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

[footwasher]

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

[Paprika]

[footwasher]

My bad, Robrecht's faulty reasoning keeps haunting me:

I believe I wrote that, not robrecht.

Want to fault my analysis?

[Paprika]

Want to fault my analysis?

If I want to critique your critique of my analysis, I'd rather do so after you've separated your critiques of robrecht's and my position.

[robrecht]

My bad, Robrecht's faulty reasoning keeps haunting me:

Once you identify my faulty reasoning, I would be happy to entertain your demonstration that it is faulty.

So please don't nitpick.

Sorry, I don't consider this to be nitpicking. There are a variety of ways of translating the Greek text and I rarely (if ever?) propose any single translation to represent the only way or even the best way to understand the Greek text. Without being able to query the author, translations are always tentative and, even when one can query an author, multiple translations can and sometimes should be offered to illustrate ambiguity and to bring out possible nuances of the source language. Exegesis should be on the Greek text.

To me, this is more likely to be a nitpick:
Actually he does:

9What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin ...

The discussion concerned whether one should understand or translate 'unto all them that believe' in Rom 3,22 as "Jews and Gentiles in the church". My point, which you apparently misunderstood (no worries, it happens to the best of us) was that, while both groups should certainly be understood to be included in this phrase, Paul did not use those words here. Certainly, I must not have expressed this clearly enough, but do you really think I would claim that Paul never used these words anywhere? Sometimes people immediately try to seize upon an apparent mistake without actually trying to understand what must be the intended meaning.

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".

No, my use of the word 'even' does not imply that "Christ was exceeding his brief", at least I don't think it does since I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Nor does my use of "even" imply that Christ's faithfulness "was extraneous to requirements of the law."

What I said was:
Can you explain how you get 'extraneous to the law' from what I and St Paul said?

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.

I will need your help in working this out. Can you please explain a little more about how this relates to Rom 3,22? Are you saying something like because the law was never intended for Israel, they could never have become righteous by following the law, and only Jesus could follow the law that was only intended for him, and therefore Christ's faithfulness to the law and not to anything or anyone else is the manifestation of the righteousness of God, ... and therefore Christ's faithfulness cannot be any part of Rom 3,22 because it is referring to our belief about or faithing into Christ, who was faithful to the law and only to the law? You see the difficulty I'm having? Perhaps you could explain what you mean so that I don't make any mistakes trying to work it out on my own.

[footwasher]

Robrecht wrote:

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]

Wow. I'm really glad I asked. I never would have gotten all that from your terse "See above" statement.

I think I understand. Where else do you see this particular idea of 'faithing' in Paul's writings?

[hedrick]

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.

But that's the point. Paul uses other language.

[Paprika]

But that's the point. Paul uses other language.

So?

[footwasher]

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.

The point is that you view Rom 3 as a description of how God's righteousness is released by the faithfulness of Christ, the subjective genitive option, for those in the church. There is almost a sense that it is a done deal, fait accompli, once you join a church, once you are in Christ.

Really, Rom 1, 2 and 3 is Paul telling Gentiles and Jews they have no special favour from God, neither Jews for having Abraham as ancestor through possessing the Law, nor Gentiles for escaping persecution and genocide in both Rome and Jerusalem leading to displacement and rejection of the Jews. Before the Cross, God's wrath rested on all mankind, without exception, and it was only averted by doing the Law, obeying God's commands, leading to failure, in turn leading to petitioning God for mercy, like the Publican, Zacharias and Cornelius, and God not turning them away but revealing the Redeemer to them, as He had to Job, Abraham and David and giving His sheep to Christ.

Now, after the Cross, the requirements of the Law have been abolished, replaced by the requirement for faith in Christ, because that is how the manifestation of God's righteousness is now available to all, again without exception, not because of God's wrath, but to avoid perishing.

