Comments on Romans 1:13-17

Timotheos,

I shall focus my response to your comments upon Paul's thesis statement, Romans 1:16-17.

You rightly and well summarize the three main interpretations of Paul's use of dikiaosune theou. Also, I believe that you have chosen well in that you have accepted Paul's phrase as speaking of "God's righteousness," which is to say that it is descriptive of God rather than speaking of a gift from God as we have learned from Martin Luther and those who have followed his lead.

It is so very difficult for us, once we have been trained to think in certain ruts, to lift our thoughts out of those ruts. The rim of the wheel of our thoughts wants to default into its familiar groove. It is so much easier to follow the old path, especially when so many cluck their tongues at anyone who thinks differently, as in the matter of Paul's use of dikiaosune theou in Romans 1:17 and elsewhere in Romans. Many cluck their tongues with dismissal because they assume that anyone who takes Paul's phrase as you have done is surely a person who has hooked up with that awful teaching called "the New Pauline Perspective." Such an accusation, of course, is a remarkable leap of illogic. True, N. T. Wright understands Paul's phrase just as you do. Well, in my estimation N. T. Wright has joined himself to good company by agreeing with you and by agreeing with me on this passage and others throughout Romans. It is truly regrettable that guilt by association is imputed to anyone with whom N. T. Wright dares to agree concerning anything. (Yes, as you know me, imputed was an intentional pun.)

You also correctly identify two other segments of Paul's thesis that pose enigmatic difficulties for us. His phrase ek pisteos eis pistin is difficult. Does it mean--

1. "from faith to faith," (from one act of faith to another act of faith, and so on"),

2. "from faith unto faith," (from the faith of our forefathers unto our faith"),

3. "from faithfulness to faithfulness," (from Christ's faithfulness unto our faithfulness"),

4. "from faithfulness to faithfulness," (from God's faithfulness in times past unto God's faithfulness now in the gospel and ever more"?

Elsewhere in Paul's letters we see similar phrases three times. Two are in 2 Corinthians 2:15-16--ek thanatou eis thanaton and ek zoes eis zoen and one is in 2 Corinthians 3:18--apo doxes eis doxan. Each of these three phrases seems to refer each side of the distinctive phraseology to one and the same person. So, for example, the person to whom the gospel is a fragrance "from life" is also the one to whom the gospel is a fragrance "unto life."

Given this observation, it would seem to rule out both numbers 2 and 3 above. What, then, about numbers 1 and 4? I would suggest that Paul's choice of verb rules out number 1. The verb Paul uses is apokalupto. This is entirely the wrong verb for Paul to use, if he were talking about a gift of righteousness given from God to those who believe, as Luther has taught us to read the passage. Paul had available to himself a variety of verbs he could have used, if that were what he meant. He could have used, for example, didomi, but he does not. Why does Paul use the verb apokalupto? It is because he is talking about God's disclosure of the quality about himself that he most supremely reveals in the gospel, namely, his righteousness, which is to say his steadfastness to his promised word, his covenant keeping.

Therefore, it seems to me that the ek pisteos eis pistin phraseology refers to God who has showed himself faithful in the past in his giving of the promise to the patriarchs (cf. Romans 15:8ff) and he is now showing himself faithful in the gospel in his most supreme manner by giving his promised Son as the propitiation by which God retains his righteousness and he declares sinners righteous (Romans 3:23ff).

So, what then, of pistis in the quotation from Habakkuk 2:4? I take it as a reference to Jesus Christ's faithfulness, his steadfast loyalty to his Father's covenant mission, namely his self-sacrifice that exhibits the ground upon which God shows himself to be righteous when he justifies sinners.

I believe that Habakkuk 2:4 is messianic, as is obvious from its use in Hebrews 10:37ff. "The Righteous One" is a NT title for Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 2:1). Of course, the title is used in Isaiah 53:11 also, "my Righteous Servant." So, in my estimation, the burden of proof should be on all who reject the titular use of ho dikaios in Romans 1:17.

Thanks for your patience in bearing with me as I try to catch up to you.

Paulos