It was common practice among the Jewish scholars of Paul’s day to substantiate an argument from two passages of scripture, preferably one from the Pentateuch (the Torah) and one from the rest of the scripture (the “Prophets” which sometimes included the Book of Psalms). Paul has cited Gen 15 above to prove that Abraham was made right with God (i.e., “righteous”) on the basis of his faith in God’s word of promise. Now he must find a proof outside of the Pentateuch.
It was also common practice to look for links between proof texts in the form of common vocabulary, again preferably more than one common term or idea. Paul found in Psalm 32:1-2 a passage which in both the Hebrew and Greek versions contained the verb we translate as “count,” “reckon,” or “credit.” This is his main link to the Genesis 15 statement that God "credited" Abraham's faith "as righteousness".
The second link is not verbal but conceptual: Gen 15 spoken of "righteousness (or right standing)” credited to Abraham. In Ps 32:1-2 the author calls the man “happy” (or “blessed”) to whom God does not credit wrong standing (i.e., unrighteousness, or sin). Paul affirms that God is willing and able not to hold sin against a man “apart from (his good) works” (Greek χωρὶς ἔργων).
Psalm 32 quoted here attributes it to the fact that the man’s sin is “forgiven” and “covered”. Paul cannot therefore include among the “works” that play no role in his forgiveness the sacrificial system, unless he regarded the verb “covered” (כְּסוּי), which normally alludes to the atonement rites of tabernacle and temple, as here being used only metaphorically. Most likely, he considered the repentance and offering of a sacrifice, which are implied by David’s word “covered” to be a part of faith in the pre-messianic era. As I explained above in the discussion of Romans 3, Paul’s invalidating of “covenantal nomism" was based upon the fact that in the messianic era, after the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus the messiah, the temple sacrifices, which had always been only anticipatory of his sacrificial death, were no longer an adequate means of securing forgiveness of sins.
In the context of Ps 32, the trigger of repentance and the subsequent offering of sacrifice was the sinner’s breaking his guilty silence and making confession of son to God. Paul would have also considered this a part of the attitude of faith “apart from works.” In fact, in Romans 10 he will describe the steps involved in messianic faith as including “confessing with the mouth” as well as “believing in the heart”.
4:10-12
Returning now to his primary proof text in Genesis 15, Paul argues on the basis of the chronological sequence of events—Abraham credited with righteousness in Gen 15, Abraham circumcised in Gen 17—that the “justification by faith” illustrated in Gen 15 applies to gentiles, who like Abraham at that time are uncircumcised. Circumcision is therefore not a pre-condition of righteousness by faith, not even a accompanying rite, since Abraham was not immediately circumcised in Gen 15. It was merely a subsequent sign of Abraham’s continuing faith in and faithfulness to God’s word, instructing him to circumcise his sons and himself.
Furthermore, by being justified by simple faith while uncircumcised in Gen 15 and then by showing his faith by being circumcised in Gen 17, Abraham is able to be “father” of both gentiles and Jews and to unify them in one faithful community (see also Rom 4:17):
“He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” (Romans 4:11-12 ESV)
This bit of exegesis does not in itself logically exclude the counter-argument by “Judaizers” such as were active in the churches of Galatia, that since father Abraham’s obedient faith led him to be circumcised, the obedient faith of gentile believers in Paul’s day should also lead them to be circumcised. But there is no evidence of Judaizing activity in the churches of Rome that Paul would have had to counter, and Paul’s exegesis did allow him to address his pastoral concern (on which see “Pastoral Purpose” on p. [Referenced content is missing.]), which was the rift between Jewish and gentile believers in Rome.
4:13-15 Not by the law
Although Paul does not anticipate the presence of Judaizers in Rome, he is explaining his “gospel,” which makes it very clear that justification (and salvation) is only through faith in Jesus the messiah. So it is necessary, especially in connection with his citing Abraham as the father of saved gentiles and Jews, for him to show that the law of Moses, while it served a necessary purpose for Jews, has no role in the actual admission of either Jew or gentile to the messianic kingdom.
In verse 13 Paul introduces a new topic into the letter: believers inheriting the earth. He traces this back beyond Jesus’ beatitude promise “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5 NIV), to God’s promises to Abraham. But where was this promised? The NIV Study Bible note is helpful:
“No express mention of this heirship is made in the Genesis account of Abraham. He is promised “offspring like the dust of the earth” (Ge 13:16) and possession of the land of Canaan (Ge 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 18-21; 17:8), and that all the peoples on earth will be blessed through him (Ge 12:3; 18:18) or his offspring (Ge 22:18). But since, as Genesis already makes clear, God purposed through Abraham and his offspring to work out the destiny of the whole world, it was implicit in the promises to Abraham that he and his offspring would “inherit the earth” (see Ps 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34; Mt 5:5). The full realization of this awaits the consummation of the Messianic kingdom at Christ’s return.”
