Jackson W., Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019. 231 pages, including discussion guide, bibliography, three indices.
Though this book is not entirely without merit, it suffers from several fundamental flaws that are fatal to its basic thesis. It thus resembles the author’s dissertation, published as Saving God’s Face, which I have evaluated in a long review.[1]
Strengths
First, the author would seem to possess excellent credentials for undertaking the task stated in the title and subtitle. As E. Randolph Richards puts it in the Foreword, “Jackson is an expert. He was born and raised a westerner but has spent most of his adult life in the East. He is fluent in an Eastern language, is deeply immersed in an Eastern culture, has been studying Eastern worldviews for decades, and has a keen interest in how modern Eastern Christians interpret the Bible.”
Second, he notes that we all read the Bible from within our own cultural perspectives. “By reading Romans with Eastern eyes, we can discern key ideas and applications often overlooked or underemphasized by Western interpreters. An Eastern lens equips readers to see the significance of honor and shame in Paul’s message and mission” (2). Thus, he wants to help Western readers see things that Paul meant to say but that we miss because of our Western cultural lens. That might help us confront the recent rise of a “fame-shame” culture fostered by the widespread use of social media.
Personally, I found the reminder that God saves us from our well-deserved shame to be very encouraging.
The author alerts us that “this book is not a commentary. Instead, it makes a modest scholarly contribution by considering how East Asian culture can help us interpret Romans” (3). That would seem to be a reasonable goal. “If you are looking for an exegetical book on Romans, you have come to the right place,” writes E. Randolph Richards in the Foreword. He qualifies that claim a few sentences later, saying, “This book is also not a commentary.” The book does go paragraph-by-paragraph through Romans, with comments about context and meaning and flow of Paul’s argument. Perhaps by saying that this is not a commentary, he wants to free himself from the obligation to comment on every sentence and every word. I’ll return to this later.
His discussion of how cultural backgrounds affect readers of the Bible, and of the major differences between “Eastern” and “Western” cultures, is helpful.
His chart showing how honor and shame-related words appear in the Bible is extremely valuable, as is his overall thesis that honor and shame are major categories in the New Testament.
He also explains how important honor and shame and “face” are to most East Asians, including Chinese. That being the case, when we share the gospel with them, we should do so in a way that acknowledges this fundamental concern of theirs and point how the Bible speaks to honor and shame.
He includes extremely helpful sections at the end of each chapter that question our motives, our narrow-mindedness, our ethnocentricity, and our tendency to identify with “insiders” and reject or neglect “outsiders.”
One strength of this book is consistency: The entire book focuses on one theme, honor-shame, and excludes everything else. The product is a tightly argued exposition of his theory that the gospel found in Romans speaks mostly to the twin ideas of God’s honor and the honor (or shame) we gain (or lose) by honoring him.
JW shows himself to be very conversant with writings by advocates of the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP) with which, despite some qualifications, he mostly seems to agree. The New Perspective on Paul maintains that Paul in Romans is not talking mainly about how we can be saved, but about who is saved. Paul’s message, it is said, concerns the identity of the people of God. The gospel is that Gentiles as well as Jews can become members of God’s people.
According to the NPP, first-century Jews were not legalistic, as has been commonly supposed, but emphasized grace. Their fault was that they used so-called “boundary markers,” such as circumcision, to exclude non-Jews from membership in the people of God. To the NPP, “law” in Romans refers almost exclusively to the ceremonial law; JW asserts that this is Paul’s meaning in 2:12–15 and 3:21, 27, 28, especially.
Accordingly, JW argues throughout that Paul wants to convince Jews that Gentiles can also be members of the people of God. In that way, they will abandon their ethno-centric prejudices and welcome people of other cultural backgrounds into the church. They will also support his ministry to people in Spain, whom they considered “barbarians.”
Now, there is no doubt that the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s saving design is a major implication of the gospel. If we are saved by grace, and not by keeping the Mosaic law, then people of all races, backgrounds, etc. are included in that salvation. In writing to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and in his preaching as recorded in Acts, Paul showed how God’s mercy comes to Gentiles as well as Jews. As JW points out, that truth must control our thinking also, not only about whom we accept as fellow Christians, but also to whom we will send evangelists with the good news of salvation by grace through faith in Christ, apart from the Mosaic law.
Finally, by calling himself “Jackson W.,” and explicitly identifying himself as a Caucasian American, the author clears up the confusion that was caused for a number of years by his use of the pen name “Jackson Wu.” That name misled people into thinking that he was an “Easterner” speaking as an “insider,” when he was not. The Editor’s Note says that “Jackson is not Chinese and does not claim to be. He has not used that pen name from an intent to mislead readers about his ethnicity.”
Problems
Despite the notable strengths that I have mentioned briefly, several serious weaknesses greatly weaken the credibility of the book as a careful work of exegesis that gives us the true meaning of Romans.
