C.F.D. Moule on the Nature of Scripture

Scripture is so precious to me that I have read it through from cover to cover scores of times, missing not a day in 50 years without steady reading. I hope that it is now clear why this is so. I do not believe that Scripture is infallible; I question the value of the language of inspiration for describing its distinctive qualities; I believe (as I have shown) that Scripture itself, and the fact that it is an accredited selection, need to be critically examined and sifted like any other matters of antiquity. But, precisely because it does constitute the body of documents most directly concerned with the impact of those events which culminated (so I read the evidence) in Jesus and the Christian movement, it constitutes (as a whole and taken in its entirety) a mirror held up to the face of God. And unless we gaze daily in that mirror we are deprived of the most vital agent in our access to God through Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible is indispensable and uniquely precious. But without the Spirit of God to nerve me to face, to respond to, and to obey that awesome presence, and to bind me to my fellow-seekers for our mutual help and encouragement in this activity, all the study and labour would be worse than useless. This is how I understand both the distinctiveness of Scripture and the relation to it of a doctrine of the Spirit.- C.F.D. Moule; Forgiveness and Reconciliation; 224; italics mine.

G.B. Caird on (Sin)cerity

While reading George Caird's masterful New Testament Theology, he brings to the fore an interesting and often overlooked aspect of the types of sins Jesus died for, namely, the sin of sincerity.

Caird states:

If it be true that Jesus died for such as Paul, then the one thing certain is that the sins he bore included the sins of sincerity. ...Christian tradition has regrettably accustomed us to think of those who brought about the Crucifixion as villians; but if we observe them through the eyes of Paul, we get a different view. 'I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, however unenlightened' (Rom. 10:2). No doubt they had their faults and fallacies, but each in his own way was a sincere person, honestly trying to do what was right in the interest of religion and national survival. But in all the annals of human vice, no power is as destructive or demonic as perverted sincerity.

It took the Cross, interpreted as the vicarious bearing of guilt to pierce the armour-plate of Paul's self-congratulation. It proved that when he had been most confident of serving God, he had been God's enemy; and it had revealed a love great enough to kill the enmity (Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:18-21) (Italics mine; 147). 

NIVAC eBook Sale (Nov 7-13)

One of the more helpful commentary series, the New International Version Application Commentary (NIVAC), published by Zondervan, is having a one week eBook sale beginning tomorrow (Nov 7-13).

Each volume is only $4.99 a piece, and bundles can be purchased for $17.99. These are truly remarkable prices for such a solid commentary series. I can attest personally to the quality as I have used with great benefit, Douglas Moo's Romans and Daniel Block's Deuteronomy to name just a couple of the volumes.

Make sure you take advantage of this offer by shopping here. 

Ernst Käsemann and the Quote of the Day

I ran across this quote from the great Ernst Käsemann on the indispensability of learning in community, a virtue seemingly lost in certain sectors of the church and in scholarship.

Controversy is the breath of life to a German theologian, and mutual discussion is the duty of us all. For, in scholarship as in life, no one can possess truth except by constantly learning it afresh; and no one can learn it afresh without listening to the people who are his companions on the search for that truth. Community does not necessarily mean agreement. (Perspectives on Paul; 60.)

Scot McKnight's Colossians Commentary

The first new release under the editorship of Joel Green (not counting Gordon Fee's revised classic on 1 Corinthians) in the NICNT series comes the anticipated commentary on Colossians by Scot McKnight. McKnight's volume will replace F.F. Bruce's volume, now 32 years old. Bruce's volume also combined Philemon and Ephesians, necessitating that Bruce spent less space discussing Colossians singularly.

As of the moment, I have yet to chase down a release date for the commentary, but my guess is that it should see the light of day in the early part of 2017. McKnight also authored the volume on James for this series back in 2011 when Fee was the editor.

Here is a brief description of the Colossians volume:

In the epistle to the Colossians, Paul offers a comprehensive vision of the Christian life; his claims transcend religion and bring politics, culture, spirituality, power, ethnicity, and more into play. This exegetical and theological commentary by Scot McKnight delves deeply into Paul's message in Colossians and draws out the theology that underpins it. McKnight interacts closely with the text of Colossians itself while bringing the best of biblical scholarship to the table. He focuses on reading Colossians in the context of Paul's other letters, his theology, and his mission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Crafted specifically for preachers and teachers, this engaging and accessible commentary offers fresh light on Colossians.

Eerdmans: Forthcoming Johannine Studies of Note

Eerdmans is slated to release two significant volumes for students of Johannine literature in early 2017.

The first, a volume by noted scholar, William Loader, Jesus in John's Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology, is slated for a February release. Loader brings plenty of expertise to this topic as he previously released a monograph entitled, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 23 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2d ed., revised, 1992, 1st ed., 1989).

Here are some of the particulars of the volume:

The culmination of a lifetime of work on the Gospel of John, William Loader's Jesus in John's Gospel explores the Fourth Gospel as a whole, focusing on ways in which attention to the structure of Christology in John allows for greater understanding of Johannine themes and helps resolve long-standing interpretive impasses. Following an introductory examination of the profound influence of Rudolf Bultmann on Johannine studies, Loader takes up the central interpretive issues and debates surrounding Johannine Christology and explores the death of Jesus and the salvation event in John. With an exhaustive bibliography and careful, well-articulated conclusions that take into account the latest research on John, this volume will be useful to scholars and students alike.

 The second volume of note is co-authored by Sherri Brown and Francis Moloney, entitled Interpreting the Gospel and Letters of John: An Introduction. Brown, a former student of Moloney's, is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Creighton University. Moloney, one of the premier Johannine specialists in the world, is Senior Fellow in the Department of Biblical Studies at Catholic Theological College, Melbourne, Australia.

Slated for a March 2017 release, here are the particulars of this volume:

Accessible, comprehensive, and up-to-date, Interpreting the Gospel and Letters of John is an ideal text for students new to the discipline of biblical studies. Sherri Brown and Francis Moloney present a broad overview of the story of Christianity arising out of its Jewish foundations and proceed expertly to guide readers through the contents of the Gospel and Letters of John. Maintaining that Johannine literature is best understood against the background of the Old Testament covenant meta-phor, Brown and Moloney focus on the central role of covenant in the narrative of John's Gospel and highlight the Evangelist's use of fulfillment language. Helpful sidebars, maps, questions for review, and further reading sections are placed throughout the text, making this volume perfect for classroom use.

