The Upper Register Blog

In view of my Reformed and Evangelical posts and various reactions on the blogosphere, I was intrigued to find that the Westminster Confession seems to support some of the things I have been trying to say. It teaches both the spiritual fact of the communion of the saints, as well as the resultant obligation to maintain fellowship with all who have a credible profession of faith in Christ (WCF XXVI:1-2):

All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

The divines state that the communion of the saints is a spiritual fact grounded in the doctrine of union with Christ. Then they proceed from the indicative to the imperative:  since we have this communion, we are obligated to perform the duties which express and strengthen that communion. Then they mention three ways we can more tangibly experience and enjoy the communion of the saints. The first is the (public) worship of God and the third is relieving each other in outward things.

What fascinates is the second means – ”performing such other spiritual services as tend to mutual their edification.” Since these other spiritual services are distinguished from public worship on the one hand and caring for outward needs on the other, I can only think that the divines have in mind the various ways that Christians can edify one another in informal settings like one-on-one mutual encouragement, having Christians over to one’s home for hospitality, family worship, home fellowships, conferences, etc. These things conduce to the mutual good and edification of “the inward man.” 

I am also struck by the fact that the Confession does not say that we must circumscribe any of these three forms of fellowship to our own communion, denomination, or local church. Of course, the first one would be fulfilled primarily by regular attendance on the worship services of our own church; but it would also be fulfilled secondarily by visiting other churches on occasion (e.g., on vacation) and by welcoming those who are visiting our congregation. 

But the key point is that the Confession expressly states that all three of these practical means of expressing the communion of the saints ought to be “extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In sum, (1) the theological basis of Christian fellowship is that we are all united to Jesus Christ our head; (2) the rule of Christian fellowship is that we ought to extend it to all who call upon the name of the Lord, in other words, across denominational lines; (3) the means of Christian fellowship are public worship, other spiritual services that tend to edification, and relieving each other in outward things; and (4) the frequency is as God gives opportunity.

Here.

2 Corinthians is a complex book, but one of the central themes is Paul’s defense of his ministry against his critics. This provides wonderful insights into Paul’s life, ministry, and personality. But it is clearly awkward for Paul to be in a position where he has to defend himself. So the key verse is 12:19:  “Do you imagine all along that I have been defending myself to you? In fact, I have been speaking in the sight of God as one who is in Christ; and everything I have said, beloved, was intended to edify you” (my translation – taking the first person plural pronouns and verbs as epistolary plurals, i.e., “we” = “I,” and so throughout 2 Cor). When Paul is talking about himself and his ministry, he isn’t merely engaging in petty self-defense. He is attempting to change us, to transform our values and way of thinking. And he does so by putting himself forward as an example of what it means to be, live, and minister as one ”in Christ,” i.e., as a Christian whose existence is not about himself but about Christ (a message that is particularly needed for those in positions of leadership in the church). When viewed in this light, practically everything in this book leaps off the page. “We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord” (4:5). 

I’ve been reading Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament for my dissertation and I came across this helpful passage on the two schools of Pauline interpretation in 20th century German scholarship:

“In German Paul-research there are two fundamental types (Grundtypen) of Pauline interpretation:  (1) Bultmann’s soteriological-anthropological model and (2) Käsemann’s apocalyptic-Christological model …

“According to Bultmann, the concept of justification of individual sinners stands in the center of Paul’s theology. In terms of content, justification signifies that the individual human is forgiven of their sins by God’s free and universal work of grace. The concept ‘the righteousness of God’ which often occurs in Paul’s letters (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21-26; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9) means, according to Bultmann (for the most part), the to-the-individual-believer ‘from-God given, imputed righteousness.’”

Stuhlmacher summarizes Käsemann’s view (which is largely a reaction against Bultmann) under three points: 

(1) Paul’s anthropology is not, as Bultmann thought, interested in human individuality but in humans always in relation to God and the powers.

“(2) The doctrine of justification is the center and high-point of Paul’s theology, although not merely in terms of the acquittal of individual sinners before God, but also and above all in terms of God’s just claim, embodied in Christ, on the entire creation, both human and non-human. The phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ expresses both God’s power and God’s gift at the same time – in some contexts, it refers to God’s justice and covenant faithfulness (Bundestreue) (Rom 3:25-26); in others, to the gift of righteousness for ungodly sinners (Phil 3:9).

