Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness: Pauls Theology of Justification. New Studies in Biblical Theology 9. Edited by D.A. Carson.

Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

About the Author Christ, Our Righteousness was written by Mark Seifrid, Associate Professor of New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky. Having graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and obtained his doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. Seifrid has written extensively on the theology of Paul, especially with regard to the doctrine of soteriology. In fact, in 1992 he published a monograph based on his thesis, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (11).1 He also took part in the writing and editing of the recent two-volume set on justification and variegated nomism.2 This current work is part of a larger series, New Studies in Biblical Theology, which is under the editorial supervision of D.A. Carson. This series seeks to analyze various theological issues within the frame of current scholarship in order to arrive at an understanding that will both instruct and edify believers.

Purpose of the Book Simply stated, the purpose of this book is to understand Pauls theology of justification within the larger framework of biblical writings; however, the motivation for such an endeavor is largely reactionary to the current trend in New Testament scholarship to seek a re-understanding of Paul. This trend began with an article by Krister Stendahl, who challenged the contemporary post-Reformation understanding of Pauline theology. E.P. Sanders and other scholars such as James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright gradually followed this line of thought, publishing massive tomes that advocated a new perspective on Paul (14). Though variations exist among the theses of these scholars, the so-called new perspective largely seeks to understand Paul within the context of first-century Judaism. Conceiving some consistency in Pauls own pattern of religion, new perspective advocates generally understand Pauls doctrine of justification in terms of what Sanders designated covenantal nomismnamely, the idea that works of the law were not performed to earn Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ed. E.J. Brill (Leiden, Massachusetts: Brill Academic Publishers, 1992). D.A. Carson (ed), Justification and Variegated Nomism, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2 volumes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001/2004).
1
2 1

salvation and remission from guilt but rather to demonstrate ones own place and right standing within the covenant community of God. Hence, within the framework of covenantal nomism, One was in the covenant, i.e. elected to salvation, unless by a heinous transgression (without repentance) one chose to remove oneself from it (15).3 Therefore, Sanders and company claim that Paul and his fellow first-century Jews never understood works as the requirement for an individual to gain salvation, but rather as the gracious means that God His provided His covenant people (corporately) for maintaining a proper covenant relationship, a relationship initiated and maintained by the mercy of God. Several variations of Sanders initial thesis have emerged, prominent among which are understandings of Pauls theology in terms of distinguishing boundary markers for the covenant community or an eschatological return from exile. While Seifrid acknowledges that old understands of Paul were lacking, overly individualistic and anachronistic, and called for reevaluating and refining, many of the new-perspective ideas require an inconsistent treatment of Pauls own writings. Even the idea of covenantal nomism is shaky to Seifrid, who claims that in the rabbinic materials, covenantalism stands alongside nomism without the overarching synthesis which Sanders has proposed (16). Therefore, this book was written to establish an understanding of Pauls theology of justification that interacts both with traditional postReformation perspectives as well as the views of new perspective scholars.

Thrust and Application of Book Contents Rather than beginning with an explanation of his own scholarly presuppositions or a discussion of his exegetical methodology, Seifrid dives into the theology of Pauls most elaborate epistle, Romans. He quickly seeks to establish that, contrary to new-perspective claims, Paul did not oppose works of the Law because they represented exclusive ethnic boundary markers or a nationalistic hope of salvation; rather, according to Seifrid, He rejected them because they represented a false claim to righteousness (21). Within Romans, Seifrid asserts, The manner in which God justifies remains constant in promise and fulfillment (37). Hence, in order to justify anyone, God also required that they be proven guilty. Thus, Seifrid contends that, for Paul, the Christ event served to reveal the measure of Gods judgment upon mankindwhile simultaneously revealing the measure of Gods mercy and grace. To that end, Seifrid asserts, It is only through wrath and condemnation that salvation and righteousness may come (45). Therefore, just as the victory of God accomplished through the resurrection of Christ served to vindicate Gods justice and defeat his enemies, it also provided the means by which Gods enemies, particularly among mankind, could be reconciled to their Creator. For the context of the quote, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1977), pp.136137, 182.
2
3

Seifrid maintains that Paul is not ultimately concerned with blaming particular persons or groups, but with displaying the righteousness of Gods wrath (51). He states, Paul is driving home the point that Gods wrath is justified, and preparing for its resolution in the cross of Christ (52). Nevertheless, while Seifrid develops the theme of Gods righteousness well, he never articulates the seeming contradiction within Pauls arguing for and against the advantage of the Jews, at least not in a satisfactory manner. He clearly shows that possession of the Law was not an advantage for the Jews in that it did not result in obedience, but he never clearly explains the importance of being entrusted with the oracles of God (56).4 Regardless, the author clearly demonstrates that Jew and Gentile are equally culpable to the wrath of God as revealed on the cross, which Seifrid calls the prolepsis of that day of judgment when Gods contention with the world comes to its conclusion (65-66). Yet, while Christs death on the cross requires an acknowledgement of guilt, it also provides the sole means by which the penalty of that guilt is atoned. Hence, those justified by faith in the sufficiency of Christs atonement and cause live not under condemnation, but by hope granted by Christs own resurrection from the dead. Upon completing his analysis of Romans 1-8, Seifrid examines the justification motif across the spectrum of Pauls letters. His exegesis of Galatians 4-5 is notable, particularly his observation that, like the resurrection, The Spirit who has been sent into the hearts of believers is the prolepsis of the resurrection the presence of the age to come here and now (81). Likewise, within his analysis of Corinthians, Seifrid understands justification within the larger biblical framework, noting that Redemption from sin is an act of creation, as are all Gods works (87).5 Somewhat awkwardly, Seifrid waits until the halfway point of his book to establish and defend his understanding of several themes and ideas within the larger stream of Pauline theology, especially the enigmatic works of the Law. Given the placement of this chapter, much of the material seems redundant in light of the previous development of related, or even identical, themes within the exegetical work of the previous chaptersespecially given Seifrids outworking of Pauls theology in Romans 1-8. Nevertheless, in seeking to critique various aspects of new perspective proposals on Paul, Seifrid probably chose to expound on various aspects of Paul that would be directly relate to the Israel-specific portions of Romans, namely chapters 9-11. Hence, given Seifrids acknowledgement that Paul obviously regards the works

He simply asserts that the oracles of God make known the human condition, yet points to Israels failure to believe the oracles of God, hence annulling any potential advantage. He proceeds to identify the oracles of God with the vague idea of Gods unfathomable ways, an idea he fails to fully develop (57). While Seifrids point is noted with regard to redemption, one might take issue with the implications of such a broad statement. The Bible clearly asserts that not all of Gods works are intended to create; as the Creator, God has the full right both to create and to destroy. See especially Jeremiah 18.
3
5

of the law as bearing an ethnic and national significance, Seifrid necessarily develops this and other, related concepts in order to work out Pauls thought in the remainder of Romans. In the following chapter, which develops Romans 9-11, Seifrid seeks to demonstrate that, historically speaking, Not all of Israel is Israel (153). For Seifrid, such an idea is not only explicitly expressed by Paul in Romans 9:6, but also serves as the only way the explain the paradox seeming paradox in that [while] there is no advantage in being Jewishthe Jew [has] much advantage in every way (151). The benefits of Israels election, which for Seifrid exist in the form of promise, are granted only to those who respond to the Gods revelation, or manifestation of his promises; hence, with the fulfillment of Gods promises in Christ, who is the goal of the law which Israel pursued (10:3-4), the true Israel is prophetically reduced to a remnant in its overall failure to respond to the Lords execution of His word (156-157). By seeking to establish its own righteousness, Israel rejects the righteousness that is in Christ. The remnant, though it emerges from Israel, is not the former nation but a creation of Gods word (161); at the same time, however, Seifrid also asserts that it is a tangible indication that God has not rejected his people (11:2) (164). Thus, Israel serves both as the means of fulfillment for Gods redemptive work and as a prophetic example to those nations who have now been engrafted into covenant relationship with God. Yet, Seifrid expresses Pauls hope that the continuing remnantis a sign of the salvation which is yet to come for Israel (169). In closing, Seifrid seeks both to work out the practicalities of the theology he has developed and demonstrate its consistency with New Testament writings outside of the Pauline corpus.

