THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
1. The
Problem of Unrighteousness
In Rom 1-3 Paul considers first the situation of the gentile and then that of the Jew and concludes that both group equally have failed to do what is necessary in order to be considered righteous before God. All human beings lack righteousness, which is the status of having met all of God's ethical requirements for human beings. The result is that they are under the wrath of God. Paul examines the situation of the gentiles and concludes that generally they stand guilty before God because they know God but do not acknowledge him as God and because they violate their conscience. 1.1.1. Suppressing the Knowledge of God (Rom 1:19-31)
Paul says that what is knowable about God is evident among gentiles, for God made sure that this knowledge was available to them: "For God made it manifest to them." He explains, "For from the creation of the world his invisible attributes have been seen, being discerned from what he has made: his eternal power (hê aïdios autou dunamis) and divine nature (theiotês) so that they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20-21). To say that God has "invisible attributes" runs counter to the idolator's assumption that the gods possess visible forms, which they could manifest to human beings at will. God's "invisibility" is his transcendence, so that to confess God as "invisible" is to confess that God is nothing like his creation. Nevertheless, in spite of his transcendence ("invisibility"), God's existence and attributes can be inferred by means of what he has made (tois poiêmasin). By his use of the participle nooumena, Paul implies that a human being has the capacity of "inference," by means of which he can infer God's invisible attributes from what is visible (or perceptible). On this interpretation, the participle phrase "being discerned by what he has made" (tois poiêmasin nooumena) adverbially modifies the verb "have been seen" (kathoratai), indicating that the "seeing" is really "understanding" or a "seeing with the mind," as opposed to actual sight. In particular, from first hand experience of created reality, a human being is naturally led to the conclusion that there is a "divine nature," which is eternal and with power sufficient to bring into being all that is ("eternal power"). In other words, Paul presents a version of the cosmological argument: the finite and conditioned requires an infinite and unconditioned cause. This is how God made the knowledge of himself known to human beings, not directly but indirectly or inferentially. The fact the human beings can infer the existence and attributes of God from what has been created results in their being rendered inexcusable (anapologêtos). In spite of knowing God from creation, gentiles generally did not "glorify" (doxazein) God or give him thanks. Paul uses the term "to glorify" (doxazein) and its cognate "glory" (doxa) extensively in his writings, often with different meanings. In this context, "to glorify God" is to ascribe unrestricted greatness to God and to live in conformity with his known will. Paul also says that gentiles did not thank God for the fact of their existence and all the benefits that they derive from him (1:21a). Instead, "They became futile in their thinking" (emataiothêsan en tois dialoismois autôn) (1:21b), by which Paul means that they chose to believe things that they knew not only were not true, but were actually ridiculous. In other words, there was a knowledge of God among gentiles but not an acknowledgement of God. In particular, gentiles came up the absurd notion that one can make a representation of the divine (idolatry). In Rom 1:23, Paul says that, as idolaters, gentiles "exchanged the glory of the immortal (or "incorruptible") (aphthartos) God for the likeness of the image of mortal (or "corruptible") (phthartos) human beings, birds, four-footed animals and reptiles" (see Deut 4:15-20). To "exchange the glory of God" is to substitute an inglorious, visible image for the glorious, invisible God. Whatever can be represented is finite and therefore created and mortal; God who is the eternal first cause or creator is necessarily immortal and therefore unrepresentable by that which he has made (his "invisibility" or transcendence). (In Rom 1:25, Paul reiterates this point.) Paul also says of gentiles that "their uncomprehending heart became darkened" (eskotisthê hê asunetos autôn kardia) (Rom 1:21b). The heart (kardia) denotes the "center" (to use a metaphor) of the human being, with a stress on the cognitional and volitional (and therefore moral) nature. The heart was uncomprehending because gentiles chose "to suppress the truth"; the natural result was that gentiles willingly ceased to know what was true and good, which Paul expressed as a "darkening of the heart." (See