Pauline Soteriology

Paul’s pessimism about the possibility of gaining righteousness or being declared righteous by the works of the Law leads him to seeking a solution to the problem of human sin and its eternal consequences that is completely independent of all human effort.(1) In this way, Paul abandons his previously-held synergistic soteriology, which leads to the elimination of the possibility of what he calls “boasting” or justifiably claiming that one has done something that has merited eschatological salvation, even in part.(2) He gives expression to his non-synergistic soteriology in several complementary ways.

3.1. God's Love, Grace and Kindness

The basis and origin of Paul's non-synergistic soteriology is found in the nature of God. Although he refers to God as righteous judge in his letters (see Rom 1), what predominates in Paul's conception of God's relation to human beings is what he calls God's love (agapê), grace (charis), and kindness (chrêstotês). The distinction between these relational attibutes is imprecise, so that they should be understood as overlapping one another in content. Frequently, Paul refers to the "love of God" (Rom 5.5, 8; 8:39; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 2:4; 2 Thess 3.5; Titus 3.4) and how God loves human beings (1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2.16). In 2 Cor 13:11 he calls God "the God of love." Also sometimes he refers to Christ's love (2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2). God's love is defined as God's unconditional good intention towards human beings. Likewise, Paul refers to the grace of God in his letters (Rom 5:2, 15, 17, 20; 2 Cor 1.12; 6:1; 8:1; 9:8, 14; Gal 1:15; 2:21; Eph 1:6; 2:7; 3:2, 7; Col 1:6; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 1:12; 2.16; Titus 2:11; 3:4, 17; Phlm 25). Often the idea of grace occurs in connection with his various soteriological statements. When describing how a person is declared righteous, the means by which reward is reckoned, how a person is saved or receives salvation, Paul uses the phrases "by grace" ([tê] chariti), according to grace (kata charin) or "in grace" (en chariti), by which he means implicitly God's grace. He also refers to the grace of Christ (Rom 16:20, 24; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 1:6; Gal 6:18; Eph 1:7; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; Phlm 25). In these contexts, Paul means by the term grace God's unmerited favor and mercy towards human beings. Finally, a few times Paul makes reference to the kindness of God (Rom 2.4; 11:22; Eph 2:7; Titus 3:4). The meaning of the term overlaps with love and grace.

3.2. Being Declared Righteous by Faith

An important way that Paul expresses his non-synergistic solution to the problem of sin and its consequences is by means of the expression “to be declared righteous (dikaiousthai) by faith," as opposed to by works. (The passive use has the status of a quasi terminus technicus in the Pauline corpus. Paul uses the verb in the passive with this meaning in Rom 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 2:16, 17; 3:11, 24; 5:4. The use of the active "to make righteous" (dikaiein) invariably has God as the subject.) The implicit subject of the passive form of the verb is God. Occasionally, Paul uses the active form of the verb (dikaioun) with the same meaning. By being declared righteous, Paul means God’s forensic pronouncement of being without guilt, which is the condition of bestowing on a person all promised eschatological reward.(3) Paul holds that God can declare a person as without guilt even if he actually has guilt, which all human beings have. This is because God does not declare a person righteous because he has obeyed the Law perfectly but because of his faith in Christ. This is the same as being declared righteous by God's grace (Titus 3:7). Moreover, God’s declaration that the person who has faith in Christ is righteous occurs in the present, before the time of eschatological judgment. (Paul, however, does speak of a being declared righteous in the eschatological future [Rom 3:30].)

3.2.1. Gal 2:16

In Gal 2:16a, after relating the account of how he rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy, Paul explains to his readers that even Jewish Christians, whom he calls “Jews by nature and not from gentile sinners” (2:15), know that “A man is not declared righteous from the works of the Law but only through faith [in] Jesus Christ.”

J. Dunn offers a unique but unconvincing interpretation of the problem in the Galatian churches and Paul’s response to it (The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993]). His tortuous exegesis is a sure sign that he has misinterpreted Paul. Dunn argues that the issue for Paul’s Jewish opponents in Antioch was the compromising of the distinctive status of Jews as God’s covenant people by eating with gentiles. Their goal was to maintain their separation from gentiles in order to maintain their unique status as Jews. Dunn’s reconstruction, however, goes beyond the evidence, because no motive is ever provided in Paul’s account in Galatians. In fact, it is more credible that the issue was the violation of the Law by means of eating with gentiles. Paul’s opponents believed that Jews should continue to obey the dietary laws; . For this reason, the concern to maintain their distinctiveness as Jews by means of obedience to the Law does not seem to have been their primary motivation.
According to Dunn, the attitude that Paul opposed is summarized in the phrase “works of the Law” (Gal 2:16). Contrary to traditional exegesis, he claims that Paul could not have meant by this the view that one can “achieve God’s acceptance by obeying the Law” (76). Dunn claims that “the Law was not given as a means to gain righteousness, but as a means of living righteously” (76). There are two senses in which this is true. First, the Law specifies how Jews should live within the covenant. Second, the Law provides through its sacrificial system the means of the atonement of sins (see also 84). He claims that those who hold that perfect obedience to the Law was required of Jews ignore the fact of the possibility of repentance. (In fact, Dunn says that Paul’s statement that “It was added for the sake of transgressions” [Gal 3:19] means that the Law was given to Israel in order to provide for the possibility of atonment through the cult [89].) While there is no doubt that the Law specified for Israel its covenant obligations, Dunn’s assumption that the Law provides the possibility of stonement for any and all violations of it needs clarification and examination. First, Dunn must say whether the Torah itself states this or whether this is what Jews of the second-Temple period believed. If the former, then he is wrong, because the Law does not allow for the possibility of the atonement of sins of the high hand. If the latter, then he is correct, but should also take note that Paul no longer believes that such a mitigation of the demands of the Law is justified. So based on these considerations, according to Dunn, Paul means by the phrase “works of the Law” “human activities required by the law of those within the covenant” (77). This includes those works that function to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness as the covenant people and keep them separate from gentiles. Dunn assumes that the “false brothers” in Jerusalem (Gal 2:4), the Jewish Christians who came to Antioch, whom Paul identifies as “certain men from James” [Gal 2:12] and the false teachers in the Galatian churches, whom Paul calls agitators, all were motivated by a desire to maintain the distinction between Jews and gentiles by insisting on full obedience to the Law, especially those commandments that served as social boundary markers (He quotes from Philo to the effect that Jews do not mix with other peoples [Mos. 1.278].) He writes, “Not a concern to earn salvation by good works. But a concern to maintain Israel’s covenant obligations and distinctiveness” (79). (Dunn also unconvincingly sugggests that in his dealings with the conflict over eating with gentiles, Paul alludes to the tradition of Jesus’ eating with sinners in support of his position [75, 117].) Paul thereby becomes the champion of inclusivism. (V. Smiles agrees with Dunn on this point: that Paul’s concern is with the “separatist mentality” of his opponents in Galatia, although he does not agree with Dunn’s interpretation of the phrase “works of the Law” [The Gospel and the Law in Galatia (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998) 103-15; 119-28]. His goal seems to be to combine the insights from Dunn’s interpretive approach with the traditional view). This is what he means by his insistence that no one is made righteous by the works of the Law: No one will be acceptable to God by defining themselves in an exclusivistic way by means of boundary markers of the commandments that function to separate Jews from gentiles. Rather, in Paul’s interpretation, God’s intention to extend the blessings given to Abraham to gentiles was present in the promise that all nations would be blessed because of Abraham. In his view, Jewish insistence on the “works of the Law” impedes the realization of that promise. It seems more likely, however, that what motivated these Jewish believers was the belief that obedience to the Law was a condition of being saved from God’s eschatological wrath (see Acts 15:1, 5). Their concern (misinformed, according to Paul) was actually for the salvation of Paul’s gentile converts (see Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia, 5). What Paul opposes is the view that the Law can ever function in practice as a condition—even partially—of being declared righteous.

Dunn’s interpretation of the situation in the Galatian churches requires him to give an unnatural interpretation of the curse of the Law (Gal 3:10-14). Because he does not believe that Judaism was a legalistic religion, he rejects the traditional view that the curse of the Law is the result of not obeying the Law. Rather, according to Dunn, Paul means that those who are “of the works of the Law” are cursed because they have not understood that it is God’s purpose to include gentiles within the covenant by faith and therefore without the necessity of becoing proselytes to Judaism. By de facto rejecting the validity of the promise that all nations will be blessed (by faith) because of Abraham, Paul’s opponents have rejected the Law itself: “Whatever else they have done, they have failed to ‘remain within’ this fundamental part of ‘all that has been written in the [first] book of the law [Genesis]” (84; see 86). This brings them under the curse of the Law. In other words, Paul’s opponents interpret the “works of the Law” in terms of a Jew’s obligation to maintain his separation from gentiles. This means that they failed to appreciate that within God’s covenant with Abraham, on which the Law (which they claim to obey) is based, is the promise that all nations will be blessed because of Abraham. (Dunn does not indicate whether to be under the curse of the Law will lead to any undesirable consequences.) If this is Paul’s position, however, then one can understand why his opponents were unconvinced. They could have easily refuted Paul’s interpretation of Abraham by saying that gentiles are indeed free to enter the covenant so long as they have Abraham’s faith and his obedience to the Law. If faith is a condition of receiving the blessing promised to Abraham then why not also obedience to the Law, so that they may have both the faith and obedience of Abraham, their spiritual forefather? Dunn interprets Paul’s quotation of Lev 18:5 to mean that the function of the Law is to indicate “how life should be lived by the covenant people” (85); to this passage Paul is said to place Hab 2:4 in antithesis: “The basis of acceptance by God (righteousness) is faith on the human side” (85). If this is Paul’s view then his insistence that gentiles are not obliged to assume the obligation to keep the Law makes no sense at all. Rather, the opposite should be the case: He should have argued that those who by faith are accepted by God (declared righteous) and thereby become beneficiaries of the covenant made with Abraham should next assume the obligation to maintain their status in the covenant by obeying the Law.

Dunn claims that, according to Paul, for Christ to bear the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13) is in order the Abrahamic blessing might come upon the gentiles (Gal 3:14). Dunn concludes, “This suggests in turn that Paul understood the significance of the cross and its curse primarily in terms of its significance for the Gentile question” (86). Given the larger context of Galatians, it is more probable that Paul meant that being declared righteous apart from obedience to the Law (“the works of the Law”) is precisely how the gentiles will be blessed because of Abraham.

(When he refers to Jews as not sinners by nature, he is speaking in a relative sense, because even Jews cannot be declared righteous by the works of the Law, as he goes on to explain.)(4) By “man” (anthrôpos) Paul means a human being generally, not just the Jew (see parallels in Gal 1:1, 10, 11, 12; 2:6, 16; 3:15; 5:3; 6:1, 7).(5) What Paul denies is that being declared righteous is possible “from the works of the Law” (ex ergôn nomou), by which he means on the basis of doing what the Law stipulates.(6) As in Rom 3:20, the phrase “works of the Law” is probably an objective genitive, meaning works that fulfill the Law.

E. P. Sanders holds Paul’s objection to “works of the Law” is that they function as “a means of entry” and so exclude gentiles (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 46-47). The issue is that of exclusionism: Paul’s real attack is on “the notion of Jewish privilege and the idea of election” (47). According to Dunn, “‘Works of law’, ‘works of the law’ are nowhere understood here, either by his Jewish interlocutors or by Paul himself, as works which earn God’s favor, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what marks out Jews as God’s people” (“The New Perspective on Paul,” Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians [Louisville, KY: Westminster/Knox, 1990] 194). Paul’s objection to “works of the Law” is that they exclude gentiles from the covenant. Such an interpretation is a distortion of Pauline soteriology. (Dunn’s view was anticipated in part by J. Tyson, “‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians,” JBL 92 [1973] 423-31). Dunn’s position has little to commend it. (For a critique of Dunn, see H. Räisänen, “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 [1985] 543-53; V. Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia, 119-28; T. Eskola, T. Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology (WUNT 2d s. 100; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 209-20.) The same can be said for F. Watson’s interpretation of the meaning of “works of the Law” (Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles [SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986] 63-69). He, like Dunn, argues that Paul’s true intention was to justify theoretically the separation of Gentile believers from the Jewish community. He writes, “The antithesis between faith and works does not express a general theoretical opposition between two incompatible views of the divine-human relationship. It merely expresses Paul’s conviction that the church should be separate from the Jewish community” (64). Watson in fact claims that Paul has the same views on grace and works as the Jewish community that he opposes, namely, that obedience is a response to divine grace. His rejection of the “works of the Law” is really his rejection of the Jewish community as the covenant people. What Watson neglects to mention is that for Paul obedience necessarily follows faith in Christ, and that necessary obedience is another manifestation of the same grace that brings righteousness apart from the Law (see W. S. Campbell, “Did Paul Advocate Separation from the Synagogue? A Reaction to Francis Watson: Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles,” SJTh 42 [1989] 457-67. J. Barclay also adopts this interpretation of “works of the Law” (Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988] 75-105; 235-42). He avoids completely the issues of the relation between works of the Law and being declared righteous in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and interprets the dispute between Paul and his opponents in the Galatian churches in sociological terms. According to Barclay, Paul never opposed the view that doing the “works of the Law” was a condition of earning righteousness before God. His struggle was with those Jews who wanted gentile converts to become proselytes by adopting a Jewish identity and behavioral norms. Thus the “works of the Law” that he opposes are the demands of the Jewish Law, not requirements for legalistic works-righteousness in general. Suffice it to say that to interpret “works of the Law” is this way obscures an important element of Pauline soteriology. G. W. Hansen agrees that “works of the Law” in Gal 2:16 refers to circumcision and the Jewish laws of purity (Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988] 101-107). He concludes, “What he is denying is that God’s recognition of covenant status for Gentiles depends in any way on observing these distinctly Jewish practices” (102). He claims that Paul does not take exception to “works” in general but to circumcision and other types of works that are are distinctive of defining a Jewish identity. This was his purpose in citing Gen 15:6 in Gal 3:6 (112-16). This view is unconvincing. D. Garlington also supports Dunn’s interpretation of Paul’s position (The Obedience of Faith: A Pauine Phrase in Historical Context (WUNT 2. s. 38; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991; Faith, Obedience and Perseverance [WUNT 79; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994]. See also Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 161-62 and D. J. Lull, The Spirit in Galatia. Paul’s Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power [SBLDS 49; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980] chap. II.

Paul is referring to the impossibility of being declared righteous by obedience to the Law. (He means not merely the so-called ceremonial law by his reference to “works of the Law,” but to the Law in its entirety.)(7) Jewish Christians would know this, because of their experience under the Law.(8) This impossibility results in a leveling of the ground between Jew and gentile since, even though they have the Law (unlike gentiles who are sinners), Jews are nevertheless unable to be declared righteous by obedience to the Law.(9)

Implicitly, Paul is assuming that the reason that it is impossible to be “declared righteous from the works of the Law” is because no one can keep the Law perfectly, as the Law requires. His view of human nature is such that sin is inevitable, so that in spite of knowing the Law a Jew will not be able to obey the Law perfectly. All that remains is to renounce the very possibility of being declared righteous (and so being qualified for eschatological salvation) by doing the works of the Law. Paul’s Jewish Christian opponents who had infiltrated the Galatian churches apparently did not agree with the principle that he sets out in Gal 2:16a “A man is not declared righteous from the works of the Law but only through faith [in] Jesus Christ.”(10) They probably believed that both faith and some works of the Law were the basis of being declared righteous.(11)

According to Paul, a person can be declared righteous only “through faith of Jesus Christ,” by which he means faith in Jesus Christ (objective genitive) (see the parallel construction in 2:16c “we who believed in [eis] Christ Jesus”).(12) (The conjunction ean mê, is exceptive, meaning that being declared righteous is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ.)(13) The abbreviation “faith in Jesus Christ” means the acceptance of an extrinsic righteousness that is imputed to a person on the basis of the vicarious and substitutionary death of Christ (see Gal 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26; Phil 3:9; see also Gal 2:20).(14) Paul reiterates his point in Gal 2:16b: “We believed in Christ in order that we might be declared righteous from faith [in] Christ and not from the works of the Law.”(15) The purpose of faith in Christ is that the one who believes might be declared righteous even though perfect obedience to the Law is lacking (see parallels in Rom 3:20, 28; 4:5; 11:6; Phil 3:7-10; Eph 2:8 and the use of the verb with the preposition "into" (eis) in Rom 10:10, 14; Phil 1:29; see Rom 6:8; 1 Thess 4:14).

Paul then states categorically in Gal 2:16c: “From [the] works of the Law will no flesh be declared righteous.” This passage probably represents a citation of Ps 143:2 [LXX 142:2] with a Pauline interpretation (see Rom 3:20a).(16) Ps 143:2 declares, “For not any living creature will be made righteous before you” (LXX hoti ou dikaiôthêsetai enôpion sou pas zôn). As in Rom 3:20a, Paul understands the future tense “will be declared righteous” eschatologically, as referring to final judgment and he substitutes “flesh” (sarx) for living creature (zôn) as an implicit explanation for why human beings will not be declared righteous by the works of the Law: All human beings are “fleshly.” His insertion of the phrase “works of the Law” into the Psalm-quotation does not falsify his Old Testament source, but universalizes it so that it now explicitly includes Jews, those under the Law.(17) (Unlike his citation of Ps 143:2 in Rom 3:20a, however, Paul also omits the phrase “before you” probably because it is unnecessary.) Thus Paul finds his own theological position in scripture, even though he must modify the text slightly. (In 1 Enoch 81:5, there is a parallel to Paul’s statement in Gal 2:16c. Enoch is commanded to tell his son Methuselah that "No flesh is righteous in the sight of the Lord.") Again, implicit in his thought is the assumption that no one can be declared righteous by the works of the Law because one must keep the Law perfectly in order to be declared righteous, a point that Paul’s Judaizing opponents would not concede. This rules out for Paul the possibility of adopting a synergistic soteriology.

