Brueggemann: The OT Law Pertaining to the Year of Release - The Forgiveness of All Debts

The Most Important Command in the Old Testament isn’t what you think

http://hackingchristianity.net/2013/12/the-most-important-command-in-the-old-testament.html

 

by UM Jeremy

December 6, 2013

Comments

 

What’s the most important command in the Old Testament?

 

C’mon, this is an easy question. Because Jesus was asked the same question so we can pretty easily rely on his answer. It’s the Shema: to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And to love your neighbor as yourself. Asked and Answered!

 

But no, Jesus was wrong.

 

At least, if you value grammar over the opinion of God-With-Us.

 

=====

 

In my Sunday School class, I’ve been teaching a video series featuring Dr. Walter Brueggemann, an Old Testament professor and author. In February 2012, Brueggemann gave the three-day Barton Clinton-Gordey Lecture Series at Boston Avenue UMC on the topic of “Scarcity and Abundance in the Bible.”

 

In the third lecture of the series, Brueggemann points to the following as the most important command in the Old Testament:

In Deuteronomy 15, you get a law about seven years. It’s called the Year of Release. It says that at the end of seven years, if a poor person owes you money, cancel the debt.

Uh, what? That’s the most important? A law about releasing debts? What about the Shema? The 10 Commandments? Whatever. If you break this seven-year-release law, the United Methodist Church won’t even put you on trial.

 

So c’mon, how on earth is this the most important commandment? Brueggemann continues:

I’ll give you a little Hebrew grammar–I know you’ve been waiting for this. Biblical Hebrew has no adverbs. The way it expresses the intensity of the verb, it repeats the verb. So if it says give and you want to say “really give” it says “give give” right in the sentence–”give give.” 

This law about the Year of Release there are five absolute infinitives that you can’t spot in English. There are more intense verbs in this law than anywhere else in the Old Testament. This is Moses saying I mean this. 

[The law] says to not be hard-hearted (or tight fisted) about granting poor people space to live their lives, because you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord God brought you out into the good place.

So grammatically, the Old Testament scripture with the most emphasis as in “you must must must must must do this” is a passage about forgiving debts.

 

Fascinating.

 

 

=====

 

Is it the greatest command? Clearly not, I completely agree with Jesus on this point.

 

But the command in the Bible that warrants the most emphasis, the most literary focus, the crescendo that storytellers and givers of oral tradition gave the biggest exhortation to…is a little passage about releasing debts in the seventh year.

 

To Brueggemann, this emphasis means that for a society composed of God’s people that there should not be a permanent underclass but the economy should be organized so that everyone has a viable chance. So that every seven years, there’s a chance for the people to get a leg up and have past errors forgiven. It’s the original social safety net, and it’s more painful to the rich than any progressive tax code in American history.

 

To me, it means that we follow a God who knows our sins, who knows our hard-heartedness, who knows our short memory, who knows that we bully those most like us, who knows that the mighty will always try to hide injustice behind fairness.

 

And we are always called to live a life that follows God’s pattern: to strive for six days a week, and relax on the seventh. To build up for six years, and release it to be whatever it ought to be on the seventh. And to trust that our plans, our schemes, and our dreams should always be planned with space for God to work among us in that chaotic, uncontrollable seventh day, year, or moment…because that’s how a life centered on God just is.

 

Do you? Thoughts?

 

 

 

A Jesus Theology: "To Love God and Neighbor"

A Jesus Theology is one that continually seeks to "love God" and "love your neighbor". It was Jesus' very broad re-interpretation of the Torah that set the Pharisees and Sadducees on a direct path of conflict with Him. Why? The latter group read the Torah as a set of decrees from God that must be practiced in order to maintain holiness and receive God's blessing. Whereas Jesus said, this is impossible (as was reiterated time-and-again in Paul's letters). We cannot find holiness through obeying God's decrees because those same decrees will show our inability to maintain them. Though commendable, true holiness could only be found in Jesus' Himself... (yet another heresy to Pharisaical ears!).

