The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78228
2024 Event Calendar
JANUARY 12 & 13
• México Pastors’ meeting in Irapuato
MARCH 6 – 10
• Mini Revival Meeting with Mike Veach
APRIL 12 – 13
• Women’s Meeting
JUNE 17 – 21
• Vacation Bible School
JULY 21 – 28
• Mission Conference
OCTOBER 19
• Men’s Meeting
DECEMBER 1
• Thanksgiving Sunday
• Dinner on the Grounds
The New Perspective
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Romans 4
This text, along with the whole chapter, references the concept of imputation, which is in simple terms, attribution by substitution. The text describes God as calling something true that isn’t. That sounds a lot like lying. Yet the context clarifies that Paul is not accusing God of lying, but rather exercising a legal maneuver to treat someone according to the merits of someone else. And it stands to reason, if God can quicken the dead, he can call someone righteous that isn’t righteous, not by dishonesty, or cheating, or ignoring the law, but by imputation. In other words, God counted Abram righteous, and anyone who believes God like Abram receives righteousness the same way, by his faith, not by works, not by faithfulness to the law, not by natural inheritance, not just for being a Jew. Abraham is the father of us all before God (or as far as God is concerned), and this God who gives life to the dead also makes something a reality that isn’t. Abraham was made legally righteous by a verdict of God, calling something that is not as though it were. The gospel simply stipulates that the same verdict applies to all who believe like Abraham.
Imputation is also the foundational principle of our condemnation, detailed in chapter 5. It also underlies substitutionary atonement, exemplified by countless examples of sacrificial victims from Eden to Gethsemane. The principle is not revolutionary, controversial or even unusual in law. Imputation is a standard legal precept in every law system in existence. Imputed income, imputed value and imputed knowledge are common components of law. And here Paul explains that this is how salvation works. God imputes his righteousness to sinners. Paul proves his case with examples from scripture, including Abraham before the law of Moses, and then David well into the Old Covenant. This is arguably the most important essay about salvation found in the Bible. Many scholars missed its importance over the centuries, but we can see that the precept increasingly informed Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus and especially Luther. The truths expressed in this chapter are vital and irreplaceable, foundational to Protestant theology, and they even form the staple of most Protestant hymns, at least the traditional hymns.
Which is why it intrigues me that not one single modern version of the Bible I have available to me faithfully translates this verse. I do not make this claim by posturing as an expert linguist, or Greek scholar here. I only know this because I understand Paul’s argument, and modern versions completely miss it.
NIV “calls into being things that were not.”
NASB “calls into being that which does not exist.”
ESV “calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
RSV “calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
CSB “calls things into existence that do not exist.”
NLT “creates new things out of nothing.”
NET “summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.”
Most new translations present the phrase as creation from nothing, supposedly a secondary example of God’s power beyond quickening the dead. If Paul had said that, it would have made sense, but to translate it this way all of them omit the significant word “hos,” which is “as though.” That’s a rookie mistake for a translator, except we know that modern translators intentionally take liberties with the source text in order to make the point they think Paul intended, or more likely the point they wished he had made, never mind the words. NET for its part correctly rendered “as though” but adds past and future aspects not mentioned by Paul, “not yet” and “already.” It, alone among these translations, seems to think it is talking about God’s predetermination, considering something currently factual that he has determined to do in the future, perhaps referring to Abraham having been already made father of many nations, though not yet fulfilled. But while predetermination fits into nearby context, it is also not the point of the chapter.
Yet every translation I have from before 1950 reads as the KJV. And Jerome reads as KJV. So between the years 400 and 1950 it was understood to refer to God claiming something to be so that is not so, and yet since 1950 this argument of Paul has vanished. Are all modern translators really that ignorant of the context of Romans 4?
Well, maybe not. It turns out that not everyone likes the doctrine of legal imputation. Modern Bibles even avoid the word in this chapter. They replace it with “credit.” Abraham was “credited with righteousness” for his faith. This is similar to the Roman Catholic “reputed,” which might mean something similar superficially, but both avoid the legal reality of imputation. Credit and reputation seem to exist only in the mind. Imputed righteousness is a legal reality. It is also a radical thought, and has been historically controversial, especially since the reformation. At the height of the Protestant controversy Roman scholars clapped back at Lutheran doctrines in what became known as the “counter-reformation.” They didn’t like the idea of imputation. Not surprisingly they still don’t.
But there’s more. When reading informational books I usually follow the footnotes to see the references, and in some book I was reading a while back (I can’t remember which) a footnoted title grabbed my attention, “What St. Paul Really Said,” by N. T. Wright. I ordered the book for curiosity’s sake, and read it only recently. It is the type of book that usually bores me, very scholarly, full of reviews of others’ scholarly opinions, and making what seems to me trivial and subjective claims about Paul’s thinking. But by the time I finished the book I realized this fellow does not believe in the doctrine of imputation. This surprised me so much coming from a Protestant scholar that I looked him up. It turns out he is the latest of a long line of Protestants that have devised a new way of interpreting Paul. According to Wright it began with Albert Schweitzer in 1930, followed by Davies (48), Bultmann (51), Kasemann (69), Sanders (77) and Dunn (89). Wright’s book rounds out the list (1997). This series of arguments is now called the “new perspective on Paul.”
The idea is that the reformers got it all wrong because they were ignorant of Paul’s meaning. The reformers from Luther to Calvin to Knox to Tyndale et. al. didn’t know who Paul was preaching to, or what they believed. The claim is now made that first century Jews did not believe in a merit-based righteousness, so that couldn’t be Paul’s meaning, and the reformers mistakenly inserted that idea into their reading of Paul. The fact that this is coming from Protestants is disturbing.
I’m not impressed with these scholarly opinions about Paul. For one thing, all of these scholars focus only on the “undisputed” writings of Paul (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians and Philippians). They ignore Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians and the pastorals, and of course, Hebrews. That by itself is a fatal flaw in understanding the Bible, rooted in subtle pride. Dismantling the canon is so depraving that trusting the words seems naïve, and nigh impossible for these folks.
So, did the Jews of the first century really not believe what Paul and even Jesus claimed they believed? This has long been a Jewish argument against the NT, but not that we misunderstand Paul, rather that Paul himself was smoking his socks. Jews, it seems, understand Paul, even if they disagree. But this new perspective claims Paul actually agreed with modern Jews, and that the historical Protestant position has been wrong, and Paul has been misinterpreted. There never was a controversy between first century Jews and Paul over works-righteousness. Luther was just ignorant, inserting medieval Catholicism into the text. Paul believed and taught the same grace-works salvation the Jews did. Their disagreement was over Jewish distinctives only, Circumcision, the Sabbath and Diet. Hmm. Grace plus works! Where have we heard that before? Maybe this new perspective isn’t new at all.
So, modern Jews claim that the NT misrepresents first century Jewish beliefs, and they have the Talmud to prove it. But the Talmud was written centuries after the NT, and Jewish writings from the actual period are scarce. Perhaps by sifting out some indications from the Apocrypha and some Dead Sea fragments we might find some Jews that sensed their dependence on grace, but that doesn’t prove they all did. Not all Jews were of the same persuasion.
But wait a minute, Jewish writings of the period are not scarce. They are abundant. Practically every author of the NT testifies firsthand about Jews they knew, and what they believed, all of them Jews themselves. Paul said Jews were “going about to establish their own righteousness” and by doing so were rejecting the righteousness of God (Rom 10:3). That is, they rejected imputed righteousness, but not because they were ignorant of, or disagreed with the principle of imputation, being the very logic behind their sacrifices, but because their argument was over personal merit.
Jesus had the same argument with the Jews when he said that the Pharisee prayed as if he were righteous enough, while the Publican prayed as a sinner needing grace (Luke 18:9-14). Jesus said this one went home justified and the other didn’t. Why not? Because he thought he was better than others. This contrast is not about circumcision or diet or inclusion in the covenant. It is about grace and merit exactly as Luther recognized.
Notwithstanding modern Jewish objections, there was indeed self-righteous pride in first century Judaism, their satisfaction with their heritage, their selective focus on specific commandments and unwritten tradition, their sense of personal superiority by self-discipline. We know this not by studying the Apocrypha or Dead Sea scrolls (which partially confirm the fact by the way), but by firsthand accounts of the debates in the NT. Paul’s doctrine, taken straight from OT scripture, and even the Sermon on the Mount, demolishes exactly that self-righteousness, rooted in pride. Paul said the Jews’ problem was that they wouldn’t submit to the righteousness of God. He even claimed the intent of the doctrine was to exclude boasting. The New Testament is the evidence, the Talmud is irrelevant, modern Jews are mistaken about their forebears, and the new perspective is wrong.
The doctrine of the imputation of God’s righteousness is God’s idea, and God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. These Protestant authors from Sanders to Wright are eagerly innovating away the doctrine that bloomed into the reformation and the great awakenings and the modern missionary movement. Maybe they are justifiably displeased with, or even embarrassed by simplistic, half-baked platitudes that mass produce converts of ignorant hicks and red-neck preachers. But they just can’t dispose of imputation by disqualifying half of Paul’s letters and re-contextualizing his words in the rest. Paul taught salvation by the imputation of righteousness, which means God called unrighteous sinners righteous by legally and permanently attributing his own righteousness to us as an act of grace. If that doctrine is disagreeable to you, you may need to get saved.