Justification by Faith: Galatians 3:6ff; Romans 4:3ff

Justification by Faith (Genesis 15:6)

This is the second study dealing with the Reformation doctrine “Justification by Faith”. Previously, we looked at Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17; today we will examine his treatment of Genesis 15:6. Paul cites and expounds this verse on two different occasions in his letters—in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. I will deal with the Galatians passage first. This Reformation-oriented series is intended to demonstrate some of the ways in which Biblical criticism relates to theology (and the history of doctrine). The Reformers were heavily indebted to Paul’s rigorous treatment of the subject of faith and “justification”, as presented in Romans and Galatians, examining the words and phrases, the line of argument, very carefully, including a study of the text in Greek. At the same time, Paul himself was working from the Old Testament Scriptures, studying and interpreting those texts with at least as much care. For most Christians—and for committed Protestant believers, in particular—theology and doctrine cannot be separated from a (critical) examination of Scripture.

Galatians 3:6ff

The fact that Paul draws on the example of Abraham, and the declaration in Gen 15:6, on two different occasions, shows how important this tradition was for him. Abraham, of course, was a central figure in Jewish thought, a paragon of faith and obedience, for Israelites and Jews in every age. The deutero-canonical book of Sirach (44:19-21) provides a good (early) summary of this belief; see also the book of Jubilees 23:10. Gen 15:6 is part of a complex of ancient Abraham traditions given distinct narrative shape in chapters 14 and 15ff of Genesis, and which were highly influential in shaping this belief. Chapter 15 is the great covenant-vision scene set around the divine promise of an heir (male child) for Abraham, in spite of his old age and the barrenness of his wife Sarah. In vv. 4-5, God announces to Abraham that, not only will he indeed have a child of his own, but that his descendants will come to be a vast multitude of people, like the stars in the sky. Here it is said of Abraham in verse 6:

“And he had firm (trust) in YHWH, and He reckoned (it) for him (as) ƒ®d¹qâ.”

The Hebrew word ƒ®d¹qâ (hq*d*x=) has a relatively wide range of meaning. It is usually translated “righteousness”, but may also denote “truthfulness”, “loyalty”, as well as the legal sense of “justice”. The fundamental meaning of the ƒqd root appears to be something like “straight”, or perhaps “clear”. Abraham’s trust in God shows him to be a true and faithful friend (or vassal in the context of the covenant), and so God considers him to be a right follower. Paul, in citing Gen 15:6, generally follows the Septuagint (LXX) Greek, which is also a reasonably accurate rendering of the Hebrew:

“Abraham trusted in God, and (this) was counted for him unto dikaiosýn¢” (Gal 3:6)

As noted in the previous study, the verb dikaióœ (dikaio/w) means “make right”, and the noun dikaiosýn¢ (dikaiosu/nh) something like “right-ness” or “just-ness”, usually rendered in English as either “righteousness” or “justice”, both of which can be rather misleading in modern English. The dik– word-group is notoriously difficult to translate, especially as used repeatedly by Paul in his letters. It is clear, however, that Paul is using dikaiosýn¢ here is a somewhat different sense than the Hebrew ƒ®d¹qâ of the original Hebrew. For Paul, the word relates to a person’s standing before God—as one who needs to be “made right”. This legal sense, I would argue, is rather different from the covenant-language in Genesis 15 (on this see above, and also the earlier Saturday Series study on the covenant scene of Gen 15). And yet, Paul certainly has the context of covenant in mind, as can be seen from the remainder of chapter 3.

Paul is attempting to reconcile two basic truths, which relate to the new religious identity he sought to define for believers in Christ:

    • Truth #1: Salvation comes through trusting in Jesus—this is the essential Gospel message, which was accepted by at least as many non-Jews as Jews
    • Truth #2: Israelites (i.e. the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob) represent the people of God

These can only be reconciled by positing that those who trust in Jesus and the descendants of Abraham, are, somehow, one and the same. The declaration in Gen 15:6 provided a solution. It allowed one to identify faith/trust in God with Abraham and his descendants. That this association was immediately (and primarily) in Paul’s mind is clear from the interpretation he gives in Gal 3:7:

“Then you must know that the (one)s (born) out of trust—these are the sons of Abraham”

This results in a powerful reinterpretation of Israelite religious identity, now being applied to believers: those who trust in Jesus are the true descendants of Abraham. The line of argument which follows in vv. 8-14 (and on through the rest of chapters 3 and 4) is quite complex, and is meant to address the fundamental message of Galatians: that it is not necessary for (Gentile) believers to observe the regulations and commands of the Torah. I discuss this at length in the series of articles on Galatians in “Paul’s View of the Law” (part of the series “The Law and the New Testament”). The main issue involved circumcision—in many ways the central command related to Israelite/Jewish religious identity. But, as Paul makes clear, circumcision was instituted for Abraham (and his descendants) prior to the Torah, being the sign of an earlier covenant established between God and Abraham. This covenant was not based on anything Abraham did, but was God’s own initiative, being predicated upon Abraham’s demonstration of trust. This is the significance of Gen 15:6 (and its context) for Paul. Believers—Gentile believers, in particular—are saved and “made right” before God through faith in Jesus; as a result, they are shown to be Abraham’s very descendants (his true, spiritual descendants). One is not saved through the observance of the Torah (much less circumcision itself), but through trust in Jesus. Paul affirms and argues this over and over again throughout Galatians (and again in Romans, as we shall see).

Romans 4:3ff

In Romans 4, Paul repeats the argument from Galatians, using the same example of Abraham (along with Gen 15:6), but accompanied by a more thorough exposition. The polemical tone of Galatians has been replaced by a carefully structured theological treatment of the theme, in which Jewish and Gentile believers are shown to be united, related to one another as true equals in Christ. Several times Paul asks, essentially, “what does the Jewish (believer) have over and above the Gentile?” The line of argument throughout chapters 2-11 of Romans is especially complex. In various ways, Paul seeks to retain the position of the covenant God established with his people Israel (i.e. Abraham, in chap. 4), once again reinterpreting it so that believers in Christ become the true (and complete) fulfillment of the covenant—Jewish and Gentile believers both as the people of God. The increasingly larger percentage of non-Jewish believers created a difficulty for Paul in this regard, and he addresses it particularly in chaps. 9-11. The illustration of Abraham is made to apply more generally to the Gentile believer by the repeated emphasis that righteousness (or right-ness) is something given by God (as a favor), rather than something earned by the person’s own work (vv. 4-5). This would come to be the emphasis that dominated the Reformers’ thought (see below).

Paul deals with the (Greek) text of Gen 15:6 in more detail here than he does in Galatians, especially the phrase “and it was counted for him unto justice/righteousness” (kai elogisth¢ autœ eis diakosyn¢). The verb logízomai (logi/zomai) is related to the noun lógos (“account”), and refers to giving an accounting (of something), used essentially as a bookkeeping term. The passive sense (“it was counted…”) here is an example of the so-called “divine passive”, where God is the implied actor. Quite literally, God records something in the ledger (the book, or account) on behalf of the person. This draws upon the traditional image of the (heavenly) book in which a person’s deeds are recorded, and which will be opened on the great day of Judgment. A similar idea is the “book/roll of life”, on which the names of the elect (i.e. citizens of heaven) are recorded. The corresponding verb in the Hebrew (µ¹ša»), has a rather different sense, and is also in active form (“he considered”). Fundamentally, it refers to the work of the mind (thought, thinking), sometimes in the specific sense of creative/artistic work, imagination, planning, and so forth. In Gen 15:6 it is best rendered as “consider”, or somewhat more forcefully, “reckon”—God considered Abraham to be a true and faithful friend.

Protestant commentators tended to emphasize the legal, forensic aspect of the Greek verb logízomai even more than Paul did, though he points in that direction himself in vv. 5-8. There, in good Rabbinic fashion, Paul finds a Scripture with similar wording to Gen 15:6 [LXX], bringing in the point of similarity as a way of explaining the earlier passage. He turns to the Greek of Psalm 32:1-2:

“Happy (are the one)s for whom the (deed)s without law [i.e. lawless deeds] were released, and for whom the sins were covered over! Happy the man for whom the Lord does not make an accounting of sin!” (vv. 7-8)

The “accounting unto righteousness” is parallel with “no accounting of sin”. In other words, God leaves the reference(s) to sins out of the ledger completely, ignoring them or “covering them over”. The idea of a forensic “declaration” or “imputation” of righteousness was certainly influenced by this line of thought in Romans. For Paul, however, it was the idea of the last Judgment that was largely in mind with this sort of language. Believers will escape the coming anger of God (1:18ff) and will be able to stand before God in the Judgment, because of the sacrificial work of Jesus on our behalf, and the trust/faith we have in him. All of this is given freely to us by God, as a favor (cháris, xa/ri$). Paul states this clearly in verse 4, and it is given an even more succinct, axiomatic formulation in Eph 2:8. Yet, it is insufficient to view this “righteousness” (dikaiosýn¢) simply in the negative sense of the absence/covering of any record of sin. We must keep in mind the foundational statement in 1:17 (see the previous study), in which the positive aspect is emphasized—the righteousness of God Himself, which brings life to us, through our trust in Jesus.

Throughout Galatians and Romans, Paul is dealing primarily with the question of religious identity, which, for Israelites and Jews, involved circumcision and the observance of the Torah (as the terms of the covenant). Paul fully realized that this could no longer serve as the basis for the identity of believers in Christ, and he argued repeatedly that faith in Jesus took place entirely apart from (chœris) observing the regulations of the Torah. He states this in no uncertain terms in vv. 13ff, and even more absolutely in the famous declaration of 10:4: “For (the) Anointed One [i.e. Christ] is the completion [télos] of the Law, unto justice/righteousness [dikaiosýn¢] for every one trusting (in him)”.

Protestants, however, tended to turn this into a more general religious principle. Instead of referring specifically to Torah observance, “works” (érga) meant any sort of human effort or work in addition to faith in Jesus. Paul himself introduced this generalization at a number of points, such as here in verse 4:

“for the (one) working, the wage is not counted according to favor, but (rather) according to what (is) owed

This sort of illustration supplies the basis for the sweeping idea that salvation/justification comes by “grace and faith” alone, not from any human effort (Eph 2:8). Protestants were well aware of the religious tendency to emphasize the importance of certain actions—both ethical and ritual—and to rely on these for one’s identity. At the time of the Reformation, Roman Catholic tradition was filled many authoritative laws, customs, and so forth, considered to be binding upon believers. The Reformers and early Protestants fought against the bulk of this tradition, symbolized most vividly by Luther in his public burning of the corpus of Canon (Church) Law. The doctrine of sola fide—salvation by faith alone—was a most radical solution to the religious problem. At a single stroke, it effectively eliminated vast swaths of Christian tradition—and Christianity in the West has been grappling with the impact of this ever since.

Justification by Faith: Romans 1:17

This Saturday (October 31) is the date commemorating the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, marking Luther’s posting of the so-called “Ninety-five Theses” on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. Intended for an academic debate, these propositions, many of a highly technical nature, had an influence which went far beyond their original purpose, and Martin Luther himself came to be the leading figure of the early years of the Reformation. In celebration of this time, I am launching a series of brief studies, posted periodically on Fridays (“Reformation Fridays”) over the coming months, dealing with some of the key tenets of Protestantism.

These Reformation-themed studies will each focus on a particular principle or belief central to the Reformation and the Protestant Tradition, examining the Scriptural basis for it. One or two key, representative Scripture passages or verses will be chosen, and given a critical treatment. This will demonstrate how Biblical criticism applies to theology and doctrine. On the one hand, we can see the way that established doctrines developed from particular interpretations of Scripture. At the same time, it is important always to take a fresh look as such beliefs, examining them anew in the light of Scripture.

Justification by Faith

The first Reformation tenet we will explore is justification by faith, as summarized in the famous slogan sola fide (“faith alone”)—that is, salvation comes only through faith in Christ, and not as a result of human work and effort. The fourth article of the Augsburg Confession gives the following statement (brackets represent explanatory text in German):

“…men can not be justified [obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness] before God by their own powers, merits, or works; but are justified freely [of grace] for Christ’s sake through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and their sin’s forgiven for Christ’s sake, who by his death hath satisfied our sins.” (translation from P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3)

There is a long history behind this theological formulation, but, to a large extent, the primary idea comes from the New Testament, perhaps best seen by the declaration in Ephesians 2:8-9:

“For by (the) favor (of God) you are (one)s having been [i.e. who have been] saved, through trust—(and) this (does) not (come) out of you, (but is) the gift of God, (so) that no one should boast (of it).”

The word translated “favor” above is xa/ri$ (cháris), usually rendered “grace”; that translated “trust” (pi/sti$, pístis) is more commonly rendered “faith”. We are saved through trust in Christ, but this does not come from our own ability or effort; rather, it is a result of the gift and favor shown to us by God.

