Was not the central message of the Apostle Paul his rejection of any objective dimension to the work of God which could be focused in piety, religious practices, or ethical behavior in such a way as to turn man’s attention toward the human works instead of toward the gift of God? Does not the insistence that justification is by faith alone and through grace alone, apart from any correlation with works of any kind, undercut any radical ethical and social concern by implication, even if Paul himself may not have been rigorous enough to push that implication all the way? If we truly join with classic Protestantism in considering the proclamation of justification by grace through faith to be the point at which the gospel stands or falls, must we not then interpret the ethical tradition which Paul took over from Jewish Christianity and share with his Gentile churches as a vestige of another system, destined to fade away?
From John H. Yoder’s, The Politics of Jesus, 1972, pp 216-17.
When I first read this I had to assume that Yoder was being facetious or ironic. Perhaps he’s mocking a radical existentialist reading of justification by faith alone (a la Bultmann or Tillich)? But in fact, he goes on to attempt to prop up this ‘strawman’ reconstruction by appealing to Krister Stendahl’s now famous essay, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Following Stendahl’s logic, Yoder argues that Paul’s fundamental concerns were not our modern preoccupation with personal acceptance and amnesty, or the existentialist anguish over authenticity, which have so shaped post-Enlightenment Pauline scholarship. For Saul was not looking to alleviate a guilty conscience or his anxiety over the law (e.g., Nietzsche’s caricature in "The First Christian"), nor, as Luther had, to find a smiling God of grace behind the frown of God’s law (cf., E. P. Sanders, "Paul and Palestinian Judaism"). Rather, he argues (anticipating J. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright), the former Pharisee’s question centered on the identity of Christ as Messiah, and the consequent formation of a new (eschatological) people. And so Yoder writes regarding the apostle’s polemics against the Judaizers,
"The basic heresy he exposed was the failure of those Jewish Christians to recognize that since the Messiah had come the covenant of God had been broken uopn to include the Genitles. In sum: the fundamental issue was that of the social form of the church."
Thus the Pauline doctrine of justification is basically social in nature.
For example, considering Galatians 2:14ff., he asks, "What does ‘justified’ mean here? Can it really mean, as Protestant tradition assumes (Lutheranism most sweepingly, but the Anglican and Reformed liturgies give the same testimony), that it refers only to the quasi-judicial status of man’s guilt before God, which is annulled or amnestied by a declaration of the judge in response to the act of faith?" After citing Markus Barth’s essay on the "social character" of justification (in which Barth argues that "Justification in Christ is thus not an individual miracle happening to this person or that person, which each may seek or possess for himself. Rather, justification by grace is a joining together of this person to that person, of the near and far;…it is a social event"), he on goes to write,
"To be justified is to be set right in and for that relationship. ‘Justification’ is, in other words, in the language of Galatians the same as "making peace" or "breaking down the wall" in the language of Ephesians."
Really? Does the Pauline term of "justification" entail a ‘horizontal’ reconciliation between men? Or is that a separate though related doctrine of the apostle?
Of course, the traditional Protestant understanding of justification has distinguished the legal and declarative nature of the divine work from the social dimension of its theological consequences (i.e., ecclesial unity). Since we have been first reconciled to God through Christ, it was understood, we are now, subsequently, reconciled to one another in Him (Eph.2:12-20). But Yoder rejects this, asserting instead that "the relationship between divine justification and the reconciliation of men to one another is not a sequential relationship…" Like Wright, Yoder seems to redefine "justification" in terms of the social reconstitution of the people of God. And so the answer to the question he poses above is resoundly negative: justification is fundamentally not a "legal fiction," as he styles it, by which the sinner is declared righteous (simul justus et peccator).
Not only does Yoder’s critique of historic Protestantism often seem misdirected - as it appears he is reading much of Protestant scholarship through the lens of late 19th century Ritschlism and, especially, 20th century existentialism - but (like a lot of "New Perspective" literature I’ve read), false dichotomies abound. He is particularly uncareful in setting the positive functions of the Law over against its negative aspects, as articulated by the Reformers (e.g., pp.219, 230). And, I would argue, pitting Paul’s eschatological and messianic reorientation at his conversion against the traditional notion of a radically new doctrinal and experiential knowledge of divine grace revealed in Jesus Christ is not only unnecessary but misleading. Saul not only experienced Christ’s terrific Lordship on the road to Damascus, but also His profound mercy and grace (such as was unknown in the Law, cf. Ac.13:39). Moreover, surely Saul’s "robust conscience" suffered some pangs from the Law of God (e.g., Ro.7:5-11; cf. 3:20b). Certainly his broad sinfulness and root depravity were seen clearly in retrospect, if not before (Ro.7:12-24; cf. Yoder, p.221).
In particular, and I think most importantly, Yoder dichotomizes the historic doctine of justification by faith alone and the Reformed doctrine of good works.
Ironically, in light of his echoing Stendahl’s charge that we modern exegetes have read our dilemmas into Paul’s, it would seem that Yoder’s modern sensibilities have gotten the better of him here. Note this strange (or at least strange to premoderns) comment regarding the epistle to the Romans:
"The foreground meaning of the issue of the place of the law was not systematic theological speculation about how men are to be made acceptable to God, but rather the very concrete Roman situation in which Jew and Greek, legalistic Christian and pagan Christian needed to accept one another."
In other words, the social dimensions of the faith are "concrete," i.e., real, whereas the spiritual dimension of reconciliation to God is "systematic theological" and ‘speculative’, i.e., abstract. Yet such a peculiar framing of the issues could only find traction in what sociologist P.A. Sorokin refered to as the "sensate culture" of modernity. For us moderns, the social aspect takes on weightier significance as the tangible and imminent ‘embodiment’ of religion. Our relationship to one another is apparently more substantial than a relationship with the invisible God, and frankly, more consequential. Whereas, in the ideational culture of the medieval world, one’s relationship to God was very "concrete," and extremely ‘real’, as it had been for Luther and his contemporaries. Moreover, implicit in this argument is his persistent dichotomy between the introspective or psychological and the social or historical aspect (e.g., p. 228).
Interestingly, Yoder finds it necessary to end his chapter on "Justification by Grace through Faith," by reaffirming his qualification:
"The element of debate in the presentation may make it seem that the ‘other’ or ‘traditional’ element in each case…is being rejected. It should therefore be restated that…such a disjunction is not intended. We are rather defending the New Testament against the exclusion of the "messianic" element. The disjunction must be laid to the account of the traditional view, not of ours. It is those other views that say that because Jesus is seen as sacrifice he may not be seen as King, or because he is seen as Word made flesh he cannot be seen as normative man."
And so, he asserts, his arguments are not ‘either/or’ with regard to the traditional view (i.e., historic evangelicalism), but ‘both/and.’ But in fact it does seem, despite his qualifiers, that such disjunction is precisely what his arguments suggest. At the very least, his arguments imply that the "traditional view" must be rejected for its allegedly undue narrowness and the "disjunction" of biblical doctrines. But, honestly, I don’t see how this conclusion can be fairly drawn regarding the historic Protestant paradigm of justification by faith. Is such a charge just or honest with the history of theology? In particular, the question that must be addressed is this:
Does the legal aspect of justification by faith alone (as understood within the Reformational tradition) effectively nullify the essential role of good works, and/or the social dimension of Christian spirituality? Does justification by faith render ethics theologically superfluous?
To quote the apostle Paul, "May it never be!" (Ro.3:31)
Re: Yoder on Paul and Protestantism
Reading Kingjames 1’s comment is a bit like passing his study and overhearing some musings, but having missed many hours of reflection and meditation which had preceded them, and also not identifying the wider context which the musings seek to address (beyond Yoder).
Since, for me, the connections here are between what KJ1 says about Yoder, and James Dunn/N.T. Wright and the NPP, I am simply picking up (without having read ‘The Politics of Jesus’) what appears to be Yoder’s contrast between social and personal issues in the interpretation of ‘justification by faith’, in which Yoder’s Mennonite interests and agenda come to the fore.
These differ from Wright’s development of the NPP, in which ‘justification’ is a declaration of vindication at the final judgement, made effective in advance for those who believe in the messiah, and that as such it is not the way into the community of the redeemed, but a way of identifying them once they are in. This might appear to present justification as a social phenomenon, but actually it is more theological than social - and leads to an ordo salutis that looks something like this: the kerygma of Jesus is proclaimed (insert an alternative word to ‘proclaimed’ according to your postmodern preference); faith is generated in the hearts of those who hear; a willing surrender to Jesus as Lord is enjoined; baptism becomes the means of signifying this faith and surrender, and entry into new creation realities, on both a personal and social level.
This sounds similar to classic Calvinism - which it is, and more akin to Calvinism than Lutheranism - where the stress seems to fall on the continuing failure of the individual to live up to the moral requirements of a holy God, and ‘justification by faith’ being the lifebelt which is continually thrown to him in his distress, not least at the final judgement. (Is this a caricature?)
Romans 7 works in the NPP paradigm as a personification of Israel under the Law. At least, it does in Wright; Sanders questions whether there was ever a Jew, then or now, who spent hours in introspective torment of the kind which Romans 7 describes. But then Paul always seemed to have a ‘robust conscience’ as well. I personally think we can have the best of all worlds here - Romans 7 being a historic outline of Israel’s corporate anguish over her failure, especially in the light of historic judgements which highlighted it, but also being a commentary on Paul’s own personal sense of failure - more in retrospect than at the time, perhaps, and having application to the believer today when confronted with the actual state of his moral nature - Krister Stendahl’s uneasy western conscience notwithstanding.
I am probably stepping beyond my theological competence in Calvinism and Lutheranism here, but the whole ‘works/faith’ dichotomy falls down when we see that the NT presents the final judgement as a place where believers and unbelievers are both judged for ‘works’, the former having already passed through the judgement which faces unbelievers, but now being judged for the works which proceeded from faith - a judgement for rewards (thus making sense of Romans 8:4, Romans 2:6,7,9,10, and Romans 2:13-16 especially and a great deal of Paul elsewhere). Perhaps KJ1 can help me here: am I correct in believing that Calvinism does include judgement of works for believers, but Lutheranism tends to stress ‘justification by faith alone’ as the believer’s sole plea both now and at the final judgement?
And does this have any relevance on a website supposedly devoted to developing a postmodern theology for a postmodern world?
Re: Yoder on Paul and Protestantism
Thanks Peter…and you’re probably right about the obscurity of much of the musings. I am presupposing a familiarity with both the NPP and Yoder’s work. Really, Yoder’s summarization of the issues anticipated Sanders, et al. Of course, as many scholars have noted, Sanders’ ‘revolution’was not so much in articulating a radically new position regarding Paul’s relation to Judaism, as in synthesizing what was ‘floating’ about in contemporary Pauline scholarship, and articulating it coherently (if somewhat unconvincingly to some) under the rubric of ‘covenant nomism’ (with a few minor modifications here and there for Paul’s soteriology).
Regarding my comment about Wright’s ‘social’ picture of justification, you are quite right to point out his eschatological focus (indeed center) of justification. However, as I understand Wright, that eschatological/covenantal pronouncement or status is made known in the present, and this is manifested in a new community (of Jew and Gentile). This becomes for Wright not merely the consequence of justification by faith (as for the ‘traditionalists’), but the very heart of the issue. As Wright states in What St. Paul Really Said, "’Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God [contra the historic Protestant understanding]. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people….In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church."
In a word, justification is about the (re)constitution of God’s people - now centered on Christ rather than the Torah. It has a fundamentally social (horizontal) dimension. Wright, however, is more careful than Markus Barth to include the so-called ‘forensic’ dimension as well. Though how he integrates these together exactly eludes me still. I guess I should read his newest book on Paul.
This is what I meant by a ‘social’ "redefinition" of the term - and I say ‘redefinition’ because I do not see that that is the meaning of the Greek term, nor do I know of any lexicon that supports this meaning. Declaration of righteousness certainly fits…but a declaration of covenant-membership I cannot find anywhere, NT or otherwise.
About Romans 7, I have never found the corporate man (i.e., Israel) interpretation compelling. There is far too much being presupposed in such exegesis (e.g., Wright’s metanarrative for 1st century Israel), in my opinion. The context and language all seem to point unambiguousuly to the struggle of the individual, Stendahl’s insistence that such ‘introspection’ didn’t happen in the ancient world notwithstanding (he apparently is unfamiliar with the Psalms).
Regarding the doctrine of justification in relation to works, I am not as familiar with the position of historic Lutheranism on the matter as I am w/Calvinism. I am aware of some of what Luther himself had to say in this regard, however, and understand that he saw works, much like Calvin, as the necessary product of faith, the result of a renewed heart.
But I would say this, both Luther and Calvin would insist emphatically that faith in Christ alone justifies them, whether now or then, before the thrown. Our good works, according to Calvinism, have no merit with which to secure justification, but rather give evidence of/vindication to our justification by divine grace (cf. Jas.2:22-23, noting when Abraham was justified with respect to his obedience). As Calvin famously put it, "our salvation is by faith alone; yet the faith that saves is never alone."
Regarding works/faith dichotomy, I’m not sure it breaks down altogether. Certainly they belong together, functioning in concert. However, Paul clearly dichotomizes works and faith/grace in his theology of the gospel (e.g., Ro.3:27-28; Gal.2:16; 3:2, 5), and sees something very important at stake here (and not merely negatively in his polemics against the Judaizers, but also in his positive understanding of grace, cf. Eph.2:8-9; Ro.4:2-6; 9:32, 12; 11:6; 2Ti.1:9).
Even in his argument against a "faith without works", James yet presupposes a distinction (Jas.2:14-20) in urging their ‘integration’ or coextenstiveness. In otherwords, I am not sure it helps the matter to collapse the dichotomy under the ambiguous rubric of "faithfulness." It seems faith and works are distinct acts or aspects of ‘faithfulness’.
And finally, Peter, you ask: "And does this have any relevance on a website supposedly devoted to developing a postmodern theology for a postmodern world?"
Why wouldn’t it? Are these questions any less relevant today than they were in the premodern or modern world? Are we any less interested in understanding Paul’s theology for our postmodern context? And is the tradition of the church (ancient or recent) irrelevant in that search for understanding? Or has this site presupposed the irrelevancy of the whole question of justification, righteousness, salvation, faith, and obedience - the very locus of Pauline soteriology?
Justification by faith and the narrative context
I would suggest that we do have a problem with a too abstract understanding of justification by faith as a consequence of the Protestant tradition but that it is not resolved simply by bringing a social dimension into view. We also need to take into account the narrative setting presupposed by Paul - which also constitutes my answer to Peter’s question about the relevance of this issue to a post-modern theology.
My argument would be that Romans was written to address a crisis that must be understood in the first place as a matter of historical and eschatology narrative: How is the people of God, heirs of the promise to Abraham, to survive the coming judgment, the wrath of God, which would materialize historically in the form of the Roman war?
This is the significance of the two key Old Testament texts about justification/righteousness and faith that Paul makes use of. First, Abraham had faith in the promise that despite not having an heir his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of heaven, and it is counted to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; cf. Rom. 4). This ‘justification by faith’ has to do with the promise that his family would have a future.
Secondly, when Habbakuk sees destruction coming upon Israel because of its wickedness, he is told that the righteous will live, will survive the destruction, by their faith - that is, by the faithfulness, steadfastness, perseverence, trust in God, in the face of political-military crisis (Hab. 2:4; cf. Rom. 1:17). Again, the link between faith and justification has to do with the question of whether God’s people have a future when confronted with the possibility of annihilation.
In neither case is justification/righteousness by faith simply forensic. There is certainly a forensic aspect to it but that is basically a metaphor, in my view, for the concrete belief or hope that the community would survive the impending crisis of judgment, that the family of Abraham had a future. This is the fundamental narrative framework for Paul’s argument about justification. It has to be stretched to embrace the Gentiles - they are incorporated into a community that faces the wrath of God and will likewise be justified only by trusting that God will see them through the crisis of the end of the age, not by adopting the ‘works’ of Judaism - or, for that matter, the ‘works’ of paganism.
The significance of Jesus’ act of faithfulness is precisely that he anticipated the threat to the existence of God’s people. He trusted that the people had a future even in the face of the death and destruction that would be inflicted by Rome. God justifies the community that faithfully walks the path that Jesus determined and will bring that community to the life of the age that comes after the wrath of God against Israel. It is in this historical sense that the ‘faith’ of the community becomes concrete.
Justification in Paul's eschatology
While Peter and KJ1 have argued that there are problems with your eschatology, Andrew, one of the things I love about it is that it really does make the biblical text ‘click’ into place. By forcing myself to read Paul, and the rest of the NT, through your eschatology, a number of things which once had been quite blurry come into focus very nicely (particularly talk of 1st and 2nd resurrections, and the 1st and 2nd deaths). This of course, doesn’t necessarily mean everything you say is correct, but when a framework works, it certainly tips the scales in its favor. For that reason, your take on justification is very compelling.
What can be done to ensure scholarly interaction with your thesis?? As Peter has mentionned in the past, your rereading of the NT is far too important to be left alone. Are you aware of any critical responses to the COSM thesis (other than those on OST, of course)? I’d love to read more on this.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Justification in Paul's eschatology
Excursus
“First resurrection” - yes; “second death” - yes: but “second resurrection”? “first death”?
End of excursus
Very observant. But you
Very observant. But you don’t think that ‘first resurrection’ implies at least a ‘second resurrection’ or that ‘second death’ implies a ‘first death’?
Re: Justification by faith and the narrative context
Andrew writes,
I’m not sure that Romans was penned specifically to address this eschatological crisis per se, but I would agree that this is indeed central to Paul’s theology, and, as I read it, simply presupposed throughout Romans (e.g., note Paul’s ‘a priori’ regarding God’s cosmic, eschatological judgment in Ro.2:5-11; 3:4-6).
Here, of course, I would disagree. Rome’s "war" with Israel is tangential to Paul’s concerns in Romans - at best, a present, historical manifestation of God’s judgment against and rejection of unbelieving Israel, which for Paul was already evidenced in Israel’s rejection of the gospel (cf. Ro.3:3; 11:7-10, 20-22, 28a; Gal.4:24-31).
Indeed, and more specifically, that through his ‘seed’ all the nations of the earth would be blessed (cf. Gal.3:6-8, 16).
Insightful connection. Yet, I would also add that the threatened annihilation of Israel in Habakkuk was clearly divine judgment, whereas the potential ceasation of Abraham’s line rested not on judgment but on divine grace, of God’s promise to a barren Abraham and Sarah. That promise of (essentially resurrection, cf. Ro.4) life continues for all who would believe God, and thus walk in Abraham’s steps (whether circumcised or not).
Actually, though, the Gentiles qua Gentiles were under divine wrath already. Cf. Eph.2:3; Ro.1:18ff.
Like Abraham, they believe the promise of God regarding life through the ‘seed’. Life, however, is more than national existence. It is eternal and spiritual (i.e., in communion with the Triune God).
Faith is evidenced, then, by survival? Is that what you mean by "faith of the community" becoming "concrete" historically? And justification is that survival?
Re: Justification by faith and the narrative context
I think you downplay the significance of the theme of wrath in Romans. Paul’s argument sets out from the premise that the wrath of God is revealed against both Jew and Gentile. The gospel is the ‘power of God’ which will save from this two-fold ‘wrath’ (Rom. 1:16-17). It is fundamentally because of wrath (as an outworking of the law) that the good news of forgiveness and life is needed.
‘Wrath’ and ‘day of wrath’ in the Old Testament always refer to a concrete, historical expression of judgment such as the Babylonian invasion or Antiochus Epiphanes’ assault on Judaism. This is not accidental - it is precisely the judgment prescribed by the ‘law’ which condemns Israel (eg. Deut. 28:25-26). This is also a key part of Paul’s argument in Romans: the law cannot justify a sinful people because it condemns them to destruction for their failure to keep the covenant. You cannot make appeal to Paul’s argument about the law in order to make sense of ‘justification by faith’ without taking into account the concrete nature of the judgment that the law prescribes.
Why would Paul not think in these terms, especially when Jesus had very clearly predicted judgment on Israel in the form of military invasion and the destruction of the temple? Paul was writing to a community of believers in Rome ten years before that war started and ten years before they were to suffer considerable persecution. It is surely absurd to suppose that these impending historical realities were not of the utmost importance for him in writing to them about judgment, justification and salvation.
God’s wrath against Israel is evidenced in their rejection of the gospel, as you suggest, but it is not limited to that. The gospel is offered to them precisely as a way of avoiding the wrath of God. If they do not accept the gospel, they will not escape condemnation. You cite, for example, Romans 3:3, but the argument is quite clear: because they were unfaithful, God is justified in inflicting wrath on the Jews (3:5-6). One thing leads to another.
What that ‘wrath’ consists of is indicated in Romans 9:22: the Jews are ‘vessels of wrath made for destruction’. Only a remnant will be saved (9:27) - that is, only a few will not become like Sodom and Gomorrah (9:29). What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? They were destroyed. Paul is not thinking abstractly or metaphysically - he is thinking concretely and historically. The quotation from Isaiah 10:20-21 reinforces the point: only a remnant of Israel will be saved from destruction by the Assyrians. Paul’s argument about wrath, which draws consistently on the Jewish scriptures and the logic of the law, is an argument about the concrete historical reality of a national disaster that he saw coming upon his people.
The importance of this is further underlined by the emotional tenor of his argument in Romans 9-11 in particular: ‘I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart’ (9:2); ‘my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved’ (10:1). It upsets him that his refractory people are running headlong towards political catastrophe.
No, justification is not the survival - survival or ‘life’ is the outcome of justification. Israel faced destruction - the wrath of God - because of unfaithfulness. That remnant which is faithful will be justified because its faith is expressed as trust in the story about Jesus. If you like, this is the forensic part: their trust in this alternative path means that they are no longer condemned, no longer under wrath, no longer subject to destruction.
But what that trust means concretely for the community is a willingness actually to walk that path, to remain faithful to the God of Israel, to believe that he will safeguard their future, even when it is threatened by pagan hostility, as it moves through the crisis of the end of the age. This is not an abstract faith: the community will confess Christ in the face of opposition and will be justified for that act of faithfulness. ‘Faith’ is the active, living commitment of the community to confess Christ believing that only in this way will the heirs of Abraham (including those Gentiles who have been attached to the original stock of Israel) escape annihilation and find life.
Re: Justification by faith and the narrative context
Andrew, you write,
No, I don’t think so. I would agree that the theme of divine wrath is central, and the necessary backdrop to the "good news"of salvation through faith (as I argued earlier, the reality of God’s judgment is simply presupposed throughout, e.g., note Paul’s response in Ro.3:5-6). However, I would not identify God’s wrath so tightly with AD 70. That wrath is both a present reality (manifested from the heavens against the pagan Gentiles), and a future, cosmic crisis in which all men will receive their just and final recompence from God (2:5-10).
Yet in the destruction of Jerusalem, the righteous along with the wicked suffered and died (e.g., it is doubtful that all Jewish Christians in the city escaped the catastrophe). But if this is God’s fianl recompense for men’s deeds, surely this cannot be!
This is of course a matter of debate. The traditional understanding of "day of wrath" in the OT has been that it refered to both the historical judgments against Israel, as prescribed in the Law (i.e., covenant sanctions), but also to a final, eschatological judgment of universal proportions. In the ‘proto’ apocalypse of the Song of Moses (Dt.32), Moses’ language transcends that of the geo-political sanctions of the law-code into a poetic description of cosmic dissolution and final judgment. As many have pointed out, Israel’s view of history was unique in that it was teleological rather than cyclical, culminating in a final day of vindication/salvation, i.e., "the day of the Lord". In particular, the ’historical judgments’ against Israel are seen as ’all of a piece’ with the final judgment, adumbrations, and even the ‘birth pangs’ beginning of that great, eschatological crisis. Such a scheme is also in keeping with the apocalyptic literature of 2nd Temple Judaism. I.e., this appears to be the Jewish comprehension of the Law’s curses and blesses, climaxing in a cosmic judgment/vindication of suprahistorical character.
I would agree, though, again, since the Law contemplates the eschatological judgment against Israel and the nations, I would include the traditional understanding of "judgment" or "day of wrath" under that rubric. Certainly in the understanding of Jewish apocaplyptic literature (as well as the traditional Christian understanding), such a ‘day of the Lord’ is "concrete," to say the least.
On this note, you write:
I don’t think the traditional understanding is abstract or metaphysical - it is very concrete and physical. It entails the destruction of the world as we know, the resurrection of the dead, and a very ‘concrete’ recompense for the damned, as well as the righteous.
I agree that Paul is very emotionally involved, but his concern is not ultimately their political existence as a state, but their eternal salvation/damnation (cf. 2Th.1:6-10).
Re: Justification by faith and the narrative context
This comment has been moved here because the discussion rather drifted away from the theme of justification by faith.