IOW, dont treat Romans as a "how to get saved manual", but as a "who needs saving manual". Jews and Gentile both assumed they were already saved and Paul is disabusing them of the notion (a lesson for today as well, yes?).

The Law which was supposed to give life gave death instead. A blemish free sacrifice is one which gives life, so only Christ could fulfill the Law. That was the plan, the righteousness of God in fulfilling His promise to Abraham. In turn, those who are loyal to Christ receive life because of his faithfulness, obedience.

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.

[robrecht]

"Do you really mean to say that 'becoming a curse was the teleos, the whole goal of the Law'?" I'm still curious as to exactly how you would answer this. I have a better sense of your theology and how only Jesus was able to live by the law, but does it follow that the whole goal of the law, its telos, so to speak, was for Jesus to be cursed?

The point is that you view Rom 3 as a description of how God's righteousness is released by the faithfulness of Christ, the subjective genitive option, for those in the church. There is almost a sense that it is a done deal, fait accompli, once you join a church, once you are in Christ.

I would not say 'released' but rather 'made manifest', as I believe Paul is saying. Please do not go beyond my words and try to describe what they almost say.

Really, Rom 1, 2 and 3 is Paul telling Gentiles and Jews they have no special favour from God, neither Jews for having Abraham as ancestor through possessing the Law, nor Gentiles for escaping persecution and genocide in both Rome and Jerusalem leading to displacement and rejection of the Jews.

I agree with this except I think Paul's view of the attitude of some Gentile Christians toward Jews was that it was based on the Jews' having rejected Jesus, not based merely some political/civil advantage gained over Jews on account of Claudius' edict. Paul does not seem to mention or allude to this as the cause of the Gentile Christian attitude he critiques. As for hypothetical reconstruction of the situation behind Paul's letter without reference to cues contained in the letter, I do not know how likely or definitive this scenario is. Suetonius may be understood as saying that only 'those Jews were expelled who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus'. But even if Suetonius was speaking of all Jews being expelled, one must also take into account the possible reality behind 'the disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus'. It is quite possible that Jewish Christians (perhaps even Gentile Christians considered as Jews) were at least among those being expelled. One must also take into account thsoe who argue for a different timeframe for the expulsion. In the end, however, it is most reliable to stick to the indications that can be seen more clearly in the actual text of Paul that we have.

Now, after the Cross, the requirements of the Law have been abolished, replaced by the requirement for faith in Christ, because that is how the manifestation of God's righteousness is now available to all, again without exception, not because of God's wrath, but to avoid perishing.

Are you quite certain that Peter, as depicted in the first half of Acts, would agree about even the dietary requirements of the Law being abolished? And what about the moral requirements of the Law, do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, etc. Surely those requirements of the Law have not been abolished, right? This takes us back to the whole purpose of the Law, its telos, so to speak. Did God command us not to murder only so that we would learn that we are unable to murder and that only Jesus was able to avoid murdering someone?

IOW, dont treat Romans as a "how to get saved manual" ...

I don't think that I do.

In turn, those who are loyal to Christ receive life because of his faithfulness, obedience.

This is very close to my understanding of the passage being discussed.

How can Abraham live by faith if Christ had not been sent yet?

How do you think St Paul would answer this question. Did not Abraham believe God and was accounted as righeous? Or should we assume that Paul can only be speaking of Abraham living by faith in Christ. If we make that assumption, are we not assuming the very interpretation of Rom 3,22 that you want to demonstrate?

[footwasher]

Once you identify my faulty reasoning, I would be happy to entertain your demonstration that it is faulty.

First of all, the phrase
'though we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)

should read:
'for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)'

The conjunction 'for' introduces the reason God's rigteouness must be manifested in the lives of both Jew and Gentile: both have fallen short of God's glory, both need saving, there is no distinction:

Romans 3:21But 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 faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

"Do you really mean to say that 'becoming a curse was the teleos, the whole goal of the Law'?" I'm still curious as to exactly how you would answer this. I have a better sense of your theology and how only Jesus was able to live by the law, but does it follow that the whole goal of the law, its telos, so to speak, was for Jesus to be cursed?