These include:
A Radical Re-Interpretation of the Gospel
Already in the first chapter, he fires a shot across the bow of traditional “Western” theology by quoting Enoch Wan: “The message of the Gospel within the Chinese cultural context should be characterized by the emphasis on honor, relationship, and harmony, which are at the core of traditional Chinese cultural values. It should be different from [traditional Western theology]’s overemphasis on the forensic nature of the Gospel, the legal dimension of Christ’s penal substitution and divine satisfaction” (11).
Please re-read that quotation. JW and Enoch Wan are explicitly rejecting the core elements of the Christian gospel as understood in the West for at least 1,500 years.
In other words, JW will offer not only another perspective on the central message of Romans, but an alternative gospel.
Paul’s teaching on salvation from sin, God’s wrath, the devil, death, etc., through the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a substitutionary atonement has long been taught in the Christian church. This doctrine was not a “theory” invented out of thin air or derived from Roman law; it was found in the Scriptures.
In the early church, to take only one exegetical example, John 1:29, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” was interpreted as a reference to substitutionary sacrifice by Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, the Venerable Bede, Augustine of Hippo, Melito of Sardis, Ambrose, Romanus Melodus, and Theodore of Mopsuesta.[2]
During the Reformation, it was not Luther’s alleged “guilty conscience” that drove the Reformers to emphasize the saving work of Christ upon the cross, but their own exegesis of the relevant passages. The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for our redemption from guilt and wrath was stated by David Dickson, Desiderius Erasmus, Wolfgang Musculus, Johannes Bugenhagen, Lancelot Ridley, and Martin Bucer, just to name a few interpreters aside from Luther and Calvin.[3]
More recently, in the twentieth century, New Testament scholars found the same doctrine in the texts of Paul’s letters.[4] In particular, Leon Morris’s The Cross in the New Testament and John Stott’s The Cross of Christ provide exegetical grounds for the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.[5]
The same is true for his assertion that the Greek word dikaio “describes the recognition by God of the worth of a person who has already been transformed by participation in Christ” (84) and “being justified entails ‘being considered a worthy recipient of salvation’” (85). The entire section is very muddled, but JW’s intent is clear. He means to re-define justification so that it no longer means the gift of imputed righteousness to one who believes, but the recognition of existing moral worth.
Much of the Reformation revolved around the meaning of justification. To overthrow this cardinal Protestant doctrine, JW has to refute the arguments found in countless books and articles.[6] I have re-read the works cited in the note below and do not see that JW has engaged their exegesis, let alone shown why his new interpretation is correct.
To replace this understanding of Paul’s writings about the death of Christ and our appropriation of its benefit by faith, one must demonstrate an exegetically superior interpretation of all the relevant texts. But this is precisely what JW fails to do. Here is some of the evidence for this assertion.
Faulty Perspectives
The fundamental weakness of this book is that it begins with faulty perspectives.
He quotes David K. Clark, who wrote that “the idea that one can achieve an acultural theology [is a] fundamental fallacy” (1). It is true, as JW says, that we all read the Bible from our own cultural perspective, and that theologians from just one culture cannot grasp the full wealth of biblical teaching.
But (1) this does not mean that we cannot come to a theology that closely reflects and correctly interprets the teaching in the broad outline and even the main details of the Scriptures. We do this by careful exegesis that interprets Scripture by Scripture. Indeed, that is what JW tries to do. He seeks to build a case for his thesis from careful observation of Paul’s text, in context.
Furthermore, “Western” theology has been reaffirmed by millions of believers and thousands of theologians and biblical scholars in Africa and Asia as well as the West. The main contours of this theology are found in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist counterpart to it, the Lausanne Covenant, and probably thousands of “statements of faith” written by churches and Christian organizations on all continents and in hundreds of cultural settings. The Lausanne Covenant of 1973 was signed by thousands of evangelists and church leaders from all over the world. To negate these by claiming that they are all bound by “Western” culture is an act of great presumption. In addition, (2) if we are to take this theological relativism seriously, then we must include TW’s “Eastern” theology as well.
JW assumes that the gospel of law-sin-sacrifice-propitiation-forgiveness-reconciliation to God will be rejected by Chinese people, who are more concerned with shame and corporate belonging.
As I have written elsewhere:
Here he seems not to show awareness of some aspects of the history of Christianity in China. The nineteenth-century missionaries almost all preached such a message, and they gained converts almost everywhere. True, they met with opposition, and they had to explain the meaning of ‘sin’ (zui) with reference to a holy and righteous God, who was universal Lord and King. Their letters and records are filled with instances of Chinese people of all classes who accepted this message as ‘good news’ of forgiveness. In the twentieth century, foreigners like Jonathan Goforth, and Chinese like Wang Mingdao, Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng), and especially John Sung (Song Shangjie) saw hundreds of thousands of people express repentance for sin and faith in a Christ who suffered on their behalf.
