Paul’s Theology on Justice, Righteousness and Reconciliation (A Primer on Justice and Missions, Part 2)

In my last post (Framing Justice Theologically), I posited the following thesis:

 “Justice–fairness, though important to God and to God’s people, is nevertheless incomplete. God’s justice is larger than simply fairness or equity. God’s justice is inseparable from his saving activity for a fallen world. In the grander scheme of God’s economy of salvation, distributive justice acts as one component to a much larger process called reconciliation.”

Here in this post, I give the exegetical basis for making this claim.

Paul’s Theology on Justice, Righteousness and Reconciliation (A Primer on Justice and Missions, Part 2) *

            To a certain degree, the principle of justice as fairness (or “distributive justice” as some call it)¹ is affirmed by both the Old and New Testaments. The psalmist, for example, recognizes God’s role as an impartial judge and executor of justice over the affairs of Israel when he says of God:

“Mighty king, lover of justice (םשׁפט mishpat), you have established equity, you have executed justice (םשׁפט mishpat) and righteousness (צדקה tsedeqah) in Jacob. Praise the Lord our God! Worship at his feet! Holy is he!” (Ps. 99:4-5; cf. Pss. 9:1–20; 89:5–14; 97:1–12; 103:6; Jer. 9:23–24).² 

Jim Bruckner has called God’s mishpat and tsedeqah a “ferocious justice” whose goal is restoration but nevertheless confronts the oppressor, the arrogant, and evil-doers with the demand of repentance.³

            Not only does God judge impartially, God expects his covenant people to act justly as well and be executors of his justice:

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you? But to do justice (םשׁפט mishpat), and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God!” (Micah 6:8; cf. Ps. 72:1–3; Jer. 22:3).⁴

[Hang onto your linguistic seatbelts, folks, we are about to go from 0 to 60 mph in one paragraph!]

            As we look at how the New Testament quotes Old Testament verses in Greek (e.g., Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17), or how the Greek Septuagint translates Hebrew passages on justice such as Ps. 99:4–5 and Micah 6:8 above, we observe that the Hebrew word mishpat (sometimes translated as “justice” but more often meaning a strict “judgment” where each person is given his or her due) is precisely rendered in Greek as κρίμα krima or κρίσις krisis (that is, “judgment” as in legal proceedings). The term tsedeq (“righteousness” or “uprightness” that defends, rescues, and delivers both communities and individuals) or tsedeqah (“righteous act”) is translated as δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē, that is, “righteousness” as in one’s intrinsic just character or how one relates rightly with others. But dikaiosynē is also used singly to translate both mishpat (“judging–justice”) and tsedeq (“restorative–righteousness”). In this case, δικαιοσύνη means mainly “righteousness,” or God’s saving righteousness but depending on the context can also denote distributive justice (see, e.g., Ps. 72:1–3; 98:1–3).⁵

            If you got lost in the above discussion, here’s a chart mapping simply (but not comprehensively) how some Hebrew words for justice and righteousness are translated into Greek by the Septuagint and New Testament:

Fig. 1: How the LXX and NT translates םשׁפט and צדק

Main Point: If the Old Testament concepts of mishpat and tsedeq bear any influence on the New Testament understanding of dikaiosynē (and the consensus is that they do!), then I argue here that dikaiosynē mainly means “righteousness,” or God’s saving righteousness but at times can be translated as distributive justice, or even denote righteousness with some sense of distributive justice subsumed within it (see, e.g., Ps. 72:1–3; 98:1–3 par. Rom. 1.16–17).⁶

            Paul can even set up both senses of dikaiosynē – i.e., God’s saving righteousness and God’s distributive justice – in tandem with each other in the same passage. Let’s look at Romans 3:21–26 as an example and observe that the same word dikaiosynē and its cognates have been translated more than one way (in bold):

But now the saving (cosmic) righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; or God’s saving activity), apart from the Torah, has been made known, to which the Torah and the Prophets testify. ²² that is, the righteousness that comes from God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. There is no difference, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified as a gift (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν) by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented him as an atonement (ἱλαστήριον) through faith in his blood. He did this as a demonstration of his distributive justice (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteous character (δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ; that is, to be true to himself) at the present time, so as to be just (δίκαιον; in character) and the one who justifies (δικαιοῦντα; forensically and actually) those who have faith in Jesus.

