I don’t even remember where I found the recommendation for Douglas Campbell & Jon DePue’s book Beyond Justification, but first it languished for a while on my Amazon wish list, and then it languished for a while on my to-read bookshelf. But now that I’ve finished it, I’m wondering why in the world it took me so long to pick it up. Campbell, a professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School, and DePue, an educator and former student of Campbell’s, team up here to write a very accessible theological work that is a revelation when it comes to justification theory as addressed by Paul.

In Beyond Justification, Campbell and DePue start by outlining their view of the story of salvation: of being “in Christ” (a phrase they say Paul uses nearly 160 times in the NT), of a God who loves humanity and wants to be reconciled. Then, in chapter 4, they recognize what they call the “great conundrum” of justification theory in the sense set out by people like John Piper. (Piper’s position is used as the debating partner throughout the book.) The conundrum, they say, is that for about 90% of what Paul writes, we get from him the view of God and salvation in the loving, reconciliatory vein they describe up front. But in the other 10% of Paul we get language that tempts us toward Piper’s interpretation: God as primarily holy, angry against sin, and salvation through judicial satisfaction via Jesus’ unmerited death. How do we reconcile these?

They spend the rest of the book first by examining different 20th century approaches to this problem, including chapters devoted to E. P. Sanders, J. D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. (What is it with all these theologians going with their initials?) Then, one chapter at a time, they do analysis on each of the first three chapters of Romans and then Romans 10.

Why is this such good news?

There’s way too much to try to sum up in a blog post, but the key interpretive move they make here (which makes a lot of sense to me) is suggesting that Romans 1-3 consists not of one long Pauline excursus, but rather a hypothetical conversation between Paul and a Jewish Christian teacher whose teaching Paul is opposing. This Q&A format was a common Greek discussion pattern, and while it’s not easily discernible in the text, the authors suggest that this conversation between Paul and the Teacher would’ve been performed by the messenger who brought Paul’s letter to its audience and read it to them.

As proposed here, the Teacher’s argument is that salvation must come through the law, and that unbelievers and Gentiles have a natural understanding of their own sin and need for God’s forgiveness, but that they reject God and therefore are deserving of judgment. Paul objects, saying that no one can be saved by the law, but that salvation is by being in Christ at the mercy of a loving God.

The Conversation

Here’s a taste of how it lays out:

Paul: “I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the deliverance of God is revealed through faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The Righteous One through faith will live.’” (Rom 1:16-17)

The Teacher: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them… So they are without excuse, for though they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…” (Rom 1:18ff, they suggest The Teacher’s discourse goes all the way through verse 32)

Paul: “Therefore, oh man, you, along with all who are judging, are without excuse! For in passing judgment on one another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things… For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. (All of Romans 2)”

Then Paul interrogates The Teacher’s view that salvation comes through following the Jewish law.

Paul: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Teacher: Much, in every way. For in the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.”

Paul: What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Teacher: By no means! Although every human is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified in your words and you will prevail when you go to trial.”

Paul: But if our injustice services to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Teacher: By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

Paul: But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?

Teacher: Their judgement is deserved!

Paul: What then? Are we any better off?

Teacher: No, not in every respect…

Paul: We charge that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin… Now we know that, whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human will be justified before him by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

If you’ve gotten this far in the post, just go read the book.

I mean, seriously, it’s worth a read. Campbell and DePue carefully explain how they see each part of Paul’s argument working out in Romans 1-3 and Romans 10, and put the pieces together to demonstrate how, in this interpretation, the judgmental “10%” texts in Romans don’t need to cause anyone hesitation; that we can rely fully on the 90% of Paul that tells us of a loving reconciliation through the power of Jesus’ resurrection.