And since this implied promise was made to Abraham hundreds of years before the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, it is obvious that it was not conditional on fulfilling the law. That Israel would prove a blessing to the nations was truly dependent upon her keeping God’s law. But the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham was not.
Paul makes two separate arguments in verse 14-14. First, in v. 14, there would have been no purpose in God’s promising or pronouncing Abraham righteous for believing the promise, if the fulfillment depended upon a subsequent keeping of the law. And secondly, in v. 15, the function of the law was always to measure obedience and mark disobedience. And when law is in force, and transgression occurs, it will bring the punitive wrath of God into play. But when the law does not enter into the arrangement, there is nothing to indicate a transgression on Abraham’s (or the gentiles’) part. Paul draws a distinction here between “sin” (Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia) and “transgression” (Greek παράβασις parabasis). Sin (ἁμαρτία hamartia) can exist without a law to measure or mark it, but the word “transgression” (in Hebrew, Greek and English) implies a boundary that is crossed. And the law is that boundary. So without that boundary, no “transgression” is possible.
4:16-17a Guaranteeing the inheritance
Because it would be impossible to guarantee the promise, if the heirs to that promise were obligated to keep the law, it was extended to Abraham and his offspring out of God’s grace and on the simple condition of faith. In this way it is guaranteed and cannot be nullified by “transgressions” of the law. And this guarantee extendes not just to gentiles, but also to Jews who accept the promise by faith and do not seek to make it conditional upon law-keeping.
4:17b-25 Describing Abraham’s faith as resurrection faith
At the end of v. 17 Paul calls God “the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were,” which serves as his transition to the subject of the nature of saving faith, the faith that results in justification: it is faith in the God who raises the dead. Now in Abraham’s case the dead that needed new life was his own reproductive system, his “body.” He was far too old to have a child. Yet God had promised him one (vv. 18-20). Because Abraham believed in God’s “resurrecting” power, his faith “was counted to him as righteousness” (i.e., effected his salvation). But Paul draws the analogy between Abraham’s believing that God could give life to his dead reproductive system and us today who must believe that God raised Jesus’ body from the dead (vv. 23-25) and will also raise us by that same power. If we believe in the same power of God that raised Jesus and will give spiritual life now to our dead souls and physical life from the dead to our bodies at Jesus’ second coming, that too will be counted to us as “righteousness” (i.e., will effect our salvation).
It is a nice piece of biblical interpretation, using all the accepted principles being applied by scholars of scripture in Paul’s day. It was unassailable in its logic and the tightness of its argumentation. But what does it say to you and me today?
Obviously, it says first and foremost that like Abraham we must believe in the God of resurrection. That means the God who raised Jesus. We cannot pretend to be “Christians” and fail to truly believe in a God who as the all-powerful Creator not only can do miracles, i.e., things judged “impossible” by the rules of human science, but who both has done and will do such miracles for those who believe. If we let others know that we believe this, we will be laughed at, perhaps behind our backs, perhaps to our faces. But that is all right. It is called “faith”, but not faith in ourselves—which is encouraged by the world today—but faith in an all-powerful and good Creator.
Secondly, since Paul will make the argument in chapter 6 that we who believe have become united to Christ in his death and resurrection, so that we too have died with him to sin and were raised with him to a new life of righteousness, our belief in the God of the resurrection needs to be shown by lives that reflect the “humanly impossible” ethical values of the eschatological age to come. As I explained in the introduction to Romans, Paul’s view of the “already … not yet” Last Days made it possible for him to see believers as already living in the so-called “age to come”, while at the same time experiencing the tensions of their surroundings which represent “the present evil age.”
In chapter 12 he will urge his believing hearers to not be conformed to the present age, but realize the good and perfect will of God through the “renewing of their minds”. We will explain this in much more detail when we reach chapter 12. But for now, this means that you and I both can and ought to live far more righteously and godly than one would think possible in this present age.
My college ethics professor (who was not a believer) used to refer to the “impossible” ethics of Jesus—perfectionist, he also called them—that we are intended to only use as ideals. Paul would differ with him: the “impossible” ethics of Jesus are not impossible to those who by faith live a resurrected life—an eschatological life—in the present.
It is very likely that you and I will not even manage a day or a few hours of “perfect” resurrected living. But if so, the fault is not that we cannot, but that we choose not to do so. Will you thank God for this potential, and ask him to help you utilize the moral strength that is now yours as a resurrected heir of Abraham’s to more closely approximate the potential that you have in Jesus?
No comments:
Post a Comment