‘Justification by Faith,’ with Special Reference to Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31 and the Doctrine of ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’: A Case Study
Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia, BA, BD, MTh (NT)
Lecturer
Master’s College of Theology
Visakhapatnam
Introduction
This monograph is a rectification of the belief of ‘once saved, always saved’ from the viewpoint of the doctrine ‘justification by faith.’ In order that this study might not be theoretical, the current issue in Mizoram is selected for a case study. The history of the churches in Mizoram is briefly studied, particularly the revival waves and their impacts on the spirituality of the Mizos. Although the churches in Mizoram are particularised, yet we have to know that there are many people, even theologians who hold the view of once saved, always saved. In fact, this is not a simple truth, but a paradox which can be taken in the other way round. If it is misinterpreted, it turns the holder of this view into a passive Christian and can mislead the holders into idle believers. There are people like Mizos who preach and interpret the Bible without having any in-depth and systematic studies. Our research problem is to understand and interpret the Pauline concept of Justification by faith with reference to Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31.
Elaboration
Although Paul extensively mentioned justification and faith in his letters, we will be concentrating mainly on Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31. The main issue here is regarding the terms justification and faith, as well as the concept of justification by faith. Though the theology of Justification by Faith had been discussed in the Mizo church history, no fatal crisis was found within the church.
Two outstanding preachers, however, recently came up with a slight different emphasis: P. C. Biaksiama from the Presbyterian Church and Rohmingliana, the founder and leader of the Truth Mission Evangelical Fellowship. P. C. Biaksiama states that salvation is a free gift from God. If one receives God’s salvation and justification truly once, one will go to heaven even if one dies of suicide or drug abuse.[1] He means that one’s justification is not perished even if one commits suicide.[2] Rohmingliana also taught that the saved cannot be lost again because they have God’s Seed in them.[3]
Because of these ambiguous and paradoxical interpretations within the church, the Mizos face big trouble towards the understanding of the theology of Justification by Faith. It also weakens personal Christian lives by means of inculcating the imperishable salvation even after committing the so-called fatal sins as mentioned above. We shall attempt to understand and interpret the Pauline concept of Justification by faith in the light of such claims within the Mizo context.
Textual studies of the selected texts
As intimated above, a short exegesis of the selected texts (Rom. 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31) shall be given in order to study Pauline understanding of dikaiosune tou theou (dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou)/. Variant readings in Rom. 3:22 and 4:11 are not pursued as they do not concern our ongoing research at all. Some important words or phrases are intentionally left out because of the same case. Only the most important words and phrases that are directly related to our discussion are dealt as brief as possible.
Rom. 3:21, 22
But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ into all who believe. For there is no difference.[4]
As the verb manifest (fanero,w) is used in a perfect tense,[5] it has to be translated as has been manifested. This usage indicates a difference in focus. This verb points back to the historical event (that is, the coming of Christ into the world) which serves as the basis on which God puts human beings right with him/herself. The passive expression (has been manifested) can also be rendered active as “God has shown” or “God has revealed.”[6]
The term, nuni de (nuni de,), but now, has once been interpreted as the Christian dispensation. It indicated the opposition between the two states, the state under the Law and the state without Law.[7] It characterizes both the logical antithesis[8] and the eschatological antithesis.[9] Meanwhile, other scholars argued against this view and suggest to be understood as having a temporal significance,[10] a transition from one epoch to another,[11] because for Paul, all time is divided into two parts: the time before the revelation of the way in which God puts human beings right with Him/Herself, and the time after that (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 9:26).[12] This contrast is marked by de (de.). Cranfield suggested that these two contrasting ideas are the justification of eks ergôn nomou (evx e;rgwn no,mou-justification by the work of law) and that of justification chôris nomou (cwri,j no,mou-justification apart from law).[13] Newman and Nida interpret that according to Paul the new age, the age of God’s righteousness, has broken into the present age, the age of God’s wrath.[14] So, the transition of time from the previous to the present is introduced in this verse.
As dikaiosyne theou (dikaiosu,nh qeou/) (both in verse 21 and 22) and the phrase pisteôs Iesou Christou (pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/) are the key phrases of the research, we shall pursue them below in detail.
The above exegetical studies indicate that these verses (3:21, 22) are ambiguous in meaning and rich in theology. The righteousness of God has asserted itself in visible concrete form in the coming of Christ[15] though the Old Testament too bears witness to it. This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith. Furthermore, it is no longer confined to any particular people like the Jews, but is open without distinction to all, irrespective of Jews or Gentiles.[16] The first and the most critical question in this passages is not whether the Old Testament testifies the righteousness of God that is manifested, or the priority of the righteousness of God to the Law, or the universality of salvation or justification, but how human being is justified and what is the essence of the phrase the righteousness of God and how does this righteousness become the factor of justification. In addition to this, the actualization of the righteousness of God for human being is another controversial issue. Another issue which is not less than the phrase righteousness of God is the truest meaning and translation, as well as the grammatical problem of the genitive form pisteôs Iesou Christou (pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou) and it will be dealt separately.
