During last week of Wheatstone Academy, several intuitions about the state of Christian youth were broadly confirmed:

1)  It seems that on the whole, attention spans are decreasing considerably.  Most students have a difficult time paying attention for longer than 30 minutes.

2)  Unlike Brett’s experience, most of the students I talked to knew enough to not be relativists about things like God and morality.  That’s probably due mainly to the demographic:  Wheatstone attracts leaders and apologetics junkies.  But that doesn’t mean they aren’t relativists in other areas of their lives.  They know just enough to know that relativism is the bogey that must be avoided, even though many of them have drunk deeply at its well without realizing it.  The relativism is more subtle than Brett found, and probably more destructive.
3)  If you challenge Christian students, they respond enthusiastically.  At the end of what is for many students an intellectually demanding week, it was common to hear remarks like, “That was so hard, but so good.  I can’t wait until next year.”  Most students are tired of being talked down to, and if you take them seriously, they will follow you anywhere.

4)  There is good reason to hope.  Working with Christian youth can be at times frustrating, since it seems like progress is so hard.  But every now and then, in the moments when lightbulbs go off and students catch the vision, hope is restored.  I saw many such moments this week at Wheatstone.

VIII. Conclusion

My initial move was to outline interpretations of two exegetical issues, namely anthropology and justification, pointing out that a fundamental tension exists within exegesis of both issues, namely which paradigm has primacy in Paul’s thought, the individual or corporate. It seems that little clarification is offered by “new perspective” thinkers or “traditionalists” as to the nature of the relationship between these paradigms. I then turned to Romans 4, where I affirmed Moxnes’s interpretation that Paul’s purpose is to delineate who the children of Abraham are. This clearly means that his purpose is communal, oriented toward the theological relationship of Jews and Gentiles, and broadly affirms that justification entails being “righteoused,” or included in the covenant people of God. I then argued that the faith of Abraham which makes us father of all who believe was specifically in God’s creative power, which was established by the textual parallels with Romans 1, and by the identification of God’s creative power with His raising Christ from the dead. This led us to the anthropological underpinnings of Paul’s argument about the nature of Abraham’s faith. The argument proceeded on two levels: on the one hand, thematic parallels were developed between Romans 4 and Joseph and Aseneth, a text that uses the “death-life” imagery that is indicative of “new creation.” Even though no direct connection can be made, the thematic similarity between these two texts was striking. On the other hand, textual parallels between Romans 4 and Romans 8 were established and it was suggested that Paul’s anthropological explication of the “new life in Christ,” or “new creation” in shorthand is in fact undergirding Romans 1-4. The deadness of the body in 8.11 was seen as analogous to the deadness of Abraham’s body in 4.19. This gave theological significance to sw:ma; in 4.19, and adds significant support to Gundry’s thesis that Paul is operating with a view of sw:ma; that is physical. However, nowhere does Gundry elicit support from his view in this manner or from this text. Furthermore, this argument furthers Hubbard’s defense of an anthropological conception of “new creation.” If Paul is employing those concepts in his explication of Abraham’s faith, then this adduces support for an “anthropological view” in those places where he actually uses the shorthand “kaine ktises”.

There still exists a tension between Romans 4 and Romans 5-8. I have argued that they are thematically interrelated. However, it is not clear how. I have argued that the anthropology of Romans 4 is consistent with 5-8, and here I will characterize the relationship between 4 and 5-8 as one of “foreshadowing-revelation.” Abraham’s experience of his “dead” body becoming “alive” as a result of his faith that God “who was able to do what He promised” is revealed in subsequent chapters for what it was: a work of the Spirit of God in an act of “new creation.” Reading backward, then, we can discern a strikingly similar anthropology in 5-8 to Paul’s anthropology in chapter 4.

One significant issue has been left undone. I am willing to grant that the “new perspective” is correct, and justification is about “inclusion in the covenant,” and the purpose of Romans 4 is to determine “who is in.” However, that still does not entail Wright’s conclusion that justification is “more about ecclesiology than the church.” Rather, justification requires a “new creation” by faith in order for the “church” to exist. Even if the purpose of Romans 4 is to delineate who the children of Abraham are, the fact that they are “of the faith of Abraham” suggests that they need the same sort of faith, and hence need to be “new creations” in the way we have argued Abraham was. They must be brought to life through faith in Him who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, no matter who they are. Clearly no “new perspective” thinker would disagree with this. However, justification itself depends upon this transformation occurring, and hence the communal interpretation itself depends upon the individual. The relationship between the competing paradigms with respect to transformation, then, has individuals as foundational, with communal transformation logically subsequent.

We have, then, reached an understanding of the relationship between individual and communal paradigms of transformation from Romans 4. The content of Abraham’s faith and experience of faith is prior to anyone being included as children of Abraham, and it is when we have faith like his (namely, faith in God’s creating-resurrecting power) that we are reckoned as righteous, or justified. Ultimately, this will be revealed for what it is, namely that we are now sons of God and heirs of Jesus Christ, not just sons of Abraham and heirs of the world.

(Footnotes below the fold)

(more…)

Dr. Fred Sanders is one of the smartest and most interesting people I’ve ever met.  Conversations with him are stimulating and challenging.  His last two posts at Scriptorium Daily have been exemplary in both these regards.