“(3) Whereas Bultmann reduced the eschatological history- and creation-horizon of Paul’s thought to the eschatological existence of the individual human via demythologization, according to Käsemann one must see historically and think theologically that Paul expected the imminent inbreaking of the lordship of God over the world and the renewal of the entire creation. Paul saw the work of Christ (1 Cor 15:20-28), the salvation of Israel (Rom 11), and his own missionary task (Rom 11:13-32; 15:14-24) in light of these global, eschatological coordinates.

“The apostle must be understood, not on the basis of his anthropology, but on the basis of his Christology and eschatological hope, both of which aim at the reestablishment of God’s lordship over the whole world. According to Käsemann, anthropology is not the center of gravity of Paul’s thought but (only) its ‘depth-dimension.’”

[Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1 (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 1997, 2005), 234-36. Translation mine.]

It is interesting to note that Stuhlmacher himself comments that the debate between these two towering figures of 20th century NT scholarship has loosened up so that it is no longer necessary to choose one over the other (p. 237). This both/and approach is becoming more and more popular these days. Even I can appreciate Käsemann’s Christological and eschatological emphases.

Yet, with regard to the exegesis of “the righteousness of God” in Paul, I still think Bultmann is fundamentally correct. Käsemann and his students (including Stuhlmacher himself) failed to prove that “the righteousness of God” is a technical term for God’s covenant faithfulness, the imminent inbreaking of the lordship of God, and the renewal of the creation. How ironic that the heirs of the Protestant Reformation would find Bultmann basically on their side in this particular exegetical debate!

Update:  A note on Bultmann’s birthday, piety

I recently came across these unrelated but delightful posts by Richard Mouw, Fuller’s current president:

On the error of the Iraq war:

“I am not a pacifist … But from a just war perspective, our engagement in Iraq was wrong-headed from the outset.”

On what it really means to be Van Tilian:

“Van Til quickly and decisively cut me off. ‘No, no!,’ he exclaimed. ‘I have never said that Barth is not a Christian! What I have said is that an unsaved person could not come to understand the gospel properly from Barth’s theology. But that he himself is not a true Christian—this is something I have never said, and I never would say.’”

On Bill Bright’s dying regret:

“Bill and I talked by phone several times during his last months, and there was one comment he made to me that I wish I had asked him to expand upon. ‘If I had to do it all over again,’ he said, ‘I would downplay the Four Spiritual Laws and place a strong emphasis on the attributes of God.’”

(Of course, I trust Bill Bright realized that the attributes of God isn’t all one needs to cover in a gospel presentation. I think what he was trying to say is that the good news of the gospel only makes sense when we have a firm grasp of the character of God, especially the dialectic of his holiness/justice and his mercy/love, a dialectic that is only resolved in the cross. To start off telling people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life is to reduce the grandeur and glory of the gospel to narcissistic, feel-good therapy.) 

In 2 Cor 4:7 Paul writes: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (NASB) (Ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεῦεσιν, ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν).

This is a very helpful cross-reference for showing that the genitive θεοῦ is used by Paul to make a contrast between that which is from God versus that which comes from merely human resources. Note that in the parallel phrase (μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν) he uses the preposition ἐκ, rather than the simple genitive. This shows that the genitive of source can be expressed by Paul with or without the precising preposition (compare Rom 1:17 [without] with Phil 3:9 [with]).

For Paul, then, “the righteousness of God” is the righteousness that is from above, as opposed to the righteousness that comes from below, by human striving. It is a supernatural and divine righteousness. This is a major theme in Paul’s writings. He is constantly emphasizing the fact that there is a supernatural, divine activity at work in the lives of believers.