The very expression “justification by faith” clearly shows the dependence on Paul’s letters (especially Galatians and Romans), with his repeated (and distinctive) use of the verb dikaio/w (dikaióœ) and the related noun dikaiosu/nh (dikaiosýn¢) and adjective di/kaio$ (díkaios). As a transitive verb, dikaio/w fundamentally means “make (things) right”, or “make (something) just”, sometimes in the formal (legal) sense of “declare (something to be) just”, “provide justice”, etc. Paul draws heavily upon this legal usage, applying it in a religious sense. We will be looking at two key examples which are essential to the doctrine of “justification by faith”. The first comes from the opening section of Romans, the concluding declaration in Rom 1:17. A seminal moment for the Reformation occurred during Luther’s study of Romans in his years spent as an Augustinian monk; he began to meditate more deeply on this verse, leading to a kind of revelatory moment (and conversion experience) for him, as he describes in the 1545 Preface to his writings in Latin. He expounded this verse, and the theological and religious principle drawn from it, a number of times in his published works; and other Reformers also inspired by it, followed him as well. Thus, Romans 1:17 may serve as a kind of keystone verse for the Protestant Reformation, and is deserving of careful study. In fact, Paul’s statement is considerably more complex than it seems at first glance, especially when reading it in translation, and through the lens of Protestant theology.

Romans 1:17

The particular words in Rom 1:17 which so struck Luther, are actually a quotation from the Old Testament (Habakkuk 2:4). This is just one of several elements in the verse which need to be examined; let us consider them in order. To begin with, verse 17 marks the conclusion of the opening section (introduction) of the letter, and further explains the statement by Paul in v. 16 that the “good message” (Gospel) is “the power of God unto salvation for every(one) trusting (in Jesus)”. There are three parts to this explanation in v. 17:

    • “For the justice of God is uncovered in it”
    • “out of trust (and) into trust”
    • “even as it has been written…”—the citation from Hab 2:4

1. “For the justice of God is uncovered in it”—The word translated “justice” is dikaiosu/nh, part of the dikai- word-group mentioned above, and related to the verb dikaio/w. It is notoriously tricky to translate in English. Perhaps the best rendering would be something like “right-ness” or “just-ness”, but, as there is nothing truly equivalent in English, most translators opt for “justice” or “righteousness”. However, both of these can be misleading in modern English—”justice” has a predominantly socio-legal meaning, while “righteousness” a religious meaning, and one that is seldom used in English today, also having the negative connotation of self-righteousness.

Another difficulty involves the genitive construction (“…of God”): is it a subjective or objective genitive? That is to say, does it represent an attribute of God (i.e. something he possesses) or something which comes from him (i.e. as an object to us)? In Phil 3:9, Paul refers to the justice/righteousness that comes “from God” (e)k qeou=, ek theou), and given to believers; while in 2 Cor 5:21, believers become the “justice/righteousness of God” in Christ. There the expression may be taken as an objective genitive, and so many commentators understand it in Rom 1:17 as well—the Gospel communicates justice/righteousness to us. Certainly, that is how Luther and the Reformers came to understand it—righteousness as a gift from God, especially in the legal/declarative sense implied by Paul in much of his writing. Luther translates the expression in Rom 1:17 as “die gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt” (the justice/righteousness that counts before God). However, the overall context of Romans here strongly suggests that Paul is primarily using a subjective genitive—i.e. justice/just-ness as a divine characteristic. It is parallel to the “anger of God” (org¢ theou) in v. 18, which is also said to be “uncovered” and specifically directed against injustice (a)diki/a, adikía). Similarly, we may note the expressions “the trust(worthiness) of God” (h¢ pistis tou theou) and “the truth(fulness) of God” (h¢ al¢theia tou theou) in 3:3, 7. It is an attribute expressing the character of God, but especially in terms of his action toward humankind.

What does it mean to say that the justice of God is “uncovered” in the Gospel? The verb a)pokalu/ptw (apokalýptœ) literally means “take the cover (away) from”, indicating something previously hidden or unknown. It relates to the character of God as one who makes things right, and specifically involves the salvation brought about through the person and work of Jesus. In v. 16, the Gospel—the message/announcement of this saving work—is called “the power of God”, an expression parallel to “the justice of God”. The Gospel reveals the plan of salvation for humankind, and, in so doing, makes known the very nature and character of God himself.

2. “out of trust (and) into trust”—This phrase can also be somewhat difficult to interpret. It is meant to qualify and explain the earlier phrase. The justice of God is revealed in the Gospel. How, or in what manner does this occur?—”out of [e)k] trust and into [ei)$] trust”. Trust is both the source (“out of”) and goal (“into”). Of course, when Paul uses the word pi/sti$ (“trust”), he is referring to trust, or faith, in Jesus. Trust leads to the communication of God’s justice/righteousness to us, in the person of Christ, which, in turn, also leads to (greater) trust as we are united and grow in him. Paul uses similar syntax in 2 Cor 3:18: “from glory into/unto glory”. Likewise in the Greek of Psalm 84:8, the prepositions ek and eis in sequence would seem to indicate the passage from one point, or degree, to another.

3. The citation of Hab 2:4—Paul quotes this as follows:

“But the just (one) will live out of trust”
o( de\ di/kaio$ e)k pi/stew$ zh/setai
ho dé díkaios ek písteœs z¢¡setai

Part of New Testament (textual) criticism involves a careful study and comparison of the text of the Old Testament as it is quoted/cited by the author (or speaker). There are three forms of this verse in the Greek version (Septuagint/LXX) of the Old Testament, two of which differ from Paul’s quotation in the use of the 1st person possessive pronoun (occurring at different points):

“But the just (one) will live out of my trust”
“But my just (one) will live out of trust”

The Hebrew of Hab 2:4, by contrast, reads:

“but the righteous (one) will live by his firm (loyal)ty”
hy#j=y] otn`Wma$B# qyD!x^w+
w®ƒaddîq be°§mûn¹¾ô yihyeh

The LXX is a reasonably accurate translation of the Hebrew, except for the use of the 1st person pronoun, which could indicate a slightly different reading of the underlying Hebrew (1st person suffix instead of 3rd person). The 1st person pronoun means that the righteous person lives as a result of God’s faithfulness. The Hebrew, by contrast, means that the person lives because of his/her own loyalty to God. The original context of the prophetic oracle clarifies this meaning. Judgment is coming upon Judah by means of foreign military invasion (by the Babylonians or “Chaldeans”, 1:6ff); only those who are faithful to YHWH will survive the attack (“will live”). Here, faithfulness refers to the binding agreement (covenant) established between God and the people Israel, with the Torah representing the terms of the agreement. The righteous/loyal Israelite remains firmly committed to the covenant, and obedient to the Torah, even as the rest of the society has fallen into disobedience and sin. This is similar to the faithful remnant motif found in many of the prophetic oracles—only the faithful ones will be saved from the coming judgment.

Considered in this light, it is interesting to see how Paul interprets the verse here in Romans. First, he preserves the original formulation from the Hebrew, i.e. that the trust/loyalty is that of the righteous person, and not God. Even though his Greek has no personal pronoun (“his”), that basic meaning is still implied, as in the reading of LXX manuscript 763* which matches Paul’s version. Second, Paul also retains something of the judgment-setting from Habakkuk, not in verse 17 itself, but in vv. 18ff which follow, referring to “the anger of God” (parallel to “the justice of God”) which is being uncovered. Only believers in Christ will escape the coming Judgment. However, it must be admitted that Paul has a deeper sense of the verb “will live” in mind; in addition to the negative context of the Judgment, there is the positive sense of what it means for the believer, even now in the present, to live in Christ. As expressed in 6:4ff, and other passages, the believer experiences new life in Christ, quite apart from the eternal life which one inherits after death and the Judgment. Though he does not state it here at this point in Romans, this sense of life in Christ is understood primarily through the presence of the Spirit.

More significantly, what Paul does not explain immediately in verse 17 is how the just/right (díkaios) character of the believer relates to the justice/righteousness (dikaiosýn¢) of God. In quoting Hab 2:4, the adjective díkaios is used without indicating exactly what makes the person “just”. In the Old Testament religious context of the oracle, a person’s just/righteous character is demonstrated by loyalty to the covenant and faithful obedience to the Torah. Paul, of course, turns this completely around, through a complex logic and series of arguments, expressed primarily in Galatians, and here in Romans. A person’s righteousness is the result of trust in Christ, rather than faithfulness to the Torah. Paul’s teaching in this regard is extremely complicated, and must be studied with considerable care, to avoid misunderstanding or over-simplification. For a detailed examination and discussion, I recommend you explore the articles on Paul’s view of the Law in my earlier series “The Law and the New Testament”.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between Paul’s interpretation of Hab 2:4 and that found in the Community of the Qumran text (Dead Sea Scrolls). In the surviving commentary (pesher) on Habakkuk (1QpHab), 2:4 is interpreted as follows:

“…(it) concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will free from the house of judgment on account of their toil and of their loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness”

Two criteria are combined: (1) proper observance of the Law, etc (“their toil”), and (2) loyalty to the person called “Teacher of Righteousness”, the leading/founding figure of the Community, viewed as an inspired prophet and teacher. Paul would reject the first criterion, but the second is a bit closer to his own approach. Both the Qumran Community and early Christians defined salvation in terms of faith in a person.

One final point of interpretation involves the syntactical position of the expression ek písteœs (“out of trust”)—from Paul’s standpoint, does it modify the subject (ho díkaios, “the just [one]”) or the verb (z¢¡setai, “will live”)? In other words, is the emphasis on the person being considered just because of his/her trust, or does the person live as a result of that trust? Compare: (1) “the (person who is) just out of (his/her) trust will live”, or (2) “the just (person) will live out of trust”. The latter is to be preferred, especially if Paul understood the original meaning of the Hebrew text. If so, then Rom 1:17 is not so much as statement of “Justification by Faith” as it is of “New Life by Faith”. Paul, however, would certainly affirm both sides of the equation, as, indeed, he does through the central phrase “out of trust (and) into trust”, indicating both source (“from the just-ness of God”) and goal (“eternal life in Christ”).

As you meditate and study this verse, begin looking ahead through Paul’s letter to the Romans, reading from 1:18 on into the beginning of chapter 4. In the next study, we will explore a second key verse related to the doctrine of “Justification by Faith”—the quotation of Genesis 15:6 in Rom 4:3 (also Gal 3:6).

August 1: Romans 8:3-4

This is the second of two notes on 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:3-4; the passage in 2 Corinthians was discussed in the previous day’s note.

Romans 8:3-4

“For the powerless (thing) of the Law [i.e. what the Law lacked power to do], in which [i.e. in that] it was weak through the flesh, God (has done), sending his own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin [i.e. sinful flesh] and about [i.e. for the sake of] sin, judged against sin in the flesh, (so) that the just/right (thing) of the Law should be filled up [i.e. fulfilled] in us—the (one)s not walking about according to (the) flesh, but according to (the) Spirit.”

The relevant portion parallel to 2 Cor 5:21 is indicated by italics above; here it is extracted out, along with the Greek text:

“…sending his own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin [i.e. sinful flesh] and about [i.e. for the sake of] sin, judged against sin in the flesh, (so) that the just/right (thing) of the Law should be filled up [i.e. fulfilled] in us”
pe/mya$ e)n o(moiw/mati sarko\$ a(marti/a$ kai\ peri\ a(marti/a$ kate/krinen th\n a(marti/an e)n th=| sarki/, i%na to\ dikai/wma tou= no/mou plhrwqh=| e)n h(mi=n

Here are 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:3b-4a in translation side-by-side:

2 Cor 5:21

“the (one) not knowing sin, He [i.e. God] made (to be) sin over us [i.e. for our sake], (so) that we might come to be (the) justice/righteousness of God in him”

Rom 8:3b-4a

“…sending his own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin [i.e. sinful flesh] and about [i.e. for the sake of] sin, … (so) that the just/right (thing) of the Law should be filled up [i.e. fulfilled] in us”

I feel it is best to proceed here by comparing the key words and phrases between the two passages:

“the one not knowing sin”
(to\ mh\ gno/nta a(marti/an)
“his own Son”
(to\n e(autou= ui(o/n)

It is interesting to consider these expressions as complementary: in Corinthians, the emphasis is on Jesus’ lack of familiarity with sin; in Romans, it is on Christ as the (beloved) son and heir (cf. Rom 4:13ff; 5:10; 8:12-17), highlighting the importance and preciousness of the sacrifice God makes. Based on Rom 4:13ff (cf. also throughout Gal 3-4), there is probably here an allusion to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which may already have been present in Christian thought prior to Paul.