3.2.2. Rom 3:24-29

In Rom 3:24-29 Paul provides a detailed account of what it means to be declared righteous by faith. In Rom 3:24a he refers to those who have been declared righteous: “Being declared righteous freely by his grace” (see Rom 2:13; 3:4, 20). The antecedent of the participle dikaioumenoi (“being declared righteous”) is “those who believe” (tous pisteuontas) (3:22). (This means that Rom 3:22b-23 functions as a parenthesis).(18)

There is a certain amount of redundancy in including the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ” (dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou) and “for all who believe” (eis pantas tous pisteuontas). Because of this, some commentators have interpreted the phrase pisteôs Iêsou Christou as a subjective genitive (rather than an objective genitive), so that it refers to Jesus Christ’s own faithfulness. The point is that Jesus’ faithfulness or obedience serves as the cause of the righteousness of God (see the use of pistis in 3:3 and Christ’s obedience in 5:19). It is probable, however, that Paul includes the second phrase “for all who believe” to stress the universality and inclusiveness of the possibility of faith in Jesus Christ. In Rom 3:21-4:25 Paul consistently uses pistis to denote faith in Christ or God.

The adverb “freely” (dôrean) qualifies the participle “being declared righteous,” and is parallel in meaning to the phrase “without works” (3:21). The other adverbial phrase “by his grace” likewise modifies the participle “being declared righteous,” and stands in apposition to the adverb “freely”: It is by God’s grace or unmerited favor and mercy that a person who is not actually righteous in the sense of being perfectly obedient to the Law can still be declared righteous. In other words, it is in the absence of all human merit that this way of being declared righteous comes about.

R. Bultmann argues that Rom 3:24-25 represents a pre-Pauline formula that Paul interpolates into his letter and modifies slightly (Theology of the New Testament, 1.46). The fact that only in Rom 3:24 does the idea of i`lasth,rion occur as interpreting Christ’s death suggest that the idea is non-Pauline. In addition, except when he quotes traditional formulae (Rom 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 27), Paul does not refer to Christ’s blood but his cross and only in Rom 3:25 is found the idea that God’s righteousness requires the atonement of sins previously commited. Paul’s additions to the traditional formula consist of the phrases dôrean tê autou chariti and dia pisteôs, uniquely Pauline theological ideas. Käsemann expands on Bultmann’s hypothesis (Zum Verständnis von Römer 3.24-26,” Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen [2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 1964] 1.96-100). He notes the fact that there is nothing in 3:24 that corresponds to the pantes in 3:23. In addition, he judges that the words paresin, progeonotôn hamarthmatôn, proetheto (used in the sense of “to set forth publicly” and apolurôseôs used in the sense of an redemption that is already accomplished are not typical of Paul. The grammatically overly burdened style with its gentive constructs and relative clauses also suggests a traditional origin. Moreover, according to Käsemann, the meaning of dikaiosunê in the clause eis endeixin...tou theou in 3:25 differs from its use in the parallel phrase pros tên endeixin...tô nun kairô in 3:26, which implies that 3:26 cannot be attributed to the author of 3:25 (In 3:25, dikaiosu,nh denotes an attribute of God, whereas in 3:26 it refers to God’s eschatological saving act.) In fact, Paul added the parallel phrase in 3:26 as a corrective of eis endeixin...tou theou in 3:25. A. Pluta also accepts that 3:25 is an interpolation from the pre-Pauline, Jewish-Christian tradition, but argues that the phrase dia. pi,stewj was part of the tradition and is not a Pauline addition (Gottes Bundestreue [SBS 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969] 42-59). The phrase does not have the usual Pauline meaning of “belief” (Glaube) but means “faithfulness” (Treue). The origin of Rom 3:24-25 is probably unrecoverable without further evidence; arguments for the non-Pauline origin of Rom 3:24-25 tend to be circular. Suffice it to say that one should not interpret these verses in way that would contradict Paul’s other theological assertions, as if it were a foreign body in Paul’s letter. (See also U. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart [GTA 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983] 67-72.)

In Rom 3:25-26, Paul explains that God presented Christ as a hilastêrion for the purpose of proving his righteousness in the present time. This explains what he means by the phrase “the redemption in Christ Jesus” in the previous verse (3:24). The phrase eis endeixin has the meaning of “for proof” or “as a demonstration” (see Philo, opf. mud. 45, 87; Polyb. 3.38.5).(19) (The preposition eis + acc. can express purpose.) In this context, God's righteousness has the meaning of “salvation” or “deliverance.” (As such it differs in meaning from its occurrence in Rom 3:21.) Christ’s death as a hilastêrion was the means by which God proves or demonstrates that he was righteous in the sense of being saving; one could say that it was the actualization of his righteousness.(20) The reason that God presented Christ as a hilastêrion is “on account of passing over sins committed formerly in the forbearance of God” (dia tên paresin tôn progegonotôn hamarthmatôn en tê anochê tou theou). Paul means that Christ’s death as a hilastêrion was necessary because of sins committed formerly, which God left unpunished because of his forbearance. In other words, through Christ God planned to deal with sins that could not be forgiven until Christ’s death as hilastêrion. (The word paresis is not a synonym for aphesis [forgiveness], so that the meaning is simply that sins were left unpunished.)(21) Paul then adds that Christ’s death as hilastêrion was to serve as a proof or demonstration of God's righteousness in order that God might be righteous (dikaios) and the one who declares righteous (dikaiontes) those who have faith in Jesus. (Paul uses the synonymous phrase pros tên endeixin [see Plutarch, Pericl. 31.1 pros endeixin ischuos].) Paul is using something of a play on words to present a succinct but profound theological statement, for the two words “righteous” (dikaios) and declare righteous (dikaiontes) have two different meanings in spite of being cognates. God is righteous in the sense of being just, because he did not overlook human sin. Rather than punishing sinners, however, God punished Christ, that is, he presented Christ as a hilastêrion. The result is that God is not only just, because he does not overlook sin, but also the one who declares sinners to be righteous on the condition of faith in Jesus.

In Rom 3:27, Paul asks rhetorically, “Therefore where is boasting? It is excluded. By which principle? Of works? No, of course not. But by the principle of faith.”(22) (“Of works” [tôn ergôn] is an abbreviated synonym for “works of the Law” [see Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2-4; 9:11-12, 32; 11:6; Gal 3:2, 5, 10; Eph 2:9; Titus 3:5].)(23) Paul’s use of the particle oun implies that what he writes in Rom 3:27 is an inference from what he has previously written. It seems that Rom 3:21-26 serves as the basis of his inference in Rom 3:27.

Contrary to R. Thompson, Paul’s inference in 3:27 does not refer back to his previous reference to boasting in 2:17 (“Paul’s Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3:27 in Its Context,” Bib 67 [1986] 529-31; id., “Paul’s Double Criticism of Jewish Boasting: Romans 3:27,” Justification by Faith. The Implications of Romans 3:27-31 [Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989] 13-30). Thompson argues that Paul’s statement in Rom 3:27 "Where is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith” means that for Paul there are two reasons why boasting is excluded. The first reason—the principle of works—precludes boasting because of human disobedience. The second reason—the principle of faith—forbids boasting for Christocentric reasons: “If it is true that faith in Christ is the basis of everyone’s relation with God, then, possession of the Mosaic, obedience to it, or even transgression of it, are no longer elements by which ‘boast’ in one’s relation to God” (22-23). On the basis of God’s revelation in Christ boasting is now excluded by faith in Christ. According to Thompson, only the fact of two reasons for not boasting makes sense of Paul’s statement in Rom 3:27, where Paul’s says boasting is not excluded by works, which appears to contradict what he wrote earlier in 2:17-3:20. In Thompson’s interpretation, Paul means that there is now another reason for excluding boasting other than the fact that no one can obey the Law (works) and that is the revelation in Christ (faith). Thompson’s exegesis seems unnecessarily complicated. What Paul no doubt means to say is that boasting is excluded because faith is the only means of being declared righteous. When he asks on which principle boasting is excluded and then proposes as one possible response to this question “on the principle of works,” which he quickly denies empatically, all he is doing is stressing that boasting is not by definition excluded on the principle of the Law. The principle of works would not exclude boasting because works is the basis of boasting. But the principle of faith excludes boasting implicitly because it is impossible to be declared righteous through the works of the Law and so no one has any grounds in which to boast.

For Paul, boasting (kauchêsis) means justifiably taking pride in human accomplishment, in this case, in the accomplishment of being declared righteous by the works of the Law.(24) In theory, if he or she could obey the Law perfectly, a Jew would have grounds for boasting. In a synergistic soteriology, even the one who has imperfect obedience can still boast. Since it is impossible to be declared righteous by the works of the Law, Paul concludes that such boasting is impossible (3:28). He does not believe that anyone can be perfectly obedient, and he rejects a synergistic soteriology with its possibility of partial boasting. It is excluded on “the principle (nomos) of faith”: Since being declared righteous is only possible by faith, there is no possibility of boasting. In this context, nomos means, not Law, but principle in the sense of causal factor (see Rom 8:2 for another use of nomos to mean principle).(25)

Paul also asks rhetorically in Rom 3:29 “Or is God the God of the Jews alone and not also [the God] of gentiles.”(26) Of course, he expects the reader to answer in the negative: “Yes, also gentiles.” His purpose in asking this question is to have his readers deny a conclusion. If being declared righteous is on the principle of works then God can only be the God of those to whom he gives the opportunity to be declared righteous and so be qualified for eschatological salvation, namely those to whom he has given the Law.(27) But since they would not deny that God is also the God of gentiles also, Jews are forced to deny the major premise of this syllogism: that being declared righteous is on the principle of works. (Paul’s statement “If indeed God is one” is a cornerstone of Jewish belief, based on the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh your God is one” [Deut 6:4]. The conjunction eiper has the sense of “If, indeed, as it is true that.”) Thus, implicit in Paul’s statement is a rejection of the particularism of Judaism as incompatible with its belief in one God.(28) It follows that being declared righteous can only be on the principle of faith, since only faith is a universal possibility. For this reason, Paul asserts that God “will declare righteous the circumcised from faith and the uncircumcised by faith” (3:30). Since God is one, being the God of both Jews and gentiles, however God makes human beings righteous must be universally accessible, as faith is. (There does not seem to be any difference of meaning between “from faith” [ek pisteôs] and “through faith” [dia tês pisteôs].)

3.2.3. Rom 5:1-2, 6-11

In this section of Romans, Paul comments further on the meaning of being declared righteous by faith and how Christ makes this possible. Of significance is the fact that he explicates the meaning of being declared righteous by placing it alongside other soteriological concepts. In Rom 5:1, the aorist participle “having been declared righteous” (dikaiôthentes) summarizes Paul’s argument in Rom 1-4; he then draws the conclusion that because believers have been declared righteous they have “peace with God” (eirênên pros ton theon).(29) (The preposition pros + accusative can have the meaning of “toward” or “with.”) Paul connects causally the fact of “having been declared righteous” with “peace with God,” so that the use of the passive participle is causal: Because we have been declared righteous, we have peace with God. To have peace with God implies former hostility resulting from being under the wrath of God (1:18) with the result that to have peace with God means no longer being under the wrath of God. Paul sometimes uses the word “peace” to mean final salvation (Rom 2:10; 14:17; 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11b; Eph 2:17; 6:15; Phil 4:7; Col 1:20; 1 Thess 5:23), but this is not the meaning in Rom 5:1.(30) The peace that believers have insofar as they are declared righteous is said to be “through (dia) our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is a shorthand way of saying that peace with God is made possible because of Christ’s death as hilastêrion, as Paul describes in Rom 3:25-26.) So being declared righteous is by faith in Christ.

In Rom 5:2a, Paul explains that it is through Christ that “we have access (prosagôgên) [by faith] into this grace in which we stand (eschkamen).” He means that those who have faith have access to the grace consisting of being declared righteous: “through whom also.” The noun prosagôgê probably means “access” rather than “introduction,” since Paul’s other uses of it refer to a permanent state of being rather than an initial entrance into something (Eph 2:18; 3:12). To have access implies an uncommon privilege, since the word is used to denote being conducted into the presence of royalty (Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.8; 7.5.45).(31) The use of the demonstrative pronoun “this” probably has for its antecedent the fact that believers have peace with God insofar as they have been declared righteous. For Paul, grace is the undeserved favor and mercy of God; this favor and mercy is expressed no more clearly than in God’s offering the possibility of “peace” with himself because of Christ. Paul says that “this grace” is that in which believers “stand.” By the verb “to stand” Paul intends to describe a state of being. In other words, peace with God is a state of being characterized by God’s grace or unmerited favor.

Paul continues by saying that “we also boast in the hope of the glory of God” (5:2b). He is moving from a consideration of what is true of the believer in the present to what will be true eschatologically.(32) As Paul uses the term, “to boast” is to rejoice or even to revel in something; it does not necessarily have a negative connotation. When they boast in hope believers take delight in and value greatly their hope, which consists of “the glory of God.” The phrase “hope of glory” (hê elpis tês doxês) means the hope consisting of glory, and so the phrase is an appositive or epexegetical genitive (see the identical phrase in Col 1:27). By “glory” Paul means the believer’s final state of salvation (see Rom 2:7; 8:18, 21 (see "to glorify" in 8:30), 9:23; 1 Cor 2:7; 2 Cor 4:17; 2 Thess 2:14; Col 1:27). What Paul means is that believers rejoice in the present hope of eschatological salvation. The genitive phrase “of God” is probably a genitive of origin, so that “glory” originates with God. That glory is from God follows from the fact the fact of being declared righteous by faith.

In Rom 5:6, Paul begins a discussion of the means by which those who have faith in Christ have peace with God (see the parallel in Rom 3:25-26). He says that when “we” were still weak Christ died for “the weak” (hoi asthenoi). The term “the weak” is parallel in meaning to “sinners” (hamartôloi) in Rom 5:8 and “enemies” (echthroi) in Rom 5:10. To be weak is to be unable to obey God and for that reason to be under his wrath. Christ died for human beings even while they existed in a state of “weakness”: “Christ. . . died for the ungodly” (see Rom 3:25 ; 4:25; 6:10; 7:4; 8:32; 14:15). (In Rom 8:32; 14:15, Paul also uses the preposition huper to describe Christ’s vicarious act.) The adverbial phrase “at the right time” (kata kairon) to modify when Christ died for the weak implies that the time of Christ’s death was determined according to God’s salvation-historical purposes (see Gal 4:4). There was a proper time for Christ to die for “the weak,” the time appointed by God.

In Rom 5:7-8, Paul offers a qal vahomer argument (argument from minor to major) to underline the significance of Christ’s vicarious death. He points out that someone would hardly die for a righteous person (huper dikaiou) or a good person (huper tou agathou), so that how much less would someone die for a sinner. (The use of the two terms “righteous person” and “good person” are probably synonyms. It should be stressed that Paul means by both phrases a person who is relatively righteous or good, but not enough to qualify as “righteous” at the final judgment.) Paul’s goal is to stress the love of God to human beings: “God demonstrates his love for us inasmuch as while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” (The prepositional phrase eis humas ("for us") specifies the object of God’s love (agapê) (see parallels in Eph 1:15; Col 1:4; 1 Thess 3:12; 2 Thess 1:3). In this context, the use of the conjunction hoti is explanatory or epexegetical and so means "inasmuch.") Paul then introduces another qal vahomer argument in Rom 5:9: “How much more having now been declared righteous by his blood we will be saved through him from his wrath.” (The protasis of the qal vahomer argument is given in an abbreviated form: “Having been declared righteous by his blood.”) To be saved from God's wrath refers to being saved from punishment at final judgment (see Rom 5:9-10; 8:24; 10:9, 13; 1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8; 1 Thess 2:16; 2 Thess 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5). As many other Jews did also, Paul foresees a time of eschatological judgment when God will reveal his anger against sinners; he calls this “the wrath,” “the wrath of God,” “the wrath to come” the “day of wrath” or “wrath and anger” (see Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Thess 1:10; see Rom 2:8-9 and 1 Thess 5:9. In the Qumran sectarian writings, the term "wrath of God" (or near equivalent) occurs with some frequency (see, for example, 1QS 2.15; 4.12; 1QM 4.1; 6.3; 1QHa 15.13-19; CD 1.21-2.1; 3.8; 8.13; 10.9; 19.26). It is Paul’s view that, even before the day of judgment, those who have been declared righteous are no longer objects of God’s wrath because of Christ. (It is not surprising that Paul refers to Jesus as savior [sôtêr], for he saves from divine wrath those who believe in him.) (Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6]. In 1 Tim 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4 Paul refers to God as savior). In Paul’s view, to be saved from eschatological wrath is easier than being declared righteous (see 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; 1 Thess 5:9). He seems to mean that the former is a result of the latter. The use of the preposition phrases “by his blood” and “by him” stress that it is through Christ’s giving of himself in death that is the reason that those who are now declared righteous will be saved.(33)

In Rom 5:10, Paul introduces another concept in order to describe the effects of Jesus’ vicarious death and offers another qal vahomer argument. He understands Christ’s death (“the death of his [God’s] son”) as effecting reconciliation to God (katallassein); this is another conceptual correlate of being declared righteous. Formerly, human beings were enemies (echthroi) of God. The implication is that, before being reconciled, something separated a human being from God and created hostility between human beings and God; presumably this was sin (see also Rom 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18-19; Col 1:20). Using the fact of reconciliation with God as his protasis, Paul then argues how much more will those who are reconciled be saved by Christ’s life. By saved, he means saved from divine wrath. Paul conceives of Christ’s death and resurrection (life) as a unified event. The argument is that being reconciled is the cause of the fact that believers will be saved from punishment at the final judgment (see 5:9). Paul then says that not only are believers reconciled but they also “boast in God” (kauchômenoi) (Rom 5:11). As in Rom 5:2, to boast is to rejoice in God (see Rom 2:17; 1 Cor 1:31 [Jer 9:24]; see also Phil 3:3 “boasting in Christ Jesus”). The boasting in God is no doubt because of the reconciliation effected by God “through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Source

Mikveh

The mikveh (ritual bath of purification) in the photograph is located south of the old city walls in Jerusalem and dates from the second-Temple period. Jews would cleanse themselves from ritual impurity in a mikveh in order to be qualified to enter the Temple (see Lev 14, 15; Num 19). One would enter the mikveh thorugh one entrance and exit it through the other.

3.3. “The Righteousness of God”

What he means by being declared righteous by faith Paul also conveys by the use of the phrase “the righteousness of God” (hê dikaiosunê tou theou). This important phrase occurs most often in Romans (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21-22, 25-26; 10:3), but also in other of his letters (2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9).(34) (The phrase does not occur in Galatians but the idea certainly does. Perhaps one could argue that Paul began using the phrase after he had written to the Galatians in order to to encapsulate his teaching on the subject.)

3.3.1. Meaning of the Term

Debate over the meaning of “the righteousness of God” has been protracted and intense.(35) There are two possible interpretations of the phrase.(36) Some exegetes have taken the phrase “the righteousness of God” to be a subjective genitive. It is often argued that it is a technical term, occuring in the Old Testament and apocalyptic second-Temple writings. As such, it denotes God’s covenantal faithfulness to Israel, so that it takes on the meaning of “salvation” or “deliverance,” insofar as God is committed unconditionally to Israel and therefore obliged to bring aid to the nation.

The only occurrence of the phrase “righteousness of the Lord” (equivalent to “righteousness of God”) in the Old Testament is found in Deut 33:21: “He [Gad] did the righteousness of Yahweh.” This is probably a reference to the tribe of Gad’s participation in holy war, which is interpreted as “the righteousness of Yahweh,” or the act of God on behalf of Israel in fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs (P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus [FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965] 142-45). LXX Deut translates this phrase not as a genitive but with the clause dikaiosunên kurios epoiêsen. Nevertheless, the idea of God’s righteousness as his deliverance or salvation because of his covenantal loyalty occurs in other Old Testament passages. In Ps 98:2 (LXX 97:2), the psalmist says,”Yahweh has made known his salvation; before the eyes of the nations he has revealed his righteousness.” The terms “salvation” and “righteousness” are parallel, each referring to Yahweh’s covenantal loyalty to Israel that results in his intervention on behalf of the nation (see Ps 98:3). Likewise in Ps 40:11 (LXX 39:11) the terms “righteousness,” “truth,” and “salvation” are parallel to one another, each referring to God’s saving acts on behalf of Israel. Similarly, in Ps 51:16 (LXX 50:16)”God of my salvation” and “your righteousness” are parallel. There are also passages from the Psalms in which God’s “righteousness” refers to God’s salvation. In Ps 36:6, God’s “righteousness” probably refers to his covenantal faithfulness, for it stands in parallelism with “lovingkindness” and “faithfulness” (Ps 36:5). In Ps 24:5, the psalmist says, “He will receive...righteousness from God his savior” and in Ps 31:1, the psalmist requests of God, “Deliver me in your righteousness.” Finally, in Ps 143:11, the following petition is made: “In your righteousness, bring my soul out of trouble.” Likewise, in the Book of Isaiah, God’s righteousness is his deliverance or salvation; the terms “salvation” and “righteousness” are parallel and therefore synonymous (46:13; 51:5-6, 8; 61:10-11). (In Isa 45:21, Yahweh refers to himself as “a righteous God and a savior.”) (See C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans [BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1967] 29-30.) In addition, the phrase “all the righteousnesses of Yahweh” occurs 1 Sam 12:7, which is translated in the LXX by the singular “all the righteousness of the Lord” (tên pasan dikaiosunên kuriou). This phrase refers to God’s saving acts on behalf of Israel. Similarly, in Micah 6:5, the prophet equates God’s saving acts with the “righteousnesses of Yahweh,” which the LXX translates by the singular “the righteousness of the Lord” (hê dikaiosunê tou kuriou). Finally, in the LXX on two occasions, God is called “God of righteousness” (ho theos tês dikaiosunês) (Mal 2:17) (Heb. “God of judgement”) and “Lord of righteousness” (ton kurion tês dikaiosunês) (Tobit 13:7).

In texts from the second-Temple period, the term “righteousness” is also used to mean God’s deliverance or salvation; in some cases, it is used to denote God’s eschatological salvation (see Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 145-75; Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus, 24-45; Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” New Testament Questions of Today [London: SCM, 1969] 168-182, esp. 172). The term”righteousness of God” (or some variant of this term) occurs with some frequency in the concluding hymn of the Rule of the Community (11). In 1QS 11:3, the author confesses his dependence on God for the removal of guilt resulting from sin. He writes, “By his [God’s] righteousnesses he will blot out my transgression.” The use of the plural “righteousnesses” probably denote particular manifestations of God’s righteousness, his saving intention towards Israel (see 11.5) (see another reference to the “righteousnesses of God” in 10.23). A similar confession of God’s forgiveness originating in his righteousness occurs in 1QS 11.12: “When I totter, the lovingkindness of God is my salvation forever; when I stumble over iniquity of flesh, my judgment is in the righteousness of God, which endures forever.” “Salvation” and “judgment” are synonymous; the need for God’s salvation or judgment is the fact of human sin, expressed by the verbs “to totter” or “to stumble over the iniquity of flesh.” This implies that the salvation or judgment consists in part of forgiveness of sin. The cause or origin of salvation or judgment is the lovingkindness or righteousness of God, those attributes whereby God is willing to act savingly (see 10.25 for another reference to “righteousness of God”). Then in 11.14b-15a, the author adds, “In his [God’s] great goodness, he atones for all my iniquities. In his righteousness he cleanses me of the impurity of men and the sin of the sons of Adam.” God’s “righteousness” and his “great goodness” are parallel in meaning, each denoting that attribute by which God brings deliverance to his covenant people, or “die befreiende Rechtshilfe.” Although he is an impartial judge, God also mercifully brings the possibility of atonement or cleansing to his people.

In the Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot), God’s “righteousness” as a salvific term occurs. In 11.30b-31a the author requests of God, “Purify me by your righteousness,” which is a request for God to cleanse him from sin because of God’s perennial willingness to forgive (his “righteousness”). In 4.37, reflecting his past experience of God’s mercy, the founder prays, “Because in your lovingkindness and abundance of compassion, you atone for sin and purify men from guilt in your righteousness.” The exact nature of his past transgression is not disclosed; nevertheless, the author believes that God has atoned for his sin, as he does for all human beings (see also 17[4].12 “to atone for s[in]”). The basis of God’s atonement is his “righteousness” (The “in” [b-] is causal.) The direct object of the atoning action is sin (see Isa 6:7; Ps 6:7; Ps 65:4; 78:38; Prov 16:6; Dan 9:24). Thus it seems that the idea of atonement of sin is roughly synonymous with forgiveness and purification, having the meaning of the removal of guilt. Finally, in 14(6).15b-16 the author says that God destroys all sin and wickedness forever and that God’s righteousness is revealed to all that God has made. The author seems to mean that God removes the guilt of the members of the community; God’s righteousness that is revealed to creation, in this context, probably means that God’s mercy in the form of the removal of guilt is revealed to human beings as a possibility. (See 1QM 4:6.)

In 1 Enoch, the term righteousness seems sometimes to have the meaning of “salvation” or “deliverance” (71:3, 14; 90:40; 99:10; 101:3). T. Dan 6:10 used to be cited as the prime example of the meaning of the phrase “the righteousness of God” as God’s “salvation” or “deliverance,” but it is now accepted that the more original reading is, “Cling to the righteousness of the Law of God.” See Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 94; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 106-107.

Such scholars interpret “the righteousness of God” as a power that becomes a gift or a sphere into which one enters; as such the righteousness of God brings with it a demand and power for practical righteousness. As E. Käsemann puts it, “God’s power becomes God’s gift when it takes possession of us, and, so to speak, enters into us.”

E. Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” 173; id., Commentary on Romans, 21-32. Käsemann takes exception to the traditional Protestant separation of justification and sanctification (Commentary on Romans, 172-76). He writes, “The distinction between justification and sanctification and the sequence derived from it were possible only when the gift was separated from the Giver, justification was no longer viewed as its center as transferal to the dominion of Christ, and instead anthropology was made its horizon” (172). It is preferable, however, to retain the distinction between Paul’s teachings about justification and sanctification. For a summary and critique of Käsemann’s position, see Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 37-46.

Likewise, Stuhlmacher explains, “Righteousness is for Paul primarily God’s creative, saving ingression of power into the Christian life, the consequence and high point of soteriology” (Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 222). C. Müller holds the same view (Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964] esp. 65-75; 108-13. He writes, “In righteousness a new Being is granted to a person” (“In Rechtfertigung dem Menschen ein neues Sein geschenkt wird” [89]). Along the same lines, E. Jüngel claims that for Paul Rechtfertigung is an event (Geschehen); which means that, when he speaks about a person as “justified,” Paul is making a “Seinaussage” (Paulus und Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zur Präisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie [4. ed.; HUT 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972] 45-47). Because of this, Jüngel believes that the distinction between iustitia imputiva and iustitia efficax is superseded. The person whom God declares to be righteous is actually made righteous practically. Again, this unfortunately blurs Paul’s meaning. Others who adopt this interpretation of the righteousness of God include Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul;. Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus; M. Barth, “Rechtfertigung. Versuch einer Auslegung paulinischer Texte im Rahmen des Alten und Neuen Testamentes,” Foi et salut selon S. Paul (AnBib 42) Rome: Institut Biblique Pontificial, 1970) 137-97 and Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 36-71.

Accordingly, when he "righteouses" dikaiei, God does not simply declare a person to be righteous in a forensic sense but also makes him righteous in a practical sense. This means that the righteousness of God spiritually transforms its recipients, and is not simply a forensic pronouncement.(37)

It seems, however, that most of the occurrences of the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Paul’s writings are best interpreted as “the righteousness from God,” in the sense of the righteousness possessed by human beings that comes from God independent of human effort.(38) The contexts in which most occurrences of the phrase are found require such an interpretation. In these cases, the genitive hê dikaiosunê tou theou should be interpreted as a genitive of origin and represents a distinctly Pauline usage.(39) Used as such, the phrase has a forensic meaning: To possess the righteousness of God is a synonym for being declared righteous by faith. (In Rom 3:25, 26, the phrase “the righteousness of God” is a subjective genitive and does function as a synonym for “salvation” or “deliverance.”(40) In Rom 3:5 the phrase is a subjective genitive also, but refers to God’s distributive justice, not his salvation.)(41) Paul’s teaching about the “righteousness of God” is an important aspect of his soteriology,(42) and to eliminate it or to obscure it by playing down the forensic aspect of his understanding of the phrase is do an injustice to a uniquely Pauline doctrine.(43)

3.3.2. Rom 1:16-17

In Rom 1:17, he adds that in the good news the “righteousness of God has been revealed” (dikaiosunê...theou en autô apokaluptetai) (see 1 Cor 1:23-24).(44) In this context, the phrase “righteousness of God” is probably a genitive of origin.(45) Thus, Paul means that the content of the good news is the possibility of receiving by faith an extrinsic righteousness that comes from God.(46) It is arguable that he is alluding to LXX Ps 97:2 “The Lord has made known his salvation (sôtêrion autou); before the nations he has revealed (apekalupssen) his righteousness (dikaiosunên autou).”(47) If so, he is affirming that the particular way in which God’s salvation and righteousness have been revealed to the nations is that now there exists the possibility of receiving an extrinsic righteousness from God that is imputed to a Jew or gentile. By the term “salvation” (sôtêria), Paul refers to the state of being saved from the eschatological wrath of God with the result that the one who is thus saved receives eternal life in the form of the resurrection of the body ( Rom 10:1, 10; 11:11; 13:11; 2 Cor 1:6; 6:2; 7:10; Eph 1:13; Phil 1:19, 28; 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8-9; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; 3:15; see also "saved from his wrath" in Rom 5:9). Since he cannot make himself righteous by obedience, in whatever form this may take (depending on whether he is a Jew or gentile), a human being can only be righteous by receiving a righteousness from God.(48)

3.3.3. Rom 3:21-23

What Paul writes in Rom 3:21-23 presupposes his general conclusion in Rom 3:20: “Therefore from the works of the Law no one will be declared righteous before him [God].”(49) From what he has concluded about the Jewish experience under the Law (2:17-3:8), Paul has no choice but to conclude that no Jew can be declared righteous by doing what the Law requires, which is what is meant by the phrase “works of the Law.”(50) In Rom 3:23, he generalizes his conclusion to apply to all human beings, both Jews and gentiles: “For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.” To fall short of the glory of God is to fail to do what is necessary to gain God’s approval or praise, expressed by the phrase “the glory of God” (see John 12:43). The reason that all have been unsuccessful in gaining God’s approval is because all have sinned, gentiles without the Law and the Jews under the Law (see Rom 3:9).(51) Paul believes that there is no difference between Jews and gentiles, insofar as both have the same problem: “having fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:22; see 10:12).(52) It is clear, therefore, that Paul rejects any form of synergistic soteriology, in which imperfect obedience suffices to acquire the status of being righteous. This is especially true for Jews, who have the Law.

This leaves now only one soteriological option, for, in the light of universal sinfulness, obtaining righteousness can only come apart from doing what the Law requires. This is what Paul means when he writes, “But now without the Law a righteousness of God has been revealed” (nuni de chôris nomou dikaiosunên theou pephanerôtai) (3:21).(53) The conjunctive phrase “but now” has a temporal sense, implying that the revelation of the righteousness of God is new in human history. He is thinking salvation-historically of the transition from the era of the Law to a new salvation-historical era inaugurated by Christ’s death. The wrath of God characterized the era of the Law (1:18), but the righteousness of God characterizes the new era (3:21). Similarly, the use of the perfect tense “has been revealed” denotes a past event that is still effective in the present, namely, the appearance of the “righteousness of God” as a possibility for human beings. (Exactly why this is a new historical possibility Paul explains in Rom 3:25-26.) The phrase “righteousness of God” is a genitive of origin: it is a righteousness from God.(54) For Paul, the possibility of righteousness originates with God, and does not result from obedience to the Law. By definition, the righteousness originating from God is apart from the Law. (The phrase “without the Law is an abbreviation of the longer phrase “without the works of the Law” [chôris ergôn nomou].) He expresses this by saying that the “righteousness of God” is “through faith in Jesus Christ” (dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou); for Paul, “Law” and “faith in Jesus Christ” are opposite means by which a person can obtain righteousness.(55) For this reason, faith is not a type of work, but the renunciation of the very possibility of being declared righteous by means of the works of the Law and the acceptance of an extrinsic righteousness from God.(56) Faith has “Jesus Christ” as its object, because the righteousness of God is possible because of his death and resurrection.(57) Paul asserts that the Law and the prophets testify to this teaching about the righteousness of God (in 3:21-23), by which he means that the Old Testament is a preparation and anticipation of this teaching (see Rom 4:15 = Gen 15:6; 4:7-8 = Ps 32:1-2; 10:6-13 = Deut 30:12-14).

3.3.4. Rom 10:3-4

Paul explains that Jews who reject the gospel do so because they are ignorant of “the righteousness of God” (tên tou theou dikaiosunên) and seek instead to establish their own righteousness (kai tên idian zêtountes stêsai).(58) (Rom 10:3 consists of two nicely balanced participial subordinate clauses joined by the conjunction “and” [kai] followed by the main clause.) In this passage, the phrase “righteousness of God” stands in opposition to “their own righteousness” (hê idia dikaiosunê); these are two mutually exclusive ways of obtaining righeousness (10:3). (To have righteousness will result in eschatologically being declared righteous or, in other words, declared to have no guilt.)(59) The phrase “their own” should be taken in a distributive sense to means “each of their own” (righteousness) (see Phil 3:9). Paul is criticizing the Jewish quest for self-righteousness by means of obedience to the Law.(60) Because it stands in contrast to “their own righteousness,” the genitive phrase “righteousness of God” can only be a genitive of origin: It is a righteousness that has its origin with God, the very opposite of self-righteousness.(61) To be ignorant of the righteousness of God is a shorthand expression for being ignorant of the fact that righteousness can only originate with God and be imputed to human beings freely as opposed to being the result of obedience to the Law. In Paul’s assessment, unbelieving Jews reject the need to receive from God an extrinsic righteousness, because each wrongly believes that he can establish himself as righteous by his partial obedience to the Law.(62) They are not aware that only by perfect obedience can a person possess righteousness; any form of synergistic soteriology is excluded.(63) The consequence of the fact that such people are ignorant of the righteousness of God is that they do not “submit” to it (tê dikaiosunê tou theou ouch hupetagêsan) (10:3b). (See the use of the verb hupotassein in Rom 8:7: the mind of the flesh does not submit to the Law of God.) This phrase seems to be an idiom meaning that unbelieving Jews do not abandon their futile attempt to obtain righteousness by obedience to the Law and receive an extrinsic righteousness, imputed from God, apart from the Law.(64)

In Rom 10:4, Paul says, “The telos of the Law is Christ for the purpose of righteousness to all who believe.” (It should be noted that elsewhere Paul uses the word telos to mean termination [1 Cor 15:24] and result [Rom 6:21].) The subject of the sentence is Christ, so that “the telos of the Law” is a predicate nominative; the predicate is placed at the beginning of the sentence for the sake of emphasis.(65) What Paul means has been disputed for centuries, especially the exact sense of the word “end” (telos). Given its context in Rom 9:30-10:11, his meaning is probably that Christ is the termination of the Mosaic Law, rather than its goal.(66) The salvation-historical era of the Law has come to an end with the historical appearance of Christ, insofar as his saving work terminates all effort at obtaining righteousness by the works of the Law (see parallels to the idea of the termination of the Law in Rom 6:14-15; 7:1-6; Gal 3:25; Eph 2:14-15; Col 2:14).(67) Jews in the salvation-historical period of the Law were instructed to obey the Law as a means of being declared righteous, but this proved impossible because they were incapable of rendering perfect obedience to the commandments.(68) So Christ is the termination of the Law, meaning that he brings this salvation-historical period to an end, and introduces the period of the righteousness of God.(69)

Paul explains that Christ is the termination of the Law “for the purpose of righteousness to all who believe.”(70) In other words, the purpose for which Christ is the termination of the Law is to make possible another way of obtaining righteousness than through obedience to the Law. The prepositional phrase beginning with eis expresses either purpose or result. Although, in this context, the difference in meaning between the two interpretive options is negligible, it seems that Paul’s meaning is that the purpose for which Christ is the end of the Law is that righteousness would be now possible on the basis of faith. As the previous verse, Rom 10:3, makes clear, this righteousness to all who believe is “the righteousness of God” and stands in opposition to the futile attempt to establish one’s own righteousness. It is an extrinsic righteousness that God imputes to human beings. Living under the Law and seeking to obtain righteousness through perfect obedience to the Law proved to be futile, which explains why Jews developed a synergistic soteriology. Paul rejects this solution for another, more radical one, which he calls the “righteousness of God.”