 

Incredulously, it was the radical Jewish sect, the Essenes (John the Baptist was one), that heard Jesus' interpretation of the Torah and found relief from the law of God in Jesus, who become God's atoning sacrifice for our sin. And it is to Jesus that a Christian looks to today for empowerment and witness, mission and a semblance to all that life brings. Knowing that with Jesus comes God's Kingdom built upon love, sacrifice, and service. Not upon rules and regulations that are unattainable to keep.

 

Thus, to subscribe to a Jesus Theology is to subscribe to Jesus' sublime phrase, "Love God, love your neighbour." Which any good theology should hold at its heart, and commit itself through prayer and practice . And it is this theology that forms the heart and mission of today's postmodern Emergent Theology. A theology that preaches the love of God with the responsibility of man to love one another. This is the baseline definition of an Emergent Christian (and for that matter, any Christian knowing Christ as Savior and Lord).

 

May it then be so observed by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit granted all of God's children through Christ.

 

R.E. Slater

February 6, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Pharisees: Revisiting an Old Problem

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/02/04/pharisees/

 

by Scot McKnight

Feb 4, 2013

Comments

 

Introduction

 

It’s time to revisit the Pharisees, in part because their story needs to be told so we don’t forget. And in part because some like to use the [term] “Pharisee” in ways that concern me. It is a standard procedure to say “Pharisee” and mean “legalist, bigot, hypocrite, or picayune meddler into other people’s religious business.” Look at any dictionary. But this is in and of itself a caricature and stereotype, for no one (I hope) would think that all Pharisees have always been religious bigots. Such language spells danger down the road in ways that might surprise us. Even more, we have tended to download anger or extreme disagreement with others onto this term “Pharisee.” So, when I call someone a Pharisee I do not mean anything nice or even charitable. Which, in and of itself is dangerous because no group (well, there are exceptions) is always wrong and always bad.

 

Martin Luther — and this was all charted out in 1977 in EP Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism – tended to equate the Roman Catholic establishment with the Pharisees of the Gospels. Everyone should read this book, regardless of all the scuttlebutt about his ideas ever since. The invective of Luther against the Roman Catholics in the 16th Century then was downloaded onto the Pharisees of the New Testament.

 

Here’s the problem: the impact of our use of Pharisee is that we have learned to call all Jews and anyone we think is too conservative a “Pharisee.” This can get very close and often actually is anti-Semitism.

 

Now another point: this kind of rhetoric is what is called “labeling.” To label someone is to put them in a category, or a box, or a corner, and then slap a sticker on their head so we know what to think and how to think about such a person. Labeling is inherently unChristian, and it is what Jesus fought against constantly — and this means we have to see what Jesus meant by “Pharisee” and what he didn’t mean by “Pharisee.”

 

So, I am asking for the many who are still using “Pharisee” in the old-fashioned “religious bigot” sense to be much more careful. I won’t give names, but I’m seeing it on blogs and in books in a way that 15 years ago would have not been the case.

 

A brief look at what Josephus, a 1st Century AD Jewish chronicler, has to say about the Pharisees. Josephus takes two pictures of the Pharisees, one in Bellum Judaicum (=BJ) book 2 (162-4) and one in Jewish Antiquities (=Ant), book 18 (12-15). I’ll limit my comments here, and the goal is for us (1) to have a more accurate view of the Pharisees so we can (2) speak more intelligently and respectfully of this ancient, revered, and respectable form of Judaism.

 

“Jewish philosophy,” he says, “takes three forms… the first school are called Pharisees, of the second Sadducees, of the third Essenes” (BJ 2.119).

 

1. They are considered the “most accurate interpreters of the laws” (BJ 2.162).

 

2. They are the leading sect of the Jews (BJ 2.162) and “extremely influential among the townsfolk” (Ant 18.15).

 

3. They attribute everything to Fate and to God (BJ 2.163; Ant 18.13).

 

4. Proper behavior is mostly human responsibility but partly Fate (BJ 2.163).

 

5. Every soul is imperishable but the soul of the good alone passes into another body while the soul of the wicked suffer eternal punishment, and that there will be rewards or punishments in the afterlife on the basis of behavior (BJ 2.163; Ant 18.14).

 

6. They live simply (Ant 18.12)

 

7. They live according to the commandments that their doctrines teach (Ant 18.12). [No doubt a reference to their concern with teaching and unfolding what the Bible says.]

