Full Text for Rectify or Justify? A Response to J. Louis Martyn's Interpretation of Paul's Righteousness Language (Text)

Concordia Theological Quarterly Volume 77:1²2 January/April 2013 Table of Contents In Memoriam: Harold H. Zietlow (1926²2011) ............................................. 3 Epistles before Gospels: An Axiom of New Testament Studies David P. Scaer ....................................................................................... 5 Moses in the Gospel of John Christopher A. Maronde ................................................................... 23 Rectify or Justify? $5HVSRQVHWR-/RXLV0DUW\Q·V,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ of 3DXO·V5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJH Mark P. Surburg ................................................................................. 45 The Eucharistic Prayer and Justification Roland F. Ziegler ................................................................................. 79 The Reception RI:DOWKHU·V7KHRORJ\LQWKH:LVFRQVLQ6\QRG Mark E. Braun .................................................................................... 101 Righteousness, Mystical Union, and Moral Formation in Christian Worship Gifford A. Grobien ............................................................................ 141 Theological Observer ..................................................................................... 165 *RG·V:RUG7KUHH9LHZV2QH%LEOH The Mission of the Church in an Age of Zombies One Nation under God: Thoughts RHJDUGLQJ´3DWULRWLF6HUYLFHVµ Book Reviews .................................................................................................. 184 Books Received ............................................................................................... 191 CTQ 77 (2013): 45²77 Mark P. Surburg is Pastor at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Marion, Illinois. Rectify or Justify? A RHVSRQVHWR-/RXLV0DUW\Q·s Interpretation of 3DXO·V5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJH Mark P. Surburg The article on justification stands at the center of the Lutheran &KXUFK·s confession of the gospel. The Book of Concord explicitly states this in several places, such as when it says that MXVWLILFDWLRQLV´the most important topic of Christian teaching which, rightly understood, illumines and magnifies the honor of Christ and brings the abundant consolation that devout consciences needµ(Ap IV, 2).1 This emphasis was rightly sum-PDUL]HGLQWKHH[SUHVVLRQWKDWWKHDUWLFOHRIMXVWLILFDWLRQLV´WKHDUWLFOHRQZKLFKWKH&KXUFKVWDQGVDQGIDOOVµ articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). Robert Preus provides an important insight when he observes that the Lutheran Church uses the word ´MXVWLILFDWLRQµLQ a broad sense when speaking about this article. He notes: Luther and the Lutheran Confessions never considered justification narrowly as a mere formulation or definition. The justification of the sinner, whether considered as an article of faith or an event, cannot be separated from the grace of God, the redeeming work of Christ, the work of the Spirit through the means of grace and faith in Christ. The article of justification entails all these biblical motifs and cannot be presented or confessed in isolation from them.2 A biblical text, therefore, does not have to include the words ´MXVWLI\µor ´MXVWLILFDWLRQµLQ order to be talking about the article of justification.3 1 See also SA II, 1, 1²5; SD III, 6. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of the Book of Concord are from The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). 2 Preus, Justification and Rome, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House), 117, n. 6. See also p. 19. 3 Preus JRHVRQWRVD\´%HFDXVHWKH/XWKHUDQ&RQIHVVLRQVDQG/XWKHUDQWKHRORJ\consistently understand the doctrine of justification in the broad sense as also em-EUDFLQJWKHGRFWULQHRI*RG·VJUDFHLQ&KULVWWKHSHUVRQDQGZRUNRI&KULVWWKHPHDQVof grace, and the work of the Holy Spirit, they are able to find the doctrine of 46 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) At the same time, the article is called the article on justification because there are foundational texts for understanding the doctrine in which the Lutheran Confessions apply a narrow or exegetical definition to the word îóôëóÁþ. Quoting Romans 2:13, the Apology says, ´And ¶to be justified· here does not mean for a righteous person to be made out of an ungodly one, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense [usu forensi] as also in this text [Rom. 2:13]: ¶. . . the doers of the law will be justified·µ (Ap IV, 252). The Apology also points to Romans 5:1 and concludes, ´In this passage ¶justify· is used in a forensic way [forensi consuetudine] to mean ¶to absolve a guilty man and pronounce him righteous,· and to do so on ac-count of someone else·s righteousness, namely, Christ·s, which is commu-nicated to us through faith.µ4 Thus the Lutheran Confessions clearly in-dicate that îóôëóÁþ is to be understood in a forensic sense, as God the judge pronouncing the sinner to be righteous.5 justification in sections of Scripture and citations from the Church Fathers which do not PHQWLRQWKHZRUG¶MXVWLILFDWLRQ·RUHYHQLWVFRJQDWHV:HQRWHWKLVSUDFWLFHWKURXJKRXW/XWKHU·s works, particularly in his Lectures on Genesis and his Sermons on the Gospel of John. On the other hand, Lutheran theology can address the subject of justification with-RXWH[SOLFLWO\XVLQJWKHWHUPV¶MXVWLI\·RU¶MXVWLILFDWLRQ·E\HPSOR\LQJRWKHUHTXLYDlent or LQWHUFKDQJHDEOHWKHPHVVXFKDV¶VDYH·¶UHFRQFLOH·¶IRUJLYH·DQGWKHOLNH.µJustification and RomeQ6RZLWKLQWKH/XWKHUDQ&RQIHVVLRQV·GLVFXVVLRQRIMXVWLILFDWLRQRQHalso finds references to regeneration (Ap IV, 72,78); reconciliation (Ap IV, 158,182); mediation and propitiation (Ap IV, 40,80); sacrificial atonement (Ap IV, 53,179) and redemption (SC II, 4; LC II, 26²27). Edmund Schlink offers a similar conclusion in Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, trans. Paul Koehneke and Herbert J.A. Bouman (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), 91, n. 11. 4 Ap IV, 305. This text is in the quarto edition and not the octavo edition, and so the quotation is taken, with slight modification, from The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959). 5 A similar definition appears in the Formula of Concord where it first says, ´$FFRUGLQJO\ZHUHJDUGLWDVRQHDQGWKHVDPHWKLQJZKHQ3DXOVD\VZHDUH¶MXVWLILHGby faith· 5RP>@ RUWKDWIDLWKLVUHFNRQHGWRXVDULJKWHRXVQHVV 5RP>@ RUwhen he says that we become righteous through the obedience of the only mediator, &KULVWRUWKDW¶WKURXJKRQHSHUVRQ·VULJKWHRXVQHVVWKHULJKWHRXVQHVVRIIDLWKFRPHVupon aOOSHRSOH· 5RP>@µ 6',,, ,WWKHQJRHVRQWRSURYLGHWKHFODULILFDWLRQ´$FFRUGLQJO\WKHZRUG¶MXVWLI\·KHUHPHDQVWRSURQRXQFHULJKWHRXVDQGIUHHIURPVLQDQGWRFRXQWDVIUHHGIURPWKHHWHUQDOSXQLVKPHQWRIVLQEHFDXVHRI&KULVW·VULJK-teouVQHVVZKLFKLV¶UHFNRQHGWRIDLWKE\*RG· 3KLO>@ 7KLVLVWKHFRQVLVWHQWXVHDQGPHDQLQJRIWKLVZRUGLQ+RO\6FULSWXUHLQWKH2OGDQG1HZ7HVWDPHQWVµ,WWKHQDGGVquotations of Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23, and Romans 8:33 (SD III, 17). See also: Ep. III, 7, 15; SD III, 62. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 47 I. ´RectificationµRU´0aking Right What Has Gone Wrongµ Lutherans need not have îóôëóÁþ or îóôëóøûÂ÷ò in order to find the article of justification present. But what if in fact îóôëóÁþ has nothing to do with the forensic declaration of the sinner as righteous? Such an inter-pretation of îóôëóÁþ is advocated by J. Louis Martyn in his Galatians commentary.6 If correct, it would make the Lutheran understanding of justification highly questionable.7 While Paul·s other letters are filled with explicit eschatological ref-erences to the return of Christ and the day of judgment, Galatians is re-markable in that it does not.8 Martyn·s work has been important in demon-strating that despite the absence of these kinds of future references, Galatians is still a work marked by apocalyptic eschatology.9 He has called attention to the statement in 1:4 about being rescued from this present evil age ( ÿ½õòüëó 'öÏ  ô üøv ëkF÷øÏ üøv  ÷ïûüFüøÏ) and in 6:15 concerning the new creation (ôëó÷% ôüÀûóÏ).10 He has also noted the importance of  øôëõÂüþ and  øô¼õýóÏ that occur in 1:12, 1:15²16; 2:2; and 3:23.11 6 J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York; Doubleday), 1997. 7 Though 0DUW\Q·s work focuses on Galatians, we will see that his presuppositions and methodology, along with the inherent similarity of the topics treated in Romans, make it virtually impossible to contain this interpretation of îóôëóÁþ to Galatians alone. 8 On the return of Christ, see Rom 13:11²12; 1 Cor 1:7²8; 4:5; 11:26; 15:23; 16:22; Eph 4:30; Phil 1:6; 2:16; 3:20; 4:5; Col 3:4; 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13; 4:13²18; 5:1²4; 5:23; 2 Thess 1:7; 1:10; 2:1²2; 1 Tim 6:14²15; 2 Tim 4:1; 4:8 and Titus 2:13. On the day of judgment, see Rom 2:3, 5²13, 16; 3:6; 14:10, 12; 1 Cor 3:12²15; 4:5; 11:32; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 3:6; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Thess 1:6²10; and 2 Tim 4:1, 8. Galatians does have oblique future eschatological ref-erences in 5:5, that we are awaiting ( ïôîïíÁöïùë WKH´KRSHRIULJKWHRXVQHVVµDQGLQ5:21, that those who carry out the works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God FI&RUDQGWKDWOHWWHU·VFRUUHVSRQGLQJVWDWHPHQWVDERXW&KULVW·VUHWXUQDQGWKHday of judgment). 9 2QWKHEDFNJURXQGRIWKHWHUP´DSRFDO\SWLF,µsee 5LFKDUG(6WXUP´'HILQLQJWKH:RUG¶$SRFDO\SWLF·$3UREOHPLQ%LEOLFDO&ULWLFLVPµLQApocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 17²6WXUP·VDUWLFOHLVDQLPPHQVHO\helpful summary of the history of resHDUFKRQ´DSRFDO\SWLFµ 10 0DUW\QFRPPHQWV´$OWKRXJK3DXOKLPVHOIQHYHUVSHDNVOLWHUDOO\RI¶WKHFRPLQJDJH·KLVQXPHURXVUHIHUHQFHVWR¶WKHSUHVHQWDJH· LQDGGLWLRQWR*DOVHH5RPCor 1:2; 2:6; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:4) reflect his assumption of esFKDWRORJLFDOGXDOLVP,Q3DXO·VYRFDEXODU\WKHH[SUHVVLRQWKDWVWDQGVRSSRVLWH¶WKHSUHVHQWHYLODJH·LV¶WKHQHZFUHDWLRQ· *DO \HWDQRWKHULQGLFDWLRQRIDSRFDO\SWLFWKRXJKWIRULWLVDIRUPXODWLRQreflecting the development of Jewish apocalyptic dualism in the time of exile (Isa 43:18² µGalatians, 98. 11 ´,WLVVWULNLQJWKDWDWWKHVHIRXULPSRUWDQWMXQFWXUHVLQ*DODWLDQV3DXOXVHVWKHnoun apokalypsis and the verb apokalypto.µ0DUW\QGalatians, 99. 48 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) However, for Martyn, the crucial point is not simply that apocalyptic escha-tology is present. What matters most is the kind of apocalyptic eschatology Paul is using. In a critical footnote at the beginning of the excursus ´Apocalyptic Theology in Galatians,µ Martyn writes, ´We will shortly see that the distinction between two ¶tracks·of Jewish apocalyptic is essential to the reading of Galatians. On this matter, consult the extraordinarily perceptive essay of de Boer, ¶Ðpocalyptic Eschatology.·µ12 Drawing on the work of his doctoral student Martinus de Boer, Martyn states that, in cosmological apocalyptic eschatology, anti-God powers have usurped control of the world and God must launch an invasive apocalyptic war against these evil powers. On the other hand, in forensic cosmological eschatology, human beings have chosen to disobey God and he has given the law as the answer to the problem, with the judgment of the last day occurring on the basis of whether an individual has engaged in law observance. el-GRØn cosmological apocalyptic eschatology, evil, anti-God powers have managed to commence their own rule over the world, leading human beings into idolatry and thus into slavery, producing a wrong situation that was not intended by God and that will not be tolerated by him. For in his own time God will inaugurate a victorious and lib-erating apocalyptic war against these evil powers, delivering his elect from their grasp and thus making right that which has gone wrong EHFDXVHRIWKHSRZHUV·PDOLJQDQWPDFKLQDWLRQV,Qforensic apocalyptic eschatology, things have gone wrong because human beings have willfully rejected God, thereby bringing about death and the corrupt-tion and perversion of the world. Given this self-caused plight, God has graciously provided the Two Ways, the Way of death and the Way of life. Human beings are individually accountable before the bar of WKH-XGJH%XWE\RQH·VRZQGHFLVLRQRQHFDQUHSHQWRIRQH·VVLQVreceive nomistic forgiveness, and be assured of eternal life. For at the last judgment the deserved sentence of death will be reversed for those who choose the path of Law observance, whereas that sentence will be permanently confirmed for those who do not.13 Martyn concludes, ´A crucial issue is that of determining which of these two ¶tracks·is dominant in a given source. In the course of the present commentary we will see that, whereas forensic apocalyptic eschatology is characteristic of the Teachers· theology, Paul·s Galatians letter is funda-mentally marked by cosmological apocalyptic eschatology.