Essay Questions Flashcards
Describe the relationship between faith and work (s of the law) in Paul and James.
Use James 2:14-26, Titus 2:14 and Galatians 2:15-21
First, make sure you can recognize James 2 and Galatians 2 in the id sheet. Make sure, also, that you can exegete them in context. Language is the same, but what they mean is different. Here are the notes:
What does James mean by terms like “faith” and “works”?
- Faith (pistis), or belief. True faith for James is belief in God. Cognitive belief in Jesus and God. By itself, it doesn’t produce a godly life (because even demons believe in God).
- To James, you can’t separate faith and works. You can’t say that you have faith with no works. What I believe affects what I do. If I don’t do, then I don’t believe. What he’s getting at is faith and obedience.
- James seems to be talking about “works” as obedience to do what you believe. In this context, it’s loving the poor.
- Also, James reads more like a wisdom letter. Not a literary epistle. Very similar to Jesus’ words in the book of Matthew.
What does Paul mean by terms like “faith” and “works”?
• Paul also agrees with James. But they’re using different language. In Titus 2:14 he says to be zealots for good works. Faith, or belief for Paul, is not just a thing you do with your head. It has to do with entrusting your life to God, and behaving as if this is true. For Paul, you participate in what Christ has done. You share in his narrative. We are the body of Christ and live in his story. We are marked by cruciform love for God and neighbor. Union for Christ is the basis for living a certain way. You might have a legal declaration and no cruciform love after you “believe”. He also asks, “should we go on sinning that grace may abound?” in Romans. He’s aware that if he focuses on God’s salvific act there will be some who will say that our behavior doesn’t matter. Paul’s response to that is “by no means” or “absolutely not!” In other words, we don’t go on sinning and behave/act in a specific way. We do good works. We do what is good (as the NIV translates Titus 2:14).
• He’s making a contrast between faith and works of the law. Works of the law are NOT good deeds, but things that mark you as Jewish.
• At the end, Paul and James agree.
What is the definition and theological significance of the term “the righteousness of God” in Paul’s writings.
The righteousness of God is an attribute of who God is, and which God gives to us. There is a close connection between God’s righteousness and his covenantal action. Paul imagines that believers are declared righteous now and will be saved because of this on the day of judgment. The righteousness of God is seen in Jesus. God was faithful to the covenant by sending Jesus to the cross for our faith. It’s the faith of God, in Jesus faith to the cross, and our faith in these things.
I think I need to look at Romans (3) again.
From Bassler:
According to Bassler, the righteousness of God does not appear in any of Paul’s letters except 2 Corinthians 5:21 (he became sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God) and the book of Romans. It’s almost as if Paul weren’t interested in the topic, until we get to Romans. He refers to it 8 times in Romans.
1:16-17. Paul says, “for I am not ashamed of the gospel, it is the power of God for the salvation of those who believe.” And then he says, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”He mentions it four times in Romans 3:21-26. The righteousness of God is one of the core themes of Romans.
SO, WHAT IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD?
Part of the problem in defining the righteousness of God comes from difficulty in translating the Greek. Is Paul talking about an attribute of God, an action taken by God, or a gift given by God?
Background to this discussion: Bultmann took the third option, and equated the righteousness of God as a gift given by God, or another way of talking about justification. Kasemann said tis couldn’t be the only thing it meant. That it had something to do with God’s power to bring salvation to pass. In other words, God’s action.
Old Testament studies help paint a clearer picture of “righteousness of God” in Paul’s writings. Note: the text that surrounds these texts give “the righteousness of God” its meaning.
- In Psalm 99 it is equated with God’s role as cosmic judge and ruler.
- In Psalm 40 it has to do with God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Israel. God is steadfast, he is faithful, all covenant words.
- In Isaiah 51 it is seen as God’s saving action. Because of God’s righteousness, he acts to save his people (from Egypt and Babylon). This saving action will extend to the Gentiles.
In Romans:
- Paul introduces it in 1:16-17. His Jewish readers would’ve been aware that God’s righteousness had to do with his power to save Israel. But now he’s introducing it as a concept that extends to Gentiles. God’s righteousness NOW active to include Gentiles. He will unpack this all in 3:21-31, but first he’s going to lay a trap for his Jewish audience.
- The Gentile predicament is that they rejected God, even though his evidence was everywhere. The Jewish predicament is that they did the same thing, and shouldn’t judge. God’s wrath is therefore reserved for both Jews and Gentiles. All fall short. God’s wrath is also being revealed.
What’s the problem that Paul is addressing?
ii) The Gentile Predicament (1:18-32): It is helpful to see the first 4 chapters as a court case. The verdict is that ALL humanity is fallen. All are in equal need of salvation. Paul says that humanity has failed to worship the creator. He’s lulling his readers into a rhetorical trap. The wicked Gentiles are doing what they shouldn’t be doing. He’s imagining an imaginary reader, especially in chapter 2. The Jewish readers are loving it now. And then “you who are judging people” he’s talking now to the Jews. Rhetorically speaking, he’s a genius. The Gentiles are transgressors of God’s law. He’s building a case against all humanity at this point.
iii) The Jewish Predicament (2:17-3:8). Jews are guilty of the same thing. You judged, but you’re doing the same thing.
3. God’s embraces both Jews and Gentiles. The Solution (3:21-26): In Christ’s faithful, obedient death, God in covenant faithfulness extends forgiveness for sins and redemption from Sin. This righteousness will be experienced apart from the law, to those who believe. The implication is that the Gentiles now are saved into covenant relationship through what Jesus has done. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD HAS BEEN DISCLOSED, OR REVEALED, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Wow.
“God, Paul says, showed God’s righteousness by putting forward, that is, by establishing or regarding, Jesus’ death as a sacrifice of atonement made effective as such by Jesus’ faithfulness”.
AND, WHAT IS THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD?
For Paul, “the righteousness of God” is theologically significant because it reveals that God is a judge of all (Greek and Jew) and all fall short, and that God can save all (including the Gentiles). The righteousness of God is seen in his faithfulness, steadfastness, and willingness to do what is right. He takes action to save, and that includes those who were excluded from being God’s people; the Gentiles. God’s righteousness, therefore, demands salvation for all people. Paul is convinced that God’s righteousness is now included in Christ to include the Gentiles in salvation. At the core of Paul’s reasoning for writing Romans is his belief that God is merciful to all, even the Gentiles. So then, God’s righteousness is at the core of making that happen. It is God’s action, it is in God’s character, to save, to be faithful to the covenant, to include those who were once excluded.
Bassler concludes that Paul was setting up his theology of a law-free gospel with the Jerusalem church in mind. He could argue with them from a perspective of the righteousness of God. They would’ve understood this as the things we’ve mentioned, and now Paul is saying that God saves even the Gentiles. God is truly righteous.
Write about the formation and interpretative significance of the NT canon.
Process of Canonization:
- Composition. They were written.
- Use. They were used (in Liturgy, and distribution).
- Collection. People collected them.
- Selection. Conversations about which ones were included.
- Ratification. Athanasius in 367.
Reasons for the formation of the canon:
- the passing of time. Christians wanted to preserve an account of the events that led to their faith and the life of the community. For the Christian bible, it was the Exodus story, the Babylonian Captivity, and the resurrection of Jesus. Basically, they didn’t want the information about who Jesus was and the mission of the community to become diluted. The first generation started to die out, so it was important for the life of the community to write out what had happened. The apostles could no longer be called, now they had to rely on the apostolic tradition that was left behind.
- jewish scripture were a model. The early Christians saw themselves as a fulfillment of Judaism. So they preserved Jewish scripture, but also Christians ones that gave them a unique perspective on who they were. And, Jews were doing their own collection of canon, maybe as a response to the Christian “heresy” within Judaism.
- heresy (Marcion, Gnosticism, Montanism). The first generation died, and others became the “authority”. Marcion chose Luke and Paul’s letters because he believed the Jewish scriptures pointed to a lesser (violent) God. The Christian community affirmed that they came out of Judaism by including Jeiwhs scriptures, and then chose other gospels they believed had authority. Montanus came on the scene and made himself a new authority, and the new person through whom which God was working, and the Christian community said that only the apostolic scriptures were the authority. Similarly, the Gnostics wrote their own literature (Gospel of Thomas), and the community decided which scriptures were orthodox and which ones weren’t.
- persecution and accommodation
- technological development of the codex in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.
Types of Canon (Jesus and Community):
- text books that one could use to talk about the life of Jesus. The Gospels. A consensus had already been reached by the end of the first century about the four gospels. The question was whether or not to include Hebrews and the Gospel of Peter.
- pastoral letters that addressed issues the community was facing in relation to each other and society. Paul’s letters were also seen as authoritative early on. And, so were the letters of the three pillars of the church; Peter, James, and John.
We must not forget that there were more than 27 books being circulated when the canon was being put together. The community had to decide which books were orthodox, and which ones were not. Also, an actual meeting never really took place. It’s not like someone said, “let’s have a conference to decided which books will be ours”. A lot of what we know about what was authoritative and what wasn’t was from letters that were being written about the topic. The “Canon Muratorianus” is a list of scriptures that were being use during the 2nd century and gives us evidence that there was a move towards the formation of the canon (people were beginning to keep lists about about what was authoritative and what wasn’t).
Origen was the first to refer to the Christian scriptures as the “New Testament”. In 367 it was Athanasius who published the list of what is now in our New Testament. Note also, that the canon was shaped by the life of the community. It was a grassroots movement, not decided by a council.
Criteria for selection: hints at criteria are given to us by 2nd and 3rd century writings.
- Quoted by Ancient Authority: Was the letter or gospel, or other writing quoted by the early church? If so, it was probably included (because it proved that the early church valued it). On other words, early Christians sources were quoting it, so it must therefore have authority.
- Apostolic Origin. One of the most important criteria for inclusion was whether or not it was believed that the writing came from a source close to Jesus.
- Catholicity/use. The letter/gospel was used by the community during worship. Usually read out loud. Writings that were read out loud early on have authority.
- Orthodoxy/Adherence to “Rule of Faith”. This is the most important factor in deciding whether or not a resource was included in the canon of scripture. It had to do with content. Evidence of this is Serapion, who was asked if the Gospel of Peter had authority. Initially he said yes, but changed his mind when he read it because it didn’t fit what the community believed. Did the writing talk about normative status? Or, did it conform to what the community believed and was practicing? The interesting thing is that that “Rule of Faith” had never been written down. It was later written in the Nicean Creed. The community chose what it believed was legit, and shunned what the community believed wasn’t who they were. This is huge because the community gave scripture the authority. The common experience of the community brought the canon together.
Things to think about in relation to interpretation:
- Context. What were the circumstances that led to writing the gospel or letter? Who were they for, and who were they written by?
- We interpret by looking at the saying (discourse), studying what is done in saying (locution), and what is done by saying something (perlocution).
Don’t forget the horizon of the author —-> the text——>and the horizon of the reader. We always bring who were are into biblical interpretation. Meaning comes from an interaction of all these things. What that means is that interpretation will differ from person to person, and from time to time, because context is different. The question then, is what is God saying to us now?
Hay’s Hermenuetical Constraints:
- Faithfulness to God’s Promises
- Witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- Transformation of the Community. Good readings of scripture lead to good readers of scripture.
Hays, Augustine and Green all agree on the transformation of the community.
Please outline the significance of cultural hermeneutics and Brian Blount’s reading of Revelation.
Study