“He made (to be) sin”
(a(marti/an e)poi/hsen)
“sending in the likeness of flesh of sin”
(pe/mya$ e)n o(moiw/mati sarko\$ a(marti/a$)

Does Romans here explain the phrase in Corinthians? This is certainly possible, though it raises some interesting questions regarding the traditional view of Christ’s sinlessness. Was sin dwelling in his flesh just as it is for other human beings (cf. Rom 7:13-20)? In order for the expression to have its full significance, this would seem to be the case. It certainly could be affirmed without admitting that Christ committed any sin. On the other hand, the expression “in the likeness of flesh of sin” could be taken to mean that it was not actually “flesh of sin”; but, then, in what way was it like sinful human flesh? If all that Paul meant to say was that Jesus had a “human nature”, without sin, this is a curious way to state it. Needless to say, the entire matter is extremely sensitive from an orthodox Christological standpoint.

“over us” (u(pe\r h(mw=n) “about sin” (peri\ a(marti/a$)

The preposition u(pe/r fundamentally means “over”, while peri/ means “around, about”; however, both can be understood as “on behalf of, for the sake of, because of”, depending on the context. In Corinthians, Paul uses traditional early Christian language for the atoning, sacrificial work of Christ, which takes place “over us”, that is, for our sake. In Romans, the focus is more what is done about (and to) sin—i.e. the power of Sin, especially that which dwells (“houses”) in the flesh (Rom 7:17-18, 20). This is clear from the clause which follows: “he (God, through Christ) judged against sin in the flesh”. Does this mean Christ himself took on sinful flesh—that sin dwelt in his flesh, in common with humankind? There would seem to be three main possibilities:

    • There was no sin in his flesh; he was human, but it was not “flesh of sin”. To say that God “judged against sin in the flesh” means that it was judged through the suffering (and death) of the sinless flesh of Christ.
    • The “curse” or effect of sin was in his flesh, but not the power of sin itself. God judged against what sin had done to human beings in the flesh.
    • Sin did “dwell” in his flesh, and it was this that God judged against. Christ himself knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21) in the sense that: (a) he did not commit sin, and (b) was not enslaved by the power of sin; however God made him to be sin, in order to deal with sin.

The first of these accords with orthodox Christology, especially the blunt declaration in 1 John 3:5; however, the last of these, in my view, seems closer to Paul’s thought in Romans, though perhaps not without further qualification. Ultimately, the most important point is that the power of sin was destroyed and made inactive through the death (and resurrection) of Christ, allowing believers to be set free from bondage to sin and death (Rom 6:6-11).

“so that we…” (i%na h(mei=$) “so that… in us” (i%nae)n h(mi=n)

Both passages conclude with a i%na purpose-/result-clause (“so that…”), indicating primarily the purpose, but also the result, of God’s work in Christ. The difference of focus or location in terms of the believer (“we/us”) is relatively slight, and complementary—in Corinthians, the emphasis is on what happens to us, in Romans, on what takes place in us.

“we might come to be”
(genw/meqa)
“might be (ful)filled (in us)”
(plhrwqh=|)

Both verbs are aorist subjunctive forms, indicating the possibility or potential of what God can (and) will accomplish in the person of the believer, based on what he has already done (past action). The aorist subjunctive often carries an imperitival force, i.e., “we should/shall become…” In Corinthians, indeed, it is a matter of what the believer will become; in Romans, on the other hand, something is completed or fulfilled (“filled [up]”) in (and among) believers.

“(the) justice/righteousness of God”
(dikaiosu/nh qeou=)
“the just/right (thing) of the Law”
(to\ dikai/wma tou= no/mou)

These expressions reflect what it is that we as believers will become, or what will be fulfilled in us, respectively. In 2 Corinthians, it is the “justice/righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) of God”, an expression which Paul uses in Romans (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21-22; 10:3, cf. also 3:25-26; 6:13). It is best, I think, to consider this as an attribute of God Himself (subjective genitive), which he demonstrates primarily and fundamentally in the person and work of Jesus Christ. An important emphasis in Romans is that this justice/righteousness has been manifested in Christ altogether separate and apart from the Old Testament Law (cf.  Rom 3:21ff, etc), so it is interesting that the parallel passage in 2 Cor 5:21 specifically mentions the Law (no/mo$). The fact is, that Romans very much builds upon the idea, already discussed in Galatians, that Christ, by his sacrificial death, fulfills the Law for human beings. In Gal 3:10-13, this takes place by Jesus becoming the curse of the Law himself (par. to the idea of being “made sin”). The curse came into effect (pronounced as judgment) when the Law, representing the terms of the covenant between God and his people, was violated. According to Paul’s view, human beings, held in bondage under the power of sin, are incapable of fulfilling the Law (i.e. the Law of God, as expressed in the Torah). In Rom 8:3-4, God judges against sin itself in the flesh, removing its enslaving power over those who trust in Christ.

What about the specific expression in 2 Cor 5:21? how exactly do believers “become” or “come to be” the justice/righteousness of God. According to what Paul teaching and relates in his letters (especially in Galatians and Romans), I would suggest three aspects of this process:

    1. Justification—this is essentially what is described in Rom 8:3-4: (a) Christ is made sin and, through his death, becomes the curse, (b) this sacrificial acts fulfills and completes the requirement of the Law, (c) through Christ God judges sin itself, removing its enslaving power, (d) believers in Christ are thus made right before God, and (e) now have the freedom and ability to fulfill the Law, through the Spirit, no longer by observing the Torah itself.
    2. Union with Christ (“in Christ”)—believers are united with Christ, and thus participate in the very justice/righteousness of God which he himself manifests and embodies. It is communicated in the believer through the power of the Spirit, which is also the Spirit of Christ.
    3. Resurrection/Glorification—Experience of God’s justice/righteousness is also eschatological, with the completion of salvation in the end-time judgment. Ultimately it is the body (“flesh” in the strict sense) which remains to be redeemed and loosed from bondage. Paul never loses sight of this future aspect of salvation.

Paul’s View of the Law: Romans (3:21-5:21, Part 2)

This is the second part of the article on Romans 3:21-5:21 (cf. part 1), according to the following outline:

  • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s justice/righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
    —3:21-31: A description of God’s justice and on being made/declared just
    —4:1-25: Argument from Scripture: The blessing/promise to Abraham (by trust/faith)
    —5:1-11: The effect/result of being made/declared just: salvation from the coming judgment
    —5:12-21: Argument/Illustration from Scripture: Sin and Salvation (Adam/Christ)

Two discussions on the twin theme of Justice/Justification (3:21-31; 5:1-11) alternate with expository arguments (or illustrations) from Scripture (4:1-25; 5:12-21). This concluding part examines Rom 5:1-11 and the argument from Scripture in 5:12-21.

Romans 5:1-11

This section runs parallel to that of Rom 3:21-31 (discussed in part 1); while the emphasis there was on the justice/righteousness of God and the manifestation of it in action (“justification”), here it is on the effect of justification—believers being made (or declared) just/right before God. We can also see this parallel in its relation to the esteem (do/ca, or “glory”) of God—i.e. the honor/glory which He intrinsically possesses, and which should be shown to him:

    • the justice/righteousness of God—the esteem/glory of God (Rom 3:23)
    • justification of believers—the hope (e)lpi/$) of the glory of God (Rom 5:2)

Verses 1-11 can be divided into three sub-sections, each of which describe the result of justification for believers in terms of boasting (vb. kauxa/omai, n. kau/xhma, kau/xhsi$). Nearly all of the NT occurrences of these three related terms are found in Paul’s letters—it was a favorite of his, and one that can be difficult for other Christians to appreciate in the way that he clearly did. It is possible that it reflects his previous religious zeal and devotion (to the Law and Jewish tradition, etc), as expressed in Gal 1:13-14; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5-6. Paul was well aware, even from his own experience perhaps, that the flesh (as he would put it) can tend to take pride and exult in one’s religious status and accomplishments. Several times in his letters, Paul makes the point that “boasting” ought to be centered on God’s grace, on the Gospel and the person and work of Christ (Gal 6:13-14; Phil 3:3, etc), doubtless influenced by the famous passage in Jer 9:23-24 (cf. 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17). More often, however, he uses the term in association with the missionary work—his own, and that of other believers—and it is this context that can be hard for modern readers to understand entirely (see esp. the many references in 2 Corinthians). He appears to use the terminology in two basic senses:

    1. In terms of confidence (including the idea of rejoicing) before God—context of divine judgment
    2. In terms of personal pride and satisfaction regarding one’s accomplishments, etc.

Both of these can further be understood in either a positive or negative sense—Paul’s line of argument and rhetoric in the letters often moves between these, playing one off against the other. For his use of the verb, in Romans and Galatians, see Gal 6:13-14 and Rom 2:17, 23, apart from the three occurrences in 5:1-11; for the two nouns (kau/xhma, kau/xhsi$), cf. Rom 3:27; 4:2; 15:17; Gal 6:4.

Verses 1-2: Boasting in the hope of glory—”we boast upon (the) hope of the honor/esteem [i.e. glory] of God” (kauxw/meqa e)p’ e)lpi/di th=$ do/ch$ tou= qeou=). This is prefaced by several statements predicated upon “justification by faith”—”being made just/right out of trust” (dikaiwqe/nte$ e)k pi/stew$):

    • we have/hold [e&xomen] peace toward [i.e. with, before] God (through the Lord Jesus Christ) [v. 1]
    • we have/hold [e)sxh/kamen] the way leading into the favor (of God) [v. 2a]
    • we stand [e)sth/kamen] in this favor (of God) [v. 2b]

Note the word play and assonance of the three verbs (in Greek); the first is in the present tense/aspect, the last two are perfect forms, indicating past action which continues into the present (or is a permanent condition).

Verses 3-5: Boasting in hope through affliction—”we also boast in the (moment)s of distress” (kai\ kauxw/meqa e)n tai=$ qli/yesin). The word qli/yi$ fundamentally refers to pressure, stress, constriction, etc.—it can mean suffering or trouble generally, or affliction and oppression specifically. Verses 1-2 started with believers’ status before God (through justification), and ended with the boast; here vv. 3-5 has an inverse structure, beginning with the boast, and concluding with the presence and work of God in believers (through the Spirit). This structure in vv. 3-5 follows a memorable chain of development:

    • distress/affliction (qli/yi$) which produces…
      • endurance (lit. “remaining under” u(pomo/nh), which produces…
        • proving/testing (“being accepted/received” dokimh/), which produces…
          • hope/expectation (e)lpi/$)

Finally, hope will never shame or embarrass (i.e. disappoint) us (v. 5); the reason for this confidence (“boasting”) is, according to Paul, that “the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the holy Spirit th(at) is given to us”. Love (a)ga/ph) is parallel to God’s favor (xa/ri$) in v. 2; more notable is the parallel between the “honor/esteem of God” (do/ca qeou=) in v. 1 and the “love of God” (a)ga/ph qeou=) here in v. 5.

Interestingly, we may also find an organizing principle in these verses reflecting the famous triad of 1 Cor 13:13faith (v. 1), hope (vv. 2-5a), and love (v. 5b).

Verses 6-11: Boasting in the sacrificial work (death) of Christ—”we also are boasting in God through our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed, through whom we now (have) received the katallagh/” (v. 11). This last verse of the section sums up the sacrificial work described in vv. 6-10. The elements are clear—it is: (1) the work of God, (2) that takes place through Christ, (3) resulting in katallagh/ for believers. The Greek word katallagh/ (katallag¢¡), from the verb katalla/ssw (katallássœ), fundamentally means making (something to be) other, or different, i.e. a change, often in the sense of a (mutual) exchange or reconciliation between two parties. Just as God makes the situation right (dikaio/w, i.e. “justification”) for human beings (believers), so he also has made things different—he has eliminated the separation and hostility which existed under the power of sin. Note the elements of this sacrificial work as expressed in vv. 6-10:

    • It involves Christ’s death, which was over (u(pe/r, i.e. on behalf of, for the sake of) those who lacked proper fear/reverence (a)sebh/$) toward God (i.e. the impious/wicked–all human beings, cf. Rom 3:9-20, 23, etc)—V. 6
    • It took place especially for human beings who are wicked/impious (a)sebh/$), and not just/righteous (di/kaio$) or good (a)gaqo/$)—this makes the sacrificial act all the more noteworthy and significant (V. 7)
    • The character of this sacrificial act reflects and expresses the love (a)ga/ph) of God for (“unto”, ei)$) human beings (V. 8)
    • Its result and effect is that people (believers) are:
      • made just/right, i.e. “justified” (dikaio/w), by means of Christ’s very death (e)n tw=| ai%mati au)tou=, “in his blood”), V. 9a
      • saved (sw/zw) from the passion/anger (o)rgh/, i.e. “wrath”) of God which is about to come upon humankind—this also takes place through Christ (di’ au)tou=, “through him”), V. 9b
    • Ultimately, its effect is to make different (katalla/ssw) the situation of separation and hostility between human beings and God, who were effectively enemies (e&xqroi) to each other (V. 10)
      • this reconciliation also is understood specifically as a result of Christ’s death (v. 10a)
      • however, ultimately salvation also comes as a result of Christ’s life, i.e. his resurrection (v. 10b)

Romans 5:12-21

Just as Rom 4:1-25 contained an argument from Scripture, centered on Abraham (Gen 15:6), and God’s blessing and promise to him, so in this section we find a parallel sort of argument, based on Adam, the first human being (according to Scripture and tradition). Paul does not cite a specific verse; rather, he draws generally upon the narrative in Genesis 2-3. It is similar, in some respects, to the ‘allegory’ he uses in Gal 4:21-31, though the argument here in Rom 5:12-21 would better be described as a kind of parallelistic and synchronistic typology—between Adam and Christ. Paul has already used a typological comparison along these lines in 1 Cor 15:21ff.