Col 2:18; 1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:15 for the synonymous idea of the corruption of the mind.) Refusing to acknowledge God leads to a general moral degeneration, especially sexual immorality; God allowed gentiles to sink into greater and greater moral turpitude (1:24, 26-28). (In Wis 14:12, sexually immorality is causally connected with idolatry and moral corruption in general.) Three times Paul says that God “handed over” (paredôken) gentiles: “God handed them over in the desires of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves" (see Exod 23:31; Deut 7:23) (1:24); “God handed them over to shameful passions” (1:24); “God handed them over to a worthless mind, to do what is not proper” (1:28) (Paul uses word-play by using the verbs edokimasen and adokimon in 1:28.) To hand over the gentiles to sin is not to restrain them in their sinful desires. He concludes with a list vices characteristic of gentiles (1:29-31). 1.1.2. Another Reason for the Condemnation of Gentiles (Rom 1:32-2:4, 12-16)
In Rom. 1:32–2:4, Paul puts forward what seems to be another basis of judgment of gentiles. What he says, however, would also have application to Jews even though, unlike gentiles, they have the Law as an objective standard against which to be judged. Rom. 1:32 consists of a relative clause having for its antecedent ‘them’ (gentiles) in Rom. 1:28 and introduces a new idea. Gentiles condemn themselves and so bring themselves under divine judgment insofar as they know that those who do such things as Paul describes in his list of vices in Rom. 1:29–31 deserve death and yet they still do such things and even commend others who do them (see T. Asher 6:2). To commend others for sinning is worse than actually sinning oneself, because it is disinterested and for that reason truly reflective of a person’s moral values. The person who sins can sometimes justly claim that he or she has acted rashly or out of weakness, but the person who approves of another’s sin cannot appeal to such extenuating circumstances. Paul then explains how gentiles know the righteous decrees of God even without having the Law. He begins, ‘Therefore, you are indefensible, O man, when you judge others (2:1a). The conjunction "therefore" (dio) serves as a logical connective, indicating that Rom. 2:1 is an inference from the fact that gentiles know the righteous decrees of God, as stated in Rom. 1:32. In other words, because they know them, gentiles are without excuse every time that they judge another. This is because their act of judging presupposes and reveals that they know the righteous decrees of God. To judge another presupposes an ethical standard by which to judge. For Paul, that ethical standard is the innate law of reciprocity, as he explains in Rom. 2:1b ‘For in what you judge others you judge yourself’. It is an innate ethical principle that one should act towards others as you would want them to act towards you; the specifications of this principle are revealed most clearly in the judgments that a person makes of others. The righteous judgments of God that gentiles know and demonstrate insofar as they pass judgment on others are the applications of this universal ethical principle. So gentiles know that the list of actions in Rom 1:29–31 is morally wrong because they do not want to be on the receiving end of any of these actions. In Rom 2:12-13, Paul explains that even though they do not have the Law, gentiles are not thereby exempt from judgment. (This follows upon his inclusion of what may be a pre-Pauline tradition concerning God’s impartiality in Rom 2:6-11.) It is still possible to sin without the Law (anomôs) and to be judged without the Law. The reason for this Paul explained in Rom 1:18-2:5: that even without the Law gentiles as moral beings know that one is subject to the law of reciprocity. Paul says that gentiles are a law to themselves; in other words, standards of right and wrong are innately known to gentiles. They do not have the Jewish Law, but still "do by nature the things of the Law" (phusei ta tou nomou poiôsin), by which Paul means that gentile moral theory and practice naturally and inevitably conforms, in part, at least, to the Mosaic Law (Rom 2:14-15). As moral beings, gentiles demonstrate that "the work of the Law" (to ergon tou nomou), by which Paul means what the Law requires, is innately present within them, or as Paul expresses it, is "written on their hearts" (grapton en tais kardiais autôn). Implicitly, Paul assumes that the Mosaic Law has an essential core expressive of a universal moral standard for human beings, since it is obvious that not all the commandments in the Torah are innately present in all human beings (see Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:13-14; 5:6b). Probably, the"law" written on the hearts of gentiles is the law of reciprocity; it is on this basis that gentiles by nature judge others and judge themselves. Paul also expresses this fact about the gentiles by saying that gentiles have a conscience (suneidêsis), which testifies to them concerning their own moral status (Rom 2:15b). According to Paul, at the time of final judgment, gentiles will condemn or vindicate themselves on the basis of their own self-evaluation, because they will judge themselves on the basis on the law of reciprocity. Their own consciences will be their judge, which will use their own thoughts to condemn or even commend them before the divine tribunal (Rom 2:15c-16). 1.2.1. Jews as Disobedient (Rom 2:17-25)