C.F.D. Moule and the Quote of the Day

In some reflective reading this morning, I was perusing through my copy of C.F.D. Moule's The Phenomenon of the New Testament when I came upon this quote on the importance of a Jesus rooted in history for the Christian faith (one can sense the influence Moule had on N.T. Wright, for whom the latter has referred to Moule's adoption of him after the death of his own Doktorvater, George Caird).

Decision there must be if there is to be Christian faith. Faith is faith, and no amount of photography and tape-recording of events could compel it. To see is not necessarily to believe. But, on the other hand, neither is blind faith real faith. For belief it is necessary to see--at least something. The decision to accept Jesus as Lord cannot be made without historical evidence--yes, historical--about Jesus. If it were a decision without any historical evidence it would not be about Jesus (a historical person) but only about an ideology or ideal. Even 'bare kerygma' is not basis enough for a Christian decision, if that kerygma includes no more history than the death of Jesus of Nazareth. To be sufficient it must include more. We need to know what manner of man Jesus was. We need to know how he fitted into the religious history of Israel. Some character sketch and some tradition of his sayings and his judgments and his values and some estimate of his relation to the past is integral to the proclamation that evokes decision. That is why the Gospels and the Old Testament scriptures are needed to give content to the bare proclamation. We may decide to embrace a proposition, such as that God is one; or an ideal, such as that all men should be brothers. But before we can decide for Jesus we need to know what manner of man he was, how he was related to his antecedents, why he died, and what (so far as it can be indicated) lies behind the conviction that he is alive. To take all this unexamined is not Christian decision at all, even if it may be a moral or a religious decision (79; italics original).

Book Alert: Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey

Despite the fact that the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is not really new anymore, does not mean that scholars/students of Paul are no longer in dialogue with this viewpoint on the Apostle and his attitude toward the law and its abiding significance for the communities to which he founded and ministered.

In steps an offering from Garwood P. Anderson, Professor of New Testament and Greek, Nashotah House Theological Seminary, entitled, Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey (IVP; forthcoming October 2016). Among the features of the book are as follows:

• An innovative approach to issues of law and justification in Paul’s letters 
• Attempts to resolve the tension between new and old perspectives on Paul 
• Provides an informative overview of a current debate in Pauline scholarship
•  Attends carefully to Paul’s soteriological language
•  Argues for a theory of development in Paul’s theology 

Endorsements include:

Garwood Anderson

"Garwood Anderson's study of Paul's soteriology charts a bold course over the troubled seas of Pauline debate and among darkened clouds of theological dispute. He successfully shows that there is way a forward in the disputes about 'justification' and 'ethnicity'—a way beyond the entrenched dogmatism and intractable polarities that have emerged. Anderson brings us to a peaceful oasis where the treasures of the old and the freshness of the new come together. Among his insights are the multidimensional nature of union with Christ and the overlooked significance of Paul's sacramental realism for informing this discussion. This book is not the final word in the debate, but it is a good word—one that hopefully moves the discussion about Paul, justification and the New Perspectives along." —Michael F. Bird, lecturer in theology, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia 

"Casting scholarly timidity to the wind, Garwood Anderson's engaging book takes up the question of the 'center' of Paul's theology—and whether Paul discovered and articulated it from the beginning of his ministry or developed it over the course of many years and letters. It is normal to find books that discuss Pauline chronology, the literary and theological shape of particular passages or the texts' theological 'afterlife' in the history of the church. It is rare to find books that do all these things at once—and do them with such verve and sophistication that one is reminded yet again why wrestling with Paul is so invigorating." —Wesley Hill, assistant professor of biblical studies, Trinity School for Ministry, author of Paul and the Trinity

Anderson's book will weigh in at 420 pages and retail for $36.00. 

Andrew Lincoln and the Quote of the Day

Recently, I had an opportunity to read Andrew Lincoln's excellent essay "A Life of Jesus as Testimony: The Divine Courtroom and The Gospel of John," in the Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective, 145-166. Leiden: Brill, 2015. In the essay, Lincoln builds on the work of his monograph, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif of The Fourth Gospel, where he argues among other things, that (Second) Isaiah 40-55 stands behind much of the evangelist's thought with regards to the lawsuit motif.

One particular quote stands out to me while reflecting on the significance of the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus during this Easter season. Lincoln states the second half the Gospel (chs. 13-20) otherwise commonly deemed, "The Book of Glory"

...depicts Jesus in the hour of his glory and invites its readers to see his departure from the world in death by crucifixion, which in normal evaluation would be seen as the greatest humiliation and shame, as in fact the supreme moment of that glory (cf. 13:31, 32; 17:1). The glory accompanying the vindication of Deutero-Isaiah’s servant was not “from humans” and failure to see Jesus’ glory is attributed to the opposition’s judgment which has become so influenced by human conceptions of honor and glory that it does not employ the right criteria in evaluation and therefore cannot see divine glory when it is before their eyes (cf. 5:44; 7:18, 24; 12:43)In GJ’s perspective the Logos does not lay aside divine glory in taking on flesh and in suffering; rather in Jesus his incarnation and death become vehicles for its expression (155; emphasis mine).

Beverly Gaventa's When in Romans

"No one makes Romans come alive quite like Beverly Gaventa..." - John Barclay

This is just some of the praise emanating from scholars regarding Beverly Gaventa's forthcoming, When in Romans: An Invitation to Linger with the Gospel according to Paul (Baker Academic; Dec. 2016). Gaventa, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Department of Religion, Baylor University, is perhaps offering up an introductory companion for her forthcoming contribution on Romans in the prestigious New Testament Library commentary series (Westminster John Knox Press). In the meantime, this contribution should provide a wonderful primer on Romans as few, if any, are a more capable guide to the reader than Gaventa.

Here are the particulars:

Price: $22.99
Page Count: 160

Invites Readers of Romans to Expand Their View of God and the Gospel

 When reading the book of Romans, we often focus on the quotable passages, making brief stopovers and not staying long enough to grasp some of the big ideas it contains. Instead of raiding Paul's most famous letter for a passage here or a theme there, leading New Testament scholar Beverly Roberts Gaventa invites us to linger in Romans. She asks that we stay with the letter long enough to see how Romans reframes our tidy categories and dramatically enlarges our sense of the gospel. Containing profound insights written in accessible prose and illuminating references to contemporary culture, this engaging book explores the cosmic dimensions of the gospel that we read about in Paul's letter. Gaventa focuses on four key issues in Romans--salvation, identity, ethics, and community--that are crucial both for the first century and for our own. As she helps us navigate the book of Romans, she shows that the gospel is far larger, wilder, and more unsettling than we generally imagine it to be.


