Close exegesis of Galatians, with due attention to past scholarship on the subject, is among the most daunting tasks in the study of the New Testament. And yet a proper understanding of Galatians is centrally important for grasping Paul’s view of the gospel. To make a fresh contribution to the crowded field of Galatians requires a great deal of patience, a command of a wide band of scholarship, and perhaps a bit of creativity.

Chee-Chiew Lee’s study on the relation of the Spirit to justification in Galatians is a worthy contribution to the field. Lee challenges the view that Paul equated Abraham’s blessing with the Spirit in Gal 3:14. The two are related, but not equal (chap. 2). Their more precise relationship, Lee reasons, might be gleaned from a survey of the remaining sections of the Old Testament and from later Jewish writings. According to Lee, writings (roughly) contemporary with Paul allowed that the Abrahamic blessing accorded certain benefits to the proselyte, but that the blessing of the Spirit was always withheld – reserved for the native Jew. Paul’s insistence on the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Gentiles therefore radicalizes the place of Gentiles within the community of saints. Lee argues that, while few in Paul’s day read Scripture that way, Paul’s view is afforded by passages like Isa 56:3-7 and Zech 2:15 [LXX 2:11], in which those nations that have “joined themselves” to God are referred to as “the people of Yahweh” (p. 189). If other Second Temple Jews missed the Isaian and Zecharian connection between the Spirit and the turning of the nations toward Israel’s God, Paul did not miss it. (This line of reasoning is consistent with a recent trend in Pauline studies, which is to allow careful exegesis of the Old Testament to serve as a palette [of sorts] for understanding Paul’s exegetical mind.)

According to Lee, “the blessing of Abraham is identified with justification, and the Spirit functions as the evidence of receiving the blessing and the means of perpetuating the blessing” (p. 210). Such a view, of course, brings to mind certain ongoing debates about Pauline pneumatology. It will be interesting to see if Lee’s arguments about the shape of Paul’s pneumatology within Galatians come to play a role in those debates.

Reviewed by John Poirier

Publisher’s page: http://wipfandstock.com/the-blessing-of-abraham-the-spirit-and-justification-in-galatians.html

Preview The Blessing of Abraham, the Spirit, and Justification in Galatians: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Blessing_of_Abraham_the_Spirit_and_J.html?id=IxJNAwAAQBAJ

The concept of justification carries eternity on its shoulders as many endeavor to understand, explain and experience the nature of salvation and how we need it. Justification is a term one would assume that scholars and theologians would strive to agree upon for the good of the global community. However, in spite of ecumenical efforts that include The Joint Declaration, the concept of justification remains unsettled in scholarship. In an attempt to examine justification, James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, editors of Justification: Five Views, serve the Christian community by wisely drawing on six scholars to present and analyze the five primary justification views. The list of scholars and views includes Michael F. Bird, the Progressive Reformed View; James D.G. Dunn, the New Perspective View; Michael S. Horton, the Traditional Reformed View; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, the Deification View; and Gerald O’Collins and Oliver Rafferty, the Roman Catholic View. Each scholar offers their position on justification and provides summary responses to each of the other views. While ecumenical resolution on justification may not have been the end goal, this book can serve as another conversation piece in the grand ecumenical dialogue. A well-organized text featuring a scholarly and respectful tone, Justification offers thought-provoking debate to an issue that is made possible by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ so that we may discuss the nature and need for salvation.

Setting the context for a debate to understand what is at stake and how this debate came about can either intensify or diminish the reader’s interest in the topic. Thankfully, Beilby and Eddy heighten the reader’s awareness of not only the history and contemporary components of the justification debate but also their significance. The first two chapters set the tone for the weighty conversation that is to come. Some of the topics discussed include justification and imputation, the teaching of final judgment in light of justification, pistis Christou (i.e. faith in Christ vs. faith/faithfulness of Christ), and the forensic nature of justification. For The Pneuma Review reader, it is noteworthy that while the role of the Spirit is initially highlighted by Beilby and Eddy, the significance of the Holy Spirit in the justification conversation warranted more attention.