3.3.5. Phil 3:9

In this passage, Paul explains that it is his aim to “gain Christ” and “to be found in him,” which are expressions used to denote Paul’s spiritual union with Christ. As spiritually united with Christ, Paul does not have a righteousness of his own, one that comes from the Law (mê echôn emên dikaiosunên tên ek nomou). Rather, he has a righteousness from God through Christ by faith (tên dia pisteôs Christou tên ek theou dikaiosunê epi tê pistei). The participial clause “not having a righteousness of my own” is probably modal, so that Paul is saying that having a righteousness from God is the mode of the existence described as “gaining Christ” and “being found in Christ.”(71) In Paul’s view there are two types and sources of righteousness, which are antithetically parallel to each other.(72) One can have a righteousness “from the Law” or one “from God.” It is clear, however, that he rejects the possibility of obtaining a righteousness from the Law, even though this may be a theoretical possibility.(73) Instead, he accepts God’s extrinsic righteousness imputed to him by means of faith and made possible by the work of Christ, which is what he means by the phrase “the righteousness from God.”(74) Presumably, he abandons the pursuilt of a righteousness from the Law as futile and doomed to failure, because perfect obedience to the Law is impossible. Implicit also is his rejection of the possibility of adopting a synergistic soteriology. It should be noted that the term that Paul uses is “righteousness from God” (hê ek theou dikaiosunê) (parallel in form to “the righteousness from [the] Law” [hê dikaiosunê hê ek nomou]), but there is no doubt that this term is a synonym for the more common term “the righteousness of God” (hê dikaiosunê tou theou) interpreted as a genitive of origin.)(75)

3.3.6. 2 Cor 5:21

Paul says that God made Christ sin on our behalf, in order that we may become (the) righteousness of God in Christ (hina hêmeis genômetha dikaiosunê theou en autô).(76) In this passage, Paul speaks of becoming the righteousness of God by means of Christ or because of Christ’s saving work (“in Christ”). (The preposition “in” [en] in the phrase “in Christ” is causal.) The phrase “the righteousness of God” is a genitive of origin: the righteousness from God. Thus, the idiom “to become the righteousness of God” means to be the recipient of an imputed righteousness that comes from God. In a sense, the recipient of the gift becomes the gift itself.(77)

3.4. Habakkuk 2:4 (Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17)

Paul holds that his soteriology is expressed in an anticipatory way by the prophet Habakkuk. In Rom 1:17, after having asserted that the righteousness of God has been revealed from faith to faith, Paul quotes Hab 2:4: “The righteous by faith shall live.” He believes that Hab 2:4 is a foretelling of how God will impute an extrinsic righteousness to human beings, with the result that they will live (eternally).(78) Although in the Hebrew text and in the LXX the phrase “by faith” is adverbial, modifying the verb “to live” (“The righteous will live by faith”) in Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 the phrase “by faith” is probably connected to “the righteous,” functioning as an adjective modifying the subject “the righteous”: “the righteous by faith.” Paul’s purpose in citing Hab 2:4 is to show that his teaching on the righteousness of God was already known before Christ.(79) He opposes the view prevalent in second-Temple Judaism that the righteous by imperfect obedience to the Law shall live, which is the basis of Jewish synergistic soteriology. It should be noted that Paul’s version of Hab 2:4 differs from both the Hebrew version “The righteous will live by his faith” and the LXX translation “The righteous will live by my faith” insofar as Paul’s version omits any personal pronoun. The absence of the personal pronoun “his” or “my” facilitates his interpretation of the phrase “by faith” as adjectival, modifying the subject “the righteous.” Whether Paul cites LXX Hab 2:4 and intentionally omits the pronoun or whether he provides a translation of the Hebrew and omits the pronoun is not known. (Paul’s expression “from faith to faith” is probably simply an emphatic way of saying “by faith.”)(80)

Eskola argues that Paul's intention was actually to state the reverse of what the prophet Habakkuk had asserted in the Masoretic version of Hab 2:4 (Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 101-16). The original Hebrew text in Habakkuk makes the point that God will judge the wicked and give life to the righteous because of their faithfulness to God. Paul deliberately reverses this position by making the change that he does to the Habakkuk text: omitting the preposition "my." He did this for "a significant theological purpose": "Paul is both criticizing and reinterpreting the idea of Habakkuk. Criticism can be seen in his claim that traditional obedience no longer brings salvation to Israel. But on the other hand, Paul answers the problem of theodicy in a similar way as does the prophet Habakkuk. The wrath of God is about to be revealed and judgment is at hand (Rom 1:18). Only a certain difference remained. Man cannot appeal to his obedience, as Habakkuk had declared." Here Paul presents a radical reinterpretation. The obedience mentioned in the Scriptures, and demanded by the Old Testament prophets, has now been changed into faith (pistis) in Jesus Christ" (114). Although there is no denying the fact that he has co-opted Hab 2:4 for his own theological purposes, it is not clear that Paul is reinterpreting the prophet's alleged teaching about obedience bringing salvation. Rather, Paul seems to have found his own teaching about being made righteous by faith in Hab 2:4 by using a typically midrashic approach.

Similarly, in Gal 3:11 Paul cites Hab 2:4 as testifying to his view that no one can be declared righteous before God “in the Law,”(81) by which he means by keeping the Law or, as he says elsewhere, “by the works of the Law.”

Adopting an existential interpretive orientation, Hübner argues that Paul objects to the idea that a Jew can establish his existence “quantitatively” (Law in Paul’s Thought, 18-19). He writes, “The basis of their existence is not constituted by their being rooted in God but rather, as they understand themselves, by the quantity of the individual works (of the law) they have performed....Existence becomes something which is at the disposal of the person existing” (18). Later, when discussing Rom 7, Hübner argues that striving for righteousness by means of obedience to the Law is evpiqumi,a, which the Law awakens, and is fundamentally determined by hamartia. He writes, “He does not discern that even should he have such power over himself as no longer to covet in the antinomian sense, he would still be totally determined by hamartia and epithumia, precisely in his striving for righteousness before God” (77). Similarly, Hübner claims that according to Paul Abraham was forgiven not only for his failure to fulfil the righteousness that comes from works but also for the fact the he ever sought to be righteous as a result of his works (121). Contrary to this view, Paul sees nothing wrong in theory with making oneself righteous through acts of the obedience to the commandments in itself. Rather, the problem is that Jews cannot obey all the commandments all of the time and so fail at the endeavor.

(The use of “in” [en] is causative) [3:11].)(82) That the scripture testifies, “The righteous by faith shall live” confirms his position.

H. J. Schoeps has observed that Paul’s arguments has a distinct rabbinic flavor, insofar as he uses what came to be known as the thirteenth midda (hermeneutical rule) of R. Ishmael, which specifies that when two biblical texts appear to contradict each other a third text must be found to resolve the apparent contradiction (Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961] 177-78). In Gal 3:6-14 Paul cites Lev 18:5 “The person who does these things will live by them” and Hab 2:4 “The righteous by faith will live.” These two passages, one from the Torah and the other from the prophets, appear to teach opposite ways to (eternal) life: faith and doing the Law. Thus, Paul introduces a third passage, Gen 15:6, to resolve the contradiction in favor of Hab 2:4. The assumption is that Abraham is the paradigm for all Jews (see also Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977] 159-77).

The Qumran community puts Hab 2:4 to a different exegetical use. That God will exempt the members of the Qumran community from final judgment is said to be the meaning of Hab 2:4: “But the righteous shall live by his faith.” The author of the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab) writes, “Its interpretation concerns all those who do the Law in the house of Judah whom God will rescue from the house of judgment on account of their suffering and their faithfulness to the Teacher of Righteousness” (8.1-3). The phrase “those who do the Torah” denotes the community (see also 7.11; 12.4-5), whose members alone belong to covenant people, “the house of Judah” (see CD 4.11). The criteria that God will use at the final judgment will be one’s obedience works and acceptance of the authority of the Teacher of Righteousness, which leads to suffering at the hands of the wicked. Although there is no justice for the community in the present, those who remain with the Teacher and suffer for this loyalty and therefore can expect eschatological vindication by God and exemption from final judgment. To use the idiom in 1QpHab, God will “rescue” (see also 12.14) the community from “the house of judgment.” The term “house of judgment” represents both the place and the event of eschatological judgment (see also 10.3).

As in Rom 1:17, Paul’s purpose in citing Hab 2:4 is to show that his teaching on the righteousness of God is found inchoately in the Old Testament, and is therefore not a theological novelty.(83) Implicitly Paul is setting Hab 2:4 in contrast to Lev 18:5, so that he means that the one who is made righteous by faith will live by it (en autê), i.e., faith,(84) in contrast to the one who does “everything written in the book of the Law” and lives by them (en autois) ( Paul’s opponents in the Galatian churches more than likely made use of this passage in support of their position.) Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 in close proximity to Lev 18:5 is for the purpose of demonstrating that scripture is in tension with itself, which then justifies Paul’s explanation of the true salvation-historical purpose of the Law in Gal 3:19-26.(85) After his citation of Hab 2:4, Paul adds, “The Law is not from faith” (ho de nomos ouk estin ek pisteôs).(86) There is no place for faith, as Paul defines it, in Law because faith is the decision to receive an imputed righteousness and so presupposes the renunciation of the attempt to be declared righteous through obedience to the Law.(87)

3.5. Righteousness by Faith

In several passages in his letters, Paul can refer to having or pursuing righteousness (dikaiosunê). He contrasts two sources of righteousness, through the Law and by faith in Christ. Righteousness through the Law is what a human being possesses by virtue of perfect obedience to the commandments, whereas righteousness by faith is extrinsic and imputed by God. The former is doomed to failure, however, leaving only the latter as the only true source of righteousness. Having righteousness is the necessary condition of being declared righteous eschatologically.

3.5.1. Rom 9:30-33

In Rom 9:30-33, Paul explains that (ironically) gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained a righteousness by faith; Israel, who pursued “a law of righteousness,” however, did not obtain to “a law [of righteousness].” This is because they did not pursue it “by faith,” but “by works.”(88) Paul means that gentile believers obtained an extrinsic righteousness imputed to them by God because of their faith; before they believed, however, they had no such interest. The Jews pursued the Law seeking to obtain righteousness by it. The phrase “Law of righteousness” is probably a genitive of purpose: Law for the purpose of righteousness. What Paul is saying is that the Jews pursued a righteousness by means of obedience to the Law.(89) They did not realize that they could not obtain righteousness in this way. The reason that it is not obtainable by the Law is not provided, but doubtless what he means is that they did not realize that nothing less than perfect obedience to the Law was required in order to obtain righeousness, and no human being is capable of such obedience.(90) In other words, they did not understand that righteousness could not be obtained by works (ex ergôn), but only by receiving it by faith as imputed (ek pisteôs). They were not ready to see Christ as the end of the Law (Rom 10:4). By the phrase “as from works.” Paul intends to communicate that righteousness is not actually obtainable by works, so that the phrase should be translated as “as if it were by works” and means that Jews wrongly imagined that that righteousness was from the works of the Law (see the parallel use of hôs in 2 Thess 2:1-2). It is clear, therefore, that Paul rejects the possibility of a synergistic soteriology.

Paul says that Jews in his day stumbled against the “stone of stumbling and rock of offence,” by which he means Christ. He cites Isa 28:16 and inserts into the middle of this quotation a portion of Isa 8:14 (“stone of stumbling and rock of offence”). (The phrase “rock of offence” [petra skandalou] in Rom 9:33, however, disagrees with LXX Isa 8:14 “stone of falling” [petra ptômati], but agrees with 1 Pet 2:8.) Isa 28:16 is probably interpreted messianically in LXX Isa 28:16, as indicated by the addition of the prepositional phrase “upon him” (ep’ autô); in the Targum of this passage, the messianic interpretation is made explicit.(91) In his composite quotation consisting of Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14, Paul brings out the consequences of the rejecting of Christ. For the Jew who seeks to establish his own righteousness by works on the assumption that God does not require perfect obedience, Christ’s death is meaningless and, even worse, scandalous, so that he stumbles over the “stone of stumbling and rock of offence.” This is because he does not understand that only through faith in the resurrected Christ is it possible to obtain righteousness, as opposed to obtaining it by works. Conversely, the one who believes in him (Christ) (ho pisteuôn ep’ autô) will not be put to shame, that is, at the final judgment. It seems that Paul changes the present tense found in the LXX (and 1 Pet 2:6) “is not put to shame” with the future “will not be put to shame” (kataischunthêsetai), in order to bring out the eschatological consequences of believing in Christ. (The fact that Peter also cites Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14 in 1 Pet 2:6-8 as well as Ps 118:22 could indicate that these texts formed part of a early testimonium, in which case Paul may have had access to such a document.)

3.5.2. Rom 10:5-11

In Rom 10:5-6, Paul contrasts the two means of obtaining righteousness.(92) In this context, he introduces a pesher-type interpretation of Deut 30:11-16 with the aim of actually overturning its intended meaning.(93) In Deut 30:11-16, Moses explains to the Israelites that obedience to the Law is uncomplicated and should be easily accomplished. No one has to go to heaven to find God’s commandments, nor across the sea. Rather, the commands are close by the Israelites, because God has revealed his will in the Torah. In his pesher-interpretation Paul finds a very different meaning for this passage. It seems that Paul interprets Deut 30:11-16 as profoundly ironic, because, even though it should be the simplest of tasks, Jews still cannot render perfect obedience to the Law. In fact, Paul has justification for his interpretation because, earlier in Deut 30:1-10, Moses predicts that the Israelites will fail to keep the covenant until God circumcises the collective heart of the people. Paul turns Deut 30:11-16 on its head and interprets what is said of the Law in terms of Christ as the only means for human beings to obtain righteousness.(94)

Paul prefaces his interpretation of Deut 30:11-16 by quoting Lev 18:5.(95) “The man who does these things will live because of them” (ho poiêsas auta anthrôpos zêsetai en autois). As in Gal 3:12, this passage expresses for him the Law-principle.

Tg. Neofiti interprets Lev 18:5 as the promise of eternal life to those who keep the covenant by obeying the laws. Philo also reflects the view that obedience brings life and disobedience death: “Therefore, real true life, above everything else, consists in the judgments and commandments of God, so that the customs and practices of the impious must be death” (Congr. 87). Consistent with Lev 18:5, in early rabbinic thought, the purpose of the Law is not to kill but to give life (t. Šabb. 15[16]:17; Sipra Lev Ahare pereq 13:16)].) Attached to the clause in Lev 18:5 “By the pursuit of which a man shall live” is the bold assertion that a gentile who keeps the Law is like the High Priest (Sipra Lev Ahare pereq 13:13). The point is that one’s status before God as righteous judge is determined solely on the basis of obedience or disobedience to the Law: God is no respecter of persons. In fact, the statement in Lev 18:5 “shall live” is said to refer to living in the world to come (Sipra Lev Ahare parasah 8:9–10). It follows, that Paul’s opponents and contemporaries would have accepted his interpretation of Lev 18:5. It is difficult to understand how recent scholarship can claim that Lev 18:5 was not interpreted as a statement of “legalism,” if legalism is defined as obtaining life through obedience to the Law. E. P. Sanders does not deny that Jews were required to obey the Law; to do so, however, was not a means of “getting in,” but of “staying in.” Sanders’ distinction between “getting in” and “staying in,” however, is virtually meaningless, for it makes little difference if a person “gets in” by obedience or “stays in” by it, because both “getting in” and “staying in” are tied causally to obedience to the Law. As T. Eskola expresses it, “It seems evident that Sanders has problems in defining his concept of obedience. He has not been able to explain why covenantal nomism was not legalism. If legalism means that keeping the law affects eschatological salvation, then covenantal nomism is legalistic nomism by definition” (Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 56). (Along the same lines, Davies writes, “Obedience to the law of God was not a means of gaining life but a means of continuing in the life that had been given to them [Israel]” [Faith and Obedience in Romans, 192; see also Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 118-21).

Paul is not criticizing Moses because what Moses said in Lev 18:5 is indeed true. (The Law-principle occurs within the Old Testament itself: Life comes by means of obedience to the Law [Deut 5:33; 30:16; 32:46-47; Neh 9:29; Ps 119:93; Prov 4:4, 22; 8:35; 21:21; Ezek 18:21; 20:11, 13, 21]. It is clear that Neh 9:29, Ps 119:93; Ezek 20:11, 13, 21 are intratextually directly dependent on Lev 18:5.) Obedience to the Law is a legitimate way of obtaining righteousness, but one which Paul sees as only a purely theoretical possibility, since “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).(96) Paul would probably argue that, with his insistence that only perfect obedience to the Law results in obtaining the promised life, he alone among his Jewish contemporaries was interpreting Lev 18:5 according to its intended meaning. He rejects the idea that imperfect obedience is the condition of obtaining life, because the passage does not say to do some or even most of these and you will live by means of them. Paul then creatively reinterprets Deut 30:11-16 as stating the opposite soteriological position to that found in Lev 18:5.(97) (Actually, what Moses says in Deut 30:11-16, taken literally, agrees with Lev 18:5.) He says that it is the personified “righteousness from faith” (hê ek pisteôs dikaiosunê) (rather than Moses) that says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’“ (what Moses says to the Israelites in Deut 30:12) and that this statement is said of Christ: “This is Christ” (see 1QS 8.14; 1QpHab 12.7-8 for a similar use of the introductory formula “This is...).

One should not judge Paul’s pesher-like exegesis out of its first-century context. From the evidence at Qumran, at least some Jews regularly interpreted scripture in this “creative” way. Indeed, the fact that Paul does so in Rom 10 indicates that he expects his readers to be conversant with this hermeneutical approach and to be accepting of it. (It must be remembered that Paul was trying to make a good first impression on the Roman believers.) It seems odd only to those who do not share the hermeneutical assumptions of first-century Judaism. It has been suggested that Paul’s exegesis of Deut 30:11-16 is not even as arbitrary as it may first appear, since in Bar 2:29-30 wisdom is substituted for the Law and Paul identifies Christ with wisdom. If Paul associates Christ—Wisdom—Law then his interpretation of Deut 30:11-16 becomes more reasonable (M. J. Suggs, “‘The Word is Near You’: Romans 10:6-10 within the Purpose of the Letter,” Christian History and Interpretation. Studies Presented to John Knox [ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967] 289-312. See Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 130-31; E. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (WUNT 2d s. 16; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985) 248-49; D. A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrist bei Paulus (BZHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986; Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 78-81.

