Sola Fide: Part 3

Our righteousness

The primary discussion taking place in Romans 4:1-8 is a matter of how or by what God regards his children as righteous. This is commonly referred to biblically and extra-biblically as justification. The idea behind justification is that because of some reason God in some way deems the unrighteous human being as righteous and therefore worthy of communion with himself.[1]

But what is this “righteousness?” Or rather, what does this term “righteousness” refer too? According to W.E. Vine “righteousness” may carry a couple of different ideas with it. The first is the idea of “righteousness” as “right action.” We see this usage employed by Paul on five occasions in Romans 6, in Ephesians 6:14 and in other places throughout the New Testament. The other usage implies that of a gracious gift given by God to bring those who believe in Jesus Christ into right relationship with himself (Vine, 980).

In my estimation it seems to be this second definition which Paul is implying in his use of the word righteousness. There are two primary reasons here in support of this definition. The first is that we see this idea prominently throughout Paul’s writings and especially in close conjunction to his discussions of justification and reconciliation before God. II Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” just after urging the Corinthians to be reconciled to God in verse 20. Titus 3:5 shows that our salvation is not because of any righteous works that we have committed but because of God’s own mercy upon us. Paul states a similar idea in Ephesians 2:8-9 and says that it is by God’s grace alone that we are saved through our faith with no relation to ourselves and completely apart from any works. And lastly Paul gives us these ideas in Romans just prior to the passage in question. No one will be declared righteous because of law observance, but the righteousness we do have is from God, apart from the law, and through faith in Jesus Christ.

The second reason for my understanding of the word “righteousness” is that if we take “righteousness” to mean “acts of rightness” or “right action” then all of the above statements by the apostle implicitly contradict themselves. We cannot affirm that our righteousness is granted to us apart from our own action while at the same time claiming that it is by our righteous action that we were justified before God. For if we do then either we need to seek a new understanding of such statements, or they must be accepted as logically false statements in which the case we must reject the whole of the gospel.

I believe that Paul was quite intentional of his use of the word righteousness. He quite clearly departed from Jewish tradition showing that the right action idea was wrong. According to both Josephus and Philo righteousness is an “ethical conception” or “chief cardinal virtue which originates in the soul” and “is meritorious” (Bromiley 171). So when Paul goes against the grain of popular Jewish thought and pairs righteousness with faith he is quite clearly making a statement about what he believes righteousness to be and how he thinks it should be viewed in light of the gospel message he is preaching.[2]

---

[1] The reason and way of God’s justification has yet to be addressed. The focus here is on Paul’s understanding of righteousness and how exactly God views this righteousness. Discussion of the means of obtaining righteousness will be included under point II (consult outline for reference.)

[2] It should be noted that Paul’s argumentation against the Jewish train of thought is important to this passage and integral to its proper interpretation. This idea of Paul’s argument against popular Jewish thought will be addressed more completely further on.

Sola Fide: Part 2

Literary Context:

Romans is a letter that contains a number of personal elements to it. But despite its status as an epistle, the body of the letter much resembles that of a treatise owing to its tight argumentative structure and heavy theological content.

In order to gain an understanding of any particular passage in Romans, one must first understand Romans as a literary whole. Paul begins Romans with a prologue in 1:1-17. Then, starting with 1:18 and running through 8:39 Paul shows how God’s righteousness is revealed in His universal plan for salvation. In chapter 9 extending through 11:36 Paul discusses at length Israel’s rejection and the Gentile inclusion into the New Covenant. Chapter 12-15:13 displays precepts for righteous living. The remainder of the book functions as an epilogue.

As we approach Romans 4:1-8 we must notice that Paul has been demonstrating God’s righteousness and man’s lack (and therefore need) of that righteousness. 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Quite clearly Paul is making a statement as to mankind’s hopeless position before God. With this statement Paul begins to give the answer to man’s problem – faith in Jesus Christ.

Because of the theological issues going on at the time, namely how the law was interpreted and how that came into play with Christianity, Paul then takes the opportunity in 3:27 to introduce the idea of righteousness being obtained through faith instead of observance of the law. And it is here that we find ourselves looking at 4:1-8 and trying to determine how and by what exactly we are justified.

This would have been an important issue in Paul’s day as there were high tensions about whether continued law observance was a necessary part of the conversion experience. We see even among the apostles disagreements happening over this issue, and so Paul seeks to set the Romans straight that they might not fall into some of the same doctrinal traps as other branches of the early church had a tendency to do.

Sola Fide: A Discussion of Abraham's 'righteousness' in Romans 4.1-8 and its implicaitons for the believer.

Yes, this is another multi-part series. I know that some of my readers probably appreciate a single stand alone post, but if I were to attempt that with some of the recent topics I would have to post a short treatise all at one time. Consequently, it is much easier for me to post a page or two at a time and hopefully it allows you to more fully digest the content by taking it in smaller portions.

Part 1: Historical Context:

Unlike some of the other Pauline epistles, Romans is almost undisputedly agreed to have been written by the apostle Paul. Although this is the case, some still argue the integrity of the letter because of the role of a certain Tertius, who is supposed to have been Paul’s amanuensis for this letter. This debate comes into play to determine if we have Paul’s final work or Tertius’ re-mastery of Paul’s ideas. Most likely Paul dictated his letter word for word to Tertius who the copied it down. Structurally, Romans matches up with other Pauline texts that have been accepted as authentic.

Reconstructing Paul’s journeys and the history of the New Testament leads us to conclude quite conclusively that Romans was written sometime between A.D. 55 and 58 from the city of Corinth. If we look at the book of Acts we find numerous evidences that lead us to accept Corinth as the most plausible place of authorship, specifically during his three month visit in Acts 20:2-3. Less certain is the date of writing, but taking Paul’s experience before Gallio the proconsul of Corinth in Acts 18:12-17 to have happened in 51 (according to Cranfield) and adding two years for Paul’s stay in Ephesus (Acts 19:10) plus any significant travel time, the earliest conclusion we can come to seems to be 54 and even more likely sometime between 55 and 58 (Schriener 4).

Perhaps even more pertinent to a discussion of Romans is to observe the audience to which it was written. Due to internal evidence within Romans the conclusion can be made that it was at least written to gentile Christians in the city of Rome, and probably a number of Jewish Christians as well. Some would argue that it was written more for a Jewish audience, however the Jewish population was only just being allowed back into Rome upon the death of Emperor Claudius[1] and so a gentile population would clearly be dominant (Morris 4). Within this context it should be noted that even the gentile Christians would have had a strong grounding in the Old Testament and a familiarity with Jewish customs and ways of thinking. This is because of the influence of the synagogues and Jewish Christians who no doubt played an important part in forming the early Roman church.

As with any letter and especially in the case of one to which we are not privy to have the specific context of, we must ask of the authorial intent. The purpose of Romans seems to be twofold. First, Paul seems to be writing to introduce himself to the Roman church and telling them of his intended visit. In this way his letter is sent out ahead of him to preface his coming and allow for some preparations to be made on his account. Second, Paul writes to address the social-political atmosphere of the church in Rome. As can be seen in a number of other New Testament books, Jew-Gentile relations were high throughout the Christian communities, so Paul writes in order to stress the unity of the body. But in order to do so he first had to establish the credibility of his gospel, which as we notice in 1:11ff was already under substantial attack. This purpose would account for the systematic account of the gospel as well as the prominence of the topics of the Mosaic Law and Israel’s place in redemptive history.

---

[1] Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the city of Rome, but the decree ended with his death in A.D. 54 allowing Jews to return to the city.

The Least of These (Part 2)

Poverty in the N.T.

Just as we began in the O.T. by looking at the ways that God had prescribed for dealing with the poor in a “perfect” community, we will continue on in the N.T. by looking at the life of Christ and the way that he handled the poor as the perfect man.

The first observation that we make is that while the gospel make mention of many different times that Christ sought to provide for someone in need, it rarely records His discussion of the poor. This is because what mattered for Christ was the doing. He understood more truly than any that the “walk talks louder than the talk talks” and sought to live a life of sacrifice and love for others. We might mention one of the many times He healed a beggar or provided for a widow. We might cite one of His numerous parables involving the poor, or His discussion with Zacchaeus. But in the end there is only one act that needs to be discussed, and it is the act of ultimate provision. Christ gave up His position in heaven and then His life on earth – He became poor – so that we, as spiritually impoverished people, might partake in the divine nature of God and His rich blessing.[1] For Christ, nothing mattered but what He could do for others, especially those who could do for themselves.

Observation of the apostles and their writings also lends to our understanding of what we are to do for the poor, and especially helps to provide us some ways in which we might practically apply these principals to our lives.

The first thing that we notice is that the poor were being cared for within the body of the Church; that is, it was seen as a serious responsibility of the Church to care for the poor. This is evidenced by the fact that there was a conflict over how much the gentile widows were receiving in aid and that the apostles appointed specific people to take care of this area of church ministry.[2]

The second thing is something that is drawn out in the book James. In chapter two James establishes the rich man and the poor man as equal and encourages those in the Church not be partial to the rich simply because they are materially blessed. This is a strand that we also see in Paul when he says that there is no distinction of social class for those who declare themselves to be in Christ.[3] This is significant because it draws the body of Christ closer together, making each individual the responsibility of the rest of the Church. It carries an implication of “no man left behind.” In essence, it makes the responsibility of caring for the poor less a responsibility or task of the church and more of the very definition of what it means to be Christian and live Christ.[4]

Conclusion/Application for the Global Church

Since we are discussing a “global” theology I thought it would be most fitting to try and make this theology of the poor relevant to the worldwide situation our Church finds itself struggling in. We know that the majority of the Church throughout the world is made up of what is materially and financially considered the “lower class” while in America we enjoy the benefits of a nation with a good economy and a stable government. So how is this reconciled? Is it our responsibility as the Church in America to provide aid to the Church in other parts of the world? I would posit that yes, it is our responsibility to address the needs of our fellow believers, no matter where they live.

On a couple of different occasions we see Paul requesting financial support for groups of believers in other geographical locations, and we see specific local churches responding and seeking to help those other churches in need. I think specifically of Macedonian church mentioned in II Corinthians 8-9 whom Paul praises for their generosity even in their own need.[5]

The foundation is laid and the precedence set; all that is left is for us to respond. We have been graciously gifted with much more than we need and it is our responsibility and our privilege to be able to express God’s love to our fellow brothers and sisters around the world. A little self-sacrifice is the least we can do in the name of the one who forfeited everything to ensure that we would not have to spend an eternity living in spiritual poverty.

---

[1] II Corinthians 8:9

[2] Acts 6:1-6

[3] Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11

[4] The distinction between the saved and unsaved here is important to note. As Christians we are called to serve the poor whether saved or not. However, we have a special obligation to provide for fellow brothers and sisters of the faith who are in need.

[5] We might also look to the Philippian church who supported Paul, and the aid sent to the Jerusalem church by the other churches – which, in fact is what we take Paul to be referring to in the II Corinthians passage.

The Least of These (Part 1)

Historically the poor have been one of the most overlooked and compromise people groups in every society, and the world of the present is no exception. As the face of the worldwide church continues to configure itself more and more like the church of the south the poor are becoming a reality we can no longer ignore. Tragically, it seems that in recent years the church has offloaded its responsibility to care for the less privileged to government agencies or Para-church organizations. I submit that God has made it the responsibility of His people to care and provide for the “poor” of society, which I will attempt to show with the support of Scripture.

The first thing to be understood when constructing a theology of the poor is the nature of “poorness” or poverty. Poverty is an opportunity to show God’s love and fulfill our humanity, not a sociological problem with an answer or a disease to be eliminated.[1] In fact, Deuteronomy 15:11 tells us that we will always have the poor to deal with, and sets it [poverty] up as an opportunity to minister to our brothers and sisters in need.[2]

Poverty in the O.T.

When God gave the law to Moses he was not simply setting up a moral code of ethics for which the nation of Israel was to abide by, He was also constructing for them a culture and a way to do life. This is significant because this was the prescribed community of God. If properly instituted and obeyed this would be the prime model of life in community. This was no creation of man, but a series of constructs provided by God. The Pentateuch reports an extensive social policy for the provision of the impoverished. If a man was forced to sell his home and possessions, another was to support him as though he were a guest.[3] Owners of farms, orchards, and vineyards were to leave some of the harvest behind so that the poor and needy would not go entirely without food.[4] Employers were even commanded to pay their workers before the sun set on the same day of their work.[5]

As we continue to follow poverty through the O.T., it is next enumerated upon in the wisdom literature. The nature of poverty and its affects are discussed at some length, but we are more interested in the way that Solomon seeks to deal with those who are poor. There seems to be two common themes here; the first being that the man who blesses the poor will himself be blessed while those who take advantage or subjugate them will be punished.[6] The second theme is the idea of giving the poor the justice that they deserve and yet rarely receive because they lack the means to provide it for themselves.[7]

Finally, we approach the prophetic books, and while at first it be surprising that they include so much discussion about the poor, it is understandable. We must remember the things that the nation of Israel was experiencing at the time. They were constantly under attack from enemy nations and were eventually displaced from their homeland. Many of them were forced to begin new lives in a foreign land with virtually nothing of their own. It was in this setting that the prophets stressed to the people of Israel God’s retribution to those who oppressed them, encouraging them by reminding them of God’s covenant with them.[8]

---

[1] This is important because Matthew 22 tells us that the two greatest things a human can do is love God and love others, which often becomes the same thing in practice – that is, loving others is loving God. This mandate for love is really just the human doing what he was meant to do. Man was created in the likeness of God, who is the very definition of love. So if man is to fulfill and live out the image of God, then it is necessary that he love others. In fact, one could go so far as to say that he who ceases to love his fellow human beings has forgotten what it means to be human; likewise if we treat the poor as less than human we not only rob them of the dignity that they have as image bearers of God, but we also strip ourselves of our own humanity (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5).

[2] Deut. 15:11 - For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.' (ESV)

[3] Leviticus 25:25, 35; Deuteronomy 15:7

[4] Leviticus 23:22

[5] Deuteronomy 24:15

[6] Proverbs 14:21; 19:17; 22:9; 28:27

[7] Proverbs 29:7; 29:14; 31:9

[8] Ezekiel 16:49; Amos 4:1-3; 8:4-7; Zechariah 7:10-14

Christianity and Socialist Society

In his article Adapting Christianity to Socialist Society: Theological Changes Xiao Anping postulates, “that changing times and social development also bring about changes and development in theology” and then considers the way in which the adaptation of Christianity to Chinese socialist society should be viewed, which according to Anping is from the perspective of changes in theological thinking – presumably historically, politically, and socially.

Indeed, the whole argument of this article seems to be focused around creating an understanding of the necessity of theological reconstruction within Chinese Christian theology. It should be understood here that Anping is not seeking to change the theology of the Chinese Church for mere change sake, but to contextualize his Christianity into a new and changing socialist society. For legitimate reasons, Christianity has historically been associated with Western civilization. But China is an Eastern civilization with a developing socialist society containing a unique set of social ideals. In many ways it is a world that is completely foreign to the Western mind. And if we as Westerners struggle to understand and integrate ourselves into Eastern culture, then we can’t expect anyone to conform to our ideas of something as central as ones faith.

Anping then demonstrates the flexibility of Christianity to adapt to its socio-political climate by tracing the development of Christian thought from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation. He says that a history of theology is, “the history of the contextualization of theology in different societies and cultures, and its development within that context.”

Here it is interesting to note that a significant assumption of Anping’s is that the progress that is made within Christian theology is also an advancement in and to society. For example he says, “the religious reformation became… directly involved in the great transformation in thinking that took place. Thus the religious reformation can be seen as the expression of humanism within the church, not only causing changes in theology, but also promoting the advancement of the whole of European history and society.”

But while Anping says that theological evolution is a social development, his understanding of this concept is unclear. It seems that while he is arguing for this need of “contextualization” in theology due to an existing socio-political context, he also wants to argue that this change in theology contributes to a change and development in society. He seems to create for himself a contradiction between these two ideas. However, I think that perhaps a better way of looking at this is to view this relationship as a parallel “both and” relationship as opposed to one of cause and effect. Because religion and culture cannot separate from each other. In fact, it is not that one is always influenced by the other, it is that each is continually impacted by the other.

But Anping claims that, “changes in theology are not in contradiction to the Bible” – a statement that may or may not be true depending on the specific nature of the change he discussing. We could accept his statement if it were clear that he were only talking about shifts within orthodox Christian thought. However, he does not make this clear, and only succeeds in creating more questions as to what the specific nature of these theological “changes” entail when he attempts to support this point scripturally.

He first cites the difference in some individuals’ notions of God and how that differed between the Old and New Testaments (where some view God as a strict disciplinarian in the O.T. and as love in the N.T.). This is problematic for two reasons. First, because we numerous cases of God’s love, mercy, and redemption in the O.T. and His justice and righteous indignation in the N.T. And second, because these individuals who might have held such a specific view of God were not (to any fault of their own) privy to the complete spectrum of theological revelation that we are today which could have led them to an incomplete, albeit uninformed, view of God.

Second, and perhaps even more speciously, Anping uses the Acts 15 text of the meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem to argue that theological change is not in contradiction to the Bible. He says that the shift away from a Christianity that required certain law fulfillments to a Christianity that was characterized in “justification by faith” only demonstrated to people that Christianity was not exclusively for the Jews and served as a severance point from Judaism. But, while those things are true, I would argue that the very reason that the Jerusalem council was held was because the gospel that Peter and others were preaching was a gospel that was in contradiction to the gospel of Christ (and by implication the gospel of the Bible). This can be seen by the very fact that Paul has to publicly confront Peter and condemn his behavior towards the gentile believers.[1] In fact, even were the Judaizing gospel the biblical gospel, the shift that we see here in Acts 15 is a contradictory change in theology; the change from the “Judaizing” theology to “Paul’s” theology is a change from a works based theology to a faith based theology – such a drastic change in theological systems as to warrant one or the other outside of orthodoxy.

When we understand the backdrop from which Anping writes, then we begin to be able to understand his reasons for advocating theological change and his means of doing so. Anping is actively involved as Dean of Zhongnan Seminary and is a part of what is commonly known as the “Three-Self Movement”, which is the legally licensed and recognized Christian church in China. As someone involved in the Three-Self Movement, Anping is concerned with national pride and development as a part of his local Chinese theology, which is probably why he spends such a great deal of time discussing the need for theology to be contextualized. Further, he probably does not hold a very high view of the non-registered church movement, as he thinks that they tend to be more what we might refer to as “traditional”, of which he would say that such a theology is irrelevant to the modern Chinese and therefore incapable of reaching him.

In conclusion I would say that Anping is accurate in his assessment of the need for theology to adapt to its socio-political context and that this is the perspective from which we should view Chinese theological reconstruction. However, I am wary of the ambiguous nature of his needed theological “change”, and curious as to the bounds of his defined Christian orthodoxy and how far this said “change” is allowed to develop before it becomes something that is unrecognizable.

---

[1] Further, we have texts like those in Galatians where Paul explicitly condemns the “Judaizers” and their heretical forms of the gospel.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 6)

‘For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory’ (NIV).

Paul concludes the passage in vv. 11-12 by casting himself in the role of the father of the Thessalonians. This metaphor is perhaps the most important image in the chapter; Paul’s understanding of it illumines all of what he has said thus far and sets precedence for his further discussion.

As the leader of the Roman family the father had complete authority over his household. This included especially the didactic and pedagogical duties that a parent would perform (v.12) and would also include aspects of providing an example by which those children could pattern their lives after. Often times the Roman father was cast as a harsh and domineering figure, however Burke shows that the Roman father could also be very affectionate, which would further elucidate his use of a maternal metaphor as an auxiliary explanation of his fatherly affection.[1]

Verse 11-12 then states the ways in which Paul interacted with the Thessalonians. Mention should be made here that v.11 possesses no verb of its own and should instead be seen as an extension of v.10, in which case “dealt” is probably better translated as “brought up” or “trained,” centering on the didactic role of Paul’s fatherhood.[2]

The three participles in v.12 describe the specific nature of Paul’s paternal care; that is, “encouraging, comforting, and urging.” The first two of these participles are often used interchangeably and are closely tied. Here “encourage” most probably means “to exhort the Thessalonians towards Christian conduct” whereas “comfort” is likely looking back on their distress upon becoming converted (seen in 1.6).[3] The final participle “urging” is the strongest of the three and perhaps the most important as it conveys an idea of insistence, which suggests a “strong moral thrust where he [Paul] charges his converts about the necessity to live radically different lives compared to their previous way of living.”[4] This notion of the way a Christian was to live his life is further supported by Paul’s metaphor of a spiritual walk, of which Paul has provided an example in 2.10.[5]

Verse 12 closes with Paul making mention of God as He who “calls you into his kingdom and glory.” With this he makes reference to the eschatological aim of the believer’s life “[indicating] a believer’s ultimate goal: to live under the dominion and in the presence of God” which is both a partial present reality and future expectation.[6] The Thessalonian believers could identify with this as it referenced the “royal theology” which had already been presented to them (Acts 17.7) and pushed them towards the kind of living involved in God’s “kingdom and glory.”[7]

---

[1] Burke, 148-49.

[2] Wannamaker, 105-06.

[3] Burke, 144.

[4] Best, E. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A. & C. Black, 1977), 107; Burke, 144.

[5] This metaphor is traded out in the NIV to simply say, “live lives worthy of God.” The meaning of the phrase remains unaffected.

[6] Holmes, 68. Here I would like to note that Gorman’s theology of cruciformity, that idea that our Christian experience should reflect the experience of Christ himself, effectively unites all of the differing ideas in this passage together. There is talk of moral instruction, righteous living, and God’s kingdom. These ideas are united in what it means to be a follower or imitator of Christ. Paul himself was a living example of this theology in action as he not only taught others the “way of Christ” but lived it out himself as a self-sacrificing servant, who in living as Christ lived experienced what he came to call “life in Christ” which is regarded as that partial present reality of the future participation in God’s presence and glory.

[7] Green, 138.