Chapter IV
1 Therefore shall we say Abraham to be found our forefather according to the flesh?
There is some controversy as to the proper translation of this verse. The ESV asks whether anything was gained by Abraham (ti oun eroumen heurekenai), the NIV what he discovered, and the KJV what he found. These are all grammatically sound translations within the context of one verse, but I contend (via Hays, Wright) that the proper way to translate it in the context of the preceding chapter an argument to read Abraham (which is indeclinable in Greek) as the direct object of heurekenai, thus asking whether we find Abraham to be our physical father, not whether Abraham himself finds something. Vv. 4:1-12 then are not a temporary digression to indulge in Lutheran theology via some proof-texts from the Old Testament. (It helps, by the way, to re-read Genesis 15 before going through these verses). Rather, Paul is continuing to show how God kept his covenant promises to Abraham through Jesus to be the father of the covenant people. Therefore, the implied answer to Paul’s question is v. 1 is not “Yes, and here’s what Abraham found.” Instead, it is “no, but according to grace, so the promise might be valid for all.”
2 For if Abraham by works was justified, he has a boast, but not to God
Again, the answer to the question posed in v.1 is “no.” Abraham was not justified—did not receive his covenant membership—by works of Torah, since he was uncircumcised when he received the covenant. V. 3 makes more sense as a premise in this sort of argument than in proof text of Abraham’s salvation apart from the Categorical Imperative.
3 For what does the scripture say? And Abraham believed/was faithful to God, and it was accounted to him unto righteousness
Here Paul is explaining Genesis 15, not citing it. Episteusen de Abraam to Theo kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen. Read: It was not by works of Torah that Abraham became the head of the covenant family. Not: Abraham received salvation by belief instead of a successful moral effort.
4 But to him working the wage is not accounted according to grace but according to what is owed
Paul continues the logize language (accounted in the previous verse) in this metaphor of a worker being reckoned or accounted his wage. The meaning of this verse in the reading I’m proposing is that, “clearly you Gentiles are members of the covenant family by grace, as was Abraham your father according to grace…this is very much unlike the demand of covenant membership as a recompense for the physical works you’d done, as would be the case if you made Abraham your father according to the flesh by undergoing circumcision and whatnot.” What is owed is opheilema, also obligation or due.
5 And to him not working but believing/trusting upon him justifying the irreverent his faith is accounted unto righteousness
To him (the Gentile covenant member) not taking on ethnic Judaism as the covenant demarcation but instead believing in the God who raised the Messiah from the dead, he receives covenant membership by grace through his faith/trust/belief. Pistis and dik language continue throughout.
6 And even as David said of the man which God accounts righteousness without works
As if evidence from Abraham wasn’t enough, Paul cites another Jewish central figure to draw from God’s historically faithful plan. (Ps 32) This looks a bit more like proof-texting, but it is a proof-text in support of Paul’s statement about Abraham and the covenant people according to grace.
7 Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered
Lawlessnesses are anomiai, also iniquities or misdeeds in some translations. Blessed are those Gentiles being forgiven for their sins even though they don’t have Torah.
8 Blessed is the man who the Lord will not account sin.
Continue logizomai language throughout.
9 Therefore is this blessing upon the circumcised or the uncircumcised? For we say Faith was accounted to Abraham unto righteousness
The blessing (taking the form of Ps. 1 or Jesus’ beatitude, a fairly concrete and moveable concept in Judaic theology) which David has been referring to is intended for the uncircumcised Gentiles. Note carefully here that Abraham was uncircumcised at the time of the covenant and his faith being reckoned unto righteousness…hence his being father of the covenant Gentiles according to grace, the covenant to which his God has been faithful. If v. 2-8 are an answer of “no” to the question in v.1 because of dikaiosune through grace, vv. 9-12 are another “no” because of Abraham’s own uncircumcision.
10 How therefore was he reckoned? In being circumcised or uncircumcised? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision
Or what was the manner of his reckoning? I think that the syntax here expresses (with the participle onti) a concept of time, but I’m not comfortable enough in my ability to translate it to say that it should be the absolute and undoubted proper rendering. If I’m right, though, it should say? How was it accounted? Was it before or after he was circumcised? It was not after he was circumcised, but before. The rougher translation I’ve left up carries the same idea but with less temporal definition.
11 And the sign he received of circumcision the seal of righteousness of faith in uncircumcision unto his being the father of all believing through uncircumcision, unto accounting the righteousness also to them
While Abraham was uncircumcised he received faith’s righteousness, and circumcision functioned as a seal of that. I don’t have the time or energy to do an exhaustive study of Paul’s use of the “seal” concept right now, but it would be a very interesting project for someone who does. Therefore (here’s the QED tying back into v.1) Abraham is the father of us who receive covenant membership/justification/dikaiosune not being circumcised.
12 And the father of those of circumcision from circumcision alone but even which are walking in the footsteps of the uncircumcision of faith of our father Abraham.
