Introduction
I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.
The Passages
Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.
Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.
My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.
Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.
Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.
Call the Sinners, not the Righteous
All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.
The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.
Prodigal Son
I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.
Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism?
It has been argued that Luke 18:9-14 is evidence that Jesus did preach the Evangelical Gospel. The Lukan passage is as follows:
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Lamb of God" in John 1:29, 36
John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and says: “Look, the Lamb (amnos) of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, later the Baptist simply says: “Look, the Lamb of God” [1:36]). The standard evangelical interpretation of “Lamb of God” is that the lamb refers to the animal used in either purification/sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4-5:13) or the guilt/reparation sacrifice (Leviticus 5:14-6:7). I want to argue that this interpretation is perhaps the least likely of those most often given.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
2 Corinthians 5:21
Introduction:
There is a virtual theological war being waged today in Evangelical circles as to the meaning of basic ideas such as justification, the righteousness of God, imputation etc. One of the battleground verses is no doubt 2 Corinthians 5:21. I want to argue that the standard Evangelical interpretation of this verse is faulty. Basically, I want to argue that the “righteousness” in the verse refers to God’s activity of saving, judging, vindicating, etc. That is, I take the phrase “righteousness of God” to be a subjective genitive. I will bolster my interpretation of Genesis 15:6 because there I also claim that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is God’s righteousness as understood has his saving, judging, vindicating etc. I hope to accomplish this task in part by comparing 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13-14, which I take to be the outgrowth of Galatians 3:6=Genesis 15:6. I believe this comparison will be a decisive factor as to the correctness of the subjective genitive interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The Verse:
The one not knowing sin [noun] on behalf of us sin [noun] he made, that we might become the righteousness [noun] of God in him.
Note that the verse is not a tidy balanced statement akin to Irenaeus’ “Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is”. In other words, the verse does not say: “Christ was made sin so that we would be made righteous.” (The verse also does not say that we might receive or attain righteousness as does Romans 9:30). Also, the referent of “us” has always been a crux since it need not necessarily refer to all Christians.
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The standard Evangelical gloss on this verse is that the righteousness in question is ours (or the “we” in the verse), so that the phrase “righteousness of God” is either a genitive of origin or an objective genitive. The righteousness concerns our standing before God. It is precisely this understanding of the verse I want to refute. The first red flag, in addition to my note under the verse above, is that on the standard reading one might have expected that we become the “righteousness of Christ” because many Evangelicals read this verse in terms of imputation. However, as I will mention below, Paul has much to say about being “in Christ” and what he says simply cannot be reduced to the idea of imputation as commonly understood.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
When Paul says that we have become the righteousness of God, he is saying that he (and his co-workers and all Christians?) partakes in those activities in which God engages which show God being righteous, such as blessing, reconciling, saving, redeeming etc. Paul is not saying that he becomes righteous before God by being imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Jesus is made sin in the sense that he exhausted the curse of the law which was death due to disobedience. The redemption of Israel means the blessing of the nations, hence the similarities between 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, and 4:4-5—see below on the issue of the pronouns in Paul.
The Context:
The context certainly favors the Gospel Beyond Belief interpretation. Throughout 2 Corinthians and especially at points near 5:21, Paul indentifies his work with God’s activity:
• 5:18 having given to us the ministry of reconciliation.
• 5:19 having put in us the message of reconciliation.
• 5:20 we are ambassadors as God is entreating through us.
• 5:21 we might become the righteousness of God.
• 6:1 as ones working together with him [God], also we entreat [same word used in 5:20].
The activity of God is rife in these surrounding verses: reconciling, the grace of God (6:1, the verse immediately after 5:21), saving (6:2).
Paul is a servant of God who enacts God’s will (6:4), who is “in the power of God” (6:7) and uses the “weapons of righteousness” (6:7), which no doubt come from God as the phrase “through the weapons of righteousness” immediately follows the phrase “in the power of God”.
It should also be said that elsewhere in Paul, the “righteousness of God” is clearly God’s activity:
• Romans 1:17 for the righteousness of God is in it revealed [this follows 1:16, which mentions the “power of God” and precedes 1:18 and the “wrath of God” which certainly refers to God’s activity).
• Romans 3:5 but if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God [this is meant to pick up the activities of God in 3:4 (judging) and in the same verse “inflicting wrath.”
• Romans 3:21-26 in these verses God’s righteousness is tied to his activities of displaying (25), passing by (25), and justifying (26).
Parallel with Galatians 3:13-14:
2 Corinthians 5:21 is very similar to Galatians 3:13-14 and it is this similarity which is very instructive. Compare the verses:
• Galatians 3:13-14: Christ redeemed US from the curse of the law, having become on behalf of us a curse, because it has been written cursed is everyone having hung on a tree, THAT to the nations the blessings of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, THAT the promise of the Spirit we might receive through faithfulness.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: The one not knowing sin on behalf of us sin he made, THAT WE might become the righteousness of God in him.
The similarities are thus (1) on behalf of us (2) in Christ Jesus/him (3) US/WE (4) THAT (5) curse/sin.
The final similarity (6) comes after the “that’s” and concerns activities of God. In Galatians it is the blessings of Abraham which are due to God’s grace (3:18) and in 2 Corinthians the direct analogue is the righteousness of God—note the use of “grace” in 6:1, the verse immediately following 5:21. This similarity (as well as the gift of the Spirit, which also figures heavily in Galatians 3) argues for the identification of the blessing of Abraham and the righteousness of God. Since the blessing of Abraham is God-given and an activity of God, then so is the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is then saying that Paul and the “we” become the agents of God’s blessing, which is exactly what Paul says in the rest of 2 Corinthians.
The Pronouns in 2 Corinthians:
It ought to be highlighted too that the pronouns in 2 Corinthians need not be universal even in the sense of all Christians. The “we” in 5:21 might only refer to Paul and his co-workers. After all, the use of “us” in 5:18b, 5:19b, and 5:20a most likely refer to Paul and his co-workers primarily, as does the meaning in 6:1. Sure, Paul would no doubt want all Christians to imitate him in his ministry but that is not to say that the primary referent to the pronouns here are all Christians. Furthermore, some have argued that the “us” in Galatians 3:13 refers to Jews or Jewish Christians since it is they who were under the curse of the law. If this is so, then it is more likely that the “us” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 refers to Jewish Christian too, of whom Paul belonged.
Theological upshot:
If 2 Corinthians 5:21 is to be interpreted as indicated then this verse simply cannot be used to ground the doctrine of imputation. According to the Gospel Beyond Belief there is a sense in which Jesus’ obedience is imputed to humanity by the grace of God. However, when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” he has a certain relationship in mind and it is not imputation. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 Paul says that Jesus died for all and so that “all died”. Jesus did not die only in the place a person but so that the person too would die and also rise to life. For Paul, the changes in a Christians are real, they are not legal fictions. As one of many, many examples those in Christ will “walk” according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4); the walk metaphor certainly goes well beyond mere belief. (Paul also uses the walk metaphor when he says that we “keep in step with the steps” of Abraham (Romans 4:12)—this metaphor is usually lost in English translations.)
There is a virtual theological war being waged today in Evangelical circles as to the meaning of basic ideas such as justification, the righteousness of God, imputation etc. One of the battleground verses is no doubt 2 Corinthians 5:21. I want to argue that the standard Evangelical interpretation of this verse is faulty. Basically, I want to argue that the “righteousness” in the verse refers to God’s activity of saving, judging, vindicating, etc. That is, I take the phrase “righteousness of God” to be a subjective genitive. I will bolster my interpretation of Genesis 15:6 because there I also claim that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is God’s righteousness as understood has his saving, judging, vindicating etc. I hope to accomplish this task in part by comparing 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13-14, which I take to be the outgrowth of Galatians 3:6=Genesis 15:6. I believe this comparison will be a decisive factor as to the correctness of the subjective genitive interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The Verse:
The one not knowing sin [noun] on behalf of us sin [noun] he made, that we might become the righteousness [noun] of God in him.
Note that the verse is not a tidy balanced statement akin to Irenaeus’ “Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is”. In other words, the verse does not say: “Christ was made sin so that we would be made righteous.” (The verse also does not say that we might receive or attain righteousness as does Romans 9:30). Also, the referent of “us” has always been a crux since it need not necessarily refer to all Christians.
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The standard Evangelical gloss on this verse is that the righteousness in question is ours (or the “we” in the verse), so that the phrase “righteousness of God” is either a genitive of origin or an objective genitive. The righteousness concerns our standing before God. It is precisely this understanding of the verse I want to refute. The first red flag, in addition to my note under the verse above, is that on the standard reading one might have expected that we become the “righteousness of Christ” because many Evangelicals read this verse in terms of imputation. However, as I will mention below, Paul has much to say about being “in Christ” and what he says simply cannot be reduced to the idea of imputation as commonly understood.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
When Paul says that we have become the righteousness of God, he is saying that he (and his co-workers and all Christians?) partakes in those activities in which God engages which show God being righteous, such as blessing, reconciling, saving, redeeming etc. Paul is not saying that he becomes righteous before God by being imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Jesus is made sin in the sense that he exhausted the curse of the law which was death due to disobedience. The redemption of Israel means the blessing of the nations, hence the similarities between 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, and 4:4-5—see below on the issue of the pronouns in Paul.
The Context:
The context certainly favors the Gospel Beyond Belief interpretation. Throughout 2 Corinthians and especially at points near 5:21, Paul indentifies his work with God’s activity:
• 5:18 having given to us the ministry of reconciliation.
• 5:19 having put in us the message of reconciliation.
• 5:20 we are ambassadors as God is entreating through us.
• 5:21 we might become the righteousness of God.
• 6:1 as ones working together with him [God], also we entreat [same word used in 5:20].
The activity of God is rife in these surrounding verses: reconciling, the grace of God (6:1, the verse immediately after 5:21), saving (6:2).
Paul is a servant of God who enacts God’s will (6:4), who is “in the power of God” (6:7) and uses the “weapons of righteousness” (6:7), which no doubt come from God as the phrase “through the weapons of righteousness” immediately follows the phrase “in the power of God”.
It should also be said that elsewhere in Paul, the “righteousness of God” is clearly God’s activity:
• Romans 1:17 for the righteousness of God is in it revealed [this follows 1:16, which mentions the “power of God” and precedes 1:18 and the “wrath of God” which certainly refers to God’s activity).
• Romans 3:5 but if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God [this is meant to pick up the activities of God in 3:4 (judging) and in the same verse “inflicting wrath.”
• Romans 3:21-26 in these verses God’s righteousness is tied to his activities of displaying (25), passing by (25), and justifying (26).
Parallel with Galatians 3:13-14:
2 Corinthians 5:21 is very similar to Galatians 3:13-14 and it is this similarity which is very instructive. Compare the verses:
• Galatians 3:13-14: Christ redeemed US from the curse of the law, having become on behalf of us a curse, because it has been written cursed is everyone having hung on a tree, THAT to the nations the blessings of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, THAT the promise of the Spirit we might receive through faithfulness.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: The one not knowing sin on behalf of us sin he made, THAT WE might become the righteousness of God in him.
The similarities are thus (1) on behalf of us (2) in Christ Jesus/him (3) US/WE (4) THAT (5) curse/sin.
The final similarity (6) comes after the “that’s” and concerns activities of God. In Galatians it is the blessings of Abraham which are due to God’s grace (3:18) and in 2 Corinthians the direct analogue is the righteousness of God—note the use of “grace” in 6:1, the verse immediately following 5:21. This similarity (as well as the gift of the Spirit, which also figures heavily in Galatians 3) argues for the identification of the blessing of Abraham and the righteousness of God. Since the blessing of Abraham is God-given and an activity of God, then so is the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is then saying that Paul and the “we” become the agents of God’s blessing, which is exactly what Paul says in the rest of 2 Corinthians.
The Pronouns in 2 Corinthians:
It ought to be highlighted too that the pronouns in 2 Corinthians need not be universal even in the sense of all Christians. The “we” in 5:21 might only refer to Paul and his co-workers. After all, the use of “us” in 5:18b, 5:19b, and 5:20a most likely refer to Paul and his co-workers primarily, as does the meaning in 6:1. Sure, Paul would no doubt want all Christians to imitate him in his ministry but that is not to say that the primary referent to the pronouns here are all Christians. Furthermore, some have argued that the “us” in Galatians 3:13 refers to Jews or Jewish Christians since it is they who were under the curse of the law. If this is so, then it is more likely that the “us” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 refers to Jewish Christian too, of whom Paul belonged.
Theological upshot:
If 2 Corinthians 5:21 is to be interpreted as indicated then this verse simply cannot be used to ground the doctrine of imputation. According to the Gospel Beyond Belief there is a sense in which Jesus’ obedience is imputed to humanity by the grace of God. However, when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” he has a certain relationship in mind and it is not imputation. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 Paul says that Jesus died for all and so that “all died”. Jesus did not die only in the place a person but so that the person too would die and also rise to life. For Paul, the changes in a Christians are real, they are not legal fictions. As one of many, many examples those in Christ will “walk” according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4); the walk metaphor certainly goes well beyond mere belief. (Paul also uses the walk metaphor when he says that we “keep in step with the steps” of Abraham (Romans 4:12)—this metaphor is usually lost in English translations.)
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Genesis 15:6 part 2
Genesis 15:6
Introduction:
Genesis 15:6 is one of the most important verses with regard to Christian theology in the whole Old Testament--it is quoted by both Paul (Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23). I want to argue that the standard evangelical understanding of this verse is mistaken and that this mistake has monumental consequences for Christian theology. My main goal is to determine how Paul interpreted the verse in both Galatians and Romans, but before I do that I need to lay the groundwork. The reader is invited to read my commentaries on Galatians and Romans for a more comprehensive reading of Paul’s theology—this exploration of Genesis 15:6 is only meant to bolster that reading.
The Verse:
Literally the verse reads: and he trusted/had faith in Yahweh and he reckoned it to him righteousness.
Hebrew: hqdx wl hbvjyw hwhyb ,mahw
1. The verb “trusted/had faith” means to have confident trust in someone and the form of the verb (perfect with waw consecutive) refers to repeated action. The verb, which is used with a “b”, is translated in the NRSV as “believed in” (Ex. 14:31, Num. 14:11, Jer. 12:6 [without the “in”], Ps. 119:66, and 2 Chron. 20:20), but also as “trust/trusted” (Ex. 19:9, Num. 20:12, 1 Sam. 27:12). This verb is to be distinguished from the same root verb but used with a “l” which means to accept a report or what one says as true, which the NSRV always translates as “believe/believed” (Gen. 45:26, 1 Kings 10:7/2 Chron. 9:6, Isa. 53:1, Jer. 40:14, Prov. 14:15). This is a point to which I will return.
2. The context of the verse is a dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh. The verse seems to be an interpretive comment otherwise unparalleled. One might have expected a response from God in the order of: “you are righteous before me”. Again, this a point to which I will return.
3. The subject of “reckoned” linguistically could either be Abraham or God. The two main interpretations I will consider take the subject to be God.
4. The meaning of “righteousness” is also a point of contention. It could either mean righteousness of Abraham, that is, right standing before God in the sense of meeting the criterion of correct behavior or it could mean the righteousness of God in the sense that God will act righteously with regard to Abraham and those associated with him by delivering, vindicating, and blessing etc.
The Two Main Interpretations
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The Standard Evangelical interpretation takes the verse to mean that Abraham believed God and that his belief was reckoned as righteousness. The thought is that merely believing takes the place of righteous behavior in God’s eyes. God demands righteous behavior but humans cannot deliver so merely believing is the substitute. Clearly on this reading the “righteousness” is Abraham’s and pertains to his standing before God.
The Problem:
There are severe problems with this reading. The main one is that the context in Genesis never makes a distinction between “merely believing” and righteousness seen as correct behavior. The intended audience would simply not make this dichotomy because it is totally unmotivated. For the standard reading to make sense Abraham’s mere belief has to be a one-time event and it is this belief that is reckoned as righteousness. However, as mentioned above the verb form implies repeated action and it is clear that Abraham believed God prior to 15:6. Already at 12:4 (So Abram went, as the LORD had told him) we are told that Abraham obeyed God and we assume he believed him in order to obey. The NT book of Hebrews harkens back to this verse when it says that by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance (Heb. 11:8). Also, Abraham certainly believed the promises at 13:14-17, well before 15:6. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Genesis has in mind Abraham’s one-off act of belief in 15:6, but has a wider reference and a reference that includes Abraham’s obedience.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
The Gospel Beyond Belief interprets the verse as follows: Abraham was faithful to Yahweh and Yahweh rewarded Abraham by crediting to Abraham righteousness in the sense that Yahweh promised Abraham that he (Yahweh) would act righteously toward Abraham and those associated with him. On this reading, Abraham’s faith does not mean merely believing but includes his obedience and the righteousness in question is God’s.
The Advantages:
1. The first advantage to consider is that the context supports this reading. Other texts in Genesis explicitly state that God’s righteousness is given on account of Abraham’s obedience. In 26:3-4 we are told that God will act righteously because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, my laws. Genesis 22:16-18 also links God’s righteous activity to Abraham’s obedience. God will be righteous because you [Abraham] have done this, you have not withheld your son, your only son. It is significant that there is actually a formal link between Abraham’s obedience in 22:16, which uses the triplet “your son, your only one, whom you love” and a triplet found in 12:1, which uses “your land, your birthplace, your father’s house”. The triplets seem to highlight the cost that Abraham must pay to obey God. Also, in both chapters 12 and 22 God tells Abraham to go to a place God will show him. We ought also to include the story in chapter 19:29 where God acts righteously toward Lot seemingly on account of Abraham (God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow).
2. There is a very similar verse to Genesis 15:6 in Psalm 106:30-31 and there the righteousness that is reckoned is clearly God’s. Psalms 106:30-31 reads: “Then Phineas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.” This no doubt harkens back to Phineas’ faithful act recounted in Numbers 25. The meaning is clear; Phineas’ act is rewarded with God’s righteousness.
3. The context of Genesis chapter 15 echoes the story-line in Numbers 25 in that God rewards obedience with his righteousness. This righteousness in both cases takes the form of a covenant (15:7-12 in the Abraham case, Numbers 25:12 in the Phineas case). This provides a rationale as to why the narrator decided to comment on Abraham’s faithfulness and deem it worthy of God’s covenant. Therefore, the Gospel Beyond Belief provides a reason why Genesis 15:6 is said, a feature that we have seen the standard reading lacks. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the covenant chapter 17 is precisely predicated on Abraham’s obedience: “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless…And I will make my covenant between me and you” (17:1-2).
4. Since I am ultimately interested in Paul’s reading it is of some importance to show that other writings interpreted Genesis 15:6 in the manner of the Gospel Beyond Belief. This is of some importance in that if Paul was going to argue using Genesis 15:6, then his arguments would be stronger if they were based on readings accepted by his opponents. For example, Sirach 44:19-21 attributes God’s covenant (his righteousness) to Abraham’s faithfulness under trial and 1 Maccabees 2:52 explicitly alludes to Genesis 15:6: “Was not Abraham found faithful under temptation, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” and regardless of whose righteousness is meant it is clear that more is involved than just belief. Both Sirach and Maccabees were in the LXX that Paul would have read. We also ought not to downplay James 2:23, if not for thinking that the righteousness is God’s but for the sense that Abraham’s faith was not mere belief. If Christians are to take seriously the entire canon, then James ought to at least be factored in how Genesis 15:6 ought to be interpreted.
Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:6
I now will argue that Paul’s understanding of Genesis 15:6 is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. As a preface I will say that I think two of the reasons Paul used Genesis 15:6 are that Abraham was uncircumcised at that time and that it was in here that scripture linked faithfulness with God’s righteousness. I will begin with Galatians and use that as a springboard for Romans.
Galatians
I argued in my commentary on Galatians that in Galatians 3:2, 5 Paul mentions that the gift of the Spirit was given on account of Jesus’ faithfulness. Now, this gift of the Spirit in on par with God acting righteously. Therefore, when in Galatians 3:6, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it would make complete sense to equate the righteousness in question as God’s righteousness. If God’s righteousness is in mind, then the rest of Galatians 3 fits nicely into place. We can now flesh out God’s righteousness as “blessings” (vss. 8, 14), “the promise” (vss. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29; note that in verse 14 the promise concerns the Spirit which would directly tie-in with 3:2, 5), “a covenant” (vss. 15, 17, see also 4:21-31) and grace (v. 18). I would even argue that Galatians 3:8 is really a restatement of 3:6=Genesis 15:6:
Galatians 3:8: will be blessed in you all the nations.
The blessedness in 3:8 corresponds to the righteousness in 3:6; the “in you” in 3:8 corresponds to the merit-earned faithfulness of Abraham in 3:6.
Paul’s plan in Galatians is to show that Gentiles are included in what was merited to Abraham. In other words, Gentiles are saved not like Abraham, but because of Abraham. Anyway, the standard reading has problems with Abraham because his faith was in God and not Jesus. Also, once Paul is said to be making a distinction between faith and works, then faith is turned into a work as that which humans must meet in order to meet God’s standards.
Romans
As with Galatians, Paul uses Abraham to show that Gentiles are members of his family because membership in his family is not solely based on physical descent. It has been suggested that the opening verse in chapter 4 ought to be translated “Do you think that we Jews have considered Abraham our forefather only according to the flesh?” Paul will argue that, no, Abraham is the father of all those who are faithful and not just the Jews, that is, not just those who have the works of the law (= circumcision). The boast before God in verse 2 has to do with being Jewish and it is this that Paul questions. In 2:17, Paul says that being Jewish is consistent with being disobedient (=unfaithful). But then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles who are faithful, which is exactly his line of argument in chapter 2. Paul is not talking about Abraham’s belief as opposed to works, he is referring to Abraham’s faithfulness. Again, Paul chooses Genesis 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised so that he could also be the father of the uncircumcised Gentiles. The talk of “works” in verses 4-5, is solely related to the issue of being Jewish and not related to good deeds. The lesson in verses 6-7 is the same, Gentiles who are faithful will be forgiven, that is, their lawless deeds will not be accounted.
Conclusion
There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not read Genesis 15:6 as his fellow Jews would have read it. It is an interpretive principle to assume that Paul would agree with this common reading and then see if his ideas make sense. In this case, Paul comes out better on the Gospel Beyond Belief reading than on the standard evangelical reading, which has to posit a reading of Paul at odds with the common Jewish reading.
Introduction:
Genesis 15:6 is one of the most important verses with regard to Christian theology in the whole Old Testament--it is quoted by both Paul (Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23). I want to argue that the standard evangelical understanding of this verse is mistaken and that this mistake has monumental consequences for Christian theology. My main goal is to determine how Paul interpreted the verse in both Galatians and Romans, but before I do that I need to lay the groundwork. The reader is invited to read my commentaries on Galatians and Romans for a more comprehensive reading of Paul’s theology—this exploration of Genesis 15:6 is only meant to bolster that reading.
The Verse:
Literally the verse reads: and he trusted/had faith in Yahweh and he reckoned it to him righteousness.
Hebrew: hqdx wl hbvjyw hwhyb ,mahw
1. The verb “trusted/had faith” means to have confident trust in someone and the form of the verb (perfect with waw consecutive) refers to repeated action. The verb, which is used with a “b”, is translated in the NRSV as “believed in” (Ex. 14:31, Num. 14:11, Jer. 12:6 [without the “in”], Ps. 119:66, and 2 Chron. 20:20), but also as “trust/trusted” (Ex. 19:9, Num. 20:12, 1 Sam. 27:12). This verb is to be distinguished from the same root verb but used with a “l” which means to accept a report or what one says as true, which the NSRV always translates as “believe/believed” (Gen. 45:26, 1 Kings 10:7/2 Chron. 9:6, Isa. 53:1, Jer. 40:14, Prov. 14:15). This is a point to which I will return.
2. The context of the verse is a dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh. The verse seems to be an interpretive comment otherwise unparalleled. One might have expected a response from God in the order of: “you are righteous before me”. Again, this a point to which I will return.
3. The subject of “reckoned” linguistically could either be Abraham or God. The two main interpretations I will consider take the subject to be God.
4. The meaning of “righteousness” is also a point of contention. It could either mean righteousness of Abraham, that is, right standing before God in the sense of meeting the criterion of correct behavior or it could mean the righteousness of God in the sense that God will act righteously with regard to Abraham and those associated with him by delivering, vindicating, and blessing etc.
The Two Main Interpretations
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The Standard Evangelical interpretation takes the verse to mean that Abraham believed God and that his belief was reckoned as righteousness. The thought is that merely believing takes the place of righteous behavior in God’s eyes. God demands righteous behavior but humans cannot deliver so merely believing is the substitute. Clearly on this reading the “righteousness” is Abraham’s and pertains to his standing before God.
The Problem:
There are severe problems with this reading. The main one is that the context in Genesis never makes a distinction between “merely believing” and righteousness seen as correct behavior. The intended audience would simply not make this dichotomy because it is totally unmotivated. For the standard reading to make sense Abraham’s mere belief has to be a one-time event and it is this belief that is reckoned as righteousness. However, as mentioned above the verb form implies repeated action and it is clear that Abraham believed God prior to 15:6. Already at 12:4 (So Abram went, as the LORD had told him) we are told that Abraham obeyed God and we assume he believed him in order to obey. The NT book of Hebrews harkens back to this verse when it says that by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance (Heb. 11:8). Also, Abraham certainly believed the promises at 13:14-17, well before 15:6. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Genesis has in mind Abraham’s one-off act of belief in 15:6, but has a wider reference and a reference that includes Abraham’s obedience.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
The Gospel Beyond Belief interprets the verse as follows: Abraham was faithful to Yahweh and Yahweh rewarded Abraham by crediting to Abraham righteousness in the sense that Yahweh promised Abraham that he (Yahweh) would act righteously toward Abraham and those associated with him. On this reading, Abraham’s faith does not mean merely believing but includes his obedience and the righteousness in question is God’s.
The Advantages:
1. The first advantage to consider is that the context supports this reading. Other texts in Genesis explicitly state that God’s righteousness is given on account of Abraham’s obedience. In 26:3-4 we are told that God will act righteously because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, my laws. Genesis 22:16-18 also links God’s righteous activity to Abraham’s obedience. God will be righteous because you [Abraham] have done this, you have not withheld your son, your only son. It is significant that there is actually a formal link between Abraham’s obedience in 22:16, which uses the triplet “your son, your only one, whom you love” and a triplet found in 12:1, which uses “your land, your birthplace, your father’s house”. The triplets seem to highlight the cost that Abraham must pay to obey God. Also, in both chapters 12 and 22 God tells Abraham to go to a place God will show him. We ought also to include the story in chapter 19:29 where God acts righteously toward Lot seemingly on account of Abraham (God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow).
2. There is a very similar verse to Genesis 15:6 in Psalm 106:30-31 and there the righteousness that is reckoned is clearly God’s. Psalms 106:30-31 reads: “Then Phineas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.” This no doubt harkens back to Phineas’ faithful act recounted in Numbers 25. The meaning is clear; Phineas’ act is rewarded with God’s righteousness.
3. The context of Genesis chapter 15 echoes the story-line in Numbers 25 in that God rewards obedience with his righteousness. This righteousness in both cases takes the form of a covenant (15:7-12 in the Abraham case, Numbers 25:12 in the Phineas case). This provides a rationale as to why the narrator decided to comment on Abraham’s faithfulness and deem it worthy of God’s covenant. Therefore, the Gospel Beyond Belief provides a reason why Genesis 15:6 is said, a feature that we have seen the standard reading lacks. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the covenant chapter 17 is precisely predicated on Abraham’s obedience: “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless…And I will make my covenant between me and you” (17:1-2).
4. Since I am ultimately interested in Paul’s reading it is of some importance to show that other writings interpreted Genesis 15:6 in the manner of the Gospel Beyond Belief. This is of some importance in that if Paul was going to argue using Genesis 15:6, then his arguments would be stronger if they were based on readings accepted by his opponents. For example, Sirach 44:19-21 attributes God’s covenant (his righteousness) to Abraham’s faithfulness under trial and 1 Maccabees 2:52 explicitly alludes to Genesis 15:6: “Was not Abraham found faithful under temptation, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” and regardless of whose righteousness is meant it is clear that more is involved than just belief. Both Sirach and Maccabees were in the LXX that Paul would have read. We also ought not to downplay James 2:23, if not for thinking that the righteousness is God’s but for the sense that Abraham’s faith was not mere belief. If Christians are to take seriously the entire canon, then James ought to at least be factored in how Genesis 15:6 ought to be interpreted.
Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:6
I now will argue that Paul’s understanding of Genesis 15:6 is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. As a preface I will say that I think two of the reasons Paul used Genesis 15:6 are that Abraham was uncircumcised at that time and that it was in here that scripture linked faithfulness with God’s righteousness. I will begin with Galatians and use that as a springboard for Romans.
Galatians
I argued in my commentary on Galatians that in Galatians 3:2, 5 Paul mentions that the gift of the Spirit was given on account of Jesus’ faithfulness. Now, this gift of the Spirit in on par with God acting righteously. Therefore, when in Galatians 3:6, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it would make complete sense to equate the righteousness in question as God’s righteousness. If God’s righteousness is in mind, then the rest of Galatians 3 fits nicely into place. We can now flesh out God’s righteousness as “blessings” (vss. 8, 14), “the promise” (vss. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29; note that in verse 14 the promise concerns the Spirit which would directly tie-in with 3:2, 5), “a covenant” (vss. 15, 17, see also 4:21-31) and grace (v. 18). I would even argue that Galatians 3:8 is really a restatement of 3:6=Genesis 15:6:
Galatians 3:8: will be blessed in you all the nations.
The blessedness in 3:8 corresponds to the righteousness in 3:6; the “in you” in 3:8 corresponds to the merit-earned faithfulness of Abraham in 3:6.
Paul’s plan in Galatians is to show that Gentiles are included in what was merited to Abraham. In other words, Gentiles are saved not like Abraham, but because of Abraham. Anyway, the standard reading has problems with Abraham because his faith was in God and not Jesus. Also, once Paul is said to be making a distinction between faith and works, then faith is turned into a work as that which humans must meet in order to meet God’s standards.
Romans
As with Galatians, Paul uses Abraham to show that Gentiles are members of his family because membership in his family is not solely based on physical descent. It has been suggested that the opening verse in chapter 4 ought to be translated “Do you think that we Jews have considered Abraham our forefather only according to the flesh?” Paul will argue that, no, Abraham is the father of all those who are faithful and not just the Jews, that is, not just those who have the works of the law (= circumcision). The boast before God in verse 2 has to do with being Jewish and it is this that Paul questions. In 2:17, Paul says that being Jewish is consistent with being disobedient (=unfaithful). But then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles who are faithful, which is exactly his line of argument in chapter 2. Paul is not talking about Abraham’s belief as opposed to works, he is referring to Abraham’s faithfulness. Again, Paul chooses Genesis 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised so that he could also be the father of the uncircumcised Gentiles. The talk of “works” in verses 4-5, is solely related to the issue of being Jewish and not related to good deeds. The lesson in verses 6-7 is the same, Gentiles who are faithful will be forgiven, that is, their lawless deeds will not be accounted.
Conclusion
There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not read Genesis 15:6 as his fellow Jews would have read it. It is an interpretive principle to assume that Paul would agree with this common reading and then see if his ideas make sense. In this case, Paul comes out better on the Gospel Beyond Belief reading than on the standard evangelical reading, which has to posit a reading of Paul at odds with the common Jewish reading.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Genesis 15:6
"he trusted the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness". There are basically three ways to interpret this crucial verse:
(1) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is Abraham's, the righteousness pertains solely to Abraham and his standing with God].
(2) Abraham reckoned to the Lord righteousness.
(3) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is God's--it does not pertain solely to Abraham but can be lavished on others on account of Abraham's trust].
(1) is the standard evangelical reading. Abraham believed God and God reckoned him as righteous. This is usually [but not by James-see below] understood to be that righteousness is something that even a believing Abraham did not deserve before the reckoning. The problem with this is that there is nothing to prepare the reader for this interpretation. There is no distinction made between "belief/faith" on the one hand and "righteousness" on the other.
(2) would mean that Abraham trusted God and thought that God would fulfill his promise, that is God is righteous. This is possible. However, this is not how the LXX understood the verse and is also not how a similar verse is interpreted (Psalm 106:31).
(3) would mean that God merited to Abraham righteousness in the sense that God would benefit Abraham and Abraham's seed on account of Abraham's trust. This interpretation makes sense of Genesis 19:29 (if God remembering Abraham has in mind Abraham's credit-meriting trust/faithfulness) and it makes sense of Genesis 22:16-18 and 26:3-5 (Paul used 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised; he did not use 15:6 because "trust" is different than "faithfulness").
The importance of these differences is huge. If one adopts the usual construal of (1), then Abraham's trust is mere belief and the righteousness he has is undeserved and therefore imputed. This is how evangelicals read Paul's gloss on Genesis 15:6. However, if one adopts (3), then there is no separation between faith/works and that Abraham's trust is on par with his faithfulness. God's righteousness is then had by grace by those who benefit from Abraham's merit-earning faithfulness. This interpretation is then used to better intepret Paul and his entire theological enterprise (along the lines of the "New Perspective").
James' correction of a possibly early misinterpretation of Paul concerns how one reads the "trusted". James read it as faithfulness and not mere belief, which would go hand-in-hand with (3). However, it is unclear what for James "righteousness" entails. Is it solely for the individual [in which case James holds (1) but not how that is usually understood] or does it also involve merit-earning righteousness for others. From what James says it seems that righteousness pertains to the individual (Abraham, Rahab, or anyone), but there is no reason why he thought that it pertains solely to the individual, especially in the case of Abraham.
Therefore, my bet, if i were a betting man, is with (3).
(1) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is Abraham's, the righteousness pertains solely to Abraham and his standing with God].
(2) Abraham reckoned to the Lord righteousness.
(3) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is God's--it does not pertain solely to Abraham but can be lavished on others on account of Abraham's trust].
(1) is the standard evangelical reading. Abraham believed God and God reckoned him as righteous. This is usually [but not by James-see below] understood to be that righteousness is something that even a believing Abraham did not deserve before the reckoning. The problem with this is that there is nothing to prepare the reader for this interpretation. There is no distinction made between "belief/faith" on the one hand and "righteousness" on the other.
(2) would mean that Abraham trusted God and thought that God would fulfill his promise, that is God is righteous. This is possible. However, this is not how the LXX understood the verse and is also not how a similar verse is interpreted (Psalm 106:31).
(3) would mean that God merited to Abraham righteousness in the sense that God would benefit Abraham and Abraham's seed on account of Abraham's trust. This interpretation makes sense of Genesis 19:29 (if God remembering Abraham has in mind Abraham's credit-meriting trust/faithfulness) and it makes sense of Genesis 22:16-18 and 26:3-5 (Paul used 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised; he did not use 15:6 because "trust" is different than "faithfulness").
The importance of these differences is huge. If one adopts the usual construal of (1), then Abraham's trust is mere belief and the righteousness he has is undeserved and therefore imputed. This is how evangelicals read Paul's gloss on Genesis 15:6. However, if one adopts (3), then there is no separation between faith/works and that Abraham's trust is on par with his faithfulness. God's righteousness is then had by grace by those who benefit from Abraham's merit-earning faithfulness. This interpretation is then used to better intepret Paul and his entire theological enterprise (along the lines of the "New Perspective").
James' correction of a possibly early misinterpretation of Paul concerns how one reads the "trusted". James read it as faithfulness and not mere belief, which would go hand-in-hand with (3). However, it is unclear what for James "righteousness" entails. Is it solely for the individual [in which case James holds (1) but not how that is usually understood] or does it also involve merit-earning righteousness for others. From what James says it seems that righteousness pertains to the individual (Abraham, Rahab, or anyone), but there is no reason why he thought that it pertains solely to the individual, especially in the case of Abraham.
Therefore, my bet, if i were a betting man, is with (3).
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Spiritual Archaeology
Could we learn anything about God's overarching plans by tracking evil in the world? A "yes" to this would require a few assumptions: (1) The forces of evil are in a good position to know God's plans (2) the forces of evil expend most of their resources to thwart what they take to be God's plans (3) we can determine where the forces of evil expend most of their resources. So, we look around and determine where the forces of evil have been most active. Someone could point to the Holocaust and terrorism against the State of Israel and her allies and conclude that evil is most pronounced in destroying the Jewish people, satisfying (3). Then, by (2) we conclude that the forces of evil believe that the Jewish people figure in God's plans in some way. Finally, by (1) we conclude that the Jewish people really do figure in God's overarching plans. If true, this spiritual archaeology could be witness to a source for theological truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