After arguing in Rom 1:18-32 that gentiles stand before God as without excuse, Paul turns his attention to the Jews, who surprisingly do not fare any better than the gentiles. Paul begins in Rom 2:17 with a conditional clause, but strangely the protasis ("If...") lacks an apodosis ("then...). Likely, in spite of the appearance of being an anacoluthon, Paul is not actually setting forth a condition, but making an affirmation. He says that Jews "rely upon the Law" (su . . . epanapauê nomô) and "boast in God" (kauchasai en theô) (see Jer 9:23; Ps. Sol. 17:1; 2 Bar. 48:22). An advantage of being a Jew is that the Jews have received the Law and thereby know what the will of God is and can discern what really matters (dokimazeis ta diapheronta), that is, what matters to God. They are "instructed in the Law" (Rom 2:18) (see Rom 3:2). (The phrase dokimazein ta diapheronta also occurs in Phil 1:10.) Or, as Paul expresses it in Rom 2:20, Jews "have the form of knowledge and the truth in the Law." The terms "knowledge" and "truth" in this context seem virtually synonymous, so that the phrase "of knowledge and the truth" is probably a hendiadys (two terms used to denote a single concept). According to Paul, the Law contains "the form of knowledge and the truth," which means that the book of the Law is the embodiment of what God has revealed about himself and his will (see Josephus, War 2.229; Ant. 12.256). Thus to "rely upon the Law" is justifiably to follow after it and to base one's life upon it. Because of their possession of the Law, Jews are in a position to be teachers to those without the Law: "a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an educator of the foolish, a teacher of children." (On the phrase "guide to the blind," see Isa 42:7; 1 Enoch 105:1; Sib. Or. 3.195; on the phrase "a light of those in darkness," see Isa 42:6, 7; 49:6; Wis 18:4; T. Levi 18:9; 1QS 4.27-28.) Josephus, writing in the late first century, explains that the Jewish Law has been a great benefit to the world: "As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are visible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the truest piety in the world" (Apion 2.291).] In spite of the privilege of possessing the Law, Jews have been unable to keep the Law consistently (2:21-24). Not doing what they have taught others to do turns Jews into hypocrites. Paul asks five questions, which are more declarative statements than true questions. He begins by asking rhetorically, “The one who teaches another do you not teach yourself?” (2:21). He then gives three examples of what Jews have taught gentiles but have not done themselves; he does so in the form of rhetorical questions. He says that Jews teach that it is wrong to steal, but themselves do so; likewise they teach that adultery is wrong, but this does not stop them from committing it. Paul also says that Jews detest idols but rob temples. It is not clear, however, how Jews were guilty of robbing temples, unless he was referring to robbing the Jerusalem Temple (see T. Levi 14:5; Ps. Sol. 8:12; CD 6.15). Perhaps he was referring to the practice of some Jews’ possession of the plunder from pagan temples (see Acts19:37; Jos. Ant. 4.207). It is not enough to possess the Law; a Jew, more importantly, must do the Law, for mere possession of the Law has relatively little value. Paul’s fifth question summarizes his accusation against his own people: “You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor the Law of God by your transgressions?” Paul says that Jews boast in the Law, but dishonor the Law and God through their violation of it. (Even though it is in the form of a question, Rom 2:28 is really a statement.) In this context, the phrase “to boast in the Law” is used in a negative sense because it means to assume wrongly a spiritual superiority over gentiles simply by virtue of knowing what the Law requires. Paul’s point is that to know the Law is no better than not knowing it unless obedience follows upon such knowledge. The result is that, rather than being teachers of those without the Law, Jews become the occasion of cursing of the name of God. To make this point, Paul adapts LXX