Before delving into the thesis statement to Paul’s letter to the Romans, I’d like to share with you all that I just received an offer letter from the Ancient History department at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia to pursue further graduate work in New Testament. I’d appreciate your prayers as I prepare to move to Australia in July. (I’m moving to Australia! Whoohoo!)

Now…

Romans 1:16-17 are pivotal verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans, and indeed in the New Testament as a whole. In a few short lines, Paul summarizes the life-transforming gospel which he had so longed to proclaim to the Christians in Rome (1:11, 15). That gospel, Paul makes very clear, is not a lifeless message but a vibrant encounter for all who respond in faith, and to understand and respond to this gospel is to have one’s time and eternity completely altered.

Paul introduces himself in 1:1 as “a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.” The recipients are “all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints” (1:7), which, Paul will make clear, includes both Jews and Gentiles. Romans 1:2-6 summarizes the “gospel of God,” perhaps using a hymn or some other primitive Christological statement in hopes that his readers would recognize it, and thus recognize him as a fellow Christian. Both Paul’s politeness and his conventionality to the Greek letter form are evident in 1:8-15, where we see that he is able to give thanks “because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world” (1:8).

The thesis, or propositio, to the epistle to the Romans is set forth in 1:16-17. Paul lays out in these verses the proceeding arguments of his letter as follows: (1) the quotation of Habakkuk in v. 17b foreshadows what follows in chs. 1-8; (2) the emphasis on the gospel as the power of God for salvation first to the Jew and also to the Gentile foreshadows chs. 9-11; (3) the reference to living by faith in v. 17b looks forward to the discussion in chs. 12-15; and (4) the reference to the righteousness of God anticipates a major theme in chs. 1-11. As such, almost every word of Paul’s statement in 1:16-17 is important to the rest of the letter, since these verses submit the proposition from which Paul will advance his series of arguments in the rest of his epistle.

Paul begins his propositio with the curious statement, “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” This could be, as K. Grieb notes, a form of rhetorical understatement, litotes, by which Paul means to say, “I am proud of the gospel.” However, R. Jewett rather compellingly contends that such an understanding of this statement “sidesteps the precise social issues of shame and honor.” We learn from such ancient orators as Isocrates and Philip of Macedon that honor and shame were regularly addressed in orations by employing the “I am ashamed/not ashamed” formula. What was the shameful issue of the gospel for Paul, then? It has been suggested that the shameful issue was the very message of Christ crucified, which was “to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor 1:23). For Paul and the first-century peoples to whom he preached, such a message “seemed to demean God and overlook the honor and propriety of established religious traditions, both Jewish and Greco-Roman.” It could also be the case that Paul is defending his gospel against accusations of anti-Semitism and antinomianism, as Douglas Moo and others have speculated (cf. 3:8 and 9:1-5).

Paul next insists that this gospel is “the power of God unto salvation.” Herein we see the paradox of the gospel of the cross, a message which would seem shameful and powerless to many, but in which the power of God is revealed in such a way that it brings salvation. The preposition eis (“to/unto”) here should be understood with the sense of “toward,” or “with the effect of bringing about salvation,” as Dunn renders it, and not as an extension involving a goal or place such as “into” or “for.” Contrary to Lutheran tradition, salvation cannot be a mere shift into “right standing” before God; rather, it is past, present, and future-both an initial act of faith and an ongoing operation which one must “continue to work out … with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). The coordinating conjunction ga.r indicates that this clause expresses the cause or explanation of the preceding clause; hence, Paul states that he is “not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation.”

It is important to recall, as Jewett does, that in the Greco-Roman cultural context, priestly, military, and administrative power forms were honored as effective means of salvation. Indeed, the emperor was celebrated as a savior (sōtēr), and his allegedly divine power was heralded as the “gospel” (euangellion) of salvation. Jewett contends that such an understanding of Paul’s words enables one to explain the claim that the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation.” Jewett is right in his consideration of the Greco-Roman cultural context of Paul’s words; however, he fails to give the Jewish view of divine power its due weight. It is preferable to say, then, as E. Käsemann affirms, that “the power of God unto salvation” is best understood as God’s redemptive activity directing history. It “is not one miracle among others”—namely, the Roman empirical powers; rather, “it is the epiphany of God’s eschatological power pure and simple.”

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation “to everyone who trusts in [him],” or “to everyone who has faith.” Either of these translations is preferable to the more common rendering “to everyone who believes.” K. Grieb is correct that there is quite a difference between one who “puts trust/faith in” and one who “believes.” For Paul, pisteuō (“believe”) and its cognates signify more than mere belief; it is a full reliance on and confidence in the integrity, power, ability, and surety of God, and moreover, “faithful obedience” to him (v. 5).

