Channels, Fall 2016

Page 38 Reis • Justification by Faith: A “Both-and” men, or even like the tax-collector. This demonstrates that having pride in one’s ethnicity or even religion could lead to a self-righteous view of oneself. Therefore, even though the teachings of the 4QMMT “reveal nothing of the self-righteous and boastful ‘legalism’ which used to be thought characteristic of Jews in Paul’s day”, 75 it does not exclude the possibility that Jews at the time, because of the pride rooted in their cultural distinctiveness and reli- gion, no longer recognized their unconditional election in Abraham and their need for daily grace in order to abide under God’s commandments. Amazingly, such can be true even within the Christian community. Christians can become self-righteous because they have high moral standards in comparison to society, were born in a Christian family, or avoid deep immoral sins by regularly committing themselves to church and religious activities. For this reason, one cannot deny the possibility that Paul could have had in mind a type of “ethnocentric legalism” when addressing the failure of justification by “works” and the ne- cessity of “faith” in order to deliver the believer from any type of legalism, which deeply of- fends the heart of God. Conclusion Throughout the paper, much was said concerning the Pauline doctrine of justification and how it should be interpreted. Currently, the concern for the correct understanding of the doctrine is a heated and considerably debated topic among scholars who either embrace the traditional view or believe the New Perspective interpretation to be more persuasive. In the midst of the discussion, there are also those who seek to find middle ground between the opposing positions, which is the case of both Michael F. Bird 76 and Kevin Vanhoozer. 77 I recommend both of their works; however, one should be very careful when reading them since the impossibility of compatibility regarding distinct views is real. Much can be com- promised when attempting to find common ground while knowing that they successfully summarize both points and, then, formulate valid positions based on the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Similarly, in this paper, I defended that a deeper under- standing of the doctrine of justification requires a “both-and” approach instead of an “ei- ther-or.” Although there are ecclesiological implications in Paul’s theology of justification, his primary focus was soteriological. In the first section of the paper, the terms “works of the law,” “the righteousness of God,” and “justification” were defined according to the NPP interpretation, which was followed by some observations responding to these definitions. Lastly, I argued for a “both-and-end” approach by providing three main arguments. The first one contained Thomas R. Schreiner’s three successful observations found in his article, T he Saving Righteousness of God in Christ, with the intent to prove that “justification”, for Paul, conceives the idea of being made right with God. Secondly, the NPP’s failed to inter- pret Romans 4:1-8. Lastly, it was highlighted that, although the Jewish religion is not founded upon a legalistic system, a work-based salvation religion, one must not exclude the possibility concerning the presence of an “ethnocentric legalism” 78 among Second Temple 75 Wright, “4QMMT and Paul: Justification, Works, and Eschatology,” 106 76 Bird, “What is there between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? A Third way in the Piper-Wright debate,” 299- 309. 77 Kevin Vanhoozer, Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation. 78 Hassler, “Ethnocentric Legalism and the Justification of the Individual,” 314.