Endorsements

"This is a book the church has long needed. Professor Gaventa pulls back the thin veneer of familiarity to introduce us to the high drama in Paul's Letter to the Romans. Her writing is both scholarly and accessible, ancient and contemporary, theological and pastoral." M. Craig Barnes, president, Princeton Theological Seminary

 "No one makes Romans come alive quite like Beverly Gaventa. In this highly accessible but provocative book--aimed at a wide Christian audience--she challenges our domesticated construals of Paul's gospel with a vision of God's comprehensive saving agency. If the starting point and the primary subject matter of the letter is not us but God, we are suddenly liberated from our excessive anxieties about ourselves, the church, and 'ethics.' Here are 3-D lenses to see Romans, the gospel, and the reality of God's grace, power, and mystery in a new and exciting way." John M. G. Barclay, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, Durham University

 "From the beginning of the Christian era until the present day, Paul's Letter to the Romans has been the source of revolutionary rethinking. Nowhere do we come closer to the radical heart of the gospel. The universal and cosmic notes of the Pauline symphony are sounded in this book by one of our most esteemed interpreters of the apostle's letters. Beverly Gaventa has written a book for ordinary parish clergy and laypeople that is fun to read and full of spicy references to popular culture, and that will jolt readers into a new appreciation for the great apostle and his unique place in the history of Christian theology." Fleming Rutledge, author of Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Sermons on Romans and The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ

 "Beverly Gaventa has produced that rarest of books, combining careful, exquisite scholarship with her eye for humanizing, delightful detail. Her writing is both sophisticated and accessible as she tackles Paul's complex notions of individual and cosmic salvation. I am one of those Gaventa identifies who, more frequently than I like to admit, opted for the Gospel reading rather than grappling with Paul's sometimes tortured logic. Looking back, I would have loved turning to When in Romans." John M. Buchanan, former editor and publisher, The Christian Century

 "There are many books on Romans, but none quite like this one. Steeped in learning but accessible to a broad spectrum of readers, written with pastoral insight and welcome flashes of humor, here is a gift to Christians and inquirers alike. Gaventa invites us to enter the grand metropolis that is Romans, wander in its streets, relish its conversations, and be made new by its radical Lord." Susan Grove Eastman, associate research professor of New Testament, Duke Divinity School

 "Anyone who has difficulty imagining that a book on Paul's Epistle to the Romans could be a 'page turner' should read this one. Beverly Roberts Gaventa's prose is compelling, her insights on Romans are startlingly original, and her ability to show us in Paul's letter 'the gospel in its vastness' is simply breathtaking. This book is to be savored." Thomas G. Long, Bandy Professor of Preaching, Emeritus, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

 "When in Romans is deceptively accessible and lighthearted, so that readers are not immediately aware of being drawn into deep and rewarding engagement with Paul's complex text. But once inside and grappling with its intricacies, they are led securely through by Beverly Gaventa's experienced and unfailing judgment." Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ, Charles Fischer Professor of New Testament Emerita, Brite Divinity School

 "Using contemporary cultural illustrations from sources as varied as Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life and Bruce Springsteen's 'Land of Hope and Dreams,' Beverly Roberts Gaventa delightfully clarifies Paul's complex message in Romans. In beautifully written prose that is as compellingly clear for the novice as it is exegetically convincing for the scholar, Gaventa reminds us of the cosmic, liberative power of Paul's message. Here is that book of uncommon quality: easily accessible and utterly indispensable. Reading Romans today? Start here." Brian Blount, president and professor of New Testament, Union Presbyterian Seminary

Forthcoming: Collected Essays of John Barclay on Pauline Churches and Diaspora Judaism

Eerdmans is doing students of the New Testament another service by
gatheringrepublishing (Mohr Siebeck) 19 collected essays  from John Barclay entitled, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Judaism. The book is scheduled for a Sept 1 release and will retail at $48.00

Here are the particulars:

For the past twenty years, John Barclay has researched and written on the social history of early Christianity and the life of Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. In this collection of nineteen noteworthy essays, he examines points of comparison between the early churches and the Diaspora synagogues in the urban Roman world of the first century. With an eye to such matters as food, family, money, circumcision, Spirit, age, and death, Barclay examines key Pauline texts, the writings of Josephus, and other sources, investigating the construction of early Christian identity and comparing the experience of Paul's churches with that of Diaspora Jewish communities scattered throughout the Roman Empire.

Richard Hays' Echoes of Scriptures in the Gospels

 A book that I and many others have been anticipating for some time is ready for a June release (June 15th to be exact). Richard Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School, really needs no introduction, so I won't attempt one here, except to say, that Hays is one of the most well-respected New Testament scholars in the world today and has been for many years. At long last, the successor to his seminal work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989), has almost arrived. Echoes of Scriptures in the Gospels (Baylor University Press) will weigh in at a hefty 524 pages ($49.99) and looks from the blurbs listed below to be a worthy successor to his work on Paul.

Richard Hays

Here are the particulars:

The claim that the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection took place "according to the Scriptures" stands at the heart of the New Testament's message. All four canonical Gospels declare that the Torah and the Prophets and the Psalms mysteriously prefigure Jesus. The author of the Fourth Gospel states this claim succinctly: in his narrative, Jesus declares, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me" (John 5:46). Yet modern historical criticism characteristically judges that the New Testament's christological readings of Israel's Scripture misrepresent the original sense of the texts; this judgment forces fundamental questions to be asked: Why do the Gospel writers read the Scriptures in such surprising ways? Are their readings intelligible as coherent or persuasive interpretations of the Scriptures? Does Christian faith require the illegitimate theft of someone else's sacred texts? 

 Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels answers these questions. Richard B. Hays chronicles the dramatically different ways the four Gospel writers interpreted Israel's Scripture and reveals that their readings were as complementary as they were faithful. In this long-awaited sequel to his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Hays highlights the theological consequences of the Gospel writers' distinctive hermeneutical approaches and asks what it might mean for contemporary readers to attempt to read Scripture through the eyes of the Evangelists. In particular, Hays carefully describes the Evangelists' practice of figural reading―an imaginative and retrospective move that creates narrative continuity and wholeness. He shows how each Gospel artfully uses scriptural echoes to re-narrate Israel's story, to assert that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel's God, and to prod the church in its vocation to engage the pagan world. 

 Hays shows how the Evangelists summon readers to a conversion of their imagination. The Evangelists' use of scriptural echo beckons readers to believe the extraordinary: that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, that Jesus is Israel's God, and that contemporary believers are still on mission. The Evangelists, according to Hays, are training our scriptural senses, calling readers to be better scriptural people by being better scriptural poets.

