A Prepositional Phrase’s Contribution to the πίστις Χριστοῦ

Debate in Romans 3:28

by

Todd A. Engstrom

Burlington, Iowa

A PAPER PRESENTED

At the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting

of the Midwestern Region of the
Evangelical Theological Society
on the theme

“Jesus in Faith and History”

Grace Bible College

Grand Rapids, Michigan
March 28-29, 2014
Introduction

Exegesis begins with a patient listening to the text. The goal is to humble

ourselves to the author’s authority in order to determine what he actually says.

A problem with this endeavor is bias. Every interpreter of Scripture comes to

the text with a point of view already in place, a point of view that needs to be

adjusted to Scripture. Timothy Lim states the problem well: “No one is entirely

unbiased, but we can, and must, exercise a degree of objectivity by keeping

biases in check and by continually questioning our own assumptions.”1

The assumptions and points of view that are embedded into an

interpreter before coming to Scripture derive from tradition – though that is not

the sole culprit. Anyone with a high view of Scripture agrees that the final

authority must be the biblical text, not tradition or some novel interpretation of

it. This is easier said than done, which the debate between John Piper and N.

T. Wright illustrates.2

Wright sees himself methodologically in the same role as Martin Luther –

rediscovering what the New Testament originally meant over against fifteen

centuries of misguided tradition. Despite Wright’s claim of being a “Scripture-

only man,” Piper concludes that Wright’s scholarship does not communicate

the kind of respect for history and careful treatment of it that wins his

1
Timothy H. Lim, “Studying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in their Historical Context,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as
Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. J. R. Davila (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 136, cited from
Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), p. 36.
2
John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007) and N. T. Wright,
Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009).

2
confidence.3 Piper thinks the future of justification will be better served with

older guides rather than the new ones. When it comes to the deeper issues of

how justification really works both in Scripture and in the human soul, Piper

does not think Wright is as illuminating as Martin Luther or John Owen or

Leon Morris.4

Wright counters Piper by insisting he is maintaining the Reformer’s

method of questioning all traditions in light of Scripture.5 In Wright’s opinion,

for too long we have read Scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and

sixteenth-century questions. We need to read Scripture with first-century eyes

and twenty-first-century questions.6

Wright laments when the “conservative” churches are faced with the new

perspective and some other features of more recent Pauline scholarship, they

reach not for Scripture but for tradition. He answers Piper’s complaint of him

sweeping away fifteen hundred years of the church’s understanding by pointing

out that “Piper himself wants to sweep away most of the same fifteen hundred

years, especially from medieval Catholicism, and rely instead on the narrow

strand which comes through Calvin and the Westminster Confession.”7 In

Wright’s opinion, “the objection is odd.”8

3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 25.
5
Wright, Justification, p. 29.
6
Ibid., p. 37.
7
Ibid., p. 45.
8
Ibid.

3
 Does Wright communicate a lack of respect for history and a careless

treatment of it, as Piper claims? It does not appear to be the case when Wright

says:

After all, the great Confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries were hardly the product of leisured academics, saying their
prayers and thinking through issues in an abstract way, without a care
in the world. Those were turbulent, dangerous and violent times, and the
Westminster Confession on the one hand, the Thirty-Nine Articles of my
own church on the other, and many more besides, emerged from the
titanic struggle to preach the gospel, to order the church, and to let both
have their proper impact on the political and social world of the day,
while avoiding the all too obvious mistakes of large parts of medieval
Catholicism (equally obvious, it should be said, to many Roman
Catholics then and now).9

The caution Wright is making to his readers is to not canonize the great

Confessions. In our effort to understand Scripture itself, we are bound to read

the New Testament in its own first-century context. He admits that is a highly

complex task, which keeps many intelligent people in full employment their

entire lives, but insists the attempt must be made.10

How does Wright reply to Piper’s complaint of him being “energized by

finding ‘new’ and ‘fresh’ interpretations of Paul?”11

Unless God has no more light to break out of his Holy Word – that
everything in Scripture has already been discovered by our elders and
betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what Scripture
says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is
needed.12

9
Ibid., pp. 45-46.
10
Ibid., p. 47.
11
Piper, Justification, p. 37.
12
Wright, Justification, p. 50.

4
In Wright’s opinion, a distinction needs to be made between a love of novelty

and a genuine hunger for spiritual and theological depth because he knows

many ordinary folk who are flat bored with the ordinary reading of many

Pauline texts. What these folks are hungry for, Wright is serving them. He

acknowledges that Piper would say these people are sadly deluded. But his

point is this:

There is no neutral, ‘ordinary reading.’ What seems ordinary to one

person will seem extraordinary to others. There are readings which have
grown up in various traditions, and all need testing historically and
exegetically as well as theologically. And, as I have argued before and
hope to show here once more, many of the supposedly ordinary readings
within the Western Protestant traditions have simply not paid attention
to what Paul actually wrote.13

What is it about Piper that has Wright worried? He worries about Piper’s

encouragement to his readers to go back, not to the first century, but to “the

Christian renewal movements of sixteenth-century Europe.”14 He continues,

“To describe that period as offering the ‘historic roots’ of evangelicalism is

profoundly disturbing. Proper evangelicals are rooted in Scripture, and above

all in the Jesus Christ to whom Scripture witnesses, and nowhere else.”15

The obvious linchpin in the debate between these two men is the doctrine

of “imputed righteousness.” According to Piper, this doctrine is central and

vital for a proper understanding of the gospel. Wright, on the other hand,

observes that Paul never actually says “imputed righteousness.” Wright

acknowledges this doctrine is central for Piper, but when our tradition presses

13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., p. 51. Citing Piper, Justification, p. 25 n. 31, quoting Scott Manetsch.
15
Ibid.

5
us to regard as something central to the gospel which is seldom if ever actually

said by Paul himself – we are entitled to question it.16

Since Wright has questioned the doctrine of “imputed righteousness,” it

clearly struck a nerve with Piper. However, their debate illustrates how two

men with a high view of Scripture have arrived at different conclusions. Both

men agree with the exegetical and hermeneutical rule: we must understand

Paul in terms of his own context and argument.17 Yet, both men seem to be in

no hurry to budge from their interpretative positions of Scripture.

The debate between Wright and Piper is typical of the discussions that

regularly take place in our homes, churches, colleges and universities. An

Evangelical seeks to study the Bible for what it actually says, but this is easier

said than done. This paper attempts to advance the debate by focusing on the

πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faith of Christ”) debate. Piper represents the “objective genitive”

(“faith in Christ”) while Wright represents the “subjective genitive” (“faithfulness

of Christ”).

The πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faith of Christ”) debate has helped us to reexamine

Paul’s use of πίστις (“faith”) and the impact it has on determining the basis of

one’s justification before God. The interpretation of πίστις (“faith”) in Romans

3:21-26 will determine the interpretation of πίστις (“faith”) in Romans 3:27-31.

We will focus on the placement of the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου

(“apart from works of law”) in Romans 3:28. How does it contribute to the πίστις

Χριστοῦ (“faith of Christ”) debate? By having the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων
16
Ibid., p. 46.
17
Ibid., p. 132, emphasis original.

6
νόμου (“apart from works of law”) modify the noun ἄνθρωπος (“man”), it bolsters

the subjective genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faithfulness of Christ”).

This thesis will be supported by assessing eight main points: 1) Purpose of

Romans; 2) Romans 1:1-7; 3) Romans 1:16-17; 4) Romans 2:1-29; 5) Romans

3:1-8; 6) Romans 3:9-20; 7) Romans 3:21-26 and 8) Romans 3:27-31. After

these eight main points are assessed, we will observe how this prepositional

phrase invigorates the debate between Piper and Wright.

Purpose of Romans

The salutation of Paul’s letter to the Romans is unique because it is the

longest and most theologically complex compared to his other openings.18 It is

important to remember that neither Paul nor one of his associates established

the church19 in Rome because it sheds light on Paul’s purpose for writing this

letter. In Romans Paul is explaining and defending his gospel to a church that

he did not plant and that was suffering from tensions between Jews and

Gentiles. Understanding this tension will help determine Paul’s purpose for

writing to the Romans.

Despite not having concrete knowledge about the founding of the church,

we are certain the church in Rome constitutes individuals from the two major

people groups in Paul’s day, i.e. Jews and Gentiles. The Roman historian

Suetonius informs us that Claudius deported from Rome Jews who were

participating in local disruptions over “Chresto”. Most scholars conclude that

18
Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 31.
19
The church in Rome was probably composed of a few house churches, but I’m going to refer to church as
singular for the sake of simplicity.

7
Suetonius confused the name “Chresto” with “Christo” (i.e., “Christ”) because

the former was a common Greek name. With Suetonius not knowing about the

“Christ,” it would be easy for him to confuse the names. His testimony helps us

understand that in the late 40s conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians

over the identity of the “Christ” was a constant problem in Rome. The result

from these disturbances was Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. This

matches the account in Acts 18:2. Though it is likely not every Jew left Rome,

the majority had to leave the city.20

The Jews’ absence from Rome would have had a significant impact on

the church in Rome. With the Jews deported from the city, the church would

become mainly Gentile. The longer the Jews were absent; the Gentiles would

perform their worship practices without a strong Jewish influence. In the

decline of Claudius’s reign (A.D. 49-54), and with the accession of Nero (A.D. 54)

many Jews would have returned to Rome because Claudius’s decree would

have expired upon his death. Therefore, when the Jews returned to their

church there would naturally be tension between Jews and Gentiles. The

tensions appear to be confirmed by Romans 9-11 and 14-15,21 so Paul writes

to unite the church, which is composed of Jews and Gentiles, with his gospel.

The church in Rome was probably planted in Jewish soil through the

preaching of the gospel in the synagogues.22 The Gentiles in the church would

have become very conversant with the Old Testament Scriptures, having been

20
Schreiner, Romans, p. 12.
21
Ibid., p. 13.
22
James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Dallas: Word, 1988), vol. 1: p. l.

8
taught by the dominant Jewish faction in the Church. At the outset of the

church’s beginning, the Jews would have debated with Jewish Christians and

Gentiles over their interpretation of the Scriptures. Therefore, Paul needed to

clearly articulate how his gospel fulfilled what was written in the Old

Covenant.23 By inserting himself into the debate, Paul knew his reputation

exceeded him. His teaching on the law sparked disputes in Galatia and

Corinth. He knows what people are saying about him,24 so before he uses Rome

as a base and partner for his missionary trip to Spain,25 he needed to show

them why the objections to his gospel are false. In other words, Paul writes

because he knows his theology is being questioned in Rome. He needs to be

clear that there is nothing wrong with his theology so the Roman church can

have a clear conscious in supporting his Spanish mission.

Romans 1:1-7

1:1Paul,a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, having been set

apart for the gospel of God, 2which he previously promised through his
prophets in the holy scriptures, 3concerning his Son who was born from
the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who was appointed Son of God

23
Our English Bibles identify the two main parts as Old Testament and New Testament. To modern English readers,
the word “testament” calls to mind a last will and testament. The word “testament” can be defined “an act by
which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death” [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
th
Dictionary 11 ed. (Springfield: Merriam, 2003)]. A better term to use would be “covenant.” The covenant refers to
God’s relationship to this people. In Jeremiah 31:31-34 the Hebrew word “covenant” means an agreement,
contract, or alliance. It is used to make a distinction between God’s previous relationship with his people under the
old covenant and the new relationship he will have with them under the new covenant. The Greek word διαθήκη
“covenant” was translated by the Latin Vulgate as testamentum, so that the two parts of the Bible were known as
the Vestus Testamentum (“Old Testament”) and the Novum Testamentum (“New Testament”). It would be better if
our English translations used the word “covenant” instead of “testament.” The Bible is composed of two main
parts: Old Covenant and New Covenant. [see Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1999), pp. 31-32.] From this point on, I define the Bible’s first main part of Genesis to Malachi as
“Old Covenant” and its second main part of Matthew to Revelation as “New Covenant.” The reason for this will
become evident with the section on Paul’s eschatology below.
24
e.g., Romans 3:8, 6:1
25
cf. Romans 15:24, 28

9
 in power by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of
holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace
and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on
behalf of his name, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ,
7to all God’s beloved who are in Rome, called saints: grace to you and

peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:1-7)26

Paul begins his letter by describing himself as a servant, an apostle, and

one set apart by God. By considering himself as “a servant of Christ Jesus,”

this implies that Jesus is his master. The contrast is with the Old Covenant

phrase “servant of the LORD” which describes Abraham,27 Moses,28 Joshua,29

Caleb,30 David,31 Job,32 Isaiah,33 and the prophets.34 To be a servant of the

LORD is the same as being a servant of Christ. By serving Christ Jesus, Paul is

acknowledging the deity of Christ. By designating himself as a δοῦλος

(“servant”), Paul is demonstrating great humility. The content of this letter is

written in service to his master Jesus, who is the Messiah.35

Paul being “called as an apostle” is a gift from God. An apostle is one

with great authority. The word κλητὸς (“called”) is significant. Paul was not self-

appointed nor was he appointed by some human authority. He did not attain

his office by his own ambitious efforts through a human political process. He

became an apostle because God had called him. The word “called” is also used

26
All translations from Romans are mine unless noted otherwise.
27
Gen. 26:24; Ps. 105:6, 42
28
Ex. 14:31; Num. 12:7, 8; Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1-2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4,
5, Neh. 1:7-8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps. 105:26
29
Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8
30
Num. 14:21
31
2 Sam. 7:5, 8; Isa. 37:35
32
Job 1:8; 2:3
33
Isa. 20:3
34
Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6
35
[Wright explains how “Christ” is not Jesus’ surname, but a title. He is the Messiah. Cf. Schreiner, p. 31.]

10
in three other verses in Romans: 1:6 “the called of Jesus Christ,” 1:7 “called

saints,” and 8:28 “called according to his purposes.” Being an apostle is his gift

as Christ’s authorized minister. An apostle was an authoritative representative

of Jesus Christ.36 When Paul performed his ministry, he was not simply

sharing his opinion about his new life’s work. Paul performed his ministry as

the voice of Christ to his church. Paul’s authority as an apostle was akin to an

Old Covenant prophet, but superior because he was proclaiming the fulfillment

of what the Old Covenant prophesied (Rom. 1:2; 16:26).37

The distinct characteristic of Paul’s apostleship was that it was especially

directed toward Gentiles.38 Romans 1:5 says Paul’s ministry was “for the

obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name.” The word “all”

indicates that Paul’s ministry is boundless. No people group or ethnic identity

was to be excluded. This anticipates a major theme in this letter: Gentiles being

included into the people of God on the same terms of Jews.39 The Gentiles being

included into the people of God is not an end to itself for it is accomplished “on

behalf of his name.” The word ὄνομα (“name”) is a reference to Jesus Christ.

“Name” signifies the character and being of a person.40 The ultimate reason for

Paul’s ministry of preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles was glory,

honor and praise of Jesus Christ. With the Gentiles included into the people of

God, it signals that the covenantal promises of the Old Covenant were being

36
David J. MacLeod, “Eternal Son, Davidic Son, Messianic Son: An Exposition of Romans 1:1-7,” Bibliotheca Sacra
162 (2005): 76-94, p. 79
37
Schreiner, Romans, p. 33.
38
Cf. Gal. 1:16; 2:7, 9; Acts 9:15; 22:21
39
Rom. 1:16; 3:22, 31; 4:11-12, 16-17; 10:11-13; 16:26.
40
Schreiner, Romans, p. 35.

11
fulfilled,41 and that the promise to Abraham of a worldwide family is now

becoming a reality.42

Paul’s work is initiated by God for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel.

Paul elaborates on the content of this gospel in verses 2-4. The gospel he

preaches was previously promised through God’s prophets in the Holy

Scriptures. Paul’s gospel does not originate with him, so he is not proclaiming a

novel idea that he invented. This gospel is about what God has done and it

stands in continuity with the Old Covenant Scriptures. Paul’s gospel fulfills the

Scriptures meaning it is in relation to the Old Covenant. We see this

relationship to the Old Covenant when we compare Romans 1:2 with 16:25-26

(Figure 1.1).

Romans 1:2 Romans 16:25-26

25Now to him who is able to strengthen

. . . the gospel of God, which he you according to my gospel and the

promised beforehand through his proclamation of Jesus Christ,

prophets in the holy Scriptures . . .
according to the revelation of the
mystery having been concealed for
long ages, 26but is now disclosed
through the prophetic writings,
according to the command of the
eternal God . . .

Figure 1.1 – Comparison of Romans 1:2 with 16:25-26

41
Gen. 12:1-3; Isa. 19:18-25; 49:6; Dan. 7:14, 27.
42
Schreiner, Romans, p. 35.

12
A common theme these texts share is the gospel that is embedded in the Old

Covenant. The gospel is promised beforehand through the prophets. The gospel

is concealed in the Old Covenant, but now revealed.

The substance of the gospel Paul proclaims is found in verses 3-4 which

contains three contrasting matched pairs (Figure 1.2).43 What is Paul

contrasting?44 The contrast is two phases of Christ’s redemptive role:

humiliation and exaltation. The contrast is two stages in Jesus’ existence.45

Verse three speaks of Jesus’ earthly stage of humiliation and weakness. Jesus

lived his life on earth in the old age of flesh that was characterized by

weakness, sin, and death. Verse four speaks of Jesus’ post-resurrection

existence of exaltation. At his resurrection, Jesus inaugurates the new age. He

43
Verses 3-4 have the following pattern:
3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου
ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ
κατὰ σάρκα,
4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει
ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,
κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
44
John Murray informs us that the history of interpretation of verses 3-4 frequently refers to the differing aspects
or elements in the constitution of the person of Jesus. Some see a distinction within the human nature of Christ,
the physical contrasted with the spiritual. Others see two distinct natures in the person of Christ, and human and
the divine, “flesh” designating the human and “Son of God” the divine. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans,
NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968; reprint, 1980), p. 6. C. K. Barrett translates verse 4, “in the sphere of the
flesh, born of the family of David; in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, appointed Son of God.” He sees this as two lines
of antithetical parallelism. He argues, “Christ belongs to two spheres or orders of existence, denoted respectively
by flesh and Spirit; in these he can be described as Son of David and as Son of God.” (C. K. Barrett, A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), pp. 18-19. Moo identifies the contrast “. . . from
the Son as Messiah to the Son as both Messiah and powerful, reigning Lord.” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 49 (emphasis original).
45
Murray is convinced this is not a reference to distinguish aspects of Jesus’ human nature and divine nature “but
that the distinction drawn is that between ‘two successive stages’ of the historical process of which the Son of God
became the subject.” (Murray, Romans, p. 7.) MacLeod agrees saying, “The problem is that traditionally
commentators have assumed that Paul was contrasting the human and divine natures of the Son of God in verses
3-4, that is, the title ‘seed of David’ points to His humanity, and the title ‘Son of God’ points to his deity. But that is
a mistake. Rather, Paul was contrasting two stages in the historical process of Jesus’ first coming: the incarnate and
the glorified stages. Verse 3 speaks of His earthly stage of humiliation and weakness, and verse 4 speaks of His
present state of exaltation and power. Verse 3 speaks of Christ’s earthly life when Jesus appeared as the Davidic
Messiah, and verse 4 speaks of His post-resurrection existence.” (MacLeod, “Eternal Son”, p. 86.)