In the passage quoted just above, Paul shares how the saving righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; the subjective genitive; v. 21)⁷ took a particular form: a righteousness that comes from God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; the genitive of origin; v. 22) which can be received through faith in Christ. God could have meted out justice–fairness (δικαιοσύνη) with a vengeance for sins committed beforehand, but God chose not to (v. 25a)! Instead God demonstrated distributed justice (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ; v. 25b) and just character (δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ / δίκαιον; v. 26) not by condemning sinners but by presenting Christ as an atoning sacrifice. He paved the way for sinful humanity to be declared justified and in right relations with himself (δικαιούμενοι / δικαιοῦντα; 3:24, 26).

            So here is the theological and exegetical punchline: Given Paul’s understanding of how distributive justice relates to the saving righteousness of God, what does Paul mean when he says that God did all of this (= presented Christ Jesus as an atonement) for one reason: that we might become the righteousness of God and preach the message of reconciliation? Here is the full text of 2 Corinthians 5:17-21:

¹⁷ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, everything has become new!

¹⁸ And all this is from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ (τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ) and who gave to us the ministry of reconciliation (καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς)

^19ab – that is (ὡς ὅτι), God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ), not reckoning their transgressions against them (μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν)

^19c and [who] placed upon us the message of reconciliation (καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς).

²⁰ Therefore, we are ambassadors (πρεσβεύομεν) for Christ, as though God was making his appeal through us (παρακαλοῦντος δι᾽ ἡμῶν). We beseech you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God! (δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ)

²¹ He made the one who knew no sin to be sin for us (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) in order that we might become in him the righteousness of God (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ).

The Greek words “reconcile” (καταλλάσσω) and “reconciliation” (καταλλαγή) find their historical context in the peace-treaty process whereby two parties, who are estranged from another because one has wronged the other, are attempting to re-establish diplomatic and personal relations.⁸  Whereas in Judaism, God is often described as being reconciled to Israel once he has vented his wrath,⁹ Paul, on the other hand, never claims that God reconciles himself to the sinner, but rather God reconciled us to himself (ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ; 5:18; cf. 5:19ab κόσμον ἑαυτῷ). In sending Christ “who knew no sin to be sin for us” (5:21), God took the initiative to provide atonement and forgiveness for the estranged sinner. Even though it was humanity who wronged God, not God who wronged humanity, through Christ’s death and resurrection God nevertheless opened the way for sinners to have renewed relations with him.

            So themes in Romans 3:21-26 (God demonstrating his justice by the atonement of Christ) are re-presented in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (God reconciling the world to himself by Christ becoming sin for us) but with an important advancement: the goal of this saving act in Christ is to make us the righteousness of God and to send us as ambassadors of Christ.

            The person who is a new creation in Christ, that is, the believer and the church corporate, becomes “the righteousness of God” (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ). In other words, the righteousness of God is on display for the outside world to see through us, Christ’s ambassadors, as we participate in the ministry of reconciliation, suffer as Christ did, and appeal to sinners with the message of reconciliation: “Be reconciled to God” (5:20b).

            What is more, God’s modus operandi becomes the method of the church. How did God use distributive justice? To this end: that we might be justified before God (Rom 3) and become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:17). In the grander scheme of God’s economy of salvation, distributive justice acts as one component to a much larger process called reconciliation. Justice serves to make reconciliation complete. The former is the means to the latter as an end.

            What, then, are the ethical implications of Romans 3 and 2 Cor. 5 which define God’s sense of justice in the theological framework of justification and reconciliation? 
            First, we realize that justice–fairness, as important as it is, cannot become an end in itself. Acts of mercy, compassion and justice are only means to a greater work: the reconciliation of the sinner to God and sinners with one another. Therefore, the church participates in the task of justice out of compassion for those who are disenfranchised, but the community of faith does this so that eventually (and here wise discernment has its place) the powerless can feel safe enough to avail themselves of God’s grace. We model God’s compassion so they can feel unafraid of a God whom they might feel has abandoned them.

            In the previous post, I used Weborg’s example of how justice mutes the volume of suffering so the sinner can hear God’s call to reconciliation. So, justice, like evangelism and missions, are means by which human beings can encounter the risen Lord.

            Secondly, if justice as fairness is a subcomponent of the larger task of righteousness as reconciliation, then any brand of justice which hinders a person from becoming reconciled with God, even if that person is our enemy, is no longer truly just and righteous. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, thought that any violent act against a person was evil because violence closed more doors and created more barriers for wounded parties to renew broken relationships.¹¹ If our so called “just” actions creates a situation where it is impossible for persons to heal, forgive, and receive forgiveness, then such actions must be suspended in the interim for the sake of the greater mission of seeing all human beings experience God’s reconciling grace.