 

8. They are respectful of elders (Ant 18.12).

 

9. Their influence is great enough that prayers and rites of worship are according to their teachings (Ant 18.15).

 

Now, let’s put this together. According to Josephus, the Pharisees are the most influential sect of the Jews and their first characteristic is that they are devoted to the Torah (Law), to its interpretation, and to living life as closely as possible according to the Torah. They believe in a cooperation between Fate (his Greek-sounding category for God’s sovereignty) and human will, but clearly lay emphasis on human will.

 

 

A few more ideas from Josephus:

 

At various points in history they had more power than at others, but that they wanted to be in charge. (Neusner said they moved from “politics to piety.”) Neusner’s theory is less persuasive today, and most adhere to a more moderate position: the Pharisees had power at times, but wanted it most of the time, but never significantly withdrew from society to form table fellowship groups. Which means their “influence” is probably overrated by Josephus: sometimes, yes; othertimes, not so much.

 

When it comes to Torah obedience, the Pharisees were “democratizers” in the sense that they tried to make the Torah practicable for all (by interpreting and applying it). The Sadducees focused more the priestly obligations to the Torah. The Essenes were more rigorous and sectarian in their interpretation and practice of the Torah. Which means, in pretty stereotypical and simplistic terms, the Pharisees were the “liberals,” the Sadducees the “conservatives,” and the Essenes the “radicals.”

 

The Pharisees passed on their teachings from generation to generation through an oral tradition. (Everyone did this; there was no other way; they didn’t codify and write these traditions down until the 3-4th Century AD, in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, and then a century or two later, in the Talmuds.) See Ant 13.297.

 

They followed the food laws and purity laws in the Torah, but it is unlikely they were as strict as the priests in the Temple. They washed their hands ceremoniously before they ate. They weren’t that far from the Zealots in essential beliefs and practices. (Many have suggested that the Zealots are an extreme form of Pharisaism.) They conflicted with the Sadducees sometimes over Temple regulations. It is likely that they formed associations with one another; that they ate with another and followed their customs when they did; that they frowned upon eating with those who flaunted the normal eating customs of the Jews.

 

 

Now to Jesus, and some highlights of what Jesus says about the Pharisees.

 

Gospel evidence, tilted as it is toward [the Pharisee's] their conflict with Jesus, and that “tilt” means we tend to lean with the tilt so we see all Pharisees as they are presented in the Gospels, which as I say, has some clear (negative, labeling) tilt.

 

1. Pharisees, with others, opposed John and Jesus for their kingdom ministry (Matt 3:7).

 

2. Pharisees had a “righteousness” that Jesus said was inadequate (Matt 5:20).

 

3. Pharisees opposed Jesus and his followers for eating with the wrong sorts (Matt 9:11).

 

4. Pharisees had a different fasting routine (Matt 9:14).

 

5. Pharisees accused Jesus of exorcising demons in allegiance with Satan (Matt 9:34).

 

6. Pharisees opposed Jesus and his followers for their sabbath practices (Matt 12:2).

 

7. Pharisees wanted Jesus to attest to his vocation with a sign (Matt 12:38).

 

8. Pharisees opposed Jesus and his followers for their lack of handwashing before meals (Mt 15:1-20).

 

9. Pharisees taught things Jesus thought were contrary to God’s will (Matt 16:6, 12).

 

10. Pharisees tested Jesus’ “theology”/”practice” on divorce (Matt 19:3).

 

11. Pharisees wanted Jesus put away (Matt 22:15) and Jesus knew it (Matt 21:33-45).

 

12. Pharisees were accused of hypocrisy by Jesus (Matt 23).

 

13. Pharisees are nearly absent in the trial scenes of Jesus. [They did not have the power to put him to death.]

 

 

Here are some global observations:

 

1. Pharisees were focused on the whole Bible (Torah), its interpretation and practice. This is why Paul says in Phil 3:5: “as to the law, a Pharisee.” To say one was a Pharisee was to make a claim on a certain kind of interpretation of the Torah.

 

2. Pharisees opposed different interpretations and practices of the Torah, and this led them into conflict with John, with Jesus, with Jesus’ followers, and with others who differed from them (like the Sadducees).

