A Righteous God and Savior

“A RIGHTEOUS GOD AND SAVIOR”:
ROMANS 1:17 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

CONCEPT OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS
by
Matthew J. Monkemeier
B.A. (Music and Ancient Languages), Wheaton College, 2005

M.A. (Biblical Exegesis), Wheaton College, 2013
M.A. (Systematic Theology), Wheaton College, 2014
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Concentration in Biblical Theology—New Testament
at Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois
August 2020
ProQuest Number: 28029291
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 28029291
Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Accepted:
____________________________________
Douglas J. Moo, Dissertation Supervisor
____________________________________
Richard L. Schultz, Second Reader
____________________________________
Eckhard J. Schnabel, External Reader
____________________________________
Daniel J. Treier,
Dissertation Defense Committee Chair
ii
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this dissertation are those of the student and do not
necessarily express the views of Wheaton College.
iii
To my father, Dean Monkemeier
iv
Without Jesus Christ in the background it is certainly not
possible to understand what is said in the foreground, here
and in everything that follows, about the man who believes.
—Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans
on Romans 1:17
v
ABSTRACT
This study argues that the phrase “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 should be
understood as a reference to a particular OT concept of God’s righteousness. It engages
this widely discussed question by means of an intertextual-communicative approach that
is open to the possibility that an author may refer to relevant concepts that have been
enriched in other texts. It finds the enrichment of a concept of God’s righteousness in the
Psalms and the second half of Isaiah to be highly relevant to Paul’s argument in Rom
1:16–17. Specifically, in these texts the revelation of God’s righteousness occurs in a
decisive act of salvation for God’s people that summons all nations to turn to God and be
saved themselves, and this explains why the fact that God’s righteousness is revealed in
the gospel renders the gospel God’s power for salvation. As such, Paul’s claim that God’s
righteousness is revealed in the gospel is primarily a claim that the decisive saving action
proclaimed in the gospel—the resurrection of Jesus—fulfills this particular OT
expectation.
This means that the phrase “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 is not a direct
reference to the free gift of righteousness from God that Paul will go on to articulate in
the next three chapters of Romans. Instead, by situating the events of the gospel in the OT
discourse about God’s righteousness, it provides the basis for this teaching. The
paradigmatic role of the salvation of God’s people in the OT suggests that the
resurrection of Jesus is paradigmatic for the resurrection of those who believe, and
vi
according to Hab 2:4 both are “by faith.” Moreover, the death of Jesus as a demonstration
of God’s righteous judgment against the one who represents the whole world means that
the resurrection of Jesus should be understood as the representative justification by faith
of the one who identified with and as the ungodly. As such, this study concludes that
Paul’s argument for justification by faith gains clarity and coherence precisely when his
language of “righteousness of God” is rooted in the conceptual world of the OT.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Old Testament “Righteousness” in Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The “Relational Line” from Cremer to Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The “Apocalyptic Line” from Käsemann to Campbell . . . . . . . . 11
The “Vocational Line” from Williams to Wright . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Lexical Backlash: “Righteousness” as Ordinary Language . . . . . . 21
The Intertextual Turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Richard Hays: Echoes and Allusions in Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Francis Watson: Hermeneutics of Explicit Citations . . . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusion and Proposed Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Theory and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Theories of Intertextuality and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Intertextuality and Conceptual References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Preliminary Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
PART I THE REVELATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . . . . . . . 72
2. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND RELEVANCE IN ROMANS 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . 73
Romans 1:17 and “Righteousness from God” Elsewhere in Paul . . . . . . . 75