            Thus Christians paradoxically have a two-fold ethic: we seek justice as fairness for others so that it creates a safe space for them to meet and be reconciled to God. At the same time, we are willing to suspend justice and vindication for ourselves so that the greater work of reconciling our enemies to Christ can become a reality.

            If it feels like burning the candle at both ends (justice for others, suspension of justice for myself) then yes, burn brightly. We are called to follow Jesus into those dark places where human dignity stands in jeopardy, sin rules, and misery is rampant. We are called to do what it takes to get even our enemies reconciled with God. Let Jesus the Light of the world shine through our ministry and message.

End Notes

* I felt it stylistically cumbersome to include the full and original notes to this article and therefore have reduced them to the bare essentials since the medium for this essay is no longer a published work but this blog. Still the notes are substantial as you see below.

1) Chris Marshall, The Little Book of Biblical Justice (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2005), 6–9.

2) Unless otherwise noted, all OT Scriptural quotations are from the NRSV with some slight modifications. I will offer my own English translation of the Greek text from the NT.

3) James Bruckner, “Justice in Scripture,” Ex Auditu 22 (2006), 22 [17–25].

4) For further discussion on the OT concept of distributive justice, see Bruckner, “Justice in Scripture,” 17–22; Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism; ed. by D.A. Carson, et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 415–442; Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (vol. 1 of 2; trans. by Leo G. Perdue; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 171–94.

5) The definitions for the lexemes should not be surprising. Consult the standard lexicons (BDB, BDAG, LSJ or Louw-Nida) and dictionaries (TDOT, TDNT). But if you want something even more technical, I invite you to read my essays "Greek Words and Roman Meanings," parts 1-2 published in the Festschrift for Seyoon Kim.

6) In his discussion of Ps. 98:1-3 as an OT parallel to Rom. 1:16–17a, Laato, while arguing for the forensic character of δικ– word group, nevertheless acknowledges that “the concepts ‘salvation’ and ‘righteousness’ overlap here. They are synonymous.” See Timo Laato, “‘God’s Righteousness’ – Once Again,” in The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology (ed. by Lars Aejmelaeus and Antti Mustakallio; LNTS 374; New York/London: T&T Clark, 2008), 47 [40–73].

7) By the subjective genitive, I am following more Käsemann’s reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ  as the saving activity of God as it relates to the entire creational order including humanity rather than the narrower reading by Wright as God’s covenantal activity; see respectively: Ernst Käsemann, trans. by Wilfred F. Bunge, “God’s Righteousness in Paul,” in The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? (ed. by SaJames Robinson, et al.; Journal for Theology and Church 1; New York: Harper&Row, 1965), 100–10; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 101-103. Some scholars like Moo in his NICNT commentary on Romans translate δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as the possessive genitive (“God’s righteous character”) but for the purposes of this paper, it makes no real difference in the arguments I am making.

8) Disclaimer: New Testament scholars, since James Barr’s book The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), always get nervous about what Barr calls “illegitimate totality transfer.” I want to assure the reader that this is not what I am doing here. Given the possible options for how to translate dikaiosynē, in the entire discourse unit of Rom. 3:21-26, I have chosen what I think is the best in-context translation for each appearance of the word. I do make the distinction between word and concept, where the former cannot possibly encapsulate all of the latter. Instead, based on reading the entire discourse unit of Rom 3:21-26, I assert the following about Paul’s understanding of God’s righteousness and justice.

8) On the linguistic background to the terms for reconciliation, see Seyoon Kim, “God Reconciled His Enemy to Himself: The Origin of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on his Life, Thought, and Ministry (ed. by R.N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 104-107 [102–24].

9) See 2 Maccabees 1:5; 5:20; 7:32–33; Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.166; Josephus, Antiquities 7.153. For further discussion of these texts, see Kim, “God Reconciled His Enemy to Himself,” 104–105.

10) For more on how justification frames distributive justice, or on how reconciliation structures justice–fairness, see George Hunsinger, “Justification and Justice: Toward an Evangelical Social Ethic,” in What Is Justification About? Reformed Contributions to an Ecumenical Theme (ed. by M. Weinwich and J.P. Burgess; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 207–30; and Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 193–231.

11) On the theology of the cross which drove the ethics of Martin Luther King Jr., see James McClendon, Biography as Theology (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1974; repr. 1990), 50–59.