 

3. Pharisees were specific and careful in their interpretive practices, and they apparently passed on their interpretations to one another (and anyone who cared to listen and know) by word of mouth and argumentation.

 

4. Pharisees thought they were right in their interpretations.

 

So, here is a thumbnail definition of the Pharisees: “a Torah movement (group) deeply devoted to knowing, interpreting, and applying the whole Torah to the life of Israel in order to restore the fortunes of Israel.”

 

(Now this last part, “in order to…”, I have added because I’m sure they had some sort of purpose in wanting everyone to live according to the Torah. This is not my view; it is standard, even if not held by all scholars.)

 

Jesus and the Pharisees got into it with one another at a deep, deep level because: (1) both were committed to the revelation of God in the Torah, but (2) they differed radically on how to interpret that Torah.

 

Let this be clear, though: they did not differ that it was the Word of God, they did not differ on the importance of Abraham, Moses, David or the Prophets. They differed, and you will know this if you know about The Jesus Creed, because Jesus thought the Torah should be interpreted in light of Deut 6:4-9 and Leviticus 19:18 (Love God, Love others). It is simplistic to talk like this, but it is essentially on target to say that Jesus thought the Torah was about loving God and loving others, and the Pharisees saw the Torah more as a comprehensive listing of God’s will.

 

(Let me back down a bit: the Pharisees did dispute about what was the most important commandment and the like, but when it comes down to it — and you can see this in Josephus, in the Gospels, and in the Mishnah/rabbinic traditions — they saw the Torah as a comprehensive treasure trove of God’s will, while Jesus thought that treasure trove was to be approached through the Jesus Creed itself.)

So, what they of the charge of hypocrisy?

 

Five observations, leading to a summary definition of what Matthew (Jesus) meant by “hypocrisy.”

 

 

Hypocrisy is…

 

1. Inconsistency between what one teaches and what one does (23:3-4)

 

2. Desire for prestige and power and congratulation (23:5-12)

 

3. Abuse of teaching authority through both false teachings and false practices (23:13, 15, 16-22, 23-24, 25-26, 27-28).

 

4. Overconcern with minutiae and lack of focus on the major issues (23:23-24, 25-26, 27-28): that is, moral myopia [("limited sight, a narrow vision of field, nearly to blindness") - res].

 

5. Inconsistency between appearance and practice (23:27-28).

 

Put together, Jesus accuses the Pharisees for “hypocrisy” because they had abused their teaching authority by teaching false things, not living according to what they taught, and for the desire for power. In addition, their teaching was a focus on minor issues to the neglect of major issues.

 

To be “hypocrite” is to be a false teacher who leads both self and others astray from the will of God. The term should not be limited to “contradiction between appearance and reality.”

 

Should we call anyone “Pharisee”? Be careful, that’s my rule. Think historically, my second rule. If some insist on finding contemporary counterparts to the 1st Century Pharisees, here are more suggestions:

 

First, use it only for those who are committed to the Torah as a comprehensive explanation for the will of God. (In this sense, it is pretty hard to use for any Christian.)

 

Second, use it only for those who through the abuse of their teaching authority are leading people astray. (In this sense, it is fit most for heretics.)

 

Third, never use it as a synonym for “Jews,” “Judaism,” or any other generic Jewish group. It refers only to one group of Jews, and that group eventually morphed into the rabbis but that morphing involved major shifts and moves. [Overall, consider it a highly offensive term - esp. to a Jew. - res]

 

In 1907, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” There you have a quintessentially view of a Pharisee, someone who both believes in the Torah and who believes its meaning is determined by its interpretive tradition.

 

On the other hand, a Sadducee would simply say, to use Chief Hughes’ terms, “We are under a Constitution.” We don’t need an interpretive tradition for we need only to seek out the original intent.

 

Pharisees were judicial activists; Sadducees were judicial conservationists. Now stick this in your pipe for a puff: Jesus was more critical of the liberals than the conservatives! And I’m willing to bet money that most think Jesus was opposing the conservatives when he took a swat at the Pharisees. Or did Jesus think they weren’t liberal enough or for those who didn’t get their liberalism right? Precisely.

 

Consequently, the Pharisees built up a body of interpretive tradition, which today is called the Mishnah and the Tosefta, with an even larger body of anecdotal reflection in the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud.

