Justification by Faithfulness – Paul the Interpreter of Jesus (Part 2)
So we’ve answered one of the three questions put forth at the beginning of our study in Paul. We know that he maintained the traditional approval of Torah in his new theology, seeing it not as a taskmaster now unarmed by Calvary but instead as an eternal reflection of God’s character, laying out for us in this age the lifestyle pattern necessary for participation with Him. Through the Spirit everyone “in Christ” is enabled to walk out the same radical life of devotion to God as that which Christ himself lives (Rom 6:10-14). It’s important to note also that Paul interpreted Torah through the same relational hermeneutic as Jesus, teaching in similar terms that every command is “summed up” in the one command to love (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). Moving on now, two questions still face us, both with louder voice than before: Since Paul didn’t teach, as he is so often misrepresented as doing, that the law’s standard is overruled by the New Covenant, what place does faith then have in his Gospel, and on what grounds are we then justified?
Faith – In our English dictionaries it means something like “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”. Used in a religious sense it usually means “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”. I think this definition captures well the thought that comes to most people’s minds when they hear or talk about faith today, reflecting the heavy influence that Enlightenment and Existentialist thought has had on the Church over the last few centuries with the emphasis on mental assent to “doctrine” and personal experiences of “spiritual apprehension”. Now we know there is at least some truth to this definition of faith; for it’s clear that Paul emphasizes belief in the God “who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” as necessary for salvation (Rom 4:24). But is believing in God through either the cognitive acceptance of truths about Him and/or a spiritual encounter with Him all that Biblical faith means? Indeed, is that all that Paul means when he speaks of faith in his epistles? He talks the most about it in Romans, so let’s look at a few key places in that letter and see if our findings line up with the definition above.
The first place in which pistis (the Greek word for faith) appears in Romans is in 1:5, where Paul is introducing himself, his vocation and his vision. Through the God of Jesus Christ, he says, he has received “grace and apostleship” for a particular purpose: to call the Gentiles into the “obedience of faith”. The NIV translates this tightly packed phrase as “the obedience that comes from faith,” suggesting that obedience and faith are separate, that obedience is something which should result from faith. But it is far more likely that the phrase means “the obedience of faith,” as in the NASB. Now it’s significant – and should give more than a second’s pause – that in Paul’s greatest letter, thought for centuries to be mostly about “justification by faith alone,” the emphasis from the outset is upon allegiance to Jesus’ Lordship; and it’s no less significant that this allegiance is said to consist in pistis. While it’s clear that pistis helps define hupakoe here, this cannot mean that mere belief is itself counted as obedience; we know that by what Paul goes on say of hupakoe later (5:19; 6:12-16; 10:16; 15:18; 16:19). As noted before, “obedience” is not a nebulous concept; it has direct ethical and moral connotations, and Paul consistently uses it that way. Therefore the two words must be mutually defining to mean something like “faithful commitment” or “believing obedience”.
Paul is saying that through the proclamation of the Gospel – as it’s been revealed in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth – he seeks to call the nations into covenant relationship with Israel’s God, thus forming one renewed Jew-plus-Gentile family of God. So it is that in this dense phrase, concluding his introduction, Paul is mapping out for us the course and destination for his whole discourse in Romans; and surprisingly, he does not say that it’s about belief in Christ, but rather that it’s about faithful commitment to Christ.
The next key place where pistis appears is in Paul’s initial thesis statement of 1:17, where, again in terse form, he uses the word three times: “For in it (the Gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” When we compare the first part of this verse with the restated thesis of 3:21-26 its message becomes much clearer: God’s righteousness is manifested clearly in this age through the good news of the faithfulness (pistis) of His Son to all who respond in faith (pistis). “From faith to faith” is not about the believer’s process of maturing in faith, rather it’s about a faithful response to the faithfulness of Christ. Now the important thing to note here is that human pistis is the reciprocation of God’s pistis revealed in Jesus. So the question we must then ask is this: If our faith is a response to His faith, how can our faith be defined simply as our belief in God? Is God’s pistis His belief in us? This may seem to some like an over exhaustion of the phrase in 1:17, however, so we’ll leave this question until Paul forces us to bring it up again in 3:3.
Moving on to 1:17b, we come upon Paul’s strategic quotation of Habakkuk 2:4: “The righteous shall live by faith.” It was over an intense scrutiny of this verse that an uncertain Martin Luther, struggling with thoughts of an angry and vindictive God, had what he later called his “tower experience,” the most pivotal moment of his life. Prior to this event, whenever he came upon the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Scripture he tells us that he was filled with anger and hatred toward God. “I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners.” Luther’s soul finally found comfort and shelter from that mental image of God when in reading this verse the idea struck him that perhaps it was not talking about an active righteousness that God demands, but rather a passive righteousness that He gives to those who believe the Gospel. He concluded that Paul, in quoting this phrase from Habakkuk, meant that the sinner is justified – i.e., declared righteous – by God through faith alone in the work and death of Jesus, not by his or her own work or keeping of the law. Or as He would say later, we are saved by the “alien” righteousness of Christ, not by a righteousness of our own. Thus Martin Luther escaped the unsympathetic wrath of the indulgence preacher’s God, through simply believing in the placating death of His righteous Son.
Personally, I think that in his vexation Luther had the right question but ultimately gave the wrong answer. That he had the right question is evident by the state of the Church in the late Middle Ages and how the “righteousness of God” was perceived and preached. Reading about the righteousness of that God invokes pictures of a capricious and unsympathetic tyrant who, with the ever-foreboding threat of prison, demands the riches of the world from a kingdom of mere peasants. He was nothing like the relational God of the patriarchs and prophets, and he was definitely not the God revealed in Jesus. A drastic theological change was obviously in order. The fact that Luther offered the wrong answer, however, is clear by a sound reading of Romans 1:17 and its OT background.