From a prayer for the offering:

O Lord! We cannot trust ourselves with our own money, and we sure don’t trust anybody else with it. These dollars of ours have wings on them, Lord. There is no cage or trap we can build which is strong enough to hold this money.

It’s getting away from us. It’s making us nervous. Our only hope is that some of our money flies into your hands; that some of it flies back to you, the giver of all good gifts. Our livelihood flows from you in the first place, Lord: Let our money and time and energy fly back to you. Use this money to make us wise with all money, with all energy, and with all time.

On the role of external evidence in our understanding of Scripture:

Once you’ve added the heft of evidence to your claim, you’ve escaped the vicious circle and are ready to participate in polite human discourse. Suddenly, people can tell the difference between your claims and the claims of the guy on the corner shouting, “I am God! Hear thou my words, for they are true, for I speak them, and I am God!” When other devout people, in all sincerity, put forth their own holy books with putative revelations from God, you’ve got something to talk with them about instead of degenerating into “Is not,” “Is so,” “Is not,” “Is so,” “Is not,” “Is so.” People who make claims bring evidence; that’s just how we do things in civilized society.

Yet while the circularity of the doctrine of Scripture isn’t a vicious circularity–that is, it is broad enough to be reasonable–it is still there.  As Sanders writes:

First, “what you believe about the Bible” is your doctrine of Scripture. Just like “what you believe about Jesus” is your christology, and “what you believe about God” is your theology, and “what you believe about the church” is your ecclesiology, so “what you believe about the Bible” is your bibliology, an inelegant word for your doctrine of Scripture. Now, where do Christians derive their doctrines about anything? They derive them from Scripture. The source of all our knowledge about the things of God is the word of God. When you are framing your ideas about creation, salvation, the Holy Spirit, or anything else, we take our information and our interpretive keys from Scripture. When the time comes to frame some theological claims about Scripture itself, we behave exactly the same way we do in the other areas. We put together a biblical theology of Scripture. The only alternative is to have an un-biblical theology of Scripture, and who wants that? Insofar as the doctrine of Scripture is one of the doctrines, one among many, of a scriptural religion, it is legitimately circular to have a biblical theology of Scripture.

Dr. Sanders is just one of the reasons why Scriptorium Daily should be daily reading for all Christians.

Francis Beckwith said, “Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. ”

The pre-reformation Church made judgments about these issues, the creeds, doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, etc. which both the Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed Churches submit to, affirm, adhere to, and follow as an essential part of living out the life of Christ on earth. This is a historical fact about which I was sadly ignorant for all of my teenage and young adult years. Yet it is one of great importance. One’s understanding of the pre-reformation Churches will have deep impact on one’s understanding of the post-reformation Churches… I charge all of my fellow Evangelicals, of all denominations, to attend to this fact, to research it, and to develop a clearer understanding of our own identity in light of it.

This has to be one of the most bizarre reports I have read in some time:

Remember the mammoths, say the clean-cut organisers at the youth camp’s mass wedding. “They became extinct because they did not have enough sex. That must not happen to Russia”.

Obediently, couples move to a special section of dormitory tents arranged in a heart-shape and called the Love Oasis, where they can start procreating for the motherland.

With its relentlessly upbeat tone, bizarre ideas and tight control, it sounds like a weird indoctrination session for a phoney religious cult.

But this organisation – known as “Nashi”, meaning “Ours” – is youth movement run by Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin that has become a central part of Russian political life.

Surreal.  It gets worse:

Attendance is monitored via compulsory electronic badges and anyone who misses three events is expelled. So are drinkers; alcohol is banned. But sex is encouraged, and condoms are nowhere on sale.

Bizarrely, young women are encouraged to hand in thongs and other skimpy underwear – supposedly a cause of sterility – and given more wholesome and substantial undergarments.

Twenty-five couples marry at the start of the camp’s first week and ten more at the start of the second. These mass weddings, the ultimate expression of devotion to the motherland, are legal and conducted by a civil official.

I’m running out of adjectives to appropriately express disgust and astonishment.  The movement is eerily reminiscent of the Nazi youth, as the author points out.  How credible is the report?  It’s outlandishness makes me initially skeptical, butit is certainly plausible.

How similar is Russia to Germany of the 1930s?  It’s not clear, but for years I have heard reports for years of the apathy and cynicism of Russia’s youth.  When combined with a lagging economy, the ground may be ripe for the rise of the sort of nationalism that paved the way for Nazi Germany.  Given the example of Nazi Germany, it seems prudent to err on the side of caution.  The question, though, is what can be done.

While some people are certainly worse than I, I have been known to drop a “:)” or a “;)” in my emails. Most of the time, it is unreflective and stems from, I think, an inability to properly use language to indicate the tone which I am striving to attain.

I’m not alone. Emoticons have hit the mainstream, leaving people wondering what, if any, their proper role is in the workplace and elsewhere.

Emoticons are the perfect symbols for our increasingly hurried and inarticulate lives. Finding just the right phrase is hard–slipping in a smiley face is easy. Yet our–my!–hurry is increasingly making it more difficult to find substantial relationships with God.

Like almost all cultural movements, now that emoticons are here, they are almost certainly here to stay. And they will doubtlessly be improved as the technology behind communication platforms becomes more significant. And like all technological developments, they raise significant questions about whether we are losing as much as we gain in using them.