Romans 5:12-21 is perhaps the best known section of the letter, and is justly famous. However, for good or for ill, it has also served as a springboard for all sorts of speculative exposition, on theological and other matters—from the historicity of the Genesis narrative, to questions on the origin and nature of the human soul, to specific and elaborate ‘theories on the atonement’, etc—most of which are rather far removed from Paul’s original purpose and intent. A good deal of confusion, I believe, stems from difficulty in understanding Paul’s view regarding sin, and the language with which he expresses it. I will be discussing this briefly in a separate supplementary article. Here, I focus strictly on the context of the passage in Romans, with a careful examination of its structure. I would divide it as follows:

    • Vv. 12-14: The first man (Adam)—sin
    • Vv. 15-17: The second man (Christ)—the favor (“grace”) shown (by God)
    • Vv. 18-19: Contrast of sin vs. justice
    • Vv. 20-21: Contrast of Law vs. favor (“grace”)

Verses 12-17 set the comparison (and contrast) between Adam and Christ; verses 18-21 expound and apply the contrast theologically. The comparison works on two levels: (1) the historical/traditional narrative regarding Adam, and (2) a kind of narrative regarding sin personified. God’s responsive action, in the person and work of Christ, relates to both levels.

Verses 12-14: The first man (Adam)—sin. Interestingly, Paul actually says very little about Adam; the story is really one about sin, which takes place (at a deeper level) through (dia/) the first man. The story can be outlined fairly clearly and simply:

    • sin enters (“comes into”, ei)se/rxomai) the world (death also enters through sin) (v. 12)
    • sin was in (h@n e)n) the world, exercising power, prior to the Law (a&xri no/mou, “until the Law”) (v. 13)
    • sin rules as king (basileu/w), with/through death (“death reigned”), until the Law (me/xri Mwu+se/w$, “until Moses”) (v. 14a)

This is set temporally, in the period before the Law and the Mosaic/Sinai covenant, which is important to keep in mind; the entry of the Law is a climactic moment, serving to increase and enhance the reign of sin (vv. 20-21). Verse 14b is transitional, establishing the typology between Adam and Christ—Adam being “the stamp/pattern [tu/po$] of the (one) about to come”.

Verses 15-17: The second man (Christ)—the favor of God. I have translated xa/ri$ as favor, though it is typically rendered as “grace” or “gift”; properly, it relates better to the idea of God showing favor on human beings. In verse 15, Paul again sets the comparison, this time between sin and the favor of God. The word here, however, is not a(marti/a (“sin”), but para/ptwma (“falling alongside”). Paul generally does not use the singular a(marti/a to refer to individual misdeeds (though he will, on occasion, use it this way in the plural); rather, he prefers para/ptwma or para/basi$ (“stepping alongside”). The force of the prefixed particle para/ in these two words can be understood either in the sense of “falling/stepping away” or “falling/stepping over (the line)”. Note the similarity of outline with vv. 12-14 (above):

    • the favor (xa/ri$/xa/risma) of God enters (the world), by/through Christ, unto (ei)$) many people (v. 15)—it is a gift offered without charge or cause (dwrea/)
    • the favor is in the world, working/multiplying, coming “out of” (e)k) many sins, “unto” (ei)$) justice/justification (apart from the Law) (v. 16)—note the contrast between “judgment against” (kata/krima) and “justification” (dikai/wma)
    • the favor—through its abundance, believers reign, in life (v. 17)

In both instances, this three-stage development reflects the transition of the “one” to the “many” (“abundance”, etc):

    • initial act/work which creates an ‘opening’ for sin/favor
    • ongoing work (and its effect), multiplying and increasing
    • ruling/reigning in abundance

Yet Paul also indicates that the gift (work of Christ) is not like the sin (of Adam)—being effectively the opposite and a reversal of the former, ultimately surpassing it. This provides the basis for the exposition in vv. 18-21, building upon the contrast.

Verses 18-19: Contrast of sin vs. justice/righteousness. Verse 18 sets the contrast:

the transgression (para/ptwma) through one (di’ e(no/$)
unto all men (ei)$ pa/nta$ a&nqrw/pou$)
unto judgment against (them) (ei)$ kata/krima)
the (act of) justice (dikai/wma) through one (di’ e(no/$)
unto all men (ei)$ pa/nta$ a&nqrw/pou$)
unto (their) being made/declared just (ei)$ dikai/wsin)

In verse 19, this contrast is defined in terms of disobedience (parakoh/, lit. “hearing alongside [i.e. incorrectly, neglectfully]”) and obedience (u(pakoh/, “hearing under” [i.e. under submission/authority]).

Verses 20-21: Contrast of Law vs. favor. In verse 20, the Law (no/mo$) is said to enter in alongside sin, causing sin to increase and become more abundant. This connection between the Law and sin is unique to Paul’s teaching, and will be expounded further in chapters 6-7. Just as sin reigned through death (v. 14), in verse 21 it is said to reign “in death” (e)n tw=| qana/tw|). By contrast, the favor (xa/ri$) or “grace” of God also has entered (through Christ) and increased and multiplied even more than did sin (v. 20b); and, while sin reigned in death, the favor of God reigns (through justice/righteousness) “into/unto life” (ei)$ zwh\n)—this is eternal life (lit. “life of the ages”). An outline diagram of this contrast may be helpful:

Law (no/mo$)
|
the power/reign of sin
|
death
Favor (xa/ri$) of God
|
the reign of justice/righteousness
|
(eternal) life

It is this last contrastive comparison, of course, which is most relevant to the question of Paul’s View of the Law, the subject of these articles. And it is the relationship between the Law and sin which is a primary subject in the next section of Romans (Rom 6:1-7:25)—to be discussed in the next article.

July 28 (2): Romans 3:21-26

This is a continuation of the previous note on Rom 3:21 and the expression “the justice/righteousness of God” (dikaiosu/nh qeou=). Verse 21 represents the start of a long declaration (vv. 21-26) which opens the section 3:21-5:21; it will be useful to analyze this complex sentence, in which “justice/righteousness of God” effectively appears four times (vv. 21, 22, and 25-26). The best approach, I think, is to attempt to follow-through the syntactical (and thematic) development step by step, in outline form. The links in the chain of phrases and clauses will be indicated by the words in bold below (picked up in italics).

Romans 3:21-26

V. 21: “And now, separate/apart from (the) Law, (the) justice/righteousness of God has been made to shine forth, being witnessed under [i.e. by] the Law and the Foretellers {Prophets}”

V. 22: “and (the) justice/righteousness of God (is) through trust of Yeshua (the) Anointed unto all the (one)s trusting—for (there) is no setting-apart [i.e. no distinction]—”

V. 23: “for all (have) sinned and are last [i.e. lacking, coming short] of the esteem [i.e. glory/honor] of God”

V. 24: “(the ones) being made right [dikaiou/menoi] by His favor, through the loosing from (bondage) th(at takes place) in (the) Anointed Yeshua

V. 25a: “whom God set before (Himself) (as a) conciliatory gift [i(lasth/rion]”

V. 25b: “through [the] trust in his blood”

V. 25c: “unto a showing (forth) of His justice/righteousness

V. 25d-e: “through the sending along [i.e. remission] of the sins (which) had come to be before
in the (time of) God’s holding up [i.e. putting up with them]”

V. 26: “toward a showing (forth) of His justice/righteousness

in th(is) time now

unto His being just/right [ei@nai di/kaio$]

and (His) making just/right [dikaiou=nta]

the (one)s (who are) out of trust of [i.e. trusting in] Yeshua”

Obviously, these verses are much easier to read in conventional English, broken up into numerous shorter sentences; however, it is important to look at the structure and flow of Paul’s language here in something corresponding to the actual Greek syntax. One might also study the thematic development in a chiastic outline:

    • The justice/righteousness of God
      • Which is shown to those (all people) who are sinners, yet are made/declared right
        • Through the redemption that takes place in Christ
      • Which shows forth, through the passing over (remission) of all previous sins
    • His justice/righteousness (to those who trust in Christ)

While justice/righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) is definitely an attribute or characteristic of God Himself, it is expressed here through action, focused in the person and work of Christ—in particular, his sacrificial and atoning death (“through trust in his blood“, v. 25). We can see these two aspects in tandem within the subordinate prepositional (purpose/result) clause in verse 26. It begins “toward [pro$] a showing forth of His justice righteousness…”, then follows the preposition ei)$, “unto”, but primarily indicating purpose (and/or result), which has to be rendered in conventional English as “so that…”, or something similar. The preposition governs the clause, which contains two parallel verbal phrases—ei)$ (“unto”) His…

    • being just/right (ei@nai di/kaion), and
    • making just/right (dikaiou=nta)

—the first phrase refers to God’s person, the second to his work; and yet, both are governed by action (“showing forth”). This word (e&ndeici$) derives from the verb e)ndei/knumi, which means to show (or demonstrate, manifest) something in (e)n) something else. God shows (demonstrates) his justice/righteousness in (that is, through, or in connection with) the person and work of Christ (his Son, and the one whom he sent). I have retained the fundamental meaning of the verb dikaio/w (“make right”) in translation; however, many commentators and translators, especially in Protestant circles, have preferred to understand this in the legal/judicial sense of “declaring (a person to be) just/right”. While this forensic meaning is not invalid, it is only partly correct, especially if thought of in terms of announcing innocence or acquittal from guilt (which Paul rarely discusses). This “making right” should be understood in several aspects:

    • The general sense of making the situation right, i.e. doing justice
    • The specific legal sense of fulfilling the Law, which takes place (only) in the person (and work) of Christ, and is applied to the believer through trust in Christ—human beings cannot truly fulfill the Law, being held in bondage to the Law (under the power of sin)
    • The dynamic spiritual sense of the power and presence of Christ, through the Spirit, in the believer, as the living embodiment of Gods justice and righteousness

The second of these properly defines the theological term justification, the third defines what is usually called sanctification. I have discussed the background and semantic range of the dikaio- word-group in the article on “Justification”. For a good, concise summary of how the phrase “justice/righteousness of God” (dikaiosu/nh qeou=) has been understood and interpreted historically by commentators and translators, see J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 33 [1993], pp. 257-63.

July 28 (1): Romans 3:21

Romans 3:21

Today’s note is on Romans 3:21, and, in particular, the expression “(the) justice/righteousness of God” (dikaiosu/nh qeou=). In the New Testament, this expression is virtually unique to the Pauline letters, with a close parallel in 2 Pet 1:1 (cf. also Matt 6:33, and James 1:20; 1 Jn 3:10). Nor does it appear in the Greek version [LXX] of the Old Testament, though God’s “righteousness” [usually Hebrew qdx/hqdx] is referred to in the Psalms (Ps 35:24; 40:10; 50:6; 71:16, 19; 72:1, also 45:7) and in the Prophets (Isa 46:13; 51:5-8; 56:1; 61:10, also 5:16; 61:11; Zech 8:8, etc), and may be inferred throughout much of the Scriptures. Paul first uses the expression in Rom 1:17, which, because of its close formal and thematic parallel, will be discussed along with 3:21 below.

The genitival relationship in this phrase (“of God”) may be understood in three ways:

    1. As a subjective genitive, i.e., where God is the subject and “justice/righteousness” is an attribute or quality which he possesses, or which characterizes his action, etc.
    2. As a genitive of origin or source—i.e., “justice/righteousness” that comes from God. This is clearly what Paul describes in Phil 3:9, where he uses the preposition e)k: “the justice/righteousness (which is) from [lit. out of] God [e)k qeou=]” (cf. also Phil 1:11).
    3. As an objective genitive—where “justice/righteousness” is a divine quality or power possessed by others (i.e. believers), or realized in them, i.e. as a gift from God. This would seem to be close to the sense of the expression in 2 Cor 5:21, where  it is stated that we (believers) become the “justice/righteousness of God” in Christ.