Isa 52:5: “The name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you.” What was true in Isaiah’s time is also true in Paul’s day: gentiles reject the Jewish teaching and even blaspheme the God of the covenant because of Jewish hypocrisy. One should not think that Paul is saying that every Jew sins continually. (One must appreciate the rhetorical context in which Paul is writing.) Rather, he is affirming that even habitual obedience to the Law still means violations of the commandments; implicit in Paul’s argument is that assumption that a single violation of the Law is sufficient to be called a Lawbreaker. In other words, he rejects as mistaken the notion that God is satisfied merely with partial obedience. In Rom 2:25, Paul then sets forth the thesis that circumcision is of value only if one keeps the Law; otherwise it is valueless. He interprets circumcision as the rite of initiation into the covenant established through Moses. The condition of remaining in the covenant and receiving its benefits, however, is obedience to the Law. Paul opposes the view that merely being a Jew is a guarantee of eschatological salvation; merely being circumcised will not protect against final judgment. It seems that there were Jews who, when considering the prospect of final judgment, held that God would eschatologically condemn no circumcised man. Probably, they believed that God would never fail to remove the guilt of the well-intentioned Jew who repented of his sins, no matter how many times he has committed those sins. Contrary to this view, Paul asserts that God must judge righteously, according to what a person has done, whether this person is circumcised or not (see Rom 2:6-12). Moreover, implicit in Paul's argument is the assumption that a single violation of the Law is sufficient to nullify one's circumcision. In other words, Paul takes exception to Jewish presumption upon divine mercy, for, in his view, perfect obedience to the Law is required in order to be righteous and the guilt resulting from intentional transgressions of the Law cannot be removed through repentance. It follows that all Jews have sinned and therefore have irremediably violated the condition of remaining in the covenant. 1.2.2. Curse of the Law (Gal 3:10-12)
Thinking of Jews primarily, Paul states in Gal 3:11a that no one is declared righteous before God “in the Law” (en nomô), by which he means by obeying the Law (en is used instrumentally). The use of the verb dikaioun is forensic and means to acquit of guilt. His point is that no Jew will be declared by God to be without guilt because he or she has done what the Law requires. In Gal 3:10, Paul provides the basis for his conclusion in Gal 3:11a. He affirms that whoever attempts to do the works of the Law is cursed, because the Torah itself says that cursed is everyone who does not do all that is written in the Book of the Law (Deut 27:26). Nothing less than perfect obedience is required in order to be declared righteous. (Paul’s citation of Deut 27:26 appears to be from memory because it does not correspond to either the LXX or the Hebrew; it has verbal similarities with Deut 27:26; 28:58, 61; 29:19, 20). Paul refers to that class of people who seek to be declared righteous by doing what the Law requires as “whoever are of the works of the Law” (hosoi ex ergôn nomou), which obviously includes Jews who hold that eschatological salvation is possible on condition of obedience to the Law. Implicitly, however, Paul would include gentiles in this category insofar as gentiles have the law written on the heart (Rom 2:14-15). The phrase “works of the Law” may be an objective genitive—works that fulfill the Law—or a subjective genitive—works that the Law requires. In either case, it means human actions that conform to the positive and negative stipulations of the Law. The unstated minor premise in his syllogism in Gal 3:10 is that no is able to do all that the Law requires. Paul's argument runs as follows:
The argument requires that Paul hold a priori that no one is able to obey the Law in its entirety as opposed to merely drawing an a posteriori conclusion—based on generalization from experience—since otherwise his argument would lack universality. The tacit assumption therefore is that human nature is such that no one can obey the Law perfectly. It is clear that Paul does not accept the notion prevalent among Jews of his own day that repentance was possible for the Jew who transgressed a commandment for which the Torah allows no possibility of atonement. He takes seriously the condition of perfect obedience set forth in Deut 27:26: the only way to escape falling under the curse of the Law is to obey all that the Law stipulates. In Gal 3:12,
Paul cites Lev 18:5, which could be called the Law-principle: “The
man who does these things will live by them” (see Rom 10:5).
