Wright v Bruce Part II

Why does Paul use Abraham as part of his logic in Romans 3-4?  Bruce says that Paul is showing how the “righteousness of God apart from law” is attested by the law and prophets — Abraham’s story is Paul’s first example.  In Rom 4, says Bruce, “Paul undertakes to show” how the gospel is in the OT “principally from the story of Abraham, with a side-glance at the experience of David.”  Elsewhere Bruce also notes that the by the “principle of faith…the Old Testament Scriptures are fulfilled.”

“The statement that Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness does not apply to Abraham alone; the principle which it enshrines holds good for all believers…in God as He is revealed in the gospel — the God who raised Jesus from the dead.  Jesus had been delivered up to death because of his people’s sins; but God raised Him up to procure their justification” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 102, 110, 114).

Tom Wright flatly disagrees.  “Many have read chapter 3 as though it were simply about how individual sinners are justified by grace through faith, without references to God’s promises to Israel, to the covenant, and to ‘justification’ as God’s declaration that the believer is now part of the covenant family…” In other words, Wright is pushing us towards ecclesiology and away from soteriology.  For Wright, it is not about justification and eternal salvation, as Bruce sets forth, but justification and covenant membership. 

Why then would Paul talk about Abraham in chapter 4?  Some suggest, says Wright, “that Paul simply wants to back up what he’s said with a scriptural text, to show that this new doctrine really does ‘fulfill the law’ in the sense of being prophesied in scripture.  Others again suggest that Paul is simply giving an example from the Bible of someone who was justified by faith.  All of these are ways of not taking seriously Paul’s larger world of thought” (Tom Wright, Paul For Everyone [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004], 65). 

 Note how these things that Wright completely opposes and dismisses are at the center of what Bruce is arguing for.  In Wright’s own terms, Bruce is “not taking seriously Paul’s larger world of thought.”

F.F. Bruce and N.T. Wright are “large worlds” apart when it comes to interpreting Paul. 

shane lems

sunnyside wa

F. F. Bruce on Justification

Bruce really sounds close to Luther here. 

“God pronounces a man righteous at the beginning of his course, not at the end of it.  If he pronounces him righteous at the beginning of his course, it cannot be on the basis of works which he has not yet done; such justification is, on the contrary, ‘an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight’ (Westminster Shorter Catechism).

And when it comes to the question of our acceptance by God, how much more satisfying it is to know oneself ‘justified freely by his grace’ than to hope to be justified by ‘the deeds of the law.’  In the latter case, I can never be really satisfied that I have ‘made the grade,’ that my behaviour has been sufficiently meritorious to win the divine approval.  Even if I do the best I can (and the trouble is, I do not always do that), how can I be certain that my best comes within measurable distance of God’s requirement?  I may hope, but I can never be sure.  But if God in sheer grace assures me of his acceptance in advance, and I gladly embrace his assurance, then I can go on to do his will without always worrying whether I am doing it adequately or not.  In fact, to the end of the chapter I shall be an ‘unprofitable servant,’ but I know whom I have believed: ‘He owns me for his child; I can no longer fear.’”

F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 102-3.

shane,

sunnyside wa

F.F. Bruce and N.T. Wright on Paul’s Gospel

What is the heart of Paul’s gospel, or good news?

Wright: “If you start with the popular [i.e. Reformed/protestant!!] view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well” (N.T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 113).  Elsewhere, Wright notes that justification is not at the “centre” of Paul’s thought; the gospel is (Ibid., 114). 

Now Bruce: “For Paul, life in the sense of salvation begins with justification but goes beyond it…it includes sanctification…and is consummated in final glory….  In this comprehensive sense, ‘salvation’ may well be regarded as the key ‘to unlock the wards of Paul’s theology’” (F.F. Bruce, Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 81).  As a further note, for Bruce, to be “justified by faith” means “be saved” (Ibid). 

Does Wright have the last word?  “If we come to Paul with…questions about how human beings come into a living and saving relationship with the living and saving God — it is not justification that springs to his lips or pen” (Wright, 116).

One more question: Did Bruce “lose sight of” the heart of the Pauline gospel?

shane

sunnyside, wa