Framing Justice Theologically (A Primer on Justice and Missions, Part 1)

About half way into my ethical and theological reflections on Urbana 15, I realized that I needed to preface my response to the challenging messages by Michelle Higgins and Christena Cleveland and InterVarsity's courageous choice to address #blacklivesmatters at a mission conference attended by 16,000+ college students, pastoral leaders, missionaries, and staff, myself included. With all the discussion that is going on (see, for example, these editorials by Ed Stetzer and Sean Watkins, or click the #blacklivesmatter hashtag), I wanted to begin my reflections with a primer on the relationship between justice and missions.

King's "I have a dream speech" given in front of the Lincoln Memorial (1963)
Photo credit by Wikimedia Commons

   On this day commemorating the ministry and movement begun by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I am posting part 1 of A Primer on Justice and Missions, then part 2 which gives the technical exegetical basis for what I say here, and then go back to my final post on Urbana 15. I do this because if I don't explain first where I think justice work fits in the mission of the church, especially within an American evangelical context (with which I do identify myself and to whom I am writing), I will just talk passed people rather than with them. At the very least, I hope that this post will help my seminary students to think theologically about the Evangelical Covenant Church's mission to do justice and evangelism hand-in-hand.

Framing Justice Theologically (A Primer on Justice and Missions, Part 1) *

            No doubt, from the birth of Christianity in the first century A.D. and throughout the centuries until today, the church has been engaged in acts of mercy and compassion to the disenfranchised. Because Jesus himself identifies with those who are suffering in this world (Matt. 25:34-40), those who follow Christ are called into conformity with his compassion. Karl Barth explains that “in all who are now hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and in prison... Jesus himself is waiting.” (Church Dogmatics III/2, 507-508 rev.).¹ Jesus is waiting for his disciples to act and invites the church to join Him in his redemptive work for the lost and needy. The church is concerned for the powerless, because it is the powerless who especially represent the world for whom Christ died (Rom. 5:6-8).

            The early Christian church took up this mandate with such courage and conviction, that their acts of mercy began to shake the very fiber of the Roman Empire. When Roman officials in the second century complained that Christians “do not go to our shows,” nor “take part in our processions,” nor “are present at our public banquets,” and “shrink in horror from our sacred games” (Minucius Felix, Octavius 12),² Tertullian gave the best rebuttal to this charge when he said that the church was too busy caring for people to waste time and money on the festivals. He states: “For they [the funds or resources of the church] are not taken and then spent on feasts, drinking binges, taverns or restaurants, but to support and bury the poor, to supply the needs of children destitute of means and parents and of the elderly confined to their homes... and [to do all such] deeds of love...” (Apology 39).³ From the community of faith in the first century (Acts 2:44–47; 6:1; 2 Cor. 8:3–9) and the second, to such inspiring figures as Brother Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whenever there was suffering in the world, the church was there to bear witness to Christ’s love for ‘the least of these’ (Matt. 25:40).

            But does the church participate in acts of compassion which bring equity and fairness for their own sake? Or are acts of mercy and justice part of a larger work which God is doing in human history? What, then, makes justice thoroughly Christian and keeps it from turning into something that can take a life and meaning of its own apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ? The question is important because non-believers can “do justice,” serve the poor, and labor diligently to restore human dignity for the disenfranchised as much as believers do. Without ever having read John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice,⁴ many people in the United States hold to some basic definition of justice as fairness. They may not subscribe fully to Rawls’ vision of a society composed of free citizens who cooperate with each other to distribute power and resources equitably; however, like Rawls, they champion certain inalienable human rights and see justice as an exercise of power which ensures that these natural rights are upheld.
           The Bible has so much more to say about what justice is and how it is to be practiced than the fair distribution of benefits and penalties. God’s justice is larger than simply fairness or equity. God’s justice is inseparable from his saving activity for a fallen world. In an exegetical study of Romans 3 and 2 Corinthians 5 (which I will post in part 2 of A Primer on Justice and Missions), I argue that while justice–fairness is important to God and to God’s people, it is also incomplete. In the grander scheme of God’s economy of salvation, distributive justice acts as one component to a much larger process called reconciliation. Justice serves to make reconciliation complete. The former is the means to the latter as an end.