Assessment of the Book On the whole, Seifrids work was well worth reading and by no means sought to tote the line by regurgitating traditional views without processing them through his own critical filters. To that end, Seifrid made use of the entirety of the scholarly spectrum, drawing strengths of views new and old to establish his own consistent framework of interpretation. This is perhaps evidenced most clearly toward the close of the book, where Seifrid writes: It is not so much wrong to use the expression the imputed righteousness of Christ as it is deficient. Paul, after all, speaks of the forgiveness of sins, of reconciliation to God, the gift of the Spirit, salvation and so onIt is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen (175). Hence, Seifrid maintains the traditional framework through which Paul is understood while seeking to improve upon those ideas which might be better articulated. Yet, while rejecting many of the new perspective conclusions regarding Pauls theology, Seifrid is fair in his overall treatment of the material, particularly with regard to the issues of ethnicity and exile
4

both of which he seeks to develop within their proper role in Pauls theology. 6 Furthermore, the author maintains considerable consistency in demonstrating that Christ not only provides the hope for our justification but also elucidates the measure of our judgment. In Christ, the condemnation of God is fully vindicated and justified, which Seifrid uses to demonstrate Pauls irony in that Christ also serves as the justifier of all creation. He writes, The cross does not sweep away human guilt; it confronts us with it, so that it may be judged.[Creation] can receive mercy only from the hand of its Judge (169). Finally, Seifrid is careful not to overdevelop his understanding of Pauls theology in Romans, maintaining a perspective general enough that it does not contradict the broader context of Pauline thought and New Testament theology on the whole. Nevertheless, there are two notable weaknesses within Seifrids work; the first weakness involves the arrangement of material. Seifrid waits until midway through the book to include a chapter in which he elaborates on several concepts inherent to his understanding of Pauline theology. This not only potentially weakens the argumentation made hitherto, it also creates a redundant feel in that this chapter follows a Seifrid exposition of Romans 1-8, in which many conceptsparticularly works of the Laware highly operative. One could also argue that it would have been better for Seifrid to trace Pauls theology of justification throughout the whole of Romans before exploring the broader Pauline corpus; either way, it would have been best to develop concepts in such a way that did not interrupt the natural flow of the book. A second weakness comes in Seifrids failure to confront the primary issues of new perspective understandings in their entirety. He often deals with various aspects piecemeal, but never deals with new perspective understandings at length in any portion of the book beyond the first chapter, in which he implicitly suggests that such a goal is precisely what the book will accomplish. If so, Seifrid must have supposed that seeking to demonstrate the consistency of his own framework for understanding Paul would suffice to accomplish this task. Nevertheless, Seifrids book demonstrates considerable grappling with the scholarship on its given subject matter and establishes a balanced perspective on Paul, albeit one that largely falls within the spectrum of traditional interpretations of Paul. Seifrid writes well and maintains consistency in his argumentation, proving himself as a formidable Pauline scholar. While not recommended for novices in the area of biblical studies, Seifrids work is a valuable for students and scholars alike who seek a deeper appreciation of Paulineand by extension New Testamentthought.

For Seifrid, ethnicity and exile are not primary factors within the overall development of Pauls theological exposition in Romans, but they are nevertheless part of the historic and prophetic framework of Gods redemptive work upon which Paul reflects.
5