 

At the time of Jesus, this interpretive tradition was merely oral tradition, but it carried the day. So, this permits us to see the Pharisees as those who both believed in the Torah but who knew it needed interpretation, applications, and it needed to do so along careful lines of thought and procedure.

 

 

 

Do you read scripture like a Pharisee or like Jesus?

http://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/10/30/do-you-read-scripture-like-a-pharisee-or-like-jesus/

 

by Rebecca Trotter

30October2012

 

Christians have always tended to transform the Christian Revelation into a Christian religion. Christianity is said to be a religion like any other or, conversely, some Christians try to show that it is a better religion than the others. People attempt to take possession of God. Theology claims to explain everything, including the being of God. People tend to transform Christianity into a religion because the Christian faith obviously places people in an extremely uncomfortable position that of freedom guided only by love and all in the context of God’s radical demand that we be holy. - Jacques Ellul

 

Way back in college, I took a class on the history of religion in America. One day during a discussion about some Christian evangelist, one of the other students offered this criticism of the man’s work: “it’s like he’s actually trying to be like Jesus.” I sat there a bit bug-eyed. Can you imagine – a Christian who was actually trying to be like Jesus? Whatever could that evangelist have been thinking? (Clearly, not everyone I who attended my college was the best or the brightest.) But the reality is that a lot of people – including a good number of Christians – are as unclear on the concept as this young man back in my college days was. How else to explain the fact that many people read the bible the exact same way that the Pharisees did rather than trying to read it like Jesus did? (For anyone who is really unclear on the concept – the Pharisees were Jesus’ main opponents in the gospel stories. We’re supposed to try to be like Jesus, not like the Pharisees. Just so we’re all on the same page here.)

 

At the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were experts on the bible. In fact, they had managed to find all the laws in the bible – 613 of them. They had further figured out that there were 365 negative laws – thou shall nots. And 248 positive laws – thou shalls. So they knew all about important rules like thou shalt wash your hands before eating, thou shalt not perform miracle healings on the Sabbath and how long to keep the fringe on their garments. Somehow they had managed to miss those very important rules about card playing, drinking alcohol and dancing. No one’s perfect, I guess. But they had mastered the very important biblical teaching to avoid the appearance of evil. Like they wouldn’t eat with unclean people because if they did, the other biblical rule followers might call them evil. And evil is bad, donchano? (I once attended a church which demanded that members not drink alcohol on the grounds that other church members might be scandalized if they saw you coming out of a liquor store.)

 

So long before the teaching of sola scripture, the Pharisees were experts in biblical living. If you needed to know the biblical way to weave your cloth was, they could tell you. (Using only one type of fiber is biblical. The Pharisees would not have stood for our unbiblical polyester/cotton blends!) The Pharisees were also very good about setting a good example for other people – praying in public or announcing their contributions to the synagogue loudly. Because it was important to “witness” to those around them so that people would be inspired to honor God the right way, of course.

 

In short, the Pharisees read the bible just like any good fundamentalist – with an eye towards rules, order, proper moral conduct and principles which everything else could be shoved into. As I said last week in my post about truth, if this is what you’re looking for in the bible, it’s easy enough to find. And since it all comes from the bible, you can call it “biblical”, thus making it clear that anyone who disagrees or doesn’t fall in line is outside God’s will. And just like modern fundamentalists, they were quite good at patrolling the borders of God’s will to make sure people didn’t unwittingly end up on the wrong side of the pearly gates. After all, who better to explain God’s ways than the people who know his rules,order and principles best?

 

Well, God made flesh might be able to do a better job. Jesus read the same scripture that the Pharisees did. In fact, nearly everything he said echoed some other Jewish biblical or religious text. And he came away with things like “love your enemies”, “forgive the one who wrongs you 7 times 70 times”, “the first shall be last and the last shall be made first” and “it’s what comes out of a man that makes him unclean”. Same text – completely different answers. Not only that, but Jesus was very critical of the biblicism of the Pharisees calling them white washed tombs. He told them that rather than pointing the way to God, they were keeping men out of the Kingdom of God.