In addition to Rom 1:17; 3:21, and 2 Cor 5:21 (mentioned above), Paul uses the specific expression only in the 3rd chapter of Romans (Rom 3:5, 22, 25) and again in Rom 10:3. All of these instances in Romans are best understood primarily according to sense #1 above, a quality or characteristic of God’s own person and action. This is indicated both by the immediate context as well as the Old Testament background of the expression. Consider, in particular, the verbs used in Rom 1:17 and 3:21—a)pokalu/ptw (“uncover, reveal”) and fanero/w (“shine forth, [make] manifest”), especially in relation to Rom 1:18-32, which emphasizes the character and nature of God evident in creation. Yet, the parallel in 1:18, the “passion/anger of God” (o)rgh\ qeou=), also suggests action—God is about to judge the world; he has also acted on behalf of human beings in the person and work of Christ.

I have already discussed the background and semantic range of the dikaio- word-group in Greek (see the article “Justification”), and the challenges involved in translation. The verb dikaio/w carries the relatively straightforward meaning “make right”, though it can be difficult to capture the various legal-judicial and religious-ethical nuances, which are perhaps better rendered by the term “just” in English (i.e., make [or declare] just). The situation is even more problematic with regard to the noun dikaiosu/nh, usually translated either as “righteousness” or “justice”—both of these renderings are generally valid, but neither fits entirely. Something like “just-ness” or “right-ness” would be better, but these do not really exist in English; “uprightness” is perhaps closer, but still awkward and archaic sounding, and a bit misleading as well. For Jews and early Christians, the usage was also influenced by the corresponding Hebrew words derived from the root qdx, which, more than the dikaio- word-group in Greek, carries the idea of faithfulness and loyalty—especially in terms of God as one who fulfills his promises and covenant obligations.

The main occurrences of the expression dikaiosu/nh qeou= are in Romans 1:17 and 3:21; it will be helpful to examine these together:

Rom 1:17

“for in it [i.e. the Gospel]

(the) justice/righteousness of God

is (being) uncovered…”

Rom 3:21

“now apart from (the) Law

(the) justice/righteousness of God

has been made manifest [lit. made to shine forth]…”

The parallels are clear and precise; Rom 3:21 is virtually a restatement of 1:17 (part of the main proposition [propositio] of Romans in 1:16-17). There can be no doubt, either, that Rom 3:21ff must also be understood in relation to the theme of God’s judgment in Rom 1:18-3:20; note again the parallel:

Rom 1:18

“the passion/anger of God
[o)rgh/ qeou=]

is (being) uncovered

upon all lack of fear (of God) and injustice/unrighteousness of men…”

Rom 3:21

“the justice/righteousness of God [dikaiosu/nh qeou=]

has been made to shine forth [i.e. made manifest]…

unto all the (one)s trusting (in Christ)… (v. 22)”

According to this comparison, the “justice/righteousness of God” is practically a reversal of the judgment/anger; similarly, the lack of (godly) fear, which leads to injustice/unrighteousness (1:18ff), corresponds to the trust that believers have in God (in Christ).

As indicated, above, dikaiosu/nh (“justice/righteousness”) is a fairly wide-ranging term; there are a number of relevant aspects which should be considered here:

  • Retributive justice—in the sense that God judges sin and punishes guilt. This very much characterizes the overall theme of judgment on human wickedness in Romans 1:18-3:20 (esp. 1:18-32).
  • Distributive justice—God judges each person (and/or nation) as he/she/it deserves. This is very much the emphasis in Romans 2 (see esp. 2:6-10), that all people (Jews and Gentiles) will be judged by their deeds, according to the Law (of God).
  • Fairness and equanimity (lack of partiality)—stated of God specifically in Rom 2:11; this relates to the principal theme throughout chapters 2-3, that Jews and Gentiles are equal before God.
  • Faithfulness and loyalty—as indicated above, this is more appropriate to qdx/hqdx in Hebrew than the corresponding dikaio- wordgroup in Greek. It characterizes particularly God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his promises and covenant obligations—an important theme in the Scriptural argument (involving the blessing/promise to Abraham) in Rom 4:1-25.
  • Fulfilling the Law—an important part of justice is the correct and proper observance and application (fulfillment) of the Law, by all persons and parties involved. Paul makes a long and challenging argument in Romans (also touched on in Galatians) that true fulfillment of the Law (the Torah and “Law of God”) only takes place in the person and work of Christ; as such, the justice/righteousness of God is ultimately manifest in Christ, as stated decisively in Rom 10:3-4.
  • Freedom and acquittal—this is another aspect of justice/righteousness (“making right”), especially in terms of exercising fairness and mercy on behalf of those charged under the law. This applies primarily to the person judging, as well the legal advocate/representative. It especially relates to God’s work in the death/sacrifice of Christ on behalf of sinners, as described by Paul in Rom 5:1-11, and is a theme throughout chapters 5-7.
  • Reconciliation—the related idea of opposing parties (“enemies”) being reconciled is likewise an important aspect of justice/righteousness (cf. Matt 5:9, 21-26, 38ff), and it is another theme expressed by Paul in Romans 5.
  • Uprightness/rectitude—that is, right or proper moral (and religious) behavior (including the underlying attitude and motivation). This signifies “righteousness” in its traditional, conventional meaning (cf. Jesus’ usage of dikaiosu/nh in Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33); and it may also be said to reflect the “righteousness of God”. Typically, however, God’s righteousness may be defined by what it is not—contrasted with human wickedness and faithlessness, and so forth. See Rom 1:18-32; 2:1-10ff; 3:10-18, etc.
  • Holiness—the justice/righteousness of God ultimately is tied conceptually to his holiness or “wholeness” (i.e. what is perfect, complete), cf. Matt 5:48. Interestingly, Paul makes relatively little mention of (God’s) holiness in Romans (Rom 1:4; 7:12; 11:16; 12:1), as he tends to concentrate it in the presence and work of the Spirit. “Righteousness” for believers is very much realized in Christ, through the power and presence of the Spirit (Rom 14:17; Gal 5:16-26, etc).

The next note will look at Rom 3:21 more closely, within context and structure of vv. 21-26ff.

Paul’s View of the Law: Romans (3:21-5:21, Part 1)

Romans 3:21-5:21

This is the second of the four main sections of the probatio in Romans (Rom 1:18-8:39, cf. the Introduction). The first, on Rom 1:18-3:20 (cf. the previous article), I have summarized as the Announcement of God’s (impending) judgment on humankind, according to the Law (of God). The second, on Rom 3:21-5:21, I describe (and outline) as:

  • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s justice/righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
    3:21-31: A description of God’s justice and on being made/declared just
    4:1-25: Argument from Scripture: The blessing/promise to Abraham (by trust/faith)
    5:1-11: The effect/result of being made/declared just: salvation from the coming judgment
    5:12-21: Argument/Illustration from Scripture: Sin and Salvation (Adam/Christ)

Two discussions on the twin theme of Justice/Justification (3:21-31; 5:1-11) alternate with expository arguments (or illustrations) from Scripture (4:1-25; 5:12-21). I will be dividing this article into two parts, according to these section-pairs, the first being on Rom 3:21-31 and the argument from Scripture in chapter 4.

Romans 3:21-31

This section can be further divided into two sections, vv. 21-26 and 27-30, followed by a concluding declaration in v. 31.

Verses 21-26 form one long, complex sentence, beginning with an announcement similar to that in Rom 1:18 (cf. also the propositio in 1:17):

“But now, separate from (the) Law, (the) justice/righteousness of God has been made manifest [lit. made to shine forth], being witnessed under [i.e. by] the Law and the Foretellers [i.e. Prophets]…”

In Rom 1:18, the verb used was a)pokalu/ptw (“uncover”, lit. “remove the cover from”); here, it is fanero/w, “(make) shine forth” (note the use of the related adjective fanero/$, “shining” in 1:19). These two verbs represent twin aspects of revelation—(a) uncovering that which was hidden, and (b) making it known, apparent, as of light “shining forth”. Note the ironic wordplay here: that the righteousness which is separate/apart (xw/ri$) from the Law, is witnessed by the Law—the first use of no/mo$ (“Law”) should be understood specifically of the Torah commands, the second, of Scripture (the Pentateuch, which embodies the Torah). The preposition xw/ri$ implies a separation, in terms of space between two objects (i.e., they are not connected); note the use of the related verb xwri/zw, in an opposite sense, in Rom 8:35ff. The remainder of vv. 22-26 is a tapestry of Pauline phrases and concepts which build upon the opening declaration (italicized words and phrases glossed with the Greek):

V. 22: “and (the) justice/righteousness of God [dikaiosu/nh qeou=] (is) through (the) trust [dia\ pi/stew$] of (the) Anointed Yeshua unto all [pa/nta$] the (one)s trusting [pisteu/onta$]—for there is no setting through [diastolh/ i.e. setting apart, distinction]—”

V. 23: “for all [pa/nte$] (have) sinned and are last of [i.e. behind, lacking] the esteem [i.e. glory] of God”

V. 24:being made right [dikaiou/menoi or, declared just] freely [dwrea\n, without charge] by His favor [xa/riti], through the loosing from (bondage) [a)polutrw/sew$] th(at takes place) in (the) Anointed [e)n Xristw=|] Yeshua”

V. 25: “whom God set before (Himself as) a conciliatory gift [i(lasth/rion], through [the] trust in his blood, unto the showing forth of [i.e. to show forth] His justice/righteousness [dikaiosu/nh] through the sending along [i.e. passing over, remission] of the sins th(at) had come to be before, in God’s holding up [i.e. that God put up with]”

V. 26: “toward the showing forth of His justice/righteousness [dikaiosu/nh] in th(is) time now, unto His being just/right [di/kaio$, i.e. that He might be just] and (the One) making just/right [dikaiou=nta] the (one who is) out of trust [e)k pi/stew$] of Yeshua [i.e. the one who trusts in Jesus]”

The density and complexity of the sentence should be abundantly clear from the extremely literal (glossed) rendering above; in conventional English, and to be readable, vv. 21-26 would be broken up into a number of shorter sentences. Even in Greek, however, the syntax is quite convoluted. Yet, this is one of those classic long sentences in Paul’s letters which deserves to be read and studied carefully, with close attention to the flow of ideas and phrases; they are not strung together randomly, but do form an inspired concatenation, a network of relationships expressing the truth of the Gospel in powerful and unmistakable terms. I offer a possible outline diagram of vv. 21-26 in a separate note, along with a brief discussion of the key phrase in this passage—”the justice/righteousness of God” (dikaiosu/nh qeou=).

Verses 27-30—If verses 21-26 represent the principal declaration regarding the justice/righteousness of God apart from the Law, in verses 27-30 there is a reaffirmation of two basic points Paul has made previously: (1) that human beings are made (or declared) just/right, i.e. “justified” by trust (pi/sti$) in Christ, and not by performing/observing the commands of the Law, and (2) that this applies equally to Jews and Gentiles. These verses can be divided into four shorter statements, according to the following pattern:

    • V. 27—No boasting (for the Jew)—it is the Law of faith/trust, not the written Law
      • V. 28—Statement of “justification by faith”, without works of Law
    • V. 29—Equality of Jew and Gentile before God
      • V. 29—Declaration that Jews and Gentiles are “justified” through faith

Verse 27—All human “boasting” (kau/xhsi$) is excluded (“closed/shut out”); this relates to all natural, “fleshly” aspects of one’s religious-cultural identity—status, attitude (pride, etc), knowledge, pious practice, devotion in ritual or ethical matters, etc.—all of which are bound “under the Law” and the “elements of the world”. The contrast is familiar from Galatians—”works” (e&rga) of the Law vs. faith/trust (pi/sti$); however, here Paul frames the matter differently, referring to the “law of works” (no/mo$ tw=n e&rgwn) as opposed to the “law of faith/trust” (no/mo$ tou= pi/stew$). The “Law” (no/mo$) has been generalized, and the contrast is specifically between “works” (i.e. deeds) and “trust” (in God and Christ). It is the fact that “justification” comes through trust (dia\ pi/stew$) that “boasting” is excluded—i.e., it is not the result of doing anything. There is an attractive vibrancy and buoyancy to the rhetorical question Paul uses to express this point.

Verse 28—”for we count a man to be made right [or, declared just] by trust, separate/apart from works of (the) Law“. Here we have one of Paul’s clearest statement of “justification by faith”. Note each of the underlined expressions above:

    • logizo/meqa (“we count”, i.e. reckon, say/claim)—this is the same verb used in the citation from Gen 15:6 (cf. below): “…it was counted [e)logi/sqh] to him [i.e. Abraham] unto justice/righteousness”.
    • dikaiou=sqai (“to be made right”, “to be declared just/right”)—i.e., a person is made/declared just/right (by God)
    • pi/stei (“by trust”)—i.e., in (God and) Christ; there is no preposition in the Greek, it has to be filled in.
    • xwri/$ (“separate/apart [from]”)—implying a clear separation (i.e., space between)
    • e&rgwn no/mou (“works of [the] Law”)—i.e., deeds, performance/observance of the commands and regulations in the Law (Torah, but also including the wider “Law of God”)

Verse 29—”or is (He) the God of Yehudeans {Jews} only? is (He) not also (God) of (the) nations? yes, also of (the) nations!” The equality of Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) before God is an important, and fundamental, principle for Paul (cf. Gal 3:28; Rom 2:9-11, 12ff; 3:9ff, etc). Here it is stated by way of a rhetorical (and real) question, parallel to that in verse 27.