µ14 12 Martyn, Galatians, 97, n. 51. 13 Martyn, Galatians, 98, n. 51; emphasis original. 14 Martyn, Galatians, 98, n. 51. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 49 When understood in this way, God·s invasion occurred by sending the Son and the Spirit into this world. ´7KHJHQHVLVRI3DXO·V DSRFDO\SWLFFDVZHVHHLWLQ*DODWLDQVFOLHVLQWKHDSRVWOH·VFHUWDLQW\WKDW*RGKDVinvaded WKHSUHVHQWHYLODJHE\VHQGLQJ&KULVWDQGKLV6SLULWLQWRLWµ15 The crucial event in this cosmic war was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The various ways thDW3DXOVSHDNVRI&KULVW·VGHDWK DQGUHVXUUHFWLRQ1:1) show that for him the motif of cosmic warfare is focused first of all on the cross, and it is from the cross that one perceives the contours of that warfare. There, in the thoroughly real event of ChULVW·VFUXFL-IL[LRQ*RG·VZDURIOLEHUDWLRQZDVFRPPHQFHGDQGGHFLVLYHO\VHWWOHGmaking the cross the foundation of 3DXO·V apocalyptic theology.16 This action reveals that humanity·s problem is about more than just the need for forgiveness. Instead humanity and creation itself have been enslaved by the anti-God powers of the present evil age. It is this apocalyptic vision, then, that has given Paul his perception of the nature of the human plight. God has invaded the world in order to bring it under his liberating control. From that deed of God a conclu-sion can be drawn, and the conclusion is decidedly apocalyptic: God would not have to carry out an invasion in order to merely forgive erring human beings. The root trouble lies deeper than human guilt, and LWLVPRUHVLQLVWHU7KHZKROHRIKXPDQLW\FLQGHHGWKHZKROHRIFUHDWLRQ  FLVLQIDFWWUDSSHGHQVODYHGXQGHUWKHSRZHURIWKHpresent evil age.17 Yet by this action the decisive war of liberation has begun and, in the present, there is an overlap between the present evil age and the new creation. Martyn insightfully summarizes this situation with a question: All of the preceding motifs flow together in the question Paul causes to be the crucial issue in the entire letter. What time is it? One recalls that the matter of discerning the time lies at the heart of apocalyptic. What time is it? It is the time after the apocalypse of the faith of Christ, WKHWLPHWKHUHIRUHRI*RG·VPDNLQJWKLQJVULJKWE\&KULVW·VIDLWKWKHtime of the presence of the Spirit of Christ, and thus the time in which 15 Martyn, Galatians HPSKDVLVRULJLQDO/DWHU0DUW\QDGGV´:HKDYHVHHQWKDW3DXOXVHVLQWHUFKDQJHDEO\WKHYHUEV¶WRDSRFDO\SVH·DQG¶WR>FDXVHWR@FRPH·  DQGthis linguistic fact establishes a major point: redemption has come from outside the human orb. For Paul, to say that God sent his Son is to say that God invaded the cosmos LQWKHSHUVRQRI&KULVW FI µGalatians, 407; emphasis original. 16 Martyn, Galatians, 101. 17 Martyn, Galatians, 105. 50 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) the invading Spirit has decisively commenced the war of liberation from the powers of the present evil age.18 Martyn contends that Paul is an example of cosmological apocalyptic eschatology, and not forensic apocalyptic eschatology like his opponents (´the Teachersµ as Martyn calls them). This determines how Martyn interprets the verb îóôëóÁþ. For the Teachers, the problem is that people have been unfaithful to God·s covenant by transgressing the command-ments of the Law. God makes transgressing members of the people right through the forgiveness he has provided in the sacrificial death of Christ.19 Martyn contends that for Paul the issue is not merely about a forensic forgiveness of transgressions. When he translates îóôëóÁþ and îóôëóøûÂ÷ò, he uses the words ´rectifyµ and ´rectification.µ He avoids the translations ´justifyµand ´justificationµ because ´they are at home either in the language of lawFwhere ¶to justify· implies the existence of a definable legal normFor in the language of religion and moralityFwhere ¶righteousness· implies a definable religious norm. As we will see, Paul intends his term to be taken in neither of these linguistic realms.µ20 Instead, ´The subject Paul addresses is that of God·s making right what has gone wrong.µ21 It is crucial that we understand how Martyn arrives at this conclusion. While granting that the noun and the verb have ´occasioned a veritable library of books and articles from the earliest interpreters of Paul to those of the present day,µit is striking to note that, when setting forth his translation of ´rectify/rectification,µMartyn does not interact with any of them in his commentary.22 This is because he believes he has no need. Having identified the textual signs that Galatians is piece of apocalyptic eschatology, and having concluded that Paul employs the ´trackµ of cosmological apocalyptic eschatology, Martyn does not need to engage contrary arguments that are based on a forensic understanding of the word (i.e., ´justify/justificationµ). They are simply wrong because they fail to understand that Paul·s theology is one of cosmological apocalyptic 18 Martyn, Galatians, 104. 19 Martyn, Galatians, 265²268. 20 Martyn, Galatians, 250. He also notes they have the advantage of being cognates, like îóôëóÁþ and îóôëóøûÂ÷ò; Galatians, 249. 21 Martyn, Galatians, 250; emphasis original. Within the LCMS, 0DUW\Q·VLQWHU-pretation has been used by Arthur A. Just Jr., ´The Faith of Christ: A Lutheran $SSURSULDWLRQRI5LFKDUG+D\V·V3URSRVDOµCTQ 70 (2006): 3²15. 22 Martyn, Galatians, 249. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 51 eschatology and not forensic apocalyptic eschatology (which is, in fact, the theology of Paul·s opponents). For Martyn, Galatians 3:13 and its verb  ÿëñøú¼þ (which is also found in 4:5) proves to be crucial in understanding what Paul really means by the verb îóôëóÁþ in 2:16. Paul has just said in 3:10, ´For as many as are from works of law are under a curse.µ Paul then supports this statement (using ñú) with a quotation of Deuteronomy 27:26, ´Cursed ( óôëü¼-úëüøÏ) is everyone who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law to do them.µ Paul·s ´proofµ that those who are ´RIWKHworks of the lawµ are under a curse turns out to be more than a little surprising, since Deuteronomy 27:26 makes the very opposite point: those who do not do the law are under a curse. As Martyn observes, ´In the present verse Paul interprets Deuteronomy 27:26 in a way that is the precise opposite of the literal meaning.µ23 The question then is how Paul could have thought that Deuteronomy 27:26 proves his conclusion, since the verse actually says the opposite of what he claims. The work of E.P. Sanders leads Martyn to reject the traditional explanation in which the logical link between 3:10a and 3:10b is the unstated premise that no one is capable of obeying and fulfilling all of the things written in the book of the law.24 Martyn·s explanation is based on the difference between forensic and cosmological apocalyptic eschatology. He argues that for the Jewish-Christian forensic definition of rectification as forgiveness there are three actors: sinful human beings, Christ, and the God of the covenant. For Paul·s cosmological view, however, there are four actors: human beings, Christ, God, and the anti-God powers. The law with its power to curse is one of these anti-God powers.25 Paul says in 3:19 that the law was ordered through angels (îóëüëñïeÏ îó± ññ½õþ÷). The presence of angels was a common theme in the literature 23 Martyn, Galatians, 309. 24 Martyn, Galatians,QKLVFRYHQDQWDOQRPLVP6DQGHUVDUJXHVWKDW´The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in maintenance or re-establishment of the covenant relationship.µPaul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (MinnHDSROLV)RUWUHVV 6DQGHUVFRQFOXGHVIURPWKLV´It would, in short, be extraordinarily un-Pharisaic and even un-Jewish of Paul to insist that obedience of the law, once undertaken, must be perfect. Such a position would directly imply that the means of atonement specified in Scripture itself were of no avail.µPaul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983), 28. A. Andrew Das has SURYLGHGDSRZHUIXOUHIXWDWLRQRI6DQGHUV·DUJXPHQWLQPaul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 145²170. 25 Martyn, Galatians, 272. 52 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) of the time.26 Their presence added to the glory and majesty of the giving of the law, but in no way denied that Yahweh was the source of the law. However, Martyn says that ´Paul, by contrast, stands the tradition on its head, speaking of the angels as the active party who themselves instituted the Law, and saying that they did that in God·s absence!µ27 God is not the source of the law·s cursing Sinaitic voice; instead, it is one of the enslaving powers of the cosmos.28 On the basis of this understanding, Martyn argues: With the meaning ´to deliver from slavery,µthe verb exagorazo be-comes, then, a synonym for the verb ´to rectify,µ ´to make right,µsup-plying the definition that was lacking in 2:16 . . . . By employing this verb Paul thus reinforces the picture of the human scene he pre-supposes throughout thHOHWWHU7REHDKXPDQEHLQJFZKHWKHU-HZRU*HQWLOHFis to be a slave under the authority of malignant powers (2:4; 4:7; 5:1; cf. Phil 2:7).29 The shift from forensic to cosmological apocalyptic eschatology is crucial. Quoting de Boer·s words, Martyn says that in Galatians Paul is ´circumscribing ¶the forensic apocalyptic theology of the . . . Teachers with a cosmological apocalyptic theology of his own.·µ30 See, for example, Jub. 1.27²29; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb. 2:2; Philo, Somn. 1.140²144; Jospehus, Ant. 15.136.27 Martyn, Galatians, 357. 28 Martyn, Galatians, 325²326, 367²368. 29 Martyn, Galatians0DUW\QZULWHVHDUOLHU´7REHVXUHEXLOGLQJRQ-HZLVK-&KULVWLDQDWRQHPHQWWUDGLWLRQ3DXOVWLOOVD\VWKDW&KULVWGLHG¶IRUXV·  %XWQRZ&KULVW·VGHDWKLVVHHQWRKDYHKDSSHQHGLQcollision with the Law, and human beings are not said to need forgiveness, but rather deliverance from a genuine slavery that involves the Law. In this second rectification passage the Law proves to be not so much a norm ZKLFKZHKDYHWUDQVJUHVVHGFDOWKRXJKWUDQVJUHVVLRQVDUHLQFOXGHG  FDVDW\UDQWinsofar as it has placed us under the power of its curse. And by his death Christ is not said to have accomplished our forgiveness, but rather our redemption from slavery. With the apocalyptic shift to a scene in which there are real powers arrayed against God, rectification acquires, then, a new synonym, exagorazo¶WRUHGHHPE\GHOLYHULQJIURPVODYHU\·  $QGDVZHKDYHQRWHGRQHRIWKHSRZHUVIURPZKRVHW\UDQQ\Christ has delivered us is the Law in its role as the pronouncer of the curse on the whole of humanity.µGalatians, 273; emphasis original. 30 Martyn, Galatians+HJRHVRQWRDGG´5HFWLILFDWLRQWKXVUHPDLQVIRU3DXO*RG·VDFWLQWKHGHDWKRI&KULVW%XWQRZKDYLQJWDNHQVLOHQWOHDYHRIWKH-HZLVK-Christian concern with forgiveness oIQRPLVWLFWUDQVJUHVVLRQV3DXOVHHVLQ&KULVW·VGHDWK*RG·VOLEHUDWLQJLQYDVLRQRIWKHWHUULWRU\RIW\UDQQ\.µ Galatians, 273. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 53 II. Martinus de Boer·s ´Two Tracksµ Martyn·s interpretation of îóôëóÁþ and îóôëóøûÂ÷ò is completely dependent on the paradigm that distinguishes the ´two tracksµof forensic and cosmological apocalyptic eschatology. ´$FUXFLDOLVVXHµKHZULWHV´LVWKDWRIGHWHUPLQLQJZKLFKRIWKHVHWZR¶WUDFNV·LVGRPLQDQWLQDJLYHQsource. In the course of the present commentary we will see that, whereas forensic apocalyptic eschatology is characteristic of the Teachers·WKHRORJ\3DXO·V*DODWLDQVOHWWHULVIXQGDPHQWDOO\PDUNHGE\FRVPRORJLFDODSRFD-O\SWLFHVFKDWRORJ\µ31 It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the work of Martyn·s student, Martinus de Boer, in order to evaluate its validity. De Boer first proposed his paradigm in The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, a published version of his dissertation written under J. Louis Martyn.32 He provided a more devel-oped treatment of it in his 1989 essay, ´Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,µwhich appeared in the Martyn festschrift and is quoted by Martyn in his Galatians commentary.33 Subsequently, in 1998 the paradigm received a place in the reference tool, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, within the essay, ´Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology.µ34 De Boer argues that Jewish apocalyptic eschatology ´took two distinct forms, or ¶tracks·, in the New Testament periodµwhich he labels ´cosmo-logical apocalyptic eschatologyµ(track 1) and ´forensic apocalyptic escha-tologyµ (track 2).35 He cautions against the impression that documents can simply be assigned to one of these tracks: ´Rather, I present the two tracks as heuristic models that may be used as interpretive tools to understand the dynamics of the various texts, including of course the letters of Paul.µ36 31 Martyn, Galatians, 98, n. 53. 32 Martinus C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). 330DUWLQXV&GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µLQApocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 169²190. 34 0DUWLQXV&GH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µLQThe Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, ed. J.J. Collins, B. McGinn, and S. Stein (New York: Continuum, 1998), 345²383. 35 de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 84²´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ172²´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ²,Q´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µGH%RHUDOVRGHVFULEHVWKHPDV´GLVWLQFWSDWWHUQVµ 36 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\HPSKDVLVRULJLQDO6HHalso de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 85. Despite his caution, this is in fact what de Boer does. 54 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) De Boer elaborates that these heuristic models seek ´to describe an in-ternally coherent or consistent configuration of motifs.µ37 He notes that the two tracks ´are found in nearly ¶pure·form in 1 Enoch 1²36 and the apo-calypse of 2 Baruchµand adds, ´I have outlined the two tracks on the basis of these two works.µ38 In cosmological apocalyptic eschatology (track 1), ´¶This age·is char-acterized by the fact that evil angelic powers have, in some primeval time (namely, the time of Noah) come to rule over the earth.µ39 The angelic fall is mentioned in much of the literature on the basis of Genesis 6:1²6.40 As demonstrated in the Book of the Watchers (1 En 1²36), these fallen angels became the source of sin and evil in the world when they imparted im-proper knowledge to humanity (1 En 9:1, 6²9; 10:7²9; 15:8²16:2; 19:1²2).41 By acting in this fashion, the fallen angels brought cosmic disorder (1 En 15:3, 9²10) into the world42 and usurped *RG·V sovereign rights.43 De Boer concludes that ´when ¶this age·is perceived in this way, in terms of subjection to suprahuman angelic powers, it is understandable that the last judgment, the juncture at which ¶this age·is replaced by ¶the age to come·, is depicted as a cosmic confrontation, a war, between God and the WatchersµFa scene depicted in 1 Enoch 1:4²5.44 Only God can de-feat the demonic powers and he alone can re-establish his sovereignty over the world.45 The arena of battle for the eschatological war is the ´physical universe that God created to be the human habitat.µ46 The final victory by ,WLVVLJQLILFDQWWKDWWKHODQJXDJHRI´KHXULVWLFPRGHOµGURSVRXWLQWKHODWHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 37 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µsee also, The Defeat of Death, $JDLQ´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µFRQWDLQVQRVXFKH[SOLFDWLRQRIWKHVH´GLVWLQFWSDWWHUQVµ 38 de BoHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µHPSKDVLVRULJLQDO 39 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µVHHDOVRThe Defeat of Death DQG´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 40 de Boer cites: 1 En. 6²19; 64:1²2; 69:4²5; 86:1²6; 106:13²17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1²8; 10:4²5; T. Reub. 5:6²7; T. Naph. 3:5; CD 2:17²3:1; 2 Bar. 56:12²15; LAB 34:1²5; Wis 2:23²24. See ´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µThe Defeat of DeathGH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ8). 41GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 42 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 43 GH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 44 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ+HZULWHVLQThe Defeat of Death´*RGZLOOLQYDGHWKHZRUOGXQGHUWKHGRPLQLRQRIWKHHYLODQJHOLFSRZHUDQGGHIHDWWKHPLQDFRVPLFZDUµ 45 GH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 46 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 55 God will defeat and banish the demonic forces (1 En chs. 16, 19), and the righteous elect will live on a purified earth (cf. 1 En 1:9; 5:7; 10:17²22).47 On the other hand, forensic apocalyptic eschatology (track 2) is a modified version of track 1. Here, ´the notion of evil cosmological forces is absent (cf. the Psalms of Solomon), recedes into the background (cf. Wisdom of Solomon; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum [L.A.B., Pseudo-Philo]; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch), or is even explicitly rejected (cf. 1 En 91²105).µ48 Humanity is responsible for sin as it follows the pattern of its first parents Adam and Eve, and this perspective emphasizes the ´fallµof Adam and/or Eve.49 Track 2 places emphasis on free will, decision, and personal accountability. In forensic apocalyptic eschatology, God has provided the law as a remedy for the human situation, and ´a person·s posture toward this Law deter-mines one·s ultimate destiny.µ50 Given this understanding, ´The final judg-ment is not a cosmic war against cosmological, angelic powers but a court-room scene in which all humanity appears before the bar of the Judge.µ51 In de Boer·s opinion, the evidence indicates that this track ´overtook and displaced track 1 completely after the disaster of 70 CE (cf. 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch).µ52 While identifying these two tracks, de Boer also acknowledges: ´Other documents indicate that the two tracks can, like those of a railway, run side by side, crisscross, or overlap in various ways, even in the same docu-ment.µ53 The Dead Sea Scrolls are the principal example of this: 47 de %RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 48 de Boer, The Defeat of DeathVHHDOVR´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKD-WRORJ\µ´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 49 GH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µVHHDOVR´3Dul and Jewish $SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µGH%RHUThe Defeat of Death, 87. On these pages, de Boer cites the following examples: 4 Ezra 2:5²7, 20²21; 4:30²31; 7:118²119; 2 Bar 17:2²3; 23:4; 48:42²43; 54:14, 19; 1 En 69:6; Jub 3.17²25; 4:29²30; LAB 13:8²9; Wis 10:11. 50 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µVHHDOVRGH%RHUThe Defeat of DeathGH%RHU´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 51 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLFµsee also, The Defeat of Death, 86; ´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ+HZULWHV´$WWKH/DVW-XGJPHQWZKLFKLVconceptualized as a courtroom in which all humanity will be held accountable, God will reward those who have acknowledged his claim and chosen the Law with escha-tological or eternal life, while he will punish those who have not with eschatological or eternal death.µThe Defeat of Death, 86²87. 52 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 53 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µVHHDOVRThe Defeat of Death,Q´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µKHGHVFULEHV´DEOHQGRIWKHWZRSDWWHUQVµ 56 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) In particular the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit this feature as they combine ´ERWKFRVPRORJLFDOVXEMHFWLRQDQGZLOOIXO>sic] human transgression, both election and human control of personal destiny, both predes-tination and exhortation to observe the Law . . . ERWK*RG·VHVFKDWR-ORJLFDOZDUDJDLQVW%HOLDODQGKLVFRKRUWVDQG*RG·VMXGJPHQWRIKXPDQEHLQJVRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHLU¶ZRUNV·RUGHHGV VHHe.g., 1QS 1²4; 1QM; CD).54 De Boer also includes Jubilees and The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in this category.55 Unfortunately, De Boer never unpacks the implications this has for his paradigm.56 III. Testing the Track: Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1²36) De Boer·s paradigm maintains that in cosmological apocalyptic escha-tology the last judgmentFthe juncture at which ´this ageµ is replaced by ´the age to comeµFis depicted as a cosmic confrontation, a war, between God and the Watchers as depicted in 1 En 1:4²5.57 It further maintains that this differs from forensic apocalyptic eschatology where the judgment is ´a courtroom scene in which all humanity appears before the bar of the JudgeµZKLFK´emphasizes personal accountability.µ58 However, when we test this against the Book of the Watchers (1 En 1²36)Fthe work that de Boer considers to be the most pure example of the cosmological trackFwe find that this paradigm completely ignores the fact that the Book of the Watchers is dominated by forensic judgment and that there is no cosmic war present.59 54 ´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ77; sHHDOVR´3DXODQG$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 55 This is not surprising given the often noted affinities between these works; see John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Litera-ture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 84, 140. 56 If works such as those at Qumran, Jubilees, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs DUHPL[HGDQGPDQ\RWKHUGRFXPHQWVDUHQRW´SXUHµKRZFDQZHVSHDNRILQWHUQDOO\FRKHUHQWRUFRQVLVWHQWFRQILJXUDWLRQVRIPRWLIV":KHQLVDGRFXPHQW´QRWSXUHµEXWVWLOODQH[DPSOHRIDSDUWLFXODUWUDFNDQGZKHQLVLW´PL[HGµ"'H%RHULVQRWsimply identifying cosmological and forensic motifs as they arise (often side by side) in different works, but rather he seeks to label WH[WVDV´FRVPRORJLFDOµRU´IRUHQVLFµFDGHV-ignation that is meant to identify the theological outlook of a work. This is precisely how both De Boer and Martyn use the paradigm as they deal with Paul. 57 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 58 GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ 59 ´1HYHUWKHOHss, the two tracks are IRXQGLQQHDUO\¶SXUH·IRUPLQ1 Enoch 1²36 and the apocalypse of 2 Baruch and I have outlined the two tracks on the basis of these two works.µ GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µHPSKDVLVRULJLQDO Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 57 When the Book of the Watchers is considered on its own terms, three important points emerge. First, God·s judgment directed against the an-gelic powers and human beings is a forensic judgment, not a ´cosmic war.µ Second, this judgment is directed at both the angelic powers who have introduced sin and the human beings who actually engage in sin. The forensic judgment of both groups takes place on the basis of a divine standard set by God (both groups are held accountable for behavior that violates God·s will). Third, the shift to the new creation occurs after the final forensic judgment (when God sits on the throne). Contrary to de Boer·s paradigm, God·s judgment against both angelic powers and humans is forensic, and there is no cosmic war. De Boer fails to recognize this because he does not see the importance of God·s throne in 1 Enoch. This throne imagery must be understood within the broader con-text of its Old Testament background, and more specifically within the context of Daniel 7. In the Hebrew Bible, a king·s throne is the forensic setting, such as when Solomon builds a hall of the throne (lh  c) in his palace and judges there ( X nþX) in his hall of judgment or justice (  nþXj; 1 Kgs 7:7).60 Since Yahweh is described with the imagery of ´kingµ(Ps 5:2; 10:16; 24:7²8; 47:2), it is not surprising to find him seated on a throne surrounded by the heavenly court (1 Ki 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18; Isa 6:1²3).61 Likewise the Hebrew Bible describes him sitting on a throne judging (Ps 9:4/MT 9:5; ´you have sat on the throne judgingµ [sþX'|Xlþ]; 9:7/MT 9:8; ´his throne for judgmentµ>|þ$hnþXj]). This forensic context is evident again in Daniel 7:9²10 when the Ancient of Days sits on the throne (bþ$þ+h), surrounded by the heavenly court, and the books (of judgment) are opened.62 60 In Psalm 122:5 Jerusalem is described as the place where thrones are set for judgment (nþX!