Romans 4:11-13
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of his faith in his uncircumcision, in order that[17] he is the father of all who believe through uncircumcision, in order that righteousness is to be reckoned to them (also), and the father of circumcision to those not only from circumcision but also those who follow the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham in uncircumcision. For the promise to Abraham or his seed, that he is to be an heir of the world, was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.[18]
The term circumcision has specific and purposeful meaning in these verses. Abraham, before and after his circumcision, was described and a discussion between the circumcised and the uncircumcised and their justification follow it. Barrett says that the ‘sign of circumcision’ (v. 11) means simply a ‘sign consisting in circumcision,’[19] while Newman and Nida tend to mean that ‘his [Abraham's] circumcision was a sign’ and that the word ‘sign’ means a ‘mark,’ or more specifically, ‘a wound to show’ or ‘a scar to show.’ They take ‘sign’ and ‘seal’ together to mean ‘a sign to prove.’[20] Abraham received this sign as a seal.[21] In other words, Abraham's circumcision is characterized as the seal, that is, the outward and visible authentication, ratification and guarantee, of the righteousness by faith which was already his while he was still uncircumcised.[22] This conveys that Abraham’s circumcision was not meaningless, but a sign, a sign for the righteousness by faith. Paul did not carelessly deny circumcision but put faith prior to it.[23]
As mentioned above, faith is the key issue for having righteousness or being justified. As it is our main discussion below, it should be skipped for the time being.
These verses discuss about Abraham being justified before circumcision so that he might be the example for justification without the Jewish rite of circumcision, but by faith. Moreover, he received circumcision too in such a way that he still stood as the example of the circumcised. This does not mean that the circumcised one is justified because of the work, but by faith, and that one is being justified not because one is the descendant of Abraham, but because one follows the footstep of the faith of Abraham. The key issue here is not actually circling around the circumcision, seal, sign or Christian baptism in general, but on the faith of Abraham, with and without circumcision. Similarly, others are reckoned righteous because they live by faith following Abraham.
Kamalakar’s studies are somewhat relevant to these verses that Paul might not despise circumcision. However, he might also accept an existing metaphor ‘circumcision of heart.’[24] This emphasized the commitment to deep inward change was part of the significance of circumcision. The recognition of physical circumcision could have caused false confidence in the people of God. This would have led to the emphasis on the deepened meaning of the concept.[25] May be because of this, faith, but not ritual obligation, has been given more emphasis on Abraham.
2.3. Romans 9:30-31
Then what shall we say? That Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness attained[26] righteousness, that is,[27] the righteousness from faith. But Israel pursuing/who pursues the law of righteousness did not reach/come to/attain into the law.
Verses 30 and 31 form an antithetical parallelism[28] between Gentiles and the Israelites[29] in the achievement and the failure of righteousness. The conjunction de (de.), in verse 31 is a contrastive conjunction (adversative) and suggests a contrast or opposing thought to the idea to which it is connected[30] that it should not be understood in a temporal sense, but in the sense of ‘in contrast with this’ or ‘but on the other hand.’[31] This contrast is made between gentiles who do not pursue righteousness but attained, and the Israelites who pursue righteousness but not attained. This contrast or antithesis becomes our discussion about the justification by faith not by deeds.
Newman and Nida take this phrase to mean law that would put the Israelites right with God.[32] According to Cranfield, Paul wanted to introduce the word nomos (no,moj) at this point because he wanted to bring out the truth that Israel had been given the law to aid it in its quest for righteousness before God. The law is the law of righteousness because it was intended and designed to show the people of Israel how they could be righteous before God, to show them that the way to this righteousness is faith. The majority of Jews zealously pursued the law of God which had been given to them to bring them to a status of righteousness in God’s sight: their tragedy is that, though they have pursued God’s law, and still are pursuing it, with so much zeal, they have somehow failed altogether really to come to grip with it, failed altogether to grasp its real meaning and to render it true obedience.[33]
These passages do not mean that the law is good for nothing, but it is “viewed as the witness of righteousness.”[34] It can be said that the will of God which calls for righteousness cannot be reached in the law. This produces the paradox that even as they pursue righteousness the Jews shift the goal by false interpretation and do not reach it. However, the statement that Gentile did not seek after righteousness stirs up a question that God would not leave honest striving unrewarded[35] because the Gentiles did not have ethical note which was characteristic of Judaism[36] and the Jews had at least religious and ethical advantages over them.[37] Käsemann commented that the text does not speak of moral power of righteousness as a virtue but as a gift of salvation. This was in fact, unknown to the Gentiles and misunderstood by the Jews.[38] Once again the sole factor for this righteousness is faith, but not by law. In this way, the sentence can be simplified like, ‘Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness attained it by faith. In contrast to this, Israelites, who pursue righteousness from the law failed to attain righteousness from the law because the sole medium/factor is faith, rather than the law.’
The only righteousness which is acceptable to God is that which is based on faith. The Jews failed because their efforts were based on deeds to win God’s favour.[39]
Synopsis of the textual studies
In the Roman Christian context where majority of them were Gentiles, Paul laid emphasis on the manifestation of God in Christ where there is no distinction. Even if anyone imposed the Jewish traditions such as circumcision, following the Mosaic Law, observing Sabbath etc. to the Gentile Christians, Paul’s stance is that no ritual or ceremonial works save, but by faith in Christ in which God has demonstrated His/Her righteousness. In this way, God’s righteousness is utilizable and effective for all people, be it Jews or Gentiles, through faith. In these usages (in these selected verses), Paul used the term dikaiosyne (dikaiosu,nh) in different aspects. In 3:21, Paul used exclusively for the righteousness that is of God. However, this has become human beings’ through God’s manifestations in Christ. In another verses (4:11-13 and 9:30f.), the dikaiosyne (dikaiosu,nh) denotes the status of human after God made human into right relationship.
