Comments on Romans 3:21-26 Again

Timotheos,

Thanks for posting the NET Bible translation. I trust that it is helpful to our readers, such as Daniel, to realize that there are some crucial interpretive decisions that we have to make in Romans 3:21-26, including how we will translate dikaiosune theou (3:21, 22), pistis Iesou Christou (3:22, 25, 26), and hilasterion (3:25). The NET does not interpret the already defined expression, dikaiosune theou (3:21, 22), defined by Paul in 3:5, but leaves its meaning ambiguously stated for readers to interpret. Yet, the NET does interpret the expression, pistis Iesou Christou (3:22, 26), not yet defined by Paul. The KJV leaves both expressions ambiguous. Here is the KJV for 3:21-26 with the phrases marked as bold.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Though the KJV translators left the phrases in 3:21-22 ambiguous, they interpreted the phrase ton ek pisteos Iesou in 3:26. They not only interpreted the phrase; they verbed the noun pistis as believeth in Jesus. Neither the KJV nor the NET address the interpretive decision in 3:25 with the phrase dia tes pisteos en to autou haimati. When an article is used after a prepostion, as here (dia tes, one should inquire about its function. Here, the article tes functions as the article of previous mention, which is to say, it points back to the pistis already mentioned in from the beginning of the paragraph, namely, Christ's pistis. Thus, the phrase dia tes pisteos en to autou haimati identifies, with specificity, what Paul means when he speaks of Christ's faithfulness through which God has revealed his righteousness. This faithfulness entails Christ's atoning sacrificial death. Of course, blood is figurative for sacrificial death.

My interpretive decision concerning dikaiosune theou in 3:21, 22 is based, of course, not only upon the unambiguous meaning of the phrase in 3:5. Two other factors in this passage compel my interpretive decision. First is the obvious meaning of the same phrase used twice in this passage with the possessive pronoun (his) replacing the possessive God's, indicated by underlining (in translation below). Second is Paul's burden to make the point that by virtue of the atoning death of Jesus Christ, "God is both righteous and the one who declares righteous. . ." (3:26). Paul's burden, in other words, his thesis is that God has proved himself righteous in the gospel. Here, then, is my own translation, which is quite close to yours. I have marked as bold all the phrases where interpretive decisions must be made. The translation shows all of my decisions.

²¹ But now apart from the Law God’s righteousness has been disclosed, though being testified to by the Law and the prophets, ²² even God’s righteousness disclosed through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness unto all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ for all sinned and persist in falling short of God’s glory, ²⁴ being freely declared righteous by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God publicly set forth as propitiation through the faithfulness in his blood for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus.

You have nicely addressed the basis for interpreting pistis Christou as "Christ's faithfulness" rather than "faith in Christ." You have nicely shown how the phrase is used elsewhere. I am not convinced that Dan Wallace is right to regard James 2:1 and Revelation 2:13 (perhaps even Mark 11:22) as exceptions to the general observation that pistis + the genitive is best understood as a subjective construction. All three so-called "exceptions" make good (perhaps bettter) sense if taken as subjective genitives. But we do not need to address these at this time.

Clearly, Romans 3:21-26 speaks of "the righteousness of God" in terms of "his righteousness" was manifested earlier in "God's forbearance in passing over sins previously committed" (3:25) and in terms of "his righteousness" demonstrated in the present era "that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus" (3:26). In other words, "God's righteousness" is set over against "human unrighteousness" (cf. 1:17-18; 3:1-8). God proves himself righteous by inflicting his wrath upon his own Son, the Faithful One, in order than God might be righteous when he declares sinners righteous. God's righteousness, his righteous character, requires that he satisfy his wrath (propitiate his wrath). He propitiates his wrath by inflicting it upon his Son instead of upon us.

Who are those for whom God inflicts his wrath upon his Son? I will leave this question for another note.

Paulos