The Law was given to bring life:

Romans 7:10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

How did it do that? Through atonement.

Was Christ sent to make that atonement? Yes.

If yes, then Christ was meant to use the Law to give life and so that was the telos of the Law. Why else would Christ come to fulfill the Law?

I would not say 'released' but rather 'made manifest', as I believe Paul is saying. Please do not go beyond my words and try to describe what they almost say.

I agree with this except I think Paul's view of the attitude of some Gentile Christians toward Jews was that it was based on the Jews' having rejected Jesus, not based merely some political/civil advantage gained over Jews on account of Claudius' edict. Paul does not seem to mention or allude to this as the cause of the Gentile Christian attitude he critiques. As for hypothetical reconstruction of the situation behind Paul's letter without reference to cues contained in the letter, I do not know how likely or definitive this scenario is. Suetonius may be understood as saying that only 'those Jews were expelled who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus'. But even if Suetonius was speaking of all Jews being expelled, one must also take into account the possible reality behind 'the disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus'. It is quite possible that Jewish Christians (perhaps even Gentile Christians considered as Jews) were at least among those being expelled. One must also take into account thsoe who argue for a different timeframe for the expulsion. In the end, however, it is most reliable to stick to the indications that can be seen more clearly in the actual text of Paul that we have.

Are you quite certain that Peter, as depicted in the first half of Acts, would agree about even the dietary requirements of the Law being abolished? And what about the moral requirements of the Law, do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, etc. Surely those requirements of the Law have not been abolished, right? This takes us back to the whole purpose of the Law, its telos, so to speak. Did God command us not to murder only so that we would learn that we are unable to murder and that only Jesus was able to avoid murdering someone?

Well Jesus did say that without Him we could do nothing. ;)

Joking aside, the Law is abolished. How? Well if a condition was brought about where immunity was suddenly given to you to sin with impunity, without suffering the consequences of the law, what would you call it? Abolish, that's what.

If the age for minors was raised from 18 to 78, then theoretically you could murder without being under the jurisdiction of the law.

Similarly, if the contract keeping you under the jurisdiction of the law was torn up, you could sin without being culpable. Well that's what happened when the parties to the contract died. The contract was torn up. Jesus took on the identity of humankind and died, thus nailing law to the cross. We died with Him, so there was no one to participate in the contract, making it null and void.

Now that the law has no hold on us should we then sin?

I don't think that I do.

You think the faithfulness of Christ causes the righteousness of God to be manifested in the lives of believers. It doesn't. Its faith in Christ which does. You are debating the issue. Using Romans. 'Nuff said.

This is very close to my understanding of the passage being discussed.

See above.

How do you think St Paul would answer this question. Did not Abraham believe God and was accounted as righeous? Or should we assume that Paul can only be speaking of Abraham living by faith in Christ. If we make that assumption, are we not assuming the very interpretation of Rom 3,22 that you want to demonstrate?

When Paul says live, he means entering God's rest, which is a state that awaits a day:

Hebrews 4:9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Christ was very clear, even John the Forerunner, the greatest of all those born of women, did not have the opportunity to enter that rest, not even Abraham.

Sorry, I don't consider this to be nitpicking. There are a variety of ways of translating the Greek text and I rarely (if ever?) propose any single translation to represent the only way or even the best way to understand the Greek text. Without being able to query the author, translations are always tentative and, even when one can query an author, multiple translations can and sometimes should be offered to illustrate ambiguity and to bring out possible nuances of the source language. Exegesis should be on the Greek text.
To me, this is more likely to be a nitpick:

1.Actually he does:
9What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin ...
The discussion concerned whether one should understand or translate 'unto all them that believe' in Rom 3,22 as "Jews and Gentiles in the church". My point, which you apparently misunderstood (no worries, it happens to the best of us) was that, while both groups should certainly be understood to be included in this phrase, Paul did not use those words here. Certainly, I must not have expressed this clearly enough, but do you really think I would claim that Paul never used these words anywhere? Sometimes people immediately try to seize upon an apparent mistake without actually trying to understand what must be the intended meaning.