Endorsements:


"A real masterwork from one of the most creative of contemporary New Testament scholars. Anyone who feels nervous about exploring a fully theological reading of the Gospels will take heart from this comprehensive, sophisticated and profoundly nourishing account of how the Gospels themselves use Scripture theologically and invite us to do the same."―Rowan Williams, Master, Magdalene College, University of Cambridge

 "In Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, Richard Hays reads the four Gospels with an acuity of perception that is unmatched. His attention to scriptural subtexts allows each of the evangelists' visions to emerge from behind centuries' worth of obscuring and false assumptions, and to seize one's imagination afresh. Hays' prose is elegant and his arguments are utterly persuasive. Are we really prepared to hear the evangelists speak with this kind of clarity and power?"―Susan Garrett, Dean and Professor of New Testament, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

 "Richard Hays has written another wonderful book. Exhibiting the extraordinary literary sensitivity and erudition of his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Hays produces here an even more important argument than in that previous, now-classic work. By tracing carefully the underpinnings of Hebrew biblical allusions in the Gospels, Hays shows how tightly these works are bound up with Israel, the God of Israel, and the Scripture of Israel. The theological implications of this work are astounding. Hays expresses it all in clear and limpid prose that makes the exegesis and the stakes clear as a bell."―Daniel Boyarin, author of The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (2012), University of California, Berkeley

 "This exceptional book combines thoroughness and elegance in equal measure, also conjoining scholarly rigour with bold Christian conviction in its conclusions. Richard Hays has produced here a gripping account of the diverse approaches of the evangelists to the Old Testament, and it is a volume to which I can confidently predict I will return again and again."―Simon Gathercole, Reader in New Testament Studies and Fellow, Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge

 "Roughly a quarter of a century after his groundbreaking monograph Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard Hays stimulates the ongoing discussion of intertextuality in New Testament writings with an impressive analysis of Scripture's polyphonic resonance in the four canonical stories of Jesus and how these intertextual semantic effects contribute substantially to the meaning and rhetorical cogency of the narratives. Richard Hays' ability to survey broad fields of knowledge and to synthesize complex textual phenomena makes Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels essential reading for everyone who is interested in the relevance of Scripture for understanding New Testament texts."―Matthias Konradt, Lehrstuhl für Neutestamentliche Theologie, Theologische Fakultät, Universität Heidelberg

 "Every time Richard Hays has written a major book, he has opened our eyes to previously unimagined possibilities. This new book will do that too, only this time the view is an even more breathtaking invitation to fresh exegesis and theology. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels challenges us to think differently about the way we read each of the four gospels―and therefore, by implication, about the traditions and early communities that stand behind them, and ultimately the elusive but powerful figure of the master exegete whose scripture-laden story these documents are telling."―N.T. Wright, Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, University of St Andrews

 "In this stimulating volume, Hays aims at a conversion of our imagination. By thoroughly discussing how the four Gospels adopt Scripture and create their stories of Jesus by the use of numerous Scriptural echoes, Hays lays the foundations of a biblical theology of the Four Gospels."―Jörg Frey, Chair of New Testament Studies, University of Zürich

 "Richard Hays' Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels allows us to hear a rich chorus of voices in Scripture long silent. Like his Echoes in the Letters of Paul, Hays has performed nothing less than a Copernican revolution in turning the whole discipline of literary parallels and influences upon an author 'inside out': Instead of New Testament authors like Mark or Matthew reaching back to pluck some citation to fit their need in presenting the gospel, Hays demonstrates that it was Scripture itself pressing and prodding and pushing its way into the formative thoughts and sermons and teachings about Jesus. instead of a monotone word of the Evangelists' redaction, now suddenly a mixed chorale of melodies, a heavenly polyphony of scriptural songs burst through brightly, brilliantly to illuminate the 'good news' of God's reign. In Hays' Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, God is anything but silent."―David P. Moessner, A. A. Bradford Chair and Professor of Religion, Texas Christian University

 "A masterful achievement by a great scholar at the peak of his powers, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels is a book that I expect to be revisiting for the rest of my life. Richard Hays traces with both depth and clarity the diverse uses the evangelists make of the Hebrew scriptures. His conclusion draws its title from the Emmaus Road story: 'Did not our hearts burn within us?' Indeed they did, and do."―Alan Jacobs, Distinguished Professor of Humanities in the Honors Program, Baylor University

The Righteousness of God: An Interview with Lee Irons Part III

Lee Irons 

Here is the third and final installment of my interview with Lee Irons, author of The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (Mohr Siebeck), 2015.

Part I of this interview can be read here and part II here. Many thanks are in order to Lee for the privilege of this interview and for his contribution of The Righteousness of God,  what I hope will be a game-changing book in the often hostile world of Pauline studies.




8.  When you focus on δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul (pp. 272-336), you determine that in 7 out of 10 occurrences (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3 [2x]; 2 Cor 5:21; and Phil 3:9) denote a righteousness received from God as a gift. The other 3 occurrences (Rom 3:5, 25-26) signify God’s distributive justice. Would you walk us through one example of each and how this overturns Cremer’s and the New Perspective’s insistence on the interpretation of “covenant faithfulness”?

Irons: One of the things that has caused some trouble for Pauline scholars is the assumption—mistaken, in my opinion—that “the righteousness of God” in Paul must have a uniform meaning that applies in each and every one of its occurrences in Paul’s epistles. This is to assume that the phrase is a terminus technicus (technical term) functioning as a cipher for a highly specific Pauline theological concept. But Paul’s use of theological vocabulary is not so rigid. He uses a variety of terms to express the same or similar concepts, and he sometimes uses the same term with a variety of meanings and applications. It is better, in my opinion, to take each instance of “the righteousness of God” on its own and see what he means by it. When you do that, I believe a good argument can be made for taking the phrase in two related but distinct ways: (1) the righteousness that comes to believers as a gift from God (7x), and (2) God’s own attribute of justice (3x). Now it may fairly be asked, “How do you know which is which?” I argue in my book that the key to sorting out the two usages is the presence or absence of the terminology of appropriating or receiving righteousness “by faith” or similar language. To provide a more rigorous basis for this procedure, I appeal to the linguistic concept referred to in German as Näherbestimmungen. (I got this from Ulrich Wilckens in his EKK commentary on Romans published in 1978.) It’s a compound word built out of the words näher (“near, nearby”) and Bestimmungen (“definers, delimiters,” from the verb bestimmen “to define, delimit”). So Näherbestimmungen could be translated literally as “nearby definers or delimiters,” but English-speaking linguists are probably more familiar with the term “syntagmatic constraints.” A key characteristic of Näherbestimmungen is that they disambiguate polysemous terms. The example I use in my book is the polysemous word “glasses.” Depending on the context, the term can refer to eyeglasses to correct vision or to drinking glasses. It is a polysemous term, a term with more than one meaning, although clearly both usages derive from the fact that eyeglasses and drinking glasses are made of the same material (“glass”). In any given case, how do we know which meaning is in view? We know it from the context, of course. But we can be more specific. It isn’t just that the general topic being discussed that brings clarity. There are specific verbal cues—Näherbestimmungen