As I read the text, a few thoughts consistently came to mind that may have enriched Justification. The first thought asks, what do these five views actually agree upon in the grand understanding of justification? A final, concluding chapter that brings the five authors together to produce the three or four tenets and/or terms that each of the five agree upon might have assisted in the ecumenical component for the reader. The extensive debate causes one to wonder whether a resolution is possible, and Horton quotes N.T. Wright stating, “If Christians could only get this [doctrine of justification] right, they would find that not only would they be believing the gospel, they would be practicing it; and this is the best basis for proclaiming it” (p. 106). Being able to read a final chapter that indicates there are some components the five views agree are “right” could have been beneficial. Speaking of N.T. Wright, the second thought involves the ghost-like involvement of this prominent scholar. His presence seems to permeate the text and direct contribution by Wright might have enhanced the conversation. The concluding thought asks whether an agreed upon definition of justification could have occurred. For the pastoral side of me, it is very difficult to walk away from an important text like this without having a definition for justification that all five authors could agree on.

Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 360 pages, ISBN 9780802837493.

Justified in the Spirit is a sophisticated attempt to do what its title suggests: to find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification. The book represents a bringing together of a number of different perspectives—including those that derive primarily from centuries of tradition, along with more recent insights from biblical scholarship. The book moves through discussions of the shape of soteriology within different streams of tradition (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Pentecostal, etc.), and combines these with significant contributions from well known theologians. Although Macchia is a theologian himself, he pays more attention to the fruits of New Testament scholars than many other theologians working today.

One of the book’s main arguments is summed up on p. 53: “Participation in Christ is first and primarily a pneumatological reality as believers are caught up in the communion of the Spirit with Christ and, through Christ with the heavenly Father.” This sentence says a lot. One of the book’s main aims seems to be to forge links between aspects of soteriology and Trinitarian language.

Many of the main features, it must be said, are indicative of the age in which this book was written: it is certainly vogue to be “broadly Trinitarian, ecclesiological, and eschatological” (a description found on the back cover). While there may a proper place to be “Trinitarian”, the way in which that call has been handled in recent years has been a little over the top, as it sometimes seems as if one’s handling of any given doctrine can somehow be graded on how great a role it assigns to each member of the Trinity. It is almost as though theologians are afraid to leave out one of the members of the Trinity in any given discussion, even when the topic (e.g. hermeneutics) does not have a natural bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity. This danger seems to be somewhat greater among Pentecostals, as some appear to have a strong desire to bring the Spirit into doctrines in which the Spirit arguably does not belong.

Frank D. Macchia

Does Macchia do that here? It is difficult to say. His discussion is at all places carefully researched, and his arguments are never fleeting or forced. Although he never gives the keys (so to speak) to NT scholarship, he does listen to it intently and with a genuine openness. And yet the question remains whether Macchia accomplishes a pneumatological orientation of the doctrine of justification simply by construing “justification” more broadly than others do, by allowing it to include (rather than lead to) the fruit of the spirit-filled life. The same could be said of how Macchia achieves his heightened emphasis on the role of the spirit-filled community. Both of these concerns naturally belong within a theology, but are they really a part of justification per se? Macchia evidently disagrees with the habit of identifying “justification” with a forensic aspect of salvation, and identifying the other aspects of salvation with other terms. Yet he writes as if the term “justification” must apply to all aspects of salvation—including justification per se, sanctification, and redemption. (See esp. pp. 204–5.) Macchia is not alone in this, but it is still unfortunate that he does not explain why he takes this approach.

N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 279 pages, ISBN 9780830838639.

Justification is N. T. Wright’s response to John Piper’s critique of several of Wright’s earlier writings. If those earlier writings from Wright are installments in a program, Justification is the program’s hub—the point at which it all comes together, and at which the program is presented in a most easily understandable form. (Wright informs us, however, that a more programmatic hub is forthcoming in the form of a “big book” on Paul.)

This book towers in presence and importance over Wright’s other popularizing works. In the context of theological books aimed at a lay readership, it towers above most of the land as well—it is (at least) a sort of “book of the year”. While scholars who write repeatedly for lay readers tend to let their academic guard down, Wright remains rigorous throughout this book, perhaps because he is writing in response to parties who will call him on the carpet for any slip.

Given the book’s popularizing and argumentative bent, it seems, at points, to be more invested in rhetoric than in substance. Wright harps a bit too much (in this reader’s opinion) on how traditional Reformed soteriology is usually couched in terms of “me and my salvation”, rather than in terms of what God is doing on a more cosmic scale. (Wright insists that God’s salvation is so much more than “personal” salvation.) While Wright’s point is not completely invalid, he presses it too far. After all, should we not expect Paul to tailor his message to people asking about “me and my salvation”? Are we to believe that the ancients did not think in those terms, and that Paul would not have reacted accordingly? My point is that Wright tries to make this rhetoric lift more than it can, and he should have made at least some effort to establishing his point exegetically, especially since he makes such a big deal of doing so on all other points. Other aspects of Wright’s rhetoric are measured out more advisedly. His constant insistence on reading Scripture on its own terms rather than through the lens of tradition is fair and especially fitting, all the more so given the context of the debate with Piper. Wright insists on letting Paul speak for himself.