viii
Romans 1:17 and “God’s Righteousness” in the Old Testament . . . . . . . . 85
Righteousness and Relevance: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3. GOD’S SAVING RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. . . . . . . 96
God’s Righteousness and God’s People: Protest Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Protest Psalms: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
The Dual Role of God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Petitions that Appeal to God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Praise-Vows that Proclaim God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Theological/Conceptual Implications of This Dual Role . . . . . . . . . 123
God’s Righteousness and God’s Saving Action . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
God’s Righteousness and God’s People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
God’s Saving Action and the Proclamation of God’s Righteousness . 136
God’s Righteousness beyond the Salvation of the Psalmist . . . . . . 139
God’s Righteousness in Protest Psalms: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
God’s Righteousness and the Nations: Isaiah 45:18–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Israel’s Salvation and God’s Speech in Isaiah 40–45 . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Particular and Universal Salvation in Isaiah 45:18–25. . . . . . . . . . . 155
Israel’s Salvation and Its Purpose: Verses 18–19, 24b–25 . . . . . . . . . 159
The Offer of Salvation to the Nations: Verses 20–24a . . . . . . . . . . . 164
God’s Righteousness in Isaiah 45:18–25: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 176
God’s Righteousness Elsewhere in Isaiah and the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Isaiah 46:12–13 and Isaiah 51:4–8: God’s Righteousness Draws Near . . 177
Isaiah 56:1 and Psalm 98:2: God’s Righteousness Revealed . . . . . . . 183
God’s Saving Righteousness in the Old Testament: Conclusion . . . . . . . . 187
ix
4. THE REVELATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE GOSPEL . . . . 190
God’s Righteousness and the Effect of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
God’s Righteousness and the Content of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
God’s Righteousness and the Gospel: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
PART II GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. . . . 213
5. GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FAITH IN ROMANS 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . 214
The Ground and Goal of the Revelation of God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . 216
The Faith of Israel, of Jesus, and of Believers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
“As It Is Written”: Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
The Context and Text of Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
New Meanings in a New Context? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Paul’s Christological Application of Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
God’s Righteousness and Faith: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
6. GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTIFICATION IN ROMANS 1:18–3:26 . 261
Judgment without Distinction: Romans 1:18–3:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Righteousness without Distinction: Romans 3:21–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Justification and Righteousness from God: Romans 3:21–24a . . . . . . 278
“The Redemption that Is in Christ Jesus”: Romans 3:24b–26 . . . . . . . 286
Righteousness from God Made Known . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
God’s Righteousness and Justification by Faith: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 307
7. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
x
TABLES
Table
1. Requests Grounded “In” God’s Character or Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2. Praise for God’s Action and Character in Praise-Vows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would never have been completed without the support of too many
people to count. First among them is my wife, Tia, who took on more than her share of
the burden of supporting and raising our young family during this time and still was the
greatest source of encouragement to me. My children, Eden and Shepard, can barely
remember a time when their dad was not writing “a book no one will read” (in Eden’s
words), but when it was completed they still threw me the best “dissertation party”
anyone could ask for. My mother, Sherilyn Monkemeier, also offered invaluable support
by regularly watching her grandchildren in order to give me additional time to work.
Finally, the interest shown in this project by my father, Dean Monkemeier, who has been
a pastor longer than I have been alive, greatly encouraged me by helping me to see the
potential pastoral application of some of the results of this study. It is to him that I have
dedicated this work.
In addition to my family support, I could not have written this without the support
of our church communities. I am particularly thankful for Dave and Judy Buchanan, who
encouraged me to begin my graduate studies in the first place when we were living in
Alaska. I am also very thankful for our church community in Western Springs, Illinois,
who supported us through this long season, and now our church community in Beijing,
who cheered us over the finish line.
xii
I am deeply indebted to the many brilliant teachers and mentors at Wheaton
College. In particular, Jon Laansma, Daniel Block, and John Walton gave me my
foundation in exegesis while Dan Treier, Jeff Barbeau, and Marc Cortez sharpened my
theological reasoning. My second reader, Richard Schultz, was always encouraging even
as he consistently pushed me to improve both my writing and my thinking. My external
reader, Eckhard Schnabel from Gordon-Conwell, pushed me to refine key points at the
end of the writing process. Of course, none of that could have happened without generous
donors, particularly Bud Knoedler and his late wife Betty, whose endowment funded my
studies and many others as well.
I cannot adequately express my gratitude to Doug Moo, my supervisor, who
encouraged this project even from its very unclear beginning. I am blessed to have had a
supervisor who constantly modeled the willingness to rethink central questions while
remaining faithful to the task of interpreting Scripture. Additionally, the warmth and
hospitality shown by him and Jenny blessed our family throughout this season of life.
It is an immense privilege to have been given this time to study God’s word, and I
am very grateful for everyone whose sacrifice made that possible. This study has
challenged me and edified me, and it is my hope and prayer that God will use it to do the
same for others as well.
Matthew J. Monkemeier
April 20, 2020
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New

York, 1992
ACNT Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament
ACT Ancient Christian Texts
ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies
ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
AUS American University Studies
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BCOT Baker Commentary on the Old Testament
BCRel Blackwell Companions to Religion
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-

English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 1999
BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BFCTL Bibliothèque de la Faculté Catholique de Théologie de Lyon
BHS Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger, W. Rudolph,

and H. P. Rüger. 4th ed. Stuttgart, 1990
xiv
BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
Bijdr Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie
BIS Biblical Interpretation Series
BiViChr Bible et vie chrétienne
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W.

Wolff
BThS Biblical & Theological Studies
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Chm Churchman
CThM Currents in Theology and Mission
DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols.

Sheffield, 1993–2011
ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G.

Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993
EJT European Journal of Theology
EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
EQ The Evangelical Quarterly
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpTim Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FC Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C., 1947–
xv
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A.