þ -|þ$) and Proverbs 20:8 refers to a king who sits on a throne of judgment (" lh % X| z!). $V0LFKDHO(6WRQHQRWHV´,QWKH+HEUHZ%Lble, the MXGJPHQWVHDWLVRIWHQVSHFLILFDOO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKWKHNLQJ·VMXGLFLDOIXQFWLRQ.µ Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 220. 61 2WWR6FKPLW]FRPPHQWV´7KDWWKH27FRQFHSWLRQRIWKHWKURQHRI*RGWDNHVLWVimagery from the earthly throne is shown by the intentional juxtaposition of the two in 1 . FI&K µ´ùúÁ÷øϵLQTheological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:+HFRQFOXGHV´$VZLWKDQHDUWKly ruler, so with God, the throne is a V\PERORIMXGLFLDOSRZHUµ,QWKLVVHWWLQJWKHGLYLQHFRXQFLOVHUYHVDMXGLFLal role; see Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 67²68. 62 0DUWKD+LPPHOIDUEFRPPHQWV´'DQLHOPDLQWDLQVWKHDVVRFLDWLRQRIWKHheavenly council with judgment that appears in 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, and Psalm 82. It 58 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) In chapter 14, Enoch ascends into heaven in a vision and there he sees a ´high throneµ(14:18) and describes how ´from underneath the high throne there flowed out rivers of burning fireµ(14:19).63 ´He who is great in gloryµis seated on the throne (14:20) and ´ten thousand times ten thou-sand (stood) before himµ (14:22). The parallels with Daniel·s vision of the heavenly court (Dan 7:9²10) are unmistakable.64 During his heavenly tour, Enoch sees seven mountains and reports that ´the middle one reached to heaven, like the throne of the Lordµ(18:8). Later Enoch again sees these H[SOLFLWO\WUHDWVWKHGLYLQHFRXQFLODVDFRXUW¶7KHFRXUWVDWLQMXGJPHQWDQGWKHERRNVZHUHRSHQHG· Y .µAscent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University PUHVV ,Q'DQ´7he books in question are the records for judgment. The motif of a heavenly record is well attested in the Hebrew Bible: Ps 56:9; Isa 65:6; Mal 3:16.µ-RKQ-&ROOLQVDaniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 303; see also Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1978), 218. 63 All translations of 1 Enoch are taken from, Michael A. Knibb, Introduction, Translation and Commentary, vol. 2 of The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). 64 7KHH[DFWQDWXUHRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSLVGHWHUPLQHGE\RQH·VYLHZRI'DQLHO7KHpredominate view in scholarship is that the final version of Daniel is a second century BC production associated with the Maccabean revolt (167²164 BC); see Collins, Daniel, 1²38, for a thorough explanation of this position. Finds at Qumran included fragments of the Book of Watchers that were dated to the first half of the second century BC. Collins reports about the Astronomical Book aQGWKH%RRNRI:DWFKHUVWKDW´6ince the compositions are presumably somewhat older than the earliest fragments, and since the Book of Watchers shows evidence of multiple stages of composition, it is probable that ERWKWKHVHZRUNVZHUHH[WDQWLQVRPHIRUPDOUHDG\LQWKHWKLUGFHQWXU\%&(µApocalyptic Imagination, 44. Working on the assumption that the Book of Watchers preceded Daniel, scholars have maximized similarities between 1 Enoch 14 and Ezekiel 1, while minimizing those between 1 Enoch 14 and Daniel 7, and have concluded that Dan 7 is dependent on 1 Enoch +HOJH6.YDQYLJ´+HQRFKXQGGHU0HQVFKHQVRKQDas VerhältQLVYRQ+HQ]X'DQµStudia Theologica 8 (1984): 101²133, is the study often cited in support of this; see, for example, George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1²36; 81²108, ed. Klaus Baltzer (Minneapolis: FRUWUHVV3UHVV &ROOLQV·DSSURDFKLVPXFKPRUHHYHQKDQGHGDQGKHacknowledges the unique similarity between 1 Enoch 14 and Daniel 7. He concludes WKDW´WKHVSHFLILFLW\RISDUDOOHOVKRZHYHUUHTXLUHVDWWKHOHDVWDFRPPRQWUDGLWLRQRIspeculation about the divine throne. Direct literary influence cannot be ruled out, even if it cannot be decisively proven. Since the publication of the Qumran fragments of 1 Enoch, the Book of the Watchers, in which the passage cited appears, is acknowledged to be older than the Book of Daniel. If Dan 7:9²10 is cited from an older source, however, the direction of influence cannot be established. We must be content to say that these texts are closely related.µDaniel, 300. The forensic character of 1 Enoch 14 is clear. Those who believe that Daniel is a sixth-century BC text used by the author of 1 Enoch 14 will ILQGWKHODWWHU·VIRUHQVLFFKDUDFWHUWRbe stronger still. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 59 mountains (24:3) and Michael explains to him, ´This high mountain which you saw, whose summit is like the throne of the Lord, is the throne where the Holy and Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit when he comes down to visit the earth for goodµ(25:3). Here the seventh mountain, ´which 18:8 described in general terms as ¶God·s throne,·is identified as the throne on which God will sit at the time of the eschatological judgment.µ65 The central image of God in 1 Enoch as a whole is that of king. The throne plays a significant role in this. As Nickelsburg observes, ´That the Enochic authors think of God principally as king is also evident in the description of God seated on a throne in the heavenly palace (14:8²23) and having a mountain-size throne on which to sit when he descends to visit earth (18:8; 24:3; 25:3).µ66 This is critical for our topic because ´The exercise of judgment was a major prerogative and function of kings in antiquity, and for the Enochic authors, enacting judgment was the major function of the heavenly King.µ67 As we have seen in the Old Testament background, a king on the throne judging is the classic scene of forensic judgment. *RG·VGHDOLQJVZLWKWKH:DWFKHUVDUHSDUDGLJPDWLFIRUWKHILQDOMXGJ-ment, and so they, too, are forensic in character. The earth in 7:6 and the souls of men in 9:3 bring accusations/make a suit before God, language WKDWUHIOHFWV´DQ$UDPDLFWHFKQLFDOWHUPIRUEULQJLQJDVXLWLQFRXUW.µ68 In 13:4²7, the Watchers send Enoch to intercede for them with God. The first UHSRUWRI*RG·VUHVSRQVHannounced in 13:8 and delivered by Enoch in 13:10 uses language that belongs to judicial and legal settings.69 The words recited by Enoch to the Watchers are found in 14:1F16:4, and within this 14:1²VXPPDUL]HV*RG·VGHFUHHDJDLQVWWKH:DWFKHUV WKHLUSHWLtion is GHQLHG +LPPHOIDUEQRWHVWKDW´(QRFKLVDOVRFRQFHUQHGZLWKMXGJ-ment by the heavenly court. Enoch ascends to plead before the divine judge on behalf of the Watchers, and at the end of the vision the sentence 65 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1+HJRHVRQWRDGG´7KXVWKHILQDOMXGJPHQWreferred to in 22:4, 11, 13, is brought into the discussion here. The verb  óûô½üøöëó ¶WRYLVLW· XVHGRI*RG·VMXGJPHQWLVWUDGLWLRQDOEXWRFFXUVRQO\KHUe in 1 Enoch . . . . The JRRGQHVVRI*RG·VMXGJPHQWLVIURPWKHYLHZSRLQWRIWKHULJKWHRXVZKRVHEOHVVLQJVwill be recounted in 25:4d²6. Cf. also 1:8 and 5:6²9, where this side of the judgment is GHVFULEHGµ1 Enoch 1, 314. 66 Nickelsburg, 1Enoch 1, 43. 67 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 48. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 187; see also Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Translation with Commentary and Textual Notes (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 167.See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 249²250.60 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) of the Watchers is read out once more.µ70 The language of making suit also occurs in 22:6, 7, and 12. In regard to Abel (22:7), Meira Z. Kensky com-PHQWV´1 Enoch 22:5²7 understands these cries very literally: as forensic petitions, making lawsuits, crying out for vengeanceµ71 She concludes UHJDUGLQJWKHPDWHULDOLQFKDSWHU´7KXVWKH%RRNRI:DWFKHUVWKRXJKnot really including a full courtroom scene such as we see in later litera-ture, does include the narration of an extended juridical process that cul-minates in the judicial sentence handed down in *RG·V throneroom.µ72 Forensic judgment is clearly present in the Book of the Watchers. What is conspicuously absent is de Boer·s ´cosmic war.µ73 1 Enoch 1:3²9 describes the theophany of God as he comes from his dwelling and marches upon Sinai (1:3²4). The theophany is based heavily on texts drawn from the Old Testament, such as Numbers 24, Psalm 78, Micah 1, Exodus 19, Habakkuk 3, and Jeremiah 25.74 With its description of ´campµ(1:3) and ´10,000 holy ones accompanying Godµ(1:9) set alongside the awesome theophanic de-scription (the mountains shake and the hills melt like wax; 1:6), the text is a clear example of the Divine Warrior motif.75 In the face of this arrival, the Watchers shake in fear (1:5). The Divine Warrior motif is present as the text describes the reaction of creation, humanity, and the Watchers in the face of God·s arrival.76 How-ever, the question remains: in the context of the Book of the Watchers as a whole, is a cosmic war against the Watchers present in 1:3²9? The answer HimmelfarbAscent to Heaven, 18.Meira Z. Kensky, Trying Man, Trying God: The Divine Courtroom in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 132.Kensky, Trying Man, Trying God, 133.73 ´:KHQ¶WKLVDJH·LVSHUFHLYHGLQWKLVZD\LQWHUPV of subjection to suprahuman DQJHOLFSRZHUVLWLVXQGHUVWDQGDEOHWKDWWKHODVWMXGJPHQWWKHMXQFWXUHDWZKLFK¶WKLVDJH·LVUHSODFHGZLWKE\¶WKHDJHWRFRPH,·LVGHSLFWHGDVDFRVPLFFRQIURQWDWLRQDZDU, between God and the Watchers. Thus we read in 1 Enoch 1:4²5, ¶7KH*RGRIWKHXQLYHUVH . . . will come forth from his dwelling. And from there he will march upon Mount Sinai and appear in his camp emerging from heaven with a mighty power. And everyone shall be afraid, and Watchers shall quiver.µde Boer, ´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ175, emphasis added. 74 Lars Hartmann, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1²5 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979), 24²26. Hartman provides a thorough analysis of the Old Testament scriptures from which this text draws. 75 Vanderkam provides a description of the military language employed (J. 9DQGHUNDP´7KH7KHRSKDQ\RI(QRFK, 3b²7, µVetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 138²139. 76 1LFNHOVEXUJFRPPHQWV´,QYYF²7 the author has developed a terrifying scenario of cosmic dissolution as the angry warrior God storms onto the earth to execute universal judgment.µ1 Enoch 1, 147. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 61 is no, for de Boer·s position ignores the entire thrust of chapters 10²22. In chapter 10, prior to the deluge, God commands the angel Raphael to bind the Watcher Azazel and thrust him in the darkness under sharp rocks: Bind Azazel by his hand and his feet, and throw him into the dark-ness. And split open the desert which is in Dudael, and throw him there. And throw on him jagged and sharp stones, and cover him with darkness; and let him stay there forever, and cover his face, that he may not see light, and that on the great day of judgment he may be hurled into the fire. (1 En 10:4²6)77 In a similar manner, Michael binds Semyaz and the others and places them beneath the rocks of the ground (10:11²12). This action against the Watch-ers, their imprisonment until the final day of judgment, serves as a proto-type of the final eschatological judgment.78 Enoch·s ascent and heavenly tour confirm this when he sees the prison house for the disobedient stars and the place where the spirits of the angels are kept until the day of judgment (chs. 18²19, 21), as well as the locations where dead humans await the judgment (ch. 22). The Book of the Watchers offers comfort as it looks forward to com-pletion of what is already in place and what has already taken place. The Watchers who shake in fear at God·s theophany (1:5) have already been judged and rendered impotent.79 The final consummation of chapter one awaits, but the process has already begun. Sacchi describes the Book of the Watchers as ´the atmosphere of the already and not yet.µ80 The Divine Warrior motif in 1:3²9 does not indicate the presence of cosmic war. In-stead, it dramatically portrays the fact that the almighty God has arrived 77 1LFNHOVEXUJFRPPHQWVWKDW´Like a criminal, Asael is to be arrested and fettered (Acts 21:11) and cast in fetters into a dark prison (Acts 12:7; 16:24²27; Josephus Ant. 19.6.1), thus rendering him inoperative and harmless to the world that Raphael will now heal.