Hi Michael - the point I’m trying to make is about the meaning of the words “righteousness” and “justification” themselves.

My beef with Wright here is actually very similar to my issue with Piper that I discussed in the previous post. Wright, like Piper, has helpfully noticed a conceptual connection, but illegitimately turned it into a lexical equivalence.

I would certainly agree that in Galatians, Paul’s argument about justification implies something about whom one eats with (Gal 2:11-14) and also something about who is the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). I would also agree that these two concepts (eating and seed of Abraham) are related to the notion of “community”.

But that is not what the word “justification” actually means. Righteousness has implications for community, granted. But Wright takes a further, unwarranted step by claiming that the terms are essentially synonymous. And this is a real problem, because by doing so, he makes the notion of human “community” far more central and fundamental to his theology than it should be.

Hi Stephen, my colleague Lionel is very busy at the moment, although he may well post in response to your comments. But as a less competent scholar I will have a go in the mean time…

You wrote

I’m not convinced by all this righteousness and justification stuff.  Sounds like OT hairsplitting to defend a theory of salvation.)

Thanks for your opinion, but where’s your evidence?

Lionel has primarily been discussing the meaning of words at this stage, and not an over all theory of salvation.

However it’s not just OT hair-splitting. Perhaps Lionel could have improved his articles by giving some NT examples. But the standard lexicon BDAG indicates that the forensic (or verdict sense’) meaning of the Greek verb “to justify” is certainly a very common one (perhaps the most common), namely

2. to render a favorable verdict, vindicate.

An older lexicon, Thayer, also showed it to be the most common meaning

3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be,[...]a. with the negative idea predominant, to declare guiltless one accused or who may be accused, acquitted of a charge or reproach [...examples given…]
b. with the positive idea predominant, to judge, declare, pronounce, righteous and therefore acceptable [...more examples given],

Some NT examples to consider include: Matthew 12:37 (the verb is contrasted to a verb which means to ‘condemn’ or ‘find guilty’); Luke 10:29; Luke 16:15; Romans 2:13, Rom 3:24-26, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:9, Rom 8:33-34 (cf. Rom 8:1 for the ‘comdemnation’ contrast); 1 Cor 4:4. Look these up via the tags!

Sometimes it is used of person pronouncing a verdict on themselves or others, or of God pronouncing a verdict relevant to the great judgment.

Conclusion both from these examples, and the expert testimony of the lexicons: the ‘verdict’ sense - often in a forensic context of a judgment of some sort - is very common.

Hi Stephen - I would echo Sandy’s responses to your comment.

I’d also add a couple of other things. If, as I believe, God has revealed himself in human words, then it is very important for us to get a reasonable grasp on the meaning of those words in their context, in order that we may come to know what God has revealed. Knowing God’s mind about righteousness is not, as you claim, far from us, because God in his wisdom has revealed it to us (Romans 10:6-9).

Secondly, I’ve deliberately concentrated on the Old Testament because it is the primary conceptual and lexical context for the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament writers. When the New Testament uses words, particularly important theological words such as righteousness and justification, the key starting point for us as we seek to understand why and how they use those words is the Old Testament. This is, I think, one important implication of Paul’s encouragement to Timothy that the Old Testament Scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).

Stephen,

On what basis do you believe vv6-8 to be “likely later layers of emerging tradition”?

Thanks again Sandy,

Yes, my comment on your deeply held convictions was genuine. Whilst I myself occupy a space vastly different to the one you guys inhabit, I do apsire to the notion that we can move beyond a dualistic mindset of right-wrong, left-right, liberal-conservative, mystic-reformed, etc, and see ways to be integrative on our collective journey of transformation.  Living with paradox - a common theme of the Jesus parables - I think is a crucial part of this journey.

Cheers.