When he undertakes to keep the Law, a Jew makes the commitment to
live by the Law, which means that if he or she keeps the Law perfectly
he or she will “gain” (eternal) life. Of course, such
a person must also bear the consequences of failing to keep the Law,
as described in Deut 27:26. Thus, the Law is causally connected to
both being cursed and receiving life. Paul’s point is that the
Jew is under obligation to do all that is written in the book of the
Law, as Deut 27:26 clearly stipulates, or else fall under the curses
of the covenant set out in Deut 27-32. In Paul’s view, however,
submission to the Law will always result in coming under the curse
because human beings cannot keep the Law perfectly. The life offered
by Lev 18:5 becomes merely a theoretical possibility. The solution to the plight of both Jew and gentile is for God to provide a righteousness that comes from without, an imputed righteousness, apart from obedience to the Law, either the Mosaic Law in the case of the Jews or the law written or the heart in the case of the gentiles. The impossibility of gaining a righteousness by works leaves only the possibility of obtaining a righteousness that is independent of all human effort. This Paul calls "the righteousness of God" (Rom 1:17; 3:5; 3:21-22; 3:25-26; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). There has been some debate over the meaning of the phrase. It seems, however, that most of the occurrences of the phrase “righteousness of God” are best interpreted as meaning the righteousness possessed by human beings that originates with God and is imputed to human beings as a gift. In these cases, the phrase is a genitive of origin: a righteousness from God.
In Rom 1:16, Paul says that the good news (to euaggelion) is the “power of God leading to salvation” (dunamis...theou...eis sôtêrian) and 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). In this context, the phrase “righteousness of God” is probably a genitive of origin. Thus, Paul means that the content of the good news is the possibility of receiving by faith an extrinsic righteousness that comes from God. 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).” 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 imputed righteousness from God. The reason that the good news is the soteriological power of God (“power of God leading to salvation”) is that having this extrinsic, imputed righteousness is the condition of receiving salvation. 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 or she cannot make himself or herself 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 as a gift. Paul’s expression “from faith to faith” is probably simply an emphatic way of saying “by faith.” This interpretation of Rom 1:17a is confirmed by Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4: “The righteous by faith shall live.” He understands Hab 2:4 to be a foretelling of how God will impute the status of righteousness to human beings, with the result that they will live (eternally). 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 attributive, connected to "the righteous" and functioning as an adjectival phrase modifying the subject, the righteous: those who are righteous by faith will live. Paul's purpose in citing Hab 2:4 is to show that his teaching on the righteousness of God was already known before Christ, and is therefore not a theological novelty.
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].” 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.” 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). 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). 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). 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 imputed to human beings. 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. 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. Faith has “Jesus Christ” as its object, because the righteousness of God is possible because of his death and resurrection. Paul adds that the Law and the prophets testify to this teaching about the righteousness of God, by which he means that the Old Testament is a preparation and anticipation of this teaching (see Rom 4 [4:15 = Gen 15:6; 4:7-8 = Ps 32:1-2]; 10:6-13 = Deut 30:12-14). In explication of his position, Paul adds in Rom 3:24a, "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.) The adverb "freely" (dôrean) qualifies the verb "being declared righteous," and is parallel in meaning to the phrase "without works" (3:21). It is by God's unmerited favor or grace that this way of being declared righteous comes about.
Paul explains that Jews who reject the gospel do so because they are ignorant of “the righteousness of God” (hê tou theou dikaiosunê) and seek instead to establish their own (kai tên idian zêtountes stesai). (Rom 10:3 consists of two nicely balanced participial subordinate clauses joined by the conjunction "and" (kai) followed by the main clause.) The phrase "righteousness of God" stands in opposition to "their own righteousness" (hê idia dikaiosunê); these are two mutually exclusive ways of being declared righteous (10:3). To be ignorant of the righteousness of God is a short form for being ignorant of the fact that the status of being righteous originates with God as a gift. The phrase "their own" should be taken in a distributive sense to mean "each of their own" (righteousness) (see Phil 3:9). In Paul's assessment, unbelieving Jews reject the need to receive from God a status of righteousness as a gift, because they wrongly believe that they can establish themselves as righteous by their partial obedience to the Law. They are not aware that only by perfect obedience can a person possess righteousness; any form of synergistic soteriology is excluded. The consequence of the fact that such people are ignorant of the righteousness of God is that they do not submit to the righteousness of God (tê dikaiosunê tou theou ouch hupetagêsan) (10:3b). This phrase seems to be an idiom meaning that unbelieving Jews do not abandon their futile attempt to establish themselves as righteous by obedience to the Law and receive the status of righteousness, for which they are seeking, as a gift from God, apart from the Law.
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.” In Paul’s view, there are two types and sources of righteousness, which are antithetically parallel to each other. 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. 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.” Presumably, he abandons the pursuit 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.)
