Rom. 4:1-8 - Reckoned as righteousness
|
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Browse commentary
Romans
Recent comments
Books
 |
 |
 |
User login
Creative Commons License
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
One or two comments
Reading this commentary in the light of Andrew’s views on eschatology, I have a couple of questions -
i. In the second paragraph (verses 4-5), the emphasis on ‘under the present circumstances’ has clear eschatological implications in the light of Andrew’s views on the subject; but, apart from mere assertion, what grounds are there in the immediate context for making this assertion?
ii. Likewise, what are the grounds in Psalm 32 for placing the emphasis on forgiveness as the condition for surviving affliction? Isn’t the real emphasis in the psalm on forgiveness itself, rather than surviving affliction - a forgiveness which David enjoyed, and which all may enjoy who receive it in the same way: by faith, not by works of the law.
iii. Also, it may just be a quibble over words, but in what sense is the promise to Abraham ‘vouchsafed’ and ‘initiated’ by Abraham’s ‘trusting’ and ‘believing’ God? The promise was made prior to Abraham’s belief wasn’t it (though belief was required for it to be fulfilled)?
Andrew distinguishes in Romans between a ‘forensic’ or ‘existential’ understanding of ‘righteousness’, and a ‘narrative’ understanding of the term. I don’t wish to go too far in second-guessing him, but anticipating where this might be taking him in his argument, my response is:
i. that there may be more to the narrative than the limited understanding which I suspect he is giving it - ie wrath is to come not just in the 1st century, but at the final judgement;
ii. that the contrasting of narrative with forensic/existential understanding obscures this third possibility - a narrative interpretation which extends beyond the 1st century, and an existential interpretation which is justified by the the existence of the third possibility. ‘Existential’ isn’t really the right word here - the meaning is that people of every age may qualify for ‘righteousness’ in the same way that Abraham qualified; the qualification was not intended to be restricted to those living in Andrew’s eschatological 1st century.
Righteousness and eschatology
Peter, to ask for grounds for the eschatological interpretation ’in the immediate context’ is a little unreasonable. I could point to 4:13-15 where the statement ’the law brings wrath’ clearly suggests that the question of the promise to Abraham has become acutely relevant because his descendants, defined until this point by the law, face the destruction of divine judgment. But it is the overall argument of the letter that determines the interpretive framework for this section.
I agree that not too much should be made of the context of Psalm 32. The theme of forgiveness is important for Paul’s overall argument in Romans, but here it is subsumed in the story about Abraham: ’Ps 32:1-2 is only drawn in to help the exposition of Gen 15:6’ (Dunn, Romans, 208). So the narrative or eschatological force is derived principally from the thought about Abraham.
If ’belief was required for it to be fulfilled’, then surely the future of the people of God was dependent upon Abraham’s faith or trust? The ’faith’ of Abraham and the ’faith’ that Habakkuk speaks about both have to do with the general question of whether there will be a future people of God - one from the point of view of trusting God’s promise, the other from the point of view of surviving imminent destruction.
In response to your second set of questions:
1. I don’t think there is any evidence in Romans that Paul is thinking of a final judgment of all humanity: wrath on Israel followed by wrath on the Greeks - why doesn’t he mention the Assyrians or the Egyptians or the Parthians or the Ethiopians? He is thinking in terms of a narrative that encompasses only first century Israel and the particular enemy that it faced in the Greek-Roman world. I’ve said many times that ’wrath’ in the Old Testament - and therefore in Paul’s belief system - is always envisaged in concrete hitorical terms, most often as the devastation of war.
2. Yes, of course, people from every age qualify for the righteousness that was reckoned to Abraham. That is the prophetic narrative about the inclusion of the Gentiles. I have never said that forgiveness of sins and the experience of the life of the age to come was limited to those living in the first century. That’s nonsense. My contention is simply that the significance of ’faith’ for Paul’s argument in Romans has to do not simply with covenant membership or personal salvation but with the survival of a people that faced imminent destruction.