13
left the old age behind and inaugurated the new age of the Spirit. His

resurrection indicates that the new age has begun.46

Romans 1:3 Romans 1:4

Son who was born who was appointed Son of God in power

from the seed of David by the resurrection from the dead

according to the flesh, according to the Spirit of holiness,

Jesus Christ our Lord,

Figure 1.2 – Three contrasting matched pairs of Romans 1:3 and 1:4

Paul’s Eschatology – “Already-but-Not-Yet”

With the contrast of verses 3-4 being redemptive-historical, we are

already introduced to Paul’s eschatology. For Paul, eschatology was a

constituent part of his Christian experience.47 Therefore, it is vital we

understand Paul’s eschatology in order to read him properly.

The Old Covenant, and the Judaism that resulted from it, viewed its

historical timeline as made up of two basic periods – this age and the age to

come.48 The former of these was identified with the present time. “This age” was

given over to sin and death because of Adam’s fall into sin, but in one glorious

day it will be replaced with “the age to come.” The “age to come” would be

broken in with the inauguration of the kingdom of God, which would be

characterized by righteousness and peace. These two eras were thought to be

46
Schreiner, Romans, p. 44.
47
C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 22.
48
Isaiah 40; Daniel 2, 7, 12; Joel 2; Zechariah 9-14

14
consecutive in nature, with the arrival of the Messiah effecting the

eschatological, or end-time, shift of the two ages. The New Covenant modifies

this Jewish twofold description, which Fee captures very well:

The absolutely essential framework of the self-understanding of primitive

Christianity . . . is an eschatological one. Christians had come to believe
that, in the event of Christ, the new (coming) age had dawned, and that,
especially through Christ’s death and resurrection and the subsequent
gift of the Spirit, God had set the future in motion, to be consummated
by yet another coming (Parousia) of Christ. Theirs was therefore an
essentially eschatological existence. They lived ‘between the times’ of the
beginning and the consummation of the end. Already God has secured
their . . . salvation; already they were the people of the future, living the
life of the future in the present age – enjoying its benefits. But they still
awaited the glorious consummation of this salvation. Thus they lived in
an essential tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘not-yet.’49

The kingdom of God was the dominate theme in Jesus’ teaching. When

he begins his ministry, he announces that the kingdom of God is near.50

Although the phrase “kingdom of God” does not appear in the Old Covenant,

the concept certainly exists.51 In the Old Covenant there are many texts

promising that God will bring in a new era in which Israel will be saved from

her enemies and enjoy the fulfillment of the covenantal blessings promised to

Abraham and David.52 The Jews who heard Jesus’ words would have

understood his promise of the kingdom of God to refer to God’s promises of

entering history and saving his people. Zechariah reveals what the Jews were

expecting from their Messiah saying:

49
Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 19; Cited from C. Marvin Pate, The End
of the Age Has Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 12-13.
50
Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15
51
Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Picture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), p. 21.
52
Gen. 12:1-3; 2 Sam. 7:11-16; Ps. 22:22-31; Isa. 11:1-9; 35:1-10; Zech. 14:1-21.

15
 68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
for he has visited and redeemed his people.
69and has raised up a horn of salvation for us

in the house of his servant David,

70as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
71that we should be saved from our enemies

and from the hand of all who hate us;

72to show the mercy promised to our fathers

and to remember his holy covenant,

73the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us
74 that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
might serve him without fear,
75in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.53

Jesus, then, begins his ministry by proclaiming that God’s promise of long ago

to save Israel is about to be fulfilled. God will destroy Israel’s enemies and

inaugurate the age when they will rule over the world as God’s people. But in

order for God’s people to rule over the world they need a king to lead them.

The Old Covenant prophets made it clear that God’s promises would be

fulfilled by a new king, a descendent of David.54 He would establish God’s rule

and introduce a new age in which the evil effects of the fall are undone.55

53
Luke 1:68-75; English Standard Version.
54
In Matthew 12:22-28, after Jesus heals a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, the people were
amazed and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul,
the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Jesus responds by pointing out their logical contradiction
saying, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? . . . But if it is by
the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The kingdom of God has
come because God’s king has come through the line of David. (Cf. Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Deut. 17:14-20; 2 Sam. 7:12-
16; Isa. 11:1-5, 10; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-17; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25)
55
The parables and miracles of Jesus are evidence that he is the king of God’s kingdom. They are designed to
reveal and conceal the kingdom of God while communicating the already-but-not-yet characteristic of the
kingdom. Israel, despite her return from exile, does not experience everlasting joy. She is still oppressed by Satan,
sin and death evident by the man with an unclean spirit who is in the synagogue on the Sabbath, which is a vivid
illustration of Israel’s spiritual condition (Mark 1:21-28). Mark also consistently sketches the religious authorities in
a negative light from the very first mention of them as experts in the law who teach without authority (1:22). Mark
develops his characterization of them on their opposition to Jesus. They think of themselves as protectors of God’s
law but ironically they are God’s enemies in alliance with Satan. They are self-serving, pompous, preoccupied with
self-importance, afraid to lose their status and power, willing to destroy to perpetuate themselves. The narrator
depicts the authorities as thoroughly untrustworthy characters.

16
Jesus established God’s kingdom when people are healed, the lame walk, and

the blind see. But, they are not yet because not everyone is healed – due to the

fact that we still live with sin, disease and death. Thus, the kingdom of God is

not yet consummated.56

Who is Jesus? As the healer of the sick, as the one who calms the sea, as

the one who is risen from the dead – Jesus is the Messiah. The parables and

miracles point to Jesus' identity. Jesus is the king of God’s kingdom. However,

there are times in the gospels where Jesus does not look much like a king,

especially at the time of his death. Since Jesus is the king, how is he

enthroned? We read of Jesus’ enthronement in Matthew 27:27-31:

27Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s
headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. 28 And
they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29 and twisting together
a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right
hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of
the Jews!” 30 And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on
the head. 31 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the
robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him.57

Jesus’ mock enthronement is so saturated with irony that it drips from the

page. Instead of a luxurious robe, Jesus gets a Roman guard’s cloak. His crown

is made of thorns. His scepter is a reed. His subjects do not honor him, they

mock him. Instead of receiving kisses, he gets spit on. As Jesus is hit in the

56
The future dimension of the kingdom of God is evident in numerous passages of Scripture. For example, Jesus
teaches his disciples to pray, “your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10; Luke 22:30). If the kingdom has already arrived in
all its fullness, then teaching his disciples to pray this way makes no sense. Jesus promises those who belong to
him will recline at the table in the coming kingdom (Matt. 8:11; Luke 22:30). He also anticipates drinking from the
fruit of the vine in the coming kingdom (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18). Sitting at the right hand of Jesus
is reserved for those whom the Father has appointed (Matt. 20:21-23). Jesus teaches his disciples that the
consummation of the kingdom will not occur immediately (Luke 19:11) and that they will know it is near when
certain signs happen (Luke 21:31).
57
Matt. 27:27-31; ESV

17
head, the scepter is used in judgment against the innocent king. But there’s

one thing missing. Where’s the king’s throne?

37 And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This
is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” 38 Then two robbers were crucified with
him, one on the right and one on the left.58

The king’s throne is the cross. Israel’s king rules from his throne, which is the

cross. Nailed to the cross sits Israel’s king. On the cross, the king is glorified

for the whole world to see.

If that is not bad enough, it gets worse.

39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and
saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,
save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 So
also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying,
42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let

him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He
trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I
am the Son of God.’ ” 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him
also reviled him in the same way.59

While Jesus is hanging on the cross, Satan is relentless with his temptation.

The taunting and jeering from those who passed by is ruthless. Satan wants

any form of disobedience he can get out of Jesus, but the irony is every taunt,

jeer and mock is true.60 For the sake of space, let’s look at the final taunt in

verse 43. “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he

said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”61 The irony is Jesus does trust in God for his

deliverance. The irony is God does desire Jesus because he is the Son of God.

58
Matt. 27:37-38; ESV
59
Matt. 27:39-44; ESV
60
Adding to the irony it is the chief priests, scribes, and elders who are in alliance with Satan. Their mocking proves
them to be enemies of God, yet they think they are in alliance with God.
61
Matt. 27:43; ESV

18
How does God deliver Jesus? How do we know God desires Jesus? How do we

know Jesus is the Son of God? Matthew tells us in 28:6, “He is not here, for he

has risen, as he said.”62

It is ironic that what looks like Jesus’ greatest weakness is actually his

greatest victory because he has defeated his enemies and has set his people

free. As Paul writes in Colossians:

13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our
trespasses,14by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with
its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.15He disarmed
the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing
over them in him.63

The resurrection proves without a doubt that Jesus is not simply the son of

David; he is also the Son of God, which takes us back to Romans 1:4.

The contrast between verses 3 and 4 is redemptive-historical, which

reflects the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s eschatology (Figure 1.2). The contrast

is between the old age and the new age. The appointment of Jesus as Son of

God occurred at “the resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection of Christ

inaugurates the new age. It indicates that God has begun to fulfill his promises

to Israel. At his resurrection, Jesus, the Son of David, was “appointed” or

“installed” or “enthroned” as God’s Son.64 It is the occasion of Jesus’

appointment as God’s Son.65 It is his appointment as the messianic king. This

62
Matt. 28:6; ESV
63
Col. 2:13-15; ESV.
64
The debate is about how ὁρίζω (“to appoint, designate, declare”) should be translated.
65
Verse 4 must be read in light of Nathan’s promise to David in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The “Son of
God” language of the Old Covenant foreshadows the true Son of God, who is Jesus (cf. Ex. 4:22-23; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps.
2:7; Luke 3:38).

19
conveys two thoughts: 1) Christ’s resurrection is the evidence that the

redeeming work has been accomplished with the full approval of the Father.66

2) Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead. He is

“the firstfruits of those who are asleep.”67 The saving promises made to Israel

have become a reality in the true Israel, Jesus the Messiah.

Messiah’s first coming. Messiah’s second coming.

God’s righteousness revealed. The biblical metaphors for

“salvation” are multifaceted.
Messiah’s resurrection signals dawn of new age. Each one is portrayed as one
whole entity with two aspects:
already/not yet.

Justification (already/not yet)

Sanctification (already/not yet)
Glorification (already/not yet)
God’s Eschatological People: Etc.
Jew/Gentile

Old Covenant
Already Not Yet
Last Days (Heb. 1:1-4)

Figure 1.2 – Paul’s eschatology “already-but-not-yet”

Since Jesus is the new Israel, who constitutes the people of God? The

people of God are Jews and Gentiles who believe in the gospel, which directs

our attention to Paul’s “thesis statement” of 1:16-17.

Romans 1:16-17

It is obvious Paul is not ashamed of the gospel. What is the gospel? The

word “gospel” directs our attention to its previous use in the salutation.68 The

substance of Paul’s gospel is in verses 3-4 which announces that God is

66
Rom. 4:25
67
1 Cor. 15:20
68
Rom. 1:1, 9

20
faithful in keeping his saving promises to Israel in the person and work of

Jesus Christ.

Is the manner by which God keeps his promises to Israel a cause for Paul

to be ashamed of the gospel? In other words, should he be embarrassed by the

way God fulfills his promises to Israel? Why does Paul state unequivocally that

he is not ashamed of the gospel? The reason why Paul is not ashamed of the

gospel is because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,

regardless of ethnicity. The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel by

faith. When we follow Paul’s argument, we see a connection with the substance

of the gospel in verses 3-4 to the “thesis statement” of verses 16-17. Paul is

developing his argument about how God proves himself to be faithful in

keeping his promises to Israel. The reason why God needs to prove himself

faithful in keeping his promises to Israel is because Gentiles are included to

participate in the promises. With the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of

God, this helps us determine Paul’s purpose for writing this letter (see above).

Paul needed to clearly articulate how his gospel fulfilled what was written in

the Old Covenant. He needs to present evidence to prove how the inclusion of

the Gentiles fulfills the promises that God made to Israel in the Old Covenant.

In order to develop his argument, Paul provides a “thesis statement” as a

foundation to build his proposition. Since Paul’s argument centers on this

“thesis statement,” we need to make sure we interpret this correctly because it

21
will determine how we read the entire letter.69 Therefore, we must exegete these

two verses.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for
salvation for everyone who believes, first to the Jew and then to the
Greek. 17For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith to faith,
just as it is written, “The Righteous One will live from faith.” (Romans
1:16-17)

The purpose of this basic translation is to help us identify the

interpretive decisions any translator must make. There are at least five

decisions an interpreter must consider: 1) The gospel is the dominant theme of

Paul’s proposition. 2) The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of Jews

and Gentiles. 3) The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. 4) “Faith”

plays a role in revealing the righteousness of God. 5) The quote from Habakkuk

2:4 supports how the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel.

The first decision is identifying the antecedent of “it” as the gospel in

verses 16 and 17. Paul is not ashamed of the gospel because it [the gospel] is

the power of God for salvation. The righteousness of God is revealed in it [the

gospel], with the quote from Habakkuk 2:4 supporting this proposition. The

theme of Romans is the gospel.

The second decision is the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of

Jews and Gentiles. As stated in the purpose of Romans above, Paul is writing

to release the tension between Jews and Gentiles in Rome. The primary

problem in the first century church is the conflict between Jews and Gentiles,

69
Schreiner is succinct, “Virtually all scholars acknowledge that these verses are decisive for the interpretation of
Romans” (Romans, p. 58).

22
who make up the two major people groups of its day. This conflict between

Jews and Gentiles will have a profound impact on the placement of a

prepositional phrase in Romans 3:28.

The third decision is the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel.

The intensity of the debate about defining δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of

God”) is renowned. The debate about δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”) is

basically between two interpretations: those who see “the righteousness of God”

as a statement about human status which is understood as a “righteousness”

given to humans, and those who see it as referring to God’s own righteousness.

The chart below (Figure 1.3) helps us understand the two basic interpretations

for “righteousness of God.”

1 A “righteousness” given to humans
[a statement about human status]
2 God’s own “righteousness”
[a statement about God]
1a – “Righteousness” as a righteous
standing “from God.” (“of God” expresses
origin)
1b – “Righteousness” as a quality “that
counts before God” (“of God” denotes the
object of the implied action)
2a – “Righteousness” as God’s saving
power (“of God” denotes the subject of the
implied action)
2b – “Righteousness” as a moral quality
that belongs to God (“of God” is a
possessive; God’s righteousness)

Figure 1.3 – Two Basic Interpretations for δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

We can summarize the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”) debate with

three points:

1) “Righteousness from God.” Righteousness is a gift to human beings.

2) “Righteousness before God.” Righteousness denotes a righteousness that

counts before God.

23
 3) “Righteousness belonging to God.” – “God’s Righteousness”
Righteousness of God is a quality or characteristic belonging to God.

In Paul’s proposition he parallels three character descriptions of God,

which are Greek genitives: God’s power, God’s righteousness, and God’s wrath.

God’s power extends to everyone who believes both Jews and Gentiles. God’s

righteousness is not a statement about human status, but a statement about

God. The problem with labeling δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”) as a

genitive of source, objective genitive, or subjective genitive is that δικαιοσύνη

(“righteousness”) is understood as a verbal noun. δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) is

not a verbal noun.70 There is no verbal aspect to it, making Burk’s study

pertinent to this debate.71

The purpose of Burk’s article is to narrow the range of possible meanings

for the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”). Since Paul’s letters were

designed to be read aloud in the Christian assembly,72 how would Paul’s

Roman audience understand the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”)

when they heard it? Burk proposes two things concerning the phrase δικαιοσύνη

θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”) and Paul’s Roman audience: 1) his audience

would not have heard the phrase “righteousness of God” as either a subjective

or an objective genitive, but 2) they would have heard δικαιοσύνη

(“righteousness”) as the nominalization of an attribute.73 Thus, Burk argues,

70
Three examples of Greek verbal nouns are πίστις (faith), ἐλπίς (hope), ἀγάπη (love).
71
Denny Burk, “The Righteousness of God (Dikaiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification”
JSNT 34 (2012), 346-360.
72
Luke 4:16; Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21, 30-31; 2 Cor. 3:14-15; Eph. 3:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:3
73
Burk, “The Righteousness of God”, p. 347.

24
 “. . . neither the subjective interpretation nor the objective interpretation
makes linguistic sense, and we should remove these two options from
among the range of possible meanings for δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. The question of
a subjective versus an objective genitive relies entirely on the supposition
that the head noun δικαιοσύνη implies a verbal idea.”74

Burk correctly points out that a genitive can be construed as subjective

or objective only when it modifies a noun that implies a verbal idea.75 What is

the significance of the noun δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”)? Burk’s answer is

instructive:

δικαιοσύνη belongs to a class of Greek nouns that derive from adjectives.

The –σύνη suffix in Greek corresponds roughly to the –ness suffix in
English. As with the English –ness suffix, the Greek suffix –σύνη attaches
to adjectives to make them into nouns. The result is not the
nominalization of verbal action, but the nominalization of an attribute or
quality. The suffix –σύνη functioned in a similar way in Koine Greek. The
–σύνη suffix is appended to adjectives ending in –ος in order to make an
adjectival quality or attribute into a noun. Pierre Chantraine (1933: 211)
says that nouns ending in –σύνη tend to indicate the qualities or defects
of a person’s character – one’s talents, abilities, or feelings.76

Burk provides twelve –σύνη Greek nouns as examples to reveal a commonality.