I love Adolf Schlatter’s comments in The Theology of the Apostles (trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) on the impact of Paul’s conversion on his theology. He argues that one of the primary ways that Paul’s conversion impacted his theology was that he experienced firsthand the contrast between human inability and the sovereignty of divine grace:

The special nature of his conversion provided the negative verdict which the individual pronounces against himself at repentance with particular vigor. From it issues the sharp contrasts reflected in his train of thought:  not the Law but Christ, not works but faith, not the flesh but the Spirit, not man but God …. When he was persuaded of Jesus’ messianic glory at his appearance, he saw himself compelled to a complete denial of self. His confidence in his own work and knowledge was shattered. He experienced a dying that smote him in his highest aspirations and works. What saved him was solely the grace of Christ, who presented himself to him as the giver of divine grace … Thus, Paul, through his conversion, becomes a believer. He received through it nothing but faith, because it is solely in Christ that he has everything, that is, God with his righteousness interceding for him and his life granted to him. (p. 298, emphasis mine)

(Note: I realize that Schlatter is not on my side when it comes to the interpretation of ”the righteousness of God.” Schlatter held to the subjective genitive view, was influenced by Cremer’s Hebraic/relational interpretation of righteousness, and confused justification and sanctification. In these areas, he influenced Käsemann and Stuhlmacher. But I can still like the above quote, right?) 

For Paul, “the righteousness of faith” is “the righteousness of God,” not “of humans.” It originates in God, not in humans. It is utterly divine and heavenly, and comes to humans from the outside as a gift of sovereign grace.

Back to 2 Cor 4:7. Note the monergistic accent in the immediately preceding context. In vv 1-6, Paul has just said that, though the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Thus, when Paul speaks of “the surpassing greatness of the power” in v 7, he is referring to the power of God as manifested in the salvation and conversion of the elect. This supports my reading of the soteriological contrast between τοῦ θεοῦ and ἐξ ἡμῶν. And recall that Paul said in Rom 1:16 that “the power of God unto salvation” is revealed in the gospel precisely by means of “the righteousness of God.” Another lexical connection that ties 2 Cor 4:7 and Rom 1:17 even more directly is the common use of the word “gospel” in both (“our gospel,” 2 Cor 4:3, which is the same as “this treasure,” v 7).

Francis Watson points to 2 Cor 3:5 to make a similar point:  “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves (ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν), to reckon anything as from ourselves (ἐξ ἑαυτῶν). Rather, our sufficiency is from God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ).” Watson quotes Josephus’s description of the Sadduccean doctrine that “all things lie in our power” (Ant. 13.173), and interprets Paul as refuting that claim, since 2 Cor 3:5 makes “a contrast between reliance on divine or on human agency.” [Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 18.]

II. The broader context

Having looked at the immediate context, we now move to the broader context. There are three examples in the NT (two in Paul) where the cognate verb “to obey” (ὑπακούω) is used in reference to “obeying the gospel” or “the faith” (quotes from NASB): 

Rom 10:16:  “However, they did not all obey the gospel; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?’” Note the parallelism of the two verbs - ”obey” in the first half of the verse is replaced by “believed” in the second.

2 Thess 1:8:  “… dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

Acts 6:7: “And a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.“ 

Looking at how the cognate verb is used is very important when trying to decipher ambiguous nouns in genitival phrases. The same thing applies, for example, to the debate over the phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ” (the pistis Christou debate). There are no examples where Paul uses the cognate verb, “to believe” with Jesus or Christ as the subject of the verb. There are plenty of examples where he uses it with Jesus or Christ as the object of the verb. Therefore, the genitival phrase is probably shorthand for “faith in Jesus Christ” (objective genitive), not “the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (subjective genitive).

(Moises Silva and others have made this point, and quite decisively in my view; those who persist in holding to the subjective genitive do so primarily because of its perceived theological attractions. Richard Hays and others like the subjective genitive view because of their Barthian soteriology in which salvation is so totally objective that it does not even require the human response of faith but rests totally on “the faith(fulness) of Christ.” Needless to say, such a view is plainly contradicted by the New Testament, which clearly teaches that a human response of faith is essential. Synergism is avoided since faith itself is a gift of God. But the Barthian attraction to “the faith(fulness) of Christ” goes beyond a fear of synergism and stems from a desire to say that all are saved/elect in Christ, even if they don’t consciously know it yet.)