(Hat tip:  Joe Carter)

“Alarm red, alarm red, alarm red. All aircraft and vehicles will hold their position until further notice. The airfield is currently under attack.” The radio crackled to life with the startling announcement. The gravity of the situation was made more chilling simply because of the matter-of-fact tone of voice in which it was said; the woman speaking into the radio may as well have been taking an order through a drive-thru window as declaring the imminent possibility of death for servicemen on the ground in Iraq.

Our plane rumbled to a stop as commanded by the monotone voice on the other end of the radio, and an expectant silence filled the cockpit. Glancing outside, we saw men and women scurrying across the parking ramps towards the concrete bunkers. The follow-me truck in front of our aircraft screeched to a stop and the driver threw himself onto the pavement and covered his head. After a few moments, our cockpit was filled with nervous laughter as we watched the driver get up from his position on the taxiway, jump into his truck and accelerate towards the bunkers, come to a stop, and run inside. The obvious distress of the driver contrasted sharply with the placid command to hold position just received over the radio. We laughed at the driver’s behavior, not so much because his behavior was amusing as because it provide a release to our own anxiety as we sat patiently in our own giant, winged, target. (more…)

VII. Romans 4 with Reference to 5-8

In the preceding section I argued that the thematic similarities between Romans 4 and Joseph and Aseneth support my argument that “new creation” is at work in Romans 4. However, this is clearly not sufficient. Hubbard’s argument locates “new creation” in the death-life imagery of Romans 5-8, and if “death-life” imagery is at the heart of “new creation,” then establishing textual and thematic parallels between Romans 4 and 5-8 is absolutely critical to my argument. In establishing these parallels, I will focus on Romans 8.

It is at this point that it is important to recall the various interpretations of soma that were outlined above. On the one hand were Robinson and Bultmann, arguing that soma refers to the whole person, with Robinson contending that it referred to man in his solidarity with creation, while Bultmann argued that it referred only to the whole person. On the other hand was Gundry, who argues that soma is merely part of the whole person, the functional or instrumental part. It is not my intent to address the arguments for Gundry’s position—rather, I merely want to reinforce his argument in a way that he did not. To do so, I will argue that by virtue of the parallels between Romans 4 and 5-8, Paul’s use of swvma in Romans 4.17 takes on theological significance, and furthers Gundry’s claims about the corporeality of soma.

Hubbard’s work (which again, I will adopt) on the antecedents to Paul’s uses of the Spirit leads him to conclude that there are two prominent lines of tradition that Paul interweaves: “the Spirit as the sign of the eschaton, and the Spirit as the creator of life.”[60] Under the matrix of Spirit as “creator of life,” then, examine the clear linguistic parallels between Romans 4 and Romans 8.10-11:

4.17: “the God who gives life to the dead”

4.19: “he faced the fact that his body (soma) was as good as dead”

4.24: “but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

8.10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

8.11 “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”

Clearly soma in 4.19 is not intended to extend beyond Abraham’s procreative abilities, which were clearly dead. However, given the linguistic parallels noted above between chapter 4 and 8.10-11, it seems Paul has expanded his use of soma from procreative abilities in 4.19 to the whole body in chapters 6-8. Gundry has demonstrated from the uses of soma in chapters 6-8 that Paul is focusing on the corporeality of the human person when he uses the term. The parallel language merely provides further reason to think that he doesn’t extend it to the whole person. The textual echoes I have highlighted in chapter eight warrant the conclusion that the semantic range of sw:ma does not extend beyond corporeality to the whole man.

Textual echoes do not end there, however. As 8.10-11 demonstrate, “life giving” and “raising” are synonyms in Paul’s mind. In chapter 4, God is identified as both “life giving” and “raising” (verses 17 and 23, respectively). As was pointed out above, Abraham is reckoned as righteous for our sake as well because the God who He believed is the God who raised Christ Jesus. Both “life giving” and “raising” are used of God in Romans 8.11. If the “Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead” that dwells in us, then “He will also give life to our mortal bodies.”[61] As I have argued previously, Paul is concerned to delineate who the “children of Abraham” are.[62] In chapter eight Paul returns to the concept of “the Father,” only it is the Spirit who is crying out in our hearts, “Abba, Father.” Now we are children of God, and not children of Abraham. It is no surprise, then, that Paul also expands the concept of “inheritance” as well, from being “heirs of the world” (4.13) to “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.”

Clearly, then, the textual links between Romans 4 and 8 are established enough to justify the conclusion that if “new creation” can be located in the “death-life” imagery of chapters 6-8, then it can be located in chapter four. This suggests, however, that “new creation” is fundamentally anthropological, and that chapters 6-8 are an expansion of Paul’s argument in chapter four.

Other posts in this series:

Series Intro

Prefatory Remarks

An Intro to Pauline Theology

The Individual vs. the Communal

An Exegesis of Romans 3:20-31

The Turn to Romans 4

Continuing with Romans 4

The Anthropology of Romans 4

Romans 4 with respect to 5-8

Conclusion and Footnotes

(Warning:  because this is the heart of the argument, a lengthy post follows).