When we look to Habakkuk 2:4 and its context we see something far different than what Luther came away from Romans 1:17 with. In defense of Luther’s interpretation some commentators have suggested that Paul simply ran through his mental concordance for passages in which “faith” and “righteousness” appear side by side, came up with Habakkuk 2:4 and Genesis 15:6, and then liberally applied them to his doctrine of “justification by faith” without regard for their original context and meaning. But this will not do; for when we observe the way Paul generally uses Scripture in deliberative arguments, and the intentional way in which he uses these specific passages at key places in the present argument (and in Galatians 3), we find that reason insists we go to the OT and learn why exactly it is that he uses them.
Following reason to Habakkuk we find a prophet puzzling about the purposes of God as he witnesses the Chaldean’s march against Israel and prevail. How could YHWH allow His chosen people to be overrun and defeated by a godless nation? Does this not call into question His righteousness? Are not His faithfulness and justice on the line? Right away we see that the question plaguing Habakkuk is the very question Paul is answering in Romans; the question God answered when He reached down from heaven in the death and resurrection of His Son. The initial response to Habakkuk’s questioning, however, is given in the form of a vision, and the fulfillment of the vision is said to wait for a day in the distant future (Hab 2:3). For the time being, God says, His true people, living in an evil age in the midst of an evil nation, “will live by faith.”
What “faith” means here is not an abstract believe in the existence of God, as it has become since the Enlightenment, but rather the firm conviction, borne out by a responsive faithfulness, that God Himself will be faithful and act in time and space to deliver the one who believes. The Hebrew word translated pistis in Greek and faith in English actually has a much stronger connotation of faithfulness and fidelity than either the Greek or the English suggest. Of its forty-eight different appearances in the OT, thirty-six of those are translated “faithfulness,” “faithfully,” or “faithful” in the NASB. Quite surprisingly however, and undoubtedly due to the traditional Protestant understanding of Romans 1:17, only once, in Habakkuk 2:4, is it translated simply as “faith”. Now considering the context of Habakkuk, and the actual meaning of the word used in 2:4, how can the traditional rendering as “faith” be justifiable?
So far the evidence in Romans has been unanimously in favor of translating pistis as “faithfulness,” but the case becomes even stronger when we arrive at Paul’s next use of the word: “For what if some did not believe (apisteo)? Will their unbelief (apistia) make the faithfulness (pistis) of God without effect?” (Rom 3:3) Here Paul is addressing directly the question of God’s righteousness related to Israel’s current state. If Israel has been unfaithful to the covenant, as Paul has shown they have (2:1-29), what does this mean for God? Will He turn his back on them as they have on Him, or will His arms remain outstretched to any and all who might return? Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, is resolute: God will remain steadfast. Though he opens the doors of the covenant to welcome in the Gentiles, still He will not forget ethnic Israel. Interestingly, pistis is the word Paul uses to describe God’s commitment to the covenant in 3:3. This brings up the same question we asked in 1:17a, but it now comes much clearer. If Israel’s lack of faith is defined by God’s steadfast faith, how can human faith be then defined as mere belief? God’s pistis is His commitment to His saving purpose, His faithfulness. Therefore human pistis (or lack thereof, as in 3:3) is a responsive commitment to that saving purpose, an answering faithfulness.
We could go on throughout Romans; however, I believe the point has been made well enough that in Paul pistis does not merely mean belief, but also includes faithful commitment, or believing obedience, and therefore involves the subsequent action that proves that belief. Paul puts it best when talking about the scope of Abraham’s family in chapter 4. He says that those who are yet uncircumcised (i.e., Gentiles) will be counted right and included in the covenant family when they “walk in the steps of faith” which Abraham had before he was circumcised (4:9-12). If Paul were contrasting faith with works in the absolute sense, he would not have insisted that there are steps to be walked out in faith. One could easily replace “walk in the steps of faith” with “do the works of faith”. In conclusion, then, we find that “faith” in Paul means much the same thing that we saw “mercy” means in Jesus. Both our Lord and the Apostle stress faithful devotion in their treatment of the law, and, as we will see in the next post, they both insist that such devotion is required for justification. Or, to say it the way Paul does in Romans 2, it’s the doers of the law who will be justified in the day when God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
Regarding the hupakoē pistis of Rom. 1:5, you said:
“…the emphasis from the outset is upon allegiance to Jesus’ Lordship; and it’s no less significant that this allegiance is said to consist in pistis. This cannot mean that mere belief is itself counted as obedience…”
Why not? What else could this phrase mean? The coupling of “obedience” and “faith” are not to denote two separate things. “Faith” defines or describes the “obedience”. I won’t pretend to be a Greek expert (or even a novice), but I believe the descriptor follows the thing described (like Spanish – “coche (car) rojo (red)” is translated “red car” in English). So, pistis (faith) describes hupakoē (obedience). Therefore, what kind of obedience is Paul seeking to bring about? The obedience of faith. Paul is seeking to bring about a particular obedience or action in response to the Gospel; namely, faith.
Having said that, the following statement seems a bit dishonest:
“…Paul is mapping out for us the course and destination for his whole discourse in Romans; and surprisingly, he says it’s all about obedience.”
Again, hupakoē doesn’t cancel out pistis – it defines or describes it. I don’t know why you would leave pistis/faith out here, unless you’re trying to cram this passage into your New Perspective.
Jim B.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 8:14 am
Jim,
My whole point is that “faith” and “obedience” are not separate things, and that neither one cancels the other out, but that Paul intentionally couples them from the outset in order to define what they each mean. If we are in agreement about that, then the point must be conceded that “hupakoē pistis” cannot mean that belief is itself counted as obedience, because that would by definition cancel out what obedience really means.
If Paul were defining obedience as mere belief in 1:5 then he would not go on to use the word in the behavioral way that he does later on in the epistle, first in relation to Jesus’ righteous lifestyle in 5:19, and then in relation to the believer’s lifestyle in 6:12-16, 15:18 and 16:19.