Paul tried to tell the Roman church that even the so-called chosen people, the Jews, were not justified on account of their blood relationship with Abraham. In fact, Abraham was justified before he got circumcision. Therefore, he became the father of all who believe without circumcision, as well as the father of all who believe with circumcision. This means that circumcision is not the factor of justification, but only a seal of faith. It can boldly be said that this is the emphasis of faith for justification.
This is once again reaffirmed in Rom. 9:30f. Here, Paul said that the only reason everyone (Gentiles) is justified is but ‘faith.’ Similarly, the Gentile Christians in Rome were not to be bound with the Jewish customs and traditions because those superficial customs were not the key to justification. In other words, justification began with the works of God by manifesting Him/Herself through Jesus Christ, and those who practice faith in Christ are justified. Therefore, the Roman Christians were given proper instructions how to accept the Gentile Christians.
The Mizo background of justification by faith and its impacts
The first Wales missionaries came to Mizoram on 11th January 1894.[40] The first proper worship service in the church building was held on 2nd October, 1895.[41] The three foreign mission boards[42] then began their frontiers in the northern, southern and the southernmost part of Mizoram. The well establishment of the churches was followed by the four consecutive movements (or stirrings/waves) of revival in the years 1906, 1913, 1919-23 and 1930. There were many strange and peculiar manifestations of the revival spirit among the revivalists. As a result, some of the leaders of the revivalists left the church and formed sectarian groups. The revivals too caused the emergence of some churches from outside such as the Salvation Army, the United Pentecostal Church etc. One of the main reasons is that those revival leaders accused of the church leaders and the church’s administration as opposing the Holy Spirit. They could not tolerate others who did not agree with them. In reality, they wanted to act and enjoy the revival emotion as free and as much as possible. Instead of listening to the church and ministers, they interpret Bible and theology in their own way.[43] I call that ideology as the sectarian ideology because the holder of that idea/understanding gathered the likeminded people and began to live almost like a separate group within the church and sometimes left the church. This ideology is still rampant among the Mizos today. They cannot listen to and follow others or the theologians; rather, they try to play a leadership and interpreter’s role and sometimes outwardly preach against the theologians.
As the Mizo community is a close knit society, socio-economic and political life cannot be detached from the religious life. As a state in which absolute majority of the population are Christians, religion (church) plays the most important role in the society. Almost everything is considered from Christian spiritual and ethical perspective. Sound biblical interpretation develops the whole Mizoram while unsound doctrine demoralizes the totality of the Mizos. In that context, the doctrine ‘justification by faith’ has long been debated. It was first understood as an antithesis of work.[44] Though the debate has been going on, yet it did not create a division within the church throughout the history of the church in Mizoram.
In such situation, two influential preachers recently came up and revived the one time burning issue on the security of salvation.[45] The first person is Rohmingliana.[46] He taught that the saved one cannot lose salvation because they have God’s Seed in them.[47] Another preacher is the Presbyterian church Elder, P. C. Biaksiama.[48] He taught that one’s salvation is not perished even if one commits suicide.[49] He stresses that salvation is eternally secured and one will not lose it by any means.
This interpretation not only creates ideological split within the church irrespective of all denominations,[50] but also leads many people into a passive life. It is harmful not only for the Mizo ecclesiastical life, but also for the community as a whole. Those interpretations are based on justification by fate,[51] while the true biblical concept is justification by faith. The first and foremost thing is to provide a meaningful and reliable interpretation of the concept ‘righteousness of God’ by which human beings are redeemed and made into right relationship with God, as well as the function of faith for justification. The understanding of justification as a fate or as a due to the redeemed human beings is unsound and harmful.
The selected verses are the key passages in Pauline description of the doctrine of justification by faith. The early church in Rome was almost split by the controversy over the admission of Gentiles if they were to be imposed the ceremonial requirements of the Jewish law. Actually, majority of the Christians in the Roman church were Gentiles. In such situation Paul proclaimed that not by circumcision or the obedience of the Law, but by the righteousness of God in Christ through faith that one is justified. Paul tried to convey to us this by means of the manifestation of the righteousness of God for human beings. He intended to say that those who receive that manifested righteousness and have faith in Christ are justified. Paul also talked about the justification of Abraham before and after his circumcision. His main emphasis here is that Abraham was justified even before his circumcision, which means, one is justified not because of work, but by faith. Paul, once more, said that the Gentiles are justified even though they do not pursue the righteousness in such a way the Jews pursued (that is meritorious). Faith is the only way the Gentiles, as well as the Jews are justified. These verses say that though God’s initiatory work is the beginning, yet the response and the next step (also the fullness) is the experience of faith by human beings.
Dikaiosyne Tou Theou (‘dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou/’)
To introduce this concept, Paul used genitive constructions such as dikaiosyne tou theou (‘dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou/’-the righteousness of God) and pistis Iesou Christou (‘pi,stij VIhsou/ Cristou/’-faith of Christ?). The genitive phrase dikaiosyne tou theou (‘dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou/’) is defined and described in various ways. Scholars propose different assumptions such as an objective genitive: “a righteousness which is valid before God,”[52] a subjective genitive: “righteousness as an attribute or quality of God,”[53] a genitive of authorship: “a righteousness that goes forth from God”[54] and a genitive of origin: “man’s righteous status which is the result of God’s action of justifying.”[55]
Due to the limited space the other arguments as noted above will not be described now. The detail studies can be seen from the given sources. However, a brief discussion of this genitive is given here in order to have a clearer knowledge.