(For more on these men and other similar figures, see the online Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity [www.bdcconline.net] and G. Wright Doyle, editor, Builders of the Chinese Church.)
Recently, I was sent the galley proofs of a forthcoming book of sermons by house church leaders in China. In every single sermon, the “traditional” gospel of salvation from the guilt of sin through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ was emphasized.
JW – and the NPP schools generally – seem to think that they are the first to discover the fundamental importance for Paul of the inclusion of Gentiles – that is, non-Jews – in the Body of Christ. Ever since my conversion in 1965, I have heard that Christ has broken down the dividing wall of hostility between people of all sorts. As a missionary in training, I was taught this, and have experienced it for decades. It is common knowledge among all Christians. But JW seems to write as if he is introducing a new concept, despite its presence in previous works on Paul’s theology.[7] Reformation commentators also emphasized the unity of all believers, Jew and Gentile, as the great new fact of salvation history.[8]
Likewise, JW writes as if the “Eastern” view of our corporate identity as members of community of believers is a new idea. On the contrary, older books on Paul’s theology pointed this out. To take only one example, Leon Morris long ago wrote: “Life in the Spirit has a markedly corporate style. Those saved in Christ are brought into the fellowship of the church.”[9] Perhaps the outstanding example of the recognition of the corporate aspect of salvation is Herman Ridderbos’s Paul: An Outline of His Theology, cited above. It would appear that JW has never read this fundamental resource for Pauline Theology.
The first major problem with the NPP interpretation of Paul lies in its reliance upon extra-biblical sources as a controlling lens for reading the New Testament. The assumption is that extra-biblical sources must control our reading of the Bible.
This contravenes the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura – that is, the Bible alone is our authority. A corollary of this principle was that the Bible itself, not external authorities such as church tradition, the Pope, or philosophy (specifically Aristotle), should interpret itself. NPP’s deployment of extra-biblical literature to determine their exegesis of Paul violates this principle.
The second problem is that the NPP rests upon very controversial and partial readings of Second Temple period Judaism. The NPP assertions about Judaism in the time of the New Testament have been subjected to careful scrutiny and have been found to be unwarranted. As an aside, I will add that I asked our pastor about this. He received a B.A. and an M.A. in biblical backgrounds from Hebrew University, and a Ph.D. in Hebrew studies, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, from the University of Texas. To my question of whether the Jews in Paul’s time were as legalistic as commonly supposed, he said, “Absolutely. The evidence is conclusive.”
The “traditional” view of Judaism in Paul’s time resulted from careful examinations of the relevant texts. Older interpreters such as George Ladd who propounded this characterization of Jewish legalism relied on these Second Temple documents.[10] In more recent years, that perspective has been reaffirmed in several scholarly works.[11]
The third problem with JW’s perspective is that he uses shame and honor as controlling categories for interpreting Romans. As I have said, he does demonstrate the importance of shame and honor for biblical writers. That is different, however, from “reading Romans through Eastern” – that is, shame and honor – “eyes.” Any time we come to the Bible with an extra-biblical perspective, or when we over-emphasize one element in the Bible that happens to conform to a particular culture, we run the risk of misinterpretation. That is why the Reformers insisted upon Sola Scriptura: The Bible should be interpreted according to its own overall message, taking all relevant passages into account.
Let me repeat that JW does try to demonstrate how the contexts of key passages in Romans support his overall thesis. It is, indeed, an exegetical study.
Faulty Exegesis
On the other hand, his exegesis suffers from serious flaws. For example:
Faults of commission
Improper, or at least incomplete, definitions of key words.
“Glory” (doxa in Greek) “does not primarily indicate ‘splendor’ or the ‘visible manifest presence of God.’”[12] Instead it is taken always to mean “honor, reputation, fame, or ‘face.’” This narrowing of the scope of the meaning of doxa ignores extensive evidence from the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, and the New Testament itself that “glory,” when applied to God, has a primary meaning of “luminous manifestation of his person, his glorious revelation of himself.[13] Characteristically, kabod is linked with verbs of seeing . . . and appearing.”[14] This essential quality of majesty, beauty, splendor, can be given to humans who believe in God, especially in the New Testament.
JW consistently ignores this aspect of the meaning of doxa to fit his own thesis. In the process, he ignores passages like Matthew 4:8; 6:29; 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 17:1–6, with 2 Peter 1:16–17; Luke 2:9–14; 9:31, 32; 14:10; 24:26; John 1:14; 2:11; 11:4, 40; 12:41; Acts 7:2, 55; 22:11; 1 Corinthians 15:40; 2 Corinthians 3:7–11, 18; 4:6, 17; Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14, 17, 18; Philippians 3:21; Colossians 1:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:24; 5:4; Revelation 15:8; 18:1; 21:11, 23, 24. Within Romans, “glory” and glorified” in 6:4 and 8:18-30 surely move beyond the bare concept of “honor.” See also John 7:39 and 1 Peter 1:8.
The number and importance of these certain references to something wider than “honor” not only challenge his interpretation of 1:1:20–23; 3:23; and 8:29–30. They call a major feature of JW’s thesis into question. They also challenge his exegetical method, which appears to be highly selective.
“Law (nomos)”: JW treats this word with greater nuance, but consistently downplays, and sometimes even negates, the fact that “law” in Romans (and elsewhere in Paul and the NT) often includes commands about moral behavior. It encompasses the entire moral law, as seen most clearly in Romans 13:8–9. As early as 2:12–15, 17, “law” must include the ethical commands of the Ten Commandments, for Paul indicts the Jews for violating, stealing, adultery, and idolatry. In 3:13–16, he accuses them of misuse of the tongue (an aspect of bearing false witness), murder, and a general lack of reverence toward God. In 7:7, Paul singles out the last commandment (against coveting) as a representative requirement of the law.
These passages are fatal to the argument that Paul is only talking about ceremonial markers of belonging to the people of God. No, he is invoking the moral law of God to show that all have violated his revealed will and have become lawbreakers.
They also show that the issue in Romans is not social and cultural distinctives - a fundamental assumption of JW and the NPP - but our moral standing before a holy God
To quote my review of Saving God’s Face again:
Wu constantly characterizes a focus upon law in the Bible as a “Western” over-emphasis. Here, his argument loses some credibility, for two reasons.
First, he does not explain how “law” came to be so important in Western civilization. It is true that Europeans have been greatly influenced by Roman law, especially after the Enlightenment. On the other hand, Western law shows almost everywhere the imprint of biblical law. Canon law formed an essential element of the great code of Justinian. The Ten Commandments were repeated and expounded in the code promulgated by Alfred the Great . . . There are over 700 appearances of the word “law” in the English Bible. Nomos and related words are used two hundred times in the New Testament. He admits in a footnote that 1 John 4:3 says that “sin is lawlessness,” but insists that this is only one perspective (which is of course true, but perhaps not in the way that he asserts). Without going into detail, I will just register my opinion that Wu’s treatment of sin as relational, which is basically correct, does not do sufficient justice to the entire legal matrix of guilt-punishment, obedience-righteousness in Scripture, including Paul.
He seems also to ignore ‘traditional’ Western theological works that display an awareness of God as king and lawgiver. (E.g., Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 1981; Thomas Shreiner, The King in His Beauty, 2013.)[15]
“Faith” (pistis): Yes, it sometimes refers to the faithfulness of God to his covenant or to the faithfulness of Christ as a filial son to his Father (see Hebrews 3:2), but in many, many other passages it must mean subjective faith in Christ or in the gospel. Some of these include: Romans 10:9, 10; 11:20; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 5:7; 15:11; Galatians 3:2, 5; Ephesians 1:17; 3:17–18; Philippians 1:27. Likewise with the verb “believe”: Matthew 8:13; 21:22; Mark 5:36; Luke 8:12; 22:67.
Not only Paul, however, but the rest of the New Testament uses these words for our subjective trust in and reliance upon God’s grace in Christ. See, for example: Matthew 8:1; 9:2, 22; John 1:7; 5:2; 3:16; 5:24, and often; Acts 3:16; 4:4; 6:5; 13:48; 14:9; 15:7, 9, 11; and often; Hebrews 4:3; 11:6; 1 Peter 2:7; and 1 John 4:16; 5:1, 5. These references could be multiplied dozens of times. These passages show that the “subjective” meaning of (faith) is more than possible in the places where JW wants to give it the meaning of Christ’s “faithfulness.” Once again, a key element of his overall argument is shown to be unfounded. As with “glory,” the number and importance of these instances of the “subjective” meaning of “faith” and “believe” are so great that a major element of JW’s thesis is called into deep question.
JW is aware of the intense debate about the meaning of pistis in Romans 3 and 4, and cites studies on both sides of the question. In my opinion, however, (1) though pistis can mean faithfulness as well as faith, we cannot say that subjective faith is not Paul’s main meaning in key passages; and (2) he confuses his argument by combining the two meanings in his exposition.
Over-interpretation, or very problematic interpretation
He says that Paul’s use of the word “servant” to introduce himself (29) “effectively makes him lose face” since servants, or slaves, were not highly regarded in pagan society. In this way, Paul sets an example of humility and challenges their cultural pride. It is much more likely that Paul is invoking the Old Testament usage of “servant” to refer to his privileged position as an apostle. The Patriarchs; Moses; kings, especially David; and prophets – all were called servants of God or of the Lord. Paul uses this title in other letters as well: Galatians 1:10; Colossians 4:12; and 2 Timothy 2:24. So do James, the brother of the Lord, in James 1:1; Peter, in 1 Peter 2:1; and Jude, in Jude 1.
Another major part of JW’s thesis is shown to be built upon a foundation of sand.
False, or at least highly problematic, assertions
JW makes much of Paul’s use of the term “barbarians” and claims that the residents of Spain were considered barbarians by the cultured Romans. Since, according to JW, Paul’s major purpose in writing Romans is to change that church’s sense of cultural superiority, he needs to persuade them to send him to “barbarian” Spain. The problem is that in Paul’s day Spain, having been conquered by Rome two hundred years before, had “developed, economically and culturally, perhaps faster than any other part of the Empire. . . . The Senecas, Lucan, Quintilian, Martial, and other prominent Latin writers of that age, as well as the emperor Trajan and Hadrian, were of Spanish birth.”[16] Another plank in JW’s “cultural superiority” thesis proves to be unreliable.
JW claims that “wisdom” was chosen as a key term by Paul because it was “a basic value in ancient Greek culture” (35). Certainly, the Greeks prized wisdom, but is that where Paul is deriving this term? Like “servant,” wisdom has a rich Old Testament background. There is no space here for a detailed review. Let us just note how wisdom was given to Solomon, who used the term in Proverbs, especially 1:7; 2:1–10; 3:13–26; and personified it in 8:1–9:12. In all, words for wisdom occur more than 350 times in the Old Testament.
Another example: “Paul does not write to individuals but to groups. His readers see themselves not as individuals but as people in community” (36). This statement is highly questionable, to put it mildly. It is an example of the either-or antitheses that JW regularly poses in his book, despite his early claim merely to be furnishing a complementary perspective. The statement is also false.
First and most obviously, Paul wrote letters to Timothy and Titus.
More importantly, even in Romans, reading the Greek, as JW surely does, one sees that Paul uses the second or third person singular many times. For example: see 2:2:1–10 and 13:1–10, where the imperatives and indicatives are all singular. And these are key passages for the question about individual responsibility to observe the law of God. It is true that in chapter two, Paul is not addressing any one single individual, as JW says. On the other hand, he uses the singular here and elsewhere to challenge his readers as individuals to repent, believe, and change their minds and their actions.
JW makes much of collective identity. Of course, collective identity is important in many cultures, and it was to Paul’s readers. JW is correct that Paul wants to emphasize that we must see ourselves as members of a new community, the people of God. On the other hand, JW is – characteristically – overstating the case to bolster his ongoing argument that Romans is not about how to be saved but about who belongs to the people of God. It is all about collective identity, according to JW. These major passages addressing his readers as individuals directly contradict this major emphasis of Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes, and they call his entire project into question.
“Jesus dies for God” (74). “True, Jesus dies for people, but he dies for God above all” (81). JW is trying to show that the death of Christ leads to the “justification” of God as one who keeps his promises. But (1) he consistently downplays, denigrates, or even ignores, the death of Christ for individuals, and (2) the New Testament nowhere says that Christ died “for God.” Always, it is said that he died for us. JW has to violate NT usage to make his point.
“The problem of ‘sin’”
In this section, JW calls attention to what all students of the Chinese Bible, or at least the Chinese Union Version (CUV), and of Chinese culture know: The word usually employed to translate “sin” is zui, which means “crime” in ordinary Chinese. JW states the obvious: When people are told that they are “criminals,” they respond with a strong denial.
He goes on: “The CUV is not necessarily wrong. Rather, it overly constricts ‘sin’ to a single image or motif favored by Western theologians” (41). Sigh. What do we say to such a charge?
First, the translators of the CUV were building upon one hundred years of Bible translation into Chinese. Important terms and their proper rendering into Chinese had been debated. The translators had all lived in China for a long time and were excellent students of the language. Furthermore, they were working with very capable Chinese assistants – one Chinese per Westerner – who helped them avoid mistakes.[17] The word zui was chosen because it was the best term that could be found.
In 2010, I participated in a conference on the Bible in China at London University. All the others at the table, aside from the convener, were Chinese scholars who had specialized in the interpretation of the Bible in Chinese culture. They represented various ecclesiastical and theological traditions. As a Westerner, I brought up this problem with sin as zui, “crime.” To my surprise, during a lengthy discussion, all of these Chinese scholars insisted that there was no better term in Chinese than zui!
Problematic reasoning/exegesis
“Sin” as “crime”
JW objects to the idea of “sin” as “crime” for other reasons: “Translating sin as ‘crime’ creates an unbalanced understanding of God. Chinese Christians confess that God is a ‘Father,’ yet the CUV forces them to speak about God and sin in awkward ways” (41).
All Christians confess God as Father. But biblical passages dealing with sin almost always do so with reference to God as creator, or Lord, or king, or judge, or simply as God. They do not usually invoke him as Father. Thus Romans 1:18–32 refers to God ten times and to his deity once; never is he called Father. Likewise, 2:1–29, in which Paul accuses self-righteous Jews of sin, speaks of God ten times, not once as Father. Romans 3:5–26 speaks of God eleven times, mostly as Judge. Paul does not confuse Roman Christians by saying that their heavenly Father is going to punish them for petty offenses; instead, he calls all people to stand before the judgment seat of God, the creator and ruler of the universe, and the saving God of Israel. This God gave laws at Mt. Sinai, laws which all Jews and all people have broken. In that sense, therefore, we are, in the eyes of our lawgiving God, “criminals.”
Furthermore, the Bible has no trouble associating fatherhood with giving commands to the children. Perhaps the classic passage is Deuteronomy 8:5–6: “You should know in your heart that as a man chastens his son, the LORD your God chastens you. Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God.” In the New Testament, we see Jesus, the Father’s beloved Son, referring to the “command” or “commands” that the Father has given him.[18] The entire antithesis between fatherhood and law-giving is unfounded in Scripture.
“For Paul, sin is not defined fundamentally by the law. Sin existed before the law,” as Paul says in Romans 5:12–14 (47). JW interprets the statement, “those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam” to mean that Adam’s sin did not involve law-breaking. This argument is flawed. True, Adam did not have the written Mosaic Law, so he did not transgress that law. But he did disobey a clear command – a law, if you will – of God (Genesis 2:16–17; 3:2–3, 11). He broke the unwritten, oral law of God.
“What is God angry about?”
“Romans 1:18–32 is the longest discussion about sin in the letter . . . remarkably, Paul never mentions the word ‘sin,’ nor does he talk about ‘law’” (41). JW makes much of these omissions to build a case that Paul is not talking about sin as lawbreaking, but rather as not honoring God: “they worship the creature, not the Creator” (42). At first glance, this seems to be right, for, surely, Paul does emphasize the failure of people to honor God as he deserves. But, as so often in this book, that partial truth is used to make the claim that we should not see sin as lawbreaking.[19] The first problem with this argument is that Paul does mention “sin” and “law” in the two chapters immediately following his charges against the Gentiles in 1:18–32. Romans 2:12–16 shows that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned, though the former are not under the Mosaic law. At the end, he declares “all have sinned” (3:23). In other words, the entire context of 1:18–32 is law and sin. Secondly, worshiping the creature rather than the Creator is a violation of the first commandment of the Decalogue.
“The central gospel message is Jesus as the world’s true king (Romans 1:1–4)” (66).
True, Paul’s gospel is “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead.” But: (1) Notice that this passage does not say that Jesus is king; (2) It does not say that the gospel message is that Jesus is king; (3) Paul says more about this gospel elsewhere, which he calls the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. . . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (1:16–17). There is nothing here about Jesus as king. Furthermore, (4) Paul in 1 Corinthians tells us clearly what he considers to be the central message of his gospel: “Christ crucified” (1:23); and “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (2:2). Most importantly, “I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which you are saved . . . For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (15:1–2a, 3–4). By ignoring clear statements like these, and by reading more into Romans 1:1–4 than is there, JW makes a claim that cannot be supported.
Psalm 51:4: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless when you are judged” (JW’s translation). JW rejects an interpretation of this verse that assumes that David is talking about retributive justice. For one thing, the verse is “incoherent if David says he’ll praise God for his wrath against sin when in fact God saves David” (71). Despite the close and elaborate exegesis JW offers, I believe that he mis-reads the text. The meaning of David’s confession of his guilt is that he has no excuse before a righteous God. His confession of sin is “so that” he can be cited as a witness in case anyone judges God for punishing David. Or, it could be interpreted as, “with the result that” God will be acknowledged to be just should anyone judge him. (Though the Hebrew for “judge”’ is active, the LXX uses the passive voice). David himself has already confessed his guilt. He acknowledges that God would be justified in casting David from his presence and, as he did with Saul, taking away the Holy Spirit from David (51:11). He prays to be delivered from the “guilt of bloodshed,” which he knows should lead to his own death (51:14). Assured of God’s forgiving love, (51:1–2), he asks for a restoration of the joy of his salvation, apparently in faith that he will be saved from punishment (12). Nowhere does this psalm say that David “will praise God for his wrath.” David promises to praise God for his mercy in extending forgiveness rather than justly deserved punishment (51:14–15). JW misstates the psalm and misreads the meaning of 51:4.
JW’s exegesis of Romans 7 fits his overall emphasis upon collective identity. He tries to show that Paul cannot mean himself when he uses the pronoun “I” in verses 13–15. It does not seem to me that he has seriously engaged with the traditional interpretation, or even with commentators like C.E.B. Cranfield, though Cranfield’s book does appear in the bibliography.[20]
In addition, JW argues that Paul is condemning sin, not the sinner, in Romans 7. That would appear to be true for some of the verses, but we cannot so easily dismiss Paul’s description of himself (“I”) in verses 14–25 and say that Paul’s point is to justify the law and “me” and only condemn sin. This passage has often been interpreted – rightly, I believe – as a description of the “normal” Christian life. The Christian is not condemned (see Romans 8:1), but his propensity to sin is shown to be deep-seated, requiring the work of the Holy Spirit to enable us to overcome it. For JW, however, Romans 7 teaches a more optimistic view of human nature, one that resembles that of Confucius. At this point, I must say that throughout his book, in a variety of ways, JW downplays individual sin and guilt in favor of collective honor-shame categories. Though some of his emphasis is valid, the overall thesis is not, in my opinion.
Straw men and other rhetorical devices
“Paul is not an individualist who disregards collective identity” (35). No responsible interpreter would say that Paul is an individualist who disregards collective identity. This is a straw man. The question is, “Does Paul also, and more fundamentally, address individuals and their individual response to the Word of God?”
“‘Breaking law’ is just one way someone dishonors (that is, sins, against) God” (46; see also 48). This statement is true, of course, as JW demonstrates. The problems with this sentence are that (1) No biblical interpreter would claim that breaking God’s law is the only way to dishonor him; this is a straw man. (2) The use of the word “just” is another example of JW’s consistent campaign to downplay the role of law and commandments in Paul’s argument and in Christian soteriology in general.
Likewise, his claim that Paul “uses justification to underscore collective identity, not merely individual salvation” (56). Again, there are two difficulties with this claim:
(1) No responsible interpreter of Paul would maintain that Paul only emphasizes individual salvation, in the sense that individual salvation was the only benefit of justification. All commentators point out that our justification by grace through faith places us into a new community, the people of God, the Body of Christ. This is a straw man.
(2) JW’s persistent attack on “individual salvation” ignores the use of the singular in key passages, as I have shown. Other examples:
· The gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (1:16).
· All the references in 2:1-29 are also in the singular.
· “A man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (3:28); The extended discussion of the justification of Abraham in 4:1–25.
· “Therefore He has mercy on whom (singular) He wills and whom (singular) He wills He hardens” (9:18).
· “If you (singular) confess (singular) with your (singular) mouth the Lord Jesus and believe (singular) in your (singular) heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you (singular) will be saved” (10:9; all the other pronouns and verbs in 10:10–13 are also singular).
In short, JW over-emphasizes collective identity by ignoring too many passages on individual salvation.
“God’s punitive righteousness” (70): JW uses the word “punitive” to refer to what most theologians and Bible scholars have called his “forensic” righteousness. “Punitive” sounds much meaner that does “forensic,” though JW doesn’t like this idea, either.
“Paul doesn’t develop a full-orbed theology of atonement” in Romans 3:24–25a (73). Whoever said that he did? On the other hand, interpreters have found this to be a key passage on the substitutionary atonement of Christ for sinners.
He further misrepresents the traditional interpretation of this passage by saying, with reference to “it was to show his righteousness,” that “[m]any interpreters think God’s righteousness in 3:26 is punitive. In fact, God manifests his righteousness through salvation” (73). Significantly, JW does not say who the “many interpreters” are.
Although I may not have read as many commentaries on Romans as JW has, I have been moving in Reformed and broad evangelical circles for more than fifty years, and I have never heard that God’s righteousness here is punitive. Rather, all agree that God demonstrates his righteousness by providing a substitute for sinners, Jesus, so that those who trust in Christ may be saved – that God may justify them apart from their keeping the law, but rather through faith in Christ and his atoning sacrifice. JW has set up a straw man again.
“Systematic theology should be grounded in biblical theology” (80). JW is right to insist that systematic theologians should use texts in a way that is faithful to their contexts, but this statement, and the entire paragraph in which it stands, sets up a false contrast that ignores the work of more recent systematic theologians, who are careful to honor the original meaning of the author of the passages they cite.[21]
In our understanding of justification: “By settling for moralistic views of justification, the law loses its distinctive Jewishness. If we merely focus on ‘how,’ we might never follow Paul’s example of addressing problems concerning collective identity, loyalty, and tradition” (90). (1) The use of “moralistic” to describe forensic interpretations of justification is pejorative, intended to evoke feelings of dislike; (2) No responsible interpreter “merely” focuses on how we are saved. All the commentaries I have seen discuss the implications of individual justification for our attitudes (chapters 2–3) and our actions (12–15). This is another straw man.
One could quote many more instance of JW’s recourse to straw men and other rhetorical devices to tear down the views of others and build up his own.
One final example: JW frequently criticizes “Western” theologians. As I mentioned previously, even when he posed as a Chinese theologian this sort of generalization lacked force, because JW often caricatured “Western” theology and theologians. Now that he has openly declared himself to be a Caucasian American, the attack on “Western” theologians is even more curious. JW is not only a “Western” theologian and biblical scholar, but he is very much a post-modern Westerner. In addition, he accepts much, if not most, of the very Western New Perspective on Paul. True, he lived and worked in China for more than twenty years. He has a great deal of knowledge and insight into Chinese culture. But he is still a “Western” theologian.
JW is a very clever rhetorician. The question is, Does he succeed in establishing his thesis? For that, more than skillful use of rhetorical devices is required.