Back to my point about the methodology of interpreting genitives. Silva uses transformative grammar to take the implicit verbal idea in the head-noun and translate it into a sentence, then to test for parallels where that sentence is used. The same methodology ought to be applied in this case. There are no cases that I know of where Paul speaks of “obedience stemming or flowing from faith.” He does, however, speak of being “obedient to the gospel” or being “obedient/disobedient,” where the context has to do with faith or unbelief. Many of these passages are in Romans itself (Rom 10:3 [”submitting to the righteousness of God”], 16, 21; 11:30-32; 15:18, 31), a salient fact that has obvious bearing on how we ought to take “the obedience of faith” in Rom 1:5; 16:26.  

A look at an even broader context is also in order, focusing specifically on the lexical semantics of the word “obedience” in the New Testament. There are very few, if any, examples where the noun or verb for ”obedience” is used in the NT in reference to the obedient, righteous life required of Christians. The words for “obedience” are typically used with the connotation of “surrender, yielding, submitting” in response to a specific command issued by an authority figure. Jesus’ one act of righteousness was his act of surrending himself in obedience to the Father’s will by going to the cross (Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19; Heb 5:9). Paul wants the Corinthians to submit to and comply with his apostolic authority (2 Cor 7:15; 10:6). He is confident that Philemon will comply with his directives in his letter (Phm 21). But he warns the Thessalonian Christians that anyone who does not obey his instructions will be socially ostracized (2 Thess 3:14). Children must obey their parents (Eph 6:1). Slaves must obey their masters when they issue directives (Eph 6:5). The demons and the forces of nature obeyed Jesus when he commanded them (Mk 1:27; 4:41). Abraham obeyed God when he told him to leave his homeland and go to the land of promise (Heb 11:8). Thus, it makes sense to take “the obedience of faith” as the act of yielding and submitting to the directive of God in the gospel to believe in his Son.

I said there are ”very few” examples of the words for “obedience” being used in the NT in a more general sense of living a life characterized by righteousness and obedience to the moral will of God. The main possible exception is Rom 6:16:  “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness” (NASB). Paul clearly has the general life of obedience in view here. However, note that he distinguishes between “obedience” and “righteousness.” He says that “obedience results in righteousness,” which seems to support my contention that “obedience” has the nuance of “yielding or submitting,” rather than being equivalent to the behavior that is in conformity with the moral will of God (for which the term “righteousness” is better suited).

Finally, there are numerous passages in both Paul and the rest of the NT which speak of unbelief or rejecting the gospel as “disobedience” (Acts 14:2; Rom 10:21; 11:30-32; 15:31; Heb 3:18-19; 4:6, 11; 11:31; 1 Pet 2:8; 3:1, 20; 4:17). If rejecting the gospel is a form of ”disobedience,” then it makes sense that accepting the gospel would be called a form of “obedience.” Of course, by calling it “the obedience of faith” Paul is making it clear that faith isn’t merely an intellectual assent but includes a volitional element as well, a deep-seated, heart-felt commitment to and trust in Christ. Theologically, it is true that this faith-commitment will inevitably bring forth the fruit of moral living and good works, but now we are getting into the realm of biblical and systematic theology, and we cannot base this on the phrase “the obedience of faith.”

So, while I do not have a theological objection to Mounce’s interpretation, I think that the context (both near and broad) supports the epexegetical interpretation of Rom 1:5: ”the obedience which consists in faith.”  

Bill Mounce wrote a post last week on the new Zondervan Koinonia blog on the meaning of the phrase ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (”the obedience of faith,” Rom 1:5; 16:26). He argued (rightly) that Greek grammar can only take us so far. It can show us the interpretive possibilities, but only context can help us determine which one is right. He described the two most viable possibilities of the meaning of the genitive as follows: 

1. “Obedience, that is, faith.” Paul could be saying that the purpose of his apostolic ministry is to bring the Gentiles to the point of faith (as opposed to works); this faith is the obedience for which the gospel calls. In grammar this is categorized as an epexegetical genitive, where the word in the genitive is explaining (“exegeting”) its head noun.

2. “Obedience that stems from faith.” This is the idea that once a person comes to faith in Jesus, their lives will start to change and move from disobedience to obedience, putting off the old and putting on the new. This would be a source or subjective genitive.