A Subjective Genitive
A common theological position is that righteousness of God is a subjective genitive, God’s holiness, being the norm by which all would be judged.[56]
Dikaiosyne tou theou (dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou/) is grammatically identified as subjective genitive that it is God’s righteousness alone. It is a conjunction of judgment and a grace.[57] It is the claim of God upon the individual, which God demonstrate in His/Her act upon the individual when He/She exercises justice.[58] Käsemann argued against Bultmann’s individualistic view of Paul’s theology, his philosophy of history[59] and anthropocentrism,[60] and said that the doctrine of human is only one of the chapters of Pauline theology.[61] Käsemann was deeply influenced by the theological outlook of the Old Testament and Judaism in the covenantal relationship between God and the Israelites and claimed that the apostle meant God’s saving activity as righteousness. He accused of Bultmann as fallen into the trap of radical individualism as well as got lost in the gift, diminishing the giver.[62]
Alister E. McGrath asserted that by interpreting “the righteousness of God” as a genitive of author, Bultmann drove a wedge between the God who gives and the gift which is given. His approach isolated the gift from the giver, and concentrated on the gift itself rather than on God himself.[63] This carries convincing truth that the gift which is being bestowed is never at any time separable form its Giver.[64] For Käsemann, dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is the power of the justification of the ungodly, as well as God’s victory amid the opposition of the world.[65]
It is undoubted that the subjective genitive is the most suitable among them although it does not mean the personal righteousness of God only. It rather describes that God is righteous and acts, judges and justifies justly and rightly. However, this righteousness is not to condemn the unjust, but to save and justify the unjust. This righteousness is not inaccessible because it is manifested through Jesus Christ for all who believe (Rom. 3:21f.). we have sufficient grounds in the Old Testament Hebrew usage, where the sense is very much subjective genitive. The righteousness is the attribute of God and the action is done by God bearing both soteriological and forensic[66] meaning.
The subsequent debate is whether that ‘righteousness of God’ is manifested ‘in the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ (subjective genitive)[67] or ‘faith in Christ’ (objective genitive).[68] In other words, the question here is about the usage of the genitive, subjective genitive (faith or faithfulness of Christ) or objective genitive (faith in Christ) because the grammatical characteristic determines the interpretation of the phrase.
Regarding the translation of pisteu,w as faithfulness (subjective genitive), the equivalent Hebrew word, he’emin does not mean and never did mean ‘be faithful, show faithfulness’; it means ‘trust, believe.’ In this way, Herbert and Torrance[69] are accused of as mesmerized by their supposed ‘fundamental meaning’ of ‘faithfulness’ that they do not notice that it does not fit he’emin, which is perhaps the most important word of the series for this subject.[70] In other words although the Hebrew root ’mn means ‘firm, constant, reliable,’ the Old Testament word he’emin does mean ‘to believe.’[71]
The studies of Christ’s pistis found in Rom. 3:22; Gal 3:22 (faith of Jesus Christ); Rom. 3:26 (faith of Jesus); Gal. 2:16 (faith of Christ Jesus); Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9 (faith of Christ); and Gal. 2:20 (faith of the Son of God) by James D. G. Dunn and his decision as objective genitive is very convincing. He made his decision because there is no definite article in the phrase each time it occurs. He claimed that where a subjective genitive is intended the definite article can be expected so as to mean - ‘the faith which Christ exercised.’ Dunn rejected the translation of pistis Christou as ‘Christ’s faithfulness’ because in doing so, Paul would have made no effort to unpack the phrase or to restate its major theme in varied wording in what follows. He objected the understanding of ‘Christ’s faith’ as if Christ also ‘believe’ God as Abraham did.[72]
From the linguistic and semantic, as well as the grammatical and background studies, it is decisive that the phrase pi,stij VIhsou/ Cristou/ should be interpreted as objective genitive to mean faith in Christ. So, the righteousness of God has been manifested and is being utilizable for human. One can receive the righteousness of God that has been manifested in Christ by having faith in Jesus Christ.
Solution
To solve this confusion, the terms salvation and justification should precisely be classified. Salvation has been done through imparting the righteousness of God. In other words, reception of the righteousness of God leads to salvation (Rom. 3:26). Justification is the next step.
In order to rebuild the broken relationship between God and human in which human cannot do anything, God compromised Him/Herself to the extent of allowing His/Her only son to die. God’s plan and openness have been entirely manifested and demonstrated now, in Jesus Christ. God now saved human beings. All, irrespective of all races, nations, religions, sex etc. are free to be justified (Rom. 5:18). God has provided redemption now. This process is what I call salvation.
God puts human beings into right relationship not because of human efforts but because God has made it. The righteous God, out of His/Her righteousness and due to the redemptive work of Jesus, declares the sinful human righteous. The sinners who must be punished are pardoned now. This salvation process is purely from God’s side. Human has no involvement in this process. It is a pure free GIFT from God. However, God has made a condition for this. This condition is FAITH. Only those who receive this gift or righteousness through or by faith will be saved by the GIVER. This is what I call JUSTIFICATION. It has both present and future aspects.
In this way, I classified salvation and justification. The justified persons who believe or have faith in Jesus Christ in whom God has manifested His/Her righteousness will be saved. In other words, salvation without faith is incomplete and inactive for there should be two-way traffic. This also entails that after human is being redeemed, another step, that is, faith in the One who justifies is still following. However, it does not mean that salvation is the chapter of justification. One who keeps up faith till the end will be justified at the end to the final victory.
We now call for the re-evaluation of the perception of the priority of the grace of God that saves. We do not say that God’s/Giver’s priority is to be forfeited. Rather, it is an undoubted fact that God comes first. Unless there has been God’s manifestation and openness, there cannot be right relationship between the helpless human and the sinless God. However, the idea of insignificance of human’s responsibility should now be intensified. Human’s responsibility should nearly be equalised with God’s intervention. Without God, human will not achieve both justification and salvation. Almost similarly, without the consent or faith of human, God will not justify human, even though God has already redeemed. This paradox has to be contemplated very keenly. God, through the redemption of Jesus, freely[73] saves human beings, not because they deserve (Rom. 3:24). Still then, God demands response, that is, faith. Only those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be justified. In other words, only those who believe will be saved or justified (Mk. 16:16 etc.).
Faith is not an intellectual act or ethereal insight throughout the OT and the NT thought, but real, concrete and earthly.[74] It is, therefore, a description and relationship between humankind and God. Even if Bultmann went too far to say that Paul understands faith primarily as obedience,[75] or ‘faith’ equals ‘obedience,’[76] the interpretation that ‘Paul’s justification-faith situation included trust, intellectual acceptance, and obedience’[77] explains the role and nature of faith for justification. Besides, Bultmann is also not far away from the fact because obedience cannot be separated from faith. Faith without obedience is contrasting and irrational, although faith precedes obedience.
We can also say that there is a relationship between justification and the daily Christian life. Thus, the principle of justification by/through faith is applied not to the acceptance of the gospel in conversion, but to the believer’s whole life. It does not imply the believers entering into God’s covenanted promises, but it regulates one’s life as a believer. By ‘being justified,’ Paul did not mean distinctively as the initiatory act of God. God’s justification is not His/Her act in first making His/Her covenant with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God’s justification is rather God’s acknowledgment that someone is in the covenant-whether that is an initial acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God, or His/Her final vindication of His/Her people. To be justified in Paul cannot, therefore, be treated simply as an entry or initiation formula.[78] This is a right interpretation that even if one has already been regenerated, one should not think that everything is accomplished entirely as if there is no future. Justification is by faith that it covers the whole life, not only the initiation. In fact, ‘faith involves a continuing process.’[79]
We can now say that the proponents of the eternal security of salvation or ‘once saved, always saved’ depend on the improper hermeneutics and improper exegesis of the Bible. Though Rohmingliana claimed that he developed his arguments from the early church fathers such as Augustine, or the reformers such as Luther, Calvin etc., it is proved that he never used the primary sources which are also accessible.[80] Biaksiama is also not more than the former in using the advanced books. Most of his sources are extremely evangelical and less critical, except some few books, and bias towards his thesis. Biblical critical and exegetical studies are still in lack in his approach.[81] I, therefore, say that it is too blunt to accept his interpretations.
Furthermore, the holders of theo-centrism such as Biaksiama and Rohmingliana have a firm conviction in the weakness and helplessness of human beings. In their fear of promoting meritorious salvation or justification, they cannot see the activeness of the image of God in human. They only reckoned human as the inactive receiver of God’s blessings. They regard every evil and sin as too powerful for human to counteract because they completely forgot the Holy Spirit who unfailingly upholds the believers to stand against evil. As it is initiated by God and upheld by the Holy Spirit, it is not a meritorious, but through God. In fact, those who believe that believers cannot be lost or the saved cannot be lost do not understand the nature and function of faith for justification.
God’s salvation remains ineffective for the individual as long as one keeps oneself away from Christ. Contrary to this, one is justified as soon as one submits oneself to Christ in faith. No faith, no justification. The keepers of faith till the end will be justified at the end. On the other hand, those who give up or abandon faith, even if they once received salvation (or regeneration), will be perished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Books
Augustine. Anti-Pelagian Writings: A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. V. Edited by Philip Schaff. Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1991.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1983], 1987.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957.
Barth, G. “pi,stij.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1993], 1994, 91-97.
Barth, Karl. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1959], 1963.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Translated into English by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1979.
Berlin, Adele. “Parallelism.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 155-162.
Biaksiama, P. C. Chhandamna: Bo leh Thei Nge Bo Thei Tawh Lo (Eternal Security or Eternal Insecurity). Vol. I. Aizawl: Christian Research Centre, 2005.
Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1971], 1972.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, London: The Tyndale Press, [1963], 1969.
Bultmann, Rudolf. “pisteu,w ktl.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 6. Edited by Gerard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, 174-228.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1975.
Deissmann, Adolph . Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. London: SPCK, 1977.
Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1932], 1937.
Dunn, James D. G. “Once More, pistis Cristou.” In Richard B. Hays. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002, 251-254.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Secundarabad: OM Books, 2003.
Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
Healey, Joseph. “Faith: Old Testament.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 744-749.
Hendricksen, William. Romans. Vol. I. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.
Hminga, Chhangte Lal. The Life and Witness of the Churches in Mizoram. Serkawn: The Literature Committee, Baptist Church of Mizoram, 1987.
Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1947], 1980.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. III. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981.
Howard, George. “Faith of Christ.” The Anchor Biblical Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 758-760.
Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1955], 1957.
Jeppen. “Nm).” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. I edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [1974], 1990, 317.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Part One. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1973], 1980.
Käsemann, Ersnt. New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1969.
Kertelge, K. “dikaiosu,nh.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1990], 1994, 325-330.
Lalfakmawia, H. Joseph. ‘Justification by Faith,’ with Special Reference to Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31 from a Mizo Christian Setting. An MTh Thesis submitted to the Senate of Serampore College (NIIPGTS) in 2009.
Lalhruaitluanga. Zoram Varðian: Chanchinðha leh Thuziak Khawvar £an Dan. Aizawl: Fineprints, 2008.
Lalsawma. Revivals: The Mizo Way. Aizawl: Lalsawma, 1994.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1986], 1994.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1959], 1982.
Newman, Barclay M and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1973.
Onesti, K. L. and M. T. Brauch. “Righteousness, Righteousness of God.” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 827-837.
Rad, Gerhard Von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. I. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, [1962], 1968.
Richardson, Alan. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1958.
Rohmingliana. Evangelical Miropuite Thu Inchuh (The Great Debate). Aizawl: Literature Board, The Truth Mission Evangelical Fellowship, 2005.
Saiaithanga. Thurin Zirna. Aizawl: The Synod Publication Board, [1965], 1988.
Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary), fifth edition. Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1980.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977.
Schrenk, G. “dikh, di,kaioj, dikaiousu,nh ktl.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. II. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1964], 1991, 178-225.
Scullion, J. J. “Righteousness: Old Testament.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 724-736.
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
St¬hlin, G. “nu/n.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. IV. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1967], 1975, 1106-1123.
The Methodist Church (Upper Myanmar). Tunlai Zirtirna Leng Vel leh Methodist Zirtir Dan. Tahan: Ministerial Session, the Methodist Church, 1997.
Vanlalchhuanawma. Christianity and Subaltern Culture: Revival Movement as a Cultural Response to Westernisation in Mizoram. Delhi: ISPCK, 2006.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Wenham, J. W. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1965], 1987.
Whiteley, D. E. H. The Theology of Saint Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964.
Journal and magazines
‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” New Testament Studies 39/03 (1993), 478-480.
Boer, Martinus C. De. “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2:15-21.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28/2 (2005), 189-216.
Cosgrove, Charles H. “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106/4 (1987), 653-670.
Fuliga, Jose B. “The Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification By Faith.” Asia Journal of Theology 15/1 (April, 2001), 92-104.
Hooker, M. D. “pistis Cristou.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 321-342.
Hooker, M. D. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor. 5:21.” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), 358-375.
Howard, George. “The ‘Faith of Christ.’” The Expository Times 85/7 (April 1974), 212-214.
Longenecker, Bruce W. “pistis in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” New Testament Studies 39/03 (1993), 478-480.
Premasagar, P. Victor. “The Biblical Concept of Righteousness and the Indian Context.” The Indian Journal of Theology, 26/3&4 (July-December 1977), 105-110.
Watson, Nigel M. “Justified by Faith; Judged by Works-An Antinomy.” New Testament Studies, 29/2 (April 1983), 209-221.
Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia, BA, BD, MTh (NT)
Lecturer
Master’s College of Theology
Affiliated to the Senate of Serampore College (University)
Visakhapatnam
India
Mb. 09000068312
Email – hjosephlfma@yahoo.com
Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia was born and brought up in Champhai, Mizoram. He did his BD studies in Aizawl Theological College (2002-2006) and MTh studies in North India Institute of Post Graduate Theological Studies (2007-2009). He is currently teaching in Master’s College of Theology, Visakhapatnam.
[2] P. C. Biaksiama, Chhandamna: Bo leh Thei Nge Bo Thei Tawh Lo (Eternal Security or Eternal Insecurity), vol. I (Aizawl: Christian Research Centre, 2005), 5-8.
[3] Rohmingliana, Evangelical Miropuite Thu Inchuh (The Great Debate) (Aizawl: Literature Board, The Truth Mission Evangelical Fellowship, 2005), 244-245.
[4] A fresh translation by the author. Henceforth, the following translations of the following texts are the literal translation done by the author.
In my observation, the above translation can be rearranged as “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested in the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, and this is witnessed by the law and the prophets.
The preposition in in the phrase ‘faith in Christ’ is crucial. It can also be translated into of Christ because this is in genitive usage. However, this debate shall not be introduced and discussed here as it is one of the most important grammatical analyses below.
[6] Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1973), 64.
[7] This view is held by Meyer, De Wette, Oltramare and Godet. Cf. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary), fifth edition (Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1980), 82.
[8] Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1973], 1980), 92.
[9] G. St¬hlin, “nu/n,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. IV, edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1967], 1975), 1117.
[10] C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary), vol. I (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1975), 201.
[11] James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a: Romans 1-8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988), 104.
[12] Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 64.
[13] Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. I, 201.
[14] Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the, 64.
[15] Sanday and Headlam, ICC: Romans, 81.
[16] Sanday and Headlam, ICC: Romans, 81.
[17] J. W. Wenham, in his book, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1965], 1987), 86 states that eivj followed by articular infinitive expresses a purpose clause and thus Rom. 4:11(eivj to. ei=nai) is translated in as a purpose clause, in order to.
