Read an Excerpt
Where Is Boasting?
Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-15
By Simon J. Gathercole Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Copyright © 2002 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
All right reserved. ISBN: 0-8028-3991-6
Chapter One
Conclusion
In this book two closely interconnected arguments have run in parallel. The first concerned "boasting," which, as was noted in the introduction, has not yet been adequately discussed in the setting specifically of Romans 1-5. The second argument consisted of a critical evaluation of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul," one of the dominant paradigms within current NT scholarship, especially in relation to the issue of works and eschatology.
We noted in the introduction that there was a fundamental difference between most traditional constructions of Jewish confidence and more recent revisionist descriptions. In the former, Jewish confidence related primarily to obedience as the basis of relationship with God. This was often construed as a legalistic, self-centered boast in one's own merit. In the latter, the emphasis moves entirely away from legalism to a boast that has its basis in Israel's national righteousness, where God's blessing is guaranteed to Israel over against the gentiles by virtue of his election. We saw that neither picture was quite adequate. The basis of the boast of Israel was not just election but also obedience, as seen from the Jewish texts (esp. above in chapter 5) as well as Paul's long critique in Romans 2 ofIsrael's sinfulness. We also noted that confidence was directed toward (not against) God, as well as over against the gentiles. Further, this confidence was often oriented toward vindication (e.g. Bar. 3:7; Wisd. of Sol. 15:1-4; 2 Bar. 48:22-24; et al.), which in the context of Romans 2 is specifically final vindication.
This argument was grounded in the wider discussion of the relation between Jewish and Pauline soteriology. (Despite the questions raised about speaking of "Jewish soteriology," we noted that it is not inappropriate to do so as long as it is clear what is being discussed.) In part 1 we saw that, while there is considerable emphasis on gracious election in Jewish literature, this was by no means incompatible (at least, in the texts) with obedience also being a basis for vindication at the eschaton. This has been extensively argued already in the outstanding work of Friedrich Avemarie, who deals with the rabbinic literature from (approximately) 200-500 C.E. This book has shown, however, that the same theology obtains for the literature written before the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, from the "Pauline" period. Texts from both Palestine (e.g., Psalms of Solomon, Pseudo-Philo, the Qumran literature) and the diaspora (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, Testament of Job, Apocalypse of Zephaniah) witness to a theology of the final vindication of God's people on the basis of their obedience. We saw a number of images used to depict this: repayment, reward of participation in rule in the kingdom, the prize for winning a contest, and the forensic images of being acquitted in a legal judgment, or indeed escaping judgment altogether. This theology was not confined to pre-Christian Jewish texts, however. The NT also shows evidence of belief in final vindication on the basis of obedience among Christians. However, Paul has an understanding of obedience that is radically different from that of his Jewish contemporaries. We saw above that, for Paul, divine action is both the source and the continuous cause of obedience for the Christian.
Chapter 5 focused on the specific application of this "doctrine" to individuals and to certain communities. Again, a variety of texts from inside and outside Palestine, both before and after 70 C.E., testify to the confidence of Jewish groups in their obedience, though not to the detriment of their sense of divine election.
The chief context of the debate in chapters 1-5 was the picture of Second Temple Judaism put forward by, in particular, E. P. Sanders, J. D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright, in which the dimension of final vindication on the basis of obedience to Torah is either denied or significantly downplayed. We then saw that in their exegeses of Romans 3-4, the dimension of the Jewish interlocutor's view that he would be vindicated on the basis of his obedience was conspicuous by its absence. The exegesis in the "new perspectives" on Romans 3-4 thus significantly downplays Paul's argument for the impossibility of justification by works of Torah on anthropological grounds. That is to say, Paul's emphasis on "flesh" in Romans 3:20 shows that the contention between Paul and his interlocutor largely concerns whether the Jewish nation had ever been, or could ever be, obedient to Torah. This is because God did not give the Torah so that people might obey it as a means to justification; this would be an impossibility because of the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3), which ensured that "by works of Torah will no flesh be justified" (3:20). This does not permit a return tout simple to Lutheran theology (while God does initially "justify the ungodly," the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit enables obedience that culminates in final justification), but neither is the New Perspective's interpretation adequate. The meaning of justification by faith apart from works of Torah in Romans is not to be determined by the Antioch incident (Paul is not in debate with Jewish Christianity) but rather by the rhetorical context of Paul's debate with his Jewish interlocutor.