Mounce then argued that both are right. He made the legitimate point that we should not think of Greek grammar “as an apple pie cut into a set number of pieces,” but rather we should think of it “as more on a continuuum.” The result is that the “use of a case in any one place may sit squarely on the cut between the two pieces of pie.”

I’m willing to grant that this is possible. What is interesting is that Mounce had earlier said that context alone can decide among the competing options, but proceeded to ignore his own (wise) counsel. He did not discuss the context but merely appealed to a broader theological truth:

Is it possible to experience God’s cleansing sent to us through faith without our hearts being changed? Of course not. In the New Covenant our old heart is removed and a new softer, pliable heart of flesh is put in its place. But if our heart is changed, is it possible for our lives also not to change? Of course not. Changed people live in a changed way. This is why judgment (outside of John) is always done on the basis of our lives (i.e., works). Our changed lives of obedience show the reality of the heart changed through faith.

I agree with this theological truth. Justification and sanctification are to be distinguished but cannot be separated, since both flow from union with Christ. The Westminster Confession says it well: “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (WCF XI:2). 

The question is:  Is this what Paul had in mind when he used the phrase “the obedience of faith”? In my view, the context better supports Mounce’s option 1, “obedience, that is, faith.”

I. The narrow context

It is important to note that Rom 1:5 is part of the letter frame (Rom 1:1-15; 15:14-33) that surrounds the letter body (Rom 1:16–15:13). Here is an abbreviated summary of the structure of Romans:

I. 1:1-15  Letter Frame:  Paul’s missionary devotion to the Gospel
II. 1:16-11:36  Letter Body, Pt. 1: Teaching the Gospel to the CR
III. 12:1-15:13  Letter Body, Pt. 2: Practical Instructions for the CR
IV. 15:14-33  Letter Frame:  Paul’s missionary devotion to the Gospel
V. 16:1-27  Appendix:  Recommendation, Greetings & Doxology

(CR = The Christians in Rome)

The letter frame focuses on Paul’s missionary devotion to the Gospel, and, in particular, on his role as an apostle to the Gentiles.  In Rom 1:5 he says that through Christ he “received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.” Paul is primarily thinking about the fact that he was called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles so that they might become converted. The missionary context of Paul’s statement here brings to the fore the idea of coming to faith in Christ as the way one obeys or submits to the gospel.

This interpretation is supported by a parallel statement in the second half of his letter frame (Rom 15:14-33). Having concluded the letter body, Paul returns to reflect on his role as ”a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles” (v 16). He says, “I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience (εἰς ὑπακοήν - N.B.: same prepositional phrase used in 1:5) of the Gentiles, by word and deed … so that I have fully preached the gospel of Christ” (vv 18-19, NASB). The fact that he is talking about his missionary work is reinforced by his statement in the next verse that he aspired to preach the gospel only where Christ was not already named (v 20). “The obedience of the Gentiles” in Rom 15:18 most likely refers to their submission to the gospel, i.e., their conversion, not their subsequent life of obedience to God’s moral will.

In both 1:5 and 15:18, the “obedience” that is in view is the obedience “among (or of) the Gentiles.” This suggests that he has in mind the conversion process that involves moving out of the status of “Gentiles” (those outside of the covenant and without God in the world) into the status of “saints.” In a very real sense, “saints” who came from a pagan background are no longer “Gentiles.” Paul says as much in 1 Corinthians 12:2, when, looking back on the former pagan life of the Corinthian Christians, he says “When you were Gentiles (ἔθνη), you were led astray to mute idols.”

One last point. You might think that Rom 15:18 is not part of the narrow, immediate context of Rom 1:5. But consider two facts:  (1) The same prepositional phrase, “resulting in the obedience” (εἰς ὑπακοήν), occurs in these two verses (and in 16:26), and (2) they both occur in the letter frame which is about Paul’s missionary task of preaching Christ among the Gentiles with a view to their coming to faith.

In my next post I’ll look at the broader context, namely, the pervasive use of “obedience/disobedience” language in Paul and other NT writers to refer to “submitting to the Gospel by believing it” (or, “not submitting to the Gospel by failing to believe it”). 

Here.