[18] These verses are again the literal translation of the author.
[19] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957), 91; Sanday and Headlam, ICC: Romans, 107.
[20] Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 79.
[21] Barrett, Romans, 91.
[22] Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. I, 236.
[23] However, the possible question here is whether ‘sign’ and ‘seal’ are synonymous or ‘seal’ adds a further thought not contained in ‘sign.’ It is sometimes stated that the Jews regarded circumcision as more than a sign, a seal (Lietzmann, Michel, Fitzer etc. proposed that the custom of referring to circumcision as a seal was already well established in Judaism by Paul's time, cf. Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. I, 236), which actually conveyed divine grace. However, Barrett assumed that the Jews did so speak; then dropped ‘seal’ as a description of circumcision when the Christians began to use it for baptism and finally revived their old custom when church and synagogue had separated. Cf. Barrett, Romans, 92.
[24] This is found during the time of Jeremiah and Deuteronomic circles, as well as in the Qumran literature. Cf. D. Kamalakar Jayakumar, “‘Circumcision’ in Jewish Religion,” Bangalore Theological Forum XXXIII/2 (December 2001), 34.
[25] Jayakumar, “‘Circumcision’ in Jewish Religion,” BTF, XXXIII/2, 34.
[26] Cranfield argued that katalambanô (katalamba,nein) in this verse can mean to overtake to correlate diôkô (diw,kw), to pursue. Cf. Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. II, 507. See also Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., translated by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958 (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1979), 413.
[27] Although de. is popularly translated as but or and, it is used to mean a transitional particle, pure and simple without any contrast intended, which means that is. Cf. Bauer, 171.
[28] Parallelism is the most prominent rhetorical figure in ancient Near Eastern poetry, and is also present, although less prominent, in biblical prose. It can be defined as the repetition of the same or related semantic content and/or grammatical structure in consecutive lines or verses. In antithetic parallelism “two lines correspond with one another by an opposition of terms and sentiments.” Adele Berlin, “Parallelism,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 156. Prov. 10:1 can be given as an instance:
A wise son makes glad his father;
But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
[29] Käsemann, Romans, 277.
[30] Contrastive conjunctions are often translated as but, rather, yet, though, or however. Major contrastive conjunctions include: avlla,( plh,n( kai, (if indicated by context), de, (if indicated by context). Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 671.
[31] Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 193. See Bauer, 171.
[32] Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 193.
[33] Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. II, 508.
[34] Käsemann, Romans, 277.
[35] Käsemann, Romans, 277.
[36] C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1932], 1937), 162.
[37] Zahn, Huby and Michel, quoted in Käsemann, Romans, 277.
[38] Käsemann, Romans, 278.
[39] Best, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 116.
[40] The first two missionaries under Arthington Aborigines Mission were J. H. Lorrain and F. W. Savidge. Vanlalchhuanawma, Christianity and Subaltern Culture: Revival Movement as a Cultural Response to Westernisation in Mizoram (Delhi: ISPCK, 2006), 98.
[41] Lalhruaitluanga, Zoram Varðian: Chanchinðha leh Thuziak Khawvar £an Dan (Aizawl: Fineprints, 2008), 229f.
[42] The Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Mission Society (Presbyterian Church) in the north, the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS-Baptist Church) in the South, The Lakher Pioneer Mission (now Evangelical Church of Maraland) in the southernmost.
[43] For detail discussion on the revival waves and the consequences as well as the emergence of several sectarian groups, see H. Joseph Lalfakmawia, ‘Justification by Faith,’ with Special Reference to Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31 from a Mizo Christian Setting, an MTh Thesis submitted to the Senate of Serampore College (NIIPGTS) in 2009; Vanlalchhuanawma, Christianity and Subaltern, Hminga, The Life and Witness.
[44] They decided to find out the reason why revival joy could come to an end, and also as to how an endless joy in the Spirit could be attained. They devoted themselves living an ascetic life. They pledged to keep away from their wives, taking no life for food and remain constantly in prayer and Bible reading until they should find the answer to their quest. After one year, they claimed to have found an answer in the experience of free justification by grace through faith (Rom. 3:14; Tit. 3:17 etc.), neither by singing nor dancing, nor by tithing nor merits, but only by faith. Lalsawma, Revivals: The Mizo Way (Aizawl: Lalsawma, 1994), 115.
[45] This teaching was popular and was much debated in about 1960s (65-67?). The two opposing ideas were that the believers or regenerated/born-again can be lost again, and the contrasting view that they cannot be lost. Both of them have scriptural supports that caused crucial problem within the church. During that time, Pastor Saiaithanga was too cautious that he refused to conclude sternly on either side. He said that we can live peacefully because we are secure in Christ by the grace of Omnipotent God. Hence, let us keep alert from the temptation of sin that can destroy (tiboral) us. Though he was too cautious to make any conclusion, yet it can be assessed that he had inclination towards the view that they can be lost because he said that sin can destroy the believers. Cf. Saiaithanga, Thurin Zirna (Aizawl: The Synod Publication Board, [1965], 1988), 47.
[46] Rohmingliana hailed from Hmunluah village, Chin Hills, Falam district, Myanmar, cf. The Methodist Church (Upper Myanmar), Tunlai Zirtirna Leng Vel leh Methodist Zirtir Dan (Tahan: Ministerial Session, the Methodist Church, 1997), 1. He came to Mizoram and propagated his theology and established a fellowship group called The Truth Mission Evangelical Fellowship. Rohmingliana reached Aizawl on March 1992. It is a flourishing fellowship, but has become disturbance amidst the existing mainline churches in Mizoram.