This fact, together with Paul’s use of pistis in 1:17, 3:3 and 4:12 (not to mention 3:22), weighs heavily in favor of the word denoting faithfulness and not simply belief. If you would disagree with this then you must respond to the points drawn from each of those references in this post.
matthartke
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“If Paul were defining obedience as mere belief in 1:5 then he would not go on to use the word in the behavioral way that he does later on in the epistle, first in relation to Jesus’ righteous lifestyle in 5:19, and then in relation to the believer’s lifestyle in 6:12-16, 15:18 and 16:19.”
I don’t follow your logic. Are you saying that Paul must mean the exact same thing every time he uses the word hupakoē (obedience), regardless of context or flow of thought? I still can’t see how “hupakoē pistis” in 1:5 can mean anything but faith or belief. Paul wants to bring about a particular kind of obedience; he wants his readers to do something. What does he want them to do? He wants them to have faith; to believe.
To make Paul say he wants obedience (one thing) and faith (another thing) makes nonsense of the text. Again, pistis describes hupakoē. The phrase connotes one thing, not two. I don’t see how you can make hupakoē pistis refer to both faith and works. I will again concede that I am no Greek expert, but I don’t think the word formation here connotes two things. Paul doesn’t say he wants obedience and faith; he wants the obedience of faith. (If Paul had said, “I want to bring about the obedience of hope,” would we conclude that Paul wants us to be both obedient and hopeful? No, we would recognize that Paul wants us to heed his letter by hoping or being filled with hope.) It seems like you’re reading into the phrase what you want to be there, in order to work it into your reinterpretation of Paul.
I don’t see how any of the texts above are relevant to 1:5. In fact, this is a rather bizarre argument. You seem to be saying that because Paul employs the word hupakoē to denote right action in these texts, he cannot therefore use it to denote pistis (faith) in 1:5. There is an obvious problem with this argument: PAUL DEFINES hupakoē WITH pistis THERE! This argument is either plain silly or dishonest. Paul doesn’t use “hupakoē pistis” in 6:12-16, 15:18 or 16:19; he uses “hupakoē” alone.
The only text above that seems relevant to 1:5 in terms of “hupakoē pistis” is 15:18 – “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience [hupakoē] – by word and deed…” Interestingly, I think 1:5 is very pertinent here, because Paul begins this letter stating his aim is to “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations”. “Among all nations” seems to be an explicit reference to Gentiles. So, according to Paul’s introduction, what kind of obedience (hupakoē) is Paul seeking to bring the Gentiles to? Hupakoē pistis?
God Bless
P.S. I’ll try to get at the pistis texts you cited later.
Jim B.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Jim,
Thanks for the thorough responses. I want to do justice to each of them in my replies, and I don’t have time to do such right now, so it might be a bit. Perhaps after I finish the series. Just wanted to let you know!
Blessings,
Matt Hartke
matthartke
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Word.
Jim B.
Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Re pistis:
“If our faith is a response to His faith, how can our faith be defined simply as our belief in God? Is God’s pistis His belief in us? This may seem to some like an over exhaustion…”
It seems like something, but I’m not sure what. Again, you seem to be demanding that pistis refer to exactly the same thing when it is ascribed to Christ and when it is ascribed to us, and in varying contexts. I guess I just don’t see why this must be the case.
Just look at your “restated thesis” in 3:21-26 –
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, TO BE RECEIVED BY FAITH. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier OF THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS.
I can’t see how your pistis-must-always-mean-faithfulness works here. Even if you want to make pistis in 3:22 mean faithfulness, the end of that sentence explicitly states that God’s righteousness is “for all who believe” (pas pisteuō). And pistis in 3:25 certainly refers to belief, not right action or faithfulness. Has God given Christ as a “propitiation (hilastērion) through (dia) FAITHFULNESS (pistis) in (en) his (hautou) blood (aima)”? Am I to be faithful to Christ’s blood, or have faith in Christ’s blood?
Otherwise, I don’t necessarily have a textual argument with you on verses like 4:12. I don’t disagree that pistis is sometimes translated “faithfulness”. I just don’t see why it must ALWAYS be translated this way.
Are the Greek dictionaries/lexicons tainted by Luther? If not, most I’ve encountered define pistis primarily as faith/belief and secondarily as faithfulness/fidelity. (E.g. http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4102)
God Bless
Jim B.
Monday, April 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jim,
Thanks for your post… and the helpful link to Pistis. Can you give an example of a dictionary lexicon which gives the distinctions of primary and secondary as you have discribed? The example that you have given in the link begins by defining pistis as conviction which has slightly more committed overtones than faith by itself. That, I think, is the reason Matt offers “faithfullness” as a better way to get at the meaning.
Sometimes words have more than one meaning. But in the case of pistis, it seems that there is one central meaning that cannot be translated well with one single word as the definition that you offered seems to confirm.
My dissatisfaction with translating pistis “faith” is that it does not contain the ideas of conviction and fidelity that are inherent in the word. Can you suggest an English word other than “faithfullness” that does justice to these inherent ideas? I’m open.
Blessings,
Wesley
wesleyb
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 5:15 am
Wesley,
I may be wrong, but as I understand dictionaries, the primary (most common) usage/meaning of a word is listed first. The entire first heading under pistis in the one dictionary I linked to refers exactly to “faith” as it has traditionally been understood by orthodox Christianity.
“Conviction and fidelity” are not “inherent in the word” (pistis). Pistis may mean conviction and fidelity in some contexts, but this is a different thing than “conviction of truth”/”belief”. Conflating the two (1) doesn’t make sense and (2) destroys the traditional works/faith (law/gosepl) dichotomy in Pauline theology – which is precisely the aim of the NPP.
I will respect Matt’s hesitancy to answer these questions right now in comments, but will reposit them to you: Does God require perfect obedience to Torah? What did Christ accomplish at Calvary?
God Bless
Jim B.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 6:20 am
Jim,
I think you’re right that dictionaries list the most common usages first. I would agree that in the case of a word with obvious multiple meanings, the context would help us decide which meaning to go with.