Comment number three on the thread! (See final paragraph)
Er, apologies. I hadn’t noticed that you have been working your way through Romans, so I guess ‘under the present circumstances’ may derive meaning from what you have already been saying, and no doubt will do from what you are going on to say. It’s a very good commentary - and should provoke some serious rethinking.
Your points about the on-going nature of the wrath of God (and subsequent comments about God’s wrath in history) are well taken - but I’m not disputing them! I’m arguing that ‘the wrath of God’, as in God’s judgement(s), is both historical and final - at the final judgement. To mention the former always implies the latter - the two are never set against each other, or the one advanced at the expense of the other.
Turning to the gospel - it is certainly a means of delivering people from (or through) God’s wrath; but it is, of course far more than that - and includes realities which do not seem to figure in your eschatological proposals - though again, let’s not be too hasty. Romans 6-8 are yet to come. I suspect, however, that you make historical (and from your perspective eschatological) judgement determinative in the interpretation of these.
” ‘The God of peace will ’soon crush Satan’ under their feet’ (16:20).clearly foresees imminent eschatological transition.”
- Is it so clear? You can enlist it for your argument, but there is no explicit connection with an ‘eschatological transition’. That is only how you interpret it.
Concerning the wrath of God as described in Romans, Paul does not need to mention the Assyrians, Egyptians, Parthians or Ethiopians, as he is addressing issues in 1st century Rome. On the other hand, he takes in a historical sweep by going far beyond the 1st century. On Israel’s side, this takes in David, Moses, Abraham and Adam. But on the side of the gentiles, it is arguable that he surveys their entire history in Romans 1:18-32 - not simply the 1st century manifestations of their behaviour. A turning-away from God over the ages is described here - as opposed, for instance, to a religious evolution towards monotheism. All once knew God. All have turned from him - Jew and Gentile alike. When did this happen? Not just in the 1st century.
“I have never said that forgiveness of sins and the experience of the life of the age to come was limited to those living in the first century. That’s nonsense.”
- Andrew, you have not explained how people from every age benefit from a forgiveness of sins which was, according to you, intended for 1st century Israel. Also, you haven’t explained how such a forgiveness of sins was so rapidly appropriated by gentiles. For all the admirable (not meant with any irony or cynicism) detail of your exegesis, this is a problem for which I have yet to see you produce a satisfactory solution. Your account has very little to say about sin beyond the 1st century - though what it does say is always relevant and important.
“My contention is simply that the significance of ’faith’ for Paul’s argument in Romans has to do not simply with covenant membership or personal salvation but with the survival of a people that faced imminent destruction.”
- But who faced imminent destruction? Not the inhabitants of 1st century Rome, Jew and Gentile, whom Paul was addressing. Again, there is a disjunction here between history and exegesis. At the very least, the one should dialogue with the other. Even the slaughter in Israel during the Jewish wars has never been taken as eschatological in the sense which you present it, and the preponderance of Israel, which included survivors and inhabitants scattered throughout the empire, always a majority of Jews in the 1st century, survived. It is prophesied (in Matthew 24 etc), but if it had been so clearly eschatological (in the sense in which you portray it), would it have taken 2000 years to discover it? And why have preterist versions of the same, which are very similar to your conclusions, never taken hold in faith communities, who are the ultimate arbiters of these things?
For some reason, each time I try to access the comments on this thread, I am redirected to the main commentary. Perhaps this is trying to tell me something! Do you have any thoughts? I have only been able to access the comments, and hence make this reply, through a non interactive format which I somehow retrieved from somewhere. (But it doesn’t let me add comments). Many are the sufferings of the righteous.
Turning to the gospel -
Whether or not the ’gospel’ is more than that is one thing. Whether in the context of Paul’s argument in Romans it is more than that is another. Paul was not theologically bound to address the situation of the universal post-eschatological church. There is no reason why he should not have developed his argument within a narrower historical field of concern. Both the manner in which he makes use of the Old Testament and, indeed, the way in which he develops his argument suggest to me that he is not thinking beyond the eschatological crisis spanned by judgment on Israel and judgment on the Greek-Roman world. I’m not saying that faith and theology have no significance or content beyond this eschatological horizon: the community of the Son of man suffers and resists precisely for the sake of the future of the people of God - that is Paul’s argument in Romans. But I think that Romans as a whole makes better sense if we recognize that Paul develops his argument about faith and righteousness specifically within the eschatological narrative.