Applying this to “the righteousness of God,” we can look for similar syntagmatic constraints to determine which meaning Paul has in mind in any given instance. I argue that the various terms Paul uses for appropriating or receiving righteousness (“by faith,” “through faith,” “to all who believe,” etc.) function as Näherbestimmungen that deactivate the potential meaning “God’s own attribute of justice” and activate the meaning “the gift of righteousness from God.”

You asked me to give an example of each. I’ll start out with the verses that everyone acknowledges are Paul’s thesis statement for his epistle, Romans 1:16-17: 

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘He who is righteous by faith shall live.’” (ESV modified)

In this instance, “the righteousness of God” is revealed “by faith, to faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν). Although debated, it probably means the righteousness of God is revealed not only “by means of faith” but “to faith,” that is, “to all who have faith.” This interpretation rests on comparison with the similar but fuller expression in Rom 3:21-22, where Paul recapitulates Rom 1:17 and says that the righteousness of God is manifested “through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe” (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας).

Because of the appropriating Näherbestimmungen (“by faith, to faith,” “through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe”), we are pretty much forced to take “the righteousness of God” not as an attribute or activity of God but as the status of righteousness given to all who believe. It is hard to make sense of the notion that God’s covenant faithfulness is revealed “by/through faith” or “to faith.” But it is easy to see how it is that a righteousness that comes from God can be revealed “by/through faith.”

With regard to the other meaning, “God’s own justice,” I’ll simply point out that there are no appropriating Näherbestimmungen in these three instances (Rom 3:5, 25-26). For example, the two instances in Rom 3:25-26 are in nearly identical prepositional phrases, “for the demonstration of his justice.” In the context, Paul is saying that God set forth Christ as the propitiatory sacrifice after he had passed over the sins committed in the previous Mosaic era, “in order to demonstrate that he is just.” The sacrifice of Christ shows that, in forgiving the sins of believers, God is not violating his justice but is doing so in a way that is consistent with his justice. The syntagmatic constraints here (e.g., the phrase “for the demonstration of”) point in a different direction. There is no language of “the righteousness of God” being received or appropriated “by faith.”

I know you wanted me to pick only one example of each usage, but I can’t help but bring up another example of gift-of-God usage. I’m referring to Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:9. In context, he is explaining how he has set aside all of his fleshly privileges (Jewish heritage, circumcision, being a strict Pharisee, righteousness under the law) in view of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ. He says he counts all those fleshly things as rubbish, so that he might gain Christ ...

“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (ESV).

In this instance, Paul doesn’t just use the bare genitive θεοῦ (“of God”), which is ambiguous, but instead he inserts the preposition ἐκ (“from”). This clarifies the meaning of the genitive so that it is explicitly now a genitive of source or author. This is called a précising term because it makes the meaning more explicit or precise. The addition of the preposition in Phil 3:9 encourages us to back to the other cases (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21) and read the genitive the same way, especially Rom 10:3.

It is crucial to see how Paul explicitly contrasts the two kinds of righteousness:  the righteousness “of my own, which comes from the law” versus the righteousness “which comes through faith in Christ” and which is “from God.” Paul makes the very same contrast in Romans 10:3-6. Naturally, then, we should assume that “the righteousness of God” has the same meaning in both passages.

N. T. Wright dismisses Phil 3:9 with a wave of the hand. He writes, “All too often scholars have referred to this passage as though it could be the yardstick for uses of dikaiosune theou; but this is impossible” (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 104). He doesn’t say why it is impossible. But to my mind, Phil 3:9 is the clinching piece of evidence that for Paul “the righteousness of God” is a righteousness comes “from God.” 

1   9.  How is the famed Πίστις Χριστοῦ debate relevant to the one on δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and what is your conclusion with regards to the former?

Irons: As is well-known, the phrase pistis Christou in Paul’s writings (e.g., Gal 2:16, 20; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9) is grammatically ambiguous. The genitive Christou could be taken in an objective sense (“faith in Christ”) or a subjective sense (“Christ’s own faith”). Since the Greek word pistis can also mean “faithfulness,” most who hold to the subjective genitive interpretation render the phrase “the faithfulness of Christ.”

Traditionally, translators and commentators have seen the genitive as objective, have taken pistis to mean “faith” rather than “faithfulness,” and have regarded the implied subject as the believer. So, for example, Romans 3:21-22 would read: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (ESV).  This has been the traditional interpretation as far back as Augustine and Chrysostom and was the assumed interpretation until fairly recently. Although there was a German scholar who advocated the subjective genitive as early as 1891 (Johannes Haußleiter), it wasn’t until 1981 that the issue became a lively debate among Pauline scholars, sparked by Richard B. Hays’s influential dissertation, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11.

Why did I address this topic in a book on the righteousness of God? The reason is because of the verses I just quoted—Rom 3:21-22. The pistis Christou phrase occurs in direct conjunction with “the righteousness of God.” One of my arguments for taking it as “the righteousness that comes from God as gift” is the fact that Paul repeatedly states that this righteousness is “by faith” (ek pisteōs) or “through faith” (dia pisteōs), implying that it is “received” by faith, or “comes” to those who have faith. But in Rom 3:22, this only works if the contentious phrase dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou is understood as our faith in Christ (the objective genitive interpretation). If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted as Christ’s own faithfulness (the subjective genitive interpretation), a crucial support for my interpretation of the righteousness of God in Rom 3:21-22 is removed. Conversely, some New Perspective scholars, notably N. T. Wright and Richard B. Hays, are attracted to the subjective genitive interpretation of pistis Christou because it comports with their reading of dikaiosynē theou as God’s covenant faithfulness. Romans 3:21-22 has special importance in their construction of Paul’s theology since they would interpret Paul as affirming that God’s faithfulness to his covenant is revealed in the faithful obedience of Christ.

