For part one of this study, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-golden-chain-of-salvation-study-on.html
The first link in the “golden chain”
The
purpose according to which those in the body of Christ are called is described
in verses 28-29 as follows: “…that, whom He foreknew, He designates
beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be
Firstborn among many brethren.” The sequence of events that Paul begins to refer to
in verse 29 has been referred to by some theologians as the “golden chain of
salvation.” On page 238 of his commentary, A.E. Knoch referred to it as “the
golden chain of God’s sovereignty forged for our blessing.” Although less
succinct, Knoch’s expression does a much better job at drawing our attention to
the truth of God’s control over the entire process of salvation being described
in these verses.
It must
be emphasized that the entire “golden chain” pertains exclusively to what God
has done, is doing, and will do in the future for every member of the body of
Christ. Each link in the chain is necessary to achieving the final outcome. In
part 75 of his Romans series (“Designated; called; justified; glorified,” page 5),[1] Martin
Zender likens the events being described in this verse to a row of dominoes. I
think that’s a helpful analogy. Just as the first domino must fall before the
next one can (and necessarily results in its falling), the first event referred
to in Romans 8:29-30 must occur
before the next one can, and so on and so forth until we reach the end of the
sequence.
Now, the
first two “links” in the golden chain (or the first two “dominos” in the row)
are expressed in the words, “…whom [God] foreknew, He designates
beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son...” Some have explained Romans 8:29-20 in such a way
that one would think that the sequence being described by Paul began with our
being designated beforehand. But that’s the second
“link in the chain.” The first divine
action referred to in the sequence is expressed in the words, “whom [God] foreknew.” But what did Paul mean by the
words, “whom God foreknew?” The most common
understanding among Christians seems to be that Paul was referring to God’s
foreknowledge of who would - and who wouldn’t - respond to the gospel with
repentance and faith. According to this view, v. 29 should be read as follows:
“…that, whom God foreknew would believe on Christ, He designates
beforehand…” However, that’s not what Paul actually said. And not only is that
not what Paul actually said, but – as argued in the previous section – God’s
foreknowledge of who would (and who wouldn’t) believe on Christ would,
necessarily, itself depend on God’s own prior decision to give some people (but
not others) the faith to believe on Christ. Thus, if God has accurate and
comprehensive foreknowledge of the future (and I believe that he does), then
one of the things God foreknew was that he would be enabling some people - but
not others - to believe in Christ.
From
everything said above, I think it’s clear why the more popular “Arminian”
interpretation of Romans 8:28 (which attempts to preserve human free will) fails
so badly. This interpretation is completely undermined by the
scripturally-supported fact that God
is the one who determines who believes on Christ in this lifetime, and who
doesn’t. Since no one believes in Christ apart from God’s giving them the faith
to believe, God’s foreknowledge of who
would (and who wouldn’t) believe in Christ would necessarily be based on his
prior sovereign decision to give some (but not others) the faith to believe in
Christ. Thus, in light of a scripturally-informed understanding of why some
believe in this lifetime and others don’t, the Arminian interpretation of the
words, “those whom he foreknew” still fails to rescue man’s supposed “free
will” from the supposed “threat” of God’s sovereignty.
In
contrast with the Arminian interpretation, it should be noted that we’re not
being told in Romans 8:28 that God foreknew something about certain individuals (i.e., that they would do this or that).
Rather, what we’re being told is that God foreknew the individuals themselves. It was God’s foreknowledge of us - not God’s foreknowledge of anything
about us – that is the grounds, or
basis, of all the other events described by Paul in Romans 8:29-30. But this
raises the following question: since we have good reason to believe that God
foreknew all things and all people (see, for example, Isaiah
46:10), how can God’s foreknowledge of certain individuals be understood as the
basis of his decision to designate them beforehand and given them a different
eonian destiny than the rest of humanity? To better understand how God’s
foreknowledge of those in the body of Christ is the basis of his designating us
beforehand (along with everything else in the sequence of events described in Romans
8:29-30), let’s first consider Paul’s only other use of the word “foreknew” in
Romans.
