As I indicated yesterday, I am doing a final wrap-up of my impressions of Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.
Once again, I’ll summarize with what is sure to be a huge disappointment to my readers: I agree with everyone else. The book is fantastic in its positive program of the apocalyptic reading, especially from Romans 3:20 onward, and unpersuasive in what precedes.
Today I want to cover two topics: the connotation of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (righteousness of God) and Campbell’s 
discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. Unfortunately, however, this “want” is not fulfilled. Only the first is covered!
1. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ
Campbell begins by suggesting that the notion of God’s righteousness is simultaneously a statement about God’s being and God’s action–and that the action tied to God’s righteousness in this case has to do with Christ (680). Taking this angle, Campbell is able to argue that there is little significance in the shift from “righteousness of God” and “righteousness from God” inasmuch as both pertain to Christ. God’s righteousness is a single, saving, liberating, life-giving and therefore eschatological or resurrecting act.
(Once again, the affinity between Campbell’s work an my own is evident, as the sub-title of my book, Resurrection and the Justification of God, indicates such a connection between the eschatological, life-giving act of God in Christ and the righteousness of God. Though Campbell will take this in a somewhat different direction. The affinity is particularly seen when Campbell talks about the importance of ζάω and its cognates as indications of “resurrection life,” especially throughout Rom 5-8 [686], and when he ties the notion to Rom 1:4 and a Christological reading of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 [686]. Indeed, when Campbell goes on to say, “If interpreters approach Paul and Romans with ears freshly attuned to the importance and integration of Jesus’ messiahship, resurrection, and exaltation to lordship, then the textual surface of the letter begins to shift in some interesting new directions,” once an imagine that I nod in hearty agreement.)
As he works this out, Campbell appeals to Rom 1:1b-4 as the signal Paul gives as to his intention to connect such themes as God’s action and kingship throughout the letter: this is the story of Paul’s gospel (695-6). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say, 
Yes, this is what I’m on about–and why I argue that we need to take more seriously the function of letter openings in laying out the thesis/themes of Romans. These themes are then linked with God’s reconciliation of the world (Rom 5:1-11; cf. Unlocking Romans, 84-97); our own adoption as God’s children (Rom 8:15-17; cf. Unlocking Romans, 133-38); and Isaiah’s proclamation of Jesse’s seed in Rom 15:12 (cf. Unlocking Romans, 49-55) (696-7).
After combing through the letter as a whole, Campbell comes back to the messianic reading of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b. Picking up on “the gospel” as defined in 1:1-4, and this Christological reading, “The letter’s auditors are thereby prompted to find some connection between the gospel (i.e., the announcement of the divine King’s good news through his appointed representative), Jesus’ resurrection, and God’s δικαιοσύνη (698). Or, for those of you who prefer Kirk, “This conjunction of Paul’s gospel message, the resurrection of Jesus, and the justification of God is not a complex that we are left to assemble on the basis of Rom 1:2-4… We have as corroborating evidence what has often been read as the letter’s thesis statement [Rom 1:16-17]… There, Paul works out some further descriptions and implications of his gospel message–a message whose content he has already parsed in terms of Jesus’ resurrection-kingship… We therefore meet in 1:16-17 a parallel claim to that of 1:1-4: the gospel reveals God’s righteousness… God’s righteousness is unveiled, not in a general resurrection of the just… but in the resurrection of the one who showed his justice by becoming faithfully obedient unto death (Unlocking Romans, 46, 47).
Because in Rom 1:17 God is not judging or condemning Christ but raising him from the dead, Campbell suggests that “deliverance of God” is a nice approximation of Paul’s “righteousness of God” language.
Campbell does much in these passages to connect God’s own kingship with the kingship of God’s human representative. I think that this is well done and important, but perhaps overdone for the context in Romans. Yes, God is king, but is God’s deliverance tied to working out the function of saving, kingly power? Further, I think that Campbell too quickly skips past something like “covenant faithfulness” by not wrestling with the connection between raising Jesus from the dead and the scriptures of Israel. Ok, so maybe “covenant” is too specific, but “Israel-faithfulness” or “scriptural-faithfulness” seems to be a necessary component. Of whom is God king? What does it look like for this particular king to act justly? There are some under-developed angles of the context that I think shade the data in a slightly different direction.
As is clear from this discussion, Campbell’s reading and my own are on much the same track. One of the reasons I appreciated his reading of Romans so much is that he takes seriously the Christological narrative that determines the content of Paul’s descriptions of faith, righteousness, God, etc. His perception of the resurrection as a key component means that many of his arguments correlate well with ones I made or attempted to make in my own work. Thus, when I think of the reviewer who rather dismissively asked of my argument, “Does Hab 2:4 really refer to Jesus’ resurrection?” I can now say, “Yes, and now you have two of us to deal with.” I, of course, like that!
Next up: father Abraham.
Disclaimer: I received a free copy of Deliverance of God from the publisher, but with no stipulation either that I would review it or review it positively. I also received a free copy of Unlocking Romans, but you probably already knew that.