What they have in common is that “the –σύνη suffix nominalizes the quality or

attribute signified by the adjective and that none of them denotes verbal

action.”77 Therefore, when Paul’s audience heard this noun ending in –σύνη,

they would have heard it much the same way that English speakers hear

nouns ending in –ness. They would have heard the noun as the nominalization

of an attribute or quality, not of verbal action.78

74
Ibid., p. 349.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid., p. 351.
77
Ibid., pp. 351-352.
78
Ibid., p. 352

25
 With “righteousness” being an attribute or quality of God, we have a

better understanding of what Paul means when he says, “the righteousness of

God is revealed in it [the gospel].”79 The Greek verb ἀποκαλύπτεται means “to

cause something to be fully known,” “reveal,” “disclose,” “bring to light,” “make

fully known.”80 The verb is in the present tense indicating that the

righteousness of God is presently being made fully known in the preaching of

the gospel. This is a term Paul uses to signal that an eschatological event has

invaded history.81 The passive form of the verb indicates that “God” is the one

who has revealed his righteousness. The righteousness in question belongs to

God.82 What does the gospel reveal regarding the righteousness of God? The

gospel reveals God’s character. When we keep in mind that the content of the

gospel is what Paul laid out in verses 3-4, the gospel reveals an attribute or

quality belonging to God. In other words, the gospel reveals God’s righteous

character. The content of Paul’s gospel reveals that God proves himself faithful

in keeping the promises he made to Israel in the Old Covenant.

Burk’s study is profound because to interpret "righteousness" as a noun

of action is incorrect. Numerous scholars interpret “righteousness” as a noun

of action because it is seen as synonymous with justification. The solution to

reading Romans for what Paul actually says begins with getting it out of our

heads that Romans 1:17 has to be about justification. As soon as the

79
Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17 – A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟY Debate” JBL 113 (1994), pp.
272, 274.
80
BDAG
81
Romans 1:18; 8:18; 1 Corinthians 3:13; Galatians 3:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 6, 8
82
Schreiner, Romans, pp. 62-63.

26
discussion goes toward classifying "righteousness" as a verbal noun, we veer off

the path of Paul and head toward the path of Luther and the Reformation.

Therefore, much to the dismay of Piper, the church’s long tradition of

interpreting the righteousness of God as equated with justification by faith or

the imputation of righteousness is incorrect.83 In other words, the phrase

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness of God”) is not a synonym for δικαιόω (“to

justify”).84 Rather, it reflects the Old Covenant’s use of the same expression

where it consistently refers to “God’s righteousness.”85

The fourth decision is “faith” plays a role in revealing the righteousness

of God. Paul says, “For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith to

faith . . . .” What does Paul mean by the expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from

faith to faith”)? Whose “faith” is this?

Many scholars interpret this phrase as referring to the faith of the

individual believer. For example, Barrett – “faith from start to finish”86; Murray

– “‘From faith’ points to the truth that only ‘by faith’ are we the beneficiaries of

83
Wright’s warning about relying too much upon tradition must be heeded because it can muzzle, deny, or not
allow to come out what the text actually says. Justification, pp. 158-159.
84
Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, p. 16. The problem with Bird’s conclusion is he uses it to support
his label of “subjective genitive.” A “subjective genitive” only fits with a verbal noun. Δικαιοσύνη is not a verbal
noun. It is simply a noun that describes God’s character. Cf. Schreiner, Romans, p. 66.
85
Sam Williams observes Paul does not explain what he means by “righteousness of God.” This leads him to ask
what the Old Testament has to say about the righteousness of God. God is known in covenant relationship with
Israel, so the phrase “righteousness of God” in Rom. 1:17 would bring to mind ideas of deliverance or salvation.
The phrase “righteousness of God” is an aspect of God’s nature. The gospel of Christ is the means by which the
righteousness of God is being revealed. Sam K. Williams “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans” JBL 99/2 (1980),
pp. 260-263. The historical context of “righteousness of God” is God’s covenant he made with Israel in the Old
Covenant.
86
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York:
Harper & Row, 1957), p. 31.

27
this righteousness”87; Morris – “faith through and through”88; Moo – “from

nothing but faith”89; Schreiner – “faith from first to last”90; and Mounce – “by

faith alone and leads on to greater faith.”91 These scholars are following the

lead of Martin Luther who understood the righteousness of God as something

that comes to the believer from faith. He understood the phrase “from faith to

faith” to mean “the believer grows in faith more and more, so that he who is

justified becomes more and more righteous (in his life).”92

James Dunn sees the idiom ἐκ . . . εἰς . . ., “from . . . to . . .” as clearly

denoting some kind of progression, where ἐκ refers to the starting point and εἰς

the end.93 He argues ἐκ πίστεως (“from faith”) refers to God’s faithfulness and εἰς

πίστιν (“to faith”) refers to man’s faith.94 Thus, he sees a progression from the

faithfulness of God to the faith of human beings.95

Is Paul referring to the faith of the individual believer with this phrase? Is

this a statement about human beings or a statement about God? A clue to

defining this difficult expression is the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

(“righteousness of God”). The gospel reveals an attribute or quality about

87
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968; reprint, 1980), p. 32.
88
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Leicester: Apollos, 1988), p. 70.
89
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 76.
90
Schreiner, Romans BECNT, p.73
91
Robert H. Mounce, Romans. The New American Commentary Vol. 27, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), p.
74.
92
Marin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), p. 25 (emphasis
original).
93
James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 43.
94
Ibid., p. 44.
95
See Charles L. Quarles, “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17”
Novum Testamentum 55 (2003), p. 3 for the history of those who preceded Dunn with this interpretation.

28
God.96 It refers to God’s character. Thus, the gospel reveals God’s righteous

character ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”). How is it possible that the

revealing of God’s character is dependent upon the believer’s faith?97 The

revealing of God’s character is independent from the believer’s faith, so the

phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”) cannot refer to the faith of the

individual believer. This phrase is referring to God’s character. In short, it’s a

statement about God.

The key to unlocking this expression is the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s

eschatology. Dunn is correct when he says that it clearly denotes some kind of

progression, where ἐκ (“from”) refers to the starting point and εἰς (“to”) the end.

Quarles’s study supports Dunn’s insight,98 but he thinks the evidence tips in

favor of it meaning that the revelation of the righteousness of God extends from

the faith of the Old Testament believer to the faith of the New Testament

believer, which is Chrysostom’s view. The conclusion of his study is it narrows

the options from which interpreters must choose, saying:

96
Contra Luther who says, “The righteousness of God is the cause of our salvation. This righteousness, however, is
not that according to which God Himself is righteous as God, but that by which we are justified by Him through
faith in the Gospel.” (Luther, Romans, p. 25.)
97
Campbell has a sharp eye saying, “If Paul is saying in Rom 1:17a that ‘the eschatological, saving righteousness of
God is being revealed within the gospel,’ then clearly this event is accomplished independently of the individual’s
faith. To make the eschatological disclosure to God’s saving power conditional upon the believer’s faith would be
to press the role of anthropocentric faith rather too far – even as some would define it within Paul’s theology, and
particularly as it seems to be defined by Paul within Romans. In short, it would be to make the coming of the
eschaton dependent on individual faith, and this is theologically (and practically [!]) ludicrous. For Paul this
revelation is clearly grounded in God’s grace and sovereignty – and love (so especially Rom 5:8-9; 8:28-39).
“Romans 1:17”, p. 273.
98
Quarles, “From Faith to Faith,” pp. 1-21. His study is on the construction as it is used in extra-biblical Greek, the
Septuagint and Pauline literature. We learn the expression falls into many categories expressing transformation,
change, exchange, movement from one place to another, the distance between two points, temporal movement,
time span, duration, progression or repetition.

29
 The two most likely options are that a) the construction expresses that
the revelation of the righteousness of God originated with the faithfulness
of Christ and results in the faith of the believer or b) that the revelation
of the righteousness of God extends from the faith of the Old Testament
believer to the faith of the New Testament believer.99

Since the expression clearly denotes some kind of progression, what is

the progression? What is the starting point? What is the ending point? Since

this is a statement about God’s character, then the progression reflects

something about God with πίστις (“faith”) referring to God. How does God’s πίστις

(“faith”) progress in Scripture? Using the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s

eschatology, the starting point would be God’s faithfulness revealed in the Old

Testament. God is faithful in keeping his covenant with Israel by fulfilling his

promises to the patriarchs. If this is correct, then ἐκ πίστεως (“from faith”) would

refer to God’s faithfulness of old. If God’s faithfulness of old is the starting

point, then what is the ending point? The ending point would be God’s

faithfulness in the last days. If this is what Paul is referring to, then the

instrument of the believer’s faith is not what Paul is talking about.100 If ἐκ

πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”) is correctly interpreted as a progression

“from God’s faithfulness of old to God’s faithfulness in these last days,” then

the reference is to God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant with Israel. The

context would be redemptive-historical with a focus on the covenant.101

99
Quarles, “From Faith to Faith,” p. 21.
100
This conclusion is profound because it means any interpretation of this expression that refers to the faith of the
individual human being is incorrect. Therefore, the conclusions made by Luther, Barrett, Murray, Morris, Moo,
Schreiner, Mounce, Dunn and Quarles must be revised. Although it is correct to insist that an individual human
being must have faith in Jesus, we must be avoid the mistake of having correct theology from the wrong text. The
individual human’s responsibility to respond to the gospel is with the verb “believe,” not the noun “faith.”
101
I am indebted to A. B. Caneday for introducing this interpretation to me.

30
 How does God prove his faithfulness by keeping his covenant promises to

Israel? Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4 to ground how the righteousness of God is

revealed in the gospel, which is the fifth decision of Romans 1:16-17. The

interpretation of ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”) is directly supported by

Paul’s citation of Habakkuk 2:4. Thus, the question is: who is the righteous

one in Habakkuk 2:4?

The majority interprets the righteous one as a generic reference to an

individual believer,102 which makes sense due to ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith

to faith”) being understood as referring to the believer’s faith. However, if ἐκ

πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”) is correctly interpreted as a progression

“from God’s faithfulness of old to God’s faithfulness in these last days,” then

how can the righteous one in Habakkuk 2:4 be an individual believer? How is it

possible that God proves his righteous character by keeping his covenant with

Israel on the basis of a human being’s faith? God demonstrates his faithfulness

in keeping his covenant with Israel by sending his Son, Jesus Christ to be the

faithful one who died and three days later rose again. Given the content of

Paul’s gospel in Romans 1:3-4, Campbell is correct to note, “. . . for Paul,

Christ’s obedience and obedient death are both the content of the gospel and

the focus of the eschaton.”103 Thus, he is correct to see the righteous one in

Habakkuk 2:4 as referring to the faithfulness of Christ. Since the prophets

102
Barrett – “He that is righteous by faith shall live,” A Commentary p. 31; Murray – “The righteous one will live by
faith,” Romans, p. 33; Dunn – “He who is righteous by faith shall live,” Romans, p. 37; Morris – “He that is just by
faith will live,” Romans, p. 72; Moo – “The one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live,” Romans, p. 78;
Schreiner – “The righteous shall live by faith,” Romans, p. 74.
103
Campbell, “Romans 1:17”, p. 281.

31
testify to the gospel concerning God’s Son,104 the context does not support a

reference to human faith. The gospel is about God.105

The purpose of our basic translation is to help us identify the interpretive

decisions any translator must make. We have identified five details which

require an interpretive decision to be made by the translator. Given the

interpretive decisions we have made, our translation of Romans 1:16-17 is the

following:

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation
for everyone who believes, first to the Jew and then to the Greek. 17For
God’s righteousness is revealed in it from faithfulness to faithfulness,
just as it is written, “The Righteous One will live from faithfulness.”

Our exegetical snapshot of Romans 1:16-18 is as follows:

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel,

for it is God’s power for salvation
to everyone who believes
first to the Jew
and then to the Greek.
17For in it God’s righteousness is revealed

from faithfulness
to faithfulness
just as it is written,
“The Righteous One will live from
faithfulness."
18For from heaven God’s wrath is being revealed

against all godlessness

and of humans who
suppress the truth in .

Paul’s thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 does not answer the

question, “How do humans become righteous?” The question it does answer is,

104
Rom. 1:3-4
105
As Wright reminds us, “Romans is, after all, primarily about God.” Justification, p. 40.

32
“How does God vindicate himself by keeping his promises to Israel?” The gospel

that Paul preaches is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes first to

the Jew and then to the Greek. The preaching of the gospel is so powerful that

it brings about salvation for those who believe. The word “salvation” is simply

one metaphor the Bible uses to describe God’s action in Christ on our behalf.

In keeping with the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s eschatology, salvation is a

present reality106 that awaits a future consummation.107 In addition to his

eschatology, when Paul refers to salvation, he is first and foremost thinking of

the saving promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament. Therefore, the

salvation that is available in Paul’s gospel involves the fulfillment of the

promises made to Israel,108 which includes the Gentiles. Verse 16 is clear that

the two major people groups in Paul’s day are Jews and Gentiles. This

Jew/Gentile tension is crucial when we propose a new placement for a

prepositional phrase in Romans 3:28. In chapter two, Paul brings this

Jew/Gentile tension to a head.

Romans 2:1-29

Paul begins to bring the Jew/Gentile tension to a head by providing a

shocking indictment against the Jews in Romans 2:1-4. If a Jew heard this

letter for the first time, we can imagine seeing the shock in his facial expression

as Paul, in dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor, indicts the Jews saying,

2:1Thereforeyou are without excuse, O man, everyone who condemns; for

in that which you condemn another, you condemn yourself, for you who

106
Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:5, 8; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5
107
Rom. 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; 15:2; 1 Thess. 5:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:15; 4:16; 2 Tim. 2:10; 4:18
108
Ibid., p. 61.

33
 condemn practice the same things. 2And we know that God’s judgment is
according to truth, against those who practice such things. 3Now do you
think this, O man, the one who condemns those who practice such
things while doing the same things yourself, that you will escape God’s
judgment? 4Or do you have wrong ideas of the riches of his kindness and
forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness leads you
into repentance?

Paul indicts the Jews for practicing the same things they condemn. What are

these “same things”? In Romans 1:18-32, Paul indicts the Gentiles for their sin

and rejection of God’s glory. Paul indicts the Gentiles first because he knows

his Jewish audience would be in complete agreement with him. Thus, he is

using 1:18-32 to set up his Jewish audience for a scandalous verdict

pronouncing them to be sinners who are not saved despite their God given

advantages. Both Jews and Gentiles are indicted as sinners because Paul

writes, “For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness

and unrighteousness of humans, who suppress the truth in unrighteous-

ness.”109 The Jews and Gentiles are guilty of suppressing the truth in

unrighteousness. If the Jews are guilty of suppressing the truth in

unrighteousness, then are the Jews exempt from God’s wrath? Paul tells us

that the Jews are not exempt from God’s wrath saying, “But in accordance with

your hard and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the

day of wrath and reveal the righteous judgment of God.”110 What is the

righteous judgment of God? Paul identifies it in chiastic form saying,

109
Romans 1:18
110
Romans 2:5

34
 A 6who will repay each according to his works.
B 7On
the one hand to those who correspond to patient endurance of
good work seeking glory and honor and incorruptibility, he will
return eternal life.
C 8But on the other hand to those who are selfishly ambitious
and disobedient to the truth and having confidence in
unrighteousness, he will return wrath and anger.
C´ 9Tribulation and distress upon every soul of mankind who
brings to completion evil, first of the Jew and also the Greek,
B´ but glory and honor and peace to everyone who accomplishes
10

what is good, first of the Jew and also the Greek.

A´ For there is no partiality according to God.
11

The righteous judgment of God is that he will judge both Jew and Gentile

with no partiality. In chiastic form, Paul has provided a description of the

behavioral characteristic of who will receive eternal life and who will receive

eternal wrath; regardless of one’s nationality. God’s righteous character

demands that his final verdict be correct, so that when it is handed down no

one will be able to object that his verdict is unjust, unfair, incorrect, or wrong.

The description of this behavioral characteristic is restated when Paul says,

“For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the

doers of the Law who will be declared righteous.”111 Thus, when God gives his

final verdict of “hearer of the law” or “doer of the law,” it will be proper,

accurate, correct and true.

Paul ratchets up the tension in verse 13 by charging the Jews as

“hearers of the law” based upon verses 14-16 saying,

14For when the Gentiles who by nature do not have the Law do the things
required by the Law, these who do not have the Law are a Law to
themselves, 15in that they show the work required by the Law written in

111
Romans 2:13

35
 their hearts, with their conscience testifying, and their thoughts now
accusing and now defending them, 16in the day when God will judge the
secrets of humans according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus.112

The tension, then, is simply this: Jews who have the law by nature are declared

“hearers of the law” while the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature are

declared “doers of the law.” Paul is identifying the Gentiles as the new covenant

people who have the law written on their hearts as a fulfillment of Jeremiah

31:33,

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will
write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my
people.113

This means Gentiles are part of the new covenant, they remain to be

Gentiles,114 and they are declared “doers of the law.” Thus, they are acquitted

before God. These Gentiles, like all Christians, must deal with the realization

that sin is not fully eliminated in this present age.115 We look forward to the

day when sin is fully eliminated at Jesus’ second coming. How is it possible for

a Gentile to remain a Gentile and have God’s declaration of “doer of the law”?

For a Jew reading this letter for the first time, he is being set up for a shocking

indictment and a conclusion that will be scandalous in his eyes.