One more time, Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:22 are parallels.
You said it was more than merely fulfilling the law.

If Christ fulfilled the Law, that was all that was needed, He didn't need to do more.

I will need your help in working this out. Can you please explain a little more about how this relates to Rom 3,22? Are you saying something like because the law was never intended for Israel, they could never have become righteous by following the law, and only Jesus could follow the law that was only intended for him, and therefore Christ's faithfulness to the law and not to anything or anyone else is the manifestation of the righteousness of God, ... and therefore Christ's faithfulness cannot be any part of Rom 3,22 because it is referring to our belief about or faithing into Christ, who was faithful to the law and only to the law? You see the difficulty I'm having? Perhaps you could explain what you mean so that I don't make any mistakes trying to work it out on my own.

I am saying that Christ's faithfulness to the law is never discussed by Paul in Rom 3:22. Manifestation of God's righteousness in a believers life through faith in Christ is being discussed, a new way of justification, required by both Jew and Gentile without exception, for all have sinned...

[robrecht]

Is this your view?

In Romans 3:22, you understand pistes Christos to mean faithfulness of Christ, not faith in Christ.

Perhaps. I actually think it quite probably refers to the faith(fullness) that originated with Christ. This is sometimes referred to as a genitive of origin. It is possible that a genitive of origin can contain nuances of both a subjective and objective genitive, but the subjective sense would definitely be more primary in the case of a genitive of origin here and in most cases. In a great many cases, perhaps the majority, the genitive of origin and the subjective genitive are virtually indistinguishable in meaning or translation and this is usually just referred to as a subjective genitive by the great majority of exegetes. And yet I believe that the genitive of origin is not sufficiently known or understood by most students (or professors) of Koine Greek. However, and this is very important, one must always be extremely cautious of interpretations that try to combine elements of differing senses. All too often people who advance such dual interpretations are merely trying to preserve two contrary senses because they do not want to decide, perhaps out of laziness, perhaps out of indecision, perhaps out of recognition of their own relative lack of training and experience, or perhaps because they just like both meanings and want to have their cake and eat it too. One of the greatest scholars of NT Greek alive today once told us to never, ever try to combine elements of both senses, that this was always bad, and must always, always be avoided. This was indeed extremely good advice, but I also saw the twinkle in his eye (he was quite a showman) and I imagine he was purposefully oversimplifying for the sake of teaching the class to be disciplined in their exegesis. Once one understands all those caveats, I would, with great fear and trepidation, when push comes to shove, actually prefer to understand this as a genitive of origin. But I could be wrong, of course.

No, I would not say that Christ's faith(fullness), or the faith(fullness) that originates with Christ, triggers the righteousness of God. God is not dependent upon Jesus' faithfulness in order for his righteousness to be triggered. This sounds very similar to what you said above, ie, "God's righteousness is released by the faithfulness of Christ." As I mentioned above, that is not my view.

First of all, the phrase
'though we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)

should read:
'for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)'

My words "even 'though" were part of the structure of my larger argument, not a translation of the Greek word γάρ

No, not at all. Theology must always be derived from the text, not forced into the text or one's translation. Regardless, I do not question the ability of the believer to have effective faith, faith working through love, so to speak.


I do not see Paul's words here as indicating that the Gentile Christians did not believe in the universal need for salvation unto sanctification. In Romans 11, Paul is concerned with boasting, overconfidence, or complacency, but I'm not so sure such boasting would be based in a belief that they had not needed to be saved, perhaps it was just a boasting that they were saved and complacency about their current status, and a lack of appreciation for the calling of Israel.