While the gospel means salvation unto everyone who trusts in God, it is delivered “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” The emphasis on “all” (panti). in the previous phrase finds a balance here in “first” (prōton (which, not surprisingly, Marcion appears to have omitted ). Paul “does not for a moment forget, nor does he want his Gentile readers to forget Jewish priority in God’s saving purpose (cf. 3:3-4; chaps. 9-11); but equally fundamental is his conviction that Jewish priority does not shift the ‘terms of salvation’ one whit beyond faith,” that is, faith in God through Christ.)

Verse 17 tells us why (once again, we have the causal conjunction gar) the gospel is God’s power for salvation unto all who have faith: “through it the righteousness of God is being (and will continue to be) revealed.” Here we encounter for the first time the controversial phrase “righteousness of God” (dikaiosunē theou). The debate over this phrase concerns the use of the genitive, and whether or not it is meant to refer to a quality in God. There are at least three ways in which the genitive qeou/ may be interpreted.

(1) The genitive theou (“of God”) might be interpreted as an objective genitive, i.e. “righteous status granted by God.” This is the view espoused by Luther, who understood the term “righteousness of God” not as a matter of internal, moral transformation, but as a matter of judicial standing.

(2) A similar interpretation takes theou as a genitive of source, i.e. “righteousness sourced in God.” The nuance of difference between the genitive of source and the objective genitive is that of the procession of righteousness from God to man, though in both the “righteousness of God” refers to a “righteous” status granted by God. Syntactically, the genitive of source leaves room for the possibility of internal transformation as well.

(3) The genitive theou might also be interpreted as a subjective genitive, in which case it may refer to “righteousness shown by God” or, in the possessive sense, “righteousness belonging to God.” E. Käsemann, whose contribution to the subjective interpretation has been significant, emphasized the apocalyptic understanding of “righteousness of God,” arguing that the phrase “speaks of the God who brings back the fallen world into the sphere of his legitimate claim.” Scholars have also largely accepted the concept of the “righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness; thus, it is offered “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

Before drawing a conclusion regarding dikaiosunē theou, there are contextual matters to be considered. First, Paul calls the gospel “the power of God unto salvation” (v. 16). Since “gospel” (euvagge,lion) is clearly the antecedent of the “it” through which the righteousness of God is revealed, we can say that the righteousness of God is revealed through his saving power, the gospel. Second, the quotation from Habakkuk that “the righteous one will live according to faith” is paralleled with Paul’s statement about the righteousness of God; thus, we can also say that the righteousness of God has something to do with the way one lives who has been affected by it. Third, Jewett points out that both “power of God” in v. 16 and “wrath of God” in v. 18 are subjective genitives, rendering it most likely that “righteousness of God,” which appears between them, should be taken the same way. The immediate context of dikaiosunē theou, then, makes it preferable to opt for the subjective genitive interpretation.

“The righteousness of God,” Paul says, “is being (and will continue to be) revealed.” The verb “revealed” (apokaluptetai) is in the present tense, indicative mood, indicating that the action is taking place during the time at which Paul is writing. But clearly Paul does not intend to say that this revelation is only happening while he is writing about it. Indeed, if the gospel is the power of God “because in it the divine righteousness breaks into the world as eschatological revelation,” as Käsemann affirms, then apokaluptetai must be meant to have present implications for us as well.

This must be, then, the “extending-from-past” present, which uses a present tense verb to describe an action begun in the past that continues into the present. This type of present tense Greek verb is best translated in a similar way to the English present perfect. It is different from the perfect tense, however, insofar as the perfect tense speaks only about results continuing into the present time. The “extending-from-past” present, on the other hand, speaks of the continuation of the action itself. Moreover, the use of the passive voice is an indication of divine agency, “both in Paul’s ministry and in the triumph over unrighteousness.” Therefore, we can gladly say that “the righteousness of God is being (and will continue to be) revealed” through God’s saving power of the gospel.

Having dealt with one difficult phrase, we now move to another in “from faith to faith” (ek pisteōs eis pistin). If this phrase is not simply declared meaningless or brushed off as a rhetorical adornment, it is usually taken to denote some sort of progression or transformation. Several parallels for this expression can be cited. For example, Ps 84:7 promises that the one whose strength is in God will go on “from strength to strength” (ek dunameōs eis dunamin), and the wicked in Jeremiah 9:3 progress “from evil to evil” (ek kakōn eis kaka). Paul uses this formula again in 2 Cor 2:16, “from death to death … from life to life” (cf. 3:18). Barrett is on the right track in acknowledging that these parallels suggest the meaning “from one level of faith to a higher;” however, wrongly abandoning this textual evidence, he concludes that such a meaning “does not … suit the present context,” and is rather a simple emphatic rhetorical device.

A myriad of other proposals have been made regarding the meaning of this phrase, such as “from the faith (of the preacher) to the faith (of the hearer),” and “from faith (as a starting point) to faith (as a permanent condition).” A few have proposed the meaning “from (God’s) faith to (humanity’s) faith.” However, such interpretations seem to disregard what is known about the employment of this formula outside of the present text. I tend to agree with Colin Brown and the NIDNTT editorial committee that

… it seems more natural to construe ek as indicating not the source or starting-point (“from faith”) but the basis or means (“by faith”; as in Hab. 2:4), with the eis pistin either intensifying the effect of ek pisteōs … or denoting the goal of God’s impartation to men of a righteous status (“leading to faith”).

Furthermore, Moule affirms the translation of eivj pi,stin here as “leading to faith.” I would suggest, then, that this phrase is best translated “by faith leading to faith,” that is, a greater degree of faith. In this view, “faith is portrayed as the vital and perpetual characteristic of Christian experience.”

The righteousness of God is being revealed by faith, unto greater faith, “just as it has been written: ‘The righteous one will live according to faith.’” Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 is introduced by the traditional formula “just as it is written” (kathōs gegraptai). This formula appears eighteen times in the Pauline letters, sixteen of which are in Romans alone, following the Jewish tradition found in 2 Chr 23:18 and Dan 9:13 (TH), “just as it has been written in the law of Moses”. This introductory formula emphasizes, not only that the written word still exists (notice the perfect tense of the verb), but that its authority remains present and binding. D. Wallace thus offers a loose paraphrase, “Although this scripture was written long ago, its authority is still binding on us.”

The quotation from Hab 2:4 is problematic, both because there are textual differences between Paul’s wording and the original text of Habakkuk and because Paul seems to give the words a different meaning. The major textual problem concerns the use of personal pronouns in the Hebrew original, the LXX versions, and the parallel in Hebrews. The MT says, “The righteous one shall live by his faith.” The LXX has two variations: codices S and W have, “The righteous one shall live by my [i.e. God's] faith,” while codices A and C read, “My [i.e. God's] righteous one shall live by faith.” The citation in Hebrews 10:38 follows the latter variation.

Paul’s omission of the pronoun “my” makes clear that in this instance he is not referring to Christ, as some have speculated. It also seems unlikely that, by dropping the pronouns, Paul wishes to introduce his own characteristic phrase, “righteous by faith.” R. M. Moody’s argument that the variation over the personal pronoun serves only to emphasize a basic consistency of order seems unlikely as well, since this leads him to follow Barrett, who holds that “by faith” qualifies both “the righteous one” and “shall live.” Most preferable is Jewett’s conclusion that the omission of the personal pronoun, as well as the context of Rom 1:16-17, “point indisputably in the direction of ‘faith’ [as opposed to ‘faithfulness'] as a theological formula for participation in the Christ movement.”

The ambiguity of the Greek presents a further problem with the Habakkuk citation: are we to take “out of/by faith” (ek pisteōs) with “the righteous one” (ho dikaios) or “shall live” (zēsetai)? Many scholars, perhaps the majority, argue that “by faith” modifies “the righteous one”, which renders, “The one who is righteous out of faith shall live.” But if Paul had intended to say this, would he not have written it as such? We know from Rom 10:6 that Paul could have used such a word order had he wished. Moreover, if Paul was at liberty to omit the personal pronoun, it seems that he would have been at liberty also to change the word order so as to remove all ambiguity if indeed he had intended such an interpretation.

Jewett rightly proposes that it is best in this case to follow the normal rules of Greek grammar by connecting “by faith” with “shall live”, since prepositions most frequently modify verbs. Also, despite the variations among the MT and the LXX, they have in common that “by faith” modifies “shall live”, and not “the righeous one”. There is thus no good reason to think that Paul or his readers in Rome would have understood this citation any differently. It seems best, then, to take the word order here as emphatic, because “in the ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that the ruling motive of the man, the motive which gives value to his righteousness and gains for him the Divine protection, is his faith.”

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who trusts in him: to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For through it, the righteousness of God is being (and will continue to be) revealed by faith unto faith, just as it has been written: ‘But the righteous one will live according to faith.’” In two short, densely-packed sentences, Paul has summarized the gospel which he had so longed to proclaim to the Christians in Rome (1:11, 15). That gospel, as Paul tells again and again in Romans, is the saving power of God, who, out of love, died for us while we were still sinners (5:8)-and there is nothing in all creation that can separate us from that love (8:38-39).

Tags: Exposition

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 1st, 2009 at 11:40 PM and is filed under Exposition, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.