In case one is disinclined to believe this assertion, we’ll
have to take a look at the two primary “justification” texts in the New
Testament, which are found in Romans three and Galatians two. When we see
what precedes this great “justification” passage, and bear in mind the words
from Paul that set the tone for chapters nine, ten, and eleven, we are clued in
to the connection between chapter three and chapter ten, and we are also
provided with another reminder of what justification means for Paul, which is
inclusion in the covenant. It cannot be too often said that, for Paul,
justification encompasses the extension of that covenant to Gentiles, along
with the lack of any need for Gentiles to adopt the covenant markers of Judaism
(they do not need to Judaize---practice circumcision, keep Sabbath, or observe
dietary regulations---the works of the law) in order to demonstrate their
joining up with the covenant people of God and their being positioned to enjoy
the blessings promised in association with that covenant. So what
precedes talk of “justification” in chapter three?
Realizing that Romans is an argument that builds upon
itself, and that groundwork is laid and re-laid so as to be drawn upon as the
argument progresses, answering this question forces us to backtrack to chapter
two, as Paul expands on the statement from chapter one that the Gospel is
“God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes,” which ties itself quite
comfortably to verse eleven of chapter ten, “to the Jew first and also to the
Greek” (1:16b). Remember, “salvation,” for Paul, is just one way of
describing participation in the covenant people and experiencing all that is
implied by such participation. Picking up on that in the second chapter,
consciously holding to the idea that what we hear from Paul in chapter three is
provided its color and context by what precedes it, and cannot be correctly
understood in isolation from it, Paul writes “There will be affliction and
distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but
glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and for
the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have
sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have
sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (2:9-12).
This talk of Jew and Greek (or Gentile), as it is attended
by talk of “all who have sinned,” and “no partiality with God,” equalizes Jew
and Gentile in their standing before the covenant God. To this Paul adds
“For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things
required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves”
(2:14). Without getting into all that Paul is asserting in this statement
or attempting to exegete, we pair it with verse seventeen and “But if you call
yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God”
(2:17), and continue to recognize the obvious construct of Jew, Gentile, and
covenant inclusion that receives Paul’s attention and is the reason for the
coming statements concerning justification (covenant inclusion, election) in
chapter three.
Keeping in mind the importance of the then-accepted covenant
markers as the distinguishing badges of the covenant people, keeping the
concern for covenant inclusion (justification---notice the interchangeability
of the terms) front and center, we go on to hear Paul say “For circumcision has
its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision
has become uncircumcision” (2:25). This statement is important insofar as
it is another equivocation by Paul, placing Jew (circumcision) and Gentile
(uncircumcision) on the same level, as he builds the case for his theological,
eschatological, and covenantal position. More importantly, the end of
this posturing by Paul (using posturing in a positive sense), is the creation
of humble, self-effacing, self-sacrificial, honor eschewing unity within the
church body that is composed of individuals that are said to be “in
Christ.”
To this leveling Paul adds “For a person is not a Jew who is
one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but
someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and” building on language from the
prophets from whom and which Paul so heavily draws, “circumcision is of the
heart by the Spirit and not by the written code” (2:28-29a). Here, lest
he be misunderstood, Paul is not attempting to insist that Gentiles become
Jews. He is perfectly satisfied with Gentiles remaining Gentiles as they
join the ranks of the elect, as the tent of God’s covenant people is expanded
outward, becoming ever larger. Consequently, “Jew,” here, combined with
talk of circumcision (of the heart and not the flesh), stands in for “the
elect/covenant people of the covenant God.”
The follow-on to that which concludes chapter two then makes
perfect sense, as Paul continues to have covenant inclusion and bridging the
divide between Jew and Gentile in purview, and says “Therefore what advantage
does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?” (3:1) Most
certainly, Paul wants to make covenant inclusion attractive. He wants to
encourage Gentiles to adopt the language of election, locating themselves
within the stream of history provided by the story of Israel and climaxed in
Jesus, and therefore highlights the advantages of national Israel, while also
being proud of his heritage, which comes through quite strongly in the opening
of chapter nine.
No comments:
Post a Comment