Besides, why should our defective faith prevent God from doing what He promised?

It shouldn't! I never said or implied that it should.

Scripture says just the opposite ...

So do I.

Its not the quality of your faith that is important, its the power of the One you have faith in.

Agreed. But one should always seek to grow in faith, hope, and especially love.

The Law was given to bring life:

Romans 7:10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

How did it do that? Through atonement.

Through atonement the Law brought death? I would say rather that atonement brings new life. At-one-ment. It makes us one with God, the source of all life and love in the universe.

Was Christ sent to make that atonement? Yes.

Yes.

If yes, then Christ was meant to use the Law to give life and so that was the telos of the Law. Why else would Christ come to fulfill the Law?

This is a whole 'nother discussion. Some would say that Christ came to bring the law to completion, to perfect the law, to reveal the messianic law. That sounds about right to me, but this should probably be discussed in another context, where this statement is found.

I think God's grace initiates righteousness and faith in our lives. As I said before and above, I do not see 'made manifest' as necessarily synonymous with 'triggered' or 'released' or similar words. I agree they are less antiquated, but I don't think they are synonymous, at least not synonymous enough to be a good translation in this context. Maybe we can come up with a less antiquated word. I think Christ made manifest (revealed, taught, incarnated, displayed, communicated) God's righteousness and we embraced it in our lives through grace. But I do think your addition of "in our lives" improves upon your earlier formulation.

Sorry, that's all I have time for tonight. Exhausted from too much work. Will try to finish up tomorrow night. Hope you can appreciate my perspective. Peace of Christ, robrect

[robrecht]

In fact the faithfulness of Christ is sufficient for all men, but it is efficient only for those who believe!

This sounds like Luther's sola fide, which I think is too simplistic. I believe more in the judgment of God, who will, according to Paul's gospel, judge the secrets of people through Christ Jesus. I do not know that much about Luther's sola fide theology, so I could be wrong about it being too simplistic. If anyone can better explain his sola fide theology, I am quite willing to be corrected.

The point is that the situation was fluid and transitional.

I have no difficulty with that point, but that is different from the point you were making earlier. Have you abandoned your previous point about Gentile Christians in Rome feeling they had special favor from God based a questionable interpretation Suetonius? I believe that most situations are fluid and transitional, but I am not so sure that Paul was being critical of Gentile Christians who supposedly felt they had special favor from God because they were not, unlike the Jews, expelled from Rome. Your earlier idea is possible, of course, but I don't see it in the text of Paul, and I am reluctant to interpret a text based on assumptions regarding the historical situation and the supposed thoughts of some of Paul's listeners, people whom Paul had never even met. Do you understand my view that the text itself is more important and more reliable than possible historical reconstructions?

Paul's concern was that the knowledge of some might harm the faith of weaker brothers in some situations, but I'm not sure that Paul considered all Jewish Christians to be weaker brothers whom he would admonish because of an immature view of the Law. Did Paul automatically have this attitude toward all Jewish Christians such that this would influence how he would write to the Jewish Christians in Rome whom he had never met. It is certainly possible that Paul, himself a Jewish Christian, had such a view of all Jewish Christians, even those he had never met, but, again, I am reluctant to make this assumption an overly important factor in interpreting an ancient text.

Well Jesus did say that without Him we could do nothing. ;)

Joking aside, the Law is abolished.

The entire law is abolished? The law against rape, murder, lying, stealing, adultery? Is the law really abolished? I don't think so.

How? Well if a condition was brought about where immunity was suddenly given to you to sin with impunity, without suffering the consequences of the law, what would you call it? Abolish, that's what.

What?

If the age for minors was raised from 18 to 78, then theoretically you could murder without being under the jurisdiction of the law.

What?

Similarly, if the contract keeping you under the jurisdiction of the law was torn up, you could sin without being culpable. Well that's what happened when the parties to the contract died. The contract was torn up. Jesus took on the identity of humankind and died, thus nailing law to the cross. We died with Him, so there was no one to participate in the contract, making it null and void.

So we can now murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, without any concern about this being against God's law?

Now that the law has no hold on us should we then sin?

No, we have learned our morality from God's law and from our own experience, and the experience of our ancestors. I think the law should still have a hold on us. The law is a good thing. It was not just part of God's plan for helping theologians to develop a theory of atonement.

You think the faithfulness of Christ causes the righteousness of God to be manifested in the lives of believers. It doesn't. Its faith in Christ which does. You are debating the issue. Using Romans. 'Nuff said.

No, I am merely trying to better understand the text of Paul's letter to the Romans. I think Paul's perspective is more like Christ's own faithfulness, the faith that originated with Christ's faithfulness, has shown us the true righteousness of God, a righteousness of faith, obedience, loyalty, that we too are invited to share and put into practice in our own lives of love and witness to the truth. Our faith in Christ should bear witness to our lives of faithfulness to God, our love of neighbor, even enemies, and respect for all.

See above.

What do you want me to see above?

When Paul says live, he means entering God's rest, which is a state that awaits a day:

Hebrews 4:9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Christ was very clear, even John the Forerunner, the greatest of all those born of women, did not have the opportunity to enter that rest, not even Abraham.

So what do you think Paul meant about Abraham having believed God and being accounted as righteous before God? Are you talking about some kind of soul-sleep? I'm having trouble following how this is supposed to relate to the subjective/objective question in Romans 3,22

One more time, Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:22 are parallels.

One more time? That was not what we were discussing. Remember, you were disagreeing with a misunderstanding of something I said about whether or not we should translate 3,22 with Jews and Greeks. If you want to discuss how Rom 3,9 & 3,22 are parallel, we can do that, of course. Start by viewing the two verses synoptically and describe the similarities and differences. If that's what you want to discuss:

You said it was more than merely fulfilling the law.

If Christ fulfilled the Law, that was all that was needed, He didn't need to do more.

Is this supposed to relate to your critique of my use of the word 'even'? Jesus needed to be faithful and obedient to the Father. That was more than merely following the law. We have a different idea of what it means for Jesus to have fulfilled the law, but that would be better discussed in the context where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law.

I am saying that Christ's faithfulness to the law is never discussed by Paul in Rom 3:22. Manifestation of God's righteousness in a believers life through faith in Christ is being discussed, a new way of justification, required by both Jew and Gentile without exception, for all have sinned...

I do not limit Christ's faithfulness to 'faithfulness to the law' and have already said that, obviously, Paul is speaking here about God's righteousness being made manifest apart from the law. I see no reason to limit Paul's meaning here to 'God's righteousness in a believer's life. I think the righteousness of God is not merely how it is manifested in a believer's life. The righteousness of God is a topic as broad as our whole understanding of (and complete inability to comprehend) God. Justification is part of this discussion, but it does not exhaust all of what Paul is saying here about God's righteousness and the redemption that he has accomplished through Jesus Christ. The faithfulness of Jesus Christ to God has been given to us so that we too might have the same kind of faithfulness toward God. In this sense our present way of being faithful, of trusting God, of believing in Christ, this life of faith in Christ that we lead, in fact, originated with Jesus' own faithfulness to God.

[footwasher]