µ1 Enoch 1, 221. 78 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 56; Christoph Münchow, Ethik und Eschatologie: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 21. 79 This fact becomes very clear when the Watchers must ask Enoch to intercede with God for them  0D[ZHOO-'DYLGVRQQRWHVWKDW´[t]his ironic twist emphasizes the depths to which the angels have fallen.µAngels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1²36, 72²108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 54. See also Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 171. 80 Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History, trans. William J. Short (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 54. 62 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) and brings the final day of judgment. +DUWPDQFRPPHQWV´:KHQLWLVVDLG  WKDW*RGFRPHV¶ZLWKWHQWKRXVDQGVRI+LVKRO\RQHV·WKLVVHHPVWRbe a picture of the same triumphant heavenly power: the divine court and WKHYLFWRULRXVGLYLQHZDUULRU·VKRVWUHSUHVHQWWKHRYHUZKHOPLQJRWKHU-ZRUOGO\PDMHVW\ZKLFKDWODVWPDNHVLWVVZD\PDQLIHVWµ81 This forensic judgment is directed at both the angelic powers and peo-ple, and takes place on the basis of a divine standard set by God (both groups are held accountable for behavior that violates *RG·V will). The Book of the Watchers begins by announcing that ´there will be a judgment on allµ(1:7). The universality of the judgment is emphasized by the repe-tition of the word ´allµin 1:3²9, and the text describes judgment against both groups.82 It is clear that the Watchers are carrying out actions that violate the standard set by God, because Semyaz himself describes what they are doing as a ´great sinµ(6:3).83 These are actions for which the Watchers ask Enoch to make petition to God for forgiveness (13:4, 6).84 What is narrated in chapters 6²8 is reported to God in 9:6²9 by Michael, Gabriel, Suriel, and Uriel as actions that are clearly evil. The Watchers have sinned by re-vealing sins to humanity (9:8). They are actions that prompt the souls of people who have died to bring suit to God (9:3, 10). Even more important as we consider de Boer·s paradigm is the fact that humans are explicitly held accountable for violating a standard set by 81 Hartman, Asking for a Meaning, 129. If cosmic war were present, it could only be against the spirits of the slain giants mentioned briefly in 15:8F16:3 and 19:1 who would EHLQFOXGHGLQWKH´DOOZLOOEHDIUDLGµRI'H%RHULVFRUUHFWLQWKDWWKHVXEMXJDWLRQRIthese evil spirits must ultimately be implied by 1:1²9, but this is in no way an emphasis of 1:1²9 or of the rest of the Book of the Watchers. John Collins does not consider 1 En 1:1²9 to be an example of cosmic war (personal communication at the 2001 Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Denver, and email to author, January 29, 2003). 82 ´7KHXQLYHUVDOLW\*RG·VMXGJPHQWLVXQGHUVFRUHGE\WKHUHSHWLWLRQRIWKHZRUG¶DOO·ZKLFKDSSHDUVHOHYHQWLPHVLQHYHU\VXEXQLWWKDWGHVFULEHVWKHFRQWH[WFDXVHRUUHVXOWRI*RG·VDSSHDUDQFH.µ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 143. %ODFNFRPPHQWVRQ´¶$OO·to be judged and destroyed includes the watchers who fell from heaven and their illegitimate offspring as well as mankind.µThe Book of Enoch, 108. Judgment against angels is found in 1:3²9; 10:4²7; 10:11²14; 12:6; 13:1²7; 13:9²14:7; 16:1; 19:1; 21:7²10, and against people in 1:3²9; 22:3²13; 25:4; 27:1²3. 83 ´:LWKWKLVYHUVHWKHVLQIXOFKDUDFWHURIWKHSURSRVHGGHHGLVH[SOLFLWDVLVWKHZDWFKHUV·FRQVFLRXVQHVVRIWKLVIDFW.µ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 176. God calls it sin when KHVHQGV(QRFKWRWKH:DWFKHUVWRDQQRXQFHWKDWWKHUHZLOOEHQR´IRUJLYHQHVVRIVLQµ(12:6). 84 7KLVLVKDUGO\WKHDFWLRQRIDJURXSDJDLQVWZKRP*RGQHHGVWRZDJHD´FRVPLFZDUµ Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 63 God. Human beings are directly identified as the object of God·s judgment from the start as 1:9 says that God is going ´to contend with all flesh concerning everything which the sinners and impious have done and wrought.µ85 In 2:1 the command is given to ´contemplateµand then 2:1F5:3 contains an extended discussion of the obedient ordering of creation. Next 5:4 says, ´But you have not persevered, nor observed the law of the Lord. But you have transgressed, and have spoken proud and hard words with your unclean mouth against his majesty.µ86 Collins con-cludes regarding this passage: The most obvious ¶law of the Lord·in chaps. 2²5 is not the law of Moses, which was unknown in the fictive time of Enoch, but the law of nature. The sinfulness of the wicked is demonstrated in contrast to the orderliness of nature, not by special revelation of Sinai. To be sure, there is no suggestion that Sinai is at variance with the laws of nature, but the ultimate authority is older than Moses and applies not only to Israel but to all humanity.87 The separation of the souls of the dead in the heavenly prison (22:3²13) based on their actions and level of prior punishment also demonstrates this. Finally, the shift to the new creation in the Book of the Watchers does not occur as the result of a ´cosmic war,µ but rather after the final forensic judgment when God sits on the throne. In the early part of the work, the eschatological typology of the author shifts from the binding of the Watch-ers and destruction of the Giants in 10:1²16a during the days of Noah to the restoration of the postdiluvian world in 10:16b²22, a description that parallels the future new creation.88 The full depiction of the new creation (a beautiful and fragrant treeFthe tree of life; 24:4²5; 25:4²7) only takes place 85 Emphasis added. 86 ´7KHXQQDPHGDGGUHVVHVRIWKHVHFRQGSOXUDOYHUEVWKDWEHJDQDWDUHLGHQ-tified as the sinners whose judgment has been announced in 1:9.µ1LFNHOVEXUJ1 Enoch 1, 157. 87 Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 49. In a similar manner Nickelsburg comments, ´3HUYDGLQJ(QRFK·VXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIODZDQGUHIOHFWLQJLWVURRWVLQWKHVDSLHQWDOWUDGLWLRQis a sense of cosmic order . . . . In obedience to their Creator, heaven and earth and the seasons work with complete regularity, and the luminaries do not change their paths or transgress their order. Conversely, human disobedience is perversion and turning aside from *RG·VRUGHU  6LPLODUO\WKHLQGLFWPHQWDJDLQVWWKHZDWFKHUVLQ²6 depicts their sin as DSHUYHUVLRQRI*RG·VFUHDWHGRUGHUµ1 Enoch 1, 51. 88 ´6LPLODUO\WKHUHQHZDORIWKHKXPDQUDFHDQGWKHSRVWGLOXYLDQZRUOGDUHDparadigm for the renewal or re-creation of the world after the coming judgment.µNickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 224. 64 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) after Enoch sees the eschatological mountain throne (24:3) and has Michael tell him it is God·s throne when he visits the earth (25:3). Then Enoch sees the blessed Jerusalem (26:1²6) and the final place of judgment, Gehenna (27:1²5). 1 Enoch 25:3 depicts the throne of God·s final eschatological judgment and thus 25:4 indicates that ´the coming judgment will con-stitute a dividing point between the present time, when the fruit of this tree is forbidden, and the future, when it will be given to the righteous.µ89 At this juncture, it is important to note the link between forensic judgment at the throne of God and the cosmological new creation. We will see that in Paul, too, the throne-centered forensic judgment of human beings is central, but that inherently this is accompanied by a cosmological outcome. IV. Forensic Judgment: New Testament and Paul An examination of the Book of the Watchers reveals that the paradigm employed by Martyn and de Boer imposes a false dichotomy between ´cosmologicalµand ´forensicµ apocalyptic eschatology.90 While it is true that there are documents where fallen angelic powers are present and doc-uments where they are not, the dividing line between those documents does not involve the question of whether forensic judgment is present. It is, in truth, common to both of them.91 This is not surprising because the Old Testament repeats the expec-tation that Yahweh, the King who sits on a throne, will come to judge the world. Psalms 96:13 and 98:9 both declare that Yahweh comes ´to judge 89 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 314. 90 A consideration of The Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37²71), which de Boer con-siders to be an example of cosmological apocalyptic eschatology (The Defeat of Death, 54²56, 85²86), reveals precisely the same problems: first, judgment is directed against angelic powers and human beings that is forensic (against angelic powers: 1 En 55:4; against people: 1 En 45:1²6; 61:8²9; 62:1²10), DQGWKHUHLVQR´FRVPLFZDUµ DQJHOVERXQGwaiting judgment: 1 En 54:5; 64:1²2; 67:4, 12²13). Second, both angelic powers (1 En 54:6; 64:2; 67:4, 7; 69:4²15) and people (1 En 38:1²3; 41:2; 45:2, 6; 46:4, 7²8; 48:10; 63:1, 7; 67:8) are held accountable and judged because of sin. Third, the shift to the new creation occurs after the final forensic judgment (1 En 45:3²6; 51:1²5). 91For examples of forensic judgment in works where fallen angelic powers are present, see, in addition to material surveyed in Book of Watchers in 1 En 1²36, the following: Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37²71) 1 En 41:1; 45:3; 47:3; 49:2²4; 55:4; 60:1²6; 61:8²9; 62:2²9; 63:8; Book of Dreams (1 En 83²90) 90:20²27; Jub. 5:12²16; 2 En 44:4²5; 52:15; 53:2²3; L.A.B. 3:10. For examples of forensic judgment in works where fallen angelic powers are absent, see the following: Epistle of Enoch (1 En 91²107) 1 En 95:5; 96:4, 7; 98:6²8; 100:7; 104:7; 4 Ezra 3:34²36; 7:32²34; 12:31²34; 14:35; 2 Bar 14:12²13; 24:1²2; 48:39²40; 83:1²3; Pss. Sol. 2:32²35; 5:4; 15:12²13. Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 65 the earth; he will judge the world in righteousness.µ92 In fact Psalm 96:13 emphatically says, ´for he is coming, for he is coming.µ93 Both statements provide the reason (h) that creation is to rejoice (96:11²12; 98:7²8), and, in turn, these statements about the reaction of creation are introduced by a statement that says that Yahweh is king (96:10; 98:6).94 1 Chronicles 16:33 also declares, ´for he comes to judge the earth,µ and the language in 1 Chronicles 16:23²33 (including the references to nature rejoicing and Yahweh reigning) is virtually identical to Psalm 96:1²13. The statement in Psalms 96:13 and 98:9 that ´he will judge the world in righteousnessµ is significant because the same phrase is found within Psalm 9:8 (MT 9:9): ´He judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with up-rightness.µ95 Here, the preceding verse says, ´But Yahweh sits enthroned forever; he has established his throne for judgmentµ (Ps 9:7; MT 9:8).96 These texts build on the Old Testament material we have already con-sidered about Yahweh, king, throne, and judgment, and led later readers to conclude that Yahweh the king who sits on the throne will come to judge the world and the peoples (cf. 1 En 25:3). This idea is reinforced in Joel 3:1²16 (MT 4:1²16). After the statement about the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit in 2:28²32 (MT 3:1²5), Yahweh announces that he will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat (´Yahweh judgesµ3:2; MT 4:2). He goes on to say, ´Let the nations stir themselves up and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge (nþXX) all the surrounding nationsµ (3:12; MT 4:12).97 When one considers that the event is described as ´the day of the Lordµ (þ |; 3:14; MT 4:14) and that 3:18 (MT 4:18) contains imagery of a restored creation (cf. Ezek 47:1²12; Zech 14:8), it is not hard to see how Second Temple Judaism and early 92 *)þ_s nþX(+nþXh  JRHVRQWRDGG´DQGWKHSHRSOHVLQKLVIDLWKIXOQHVVµ |-#c!ÿ_ j%þ ZKLOHDGGV´DQGWKHSHRSOHVZLWKHTXLW\µ( +X!þ_ j%þ). Unless otherwise noted, all translations are from the ESV. 93 hh 94 96:10, ´6D\DPRQJWKHQDWLRQV¶<DKZHKUHLJQV(z!þ). Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity ( j%" +X!þ_).·µ98:6, ´:LWKWUXPSHWVDQGWKHVRXQGRIWKHKRUQPDNHDMR\IXOQRLVHEHIore the King (zj#þ' <DKZHKµ (69PRGLILHG  95  +X!þ_ j þ"*)þ_s nþXcþ 96 ESV modified. Literally, 07KDV´ZLOOVLWµ X), but the earlier statement in 9:4 (MT 9:5), ´\RXKDYHVDWRQWKHWKURQH lþsþX), giving righteous judgment,µmakes it clear that Yahweh is sitting on the throne. 97 Yahweh sits on the throne to judge (see the previous footnote about the language in Ps. 9). 