Verse 30—”if indeed (there) is one God [or, God is one], who will make right [or, declare just] circumcision out of trust, and (having) a foreskin through the (same) trust“. As in verse 28, we have here a clear and decisive statement regarding “justification by faith“—that it applies equally to Jews and Gentiles. Paul defines the distinction between Jew and Gentile, again, according to circumcision (cf. 2:25-29), using the terms “circumcision” (peritomh/, lit. “cut around”) and “foreskin” (a)krobusti/a, “closing [over] the extremity”) as a shorthand (and stereotypical) description. Note the underlined words and expressions:

    • ei&per (“if so, if indeed”)—though this is a conditional particle, by implication, it indicates that a proposition or supposition is assumed to be true; in English, this may be expressed according to result (“because, since…”), and, certainly Paul accepts as true both the declaration in v. 29b and that “God is one”.
    • ei!$ o( qeo/$ (“one [is] the God”, or “God is one”)—a fundamental tenet of Israelite/Jewish (and Christian) monotheism (Deut 6:4, etc); however, for Paul, it also is a declaration of unity, i.e. the same God for both Jew and Gentile. Paul frequently emphasized that there is only one—one Gospel, one faith, one Spirit, one body, et al; of many references, see Gal 1:6-9; 3:16, 20, 28; 5:14; Rom 5:12-21; 12:4ff; 1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:8ff; 6:16-17; 8:6; 10:17ff; 12:11, 12ff; 2 Cor 11:2-6; Phil 1:27; 2:2; Col 3:15; Eph 2:11-22; 4:1-7.
    • dikaiw/sei (“he will make right” or, “will declare just”)—Paul typically uses the verb dikaio/w in the passive, as a “divine passive”, with God as the implied agent; here, it is used actively of God (“He will…”).
    • e)k pi/stew$ (“out of trust”)—Paul frequently uses this expression (with e)k, “out of”, i.e. “of, from”) to indicate either: (a) faith/trust as the means by which people are saved/justified, or (b) as the source by which one comes to believe, and to which the believer belongs. The first sense is generally synonymous with the expression dia\ pi/stew$ (“through trust”).
    • dia\ th=$ pi/stew$ (“through the [same] trust”)—almost certainly, there is no real difference of meaning between the use of the prepositions e)k and dia/, as indicated above; the definite article likely implies “the same” faith/trust (in Christ), again emphasizing the unity (and equality) of Jews and Gentiles before God.

Verse 31—In this concluding verse, Paul asks a pointed (and most interesting) rhetorical question:

“Do we then make the Law useless/inactive through th(is) trust? May it not come to be (so)!—but (rather) we make the Law stand!”

All through chapters 2 and 3 of Romans, Paul has been arguing that faith in Christ and acceptance by God is completely separate and apart from the Law (esp. the Old Testament/Jewish Law [Torah]). Jews, including many Jewish Christians, doubtless would object to this line of reasoning, and might well claim that Paul was undermining and destroying the Law by his teaching. Paul anticipates such an objection, much as he does in Gal 3:21 (cf. also Gal 2:17, and earlier in Rom 3:3-5). His response says a good deal about his view and understanding of the Law; because of its importance in this regard, this verse will be discussed in a little more detail in a separate daily note.

Romans 4:1-25—Argument from Scripture (Abraham)

This passage is an expansion of the argument in Galatians 3:6-18, centered on the example of Abraham. Here it will be most important to examine the significant differences and points of development, compared with Gal 3:6ff (for a discussion of the verses in Galatians, see my earlier article in this series). The basic outline is:

Rom 4:1-3—The example of Abraham [Gal 3:6]

Paul begins with a (rhetorical) question regarding Abraham: “what then shall we declare Abraham to have found…?”—whom he qualifies with the phrase “…our forefather according to (the) flesh?” Here he uses the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”) in the normal physical/material sense; kata\ sa/rka presumably is to be taken with “our forefather” (to\n propa/tora au)tw=n), rather than with the verb eu(rhke/nai, i.e. “to have found according to the flesh”, though possibly there is a bit of wordplay involved. In verse 2, Paul emphasizes the point that Abraham was not considered by God to be right/just (e)dikaiw/qh, “made right/just”) by his works (e)c e&rgwn)—in contrast to the discussion in James 2:21ff. In verse 3, just as in Gal 3:6, there is a citation from Genesis 15:6 [LXX]:

“Abraham trusted [e)pis/teusen] God and it was counted [e)logi/sqh] to/for him unto justice/righteousness [ei)$ dikaiosu/nhn]”
The construction e)logi/sqhei)$ in typical English has to be rendered something like “counted…as“, with the preposition ei)$ (“into, unto”) indicating the intended or effective result.

This clearly was a seminal verse in Paul’s thought, through which he was able to grapple with the relationship between Jewish and Christian religious identity.

Rom 4:4-12—The blessing to (and through) Abraham [Gal 3:7-14]

In Galatians, Paul emphasizes the blessing that comes, through Abraham, to the nations (Gentiles), that it is through trust in God (the same trust demonstrated by Abraham); this is contrasted with the Law (and its curse), which Christ fulfills. In Romans, the emphasis is rather on the nature of the blessing (or blessedness), which is described through a series of explanatory and illustrative statements:

  • Vv. 4-5—it is not a wage [misqo/$] earned by (or, properly, owed to) the one who works [o( e)rgazo/meno$]; instead it is a favor [xa/ri$], or “gift” (i.e. “grace”).
  • Vv. 6-8—it is understood in terms of forgiveness of sins, i.e. of sinful acts [ai( a(marti/ai] and acts of “lawlessness” [ai( a)nomi/ai] or violations of the law, in the general sense of wickedness. This is stated by way of citation of Psalm 31:1-2 in vv. 7-8, and brings out three different aspects of “forgiveness”—sins are:
    • “released” (a)fe/qhsan)—the related noun a&fesi$ is the word usually translated “forgiveness” in English
    • “covered up/over” (e)pekalu/fqhsan)—i.e., a covering is laid over/upon them
    • “not counted” (mh\ logi/shtai)—the double negative ou) mh\ adds emphasis, “not at all, certainly not, by no means,” etc
  • Vv. 9-11a—it was pronounced prior to circumcision (and the Law/Torah); Paul makes the same point in Gal 3:15-18. Even more important in the context of Romans is the equality of Jew and Gentile—this blessedness (justification) comes upon those with “circumcision” (peritomh/) and “a foreskin” (a)krobusti/a) equally (v. 10).
  • Vv. 11b-12—it is for all who trust, apart from circumcision and the Law. The upshot of Paul’s argument is that Abraham trusted God, and was counted as just/righteous, while he was still uncircumcised; by way of application, Gentiles who walk in line (stoixou=sin), following in the tracks (toi=$ i&xnesin) of Abraham (v. 12), i.e. in the same faith and trust, will, like him, be “counted as just/righteous” by God (11b).
Rom 4:13-25—The promise to Abraham (his seed–descendants) [Gal 3:15-18]

As indicated above, the argument in Gal 3:15-18 is effectively repeated by Paul in vv. 9-11; here in vv. 13ff he takes a different approach, which deals more directly with the Abraham narrative in Genesis. The principal statement is in verses 13-15:

  • V. 13—this is the main declaration, which is framed, in familiar fashion, by Paul: “not through (the) Law… but through (the) justice/righteousness of trust”, contrasting the Law with trust (in Christ). In between these contrasting terms, he sets the elements of the Abraham narrative:
    • h( e)paggeli/a (“the message upon”), esp. a declaration or announcement upon (someone or something), which can be taken in the sense of a promise to do something, etc., and so is often applied, as here, in relation to God—His declaration or promise that he will do such-and-such.
    • tw=|  )Abraa\m (“to Abraham”)—of a son (and heir) to Abraham, including the promise of many future descendants; cf. Gen 12:2-3, 7; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-11; 22:16-19; 24:7.
    • h* tw=| spe/rmati au)tou= (“or [rather] to his seed”)—for Paul’s special emphasis on the “seed” [sg.] of Abraham, cf. Gal 3:16.
    • au)to\n ei@nai (“his being”, i.e. “that he would be”)—that Abraham’s child—ultimately, his descendants—would truly be (or become)… .
    • to\ klhrono/monkosmou= (“the [one] receiving the lot [i.e. heir]… of [the] world”)—this touches back on the idea of the blessing which would come to the nations (Gen 12:3), as well as the inheritance of the (promised) land in Canaan (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:7, 18; 26:4; 28:13; 35:11-12; 48:16; Exod 32:13; Num 26:52-56, etc). This land (as “earth”) came to expanded, in subsequent Israelite/Jewish tradition, as “the (whole) world” (cf. Jub 19:21; 2 Baruch 14:13; 51:3, etc). The concept would be spiritualized in early Christianity, or related more properly to the idea of believers “inheriting the kingdom of God”.
  • Vv. 14-15—Paul expounds the statement regarding inheritance according to his familiar contrast between the Law and faith/trust (v. 14). Note the wordplay which characterizes his argument in these verses:
    • V. 14: if inheritance comes by way of the Law (e)k no/mou), then the promise is made inactive (kath/rghtai, kat¢¡rg¢tai)
    • V. 15: when, in fact, the Law actually works out (katerga/zetai, katergázetai), i.e. produces, accomplishes, the passion/anger (o)rgh/, “wrath”, associated with the judgment) of God against sin and wickedness.
      This is followed by the statement that “where there is not (any) Law, there is also no stepping over [i.e. violation/transgression]” (cf. Rom 3:20; Gal 3:19).

Verses 16-17a are transitional, with a point that is two-fold:

    1. That the promise is according to the favor of God (kata\ xa/rin), which qualifies the expression of faith/trust (e)k pi/stew$)
    2. That it is to all the offspring of Abraham (panti\ tw=| spe/rmati), by faith/trust (and not by the Law)

As a result, Abraham is the father of all who believe in Christ, Jews and Gentiles both (“who is the father of all of us“). In vv. 17b-25, Paul returns to the Genesis narrative, and to the specific example of Abraham—that is, of his trust in God. The summary exposition is in vv. 17b-21, culminating with the declaration that Abraham carried fully (plhroforhqei\$) the belief that God was powerful enough to do (poih=sai) that which He had promised (o^ e)ph/ggeltai). The narrative is further interpreted and applied in the concluding verses 22-25. In particular, Gen 15:16 (v. 22) is applied to believers (vv. 23-24a)—those who trust in what God has done in Christ, especially the resurrection (v. 24b, 25b, cf. Rom 10:9), but also his sacrificial death which took place through (dia/, or for/because of) our transgressions (paraptw/mata, “[moment]s of falling along [the way]”).

July 26: Romans 2:12-16

This note will discuss Romans 2:12-16, which can be divided into two portions:

    • Vv. 12-13—a declaration that all human beings (Jews and Gentiles both) will be judged according to the Law
    • Vv. 14-16—an argument that the Gentiles are under the Law, and thus will be judged on that basis (along with Jews)

Romans 2:12-13

This declaration actually consists of two distinct, connected statements:

V. 12: “For as (many) as sinned without (the) Law [a)no/mw$] also will perish away (themselves) without (the) Law; and as (many) as sinned in (the) Law [e)n no/mw|] will be judged through (the) Law”

At first glance, Paul seems to be affirming a traditional Jewish viewpoint, by referring to Gentiles as those “without (the) Law” (a&nomo$), which can also be rendered “lawless”. Here the word no/mo$ (“law”) is used specifically in the sense of the Old Testament/Jewish Law (Torah), just as it is throughout Galatians. However, Paul is subtly laying the groundwork for the argument in vv. 14-15—that Gentiles are actually under the Law and will be judged accordingly.

V. 13: “For (it is) not the (one)s hearing (the) Law (who are) just [dikai/oi] alongside [i.e. before] God, but (rather) the (one)s doing the Law will be made/declared just [dikaiwqh/sontai]”

Paul continues to use “Law” in the sense of the Torah, alluding to Leviticus 18:5—”you shall guard my statutes and my judgments, (of) which the man (who) does them will also live in them”—a verse he also alludes to, in a similar context, in Gal 3:12. The distinction between hearing the Law and actually doing (i.e., performing or observing) it was a common point of teaching and exhortation in Judaism and early Christianity (cf. Matt 7:24ff; Luke 8:21; 11:28; Jn 12:47; James 1:22-25). For Paul, in this context, “hearing the Law” is a shorthand way to refer to Israelites and Jews generally—i.e. those who have inherited the Law and hear it proclaimed and taught (cf. 2 Cor 3:12-16).