What he means is that there is no need for someone to bring Christ down from heaven, as it were, because Christ has already provided human beings with the possibility of obtaining a righteousness by faith. Similarly, Moses’ next question, “Who will go down into the abyss” (not “across the sea”—either Paul has changed the text or he follows a variant reading), Paul interprets also of Christ: “This is Christ (in order) to bring (him) up from the dead.” His meaning is that Christ has already risen from the dead—the abyss—and has thereby become the means by which a human being can obtain righteousness. ( Ps 107:26 (LXX 106:26) uses the term abbusos to translate the Hebrew Sheol, the place where the dead reside.) In summary, Paul’s point is that, in order to obtain righteousness, one need not ascend to heaven, where Christ resides as exalted, nor descend to Hades or the grave, where Christ went before his exaltation. Rather, as in Deut 30:11-16, no superhuman effort is required, because the possibility stands perpetually open: “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Rom 10:8 = Deut 30:14). But, unlike Deut 30, the word that is near is not the Law, the other means of obtaining righteousness, but the confession of Jesus as Lord and the fact that God raised him from the dead. To confess this is to have faith, which is the way to appropriate God’s extrinsic righteousness.(98)

3.5.3. The Gift of Righteousness (Rom 5:12-19)

In Rom 5:12-19, Paul clarifies the nature of Christ’s work by comparing it to the tragic effects that Adam’s sin had for his posterity.(99) The first man, Adam, is called a “type” (tupos) of the one who is to come. Paul uses a typological interpretation in order to explain the significance of Christ’s work (see 1 Cor 10:6). (In typological interpretation, a person, place, thing or event in the Old Testament functions to foreshadow an eschatological reality to which it is analogically or functionally similar. The assumption is that, salvation-historically, the type is necessary in order that the anti-type, the eschatological reality signified, be fully understood.) The point of his typological comparison between Adam and Christ is their respective universal influences on the human race, insofar as both serve as heads of humanity.(100) What each does has consequences for the rest of humanity. For this reason, one could call Adam a “negative” type of Christ because Christ’s universal effect was the opposite of that of Adam. Paul makes this clear by his use of the conjunction “but” (alla) in Rom 5:15, which serves to prepare for a contrast between the two “men” (anthrôpoi): “But the gift (charisma) is not like the trespass (paraptôma).”(101)

Based on the typology between Adam and Christ, Paul argues qal vahomer: “For if by the transgression (paraptômati) of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God (hê charis tou theou) and the gift by [that] grace (hê dôrea en chariti) of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many” (5:15). Implicitly, Christ’s “one act of righteousness” (eis dikaiôma) (5:18) or “obedience” (hupakoê) (5:19) is considered more effective than Adam’s “offense” (parabasis) (5:14), “transgression” (paraptôma) (5:15, 16, 18) or “disobedience” (parakoê) (5:19). Because it is more effective, it nullifies the previous effects of Adam’s transgression. (The phrase "the many" [see 5:19] is synonymous with "all human beings" [5:12, 18]. The terms "the many"/"all human beings" stand in contrast to "the one human being" [5:12, 19] or just "the one" [5:18, 19].) What Paul wants to stress is that Christ’s work is the manifestation of the grace of God and indeed is the means by which the gift (hê dôrea) originating in that grace is now available to human beings. The prepositional phrase “by [that] grace of the one human being, Jesus Christ” modifies the phrase “the gift.” In fact, it seems that Paul intends that the prepositional phrase en chariti (“by [that] grace”) to refer back to the phrase hê charis tou theou (“the grace of God”), so that the gift is understood as originating in and being a manifestation of the grace of God. On this interpretation, the use of the preposition “in” (en) is instrumental: “by means of the one human being, Jesus Christ.”(102) In addition, the phrase “of the one man, Jesus Christ” stands in apposition to “by grace,” and serves to clarify that the grace in which the gift originates has come through the Jesus Christ. (Paul no doubt is referring to Christ’s vicarious death and his resurrection.) (The other, less probable syntactical alternative is to take the phrase "by the grace of the one human being Jesus Christ" as being adverbial and so modifying the verb "abounds.") The fact that Paul uses the cognate noun “abundance” (perisseia) in Rom 5:17 in reference to “grace” and “gift” (“the abundance of the grace and the gift of righteousness”) implies that the gift of the grace [of God] that “abounds” (5:15) consists of “righteousness” (dikaiosunê). By righteousness, Paul probably means the extrinsic righteousness that God freely imputes to human beings.

Paul further specifies the nature of “the gift” (hê dôrea) that he identifies in Rom 5:17 as “righteousness.” He calls it “the righteousness of life” (hê dikaiôsis zôês) in Rom 5:18 (see 4:25). The phrase is probably a genitive of result or purpose, so that the gift of extrinsic righteousness has for its result or purpose eternal life. Paul uses the word dikaiôsis rather than the more common dikaiosunê; its only other occurrence in his letters is in Rom 4:25, where it functions as a synonym for dikaiosunê in what may be a pre-Pauline formula. It seems that in Rom 5:18 dikaiôsis also means what dikaiosunê means: the possession of an imputed and extrinsic righteousness. In Rom 5:19 he makes the same point about the Christ’s one representative act: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were established as sinners, even so through the obedience of the one the many will be established as righteous.” By Christ’s obedience, Paul no doubt means his complete life of obedience that culminated in his willing death for others. His point is that through Christ’s obedience, which establishes him as righteous, human beings (“the many”) become righteous by means of a transfer of statuses (see 2 Cor 5:21). In this way, “the many are established as righteous.” Another synonym describing the gift is “righteousness unto life” (dikaiosunê eis zôên) (5:21). By this phrase Paul means an imputed righteousness that has for its purpose or result eternal life.

3.5.4. 1 Cor 1:30

Paul says that Chirst Jesus is "wisdom for us" (sophia hêmin), and then adds that this means that he is "righteousness" (dikaiosunê), "holiness" (hagismos) and "redemption" (apolutrôsis) for us. By saying that Christ Jesus is "righteousness for us" Paul is saying that he is the source of righteousness. In other words, he is the means by which God declares righteous by faith those who are in fact unrighteous, whether Jew or gentile.(103)

3.6. The Example of Abraham

Paul uses the example of Abraham in Galatians and Romans in the service of his exposition of his non-synergistic soteriology. It is probable that his use of the example of the patriarch is polemical, because in second-Temple Judaism and early rabbinic writings, Abraham is held up as a paragon of Law-keeping.(104) On this interpretation, when God declares him righteous, Abraham is merely being recognized for what he already is because of his obedience to the commandments. In other words, Abraham first obeyed God and afterwards was declared righteous (see Jub. 15:1-2; 16:20, 28; 17:17-18; 23:10; Pr. Man. 8; Sir 44:19-20; 1 Macc 2:50-52; CD 3.1-4; T. Levi 9:1-14; T. Benj. 10:4; Josephus, Ant. 1.256; 2 Bar 57:2; Philo, Abr. 5-6, 60-61, 275-76; m. Abot. 5.3; m. Qidd. 4.14. In early rabbinic haggada, Abraham’s acceptance of God’s promise is interpreted as a meritorious act (Mek. Beshallah 7.136-41).This means that even his faith was a manifestation of obedience. By contrast, in Paul’s view, “faith” is not a work, a meritorious act that puts God under obligation, but merely the acceptance of God’s promise. Contrary to the tendency to interpret Abraham as a Law keeper, Paul stresses that Abraham is a man of faith and therefore the spiritual father of all who have faith (see 4:16-17). For Paul, Abraham belongs in the salvation-historical period before the giving of the Law, and anticipates the salvation-historical period inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Christ..

3.6.1. Gal 3:6-9

In Gal 3:6-9, Paul is probably arguing against his Judaizing opponents in his Galatian churches, who appeal to Abraham as a model for the gentile Galatian believers to follow. (The phrases “Just as Abraham” [kathôs Abraam] [3:6] and “with the faith of Abraham [sun tô pistô Abraam] [3:] form an inclusion.)(105) In their view, Abraham both had faith and obeyed the Law (since he was circumcised [Gen 17:10-14]), so that, if the Galatians do the same, then they will become “sons of Abraham” in a soteriological sense (3:7).(106) The “agitators” among his Galatian churches could also have quoted Gen 26:5 “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.” Against Paul, they say that to faith in Christ must be added obedience to the Law as a condition of salvation. They may have quoted Gen 12:3 “All nations will be blessed in him [Abraham]” (see Gen 18:18) as being fulfilled when gentiles believe in Christ and submit themselves to the Law as a condition of salvation. Paul, however, uses the example of Abraham (“Just as Abraham”) against his opponents by pointing out that Gen 15:6 “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” indicates that Abraham was declared righteous by his faith alone (3:6).(107) Moreover, for Paul, faith is not a type of work but the very opposite of work. Since it is a divine passive, Paul understands the verb “it was reckoned” as signifying that Abraham was a beneficiary of the free grace of God. Contrary to the view of his opponents, it is “those of faith” who are the true sons of Abraham (3:7; see Gal 3:9; Rom 3:26; 4:16). The phrase “those of faith” (hoi ek pisteôs) denotes those Jews or gentiles who are characterized by having faith in Jesus Christ as the source of their righteousness (see Gal 2:16, 20); it stands in opposition to the designation those “of the works of the Law” (ex ergôn nomou) (Gal 3:10) or simply “those of the Law” (ek nomou) (Rom 4:14), which denotes those who seek to obtain righteousness by means of obedience to the Law (see Gal 5:4). In his view, the biblical promise that all nations will be blessed in Abraham is fulfilled when, like Abraham, gentiles are declared righteous by faith. (Paul’s quotation in Gal 3:8 appears to be an amalgam of Gen 12:3 and 18:18.) As Paul expresses it, “Scripture foresaw that God declares the nations righteous by faith” (3:8).(108) Gentiles are blessed (by God) “with the faith of Abraham,” which means that gentiles are declared righteous when they have the same faith by which Abraham was declared righteous. (In this context the use of the preposition sun has the meaning of “together with.”) In short, Paul seeks to convince the Galatians that they must not submit themselves to the Law and its demands as a condition of salvation.(109) This could only mean that the Law had another salvation-historical function than being the means by which a person makes himself righteous.

3.6.2. Rom 3:31-4:23

In Rom 3:31 Paul asks rhetorically whether Law is nullified because of faith, to which he responds negatively and affirms rather that “we establish Law” (nomon istanomen). By “Law” Paul probably means the Pentateuch.

Some have objected that the anarthrous no,moj cannot refer to the Pentateuch (see 3:21 “the Law and prophets”), but what must be kept in mind is that Paul uses the term “law” in several senses in his letters, so that no hard and fast rules of usage can be laid down. Context determines meaning and since Paul refers to the example of Abraham in Rom 4:1 as warrant for his statement in 3:31b “we establish Law” it seems that by Law he can only mean the Pentateuch. On this interpretation no,moj is functionally equivalent to “the scripture” (hê graphê) in Rom 4:3 (Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, chap. 3; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 96-97). This view is rejected by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 252-54; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.223; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.124-26.

Then in Rom 4:1-23, he demonstrates from scripture (“What does scripture say?” [4:2]) that being declared righteous comes by faith.(110) In this way the Law is not nullified by his teaching.(111) (Even though it is not the expected way of joining a conclusion with its warrant, nevertheless in this case the conjunction oun [“therefore”] seems to function as such.) Paul begins by denying that the case of Abraham is an exception to the principle that he set forth in Rom 3:27-28: that a person is declared righteous by faith and not by works (4:1-2).(112) This is because Abraham also was declared righteous by faith. Exegeting Gen 15:6 “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” Paul says that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness: “If Abraham were declared righteous by works, then he would have reason to boast, but not before God” (4:2).(113) (The LXX, from which Paul quotes, renders the active Hebrew verb “to reckon” as the passive “to be reckoned” [elogisthê]. This required the use of the phrase eis dikaiosunên to indicate the predictive function: “be reckoned as righteousness.”) He means that Abraham was declared righteous not by what he did but by his acceptance of God’s promise, for scripture indicates that Abraham merely believed (episteusen) God’s promises to him and on the basis of that act of faith God declared him righteous. In Paul’s interpretation, faith reckoned as righteousness is the semantic equivalent of being declared righteous by faith. If Abraham were declared righteous because of what he had done, then he would have reason to “boast” (echei kauchêma), by which Paul means that Abraham could claim to have accomplished something, to have earned a reward (misthos) and thereby put God under obligation (kata opheilêma) (see 4:4). (The phrase "not before God" in Rom 4:2 is probably intended as a denial of the apodosis "He would have reason to boast," which implies, of course, that the condition set out in the protasis "If Abraham were declared righteous by works" is likewise rejected. From God’s point of view, Abraham has no basis in which to boast.) But Abraham did nothing in order to be made righteous, since faith in God’s promises is not a work, but the very antithesis of work.

In Rom 4:4-5, Paul makes a generalization from the case of Abraham. He sets in contrast “the one who works” and “the one does not work,” to which category Abraham belongs (4:4-5). In the former case, because he works, his wage (misthos) is reckoned to him “according to obligation” (kata opheilêma) and not “according to grace” (kata charin).(114) In other words, his wage has been earned and God is thereby under contractual (or covenantal) obligation to pay it. In the case of the latter, by contrast, no wage is reckoned “according to obligation,” because he does not work and so is undeserving of any wage. If a wage is reckoned at all, it will be “according to grace.”(115) Such a wage will be the result of “a free and unmerited decision of divine grace.”(116) For Paul the two prepositional phrases “according to obligation” and “according to grace” express two mutually exclusive ways how God relates to human beings. They correspond to “the one who works” (ho ergazomenos) and “the one who does not work” (ho mê ergazomenos) respectively (4:4-5). A person can either pursue reward by doing what God requires and thereby putting God under obligation to himself or he can pursue reward by abandoning all efforts at doing what God requires and receiving it as a gift from God. The one who does not work is declared righteous by faith and so becomes qualified for reward extrinsically, apart from any merit: “To the one who does not work, but has faith in the one who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is for righteousness” (4:5). (See Philo, Heres 94: logisthênai tên pistin eis dikaiosunên autô.) In other words, the one who does not work is the one who by faith accepts from God an imputed righteousness, which is the condition of receiving a wage. Thus, contrary to second-Temple haggadic tradition, Paul implies that Abraham was actually ungodly when he was declared righteous.(117) Appropriately, he calls God “the one who declares righteous the ungodly” (ton dikaiounta ton asebê), by which he means that God without obligation gives a wage to the one who does not work insofar as he declares the ungodly man to be without guilt when he is not actually without guilt. (By way of contrast, see Exod 23:7; Isa 5:23; Prov 17:15.)

After arguing that a person cannot be declared righteous by the Law, Paul asks, “Do we do away with (katargoumenon) the Law (nomon) because of faith?” (Rom 3:31). (Paul is probably addressing an accusation leveled against him by his critics.) The term “Law” in Rom 3:31 probably should be translated as Torah or even the totality of the logia of God (Rom 3:2), in which case, Paul is asking whether a rejection of the notion of being made righteous by the works of the Law (Rom 3:28) means the rejection of the scriptures and their authority. Paul’s response is an emphatic: “May it never be” (mê genoito). Rather, he says that by his teaching “we establish the Law” (nomon istanomen). He then explains in Rom 4 that his teaching about being declared righteous on the principle of faith (Rom 3:27) actually is found in the Torah and the Writings, which is what he means by “establishing the Law.” (See Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 96.)

In Rom 4:6-8, Paul quotes from Ps 32:1-2 to make the point that, the truth that God declares the ungodly righteous was also known by David, who experienced forgiveness for which he was ineligible according to the conditions set out in the Torah. Paul interprets David’s forgiveness as his being declared righteous through faith and not by works. (David rendered himself permanently unrighteous and unforgivable because of his sins of adultery and murder.) According to the interpretive rule of gezerah shawah (“equal category”), Paul brings Ps 32:1-2 to bear on his interpretation of Gen 15:6 (4:6-8).(118) (The citation is from the LXX.) The principle of gezerah shavah stipulates that, on the condition that two passages share a common word or phrase, the less clear of the two passages may be interpreted in light of the more clear. In the case of the Ps 32:1-2 and Gen 15:6, the word in common is “to reckon” (logizein). In Ps 32:1-2, David says that the man is blessed to whom God does not “reckon” sin. Paul interprets the less clear Gen 15:6 in light of the more clear Ps 32:1-2; thus, for God to “reckon” Abraham’s faith as righteousness is not to count his sin against him, but to forgive his sins and to cover them. In other words, because Abraham believed God’s promise, God did not reckon to him his sin, but forgave it; this is the meaning of Abraham’s faith being reckoned as righteousness. Thus, contrary to Paul’s opponents, Abraham was not already righteous before his faith was reckoned as righteousness. Paul’s citation of the experience of David as described in Ps 32:1-2 implies that God has been declaring human beings righteous apart from the Law long before the appearance of Christ, in spite of the fact that God ostensibly gave the Law to Israel as a means of life. In Rom 4:24-25, Paul describes the believer as the one who believes in God “who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead, who was delivered over for our transgressions and raised for our righteousness” (dia tên dikaiôsin hêmôn). He means that Jesus as dying and resurrected is the means by which believers obtain righteousness and thereby are declared righteous.

In Rom 4:13, Paul states emphatically that it was not “through law” (dia nomou) that Abraham received the promise of “the inheritance of the world” (to klêronomon kosmou) (Rom 4:13). (The anarthrous “law” [nomos] probably refers to the Mosaic Law and the preposition dia is used instrumentally: “through the Law.”) Rather, the promise was realized “through righteousness of faith” (dia dikaiosunês pisteôs). (In second-Temple Judaism, not only were Abraham’s descendents to receive the land promised to Abraham but also worldwide dominion [see Sir 44:21; Jub. 22:14; 32:19; 2 Bar. 14:13; Mek. Beshallah 7.138-40]. This promise may be implied in Gen 22:17b: "Your descendents will possess the gates of their enemies.") The phrase “righteousness of faith” is a genitive of origin, meaning the righteousness that originates in faith. It is a shortened formula meaning the righteousness of God that faith appropriates. Paul is contrasting two ways of becoming righteous and thereby being qualified to receive the promise: by obedience to the Law and by faith.(119) He explains that if those who are heirs of the promise are heirs “from Law” (ek nomou) then faith has been rendered useless (kekeêôtai) and the promise has been nullified (katêrgêtai). (The phrase ek nomou in Rom 4:14 is synonymous with dia nomou in Rom 4:13.) Since, for Paul, Law and faith are mutually exclusive ways of relating to God, if the inheritance were “from Law” then it could not be “through righteousness of faith,” and so faith would be of no use. Implicitly, the reason that the promise cannot be from the Law is that no one can obey the Law perfectly. This is clear from Paul’s succinct statement in Rom 4:15: “For the Law produces wrath” (ho gar nomos orgên katergazetai). In theory, obedience to the Law could qualify a person to become an heir of the promise, if he could keep the Law perfectly. But because no one has done or can do so, then the Law in practice brings condemnation and wrath.

Paul then says elliptically, “For this reason by faith, in order that according to grace” (dia touto ek pisteôs hina kata charin) (4:16). The reason to which Paul refers is probably found in Rom 4:14: “For if they are heirs by the Law, then faith is made void and the promise is nullified.”(120) It follows that, if the inheritance of the promise is received by faith, God’s purpose is that it be according to grace (kata charin) and not through the works of the Law, which is impossible anyway insofar as all human beings are incapable of rendering perfect obedience. Grace is God’s unmerited favor to human beings. Paul adds that the promise must be by faith (and therefore according to grace), in order that the promise be certain (eis to einai bebaian tên epaggelian) (4:16). If it were not by faith, then the promise would not be certain; rather it would conditional upon obedience to the Law, which for Paul would make the promise not only uncertain but also unrealizable.(121)

Paul insists that Abraham had already been declared righteous before he was commanded to be circumcised, which, in fact, was the only commandment that Abraham received (Gen 17:10; 15:6) (4:9-12). According to Paul, Abraham received the sign consisting of circumcision as a “seal of the righteousness of faith in uncircumcision” (on circumcision as a sign, see Gen 17:11-13). As a seal, circumcision functions to authenticate visibly that of which it is a sign, namely Abraham’s status of having a righteousness by faith (4:11a). This means that Paul rejects the idea that circumcision as a commandment is a condition of being declared righteous. (As he stated earlier, circumcision as sign gives no privileged position to Jews with respect to final judgment [Rom 2:25-29].) Abraham serves as the father of both the uncircumcised, because he was reckoned as righteous by faith before he received the commandment of circumcision and the father of both those who are circumcised and have faith because he did receive the commandment of circumcision (4:11b-12). Thus, Abraham functions as a means by which gentile and Jewish believers are unified: both have a common spiritual father.

In the Book of Jubilees, there is the tendency to retroject the Law into the patriarchal period: 6:17-19 = Shevuot; 7:3-5 = proper procedure for offering; 7:35-38 = offering of first fruits and sabbatical year; 13:25-27 = tithe; 15:1-2 = Shevuot; 16:20-31 = Tabernacles; 18:17-19 = “The Feast of the Lord,” which seems to be Passover; 21:5-10 = prohibition against idolatry and eating of blood as well the proper procedure for making sacrifices [see Lev 3:7-10]; 22:1-9 = Shevuot; 32:10 = second tithe; 32:4-8 = Levi’s discharging office of priest according to Law; 34:12-20 = Day of Atonement.

Paul sees God’s dealings with Abraham as paradigmatic for all human beings, which means that the salvation-historical period of the Law, begun with Moses, had a function subservient to God’s purpose of declaring righteous on the condition of faith. Paul writes, “That is why his faith was ‘reckoned to him as righteousness’. But the words, ‘it was reckoned to him’, were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our righteousness” (Rom 4:22-25). In the case of Abraham in Gen 15:6 it was God’s promise to him that he would make his offspring as numerous as the stars when he did not yet have a son. In the case of the believer, however, the promise is eschatological salvation. Paul’s opponents no doubt were saying that, because Abraham was commanded to be circumcised as a condition of being in the covenant (Gen 17), circumcision and then obedience to the rest of the Law was a condition of being qualified for eschatological salvation for all for whom Abraham is a paradigm. But Paul would have responded by saying that the promise was prior to and independent of Law, since Abraham was declared righteous merely on the condition of believing the promise, long before he was given any covenantal responsibilities (i.e., circumcision). In other words, there were no conditions attached to Abraham’s being declared righteous except his belief in God’s promise. The same is true of all who share the faith of Abraham.

An interesting haggadic interpretation of the promise to Abraham is found in Sipre Deut 47. It is explained that those said in Dan 12:3 to be destined to shine like the stars are the righteous only. Implicitly, Dan 12:3 is brought in relation to Gen 15:5; 22:17; the connection between them is the fact that in these passages God promises to Abraham that his descendents will be as numerous as the stars. The point is that, in spite of the fact that God promised to Abraham that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars, only the righteous among them will shine like the stars (Dan 12:3), meaning that they alone will receive life in the world to come. Those Jews, also descendents of Abraham, who are unrighteous will be as the dust of the earth, another metaphor used in the Torah to describe Abraham’s innumerable descendents (Gen 28:14). According to this interpretation, to be like the dust of the earth is to be destined for eschatological punishment, as 2 Kgs 13:7 implies: “For the king of Aram destroyed them and made them like the dust at threshing time.”

3.7. Grace as the Opposite of Works

Standing in contrast to works, the grace of God, defined as God's unmerited favor and mercy, is central to Paul's soteriology.

3.7.1. Saved by Grace (Eph 2:8-9)

Paul explains to his readers that they are in a state of being saved from God’s wrath by grace, which is appropriated through faith (see Rom 5:9-10; 2 Thess 2:13-14).(122) In so doing, he is repudiating any form of synergistic soteriology, since both “grace” and “faith” stand in opposition to human accomplishment and merit.(123) (See also Eph 2:5 “you are saved by grace.”) He then says that being saved is not from them, in the sense of their having merited it, but is a gift of God (theou to dôron), which is synonymous with being saved by grace.(124) Further explicating his position, Paul says that being saved from divine wrath is not “from works” (ex ergôn). (Parallels to Paul’s use of this abbreviated formula are found in Rom 4:2; 9:11-12, 32; 11:6; Titus 3:5.) Paul probably uses “works” and not “works of the Law” because of his predominately gentile readership; no doubt, the shorter “from works” includes not just “works of the Law” and any other merit-producing human activity.(125) If it is not from works, then it follows that no one who is in a state of being saved from God’s wrath can “boast” or justifiably take credit for being in that position.(126)

3.7.2. The Gracelessness of Circumcision (Gal 5:3-5)

In Gal 5:3-4, Paul explains the Galatian gentiles what submitting to circumcision would really mean for them soteriologically. The Judaizers have almost convinced the Galatians that they cannot be declared righteous without obedience to the Law. It is probable that these false teachers believe that Jews and gentiles are declared righteous and thereby qualified for salvation by faith in Christ and by obedience to the Law. They recognize that the Galatian converts already have faith but what they are missing is obedience to the Law. Circumcision is the logical first step towards submission to the Law as a condition of being declared righteous.(127)

Just in case they were not aware of this fact, Paul begins by pointing out to the Galatians that submitting to circumcision is the initiation rite to submitting oneself to the whole Law: “He is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (5:3). Perhaps he suspected that some of the Galatians believed that selective obedience was an option. Paul is adamant that, if the Galatians allow themselves to be circumcised, they would be putting themselves under the condition of being declared righteous “in the Law” (en nomô). The phrase “in the Law” is either metaphorically locative with the meaning of “in the sphere of the Law” or is instrumental, meaning “by the Law.” In either case, it is the semantic equivalent of “from works of Law” (ex ergôn nomou) (2:16) (The present tense of dikaiousthe is conative, implying that the Galatians are thinking in the present regarding some future action.)(128) This further means that they would be severed from Christ, by which he means severed from the benefits of Christ. In particular, he has in mind being severed from the possibility of being declared righteous by faith because of Christ’s work. (See Gal 3:17 katargêsai tên epaggelian [“to nullify the promise”].) In Gal 5:2 he expresses the same point by saying that Christ would be of no use to them if they submitted to being circumcised. Paul rejects the both/and position of his opponents for an either/or position; in his view, there are two mutually exclusive ways of being declared righteous, faith in Christ or obedience to the Law.(129) (The latter is impossible, however, because perfect obedience is required, and no one can keep the Law perfectly.) Finally, Paul explains that if the Galatians agree to being circumcised they have “fallen away from grace” (see 1:6). (The articular tês charitos indicates that the grace from which they have fallen is a specific grace, God’s grace.) For him, the possibility being declared righteous by faith in Christ is a manifestation of the grace or unmerited mercy of God.(130) If the Galatians reject this option in favor of being declared righteous by obedience to the Law, then they would no longer be beneficiaries of God’s grace.

In Gal 5:5, Paul continues by saying that, by faith and by means of the Spirit, the Galatians received the hope of righteousness (elpida dikaiosunês). (The phrase "hope of righteousness" is a genitive of content: hope consisting of righteousness.) The hope of righteousness is the expectation of being declared righteous by God at the final judgment by faith apart from the Law. Such a hope is ultimately grounded in grace.

3.8. Other Soteriological Expressions

Paul uses other soteriological expressions. In fact, he says that no words can fully express what soteriologically awaits the believer: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard and no heart has understood what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Cor 2:9; see 2 Cor 12:4). He compares a full understanding of God's salvation-historical purposes to seeing face-to-face rather than in a (bronze) mirror in which the image is distorted (1 Cor 13:10-13).(131)

3.8.1. Sonship

Paul uses the metaphor of sonship to describe his soteriology (see Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:5-7; Eph 1:5). The term huiothesia occurs in Greek sources to mean adoption. Adoption was a Roman legal institution whereby a boy or man would legally become son and heir of the one adopting; the concept of adoption would be familiar to Paul's gentile readers. The primary religious-historical background to Paul's use of the term huiothesia, however, is the metaphorical depiction of God as father and Israel as his son (or Israelites as sons) in the Old Testament and post-biblical Jewish texts (Exod 4:22-23; Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1-2; 32; Isa 1:2-4; 30:9; 43:6-7; 63:8, 16; 64:8; Jer 3:4, 19; 31:9; Hos 1:2-9; 11:1; Mal 1:6; 2:10; 3:17; Sir 4:10; 23:1, 4; 36:17; 44:22-23; AddEsth 16:15-16; Jud 9:13; Tobit 13:4; 3 Macc 2:21; 3 Macc 2:2, 21; 5:7-8; 6:1-15, 28; 7:6-7; 4QDibHam-a 3.3-7; T. Mos 10:3; Jub. 1:24; 2:20; 19:27-29; 22:11; 1 En. 62:11; Ps. Sol. 18:4; 13:8; 17:28-30; Sib. Or. 3.702; LAB 16:5; 18:5-6; 32:1; 2 Bar 13:8-10; 4 Ezra 5:28; 6:54-59). For God to be a father and for the nation of Israel to be the son of God or individual Israelites within the nation to be sons of God metaphorically describes a special relationship between God and human beings. Paul uses the same metaphor to decribe how God relates to Jewish and gentile believers, even though he acknowledges that Jews in a racial sense still retain the privilege of sonship (Rom 9:4).

In Rom 8:14, Paul says that by virtue of being led by the Spirit, believers have the spiritual status of being "sons of God" (huioi tou theou). His use of the connective "for" [gar] implies that Rom 8:14 is the warrant for what he has writen in 8:13b "But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live." To put death the "deeds of the body" is bring sinful habitual behavior to an end. (In this case, "body" has a negative connotation, being synonymous with "flesh.")(132) The implication is that the person who is led by the Spirit puts to death "the deeds of the body." This same person has the new spiritual status of being a son of God which is the warrant for the fact that he will live eternally. What the believer is in the present will necessarily issue in the future consequence of eternal life. Implicitly drawing upon the scriptural metaphor of being a son of God. The one who is led by the Spirit becomes qualified as a son of God. In Rom 8:14, Paul explains that whoever is led by the Spirit is a son of God, and in the next verse he says believers have received a "spirit of adoption" (pneuma huiothesias) (see also 8:19 "the [eschatological] revelation of the sons of God"). His point is that the believer has received the Spirit, with the result that he now has the status of being a son of God. The genitive "spirit of adoption" is a genitive of purpose: the Spirit whose purpose it is to bring sonship. Or the genitive phrase could be qualitative, in which case the Spirit is intimately associated with sonship. (The parallel phrase "spirit of slavery" probably means an attitude or disposition of being a slave, in which case pneuma does not have the same meaning in each phrase.) As a result of receiving the "spirit of sonship," the believer spontaneously addresses God as Abba father, for the Spirit testifies to him that he is a child of God. (Abba is the Aramaic word for father.) In Rom 8:16, Paul adds that the Spirit testifies to the spirits of believers that they are children of God (tekna theou). Moreover, the use of the metaphor of "sonship" is naturally expanded to include that of inheritance. To be a son of God is to be a heir of God, by which Paul means that the believer, the child of God, is destined to receive from God what is God's own possession, "the perfect and imperishable glory of his own life."(133) Similarly, Paul sees the believer as the co-heir of Christ, destined to be "glorified with him." Christ has inherited a "glory," in which the believer will share (see 2 Thess 2:14: "In order that you may obtain the glory our Lord Jesus Christ"). Thus, to be glorified with Christ is a way of expressing eschatological salvation (see Rom 8:30).

In Gal 4:5-7, in the context of his comparison of existence under the Law to the status of a minor who does not differ from a slave, Paul explains that God sent his Son in order that Jews (and human beings generally) may be redeemed from the Law and receive sonship (huiothesia). This means that believers are sons, and for this reason God sent the Spirit into their heart causing them to address God as Abba, father. Believers have received the status of sonship because of Christ, which allows God to give them the Spirit who confirms experientially their status as sons. As sons, believers are also heirs of God and no longer have the status of slaves (see Gal 4:3). Earlier in Galatians, Paul writes that believers are "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (3:26). They are sons in a soteriological sense, as the recipients of the promise of eschatological salvation. Finally, in Eph 1:5, Paul says that believers have been predestined to sonship, by which he means that believers have been predestined to be heirs of salvation.

3.8.2. Reconciliation

Paul understands salvation as being reconciled, something separated a human being from God, presumably sin. The means by which human beings are reconciled with God is Christ, in particular his death and resurrection (see Rom 5:10-11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18-19; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20).

3.8.3. Being saved (from Divine Wrath)

Paul refers to believers as those who have been saved from the ominous prospect of facing divine wrath (Rom 5:9-10; 8:24; 10:9, 13; 1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8; 1 Thess 2:16; 2 Thess 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5). As many Jews did also, Paul foresees a time of eschatological judgment when God will manifest his anger against sinners; he calls this "the wrath," "the wrath of God," "the wrath to come" or the "day of wrath" or “wrath and anger” (see Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Thess 1:10; see Rom 2:8-9 and 1 Thess 5:9). (In the Qumran sectarian writings, the term "wrath of God" (or near equivalent) occurs with some frequency [see, for example, 1QS 2.15; 4.12; 1QM 4.1; 6.3; CD 1.21-2.1; 3.8; 8.13; 10.9; 19.26].) It is Paul's view that, even before the day of judgment, believers are longer objects of God's wrath because of the work of Christ. It is not surprising that Paul refers to Jesus as savior (sôtêr), for he saves those who believe in him from divine wrath (Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6). (In 1 Tim 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4 Paul refers to God as "savior.")

3.9. God's Soteriological Power

Paul refers to what could be termed God's soteriological power. God's power in a general sense is his capacity as an agent to produce intentional effects. As applied soteriologically, it is God's his capacity to effect salvation for human beings. In Rom 1:16, he writes that he is "not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." The righteousness of God, or the possibility of being declared righteous apart from human achievement, is the good news. The reason that the good news is the soteriological power of God (“power of God leading to salvation”) is that having this extrinsic righteousness is the condition of being saved from the wrath of God at the time of eschatological judgment.(134) Likewise, in 1 Cor 1:18, he states "The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." That whereby human beings are saved from the wrath of God at final judgment is the acceptance by faith of the message about Jesus' death ("the word of the cross"), in particular how Jesus' death is penal and substitutionary (see ). This is the power of God that produces the intentional effect of overcoming the consequences of human sin; the qualifying gentitive "of God" is a genitive of origin, indicating that the power originates with God and is not human beings. Those who are perishing are those who do not accept by faith the offer of salvation are destined to be condemned or declare unrighteous at final judgment. A few verses later Paul calls Christ "the power of God and the wisdom of God," by which he means that Christ is the means by which God makes being saved possible, which means therefore and the word of the cross, contrary to appearances, is the truth, a profound insight into reality (1:24). The power whereby his Corinthians readers believed is really God;s ower Immediate it is the Spirit's work in spite of Paul' meager contribution to persuasion to produce faith which leads to salvation 1 Cor 2:4-5 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, in order that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

E. Jüngel argues that Paul’s view of righteousness of God stands behind what he writes about the word of the cross in 1 Cor 1:18-31 (Paulus und Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zur Präisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie [4. ed.; HUT 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972] 29-33, 44). The terminiology in 1 Cor 1:18 (“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God”) is terminologically parallel to Rom 1:16-18, where the good news is called “the power of God for salvation to all who believe.” Since both are called “the power of God” it is reasonable to conclude that for Paul “the word of the cross” is a synonym for “the good news.” Granted this, it further follows that just as with the good news in Rom 1:17, the righteousness of God is revealed in the word of the cross.

The idea of God's saving power in history operative on behalf of Israel occurs in the Old Testament and second-Temple Jewish sources:

Exod 14:31: When Israel saw the great power which Yahweh had used against the Egyptians, the people feared Yahweh.
Exod 15:6a: Our right hand, Yahweh, is majestic in power.
Exod 15:13: In your strength you have guided them to your holy habitation.
Exod 32:11: Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand
Deut 3:24: O Adonai Yahweh, you have begun to show your servant your greatness and your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as yours?
Deut 4:37: And he personally brought you from Egypt by his great power.
Deut 5:15: And Yahweh your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm.
Deut 6:21: And Yahweh brought us from Egypt with a mighty hand.
Deut 7:8, 19: Yahweh brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt / And the outstretched arm by which Yahweh your God brought you out.
Deut 9:26: Whom you have redeemed through your greatness, whom you have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Deut 9:29: Your inheritance, whom you have brought out by your great power and your outstretched arm.
Deut 26:8: And Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with great terror and with signs and wonders.
Josh 4:24: All the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of Yahweh is mighty.
2 Kgs 17:36: But Yahweh who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm
Neh 1:10: They are your servants and your people whom you redeemed by your great power and by your strong hand.
Ps 66:3: Say to God, "How awesome are your works. Because of the greatness of your power your enemies will give feigned obedience to you.
Ps 24:8: Who is the King of glory? Yahweh strong and mighty, Yahweh mighty in battle.
Ps 68:34: Ascribe strength to God; his majesty is over Israel and His strength is in the skies.
Ps 77:15a: You have by your power redeemed Your people.
Ps 90:11: Who understands the power of your anger and your fury, according to the fear that is due you?
Ps 145:4, 11-12a: One generation shall praise your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts / They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and talk of your power; to make known to the sons of men your mighty acts.
Jer 16:21: This time I will make them know my power and my might; and they shall know that my name is Yahweh.
Dan 9:15: And now, O Lord our God, who have brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand
Bar 2:11: And now, Lord (kurie), God of Israel, you who led your people out of the land of Egypt with your mighty hand, with signs and wonders and great might, and with your upraised arm
Jdt 9:8: Break their strength by your might, and bring down their power by your anger.
Jdt 13:11: God, our God, is with us, still showing his power in Israel and his strength against out enemies
3 Macc 2:6: With many different punishments you made known to him your divine power.
2 Macc 3:24: Were astounded by the power of God.
3 Macc 6:12: You who possess all might and power, Eternal, look now upon us.

There are a few references to the future, eschatological power of God:

Isa 2:19: Men will go into caves of the rocks and into holes of the ground before the terror of Yahweh and the splendor of his majesty, when he arises to make the earth tremble.
Isa 40:10a: Behold, the Adonai Yahweh will come with might, with his arm ruling for Him.
Ezek 20:33: As I live," declares the Adonai Yahweh, "surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you.
1 Enoch 1:4 And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, [and appear from His camp] and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.

3.10. Paul's Speech in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16-41)

Luke provides a speech of Paul's speech to Jews in Antioch in Pisidian. According to the method outlined earlier, this speech should be accepted as a summary of what Paul said on that occasion, the salient points of his address. Since his hearers are Jews and God-fearing gentiles, Paul adopts a salvation-historical approach. He reiterates the history of God's redemptive acts in Israel beginning with the exodus. Eventually, he mentions the fact that God chose David as king, and how, as promised, from one of David's descendants, God brought to Israel a savior, Jesus. Paul then explains how "the people of Jerusalem and their rulers" did not recognize Jesus, but executed him; nonetheless, God raised Jesus from the dead, and was seen for many days by his disciples, who are now his witnesses. Paul then cites scriptural proof for his message; his use of the scriptures is in keeping with the handling of scripture by Jews, especially as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although it may seem arbitrary and therefore unconvincing to us, Paul's interpretation of scripture is in line with Jewish hermeneutical assumptions.

Consistent with the assumptions of the early church, Paul sees Jesus' death and resurrection as foretold in scripture. Paul says, "We tell you the good news: what God has promised to out fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second psalm: 'You are my son; today I have begotten you'" (Acts 13:32-33). The messianic interpretation of Ps 2:7 predates Christianity. The idea of son of God occurs in two Old Testament texts that are interpreted messianically by Jews of the post-biblical period (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). In 2 Sam 7 God promises to relate to David's son, Solomon, as a father relates to his son. It was assumed that God would all the more relate to David's greater son, the eschatological Davidic king, as a father to a son. In Ps 2, upon his installation as king, the "Anointed One" is said to be God's son; on the day that he becomes king God becomes his father (2:7). Similarly, it was assumed that Ps 2 was a description of the installation of Israel's eschatological king. Thus both 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7 occur in 4QTestim [4Q175], where they are interpreted messianically. Doubtless, other Jews interpreted these passages messianically also, so that this interpretation was not unique to the Qumran sectarians. Paul's particular adaption of this interpretive tradition is to see Ps 2:7 as addressed to the Messiah after his resurrection.

Paul then cites Isa 55:3 in which God promises Israel that He would give to David the "holy and sure things" (similar to the LXX, but different from the Hebrew) that He had promised. The most important thing promised to David was that one of his descendants would rule in Israel. Paul interprets God's raising Jesus from the dead as God's keeping this promise to David: Jesus, as the eschatological Davidic king, was resurrected and is thereby able to rule over Israel; if he had remained dead, God would not be keeping his promise to David. Paul's finds further "proof" of the promise that God would raise the eschatological David king from the dead in Ps 16:10: God's promise that he would not let his holy one see decay is interpreted as applying to the Messiah not David, since the latter did die (and "see decay"). Paul's use of this text is not original to him, but is identical to Peter's interpretation (Acts 2:25-32) Likely, Ps 16:10 became a part of a collection of Old Testament texts that were seen as predicting the death and resurrection of the Messiah; these became for the early preachers the basis of their message. The handling of Ps 16:10 in this way is typical of rabbinic exegesis, in which the interpreter finds defensible but not so obvious meanings for scripture, often motivated by a theological agenda. This was the accepted way to interpret scripture.

Finally, Paul quotes Hab 1:5, the last half of which says: "I [Yahweh] am going to do something in your days that you would not believe even if you were told." As is clear from Hab 1:6, the marvelous and astonishing event of which Habakkuk speaks is the coming of the Babylonians. Paul, ignoring the original historical context, interprets the event referred to by Habakkuk as the future judgment of God on those who reject the gospel. On this basis, Paul warns his hearers of the consequences of rejecting the message that they just heard. One should not think that Paul has done something hermeneutically unusual or even offensive, even if we would not today interpret the Book of Habakkuk in this manner. In a commentary on the Book of Habakkuk found at Qumran, similar to what Paul has done, Hab 1:5b is likewise reinterpreted: its new meaning concerns the apostates from the community, whose departure is unbelievable and bewildering. Both interpretations exceed the intended meaning of the text, its historical meaning; both are new revelation based on old revelation. Yet, obviously, Jews of the first century expected scripture to be interpreted in this way. What Paul proclaims in Acts 13:38 is characteristically Pauline: "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be made righteous from by the Law of Moses." Paul says that "forgiveness of sins" (aphesis hamartiôn) is now available through Jesus, because his hearers all stand condemned under the Law, not being able to make themselves righteous by obeying the Law. Through believing in Christ one receives a righteousness that is apart from the Law.

Footnotes

(1) On the importance of righteousness to Paul’s theology, see H. Hübner, "Pauli Theologiae Proprium," NTS 26 (1980) 445-73.

(2) On Paul’s disagreement with Judaism, see D. A. Hagner, "Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism," Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity. Issues of Polemic and Faith (ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 128-50. He accepts Sanders’ view of Judaism that ideally conceived early Judaism does not teach that Jews do not "earn their way to God" (138); nevertheless, he argues that there was "discrepancy between Judaism as ideally (and correctly) conveived and as generally lived out on a day-to-day basis. There were Jews in the first century who adhered to the tenets of legalistic righteousness. It is this misunderstanding of Judaism that Paul opposes (136-41). Contrary to Hagner, legalistic righteousness is not a distortion of early Judaism but represents its essential nature.

(3) See J. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 79-89. Claiming that Paul has no penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement enables David Brondos to reject Paul's view of being declared righteous and instead claim that Paul holds to a modified Jewish synergistic soteriology normally associated with Roman Catholicism (Paul on the Cross).

(4) A succinct version of Sanders’ view of Paul’s concept of "works of the Law" is found in his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 46-47. See Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 208-20.

(5) On Gal 2:16, see A. van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (SBT 5; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968) 21-24; S. Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 117-18; see also M. Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of Nomos in the Letters of Paul (SBLDS 128; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 123-58; R. K. Rapa, The Meaning of "Works of the Law" in Galatians and Romans (SBL 31; New York: Lang, 2001) 130-43.

(6) Contrary to D. Fuller, Paul does not mean by "works of the Law" merely the ceremonial law ("Paul and ’the Works of the Law’." WTJ 38 (1975-76) 28-42.

(7) See Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 169; Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 18-19; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) 159-60; R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 118.

(8) Betz, Galatians, 116; H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Gal 2,15 4,7 [WUNT 86; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996] 12-30; Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 172-75. Mußner points out that Paul’s Jewish contemporaries would not have set "faith" and "works of the Law" in antithesis to each other (170-71).

(9) R. Dabelstein, Die Beurteilung der ’Heiden’ bei Paulus (BET 14; Frankfurt a.M: Lang, 1981) 62-64.

(10) Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 29-30, 79.

(11) Thus, what Paul really means is that all Jews ought to know this principle based on their experience under the Law and their knowledge of the scriptures. On Gal 2:16, see Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia, 115-46; On Paul’s opponents in his Galatian churches, see I.-G. Hong, The Law In Galatians (JSNTSup 81; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) chap. 3.

(12) Contrary to Longenecker, Galatians, 87-88. See Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 121.

(13) Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 120-21; Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 20-21.

(14) In agreement with Ziesler, Rapa holds that Paul’s use of the word group dikaioô "brings together both forensic and ethical categories in his understanding of righteousness" (The Meaning of "Works of the Law" in Galatians and Romans," 133). Given the context, however, it seems that Paul is using dikaioô only in the forensic or juridical sense: to declare to be righteous.

(15) Rather than the preposition dia, used in Gal 2:16a [dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou], Paul uses the preposition ek in Gal 2:16b (ek pisteôs Christou). Possibly he is influenced by LXX Hab 2:4 ho dikaios ek pisteôs zêsetai ("The righteous by faith will live"), which he cites in Gal 3:11.

(16) Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 174.

(17) See Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 27-29; contrary Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 174-75.

(18) Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 85-86; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC n.s.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975, 1979) 1.205.

(19) W. G. Kümmel, "Paresis und endeixis. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre," ZThK 49 (1952) 154-67.

(20) See Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 190-95; K. Kertelge, "Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus (2 ed.; NTAbh, n.s. 3; Munster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1966) 48-62; H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 166-68; M. Seifrid, Justification by Faith. The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (SNT 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 219-23.

(21) J. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (2 ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993) 135-50.

(22) Paul probably uses the term nomos to mean principle, contrary to Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 220; G. Friedrich, "Das Gesetz des Glaudens," TZ 10 (1954) 401-17; C. T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law: A Study on the Continuity between Judaism and Christianity, Romans 3:31 (SBLDS 55; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1981) 63-71. This makes better sense in the context.

(23) Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 230-34.

(24) The advocates of the “new perspective” on Paul claim that Jewish “boasting” is in their special covenant relationship with God, not in their accomplishment of making themselves righteous by obeying the Law; Paul’s opposition to such boasting consists in his view that the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the covenant and the Law (see Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 33; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 170-71; F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, 133; R. W. Thompson, “Paul’s Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3,27 in its Context,” Bib 67 [1986] 529-31; Rapa, The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans, 249). Clearly, Paul means more than Jews boast in their salvation-historical privileges. See B. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1989)93-96.

(25) See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 246-50. Davies takes a non-committal view (G. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans [JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 135-38). Many commentators argue that nomos in Rom 3:27 does mean the Old Testament Law, so that Paul is said to distinguish two attitudes towards the Law: the Law of works sees the Law as a means by which to be declared righteous by doing, whereas the Law of faith understands the Law not as a means of making oneself righteous but as the expression of the will of God for those who have faith to do (see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.219-20; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (12 ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 110-12).

(26) See H. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 40-41.

(27) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 221-22; Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 70-71.

(28) Advocates of the "new perspective" point to Rom 3:30 as evidence that the boasting of which Paul writes in 3:27 (and 2:17-24) is not the boasting of Jews in individual accomplishments but a boast in the privilege of belonging to the Jewish nation (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997] 42; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 184-94; R. B. Hays, "’Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1," NovT 27 [1985] 76-98, esp. 83-84). It is claimed that for Paul to say that God is the God of gentiles also and not of the Jews alone is a non-sequitor unless Paul is opposing Jewish exclusivism, not legalistic works-righteousness. Paul’s point in Rom 3:29-30, however, is more of afterthought and is not intended to be interpreted in light of Rom 3:27-28 (see Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, 222-32).

(29) See M. Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil (BZNW 43; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978).

(30) Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, 89-104. Wolter identifies Isa 57:19 as the religious-historical backround to Paul’s statement (104).

(31) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.259. Wolter argues unconvincingly that the use of prosagôgê has cultic overtones (Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, 105-20).

(32) Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, 127.

(33) On Rom 5:9-10, see See L. Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (ATANT 47; Zürich: Zwingli, 1966) 86-91; E. Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus. Eine traditions-geschichtliche Untersuchung (GTA 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977) 97-99.

(34) See J. Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress; New York: Paulist, 1982; A. J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 12-46; D. Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief (2. ed.; FzB 8; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches, 1976) 163-78.

(35) For a summary of the debate, see M. T. Brauch, Appendix: Perspectives on ’God’s righteousness’ in recent German discussion" in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 523-42.

(36) See S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (2d. ed.; WUNT, 2s. 4; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1984) 269-329.

(37) This "realistic" justification has been the position favored by Roman Catholic exegetes. See L. Cerfaux, Le chrétien dans la théologie paulinienne (LD 33; Paris: Cerf, 1962) 343-428; J. Riedl, Das Heil der Heiden (St. Gabrieler Studien 20; Mödling bei Wein: St. Gabriel-Verlag, 1965) 220.

(38) U. Schnelle rejects the position that the "righteousness of God" was a technical term which Paul takes over and uses as a means to express the meaning of the "good news" (Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart [GTA 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983] 67-72.). Rather, Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God evolved to the form in which it occurs in Romans, having its beginning with pre-Pauline baptismal theology. Schnelle’s reconstruction of the evolution of the Pauline concept of the righeousness of God tends to be too speculative. Besides, if Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is his first letter, which is probable, then Schnelle’s hypothesis is no longer tenable.

(39) See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.91-98; 2.824-26; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans [Philadelphia:Fortress, 1949] 74-77; Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 159-81; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 214-15; R. Bultmann, "Dikaiosyne Theou," JBL 83 (1964) 12-16.

(40) Contrary to Hulgren, it seems that in each context the exegete must choose between the two possible meanings of "the righteousness of God" (Paul’s Gospel and Mission, 29-30).

(41) Thus, in spite of the fact that in the Qumran sectarian writings, there are a few passages where God’s forgiveness is attached causally to his righteousness, which prima facie resembles Paul’s concept of "the righteousness of God," upon closer analysis, however, one realizes that both work with different meanings of the key term "righteousness of God." Paul usually means by the phrase "a righteousness originating with God freely imputed to human beings." In the understanding of the Qumran sectarians, by contrast, the phrase is a synonym for God’s covenantal faithfulness, whereby he acts savingly on behalf of Israel reinterpreted as the community; in most cases this saving work includes forgiveness and spiritual restoration. One could say that Paul defines further in which respect God’s righteousness is saving.

(42) See R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1.270-79. In his essay "Dikaiosyne Theou," Bultmann calls Paul’s concept of the "righteousness of God" "eine Neuschöpfung des Paulus" (16). Smiles recognizes the forensic nature of "justification" but insists with Schlier that "dikaioun also bears the notion of ’transforming power’" (The Gospel and the Law in Galatia, 142). It would be better to say that for Paul the event of salvation consists in both forensically being declared righteous as a present reality and in being transformed spiritually.

(43) Käsemann appears to fall into the methodological error of assuming that there must be a core meaning underlying every occurrence of the term "righteousness" in Paul’s letters, which he takes to be the saving power of God; the result is sometimes some very strained and obscure exegesis. See S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 261-96.

(44) On this passage see Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, 141-49; J.-N. Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interpréter l’épître aux Romains (Paris: Seuil, 1991) 1-24; 38-40.

(45) Contrary to S. K. Williams, "The ’Righteousness of God’ in Romans," JBL 99 (1980) 241-90, esp. 258-60; Hultgren, Gospel and the Law in Galatia, 31. Rom 1:16-17 introduces the theme of the righteousness of God which Rom 3:21-30 develops further. Rom 1:16-17 and 3:21-30 function as an inclusio. Since in 3:21, 22, the term "the righteousness of God" is a genitive of origin it is probable that its occurrence in 1:16-17 is likewise.

(46) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.91-102; Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 159-82 Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 65-92. This is contrary to the interpretation of "righteousness of God" as having the more general meaning of God’s saving act (Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 29-30; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 53-54; Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 36-38). Moo argues that Paul intends both the meaning of God’s making right in the sense of saving or vindicating and that of receiving a status of righteousness (The Epistle to the Romans, 74). It seems, however, that, given the context, Paul means by "righteousness of God" the righteousness that originates in God freely imputed to human beings. If the meaning was God’s righteousness then Paul’s statement that in the gospel the power of God is revealed for the righteousness of God is revealed in it becomes redundant since the power of God and the righteousness of God would mean the same thing. Moreover, one would expect that Paul would have said that the righteousness of God, rather than the good news, is the power of God.

(47) On these verses, see G. Herold, Zorn und Gerechtigkeit bei Paulus (EH Series 23, vol. 14; Frankfurt/M.; Bern: Herbert/Peter Lang, 1973).

(48) Those who argue that the phrase "righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive point to the apparent synthetic parallelism between "power of God" in 1:16 and "the righteousness of God" in 1:17, which also stands in antithetical parallelism to "the wrath of God" in 1:18. They argue that, in order to preserve the intended parallelism, the latter must be the same type of genitive construction. Other considerations, however, outweigh this argument from literary parallelism. In CD 20.20 the terms "righteousness" and "salvation" occur as synonyms and both are spoken of as being revealed: "Until salvation and righteousness will be revealed to those who fear God." This passage has obvious parallels to Rom 1:17. Nevertheless, for Paul "righteousness of God" is the condition of salvation, because only those who are decclared righteous by faith qualify for salvation.

(49) On this passage, see A. Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue (SBS 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969); T. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 95-98.

(50) H. Ljungman, Pistis. A Study of Its Presuppositions and Its Meaning in Pauline Use (Lund: Gleerup, 1964) 37-47; Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, 157-88.

(51) See C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976) 90-91; D. Lührmann, Das Offenarungsverständnis bei Paulus (WMANT 16; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 148-53.

(52) Sometimes Paul defines sin as disobedience to the Law, so that those without the Law, gentiles, do not "sin," but are still disobedient (Rom 4:15; 5:12-13; 7:7-8). Some commentators suggest that "to fall short of the glory of God" refers Adam’s loss in a share of the divine glory, but this seems less likely (see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.204-205). In second-Temple sources the phrase "the glory of Adam" is used to denote eschatological salvation, the restoration of what was lost by the first man (1QS 4.23; 1QH 4.15; CD 3.19-20; Sir 49.16).

(53) S. K. Williams’ interpretation of "righteousness of God" as meaning God’s faithfulness to his promises apart from the Law is unconvincing ( Williams, "The ’Righteousness of God’ in Romans," JBL 99 (1980) 241-90, esp. 265-80).

(54) This is contrary to Rapa, who argues the "righteousness of God" in 3:21 means "God’s attribute of righteousness which is shown forth in his saving activity" (The Meaning of "Works of the Law" in Galatians and Romans, 247).

(55) The phrase "righteousness of God" in 3:22 is also a genitive of origin because it stands in contrast to the righteousness that is from the Law (3:21) (contrary to Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, 68; Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission, 31).

(56) As Michel writes, "The human being does not have the possibility of his own performance, but rather remains as one who receives" ("Der Mensch hat keine Möglichkeit zu einer eigenen Vorleistung, sondern bleibt ein empfangender") (Der Brief an die Römer, 106).

(57) See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.203; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 166.

(58) See Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 235-41; G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille (WUNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1971) 382-92; Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, 122-26.

(59) Sanders wrongly concludes that it is not because Paul believes that no one can fulfill the Law that he rejects the Law (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 36-45). Rather, he holds that Paul real object of criticism is Jewish nationalism and exclusivism. See also G. Howard, "Christ the End of the Law," JBL 88 (1969) 331-37; J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 248; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 595-96; L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1987) 128-30; B. Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11 (JSNTSS 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 218.

(60) Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 634-35.

(61) See Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 196. The term does not mean the power of God, contrary to Käsemann ("’The Righteousness of God’ in Paul," 173); Stuhlmacher, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 93; Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, 69-70, 72-75, 87-88; Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 206; Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission, 33. Williams also wrongly does not understand "the righeousness of God" as a genitive of origin ("The ’Righteousness of God’ in Romans," 281-84).

(62) Cremer, Die paulinsiche Rechtfertigungslehre, 301-302; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 253-55; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.514-15; H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 310; Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith, 114-16; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 633-35

(63) Van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus, 125.

(64) Kertelge argues that the second occurrence of the phrase "righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive, meaning God’s power to save [seines Heilswillens und seiner Heilsaktivität]; in fact, this "righteousness of God" has a christological aspect, insofar as it is personified in Christ, so that Paul’s point is that Jews do not submit to Christ as saving ("Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus, 95-99).

(65) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2.515.

(66) W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902) 283-84; U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BEvT 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968) 139-57; P. M-J. Lagange, Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains (Paris: LeCoffre, 1916) 253; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 93; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 255-56; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2.49-50; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 311; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 279-83; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 197-98; Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 380; Van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus, 126-27, 185-218; Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 307-308; Martin, Christ and the Law, 129-34. Moo argues that telos in Rom 10:4 has both a temporal and a teleological (The Epistle to the Romans, 636-43). See also J. Drane, Paul Libertine or Legalist? (London: SPCK, 1975), 133; R. Bring, Christus und das Gesetz (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 35-72; A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 101-102.

(67) Bandsra argues that Paul could not mean termination by telos because this implies that the obedience to the Law was actually a means by which righteous is achieved (The Law and the Elements of the World, 101). While it is true to say that Paul believes that no one could ever be declared righteous by obedience to the Law, nevertheless he does identify a historical period in which Israel had the demand of obedience to the Law placed upon it as a nation as the condition of covenantal blessing. It turned out that legalistic works-righteousness was only a theoretical possibility because perfect obedience to the Law was not possible.

(68) Those who argue for various reasons that telos means "goal" include F. Flückiger, "Christus, des Gesetzes telos," TZ 11 (1955) 153-57; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2.515-20; R. Bring, "Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of Election, Faith and Law in Paul, with Special Reference to Romans 9:30-10:30," ST 25 (1971) 21-60, esp. 47; Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, chap. 4; R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law (JSNTsup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 114-15; D. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 84-86; W. S. Campbell, "Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4," Studia Biblica (ed. E. A. Livingstone; JSNTsup 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980) 73-81; M. N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 2.36; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990) 150-53; Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste?, 114-18.

(69) See E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zur Präisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie (4. ed.; HUT 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972) 50-53.

(70) Grammatically, the prepositional phrase eis dikaiosunên functions as purpose clause (see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.519 n. 2; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 637 n. 34). The prepositional phrase is not adnominal, modifying the substantive "Law," contrary to Dunn, Romans 9-16, 590-91, 596-97; R. Longenecker, Paul: Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1964) 145-47; Williams, "The ’Righteousness of God’ in Romans," 284.

(71) O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 393.

(72) Contrary to Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 72-74; Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 244-45 n. 193.

(73) T. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 112-14; R. Gundry, "Grace, Works, and Staying Saved," Bib 66 (1985) 1-38, esp. 13-14.

(74) See O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 380, 395-96; M. Silva, Philippians (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1988) 176, 186. This is contrary to Ziesler who takes "righteousness" in an "ethical" sense (The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 148-51). Ziesler means by the term "ethical" that the righteousness is "that of God himself communicated to us as we have faith in Jesus. By ’communicated’ we do not mean the transfer of anything from God to man, but rather a participation in God’s righteousness, through Christ, by believers" (151).

(75) E. P. Sanders claims that the distinction between the "righteousness from Law" and the "righteousness from faith" are contrasted as two dispensations, in which there are two different ways of being righteous; this implies that Paul does not think that in the former dispensation that it was impossible to have righteousness from the Law (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 43-45, 139-41). It seems, however, that Paul rejects the possibility of achieving a righteousness from the Law in any "dispensation."

(76) This interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 is contrary to that of other exegetes who interpret "righteousness of God" as "not so much an individual quality available to faith as a gift as a technical term for the eschatological act of God in power by which the world is set right with the divine purpose" (R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians [WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1986] 158) or "a technical term for God’s whole intervention in Jesus" (Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 159). In this case, righteousness of God is equivalent to God’s eschatological salvation, which includes inter alia the forensic imputation of righteousness to the individual. This interpretation is possible, but less probable, since there is a lack of evidence that Paul had this more expansive meaning in mind.

(77) See H. Windisch, Der zweiter Korintherbrief (9 ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924) 196-99.

(78) Williams, "The ’Righteousness of God’ in Romans," 257. Davies argues that Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 is intended to support his view that being in a state of righteousness has ethical implications (Faith and Obedience in Romans, 35-46). Davies holds that the phrase "by faith" is adverbial, modifying "shall live" and that Paul’s point is that before and after Christ believers have always had "a justifying faith which produces a life characterized by faith" (42). It follows that those described in Rom 1:18 are not all human beings, but only the wicked, for even before Christ there are those who, as the prophet Habakkuk describes, live by faith. Davies’ interpretation seems too tenuous to be accepted; besides, it denies a discontinuity between righteousness of God and righteousness from the Law (Phil 3:9).

(79) Contrary to Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 78-84; Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 186-89; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 55; H. C. C. Cavallin, "The Righteous Shall Live By Faith: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation," ST 32 (1978) 33-43. Cranfield offers three convincing arguments in support of interpreting "by faith" as adjectival, modifying "the righteous" (The Epistle to the Romans, 1.102). First, the immediate context requires it because Paul is speaking about being righteous by faith not living by faith. Second, the structure of Romans requires it, because in Rom 1:18-4:25, Paul deals with the question of how a person becomes righteous and only in Rom 5:1-8:29 does he deal with the question of the implications of this for life. Third, "The connection between righteousness and faith is made explicitly in 5.1 in the words which summarize the argument of the preceding division."

(80) Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 43.

(81) On this passage see J. A. Sanders, "Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament," JR 39 (1959) 232-44.

(82) Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 303-304.

(83) Hays’ view that the reason that Paul says that no one is declared righteous by the Law is not because he believes that a person must obey the Law perfectly, which no one can do (The Faith of Jesus Christ, 206-9). Rather, the reason is because "The Messiah himself (ho dikaios) attains life and vindication not through the Law but ek pisteôs, justification through keeping the commandments must be in principle (not merely de facto) impossible" (207). (Hays assumes that Paul interprets Hab 2:4 messainically, so that "the righteous one" refers to Christ [150-57.) Hays’ interpretation is improbable.

(84) Hays argues that 3:11a "No one is made righteous by the Law" (en nomô) is syntactically parallel to 3:11b "The righteous one will live by faith" (ek pisteôs) and 3:12b "The one who does these things will live by them" (en autois). This allows him to conclude that the phrase ek pisteôs is adverbial, just as the other two prepositional phrases are adverbial. It is doubtful, however, that 3:11a is so syntactically parallel to 3:11b and 3:12b that one is obliged to interpret ek pisteôs adverbially, especially since, contrary to Hays, zêsetai is not a "virtual synonym" for dikaioutai, although both are soteriological terms. He also argues that Paul intends a messianic reference by ho dikaios because he interprets Hab 2:4 as a messianic prophecy (The Faith of Jesus Christ, 151-54). For a critique of Hays’ interpretation, see Hong, The Law In Galatians, 128-29.

(85) Contrary to M. Cranford, "The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3," NovT 36 (1994) 242-58. It is clear that Jews held in tension two views of how God related to human beings. Paul attempts to bring this tension to the fore and to resolve in favor of God as merciful. Hübner argues that Paul’s confidence that no one can be declared righteous by the works of the Law as stated in Gal 3:10 is based upon Hab 2:4, not empirical evidence (Law in Paul’s Thought, 19). This conclusion seems to exceed the evidence. Paul believes that scripture testifies to another way of being made righteous, but this does not mean that this is the only way that Paul could know of the necessity of this other way of being made righteous. See Dahl, Studies in Paul, 106-107.

(86) See R. Bring, Commentary on Galatians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 128-42.

(87) See Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 150-57.

(88) On this passage, see Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 325-30; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 618-30; Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 98-102; Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 104-105, 143; Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 241-46; Gundry, "Grace, Works and Staying Saved in Paul"; Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 104-12; B. Eastman, The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul (SBL 11; New York: Lang, 1999) 140-42.

(89) One might have expected Paul to write dikaiosunên tên ek nomou or tên en nomô, which would create a parallelism with what the gentiles did not pursue (John Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress; New York: Paulist, 1982] 87.) When he says that Israel did not obtain to this "law" Paul means that Jews did not succeed in obtaining righteousness by means of obedience to the Law. T. David Gordon argues that the phrase hôs ek ergôn modifies nomos (Law) rather than the participle diôkôn. Paul’s meaning would be that the Law is not from faith, similar to what he writes in Gal 3:12 ("Why Israel Did Not Obtain Torah-Righteousness: A Translation Note on Rom 9:32," WTJ 54 [1992] 163-66). This is a possible interpretation.

(90) Lagrange, Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains, 250. This is contrary to Dunn, Romans 9-16, 582-83.

(91) Jeremias TWNT 4. 271-79. Isa 28:16 is cited in 1QS 8.7 of the community (see 1QH 14[6].26-27).

(92) The context requires that Paul’s use of de be understood adversatively (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 282-83; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2.520; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 53-56; Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 105; Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 109; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 645-50). Paul’s use of gar. . . de to denote a contrast between two statements occurs in Rom 5:7-8; 6:10, 23; 7:18, 22-23; 8:6, though not every such use is contrastive. This is contrary to the view that the second statement in Rom 10:5-6 is supplementary and parallel to the first statement (contrary to Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, 104-105; Flückiger, "Christus, des Gesetzes telos," 155; Wang, "Law," 149-51; Howard, "Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Roman 10:4ff.," 335-36; Bring, Christus und das Gesetz, 54; Fuller, Gospel and Law, 85-88; Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 189-203; Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 118-25; Wright, "Christ, the Law and the People of God: The Problem of Romans 9-11," Climax of the Covenant [Minneaplois: Fortress, 1991] 231-57, esp. 244-45; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 130.

(93) Murray denies that Paul is quoting directly from Deut 30 (The Epistle to the Romans, 2.51-54).

(94) See Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 102-12.

(95) This assumes that the textual reading of Môüsês gar graphei tên dikaiosunên tên ek [tou] nomou hoti etc. The phrase "the righteousness from the Law is an accusative of respect. For a discussion of the different textual variants, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 643, n. 1.

(96) Some exegetes interprets 10:5 as applying Lev 18:5 to Christ, whose perfect obedience to the Law makes possible life to human beings. This interpretation assumes that Christ is the "aim" of the Law, so that 10:5 is really an explication of 10:4 (Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, 103-105; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 521-22). Given Paul’s negative use of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12, this interpretation seems improbable.

(97) It is improbable that Paul’s intention in his exegesis of Deut 30:11-16 is to identify faith and the true doing of the Law; for him these are opposite soteriological principles (see Lyonnet, "Saint Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps. A propos de Rom., 10:6-8," Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de Andre Robert (Paris: Blaud and Gay, 1957) 494-506; F. Flückiger, "Christus, des Gesetzes telos," 154; Fuller, Gospel and Law, 85-97; Badenas, Christ and the End of the Law, 129-30.

(98) See Dunn’s unconvincing explanation of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12-14 ("’Righteousness from the Law’ and ’Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1-10," Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (ed. G. Hawthorne; O. Betz; Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Eerdmans/Mohr-Siebeck, 1987) 216-28.

(99) See R. Scroggs, The Last Adam. A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 76-82; P. von Osten Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (FRLANT 112; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 160-75; Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission, 86-93; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 314-46.

(100) Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 53-64; 95-100; Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, chap. 3.

(101) The phrases "the gift" (charisma) and "the grace of God" (hê charis tou theou) in 5:15 are coordinate in meaning. The term paraptôma (transgression) is antithetically parallel to charisma and charis in Rom 5:15 (see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 334-37).

(102) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.285

(103) Contrary to Schnelle, who interprets righteousness in an ethical sense and connects it with baptism (Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 44-46

(104) Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 117-206; G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary & Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 175-99.

(105) On this passage, see J. Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen Bd. 6 [Münchener Universitäts-Schriften]; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1971) 73-79; Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, 93-98; Longenecker, Galatians, 112-14; Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 96-120; Rapa, The Meaning of "Works of the Law" in Galatians and Romans, 155-58; Eastman, The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul, 136-40.

(106) See Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 15-20; Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 217. But, as Eckstein points out, what applies to Jewish Christians also applies to Jews (Verheißung und Gesetz, 105-106).

(107) In 4QMMT (Halakic Letter), the word "righteousness" is used to describe what a Jew possesses by virtue of obedience to the Law. In MMT, the term "righteousness" occurs in the expression "to reckon as righteousness," the same expression found in Gen 15:6 ("And it was reckoned to him as righteousness"), which Paul quotes in Gal 3:6 and Rom 4:3, 22 to make the point that it is God’s intention to declare Jews and gentiles as righteous by faith, apart from the Law. Thus, the view represented by the author of MMT stands in direct contrast to Paul’s own teaching.

(108) Paul’s use of the present "declares righteous" [dikaioi] probably is intended to communicate that being made declared by faith is a universal salvation-historical truth and did not become true at a certain point in human history, although it is through Christ that it becomes possible (Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 160).

(109) F. Stanley Jones argues uncovincingly that Paul has recourse to the Hellenistic idea of a superior unwritten Law pre-existing the inferior written Law ("Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus (GTA 34; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 92-96.

(110) Hübner lists the differences between Paul’s use of Abraham in Gal 3 and his use of the same in Rom 4 (Law in Paul’s Thought, 51-55). Of significance is the fact that in Rom 4:11 Paul alludes to Gen 17:11 and interprets circumcision as the seal of the righteousness by faith. This makes him the father of all the uncircumcised who believe and the father of all the circumcised who believe. Hübner argues that, under pressure from the Jerusalem church, Paul modified his earlier view found in Gal 3, where there was no positive view of circumcision expressed. It seems more probable, however, that strategically Paul says nothing positive about circumcision in Galatians because his gentile audience was on the verge of submitting to being circumcised (Gal 5:2-3).

(111) Kertelge, "Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus, 185-95; Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, 99-108.

(112) Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 76-77; S. J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, 216-51

(113) See T. Söding, "Verheißung und Erfüllung im Lichte paulinischer Theologie," NTS 47 (2001) 146-70.

(114) The term logizesthai is a technical term drawn from the world of commerce, meaning “to put on someone’s account.” (BGD 1a). In order to maintain consistency, however, the term will be translated as “to reckon.”

(115) As M. Cranford points out, Rom 4:5 is not parallel in form to Rom 4:4 (“Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,” NTS 41 [1995] 71-88). One might expect Paul to say something like “But to the one who does not work and yet a reward is reckoned (anyway) his reward is according to grace and not according to obligation.” It seems that Paul assumes that his readers will understand what stands in parallelism with Rom 4:4; for this reason, he goes on to explain why the one who does not work nevertheless receives a reward: “His faith is reckoned as righteousness,” just like Abraham.

(116) C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.231.

(117) P. Stuhlmacher, A Challenge to the New Perspective. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001) 65.

(118) See J. Jeremias, "Zur Gedankenführung in den paulinischen Briefen," Abba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 269-72, esp. 271-72; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 89-90; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.232-33.

(119) In the re-writing of the Abraham narratives in the Book of Jubilees, Abraham is already righteous long before God makes his covenant with him; in particular, he has rejected idolatry [Jub.11:14-12:21]. The author inserts many extra-biblical traditions that portrays Abraham in this way. Thus, it is clear that for the author Abraham’s obedience is the reason that God made his covenant with him, contrary to the original account in Genesis. Paul obviously would not agree with this interpretation.

(120) Some commentators, however, take "for this reason" (dia toutou) as referring forwards to the purpose clause in 4:16 hina kata charin, so that the meaning is "For this reason by faith, namely, in order that according to grace" [see parallels in 2 Cor 13:10; Phlm 15; 1 Tim 1:16]. But such a grammatical construal makes little difference to Paul’s meaning (Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.241-42; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 277-78).

(121) Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 123.

(122) Paul’s use of the periphrastic construction este sesôsmenoi implies a past action that has continuing results (BDF §352; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2 ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 18-19; H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 341.

(123) P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 174.

(124) Touto refers not to faith but to the whole preceding section (Abbot, Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916], 51; Hoehner, Ephesians, 342-43).

(125) Abbot, Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, 52; F. Mußner, Der Brief an die Epheser (Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1982) 67; O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 176-78.

(126) A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990) 113

(127) R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 228.

(128) The other two verbs (katêrgêthête and exepesate) in 5:4 are aorist, but seem to be timeless or proleptic (F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief [HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974] 349; R. Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988] 223, n. 15). R. Longenecker suggests that Paul’s meaning is that even to consider being declared righteous by means of the Law is already to have been severed from Christ and to have fallen from grace (Galatians, 228).

(129) E. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) 277.

(130) F. Mußner explains, “charitos ekpiptein bedeutet also ein ‘Herausfallen’ aus jedem Bereich, in dem das Gnadenprinzip und nicht das Gesetzesprinzip gilt” (Der Galaterbrief, 349).

(131) See Cerfaux, Le chrétien dans la théologie paulinienne, 202-13.

(132) On this passage, see B. Byrne, ’Sons of God’ - ’Seed of Abraham’ (AB 83; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979) 97-103.

(133) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.407.

(134) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.87-89.

Ahead to Part Four: The Objective Ground of God's Soteriological Work

Back to Part Two

Back to Index Page