Excursus: Paul and the Law

Before we see how the Jew is set up for a scandalous conclusion, we

need to address a problem that looks like Paul is contradicting himself. How do

112
Romans 2:14-16
113
ESV
114
That is, they do not have to convert to Judaism to have the label “Israelite” or “Jew.”
115
Romans 2:15b-16

36
we resolve the problem of Paul saying that those who do the law will be

justified116 while also stating that no man is justified by the works of law?117

Although a detailed discussion about Paul and the Law is beyond the

scope of this paper, an excursus at this point cannot be avoided because the

two of them are inseparable. As Pate expounds,

With respect to Paul’s thought, G. Eichholz writes, ‘One can hardly

understand his theology, if one does not grasp his theology of the Torah.’
Yet Paul’s view of the Law continues to elude the grasp of the best
scholars. N. J. McEleney writes of this: ‘Uncertainty remains concerning
Paul’s position vis-à-vis the Law, forcing interpreters to return to the
question again and again in the hope that their new studies may shed
some small light upon the texts by which their colleagues may see the
problem in new perspective.118

The so-called “new perspective” has definitely caused interpreters to

return to the topic of Paul’s view of the Law. The core of this debate stems back

to Luther’s interpretation of the Law. Luther understood three aspects about

the Law: the inadequacy of the works of the Law, justification by faith, and the

deliverance of the Christian from the Law. 1) In reacting to the Roman Catholic

Church of his own day, Luther argued that the works of the Law were

inadequate for obtaining salvation. As a monk, Luther struggled to understand

how his acts of religious duty could ever enable him to appear before a perfect

and holy God. As a reformer, he fought for his vision of the gospel with a

Roman Catholic Church that insisted on works as a necessary condition for

true righteousness before God. It is no surprise, then, that Luther tended to

read Romans as an ancient parallel to his own experience. Paul was cast in the

116
Romans 2:13
117
Romans 3:20
118
Pate, The End of the Age Has Come, p. 123.

37
role of the reforming Luther, and the Jews took the place of the legalistic

Roman Catholics. He made it clear that humans are depraved and therefore

cannot obey the requirements laid down by the Law. 2) Therefore, the only

means of obtaining righteousness before a holy God is through faith. Thus, the

works of the Law and justification by faith are polar opposites. According to

Luther, “justification by faith” was the heart of the gospel, the heart of Romans,

the heart of the Bible. 3) The function of the Law, therefore, is a negative one. It

convicts sinners of their sin and drives them to find solace in Christ, by faith

alone. This is true for Christians as well; since believers are simultaneously

sinners and saints, the Law continues its negative role by forcefully reminding

them that they are still in the flesh, which continually drives them back to faith

in Christ.

The tradition built from Luther’s interpretation can be identified from

those who interpret Paul’s view of the law in the form of the following syllogism:

Major premise: The law demands perfect (sinless) obedience.

Minor premise: No one is able to obey the law perfectly (sinless).119

Conclusion: Therefore, God sends his Son, Jesus Christ, as a

substitute to obey the law perfectly on our behalf.

This syllogism sets up the antithesis between ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”) and

πίστις (“faith”),120 with πίστις (“faith”) understood as referring to the instrument

119
Sprinkle correctly identifies the premise of the law requires perfect (sinless) obedience as a missing premise.
Paul and Judaism Revisited, p. 82.
120
See Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul” WTJ 45 (1983), pp. 73-100; Thomas R.
Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-Examination of Galatians 3:10” JETS 27/2 (1984), pp.
151-160; Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Works of Law’ in Paul” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991), pp. 217-244.

38
of the believer.121 The “new perspective” categorically denies that the Jews

obeyed the Law as a form of “works-righteousness.” It also asserts that the

Jews in Paul’s day were not synonymous with the Catholics of Luther’s day,

nor was Paul a German medieval monk arguing against the indulgences of the

Church in Rome. There are three problems with this syllogism: 1) The exegesis

of “works of law”; 2) The minor premise is not found in the New Covenant; 3)

Jesus fulfills the Law prophetically.

ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”)

What Paul means by ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”) is “works required by

the law.” This is correctly acknowledged by Cranfield,122 Schreiner,123 Seifrid,124

Moo,125 and Silva.126 The problem, like all scholars who embrace the tradition

started by Luther, is with the exegesis of Paul’s phrase. To insist “legalism” has

121
Another contrast this syllogism sets up is “doing” vs. “believing.”
122
Cranfield defines τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in Rom. 2:15 as “the work which the law requires.” He successfully
corrects Dunn’s definition that parts of the law separate Jews and Gentiles, particularly circumcision, Sabbath, and
food laws. Paul denied righteousness by works of law because such works separated Jews from Gentiles. C. E. B.
Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991), p. 94
123
Schreiner says, “. . . the term works of law designates all the deeds or actions commanded by the law.” Paul,
Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 113 (emphasis original).
124
Seifrid says, “Paul’s subsequent argument in Romans 4:1-8 reveals that the term ‘works’ represents deeds of
obedience, so the conclusion lies at hand that ‘works of the Law’ were deeds of obedience to the Law’s demands
which were thought to secure or confirm divine favor.” Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic
Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D.
A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 141.
125
Moo asks, does Paul think of the Mosaic law as demanding faith? His answer, “My reason for thinking that he
may not is rooted in his own language: in Galatians 3:12, for instance, he cites Leviticus 18:5 to demonstrate that
‘the law is not of faith.’ I take this to mean that the law, by its very nature, is something to be ‘done’: it calls for
works and not faith. This basic distinction appears to hold true throughout Paul’s teaching. It might appear,
however, that Romans 9:31-32 is an exception, revealing that the dichotomy is not as strict as some have
supposed.” Douglas J. Moo, “Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective” in
Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter
T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 215. (emphasis mine).
126
Silva says, “Moreover, we can safely interpret the genitival construction along the lines of ‘acts of obedience
prescribed or required by the law.” Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians” in Justification and
Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 221.

39
anything to do with the Judaism in Paul’s day is wrong. The Jews do not obey

the Law to earn God’s favor. They obey the Law because of what it promises.

The Law promises eternal life to those who obey it.127 What the Jews fail to

comprehend is the Law is incapable of fulfilling its promise. The reason why

the Law cannot fulfill its promise is because it cannot secure obedience, which

is something only the gospel can accomplish. The poem attributed to John

Bunyan is helpful:

Run, John, run the law commands

But gives me neither feet nor hands,

Far better news the gospel brings:

It bids me fly and gives me wings.

Although it is correct to see in Paul that ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”) is

opposite of πίστις (“faith”), we must ask what is being contrasted between πίστις

(“faith”) and ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”)? The insistence that Paul is arguing

against “works-righteousness” or “legalism” wreaks havoc when ascertaining

the basis of our salvation, which will be addressed when we get to Romans

3:21-26. It also impacts the placement of a prepositional phrase in Romans

3:28.

Minor premise: No One is Able to Obey the Law Perfectly (sinless)

This minor premise is missing in the New Covenant. Is “blameless under

the law” the same as “sinless”? How are God’s people described in the Old

Covenant? Noah is described as “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.

127
Sprinkle is correct when he says, “. . . early Jewish interpreters understood Lev 18:5 as a soteriological promise:
obedience to the law would bring eternal life. It seems best, therefore, to understand Paul’s problem with Lev 18:5
to be the insufficiency of the law to give life (Gal 3:21), . . . .” Paul and Judaism Revisited, p. 83 n. 36.

40
Noah walked with God.”128 Job “was blameless and upright, one who feared

God and turned away from evil.”129 God describes him as “a blameless and

upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil.”130 God says to

Abraham, “I am God almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may

make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”131

Israel is commanded to be “blameless before the LORD your God.”132 Joshua

and Caleb “wholly followed” the Lord.133 David was “blameless” before God134

and “wholly followed the LORD.”135 Zechariah and Elizabeth “were both

righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and

statues of the Lord.”136 Paul was “blameless” under the law.137 Clearly these

verses do not support this minor premise.

If no one is able to obey the law perfectly, then how come the law itself

included remedies for failing to keep it? As Wright correctly observes,

No Jew who failed to keep Torah, and knew that he or she was failing to
keep Torah, need to languish for long under the awful threat of either
exclusion from the covenant people or, for that matter, eternal
damnation. Remedies were close at hand, prescribed by God’s grace
within the Torah itself. How then can Paul imply that anyone who fails to
keep Torah has this curse suspended for ever over his or her head?138

128
Gen. 6:9, ESV
129
Job 1:1; ESV
130
Job 1:8; ESV; cf. 2:3; 9:20
131
Genesis 17:1-2; ESV
132
Deut. 18:13; ESV
133
Num. 32:12; cf. Josh. 14:8-9, 14
134
2 Sam. 22:24
135
1 Kings 11:6
136
Luke 1:6
137
Phil. 3:6
138
N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 145. Cf. Piper, Justification, p. 128 n.
15.

41
Jesus Fulfills the Law Prophetically

Matthew describes Jesus as reenacting Israel’s history. After Jesus is

born, Joseph and Mary take him to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s

persecution. This fulfills the prophecy of Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my

son.” The context of this verse refers to Israel’s exodus out of Egypt. Matthew is

deliberately identifying Jesus with Israel. After Jesus is baptized in the Jordan

River, he is tempted in the wilderness for forty days and nights. This parallels

Israel’s exodus of being tempted in the wilderness for forty years. Just as Israel

had twelve tribes, Jesus calls twelve disciples. There is, however, a difference

between the two nations. Israel proved to be unfaithful in keeping the

covenant, whereas Jesus proved to be faithful in keeping the covenant. The old

Israel rejected Jesus, thus God will reject Israel and give the kingdom of God to

a people who will produce its fruit.139 With Jesus as the new Israel, the people

of God consist of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. Not only is Jesus the

new Israel, he is also Israel’s king.140 Jesus is Israel’s representative, the

Messiah. In the ancient near east, as an individual, the king can represent the

nation as a whole, yet he can be distinguished from it. In monarchies, both

ancient and modern, there is a sense in which the king is the nation.141

Therefore, the chiasm of Romans 2:6-11 is a description of the behavioral

characteristic of who will receive eternal life and who will receive eternal wrath.

Paul is not identifying something in them that serves as the basis of God’s final

139
Matt. 21:43
140
Matt. 27:37
141
See Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), p. 440.

42
verdict on the Last Day, i.e. “works-righteousness” or “legalism.” Paul is simply

identifying whom God will justify on the Last Day. Romans 2:6-11 answers one

question, “Who will be justified on the Last Day?” These verses do not answer

the question, “On what basis will one be justified on the Last Day?” The answer

to this question is found in Romans 3:21-26. In Romans 2 Paul clarifies that

God’s promise of salvation is conditional. On the Last Day when God hands

down the final verdict, he will give eternal life to those who correspond to

patient endurance of good work (2:7, 10) because God does not justify hearers

of the law but doers of the law (2:13).142

Returning to the question: How is it possible for a Gentile to remain a

Gentile and have God’s declaration of “doer of the law”? Paul’s answer sets the

Jew up for a scandalous conclusion.

As the Jew hears Romans 2:17-20, he would swell with pride as he heard

the compliments from Paul’s pen about how he relies on the Law, boasts in

God, know God’s desire, approves the things that are excellent because he has

been instructed from the Law, being confident that he is a guide to the blind, a

light to those in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants,

having an outward appearance of knowledge and truth in the Law. After all, as

a member of the Jews, he was part of the people upon whom God’s favor

142 22 23
James does the same thing saying, “ But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a
24 25
mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into
the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be
blessed in his doing” (1:22-25; ESV). See T. R. Schreiner and A. B. Caneday The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical
Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 166-167.

43
particularly rested.143 How quickly his demeanor would change, however, with

the words, “you, therefore, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?”144 The

following three questions have a crescendo effect: “You who preach not to steal,

do you steal? You who speak against adultery, do you commit adultery? You

who detest idols, but do you rob the temples of idols?”145 The Jew is now set up

for a climatic indictment, “You who boast in the Law, through your

transgression of the Law, you dishonor God.”146 Paul sets up his Jewish

audience for an emotional twist. After listing an impressive list of Jewish

privilege, he asks a list of questions to indict them for breaking the very law

they possessed. All of his questions are framed to produce only one possible

verdict – guilty. As Isaiah 52:5 is quoted to assure the verdict to be true, a Jew

hearing this letter for the first time would be gearing up for a good stoning.

Paul has indicted the Jew for being guilty of breaking the Law. His

boasting in the Law is not good due to what Paul writes in Romans 2:25-29:

25For indeed circumcision is of benefit, if you practice the Law. But if you
are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become the
foreskin. 26Therefore if the man with the foreskin keeps the righteous
requirements of the Law, will not his foreskin be reckoned for
circumcision? 27And the one who by nature has the foreskin but who
fulfills the Law will condemn you, the transgressor of the Law, though
you have both the letter and circumcision. 28For it is not the Jew on
public display nor the circumcision on public display in the flesh, 29but
the Jew in secret, and the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, not by
the letter who receives praise not from men but from God.

143
2 Esdras 6:55-59
144
Romans 2:21
145
Romans 2:21b-22
146
Romans 2:23

44
The problem with the Jew has to do with the placement of his boast. The Jew

boasts in possessing the Law and circumcision. In Romans 2 Paul indicts the

Jew for failing to do the works required by the Law. The Jew mistakenly thinks

he has a “get out of God’s wrath for free” card because he possesses the Law

and circumcision. Despite possessing these two things, he fails to do what the

Law actually requires. In other words, boasting in possessing the Law and

circumcision is not the same as actually doing what the Law requires. The Jew

hears the Law, but fails to do the Law.147 By failing to do the Law, the Jew will

be cut off from God. The Jews’ boast in the law works against them because

the very thing they boast in condemns them.148

Why is the Jew incapable of doing the works required by the Law and the

Gentile is capable of doing the works required by the Law? It is because the

works required by the Law cannot secure obedience. The man with the

foreskin, a Gentile, keeps the righteous requirements of the Law by the

circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. The Gentile has the Spirit, which the

Jew does not have. This sets up the Jew for a scandalous conclusion. The

Gentile who has the Spirit is considered the Israelite, whereas the Jew without

the Spirit is considered the Gentile. In other words, the Gentile with the Spirit

147
For passages indicating the law to be done see: Ex. 23:22; 24:3, 7; 35:1; Lev. 9:6; 18:26; 19:37; 20:8; 20:22;
22:31; 25:18; Num. 8:22; 15:13-14; 15:40; 23:26; Deut. 1:14, 18; 4:1, 5-6, 14; 5:1, 27, 32; 6:1, 24-25; 7:11-12; 8:1;
11:22, 32; 12:1, 28, 32; 13:18; 15:5; 17:19; 24:8, 18, 22; 26:16; 28:1, 15, 58; 29:9, 29; 30:12-14; 32:46; Matt. 5:19;
7:12, 26; 19:16-20; 23:2-3; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 10:25-37; 18:18-24; John 6:28-34; 7:14-24; 8:39-41.
148
Simon J. Gathercole points out that the judging of the Gentiles by the interlocutor, a representative of Israel, is
wrong because he is guilty of the same things. The Jew is guilty because he is unrepentant. Where is Boasting?
(Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 205.

45
is the true Jew because he is a Christian.149 As Wright correctly points out

saying,

. . . we can see quite clearly that those in Romans 2, when we read

Romans as a whole we can see quite clearly that those in Romans 2:26-
29 who ‘keep the commandments of the law’ even though they are
uncircumcised (Romans 2:26), who actually ‘fulfill the law’ (Romans
2:27), are Christian Gentiles, even though Paul has not yet developed that
category.150

This scandalous conclusion sets the stage for chapter three. With the tension

between Jew and Gentile now brought to a head, it begs an obvious question. If

someone can be a true Jew and truly circumcised without being an ethnic Jew

and physically circumcised, then what is the benefit of being an ethnic Jew and

being physically circumcised? Paul anticipates this question, so his dialogue

with an imaginary interlocutor continues.

Romans 3:1-8

[Jew] 3:1What, therefore, is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the

benefit of circumcision?

[Paul] 2Much in every respect! First indeed they were entrusted with the
oracles of God.

149
Pate is insightful by detecting the already-but-not-yet structure within Paul’s concept of the Holy Spirit. Paul,
like the early church, perceived the Holy Spirit to be an eschatological phenomenon and cites the following
scholars for support: “Herman Ridderbos writes, ‘It is precisely the Spirit who is the great Inaugurator and the gift
of the new aeon that has appeared with Christ.’ George Ladd observes, ‘Life in the Spirit means eschatological
existence – life in the new age. This is established by the fact that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is
itself an eschatological event.’ French Arrington notes that the Spirit was the sign to the early church that the end
of time had arrived. J. Christiaan Beker argues that Paul’s major contribution to the early church’s understanding of
the eschatological nature of the Spirit rests in the ‘already/not yet’ tension – the Spirit is the proleptic sign of the
kingdom of God, the presence of the future. Thus the Spirit is proof that the age to come has dawned, though it is
not yet completed.” The End of the Age Has Come, pp. 149-150. With the Holy Spirit as the eschatological
phenomenon, the identification of God’s eschatological people is both Jew and Gentile who have the Spirit.
Therefore, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is dissolved into Christ (Gal. 3:28-29). The Gentile keeps the
righteous requirements of the Law by the Spirit which he received by means of the gospel. It is impossible for the
Jew to receive the Spirit by means of the works required by the Law. The only way for the Jew to receive the Spirit
is by means of the gospel. God’s power of salvation is first for the Jew and then for the Gentile for those who
believe the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17).
150
Wright, Justification, p. 190 (emphasis original).

46
 [Jew] 3For what if some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify
the faithfulness of God?

[Paul] 4May it never be! Let God be true, and every man a liar, just as it is
written, “That you might be declared righteous in your words
and you will prevail when you judge.”

[Jew] 5But if our unrighteousness establishes God’s righteousness, shall

we say God is unjust to inflict his wrath? (I speak according to
human terms.)

[Paul] 6May it never be! Otherwise, how would God judge the world?

[Jew] 7But if by my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds for his glory,

why am I still condemned as a sinner?

[Paul] 8And why not say (just as we are being slanderously reported and
just as some declare that we say), “Let us do evil in order that good
may come?” Their condemnation is right.

In Romans 3:1-8 Paul continues to prosecute Israel for her transgression

of the Law. Paul’s use of the diatribe propels the argument forward.151 The

advantage of being Jewish was they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Israel was chosen by God to be the light of the world.152 Israel was

untrustworthy because in order to be the light of the world, she had to obey the

Law. In Romans 2 Paul prosecutes Israel for being a transgressor of the Law. In

Romans 3:1-8 Paul is continuing his case of Israel breaking the Law by proving

her to be unfaithful, unrighteous and untruthful.153 He is contrasting Israel’s

three character traits with God’s three character traits of being faithful,

151
Schreiner, Romans, p. 147.
152
Isa. 42:6-7; 49:6; Acts 13:47
153
Just as Adam was unfaithful in obeying a single command, Israel was unfaithful in obeying multiple commands
of the Law. These acts of unfaithfulness set up the dismal black backdrop for God to prove his faithfulness by
sending his son to be the brilliant light of being trustworthy.

