LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII subjective interpretation point to parallel constructions of the form (pi,stij) + (a genitive other than Cristou/) that have a dominantly subjective quality, while those who prefer an objective interpretation rely upon parallels of (a noun other than pi,stij) + (Cristou/) to support their case. c) Grammatical issues: conclusion The standoff over the direction in which parallel constructions “push” the proper understanding of pi,stij Cristou/ epitomizes the entire grammatical debate. Neither side can score a decisive victory, for there is equal strength on both sides. Both camps can boast that, though falling back on one front, they are nonetheless advancing on the other. The grammatical part of the debate is thus a stalemate. As Ian Wallis puts it, following a careful examination of the evidence on both sides, “We may conclude with some confidence that the question of whether pi,stij Cristou/ and its variants should be interpreted subjectively or objectively cannot be decided on grammatical grounds alone. Moreover, the evidence is sufficiently ambiguous that neither option carries the burden of proof; rather, the matter remains open and must be decided on contextual and theological grounds.” 23 To these we therefore now turn. 4. CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS Because the seven passages including some form of pi,stij Cristou/ are grouped by proximity into four clusters, it makes sense to examine each cluster in turn within its context. Because of the cumulative nature of the arguments employed, the “subjective” interpretations of pi,stij Cristou/ will be presented for each of these clusters seriatim, before responding to them all briefly (in section e, below) from an “objective” perspective. a) Romans 3:22, 26 This section is clearly a “hinge” in Paul’s argument, a transition-point within the letter. Using the NRSV’s optional subjective reading, it may be translated as follows: 21 But now (nuni. de,), apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ [dia. pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/] for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the 23 Wallis 71-72.
CHAMBERS: PISTIS CRISTOU IN PAUL redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus [to.n evk pi,stewj VIhsou/]. What is the background to this transition? What point has Paul previously been making, which now provides the basis for this new direction (nuni. de,) in his thought? His previous argument can be picked up at 3:3-4: 3 What if some [of the Jews] were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness [avpisti,a] nullify the faithfulness of God [th.n pi,stin tou/ qeou/]? 4 By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.” How does this theme shed light on what follows? Ian Wallis makes the connection: “Clearly God’s pi,stij is not mediated or controlled by humanity’s lack of response. It is improbable, therefore, that in Rom 3:21 [Paul] would maintain that the revelation of God’s righteousness was dependent upon or mediated by the faith of believers on hearing the gospel.” 24 As Wallis emphasizes, the entire argument from 3:4 through 3:20 reinforces a dismal view of human faithfulness, driving home the failure of Jews and Greeks alike to adequately respond to “the oracles of God” (3:2). Instead, “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (3:20)—which, as 3:3 says, can certainly be characterized as “faithlessness” (avpisti,a). Wallis, again, draws together the larger argument of this section of Romans by defining the exact nature of the contrast that Paul is expressing at 3:21 by nuni. de,: It seems more in keeping with Paul’s intention to frame the contrasting approaches to justification not in terms of the “faith-works” dichotomy, but rather of justification on the basis of human response versus justification on the basis of God’s universal grace in Christ or, expressed another way, of human righteousness versus God’s righteousness and covenantal faithfulness. 25 The question then is, however, in what specific way God’s faithfulness (th.n pi,stin tou/ qeou/, 3:3) has been revealed. Once again, the context of Romans’ early chapters provides clues for piecing together Paul’s argument. Back in 1:16-17 he had hinted at the overall theme of his letter by introducing the Gospel together with an allusion to Habakkuk 2:4. 24 Wallis 75. 25 Wallis 80. 27
Page 1: LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5: 4 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII S
Page 6 and 7: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 8 and 9: 8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII W
Page 10 and 11: 10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 76 and 77:
76 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 110:
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?