So when Paul reminds his hearers, who are familiar with the
story of Abraham, that the promise did not come to Abraham because of his adherence
to the covenant marker that would eventually be designated under the heading “works
of the law” (which came later), and that Abraham received his righteousness
(standing inside the covenant, justification, salvation, right standing with
God---all of which comes with responsibilities for this life and in this world,
having little if nothing to do with the destination of one’s eternal soul and
whether or not one ends up in heaven or hell) through faith, he is not
juxtaposing works and faith in relation to justification. Rather, his
focus remains on covenant markers and legitimating Gentile inclusion, with the
latter being an obvious part of God’s plan from the very beginning.
It seems clear that Paul recognizes, in Jesus, at least a
partial (if not complete) fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, so the
spreading of the Gospel message (Jesus is Lord) to the Gentile world, with the
subsequent submission to that message and to the Lord of the message, is a very
natural progression. Accordingly, this fits very well with, and makes
much sense of the words of the prophets of old that are very obviously
world-encompassing.
With verse fourteen, Paul points up the inherent conflict
involved in ascribing justifying activity to adherence to covenant markers
(thus contributing to the possibility of a mental blurring of lines that we
mentioned before), when he writes “For if they become heirs by the law, faith
is empty and the promise is nullified” (4:14). Again, covenant membership
(justification, salvation) does not and cannot come from the covenant markers.
The markers are reminders of belief. Importantly, God has not changed His
mind (we can relieve Him of the charge of schizophrenia when it comes to His
plans for His world and His people). The example of Abraham proves
this. He was in covenant because of belief. If this is not so, and
if he was not actually in covenant until the event of his circumcision, then
belief is indeed empty, for it produced nothing. The promises made to him
then, all of which came before his circumcision and from the very beginning
point to the global people of God that become His people through the same means
employed by Abraham (faith), are null and void.
Though Abraham obviously is not in a position to confess
Jesus as Lord, we see the story of his life as his confession, reflecting His
unswerving loyalty to the God of the promise. Those of us now in the
position to confess Jesus as Lord should similarly seek that the story of our
lives be the silent confession of the same unswerving loyalty, generating the
opportunity to offer verbal, public declaration.
Belief is
transcendent. It transcends the works of the law. It does not stand
over and against the works of the law that were but reminders of a previous
covenant shaped by previous faithfulness and a faithful response, but rather
serves as the foundation. To make this point, Paul adds that “it is by
faith so that it may be by grace” (4:16a). Grace, of course, was present
in God’s dealings with Abraham, and did not receive its advent with that of
Jesus. Thus it has “the result that the promise may be certain to all the
descendants---not only to those who are under the law” (4:16b), the Jews, “but
also to those who have the faith of Abraham” (4:16c), who are all those that
enter into covenant (including those who have the law) by means of their belief
in the God of the covenant.
In conjunction with
these moves, Paul makes a point to here reiterate that Abraham, “is the father
of us all” (4:16d). In a culture that places a heavy emphasis on the
father as the head of a household and the honor of that position, whether that
culture be Jew or Gentile, with much additional honor (for the Jew) attached to
being a member of Abraham’s household, this is not an insignificant
statement. The household could extend beyond blood relations, which we
see in the story of Abraham, as he is willing to look to a servant in his house
as a completely legitimate heir to the covenantal promise, and would have
considered God’s carrying on and carrying out of His promise through that
servant as a demonstration of His covenantal faithfulness. This would not
necessarily be an unusual position for Abraham to take, as it was a common and
accepted practice for a favored servant to enjoy benefits in line with being a
biological or adopted son. Therefore, this particular use of the Abraham
example is doubly emphatic when applied to the status of Gentiles in relation
to the covenant (not to mention the whole of the believing community), in that
there is an egalitarianism insistence, in that all that come to belief in Jesus
are of the same family and bear the same status, while it also joins Jew and
Gentile together in a mythic physical descent, as Paul adds “(as it is written,
‘I have made you the father of many nations’)” (4:17a).
No comments:
Post a Comment