So the two interpretive debates go hand in hand. How you read the one phrase will affect how you read the other. I should point out, however, that James D. G. Dunn is unique among New Perspective scholars since he advocates the “covenant faithfulness” interpretation of dikaiosynē theou, but defends the traditional objective genitive interpretation of pistis Christou.

In any event, in the book (pp. 329-34), I provide a number of arguments in support of the objective genitive interpretation, “faith in Christ,” relying heavily on the arguments of scholars who defend the traditional reading. I am convinced that the traditional reading, “faith in Christ,” is exegetically well grounded and that the arguments against it aren’t compelling.

10. What do you hope your study accomplishes and what kind of feedback have you received from the scholarly community thus far?

Irons: I have received some positive reviews from scholars coming from an “old perspective” interpretation similar to my own, e.g., Thomas Schreiner’s review on The Gospel Coalition websiteI have received some positive reviews from scholars coming from an “old perspective” interpretation similar to my own, e.g., Thomas Schreiner’s review on The Gospel Coalition website, and a few others. What remains to be seen is how those from the New Perspective side will react, particularly those who are committed to the popular view that dikaiosynē theou in Paul means “God’s covenant faithfulness.” On that front, I am excited to report that such a dialogue may occur in the near future. I was contacted by the editor of a new journal that will feature a discussion of my book in its inaugural issue. They are commissioning a piece by someone who is more favorable to the Reformation interpretation, and a piece by someone who studied under N. T. Wright and leans toward a New Perspective interpretation. I will be given a chance to write a response to both articles.

With regard to my aims, I hope the scholarly community will come around to seeing the fundamental weakness, even (dare I say) the error, of Cremer’s relational theory of righteousness and its exegetical offspring, the covenant-faithfulness interpretation of “the righteousness of God” in Paul. Trust me, I’m aware of how brash this must sound! I realize these are widely held views, and that I am going up against some of the titans of biblical scholarship in the 20^th century. Almost all of the lexicons of biblical Hebrew and Greek and the major theological dictionaries assume and promote Cremer’s relational theory. It is a deeply entrenched position in both Old and New Testament scholarship. Such a monolithic view will not die out easily or quickly. But my hope is that I have at the very least planted some seeds of doubt.

I also hope that my work has given new life to an “old perspective” Reformation reading of Paul. Clearly, “the righteousness of God” was an important, even crucial concept for Paul, since he sets it out right at the outset of his epistle to the Romans as standing at the heart of the gospel (Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26). I don’t deny that the New Perspective has made a valuable contribution in various ways—reminding us of the importance of the social dimension (the inclusion of the Gentiles) of Paul’s gospel, and warning us against slandering the Judaism of Paul’s day as if it denied God’s grace and forgiveness. But the pendulum has swung too far. The introspective conscience that wants to know how a sinner can be accepted as righteous before a holy God did not begin with Luther. Paul and his contemporaries were also interested in that question. I hope my book demonstrates that a Reformation reading of Paul can be defended as a responsible one.

Paul stated that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation because in it “the righteousness of God” is revealed by faith. For Paul, this teaching of righteousness by faith stands at the heart of the gospel. He believed and taught with all his energy that the only way sinners can have a status of righteousness before God is not by doing what the law requires, since no one does keep the law, but by grace through faith in Christ. Thanks be to God for “the free gift of righteousness” (Rom 5:17)!

The Righteousness of God: An Interview with Lee Irons Part II

 (For part I of the interview, click here).

Without further ado, here is part II of my interview with Lee Irons on his book, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).

Lee Irons

5. Another very helpful section (pp. 65-68) is where you discuss Hebrew Parallelism. Discuss how a passage like Ps 143:1 has been used by those to support their relational interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and why this is erroneous?
  Irons: New Perspective scholars, following Cremer, often cite verses where the terms “righteousness” and “faithfulness” (or “salvation”) occur in parallelism. For example, Psalm 143:1 reads:

“Hear my prayer, O Lord,

Give ear to my supplications!

Answer me in Your faithfulness, in Your righteousness!” (NASB)

Those following in the Cremer line would then argue that the term “righteousness” can itself denote “salvation” or “covenant faithfulness,” and that this Old Testament background has influenced Paul’s usage. On this reasoning, Dunn and Wright argue that “the righteousness of God” in the Old Testament and in Paul means “God’s saving activity as an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness.”

Based on the work of Robert Lowth in the 18^th century, older scholarship used to subdivide Hebrew parallelism into three subtypes: “synonymous parallelism,” “antithetical parallelism,” and “synthetic parallelism.” In the first type, synonymous parallelism, the two parallel phrases were viewed as saying the same thing in different words. However, after the paradigm-shifting work of James Kugel and Robert Alter in the 1980s, scholars no longer believe there is such a thing as strictly synonymous parallelism. Alter asserts that there are always “small wedges of difference between closely akin terms.” Kugel’s formula is: “A, and, what's more, B.” Research on Hebrew parallelism has advanced since the work of Kugel and Alter, but scholars still agree that the concept of synonymous parallelism ought to be set aside. It is therefore no longer valid as an argument for taking the righteousness of God as a cipher for God’s covenant faithfulness.

How should we understand a verse like Psalm 143:1? I argue that it is a case of hyponymy. Consider the poetic parallelism in Isaiah 3:8:

“For Jerusalem has stumbled,
and Judah has fallen.”

Clearly the parallelism here does not mean that “Jerusalem” and “Judah” are synonymous terms. It only indicates that there is a close relationship – Jerusalem is the main city within Judah. Everyone who is in Jerusalem is in Judah but not everyone who is in Judah is in Jerusalem. “Judah” is the hyperonym, and “Jerusalem” is the hyponym. On the older theory of synonymous parallelism, “Jerusalem” and “Judah” would be taken as synonyms rather than seeing the latter as a subcategory of the former.

Likewise, faithfulness is an important sub-category within righteousness. As Mark Seifrid argues in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1 (ed. Carson, O’Brien, Seifrid), faithfulness is covenant-righteousness. In other words, faithfulness is a species of righteousness, that is, righteousness with regard to keeping one’s promises. The way God is “righteous” within the terms of a promissory covenant is by being faithful to keep his promises and delivering his people. But this does not mean that the lexical denotation of “righteousness” is “faithfulness to a promissory covenant.” Nor can we assume that all divine acts of righteousness are instances of being faithful to a covenant or keeping a promise.

Just as everyone who is in Jerusalem is in Judah but not everyone who is in Judah is in Jerusalem, so all instances of faithfulness to a promissory covenant may be termed “righteousness,” but not all ”righteousness” is faithfulness to a promissory covenant.