Language is not an exact science. It is a bit of an art. When I lived in France and was learning to speak French, I was initially surprised to learn that some words didn’t translate easily. There was not always a one to one mathematical-like French word for English word. That’s what makes the job of translating a difficult one. Sometimes one word in English had to be explained in order to be truly understood on the French side and vice versa. I’m no Greek scholar, but I can imagine that there are many examples of this between English and Greek (not to mention the complications of historical elements and the fact that meanings change).
Dictionaries and lexicons are not inspired by the Holy Spirit… at least not on the level of Scripture. They are subject to men who have their own biases and perspectives (theological and otherwise). The best ones (dictionaries and lexicons) consider not only the words but the culture, history and compare usage with that of contemporary writers from the region when possible. It’s hard, for example to make the case that a word has this or that meaning when it never means that anywhere else in Scripture and there is no example from contemporary writings that it is used to mean thus and such.
To be sure, many dictionaries have been written with theological agendas. It is therefore important that we do what we can to allow the text itself to dictate to us on its own terms its meaning even when that clashes with a prepackaged theological system. Comparing dictionaries and consulting experts in language are due diligence in this quest. I think Luther would agree.
Jim: The entire first heading under pistis in the one dictionary I linked to refers exactly to “faith” as it has traditionally been understood by orthodox Christianity.
Though it may be true that pistis is most often translated “faith,” the definition you offered begins by saying, “conviction of the truth of anything, belief;…” It further specifies, “generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it.” This is all under the Number one meaning suggesting that the word pistis is charged with more than the one word “faith” adequately expresses in our culture today. That is why I contend that pistis = faith is an oversimplification that does not carry the full weight of the original meaning or intent. Therefore if we are determined to find one word to describe pistis we must entertain the possibilities. Faithfulness is on the table… can you think of another?
Does God require perfect obedience to Torah? If you mean, “required for salvation” the answer is no. But I will say that the torah that God writes upon our hearts will be the measure with which He judges us.
What did Christ accomplish at Calvary? Atonement, redemption… probably more, but it’s getting late.
Matt offers that a common approach to 6:15 is to equate law with task-master and grace with a kind of freedom to sin. Then Matt contends that a better corollary would be to equate law with impotency and grace with empowerment. Which do you think is closer to Paul’s intention? Or, would you offer a third possibility?
In a related post, Matt says,” Salvation, according to Jesus, is not merely a forensic transaction, but is first and foremost a relationship, and relationships are held together by the ongoing faithfulness of two individuals, not the verdict of one.” (Aside to the reader – “forensic transaction” refers to law court language – a judge declaring someone righteous was the common way of saying that they won the case). I’m really not sure how to form a question for you here but I wonder if you might interact a bit with this idea.
Have a great day!
Blessings,
Wesley
wesleyb
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Wesley,
“It is therefore important that we do what we can to allow the text itself to dictate to us on its own terms its meaning even when that clashes with a prepackaged theological system.”
Agreed. However, let us not delude ourselves into thinking the Reformed tradition is the only “prepackaged theological system”, while the NPP is something benignly other.
“Though it may be true that pistis is most often translated “faith,” the definition you offered begins by saying, “conviction of the truth of anything, belief;…” It further specifies, “generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it.” This is all under the Number one meaning suggesting that the word pistis is charged with more than the one word “faith” adequately expresses in our culture today. That is why I contend that pistis = faith is an oversimplification that does not carry the full weight of the original meaning or intent.”
I have no problem with this definition, but we’re still talking about belief, not “faithfulness”, which explicitly connotes works. While pistis=faith may be an “oversimplification” (I’m not sure it is), pistis/faith certainly does not refer to works in the way that pistis/faithfulness does. This is the whole point of the argument. You can’t simply make pistis/faith imply works, because you think the English word (faith) isn’t adequately “charged” with enough “trust and holy fervor”. If you want pistis to imply works in a specific text, you must make the case that pistis is referring to faithfulness/fidelity and not faith/belief/conviction.
“Therefore if we are determined to find one word to describe pistis we must entertain the possibilities. Faithfulness is on the table… can you think of another?”
I think you misunderstand the dilemma here. The goal is not to find “one word to describe pistis”. Pistis can legitimately refer to faith/belief or faithfulness/fidelity. These are two distinct meanings. There is no need to fuse the two. Many words (in English and Greek) have multiple meanings. This is not a problem. The problem in translation is figuring out which meaning fits a particular text.
I believe many of the instances where Matt wants to make pistis mean faithfulness/fidelity, this simply doesn’t make good sense of the texts. It brings more confusion, not less.
Jim B.
Friday, May 2, 2008 at 7:01 am
Wesley said:
“Does God require perfect obedience to Torah? If you mean, “required for salvation” the answer is no.”
I hope everyone following this conversation heard that. According to Wesley (and Matt?), God does not require perfect obedience to the law. This leads directly to my next question: Why the Cross? This destroys the traditional (Protestant and Roman Catholic) understanding of the Gospel. Christ is offered as a perfect sacrifice at Calvary to perfectly satisfy the law on our behalf. If we don’t get this, I don’t think we get Christianity at all.
“What did Christ accomplish at Calvary? Atonement, redemption…”
Why? If God does not require perfect obedience to the law, what needs atoning? Who needs redemption?
“But I will say that the torah that God writes upon our hearts will be the measure with which He judges us.”
Does God not write His law on all men’s hearts? (Rom. 2:15) Do not all men sin with knowledge (conscience)? If God judges me on the law that is written on my heart, I am doomed without a savior – without a savior’s imputed righteousness.
“Matt offers that a common approach to 6:15 is to equate law with task-master and grace with a kind of freedom to sin. Then Matt contends that a better corollary would be to equate law with impotency and grace with empowerment. Which do you think is closer to Paul’s intention?”