Wright connects “justification” to (just about) all that God did to redeem creation, but the term itself, he claims, refers only to the lawcourt-drama aspect of salvation. The lawcourt image is but a metaphor, and God’s salvation consists of so much more. God’s focus is on redeeming all of creation. Given this supposition, Wright’s attempt to remove the term from a narrow focus on personal salvation (esp. the courtroom drama) is understandable. Wright ties everything back to God’s covenant with Abraham, which, on his account, comprises the center of all God’s redeeming activity. Most parts of his argument, I think, are convincing, and he especially convinces in overturning others’ attempts to treat Abraham’s role in Romans 4 as merely an example of how God’s salvation works. Another strong part of Wright’s overall program is found in his constant reminder that the “we” in Paul’s arguments often refers to the apostles rather than to believers in general. Wright establishes this point conclusively, I think, in a brilliant exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5, showing that the apostles, rather than the Corinthians (or Christians in general), are the “ministers of reconciliation”. Perhaps the weakest point of Wright’s overall program lies in his attempts to find exodus typology under every stone. (He even thinks that water baptism typologically recalls the exodus.)

Scot McKnight responds to the review essays by Kevin Williams and Tony Richie that appeared in the Summer 2011 issue of The Pneuma Review regarding his article, “Jesus vs. Paul” that appeared in the December 2010 issue of Christianity Today.

Scot McKnight, “Jesus vs. Paul” Christianity Today (December, 2010), pages 24-29.
The text appearing on the December 2010 cover encapsulates the discussion: “Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven. Paul highlighted justification by faith. Some say they preached different gospels. Others say Jesus and Paul both preached justification. Still others claim both focused on the kingdom. What gives?”

I want to thank The Pneuma Review for its response to the piece I wrote in Christianity Today. I believe the gospel issue is the biggest issue we are facing in the church today. Serious discussions need to take place. I believe that what we think the “gospel” is would not have been understood as the gospel in the 1st Century—by Jesus, by Peter or by Paul. Or by anyone else near them. That may sound surprising, but I’m dead serious. We tend to think the gospel is the good news of how we can be saved, and we have constructed a way of presenting this gospel by cobbling together pieces scattered throughout the New Testament. What we mean by “gospel” is the plan of salvation, and it goes something like this: God made each one of us but we chose the path of sin. This same God loves us but God is supremely and fearsomely holy. But because God loves us he has found a way to get us back together: he sent his Son, Jesus, to die for our sins so we can be restored in our relation to God and spend eternity with God in heaven up in the sky somewhere. If we respond to this offer of redemption, our lives will almost certainly be better, and if they don’t God will give us the grace to sustain our faith. By and large I also believe these things, but I’m convinced no one in the 1st Century would hear this and assert, “Yes, that’s the gospel.” They may have agreed with the statement, but they would not have called it the gospel. And because we think this is the gospel, we are missing out on what it is and what it is all about.

In the two pieces in Pneuma Review, the big pushback for me is why I choose to begin with Paul, and the oddity of that move (which goes against the grain of my own career of writing and teaching) will be clear when my book, The King Jesus Gospel, comes out the end of next month [August 2011]. First, only Paul really defines gospel (1 Cor 15), and those who define gospel as I did above are really imposing some things from Paul on Jesus and on the pages of the NT and as a result are providing a meta-hermeneutic of how to read everything in the Bible. That meta-hermeneutic is to read the entire Bible through the lens of Paul’s justification by faith as the personal plan of salvation. But I think this is imposing Paul on the whole Bible in a way that the Bible does not want us to do. (Let me back down just briefly: I believe in personal faith and one dimension of justification is that you and I can be made right with God by trusting in what Christ has done for us.)

I began with Paul because my goal is to beat the Paul imposers at their own game. How? By beginning with Paul, showing that Paul is not saying what they think he is (namely that the gospel is simply justification) and, only then, by showing that in the end Paul’s gospel is the same gospel as Jesus’ gospel.

