I keep trying to finish my review comments on Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. This is the next-to-last installment, in which I will be singing its praises for the last time. Next time, I will be summarizing some of my hesitations about the project.
Campbell begins his chapter on Romans 4 with a discussion of how it fits together with Rom 3:27-31, in particular, the way that these verses at the end of ch. 3 entail a diatribe in which Paul’s position is set out against an opposing one. Significantly for interpretation of Rom 4, the end of Rom 3 outlines the argument Paul then takes up. (In general, this is nothing new–it has been recognized by numerous commentators, especially over the past 30 years.)
The substantive point that Campbell makes here that needs to be more widely recognized than it sometimes is comes to this: “Paul simply overrules the… gospel of works in 3:28″ (718). In other words, Paul doesn’t argue based on its failure that this “other gospel” doesn’t work; nor does he argue based on scriptural precedent; instead, he argues based on what he simply knows God to have done in Christ (which Paul explained in 3:21-26). In other words, Paul’s refutation of “works” is thoroughly Christological and a posteriori. Ed Sanders couldn’t have said it better himself.
Campbell counters some traditional readings of “reckoning righteous” with his own interpretation (though it’s not as devastating to most Reformed readers of Rom 4 as he intimates): “… in view of Abraham’s trust God promised to do something for him in the future; a divine check was written to the patriarch that in this case had clearly not been worked for or earned” (732).
When Abraham’s faith comes more fully into view, in Rom 4:13-16a, Campbell says the following:
…we receive here a hint that the state characterized by πίστις is far more complex and powerful than an emphasis simply on πίστις itself might suggest if it is read in terms of an individual’s decision! It somehow denotes a new reality–and presumably through involvement in the narrative of Christ. (735)
The pay-off of taking the subjective genitive reading becomes increasingly clear as the volume goes on.
But the heart of the argument is the latter half of Romans 4, which Campbell says has been “generally neglected by the interpretive tradition” (735; of course, dutiful readers will know that “generally” isn’t “entirely”).
In dealing with Abraham as father, Paul says in Rom 4:17 that he placed his trust in God who gives life to the dead and can call the things that are not so that they are, and he goes on to underscore that this “predication corresponds directly to the statements of v. 19 that Abraham’s loins and Sara’s womb were dead” (737). Or, if you prefer Kirk:
The particular predication of God that Paul employs to describe the object of Abraham’s faith corresponds exactly to the nature of the plight that God’s promise to Abraham was intended to solve:… Abraham was dead… Abraham believed these promises despite the condition of his body, which “had already died” (ἤδη νενεκρωμένον, v. 19) and despite the “deadness” (νέκρωσις, v. 19) of Sarah’s womb. (Unlocking Romans, 72)
Looking forward to the end of the chapter, Campbell argues that this resurrection faith, focused on Isaac’s birth, is the linchpin for Paul’s connection with Christian faith as articulated at the end of the chapter (Romans 4:24-25). They, too, will be justified when they believe in the God who gives life from the dead (738). Or, in case anyone out there really does prefer Kirk, “In v. 24 Paul indicates that the means by which the group declared righteous is determined is belief in God who has raised Jesus, just as Abraham believed in the God who would raise him from death by means of his seed [i.e., Isaac]” (Unlocking Romans, 75).
Campbell highlights two key narrative dynamics for making sense of Rom 4. They are Abraham’s πίστις and the resurrecting God. These are “the interpretive keys to Genesis 17″ as Paul reads it (743). “Paul substantiates [his] claims by casting Abraham’s faith in such a way that it, like Christian faith, is resurrection faith” (Unlocking Romans, 80).
Campbell wraps up the exegetical portion of his study of Rom 4 by giving apt attention to Rom 4:23-25, especially its focus on the place of resurrection in Paul’s argument.
These verses reach back to 3:21-16, as well as 1:16-17, and 1:2-4 (746; cf. Unlocking Romans, 81-83). Christ’s fidelity is met by life, Hab 2:4 declares–this is what Campbell refers to as the “matyrological narrative” of Paul’s gospel, and it is reiterated in 4:25.
Resurrection is especially important in extending salvation: it offers deliverance from a realm characterized by transgressions and death (747). Here, Campbell is clearly paving the way for joining Rom 4 with the remainder of the letter.
Throughout, I am once again happy to find that Campbell has continued to work out with exacting detail the importance of the Christological narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection for Paul’s argument–especially the emphasis on the latter. I hope that my cheeky juxtaposition of our books indicates that the positive arguments of the two reinforce each other to a considerable extent, and that the centrality of resurrection is not something to be lightly brushed aside. It is a crucial component to a gospel narrative that testifies to the revelation of the righteousness of God.