In the context of the discussion of Romans 4:1-5, in particular, we noted a tension in Paul's discussion between the initial justification of the ungodly (in this case, Abraham) and the final vindication on the basis of works discussed earlier. This tension no doubt merits further reflection and exploration, but it seems here that, on initial examination, Paul is operating with two somewhat distinct perspectives on justification: the first occupying initial justification and the justification of the ungodly ("to the one who does not work") and the second referring to God's final vindication of the one who has done good and (in the sense described above in chapter 3) fulfilled Torah.
Finally, we explored Romans 5:1-11 as a climax to Paul's argument about "boasting," examining how he could both oppose and endorse "boasting in God." Paul's boast in God was defined in a positive way as a boast through the Lord Jesus Christ, and, in a negative way, this excluded a reliance on obedience to Torah leading to final justification.
This study certainly does not claim to be the final word on Early Judaism or Romans 1-5! In fact, at numerous points in the thesis it becomes clear that the present work is very preliminary in nature. Examination of the Jewish texts in terms of the soteriological images they employ is, to my knowledge, fairly uncommon: so much previous research focuses on whether soteriology is either "legalistic" or "gracious." Further work, curtailed in this thesis due to constraints of space and time, needs to be done in covering this vast body of literature from the pre-70 period.
The implications of this study for the purpose of Romans could also be profitably examined. The exploration of the relationship between "judging" and "boasting" in Romans 2, and its very Jewish context, could be fruitfully explored in connection with Romans 14-15 and the purpose of Romans as a whole. Further, more work needs to be done on the relationship between boasting in Romans 1-5 and the rest of the Pauline corpus. G. Davis's detailed examination of 2 Corinthians concludes with the question of how boasting in 2 Corinthians might be related to boasting in Romans, but there has not been space to examine this. In any case, boasting in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians would need to receive their due attention before that could take place.
On the issue of justification, the relationship between final justification (Rom. 2:13) and present-past justification (Rom. 4:3) has still not been satisfactorily discussed in the secondary literature on Paul. A simple waving of the "now/not yet" wand over the texts is not quite satisfactory, especially if it is correct to describe Paul as viewing the criteria for past and future justifications slightly differently. Similarly, on the anthropological question, and the nature of the grace-work axis in both Paul and Judaism, more research needs to be done on the character of human agency both in Jewish texts and in Paul.
While this book hopes to open up fruitful new fields of research into Jewish and Pauline theology, it also intends to close off some unfruitful, old avenues! The positive contributions of the New Perspective in challenging unhistorical approaches both to the Jewish literature and to Paul must be acknowledged. Discussions of boasting had often leapt to anthropological conclusions without attention to historical specificity, and the New Perspective has provided a helpful corrective here. E. P. Sanders's exposure of the prejudiced categories often used to describe Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism has had the positive consequence of stimulating reflection on how to approach this material. It is evident, however, that some formulations associated with the New Perspective also require correction. The misleading positions of both New Perspective and Lutheran exegesis have been highlighted throughout. It is hoped that the questioning of the use of vague catchall terms like "legalism" and "works-righteousness" will lead to the development of a new vocabulary that permits more refined examination of the texts. In this area, attention perhaps needs to be paid to the concept of "merit," which is too positive a term(especially for many Jews) to be abandoned and yet is used with such a broad scope that it has become unproductive. In response to the New Perspective, in particular, I hope to have brought forward both Jewish and Pauline evidence to show that Paul's dialogue partner did indeed hold to a theology of final salvation for the righteous on the basis of works. The principal implication of this is that New Perspective exegesis of Romans 2:1-4:8 attributes to Paul far too great an emphasis on the inclusion of the gentiles. As a corrective, the anthropological dimension of justification needs to be reasserted: justification by faith is the solution to the problem of the weakness of the flesh. Moreover, "the justification of the ungodly" is an act that is bound up with the character of God himself, as he is toward his creation.
Principally, it is hoped that as we approach a time span of a generation after the beginnings of the New Perspective, we can move the debate forward on the issues of works, justification, and boasting in Second Temple Judaism and Paul, seeking points of consensus to form the basis for ongoing clarification of the contentious issues.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Where Is Boasting? by Simon J. Gathercole Copyright © 2002 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