In Romans
11:1-2 Paul wrote, “I am saying, then, does not God thrust away His people? May
it not be coming to that! For I also am an Israelite, out of Abraham's seed,
Benjamin's tribe. God does not thrust
away His people whom He foreknew.” Notice that, as in Romans 8:29, Paul is not saying
that God foreknew something about the
people who are in view in these verses. Rather, it is the people themselves whom we’re told God foreknew. Moreover, Paul
seems to be implying that God’s foreknowledge of “his people” is the very reason why God does not “thrust them
away.” But how can this be? Well, consider now Amos 3:1-2: “Hear this word that Yahweh has spoken against you, O
children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land
of Egypt, saying: ‘You only have I known of all the families of the
earth;
therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.’”
Notice
the words, “You only have I known of
all the families of the earth.” Obviously, God knew all about “all the families of the earth” when he declared these words
to Israel. But the word “known” in this verse does not merely refer to God’s
cognitive awareness or intellectual understanding of Israel. Rather, “known”
here means that God had special regard
for Israel. Of all the families of the earth, they alone had been the
objects of God’s special affection and concern (see Deut. 7:7-8; 10:15). And it
was by virtue of this unique relationship between God and Israel that the
nation had special responsibilities, and was held to a higher standard than the
rest of the nations (hence the next words, “I will punish you for all your
iniquities”).
This same
sense of the word “know” (in which it’s used to mean “have special regard for”)
is used elsewhere in scripture as well; see, for example, Gen. 18:19, Ps. 1:6,
Ps. 144:3, Jer. 1:5, Hosea 13:5, 1 Cor. 8:3, Gal. 4:9 and 2 Tim. 2:19. Jeremiah
1:5 is especially relevant here, for in this verse we read that God declared to
his prophet, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” Here, God was
expressing the fact that he had special regard for Jeremiah before he was
formed in the womb. That is, God specially regarded Jeremiah beforehand, or (in
other words) foreknew him. And just
as God “knew” (specially regarded) Jeremiah before
he formed him in the womb (and thus foreknew
him), so God foreknew Israel as a nation. Thus, in Romans 11:2, the sense in
which God “foreknew” his people, Israel, is that he had special regard for them
before they existed as a nation.[2]
When Paul,
therefore, referred to those in the body of Christ as those “whom [God]
foreknew,” he didn’t merely mean that God knew about us beforehand (although that is, of course, true). “Foreknew”
here means that, in accord with his own purpose, God had special regard for us beforehand. To quote Martin Zender from
the aforementioned article, “God set you aside ahead of time, in His mind.” This “setting aside” of certain
individuals ahead of time is the idea being expressed in the words, “whom he
foreknew,” and is the basis for everything else that we’re told God does (or
will do) for “those who are loving God” in Romans 8:29-30. As such, this event
necessarily involved God’s unconditional selection of some people, but not
others. But when did this pre-selection of certain individuals take place?
In
Ephesians 1:3-5 we read, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who
blesses us with every spiritual blessing among the celestials, in Christ, according as He chooses us in Him before
the disruption of the world, we to
be holy and flawless in His sight, in love designating us beforehand for the
place of a son for Him through Christ Jesus…”
Most translations have “before the foundation of
the world” in v. 4. In either case, it’s clear that God’s foreknowledge (and
thus selection) of certain people to be in the body of Christ took place long, long before these people actually came into
existence. Thus, when we read in 2 Thess. 2:13 that God preferred those in the
body of Christ “from the beginning for salvation,” the “beginning” that Paul
had in view here was no later than the “beginning” referred to in Genesis
1:1.
Called according to God’s purpose
In v. 28,
the saints to whom Paul wrote – and, by extension, all who are in the body of
Christ – are said to have been “called” according to God’s purpose. And that
purpose involved being foreknown by God and designated beforehand. Thus, the
only people who have been or will be called in the sense that Paul had in mind
here are those who were foreknown by God (in the sense that Paul had in mind)
and “designated beforehand” by God ”to be conformed to
the image of His Son.” As we’ve seen earlier, Paul is addressing the
eonian destiny of those in the body of Christ in this passage; thus, being
“conformed to the image of His Son” refers to a blessing that will be enjoyed
by every member of the body of Christ during the eons to come. And this being
the case, the calling in view must be limited to those who have (or will)
become members of the body of Christ.
Paul referred
to this special calling again in v. 30, where we read: “Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls,
these He justifies also...” The sort of “calling” that Paul had in mind in
these verses is not a general “calling” that one can choose to ignore or fail
to respond to. It is, instead, a calling from God that invariably results in
the justification of those whom he calls. This is evident from v. 30, where we
find that the same individuals who are called by God are justified by God also.
It’s not simply the case that all who are justified were also called (which
might imply that only some who are
called end up being justified). Rather, everyone that Paul referred to as being
called by God end up justified as well. Thus, the nature of this calling must
be such that it involves a person’s meeting the conditions necessary to being
justified. And since only those who believe Paul’s gospel are presently being
justified, the “calling” which Paul had in view must involve one’s being given the faith necessary to being justified.
Paul
referred to this special “calling” in 1 Corinthians 1:21-29:
For since, in fact,
in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom knew not God, God delights,
through the stupidity of the heralding, to save those who are believing, since,
in fact, Jews signs are requesting, and Greeks wisdom are seeking, yet we are heralding Christ crucified, to
Jews, indeed, a snare, yet to the nations stupidity, yet to those who are
called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,
for the stupidity of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger
than men. For you are observing your
calling, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh; not
many powerful, not many noble, but the stupidity of the world God chooses, that He may be disgracing
the wise, and the weakness of the world God
chooses, that He may be disgracing the strong, and the ignoble and the
contemptible things of the world God
chooses, and that which is not, that He should be discarding that which is,
so that no flesh at all should be boasting in God's sight.
Notice
that, according to Paul’s use of the word “call,” those who are called are not
merely those to whom his gospel is heralded. Among those to whom Paul and his
co-laborers heralded the gospel, only some
were “called.” Thus, being “called” involved more than simply hearing the
gospel. It involved believing it as well. Although those who were called by God
were called through the heralding of
Paul’s gospel, their being called necessarily involved being given the faith to
believe. And so it is for those in
the body of Christ today. It is through the gospel that we’re called by God,
but our calling involves more than simply having the gospel presented to us. It
involves being given the faith to believe it.[3]
“Whom He calls, these He justifies also”
Having looked at what it means for those in the
body of Christ to have been “called,” let’s now consider the next link in the
golden chain: our justification. The most commonly accepted definition of
“justify” is simply, “to declare or pronounce just (or righteous).” In support
of this definition, consider Luke 7:29 (where we’re told that the “entire people, even the tribute collectors, justify God”), and compare this
verse with Paul’s quotation of Psalm 51:4 in Rom 3:4. When God is understood as
the one doing the justifying (i.e., God’s declaring or pronouncing a person
“just” or “righteous”), the word involves God’s judicial acceptance and
approval of the person. It doesn’t mean that God no longer believes that those
justified have sinned, or that God views them as no longer being sinners who
continue to sin. Rather, when God justifies someone, it means he no longer sees
them as deserving of the negative consequence (or penalty) of their sins (which
is what it means for God to have ceased “reckoning” a person’s sins and
offenses to them).
Earlier, I quoted Paul’s words in Romans 8:31-33.
Because of the relevance of this passage to the subject of justification, I’ll
quote it again:
”What then, shall
we declare to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? Surely, He Who
spares not His own Son, but gives Him up for us all, how shall He not, together
with Him, also, be graciously granting us all? Who will be indicting God's
chosen ones? God, the Justifier? Who is the Condemner? Christ Jesus, the One
dying, yet rather, being roused, Who is also at God’s right hand, Who is
pleading also for our sakes?” (Rom.
8:31-33)
Here we see the essential relation between condemnation and
justification. Simply put, the two cannot coexist. Justification cancels out
condemnation. Those who’ve been justified are no longer under the
condemnation of which their sins had made them deserving.
But by virtue of what are those in
the body of Christ justified? The answer to this question is, I believe,
provided by Paul in Romans 3:22. There, we read that the righteousness which
God reckons to us when we’re justified is “through
Jesus Christ’s faith.”[4] The righteousness that we receive by our faith in the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations is not based on our own faith, but rather on the faith of Christ. It is because it is through Christ’s faith – and not our own – that the righteousness we receive when we believe this evangel is an absolute righteousness. The believer’s own faith in Christ - even when our faith is rightly understood as ultimately given to us by God (Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29) - simply cannot be the basis of the absolute righteousness that we receive when we believe the evangel
that Paul heralded among the nations, and which Paul referred to variously as
“the evangel of the grace of God,” (Acts 20:24), “the word of the cross” (1
Cor. 1:17-18), “the evangel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4) and “the word
of the conciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-20). It is by believing this “word” or
evangel that one becomes “God’s righteousness in
[Christ]” (2 Cor. 5:21).
“Now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also”
The last words quoted above lead us to the final
link in the chain: our glorification. The reader will recall that, in verse 29,
the destiny for which God
pre-designates us is said to involve our being ”conformed
to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren.” The “many brethren” referred to
at the end of verse 29 is not a reference to all humanity, but to that category
of persons who were referred to as “those who are loving God” in v. 28 – i.e.,
everyone in the body of Christ. But what does it mean
to be “conformed to the image of His Son?”
Christ
has always been a sinless human being, and it follows that we, too, must be
made sinless in order to be conformed to his image. But what else will this
involve? In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul gave us a brief glimpse into what this
conformity to the image of God’s Son will involve: “For
our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour
also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will
transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory…”
Notice
the words, “body of our humiliation” and “body of His glory.” Whatever else our
future glorified state will involve, it’s not going to be a “disembodied
state.” We’re going to have bodies. In fact, I think scripture indicates that
our glorified body is going to be an upgraded and perfected version of the
bodies we currently possess. Earlier in Romans 8, Paul had referred to our
glorification as involving “the deliverance of our
body” (Rom. 8:18, 23). Notice what Paul didn’t say. He didn’t say we
were going to be delivered from our
body. Glorification is not about escaping
our body, or transitioning into some immaterial, ethereal existence. Rather, the
body that makes us who and what we are is going to be delivered. Delivered from what? Apparently, it’s going to be
delivered from its mortal condition (and from everything associated with
mortality, and which makes it a body of “humiliation”).
What Paul
touches on in Phil. 3:21 is given a more expanded and detailed treatment in 1
Corinthians 15:42-49:
Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is
sown in corruption; it is roused in
incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it
is roused in glory. It is sown in infirmity; it is roused in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body. If there
is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The
first man, Adam, “became a living soul:” the
last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish,
thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the
second Man is the Lord out of heaven. Such
as the soilish one is, such are those also who are soilish, and such as the
Celestial One, such are those also who are celestials. And according as we wear
the image of the soilish, we should be wearing the image also of the Celestial.
Some point to the
expression “spiritual body” and jump to the conclusion that, after we’ve been
vivified, our body is going to be non-physical. However, a “spiritual body” is
no less physical than a “soulish body.” It’s simply a body that is dominated by,
and under the full influence of, spirit. And as noted earlier, the body we’ll
have when glorified shouldn’t be understood as completely distinct from our
present body; it will be the same human body, only it will have been “delivered.”
Notice
the little word “it” in the above passage (“IT is sown in corruption; IT is roused in incorruption,” etc.).
What Paul had in mind was clearly one body that will be undergoing a change (rather
than being completely replaced). Just as Christ’s body underwent a change or
transformation in the tomb (rather than being replaced) when he was roused from
among the dead by God, so will our bodies undergo the same sort of change.
Some believe that,
when we’re glorified, we’ll no longer be human (at least, not in any real and
meaningful sense). The assumption that seems to be underlying this view is that
humans are essentially mortal, flesh-and-blood beings. However, we mustn’t
confuse being “human” with being “mortal,” or confuse having a human body with
having the same limitations we presently have. There is no good reason to believe
that being human essentially involves mortality, or having corruptible flesh
with blood circulating in our veins. Rather than thinking of our present and
future life as involving being human and then being something else, I think it
would be more accurate to think of our present and future life as involving life
as an imperfect human followed by life
as a perfected human. Our glorification
will involve both change and continuity.
Scripture does not,
I don’t think, support the view that Christ ceased to be human after he was
vivified by God. Even after his resurrection and ascension, he remains “the Man,
Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
Christ's body was perfected when he was vivified, but he didn't stop having a body. In Luke 24:39-43, it’s
clear that Christ’s body was just as physical and tangible after his resurrection
as it was before he died. Clearly, Christ's human body underwent a radical
change and gained amazing new properties and capabilities, but Christ still had
(and has) an essentially human form. Even with his body’s new capabilities,
it’s just as tangible and spatially present now as it was before he died. In the
same way, when our body is delivered and we're conformed to the body of
Christ's glory, we’ll still be essentially human.[5]
Consider, again, Paul’s words in 1 Cor.
15: Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam,
“became a living soul:” the last Adam a
vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon
the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is
the Lord out of heaven. Such as the
soilish one is, such are those also who are soilish, and such as the Celestial
One, such are those also who are celestials. And according as we wear the image
of the soilish, we should be wearing the image also of the Celestial.
Paul clearly
understood Christ, in his present, vivified state (and in his present heavenly location),
to be human, for he referred to him as being “the last Adam” and “the second
Man.” Paul was referring to Christ in his present glorified state here. Just as
Adam became the first man when he became “a living soul,” so Christ became “the
last Adam” and “the second Man” when he was roused by God to a state of
incorruption, glory and power. And since Adam was obviously a human when, having
become “a living soul,” he became the “first man,” so Christ - as “the last
Adam” and “the second Man” - should likewise be considered a human. Christ, in his present glorified
state, is essentially a perfected human being and the pinnacle of God’s
creative achievement. Thus, our being conformed to his image can mean nothing
less than our being introduced into the same glorified state of perfection –
not as non-humans, but as humans who have been conformed to the celestial image
of “the last Adam” and the “second Man,” and who have thus been made fit for eonian
life “in the heavens” and “among the celestials.”
[2] This same
sense of “foreknew” is probably what Peter had in mind in 1 Peter 1:20, where
Christ is said to have been “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the
world…” According to this understanding, Peter was not talking about God’s
prior knowledge of Christ (although
God did have prior knowledge of
Christ); rather what Peter had in mind was the prior regard that God had for Christ “before the disruption of the
world.”
[3] In a number of my articles
defending the doctrine of the “two gospels/evangels” I emphasized the fact that
it is through one of these two evangels - i.e., the “evangel of the
Uncircumcision” and “of the Circumcision” (Gal. 2:7) – that God calls people to
their eonian expectation. I’m not sure how clear I was on this particular point
in the articles referred to, but the sort of “calling” that I had in mind is
that to which Paul was referring in the above passage. Those who will be
enjoying eonian life “in the heavens” and “among the celestials” during the
eons of Christ’s reign will, at some point during their mortal lifetime, be
called by God through “the evangel of the Uncircumcision,” while those who will
enjoy eonian life on the earth in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel
will, at some point, be called by God through “the evangel of the
Circumcision.”
[4] The majority of English Bibles we have today have translated the words pisteos Ieesou Christou in v. 22 as “faith in Christ.” However, the King James Version, Young’s Literal Translation, the Concordant Literal New Testament, the Dabhar translation and the New English Translation (NET) all translate the words pisteos Ieesou Christou as “the faith of Jesus Christ,” “Jesus Christ’s faith,” or something equivalent in meaning to this. Similarly, pistis Christou in Galatians 2:20 is translated “faith of Christ,” or “Christ’s faith,” rather than “faith in Christ” (see also Galatians 2:16; 3:22; Romans 3:26; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 3:9). But what accounts for the difference in translation in Romans 3:22 and other similar verses?
The grammatical issue which the translators have sought to resolve in verses like these is whether pisteos Christou should be understood as referring to (1) Christ’s own faith, or (2) the believer’s faith in Christ. The translational ambiguity here stems from the fact that Christou is the genitive form of the word “Christ” (or “Messiah”), and genitives can be understood as either subjective or objective. According to the objective genitive reading, that which Paul had in view in Romans 3:22 and elsewhere was Christ as the object of the believer’s faith. According to the subjective genitive reading, on the other hand, Paul had in view Christ as the subject who possesses the faith that is in view here.
