The Golden Chain of Salvation: A Study on Romans 8:28-30 (Part Two)

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.”

---

[1] http://martinzender.com/ZWTF/ZWTF5.1.pdf

[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.