47
righteous and truthful. The contrast clearly sets up humanity to be unfaithful

and God to be faithful. Did God plan for Adam and Israel to fail at being

trustworthy with his oracles? Yes he did! It can be put in the shape of a riddle:

God foreordained Israel to fail at obeying God’s law, thus failing to be the light of

the world in order that God might send his Son to be the light of the world

through the good news of his faithfulness.154 This riddle will be proven to be

true in Romans 9-11.155

154
I am indebted to A. B. Caneday for this riddle.
155
Wright supports this riddle with the following string of quotes:
The Torah possesses, Paul asserts, the divinely intended function of drawing sin on to Israel, magnifying it
precisely within the people of God (7.13-20), in order that it might then and thus be drawn on to Israel’s
representative and so dealt with on the cross (8.3). (Climax of the Covenant, p. 39).

Israel’s disobedience is already actually part of the covenant plan, part of God’s intention from the
beginning. The Torah has indeed concentrated sin in Israel, and now we see its full extent. As well as
‘ordinary’ sin – the breaking of God’s law – which was the problem in ch. 7, Israel is now shown to be
guilty of a kind of meta-sin, the attempt to confine grace to one race. The result of this idolatry of national
privilege is that Israel clings on to the terrible destiny – of being the place where sin was concentrated –
which she was meant to allow her Messiah to bear on her behalf. (Ibid., p. 240 [emphasis origina]).

So, just as in ch. 7 the Torah was good, eventually vindicated (8.4 is the equivalent, there, of 10.4 here),
and at the same time deadly because of Israel’s σάρξ – and yet even in that respect was doing what God
intended (Galatians 3.21 f.) – so here the Torah is good, vindicated by Christ as its goal, and within its
actual good purpose tripping up Israel, enticing her into ‘national righteousness’, becoming the place
where Adam’s pride found its full outworking, in order that the long saving purposes of Israel’s God, for
the world and also for Israel herself, might thereby be brought to fruition. (Ibid., p. 243.)

Again, Paul’s point is to argue for the nature of the gentile mission on the firmest possible theological
basis (this is one more indication that his mind is working on the theme of return from exile/renewal of
covenant: the ingathering of Gentiles was a stock idea within this theme). He aims to show that the
rejection of Israel is not at oddity but rather that which had been predicted all along within the Old
Testament itself (specifically, the covenant warnings of Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 65), and that it is
organically, if paradoxically, linked to the promised ingathering of Gentiles. (Ibid., p. 245.)

God’s plan, the righteous plan which he had always indicated he would follow, and therefore in which
(9.6) his word has not failed, was always to cast Israel away that the world might be saved (here again we
see the christological pattern of the whole thought). (Ibid., p. 249).

The Messiah has done for the world what Israel was called to do. He has done in Israel’s place what Israel
was called to do but could not, namely to act on behalf of the whole world. God has set him forth as a
hilastērion. All those who believe the gospel message of his death and resurrection are now themselves
accorded the status of dikaios: righteous, forgiven, within the covenant. Here as elsewhere (as I suggested

48
 Paul’s indictment against humanity apart from Christ, both Jew and

Gentile, as being unfaithful and unrighteous started at Romans 1:18.

Therefore, all of humanity apart from Christ is condemned before God’s

statute. The sharp contrast is designed to focus on God’s righteous character

as the source for humanity’s hope.

Compare Romans 3:1-8 to Romans 9-11 and notice the parallels between

the two sections. The reason why they parallel is because 3:1-8 foreshadows 9-

11. Since 9-11 is the climax of the letter, 3:1-8 is an important section to Paul’s

argument throughout the letter because it summarizes his argument from

1:18-2:29, and at the same time it foreshadows what he will argue in 3:21

onward.156 Since these eight verses are very important to Paul’s argument

throughout the entire letter, let us briefly examine the three contrasts in

character by looking at the imaginary interlocutor’s objections.

Israel unfaithful/God faithful (Romans 3:3-4)

[Jew] 3For what if some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify
the faithfulness of God?

[Paul] 4May it never be! Let God be true, and every man a liar, just as it is
written, “That you might be declared righteous in your words
and you will prevail when you judge.”

The Jew objects to the drama of God’s story of redemption. “If Israel

fulfilled her role in God’s story of redemption by failing to be faithful with the

in the previous chapter) the cross of the Messiah lies at the center of Paul’s reworking of election, of
God’s people. [Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 120].
156
Dunn is correct to see 3:1-8 as “something of a bridge between earlier and later parts of the letter, or like a
railway junction through which many of the key ideas and themes of the epistle pass.” Romans, p. 130.

49
oracles of God, then her unfaithfulness nullifies the faithfulness of God.”157

Paul’s answer in verse 4, however, does not indicate that God’s purpose failed,

for God is faithful. Israel’s unfaithfulness does not and cannot abolish God’s

faithfulness. In verse 4, Paul is God’s prosecutor indicting humanity,

particularly Israel, for being condemned as sinners. Thus, by using the

imperative “Let God be true” he is acquitting God. Even though God appointed

Israel to fail at being unfaithful with his oracles, their unfaithfulness does not

cancel out God’s faithfulness.

Israel unrighteous/God righteous (Romans 3:5-6)

[Jew] 5But if our unrighteousness establishes God’s righteousness, shall

we say God is unjust to inflict his wrath? (I speak according to
human terms.)

[Paul] 6May it never be! Otherwise, how would God judge the world?

The Jew objects that if God’s righteousness is demonstrated by Israel’s

unrighteousness, then God is unrighteous. “If God ordained Israel to be

unrighteous, then God is unjust to inflict his wrath.”158 Paul’s answer in verse

6, however, is the same as in verse 4, “May it never be!” His question,

“Otherwise, how will God judge the world?” indicates that Paul knows his

opposition well. The question assumes that his opponent believes that God will

judge the world. If this is so, then the line of thinking would be something like

the following:

The righteousness of God will be revealed when he pours out his wrath
on the world, because the world is unrighteous before God. If God can be

157
The assumption in the imaginary interlocutor’s argument is God foreordained Israel to fail.
158
Again, the assumption in the imaginary interlocutor’s argument is that God predestined Israel to fail.

50
 righteous by pouring out his wrath on the world, because of its
unrighteousness, then he can be righteous by pouring out his wrath
upon unrighteous Israel.

The assumption in Paul’s argument (Romans 3:1-8) is that God ordained

Israel to be unfaithful in order that he might display his faithfulness to his

promises that he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God ordained Israel to be

unrighteous in order that he might demonstrate his righteousness in the

gospel. God ordained Israel to be untruthful in order that he might present his

truthfulness in Jesus Christ. God ordained Israel to be unfaithful, unrighteous

and untruthful as a miserable dark backdrop to reveal his dazzling light of

being faithful, righteous and truthful.159

Israel untruthful/God truthful (Romans 3:7-8)

[Jew] 7But if by my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds for his glory,

why am I still condemned as a sinner?

[Paul] 8And why not say (just as we are being slanderously reported and
just as some declare that we say), “Let us do evil in order that good
may come?” Their condemnation is right.

The Jew objects of having his falsehood be the backdrop for God’s

truthfulness and still be condemned as a sinner. His argument is clear, “How is

it possible for God to foreordain me to be a liar and still condemn me as a

sinner?”160 God does this so his truthfulness abounds for his glory. God’s

foreordination of Israel’s plight is expounded on in chapter 9. The question in

3:7 is asked again in 9:19, “Why does he still find fault? For who resists his

159
At the same time, while Israel, of their own free will, chose to be unfaithful, unrighteous, and untruthful, God
holds them responsible for their sin.
160
Notice Paul’s use of the first person in 3:7. He is using it as a representative of Israel. This use of the first person
is a foreshadow of its use in chapter 7.

51
will?” Paul’s question in 3:8 also foreshadows his argument in 5:20-6:1ff, giving

emphasis to once again how God’s foreordaining of events is central to his

gospel. Do Paul’s opponents believe in the compatibility of God’s foreordination

of all things and God holding humans accountable for their sin? No, for their

position is revealed when Paul writes, “And why not say (just as we are being

slanderously reported and just as some declare that we say) ‘Let us do evil in

order that good may come?’ Their judgment is just.”161 His accusers cannot

believe in the apparent contradiction of God foreordaining Israel to fail and at

the same time God holding them responsible for their sin. But, it is very

important for Paul’s gospel that both be true. In Paul’s gospel, it is vital to

preach that God’s foreordained purposes for Israel were realized through

Israel’s unfaithfulness, unrighteousness and untruthfulness, for God purposed

this in order that he might showcase his own faithfulness, righteousness and

truthfulness in the gospel, through his Son, Jesus Christ.162

Romans 3:9-20

After examining the three contrasts in character between humanity and

God in Romans 3:1-8, Paul begins to set up his gospel. But before he presents

his gospel, he asks an obvious question to his imaginary Jewish interlocutor:

“If God foreordained Israel to fail at observing the oracles of God, then what is

the advantage of being a Jew?” He quotes Psalm 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7;

Isaiah 59:7-8 and Psalm 36:2 to force the Jew to look at the Scriptures so he

161
I assume Paul heard this argument many times when proclaiming the gospel in the synagogues.
162
See Piper, Chapter 7 “The Righteousness of God in Romans 3:1-8” in The Justification of God (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1993), 123-134.

52
can see the answer for himself. The answer from Scripture is clear: there is no

advantage in being a Jew because both Jew and Greek are under sin. By

forcing the Jew to look at Scripture, Paul is leading him to his gospel.

But before Paul presents his gospel, he provides a bold teaching about

the Law, saying:

19And we know that whatever the Law says it speaks to those who are in
the Law’s jurisdiction, in order that every mouth may be stopped and the
whole world may be liable to judgment by God. 20For on the basis of
works required by the Law163 no flesh will be declared righteous, for
through the Law comes knowledge of sin.164

What is Paul’s bold teaching about the Law? The Law that God gave the Jews

to obey reveals that they are disobedient. Therefore, Paul is being consistent

with his use of ἔργων νόμου, i.e. “works required by the Law.” It is bold of Paul to

teach, “on the basis of works required by the Law, no flesh will be declared

righteous for through the Law comes knowledge of sin” because despite the

Law’s promise of eternal life to those who obey the works that it demands, the

Law is powerless to fulfill its promise. What the Law does do is reveal the Jews’

disobedience. How does the law reveal their disobedience? The Jews are

disobedient because they rely on possessing the law as the basis for their

justification before God. The law testifies against the Jews that they are guilty

of breaking the law and are condemned as sinners before God. The whole

purpose of the law was to recognize sin. The law was not given to be the basis

for justification. The law was given for sin to be known. The basis for

justification before God is found in the gospel. And in Romans 3:21-26 Paul

163
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου
164
Romans 3:19-20

53
presents the basis for justification before God which is God’s grace διὰ πίστεως

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“through faith of Jesus Christ”).

Romans 3:21-26

Since this paragraph is the heart of the letter,165 it is essential our

interpretation of Paul’s gospel be precise so that it can be properly proclaimed

and understood. With the so-called “new perspective” challenging the notion

that the Jews in Paul’s day were legalists trying to earn God’s favor, Silva

states the problem well: “The real issue, however, is not whether Paul contrasts

πίστις and ἔργα νόμου – that he does so is simply incontrovertible – but rather

whether we have properly understood the true nature of the contrast.”166

Silva correctly points out that both phrases ἔργα νόμου (“works of law”)

and πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“faith of Jesus Christ”) are genitive constructions, and

much of the debate focuses on the force of the genitive. In Silva’s opinion, “this

kind of debate is unfortunate and generally unhelpful, for the grammatical case

tells us virtually nothing except that there is some kind of unspecified

relationship between the two nouns in the construction.”167 He demonstrates

how this works in English:

The corresponding phenomenon in English is the mere juxtaposition of

two nouns, such as spring picnic (an activity that takes place in the
spring), car sale (an event in which someone sells cars [at a special
price], brick house (a building constructed with bricks), house furniture
(furnishings intended for [or found in] a household), church history (the
course of events that have taken place within the context of [or have been
produced by or have otherwise affected] the church), etc. In these cases

165
Schreiner, Romans, p. 178.
166
Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” p. 217.
167
Ibid., pp. 219-220 (emphasis original).

54
 the first noun (which corresponds to the genitival noun in Greek)
functions adjectivally and modifies the second noun.168

Since Greek grammar is insufficient to tell us how to understand the

relationship between the two nouns, how do we interpret genitival

constructions? According to Silva, our interpretation depends on two factors:

(a) our lexical knowledge (esp. of the first noun), and (b) our contextual or

historical knowledge. He continues,

Thus, we can say that spring picnic entails a ‘temporal’ relationship

because (a) we know that spring designates a period of time and (b) we
know that in our culture picnics are often held during the spring season.
It is unlikely, but not impossible, that spring picnic might refer to, say, an
event held in the winter but having spring as its theme (cf. Christmas
concert, which does not necessarily take place on Christmas day but
celebrates the significance of that day). Should this second sense be
intended, we would be able to interpret the phrase correctly only if
someone told us specifically about such a peculiar picnic or if we had
attended similar events in the past.169

Silva concludes the ambiguous “works of law” and “faith(fulness) of

Christ” can prove to be misleading to English speakers because they will

consciously or unconsciously think of the possible functions of the preposition

of, which is ambiguous enough. The Greek construction simply tells us that

the first phrase refers to works that are somehow connected with the law, and

the second one refers to the faith(fulness) that is somehow connected to Christ.

Silva is correct that Greek grammar alone cannot solve the debates of

“works of law” or “faith of Christ” because both sides can appeal to grammar to

support their interpretation. However, using Silva’s rules, what is the lexical

knowledge of "works" and "faith"? What is our contextual or historical

168
Ibid., p. 220.
169
Ibid. (emphasis original)

55
knowledge of "works of law" and "faith of Christ"? Since these terms are used

by Paul who lived as a Jew in first century Palestine, and since Paul wrote his

letters to be understood by his readers, we need to determine if the Reformers

accurately interpreted these phrases reflecting the historical context of Paul’s

day. The Reformers rightly insisted upon reading the Bible using the rules of

historical context and grammar. What historical context influenced their

interpretation of the biblical text? Did the context of the ancient near east

covenant determine their interpretation of “works of law” and “faith of Christ”?

Did the Reformers have a solid grasp of Paul’s eschatology of the already-but-

not-yet? Does Paul’s eschatology determine the meaning of “works of law” and

“faith of Christ”? Did the Reformers properly understand the conflict in the

Roman church as being Jew/Gentile? The problem with Silva’s argument is he

has oversimplified the Greek genitive while at the same time understated the

issues at stake.

The issue at stake in Romans 3:21-26 is identifying the basis for a

person’s justification before God. In this paragraph, Paul presents the basis for

justification before God which is God’s grace διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“through

faith of Jesus Christ”). Whose faith is the basis for justification before God?

We begin to answer this question by providing an ambiguous translation of

Romans 3:21-26.

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been
revealed, though being testified to by the Law and the Prophets, 22even
the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Jesus Christ unto
all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23all have sinned and persist
in falling short of the glory of God, 24being freely declared righteous by

56
 his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God
publicly set forth as propitiation through the faith which is in his blood
for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s
forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for
the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he
might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous the one who
is of the faith of Jesus.

This ambiguous translation highlights six exegetical decisions that impacts the

interpretation of Paul’s gospel: (1) “But now apart from the Law” (v. 21); (2)

“righteousness of God” (vv. 21, 22); (3) “testified to by the Law and the

Prophets” (v. 21); (4) “faith of Jesus Christ” (vv. 22, 26); (5) “faith” (v. 25); and

(6) “his righteousness” (vv. 25, 26).

But now apart from the Law (v. 21)

Νυνὶ δὲ (“but now”) is a temporal dimension of Paul’s argument, which is

crucial because it indicates a salvation-historical shift between the old

covenant and new covenant.170 This salvation-historical shift reflects Paul’s

eschatology of the already-but-not-yet, which helps us interpret the phrase

χωρὶς νόμου (“apart from the Law”). Paul’s use of “Law” refers to the “Mosaic

Covenant” that belonged to an era of redemptive history that has now passed

away.171 So, we can interpret this as, “But now apart from the Mosaic Covenant

the righteousness of God has been revealed . . . .”

170
Schreiner, Romans, p. 180. Moo agrees saying, “. . . ‘but now’ marks the shift in Paul’s focus from the old era of
sin’s dominion to the new era of salvation. This contrast between two eras in salvation history is one of Paul’s most
basic theological conceptions, providing the framework for many of his key ideas.” Romans, p. 221.
171
Ibid.

57
Righteousness of God (v. 21)

Paul uses δικαιοσύνη θεου (“righteousness of God”) for the third time in

3:21.172 Since we have established that “righteousness” is not a verbal noun,

Paul’s use of “righteousness of God” is the same in all three uses. It refers to

God’s character. So, our interpretation is: “But now apart from the Mosaic

Covenant God’s righteous character has been revealed . . . .”

Testified to by the Law and the Prophets (v. 21)

God’s righteous character is “testified to by the Law and the Prophets,”

which is a reference to the Old Covenant as a whole. This is Paul’s second use

of “Law” in verse 21 and it refers to the Pentateuch.173 Israel looked forward to

the day when God would fulfill his promises to Israel. The Old Covenant

declares that the promises of salvation would not be fulfilled under the Mosaic

Covenant.174 A new covenant will fulfill and surpass the old covenant.

Continuing with our interpretation: “But now apart from the Mosaic Covenant

God’s righteous character has been revealed, though being testified to by the

Pentateuch and the Prophets . . . .”