Perhaps. I actually think it quite probably refers to the faith(fullness) that originated with Christ. This is sometimes referred to as a genitive of origin. It is possible that a genitive of origin can contain nuances of both a subjective and objective genitive, but the subjective sense would definitely be more primary in the case of a genitive of origin here and in most cases. In a great many cases, perhaps the majority, the genitive of origin and the subjective genitive are virtually indistinguishable in meaning or translation and this is usually just referred to as a subjective genitive by the great majority of exegetes. And yet I believe that the genitive of origin is not sufficiently known or understood by most students (or professors) of Koine Greek. However, and this is very important, one must always be extremely cautious of interpretations that try to combine elements of differing senses. All too often people who advance such dual interpretations are merely trying to preserve two contrary senses because they do not want to decide, perhaps out of laziness, perhaps out of indecision, perhaps out of recognition of their own relative lack of training and experience, or perhaps because they just like both meanings and want to have their cake and eat it too. One of the greatest scholars of NT Greek alive today once told us to never, ever try to combine elements of both senses, that this was always bad, and must always, always be avoided. This was indeed extremely good advice, but I also saw the twinkle in his eye (he was quite a showman) and I imagine he was purposefully oversimplifying for the sake of teaching the class to be disciplined in their exegesis. Once one understands all those caveats, I would, with great fear and trepidation, when push comes to shove, actually prefer to understand this as a genitive of origin. But I could be wrong, of course.

https://bible.org/article/interview-...tual-criticism

No, I would not say that Christ's faith(fullness), or the faith(fullness) that originates with Christ, triggers the righteousness of God. God is not dependent upon Jesus' faithfulness in order for his righteousness to be triggered. This sounds very similar to what you said above, ie, "God's righteousness is released by the faithfulness of Christ." As I mentioned above, that is not my view.

http://www.postost.net/2013/04/wrigh...orinthians-521

My words "even 'though" were part of the structure of my larger argument, not a translation of the Greek word γάρ

Then I erred in pointing out a translation mistake that did not exist. My apologies.

No, not at all. Theology must always be derived from the text, not forced into the text or one's translation. Regardless, I do not question the ability of the believer to have effective faith, faith working through love, so to speak.

Why did you question, look askance at the ability of the faith of sinners to make manifest God's righteousness in their own lives?

I do not see Paul's words here as indicating that the Gentile Christians did not believe in the universal need for salvation unto sanctification. In Romans 11, Paul is concerned with boasting, overconfidence, or complacency, but I'm not so sure such boasting would be based in a belief that they had not needed to be saved, perhaps it was just a boasting that they were saved and complacency about their current status, and a lack of appreciation for the calling of Israel.

It shouldn't! I never said or implied that it should.

Yet you seemed to question the efficacy of the faith of those who have fallen short of the glory of God.

So do I.

See the above reply.

Agreed. But one should always seek to grow in faith, hope, and especially love.

Umm, Abraham's faith grew from a bit, to a lot, after he saw how God acted even with his inadequate faith...

Through atonement the Law brought death? I would say rather that atonement brings new life. At-one-ment. It makes us one with God, the source of all life and love in the universe.

The law brought death with the revelation of a dead end, the inability to do it and gain life. Christ's atoning work brought life to mankind. Since He identified with mankind, He was the first resurrection fruit, the first beneficiary of the atonement, and now a Man sits at the right hand of God.

Luke22:69Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Yes.

This is a whole 'nother discussion. Some would say that Christ came to bring the law to completion, to perfect the law, to reveal the messianic law. That sounds about right to me, but this should probably be discussed in another context, where this statement is found.

'kay.

I think God's grace initiates righteousness and faith in our lives. As I said before and above, I do not see 'made manifest' as necessarily synonymous with 'triggered' or 'released' or similar words. I agree they are less antiquated, but I don't think they are synonymous, at least not synonymous enough to be a good translation in this context. Maybe we can come up with a less antiquated word. I think Christ made manifest (revealed, taught, incarnated, displayed, communicated) God's righteousness and we embraced it in our lives through grace. But I do think your addition of "in our lives" improves upon your earlier formulation.

******
Romans 5:1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.


In him we become the righteousness of God:

2 Corinthians 5:21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We are found in Him through loyalty, faith

Sorry, that's all I have time for tonight. Exhausted from too much work. Will try to finish up tomorrow night. Hope you can appreciate my perspective. Peace of Christ, robrect

It's certainly different from the evangelical perspective.

***
ἄ