66 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) Christianity developed the expectations found in apocalyptic escha-tology.98 The throne vision of judgment in Daniel 7:9²10 and the vision of ´one like a son of manµin 7:13²14 also played a significant role in creating the expectation of eschatological forensic judgment.99 In this Old Testament material we see a continuation of the theme seen at the end the examination of the Book of the Watchers. Texts such as Psalm 96:10²13, Psalm 98:4²9, 1 Chronicles 16:29²33, and Joel 3:9²18 all focus on the forensic judgment of human beings by God, yet they do so in a way that also includes a cosmological perspective. God·s forensic judg-ment is the center of an action that impacts all of creation. A survey of the New Testament apart from Paul·s letters quickly reveals that the early Christians expected forensic judgment. Both Matthew 25:31²46 and Revelation 20:11²15 depict the throne (Matt 25:31; Rev 20:11) and judgment based on what individuals have done (Matt 25:34²46; Rev 20:13).100 Daniel 7 provides the background for the forensic judgment by the Son of Man in Matthew 16:27 and John 5:26²29, where judgment is again based on deeds.101 The Paul of Acts says that Jesus has been appointed as ´judge of the living and the deadµ (Acts 10:42) and that God ´will judge the world in righteousnessµ through himFa phrase that signals forensic judgment.102 1 Peter 1:17 and 4:5 describe forensic judg- 98 Old Testament eschatology is not yet apocalyptic eschatology but it establishes the themes that will take the form of eschatological expectation we find in Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament. On this, see Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Charles L. Holman, Till Jesus Comes: Origins of Christian Apocalyptic Expectation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996). 99 See 1 En 46:1²5; 48:1²8; 62:1²9; Matt 16:27; 25:31²46; John 5:26²29. 100 Jeffrey A. Gibbs points out that Matt 25:31²´LVDGLUHFWGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHjuGJPHQWVFHQHZLWKRQO\PLQRUSDUDEROLFIHDWXUHVµ-HUXVDOHPDQG3DURXVLD-HVXV·(VFKDWRORJLFDO'LVFRXUVHLQ0DWWKHZ·V*RVSHO(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 214. See also Matt 12:36²42 which describes a forensic setting, and Rev 22:12. 101 *LEEV·FDXWLRQLVDQHFHVVDU\RQH´,WLVFOHDUWKDWFHUWDLQSDVVDJHVLQ0DWWKHZ·V*RVSHOLQZKLFK-HVXVFDOOVKLPVHOI¶WKH6RQRI0DQ·GRPDNHUHIHUHQFHWRWKHYLVLRQRIDaniel 7. Interaction with Daniel 7 will be required in order to understand those texts as the implied reader would understand them. It is not, however, the presence of the mere SKUDVH¶WKH6RQRI0DQ·LQWKRVHWH[WVWKDWHVWDEOLVKHVWKHFRQQHFWLRQZLWK'DQLHOEXWrather additional markers that so function.µJerusalem and Parousia, 61. Those features are DPSO\SUHVHQWLQ0DWWKHZZLWKWKHPHQWLRQRI´LQWKHJORU\RIKLV)DWKHUZLWKKLVDQJHOVµDQGUHSD\LQJHYHU\RQHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUGHHGV/LNHZLVH-RKQ²29 men-tions giving of authority, judging, (5:26), resurrection (5:28²29), and judgment according to deeds (5:29). 102 Acts 17:31 has ö½õõïóôúÀ÷ïó÷ü%÷økôøýö½÷ò÷ ÷îóôëøûÂ÷/. The only places where ôúÀ÷þ occurs with ü%÷ økôøýö½÷ò÷  ÷ îóôëøûÂ÷/ in the Septuagint are Psalms 9:9; 95:13; and 97:9, where Psalm 9:8 says that God has prepared his throne in judgment Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 67 ment, since 1:17 says that the Father judges impartially according to each one·s work, and 4:5 warns that people ´will give an account to him who is ready to judge the living and the deadµ (cf. Acts 10:42).103 Jude 15 says that God will convict ( õ½ñÿëó) people for their deeds and words.104 Martyn and de Boer both think that in Galatians Paul is ´circumscrib-ing ¶the forensic apocalyptic theology of the . . . Teachers with a cosmo-logical apocalyptic theology of his own.·µ105 De Boer applies the same approach to Romans, where he argues that the forensic motifs are present only because of Paul·s conversation partners.106 Such an understanding would put Paul at odds with the early Christian tradition we have just surveyed. However, an examination of the undisputed Pauline letters does not support this claim. We can set aside Romans 2:1²16, because de Boer agrees that it is forensicFhe just does not believe Paul really understands things in this way.107 The place to start, therefore, is 2 Corinthians 5:10. There Paul brings his discussion about whether a Christian is in the body or with the Lord (5:1²8) to a close by saying that no matter what his or her situation is, a Christian desires to be pleasing to God (5:9). In 5:10, Paul provides the reason for this: ´For (ñú) we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (üøv ì¿öëüøÏ üøv Òúóûüøv), so that each one may ('üøóöëûï÷  ÷ ôúÀûïó ü<÷ ùúÁ÷ø÷ ë{üøv FWKHYHU\SDVVDJHVZHKDYHMXVWORRNHGDWLQthe Old Testament background of forensic judgment. 103 1 Peter 1:17 (ü<÷  úøûþøõ¿öüþÏ ôúÀ÷ø÷üë ôëü ü< ô¼ûüøý !úñø÷); 4:5 (øi  øîÃûøýûó÷ õÁñø÷ üR üøÀöþÏ !íø÷üó ôúf÷ëó F÷üøÏ ôëe ÷ïôøÂÏ). 104 This background and the traditional Jewish Christian character of James VXJJHVWVWKDW´WKHMXGJHµ = ôúóü%Ï) in James 5:9 should be understood forensically. Likewise the affinities EHWZHHQ-RKQDQG-RKQVXJJHVWWKDWWKH´GD\RIMXGJPHQWµ  ÷ ü2 'ö½ú ü&Ï ôúÀûïþÏ) in 1 John 4:17 should be understood this way as well. 105 Martyn quoting de Boer, Galatians, 273. 106 ´:K\DUHPRWLIVSURSHUWRWUDFNSUHVHQWDWDOO"7KHDQVZHUZHPD\SUoperly DVVXPHKDVVRPHWKLQJWRGRZLWKZKDW-/RXLV0DUW\QOLNHVWRFDOO3DXO·V¶FRQYHUVDWLRQpartners.·µGH%RHUPaul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, 182. ´3DXO·s christologically determined apocalyptic eschatology is of the cosmological variety, though in Romans he is in conversation with those (probably both Jews and Christians) who adhere to the forensic type. To some extent, he adopts forensic categories and motifs though he fre-quently redefines or circumscribes their import cosmologically.µ de Boer Defeat of Death, 183. 107 .H\YHUVHVKHUHLQFOXGH´+HZLOOUHQGHUWRHDFKRQHDFFRUGLQJWRKLVZRUNVµ(?Ï  øîÃûïó ô¼ûüO ôëü ü !úñë ë{üøv) and 2:11, ´)RU*RGVKRZVQRSDUWLDOLW\(úøûþøõòöÀë µ)RUDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKLVLPSRUWDQWWKHPHLQ5RPVHH-RXHWWH0Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1982). 68 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) receive (h÷ë ôøöÀûòüëó) what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.µ108 This text is important for two reasons. First, in the context of 2 Corinthians it is not possible to argue that Paul has introduced this ex-plicitly forensic statement because of ´conversation partners.µ Paul is the one who has chosen to introduce it because it is a belief he shares with the Corinthians. Second, since Paul refers to ´new creationµ(ôëó÷% ôüÀûóÏ) in 5:17, he shows that he has no difficulty using forensic and cosmological categories side by side. This should not be surprising, since we have seen in the Book of the Watchers and the pertinent Old Testament material that *RG·V forensic judgment of human beings is the center of a larger whole that in its total impact includes creationFthe latter is a natural complement of the former. What is different is that in Paul·s christologically-focused apocalyptic eschatology, the new creation has already begun in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul·s use of ì&öë in 2 Corinthians 5:10 leads us next to Romans 14:10b, following Paul·VXUJLQJRI Christians not to judge one another about food and days (14:1²10a). Paul provides the reason the Romans should not do this when he says, ´For (ñú) we will all stand before the judgment seat of God (üR ì¿öëüó üøv ùïøv).µ He substantiates this claim in 14:11 with a quotation from Isaiah 45:23, and concludes with the inference in 14:12, ´So then ( úë) each of us will give an account of himself to God (õÁñø÷ îÃûïó üR ùïR).µ109 There are two important points to recognize here. First, the parallel with 2 Corinthians 5:10 means that it is not possible to say Paul is only using this explicitly forensic statement in Romans because of his ´conversation part-ners.µ110 Second, the manner in which Paul cites an Old Testament text (Isa 108 The ì&öë was the tribunal or judgment seat on which a Roman official sat when rendering judicial decisions; see Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 175.3. Thus 3DXO·VODQJXDJHWUDQVSRVHVWKHQHDUHDVWHUQLGLRPRI´WKURQHµZLWKLWVIRUHQVLFFRQQRWDWLRQVLQWRWKat of the Roman world (see also Matt 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 18:12, 16²17; 25:6, 10, 17). 109 ´)RULWLVZULWWHQ¶$V,OLYHVD\VWKH/RUGHYHU\NQHHVKDOl bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God·µ (Rom 14:11). 6HH-DPHV'*'XQQ·VKHOSIXOFRPPHQWVabout the form of the quotation in Romans 9²16 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 809²810. On the textual issue, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1994), 469. 110 'H%RHUPDLQWDLQVWKDW´5RP²21 marks a shift from predominately forensic terminology and motifs to predominately cosmological ones.µDefeat of Death, 152; emphasis original+HJRHVRQWRVD\´7KXVZKLOHVXFKWH[WVDVDQG²34 indicate Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 69 45:23) that neither in its wording nor in its context mentions the divine throne, in order to demonstrate that Christians will be appear before the judgment seat of God, shows that the forensic judgment seat of God is a basic assumption that helps to order his thought about Scripture. The significance of the final forensic judgment for Christian behavior in the present age appears again in 1 Corinthians 4:5, where Paul says that Christians are not to think that they can judge the ministry of others (or even their own; 4:3²5) before the time (ö% ú< ôëóúøv üó ôúf÷ïüï; 4:5a). There can be no true evaluation ´before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness («þüÀûïó ü ôúýü üøv ûôÁüøýÏ) and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from Godµ (4:5b). The references to the return of Christ, judging (ôúf÷ïüï; 4:5a), and ´secret thingsµ(ü ôúýü) reveal a thought parallel with the statement in Romans 2:16 about forensic judgment: ´God judges the secrets (ôúÀ÷ïó = ùï<Ï ü ôúýü) of men by Christ Jesus.µ111 Here again the context of 1 Corinthians does not allow one to say that Paul has introduced forensic judgment because of his ´conversation partners.µ De Boer grants that Romans 8:33²34 is forensic, though of course he attempts to minimize the importance of this fact.112 Yet freed by the evi- that forensic categories have hardly been given up or left behind, the structure and progression of 3DXO·V arguments in Romans 1²8 suggest that cosmological categories and motifs circumscribe and, to a large extent, overtake forensic categories and motifs.µDefeat of Death'H%RHU·VQHHGWRVWUHWFKWKLVDUJXPHQWWKURXJKRXWWKHZKROHOHWWHUis not compelling. More damaging for his position is the fact that de Boer never explains how 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10 relate to his interpretation. In fact, I can find QRHYLGHQFHWKDWHLWKHUYHUVHLVHYHQFLWHGLQWKHERRN VHH´,QGH[RI%LEOLFDO5HIHUHQFHVµThe Defeat of Death, 271²272). Kensky summarizes the situation well when VKHZULWHV´+HUHWKHUHIHUHQFHWRWKHMXGJPHQWVHDWRI*RGLVDFOHDUZD\LQZKLFK3DXOemploys the language of the divine courtroom as an assumption that he shares with his audience. It is the acknowledged existence of such a ì&öë that Paul thinks will convince the Romans to cease and desist from judging each other, knowing that they will be judged by God in the end. If this assumption were not a shared one, this argument would not work.µTrying Man, Trying God, 183. 111 ´2QH·VVHOI-estimate and the HVWLPDWHRIRQH·VIHOORZ&KULVWLDQVGRQRWPDWWHUXOWLPDWHO\2QO\&KULVW·VMXGJPHQWFRXQWV1RRQHVKRXOGEHMXGJHGEHIRUHMXGJPHQWday, and then only the Lord will assume the role of judge.µ%HQ:LWKHULQJWRQ,,,Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 139. The fact that Paul can say God will judge through Christ Jesus (îó Òúóûüøv „òûøv) explains why Paul can ascribe the judgment seat to both God (Rom 14:10) and Christ (2 Cor 5:10). 112 ´:KRVKDOOEULQJDQ\FKDUJHDJDLQVW*RG·VHOHFW",WLV*RGZKRMXVWLILHV:KRLVWRFRQGHPQ"&KULVW-HVXVLVWKHRQHZKRGLHGFPRUHWKDQWKDWZKRZDVUDLVHGFZKRLVat the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for usµ (Rom 8:33²34). 