6. Can you discuss the concepts “stereotype” and “calque” in relation to the LXX and the Hebrew text with particular reference to the word group ΔΙΚ-צדק? 

Irons: These are terms used in linguistics generally, but allow me to explain their use specifically in Septuagint studies. A stereotype is a Hebrew-Greek equivalence, that is, a Greek word chosen by the translators to be the normal word representing a particular Hebrew word. It does not mean that they will always and only use that Greek word to render that Hebrew word, but it is their preferred habit. A calque is a Greek word that has taken on a new meaning due to its regular use in the Greek-speaking Jewish community. For example, the Greek word διαθήκη in extra-biblical Greek meant “a last will and testament,” but in Greek-speaking Judaism, it had become a virtual stand-in for the Hebrew word berith or “covenant.” It was a Greek word with a Hebrew meaning. Although the original meaning in extra-biblical Greek had not been completely forgotten, the Hebrew meaning was generally the one activated when the discourse had to do with any of the covenants mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, most notably the covenant God made with Israel when he gave them the law.

This is relevant to the debate over “the righteousness of God,” because one of the arguments made in the past for interpreting the phrase as “God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant promises” is the fact that in the Septuagint δικαιοσύνη is a stereotype for the Hebrew words tsedeq and tsedaqah. The argument then runs: because the Hebrew words tsedeq and tsedaqah mean God’s saving activity or God’s covenant faithfulness or both, therefore the Greek word δικαιοσύνη has taken on the Hebrew meaning.

The problem is that, as Septuagint scholars recognize, one cannot move so quickly from a stereotype to a calque without further examination. Evidence that a particular Greek word is a stereotyped equivalent for a particular Hebrew word is not in and of itself proof that the Greek word in question has become a calque, a Greek word with a Hebrew meaning. One needs evidence that this Greek word was actually used this way in Jewish literature composed in Greek. Aside from a few books in the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is a translation, not literature composed in Greek. The only solid evidence that a Greek word has become a calque is the use of that Greek word with a Hebrew meaning in Jewish literature that was originally composed in Greek, such as The Wisdom of Solomon, Fourth Maccabees, the writings of Philo, and so on.

For this reason, I have a chapter (Ch. 5) in my dissertation examining the usage of δικαιοσύνη in Jewish literature composed in Greek. I looked for evidence that δικαιοσύνη had taken on an alleged Hebrew meaning such as “salvation” or “covenant faithfulness,” and I could not find much evidence. I certainly did not find any instances where it meant “covenant faithfulness.” I found two instances where it seemed to have a salvific meaning. I concluded that it was barely possible but very unlikely that “salvation” had become one of the meanings of δικαιοσύνη in the Greek vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism.

7. Cremer’s relational interpretation (“covenant faithfulness”) of the “Righteousness of God” terminology is put to the test in perhaps your most important chapter, “The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament” (Ch. 4; pp. 108-193). You convincingly demonstrate that God’s righteousness is one of distributive righteousness/justice rather than Cremer’s insistence on the exclusivity of salvation righteousness/justice. What are the implications of this conclusion?

Irons: It undercuts Cremer’s primary basis for the conclusion that the Hebrew concept of righteousness must be “relational.” Cremer (following Ritschl before him) had claimed that righteousness is used in an exclusively positive, saving, delivering sense. He said it was durchaus positiver (“thoroughly positive”). I argue that he was simply wrong in that claim, since negative, judging occurrences are also found in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 9:27; 2 Chron 12:6; Ezra 9:15; Neh 9:33; Ps 7:11; 11:7; 50:6; 129:4; Isa 5:16; 10:22; 28:17; 42:21; Lam 1:18; Dan 9:7, 14). However, beginning from that mistaken starting point, Cremer argued that the “thoroughly positive” use of righteousness could only be explained by postulating that the Hebrew concept of righteousness is not a normative concept (as in Greco-Roman culture) but a relational concept in which righteousness is faithfulness to a relationship or covenant. But if the references to God’s righteousness in the Old Testament are not exclusively positive (saving righteousness) but sometimes negative as well (judging righteousness), then the terms for “righteousness” are not equivalent to “salvation.” The prime rationale for viewing “righteousness” in Hebrew as a relational concept is unsound.

By careful exegesis of a number of representative OT texts, I make the case that 41 passages in the OT (mostly in the Psalms and Isaiah) that refer to God’s righteousness (usually in the phrases “my/his/your righteousness”) are best interpreted as being instances in which God brings to bear his judicial righteousness or justice, with negative effects on the enemies of his people and with positive (delivering, vindicating) effects on his people. For example, Psalm 103:6 says: “The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (ESV). When God works righteousness, it means that he comes to judge the enemies of God’s people (those doing the oppressing) and as a result, God’s people (the ones being oppressed) are delivered and vindicated. Thus, even the instances of God’s saving or delivering righteousness are expressions of God’s distributive justice. Cremer’s relational theory of righteousness was a mistake, not only lexicographically but theologically, because it creates a false dichotomy between God’s distributive justice and his saving justice or righteousness. God’s saving righteousness actually depends upon his distributive justice. There is no salvation apart from justice. In effect, Ritschl (and Cremer, although Ritschl was more deliberate about it than Cremer) evacuated the concept of righteousness of its judicial, distributive element, leaving a God who is pure love devoid of justice. 

The Righteousness of God: An Interview with Lee Irons Part 1

Recently, I had the privilege of interviewing Lee Irons about his revised published dissertation, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). Irons challenges the relational view of righteousness first advanced by Hermann Cremer in 1899, which has had a profound influence on advocates of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). In my opinion, Irons has done a meticulous and thorough job of reexamining the use of righteousness language in the OT, Second Temple texts, etc., presenting the best defense of righteousness as a gift from God to date.

This interview will be divided up into two to three parts, due to the detailed interaction.


1. First, tell us a bit about your experience at Fuller Theological Seminary and your experience of being a supervisee of Donald Hagner.

