Good to hear from you again. Always glad to discuss.
I get what you're saying about "due." Hopefully I'll address it with my response; if not, just let me know and I'll try again.
The context is clearly salvation by works (you earned it so God owes it to you) vs. by grace (it's a gift and you didn't do anything to earn it or deserve it). If you worked for salvation, even in the least, God would be beholdin' to you and be
obligated to bring the situation into balance. But, Paul is saying, this is a grace situation, so works has nothing to do with it.
I think the progressions are most appropriately seen as:
You work → there is an obligation on the part of the employer → you get paid because you worked for it.
vs.
God gave you a gift (of salvation) → He was not obligated to do that but did it out of love as a gift → you get righteousness credited to you through no action of your own.
Or possibly your point is: When I show faith, then God has an obligation to respond by crediting me with righteousness, so in a sense I've created a "debt" situation with my response of faith, and therefore God is beholdin' to me and He owes me.
If that's what you're saying, Paul isn't creating that kind of analogy. All he's contending is that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. The difference would be that even your faith is a gift from God, so God has no obligation to you no matter what. It's a pure gift → gift → gift situation with us as the beneficiaries.
Bob Walton writes, "By quoting Gn. 15.6, Paul shows that Abraham’s standing before God was not a just payment for his righteous works, but instead righteousness imputed because of his faith. God credited Abraham with being righteous not because he was righteous, but rather because he trusted God. The passage Paul quotes is particularly telling. In Gn. 15.7-21, God tells Abraham to take 5 animals, cut them in half, and lay the pieces in 2 rows. God then puts Abraham into a deep sleep and passes between the pieces of the sacrifice alone. The significant of this is that in the typical covenant-making ceremony the participants of the covenant would pass together through the pieces, confirming the oath for which they were both responsible. But God passed between the pieces alone, indicating that He, and not Abraham at all, bore the responsibility for fulfilling the covenant. Abraham need do nothing—in fact, could do nothing—but trust God."
Let me know if I'm not understanding you, and we can have another round of discussion.
> the Abrahamic example of faith reads to me like how Dr. Dawkins and other New-age atheists portray faith to be: an intellectual assent to something contrary to the available evidences.
Again, I get what you mean, but you're missing some pieces. (I'm a strong evidentialist.) By the time Abe got to the child situation, he had plenty of evidences of God's competence at fulfilling his promises. He had arrived at the land, he hadn't starved to death or been killed (Gn. 12); Lot left the land to him alone (Gn. 13), he had been successful at war and blessed by Melchizedek (Gn. 14), he had a vision of the covenant (Gn. 15), he had talked with God (Gn. 18), and seen God's direct hand of action (Gn. 19), so he's not flying blind or believing against evidence. Every experience Abe has (and the Genesis account is of one test and learning experience after another) is another rock on the pile of evidences of God's ability to fulfill His promises.
Granted, decrepit he and ancient Sarah having a baby is quite a stretch further than anything he's experienced yet, but what's different about that from Jesus telling the disciples "You feed the 5000," or "you go heal the sick and raise the dead," or Peter asking, "Lord, invite me to walk on the water with you!" The fact is, they had seen enough of Jesus to accept the stretch. In like manner, Abe had had enough experiences with God that God could legitimately say, "Now let's try this one," and Abe should go for it on the basis of what he already knows, not blindly. Remember, he doesn't even have to
do anything (like walk on water, multiply bread, or confront Pharaoh and lead the children of Israel out of Egypt); all he has to do is have sex with his wifey-poo. The issue of trust would come in not repeating two previous mistakes (thinking Eliezer would be his heir or knocking up his concubine)—or taking any other action to take matters into his own hands.
> However, the word "as" does not seem to make them synonymous, but only simultaneous.
"As" is an English insert. The Greek reads ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα. Let's break that down.
ἀλλὰ: The strongest adversative particle. It opposes and disannuls or discounts what has gone before, in this case the idea of "gift."
κατὰ: This is what has been translated "as," but the idea is "according to; after the pattern of; in conformity with; in accord with."
Kata often serves to introduce the norm that governs behavior or the example with which something should conform, or the reason for something
We could translate it a different way than "as," with the idea that wages are an obligation (a debt owed), not a present.
ὀφείλημα: Debt; obligation; something owed."
So if that breakdown doesn't help, again, let's talk more.
> any help with understanding the use of the word "faith" in this verse is greatly appreciated.
We can stab at what Paul means by it here, since Paul uses faith in different ways at different times. N.T. Wright says, "Their faith—faith in this future family-creating act of grace—is the faith because of which the covenant is established with Abraham." Matthew Bates says it's allegiance grounded in (1) mental affirmation of the truth of what has passed, (2) an expectation that what has been promised for the future will thereby come to pass, and (3) a loyalty to the agreement, recognizing YHWH as his suzerain and his own commitment to continued conformity to the covenant.
Sarah Ruden writes, "For the Greeks it was a powerful word,
pistis (faith), and for the Romans,
fides, with the same Indo-European root and the same basic meanings, was one of the 5 or 10 most powerful in their language.
Pistis/fides always had to do with trustworthiness or trust, but its applications among polytheists were almost opposite to those in the New Testament. Polytheistic
pistis/fides was good backup: a guarantee or other binding commitment, often based on scary oaths;[1] the past experience of a businessman’s good faith or good credit; a long-term reliability of friends, family, associates, or fellow-citizens; or a proof or very persuasive argument.
Pistis/fides could also be the feeling of trust evoked by any of these things. Moralistic Roman writers of all kinds were infatuated with it:
prisca fides, or “old-fashioned reliability,” summoned up the fantasy of a time when everyone kept his word or was tied to four horses who were then whipped to run in divergent directions.
"Trust or Trustworthiness, like everything else important, was a deity; but then, so was Terror. Before Christianity, neither the Greeks nor the Romans seem ever to have used the concept in what we would call a spiritual sense—that would have broken it and re-formed it forever for them, which is in fact what Christianity did.
Pistis/fides for the polytheistic ancients came from watching their backs.
Our 'faith' comes from the agape version of love, from putting away intent self-protection and relying on God’s providence."
As far me, I define faith as knowledge, pure and simple. It’s different, though. Knowledge is because you’ve seen, and faith is that you know even though you haven’t seen. I define faith as “an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.”
[1] The swearer might invoke, for his own destruction in case he lied, the combined power of the earth, heaven, and the underworld
Good to hear from you again. Always glad to discuss.
I get what you're saying about "due." Hopefully I'll address it with my response; if not, just let me know and I'll try again.
The context is clearly salvation by works (you earned it so God owes it to you) vs. by grace (it's a gift and you didn't do anything to earn it or deserve it). If you worked for salvation, even in the least, God would be beholdin' to you and be [i]obligated[/i] to bring the situation into balance. But, Paul is saying, this is a grace situation, so works has nothing to do with it.
I think the progressions are most appropriately seen as:
You work → there is an obligation on the part of the employer → you get paid because you worked for it.
vs.
God gave you a gift (of salvation) → He was not obligated to do that but did it out of love as a gift → you get righteousness credited to you through no action of your own.
Or possibly your point is: When I show faith, then God has an obligation to respond by crediting me with righteousness, so in a sense I've created a "debt" situation with my response of faith, and therefore God is beholdin' to me and He owes me. :?: If that's what you're saying, Paul isn't creating that kind of analogy. All he's contending is that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. The difference would be that even your faith is a gift from God, so God has no obligation to you no matter what. It's a pure gift → gift → gift situation with us as the beneficiaries.
Bob Walton writes, "By quoting Gn. 15.6, Paul shows that Abraham’s standing before God was not a just payment for his righteous works, but instead righteousness imputed because of his faith. God credited Abraham with being righteous not because he was righteous, but rather because he trusted God. The passage Paul quotes is particularly telling. In Gn. 15.7-21, God tells Abraham to take 5 animals, cut them in half, and lay the pieces in 2 rows. God then puts Abraham into a deep sleep and passes between the pieces of the sacrifice alone. The significant of this is that in the typical covenant-making ceremony the participants of the covenant would pass together through the pieces, confirming the oath for which they were both responsible. But God passed between the pieces alone, indicating that He, and not Abraham at all, bore the responsibility for fulfilling the covenant. Abraham need do nothing—in fact, could do nothing—but trust God."
Let me know if I'm not understanding you, and we can have another round of discussion.
> the Abrahamic example of faith reads to me like how Dr. Dawkins and other New-age atheists portray faith to be: an intellectual assent to something contrary to the available evidences.
Again, I get what you mean, but you're missing some pieces. (I'm a strong evidentialist.) By the time Abe got to the child situation, he had plenty of evidences of God's competence at fulfilling his promises. He had arrived at the land, he hadn't starved to death or been killed (Gn. 12); Lot left the land to him alone (Gn. 13), he had been successful at war and blessed by Melchizedek (Gn. 14), he had a vision of the covenant (Gn. 15), he had talked with God (Gn. 18), and seen God's direct hand of action (Gn. 19), so he's not flying blind or believing against evidence. Every experience Abe has (and the Genesis account is of one test and learning experience after another) is another rock on the pile of evidences of God's ability to fulfill His promises.
Granted, decrepit he and ancient Sarah having a baby is quite a stretch further than anything he's experienced yet, but what's different about that from Jesus telling the disciples "You feed the 5000," or "you go heal the sick and raise the dead," or Peter asking, "Lord, invite me to walk on the water with you!" The fact is, they had seen enough of Jesus to accept the stretch. In like manner, Abe had had enough experiences with God that God could legitimately say, "Now let's try this one," and Abe should go for it on the basis of what he already knows, not blindly. Remember, he doesn't even have to [i]do[/i] anything (like walk on water, multiply bread, or confront Pharaoh and lead the children of Israel out of Egypt); all he has to do is have sex with his wifey-poo. The issue of trust would come in not repeating two previous mistakes (thinking Eliezer would be his heir or knocking up his concubine)—or taking any other action to take matters into his own hands.
> However, the word "as" does not seem to make them synonymous, but only simultaneous.
"As" is an English insert. The Greek reads ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα. Let's break that down.
ἀλλὰ: The strongest adversative particle. It opposes and disannuls or discounts what has gone before, in this case the idea of "gift."
κατὰ: This is what has been translated "as," but the idea is "according to; after the pattern of; in conformity with; in accord with."
[quote][i]Kata[/i] often serves to introduce the norm that governs behavior or the example with which something should conform, or the reason for something [/quote]
We could translate it a different way than "as," with the idea that wages are an obligation (a debt owed), not a present.
ὀφείλημα: Debt; obligation; something owed."
So if that breakdown doesn't help, again, let's talk more.
> any help with understanding the use of the word "faith" in this verse is greatly appreciated.
We can stab at what Paul means by it here, since Paul uses faith in different ways at different times. N.T. Wright says, "Their faith—faith in this future family-creating act of grace—is the faith because of which the covenant is established with Abraham." Matthew Bates says it's allegiance grounded in (1) mental affirmation of the truth of what has passed, (2) an expectation that what has been promised for the future will thereby come to pass, and (3) a loyalty to the agreement, recognizing YHWH as his suzerain and his own commitment to continued conformity to the covenant.
Sarah Ruden writes, "For the Greeks it was a powerful word, [i]pistis[/i] (faith), and for the Romans, [i]fides[/i], with the same Indo-European root and the same basic meanings, was one of the 5 or 10 most powerful in their language. [i]Pistis/fides[/i] always had to do with trustworthiness or trust, but its applications among polytheists were almost opposite to those in the New Testament. Polytheistic [i]pistis/fides[/i] was good backup: a guarantee or other binding commitment, often based on scary oaths;[1] the past experience of a businessman’s good faith or good credit; a long-term reliability of friends, family, associates, or fellow-citizens; or a proof or very persuasive argument. [i]Pistis/fides[/i] could also be the feeling of trust evoked by any of these things. Moralistic Roman writers of all kinds were infatuated with it: [i]prisca fides[/i], or “old-fashioned reliability,” summoned up the fantasy of a time when everyone kept his word or was tied to four horses who were then whipped to run in divergent directions.
"Trust or Trustworthiness, like everything else important, was a deity; but then, so was Terror. Before Christianity, neither the Greeks nor the Romans seem ever to have used the concept in what we would call a spiritual sense—that would have broken it and re-formed it forever for them, which is in fact what Christianity did. [i]Pistis/fides[/i] for the polytheistic ancients came from watching their backs. [b]Our 'faith' comes from the [i]agape[/i] version of love, from putting away intent self-protection and relying on God’s providence[/b]."
As far me, I define faith as knowledge, pure and simple. It’s different, though. Knowledge is because you’ve seen, and faith is that you know even though you haven’t seen. I define faith as “an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.”
[1] The swearer might invoke, for his own destruction in case he lied, the combined power of the earth, heaven, and the underworld