There would seem to be problem in v.13b, where Paul states (along with Lev 18:5) that those doing the Law will be made/declared just (dikaiwqh/sontai) by God, since this contradicts what he has declared elsewhere (and often) in Romans and Galatians (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16; 3:11, etc). There are two possibilities:

    1. The verb dikaio/w is used here in a slightly different sense than elsewhere in Romans (and Galatians)
    2. Paul is playing on a traditional Jewish line of argument, which he will modify and qualify

The second option seems to fit better the rhetorical context, as Paul is in the process of addressing a hypothetical/imaginary Jew. He does much the same thing in Gal 2:15ff, drawing upon traditional Jewish understanding of Gentiles as lawless “sinners”, in contrast to Jews who live under the Law. And yet, according to his argument in Galatians, “works of the Law” only result in placing Jews under a curse. Gentiles, of course, are effectively under the same curse, as Paul will argue in Romans 3 (see also Gal 4:1-11), but here in Rom 2:12ff, he is specifically building his argument that God’s judgment on human beings is based on the Law. For more on the verb dikaio/w and the ancient background for Paul’s use of the dikaio- wordgroup, see the article on Justification.

Romans 2:14-16

In these verses, Paul suddenly modifies the scope of no/mo$ (“law”), applying it directly to Gentiles:

V. 14: “For when (the) nations, the (one)s not holding (the) Law, by nature do the (thing)s of the Law, these (people) not holding (the) Law are (the) Law in/unto themselves…”

The verb e&xw can be understood generally as “to have”, but more concretely it means “to hold”; so there is a slight ambiguity to its use here—Paul may be saying that they do not know the Law (Torah), or that they do not observe it, or both. Actually, as he makes clear, many Gentiles do observe the “things of the Law” (i.e., the things prescribed or commanded in the Law), even if they are unfamiliar with the Torah. This primarily means the ethical and moral aspects of the Torah, since it would not be possible for Gentiles to observe many of the specific ritual/ceremonial laws. In this regard, though they are not specifically under the Torah, they are still under the Law (of God). Paul’s way of phrasing this here “they are Law in/unto themselves [e(autoi=$, dative of advantage]”, strongly suggests that some sort of internal guidance is involved (such as the “conscience”). This contrasts with Rom 1:18ff, where people respond to the evidence of God in the natural world, or Gal 4:1-11, where Paul speaks of Gentiles as being “under the ‘elements’ [stoixei=a] of the world” (a kind of parallel to being “under the Law”). The meaning is clarified in verse 15:

V. 15a: “…the (one)s that show forth the work of the Law written in their hearts…”

The expression “the work of the Law” [to\ e&rgon tou= no/mou] is carefully chosen to echo “works of the Law” [e&rga tou= no/mou] (Rom 3:20, 28; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, cf. also Rom 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32; 11:6), as a collective which epitomizes the deeds prescribed by Law (the Torah and wider “Law of God”). The idea of the Law “written in the heart” seems to echo the famous passage in Jer 31:31-34; however, while this may foreshadow the Christian understanding, it is not what Paul is referring to here—rather, he is describing something akin to the human conscience, for which the corresponding Greek word is sunei/dhsi$, used by Paul in the second half of the verse:

V. 15b: “…their seeing (things) together [i.e. awareness/consciousness] (is) witnessing together, and between (each) other their reckoning/reasoning [pl.] is speaking openly against (them) or even giving account for (them)…”

Paul’s phrasing is difficult to render accurately, in a literal manner. The word sunei/dhsi$ means “seeing (things) together”, i.e. seeing/knowing things clearly, especially in the sense of being aware, or conscious of things. Often this means from a moral or ethical standpoint, i.e. awareness/consciousness of what is right and proper—in other words, a conscience, and so it is commonly translated in English. The verb summarture/w means “witness together (or, jointly)”; the prefixed particle sun- (“with, together”) probably should be understood in a sense parallel to its use in sunei/dhsi$, i.e. of a full, clear witness. There is no precise English equivalent for the plural of the noun logismo/$ (“counting, reckoning, reasoning”), it is often rendered simply as “thoughts”, which relate and discuss “between each other” (metacu\ a)llh/lwn)—alternately speaking out against the person and offering a defense on their behalf.

The statement concludes, with a return to theme of judgment in verse 16:

V. 16: “…in (the) day when God judges the hidden (thing)s of men, according to my good message [i.e. the Gospel I proclaim], through (the) Anointed Yeshua.”

In other words, the thoughts and conscience of Gentiles will be the basis for judgment, just as Jews will be judged according the Torah (which represents the terms of their covenant with God). So, both Jews and Gentiles alike will be judged according to the Law, and on the basis of their deeds (“work[s]”). It is something of a complex argument, not always easy to follow, in part because Paul is working from traditional Jewish language and patterns of thought to forge a new (and decisive) Christian understanding of things. He begins with the idea of the judgment of human beings before God according to their deeds, and places it alongside of the (new) Gospel message of the justice of God which is found and realized through trust in Christ. This is summarized here in verse 16—

“when God judges… through Christ Jesus”

and will be expanded and expounded upon in the chapters which follow.

This note is part of the series on “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans”

Paul’s View of the Law: Romans (1:18-3:20)

Romans 1:18-3:20

According to my outline (see the Introduction), I divide this first section of the probatio (Rom 1:18-8:39) as follows:

  • Rom 1:18-3:20: Announcement of God’s (impending) judgment (v. 18), according to the Law (of God):
    1:19-32: Judgment against human wickedness/injustice as represented by (pagan) idolatry and immorality
    2:1-16: Jews are judged (along with Gentiles) according to evil/wicked deeds that are against the Law
    2:17-29: Jewish identity (circumcision) is meaningless if the Law is violated
    3:1-8: God’s judgment against Jew and Gentile alike is just
    3:9-20: Declaration (with proof from Scripture) that all human beings (Jews and Gentiles) are “under sin”

My discussion here will generally be limited to the verses and passages which are relevant to Paul’s view of the Law; these will be discussed below under six headings, beginning with 1:18 and followed by the five sections that make up 1:9-3:20. Certain verses will be dealt with in more detail in separate daily notes.

Romans 1:18

This announcement of judgment is formulated parallel to the statement in v. 17, as can be seen by comparison:

Verse 17:

dikaiosu/nh ga\r qeou= e)n au)tw=| a)pokalu/ptetai
“for the justice/righteousness of God is uncovered in it [i.e. the Gospel]…”

e)k pi/stew$ ei)$ pi/stin
“…out of trust (and) into trust”

Verse 18:

a)pokalu/ptetai ga\r o)rgh\ qeou= a)p’ ou)ranou=
“for the passion/anger of God is uncovered from heaven…”

e)pi\ pa=san a)se/beian kai\ a)diki/an
“…upon all lack of (proper) fear [i.e. impiety] and injustice/unrighteousness”

The two key (parallel) terms in v. 18b are a)sebei/a and a)diki/a—these define the origin and nature of human wickedness, as represented by (pagan) idolatry and immorality, and as described by Paul in vv. 19-32.

Romans 1:19-32

The term a)sebei/a indicates the lack (a)-) of proper fear or reverence (vb. se/bomai)—that is, toward God—and is sometimes translated as “impiety”. This is described vividly by Paul in vv. 19-23, a kind of early Christian explanation for the religious phenomenon of (pagan) polytheism and image-worship. The second term in v. 18 is a)diki/a, which likewise indicates the lack of justice (di/kh); but the negative partice (a)-) can also indicate that which is opposite, that which is unjust, i.e., injustice. The word di/kh is closely related to dikaio- wordgroup (“just-/right[eous]-“) used so frequently by Paul in Romans. This injustice/unrighteousness is similarly described (in considerable detail) by Paul in vv. 24-32, with an explanation of how it leads to immorality in human beings, according to three sections:

    1. Immorality directly connected to the worship of (human/creaturely) images, vv. 24-25
    2. Immorality as represented by unnatural passion and (homo)sexual intercourse, vv. 26-27
    3. Immorality summarized as general depravity and wickedness (list of vices), vv. 28-31

Verse 18b adds an interesting qualifying detail to the impiety and injustice, that it is “…of men, the (one)s holding down the truth in injustice”. This “holding down” of the truth characterizes the idolatry and immorality of vv. 19-32, but especially of vv. 28-32 and the concluding verse 32.

Romans 2:1-16

In this section, Paul shifts from the idolatrous and immoral (pagan) world, to the one who would offer religious and moral judgment against such people (v. 1)—”O man, every one th(at) [i.e. whoever] is judging…”. Commentators are generally agreed that the rhetorical figure Paul addresses here is Jewish (confirmed by vv. 12-16), one who, traditionally, and naturally, would tend to regard the (pagan/heathen) Gentiles as “sinners”—idolatry and immorality being associated as stock characteristics of the Gentile world. As Paul makes clear, this was often a superficial and hypocritical viewpoint, and that many Jews behaved as badly and wickedly as Gentiles (at times, even worse). Condemnation of self-righteous religiosity was a common feature in Judaism going back to the Old Testament Prophets, and was prominent in Jesus’ teaching (cf. in the Sermon on the Mount, and the series of “Woes” in Matt 23). Paul’s declaration in vv. 3-5 very much echoes the tone and language of John the Baptist (Lk 3:7ff par). Judgment is the theme and keynote of this passage, in particular, the (impending) end-time judgment (kri/ma) of God on humankind (cf. Rom 1:18, etc). An important word occurs in verse 5: dikaiokrisi/a (“just/right judgment”, i.e. a just or correct judicial sentence), an extremely rare compound term—cf. reference to God as a “just judge” (dikaiokri/th$) in 2 Macc 12:41. The term, however, blends together two major themes of Romans: God’s judgment, and his justice/righteousness. Both the justice and (end-time) judgment of God on human beings are based on their deeds (or “works” [e&rga]), vv. 6-11, which God will judge fairly and impartially (v. 11). It is important to keep in mind the ancient religious world-view that underlies this thinking—for more on this, and Paul’s use of the dikaio- wordgroup, see the article on Justification.

In verses 12-16, Paul introduces the “the Law” (o( no/mo$) as the basis for judgment. This is the first major passage dealing with the Law in Romans, and will be treated in a separate note.

Romans 2:17-29

In verses 17-24, Paul cites certain representative examples of ways that Jews transgress the Law. These are somewhat problematic, for they are instances of rather blatant violations—stealing, adultery, “robbing temples”—and there certainly are many devout, pious Jews who would not do such things. There are two possibilities: (1) Paul is using gross crimes to represent what is contrary to proper spiritual/ethical conduct, or (2) they serve as an extreme and dramatic representation of transgression and wickedness in general (much as what is described in 1:18-32). The verb i(erosule/w means to strip bare or plunder a sacred place (i.e. a temple), but can also be used in the general sense of religious transgression or sacrilege. Theft, adultery and idolatry (or religious misconduct) are often closely connected in Old Testament and Jewish thought—of many examples, see Hos 4:1-3; Jer 7:8ff; Mal 3:5ff; Testament of Levi 14:5; Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues §163. Such wicked deeds, as committed by Israelites and Jews, are especially significant, since one purpose of the covenant to which they were called was to be a “light” to the nations, and so to instruct people in the truth and knowledge of God (vv. 19-20, cf. Isa 42:6-7; 49:6). By transgressing the Law, they cause God’s name to be slandered (blasfhmei=tai) among the Gentiles, as Paul states in v. 24, by citation of Isa 52:5 (LXX). The violation of the covenant is expressed specifically in terms of circumcision (vv. 25-29), the main aspect of the Old Testament/Jewish Law which Paul dealt with in Galatians. Because of the importance of these verses, as a fundamental declaration of Christian identity, they will be discussed in a separate note.

Romans 3:1-8

Paul begins this section where the last left off, with the theme of circumcision as an essential symbol of religious identity. He asks a fundamental question, which serves to connect together, by way of comparison, Jews and Gentiles:

“What then (is) the (thing) about the Yehudean {Jew} (that) is over (and above)? or what (is) the profit [i.e. benefit] of circumcision?”

