99, 131-132). Esler argues
that for Paul righteousness is devoid of covenantal
connotations and simply indicates privileged and
blessed identity, or life. (See thorough discussions
in Galatians, pp 141-177; Conflict and Identity in
Romans, pp 159-168.) He notes that covenantal/forensic
applications of righteousness owe to very few (15)
passages in the Septuagint (Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; II
Sam 15:4; Ps 82:3; Isa 1:17, 5:23; Ezek 44:24; Sir
42:2; Ps 19:9, 143:2; Mic 7:9; Isa 43:9, 43:26, 50:8,
53:11) -- a "flimsy foundation" on which to apply such
declaratory/forensic usages to Paul (Galatians, p
163). Most of the time the term refers to a form of
privileged identity equivalent to life and blessing,
which came from being an Israelite. (Of the 375
examples of "righteousness" in the Greek OT, 100 are
in Proverbs, with 50 in Proverbs 10-15 alone.) The
righteous is the exemplary Israelite, in contrast to
the ungodly Gentile.

So it's from this greatest concentration of the term
righteousness -- the wisdom literature, especially
Psalm 36 and Proverbs 10-15 -- that Paul derived his
usage, without any implied reference to the covenant
or judicial setting. God's righteousness is his
blessedness, being, and life. "He is the source of all
righteousness, as the existence of a righteous people
depends upon the existence of a righteous God, from
whom righteousness derives." (Galatians, p 174) God's
righteousness and human righteousness are thus more
identical than Wright allows (in What Saint Paul
Really Said, p 99). On the rare occasions when God is
made the subject of the verb "to righteous/justify" in
Paul's letters, it points to God's acknowledgment of
(or ascribing) a person's righteous status; it carries
no covenantal or judicial connotations. 

Perhaps this background helps show what Esler is
getting at. If Paul, as often assumed, believes that
God justifies a person proleptically, in anticipaton
of the judgment, how does one reconcile this with Rom
8:33-34 which in fact implies that there is no such
judgment on the Christ-believer?

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com