In Rom 5:17, using the fact that death reigned through Adam’s one transgression as his rhetorical point of departure, Paul offers an argument from minor to major argument: “How much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one human being, Jesus Christ." Paul assumes that Christ’s one representative act is more effective than that of Adam and so nullifies it (This is the basis of his argument from minor to major). Both the phrases “abundance of grace” and “gift of righteousness” are appositive or epexegetical genitives, so that the abundance consists of grace and the gift has righteousness as its content. The two phrases are co-ordinate in meaning: God’s grace is expressed in granting righteousness as a gift and God’s gift of righteousness is a manifestation of grace. Paul says that those who have received the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness “will reign in life” (en zôê basileusousin). The use of the future tense probably indicates that Paul has the eschatological future in mind (see 1 Cor 4:8). The adverbial phrase “in life” signifies that the mode in which those who receive the gift of righteousness will reign will be as living (eternally). To reign “through the one human being, Jesus Christ” is to reign because of him.
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.” 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. They did not realize, however, 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 Paul 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. 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). 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. Paul says that Jews in his day have stumbled against the “stone of stumbling and rock of offence,” by which he means Christ. Paul 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. In his composite quotation consisting of Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14, Paul brings out the consequences of 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 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.
In Paul’s understanding, God's gift of righteousness is a possibility because the death of Christ provides the objective ground for the removal of the guilt of sin and the basis for the imputation of the righteousness of God. 4.1. Jesus' Death as Penal and Substitutionary Paul understands Christ's death as penal and substitutionary: Christ became a sinner by taking the sins of human beings and bore the penalty of that sin. Thus, by virtue of Christ's penal and substitutionary death, righteousness is imputed as a gift by faith to the individual who is not righteous. There is an exchange of statuses between Christ and sinners: his righteousness becomes theirs and their sin and its penalty become his.
Alluding to Christ's death, Paul writes, "He [God] made him who knew no sin to be sin." To know sin is a Semitism meaning to be acquainted with sin insofar as one has committed sin. Paul's point is that Jesus, who was sinless, was made to be sinful; implied in this statement is that Christ's death was the result of a transfer of sin from the world to himself, so that Christ became a sinner vicariously. This was for the benefit of the world, for his death was the penalty for the sin that he had taken upon himself. According to Paul, God made Christ sin on our behalf, in order that we may become (the) righteousness of God in Christ (hina hemeis genometha dikaiosunê theou en autô). 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 a status of righteousness that comes from God as a gift. In a sense, the recipient of the gift becomes the gift itself. The preposition "in" (en) in the phrase "in Christ" is causal, so a believer becomes the righteousness of God by means of Christ or because of Christ's saving work. Some exegetes argue that Paul is interpreting Jesus' death in light of the Isaian suffering servant (Isa 53). In this case, to make Christ "sin" is to make him "an offering for sin," just as in Isa 53:10 the servant is given as a guilt offering (asham), which is translated in the LXX as "for sin" (peri hamartias). But there are no strong linguistic parallels between 2 Cor 5:21 and Isa 53, which suggests that the latter was not the religious-historical background against which the former is be interpreted. (There is no denying, however, that there are general conceptual parallels with the suffering servant in Isa 53.)
The Mosaic covenant contained both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (see Lev 26; Deut 28). In Gal 3:10, Paul concludes that all who attempt to make themselves righteous by means of the "works of the Law" are under are a curse; the implied premise is that no one can keep the Law perfectly and so everyone under Law necessarily falls under the curses of the Law (Gal 3:10). In Gal 3:13, Paul then explains that Christ became a curse for those who are actually under the curse of the Law. This means that Christ became a substitute for those under the curse of the Law. Moreover, his death is the penalty necessarily consequent upon being under the curse. (The phrase "curse of the Law" is a genitive of origin: curse from the Law. The Law is the origin of the curse not the curse itself.) Paul makes this clear when he quotes Deut 21:23 as interpretive of Christ's death: "Cursed in the one who hangs on a tree" (Gal 3:13b). Paul cites a different Greek version than that found in the LXX; his version omits the prepositional phrase "by God" (hupo theou). The bodies of executed criminals, who are, by definition, cursed under the Law, were hung on a tree until evening. In the LXX, the Hebrew word for tree is translated as xulon (see also LXX Josh 10:26). In Greek, the word "wood" or "tree" (xulon) came also to refer to a gallows or cross, the instrument by which criminals were executed (Alexis Com. 220.10; LXX Gen 40:19; Esth 5:14; 6:4; Philo, Somn. 2.213; Ant. 11.246). Thus, it is no surprise that Jesus is said to have been hung on a tree (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet 2:24; see Barn. 5:13; 8:5). (But describing crucifixion as hanging on a tree is not original to the New Testament, because in 4QpNahum, Alexander Jannaeus, "the furious young lion," is said to have hung his opponents "alive on a tree," which is a reference to their crucifixion [1.6-8]. In 11QTemple 64.7-12, crucifixion is likewise referred to as "to hang from a tree" in obvious dependence on Deut 21:23, and those who are hung from a tree are said to be cursed.) This linguistic coincidence allowed Paul (and the early church) to interpret Jesus' crucifixion as evidence of his being under the curse of the Law. It must be remembered that crucifixion was the most ignominious method by which the Romans executed criminals. The consequence of Christ's vicariously becoming a curse is that he "bought back "(exegorasen) those who were originally under the curse of the Law (see Gal 4:4-5). The implication is that it is Christ alone who can redeem from the curse of the Law. The verb "to buy back" (exagorazein) is a metaphor, which in this context has the meaning of "to free from." Paul's point is that Christ's act of becoming a curse frees those under the curse from that very curse. 4.2. Jesus' Death as a Sacrifice
Paul says that God presented Christ as a hilastêrion "in his blood" for the purpose of being able to declare sinful human beings righteous. The phrase "in his blood" (en tô autou haimati) is a reference to Christ's death, so that it is as having died that Christ is a hilastêrion. The question to be answered is what did Paul mean by the term hilastêrion. There are two interpretive possibilities. The term hilastêrion (when translating the Hebrew kapporeth) is the term used of the "mercy seat," the cover of the ark of the covenant, on the front of which and before which the high priest twice would sprinkle sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:14-16). Hilastêrion is used as a translation of kapporeth in the LXX in twenty-two of its twenty-seven occurrences. In Exod 25:17, the LXX translates the Hebrew kapporeth with the phrase hilastêrion epithêma, but in other passage simply as to hilastêrion (LXX Exod 25:18-22; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7-7 [Heb. 37:6-9]; Lev 16:2, 13-15; Num 7:89). Philo likewise uses the term to hilastêrion to denote the kapporeth [De cherub. 8:25; Vita Mos. II (III) 8:95, 97.) It has therefore been suggested that when Paul calls Christ a hilastêrion he means to compare him typologically to the mercy seat: Christ is the means by which God atones for sin, being the antitype of this divine institution (Hebrew: kipper; Greek: hilaskesthai or exilaskein). (According to Tg. Onkelos, Lev 16:2 refers to the kapporeth as the "place of atonement.") If so, then Christ is both the mercy seat and the sacrifice(s) at once ("in his blood"). The anarthrous use (i.e., without the definite article) of hilastêrion, unlike its occurrence with the article when used of the mercy seat, may be explained as the result of its predicative function, which requires the omission of the definite article. There is a second interpretive possibility. Against the interpretation of Christ as mercy seat, it is objected that to describe him as both the offering and the place of offering at once is awkward and confusing. Also it is questioned whether the predominantly gentile Roman church would have understood the allusion to the Day of Atonement without further contextual clues. In addition, the fact that Paul does not use the article before hilastêrion, unlike its occurrences with the meaning of "mercy seat" in the LXX, could be taken to mean that he does not intend Jesus to be understood as anti-typical of the mercy seat, but with the more general meaning of propitiation, in keeping with the original Greek meaning