Incidentally, I think we should keep in mind that the ’gospel’ is not some sort of magic formula by which people are saved from their sins. It is an announcement about what God is about to do (in Jesus’ case) or what God has done (in Paul’s case) for Israel - in other words, about a historical event. Israel faced judgment, that is ’destruction’, because of its sins; but God has acted in Christ, through the faithfulness of Jesus, to provide an alternative ’way’ by which Israel might be saved. The preaching of the gospel is the making known of that event.
Romans 1:18-32 gives the theological background to the religious and moral condition of the Greek-Roman world, which is why idolatry and homosexuality feature so prominently - to the consternation of many sensitive modern believers. The argument culminates in the statement about judgment in the language of social and political crisis first on the Jew, then on the Greek (2:9-10). There is nothing in this passage that suggests that Paul is thinking of the entire history of humanity.
Within Paul’s argument both Jews and Gentiles, for different reasons, stand under wrath, so if they are to be part of a community this is not under wrath, that is ’right’ with God, they must be forgiven. Why did Gentiles respond so readily? I’m not sure I see the relevance of the question, but one argument at least, from a more sociological perspective, is that there were many pagans in the ancient world who were attracted to the ethical and theological standards of Judaism. What Paul offered was a means of access to this faith that did not require circumcision and the keeping of the law.
I am inclined to say that Paul in Romans does not answer the question about forgiveness and inclusion following the eschatological crisis. But I don’t really see a problem. Just as under Judaism people became part of the people of God by taking upon themselves the burden of the law, so under Christ people become part of that people, become descendants of Abraham, by taking upon themselves the burden of grace. I would also argue that whenever a person makes the journey from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the old creation to the new creation, they leave something behind and take on a new existence - that is the gift of God.
That’s simply not true - or do I misunderstand you? Throughout the Old Testament the death of Jews, along with other sufferings, is understood as a consequence of judgment. Jesus warned, hyperbolically perhaps, that judgment on Jerusalem would be accompanied by ’such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be’ (Mk. 13:19). And the thought is expressed in Jewish apocalyptic writings that Rome’s war against the Jews marked the end of an age. The destruction of second temple Judaism was a catastrophic event. That is what I mean by eschatology - a critical future horizon for the people of God. It is too pedantic to ask whether the number of individuals killed was sufficient to warrant labelling the destruction of Jerusalem or the collapse of Greek-Roman paganism as ’eschatological’. The point is that these events marked the concrete transition for God’s people from old covenant to new covenant, from law to grace, from temple worship to the indwelling of the Spirit, from Caesar to Christ, from subjection to freedom, from persecution to vindication.
Why did this perspective disappear in Christian theology. I don’t know. I’m not a historian. I imagine it had something to do with the fact that Greek theology lost touch conceptually with its Jewish narrative origins. I would see this as rather like recovering the difficult historical Jesus behind the bland, mythicized, effectively docetic Jesus of much evangelical piety. In the same way, we need to recover the difficult historical narrative behind the simple categories of much modern evangelical theology. And as you point out, the historical and theological are sometimes at odds with each other.
More thoughts
A brief reply to a long reply.
I don’t think your view that the ‘gospel’ was simply the announcement of a vehicle to take believers through forthcoming destruction is born out by the picture. One of the more important OT books which relates to evangelion is Isaiah. The picture of the herald in Isaiah 52 prefigures the victory which was proclaimed by the apostles in the gospel. The victory proclaimed was a victory of the messiah over death. This drew attention to the inseparable connection in the Jewish mind, and in the OT going back to Genesis 1-3, between death and sin. This victory lies at the heart of the gospel proclamation, and refers to sin and death not simply as they affect our qualification for the kind of afterlife we experience, but their outworking in our lives prior to death. This thought lies at the heart of Romans (along with much else!) and is certainly at the heart of Paul’s complex arguments which are directly addressed in Romans 5-8.