70 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) dence considered thus far, we can appreciate it as yet another example of the forensic judgment that is central to 3DXO·V thought.113 Equally impor-tant, the proximity of 8:18²23 demonstrates once again that Paul finds it very natural to set forensic and cosmological categories side by side. Finally, those who believe that Paul is the author of the disputed letters (as the present writer does) will find there additional evidence for Paul·s forensic worldview.114 The evidence from Paul·s letters surveyed here makes it clear that Paul focuses on God·s forensic judgment of human beings. However, Romans 8:18²23, 33²34 (cf. 14:10) and 2 Corinthians 5:10, 17 demonstrate that, like the Book of the Watchers and the Old Testament, this forensic focus does not stand in opposition to cosmological outcomes. Instead the cosmo-logical is the natural complement of the forensic. We will see why this must be so in the final section of this article as we examine God·s righteousness (îóôëóøûÂ÷ò).115 113 The significance of 8:34 for our topic should not escape our attention. Paul says LQEWKDW&KULVWLV´DWWKHULJKWKDQGRI*RGµ  ÷ îïÿó üøv ùïøv), an obvious reference to Psalm 110:1 (LXX 109:1), ZKLFKZDV´SHUKDSVWKHPRVWH[WHQVLYHO\HPSOR\HGWH[WLQHDUO\&KULVWLDQDSRORJHWLFµDFFRUGLQJWR/XNH7LPRWK\-RKQVRQThe Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 52. The verse itself (which uses  ô îïÿóF÷ öøv) is found in Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:25). An allusion to Ps 110:1 (LXX 109:1) occurs in Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament in statements using  ÷ îïÿó: Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22. The reIHUHQFHSRLQWIRU´DWWKHULJKWKDQGµLVWKHWKURQH VHH.JV RI*RG VHH.JV&KU FDSRLQWPDGHH[SOLFLWLQ+HEDQG:HVHHhere again that the conception of both God the Father and Christ were firmly fixed in relation to the throne of God with all of its forensic significance. 114 In 2 Tim 4:8, 3DXOFDOOV&KULVW´WKHULJKWHRXVjXGJHµ = îÀôëóøÏ ôúóü¿Ï FDdescription that is the perfect complement to 2 Cor 5:10 where he is the one who sits on the judgment seat. In both Eph 6:8²9 and Col 3:25 Paul uses the verb ôøöÀþ ´UHFHLYHµCol 3:25; Eph 6:8) to say that slaves (as well as masters in Eph 6:8²9) will receive the outcome of what they have done and remind them that God shows no partiality (úøûþøõòöÀë; Col 3:25; Eph 6:9). Since ôøöÀþ is only used in these three passages, and úøûþøõòöÀë only occurs in Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; and Col 3:25, the reference to forensic judgment is clear. 115 7KHUHMHFWLRQRIGH%RHU·VSDUDGLJPLQZKLFK´WKHODVWMXGJPHQWWKHMXQFWXUHDWZKLFK¶WKLVDJH·LVUHSODFHGE\¶WKHDJHWRFRPH·LVGHSLFWHGDVDFRVPLFFRQIURQWDWLRQDwarµdoes not entail the denial of spiritual conflict in 3DXO·V thought; GH%RHU´3DXODQG-HZLVK$SRFDO\SWLF(VFKDWRORJ\µ Colossians 2:14²15 indicates that Paul can XQGHUVWDQGWKHFURVVDVWKHSODFHRI&KULVW·VWULXPSKRYHUHYLOFRVPLFSRZHUV<HWWKH´QRZµRI&KULVW·VYLFWRU\QHYHUUHPRYHVWKHILQDOLW\WKDWDUULYHVDWWKHHQGRIWKH´QRW\HWµZKHQ&KULVWUHWXUQVDQGIRUHQVLc judgment takes place. The concomitant presence of martial and forensic is not surprising. Paul D. Hanson has emphasized the im-portance the Divine Warrior had for the development of the apocalyptic genre and Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 71 V. îóôëóÁþFTo Declare Righteous Now that the forensic grounding of 3DXO·V apocalyptic theology has been demonstrated, in conclusion we can succinctly show the legitimacy of the Lutheran understanding of îóôëóÁþ by drawing upon the work of Stephen Westerholm116 and Mark Seifrid.117 Recognizing the same trans-lation problems noted by Martyn in the îÀôëóøÏ cognates, for the sake of discussion Westerholm uses the terms ´dikaios,µ ´dikaiosness,µ and ´dikaiosifyµ (passive: ´to be dikaiosifiedµ) to indicate the Greek words îÀôëóøÏ, îóôëóøûÂ÷ò, and îóôëóÁþ. First, Westerholm describes what he calls ´ordinary dikaiosnessµFthat is, the dikaios language as it normally functions in the Old Testament and Paul. He notes that, ´Dikaiosness . . . is what one ought to do and what one has if one has done it; it is required of all human beings.µ118 This is deter-mined by noting the contrast between dikaiosness (and its cognates) and apocalyptic eschatology in The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 292²294, as indeed the Divine Warrior and his heavenly council were important in the development of earlier prophetic material. Miller points out: ´2WKHUH[DPSOHVFRXOGEHFLWHGEXWLWLVsufficient to say that the conception of the divine assembly around the throne of Yahweh formed a basic element in the Israelite understanding of prophecy.µThe Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 68. 7KHLPDJHU\RI<DKZHK·VKHDYHQO\FRXQFLOFRXOGWDNHRQERWKa martial and forensic coloring, because Yahweh was both warrior and judge; see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 105; Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 67. Nowhere does this become more evident than in Joel 3:9²12 (MT 4:9²12), which depicts a war on the Day of the Lord and then Yahweh taking his seat (pre-sumably, as we have seenRQWKHWKURQH WRMXGJH 07 ,Q0LOOHU·VZRUGV´+HUHLVVWURQJLQGLFDWLRQRIWKHFORVHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHLPDJHU\RI<DKZHKDVwarrior and Yahweh as judge of the nations.µThe Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 138. The defeat of those forces opposed to God culminates in his forensic judgment from the throne. 116 Stephen Westerholm, 3HUVSHFWLYHV2OGDQG1HZRQ3DXO7KH´/XWKHUDQµ3DXODQGHis Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 117 0DUN$6HLIULG´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/Dnguage in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early -XGDLVPµLQ-XVWLILFDWLRQDQG9DULHJDWHG1RPLVP9ROXPHF7KH&RPSOH[LWLHVRI6HFRQGTemple Judaism, HG'$&DUVRQ3HWHU72·%ULHQ, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 415²´3DXO·V Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,µLQ-XVWLILFDWLRQDQG9DULHJDWHG1RPLVP9ROXPHF7KH3DUDGR[HVRI3DXO, ed. '$&DUVRQ3HWHU72·%ULHQDQG0DUN$6HLIULG7übingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 39²74; Christ, our Righteousness: PauO·V Theology of Justification (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000). 118 Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 272. 72 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) sin (and its synonyms).119 Westerholm points out that for Paul, what ´one ought to doµ has been established by God in his ordering of creation.120 It is therefore not surprising to learn that the *) word group that he draws upon from the Old Testament is closely associated with a norm.121 In turn, ´One is dikaios . . . when one does dikaiosnessFwhen, in other words, one lives as one ought and does what one should.µ122 Finally, ´To be dikaiosified . . . is, in effect, to be given the treatment appropriate to one who is dikaios; in a legal context it means to be declared innocent of wrongdoing, or acquitted. When the last judgment is in view, it means to have one·s dikaiosness (rectitude) acknowledged by God.µ123 These three 119 6RIRUH[DPSOHLQWKH6HSWXDJLQW3V´\RXORYHGGLNDLRVQHVVDQGKDWHGODZOHVVQHVVµ +ñ¼òûëÏ îóôëóøûÂ÷ò÷ ôëe  öÀûòûëÏ ¼÷øöÀë÷ (]´ZKHQWKHGLNDLRVRQHWXUQVDZD\IURPKLVGLNDLRVQHVVDQGFRPPLWVDWUHVSDVVµ  ÷ üR  øûü½ëó ü<÷ îÀôëóø÷  ô ü&Ï îóôëóøûÂ÷òÏ ë{üøv ôëe øó¿û/ ëú¼üþöë; see also Deut 9:5; 2 Sam 22:21²22; Ps 14:2; Prov 8:8; 11:6; 14:34; 15:9; Isa 33:15; Ezek 18:21, 24; 33:14, 19). Seifrid HPSKDVL]HVWKDW´IIZHDUHWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHODQJXDJHRIULJKWHRXVQHVVLQ3DXO·VOHWWHUs rightly, we must interpret its central elements as echoes of biblical usage.µ´3DXO·V Use RI5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHµ7KHVDPHXQGHUVWDQGLQJLVIRXQGLQ3DXODVKHVHWVdikaiosness in opposition to sin (öëúüÀë Rom 6:13, 18²20) and lawlessness ( ÷øöÀë, 2 Cor 6:14; see also 2 Tim 2:22). 120 Referring to the most obvious example of this in Rom 1:18²KHFRPPHQWV´:Hare born into a world not of our own making, and incur thereby, and in the course of living, obligations that we may shirk or defy but that no human fiat can set aside.µPerspectives Old and New on Paul, 266. As creatures, humans must worship God (Rom 1:19²21, 25) and human use of sexuality must respect the ordering God has provided (Rom 1:26²27). Paul goes on to argue that God can justly judge all people because they all by nature know this ordering (Rom 2:14²15). 121 Seifrid is very sensitive to the importance of context for lexical semantics. Yet he VWURQJO\VWDWHVWKDW´WKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIULJKWHRXVQHVVWHUPLQRORJ\WRYDULRXVLQDQLPDWHobjectVLWVDVVRFLDWLRQZLWK¶XSULJKWQHVV·DQG¶truth·, its connection with retribution in IRUHQVLFVHWWLQJVDQGLWVUHODWLRQWRSDUDOOHOFRQFHSWLRQVRI¶ULJKWHRXVQHVV·LQRWKHUFXO-tures in the Ancient Near East all render dubious any attempt to dissociate the ter-minology from the concept of a norm.µ´3DXO·V 8VHRI5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHµ 122 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 272. Ezek 18:5 says that the man is dikaios who does (= øóF÷) dikaiosness. The same understanding is stated in a negative form when Paul says in Rom 3:10 that no one is dikaios and then goes on in the rest of the catena (3:11²18) to list the sins they commit (the person is not dikaios who is not doing dikaiosness; see also 1 Tim 1:9). 123 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 272²273. Within judicial contexts in the Septuagint, îóôëóÁþ PHDQV´WRILQGWREHGLNDLRVµRU´WRGHFODUHLQQRFHQWµ´WRDFTXLWµ7KH2OG7HVWDPHQWHPSKDVL]HVWKDWMXGJPHQWPXVWGLNDLRVLI\WKRVHZKRKDYHthe status of being dikaios (Deut 25:1, îóôëóÃûþûó÷ ü<÷ îÀôëóø÷) and it forbids judgment from dikaiosifying the ungodly (Exod 23:7, ø{ îóôëóÃûïóÏ ü<÷  ûïì&; see also Isa 5:23). The same meaning is found in Paul, who after stating the principle that God renders to HDFKDFFRUGLQJWRKLVZRUNV 5RP JRHVRQWRVD\LQ´)RULWLVQRWWKHKHDUHUVRI Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 73 uses are illustrated by Solomon·s prayer that God will üøv îóôëóFûëó îÀôëóø÷ îøv÷ëó ë{üR ôëü ü%÷ îóôëóøûÂ÷ò ë{üøv.124 This ´ordinary dikaiosnessµ provides the foundation for understand-ing the ´extraordinary dikaiosnessµ that is found in Paul.125 In Romans 5:8, Paul says that while we were yet sinners (!üó öëúüþõF÷ A÷üþ÷ 'öF÷) Christ died for us. Then he adds in 5:9 that dikaiosified now (îóôëóþù½÷üïÏ ÷v÷) by his blood we will be saved through him from the wrath of God. In ordinary dikaiosness, to dikaiosify a sinner is a violation of God·s will (Deut 25:1; Exod 23:7). Yet after describing Christ·VUROHLQWKLVprocess in Romans 3:24²25, Paul explicitly states in 3:26 that God is dikaios as he dikaiosifies (ïkÏ ü< ïn÷ëó ë{ü<÷ îÀôëóø÷ ôëe îóôëóøv÷üë). It becomes clear that because of Christ·s saving death, God is dikaios when he judges sinners who have faith in Christ to be dikaios (something that in ordinary dikaiosness they are not).126 Because of Christ·s death (and resurrection) in Romans 5:17, Paul speaks of the gift of dikaiosness (ü&Ï îþúïÏ ü&Ï îóôëóø-ûÂ÷òÏ), that is, because of Christ the believer possesses what one has for doing what one oughtFeven though he or she has not done it of their own.127 the law who are dikaios before God, but WKHGRHUVRIWKHODZZKRZLOOEHGLNDLRVLILHGµ(ESV modified). Those who do what God commands are dikaios and this will be ac-knowledged by God as such (they will be dikaiosified). The same understanding is IRXQGLQ*DOZKHQ3DXOTXRWHV/HY´7KH one who does them shall live by WKHPµ7KHRQHZKRGRHVZKDW*RGFRPPDQGVZLOOKDYHOLIHWKDWLVZLOOEHDFNQRZO-edged by God as dikaios. 124 3 Kgdms 8:32 (cf. 2 Chron 6:23). Westerholm cites this example and indicates that in more normal English it means WR´ILQGLQQRFHQWRIDQ\ZURQJGRLQJWKHXSULJKWSHUVRQDQGVRUHQGHUWRKLPDFFRUGLQJWRKLVXSULJKWQHVVµPerspectives Old and New on Paul, 265²266. 125 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 273. 126 In the same way, Paul says in Rom 5:19 that while through the disobedience of the one man the many were made to be sinners (öëúüþõøe ôëüïûü¼ùòûë÷), through the obedience of Christ (his death on the cross) the many will be made dikaios (îÀôëóøó ôëüëûüëù¿ûø÷üëó 1RWHWKDWLQWKH´QRZDQGQRW\HWµRI3DXO·VFKULVWRORJLFDOO\-focused apocalyptic eschatology he can describe the Christian as dikaiosified now (5:9), while also affirming that the believer will be dikaiosified at the final eschatological judgment (5:19). 