Lee Irons

Irons: I did my Ph.D. in New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary under the supervision of Dr. Donald A. Hagner. My very first Ph.D. seminar at Fuller was with Dr. Hagner on “The History of New Testament Research.” That was a fantastic way of getting introduced to the field of New Testament studies. But it wasn’t purely historical, since Don also gave his students his own perspective on employing the historical-critical method from a posture of faith that recognizes the Scriptures as the word of God in the words of men. I also took a Ph.D. seminar with Dr. Seyoon Kim on “Jesus and Paul,” which was wonderful. Dr. Kim was also my secondary advisor. He was very helpful in guiding me during the writing of my dissertation when Dr. Hagner was transitioning into retirement. Both Don and Seyoon had F. F. Bruce as their Doktorvater, so I am blessed to call myself a second generation student of that great evangelical New Testament scholar. Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson’s Ph.D. seminar on “New Testament Research Methods” was also very useful. She taught me not to take secondary sources as gospel truth but to check the primary sources for myself. This is the mark of a good scholar. It is surprising how often the secondary sources (e.g., commentaries, lexicons, etc.) simply quote one another in a long chain of scholarly dependence that is often ultimately built on a shaky foundation. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the doctoral program at Fuller. It was a blessing to be able to study with New Testament scholars of the highest caliber within the context of an evangelical faith community. My mentors modeled for me how to do rigorous scholarship from the standpoint of Christian faith.


2. What were some of the influencing factors that led you to take on the topic of the “Righteousness of God”? 

Irons: I wanted to write a dissertation that would make a significant contribution to NT scholarship and also be relevant to the church. I didn’t want to write on an obscure, dry-as-dust topic that would be relevant only to a tiny group of specialists. That is why I chose to write on one facet of the debate over the New Perspective on Paul. In addition, I have two long-standing scholarly interests that I wanted to be able to incorporate: lexical semantics and Septuagint studies. The result was that I chose to write on “the righteousness of God” in Paul. I knew this was a huge topic of discussion in Pauline studies, and so I would not be at a loss for secondary literature to interact with. Yet I felt that it would be worthwhile to go back and do the lexical spadework of studying “righteousness” terminology in both the Old Testament (in Hebrew) and in the Greek Bible (LXX and NT).


3. Can you discuss the impact of the 19th-century German scholar, Hermann Cremer, and the influence he has had on the relational interpretation of the “Righteousness of God?” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ)

Irons: Practically all of the lexicons and theological dictionaries published in the 20th century repeat the claim that “righteousness” in Hebrew thought is not a “norm concept” but a “relational concept.” This is one of those cases where the secondary literature needs to be assessed by going back ad fontes. The source of the “relational theory” is the 19th-century German theologian Hermann Cremer, who is probably more well-known for his Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, which was a precursor of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Cremer published a book in 1899 titled Die paulinische Rechtfertigsungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (The Pauline Doctrine of Justification in the Context of its Historical Presuppositions). The book was reissued in a revised version in 1900. This book has exercised a profound influence on both Old Testament and New Testament scholarship. Cremer, who was both critical of and influenced by Albrecht Ritschl, argued that the term “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible is always a positive concept having to do with salvation and never a punitive concept. I argue in my dissertation that this is not true, but he thought it was true and developed his relational theory in order to explain it. The relational theory is that there is no norm outside of the relationship defining what is right; rather, righteousness is faithfulness to the relationship itself. This is the basis for the claim of New Perspective scholars such as N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn that “the righteousness of God” means “God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel.” It is not an exaggeration to say that Cremer has exercised a dominant influence to the point that very few scholars can be found who question it. It is just accepted an assured result of critical scholarship. Yet hardly anyone has gone back to Cremer’s 1899 book to examine his arguments to see if they are valid. (It’s not easy for English-speaking scholars since the book has never been translated into English. Even if one does have the courage to try working one’s way through the original German, the book was printed in the old calligraphic style of German typeface called Fraktur. Incidentally, a PDF scan of the book can be downloaded for free from Google Books.)


4. In your chapter on method, you point to the difference between “lexical concepts” and “discourse concepts.” How does distinguishing these concepts give the interpreter clarity when investigating “Righteousness of God” terminology? 

Irons: The distinction between “lexical concepts” and “discourse concepts” is from Peter Cotterell and Max Turner in their excellent book Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (IVP, 1989). Lexical concepts, to put it simply, are word meanings, that is, the sense or senses of a word, the mental concepts that a word evokes. Discourse concepts are additional concepts that may be associated with a particular word in the context of a particular discourse, but which are not necessarily part of the lexical concept or meaning of the word itself. Cotterell and Turner illustrate the distinction with the following example:

A speaker may keep referring to his Uncle’s bike, but (having formally introduced it earlier, as it were) now just speaks of it as ‘the bike’. Because the expression ‘the bike’ now still refers to Uncle George’s old red one, this is all included in the concept denoted by the expression ‘the bike’ in the speaker’s discourse, even though it is not properly part of the sense of the expression ‘the bike’ as such .... Oldness, redness, and to-Uncle-George-belongingness would not be part of the lexical concept “bike”, but would belong to the discourse concept “the bike” in this particular situation. (p. 152)

It would obviously be a lexical fallacy for a lexicographer (dictionary maker) to include these additional facts of being old, red, and belonging to Uncle George as part of the definition of the English word “bike.” These are incidental qualities of a particular bike in a particular discourse.

This fallacy is what James Barr famously called “illegitimate totality transfer.” In Chapter 8 of The Semantics of Biblical Language, Barr gave his famous critique of Kittel’s TDNT. His main concern there was with the way in which specific Greek words are used as symbols or placeholders for larger theological concepts. TDNT is organized like a dictionary but (Barr claims) is really a series of articles on various aspects of New Testament theology using the Greek words as the launching pad for each essay. (Personally, I think this is not entirely fair to TDNT, but Barr has a point to the extent that TDNT does not always keep clear when it is doing lexicography and when it is doing theology.)

The example Barr gives to illustrate “illegitimate totality transfer” is the Greek word ἐκκλησία (p. 218). The Kittel approach would be to write a lengthy essay on the theological concept of the church in the New Testament, showing how the church is the first installment of the kingdom of God, the bride of Christ, and so on. The fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer” happens when the exegete encounters the word ἐκκλησία in a certain passage, say Matt 16:18 or Acts 7:38, and then reads into that one instance the “totality” of the theological concept of “the church” as expounded in TDNT.

In my dissertation, I argue that this happens when scholars such as Ernst Käsemann, Peter Stuhlmacher, and N. T. Wright define “the righteousness of God” in such broad theological terms that the discourse concepts bleed into and greatly enlarge the lexical concept until it has ballooned out of proportion. For example, Stuhlmacher, in his famous dissertation, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (1966), defines “the righteousness of God” as “the age-spanning, creational, in-the-beginning existing, now-as-Word-existing and in-Christ-personified liberating right of the Creator to and over his Creation.” If there was ever a case of totality transfer, this would be it! Even if we grant that all of these grand theological concepts are present in the broader discourse of Paul’s “righteousness of God” language (which I doubt), we shouldn’t import all of that rich theology into the meaning of the word “righteousness.”

(End of Part I)