As regards eschatology, I’m simply suggesting a distinction between a view which sees whatever happened in judgements on Jerusalem and Rome in the 1st century as climactic, and a view which sees them (the first in particular) as fulfilment of prophecy (in Matthew 24 etc), but not as providing an eschatological interpretative key - of the kind which you are developing. For me, and I’ve always been saying this, the key to eschatology focuses more on the preceding events in the life and death of Jesus - and that these make more sense of the OT data.
The thought I had this morning was this. Thinking of Romans 8:18-39, surely the picture here is not of forthcoming judgement and destruction meted out on Rome (through which believers were to be delivered), but the actual experience of death that believers themselves were experiencing. The experience was of martyrdom during the Neronian persecutions. As Paul said: “For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” v.36. But “we are more than conquerors” because death is unable “to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
The good news in Isaiah 52-53
The good news that is announced in Isaiah 52:7 is not one of a universal victory over death. It is that God has acted to set Jerusalem free from captivity and to restore Zion, bringing back the Jews from exile in Babylon (52:1-12). This historical act of salvation will be seen by the nations of the earth (52:10). The good news in the New Testament is essentially of the same character: that God is acting as a king more powerful than the kings of the nations to rescue his people from the judgment of oppression and to restore them to wholeness. The gospel is not the ’vehicle’ by which that happens - it is the announcement, first to Israel and then to the world, that this is what God is about to do.
What Isaiah 52:13-53:12 describes is the suffering - perhaps of an individual figure, perhaps of a group within Israel, perhaps of the whole of Israel - by means of which that historical deliverance and restoration would be achieved. The servant suffers because Israel sinned (’stricken for the transgression of my people’ - not of all people: Is. 53:8); but through his sufferings the people is healed. Notice that the outcome of the servant’s suffering is that his descendants will survive (53:10-11). The LXX of 53:10 reads: ’the Lord also wishes to purge him from his wound (the suffering that comes from the punishment of Israel). If you (plural) should give an offering for sin, your soul will see a long-lived seed.’
This thought is also taken over into the New Testament: Jesus is the one who suffers because Israel sinned and has come under judgment; he is the one through whose sufferings the people are restored to wholeness and are guaranteed a future.
Somewhere in the background to this is the general thought that sin leads to death. But much more important for Israel, theologically, and for understanding this passage, is the particular form that this equation takes under the covenant: if Israel sins (does not keep the commandments, etc.), the nation will face destruction, suffering, death, etc.
Isaiah 52-53 describes the salvation of God’s people from their captivity, from the destructive consequence of their sin. The ’gospel’ is the declaration of that salvation to the world. That’s all.
Romans 5-8 will have to wait, but I will argue that the universal link between sin and death is only the background to the particular problem of judgment on Israel.
Victory over Rome - or sin and death?
No, obviously Isaiah doesn’t announce victory over death in 52:7. But neither is he announcing the restoration of the Jews from Babylon - at least, the actual return of some Jews from Babylon fell far short of the terms in which Isaiah decribes it. That is why there is a considerable ‘remainder’ in Isaiah’s prophecy which was awaiting fulfilment. 1st century Jews seem to have been well aware of this ‘remainder’ - in their liturgies, for instance.
Jesus, and subsequently the apostles announce an ‘evangelion’ - which naturally associated itself with the language and expectations of Isaiah (still awaiting fulfilment in 1st century Israel). Jesus explicitly identified himself with the kingdom vision of Isaiah (Luke 7:22-23 etc), and Paul’s commission was described in terms of Isaiah.
At this point we diverge somewhat. Your version of the evangelion is the victory of God over Rome (and, strangely enough, it must also include apostate Israel). I see, as described, a victory over sin and death - Israel’s prime enemies. The narrative takes on an entirely new dimension - but not really new, since it connects with key aspects of the existing narrative, making full sense of them, perhaps for the first time.
Fulfillment of prohecies about Israel and given to Israel
Andrew and Peter, May I please be permitted to suggest that for both of you your scope is too limited. Before going any further, will you both please answer this question: "Where was "Israel" in the first century?"
Lloyd