            Let me give this illustration taken from a sermon of a colleague and emeritus professor at North Park Theological Seminary, Dr. John Weborg. Imagine a person who is in so much pain and hurt, that the suffering drowns out the voice of Jesus. The person cannot hear God speaking to him or her, because the voices of hurt, lament, despair, fear, anger at the violence and frustration over powerlessness are so loud that the voice of Jesus is drowned out by the deafening bombastic cacophony of human suffering, and the rage at that suffering. The role of justice and works of mercy is to meet the needs of the sufferer, to subdue the cacophony by providing for, and enabling, the poor, bringing help to the sick, and dismantling the structures of violence that oppress so that the person can begin to hear God speak to them since our justice work has started to mute the volume of suffering. Justice is important because to turns down the volume of suffering so that the voice of Jesus can be heard more clearly and loudly through the mission of the church. As the voice of Jesus is heard, the church knows that the Holy Spirit is doing its work to lead people to experience the grace of God, repent, and turn to Christ. Evangelism and justice work are not competing. Justice, like evangelism and missions, are means by which human beings can encounter the risen Lord. The Christian activist who fights for justice and the evangelist who preaches the gospel work together, hand in hand, to share the message of reconciliation to a dying world.

            Wherever there is suffering and despair, Jesus is waiting for the church to interfere. Though the world might ignore hurting people on the margins, such places become for us the center of the universe. The love of Christ compels us to enter the fray as ambassadors of the just and reconciling God (2 Corinthians 5:18–21). He is on mission to save fallen humanity. What an undeserved honor to participate in this glorious ministry of reconciliation, and what a tragedy if we do not.

End Notes

* A few years ago, I was asked to co-write an essay on this topic. When I was almost done, to my chagrin, the editors of the book project to which this essay belonged later apologized that they decided to publish the co-authored piece without my contribution to the essay. Subsequently, my work was left on the proverbial editing floor. I'm glad however, I could revise and publish some of this essay here on the blog in the form of a two-part series.

1) Quoted from George Hunsinger, “Justification and Justice: Toward an Evangelical Social Ethic,” in What Is Justification About? Reformed Contributions to an Ecumenical Theme (ed. by M. Weinwich and J.P. Burgess; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 222–23.

2) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

3) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxxix.html

4) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1999).

Preview of Fire in My Soul: Essays in Honor of Seyoon Kim

At the request of Wipf & Stock, I am dedicating a post on the newly published Festschrift entitled: Fire in My Soul: Essays on Pauline Soteriology and the Gospels in Honor of Seyoon Kim. Here is a fantastic ad and flyer that W&S put together to showcase the book: 

Click here to order a print edition at Wipf & Stock online

I was a part of the editorial team who helped plan and prepare the festschrift for publication. It is a wonderful collection of essays in honor of a truly great scholar and person of Christian integrity, Dr. Seyoon Kim, Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, now retired from full-time teaching and re-writing F.F. Bruce's commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians for the Word Biblical Commentary series into a new (sure to be a game-changing!) volume (see a preview here). 
   Let me highlight just some of the essays. First up are my own two essays which I hope to turn later into chapters for my next monograph after the WUNT manuscript is complete under the same title: Greek Words and Roman Meanings. Anyone familiar with David Hill's classic book on righteousness language in the New Testament can see from my title the appreciative nod I give to his 1967 book Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. In his work, Hill argues that the Greek words δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, and their cognates function as linguistic shells for the Hebrew words tsedeq(ah)/tsadaq. But I argue in my essays that Greek words do not have Hebrew meanings, but (Greco-)Roman ones as part of the common (Κοινή) vernacular of Paul's day. To make a long story short, I have remapped the lexicon on righteousness language so Septuagintal influences on the definitions have been removed. In this way, when we examine Septuagintal echoes in Paul concerning his language of justification, we have a starting or reference point by which to gauge the strength of an OT echo and how much it extends or changes the semantics of the δικ(αιο)- word group as it was commonly employed in the every day discourse of the Greco-Roman world.
   If we look at the key players in the current debates on justification (e.g., N.T. Wright, Douglas Campbell, Michael Gorman, Michael Bird, Douglas Moo, and others), all these scholars attribute a unique definition of "righteousness" to Paul based on a different set of OT texts to which they think Paul refers in his letters. I argue that the more "unique" Paul's use of righteousness language is from their typical Κοινή usages, the greater burden is placed on the NT scholar to prove that the supposed OT echo is there in the Pauline text, and the echo changes the meaning of  the δικ(αιο)- word group in the way they think it does. I've discovered, for example, that forensic language in Paul need not have to appeal to the LXX for its source material but there are numerous Greco-Roman juridicial texts which provide working definitions for how Paul used righteousness/justification language in his letters.
   But enough about my essays, here are some other gems. In Chapter 6 (The Internal Integrative Motive Running through 2 Cor 11:23-12:10), Brian Kim argues that the opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians take OT traditions concerning the false prophet and use these traditions to accuse Paul of being a false apostle. Paul, however, takes this moment to reflect on what does it mean to be an apostle of Christ? He takes his opponent's accusation that physical illness is a sign of God's judgment against a false prophet and turns it into a theology of weakness which identifies an authentic apostle. 
   In Chapter 7 (Matthew's Use of the Septuagint and its Implications), Jin Hwang (a fellow editor) has studied Philo's practice of quoting Scripture as an analogue for how Matthew employs OT echoes in his gospel. Hwang not only offers a comprehensive analysis of Matthew's use of the Septuagint but also demonstrates that Matthew's citation practices align well with the methods of other Hellenistic Jews like Philo. Hwang also provocatively suggests Matthew's audience might be Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora who would appreciate the transliteration of Hebrew/Aramaic words. 
  One last example. In Chapter 15 (Methodological Similarity between Xunguxue and Biblical Exegesis), Hyeon Woo Shin offers a comparative study of the gospel genre with the long-standing history of critical exegesis in China called Xunguxue. Shin argues that the rhetorical devices used by the gospel writers might find better analogues in Chinese exegetical practices (e.g., huwen, or synonymous parallelism; hexu, or word order; and even hermeneutical principles as "scripture interpreting scripture") than Western literary models. Shin's essay helps illustrate how one methodological approach can serve as a comparative foil for another to reveal the strengths and weakness of each. 
   I hope you get a chance to pick up the volume and read the rest of the essays. Many thanks again to all the contributors and staff at W&S for all their hard work. Soli Deo gloria!

