I have returned from my journey. I am refreshed and ready to dive back into our discussion of Romans.
I concur with your translation of Romans 4:1, that we should translate the verse as containing two questions rather than one, translations tend to favor. Here is evidence from Paul's Letter to the Romans that wherever he uses the same phrase, he always poses two questions other than in Romans 4:1.
I concur with your translation of Romans 4:1, that we should translate the verse as containing two questions rather than one, translations tend to favor. Here is evidence from Paul's Letter to the Romans that wherever he uses the same phrase, he always poses two questions other than in Romans 4:1.
Romans 4:1 ti oun eroumen
What then shall we claim to have found concerning Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?
Romans 6:1 ti oun eroumen
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?
Romans 7:7 ti oun eroumen
What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.”
Romans 8:31 ti oun eroumen pros tauta
What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Romans 9:14 ti oun eroumen
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Romans 9:30 ti oun eroumen
What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith.
Thus, I believe you are right when you say, "The issue, then, is not what Abraham found, but how Abraham is the forefather of Christians."
Against the tendency of some, these days, who exaggerate valid exegetical observations in Paul's letters, there are hints in the apostle's letter that he recognizes that ultimately the Jews' posture with regard to the Law necessarily entangles them in a system of righteousness grounded in one's own fabrication of righteousness before God. So, Paul's first use of Abraham counters the Jews' boast in their possessing the Law and circumcision. His appeal to Abraham, of course, is distinctive for two reasons: (1) Abraham was not under the Law; and (2) Abraham was circumcized only after he believed God and was justified. This, however, as we will see is not the end of Paul's use of Abraham. Abraham foreshadows Christian believers, for sure, particularly their trust in the God who promises. Yet, as we will see before we complete our considerations of Romans 4, Abraham foreshadows Messiah also, particularly his faithfulness.
Also, I believe your aside is correct. N. T. Wright, in my estimation, has confounded the biblical imagery of justification and the imagery of covenant membership. Indeed, those who are in covenant relationship with God are also justified, but the two imageries are not to be fused as one so that the courtroom imagery of justification loses its distinctiveness by being swallowed up by the relational imagery of covenant membership. As you said, justification is imagery that concerns legal status, and covenant membership is imagery that stands distinct but not separate from justification.
Against the tendency of some, these days, who exaggerate valid exegetical observations in Paul's letters, there are hints in the apostle's letter that he recognizes that ultimately the Jews' posture with regard to the Law necessarily entangles them in a system of righteousness grounded in one's own fabrication of righteousness before God. So, Paul's first use of Abraham counters the Jews' boast in their possessing the Law and circumcision. His appeal to Abraham, of course, is distinctive for two reasons: (1) Abraham was not under the Law; and (2) Abraham was circumcized only after he believed God and was justified. This, however, as we will see is not the end of Paul's use of Abraham. Abraham foreshadows Christian believers, for sure, particularly their trust in the God who promises. Yet, as we will see before we complete our considerations of Romans 4, Abraham foreshadows Messiah also, particularly his faithfulness.
Also, I believe your aside is correct. N. T. Wright, in my estimation, has confounded the biblical imagery of justification and the imagery of covenant membership. Indeed, those who are in covenant relationship with God are also justified, but the two imageries are not to be fused as one so that the courtroom imagery of justification loses its distinctiveness by being swallowed up by the relational imagery of covenant membership. As you said, justification is imagery that concerns legal status, and covenant membership is imagery that stands distinct but not separate from justification.
No comments:
Post a Comment