 

The difference between Jesus’ form of biblical and the Pharisees’ biblical came from the fact that they read the bible looking for two different things. The Pharisees treated the bible like a rule book – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, if you will. Jesus read the bible looking for himself – the God who is love. Both found what they were looking for. Both believed that they were being obedient to God and pointing others to God, but only one was correct. The one who went looking for and found Love.

 

It would be nice to think that the ways of the Pharisees died out with Jesus’ triumph over death. Rising from the dead would seem to be pretty compelling evidence that he was the one to follow. Especially for people who claim to be following him. But there was a reason that Jesus specifically warned his disciples against allowing the yeast of the Pharisees – it only takes a tiny bit of yeast to leaven bread – and leavened bread is unsuitable for a remembrance of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

 

Both the Pharisees and their modern day children read the bible in a way which emphasizes fear. Fear of breaking the rules, of being sullied, of judgment. But as Paul said, “perfect love casts out fear.” If the way you’re reading the bible creates fear, you’re doing it wrong. If you read the bible with an eye towards staying in God’s good graces rather than with an eye towards discovering God’s love, you’re reading the bible like a Pharisee, not like Jesus. It takes courage to reject all the fear-mongers, rule keepers and boundary patrols. There’s always that little niggling fear of “what if they’re right? What if I’m not pleasing God?” If you get in too deep with them, rejecting their way of thinking can invite attacks and shunning. Following Jesus has never been a risk-free endevour, after all.

 

But if you learn to read the bible the way Jesus did – to discover Love – you will discover a funny thing. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Odds are pretty much 100% that you frequently won’t please God. But when Jesus offers forgiveness – he means it. Seven times seventy he means it. If you’re not pleasing God, it’s not the end of the world – he’s already provided grace for that. Just keep running the race. That’s all he’s asked of us. Not that we keep all the rules straight or keep ourselves unsullied. But just that we run after Love with all we have. That we do the sort of good works which actually do point people to God. That we keep doing it even when it might cost us everything. It’s really just that simple.

 

So . . . how do you read the bible – like a Pharisee or like Jesus?

 

 

 

Jesus, the Torah, and the Law of Mercy

Jesus and the Torah
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/02/25/jesus-and-the-torah/

by Scot Mcknight
February 25, 2011
Comments

Matthew 5:38-42 contains Jesus’ famous words on the lex talionis, the law of retribution. Here are the words and then I have one reflection:

Matt. 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

My reflection:

 

Perhaps the most neglected element in interpreting this text is what is said in the text Jesus is quoting, Deuteronomy 19:21.

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The judicial posture in the Torah for the lex talionis was this: “Show no pity.” To be sure, Israelites soon converted the equal retribution dimension of this law into financial fines but the stringent theme in all of the tradition was that justice was required, and the requirement was “show no pity” even if the punishment was converted into economic value. What a person has done wrong needs to be undone by doing that same wrong back to them.

 

But Jesus’ posture is the opposite and it cannot be seen as a form of exaggeration. His revolutionary preface, in effect, to the lex talionis was “Show mercy.” While he doesn’t say this explicitly when he quotes the Old Testament, his own words that form the antithesis are clearly a variant of “show mercy.” His words again are “Do not resist an evil person.”

 

Instead of prosecution and instead of exacting retribution to redress the imbalance of justice, Jesus forms another way: show mercy and unravel the system of retribution that pervades our society.

 

 

 

A Reformed View of the New Perspective (of Paul)

(A) Reformed View of the New Perspective

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/04/18/reformed-view-of-the-new-perspective/

by Scot McKnight

April 18, 2012

Comments

The clash was inevitable, but the clash has too often taken place under terms and categories that unfairly describe the other side. The traditionally Reformed have a stake in framing Paul’s gospel as justification by faith, and behind that they traditionally understand the problem to be humans who strive to establish themselves before God. A good proponent of this view, always framed in pastorally sensitive ways, is Tim Keller. But the New Perspective says "No" to this way of framing Paul’s gospel.

Why do you think the Reformed view of justification clashes so much with the new perspective on Paul, especially its view(s) of justification? What’s the essence of the clash?

First, that view assumes a view of Judaism that has clearly been undermined: Judaism was not full of self-righteous people seeking to establish themselves on the basis of the Law before God. Instead, one good way of describing Judaism is what E.P. Sanders called “covenantal nomism.” Covenant - and that means grace and election - have the first word and the Law (the nomism bit) is not how to become a Jew but how to maintain ones Jewishness, or sustain one’s relationship to the God of Israel. In effect, this knocks the former problem out from under one traditional view and sends people back to the NT and Judaism to see “what the problem was.”

In steps Alan J. Spence, in his book Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed, to say the New Perspective (1) gets it all wrong and (2) is designed to create a gospel shaped apart from what I’m calling Spence’s “justification worldview,” a worldview in which God is judge, humans are sinners, and Christ establishes as relationally right with God.

Spence got off for me on the wrong foot in five ways:

First, he misspelled E.P. Sanders’ name wrong every time, spelling it “Saunders.” He also called him “E.T.” Saunders, and this makes me wonder if he has even read Sanders. One should avoid speculating on such things, so I won’t. (Maybe I already have.)

Second, he kept seeing Sanders in terms of comparative religion and, well, yes, Sanders does talk about comparing the pattern of religion, but to say he’s into comparative religion pulls Sanders from the historian to the modern religions expert. Just not so.

Third, he failed to sketch that the fundamental insight of Sanders and of the whole New Perspective is a fresh re-examination of Judaism and that means, inevitably, what Paul was saying in the context of a sharper profile of Judaism. I see absolutely no interest in Spence in this historical question.

Fourth, Spence shows no awareness of the nuances of variation among New Perspective scholars — from Sanders to Wright to Dunn to Hays and others. For Spence, this is all about Tom Wright’s denial of his justification worldview, and this chp is dramatically different in tone from his chps on Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin and is more like — but stronger — than the chps on Schleiermacher and Barth. He blames the latter two for deconstructing a justification worldview, and thinks Wright is floating on that deconstruction.

Fifth, he says he will root his sketch of Tom’s view of justification in his What Saint Paul Really Said, in spite of the 2009 book called Justification, which ought to have been the place to base one’s observations, but I’ll forgive him for not living up to what he said: it’s just as much based on the 2009 book as the earlier one, though I don’t think he sees the nuances of the latter vs. the former.

Spence sketches Wright’s narrative, which is the narrative of Israel’s Story coming to fulfillment in Jesus, the true Israelite; he argues Wright’s view of justification is not about salvation but about ecclesiology (this is an overstatement); he doesn’t think there’s enough about forensics, in spite of Tom’s clear statements to the contrary though Wright doesn’t have Spence’s justification worldview; and he thinks Wright doesn’t have enough on faith as instrumental in salvation. Well, here’s a good summary of Spence’s criticisms:

I suggest the controlling motif of Wright’s soteriology is ‘the reinstatement of good governance through the kingship of Jesus’ or, in the evocative jargon of the comparative study of religions, ‘messianic nomism’. [Who uses this expression?] If one removed from his exposition of justification the few passing references to relational concepts such as grace, mercy, pardon and reconciliation [did he read Justification?], the structure would stand intact. None of these concepts serve as load-bearing terms. They are, however, integral features of Paul’s soteriology.

One could at this point stop for a long day discussing how Wright expounds grace and these other terms, and to ask if the proper approach is “The Western Tradition’s” view vs. recent NT scholarship’s view, and how one determines such things — surely by exegesis and history not by appealing to Augustine and Luther and Calvin – but I find this summary critique both hitting on the sensitive areas but grossly misrepresenting Wright’s stuff. But I’m sketching Spence, who says Tom’s use of those terms was only done in deference to others, the way Spence himself crossed himself in a Catholic school as a boy though he was Reformed.

In essence, Spence thinks the best Story of the Old Testament must be only the personal salvation story because the governance Story of Wright, by which he means Jesus as King as the true Israelite through whom God will put the world to rights …. and, well, we’ve got an exaggeration: Tom Wright believes in personal salvation; he thinks the NT teaches that; but personally is caught up in the larger Story. What Spence has is a theory of justification that no one in the Old Testament taught (unless one thinks Gen 15:6 is Abraham’s personal salvation), for which there would have been no back story in the New Testament and which is then assumed to be the true gospel of the apostle Paul.