VI. The Anthropology of Romans 4

It is perhaps easiest to begin outside of Paul’s writings to highlight two traditions that Paul may have been aware of, strains of which seem interwoven into the argument of Romans 4. In the above section, I emphasized that Paul’s purpose is to delineate who is included in the covenant made with Abraham. I also pointed out linguistic parallels between Romans 4 and Romans 1 that demonstrate that Paul is using Abraham as an antithesis of the Gentile unbelievers depicted in Romans 1, parallels which seem unrelated to Paul’s purpose. There are several loose ends, then, that need tying, beginning with the relationship between Romans 1 and 4.

I have highlighted the textual parallels between Paul’s depiction of the Gentile pagans in Romans 1 and Abraham in Romans 4. Noticeably absent, however, is any explicit reference to idolatry in Romans 4. The references in Romans 1.23 and 25 to idolatry find no parallel in Romans 4. However, as Edward Adams has pointed out,[44] there is a strong tradition behind Romans 4 that depicts Abraham as the first to reject idolatry in favor of the belief of a creator.[45] While Paul seems to have this tradition in the back of his mind,[46] it is on the basis of the revelation of the promise in Genesis 15.6 that Paul draws his argument, and not on the move from idolatry to belief in God as the creator. Adams contends that the distinctive difference between the tradition and Paul’s focus on Genesis 15.6 is hat Paul can show that faith was “personal…It was faith in God’s spoken word…It was oriented toward hope…It was crisis related.”[47] None of these elements are found in the tradition, though the extra-biblical tradition clearly is used by Paul to characterize Abraham as the antithesis to the idolaters of Romans 1. What bearing this has on our argument will be hopefully be made explicit after an analysis of Joseph and Aseneth.

Joseph and Aseneth is commonly associated with Romans 4:17, and with good reason. The story is an elaboration on Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, a beautiful virgin who scorns all suitors. Interestingly, she is the daughter of a pagan priest. When Joseph, who is at that time gathering grain for the famine, is about to arrive at her father’s temple, Aseneth’s father attempts to persuade Aseneth to marry Joseph. Aseneth reacts scornfully to the suggestion, only to be paralyzed with fear when she sees him approach. Joseph sees Aseneth leaning out a window and asks to meet her. When she comes, Joseph refuses to kiss her, claiming it is not proper to “kiss a strange woman who will bless with her mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and drink from their libation a cup of insidiousnes and anoint herself with ointment of destruction.”[48] Joseph’s refusal distresses Aseneth, and consequently, Joseph prays for her:

Lord God of my father Israel,

The Most High, the Powerful One of jacob

Who gave life to all things (oJ zwopoihvsaV ta; pavnta)

And called them (kalevsaV) from darkness into light

And from the error to the truth

From the death to the life;

You, Lord, bless this virgin

And renew her by your spirit

And form her anew by your hidden hand,

And make her alive (zwopoivhson) again by your life,

And let her eat your bread of life,

And drink your cup of blessing,

And number her among your people

That you have chosen before all (things) came into being

And let her enter your rest

Which you have prepared for your chosen ones,

And live in your eternal life for ever and ever.[49]

Joseph’s prayer for Aseneth has clear parallels to Romans 4. For instance, the appellation of God “who gives life to all things” distinctly parallels 4.17. Furthermore, Aseneth is a pagan steeped in idolatry. Joseph’s prayer that she would be “numbered among [God’s] people” strikes at the heart of what Paul is arguing in Romans 4—that inclusion in the people of God is open to all men, not merely Jews. Though no direct connection can be established between Joseph and Aseneth and Paul, the thematic parallels are indeed stunning.

What follows the prayer is a description of Aseneth’s conversion. She spends seven days fasting for her sins. What results in chapter 12 is a long prayer of confession, which again contains many of the same themes.

Lord God of the ages,

Who created all things and gave life to them

Who gave breath of life to your whole creation,

Who brought invisible things out into the light,

Who made the things that are the ones that have an appearance from the non-appearing and non-being…

You , Lord, spoke and they were brought to life,

Because your word, Lord, is life for all creatures…

I have sinned, Lord,

Before you I have sinned in much ignorance,

And have worshiped dead and dumb idols.

Now that she has cut herself off from her people, Aseneth spends considerable amounts of time pleading to be rescued from her “orphanage.”[50] After her prayer, she is visited by a man from heaven, who proclaims that her new name shall be a “City of Refuge”[51] and that she “will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again.”[52] The nature of this “conversion” to new life is extremely mystical—at one point the man asks her for a honeycomb, which Aseneth claims she does not have, but discovers she in fact does have it. Aseneth’s response is crucial: “Lord, I did not have a honeycomb in my storeroom at any time, but you spoke and it came into being.”[53]

The thematic parallels between Joseph and Aseneth and Romans 4 are many. In Joseph and Aseneth God “gives life to all things and calls them from darkness to light.” His creative ability is clearly linked with his “calling.” Similarly, the same God who “calls into being that which did not exist” (4.17) is the same God who spoke the promise to Abraham. Similarly, this “creative ability” is described in Joseph and Aseneth as the ability to “make alive.” It is not simply creatio ex nihilo that is at work—rather, it is the change in Aseneth from death to life, as Joseph prays for her.[54] In the story of Abraham, it is the deadness of Abraham’s body and Sarah’s womb that must be overcome for the promise to be fulfilled.