Grace and Gift according to Professor John Barclay of Durham University

There are others who take much better advantage of educational videos and lectures on youtube than I do. However, every now and then, I do stumble across a lectureship series by Tom Wright or other New Testament scholars that catch my attention. The biblioblogosphere has made several mentions of Prof. John Barclay's highly anticipated two-volume magnum opus on "Grace and Gift in Paul's Thought" (I have yet to see the definitive title for the work to be published by Eerdmans). 
   I had the pleasure of visiting Durham University back in 2010 for post-doctoral work, and Prof. Barclay was my patron and supervisor for a project on Philo of Alexandria (funded by the Lilly Theological Scholars Grant). Though my stay was short, I learned a great deal from him, Prof. Francis Watson, and Prof. Walter Moberly and am forever grateful for the warm welcome I received and the insights I was able to glean as I studied, wrote, and presented my work to them and others at the NT Seminar held by Durham's Department of Religion and Theology. 

photo credit: http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com

Needless to say, when I heard that John recently gave a lecture summarizing some of the basic tenets of his work on χάρις (translated as either "gift" or "grace"), I "youtubed" it (is this a verb?) and enjoyed the lecture thoroughly. His basic tenet: we in a North American and European context often associate with grace false/wrong/distorted notions on how gift-exchange operates. 
   Barclay attempts to outline a more nuanced understanding of how in the ancient world the complex relationships between giver, gift, and receiver operated from which Paul drew his own description of salvation as a divine gift to believers. The youtube link to the video is below:



   Quick highlights: after a fairly thorough explanation of his methodological (social-scientific) approach to understanding how gift exchanged worked in the wider Greco-Roman world, starting at 34:08 into the video, he explains the core of his argument: What constitutes the perfection of grace? Grace or gift has six common perfections or ideal components by which an ancient giver and receiver can measure the quality of the gift. 

1. Superabundance: the scale or size of the gift: The larger the gift, the more important the gift is.
2. Priority: manner in which the gift is given: the gift-giving is initiated by the giver without having received a previous gift from the recipient
3. Singularity: motivations behind the gift: the goodness / benevolence of the giver is what motivates him/her to give the gift.
4. Incongruency: relationship between the recipient and gift-giver: the more undeserved the gift is, the more perfect the gift. Or, in other words, this category focuses on the unworthiness of the receiver
5. Efficacy: goal of the gift-exchange: that gift accomplishes what the giver has set out to do for the receiver
6. Non-Circularity: the response of the receiver: this category does not mean that there are not expectations made of the recipient. This category means that no material response, or gift of equal value, was expected from the recipient. However, there were non-material expectations. Often this meant the loyalty of the recipient to the giver.

What do we mean by "unconditional gift" or "pure grace" depends on the interpreter. The challenge, then, is to de-aggregate the umbrella category of gift into its constituent parts so we can identify the particular emphases of a given interpreter. Barclay argues that the great 16th century German reformer, Martin Luther, focused on the feature of non-circularity: that is, God's grace is freely given to the believer without any expectation of receiving back anything from the recipient. It is arguably Luther's emphasis on free grace as non-circularity which has dominated Protestant views of justification, especially those from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
    Barclay provocatively insists, however, that Paul's emphasis lies elsewhere. Paul focuses on the incongruity of grace rather than the non-circularity. In fact, Paul expects the believer to respond to grace in concrete ways. Paul, for example, expected the Corinthians to participate in the offering to Jerusalem as a response to their having received God's grace (2 Cor 8:1-14). 
    Here, I break from Barclay to offer my own thoughts and reflections on this initial presentation. I, for one, never thought of grace as being "free" in the modern sense of the word. To me, this is just "cheap grace" to quote Bonhoeffer. Grace is costly. We can never earn salvation so it always remains a gift. But the response to the incongruity of the gift should be complete surrender. Faith is an absolute trust in God that is costly, not cheap. 
    If Barclay is correct in arguing that the Lutheran/Reformed emphasis of grace as non-circularity is incorrect, and this is not what Paul has in mind when the apostle talked about salvation as a gift (Rom 3:24 δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι), then Barclay has done us a great service in helping us to understand the particular emphases of gift language used by Paul. He has given us tools by which to evaluate past interpreters of Paul as well. I wonder how many Pauline interpreters have attributed to Paul a feature of gift-exchange that Paul himself did not emphasize. 
   Of course, we all have to read Barclay's work to see if he is correct in positing that Paul's focus was on incongruity (vs. non-circularity). I'm also curious to see how Barclay interacts with a previous study on grace and benefaction by James R. Harrison (Paul's Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context - 2003). Nevertheless, even before the book is out, John has given us plenty to ruminate over. I, for one, cannot wait until his 2-volume work is published by Eerdmans. Hopefully, it will happen before this 2014 year ends. 

Anecdote: When I was in Durham, to my chagin, I never took a photo with John, Francis, or Walter. Hence I borrowed the above photo from John's time in New Zealand when he was working on his "grace and gift" project. Next time I'm in Durham, I'm going to remember to take more pictures. 

Postscript 02/20/15: Eerdmans announced the book's release date. Click here for more details.

Postscript 06/13/14: Exegetical Exercise: 1) Read the above post. 2) I suggest listening to the lecture directly but start at 34:08 minutes into the video and finish to the end. 3) Go to the bible dictionaries/encyclopedias in the reference section of library and learn more about "grace" or "gift" in the Greco-Roman world (in Greek charis/χάρις). 4) Interpret 2 Cor 8:9-15 ("For you know the grace (χάρις) of our Lord Jesus Christ...") drawing insight from your background study. In other words: how does understanding how grace was expressed, or gift-exchange operated, in the Greco-Roman world help you to understand Paul's message/exhortations in 2 Cor 8:9-15? 4) Be sure to consult at least one academic commentary on your biblical text from the reference section.

(Re)defining Righteousness Language

Right before the Thanksgiving holiday, I attended the Society of Biblical Literature meeting held in Baltimore. I gave a paper for the Biblical Lexicography section entitled: "Greek Words and Roman Meanings: (Re)mapping Righteousness Language in Greco-Roman Discourse as a Prolegomenon to Paul." The paper summarized the work I have done to remap the definitions for δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος, and δικαιόω according to their Κοινή or "common" every day use in Greco-Roman discourse. The problem with BDAG and other lexicons like it is their dependence on Septuagintal uses for defining the δικ(αιο)- word group. Letting the LXX define major semantic classifications is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. First we should examine how the words are commonly understood in the everyday discourse of the 1st century Mediterranean world. Then we examine how Paul might modify the definitions by quoting the Septuagint and its dependence on the Hebrew correlatives tsedek/tsedekah to define what the Greek words mean. So the Greco-Roman usages become the baseline for evaluating the likelihood of an echo.

The more unique the definition, or in other words, the further away Paul's specialized usage of  δικ(αιο)- lexemes is from their "normal" Κοινή use, the greater burden is placed on the exegete that the OT echo does indeed extend the normal meanings of Greek words in that direction.

This is not to say that the LXX is not important to the understanding of Paul's soteriological terms in his letters. Paul likely uses Septuagintal echoes in his letters to redefine the meaning of the δικ(αιο)- word group. However, these definitions are specialized and should not constitute a major semantic classification. 

Here's a sample of what I did with δίκαιος . The left column are the definitions in my alternative lexicon based on Κοινή usages. The right column are the entries of BDAG. The full study will be published in the form of two essays in the forthcoming Festschrift for Dr. Seyoon Kim: Fire in My Soul: Essays on Pauline Soteriology and the Gospels in Honor of Seyoon Kim (eds. Soon Bong Choi, Jin Ki Hwang, and Max J. Lee; Wipf&Stock, Mar/April 2014).

Lexeme	Lee*	BDAG
δίκαιος:	(A1): in accordance with the expectations, customs or decorum of the community; right, fitting, appropriate, customary[1] (A2): in accordance to the rules or civic laws which govern society; just, equitable, fair, lawful[2] (A2.1; as a substantive): the right to do something as guaranteed by law or custom; legal license or civic liberty; right, freedom[3] (A2.2; as a substantive): punitive action; punishment[4] (A3): in accordance to moral integrity; righteous, upright, honest[5] (A4): judged in the right; justified[6] unattested [[(A4.1): judged innocent; acquitted; innocent; free]][7]	(1) pertaining to being in accordance with high standards or rectitude, upright, just, fair (a) of humans (α) In Gr-Rom. tradition a δίκαιος person upholds the customs and norms of behavior . . . In keeping with OT tradition . . . δίκαιος like tsaddiq = conforming to the laws of God and people (β) of things relating to human beings . . . αἷμα δικαίου (Jo 4:19; La 4:13 = Pr 6:17 αἷμα δικαίον) blood of an upright, or better, an innocent man (b) of transcendent beings (α) God and deities are just or fair in their judgments (β) of Jesus who, as the ideal of an upright person, is called simply ὁ δίκαιος the upright one (2) obligatory in view of certain requirements of justice, right, fair, equitable

---

* Prototypical definitions are render in blue. Particularly juridicial or forensic use (marked) is rendered in purple. Unattested, rare, or highly specialized usages are rendered in red. Definitions are ranked from unmarkedness to markedness. The lower digit categories (1, 2, etc.) signify the lexeme’s unmarked meaning(s) that are the least context dependent, while the higher digit categories (3, 4, etc.) indicate increasing semantic markedness. Subcategories (2.1, 2.2, etc.) represent specialized or marked uses of the lexeme regardless of ranking. English glosses (or what Danker calls “formal equivalents”) are distinguished from the definitions by rendering the gloss in italics.

[1] See Homer, Od. 6.120–21; 9.172–76; 13.209–12; 14.89–92. The social meaning of δίκαιος during the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman eras is well-attested, and here I depend mostly on the citations listed in Spicq, “δίκαιος, κτλ.” 320–21; BAGD, s.v. δίκαιος, 246–47; Schrenk, “δίκη, δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, κτλ.,” 182–85; Olley, Righteousness in the Septuagint of Isaiah, 32–43; Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 99–100; Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness, 48–51; Reumann, “Righteousness: Greco-Roman World,” 743.

[2] Aristotle, EN 1129a6–9; 1129a34–1129b1; Demosthenes, Or. 3.21; Thucydides, Hist. 2.71.2; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 5.71.1; 12.45.1; 19.85.4; 40.11.1–2; 49.12.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.2.

[3] UPZ II 16 col. 7 lines 22–27; P. Oxy. VI, 905.9.

[4] Dio Cassius, Roman History 40.19.2; 54.19.2; Josephus, Ant. 14.288; 15.213.

[5] Herodotus, Hist. 1.96; Epictetus, Diss. 3.14.13–14; Fr. 14; Fr. 28b; Musonius Rufus, Fr. 16 (= Lutz, p. 104, line 33).

[6] Demosthenes, Or. 44.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.2. Cf. Aristotle, EN 1137a10–12 (ἄδικος ἡ κρίσις ἐστίν).

[7] The double brackets [[ ]] signify that definition of δίκαιος as “acquitted,” “innocent,” or “free” is unattested in Greco-Roman discourse. If found in Paul’s letters, this semantic classification denotes a unique Pauline use atypical of its κοινή usage during the early imperial period of Rome. However, the substantive use of δίκαιος as “punishment” is attested, though rare (see above def. A2.2). The denotation of the verb δικαιόω as “punish / penalize” is much more frequent and well attested (see below def. V3.2).