The New Perspective’s view of justification deserves some good strong pushback; there have been some early overstatements and many take backs, including some by Dunn and Wright. I wonder if Spence might spend some time reading Jimmy Dunn’s big pumpkin book, his book on Paul’s theology, and read the chp on justification, and then ask if he has really sketched the New Perspective’s view of justification. He hasn’t.

This Guide for the Perplexed will make some folks happy; it leaves me perplexed.

The Reformation's True Beginnings Began with Luther's "Tower Experience"

Martin Luther's Tower Experience

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/tower.html

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

Tower of the Augustinian monastery where Luther had his study.

In the minds of many, the Reformation began not when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door, but when he rediscovered and believed the Biblical Gospel.

This discovery is often called Luther's "Tower Experience," because in one of his "table talks" he mentions that he was studying Romans 1:17 ("He who through faith is righteous shall live") in the heated room (his study) of the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg when the light broke upon him. (The Black Cloister was the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits, and later, when all the monks had voluntarily left, it was Luther's home).

Luther makes it clear in several places that this, not the Theses, was the pivotal event of his life. The most important of these appears in his Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings of 1545. Several other mentions of the event are recorded from his "Table Talks," one from 1532 (LW 54:193-194), one from 1538 (LW 54:308-309), and one from 1542-43 (LW 54:442-443).

When we examine the above mentioned texts, and especially the 1545 Preface, the following observations beg to be made.

(1) Luther's conversion and breakthrough involved the correct understanding of God's righteousness. The phrase "[in the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed" (Romans 1:17) had become the focal point of his struggle with God. Luther had long struggled to blamelessly keep God's Law in order to become righteous. He knew that this is what God demanded of him and all people. Time and again he failed to keep God's Law and achieve the righteousness that God demanded.

Luther's struggle with God came to a head as he was wrestling with this Romans 1:17. He tells us that he was extremely zealous to understand Romans but that this phrase about God's righteousness stood in the way. This phrase, which to us is so clearly good news, was for Luther bad news.

Why? Because the phrase "the righteousness of God" like most Biblical terms (e.g., grace, faith, justification, etc.) had been reinterpreted by scholastic theologians of the high and late Middle Ages 1100-1500 A.D. (esp. Gabriel Biel, Duns Scotus, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinus) to support a theology of Law and works. For centuries the Church had taught that the righteousness of God was God's active, personal righteousness or justice by which he punishes the unrighteous sinner.

This, Luther informs us, is what he had learned. Therefore whenever he came across the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Scripture, it terrified him ("struck my conscience like lightning," "was like a thunderbolt in my heart") because he knew that he was an unrighteous sinner who fell far short of God's righteous (perfect) demands.

Even worse, Rom. 1:17, filled Luther with anger and hatred toward God. "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners." Is it not enough, Luther tells us he murmured, that God crushes us miserable sinners with His law, that He has to threaten us with punishment through the Gospel, too?

After meditating day and night, finally the breakthrough came when Luther gave heed to the words at the end of 1:17, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Then he realized that the verse was not talking about the active righteousness that God demands, but the passive righteousness that He freely gives to those who believe the Gospel. The sinner is justified (declared righteous) by God through faith in the work and death of Jesus, not by our work or keeping of the Law. Put another way, the sinner is justified by receiving (faith) rather than achieving (works). Later Luther would say that we are saved by the alien righteousness of Christ, not by a righteousness of our own doing.

(2) The tower experience, according to Luther was a conversion experience. When he had discovered that God gives His righteousness as a gift in Christ, he felt that he "was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates . . . that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise." Now his conscience was at rest, now he was certain of his salvation. Before there had been only unrest and uncertainty.

How did Luther now feel about the word "righteousness of God"? "I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word `righteousness of God.' Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise." Thus fortified and converted by the Gospel, Luther was now a ready instrument to be used by God for reformation!

For More Information on Martin Luther

His Early Years - http://www.welcometohosanna.com/MARTIN_LUTHER/1EARLY_YEARS.html

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Roman Catholic doors

Martin Luther at his Monastary

Martin Luther's 95 Theses

"Luther Before the Diet of Worms."
Photogravure based on the painting by Anton von Werner (1843–1915)