At this point, scholarly support is needed. Moyer Hubbard’s recent work New Creation in Paul’s Letter’s and Thoughts, upon which I am basing many of my thoughts, uses Joseph and Aseneth as a thematic parallel to Paul, arguing that Paul and the author of Joseph and Aseneth are drawing from a common stock of metaphors in order to explain conversion.[55] Hubbard’s judicious evaluation of Joseph and Aseneth bears repeating:

In Joseph and Aseneth …the issue to be resolved was how a pagan, born in sin and nurtured in idolatry could ever become a full member of the family of God. The solution of this community was that the proselyte was re-created by the Spirit of God, so all prior involvements were irrelevant.[56]

Hubbard develops the parallel not with Paul’s argument in Romans 4, but rather with the “death” to “life” imagery of Romans 5-8. Hubbard sets Paul’s “new creation” motif within this imagery, arguing that it then supports an anthropological, as opposed to an ecclesiastical or cosmological, reading of those places where Paul uses the phrase “kaine ktisis,” or “new creation”.[57] Hubbard’s argument for an anthropological reading of ”new creation” is convincing, and in many ways my argument is simply an extension of his.

Hubbard’s analysis of Joseph and Aseneth highlights the emphasis on the imagery used to depict conversion. Alternatively, Moxnes, while not neglecting the “new creation” focus of Aseneth’s conversion, emphasizes the communal aspect of Joseph and Aseneth, that the problem is how Aseneth becomes a part of the covenant people of God.[58] He writes:

This new creation and new life which were given to Aseneth were not restricted to her alone. The importance of this event for other idolators as well is emphasized by the new name which the angel gives her: “You shall not be called Aseneth any more, but your name shall be City of Refuge, for in you shall many nations find refuge, and under your wings shall many people find shelter and within your walls shall they who turn to God in repentance be protected” (15:6)….Thus creation imagery is applied to conversion, so that initiation into the Jewish faith was described as a new creation for the proselyte.[59]

Moxnes identifies Abraham as a parallel figure to Aseneth. Both Abraham and Aseneth experience conversion, and both have communal implications. Here again we are presented with the dilemma between the individual and communal interpretations.

To briefly summarize, then, a number of textual echoes have been identified between Romans 1 and Romans 4. A prominent theme of Romans 1, idolatry, was identified as implicitly present in chapter four by virtue of the traditional material Paul is drawing on. Furthermore, Paul’s focus on Abraham’s faith in God’s creative ability was seen to be parallel in Joseph and Aseneth, where Aseneth experiences a “conversion.” This emphasis on God’s creative ability and the “death” and “life” imagery in Romans 4 suggest that an anthropological understanding of “new creation” is lying in the background of Paul’s thought in Romans 4. The specific nature of Abraham’s faith depends upon God’s creative ability at an anthropological level—in Abraham—and any justification is dependent upon this.

Other posts in this series:

Series Intro

Prefatory Remarks

An Intro to Pauline Theology

The Individual vs. the Communal

An Exegesis of Romans 3:20-31

The Turn to Romans 4

Continuing with Romans 4

The Anthropology of Romans 4

Romans 4 with respect to 5-8

Conclusion and Footnotes

Romans 4.9-12

In this section of Romans 4, Paul engages either in actual dialogue or in a bit of dialectical rhetoric with an imaginary interlocutor. Moxnes thinks the former, arguing that Paul is addressing conflict within the contemporary situation in Rome and is at pains to reorient the church’s theological understanding of the relationship between Jew and Gentiles.[37] Longenecker, on the other hand, subscribes to the “imaginary interlocutor” thesis, contending that Paul has all of chapters 1-4 in common with his audience and is moving toward chapters 5-8 to bestow upon them his “spiritual gift.”[38] It is possible, I think, to determine the content of this tricky passage, however, without addressing (yet) it’s purpose. The content of Paul’s argument remains the same whether he is in conflict or accord with his audience. For ease’s sake in addressing this issue, we shall assume that Paul’s dialectical focus is actually rooted in real complaints or questions at Rome.

If Paul is ultimately concerned with setting up Abraham as an example of an individual’s faith, that goal is certainly in the background here. Paul sets up an antithesis between circumcision and uncircumcision, whereas in 1-8 (and 3.21-31) it was “faith vs. works of the Law.” By changing the antithesis, Paul has not changed the content of his argument—it is still faith, but faith that is prior to circumcision. Abraham was reckoned righteous apart from circumcision, which was given as a seal (4.11). Paul reaches his point of his mini-dialectic in 11: Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision “so that he would be the father of all who believe without being circumcised” (4.11). Paul’s purpose clause makes it difficult to read this passage as intended to say anything beyond Abraham is the father of Jew and Gentile, and to affirm Moxnes’s emphasis over Moo’s. The point of the circumcision/uncircumcision antithesis was simply to argue that Abraham is the father of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. Rather than enter into debate over the audience of vs.12, whether Paul is referring to Jews generally by “those who are of the circumcision” or to Jewish Christians particularly, it is enough to say that Paul’s intent in 12 is to drive home his point again—it was while Abraham was uncircumcised that he believed, hence, he is father of all who believe.

In verse 12, Paul contends that Abraham remains the father of circumcision, not by virtue of his descendents circumcision, but if they follow “in the footsteps of the faith that he had while uncircumcised.”[39] He is father of circumcision if those who are his descendents share the same faith.

Romans 4.13-22.

