Audaciously Re-Reading Romans

Richard Beck has tackled an in-depth review (10 posts as of today) of an amazing book on his blog Experiential Theology. The book The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul has created quite a reaction. It’s a major rethinking of the way most of us have been taught to read Romans that is foundational to what he calls the Justification Theory of the Atonement.

What is the Justification Theory? Briefly it includes:

• there is a just, holy and omnipotent God who is characterized by retributive (punitive) justice;
• human beings, across the board, are unable to achieve moral perfection;
• God will judge us negatively. Despair comes when we realize that we cannot rescue ourselves;
• the judgment of God, previously directed at the human person, is satisfied by the death of Jesus;
• the righteousness of Jesus, his blamelessness, is imputed or reckoned to the believer.;
• accepting through faith the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. God’s judgment is satisfied and the believer is “saved,” counted as righteous before the Judgment Seat of God.

 Sound familiar? For many of us the idea that there might be another way to understand “the Gospel” seems dangerously audacious. The glue holding this point of view together is the usual reading of Romans 1- 4 as an expression of Paul’s personal theology. Campbell suggests is that in those four chapters,

“what Paul is actually doing in 1.18-3.20 is presenting the core of the “false gospel”–a rant against pagan immorality using the principle of desert–and then applying that same criterion (i.e., desert) to the Judaizing teachers themselves. When Paul is finished with this diatribe we see that the “false gospel” isn’t good news at all. There is no ethical or eschatological advantage to being a Jew. …

Paul isn’t presenting his gospel in Romans 1-4. So where is Paul’s gospel? Paul’s gospel is in Romans 5-8. Thus, 3.21-31 is kind of a rest stop on the way to Romans 5-8. A teaser or preview if you will. This helps explains the brevity of this gospel presentation in relation to the condemnation offered in 1.18-3.20.

What this means is that 3.21-31 shouldn’t be read backward into 1.18-3.20, as the “solution” to that “problem.” Rather, 3.21-31 should be read forward as an anticipation of Romans 5-8. Having dismantled the “false gospel” by the end of 3.20 Paul pauses to give us a sketch of what is to come short” (Beck, Part 10)

Translations of the Bible are always influenced by the translators theology – consciously or unconsciously. One of the translation decisions critical to support the Justification Theory is in Romans 3:26. Here is how two different translations differ in significant ways:

Rom 3:22, 26 NIV This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. … to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 3:22, 26 Net Bible – This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. This was also to demonstrate  his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

Here is how Beck sums up the difference this translation makes:

What we know for sure is that Pistis means “faith” in Greek and that “Christou” means “Christ.” So far so good. But in the Greek there is some genitive ambiguity concerning how the two noun’s–faith and Christ–are to relate to each other. Martin Luther, and those who followed him, translated Pistis Christou as “faith in Christ.” But a growing number of scholars (e.g., Richard Hays, N.T. Wright) have argued that the proper translation of Pistis Christou should be “faith of Christ.” Wow, so much hanging on the switch from “in” to “of”! But it really is a huge change. Specifically, the change moves us from an anthropocentric view of salvation to a Christocentric view. In the former, the human person is the locus of salvation. I, Richard Beck, must have faith in Jesus Christ. My act of faith functions as the key to unlock salvation. In the latter view, it is the faithfulness of Jesus that unlocks salvation. Christ’s faithfulness saves me.

Campbell’s book is certainly audacious!  Yet, it certainly makes sense to me. I have not tackled Campbell’s book yet (if anyone wants to purchase it for me, I’ll gladly read it) but I have been following Beck’s review. Why don’t you join me in reading Beck’s review. In fact, why not check out his blog and consider reading it consistently.
Dr. Paul