E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and

Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the
supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4

vols. Nashville, 1962
IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology
Int Interpretation
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBPR Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JRefT Journal of Reformed Theology
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation

xvi
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-

Kommentar)
LBRS Lexham Bible Reference Series
LCC Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, 1953–
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LD Lectio divina
LEH Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek–English Lexicon of the

Septuagint. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, 2015
LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th

ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996
LW Luther’s Works. Edited by J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann. 55 vols. St.

Louis, MO, 1955–1986
NAC New American Commentary
Neot Neotestamentica
NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek
Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by Albert
Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford, 2007
NewCentBC New Century Bible Commentary
NewIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine

Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville, 2006–2009
NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. 12 vols.
Nashville, 1994–2002
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
xvii
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by
C. Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, 1975–1985
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NPNF¹ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff.

New York, 1886–1890. Reprint, Peabody, MA, 1994
NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
NSD New Studies in Dogmatics
NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
NTL New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols.

New York, 1983
OTS Old Testament Studies
PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs
ProEccl Pro Ecclesia
PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series
xviii
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
ScEs Science et esprit
SD Studies and Documents
SHR Studies in the History of Religions (supplement to Numen)
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SL Studia liturgica
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SP Sacra Pagina
ST Studia theologica
StBL Studies in Biblical Literature
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and

G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids,
1964–1976
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Translated by J. T. Willis,
G. W. Bromiley, D. E. Green, and D. W. Stott. 15 vols. Grand Rapids,
1974–2006
TLNT Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. Translated and

edited by J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA, 1994
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with

assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols.
Peabody, MA, 1997
TMSJ The Masters Seminary Journal
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TPINTC Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries
TrinJ Trinity Journal
TS Theological Studies
xix
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UBSMS United Bible Societies Monograph Series
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WesleyanTJ Wesleyan Theological Journal
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der
älteren Kirche
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
To say that Luther sparked the Reformation because he reinterpreted a single two-
word Greek phrase is an overstatement—but not by much. Almost thirty years after the
fact, Luther writes about his “discovery” of the meaning of the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ,
“righteousness of God.”1 He had been taught to understand that phrase in Rom 1:17 as
God’s “formal or active righteousness . . . with which God is righteous and punishes the
unrighteous sinner.”2 Needless to say, Luther “hated” this “righteous God.”3 After much
searching, though, he “gave heed to the context of the words” and came to understand
that the “righteousness of God” that is revealed in the gospel is “the passive righteousness
with which merciful God justifies us by faith.”4 With this discovery of justification by
faith at the center of Romans, Luther writes that he felt as if he had been “altogether born
again and had entered paradise itself through open gates,” and thus Rom 1:17 was, for
him, “truly the gate to paradise.”5
1
Martin Luther, Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings—
1545, in Career of the Reformer: IV, trans. and ed. Lewis W. Spitz, LW 34 (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1960), 336–37.
2
Ibid., 336.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 337.
5
Ibid.
1
2
Half a millennium later, it seems that this particular gate is in a state of disrepair.
During the last century, scholars have increasingly rejected Luther’s exegetical move and
have come to understand “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 not as the righteousness
God gives but as God’s own righteous action or character.6 This shift has been
strengthened by a new appreciation of the fact that Paul was a Jew and was therefore
steeped in the Jewish Scriptures.7 It is not surprising, then, that many of Luther’s critics
cite his inadequate OT foundations as the reason to reject his reading of “righteousness of
God” in Rom 1:17.8 And, if this central statement in Romans is no longer understood to
6
See, most prominently, Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God,
trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 20–21; Ernst
Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today,
trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 181–82; E. P. Sanders, Paul and
Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 491; James D. G. Dunn, The
Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 340–46; N. T. Wright,
Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 2:795–804.
7
Those thinkers who in various ways understand Paul as a Jewish thinker and the
OT as the “substructure” or “worldview” of Paul’s thought are the ones who make the
strongest claims for “righteousness of God” to have some form of this OT sense in Paul.
See, e.g., Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980):
241–90; Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 111;
idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1989), 36–41; J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert”
in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 44–45; N. T. Wright,
What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 103. Note also Douglas
Moo’s discussion of the issue (The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018], 73–78), where he observes that the OT gives the strongest
support for God’s righteousness as the basis for God’s saving activity (76).
8
E.g., J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of
God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 4, who claims that, since Luther’s conception of
God was “insufficiently formed by the particularity of the God who works in the story of
Israel, . . . and whose law and righteousness find their definition within that story,” his
reading of Romans “hinged on an understanding of ‘the righteousness of God’ that we
must, in the end, leave behind.”
3
be about the righteousness that comes by faith, it is also not surprising that there has
recently been a marginalization of the concept of justification by faith itself.9 Luther’s
“gate to paradise,” it seems, has seen better days.
Of course, Luther was aware of the canonical context of Romans and its teaching
about justification. For him, though, the influence went in the other direction: Romans
and justification were the key to understanding the OT.10 We can therefore understand the
recent challenge to Luther’s view as a hermeneutic function of Newton’s third law: while
for Luther Romans and its teaching about justification exert decisive hermeneutic
pressure backwards onto the OT, for many recent interpreters the OT exerts an equal and
opposite hermeneutic pressure forward onto Romans and its teaching about justification.
And this forward canonical pressure has resulted in some serious structural damage to
Luther’s “gate to paradise.”
But is this the inevitable result of exposing Romans to this OT pressure? Much
recent discussion of Paul’s teaching about the “righteousness of God” and justification by
faith would seem to indicate so. Some explicitly read Paul in light of the OT in order to
qualify his seemingly radical claims about justification.11 Others who wish to defend
9
See in particular Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian
Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 406.
10
See, e.g., Martin Luther, Prefaces to the New Testament, trans. Charles M.
Jacobs and rev. E. Theodore Bachmann, LW 35:380, where Luther commends Romans to
his readers not only as Paul’s summary of his “evangelical doctrine” but also as “an
introduction to the entire Old Testament.” On this aspect of Luther’s reading of Paul, see
in particular Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 2nd ed. (London: T&T
Clark, 2016), 30.
11
E.g., Frank Macchia (“Justification by Faith: A Case of Hearing the One Gospel
through Historically Dissimilar Traditions,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine
Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed.
4
Luther’s reading of justification in Paul are wary of allowing the OT to exert any
hermeneutic pressure on Paul at all.12 These opposite tendencies are united in their
assumption that allowing the OT teaching about God’s righteousness to influence our
understanding of Rom 1:17 will blunt the sharp polemic edge of Paul’s teaching about
justification by faith.
This study aims to call that assumption into question by showing, instead, that
Paul’s argument for justification by faith gains clarity and coherence precisely when his
language of “righteousness of God” is rooted in the conceptual world of the OT.
Specifically, this phrase in Rom 1:17 should be understood as a reference to the OT
concept of God’s saving righteousness, the revelation of which was expected to occur in a
decisive act of salvation for God’s people that would result in an offer of salvation to
everyone else. To say, then, that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel means that
the events proclaimed in the gospel—namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus—fulfill
this particular expectation. When understood as a paradoxical fulfillment of this
expectation, these events not only reveal God’s own righteousness but also make known
Randal Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 469 [New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 223–34)
conducts a “canonically conscious reading of the doctrine of justification by grace
through faith” (227) in order to “counterbalance Paul on justification with other biblical
voices” (229). He concludes that the Pauline antithesis between the promise and the law
is “understandable in the light of his context and message” but is “one-sided in the light
of the Old Testament and requires qualification” (ibid.).
12
See, e.g., Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination
of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation, WUNT 2.386 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015), 308, arguing that canonical interpretation should not move “from the OT to Paul”
but should move “from Paul to the OT,” reading Paul’s sense of “righteousness of God”
into the psalm that Paul quotes (here Psalm 143) and “by extension, we may speculate, in
all the Psalms.”
5
the righteousness that God freely gives to all who believe. As such, rooting Paul’s
language of “righteousness of God” in the discourse of the OT establishes rather than
blunts Paul’s radical teaching about the God who justifies everyone who believes.
Overview of History of Research
In making this argument, this study will build on the very long scholarly
discussion about the phrase “righteousness of God” in Paul and its relationship to the OT.
Since this discussion has been extensively reviewed elsewhere,13 this section will
summarize and critique the major currents that are most significant for our study.
Old Testament “Righteousness” in Paul
While the question of how to understand “righteousness of God” in Paul can be
traced throughout the entire history of interpretation of Romans, the attempt to
understand this phrase explicitly in light of its usage in the OT began at the turn of the
twentieth century. We may distinguish in general three major “lines” of understanding
how “righteousness of God” in the OT may shed light on Paul’s use of that phrase: a
“relational” line, an “apocalyptic” line, and a “vocational” line.
13
See Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 2nd ed., FRLANT 87
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 11–70; Manfred T. Brauch, “Perspectives
on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German Discussion,” appendix to Paul and
Palestinian Judaism, by E. P. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 523–42; and (most
recently) Irons, Righteousness of God, 9–60.
6
The “Relational Line” from Cremer to Dunn
Hermann Cremer is often credited with beginning the investigation of Paul’s use
of “righteousness” language on the basis of the OT.14 Right at the beginning of his study,
he interprets Paul’s statement that the “Law and the Prophets” testify to the righteousness
of God in Rom 3:21 as indicating that Paul is convinced that the expectation of the
revelation of God’s righteousness in God’s saving action can be found throughout the
OT.15 Thus, while the place and manner of this righteousness was revised for Paul in light
of his encounter with Christ, “the word for the matter had been long known to him.”16 To
understand what Paul himself meant by “righteousness of God,” we must understand
what the OT means by the “righteousness of God.”
To do so, Cremer opens his section on “the Old Testament presupposition” by
observing that in the OT God’s righteousness consistently results in salvation for his
people. In the prophets, particularly Deutero-Isaiah, Cremer finds a close connection
between God’s righteousness and God’s salvation.17 In the Psalms, this same
righteousness appears “as the refuge of the wretched.”18 Building off the observation that
14
Hermann Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange
ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1899). Irons points out
that the move away from understanding God’s righteousness as God’s distributive justice
began earlier in the nineteenth century with Ludwig Diestel and Albert Ritschl
(Righteousness of God, 29–32), but Cremer shifted the argument from philosophical
grounds to exegetical grounds (33–34).
15
Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 2.
16
Ibid. Translations are mine throughout.
17
Ibid., 11–14, with references throughout to the “Verbindung von Gerechtigkeit
und Heil Gottes.”
18
Ibid., 14.
7
19
even sinners can place their hope in God’s righteousness, Cremer notes that God’s
righteousness was closely associated with God’s goodness and grace, and that it even
could be understood as synonymous with God’s faithfulness.20 This righteousness cannot
therefore be strictly the iustitia distributiva that gives to each what is due; instead,
Cremer concludes that “in the entire OT God’s righteousness is and remains iustitia
salutifera, because it is by its very nature iustitia iustificatoria, that is to say, because it is
its nature to give justice to those who need it or to exercise justice in favor of the people
of God and thereby to help them.”21 This means that “righteousness” is fundamentally a
“relational concept.”22 Every relationship brings demands with it, and “righteousness” is
what exists when those demands are fulfilled.23 Thus, the fact that God has covenantally
established a relationship particularly with Israel explains why God’s righteousness
results in justice and salvation particularly for Israel.
Cremer’s “relational” line of thinking about “righteousness” in the OT proved to
be remarkably influential.24 It was widely accepted by OT theologians by the middle of
the twentieth century.25 Its influence among NT scholars can first be seen in Adolf
19
Ibid., 17.
20
Ibid., 23.
21
Ibid., 33.
22
Ibid., 53; see also 23.
23
Ibid., 53.
24
In English, James Hardy Ropes took a similar approach around the same time to
understanding Paul’s “righteousness” language in light of the Psalms and Isaiah
(“‘Righteousness’ and ‘The Righteousness of God’ in the Old Testament and in St. Paul,”
JBL 22 [1903]: 211–27).
25
See, most prominently, Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans.
8
Schlatter, who is clearly influenced by Cremer when he describes God’s “righteousness”
as “that which brings salvation to the person because it places the person into that
relationship to God into which God wants to introduce him and in which he wants to
live.”26 In English-language scholarship, David Hill’s study of Greek words with
“Hebrew meanings” follows this line of thought in suggesting that “righteousness”
language refers to “an action which accords with the claims arising out of the social
relation,” and “in Israelite thinking, one relationship is supremely important, the
Covenant relation between Yahweh and his people.”27 As such, God’s righteousness is
expressed in his right-ordering of his people, a right-ordering that may be accomplished
through issuing just judgments,28 but that may also (esp. in Deutero-Isaiah) result in
deliverance for Israel not on the basis of “strict justice” but on the basis of “the character
of Yahweh himself.”29 Thus the claim in Rom 1:17 that “God’s righteousness” is revealed
J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 1:240; Gerhard von Rad, The Theology of
Israel’s Historical Traditions, vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker
(New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 371; Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the
Old Testament,” IDB 4:80; Nancy Declaissé-Walford, “Righteousness in the OT,”
NewIDB 4:818–23. See also the exhaustive list of OT dictionary articles that adopt this
view in Irons, Righteousness of God, 38 n. 123.
26
Schlatter, Romans, 21. Note, though, that Schlatter did not for that reason deny
the element of “norm”: “When [Paul] spoke of righteousness, he thought of that kind of
conduct, in the case of God as well as man, that acts according to norms rooted in truth
and required by goodness” (The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New
Testament Theology, trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 229).
27
David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of
Soteriological Terms, SNTSMS 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 85.
28
Ibid., 87–90.
29
Ibid., 91. As such, there is a “partial semantic change” (meaning the old
meaning is still present) in the OT from God’s righteousness as God’s judicial activity to
the salvific effects of that activity (ibid., 98).
9
in the gospel means that “salvation results from God’s action in doing right and in seeing
right done, even to the extent of vindicating those who do not deserve such treatment, but
to whom he has bound himself in covenant mercy and love.”30 J. A. Ziesler, likewise,
understands “righteousness” in the OT as “activity which befits the covenant.”31 Since in
different situations different activities may befit the covenant, “God’s righteousness
means mercy in one situation, triumph in another, judgment in another, the establishment
of good government and good justice in another.”32 In Rom 1:17, the reference to
salvation in the previous verse clarifies that “we must be dealing with God’s saving
righteousness, which is for believers,” a righteousness that nevertheless “in some sense
becomes man’s.”33
This “relational” line of thinking about God’s righteousness in the OT and in Paul
culminates in the magisterial work of Pauline theology by James Dunn.34 The meaning
of “righteousness,” he insists, is “determined more by its Hebrew background than by its
Greek form.”35 As such, it is a “relational concept,” referring to “the meeting of
obligations laid upon the individual by the relationship of which he or she is part.”36 Thus
30
Ibid., 157.
31
J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and
Theological Enquiry, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 40.
Ziesler’s work is concerned with the distinction between legal and moral senses of
“righteousness.”
32
Ibid., 41.
33
Ibid., 187.
34
Dunn, Theology, 340–46.
35
Ibid., 341.
36
Ibid.
10
“righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 “denotes God’s fulfillment of the obligations he
took upon himself in creating humankind and particularly in the calling of Abraham and
the choosing of Israel to be his people. . . . His righteousness was simply the fulfillment
of his covenant obligation as Israel’s God in delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel,
despite Israel’s own failure.”37
But this raises an important question. If God’s righteousness is his fulfillment of
his “covenant obligation as Israel’s God in delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel,” it
seems particularly ill-suited to Paul’s argument that the revelation of God’s righteousness
in the gospel is why the gospel is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes.
Dunn attempts to solve this problem by understanding the restriction of the covenant to
Jews only as an unfortunate development of Second Temple Judaism.38 But the need to be
separate from the nations—and the role the law (particularly food laws) in maintaining
that separation—is clearly expressed in the law itself.39 Moreover, the very thing that,
according to this view, makes God’s saving action an expression of God’s righteousness
is the fact that God made his covenants with this people, as Paul readily acknowledges
(note Rom 9:4, where the “covenants” [διαθῆκαι] are in the list of the rightful possessions
of Israel). This highlights a potential weakness with this “relational” line of
understanding OT “righteousness” in Paul: the more strongly God’s righteousness is tied
37
Ibid., 342.
38
Ibid., 348: “‘Judaism,’ as we find it in our sources, defined itself by separating
itself from the wider world and understood the Torah in part at least as reinforcing and
protecting that separateness. If it is proper to speak of Paul converting from ‘Judaism,’
this was the Judaism he had in mind.”
39
E.g., Lev 20:23–26.
11
to God’s covenantal relationship with his people, the more its saving benefits become
limited to the covenant people—that is, Israel.
The “Apocalyptic Line” from Käsemann to Campbell
A second line of understanding OT “righteousness” in Paul avoids this problem
by emphasizing the discontinuity that comes from an apocalyptic understanding of God’s
righteousness. Ernst Käsemann inaugurated this line with his influential essay, “‘The
Righteousness of God’ in Paul.”40 He accepted much of Cremer’s view about
“righteousness” in Paul, noting that “in the field of the Old Testament and of Judaism in
general, righteousness does not convey primarily the sense of a personal, ethical quality,
but of a relationship,” and this primarily relational meaning should not be usurped by the
secondary “juridical application” of “righteousness.”41 Käsemann pushes Cremer’s line
forward by suggesting that in “late Judaism” the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a formula
that “speaks primarily of God’s saving activity.”42 This emphasis on saving activity
allows Käsemann to hold together God’s righteousness as both a power and a gift, which
is central for his understanding of “righteousness of God” in Paul.43
40
Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 168–82, translation of
“Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” ZTK 58 (1961): 367–78. Subsequent references are to
the English translation.
41
Ibid., 172.
42
Ibid. Käsemann cites T. Dan. 6:10 and 1QS 11.12 as evidence of this use; the
latter was of course not available to Cremer.
43
Ibid., 172.
12
So far, it is clear that Käsemann’s emphasis on God’s saving activity is indebted
to Cremer. But Käsemann departs dramatically from Cremer when he takes up the
question of “why Paul describes the eschatological saving action of God by this particular
word δικαιοσύνη.”44 Of course, Paul “stands within the tradition of the Old Testament and
of later Judaism”; but for Käsemann “this only gives the very faintest clue as to the
direction in which an explanation may be sought.”45 This is because Paul redefined this
phrase in light of his “unprecedented radicalization and universalization of the promise in
the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly.”46 Paul’s teaching about justification is the
fixed point around which God’s righteousness must be redefined. As a result, “God’s
righteousness cannot now for Paul be primarily the divine covenant-faithfulness towards
Israel.”47 Insofar as it is a demonstration of “the divine faithfulness to the holy
community,” this must refer “not merely to Israel but to the whole creation.”48 Ultimately,
then, God’s righteousness is cosmic and apocalyptic for Käsemann: “God’s power
reaches out for the world, and the world’s salvation lies in its being recaptured for the
sovereignty of God.”49
44
Ibid., 177.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., 178.
47
Ibid. See also Christian Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine
Untersuchung zu Römer 9–11, FRLANT 86 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1964), 112: “Paulus an die Stelle des Bundesgedankens den Schöpfungsgedanken setzt.”
48
Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 178.
49
Ibid., 182.
13
Käsemann’s “apocalyptic” line has been and continues to be enormously
influential.50 This influence can be clearly seen even in some who moderate his views.
For example, Ulrich Wilckens agrees that Paul’s use of “righteousness” is rooted in the
Jewish apocalyptic use, and therefore God’s righteousness is “the eschatological
salvation-creating power of the covenantally-faithful God.”51 This combines Käsemann’s
“eschatological salvation-creating power” with Cremer’s “covenant faithfulness,” and it
stands in contrast to the “Hellenistic” notion of iustitia distributiva.52 In light of the death
of Christ, Paul introduces the notion of God’s righteousness as dealing with sin,
reconciling enemies, and justifying the ungodly.53
50
Major works that follow Käsemann’s overall program include Stuhlmacher,
Gerechtigkeit Gottes; Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk; Karl Kertelge,
“Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus, 2nd ed., NTAbh n.s. 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1971). See
also Gottfried Nebe, “Righteousness in Paul,” in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical
Themes and Their Influence, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, JSOTSup
137 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 147: “In Paul the righteousness of God—as
an overriding framework—is a salvation concept. It binds together at once giver, gift and
the power that generates salvation.”
This line of interpretation gained considerable support from the OT research of