It is not at all surprising, then, that Paul would turn ultimately to discuss the particular nature of Abraham’s faith (4.17-23). If he is the father of all who “follow in the footsteps of his faith” (4.12), then understanding the “content” of his faith is crucial. However, Paul clearly does not abandon his argument that Abraham is indeed father of all who believe. Rather, he presents another argument, centering upon the promise given to him, and emphasizing that it was with the result that he might become “the father of many nations” (4.13-16). This section of work will constitute the bulk of the rest of this essay. However, I will continue the loose verse-by-verse explanation that I have undertaken and then return to this passage later.

Verse 13 is dominated by Jewish concepts. “Epiangelia”, the promise, formed a central part of the Jewish faith (Genesis 12.7, 13.15-16, 15.6,18, 17.7-8,19, etc). That Abraham would be “heir to the world” is the broadest possible rendering of the Jewish idea that the covenant people would be heirs to the land of Canaan. Paul returns to the “Law-Faith” antithesis that he (seemingly) had left behind, arguing from the chronology of the Old Testament story. Abraham believed some 400 years before the Law was given. This drives home (again) the fact that it is those who are of faith who are heirs of the promise, heirs of the world. If it were those who were of the Law, “faith is made void and the promise is emptied.” Why is this the case? Moo suggests that Law observance will necessarily come up short in attempting to gain the inheritance. He suggests the logic of Romans 1-3 as a reason why, arguing that the central debate of law/faith antithesis is human inability to be righteous.[40] Against this, Dunn suggests that any additional requirement to Abraham’s faith is to nullify the promise. “Abraham’s faith was a completely satisfactory response to the promise (otherwise Abraham would not have been “reckoned righteous”).”[41] Dunn argues (and Moo seems to agree on this point) that based upon this, Paul anticipates the objection that the Law is meaningless and pre-emptively counters it by arguing that the Law brings about wrath, or a higher degree of culpability than the more general “wrath” that results from more generalized sin in Romans 1. In verse sixteen, Paul returns to the fact that it was so that the promise might be certain to all descendants of Abraham, including those who are of his faith. He highlights again that it is “according to grace”, presumably a Christological reference.[42] The promise is “by faith” for the purpose that the promise that Abraham would be heir to the world would be “certain” to all those are of “the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all” (4.16).

Verse 17 is clearly composed of two distinct parts. In the first, Paul cites Genesis 17:5. Either Paul is using material that his audience would have accepted against them (Moxnes) or he and his audience both accept this argument (Longenecker). Either way, Paul is using “many nations” to refer to the inclusion of the Gentiles by faith. The second half of the verse Paul writes, “He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.” This is, perhaps, the most crucial passage to my argument, and I will return to it later. Two items at this point deserve note: first, Paul transitions to describe the object of Abraham’s faith. Second, as a formulaic expression of God’s creator-power, 4.17b is an echo of the distinct creator-creature theme in Romans 1.

By employing the creatio ex nihilo language in verse 17, Paul emphasizes the nature of Abraham’s faith. A brief excursus into the Genesis story is necessary here to illuminate Paul’s argument. Genesis 15 recounts God’s promise to Abraham that his descendent would be of his own lineage, and that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars. It is Abraham’s belief in God here that is “reckoned to him as righteousness.” Chapter 16 records the story of the birth of Ishamael, who is born when Abraham is 86.[43] Interestingly, 13 years later God appears to Abraham and expands the promise of the inheritance that was recorded in 15.7-8 to include all of Canaan. It is from this account that Paul quotes verse 17a, and yet in verse 22 Paul repeats the quotation from 15.6. What should we make of Paul’s use of the story, then? The continuity between the two stories is the obstacle in the way of the promise, namely, Abraham and Sarah’s inability to procreate. It is in light of this that Paul uses the formulaic expression of verse 17, stressing God’s creative power. In short, Abraham might be said to believe that the promise would come true, that he would be the father of many nations, and yet Paul emphasizes the fact that his faith is in God, who is able to create out of nothing. No matter which account from Genesis Paul refers to, at issue is whether Abraham thinks God is ability to do what he promised, even in spite of his “dead body” and Sarah’s “dead womb.”

Continuing our sub-thesis of developing links between Romans 4 and 1, contained within verses 20 and 21 are two allusions to Romans 1. Paul writes that Abraham grew strong in faith “and gave glory to God”. This seems a clear allusion back to Chapter 1 verses 20 and 21, where the sinful Gentiles, though knowing God “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (21). These textual parallels are furthered by Paul’s statement that Abraham was persuaded that God “had power to do” that which He has promised. This stands in clear contrast to those who rejected the qualities of God that have been made plain in creation, namely his “eternal power and divine nature.” These textual parallels seem to provide enough warrant for the conclusion that Paul is intentionally alluding back to Romans 1, to establish Abraham as the antithesis of the Gentile pagans whose degenerate lifestyle as a result of “worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator” Paul is at pains to depict.

Romans 4:23-25

A brief word on Paul’s conclusion to this section of his argument. In verse 22, Paul had returned to Genesis 15:6 explicitly, in order to reinforce the conclusions that he has just drawn, namely that it is only through those who are of the faith of Abraham who are justified, and that all men stand in need of this justification, both Jew and Gentile. Paul makes this latter fact clear when he contends that the content of Abraham’s faith is the same as the content of those who believe in Christ, for the simple reason that the same creative power is at work in both instances. We believe in “Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (24), just as Abraham who believed in “God who gives life to the dead” (17). This passage, then, forms a bridge between the argument in Romans 4 and what will follow in 5-8.

