Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[robrecht]

Later addition by footwasher:

... The next two points require a recap of ch 1, 2 and 3 so if you are patient and do not introduce new elements into the mix, I will launch into that encapsulation. It may be in the form of a lengthy tirade, I fear...

;)

I have not introduced any new elements into the mix, but I would appreciate it if you not misrepresent my position, either directly or by innuendo. Also, I am still curious as to what nuance you are intending by 'faithing into Christ'. Perhaps you could answer that question before launching into lengthy tirades. Finally, do you really think that lengthy tirades are all that helpful?

[robrecht]

Emphasis mine:

... The point is that becoming a curse WAS not apart (!) from the Law, it was the teleos, the whole goal of the Law

One last question: Do you really mean to say that 'becoming a curse was the teleos, the whole goal of the Law'? If so, please explain what you mean by that? Oops, that's a second question, I guess, depending on how you answer the first one.

[footwasher]

[robrecht]

I do not think that the subjective genitive goes against the previous material, 'though I do think some of your reconstruction of the situation of the Roman church is too speculative for me to pretend it has any real bearing on the subjective/objective genitive question. If perhaps you want to make a more specific reference to how the situation in Rome relates to this question, that might be worth discussing.

In the meantime, look at 1,16-17. The one who is righteous will live by faith. Does that only apply to Christian believers? Does it not also apply to Abraham? Is it impossible that it might apply to Jesus as well? The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel through faith for faith. Why the complementarity of faith? I've sometimes wondered if Paul might be speaking of the righteousness of God being revealed in the gospel through the faith of Christ for the faith of all believers.

[footwasher]

The discussion is, as usual, becoming unwieldy. Even normal conversation need reiterations, expressing in different ways. Let's set some ground rules. Divide the questions into separate threads, maybe?

[robrecht]

The discussion is, as usual, becoming unwieldy. Even normal conversation need reiterations, expressing in different ways. Let's set some ground rules. Divide the questions into separate threads, maybe?

I don't think I have the patience to try and follow multiple threads. If an issue is unwieldy, it may be better to keep it all in one place, to try and achieve some unity. In the meantime, perhaps you could just respond to my comments/questions so far.

[Paprika]

Manifesting of God's righteousness is synonymous with upholding the Law, towards the redemption of Creation.

Analyse this:
All those who believe, ie are in the Church are not all those who have faith in Christ.

Hint
Why should Paul desire to preach the Gospel to a Church that already had a gospel?

Romans 1:15So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome

How on earth is all this relevant to Romans 3?

[robrecht]

How on earth is all this relevant to Romans 3?

I think he wants to claim that 'all those who believe' in Rom 3,22 includes some who do not believe in Jesus Christ. Hey, I just reads 'em; I don't make 'em up.

[hedrick]

[Paprika]

Romans 4 makes it clear that "it will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." I agree that it does not rule out some form of inclusivism, though Paul is emphasising the faith in God "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist".

Do see this post on precisely this issue: Paul does speak unambiguously of Jesus' faithfulness in Romans 5, though he doesn't use pistis language.

[The Remonstrant]

Do see this post on precisely this issue: Paul does speak unambiguously of Jesus' faithfulness in Romans 5, though he doesn't use pistis language.

In Romans 5:19 "the one man's disobedience" (Adam) is contrasted with "the one man's obedience" (Christ). In light the preceding verse and the surrounding context (5:6ff.), Jesus' "one act of righteousness" (i.e., the Lord's sacrificial death on the cross) is in view. Paul is comparing the first man's transgression (the "one trespass", v.18) with Christ's submission to a shameful death on the cross (cf. Philippians 2:8). You can attempt to import the whole of Jesus' obedience to the Torah into this passage, but only at the expense of overlooking the context. The lifelong obedience of Jesus to the Father is not in view.

[Paprika]

You can attempt to import the whole of Jesus' obedience to the Torah into this passage, but only at the expense of overlooking the context. The lifelong obedience of Jesus to the Father is not in view.

I am not importing "the whole of Jesus' obedience to the Torah into this passage". What I am doing, is showing that the "free gift" of "grace" in Romans 3 that leads to justification - the declaration of "dikaios" - is here in Romans 5 "by" and "through" the dikaiomatos and obedience of Jesus Christ.

Noting the covenant nature of dikaiosunein Romans 3, we should then translate pisteos Christos as the faithfulness of Christ: God's dikaiosune is manifested through Jesus Christ's dikaiomatos, his pisteos or faithfulness, a free gift of grace that leads to justification (dikaioma) and righteousness (dikaiosune)

[footwasher]

I don't think I have the patience to try and follow multiple threads. If an issue is unwieldy, it may be better to keep it all in one place, to try and achieve some unity. In the meantime, perhaps you could just respond to my comments/questions so far.

Okay.
Robrecht wrote:

You have greatly simplified my argument! Note the use of the preposition here and elsewhere and the rest of my argument.

Your argument was that the sentence was awkward if "faith in Christ" was the understanding of pisteos Christos.

(At this point I would like to pause and note that translating as the subjective genitive does not in any way diminish the believer's faith: you get "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith". On the other hand, if you translate as the objective genitive, you get the slightly awkward rendering of "the righteousness of God through the faith in Jesus Christ for all who have faith".

Please do not make up translations and claim they are mine.

This is the parallel of your translation, as seen side by side here:

Robrecht's version according to footwasher:
21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all those who have faith in Christ;

Robrecht's actual version
you get "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith".

So please don't nitpick.

I have in no way diminished Paul's message about Jews and Gentiles. While you may want to understand or perhaps even translate Paul's use of "an umbrella term" as "Jews and Gentiles in the church", you cannot fault me for sticking to Paul's actual words. If Paul uses the language of faith to refer to all those who believe, he is still nonetheless referring to all those [Jews and Greeks] who believe, though he does not explicitly mention here "Jews and Gentiles in the church".

I do not disagree with this, but I do not see why you consider this relevant to the question of a subjective or objective genitive.

Because an objective genitive will not render the sentence awkward as you claim by seeing a redundancy where there is none, "all who believe" being understood as "without exception", not "all who have faith in Christ".

It would be better to include the text of Galatians that I also cited. Otherwise, you risk misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said. I in no way say that Christ crucified being cursed by the law was apart from the law. That would be an oxymoron. But being cursed by the law should not be understood as faithfully following the commandments of the law. Christ's faithfulness, in my opinion, and I believe also in Paul's opinion, is more than merely following commandments of the law. You may disagree. If so, please explain how the faithfulness of Christ did not exceed merely following commandments of the law. If you agree, well, just say so.

You said Christ being cursed by the law was more than merely fulfilling the law, implying He was exceeding his brief, implying his faithfulness was extraneous to requirements of the law, by using a word like "even".

The point is that Israel bit off more than she could chew by asking for the Law. Consider this: Israel asked for Torah, instruction. God gave Israel the instructions that was meant for Christ. Try to work this out.

Do you imagine that I disagree with this?

Funny thing is that when the Jewish teachers asked for the way to eternal life, Christ gave them the same instructions that God gave. It was still out of their reach because of the weakness of the flesh. I reiterate, Torah was given to Christ and Christ only. Israel could only observe it in the breach to observe it well.

[Paprika]

Your argument was that the sentence was awkward if "faith in Christ" was the understanding of pisteos Christos.

(At this point I would like to pause and note that translating as the subjective genitive does not in any way diminish the believer's faith: you get "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith". On the other hand, if you translate as the objective genitive, you get the slightly awkward rendering of "the righteousness of God through the faith in Jesus Christ for all who have faith".

I believe I wrote that, not robrecht.

[Paprika]

The point is that Israel bit off more than she could chew by asking for the Law. Consider this: Israel asked for Torah, instruction. God gave Israel the instructions that was meant for Christ. Try to work this out.

Care to show that Israel asked for Torah? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.