And he is the father according to the flesh of the circumcised, providing that they are not only circumcised but walk in the same faithfulness of the uncircumcised and circumcised Abraham. And there’s your answer to the question in v.1.
13 For not through Torah was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, this to be the inheritance of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.
Now that the question in 4:1 is satisfactorily answered, we come back to the problem that Paul began to address in chapter 3 and foreshadowed in chapter 1. (How would God be faithful to his promises to Israel?) Promise here is again epangelia. In using the language of inheritance (kleronomon) Paul evokes the inheritance language of Israel (that of the promised land) to be reshaped through the Messiah—in the fulfilled covenant people the inheritance is not merely Israel, but the whole world, as we shall see later. And this inheritance comes not through the keeping of Torah, but through pisteos, the only demarcating requirement of covenant membership in God’s Messiah.
14 For if there are heirs by the Torah, faith is emptied and the promise is nullified
Emptied is kekenotai and nullified is katergetai. Kekenotai can also mean “made meaningless,” and katergetai is the same word as earlier. In addition to the following verse (the Torah as the vehicle of judgment against Israel) Paul’s premise here carries an unspoken statement about the heirs by Torah. Clearly a sinful and arrogant people, embarrassing their God by being overtaken by pagan Gentiles, can’t be the mode in which God is keeping this great promise to Abraham? Paul will give a full and compassionate picture of ethnic Judaism as it lay in his time later on, but it’s important to note the implicit premise in this argument as well as the explicit one stated next.
15 For the Torah accomplishes wrath. But where there is no Torah neither is there overstepping.
By taking on the symbols and praxis of Torah, the children of Abraham according to the flesh received God’s oracles but also his judgment because of their unfaithfulness. Where there are not works of Torah, however, there is not the obvious external failures of the Jews (referenced in ch. 2) or the interior impossibility of upright law-keeping (see Paul on coveting later.) Overstepping is again parabasis.
16 On account of this by faith, that according to grace, unto the promise being reliable to all the seed, not to those from Torah alone but also to him by Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all.
One of the most complicated sentences I’ve ever seen. It has neither a subject nor a verb in the original language! Perhaps Paul omits them out of reverence? It certainly is the perfect summary statement of the preceding section. Not by faith, but grace, unto the reliability of the promise to those children of Abraham by faith. Reliability is bebaian, cognate with confirmed, sturdy, or weighty. (Foundational.)
17 Even as it is written I have established thee the father of many nations, before the God he believed life-giving the dead and calling those not being as being.
Nations in Greek (and Hebrew) is the same word usually translated Gentiles. (ethnon, or goyim) Paul, when he speaks of God’s faithfulness to Abraham, deliberately begins to invoke his creative and life-giving/making (same word which he uses to describe resurrection in Philippians, I think) attributes. There’s no good way to translate the second part of the verse and preserve the word order of the original. The God in whom Abraham believed, who is the creator of life and makes things ex nihilo, is the sense of it.
18 Which against hope upon hope he believed unto his being the father of many nations according to that said Thus shall be thy seed
Or as we might say in English, “hoping against hope.” Paul quotes only part of v.15, the other part of course being God’s demonstration that Abraham’s descendants shall be as numerous as the stars. He lives this to be remembered by the reader.
19 And not being weak in faith he considered his own body already deadened, almost being one hundred years old, and the deadness of the womb of Sarah.
Considered is katenoesen—basically means realized or perceived. Again, note that Paul tells the story of God bringing something from unexpectedly from death to life, against all hope, by faith, to the fulfillment of his promise.
20 But unto God’s promise he did not doubt in unfaithfulness but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God
The glory to God bit isn’t a throwaway—rather the appropriate and perfectly natural response to God’s goodness in faith, as in ch.1. Unfaithfulness is apistia, unbelief would be an acceptable translation also, but not in the sense of apostasy, of course. Strengthened is actually “enstrengthened.”
21 And having been assured that he promised is able also to do
Not quite sure the best way to translate plerophretheis. Often it’s rendered fulfilled, but the sense here could mean “assured” or “accomplished.” Basic sense, Abraham trusted that God would do what he promised.
22 Therefore [even] it was accounted to him unto righteousness
Back to the theme of God’s accounting (elogisthe) Abraham righteousness—within covenant membership, as the example of our being accounted to righteousness.
23 And it is not written on account of him alone that it be accounted him
This almost sounds like the part of the discussion where someone explains what the practical application is. But of course, for Paul, it was always God’s purpose through Abraham to bless the whole world. Now he does that.
24 But also on account of us, to whom it was intended to be accounted, to those faithful upon the raising of Jesus our Lord from the dead
Just as God brought death to life in Abraham, thus is Jesus, and to those faithful (faithing) in him the same sentence of the accounting of righteousness applies.
25 Who was handed over for the sake of our sins and was raised for the sake of our righting
Paraptomata, not hamartia, for sins.
No comments:
Post a Comment