172
Romans 1:17, 3:5, 3:21
173
Caneday’s “first thesis” toward understanding Paul’s view of the Law is instructive: “Paul uses nomos essentially
as the OT and Judaism use torah. This is to say that he uses nomos with a range of possible referents even within a
single context or verse. For example, Rom 3:21 says, ‘But not apart from the law God’s righteousness has been
revealed, being testified to by the Law and the Prophets.’ The former use of nomos, being the “Mosaic Covenant,”
is a subcategory of the latter, ‘the Pentateuch.’ The latter use of nomos refers to a portion of Scripture, the Five
Books of Moses. Hence, nomos may refer to the ‘Mosaic Covenant,’ ‘the Pentateuch,’ ‘Scripture,’ etc.” “21 Thesis
on Paul and the Law: Twenty-One Theses Toward Understanding Paul’s View of the Law” quoted from
<http://bibliatheologica.blogspot.com/2006/02/21-theses-on-paul-and-law.html>
174
Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26-27; Deut. 28-30

58
Righteousness of God (v. 22)

This is Paul’s fourth use of δικαιοσύνη θεου (“righteousness of God”). Since

“righteousness” is not a verbal noun, Paul’s use of “righteousness of God” is

the same in all four uses. It refers to God’s character. So, our interpretation is:

“But now apart from the Mosaic Covenant God’s righteous character has been

revealed, though being testified to by the Pentateuch and the Prophets, even

God’s righteous character revealed. . . .”

“Faith of Jesus Christ” (v. 22)

How is God’s righteous character revealed? When our English

translations say, “through faith in Jesus Christ” it means God’s righteous

character is revealed on the basis of human faith. How is the revealing of God’s

righteous character based upon human faith? The revealing of God’s righteous

character is based upon Jesus the Messiah’s faithfulness. The act of God

proving his righteous character by sending Jesus to die on the cross and rise

from the dead three days later is in no way dependent upon human faith. And

to insist that a person’s faith is the basis for salvation is sloppy theology. (See

below for further detail.) So, we continue with our interpretation: “But now

apart from the Mosaic Covenant God’s righteous character has been revealed,

though being testified to by the Pentateuch and the Prophets, even God’s

righteous character revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all

who believe.”175

175
In this verse, the individual’s responsibility to respond to the gospel is not with the noun “faith” but with the
verb “believe.” We must be careful of committing the mistake of having correct theology from the wrong text.

59
“Faith” (v. 25)

Whose faith is Paul referring to in verse 25? The ESV’s translation is,

“whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by

faith. . . . ” The ESV translation committee has made the decision that Paul is

referring to the human being’s faith because they have inserted the verb “to be

received.” Thus, the ESV insists that the act of God putting forth Jesus as a

propitiation by his blood is to be received by faith. This is correct theology.

However, this text does not support the ESV’s correct theology. This is an

example of having correct theology from the wrong text. The problem with the

ESV’s translation is the verb “to be received” is not in the Greek text. By

inserting this verb, the ESV translation committee has interpreted Paul’s use of

“faith” as referring to human faith. Paul’s use of “faith” in this context refers

not to human faith, but to Jesus’ faithfulness. We interpret verse 25 as, “whom

God publicly set forth as propitiation through the faithfulness which is in his

blood . . . .”

His righteousness (vv. 25 and 26)

Why did God publicly set forth Jesus as propitiation through the

faithfulness which is in his blood? He did it “for the purpose of demonstrating

his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were

previously committed.” With “righteousness” not being a verbal noun, this is

referring to God’s character, which is characterized in verse 26. God proves his

righteous character in two ways: (1) he is righteous in condemning sin by

60
pouring out his wrath on Jesus. (2) He is righteous in declaring righteous the

one who is ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (“from faith of Jesus”).

We continue with our interpretation of verses 25-26: “whom God publicly

set forth as propitiation through the faithfulness which is in his blood for the

purpose of demonstrating his righteous character because of God’s forbearance

in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for the demonstration of

his righteous character in the present time, that he might be both righteous

and the one who declares righteous the one who is of the faith of Jesus.”

“Faith of Jesus” (v. 26)

Whose faith is Paul referring to in verse 26? The ESV translation

committee is consistent with its interpretation of “faith” referring to a human

being’s faith. The ESV interprets verse 26 as God demonstrating his righteous

character that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous

the human being who has faith in Jesus. Again, this is correct theology.

However, it is another example of having correct theology from the wrong text.

The problem is the ESV translation committee has inserted the verb “has”

before “faith of Jesus.” The verb “has” is not in the Greek text. Does God

declare sinners righteous on the basis of their faith? As absurd as that is, it is

precisely what the ESV translation committee is saying. The basis for a sinner’s

justification before God cannot be his or her faith. The basis for a sinner’s

justification before God is Jesus’ faithfulness.

61
 How come the notion that a person’s faith being the basis for his or her

justification before God is not troublesome? The reason is because of how

Romans 3:21-26 is translated by our English versions. Since our modern

English versions emphasize the human being’s faith as the basis for one’s

justification before God, does this reflect sloppy exegesis that prevents us from

recognizing Paul’s actual teaching regarding the basis of our justification before

God?

Is justification before God on the basis of a person’s works or on the

basis of a person’s faith? Scholars have a terrible time of providing a consistent

answer. Stanley remarks,

What is very clear is that Jesus teaches that all humanity will be judged
on the basis of their works and what will be at stake is their eternal
destiny.176

He then appeals to Romans 2:3-6 as evidence that Paul teaches God will judge

all people on the basis of their works. What Paul actually says in Romans 2:6 is

God will repay each according to his works.

Kirk says,

As everywhere in the New Testament, the final judgment is based on

works, something recognized even in the Reformed tradition. In Paul, the
future vindication is the consummation of the verdict of justification that
is issued when the gospel message is heard with faith (4:24). It can be
based on the works that are performed within the orb of Jesus’ death and
resurrection because this is the person and place in which the grace of
God has been manifested, because transfer into this realm is based
solely on the grace of God, and because this is the place where there is no
longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Such a sphere of

176
Alan P. Stanley, Salvation Is More Complicated Than You Think (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007), p. 188
(emphasis mine).

62
 obedience is fitting for the God whose righteousness is manifest in the
resurrected Christ.177

Kirk, like Stanley, does not accurately reflect what Paul says. Paul does not say

the final judgment is based on works, he says at the final judgment God will

repay each according to his works. Kirk is correct that the works performed in

the “orb of Jesus’ death and resurrection” is based on God’s grace.

With regard to the topic of faith, works and judgment; Bird critiques

Wright saying,

I constantly grind my teeth whenever I read Wright’s phrasing that

eschatological justification is God’s verdict rendered ‘on the basis of a life
lived’ since that would appear to make justification dependent upon
performance (though elsewhere Wright clearly seems to envisage an
evidential judgment by works).178 I understand why Wright said that, and
I recognize the cogency of how he got there. He is trying to take
particular texts such as Rom 2:13 seriously, but his wording is
misguided. The basis upon which believers are justified is faith, as Paul
makes quite explicit in Philippians 3:9. Paul also knows of a distinction
between believing and working when it comes to the basis of being put
right with God (e.g. Gal. 3:1-5; Rom 4:4-5).179

It is interesting that Bird argues “the basis upon which believers are justified is

faith” because in his book The Saving Righteousness of God he says:

What is proposed below is that justification is forensic, eschatological,

effective and covenantal. The basis of justification lies exclusively in
Jesus the Messiah, who is our substitute and representative, whereby
God’s verdict against us is transformed into God’s vindication of us and
culminates in God’s cosmic vivification of believers in the last day.180

177
J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008),
pp. 226-227 (emphasis mine).
178
Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives 145-50; idem, “New Perspectives on Paul” 254; idem, Justification 182-93
(originally cited as n. 40).
179
Michael F. Bird, “What Is There between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? A Third Way in the Piper-Wright
Debate” JETS 54 (2011), p. 308 (emphasis mine).
180
Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2007), p. 70 (emphasis mine).

63
 Later on in the same book he says, “In Romans 4, Paul contends that it

is faith that comprises the basis of covenantal-vindication, for both Abraham

and all believers.”181 The problem for Bird is the basis of justification cannot be

the believer’s faith and exclusively lie in Jesus the Messiah. To insist on both is

a contradiction.182 It must be either one or the other. How come Bird does not

“grind his teeth” when he states a person’s faith is the basis for justification?

Does not the following string of quotes from various scholars reflect misguided

wording?

Probably, however, in light of the only clear NT parallel to the

construction,183 the combination is rhetorical and is intended to
emphasize that faith and ‘nothing but faith’ can put us into right
relationship with God.
The quotation from Hab. 2:4 confirms (cf. ‘even as’) the truth that
righteousness is to be attained only on the basis of faith.184

181
Ibid., p. 75 (emphasis mine).
182
Wright oscillates between human faith and Jesus’ faithfulness when identifying the basis of one’s justification in
his book Justification.
“Verse 24: the law was our babysitter up to the coming of the Messiah, so that, on the basis of faith, we
might receive the verdict ‘member of the family’ (p. 134). This is referring to human faith.

“The basis for all this, in theology and eschatology, is the faithful, loving, self-giving death of the Messiah”
(p. 135). This is referring to Jesus’ faithfulness

“. . . I think Paul intends to hint that when God’s covenant faithfulness/justice is unveiled, this is done on
the basis of the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, on the one hand, and for the benefit of those who
believe, on the other” (p. 181, emphasis original).

“Justification by faith on the basis of Jesus’ faithful death and triumphant resurrection, revealing the
‘righteousness’ of the Creator God, his faithfulness to the covenant-through-Israel-for-the-world – this
justification means that God now declares circumcised and uncircumcised alike ‘in the right,’ ‘members of
the covenant family,’ the former ‘on the basis of faith’ and the latter ‘through faith’ – a small but perhaps
important distinction” (p. 216).

“Finally, as is already clear from the above, this lawcourt verdict, implementing God’s covenant plan, and
all based on Jesus Christ himself, is announced both in the present, with the verdict issued on the basis of
faith and faith alone, and also in the future, on the day when God raises from the dead all those who are
already indwelt by the Spirit” (p. 251, emphasis original).
183
Paul’s addition of “for faith” to “on the basis of faith.”
184
Moo, Romans, p. 76 (emphasis mine).

64
 But suffice to say that as far as Romans 4 is concerned, the analogy
drawn most strongly is between Abraham and Christian believers:
Abraham receives the sign of circumcision after faith, so that he might be
the father of all who believe (4:9-11); Gentiles are those who walk in the
steps of the faith of Abraham (4:12); Abraham’s seed are ‘of the faith of
Abraham’ (4:16); and the righteousness of God reckoned to him on the
basis of faith is not his alone, but belongs to all who believe (4:23-24).
There is in fact no obvious reference to a faith of Christ in Romans 4.185

‘Justification’ here again is based upon faith: as with Abraham,

righteousness is reckoned to us who believe (Rom 4:24).186

Moreover, in a letter to William Green late in his career, in 1789 to be

exact, Wesley observes that the habit of the English clergy is to place
sanctification before justification with the result that the holy life
becomes the basis upon which one is justified.187

In v. 13 Paul enters a new phase of his argument in which he provides

the support (γὰρ) for his assertion that Abraham’s universal paternity and
God’s covenant promise of an inheritance (i.e., the promises of seed and
land that shape the entire Pentateuchal narrative) are based on faith.188

Whose faith is the basis for justification before God? It is Jesus’

faithfulness. In 3:21-26 Paul is defending God’s character as it relates to the

promises he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why is Paul defending God’s

character? If God is the one who bound all of humanity, both Jew and Greek,
185
S. J. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by his blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25” in Justification
and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 164 (italics emphasis original, underline emphasis mine). The reference to faith of
Christ in Romans 4 is beyond the scope of this paper. However, I would argue “the righteousness of faithfulness” in
4:11, 13 and “faithfulness” in 4:14, 16 are obvious references to faith of Christ. In Romans 4, does every use of
“faith” refer to human faith? How is God’s righteous character reckoned to Abraham and every believer on the
basis of his or her faith? Also, the word “righteousness” is not a verbal noun.
186
Mark A. Seifrid, “Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation” in Justification: What’s at Stake
in the Current Debates?, eds. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), p. 147
(emphasis mine). Again, how is God’s righteous character reckoned to believers? The word “righteousness” is not a
verbal noun.
187
Kenneth J. Collins, “The Doctrine of Justification” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates?, eds.
Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), p. 181 (emphasis mine). How is this
different from saying a person’s faith is the basis upon which one is justified?
188
J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans, p. 67 (emphasis mine).

65
into sin,189 then how is he going to save the sinners? How is a holy, righteous,

sinless God going to condemn sin and at the same time declare the sinner

righteous?190 In this paragraph, which is the heart of the letter, Paul defends

God’s character and proves God’s righteousness saying,

21But now apart from the Mosaic Covenant God’s righteous character has
been revealed, though being testified to by the Pentateuch and the
Prophets, 22even God’s righteous character revealed through the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all who believe. For there is no
distinction, 23all have sinned and persist in falling short of the glory of
God, 24being freely declared righteous by his grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God publicly set forth as
propitiation through the faithfulness which is in his blood for the
purpose of demonstrating his righteous character because of God’s
forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for
the demonstration of his righteous character in the present time, that he
might be both righteous in character and the one who declares righteous
the one who is from the faithfulness of Jesus.191

God proves his righteous character in condemning sin by setting forth

his son, Jesus, as propitiation through the faithfulness in his blood192 for the

proof of his righteousness. Because Jesus took on the punishment, by dying on

the cross as the sacrificial lamb, he absorbed God’s wrath for those who believe

189
Cf. Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22. When thinking through the debate of God’s sovereignty vs. human responsibility, it is
important to note that the Bible presents both to be true. It would be a serious misreading of Paul if this is
understood in a fatalistic way that undermined human responsibility (T. R. Schreiner, BECNT Romans, 473). The
biblical authors do not explain the philosophical logic of how God’s sovereign control of all things fits together with
human responsibility. They simply thought that human freedom was always acted out under the umbrella of divine
sovereignty. The two are compatible with each other. D. A. Carson defines compatibilism saying,
“The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following
propositions are true: 1. God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way
that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized or mitigated. 2. Human beings are morally responsible
creatures—they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are
rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God
absolutely contingent.” D. A Carson, How Long, O Lord? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 201.
In other words, God is 100 percent sovereign. Humans are 100 percent responsible for their choices. How they fit
together is beyond my comprehension.
190
It looks like God has painted himself into a corner. He has to condemn sin to prove his righteous character and
he has to forgive sin to prove his love. How is he going to do both of these things?
191
Romans 3:21-26
192
Cf. Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22

66
on him. God can forgive previously committed sins for those who believe

because Jesus paid the price. God proves his righteous character in two ways:

(1) he is righteous in condemning sin by pouring out his wrath on Jesus. (2) He

is righteous in declaring righteous those sinners who are from the faithfulness

of Jesus, because he took on the penalty for sins on the cross. Romans 3:26

affirms this, “for the proof of his righteousness in the present time in order that

he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous those who are

from the faithfulness of Jesus.” The two notions of “God’s righteousness” and

“sinners being declared righteous” are not separable, but they are

distinguished from one another. To sum up Paul’s gospel,

God proves himself righteous by pouring out his wrath upon his own
Son, the Faithful One, in order that he might be righteous when he
declares sinners righteous. God’s righteous character requires that he
satisfy his wrath. He satisfies his wrath by inflicting it on his Son instead
of upon us.

Are human beings to put their faith in Jesus Christ? Yes, of course.

However, in Romans 3:21-26 the faith of the human being is not Paul’s primary

subject. His primary subject is God. The “faith” that Paul writes about in this

paragraph is not human faith, but Jesus’ faithfulness. Paul is pin-pointing the

placement of the believer’s faith into Jesus’ faithfulness. Because Jesus is the

faithful one who died on the cross and rose again, it is Jesus’ faithfulness that

is the basis for one’s justification before God. God’s promises to Israel in the

Old Covenant are fulfilled in Jesus. Therefore, Romans 3:21-26 is about the

justification of God.

67
Romans 3:27-31

In this section we continue the practice of providing an ambiguous

translation to highlight the exegetical decisions any interpreter must make. The

advantage of an ambiguous translation is it forces the reader to determine the

author’s meaning.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. By what sort of law? By a law

of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει
ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.193 29Or, is God the God of Jews only? Is he not
also the God of Gentiles? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one who
will declare righteous the circumcised from faith and the one with the
foreskin through faith.31Therefore, do we abolish the law through the
faith? May it never be! But rather, we uphold the law.

This ambiguous translation highlights six exegetical decisions that

impacts the meaning of this section: 1) “boasting” (v. 27); 2) “law” and “law of

works” (v. 27); 3) “law of faith” (v. 27); 4) The placement of the prepositional

phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (v. 28); 5) “circumcised from faith” and “foreskin

through faith” (v. 30); 6) “faith” and “law” (v. 31)

Boasting (v. 27)

The question, “Where, then, is boasting?” refers to what Paul has

previously written. The “then” links backs to Romans 3:21-26. The kind of

boasting Paul has in mind is described in chapter two. The Jews boast in

possessing the law and circumcision, which is not the same as actually doing

what the law requires. The Jews hear the law, but fail to do the law. By failing

to do the law, the Jews will be cut off from God. The Jews’ boast in the law

193
Nestle – Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition.

68
works against them because the very thing they boast in condemns them. It is

obvious why Paul excludes this kind of boasting because if mere possession of

the law was the basis for one’s justification before God, then Jesus would not

have come to earth and die on the cross.

In this letter, Paul considers boasting to be proper or improper based

upon its context. The theme of boasting is in Romans 2:17-20; 3:27; 4:2; 5:2-3,

11; 11:17-24 and 15:17. In Romans 2:17-20, Paul judges the Jews’ boasting to

be improper because they boast in being declared righteous by God on the

basis of possessing the law and circumcision. In Romans 3:27, Paul brings the

Jews’ boasting to an end based upon the “law of faith.”

Law and law of works (v. 27)

The Jews who boast in possessing the law and circumcision need to

know that the law and the works that it requires is not the medium that God

chose to fulfill his promises to Israel. God did not design the law to reveal his

righteousness in fulfilling his promises because he designed the law to produce

wrath. Yes, the law promises eternal life,194 but it cannot fulfill what it

promises because it cannot secure the obedience that it commands. Therefore,

the Jews’ boast in possessing the law is misplaced because they fail to do what

the law requires. By failing to do what the law requires, this is proof that they

live under the law’s indictment. By living under the law’s indictment, it

condemns them to be sinners. The law, then, serves to reveal the righteous

character of God’s wrath.