[47] Rohmingliana, Evangelical Miropuite Thu Inchuh, 244-245.
[48] P. C. Biaksiama is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church, Kanan Veng, Aizawl. He is an influential speaker in Mizoram today. Though he does not have theological educational background, he has written a good number of books out of which, majority of them are concerning theology. He has recently been conferred a degree of Doctor of Divinity.
[49] Biaksiama, Chhandamna, vol. I, 5-8.
[50] Presbyterian Church, Baptist Church, Evangelical Church of Maraland, United Pentecostal Church, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist etc. are the leading denominations in Mizoram.
[51] Biaksiama, Chhandamna, vol. I, 22.
[52] Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings: A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. V, edited by Philip Schaff (Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1991), 88f.; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1986], 1994), 52.
[53] Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 172.
[54] Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, 285.
[55] Günther Bornkamm, Paul (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1971], 1972), 138; Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. I, 97.
[56] Onesti and Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 833.
[57] Schrenk, “dikaiosu,nh,” TDNT, vol. II, 203. He suggested that Paul used this phrase dikaiosu,nh qeou/, instead of the simple dikaiosu,nh concerning the establishment of salvation. In his approach, the righteousness of God is God’s alone; human is taken up into it and set in it.
[58] K. Kertelge, “dikaiosu,nh,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1990], 1994), 328.
[59] Ersnt Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1969), 176.
[60] Human’s existence is prior to faith. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. I (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1952], 1959), 270.
[61] Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 181.
[62] Käsemann strongly opposed the view that Paul’s theology and his philosophy of history are orientated towards the individual (Bultmann’s stance). In his argument against Bultmann, he said that any interpretation which begins from the general concept and its specifically juridical application is bound to centre on the character of righteousness as gift and, in practice, on anthropology. But the formulation which Paul has taken over speaks primarily of God’s saving activity, which is present in his gift as a precipitate without being completely dissolved into it. Obviously, if righteousness through faith and righteousness through works are to be sharply contrasted, the whole emphasis will fall on the gift. Only, it should not be forgotten that the expression ‘the righteousness of God’ runs parallel to the other similar expressions, the ‘energy,’ the ‘love’, the ‘peace’, the ‘wrath’, of God and that these, equally, can be used in personified form and can connote divine power. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 172ff.
[63] McGrath, “Justification,” Dictionary of Paul, 520.
[64] Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 174.
[65] Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 174, 180.
[66] The Hebrew verb is used predominantly in a forensic sense. For the legal or forensic usages in detail, see J. J. Scullion, “Righteousness: Old Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 726.
[67] Johannes Haussleiter; Gerhard Kittel, D. W. B. Robinson, Herbert and Torrance, George Howard, Richard B. Hays, M. D. Hooker etc. are the most prominent scholars in favour of this view.
[68] W. H. P. Hatch, E. Wissmann, W. Mundle, F. F. Bruce, A. M. Hunter, Charles Hodge, Bultmann, Barrett, Käsemann, G. Barth, Hendriksen, John Murray, James Barr, James D. G. Dunn etc are the supporters of this interpretation.
[69] Herbert and Torrance were the two most influential proponents of this interpretation. Herbert asserted the Greek word pi,stij as an equivalent of the Hebrew hnwm) and assumed that Pauline terminology carried with it the Hebrew meaning, rather than the Greek, and pi,stij here means ‘faithfulness’ as opposed to ‘believing.’ Then he interpreted pi,stij Cristou/ to mean ‘the faithfulness of God manifested in Christ’s human faithfulness.’ He also said that the verb `aman in its various forms, and `emunah and the other derivative nouns have the fundamental meaning of ‘firmness, steadfastness, sureness; and this applies above all to God, so that `emunah, faithfulness, becomes a divine attribute. Similarly, the Psalmist implied the Hebrew word denoting steadfastness and firmness applies properly to God and not to human being, who is repeatedly characterized as physically frail and morally unstable. Herbert, “Faithfulness and faith,” 373-376, quoted in James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1983], 1987), 162. Such view is also held by Torrance. He argued that Jesus is ‘the incarnate faithfulness of God.’ Torrance, “One Aspect of the biblical conception of faith,” ExpT 68 (1957) 111-114, quoted in Hays, The Faith of Christ, 145.
[70] Cf. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 175.
[72] Cf. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 381f.
[73] Free, of course, but it is also due to the redemptive works of Jesus.
[74] Joseph Healey, “Faith: Old Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 747.
[75] Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. I (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1952], 1959), 314f.
[76] Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, 316.
[77] D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Saint Paul (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), 162.
[78] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 158f., 190.
[79] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Secundarabad: OM Books, 2003), 592.
[80] This can be seen from his bibliographical notes on his books such as Evangelical Miropuite Thu Inchuh (The Great Debate), Trinity leh Mihring, etc.
[81] Among his books, Chhandamna: Bo Leh Thei Nge Bo Thei Tawh Lo (Eternal Security or Eternal Insecurity), vol. I & II are the key books for this interpretation. This book (two volume books) and his preaching on the same topic immensely influence many people in Mizoram. His bibliographical notes indicate that he did not use advanced biblical studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment