Timotheos,
Charis to you!
You're right! My note won't be as brief this time, for there is much in this passage to consider. I also anticipate that this will likely not be your or my only post on this crucial portion of the letter.
Blessings!
Paulos
Perhaps to the surprise of some of our readers, I accept your translation of the text with its phrases that demand exegetical-decision-making. I have in mind the phrase dikaiosune theou ("God's righteousness") and phrases associated with it and the phrase pistis chistou ("Messiah's faithfulness") and phrases associated with it.
Your first line of comments, however, prompts me to wonder. Why do you say, "Because the Law brings knowledge of sin, God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law"? What do you see in the text that prompts you to view the connection as causal? Verse 20 makes it clear that knowledge of sin comes through the Law, but verse 21 begins, not with for (gar) or because (hoti) or dia with the accusative (on account of). Instead, verse 21 begins with nuni de, "but now," just as your translation shows. Therefore, I wonder about the basis of the causal connection you express.
I certainly agree that we must avoid Marcionism and that Paul's comments concerning the fact that "the Law and the prophets witnessed to God's righteousness" silences the notion that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different gods.
I concur that the dikaiosune (righteousness) of which Paul speaks in his phrase dikaiosune theou is descriptive of God's character and should not be confused with the biblical concept of our being justified by God. Paul has used the expression dikaiosune theou three times now: (1) in his thesis statement in 1:17 ("in it [the gospel] God's righteousness is revealed") (2) in 3:5 within the crucial "junction box" of his argument ("if our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness") and now (3) in 3:21, the beginning of Paul's defense of God's character in relation to his promises ("God's righteousness has been revealed apart from the Law"). Use in 3:5 is utterly unambiguous, and because of its place within the crucial "junction box" of his argument, use of the phrase in this passage confirms that dikaiosune theou is descriptive of God; his character as righteous is front and center in the gospel. Romans 3:21-26 likewise reinforces this confirmation, for Paul goes on to make the case, as you have translated that God put forth his own Son as propitiation "for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of those who belong to Jesus' faithfulness" (3:26).
True as it is that the phrase dikaiosune theou is not to be confused with our being justified or declared righteous, Paul makes it clear that the two matters are not unrelated, as 3:26 makes clear. The two concepts--"God's righteousness" and "our being declared righteous"--are not separable, but they are distinguishable, and necessarily distinguishable as Paul's words make clear. It is deeply regrettable that so few NT and Pauline scholars, in particular, seem to recognize this distinction. Thus, by failing to recognize this distinction, some perpetuate the notion that dikaiosune theou can simultaneously mean both "God's righteousness" (descriptive of God's character) and "a righteousness from God" (speaking of the gift of justification that God gives to believers, as the NIV interprets the phrase dikaiosunedikaisune theou). confusiononfustion, one can here it in lecture three of the the recent lectures by D. A. Carson on the so-called "New Pauline Perspective." In his lecture he offers a brief exposition of Romans 3:21-26. Without indicating that the phrase dikaiosune theou requires one to make a careful exegetical decision whether the phrase should be understood as "God's righteousness" as it unambiguously means in 3:5 or as "a righteousness from God" as the NIV interprets the phrase, he speaks as if the phrase can mean both things at the same time, as if it were a case of double entendre. If, however, it were a case of double entendre, Paul surely did not make it clear at all.
Failure to make the necessary exegetical decision concerning dikaiosune theou has led many to use seriously confusing shorthand expressions, one of which you address in your "aside." You stated, "As an aside, it seems like we need to stop talking about being justified by faith, as if the ground of our justification is our faith. This is simply another way of talking about being justified by some good work, which we produce. Instead, we should talk about being justified on the basis of God grace through Jesus the faithful one."
I agree with your translation of 3:22 with its phrase pistis Christou as "Messiah's faithfulness." The claim that it would be a redundant expression, if taken as most modern translations interpret the phrase--through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe (ESV)--is valid, but it is hardly a convincing reason to translate the phrase as you have done. Instead, a serious exegetical and theological work must ground this exegetical decision. It is worthy of note that there is a modern translation that does interpret the phrase to mean "Jesus Christ's faithfulness." For those who have not noticed yet, they should take a close and careful look at the NET Bible with its copious notes of explanation.
I wonder if you may have actually intended to say the following, "It seems like we need to stop talking about being justified on the basis of faith [instead of by faith], as if the ground of our justification is our faith." In my estimation, the problem is not that we talk about being justified by faith, for by faith is a valid way of expressing means. Instead, what troubles me is when I hear preachers and teachers talking about our being justified on the basis of our faith. Here, then, is where your question rightly takes on its valid punch: How is being justified on the basis of our faith an improvement on being justified on the basis of our works?
I anticipate that I will be offering further comments on this passage, but for now, I will post what I have written.
Paulos
2 comments:
Paulos,
I agree with your statement clarifying the concept of being justified by faith. Good thoughts.
In my estimation, the central question in this section is, "How can God forgive sin and still maintain His righteousness?" When teaching this passage in the past, I've identified this as the theme of the pericope.
Proverbs 24:24-25 says, "Whoever says to the guilty, 'You are innocent'-- peoples will curse him and nations denounce him. But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come upon them."
Paul argues that by pouring out His holy wrath on Jesus, God demonstrated his righteousness in forgiving sins.
I tend to disagree with your conclusion that "pistis Christou" refers to Jesus' faith. It makes better sense to me that Paul is just underlining the importance of faith in Christ as the only means of appropriating His sacrifice.
Are there any other sections in Paul's writing where he speaks of Jesus' faith?
Oh, I did some more thinking about your interpretation of the phrase "the righteousness of God" in v. 21.
You wrote that "the dikaiosune (righteousness) of which Paul speaks in his phrase dikaiosune theou is descriptive of God's character and should not be confused with the biblical concept of our being justified by God."
I'm not sure that I agree completely. Moo gives three options here. First, it refers to the character of God. Second, it refers to a status given in the act of justification. Third, it describes God's activity of dealing with sin in a righteous manner.
This third option seems the strongest to me. Surely God's righteous character was revealed in the Law and Prophets. This doesn't make sense of v. 21. However, the Old Covenant definitely did not reveal to us how God could act righteously in forgiving sins. The Law provided no means of effective forgiveness of sin. It only revealed the problem, but it did not provide an answer to the question of how God could righteously forgive sin.
Post a Comment