What, then, can we conclude of our survey of Romans 4? Paul’s purpose in writing seems to be to delineate who the children of Abraham are. Paul’s insistence that justification comes through faith alone, and that it is open to Jew and Gentile in 3:29 clearly indicates that Paul is either using Abraham in a polemical way against those who hold otherwise, or is explicating material that he has in common with his audience. On either account, Paul is arguing that justification comes through faith and nothing else—subsequently, it is available to all who believe. This might amount to a simple affirmation of the “new perspective” treatment of justification. However, I am at great pains to demonstrate that even though Paul’s purpose is communal, the basis of his argument is entirely anthropological, as I will now argue.

Other posts in this series:

Series Intro

Prefatory Remarks

An Intro to Pauline Theology

The Individual vs. the Communal

An Exegesis of Romans 3:20-31

The Turn to Romans 4

Continuing with Romans 4

The Anthropology of Romans 4

Romans 4 with respect to 5-8

Conclusion and Footnotes

V. Romans 4

Paul has just finished arguing that a man is only justified by faith, and not by “works of the law.” In Romans 4, Paul turns to Abraham as an example of this. Moo identifies two reasons for using Abraham: (1) Abraham is used by Paul as an example of faith in a polemical fashion. In other words, Paul is demonstrating that justification does not happen through the Law, as even Abraham demonstrates. Moo points out that Jews viewed Abraham as a model of obedience—Paul uses him as a model of faith. It should be noted that Paul is not merely establishing Abraham as a model of spirituality—rather, he is making a theological point about the nature of Abraham’s faith. (2) Paul is also concerned to delineate who are sons of Abraham, namely, that Abraham is father of all who believe (and hence, justified), whether Jew or Greek.[32] This latter aspect is seized by Moxnes, whose work is dense, but helpful.[33] For instance, Moxnes points out that Paul is performing what seems to be midrash on Genesis 15.6, [34] which reads, “Then [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Moo qualifies this statement by pointing out that “midrash” is too broad a term to really understand what it means.[35] Both Moo and Moxnes divide Romans 4 into 4 sections: 1-8, 9-12, 13-22, and 23-25. Vs. 1-8 are concerned with defining “reckoned,” 9-12 with who is reckoned. Moo sees two distinct themes in 13-22: faith apart from law (13-16) and faith apart from sight (17-22). Moxnes, on the other hand, focuses on the inclusion of the Gentiles as the theme with the promise of God as the particular motif that dominates this section. In 23-25, Paul turns toward his contemporaries and applies his argument. I shall follow these divisions of Romans 4 in my subsequent analysis.

It is clear, then, from the respective foci that the competing paradigms are at work—Moo focuses on the nature of Abraham’s faith as example, taking a more individualist approach. Moxnes examines the inclusion of the Gentiles under the promise through faith as the point of Romans 4. These differing interpretations provide warrant for my view that Romans 4 can illuminate the nature of the relationship between the individual and communal paradigms in Paul’s thought.

Romans 4.1-8

Paul begins his “midrash” on Abraham by referring back to 3.27, where he had rhetorically excluded boasting, on the grounds that justification is by faith and not works. Abraham has no grounds for boasting, because as Paul quotes in verse four, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” The latter half of the verse is taken from Genesis 15.6. The promise that Abraham believed was that the heir to his house would be one of his own offspring, given that at the time of the promise Abraham was childless. In verse four, Paul continues to develop the antithesis of faith and works, pointing out that the one who works is not reckoned his reward “as a gift, but as an obligation.” Paul’s emphasis that it be “as a gift” hearkens back to 3.24, where a man was justified freely through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. In verse 5, Paul clarifies exactly who is the one justified, namely, the one who believes “in Him who justifies the ungodly.” This is the first of three “formulaic” designations of God in conjunction with the verb “pisteuo” (I believe) in Romans 4. The other two are found in 4.17 and 4.24. Furthermore, Paul’s mention of the “ungodly,” is the first echo of the first chapter of Romans, where Paul had written, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men” (1:18a). Though no mention of “wickedness” is found in Romans 4 to this point, the conjunction of “ungodliness” in the context of “dikaisune” (righteousness) warrants at least considering it an echo. Further justification that Paul is intentionally alluding to Romans 1 will be provided in our analysis of the subsequent portions of Romans 4.[36] To return to our analysis of the passage, in verses 6-8, Paul quotes Psalm 32.1-2, arguing that David is referring to a blessing upon those who have already been reckoned as righteous, or justified. The forensic nature of these two verses illuminates what it means to be “reckoned as righteous,” namely to have “lawless deeds” be forgiven and sins covered.

