Jun 28
Michael Pahl’s “Justification for dummies”
I want to draw attention to the generally very useful series on justification that Michael Pahl has posted. This link is to his index page for the series. I think it’s quite important to read the whole series, since he takes things in a different order to others.
I’m fascinated by the way in which there is comparatively little explicit emphasis on either eschatology or the forensic dimensions to the metaphor. (Fascinated but dubious!) I like the social-scientific awareness of identity and relationship. I think he gives the most persuasive short account of the (mainly) subjective genitive for pistis Christou, showing why it makes sense.
I have some minor quibbles, for example in the post on representation and substitution, where I think the place of gift-offering and sacrifice as relationship restoring should be more highly stressed.
I have at least one major quibble. Although he deals with “solution to plight” later in the series, (which I think is an important emphasis) I’d personally like to argue that this was not only derived from his commissioning experience, but an earlier and perhaps quite primitive mirror-version of his later theology underlies his persecution, and is not entirely unrelated either to the apostolic preaching, or the transmission of the Jesus tradition.
Despite these quibbles I think that this series is as good and accessible an introduction to a broadly new perspective understanding of justification that you will find. It’s less polemical than many, and perhaps will be more broadly acceptable to evangelicals. I will certainly be referring beginning students to it.
Let me leave you with one taster from this post.
Paul knew the general story of Jesus; he knew Jesus had been viewed by Paul’s Pharisaic peers and the Jewish elders as a Law-breaker - “soft” on Sabbath and the purity regulations, to be sure - even finally condemned as “unrighteous” according to the highest Jewish court. However, in Paul’s commissioning experience near Damascus he was confronted by a mind-boggling reality: God had resurrected this legally “unrighteous” Jesus. Therefore, although Jesus had been deemed unrighteous according to the Law, God clearly considered him righteous, effectively overturning the condemnation of Jesus according to the Law by justifying him through resurrection. Thus, by resurrecting the legally “unrighteous” Jesus, God demonstrated that the Law is irrelevant to one being justified by God. The converse was also true then: by resurrecting the Jesus who had been obedient to his divine commission, God demonstrated that justification is available through the faithfulness of Jesus.
That serves as an admirable summary for a general reader.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Thanks for the endorsement - I think! “Justification for Dummies,” eh? I suppose in a sense that description fits well. It’s certainly not “Justification for Scholars,” as I suggested even in the index intro. I used an earlier version of the series as a discussion piece in an undergraduate NT Theology course - which helps to set the reader-orientation a bit. And that initial version was essentially me sitting at my computer and writing, deliberately leaving aside for the time being all the discussions of justification I had ever read to that point - which helps explain both some lacunae in the discussion and the “not quite tight” feel of the whole thing. But flawed as it is, it was helpful to me at least to put it together, and if it helps introduce others to the issues then that’s even better.
I especially appreciate your comments on what’s missing from my presentation. I suppose I could have (should have?) had some explicit engagement with eschatological and forensic dimensions of justification, along with more exploration of the origins of Paul’s understanding of justification. As for the first of those, it seems to me that my whole discussion is shot through with the eschatological dimensions, so all I’m really missing is an explicit direction of attention to all that. As for the forensic dimension, you’ve got me there - yes, that is present in justification, though I see it as subsumed under the eschatological dimension, and really even as more of a sort of “surface metaphor” employed by Paul particularly in Romans than as a real significant dimension of the inner workings of justification for Paul. As for how Paul’s pre-commissioning understanding shaped his later understanding, to a certain extent that is present in my discussion as I point particularly to the Pharisaic Jewish perspectives on various issues. You’re certainly right, though, that more could be said on the relationship between Paul’s pre-commissioning persecution and his later understanding, as well as the relation of the Jesus tradition to Paul’s understanding of justification, but these are things I just need to put more thought into.
Thanks again for the comments. “Justification for Dummies.” I think I like that after all - the phrase does nicely reflect a critical dimension of Paul’s thought (cf. 1 Cor 1-2)…