So which view is correct? It is my conviction that those
translations in which dia pisteos Ieesou Christou in Romans
3:22 (and other similar verses) is translated “faith of Jesus
Christ” (or some equivalent expression) are correct. Based on
the grammatical evidence alone, I cannot help but see the burden of
proof as resting squarely on those holding to the “faith in Christ”
(the objective genitive) position. While an in-depth analysis and defense
of the “faith of Christ” position – especially from a
grammatical standpoint – is beyond the scope of this study (as well as my own
understanding!), those who have defended this position have provided evidence
which, by my lights, strongly tilts the scales in favor of the subjective
genitive translation. In his article, “Justification by the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ,”
Chad Harrington summarizes the grammatical evidence for this position as
follows:
“In regard to grammar, the case is strongest towards the
subjective genitive interpretation despite current the majority opinion of
scholars on an international level. This is the argument: Robinson states that
there is no usage of πίστις with an objective genitive next to a
pronoun in the Septuagint. Then, there is non-Septuagintal literature--every
time a noun is followed by a genitival pronoun in Jewish literature during the
Second Temple era, the construction is subjective except once.”
Harrington goes on to say, “In the Pauline corpus,
more importantly, Paul never uses πίστις, a proper noun and an objective
genitive together. The twenty-four instances where πίστις is followed
by a proper noun or pronoun in the Pauline corpus, twenty refer to the faith of
Christians, two the faith of Abraham (Rom 4.12, 16), one to any believer (Rom
4.5) and one to God's faithfulness (Rom. 3.3).”
Quoting George Howard, Harrington concludes, “Thus in every
instance in which πίστις is followed by a proper noun or pronoun in
the genitive case, the genitive is unmistakably subjective.”
Similarly, the NET Bible states the following in a footnote for
Romans 3:22: “When πίστις [“faith”] takes a personal genitive it is almost
never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke
5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1
Cor. 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor. 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess. 1:8; 3:2,
5, 10; 2 Thess. 1:3; Titus 1:1; Philemon 6; 1 Pet. 1:9, 21; 2 Pet. 1:5).”
But there are other, non-grammatical considerations that I see as
lending weight to the “faith of Christ” position. If, by the expression dia
pisteos Ieesou Christou in Romans 3:22, Paul merely meant “through
faith in Jesus Christ,” why did he need to add “for all, and
on all who believe?” It makes Paul redundant to say that our righteousness is
“through faith in Jesus Christ, for all, and on all who believe [in Jesus
Christ]…” In fact, in at least four of the six cases where
“faith of Christ” appears, there would be an unusual repetition if it were
rendered “faith in Christ” (see Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16; 3:22; Philippians
3:9).
However, when dia pisteos Ieesou Christou is
translated as “through the faith of Jesus Christ,” we find
that Paul is not being redundant but rather revealing to his readers a profound
truth: the righteousness that we receive by our faith in Paul’s “evangel of the
uncircumcision” is not based on our own faith, but rather on the faith of
Christ. It is because it is through Christ’s faith – and not
our own – that the righteousness we receive when we believe this evangel is a
perfect and absolute righteousness. The believer’s own faith in Christ – even
when our faith is rightly understood as ultimately given to us by God (Rom.
12:3; Phil. 1:29) - simply cannot account for, and be the basis of, the
absolute righteousness that we receive when we believe Paul’s evangel.
This view also makes better sense of Paul’s words in Romans 1:17, where
we read that the righteousness of God is revealed “out of (or “from”) faith,
for faith” (ek pisteos eis pistin). When we understand this verse to be
foreshadowing what Paul would later write in Romans 3:22, the verse becomes
much less enigmatic: “Out of faith” in Romans 1:17 corresponds to “through
Jesus Christ’s faith” in Rom. 3:22, and “for faith” in 1:17 corresponds to “for
all, and on all who believe” in 3:22. Thus, interpreting scripture with
scripture, “out of faith” can be understood as a reference to Christ’s faith,
and “for faith” can be understood as a reference to the faith of those who
believe Paul’s evangel (and who have consequently been justified on the basis
of Christ’s faith).
[5] One would have to prove that a human body
could never be anything other than what it is during this mortal lifetime in
order say that Christ ceased to be human when he was vivified. And I'm honestly
not sure how one could go about proving that. Christ clearly had a
flesh-and-bone body after his resurrection, so for anyone to argue that “human
flesh” can’t do what Jesus did after his resurrection, one is merely assuming
that (1) God can’t so modify human flesh (and the human body as a whole) in
such a way that a human being is enabled to do exactly what Christ is now able
to do, while remaining essentially human, and (2) that what makes a person “human”
is their having a body with the same exact properties and limitations that
mortal humans have. I don’t think either of these assumptions are valid.