Series Intro

Prefatory Remarks

An Intro to Pauline Theology

The Individual vs. the Communal

An Exegesis of Romans 3:20-31

The Turn to Romans 4

Continuing with Romans 4

The Anthropology of Romans 4

Romans 4 with respect to 5-8

Conclusion and Footnotes

IV. Romans 3.20-31

Because Paul’s argument in Romans 4 is an extension of what he has already said, it is necessary to set up our analysis of Romans 4 by examining what Paul had just argued. The debate between traditional and “new perspectival” understandings of justification hinges upon one’s interpretation of the role of the “works of the law” in Paul’s thought. In Romans 3.20, Paul writes, “because by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” Traditionally, “works of the Law” has “denoted good works done as an attempt to gain or achieve righteousness.”[28] “New perspective” interpretations have challenged this, arguing that “works of the Law,” while also defining holiness, took on a role of separating Israel from surrounding nations. It is this latter sense of “works of the Law” that Paul is responding to, when he writes in 3.21, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.” Moo’s succinct summary is helpful:

On this view, in other words, the problem Paul has with the Jews here does not have to do with their performance of the law but with their possession of it. Advocates of this view do not usually trace the inadequacy of the covenant to human inability; they think, rather, that Paul drew this conclusion because Christ’s coming rendered obsolete the Jewish covenant and/or because the Jewish covenant focused too narrowly on the Jewish people to the exclusion of the Gentiles.[29]

Moo’s statement of the problem is illuminating for our task: it is either human ability to perform the works of the law that Paul is referring to, or it is a question of who is included in the covenant people.

Moo and others have pointed out that the new understanding of “works of the law” is clearly dependant upon Sanders’ reorientation of first-century Judaism. Moo also urges caution before accepting Sanders’s conclusions, arguing that the evidence is not as conclusive as Sanders thinks.[30] Because many of the issues surrounding “works of the law” lie beyond my expertise, I will not offer a critical judgement here. Rather, I will argue that the dichotomy between “human inability” and “covenant inclusion” is a false one. In other words, I hope to make progress on a problem that Dunn identifies, when he states:

Presumably the resolution to the debate between the old perspective and the new lies in the clarification of the distinction between achieving righteousness and maintaining righteousness. But that resolution is still some distance away.[31]

In order to make progress on this problem, I will merely point out that whatever the role of the “works of the Law” is, the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from them. Paul’s argument is that it is not by the Law, but through faith that we are included in God’s righteousness. My method, then, is somewhat unusual. Rather than identify how Paul uses “works of the Law” before moving on to Romans 4, I will examine Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans 4 to illuminate the nature of Abraham’s faith, and then determine if that gives insight into Paul’s notion of the “works of the Law.” In doing so, I again hope to determine the nature of the relationship between the individual “achieving” righteousness and more communally oriented “maintaining.”

Other posts in this series:

Series Intro

Prefatory Remarks

An Intro to Pauline Theology

The Individual vs. the Communal

An Exegesis of Romans 3:20-31

The Turn to Romans 4

Continuing with Romans 4

The Anthropology of Romans 4

Romans 4 with respect to 5-8

Conclusion and Footnotes

Outside the Turkish air base is a small community whose official name is hardly ever used, being known to everyone simply as “The Alley.” Consisting mostly of small shops, restaurants, and bars, it exists to provide goods and services to the military men and women on base. A quick perusal of what sells to the majority of servicemen abroad offers an interesting and instructive view on the heart of the military, and the way it is perceived by the local Turks.

Passing through the front gate, one’s immediate attention is drawn to a rather humorous attempt at a Western-style saloon known as The Wagon Wheel. A creaky wooden porch is reminiscent of both the Old West and someone’s eye to increasing profits by decreasing construction and maintenance costs. Music rolls out of the murky interior while large white bulbs light up most of the spokes of the namesake tacked onto the clapboard roof.

Continuing down the dusty street, hawkers call out their wares—mostly the standard trinkets, as well as more expensive Turkish carpets (“want to see my flying carpet, sir?”), custom-fitted suits, “Cuban” cigars, knives and guns. A G.I. in a cowboy hat and boots saunters past, evidence both that the marketing agent for the Wagon Wheel did his research, and that what I thought were rather obvious U.S. State Department travel recommendations regarding avoiding conspicuous American clothing are necessary after all.

Turning into a standard tourist kitsch shop, I am a bit surprised at the vulgarity of most of the postcards and printed material for sale. The saying that “sex sells” is true around the world, but I still wonder why a postcard picturing a pair of copulating camels is such a hot seller.

If you are unable to find any goods that will induce you to part with your hard-earned duty pay, there exist a number of restaurants, bars, and night clubs to help ease you of your monetary burdens. As the sun goes down, the bars and clubs fill up with hordes of bored soldiers drinking the night away to the groove of American and Turkish dance music.

Meandering through the Alley, it is rather disappointing to view America through the eyes of the Turkish merchant. All that is crass, vulgar, immoral, and tawdry is shamelessly hawked and peddled because it will sell. Any illusions of military glory, chivalry and honor, are quickly dispelled after a jaunt through the shops outside the base. The American soldier is very much like every other American, and displays all the same tendencies and vices. Despite the glowing appellations and credos of the armed services—semper fidelis, integrity first, service, excellence, honor—it is plagued by the same cultural and moral deficiencies that the average civilian displays.

Of course most Americans don’t want to be thought of as vulgar and immoral, and we are often shocked to discover that other people could want to destroy our civilization and way of life. After all, aren’t we the liberal and free people of the West, the defenders and guardians of democracy and liberty? Perhaps, yet I think Americans ought to take note of the fruits our society is producing. Such an examination may bring to light the fact that we are also a people of decadence, licentiousness, and perversions and lead us to re-evaluate the ways we make use of freedoms we so dearly love.