194
Lev. 18:5

69
Law of faith (v. 27)

What law excludes this kind of boasting in possessing the law and

circumcision? It is a law of faith. What does “law of faith” mean? Verse 28

sheds light on its meaning for it clearly points back to Paul’s argument in 3:21-

26. The “law of faith” refers to Jesus’ faithfulness. Why is it important to

recognize Jesus’ faithfulness? It is the basis for a person to be declared

righteous before God. In other words, it is Paul’s gospel as stated above:

God proves himself righteous by pouring out his wrath upon his own
Son, the Faithful One, in order that he might be righteous when he
declares sinners righteous. God’s righteous character requires that he
satisfy his wrath. He satisfies his wrath by inflicting it on his Son instead
of upon us.

Since both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of breaking the law and are condemned

as sinners, individuals from both ethnic groups need a basis to be justified

before God. With both Jews and Gentiles needing the basis of Jesus’

faithfulness to be justified before God, we are now set up to present a fresh

perspective of a prepositional phrase in Romans 3:28.

The placement of the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (v. 28)

The Greek text of Romans 3:28 states: λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει

ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. Three questions will guide our presentation of

presenting a fresh perspective of the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου

(“apart from works of law”): 1) Whose “faith” is Paul referring to? 2) What is the

meaning of “works of law”? 3) What is the placement and use of the preposition

χωρὶς?

70
 Paul’s uses of πίστις (“faith”) in Romans 1:17; 3:3, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30,

31 are consistent, so they must be interpreted consistently. How it is

interpreted in 1:17 will govern its interpretation in its subsequent uses. Is this

referring to human faith or to Jesus’ faithfulness in fulfilling the Old Covenant?

Paul’s uses of “faith” in Romans 1:17-3:30 are referring to Jesus’ faithfulness.

The people of God are now defined by Jesus. Both Jews and Gentiles who

believe in the gospel make up the eschatological people of God based upon

Jesus’ faithfulness. Paul, then, is defending God’s character by how he has

fulfilled his promises to Israel. “Israel” is redefined as Jews and Gentiles who

are in Jesus.

Paul’s meaning of “works of law” is the works that the law requires. Paul

conceives of the Mosaic Law as Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. Within the

context of a covenant with Yahweh, Caneday points out how it functioned for

Israel:

. . . it governed the nation Israel (Eph 2:12); it regulated even the

mundane affairs of Israel’s life (Phil. 3:5f); it was glorious (2 Cor 3:7-15);
it kept Israel distinct from the Gentiles (Eph 2:12); it carried a promise of
better things to come (Eph 2:12); it disclosed Yahweh to Israel (Rom 9:4-
5); it cursed Israel as a nation for its unfaithfulness to God (Gal 3:10;
Rom 3:3ff; 9:30ff); and it subjected the nation to servitude and to slavery
(cf. Gal 4:1ff). As the covenant of Israel, the whole law is binding upon all
its subjects (Gal 5:3). The Mosaic Law is characterized by its demand for
deeds (Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5; Lev 18:5).195

What is instructive for our purposes is the fact that the Law kept Israel distinct

from the Gentiles. In Ephesians 2:12 Paul is clear that since the Gentiles did

195
Caneday’s “fifth thesis” of his “21 Thesis on Paul and the Law: Twenty-One Theses Toward Understanding Paul’s
View of the Law” quoted from <http://bibliatheologica.blogspot.com/2006/02/21-theses-on-paul-and-law.html>

71
not participate in the covenant established between Israel and God, they had

no hope and were without God because the Law disclosed God to Israel. In

order for a Gentile to know God, Israel needed to tell him about God and invite

him to be under the Law. Since he was not under the Law, he was unable to do

the works required by the Law. Therefore, the Gentiles were separated from the

works required by the Law.

With the Gentiles separated from the works required by the Law, this

determines the placement and use of the preposition χωρὶς. The Greek

preposition χωρὶς means “to the absence or lack of something, without, apart

from, independently from.”196 Caneday reveals that at the various levels of his

learning of Greek, the grammars and grammarians point out that in the Greek

New Testament χωρὶς normally follows the word to which it is grammatically

attached. However, once in the Greek New Testament χωρὶς follows the word it

governs (Hebrews 12:14).197 Also, in the New Testament, χωρὶς functions as

primarily as an improper preposition. Robertson observes, “In the N. T. we have

only one pure adverbial use (Jo. 20:7), while as a preposition with the ablative

we find it 40 times. . . . It is postpositive once, οὗ χωρὶς (Heb. 12:14).”198 Harris

echoes Robertson, “Only one of the 41 NT uses of χωρὶς is adverbial (‘apart,’ in

196
BDAG
197
<http://ntexegesis.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-romans-328.html>
198
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1919), p. 648.
Logos Bible Software.

72
Jn 20:7), and all are prepositive except for οὗ χωρὶς, ‘without which [= holiness],’

in Heb 12:14.”199

The question raised by Caneday concerns the placement and use of χωρὶς

because of the way English translations connect the prepositional phrase χωρὶς

ἔργων νόμου to the verb δικαιοῦσθαι (“to declare righteous”) instead of the noun

ἄνθρωπον (“man”). By connecting the prepositional phrase to the verb, it renders

χωρὶς as an adverb. However, the Greek text actually shows the prepositional

phrase functioning as an adjective modifying the noun ἄνθρωπον. So, here is his

question:

Given the placement of χωρὶς following the noun ἄνθρωπον rather than the
verb δικαιοῦσθαι or the noun πίστει, why do our English translations not
translate Romans 3:28 as follows? ‘For we reckon a man apart from the
deeds required by law to be justified by faith (by faithfulness).’200

The ESV translates Romans 3:28 as “For we hold that one is justified by

faith apart from works of the law.” Does it not seem odd that the ESV has χωρὶς

leap-frogging two nouns in order to attach it to the verb δικαιοῦσθαι? The ESV is

not alone in doing this since every one of our English versions understands

χωρὶς as an adverb modifying δικαιοῦσθαι (Figure 1.4). It is understandable why

this happens since certain Greek interlinears number the word order the same

way (Figure 1.5). Does this reflect an exegetical bias rather than the syntax of

the sentence?

199
Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), p. 250.
200
<http://ntexegesis.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-romans-328.html>

73
 English Version Romans 3:28
ESV, NIV For we hold that one is
justified by faith apart from
works of the law.
RSV, NASB, NASB95, HCSB For we hold that a man is
justified by faith apart from
works of law.
NRSV, ISV For we hold that a person is
justified by faith apart from
works prescribed by the law.
NIV84, TNIV For we maintain that a man is
justified by faith apart from
observing the law.
NET For we consider that a person
is declared righteous by faith
apart from the works of the
law.
KJV Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law.
NKJV Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith apart
from the deeds of the law.
WUESTNT – Kenneth S. for our reasoned conclusion is
Wuest that a man is justified by faith
apart from works of law.
Lexham English Bible For we consider a person to
be justified by faith apart from
the works of the law.
1890 Darby, Douay-Rheims for we reckon that a man is
Bible, ASV 1901, Young’s justified by faith, without
Literal Translation works of law.

Figure 1.4 – English Translations of Romans 3:2

74
 Greek Romans
Interlinear 3:28
Newberry
28 λογιζομεθα ουν πιστει δικαιουσθαι Ανθρωπον χωρις εργων
We 2 reckon 3 therefore 1 by 9 faith 10 to 6 be 7 justified 8 a 4 man 5 apart from works
λογίζομαι οὖν πίστις δικαιόω ἄνθρωπος χωρίς ἔργον
3049 3767 4102 1344 444 5565 2041
VPUI1P C NDSF VPPN NASM B NGPN

νομου
of law.
νόμος
3551
NGSM
201

Lexham
λογιζόμεθα ⸀ γὰρ ⸂ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ⸃ ἄνθρωπον
λογίζομαι γάρ δικαιόω πίστις ἄνθρωπος
VPUI1P CAZ VPPN NDSF NASM
to reckon, to consider, to reason for, because to justify, to declare righteous faith man
we consider2 for1 to be justified4 by faith5 a person3v
31.1 89.23 56.34 31.85 9.1

χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου .

χωρίς ἔργον νόμος
P, B NGPN NGSM
apart from work, deed law
apart from the works of the law
89.120 42.42 33.55
202

Figure 1.5 – Greek New Testament Interlinear Translations of Romans 3:28

Since both Jews and Gentiles need the basis of Jesus’ faithfulness to be

justified before God, the context of Romans 3:27-31 is that of Gentiles having

access to become members of the new covenant. When we place the

prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) to modify the

noun ἄνθρωπος (“man”), we get ἄνθρωπος χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“a man apart from

works of law”). Since “works of law” refers to the works required by the Law, we

201
Newberry, T., & Berry, G. R. (2004). The interlinear literal translation of the Greek New Testament (Ro 3:28).
Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
202
Harris, W. H., III. (2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition (Ro 3:28). Logos
Research Systems, Inc. See also J. D. Douglass (ed.), The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Wheaton:
Tyndale House, 1990), p. 540.

75
can interpret this as “a man apart from the deeds required by the Law.” Who is

this man apart from the deeds required by the Law? He is a Gentile.

Circumcised from faith and foreskin through faith (v. 30)

In verses 29-30 Paul is adamant that the God of the Jews is also the God

of the whole world, including the Gentiles. Paul alludes to the Shema of

Deuteronomy 6:4 to bolster his argument. If there is only one God, then he

must be God of the whole world, not only for the Jews. Schreiner is perceptive

saying,

Paul proposes that this shared view of God’s lordship over the whole
world leads to the conclusion that he will justify both Jews and Gentiles
on the same basis, by faith. A salvation-historical shift is implicit in the
argument, for Jews could use the same argument defending salvation
through the law for both Jews and Gentiles. Those who see a polemic
against Jewish exclusivism are correct that such a theme is present in
these verses.203

Whose faith is the basis for the Jews and Gentiles’ justification? According to

Schreiner, the basis for their justification is human faith. Paul’s use of “faith” is

consistent. It refers to Jesus’ faithfulness. Schreiner is correct that “a

salvation-historical shift is implicit in the argument, for Jews could use the

same argument defending salvation through the law for both Jews and

Gentiles.” What is the event that causes this salvation-historical shift? Human

faith does not cause it. Jesus’ faithfulness of dying on the cross and rising from

the dead causes it. Why can the Jews no longer use the same argument to

defend salvation through the law for both Jews and Gentiles? The reason is the

203
Schreiner, Romans, p. 206 (emphasis mine).

76
works required by the law is not the basis for one’s future justification at the

final judgment. The Jew and Gentile will be declared righteous on the basis of

Jesus’ faithfulness.

Faith and Law (v. 31)

Schreiner comments that the conclusion to this paragraph in verse 31 is

difficult to interpret.204 The reason for its difficulty is due to interpreting “faith”

as human faith. When we interpret “faith” as referring to Jesus’ faithfulness,

then it makes it easier to interpret this paragraph. How does human faith

establish the law? According to Schreiner,

The moral norms of the law still function as the authoritative will of God
for the believer (Murray 1959: 126). The idea is not precisely that the law
is fulfilled by faith in Christ (contra Moo 1991: 257), but rather that
those who have faith in Christ will keep the law. . . . Righteousness apart
from the law’s commands does not mean that believers can dispense
with the moral norms of the law.205

Is there a difference between having a “moral” problem and a “covenant”

problem? If so, then the focus of the New Covenant is addressing a covenant

problem, not a moral problem. What is the benefit of addressing our moral

problem while neglecting our covenant problem? Once the covenant problem is

solved, doesn’t that solve our moral problem? Because Schreiner interprets

“faith” as referring to human faith, his problem is seeing the contrast between

“doing” and “believing” or between “works-righteousness” and “faith.” Although

204
Ibid.
205
Ibid., p. 208

77
his interpretation reflects the Protestant and Catholic debate of the sixteenth

century, it does not reflect the debate in Paul’s day.

The contrast Paul is making is between two distinct epochs of redemptive

history, which is characterized by Paul’s eschatology of the already-but-not-yet.

The Old Covenant had a distinct message and it was the stipulations of the

Law. The New Covenant has a distinct message and it is at the cross of Christ

the Mosaic Law came to its end. The Law is an earthly shadow that points to its

heavenly reality – Christ. Christ redeemed God’s remnant by vicariously

bearing the “curse of the law” for them “upon the tree.”206 How does Christ

redeem God’s remnant from the Law? He redeemed them from the Law by

replacing the Law.207 Therefore, with “faith” referring to Jesus’ faithfulness, Jew

and Gentile can now be justified on the same basis, without God’s law being

overthrown.208 We interpret Romans 3:27-31 as the following:

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. By what sort of law? Is it

excluded through the law that requires works? No, but by a law of
faithfulness. 28For we consider a man apart from works required by the
law to be declared righteous by faithfulness. 29Or, is God the God of Jews
alone? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, he is the God of the
Gentiles also, 30since God is one who will declare righteous the
circumcised from faithfulness and the one with the foreskin through the
same faithfulness. 31Therefore, do we abolish the law through this
faithfulness? May it never be! Rather, we establish the law.

By interpreting Romans 3:27-31 this way, Paul is writing about the

justification of the Law.

206
Gal. 3:13
207
Gal. 4:4-5
208
David Peterson, Possessed by God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), p. 95.

78
How a Prepositional Phrase Invigorates the Piper/Wright Debate

The πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faith of Christ”) debate is essential to precisely

determine what Paul deems to be the basis of one’s justification before God. As

an objective genitive (“faith in Christ”), the human’s faith is the basis of

justification before God. As a subjective genitive (“faithfulness of Christ”),

Christ’s faithfulness is the basis of justification before God. With Piper

representing the “objective genitive” and Wright representing the “subjective

genitive,” their debate is invigorated by the placement of the prepositional

phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) in Romans 3:28. How do

these two men handle Romans 3:28?

Piper, while making his case for imputation, sees a parallel between

Romans 4:6 and Romans 3:28 saying:

In Romans 3:28 Paul says, ‘A man is justified (δικαιοῦσθαι, dikaiousthai)

by faith apart from works of the law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, chōris ergōn
nomou).’ In Romans 4:6 he says, ‘God credits righteousness (λογίζεται
δικαιοσύνην, logizetai dikaiosunēn) apart from works (χωρὶς ἔργων, chōris
ergōn).’ The parallel between ‘apart from works of the law’ (3:28) and
‘apart from works’ (4:6) is so close as to suggest that the other parallel
between ‘justify’ and ‘credits righteousness’ is similarly close, even
synonymous. Therefore we have another good reason for thinking that
when Paul speaks of ‘being justified,’ he thinks in terms of righteousness
being imputed to us rather than our faith being recognized or considered
as our righteousness.

Romans 4:5 justifies the ungodly

Romans 4:6 credits righteousness apart from works
Romans 3:28 justified by faith apart from works of the law209

209
John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), p. 59. He makes the same argument in
Justification, p. 43.

79
 Piper appeals to Romans 3:28 for support of the “doctrine of justification

by faith apart from works.”210 Does Romans 3:28 teach this doctrine? What

happens to this doctrine when we place the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων

νόμου (“apart from works of law”) to modify the noun ἄνθρωπον (“man”)?

With regard to “attaining” righteousness, Piper insists this must be done

in another way besides doing good works because “no good works of any kind

will make a fallen person righteous before God.”211 He notes that Paul is able to

speak of “works” in both a positive and negative sense. For example, the “works

of the law” are always spoken of disparagingly in connection with justification

(Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 3:2, 5, 10); and yet Paul can write about the

necessity of good works that are caused by faith (e.g., 2 Corinthians 9:8;

Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 1

Timothy 5:25; 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:21; 3:17; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). But, Piper

is adamant:

It is a mistake to argue, however, that in distinguishing these two types

of ‘works’ Paul thinks that the good form of works is instrumental in our
justification. Paul argues that no works of any kind are involved in the
means of justification. . . . No works – either done in accordance with the
Mosaic Law or done by faith – can be the means of justifying the
ungodly.212

Piper is correct that “works of the law” are spoken of disparagingly in

connection with justification in Romans 3:28. However, Piper’s problem is he

doesn’t have a correct definition of “works of law.” What Paul means by “works

of law” is “works required by the law,” which we have argued above. Piper

210
Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, p. 77. Cf. Piper, Justification, p. 15.
211
Ibid., p. 89.
212
Ibid., n. 36.

80
insists that no works can be the means of justifying the ungodly. But doesn’t

the doctrine of “justification by faith apart from works” require the exercise of

human faith? What is the means of justifying the ungodly? Piper’s answer is

eye-opening:

The way appointed by God is ‘by faith,’ and what faith does is connect us
to ‘Christ for righteousness.’ Christ ‘became to us righteousness.’ In him
we ‘have’ a righteousness from God based on faith (Philippians 3:9). In
him we become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).213

If faith is the means of justifying the ungodly, how is faith not a work necessary

for one’s justification before God? How is justification based on human faith

any different from saying justification is based on human works? Is it not

equally problematic to teach that human faith or human works is the basis of

one’s justification before God?214

Piper asks the question: What does it mean to fulfill the requirement of

the law? He answers this question with twelve theses. His second thesis states:

Our fulfilling God’s law in loving others is not the ground of our
justification. The ground of justification is the sacrifice and obedience of
Christ alone, appropriated through faith alone before any other acts are
performed. Our fulfilling the law is the fruit and evidence of being
justified by faith (Rom. 3:20-22, 24-25, 28; 4:4-6; 5:19; 8:3; 10:3-4; 2
Cor. 5:21).215

Since Piper appeals to Romans 3:28 to support this thesis, he is correct that

the ground of justification is the sacrifice and obedience of Christ alone and

that people are to put their faith in Christ. However, in Romans 3:20-22, 24-25

and 28, whose faith is Paul writing about? Piper sees this as human faith,

213
Ibid. p. 90, emphasis mine. Notice Piper insists that in Christ we ‘have’ a righteousness from God. Piper
interprets “righteousness” as a verbal noun. We have argued above that “righteousness” is not a verbal noun.
214
See Wright’s comments about making a bogey-word out of the word “synergism.” Justification, pp. 189-193.
215
Piper, Justification, p. 217.

81
which reveals his need to sharpen this thesis. The ground of justification can

only be one thing. Is the ground of justification the sacrifice and obedience of

Christ alone, i.e. Christ’s faithfulness or is the ground of justification human

faith? The placement of the prepositional phrase in Romans 3:28 would require

him to reflect upon the accuracy of his second thesis.