of hilastêrios or hilastêrion. On this interpretation hilastêrion may be an adjective, not a noun: "whom God purposed to be propitiatory." It is argued that the first occurrence of hilastêrion in the LXX in Exod 25:17 as an adjective modifying epithêma (a propitiatory covering) establishes that its other uses are also adjectival, even when there is no noun to modify. Or hilastêrion may be a substantive, meaning "means of propitiation." On this interpretation, God is depicted as being angry because of the sins of human beings and therefore in need of being propitiated or appeased. To call Christ's death ("in his blood") propitiatory or a propitiation is to describe Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. His sacrificial death is the means by which the wrath of God is appeased. (The wrath of God is a major theme in Rom 1-3.) The same term is used of the martyrs in the Hellenistic 4 Maccabees: "They became, as it were, as a ransom (antipsuchon) for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those pious ones and their propitiatory death (tou hilasteriou tou thanatou auton), divine providence saved Israel, which had been exceedingly mistreated" (17:21-22). The nation as a whole suffered justifiably on account of God's wrath against national sin, but righteous individuals within the nation, those who refused to disobey the Law even under the threat of torture, suffer and die unjustly, and became thereby the divinely-ordained means by God is propitiated (see also 2 Macc 7:30-38; 4 Macc 6:27-29). Perhaps Paul or the early church was aware of this version of martyr theology and reapplied it to Jesus. Paul's statement in Rom 3:25-26 asserts that God was waiting for a basis on which he could declare sinners righteous but still remain righteous. God left the sins committed previously unpunished (which was an act of mercy), but in so doing he could be accused of being unrighteous insofar as he did not judge sin. God's plan was to rectify this, so that he would both be righteous and the one who declares righteous. God did not ignore sin, and so could not be accused of being unrighteous, for he dealt with sin by setting forth Christ as a hilastêrion (however one interprets this term). The result is that now God could be righteous and the one who declares human beings righteous by the imputation of a righteousness that is apart from the Law. Again, Paul stresses that being declared righteous is on the condition of faith.
In exhorting his readers to love as Christ loved, Paul describes metaphorically how Christ gave himself for "us" (as) "an offering and sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor" (prosphora kai thusia tô theô eis osmên euôdias). To say that Christ "gave himself for us" describes his willing, vicarious death. The phrase "an offering and sacrifice to God" is a predicative accusative, explicative of what it means for Christ to "give himself for us." It is probable that the phrase "an offering and sacrifice" is a hendiadys, two words designed to express a single idea: Christ as sacrifice. The dative "to God" is a dative of indirect object, so that Christ is offered as a metaphorical sacrifice to God, as sacrifices are in general. The purpose of Christ as sacrifice is said to be "for a fragrant aroma" (eis osmên euodias). (The genitive relation between "odor" [osmê] and "fragrance" [euôdia] is that of quality.) In the LXX, each of the terms "odor" (osmê) and "fragrance" (euôdia) refers to sacrifice or offering, being used to translate the various Hebrew words for the same (see Ps 40:6 [LXX 39:7] for the use of both terms together). The phrase "for a fragrant odor" (eis osmê euôdias) occurs in the Old Testament to describe anthropopathically the intended effect that the sacrifice is to have on God: insofar as it is "a fragrant odor" to God, a sacrifice is acceptable to God (see Gen 8:21; Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Num 15:3) (see the phrase "fragrant odor to the Lord" [osmê euôdias tô kuriô] in LXX Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5; 4:31 and "fragrant odor to all their idols" [osmê euôdias pasi tois eidôlois autôn] in LXX Ezek 6:13; see also T. Levi 3:6). So likewise, Christ's sacrifice of himself was acceptable to God as a means of atonement for the sins, not of Christ, but of those for whom he gave himself ("us"). The purpose of Christ's death as a sacrifice was for the removal of sin. This extrinsic righteousness
(the righteousness of God) is available on the condition of faith (pistis);
this is a constant theme in Romans and Galatians. Paul does, however,
make reference to this idea in his other letters: 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9;
Titus 3:5. Faith, as used by Paul, denotes the negation of any
doing that would result in making a claim on God; in other words, faith
is not a work, but simply the human response of openness to God, which
leads to the acceptance of God's gracious gift. Faith is the human capacity
that connects human beings to God, in order that God can give freely
to human beings all that he wants to give. In fact, faith for Paul itself
is a gift of God (Phil 1:29), being the result of divine election (2
Thess 2:13); no human being can confess Jesus is Lord without the Spirit
(1 Cor 12:3). If faith is a gift of God, then it is not a meritorious
human work.
|
1. The Problem of Unrighteousness
Last Modified On: