Preamble (!)
It's too bad that I'm picking on one the the few disagreements I have with Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Overall, his take on "Justification" mirrors what on my website I refer to as the "Standard Evangelical Story". However, I still think he gets Paul's use of Leviticus 18:5 wrong, and I think the problems he admits he faces with respect to Romans 9:27-10:5 and Galatians 3:6-14 would vanish if he were to adopt my interpretation.
Works of Law
Ultimately, my disagreement with Campbell has to do with his understanding of "works of Law". On my interpretation, "works of law" are something less than obeying the law in the full sense. Campbell criticises Dunn's attempt to explain works of law in terms of Jewish identity markers. But whatever "work of law" are, they seem to fall short of complete obedience to the law. This is all my interpretation needs because my argument free-flows from the assumption that "works of law" are not the same as obeying the law and certainly not the same as "good works". One of my main pieces of evidence is in Galatians 6:13: "Even the circumcised [those who are of the works of law] do not themselves obey the law." This is confirmed in Galatians 3:10, cf. Romans 2 and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23-24. So, the problem isn't legalism nor is the problem that the law cannot be perfectly fulfilled, the problem is that the law is not completely fulfilled.
Galatians 3:6-14
Campbell notices a nice chiasm in this section
A 3:6-9 Abraham
B 3:10 curse
C 3:11 life
C' 3:12 life
B' 3:13 curse
A' 3:14 Abraham
However, I think this structure actually reinforces my interpretation. One would think that both middle sections (C/C') would say similar things and that is what they do on my interpretation, but are contrasting on Campbell's interpretation.
3:11a Now by law no one is being justified before God is clear,
3:11b because the just by fidelity will live [Hab. 2:4]
3:12a But the law is not of fidelity
3:12b but the one doing these things will live in them [Lev. 18:5]
Note that both 3:11a and 3:12a say something negative about the law and so I claim that both 3:11b and 3:12b say something positive and provide proof of the truth of the a's.
Here is how I see the argument go in verses 11 and 12:
(1) [3:11b] Those who are faithful get life (= justification).
(2) [3:12b] To be faithful to the law, one has to faithful to [do!] all the law
(3) [3:10] Those who are of the works of law do not obey all the law
(4) [3:12a] therefore, those who are of the works of law are not faithful
(5) [3:11a] therefore, those who are of works of law are not justified [get life] before God.
Campbell lays out his take in argument form of this section (p. 863) but does not address why Leviticus 18:5 fails.
Romans 9:27-10:5
Many commentators agree with my interpretation when it comes to Romans, even if they don't with regard to Galatians. However, I want to make the case here too.
One of my key assumptions, that works of law is not the same as obeying the law completely, seems to be stated in 9:31: "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive". I take it that Israel failed to reach the goal of the "righteousness race". Their proper goal was the law but they failed to reach it. Campbell's translation of 9:31 is awkward: "But Israel, pursuing a torah of righteous activity toward that law, did not [attain righteousness]".
Campbell thinks that when Paul says "works of law" in 9:32 he is referencing Leviticus 18:5. Furthermore, he does not think that "the person doing these things" or talk about Jesus doing anything reprises anything that Paul says about Jesus earlier. However, he ignores 10:4 where Paul says that Jesus is the goal/end [telos] of the law. If Jesus is the goal of the law then it would make sense to use Leviticus 18:5 positively.
Here is how I would make sense of 10:5 and it connection to 6-8 [see my website]:
For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law that the one having done these things will live in/by them, and...[Deut. 30:12-14]
Most translations interpret the connective de as 'but' which would imply a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 [10:5] and Deuteronomy 30:12-13 [10:6-8]. However, the connective can mean "and" which is how Paul uses the gar...de sequence elsewhere (Rom. 10:10; 11:15; 7:8). It would be odd for Paul to claim that Leviticus 18:5 fails and conflicts with another passage from the law!