I see two advantages here: first, by not beginning with Jesus, which I could have done quite easily, it does not look like I’m setting up Jesus in order to impose Jesus on Paul. Second, once I’ve cleared the deck by showing what Paul really means I can show what Jesus really means by “gospel.” I don’t think Paul means simply justification, and I don’t think Jesus means simply social justice or even kingdom—but the story of Israel coming to completion in Jesus himself. Had I begun with that, I don’t think my case would have been as compelling—we’ll see if my case is clear when the book comes out.

Scot McKnight
July 18, 2011

Must Re-centralizing Jesus Mean Displacing the Spirit? A Review Essay of Scot McKnight’s “Jesus vs. Paul”

In this review essay, Tony Richie responds to Scot McKnight’s article that introduces a conversation among theologians.

Scot McKnight, “Jesus vs. Paul” Christianity Today (December, 2010), pages 24-29.

The December 2010 cover encapsulates the discussion:

Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven. Paul highlighted justification by faith. Some say they preached different gospels. Others say Jesus and Paul both preached justification. Still others claim both focused on the kingdom. What gives?

Scot McKnight is an accomplished New Testament scholar and award-winning author whose work often has an innovative tone and, sometimes, a controversial twist. In “Jesus vs. Paul,” McKnight tackles a disturbing disjunction within Evangelicalism.¹ An older generation of evangelicals tended to follow the Reformation tradition quite tightly, making Paul’s doctrine of justification the essential doctrinal rubric for individual salvation; but, a new generation of evangelicals has become entirely enamored with Christ’s kingdom teaching applying its social implications. Devotees of each approach tend be exclusive or dismissive of the other. A troubling dichotomy between gospels and epistles develops. McKnight considers this a serious crisis threatening the theological stability of church and academy. He thinks both approaches risk reductionism. However, he resists facile attempts at superficial harmonization. For McKnight, the solution resides rather in the concept of gospel itself, particularly as delineated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. The category of gospel, he argues, is broad enough to include both Jesus and kingdom with Paul and justification in a complementary, or perhaps better, in a comprehensive, manner.

Scot McKnight is Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

McKnight defines “gospel” summarily as the “saving story of Jesus that completes Israel’s story.” A prime benefit for McKnight is it’s re-centralizing of Jesus. He thinks that an overemphasis, that is to say, for all practical purposes, a sole emphasis, either on kingdom or justification tends to displace the person of Jesus, while the category of gospel places Jesus back at the center of what Scripture says, and of what Christianity is all about—faith in the person of Jesus Christ. McKnight has no problem producing multiple texts indicating that the New Testament calls for faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior rather than in his kingdom teaching or Paul’s views on justification. Accordingly, he argues against beginning either with kingdom or justification. Instead, McKnight says, “The gospel is the core of the Bible, and the gospel is the story of Jesus.” Therefore, he urges us to begin our hermeneutical and theological tasks with gospel.

Kingdom of Heaven, Justification:  Is There a Conflict? Something Missing?

In this review essay, Kevin Williams responds to Scot McKnight’s article that introduces a conversation among theologians.

Scot McKnight, “Jesus vs. Paul” Christianity Today (December, 2010), pages 24-29.

The December 2010 cover encapsulates the discussion:

Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven. Paul highlighted justification by faith. Some say they preached different gospels. Others say Jesus and Paul both preached justification. Still others claim both focused on the kingdom. What gives?

This was a first for me, to review an article into which a series of videos had been embedded. Congratulations to Christianity Today for creating a format where the interviews do not interfere with the flow or appreciation of the text. I think CT has done an excellent job of allowing readers to access the video content without it being obtrusive to the written content.

I’ll begin with the title: “Jesus vs. Paul.” That is a teaser headline only. As soon as I read it, my mind immediately went to 1 Corinthians 1:11-13, “… that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Thankfully, the debate is not really pitting Jesus against Paul in McKnight’s article, but whether there can be harmony between the doctrine of Jesus’ “gospel of the kingdom,” and Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith.”

The article begins with McKnight’s own doctrinal journey from a Pauline-based theology to his college years, including becoming a professor, where he became enraptured with Jesus, and subsequently, his struggles when he would open up Paul’s epistles. He, like others, often finds more incongruity than harmony between the two.

Scot McKnight is Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

But McKnight’s concern does not appear to be over the age-old equilibrium between kingdom living and justification as I first suspected. As he puts it, it is “kingdom language on steroids, pushing out justification,” or more to the point, the social-justice teachings of the “unrelenting justice voice of Jim Wallis.” Rev. Wallis, of course, is an advisor to President Barak Obama and an out spoken advocate for social justice and liberation theology, a platform of the Obama administration that has raised considerable debate among the American people.