His answer seems to confirm the traditional Jewish view in this regard: “much according to every turn [i.e. in every way]!” However, in actuality, he is simply reiterating the message of the prior sections, emphasizing the failure of Israel to live up to the special agreement (covenant) God established with them (esp. with regard to the Law). Note Paul’s clever use of wordplay:

    • The (gathered) words/sayings [logi/a] of God (i.e. the Torah and the Scriptures as a whole) were entrusted [e)pistqeu/qhsan] to them (v. 2)
    • A certain portion of Israel did not trust [h)pi/sthsan] (v. 3a)
    • Yet their lack of trust (or mistrust) [a)pisti/a] does not bring down (i.e. render useless) the trust(worthiness) [pi/sti$] of God (v. 3b)

Underlying this, and a number of other passages in Romans, is a reality with which Paul seems to have struggled greatly—that a good number of his fellow Jews have refused to trust in Christ, sometimes even responding to his missionary work with open hostility. How is one to make sense of this? Here, Paul limits the discussion to the basic failure of at least some Jews to believe, and uses it to launch into an argument regarding the justice (and judgment) of God, vv. 4-8. This is important, for it lays the groundwork for an even more fundamental argument: that all human beings (Jews and Gentiles alike) are “under sin” (3:9ff). We have here wordplay that juxtaposes human lack of justice (or just-ness), a)diki/a, with the justice/righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) of God. Paul’s teaching regarding the freedom of believers from the Law, along with his unique view on the purpose of the Law (cf. the studies on Galatians, and here in Romans), could easily be misunderstood as tolerating, or even advocating, “lawless” and immoral behavior; verses 5-8 speak out against such a mistaken idea, and serve to reinforce the doctrine of divine justice.

Verse 1

Question:
“What then [ti/ ou@n] (is) the (thing) about the Jew (that) is over (and above)…?”

Answer:
“Much in every [kata\ pa/nta] way”

Verse 9

Question:
“What then [ti/ ou@n]? Do we hold ourselves before [i.e. are we ahead] (of Gentiles)…?”

Answer:
“Not at all [pa/ntw$]”

The remainder of verse 9, along with verse 10a, presents a powerful double declaration that is absolutely fundamental to Paul’s entire line of argument in these chapters:

V. 9b: “Jews and Greeks all are under sin [u(f’ a(marti/an]”
V. 10a: “There is no just (person), not even one

The first statement comes from Paul’s teaching and preaching of the Gospel (“we dealt with the question [i.e. presented the charge] before”); the second comes from Scripture (“as it is written”), summarizing the chain of citations in vv. 10-18, beginning with Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3. He has moved from examples of wicked behavior (Gentiles in chap. 1, Jews in chap. 2) to a sweeping indictment that all human beings, however ‘good’ they may appear, presumably, are “under sin” (u(f’ a(marti/an). This expression implies being under the power of someone or something, i.e. in bondage or slavery. It was used in Gal 3:22, parallel, and largely synonymous, with several other expressions in Galatians:

    • “under (the) Law” [u(po\ no/mon], Gal 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18
    • “under (the) curse” [u(po\ kata/ran], Gal 3:10
    • “under a ‘childhood (slave)-guide'” [u(po\ paidagwgo/n], Gal 3:25 (cf. also 4:2)
    • “under the ‘elements’ of the world” [u(po\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou], Gal 4:3

It will not be possible here to examine the various Scripture references Paul strings together in vv. 10-18. Suffice it to say that, in typical Pauline (and early Christian) fashion, a number of passages are taken somewhat out of their original context; however, they still possess an interpretive logic of their own, when bonded together (by keyword and motif), and the result is a powerful (and creative) expression of truth.

The final two verses (vv. 19-20), which speak directly of Paul’s view regarding the function and purpose of the Law, will be examined in a separate note.

Justification

The terms “justification” and “justification by faith” cover a wide area—from linguistics, biblical theology, systematic theology, and the history of doctrine. It will not be possible to offer anything like a thorough treatment in one brief article. My purpose here is to present a summary of the basic meaning of the Greek words involved (especially the dikaio- wordgroup), and to explore the ancient background of the concepts and terminology, as utilized by Paul.

The dikaio- wordgroup

We must begin with the wider d–e—ik- wordgroup and the basic noun di/kh (dík¢), which fundamentally refers to that which is established as right, proper or customary. It can be used in terms of a specific law or ruling, tradition, a principle, even a (divine) power; it covers some of the same ground as the word no/mo$ (usually translated “law”). We might render di/kh simply, and fairly accurately, as “what is right”. In English, the terms “right” and “just” overlap; we can also refer to di/kh as “what is just”. There is a longstanding question: whether it is better to translate the dikaio- wordgroup with “right, righteous, righteousness” or “just, justice”, etc. The primary corresponding word(group) in Hebrew is qdx (ƒdq), which also carries the sense of loyal(ty). Partially overlapping in meaning is fpv (šp‰), the primary wordgroup referring to judging, judgment, justice, etc.

di/kaio$ (díkaios)—The adjective is usually rendered “right” or “just”, both of which are preferable to “righteous”, which carries a distinctively religious connotation in English. The wider meaning in Greek refers to that which is “according to custom”, i.e. a person who fulfills his/her duties and obligations, follows the established customs or traditions, obeys the laws, and so forth. A person who may be so characterized is “just” and “right(eous)”. The corresponding adjective in Hebrew is qyD!x^ (ƒadîq). The adverb dikaiw/$ (dikaiœ¡s) carries a similar range of meaning as the adjective, “rightly, justly”, etc.

dikaiosu/nh (dikaiosy¡n¢)—This is a more abstract noun, signifying the proper observance of law and custom, the fulfillment of duty and obligation, etc. It ought to be rendered something like “right-ness” or “just-ness”, but as there are no such terms in English, it is usually translated “justice” or “righteousness”, neither of which fits precisely—one relates more to the law and society, the other more properly to religion and morality. However, “justice” probably better represents the basic range of meaning in Greek thought, covering both social/religious virtue and proper observance/administration of law and custom. The corresponding Hebrew words qd#x# (ƒedeq) and hq*d*x= (ƒ®d¹qâ) might fit “righteousness” more closely, especially with the connotation of “truthfulness, loyalty”, etc.

dikaio/w (dikaióœ)—This verb fundamentally means “make right”, or to “establish as right/just” (i.e. establish justice). The primary context is that of the realm of law and the courts (the administration of law), but it can also apply to personal life and conduct (i.e. generally, make a situation right, treat/regard something fairly, etc). In a legal/judicial sense, it can refer to judgment in terms of “passing sentence” (declaring innocence or guilt), “securing justice” for someone (i.e. respresenting them in court), “validating” or confirming the law, and so forth. In Hebrew, the corresponding verb is the denominative qd@x* (ƒ¹d¢q), in the Hiphil/causative stem; as indicated above, fp^v* (š¹pa‰) is the primary verb indicating judging and judgment.

Paul uses this verb (indeed the dikaio- wordgroup as a whole) in a very distinct, specialized sense, an understanding of which requires some familiarity with the ancient religious and cultural background related to these words.

The ancient background of “Justification”

Paul’s use of the dikaio- wordgroup (and, in particular, the verb dikaio/w) draws upon the ancient concept of judgment after death. Upon death, human beings were seen as having to stand before a divine tribunal to be judged—according to what they had done in their lifetime (including their intention/motivation)—before being allowed to enter into the divine/heavenly blessedness. This explains the traditional connection between justice/righteousness and the Beatitude saying-form (cf. Matt 5:3-12, 20 and my notes on the Beatitudes). Only the person whose life reflects the purity and “righteousness” of the gods (or God, cf. Matt 5:48) may enter into the divine realm, becoming like the gods (or God). Jewish thought preserved much of this idea, but with several important differences:

    1. Monotheistic belief changed the religious dynamic of the judgment scene—rather than being localized in the “underworld”, or presided over by specific deities (associated with death, law and order, etc), it takes place in the court of YHWH (on this, see my earlier study on Psalm 1, associated with the Beatitudes).
    2. The idea of the covenant established between YHWH and Israel meant that Israelites (and Jews) were, as a result of God’s gracious choosing, assumed to be righteous from the beginning. This status was preserved and confirmed by observing the commands and regulations of the Torah, which effectively provided the terms of the covenant (cf. Deut 27-28). Transgression of the Torah meant violation of the covenant, and only the wicked would do so willfully and unrepentantly. The person who has lived according to God’s Law (as expressed in the Torah) will stand and pass the judgment.
    3. Jewish eschatology ultimately shifted the judgment scene from taking place after death (for each person) to a final (end-time) judgment, in which all people would be judged. This was either connected with (1) the concept of the resurrection from the dead (en masse), or with (2) the “day of YHWH”, during which God would appear in glory and judge the nations upon earth. Both motifs are found in Jewish writings, all the way back to the Old Testament Prophets in the mid-1st millennium B.C.

Early Christians inherited the Jewish worldview, though, with further development:

    • The end-time judgment by God was seen as imminent, likely to occur at any moment, and, as such, is more precisely understood as the culmination of history, the end of the present age. Christians connected this end of the old with the beginning of a “new age” in Christ.
    • Judgment would take place through the person of Jesus Christ, as God’s representative; the impending end-time judgment thus was thus thought to coincide with a return of Christ to earth.
    • The strong sense of an imminent, impending judgment defined the early Christian idea of salvation—believers in Christ would be saved from the judgment, the anger/wrath of God, which was about to come.

This provides the essential background for Paul’s use of the dikaio- wordgroup; in particular, the verb dikaio/w, of which more than half (23) of the New Testament instances occur in Romans and Galatians, is an important word for Paul. It is used almost always in the passive, that is, a “divine passive” (passivum divinum) with God as the implied agent. There are, I believe, three aspects to Paul’s usage, which correspond to three basic levels of meaning (and ways of translating the verb, cf. above):

  1. “Make right”—the situation for believers is “made right” by God; this would best be understood in terms of human beings’ bondage under the power of sin, from which we have been freed.
  2. “Declare just”—this corresponds to the primary meaning based on the judicial context and background, i.e. of the end-time judgment before God (cf. above). In a modern legal context, we might say “declare innocent”, but this is not quite the idea in Paul’s writings—in fact, he rarely uses words corresponding to “guilt” or “innocence” in English. It is rather the ancient, Jewish background that informs his language and symbolism. Normally, a person is declared “just” or “right” according to his/her deeds—from the Israelite/Jewish standpoint, this means having properly fulfilled the terms of the covenant by faithfully observing the Law (Torah). Paul’s belief in this regard seems to have been that Christ’s work (his sacrificial death) has effectively fulfilled the Law for believers, and so all who trust in him are automatically “declared (or considered) just/right” in God’s eyes. This should be understood further at two levels:
    (a) believers will pass through the judgment and be “saved” from the wrath (punishment) to come
    (b) believers also realize, and experience the reality of, this status in the present
  3. “Make righteous”—this relates primarily to believers’ experience of salvation/justification in the present, though, more properly, it involves a (transformative) participation in the justice/righteousness of God. This occurs in two respects:
    (a) a spiritual identification with, and participation in, the death and resurrection of Christ, represented symbolically through the ritual of Baptism (and the Lord’s Supper), and effectively by the expression “in Christ”—that is, in the body of Christ
    (b) by the power and presence of the Spirit (of God and Christ) living and working within—through the Spirit, believers also fulfill the Law (of God and Christ)

“Justification by Faith”

While Paul never actually uses anything corresponding to this expression (the noun corr. to “justification” is found only in Rom 4:25; 5:18), it generally summarizes a number of statements he makes in Galatians and Romans (and elsewhere). Due to the polemic of Galatians, he has a more specific and narrow focus in that letter—constrasting faith (trust) in Christ with observance of the Torah commands (“works of the Law”). The main verse is Gal 2:16: “a man is not made/declared just out of works of Law [e)c e&rgwn no/mou], but through trust [dia\ pi/stew$] of Jesus Christ”; later in the verse he states even more decisively, “all flesh will not be made/declared just out of works of Law”. Elsewhere, Paul contrasts “out of works” with the parallel formulation “out of trust/faith” (e)k pi/stew$).

The relevant verses in Galatians are Gal 2:16-17, 21; 3:2, 8, 11, 24; 5:4. In both Galatians and Romans, Paul cites the keynote verse Hab 2:4 [LXX], “the just [di/kaio$] (person) will live out of trust [e)k pi/stew$]” (Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17), and uses/interprets the example of Abraham in Gen 15:6 (Gal 3:6ff; Rom 4:3ff). The main verses of Romans are: Rom 3:13, 19-20, 21-30; 4:2, 5ff; 5:1ff; 8:30, 33; 9:30-32; 10:5-6ff. It is a bit surprising that this theme does not appear more frequently in the other Pauline letters—it is stated rather clearly, but in passing, in Phil 3:9; otherwise, it has to be inferred in passages such as 1 Cor 6:11; Col 2:11-15. If Ephesians is authentically Pauline, then there is also a relatively clear statement in Eph 2:8-9, though the verb dikaio/w does not occur. This latter reference is significant in its use of the word xa/ri$ (“favor, grace”); Paul begins to apply this term and concept (“the favor [of God]”) in the context of “justification” in Romans 3:24, then on throughout chapters 4-7, and again in 11:5-6. These two words—xa/ri$ and pi/sti$—represent the twin aspects of “justification”, that it is: (1) by the favor/grace of God, and (2) through trust/faith in Christ.