Paul and Leithart, part 1

September 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)

Having finished the Psalms and Prophets section of Leithart’s essay, we will now move on to discuss his treatment of Paul. We will take it in three posts. The first will deal with Leithart’s treatment of Romans 3.

Leithart did not exegete Psalm 143 in the Psalms and Prophets portion. Therefore, it comes as a bit of a surprise that he simply assumes that the same kind of language is operational in Psalm 143 as it is in the other Psalms of which he treated.

Leithart builds on Hays’s treatment of the echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul. Hays argues that Psalm 143 is the backdrop for the entirety of Romans 3. Leithart has these conclusions: 1. the “righteousness of God” refers to God’s own righteousness in Psalm 143, not an imputed righteousness. Therefore Paul must have held the same here. 2. The plea for Yahweh to display His righteousness is simultaneously a plea for deliverance. 3. Paul must have understood justification in Romans 3 the same way that David did (a favorable judgment of God rendered through deliverance from enemies). See pp. 226-227.

Several points are relevant: 1. Leithart misses the significance of the terminology “enter not into judgment with your servant” in Psalm 143:2. The Hebrew construction is וְאַל־תָּבוֹא בְמִשְׁפָּט. The implications are devastating for Leithart’s position: David does not want judgment of himself, only of his enemies! He is saying that it would be just for God to judge David’s enemies, but that is not the same thing as God entering into judgment with David himself. Plainly then, the deliverance (connected with God’s righteousness, but not with David’s own judgment) is distinct from the justification of David. David is not viewing his own vindication as being the same thing as deliverance. So, if Leithart is correct about Psalm 143 being the backdrop of Romans 3, then it proves the exact opposite of Leithart’s claim: David’s understanding of justification and Paul’s being the same means that deliverance from sin is not part of the same act as justification. 2. This is one allusion (Psalm 143:2 in Romans 3:20). This does not prove that the entire Psalm is the entire background, anyway. I am at a loss as to how Leithart can claim that “Paul, remarkably, brings David’s prayer for deliverance explicitly into a discussion of justification.” Where, pray, is the prayer that is so explicit? Leithart forgot to cite the biblical text in this claim to explicitness, and it is anything but explicit.

These considerations prove that Leithart’s claim is unjustified, when he says that “passages using ‘justification’ in an ‘improper’ sense echo in the background of Paul’s discussion” (p. 227). Even if Leithart were correct, it would not justify changing our doctrine of justification based on such speculation.

16 Comments

  1. Keith LaMothe said,

    September 5, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    The first question that comes to mind is “but are we actually talking about changing the doctrine of justification?” … but that’s probably been asked so many times that asking it again will not produce anything new. If I haven’t gotten it yet, I’m probably too dense for the time being.

  2. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Leithart explicitly wants to add definitive sanctification to justification. No Reformed author has ever wanted to do that before. There is no historical precedent for such a move (see p. 211 of _Federal Vision_). That is a redefinition.

  3. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Keith, what about my exegesis?

  4. Keith LaMothe said,

    September 5, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    Lane,

    I apologize, but I don’t have the energy right now to give proper attention to the exegesis in full. Looking at the use “judgement” in psalms as judging David or judging his enemies, what do you think of Psalm 7:8, Psalm 35:24, Psalm 50:4,Psalm 58:4,Psalm 68:5,Psalm 72:2,Psalm 75:7, and Psalm 135:14 ?

    Those don’t all point to the same usage, but I think some of them point toward a “judge the righteous, and deliver them” interpretation. Deliver them from what is another question.

    Some other usages that may prove interesting are Lamentations 3:59,John 3:18,John 5:22,Hebrews 10:30

    Of course, the words underlying the OT and NT renderings are different, and a lexical study might be a good idea.

    Keith

  5. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    Keith, the point is not that zedeq has a semantic range. I have already admitted that it does, and that the semantic range goes beyond the doctrine of “justification” as expounded by Reformed authors. I have news for you: the Reformed tradition already knew this long before Leithart brought it up. Read Pemble, Burgess, Owen, and Buchanan. They all knew this already. But I am challenging the thesis that because of its range, therefore we have to expand our definition of justification to include definitive sanctification. With regard to Romans 3, Leithart did a whole lot of exegesis on passages that were not in the background of Romans 3, then he simply assumes that Psalm 143 falls into the same pattern, and then exegetes Romans 3 in the light of this background, while ignoring the actual statement of Psalm 143. Semantic range does not an ST change make.

  6. barlow said,

    September 6, 2007 at 12:10 am

    Just so I understand where you’re coming from - what are you saying the Psalm “should have” read if it were going to be used to support Leithart’s argument?

  7. Keith LaMothe said,

    September 6, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Lane,

    I think I’m doing a very poor job of communicating. My position here is not to defend Leithart’s exegesis or conclusions, nor to challege yours.

    I don’t know what I believe on this particular point of debate. Reading Psalm 143 leans me more in your direction than his. Reading other psalms makes me wonder if there couldn’t be two (or more) kinds of judgment at play in Psalm 143. I imagine if I see a response by Leithart to your questions that he might have a reasonable explanation.

    Having read a fair bit of Leithart, I like most of it. Some of it makes me scratch my head. A few things (minor, iirc) I’m pretty sure aren’t right. Pretty much all of it is thought provoking and has helped me learn to be more observant (particularly of typology) when reading Scripture.

    My question about judgment in the psalms was about the range of meaning, yes. I either haven’t read your earlier comments on that or (more likely) just forgot. And yes, I’m aware the range of the words isn’t news. I don’t recall the last time I said something that was news ;)

    Keith

  8. greenbaggins said,

    September 6, 2007 at 9:26 am

    Jon, I would say that Psalm 143 “should have” said that David was being justified as part of his deliverance, or at the very least it should have said that he *wanted* to be vindicated as part of his deliverance . But since David is explicitly trying to *avoid* judgment, I don’t think the Psalm can be forced to say what Leithart needs it to say.

    Keith, there might very well be two kinds of judgment in play in Psalm 143. And Leithart often has interesting and helpful typology. But his views on justification…

  9. pduggie said,

    September 7, 2007 at 9:15 am

    Can God justify us 100% from the guilt of sin and accept us 100% as righteous in his sight while leaving us under the judicial sentence that accompanied that guilt?

    I would assume you’d say no, but let me know if you’d think otherwise.

    So if he can’t do that, and Romans 1 teaches us that the judicial penalty for sin is “more sin” and thralldom to our sin, justification would seem to me to have to include a reversal of the sentence of thralldom in sin. Why wouldn’t it?

  10. greenbaggins said,

    September 7, 2007 at 9:26 am

    Because the freedom from sin that you are talking about always occurs simulateously with but distinct from justification. It’s called sanctification. Why does everyone in the FV feel like they have to play musical theological chairs all the time? What was wrong with the way they were placed before, by, say, the Westminster Confession?

  11. pduggie said,

    September 7, 2007 at 10:25 am

    The reversal of the sentence is forensic, not transformative. It’s an act, not a work. So why put it with the confessional definition of sanctification? Its doesn’t fit there.

    Further, Paul uses dikaioo to describe it.

  12. pduggie said,

    September 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Can I have a title to life with a sentence of death still hanging over my head?

  13. Terry W. West said,

    September 8, 2007 at 11:32 am

    I just found this today while reading the Institutes. I thought you guys would find it interesting in light of the subject of this thread.

    Calvin says:

    We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification,
    to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ
    cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation
    of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.

    John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

  14. Paul and Leithart, part 3 « Green Baggins said,

    October 22, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    [...] final  part of Leithart’s exposition of Paul’s doctrine of justification. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. I am dealing with page 227-230 of The Federal Vision. Closely related to what I am [...]

  15. Index to Leithart Posts « Green Baggins said,

    October 22, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    [...] and Prophets, part 2), part 8 (Psalms and Prophets, part 3), part 9 (Psalms and Prophets, part 4), part 10 (Paul, part 1), part 11 (Paul, part 2, on Romans 4:25), part 12 (Paul, part 3), Romans 6:7 (from [...]

  16. Federal Vision Index « Green Baggins said,

    November 12, 2007 at 11:48 am

    [...] and Prophets, part 2), part 8 (Psalms and Prophets, part 3), part 9 (Psalms and Prophets, part 4), part 10 (Paul, part 1), part 11 (Paul, part 2, on Romans 4:25), part 12 (Paul, part 3), Romans 6:7 (from [...]

Post a Comment