I think this evidences again a misunderstanding of Reformed theology. I think the “law as task-master” has some truth to it (the law does drive us to a works-righteousness, but, if the law does its job well, it also drives us to a humbled recognition of our need for divine grace), but is overstated, and I’ve never heard or read it presented exclusively in this way. On the other hand, I have never heard anyone preach or teach that grace is “a kind of freedom to sin”. I think “law as impotency” is a good way to describe it – the law is good, but unable to save. I’m not so sure about “grace as empowerment”. I guess we have to define “empowerment”. If we employ “empowerment” to mean a kind of divine force that we now have access to in order to do good works, then no. If what we mean is sanctification – that God empowers or creates good works in those He saves, then yes. I don’t think I would use “empowerment” here; it’s a little confusing.
“Salvation, according to Jesus, is not merely a forensic transaction, but is first and foremost a relationship…”
I don’t know why we need to separate the two. Yes, Christ desires relationship with His people (I would emphasize “people” – we tend to atomize this into our own private relationships with God when Christ died not just for me or you, but to purchase for Himself a people, a holy nation). And yes, a forensic transaction takes place at the Cross: the sin of God’s elect is imputed to Christ, and Christ’s perfect obedience and righteousness are imputed to God’s elect.
I’m not sure why we need to make relationship “first and foremost”, outside the warm fuzzies it might provide some, or the need to fit the Cross more snuggly into a Bridal Paradigm. I don’t say this to minimize God’s relational interaction with His people, but to question the elevation of it as the primary motive for divine action.
I believe Scripture makes plain that God’s primary motive in all divine action is the fame of His name and the praise of His glory. All of God’s attributes and actions (love, mercy, grace, anger, wrath, justice, etc.) can be seen as flowing from this divine zeal for His glory.
God Bless
Jim B.
Friday, May 2, 2008 at 7:52 am
Matt,
I was going to email the following to you, thinking I had seen your address on this blog, but I was mistaken (or I’m really dumb and just can’t find it anymore):
Thanks for writing on this topic. (And thanks to Wesley for pointing it out to me.) It’s driven me to dig into a topic (NPP) I’ve been meaning to dig into for a while, but hadn’t made the time for.
I have to laugh though, because in my digging I’ve read and listened to a lot of NPP stuff (mostly Wright – again thanks to Wesley) and NPP critiques, and a running theme with all the critics of NPP is that Wright, E.P. Sanders, Jimmy Dunn, etc. don’t understand Reformed Theology and routinely misrepresent it. I then thought of all my frustrated comments directed at you for this same reason!
I don’t want to presume to know what you have and have not exposed yourself to within the Reformed tradition, but it might be fruitful to go directly to the sources on these related issues and not take Wright & Co. at their words regarding what the Reformed (and Lutheran) traditions do and do not teach relating to law/torah, obedience, justification, etc.
E.g. It seems that Wright et. al. ascribe the perspective of liberal German/Lutheran theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, to Luther and the Reformers (particularly regarding the law/torah).
Anyways, if you’re interested, I found the 8-part mp3 series on the NPP (an examination and critique of it – most of it is a history, not a ripping) by Kim Riddlebarger very informative. It may not persuade, but it should illumine the opposition for you.
http://www.christreformed.org/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/
(The 8 mp3s are separated into two parts; you’ll have to scroll past Part 2 a ways before you get to Part 1.)
For a shorter audio critique, White Horse Inn (featuring Riddlebarger) recently discussed Wright and the NPP along a similar line.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=2008-6-1
God Bless
Jim B.
Friday, June 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Jim,
Greetings my friend. Much has happened since I last wrote… thanks for your patience. I trust you’re doing well. Thanks for the links to the NPP audio. I too appreciate the opportunity that our discussion affords to dig into an interesting and important topic.
You’ve expressed some frustration that the reformation perspective is not being represented fairly or correctly. On the one hand, this may be inevitable in a positive way. On the other hand, I don’t want to make excuses. I want very much to understand the reformation perspective and to articulate it fairly. I also want to understand and articulate your perspective as it may, at particular points, vary.
You may remember that we met through Pastor Keith and Sign of Jonah discussing Open Theism. You may also remember my frustration that Open Theism was being unfairly caricatured. I think that as the discussion developed there were moments where humility and respect prevailed and I think that this discussion too, if given time, will result in both sides understanding better the other’s point of view. That is certainly my goal. The unique opportunity that we have in this discussion is to wrestle with ideas and to inspect the framework with which we each see the scriptures. We have the opportunity to drill down to theological rock bottom and if you will allow a bit of a mining analogy, it is there that we have the potential of discovering the most precious jewels.
I think it is fair to say that we each have our world view. But our world view is not what we look at; it is what we look through. And, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between what we’re looking at from what we’re looking through. The difference may help to make important distinctions.
Jim: let us not delude ourselves into thinking the Reformed tradition is the only “prepackaged theological system”, while the NPP is something benignly other.
I contend that allowing the text to speak for itself requires that we examine from time to time our world view as that world view colors what we see. If our world view is skewed or flawed, we have little chance of seeing God in His true beauty and even a smaller chance of understanding what the text intends to tell us.
While I’m sure that I have unseen ties to my own tradition and experience, I am determined to have a greater commitment to hearing what the text says. I have no commitment to the NPP. In fact, there are elements that I reject. There are elements from every tradition, theology, and philosophy that I can think of that I reject; including some from open theism.
I do have a world view. I’m willing to examine my world view. Like a man who removes his glasses from time to time in order to make certain that there is nothing on the lenses to impair vision, I too want to look freshly at my theological and philosophical glasses to ensure that I see God in truth and hear his word speaking what He intends.
Before I launch deeper into the discussion where you and I left off, I’d like to return to the article that Matt wrote that began this particular thread. Matt makes a great case that the verse that Paul chose to quote in 1:17 (from Hab 2:4 ) doesn’t really leave room for faith to mean belief. The Hebrew word itself carries a strong connotation of fidelity and faithfulness.