Wright reflects the problem of the difficulty scholars have of consistently

identifying the basis of one’s justification before God by pointing out how Paul

strikes a new note in Romans 3:21-31 (justified in the present on the basis of

nothing but faith) which sounds all wrong in terms of the tune he was playing

in Romans 2:1-16 (justified in the future on the basis of the entire life.216 Is the

basis of justification human faith, the entire human’s life or Jesus’

faithfulness?

Wright correctly points out the eschatological dimension of justification

being both present and future. The future judgment which Paul speaks in

Romans 2:1-16 will take place on the last day. When, on that day, God issues

through the Messiah the positive verdict spoken of in Romans 2:7, 10 and 13,

it corresponds to the present verdict “which, in Romans 3:21-31, is issued

simply and solely on the basis of faith.”217 This implies human faith is the basis

for one’s justification before God.

Wright, however, makes the argument that what was lacking in Romans

2:21-24 and 3:3 was faithfulness on the part of Israel, not some kind of

meritorious behavior through which Israel would rescue itself, but a

216
Wright, Justification, p. 214.
217
Ibid., p. 190, emphasis mine.

82
faithfulness to God and his covenant purposes that would enable Israel to live

up to its calling as the light of the world. The “righteousness of God” is God

accomplishing this Israel-shaped world-redeeming plan through the faithfulness

of the Messiah. “That is the meaning of Romans 3:22.”218 He argues the “dense

details of atonement theology in Romans 3:24-26 fall into place.” God

accomplishes the new exodus in and through the representative Messiah,

whom God put forward to be the place and means of propitiation through his

faithfulness. Paul is talking about what God has done, not how humans

appropriate faith for themselves. The faith in Romans 3:22, 24-26 is Jesus’

faithfulness. Thus, Wright needs to be consistent in identifying the basis of

one’s justification before God. Is it human faith (p. 190) or Jesus’ faithfulness

(pp. 203-204)? The answer helps us identify Israel’s boast in Romans 3:27.

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded” (Romans 3:27).

Wright understands the Jews boast is revealed in Romans 2:17-20. They think

by possessing the Law and circumcision they have a superior calling within

God’s purposes, but “Paul will have none it.” Drawing on Romans 2:25-29, Paul

insists that as the Jews boast in the Law the very thing they boast in declares

that their boasted position in God’s purposes has been taken away and given to

others.

‘If the uncircumcision keeps the commandments of Torah, will not its
uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?’ (Romans 2:26). ‘Boasting
excluded – by what Torah? A Torah of works? No – but by the Torah of
faith’ (Romans 3:27). Who are God’s people? They are those who keep the
Torah – but whose Torah-keeping consists of faith.219

218
Ibid., p. 203, emphasis original.
219
Ibid., p. 211, emphasis original.

83
Whose faith is Paul talking about with the phrase “Torah of faith”? It’s

important to see that Wright interprets the faith in “Torah of faith” as human

faith.

Who are the people keeping the Torah? Wright argues it is those Paul has

already spoken of in Romans 2:7, 10, 13-16, 25-29. Those remarkable advance

statements are “the circumcised-in-heart,” “the Jew-in-secret-people,” “the

ones who keep Torah and thus have circumcision reckoned to them,” “the ones

who keep Torah and thus have circumcision reckoned to them,” “the one who

do the Torah and so will be justified on the last day, even though they are

Gentiles and don’t have the Torah as their ancestral possession,” “the ones who

through patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality.” Now

at last we can identify who these strange people are – God’s people. God’s

people are those who keep Torah not by works but by faith.220 Again, it is

important to see that Wright interprets “faith” as human faith. However, the

“remarkable advance statements” describing the people who keep Torah refer

to Gentiles.

Wright’s interpretation thus far does not diminish the meaning of

Romans 3:28 because it is “held firmly in place by the verses on either side.”

Romans 3:27 indicates that the “Torah of faith” excludes the “boasting” of

Romans 2:17-20. “The Jew” who claims that possession of Torah is sufficient to

establish himself as part of God’s people, those through whom God is bringing

220
Ibid., emphasis original.

84
light to the world, is confronted with an apparently different “Torah.” This

Torah says,

‘No, not so fast: this faith-fulfillment is what I had in mind all along, and
it eliminates your boasting as surely as if it were drowned in the depths
of the sea.’ And 3:29 says, ‘God was all along the God of Gentiles as well
as Jews.’ The tiny word ē at the start of that verse says, loud and clear
for those who are committed to letting every word of the text count
instead of eliminating those that are inconvenient for their theories, ‘If it
were otherwise – if justification were by the works of Torah rather than by
faith – then it would mean that God was indeed the God of the Jews
only.’221

Again, it is important to see that Wright contrasts “works of Torah” with

human faith. This sets up his interpretation of Romans 3:28.

How then must we read Romans 3:28? As the decisive statement which
explains (as the gar, “for,” indicates) the dramatic claim of Romans 3:27,
and as the statement whose immediate implication is that God has one
family, not two, and that this family consists of faithful Gentiles as well
as faithful Jews (Romans 3:30, anticipating 4:11-12 and 4:16-17). In
other words, 3:28 is saying: God declares a person to be ‘righteous’ on
the basis of faith, apart from those ‘works of Torah’ which (a) would have
established a status for Jews and Jews only and (b) were in any case
impossible because Torah would then only have proved that Jews too
were sinful. In other words, let’s go beyond the new perspective/old
perspective divide: both are necessary parts of what Paul is actually
saying.222

The dramatic claim of Romans 3:27 that God’s family consists of Jews and

Gentiles is strengthened by having the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου

(“apart from works of law”) modify the noun ἄνθρωπον (“man”) in Romans 3:28.

It also helps Wright to clarify the basis of one’s justification before God. Is the

basis of justification before God human faith (p. 190) Jesus’ faithfulness (pp.

203-204) or human faith (p. 212)? The placement of the prepositional phrase
221
Ibid., p. 212, emphasis mine.
222
Ibid., emphasis mine.

85
χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) in Romans 3:28 forces Wright to

oscillate between Christ’s faithfulness and human faith, which is revealed in

his translation of Romans 3:21-31:

21But
now God’s righteousness has been revealed apart from the
law – through the law and the prophets bear witness to it: 22 it is God’s
righteousness, through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, for all who
believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all sinned, and came short of
the glory of God, 24 and they are justified freely, by his grace, through the
redemption which is in the Messiah Jesus.
25 God put him forth as a means of atonement, through faithfulness,

by means of his blood; this was to demonstrate God’s righteousness,

because, in his forebearance, he had passed over previous sins. 26 It was
to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time – that he himself
might be in the right, and might justify people by Jesus’ faithfulness.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what sort of law? The

law of works? No, but through the law of faith. 28 For we reckon that a
person is justified by faith, without works of the law. 29 Or is God the
God of Jews only? Is he not of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also – 30
since God is one, and will justify the circumcised by faith and the
uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then abolish the law through
faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we uphold the law.223

Wright exhorts us to go beyond the new perspective/old perspective divide

because both are necessary parts of what Paul is actually saying. By having the

prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) modify the

verb δικαιοῦσθαι (“to be justified”), does that reflect what Paul is actually saying?

What helps us to go beyond the new perspective/old perspective divide is

accurately translating Romans 3:28. By having the prepositional phrase χωρὶς

ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) modify the noun ἄνθρωπον (“man”), it

bolsters the “subjective genitive” interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faithfulness of

Christ”). Compare Wright’s translation of Romans 3:21-31 above with my

223
N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 128.

86
translation of Romans 3:21-31 below and notice what a difference a simple

prepositional phrase does to the meaning of the text.

21But now apart from the Mosaic Covenant God’s righteous character has
been revealed, though being testified to by the Pentateuch and the
Prophets, 22even God’s righteous character revealed through the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all who believe. For there is no
distinction, 23all have sinned and persist in falling short of the glory of
God, 24being freely declared righteous by his grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God publicly set forth as
propitiation through the faithfulness which is in his blood for the
purpose of demonstrating his righteous character because of God’s
forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for
the demonstration of his righteous character in the present time, that he
might be both righteous in character and the one who declares righteous
the one who is from the faithfulness of Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. By what sort of law? Is it
excluded through the law that requires works? No, but by a law of
faithfulness. 28For we consider a man apart from works required by the
law to be declared righteous by faithfulness. 29Or, is God the God of Jews
alone? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, he is the God of the
Gentiles also, 30since God is one who will declare righteous the
circumcised from faithfulness and the one with the foreskin through the
same faithfulness. 31Therefore, do we abolish the law through this
faithfulness? May it never be! Rather, we establish the law.

Conclusion

Is a person’s justification before God on the basis of his works, his faith,

or Jesus’ faithfulness? Scholars are inconsistent in their answers, so as a

helpful reminder to them there can only be one basis for justification before

God, which is why the πίστις Χριστοῦ (“faith of Christ”) debate is so important for

it determines the basis of one’s justification before God. Since Romans 3:21-26

is the heart of the letter, Paul’s purpose for writing this letter to Rome is to

provide a detailed explanation of his gospel.

87
 The two major people groups in Paul’s day were Jews and Gentiles. In

order for Paul to gain the support he needs for his mission to Spain, he needs

to show the church how his gospel fulfills the Old Covenant. Paul knows his

theology is being questioned in Rome, so he needs to be clear that there is

nothing wrong with his theology so the Roman church can have a clear

conscious in supporting his Spanish mission.

Paul begins to explain his gospel in 1:3-4. The contrast between verses 3

and 4 is redemptive-historical, which reflects the already-but-not-yet of Paul’s

eschatology. The contrast is between the old age and the new age. The

appointment of Jesus as Son of God occurred at “the resurrection from the

dead.” The resurrection of Christ inaugurates the new age. It indicates that

God has begun to fulfill his promises to Israel. The saving promises made to

Israel have become a reality in the true Israel, Jesus the Messiah. Since Jesus

is the new Israel, the people of God are Jews and Gentiles who believe in the

gospel.

Romans 1:16-17 is decisive for the interpretation of Romans. Paul’s

proposition states he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for

the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. The gospel also reveals the righteousness of

God, with the quote from Habakkuk 2:4 used to support his proposition. Since

δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) is not a verbal noun, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“righteousness

of God”) is not synonymous with justification. It refers to God’s character. God

reveals his righteous character ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (“from faith to faith”). This

phrase is correctly interpreted as a progression “from God’s faithfulness of old

88
to God’s faithfulness in these last days,” so the reference is to God’s

faithfulness in keeping his covenant with Israel. The context is redemptive-

historical with a focus on the covenant. God proves his faithfulness by keeping

his covenant promises to Israel by sending his Son, Jesus Christ to be the

faithful one who died and three days later rose again. The righteous one in

Habakkuk 2:4 refers to the faithfulness of Christ. Therefore, Paul’s proposition

answers the question, “How does God vindicate himself by keeping his

promises to Israel?” God fulfills his saving promises to Israel by including the

Gentiles.

In chapter two, Paul brings this Jew/Gentile tension to a head. In 2:1-4,

Paul indicts the Jews for practicing the same things they condemn. The Jews

and Gentiles are guilty of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. If the Jews

are guilty of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, then they are not

exempt from God’s wrath (2:5). In 2:6-11, Paul identifies the righteous

judgment of God in chiastic form by describing the behavioral characteristic of

who will receive eternal life and who will receive eternal wrath; regardless of

one’s nationality. The chiasm answers the question, “Who will be declared

righteous on the last day?” Paul’s answer is “For it is not the hearers of the Law

who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be declared

righteous.”224

Paul ratchets up the Jew/Gentile tension in verse 13 by charging the

Jews as “hearers of the law” based upon 2:14-16. The tension is the Jews who

224
Romans 2:13

89
have the law by nature are declared “hearers of the law” while the Gentiles who

do not have the law by nature are declared “doers of the law.” Paul is

identifying the Gentiles as the new covenant people who have the law written

on their hearts as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33. This means Gentiles are part

of the new covenant, they remain to be Gentiles,225 and they are declared

“doers of the law.” Thus, they are acquitted before God. How is it possible for a

Gentile to remain a Gentile and have God’s declaration of “doer of the law”?

What Paul means by ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”) is “works required by

the law.” The Jews do not obey the Law to earn God’s favor in the form of

“works-righteousness.” The Jews obey the Law because it promises eternal life.

The Law, however, is incapable of fulfilling its promise because it cannot secure

obedience. The gospel does what the Law cannot do. It secures obedience by

providing believers the Spirit. A Gentile is declared a “doer of the law” because

he is equipped with the Spirit by believing the gospel. He receives the Spirit on

the basis of Jesus faithfulness. The irony is the Gentile who has the Spirit is

considered the Israelite, whereas the Jew without the Spirit is considered the

Gentile.

Romans 3:1-8 is an important section to Paul’s argument throughout the

letter because it summarizes his argument from 1:18-2:29, and at the same

time it foreshadows what he will argue in 3:21 onward. In Romans 3:1-8 Paul

continues to prosecute Israel for breaking the Law by proving her to be

unfaithful, unrighteous and untruthful. He is contrasting Israel’s three

225
That is, they do not have to convert to Judaism to have the label “Israelite” or “Jew.”

90
character traits with God’s three character traits of being faithful, righteous

and truthful. The contrast clearly sets up humanity to be unfaithful and God to

be faithful. With regard to Paul’s gospel, it is vital to preach that God’s

foreordained purposes for Israel were realized through Israel’s unfaithfulness,

unrighteousness and untruthfulness, for God purposed this in order that he

might showcase his own faithfulness, righteousness and truthfulness in the

gospel, through his Son, Jesus Christ.

In Romans 3:9-20, after examining the three contrasts in character

between humanity and God in Romans 3:1-8, Paul begins to set up his gospel.

After a series of quotes from Psalms and Isaiah, Paul proves there is no

advantage in being a Jew because both Jew and Gentile are under sin. Before

Paul presents his gospel, he provides a bold teaching about the Law. The Law

that God gave the Jews to obey reveals that they are disobedient. Therefore,

Paul is being consistent with his use of ἔργων νόμου, i.e. “works required by the

Law.” It is bold of Paul to teach, “on the basis of works required by the Law, no

flesh will be declared righteous for through the Law comes knowledge of sin”

because despite the Law’s promise of eternal life to those who obey the works

that it demands, the Law is powerless to fulfill its promise. What the Law does

do is reveal the Jews’ disobedience. The whole purpose of the law was to

recognize sin. The law was not given to be the basis for justification. The law

was given for sin to be known. The basis for justification before God is found in

the gospel. And in Romans 3:21-26 Paul presents the basis for justification

91
before God which is God’s grace διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“through faith of Jesus

Christ”).

Romans 3:21-26 is the heart of the letter. With the so-called “new

perspective” challenging the notion that the Jews in Paul’s day were legalists

trying to earn God’s favor, Silva is correct to point out that the real issue is not

whether Paul contrasts πίστις (“faith”) and ἔργα νόμου (“works of law”) but rather

whether we have properly understood the true nature of the contrast. The issue

at stake in this paragraph is identifying the basis for a person’s justification

before God. In this paragraph, Paul presents the basis for justification before

God which is God’s grace διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“through faith of Jesus

Christ”).

God proves his righteous character in condemning sin by setting forth

his son, Jesus, as propitiation through the faithfulness in his blood for the

proof of his righteousness. God proves his righteous character in two ways: (1)

he is righteous in condemning sin by pouring out his wrath on Jesus. (2) He is

righteous in declaring righteous those sinners who are from the faithfulness of

Jesus, because he took on the penalty for sins on the cross. Because Jesus is

the faithful one who died on the cross and rose again, it is Jesus’ faithfulness

that is the basis for one’s justification before God. God’s promises to Israel in

the Old Covenant are fulfilled in Jesus. Therefore, Romans 3:21-26 is about the

justification of God.

92
 In Romans 3:27-31 the Jews who boast in possessing the law and

circumcision need to know that the law and the works that it requires is not

the medium that God chose to fulfill his promises to Israel. The Law does

promise eternal life, but it cannot fulfill what it promises because it cannot

secure the obedience that it commands. Therefore, the Jews’ boast in

possessing the law is misplaced because they fail to do what the law requires.

It condemns them to be sinners, which serves to reveal the righteous character

of God’s wrath.

Since both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of breaking the law and are

condemned as sinners, individuals from both ethnic groups need a basis to be

justified before God. With both Jews and Gentiles needing the basis of Jesus’

faithfulness to be justified before God, the context of Romans 3:27-31 is that of

Gentiles having access to become members of the new covenant. When we

place the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) to

modify the noun ἄνθρωπος (“man”), we get ἄνθρωπος χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“a man

apart from works of law”). Since “works of law” refers to the works required by

the Law, we can interpret this as “a man apart from the deeds required by the

Law” who is a Gentile. Therefore, with “faith” referring to Jesus’ faithfulness,

Jew and Gentile can now be justified on the same basis, without God’s law

being overthrown. In Romans 3:27-31 Paul justifies the Law.

The placement of the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from

works of law”) to modify the noun ἄνθρωπος (“man”) in Romans 3:28 invigorates

the debate between Piper and Wright. At the end of Piper’s introduction, he

93
shifts the focus off himself226 to the greater things of “faithful preaching of the

gospel, the care of guilt-ridden souls, the spiritual power of sacrificial deeds of

love, the root of humble Christian political and social engagement, and the

courage of Christian missions to confront all the religions of the world with the

supremacy of Christ as the only way to escape the wrath to come.” He does not

want the gospel blurred or distorted, so he prays:

May the Lord give us help in these days to see the word of his grace with
clarity, and savor it with humble and holy zeal, and spread it without
partiality so that millions may believe and be saved, to the praise of the
glory of God’s grace.227

Wright exhorts us to go beyond the new perspective/old perspective

divide because both are necessary parts of what Paul is actually saying. A key

ingredient to achieve this desired outcome is the placement of the prepositional

phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from works of law”) in Romans 3:28. If these

two men were to place the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (“apart from

works of law”) to modify the noun ἄνθρωπος (“man”), it would provide a rich

thick roux for a saucy book.

226
He says, “My little earthly life is too far spent to care much about the ego gratification of scoring points in
debate. I am still a sinner depending on Christ for my righteousness before God. So I am quite capable of fear and
pride. But I do hope that, where I have made mistakes, I will be willing to admit it. There are far greater things at
stake than my fickle sense of gratification or regret.” Justification, p. 25.
227
Ibid.

94