Faults of omission
Romans 3:24–25a has long been considered a key text for understanding the meaning of the redemption Christ brought to us. Aside from saying that this passage doesn’t contain a “full-orbed theology of atonement,” as we have seen, JW simply ignores this crucial passage. He gives no exegesis of the words “redemption,” “propitiation,” or “blood.”
He does the same with Romans 5:6–11, which speaks of Christ’s dying in our place to save us from God’s wrath and to procure for us reconciliation with God. Though JW has some interesting things to say here about glory and shame, he totally neglects the clear teaching of salvation through Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice.
As for Romans 8:3, other than saying that Christ suffered as a sin offering, JW offers no explanation of what this means. He just moves on. Is this why early on he said he wasn’t writing a commentary? Does that provide justification for failing to explain critical texts? Furthermore, I believe that his extended discussion of “glory” in Chapter 8 (108–127) suffers from inconsistencies and inaccuracies, not to mention the usual straw man rhetorical devices.
Although the author does include works by proponents of the Traditional Perspective on Paul (TPP) in the bibliography, and occasionally quotes from them, it is not clear how carefully he has read or weighed their exegesis of the relevant passages, other than in his section on the possible meanings of pistis. At least, JW does not interact at length with the long tradition of commentators, going back to the Early Church, who found the substitutionary atonement by Christ to be the center of the Christian message.
To refer again to Romans 3:24–25a, not only does JW not provide an explanation of “redemption” and “propitiation,” but he omits the wide range of other passages from Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament that speak of our forgiveness of sins (and other major blessings, such as reconciliation with God and the gift of the Holy Spirit) through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. These include Romans 5:6–11; 8:3–4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13–14; Ephesians 1:7; 2:14–18; 5:2; Colossians 1:20–22; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18–19; 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; and Revelation 5:9.
Conclusion
It would be tedious to go through all of Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes and point out other instances of flawed exegesis or unwarranted rhetorical moves. As I said earlier, the book has some interesting and helpful things to say about shame and honor, both ours and God’s. On the other hand, the faulty assumptions (what I called “perspectives” for obvious reasons), flawed exegesis, and use of rhetorical devices to caricature those with whom he disagrees all combine to make this volume of limited worth to serious students of Paul and his gospel.
[1]. See G. Wright Doyle, Saving God's Face - Book Review — Global China Center.
[2]. See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament. IVa. John 1-10, edited by Joel C. Elowsky (Downers Grove: IL: IVP, 2006), 68–71.
[3]. See Gerald Bray, ed., Galatians, Ephesians in Reformation Commentary on Scripture. New Testament. X (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 292–296.
[4]. See Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, 56–75; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 186–205. Dozens of other works of the highest scholarship, including many responding directly to the New Perspective on Paul, could be cited here. I mention these because they are older and thus could have been readily available to JW.
[5]. See Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 180–259; John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 66–199.
[6]. For example: George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), 437–450; A. M. McGrath, “Justification,” in Gerald Hawthorne, et al., editors, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: OVP, 1993), esp. 18; Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1986) 69–71; The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 240–247; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Eng. Trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 149–178, H. Seebass, “Righteousness” in Colin Brown, editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol 3. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 362–365.
[7]. For older references to this, see George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 536–539, and Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 334–341.
[8]. See, for examples, the writers on Ephesians 2:17-22 in Gerald Bray, ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture. New Testament. X (Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 297–299.
[9]. Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 80.
[10]. See George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 496–501.
[11]. See D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seigrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001); D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seigrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004); and Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: the “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
[12]. Jackson W., Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes, 22, quoting Haley Gornason Jacob, Conformed to the Image of His Son: Reconsidering Paul’s Theology of Glory in Romans (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 256.
[13]. For the Septuagint (LXX) see, among many passages, Exodus 16:7–10; 24:16–17; 28:2, 40; 33:18–34:8; 34:29–30 with 2 Corinthians 3:14; Exodus 40:34–35; Leviticus 9:6, 23; Numbers 14:10–21; 1 Samuel 4:21; Isaiah 40:5; 60:2.
[14]. Colin Brown, editor, Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 245.
[15]. Saving God's Face - Book Review — Global China Center.
[16]. A.F. Walls, “Spain.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J.D. Douglas. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 1209.
[17]. For the history of the translation of the CUV, see Ann Cui’an Peng, The Translation of the Bible into Chinese (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2021).
[18]. John 12:49–40; 14:31; and elsewhere.
[19]. For a critique of the view that the atonement is primarily about honoring God, see John Stott, The Cross of Christ, 122–124.
[20]. See C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of Romans, vol. 1. International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975).
[21]. With regard to descriptions of God, JW’s point in this section, we need only to look at Carl Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol. 5 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 308; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1994), 156–180; and Gordon R. Lewis & Bruce Demarest, Integrative Theology: Three Volumes in One (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 213–231, to see how unfair and inaccurate JW’s charge is.