Conclusion
These passages are the citadel of the standard evangelical story and so when they fail to defend that story the story is in big trouble. The rest of Campbell's book, for the most part, does a great job presenting an alternative rereading of Paul's theology.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Importance of the Resurrection in Colossians
The resurrection is key in Colossians. Oddly enough Paul grounds the Colossians' faith and love upon the hope they heard in the word of truth of the good news (1:5). The gospel here is defined as the Colossians' hope. This is reiterated in 1:23 when Paul writes about the "hope of the good news". What is this hope? I contend that this is the resurrection of the Colossians at the end of the age, a resurrection made possible by Jesus' resurrection. This hope is stored in heaven (1:5) but this does not mean that when the hope is fully realized it will "be in heaven". Paul says that when Christ is revealed then those in him will also be revealed in glory (3:4). This is because Christ in you is the hope of glory (1:27). It is clear that this hope is the future eternal resurrected life made possible by Jesus' resurrection.
Further prove of this found in 1:12 where the Colossians are told that they have been qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints "in the light". The "in the light" probably refers to the glory of the eternal kingdom where the resurrected dwell. The next verse (1:13) says that the Colossians have been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son. This rescue reminds us of Exodus where God rescued Israel (see Ex. 6:6; 12:27; 14:30). The Exodus from the slavery of sin is clear in 1:14 when it states that in Jesus we have redemption the forgiveness of sins.
It is very significant that the cure for sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in 2:12-13. In 2:12 we are told that the Colossians are buried and raised with Jesus. In 2:13, they are dead in their trespasses (same word used in the singular in Rom. 5:15), but that they are made alive in Jesus. They are made alive because Jesus was raised from the dead. This is reiterated in 3:1, where the Colossians are told that they have been raised with Christ. Christ is their life (3:4).
The process of salvation in Colossians is therefore one of incorporation into Christ (hence all the talk of being "in Christ"). We die in Christ and we are made alive in Christ because he was killed and raised. This is a far cry from just saying that our sins are forgiven because Jesus was sacrificed like an animal.
Further prove of this found in 1:12 where the Colossians are told that they have been qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints "in the light". The "in the light" probably refers to the glory of the eternal kingdom where the resurrected dwell. The next verse (1:13) says that the Colossians have been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son. This rescue reminds us of Exodus where God rescued Israel (see Ex. 6:6; 12:27; 14:30). The Exodus from the slavery of sin is clear in 1:14 when it states that in Jesus we have redemption the forgiveness of sins.
It is very significant that the cure for sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in 2:12-13. In 2:12 we are told that the Colossians are buried and raised with Jesus. In 2:13, they are dead in their trespasses (same word used in the singular in Rom. 5:15), but that they are made alive in Jesus. They are made alive because Jesus was raised from the dead. This is reiterated in 3:1, where the Colossians are told that they have been raised with Christ. Christ is their life (3:4).
The process of salvation in Colossians is therefore one of incorporation into Christ (hence all the talk of being "in Christ"). We die in Christ and we are made alive in Christ because he was killed and raised. This is a far cry from just saying that our sins are forgiven because Jesus was sacrificed like an animal.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Some thoughts on Jesus' death in Colossians
Colossians 1:20 and 1:22
Jesus' death is mentioned in both Colossians 1:20 and 1:21-22:
The first argument pertains to the structure of 1:21-22:
This brings me to Colossians 1:20, which does mention blood. However, there is no reason to assume that an animal-like sacrifice is meant. "Blood" could just be an example of metonymy (as "Hollywood" would be a stand-in for the movie business). "Blood" could still be a reference to Jesus' obedience and could even pertain to the "war" Jesus waged against the forces of evil (see Colossians 2:14-15). "Blood" elsewhere in the Scripture can refer to death and not animal-like sacrifice (see Genesis 9:6 for a famous example).
It's true that Paul does not spell out the mechanism of atonement in Colossians but he tends to use language of incorporation which is not the language of animal-like sacrifice (see Colossians 2:11-12 as just one example).
Jesus' death is mentioned in both Colossians 1:20 and 1:21-22:
- 1:20: and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross of him.
- 1:21-22: and you once having been alienated and enemies in the mind by evil works, yet now he reconciled in the body of the flesh of him through his death to present you holy and blameless and without reproach before him.
The first argument pertains to the structure of 1:21-22:
- 21a and you once ------ 22a yet now
- 21b having been alienated and enemies in the mind ------ 21b he reconciled
- 21c by/in evil works ------ 22c by/in the body of the flesh of him through his death
This brings me to Colossians 1:20, which does mention blood. However, there is no reason to assume that an animal-like sacrifice is meant. "Blood" could just be an example of metonymy (as "Hollywood" would be a stand-in for the movie business). "Blood" could still be a reference to Jesus' obedience and could even pertain to the "war" Jesus waged against the forces of evil (see Colossians 2:14-15). "Blood" elsewhere in the Scripture can refer to death and not animal-like sacrifice (see Genesis 9:6 for a famous example).
It's true that Paul does not spell out the mechanism of atonement in Colossians but he tends to use language of incorporation which is not the language of animal-like sacrifice (see Colossians 2:11-12 as just one example).
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Ephesians 3:12 (and 2:8) and Jesus' Obedience
Introduction
On my website, I mention seven occurrences of some form of pistis christou (faithfulness of Jesus). There I argued that these refer to Jesus' obedience and not our faith in Jesus. I want to argue the same thing for Ephesians 3:12 and then 2:8. This is huge because 2:8 is part of the evangelical mantra of 2:8-9 (while 2:10 is largely ignored).
Ephesians 3:12
We are told that the mystery of Christ is in accordance with the eternal purpose that was carried out in Jesus (3:11), "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the pistis [faith/faithfulness] of/in him" (3:12). I have deliberately left the translation vague in order to not prejudge the situation but my purpose is to argue for the following: "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through [dia] the faithfulness [= obedience] of him [Jesus]."
Two arguments can be given for my translation. The first concerns the context (3:1-12). As mentioned above, the mystery of Christ, which involves the Gentiles as fellow heirs (3:6), was made/carried out in Jesus (3:11). This mentions the action of Jesus, which I take to be his obedience unto death and resurrection. Likewise, in the very next verse we also have a reference to Jesus' action, "through the faithfulness of him". Also, Jesus' obedience no doubt is included in the phrase "the boundless wealth of Christ" (3:8).
The other argument involves a parallel to 2:18. There, we are told that "through him" we have access in one Spirit to the Father. So, both 3:12 and 2:18 refer to access. Now, the access of 2:18 is the result of Jesus' death: "But now in Christ Jesus you who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (2:13). I take the blood of Christ to refer to his obedient death. 2:16 also refers to Jesus' death: we have been reconciled "through the cross". So we have the following parallels:
2:16 "through the cross"
2:18 "through him"
Which argues that the access we have is due to Jesus' obedient death. And we have this parallel:
2:18 access to the Father in Jesus' death
3:12 access to the Father through the faithfulness of him
Which argues that the faith in 3:12 is Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief.
Ephesian 2:8
This now brings us to 2:8-9: We are saved by grace through [Jesus'] faith[fulness] and this is not of yourselves it is God's gift. Not of works [of law] lest anyone should boast.
The context itself argues that the faith in question pertains to Jesus' obedient death and resurrection because the "Christ event" throughout the New Testament is considered a grace/gift of God (see my last post). It would be odd to mention our belief in the middle of claiming that our salvation does not depend on us (!) which is what the standard evangelical reading has us do.
Answer to Objection
One might counter my reading of 3:12 with 3:17 and claim that "the faith" there is our faith. First of all, even if 3:17 refers to our faith this just shows that our obedience is in view and is to mimic Jesus' obedience. See my interpretation of Romans 1:17 on my website and Ephesians 2:10 which is almost always unquoted by evangelicals! But, one could argue even here that it is Jesus' work that made possible the gift of the Spirit that is poured out in our hearts (see 3:16 which immediately preceeds 3:17).
Food For Thought
How different would evangelical Christianity be if Ephesians 2:8 was interpreted as refering to Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief?
On my website, I mention seven occurrences of some form of pistis christou (faithfulness of Jesus). There I argued that these refer to Jesus' obedience and not our faith in Jesus. I want to argue the same thing for Ephesians 3:12 and then 2:8. This is huge because 2:8 is part of the evangelical mantra of 2:8-9 (while 2:10 is largely ignored).
Ephesians 3:12
We are told that the mystery of Christ is in accordance with the eternal purpose that was carried out in Jesus (3:11), "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the pistis [faith/faithfulness] of/in him" (3:12). I have deliberately left the translation vague in order to not prejudge the situation but my purpose is to argue for the following: "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through [dia] the faithfulness [= obedience] of him [Jesus]."
Two arguments can be given for my translation. The first concerns the context (3:1-12). As mentioned above, the mystery of Christ, which involves the Gentiles as fellow heirs (3:6), was made/carried out in Jesus (3:11). This mentions the action of Jesus, which I take to be his obedience unto death and resurrection. Likewise, in the very next verse we also have a reference to Jesus' action, "through the faithfulness of him". Also, Jesus' obedience no doubt is included in the phrase "the boundless wealth of Christ" (3:8).
The other argument involves a parallel to 2:18. There, we are told that "through him" we have access in one Spirit to the Father. So, both 3:12 and 2:18 refer to access. Now, the access of 2:18 is the result of Jesus' death: "But now in Christ Jesus you who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (2:13). I take the blood of Christ to refer to his obedient death. 2:16 also refers to Jesus' death: we have been reconciled "through the cross". So we have the following parallels:
2:16 "through the cross"
2:18 "through him"
Which argues that the access we have is due to Jesus' obedient death. And we have this parallel:
2:18 access to the Father in Jesus' death
3:12 access to the Father through the faithfulness of him
Which argues that the faith in 3:12 is Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief.
Ephesian 2:8
This now brings us to 2:8-9: We are saved by grace through [Jesus'] faith[fulness] and this is not of yourselves it is God's gift. Not of works [of law] lest anyone should boast.
The context itself argues that the faith in question pertains to Jesus' obedient death and resurrection because the "Christ event" throughout the New Testament is considered a grace/gift of God (see my last post). It would be odd to mention our belief in the middle of claiming that our salvation does not depend on us (!) which is what the standard evangelical reading has us do.
Answer to Objection
One might counter my reading of 3:12 with 3:17 and claim that "the faith" there is our faith. First of all, even if 3:17 refers to our faith this just shows that our obedience is in view and is to mimic Jesus' obedience. See my interpretation of Romans 1:17 on my website and Ephesians 2:10 which is almost always unquoted by evangelicals! But, one could argue even here that it is Jesus' work that made possible the gift of the Spirit that is poured out in our hearts (see 3:16 which immediately preceeds 3:17).
Food For Thought
How different would evangelical Christianity be if Ephesians 2:8 was interpreted as refering to Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Genesis 15:6 part 2; my answer to Rom. 4:4-5
A Criticism
I intend to respond to Romans 4:4-5, which many take to be counter-evidence to my reading of both Genesis 15:6 and Paul's use of it in Romans and Galatians.
In my last post I claimed that what was reckoned as righteousness in Abraham was faithfulness/trust/belief, and that Paul was not interested in "naked belief" as such. The standard interpretation takes Paul to mean that by just believing without any good deeds, Abraham was accorded the status of being "righteous. I guess the standard interpretation takes "righteous" to be a quality about humans that would normally involve good deeds. However, God reckons Abraham righteous despite any good deeds. In other words, Abraham is imputed with a righteousness that he does not inherently possess. It is this standard interpretation with which I find fault.
Paul and Righteousness
I claim that when Paul uses the term "righteous" in the quote from Genesis 15:6, he means the righteousness of God (tsedaqah elohim/dikaiosyne theou), that is, God's righteousness, which I take to be God's justice or his covenant faithfulness. He does not mean the righteousness of a human being. Evidence of this comes from the opening statements in Romans which presents the theme for the whole letter. Paul says that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (1:17). Also, Romans chapter 4 is introduced by another reference to the righteousness of God (3:21, 22). I have argued on my website that these refer to God's actions in sending Jesus to faithfully carry out God's plan of setting things right in the universe.
Therefore, when Paul says that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham he means that God reckoned to Abraham God's promise to set things right, and in this case this involves the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the gospel. Therefore, God's righteousness primarily involves the faithfulness of Jesus. Jesus' faithfulness is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of Israel. This is why "works of the law" is contrasted with pistis (which primarily means Jesus' obedient faithfulness but also human trust/faithfulness/belief):
Paul's point in the analogy in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is grace. Above I claimed that when Paul refers to "righteousness" here he means God's righteousness and God's righteousness is revealed in the Jesus event. It should not surprise us then when Paul refers to the Jesus event as a grace (see Rom. 5:15-17; 3:24; 6:14-15). Abraham did not put God in debt because he was "Jewish" and the righteousness he merited (see Rom. 9:5) for everyone is a grace. Note, however, that the implication in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness (God's saving activity) Abraham was reckoned is a reward too, and this because Abraham was faithful.
If anything, the Jews in Paul's time were guilty of relying on God's grace and not on legalism! Paul's argument is that just being Jewish and relying on the covenants is not enough. One must be obedient.
I intend to respond to Romans 4:4-5, which many take to be counter-evidence to my reading of both Genesis 15:6 and Paul's use of it in Romans and Galatians.
In my last post I claimed that what was reckoned as righteousness in Abraham was faithfulness/trust/belief, and that Paul was not interested in "naked belief" as such. The standard interpretation takes Paul to mean that by just believing without any good deeds, Abraham was accorded the status of being "righteous. I guess the standard interpretation takes "righteous" to be a quality about humans that would normally involve good deeds. However, God reckons Abraham righteous despite any good deeds. In other words, Abraham is imputed with a righteousness that he does not inherently possess. It is this standard interpretation with which I find fault.
Paul and Righteousness
I claim that when Paul uses the term "righteous" in the quote from Genesis 15:6, he means the righteousness of God (tsedaqah elohim/dikaiosyne theou), that is, God's righteousness, which I take to be God's justice or his covenant faithfulness. He does not mean the righteousness of a human being. Evidence of this comes from the opening statements in Romans which presents the theme for the whole letter. Paul says that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (1:17). Also, Romans chapter 4 is introduced by another reference to the righteousness of God (3:21, 22). I have argued on my website that these refer to God's actions in sending Jesus to faithfully carry out God's plan of setting things right in the universe.
Therefore, when Paul says that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham he means that God reckoned to Abraham God's promise to set things right, and in this case this involves the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the gospel. Therefore, God's righteousness primarily involves the faithfulness of Jesus. Jesus' faithfulness is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of Israel. This is why "works of the law" is contrasted with pistis (which primarily means Jesus' obedient faithfulness but also human trust/faithfulness/belief):
- "Works of law" = those things which primarily identify Israel as Israel (circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping etc.). However, since Israel as a whole disobeyed the law, they were under a curse. Therefore, "works of law" means disobedience.
- Pistis (faith) = the perfect faithfulness of Jesus, who offered the obedience God was looking for from Israel.
- "Works of law" = disobedience
- Pistis (faith) = obedience
4 Now to the one working the reward is not accounted according to grace but according to debt, 5 but to the one not working, but trusting the one justifying the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness...The reference to "working" is not related to "good deeds" but to the "works of the law" (see Rom. 3:28, which is immediately followed by reference to the Jew/Gentile theme in 3:29). This is strong evidence that "working" is related to being Jewish, being "under the law". The Jew/Gentile theme is also proven by the claim that Abraham does not have a "boast" because of "works" (4:2). Elsewhere, Paul uses "boasting" in the context of the Jew/Gentile theme. Not only in 3:37, but in 2:17 and 2:23. This is huge because not only are the references in chapter 2 dealing with the Jew/Gentile theme, but they pinpoint what is wrong with "works of the law". The problem is not that the Jews try to obey the law but can't (legalism), but that they don't obey the law (see the whole of 2:17-29 where Paul makes this crystal clear). The problem is disobedience, of which Jesus is the answer.
Paul's point in the analogy in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is grace. Above I claimed that when Paul refers to "righteousness" here he means God's righteousness and God's righteousness is revealed in the Jesus event. It should not surprise us then when Paul refers to the Jesus event as a grace (see Rom. 5:15-17; 3:24; 6:14-15). Abraham did not put God in debt because he was "Jewish" and the righteousness he merited (see Rom. 9:5) for everyone is a grace. Note, however, that the implication in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness (God's saving activity) Abraham was reckoned is a reward too, and this because Abraham was faithful.
If anything, the Jews in Paul's time were guilty of relying on God's grace and not on legalism! Paul's argument is that just being Jewish and relying on the covenants is not enough. One must be obedient.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Getting Genesis 15:6 right
Genesis 15:6 is just one more example of how subtle misinterpretation can lead to disaster. This verse is quoted in Romans 4, Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23. I claim that we Christians do not interpret the meaning of Genesis 15:6 correctly as used by Paul. One would think that since James appears to correct a possible misinterpretation of Gen. 15:6 that his gloss would become the definitive interpretation in Christianity. However, this does not seem to be the case. However, I want to see how Paul uses Gen. 15:6 and I will argue that his understanding of the verse is not against James' gloss and is in sync with how this verse was understood by Jews in Paul's time. One of the weaknesses of the standard interpretation is that Paul is making an argument the premises of which none of his fellow Jews would accept.
Genesis 15:6 in Context
Genesis 15:1-6, which forms a unit, can be outlined as follows:
Paul's use of Genesis 15:6
The first thing to notice about the use in Romans is that the closest occurrence of "reckon" to chapter 4 is 3:28 and there is no question that the use there is not a fictious imputation (see also 6:11). Paul is usually interpreted to mean that Abraham believed without doing anything and that this actionless belief is deemed to be righteous. I think this is mistaken. Paul is really interested in arguing that Gentiles can be sons of Abraham without coming under the law. He argues that Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised (which is a sort of proto-law, since the Mosaic law was not yet given). The issue is not that Abraham just believed, but that he was righteous BEFORE the law (Genesis chapter 15 is before 17). Abraham was basically a Gentile when he was called (ungodly, 4:5). Therefore, he can be father of both Jews and Gentiles. It makes no difference to Paul whether what was reckoned concerning Abraham was faithful acts or actionless trust. In fact, in Romans 4:18-22, it seems that Paul is hyping Abraham's perseverance and this is certainly related to faithfulness and not merely naked belief. This is why we read in 4:22:
The issues in Galatians is the same as in Romans.
Theological upshot
If I am right about the interpretation of Genesis 15:6, then we cannot use Abraham as an example of naked belief versus good deeds. That is not the issue. Abraham had good deeds (he obeyed in chapter 12--Heb. 11:8) and Paul knew that! The key is that Abraham had good deeds but that they were not deeds prescribed by the law because it had not been given yet (even the proto-law circumcision).
Genesis 15:6 in Context
Genesis 15:1-6, which forms a unit, can be outlined as follows:
- 15:1 Promise
- 15:2-3 Objection = lament
- 15:4-5 God meets objection
- 15:6 Abraham reacts and God acknowledges
- In verse 1, God promises that Abraham's reward will be great. We are not told the reason for the reward or its nature. However, from what Abraham says in verses 2-3 it appears that the reward would include an heir. I would point out the the reason for the reward could very well be Abraham's faithfulness in obeying God up to this point. After all, the book of Hebrews has Abraham obeying God as early as Genesis chapter 12 (Heb. 11:8): "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going." Also, Abraham builds an altar at Shechem (12:7), at Bethel/Ai (12:8), and at Hebron (13:18). Therefore, there is no question that Abraham believed in God before we get to chapter 15. Abraham objects that he has no offspring but God counters that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars. Then we come to 15:6:
and he trusted in God and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.It appears that Abraham's trust is being rewarded with God's verdict of righteousness. The big question is the meaning of "reckon". Does it mean something like "counted", "imputed", "credited", "charged to ones account". The key on this reading is that Abraham is deemed righteous when he was not really righteous. On the other hand, does "reckon" mean something like : "calculate", "evaluate", "estimate", "consider", "think about" etc. In this case Abraham is being deemed righteous because of something about himself. Which is correct? I want to argue that it is the latter and this drastically alters how we view the verse. Normally, when "reckon" is used in the Old Testament the value judgment is related not to the speaker but to the qualities inherent in the object being reckoned: see Lev. 7:11-18; 17:1-9; Num. 18:25-32; 2 Sam. 19:20; Prov. 27:14; Ps. 106:31. The last verse mentioned is huge because it shares much with Gen 15:6:
Ps 106:30 Phinehas stepped forth and intervened, and the plague ceased. 31 It was reckoned to his merit for all generations, to eternity.There is no question that it is Phinehas' faithfulness that is being reckoned. See also 1 Macc.2:52.
Paul's use of Genesis 15:6
The first thing to notice about the use in Romans is that the closest occurrence of "reckon" to chapter 4 is 3:28 and there is no question that the use there is not a fictious imputation (see also 6:11). Paul is usually interpreted to mean that Abraham believed without doing anything and that this actionless belief is deemed to be righteous. I think this is mistaken. Paul is really interested in arguing that Gentiles can be sons of Abraham without coming under the law. He argues that Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised (which is a sort of proto-law, since the Mosaic law was not yet given). The issue is not that Abraham just believed, but that he was righteous BEFORE the law (Genesis chapter 15 is before 17). Abraham was basically a Gentile when he was called (ungodly, 4:5). Therefore, he can be father of both Jews and Gentiles. It makes no difference to Paul whether what was reckoned concerning Abraham was faithful acts or actionless trust. In fact, in Romans 4:18-22, it seems that Paul is hyping Abraham's perseverance and this is certainly related to faithfulness and not merely naked belief. This is why we read in 4:22:
Therefore, his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness [my italics]Therefore, there is no reason why Paul is not interpreting Genesis 15:6 in line with James and his fellow Jews, with the caveat that he is viewing the issue of when Abraham was deemed righteous as important, whereas James does not. The career after chapter 17 is not relevant to Paul's argument.
The issues in Galatians is the same as in Romans.
Theological upshot
If I am right about the interpretation of Genesis 15:6, then we cannot use Abraham as an example of naked belief versus good deeds. That is not the issue. Abraham had good deeds (he obeyed in chapter 12--Heb. 11:8) and Paul knew that! The key is that Abraham had good deeds but that they were not deeds prescribed by the law because it had not been given yet (even the proto-law circumcision).
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Romans 4:25: "Resurrected for our Justification"
Why Romans 4:25?
Romans 4:25 associates Jesus' resurrection with our justification. This is a remarkable assertion, since we tend to associate justification with Jesus' death. Romans 4:24-25 reads as follows:
Romans 4:25 stands at the end of a whole section in Romans (1:18-4:25). This section is the unveiling of the righteousness of God, which for Paul is what the gospel is all about: the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16). It concerns Jesus who was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (1:4). The implication is that resurrection is part and parcel to salvation. This is proven by what Paul says in 5:9-10 (we will be saved by his life). Therefore, we should not be surprised that a major section ends with Jesus' resurrection. One could argue that 4:25 also introduces the next section (chapters 5-8) where "life" is a major theme:
Meaning of "for" [dia] in "raised for our justification"
If our sin caused Jesus to die, then did our justification cause Jesus to resurrect? The answer is probably "no" and that the second dia ought to mean "for the sake of", that is, Jesus resurrected in order to justify us. The causal/final pairing using di' appears in 4:23-24, which is evidence that the same paring is meant in 4:25.
Is 4:25 merely rhetorical?
Even if 4:25 is merely rhetorical and that there is no real separation between the effects of Jesus' death and his resurrection, the fact that Paul stated the contrast shows the importance of the resurrection in the whole scheme of salvation (see 1 Cor. 15:17).
Romans 4:25 associates Jesus' resurrection with our justification. This is a remarkable assertion, since we tend to associate justification with Jesus' death. Romans 4:24-25 reads as follows:
24 but for ours also. It will be accounted to the ones who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 who was given over for [dia] our trespasses and was raised for [dia] our justification.Context
Romans 4:25 stands at the end of a whole section in Romans (1:18-4:25). This section is the unveiling of the righteousness of God, which for Paul is what the gospel is all about: the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16). It concerns Jesus who was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (1:4). The implication is that resurrection is part and parcel to salvation. This is proven by what Paul says in 5:9-10 (we will be saved by his life). Therefore, we should not be surprised that a major section ends with Jesus' resurrection. One could argue that 4:25 also introduces the next section (chapters 5-8) where "life" is a major theme:
- 5:18 This is an interesting verse because it contains the word dikaiosis and the only other time that word is used is 4:25. "So one man's righteous act leads to justification of life for all."
- 5:21 "So grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
- 8:11 "He who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies."
Meaning of "for" [dia] in "raised for our justification"
If our sin caused Jesus to die, then did our justification cause Jesus to resurrect? The answer is probably "no" and that the second dia ought to mean "for the sake of", that is, Jesus resurrected in order to justify us. The causal/final pairing using di' appears in 4:23-24, which is evidence that the same paring is meant in 4:25.
Is 4:25 merely rhetorical?
Even if 4:25 is merely rhetorical and that there is no real separation between the effects of Jesus' death and his resurrection, the fact that Paul stated the contrast shows the importance of the resurrection in the whole scheme of salvation (see 1 Cor. 15:17).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