127 6HH:HVWHUKROP·VWUHDWPHQWLQPerspectives Old and New on Paul, 273²283. He ZULWHV´7KHQHFHVVDU\SRLQWRIFRQWLQXLW\EHWZHHQ3DXO·V extraordinary and his ordi-QDU\XVDJHVRIWKHWHUPLQRORJ\LVIRXQGLQWKHYHUEIRU3DXOWRRLWPHDQV¶WUHDWas one ought to treat the dikaios,·¶DFTXLW·3DXO·VH[WUDRUGLQDU\XVDJHRIWKHQRXQDQGDGMHFWLYHmay be said to take their cue from this meaning of the verb: îóôëóøûÂ÷ò now means not rectitude but the (paradoxically just) acquittal of the heretofore sinful; îÀôëóøÏ now means not the upright but the one so acquitted. To adapt our encapsulation of ordinary 74 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) Finally, there are texts in Paul that refer to God·s dikaiosness. Just as Romans 5:17 speaks of the gift of extraordinary dikaiosness, Philippians 3:9 refers to the righteousness which is from God (ü%÷  ô ùïøv îóôëóø-ûÂ÷ò÷) and sets this in contrast to a ´righteousness of my own that comes from the law.µ The same understanding makes good sense in Romans 10:3 where Paul contrasts God·s dikaiosness (ü%÷ üøv ùïøv îóôëóøûÂ÷ò÷) with the effort by the Jews to establish their own dikaiosness.128 Traditionally, Lutherans have seen this gift of extraordinary dikaiosness from God as being expressed in the phrase, ´dikaiosness of Godµ (îóôëóøûv÷ò ñú ùïøv; Rom 1:17).129 More recent work has called attention to the background that Psalm 98:2 provides to Romans 1:16²17 and the manner in which this calls the traditional interpretation into question.130 Because of the parallel between ´salvationµ and ´righteousnessµ in Psalm 98:2 (and elsewhere),131 it has become axiomatic among many Pauline scholars that salvation is essen-tially a synonym for the dikaiosness of God, and that the latter phrase is to be understood as ´covenant faithfulness.µ132 usage to the extraordinary, we may speak of acquitting (îóôëóøv÷) the wicked, thereby granting them the gift of acquittal (îóôëóøûÂ÷ò) and thus making them acquitted (îÀôëóøó µ1DWXUDOO\WKHUHFXUULQJ´LWZDVUHFNRQHGDVGLNDLRVQHVVµ  õøñÀûùò ïkÏ îóôëóøûÂ÷ò÷) in Romans 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22 expresses the same idea. 128 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 285. 129 In the 1519 treatise, ´7ZR.LQGVRI5LJKWHRXVQHVVµ/XWKHUZULWHV´7KURXJKIDLWKLQ&KULVWWKHUHIRUH&KULVW·VULJKWHRXVQHVVEHFRPHVRXUULJKWHRXVQHVVDQGDOOWKDWKHKDVEHFRPHVRXUVUDWKHUKHKLPVHOIEHFRPHVRXUV7KHUHIRUHWKH$SRVWOHFDOOVLW¶WKHULJKWHRXVQHVVRI*RG·LQ5RP>@µMartin Luther, /XWKHU·V:RUNV American Edition, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955²1986), 31:298. 130 In Romans 1:16, Paul describes the Gospel as the power of God for salvation (ïkÏ ûþüòúÀë÷), and then in 1:17 he says that this is so because the dikaiosness of God (îóôëóøûv÷ò ñú ùïøv) is revealed in it. This bears an obvious relationship to LXX Psalm ZKLFKVD\V´The Lord has made known his salvation (ü< ûþü¿úóø÷ ë{üøv); he has revealed his righteousness (îóôëóøûÂ÷ò÷ ë{üøv) before the nationsµIn the psalm, ´VDOYDWLRQµLVSDUDOOHOWR´ULJKWHRXVQHVVµDVLWVSHDNVRI*RG·V saving action (LXX Ps 97:1² LQDZD\WKDWPDNHVLWGLIILFXOWWRGHIHQGWKHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQWKDW´dikaiosness of *RGµLQ5RPUHIHUVspecifically to a righteousness that God gives to the individual. 131 Psalm 71:15; Isaiah 46:13; 51:5²6, 8; 59:17; 61:10; 62:1. 132 'XQQ·VFRPPHQWLVW\SLFDO´*RGLV¶ULJKWHRXV·ZKHQKHIXOILOOVWKHREOLJDWLRQVKHWRRNXSRQKLPVHOIWREH,VUDHO·V*RGWKDWLVWRUHVFXH,VUDHODQGSXQLVK,VUDHO·Venemies (e.g., Exod 9:27; 1 Sam 12:7; Dan 9:0LF F¶ULJKWHRXVQHVV·DV¶FRYHQDQWIDLWKIXOQHVV· [Rom] 3:3²5, 25; 10:3; also 9:6 and 15:8). Particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah the logic of covenant grace is followed through with the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the righteousness of God as Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 75 However, Seifrid has convincingly demonstrated that in the Old Testa-ment dikaiosness is a matter of creational theology and not specifically cov-enantal.133 God is the King who has ordered his creation, and because of sin and injustice he will carry out a vindicating action to restore the just and proper order.134 This action is not limited to Israel but, as seen in texts like Psalm 98, includes all people and the whole creation.135 Although the emphasis falls on the way this dikaiosness brings salvation to the op-pressed, it inherently involves judgment on those who pervert and oppose God·s order.136 Yet this action does not only deal with people. It also *RG·V act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenantµ Dunn, Romans 1²8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 41. 133 Seifrid observes that -+ and *) rarely occur near each other. While covenant (-+) occurs 283 times and *) WHUPLQRORJ\RFFXUVWLPHV´\HWLQRQO\VHYHQpassages do the terms come into any significant semantic contact.µ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ +HJRHVRQWRQRWH´,QELEOLFDOWHUPVRQHJHQHUDOO\GRHVQRW¶DFWULJKWHRXVO\RUXQULJKWHRXVO\·ZLWKUHVSHFWWRDFRYHQDQW5DWKHURQH¶NHHSV·¶UHPHPEHUV·¶HVWDEOLVKHV·DFRYHQDQWRUWKHOLNH2UFRQYHUVHO\RQH¶EUHDNV·¶WUDQVJUHVVHV·¶IRUVDNHV·¶GHVSLVHV·¶IRUJHWVRU¶SURIDQHV·LWµ6HLIULGFRQFOXGHV´$OO¶FRYHQDQW-NHHSLQJ·LVULJKWHRXVEHKDYLRUEXWQRWDOOULJKWHRXVEHKDYLRULV¶FRYHQDQW-keeping.·µ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµFurthermore, Seifrid points out that texts like Psalm 7:1²18 and Psalm 11:1²7, in which God is a righteous judge who also brings wrath, prevent us from reducing the concept RIGLNDLRVQHVVWR´VDOYDWLRQ.µ´3DXO·V 8VHRI5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHµ²43. This finds confirmation in the fact the Septuagint translators do not translate the *) -terms with ûþüòúÀë or words based on the ûþü-root; VHH´3DXO·V8VHRI5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHµ51²52. There are other problems as well with the notion that dikaiosness in Paul is ´FRYHQDQWIDLWKIXOQHVVµ; see Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 286²296. 134 6HLIULGFDOOVDWWHQWLRQWRWKHDVVRFLDWLRQGLNDLRVQHVVKDVZLWK´UXOLQJDQGMXGJLQJµ7KH *) root and 'X root occur within five words of each other in 142 contexts. ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ+LVVWXG\UHYHDOVthat the feminine noun *þ) refers to a righteous act/vindicating judgment or state that results from it (probably functioning as a nominalization of the KLS·O stem of the verb), while the masculine *) VLJQLILHVWKHPRUHDEVWUDFWFRQFHSWRI´ULJKWRUGHUµRU´WKDWwhich is morally right.µ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ 135 ´1DWXUDOO\KHDFWVLQIDLWKIXOQHVVWRZDUGVKLVSHRSOHFRQWHQGVZLWKWKHLUenemies, and executes judgment on tKHLUEHKDOI<HWKLVDFWVRI¶MXVWLILFDWLRQ·GRQRWUHSUHVHQWPHUH¶VDOYDWLRQ·IRU,VUDHORUHYHQPHUHO\¶VDOYDWLRQ·7KH\FRQVWLWXWHWKHestablishment of justice in the world which Yahweh made and governs . . . . The nations are to anticipate that Yahweh will bring about justice for them, even as he has done it for Israel.µ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ441. SHHDOVR6HLIULG·Vhelpful discussion in Christ, our Righteousness, 38²45. 136 Seifrid suggests that the frequency of salvific assRFLDWLRQV´VWHPVLQSDUWIURPWKHFRQFUHWHQHVVZKLFKFKDUDFWHUL]HVPXFKRIWKHELEOLFDOXVDJHSURPLVHVRI*RG·VLQWHUYHQWLRQWR¶ULJKW·WKHZURQJVLQWKLVIDOOHQZRUOGVWDQGDWWKHFHQWHURIWKHELEOLFDO76 Concordia Theological Quarterly 77 (2013) vindicates or ´justifiesµGod as God over against disobedient and rebellious creatures.137 The creational theology of God·s righteousness explains why cosmo-logical outcomes accompany and complement the forensic judgment in Paul·s writings. God·s eschatological action restores the just and proper order for humanity and creation. The primary focus in 3DXO·V letters rests upon human beings, because they alone were created in *RG·V image (Gen 1:27) and were given stewardship over creation as *RG·V representatives (Gen 1:28, 2:15). This judgment of human beings occurs in a forensic way at the judgment seat (ì&öë; Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10). But at the same time the enactment of God·s righteousnessFhis justifying workFinherently in-cludes a cosmological dimension. It makes all things very good once again (Gen 1:31).138 This background helps us to understand that the dikaiosness of God in Romans 1:16 includes the traditional Lutheran understanding, but also involves more than just acquittal based on the gift of extraordinary dikaiosness from God. It is the saving action by which through Christ God shows himself to be dikaios (Rom 3:26), even as he gives the gift of dikaiosness to sinners who have faith in Christ (Rom 3:23²25). It is also the action by which he is vindicated as God who judges sinners (Rom 3:4).139 Westerholm is correct when he concludes regarding Romans 1:17, interest. This perspective does not exclude divine recompense of the wicked, it rather presupposes it.µ´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ 137 This is seen in texts like Isa 1:27²29 and 5:14²17, ZKHUH*RG·VGLNDLRVQHVVprompts people to repent or be humbled, and exalts God. It is also seen in texts like Exod 9:27; Lams 1:18; Neh 9:33; Dan 9:7, 14, 16, where sinners who have been overcome E\*RGPXVWDFNQRZOHGJHWKDWKHLVGLNDLRVVHH6HLIULG´5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHLQWKH+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVµ´3DXO·V8VHRI5LJKWHRXVQHVV/DQJXDJHµ44; Christ, our Righteousness, 43²45. 138 :HKDYHVHHQWKDWWKHPRGHORI´WZRWUDFNVµXVHGE\0DUW\QDQGGH%RHUWRprivilege the cosomological over the forensic in 3DXO·V thought is not valid. The fact that WKHUHLVDFRVPRORJLFDOFUHDWLRQDODVSHFWWR3DXO·VXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIULJKWHRXVQHVV justification is itself still a valid point. This emphasis in Martyn continues the line of WKRXJKWGHYHORSHGE\(UQVW.lVHPDQQ´7KH¶5LJKWHRXVQHVVRI*RG·LQ3DXOµLQNew Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168²182. In different ways, Peter Stuhlmacher has also noted the creational setting of righteousness language in Paul in Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1: Grundlegung, Von Jesus zu Paulus, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997), 327²341. 139 ´$VZHKDYHDUJXHGHOVHZKHUHLWLVFOHDUIURPWKHVHFRQWH[WVWKDWZKHQ3DXOVSHDNVRIWKH¶ULJKWHRXVQHVVRI*RG·KHGRHVQRWUHIHUWRDQDEVWUDFWGLYLQHDWWULEXWHEXWWKHHYHQWRI*RG·VMXVWLILFDWLRQRYHUDJDLQVWIDOOHQKXPDQLW\ZKLFKSDUDGR[LFDOO\LValso Surburg: Rectify or Justify? 77 Hence, if îóôëóøûÂ÷ò is not simply *RG·V gift of acquittal here, we must say it is that salvific activity by which God·s commitment to uphold the right is vindicated at the same time as sinners (those guilty of the un-dikaiosness of 1:18) who believe the gospel become dikaios (in accordance with Habakkuk·s dictum). This may seem overloaded, but each as-pect of the clarification is amply attested in the chapters that follow, and Paul clearly means 1:17 to serve as a heading for his subsequent argument.140 Therefore we can conclude that when explained in the manner described above, ´righteousµand ´righteousnessµ serve as very suitable renderings of îÀôëóøÏ and îóôëóøûÂ÷ò. With Westerholm, we can agree that ´declare righteousµ is an accurate translation of îóôëóÁþ.141 Since this is what Lutherans mean by ´to justify,µ they are completely accurate and true to Paul when they use this word to translate îóôëóÁþ within the framework of forensic eschatological judgment.142 the justification of the fallen human being.µ6HLIULG´3DXO·V Use of Righteousness /DQJXDJHµ 140 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 285²286; emphasis original. He JRHVRQWRDGG´,QVKRUWboth ZD\VRIXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHWHUP DV*RG·Vgift of ac-TXLWWDORUDVWKHVDOYLILFDFWE\ZKLFK*RG·VVXSSRUWRIWKHPRUDORUGHULVVKRZQDWWKHVDPHWLPHDVVLQQHUVDUHDFTXLWWHG DUHWUXHWR3DXO·VWKRXJKWZHQHHGQRWKHUHGHFLGHbetween them in ambiguous cases.µ Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 286; emphasis original. 141 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 286. 142 By identifying justification as the central article of the faith, Lutherans have not simply privileged one biblical metaphor over others. Instead they have focused upon the culPLQDWLQJHVFKDWRORJLFDOHYHQWRI*RG·VVDYLQJZRUNLQ&KULVWFWKHIRUHQVLFMXGJ-ment of the Last Day. This event provided the goal for Paul (Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5;10; 2 Tim 4:8). It did for the Confessors as well, ZKRZURWH´%\PHDQVRI*RG·V grace we, too, intend to persist in this same confession until our blessed end and to appear before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ with a joyful and undaunted heart and con-science.µ3UHIDFHWRWKH%RRNRI&RQFRUG