Pages

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Some thoughts on "confidence in the flesh"

This morning John Piper preached on Philippians 3:1-16. As I sat and listened, I pondered the text rather carefully. I offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

For convenience, as you read my entry, below is the text. Since I offer comments on only the first portion of 3:1-16, I provide only that portion for your reading here.

1Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.

2Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Three times Paul uses the expression, "confidence in the flesh" (3:3-4). The first and third uses of the expression entails verbs (οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες and πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί ἐγὼ μᾶλλον; respectively). The middle use employs the noun (καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί). It is difficult to escape the sense that Paul's concern, exhibited in his threefold use of this expression entails misplaced confidence, confidence that grounds itself in stuff of the earth, yea, of humanity, rather than of heaven and of God. Yet, what we all have tended to do rather routinely and uncritically is to assume that we know that Paul expression unequivocally refers to "works righteousness."

What if, however, we have been misreading this passage by uncritically taking the lead from our forebears who took their lead uncritically from their forebears, traced back, particularly, to our great Reformation father, Martin Luther? Now, before anyone leaps all over me and charges me with having fallen prey to the New Pauline Perspective, as if that were the worst possible malady that anyone could contract these days, please consider my thoughts. Keep in mind that I am posing a question and not making an assertion.

I am not calling for a radical departure from the interpretation that dominates among Protestants who take Paul's Letter to the Philippians seriously. What if Paul's objection to the "dogs," "the evildoers," "those who mutilate the flesh" is of the same sort as we find in his argument in Romans 2? In Romans 2, Paul's indictment of Jews (2:1-29), following his indictment of Gentiles (1:18-32), is not for any alleged effort by Jews to achieve their righteous standing before God on the basis of doing what the law of Moses required. Quite to the contrary, Paul indicts Jews (apart from Christ) for supposing that possession of the law and possession of circumcision would insulate them from God's wrath in the Day of Wrath. In other words, Paul does not indict them for attempting to achieve self-righteousness by doing what the law required. Instead, Paul indicts them for presuming in a kind of self-righteousness as a birthright, by virtue of possessing the law and by possessing circumcision.

I realize that the distinction that I have sketched above may seem subtle. Some may dismiss my point as a distinction without a difference. I beg to differ, however. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is a real distinction with an important difference. (For expanded discussion of Romans 2, see pages 165-167 in The Race Set Before Us.) This is not to suggest that Scripture elsewhere does not indict efforts to achieve a righteous standing before God on the basis of accumulated merits with God. Biblical teaching concerning human depravity cuts the ground out from under such false notions.

Now, given Paul's opening comments in Philippians 3, does it not seem quite reasonable to understand that his objection to putting confidence in the flesh is not grounded in some alleged effort to achieve righteousness on the basis of doing what the law required? Instead, does it not seem reasonable to understand Paul's derogatory and indicting comments concerning the "dogs," "the evildoers," "those who mutilate the flesh" along the same lines as we ought to understand his indictment of Jews (apart from Christ) in Romans 2:1-29? Is it really reasonable to take Paul's description, "the evildoers" (τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας), to refer to people who kept the law of Moses? Is it not more likely that Paul is referring to people who failed to obey the law but put their confidence in possessing circumcision? Is this not more likely, then, why Paul calls them "the evildoers" and mocks them as "the dogs" (people who mocked the Gentiles as dogs) and "the mutilation"? We ought to pause over this latter expression. Paul exploits a Greek language play on words between "the mutilation" and "the circumcision." On the one hand, Paul says, "Watch out for the mutilation" (βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν ). On the other hand, he says, "We are the [true] circumcision" (ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν περιτομή). For English only readers, mutilation in Greek is katatomē and circumcision in Greek is peritomē. Dan Wallace gets it right when he says, "Kata means ‘down’; katatome is a rare word that, etymologically, had the force of ‘cutting down,’ ‘cutting off.’ When Paul speaks of the mutilation he really means that these folks botch the job and whack off precious body parts!" (cf. Dan Wallace's "Pauline Scatology").

Now, given this understanding, is it not reasonable that when Paul says, ". . . though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more," that he is speaking of a pedigree that is more authentically worthy of boasting about than the pedigree boast of "the dogs," "the evildoers," "those who mutilate the flesh"? Is it not reasonable to view this as Paul's point, namely, that the principal issue is not efforts to achieve a righteous standing before God on the basis of achievements but rather the notion that righteousness before God belongs to one by pedigree? Is not his own pedigree the thing that Paul puts forward: "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless"? To be sure, this list entails his deeds as well as his inherited pedigree. Nonetheless, is it not conceivable that to read this as though Paul were speaking of earning a righteous standing on the basis of deeds accomplished misses the apostle's point because we import an idea that may not actually be present in his argument?

What if the confidence in the flesh, in this passage, is not specifically accumulation of merits with God done to achieve a righteous standing before him? What if the confidence in the flesh that Paul clearly repudiates, in this passage, is the following: confidence in religious inheritance (of the people of Israel), confidence in religious pedigree (of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews), confidence in religious form (circumcised the eighth day), confidence in religious status (as to the law, a Pharisee), confidence in religious zeal (a persecutor of the church), confidence in conformity to external requirements (blameless)? Is this not an accurate description of what Paul repudiates as confidence in the flesh?

If my above questions are aimed in the right direction, does this not have an impact upon how we should understand the whole passage, particularly concerning the relationship between Christ and the law of Moses? It seems so, to me. One impact it should have is that we should observe that Paul's recitation of his inheritance and pedigree as a Jew is principally concerned with misplaced confidence, confidence that inheritance, pedigree, and possession of the law puts one right with God, regardless how one behaves. Indeed, those against who Paul brings forward his invectives of verse 2 place confidence in the flesh, yet they are aptly called "evildoers" (βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας). They trusted in their inheritance while failing to do what the law required of them, like those Paul indicts in Romans 2.

This is enough for now. I will try to follow this up later in the week, if I can carve out some time to do so.

For further discussion of Philippians 3, please read pages 186-191 of The Race Set Before Us.

________________

Note: Compare and contrast Paul's indicting words in Philippians 3:1, "the evildoers" (τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας), with his commending words in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the law will be justified" (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται). In Philippians 3:1, he does not indict them for being "doers of the law" but for being "evildoers." Likewise, in Romans 2:13, he does not indict anyone for being "doers of the law" but for being "hearers of the law" (οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου) without being "doers of the law," much like James argues, "Become doers of the Word and not only heaers, deceiving yourselves" (γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταὶ παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς; James 1:22).

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Now and Not Yet Aspects or Phases of Justification

In the comments portion of my last blog entry, "The Piper Approach on the Wright Approach," JGB has raised some important questions to which I have offered responses. JGB's observations and comments concern the futurity of justification, which is close to the title of John Piper's latest book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.

This question concerning the futurity of justification brings back memories from twenty-four years ago. At that time my wife and I, with our two sons, were attending a Reformed Church where the senior pastor was a member of the Board of Trustees for Westminster Theological Seminary (East). The Board of Trustees, as was the seminary, was deeply engaged in a theological discussion (dispute?) concerning Professor Norman Shepherd's paper, "The Grace of Justification," written for and presented to his faculty colleagues in 1979. I had a copy of the paper. I had received it from a friend who had been a student at Westminster Seminary.

The senior pastor of our church, whom I deeply respected then and now, was a great encouragement to my wife and to me at a very critical and difficult period of our young lives. He was a wonderful mentor to me at a time when I most needed one. During conversations with me and with a couple of other young men, all seminary graduates, our pastor spoke to us about the theological conflict at Westminster Seminary. He expressed great frustration with Norman Shepherd's views concerning justification. Especially perplexing to him was what he represented as Shepherd's belief in "two different justifications, one in the past and another in the future on the Last Day." Given my minority relationship to our senior pastor, a wise and godly and grayhaired gentleman, I did not presume to become his instructor, though it was evident that I had a much better understanding of Shepherd's beliefs than he did.

If I had been foolish enough to presume to offer instruction to our senior pastor who sat on the Westminster Seminary Board of Trustees, I would have kindly proposed something akin to what I have said in my comments by way of reply to JGB.

Norman Shepherd does not believe in two separate justifications, one now and another on the Last Day. For Shepherd, justification does not consist of two separate parts. To reduce his understanding of justification now and not yet to the notion that justification consists of two separate parts, we have part now and we will receive the other part later, is to fail to do justice to the singularity of justification as Shepherd understands it and explains it.

Replace the word parts with aspects. The word parts, for most people, tends to connote "the idea of division." Thus, they think of justification now as separate from justification not yet. If you will replace the word parts with the word aspects, you will help yourself to avoid the wrong implications concerning what Shepherd is saying and meaning.

The term aspects tends to connote phases of one singular thing, as in aspects or phases of the moon. The not yet justification is of a piece with the already justification. Justification is singular. There is not a past justification that is separate from a future justification. Not yet justification is simply the Last Day phase of what God has already declared over us in and through the gospel in the present time.

There is no more separateness or division between the now and the not yet phases or aspects of justification than there is between the first quarter and the last quarter aspects or phases of the moon. It is the same and singular moon with distinguishable phases or aspects. It is the same and singular justification with distinguishable aspects or phases, one now and the other not yet.

Can anyone reasonably argue with this expression concerning justification? Justification is singular, just as eternal life and salvation and redemption each are singular, even though each of these expressions biblically portrayed has distinguishable aspects, both now and not yet aspects. Concerning these biblical portrayals and more, all with discernible aspects of both now and not yet, I commend chapter 2 of
The Race Set Before Us.

Mention of Norman Shepherd reminds me that I will be taking part in an
ACT Biblical Forum in Carol Stream, Illinois, November 1-3. The forum will consist of an engagement of Shepherd concerning his beliefs with conversational style responses.

In 1984, when visiting Minneapolis, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet Norman Shepherd when he was pastoring First Christian Reformed Church (now dissolved, its church plant, Calvary, survives) in Edina, Minnesota. He graciously welcomed me into his church office to speak with him for about 45 minutes. During our conversation, I asked him if he would be willing to correct my understanding of his beliefs concerning justification. This, of course, required that I articulate for him my understanding of his views. When I had finished summarizing his beliefs, I was pleasantly and warmly commended by Norman Shepherd, who said, "I have never heard anyone articulate my beliefs more clearly, more accurately, or more concisely than what you have done. I have no corrections to offer." It is good when one has such an opportunity as I had, to be able to speak with the man, represent his beliefs to him, and then be told that I have correctly understood him and that I have correctly represented him. It is even more commendable, if someone can do this and still not agree with the views addressed, not that this latter statement describes my beliefs in relation to Norman Shepherd's.

By the way, I did not come to my own beliefs concerning justification now and not yet by reading Shepherd's "The Grace of Justification." I had already come to my beliefs a few years earlier, quite independent of Norman Shepherd. I had no knowledge of his views until I heard about them from my friend from Westminster Seminary, a few years after I had already come to my own beliefs now expressed in The Race Set Before Us.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Piper Approach on the Wright Approach


Here is a six-part interview with John Piper concerning his forthcoming book, The Future of Justification, in which he critiques the Wright Approach, that is, N. T. Wright's understanding of the Apostle Paul's teaching concerning justification.


Part 1, Who is this book for?
Part 2, Who is N. T. Wright?
Part 3, What do you believe about justification?
Part 4, How is Wright's view of justification different than yours?
Part 5, What's the problem with Wright's view of imputation?
Part 6, Finale


You may read the transcripts or listen to the audio recordings.

I am eager to receive a copy of the book and to read it, since I read an early manuscript of the book and offered comments to John Piper in response to his request. I am eager to see how John strengthened his thesis and supporting arguments. I guess that I will have to wait for a few more weeks when it will be available for purchase.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A Review of The Race Set Before Us

Kevin McFadden reviews The Race Set Before Us.

A few things in the review prompt me to smile. One of those is the attempt to do source criticism, venturing who wrote which chapters. It seems that Tom and I must have done a fairly good job veiling who wrote each chapter.