In my Bible (NIV) there are headings: “Habakkuk’s Second Complaint” (Hab. 1:12 – 2:1) and “The Lord’s Answer” (which begins at 2:2). It is clear that God is not asking them to simply believe but more deeply to live with the patient conviction that God will one day vindicate the righteous and He expects that they will trust Him to do it in His time. God’s people must trust His covenant faithfulness. If they don’t, they will never accomplish the purpose that God intended for them. This seems compelling evidence that we must challenge the translation of pistis to be sure that it contains all of the sense in which Paul meant it. The reasons that Paul chose to quote Hab 2:4 lead us to a clear example of what he meant.
Matt said: …this cannot mean that mere belief is itself counted as obedience.
Then Jim said: …Why not? What else could this phrase mean? The coupling of “obedience” and “faith” are not to denote two separate things. “Faith” defines or describes the “obedience”. I won’t pretend to be a Greek expert (or even a novice), but I believe the descriptor follows the thing described (like Spanish – “coche (car) rojo (red)” is translated “red car” in English). So, pistis (faith) describes hupakoē (obedience). Therefore, what kind of obedience is Paul seeking to bring about? The obedience of faith. Paul is seeking to bring about a particular obedience or action in response to the Gospel; namely, faith.
I like your red-car car-red example. I would argue that the core word is obedience and that the descriptor is pistis. What Paul is aiming for is obedience. It’s what God wants. It’s what the law demands. But the law could not itself produce the obedience it demanded. Paul’s Gospel is a declaration that will inspire/bring about a particular kind of obedience. This Gospel aimed at obedience that was not driven by law but driven by pistis. Law and pistis as a contrast are echoed throughout the book of Romans. So in Paul’s Gospel a new covenant is unveiled with a new paradigm to accomplish a job which the law attempted but always fell short.
This Gospel unveils pistis obedience. So the new covenant does not do away with obedience. It aims at arriving at obedience through another vehicle. That vehicle is pistis. The target is obedience. The rifle used to shoot at it was the law. But when you use the law to shoot at the target of obedience the bullets always seem to fall short of the target. Now faith is the rifle and the funny thing is that with the new rifle, folks are getting much closer to the target than ever before.
Jim said: Having said that, the following statement seems a bit dishonest:
“…Paul is mapping out for us the course and destination for his whole discourse in Romans; and surprisingly, he says it’s all about obedience.”
How is that dishonest? I do not claim to speak for Matt. It seems to me that Matt is arguing that obedience is not canceled out by pistis but rather defined by it.
Jim quoted Matt who said: “If Paul were defining obedience as mere belief in 1:5 then he would not go on to use the word in the behavioral way that he does later on in the epistle, first in relation to Jesus’ righteous lifestyle in 5:19, and then in relation to the believer’s lifestyle in 6:12-16, 15:18 and 16:19.”
Then Jim said: …I don’t follow your logic. Are you saying that Paul must mean the exact same thing every time he uses the word hupakoē (obedience), regardless of context or flow of thought?
On the contrary, the argument is that you must consider the context and flow of thought in order to arrive at Paul’s intention.
Jim said: I still can’t see how “hupakoē pistis” in 1:5 can mean anything but faith or belief. Paul wants to bring about a particular kind of obedience; he wants his readers to do something. What does he want them to do? He wants them to have faith; to believe.
Paul wants them to believe for sure. Paul preaches his Gospel (we’ll talk more about what his gospel is later as it is an essential part of the NPP discussion and very interesting too) and the marvelous thing is that faith erupts in the hearts of some of his hearers. Then, miracle of miracles, they begin to love one another, and walk in humility and give to the poor, and generally live out the teachings of Jesus. Their faith results in a life that the law aimed at but could never completely accomplish.
But this new covenant “in Christ” and “by the spirit” results in an obedience that the law was aiming the whole time. Again, I do not presume to speak for Matt. He is completely capable of speaking for himself or correcting me if I misrepresent him. Many apologies in advance, Matt, if I misrepresent you.
The argument asserts that obedience is the thing Paul is aiming toward and pistis is the thing through which obedience happens. So yes, Paul wants them to pistis because his ultimate goal is that they obey.
So if Paul had it in his mind that the ultimate goal was that they believed, then he wouldn’t have gone on to speak of obedience the way he does throughout the Book of Romans. It simply does not follow the context or the flow of thought. But, if he wanted as his core objective that they obey and pistis was the means through which they would obey, then it makes perfect sense for Paul to say what he says in 5:19, 6:12-16, 15:18 and 16:19.
Jim said: To make Paul say he wants obedience (one thing) and faith (another thing) makes nonsense of the text. Again, pistis describes hupakoē. The phrase connotes one thing, not two.
I think there is agreement that it is one thing. We disagree as to exactly what that one thing is.
Jim: I don’t see how you can make hupakoē pistis refer to both faith and works.
We’re not talking about faith and works. We’re talking about pistis and obedience. In this case we’re talking about a particular kind of obedience; an obedience that is driven by pistis.
Jim: I will again concede that I am no Greek expert, but I don’t think the word formation here connotes two things. Paul doesn’t say he wants obedience and faith; he wants the obedience of faith. (If Paul had said, “I want to bring about the obedience of hope,” would we conclude that Paul wants us to be both obedient and hopeful? No, we would recognize that Paul wants us to heed his letter by hoping or being filled with hope.)
I too will concede that I am no Greek scholar. But it seems you want to cancel out obedience as though it’s not there. If Paul wanted to say he wants to bring about belief or hope (as in your example), he could have simply ommited hupakoē and more easily achieved what you are arguing he wanted to say. hupakoē is there and it must be considered in any honest attempt to let the taxt speak for itself.
Jim said: It seems like you’re reading into the phrase what you want to be there, in order to work it into your reinterpretation of Paul.
The jury is still out on who is reinterpreting or who has reinterpreted Paul. I prefer to let the reader decide.
Jim Said: I don’t see how any of the texts above are relevant to 1:5. In fact, this is a rather bizarre argument. You seem to be saying that because Paul employs the word hupakoē to denote right action in these texts, he cannot therefore use it to denote pistis (faith) in 1:5. There is an obvious problem with this argument: PAUL DEFINES hupakoē WITH pistis THERE! This argument is either plain silly or dishonest. Paul doesn’t use “hupakoē pistis” in 6:12-16, 15:18 or 16:19; he uses “hupakoē” alone.
I think I’ve responded to this already. I will simply add that we simply disagree on how pistis defines obedience.
Jim said: The only text above that seems relevant to 1:5 in terms of “hupakoē pistis” is 15:18 – “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience [hupakoē] – by word and deed…”
This verse supports well the point that I have been making that Paul had it on his mind to lead the Gentiles to obey. “by word and deed” further clarifies leaving no room for the argument that Paul’s ultimate goal was that they “believe.” You are using your view of 1:5 to undermine the clear speaking goal of Paul – to bring the Gentiles to obedience.
Jim said: Interestingly, I think 1:5 is very pertinent here, because Paul begins this letter stating his aim is to “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations”. “Among all nations” seems to be an explicit reference to Gentiles. So, according to Paul’s introduction, what kind of obedience (hupakoē) is Paul seeking to bring the Gentiles to? Hupakoē pistis?
So let me see if I understand this correctly. In 1:5 Paul references “all nations.” So now when I get to 15:18, I’m to understand that the obedience Paul refers to there has nothing to do with obedience like: love one another, walk in humility, give to the poor, etc. but rather obedience to a command to believe? Did I articulate that fairly? It seems like, “by word and deed,” alone defeats that notion. Could you expound on this a bit for me?
What kind of obedienceis Paul seeking to bring the Gentiles to? This is a great question and one that has compelling answers throughout the New Testament. Jesus and Paul commanded us to love one another, forgive, live a sermon on the mount lifestyle, obey the governing authorities. There are many others I could think of and more if I took time to look them up. What importance do you think these commands have in relationship to 15:18?
Wesley
More to come…
wesleyb
Monday, August 11, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jim,
Your comments on 15:18 bring me to a concern that many have about the law court metaphor that we use so prevalently in the gospel we preach in America. Of course I understand that Paul uses language that comes from the law court of the time and it does communicate a certain truth about what God has done through Christ. But when that metaphor is made central to dominate the book of Romans or to reach beyond its intended boundaries, the result skews the gospel and gives people a false sense of security.
I heard a pastor tell a story recently about a time when he was on a plane and he sat next to a real “talker.” This guy couldn’t stop talking about his truck. When he finished about his truck, he then began to boast about the two women he was living with and how they were both “ok with it.” Then, since he was a truck driver, he traveled to three different cities where he had girls that he could just call up.
Finally, when he didn’t have anything more to say, he turned and said, “And what do you do?” So the pastor said, “well, I’m a seminary student and I pastor a church on the side.” Then, the guy who moments ago was boasting about his life of sin said, “Well, praise God! I’m a brother in Christ.” He went on to say, “I just praise God that when I was younger my grandma took me to church and one day I walked the Aisle and prayed the sinner’s prayer. And now God looks at me through Jesus spectacles and He can’t see my sin and nothing can ever change that.” He went on to say that he knew he was a carnal Christian. Jesus was his savior but not his Lord.
Now I’m pretty sure, Jim, that if this guy bumped into you on the airplane and told you his story, you’d tell him that he is totally mischaracterizing reformation theology. And, I would applaud you for that. But this story speaks of the need to see the overarching theme of scripture. It’s a theme that Wright argues was in Paul’s mind from the beginning to the end of Romans. And that theme is Covenant. Wright contends that when you see the covenantal theme, the justification language can be seen in it’s proper context and be understood as it was intended. It is a covenant making and covenant keeping God that can deal with sin.
Greg Boyd makes a compelling argument that the biblical concept of faith is connected to God’s covenant faithfulness. He argues that we should think of marriage as the thing that anchors our concept of faith. A marriage is not a marriage because I believe that my wife exists. But rather, a man and a woman who enter into a marriage, trust that the other. The success of a marriage is so much more than just believing that one is married. The quality of a marriage is based upon the trust that each exerts as they seek to love and grow together in the life they live in covenant.
Not too long ago, I was introduced to a style of dance called “nontraditional partnering.” It is very intriguing and captivating and I think it serves as a modern parable for what our journey of faith is like. If you caught the academy awards a couple of years ago, then you likely saw “nontraditional partnering” done by the dance company that made the style famous, “Pilobolus.” They were commissioned to represent each nominated movie through their art. In this case they stood behind a large screen and in front of a light and as they built huge and interesting towers of bodies. Those images were cast onto the screen resulting in a spectacle that was quite amazing. They were a big hit and made the tour of talk shows immediately following their exposure on the awards program.
I have a friend from Cleveland, OH whose dance company uses this unique style in their repertoire. We meet up each year at the summer dance intensive in Houston put on by Dance Ad Deum and always find time to talk about the spiritual significance of the style. In the beginning, when dancers are learning this style, they find one partner and practice “leaning into center.” This is an exercise in trust since both dancers must face their fear of falling. If either one does not fully engage, someone will fall and maybe get hurt. But if they succeed, the result will be a thing of beauty as they explore the various ways that they can move together always fully engaged leaning upon one another. It is absolutely amazing to watch.
What does it look like to lean into God? I imagine that it looks like a lot of the things that we do with our faith. It looks like prayer. It looks like fasting. It looks like forgiveness. It looks like giving to people who cannot give back to us. It looks like the inside upside down kingdom that Jesus spoke of and taught. Nontraditional partnering then is a modern parable of the relationship that we enter into with God by pistis. We must face our fear of falling by leaning into His substance. When we really trust Him, it affects every part of our life and seems like a dance to anyone who is watching. The beauty that is created in this dance gives the world a window into the nature and character of God.
Back to pistis…
Jim: I have no problem with this definition, but we’re still talking about belief, not “faithfulness”, which explicitly connotes works. While pistis=faith may be an “oversimplification” (I’m not sure it is), pistis/faith certainly does not refer to works in the way that pistis/faithfulness does. This is the whole point of the argument. You can’t simply make pistis/faith imply works, because you think the English word (faith) isn’t adequately “charged” with enough “trust and holy fervor”. If you want pistis to imply works in a specific text, you must make the case that pistis is referring to faithfulness/fidelity and not faith/belief/conviction.
A couple of thoughts here. Firstly, we define grace differently which causes us to come to different conclusions on the application of pistis. If there exists a cooperative element in the most minute sense, you are required to reject the idea as grace and conclude that this is a works or works/righteousness approach to salvation. This is simply not the perspective of countless Christians throughout the world and throughout history.
If I gave you a check for a million dollars, we might say that the million dollars was a gift of grace. But if you don’t deposit that check into the bank, you’ll never be able to enjoy the benefit of the million dollars. The act of depositing or cashing the check is something that you must do. It is in the system of banking. It is the way things work. You might say, “In order for it to be truly grace, you must not require me to cash or deposit a check. I’m working for the million dollars by cashing the check; so it’s not really grace.” To me, since the act of cashing the check is something that I trust you are fully capable of doing, it does not undermine my gracious gift of a million dollars to you.
Secondly, I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d bet that there are a number of elements under definition #1 that make you nervous. You’d like to separate definition number one from definition number two and argue that number two implies works/righteousness and number one doesn’t.
I notice that though you argue on the one hand that definition number one is the traditional orthodox view of faith. But then very quickly zero in on one or two words that you pull from definition one that paint a picture of pistis that you feel comfortable with. Trust and holy fervor are there. You cannot remove them from the definition.
“I have no problem with this definition, but we’re still talking about belief, not “faithfulness”
… Just a couple of thoughts here…
If we’re going to allow the text to dictate to us on its own terms, we must accept the entire definition or present another definition and argue its merits. This particular lexicon has gone to the trouble of giving us a full definition and that description cannot be cancelled out or abbreviated without a reason.
If we accept the full meaning offered by the lexicon under number 1, is it really so different from meaning 2? Can it really be argued that they are two separate meanings? It seems that they are rather similar giving support to the idea that pistis contains one central meaning with a connotation stronger than the English word “belief” by itself conveys.
“…which explicitly connotes works. While pistis=faith may be an “oversimplification” (I’m not sure it is), pistis/faith certainly does not refer to works in the way that pistis/faithfulness does.”
Pistis = faithfulness does not imply works – that is – it does not imply a works/righteousness earning one’s salvation. It implies covenant. It implies marriage of sorts. I’m not trying to argue that a fuller understanding of pistis leads us to works/righteousness but rather that at the heart of Paul’s theology is a relational God, a covenant making God, a God who is Himself faithful. It is the relational aspect that I am trying to draw attention to.
“I think you misunderstand the dilemma here. The goal is not to find “one word to describe pistis”.
I’m referring to the job of translators who are charged with the task of providing an English version that replicates the ideas and thoughts in a smooth and logical way. I’m not arguing that it must be one word. I’m completely satisfied with concluding that pistis cannot be translated with one English word. I’m asking that you consider if there might possibly be another English word that more fully expresses pistis.
Jim said: “I believe many of the instances where Matt wants to make pistis mean faithfulness/fidelity, this simply doesn’t make good sense of the texts. It brings more confusion, not less.”
Is it possible that you are jumping to conclusions? It’s still pretty early in the discussion. I suggest that what is confusing is not because of what you’re looking at but what you’re looking through. I’m referring to your worldview. Yes Jim, as you rightly pointed out, we each have our world view. Many of these ideas in our discussion are explained and understood from vastly different perspectives. I’m sure that there will be other words that we will need to define as we go along. A patient hearing will give each of us a chance to dialogue and wrestle with what the text is really saying. I think you will agree that that is a worthy goal.
“I hope everyone following this conversation heard that. According to Wesley (and Matt?), God does not require perfect obedience to the law. This leads directly to my next question: Why the Cross? This destroys the traditional (Protestant and Roman Catholic) understanding of the Gospel. Christ is offered as a perfect sacrifice at Calvary to perfectly satisfy the law on our behalf. If we don’t get this, I don’t think we get Christianity at all.”
I was answering the question with the cross in mind. But, it does seem clear to me that God anticipated that Israel would not completely keep the law since the law made provision for when they didn’t keep it.
Jim said: “If God does not require perfect obedience to the law, what needs atoning? Who needs redemption?”
If God had not given the law, would we not need to be saved/atoned? Our need for atoning/redemption came before the law came. I believe that when Adam (and Eve) sinned, the entire creation was subjected to corruption (death). This is something that God Himself did to His creation with hope. God then launched a plan to rescue (restore, remake) creation since it was good. Romans speaks to these ideas specifically.
Jim said: “Does God not write His law on all men’s hearts? (Rom. 2:15) Do not all men sin with knowledge (conscience)?”
I’m referring to an intimate knowledge that God writes upon the hearts of His covenant people… a promise (according to Hebrews) He said He would accomplish in a new covenant.
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people:” Heb 8:10
Jim said: “If God judges me on the law that is written on my heart, I am doomed without a savior – without a savior’s imputed righteousness.”
This is a great topic. I’d love to talk about it. But even more I’d love to see you dialogue with Matt on the topic.
OK, I’ve gone way too long and I have sooooo much more to say. What a paradox! I guess we’re just getting started in this discussion. Please forgive the sporadic nature of my involvement in this discussion. I’ll try to get back to our discussion, I just don’t know when that will be. Thanks for your patience.
Blessings,
Wesley
wesleyb
Monday, August 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Jim,
sorry i left a part out…
in the paragraph that begins. “Greg Boyd makes…” there is a sentence that gets chopped off. It read:
But rather, a man and a woman who enter into a marriage, trust that the other.
It should read… “But rather, a man and a woman who enter into a marriage, trust that the other to be faithful to the covenant.”
Thanks.
wesleyb
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 8:54 pm