Hans Heinrich Schmid (Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des
alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs, BHT 40 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968]),
who argued that the Hebrew lexeme ‫ צדק‬retained its pre-Israelite sense of “umfassenden
Weltordnung” (166; see also idem, “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation
Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology,” in Creation in the Old Testament,
ed. Bernhard W. Anderson, Issues in Religion and Theology 6 [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984], 107, where “righteousness” is understood as “universal world order”). But see the
critique of a dependence on ANE influence for the OT view of ‫ צדק‬in R. Keith Whitt,
“Righteousness and Characteristics of Yahweh,” JBPR 3 (2011): 71–84.
51
Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2nd ed., EKKNT 6 (Benziger:
Braunschweig; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987–1989), 1:221; my translation
(“die eschatologische Heilsmacht der Bundestreue Gottes”).
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid., 1:204.
14
Douglas Campbell, by contrast, has recently pushed Käsemann’s line to a rather
extreme position.54 Whereas Käsemann prioritized God’s saving action over its legal
application, Campbell places the two in antithesis, arguing that “God’s righteousness”
must be “a singular, saving, liberating, life-giving, eschatological act in Christ”55 and
must exclude any hint of “justification theory.” Whereas Käsemann minimized the
covenantal significance of God’s righteousness, Campbell finds any covenantal
significance for that phrase to contradict the “liberative and eschatological” nature of
God’s act, “a fundamentally present and future event rooted in the resurrecting God.”56 In
both of these instances, where Käsemann argued for priority Campbell argues for
exclusivity.
This “apocalyptic” line has no problem conceptualizing a distinction between
Paul’s understanding of God’s righteousness and the OT understanding, particularly with
regard to the universal significance of God’s saving action. But, since Paul means
something so different by “righteousness,” this line has a hard time explaining why Paul
would use that word. Apart from its OT and Jewish use, the word has very strong forensic
connotations,57 connotations that Käsemann wishes to minimize (and Campbell needs to
eliminate) in favor of saving and liberative ones. Both therefore need to retain a
54
Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of
Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
55
Ibid., 702.
56
Ibid., 701–2. Campbell acknowledges that of course God’s liberating action
does fulfill his covenantal promises to Israel—but only incidentally.
57
See, e.g., Schlatter, Theology, 228 n. 29, noting that by contrasting justification
and condemnation Paul “departed sharply from Greek thought.”
15
connection to the OT and Jewish use. However, Käsemann’s argument that
“righteousness of God” is a “ready-made formulation” for “God’s saving activity” is
based on questionable readings of just a handful of texts.58 But at least Käsemann
acknowledges that the formula had covenantal associations until they were expunged by
Paul. Campbell, by contrast, sees Paul’s use of that language as alluding to Psalm 98,59
but only to “mediate” in “general terms” the “ancient discourse of kingship.”60 In this
discourse, the “right” thing for a king to do is to liberate his subjects.61 Campbell does not
deny the clear covenantal language in this psalm, but for him this is not why God’s
saving action is “righteous.”62 Instead, God’s status as “King” of creation places an
obligation on him to deliver his creation: in liberating the cosmos in Christ, “God is
operating as the divine King ought to, delivering his captive creation from its bondage; he
58
Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 172; idem, Commentary on Romans, trans.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 30. For critiques of reading
“righteousness of God” as a “technical term” in these texts, see, e.g., Wilckens, Römer,
1:212; Gerald Bray, “Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament
Scholarship,” Chm 109 (1995): 102–26, here 108.
59
Campbell, Deliverance of God, 688–98.
60
Ibid., 699.
61
Ibid., 694. Campbell answers the objection that such a notion is not present in
the NT by convincingly arguing that it was common throughout the ancient world when
the NT was written. But he offers no evidence for the more critical question of whether
this notion was still expressed by “righteousness” language at that time.
62
Campbell notes that this “saving deliverance” is of course “an act of fidelity to
the house of Israel,” and that “the resurrection of Christ is ultimately also an act of
fidelity toward Israel and so is the supreme expression of covenant loyalty and fulfillment
by God,” but “these claims are not implicit in the semantic content of the phrase itself”
(ibid., 701).
16
63
is therefore doing the ‘right’ thing, acting as his character and role demand.” But this
notion of God’s obligation toward his creation is severely undercut by Paul’s own
argument in Romans 9 that it is precisely as creator that God is free to do with his
creation whatever he may wish.64 Thus, by severing God’s “righteousness” from God’s
covenantal commitments, Campbell ends up without any satisfactory explanation as to
why exactly a saving action would be “right” for God to do—and therefore why anyone
would refer to such an act as “righteousness.”
Thus the difficulties of the “apocalyptic” line are the photonegative of the
difficulties of the “relational” line. The “relational” line stresses continuity with OT
covenantal understandings of God’s righteousness, which makes it hard to understand
how it could explain the radically universal scope of Paul’s gospel. The “apocalyptic”
line stresses discontinuity with OT understandings of God’s righteousness, which makes
it hard to understand why Paul would still bother to use that word. A third line, however,
questions the dichotomy between the relational “covenant-faithfulness” interpretation and
the apocalyptic “cosmic redemption” interpretation of “righteousness of God” and, for
just that reason, holds the most promise.
63
Ibid., 702.
64
Note Scott Hafemann’s critique that Campbell here lapses into natural theology,
with the assumption that people have a claim on God and that it is “naturally ‘right’ for
God, as such, to help” (“Reading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language: A Response to Douglas
Campbell’s ‘Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language,’” in Beyond Old and New
Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell, ed. Chris Tilling
[Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014], 219).
17
The “Vocational Line” from Williams to Wright
In a 1980 JBL article, Sam K. Williams articulated something of an early
synthesis of the “relational” line and the “apocalyptic” line.65 In agreement with the
“relational” line, Williams argues that the OT is the only possible background by which
to understand δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul,66 and therefore “the phrase dikaiosynē theou at
Rom 1:17 would likely bring to mind ideas of deliverance or salvation.”67 However, in
contrast to the “relational” line, Williams emphasizes that, far from limiting God’s
salvation to Israel, God’s righteousness has always referred to “God’s fidelity to the
promises given to Abraham, the promises that on the basis of faith God will justify all
peoples of the earth.”68 Moreover, precisely because this has always been the promise,
Williams also stands in contrast to the “apocalyptic” line, noting that Paul emphasizes “a
grand continuity between God’s initial dealings with his chosen people and what he was
bringing to pass in these last days.”69 Thus God’s righteousness, though promised to
Israel, always consisted of his redemptive sovereignty over all creation.
N. T. Wright has argued extensively for this view of God’s righteousness,70
claiming that God’s righteousness “must mean, and can only mean, God’s faithfulness to
65
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 241–90.
66
Ibid., 244; see also 260.
67
Ibid., 262.
68
Ibid., 269.
69
Ibid., 255.
70
Wright calls Williams’s article “the most important modern treatment” of the
topic (Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:802 n. 93).
18
his single plan, the plan through which he will deal with the problem of human sin and
put the whole world right at last.”71 More recently, Wright has affirmed that “covenant
faithfulness” is “the normal biblical and post-biblical reading of the phrase ‘God’s
righteousness.’”72 But the covenant was always “aimed not simply at Israel itself, but at
the wider and larger purposes which this God intended to fulfil through Israel.”73 This
vocation appears in texts such as Isa 42:6 and 49:5 and is “contained in the Abraham
promises.”74 Thus God’s “righteousness” becomes a word that refers to God’s completion
of his entire plan to save the world by means of Israel.
In order for this to be the case, the words for “righteousness” in both Greek and
Hebrew (δικαιοσύνη and ‫)צ ָד ָקה‬

ְ turn out to be “complex and tricky words” that have four
“layers of meaning.”75 First, there is the “primary meaning of ‘right behavior’” which, in
line with Cremer, refers to “being in right relation with others.”76 Second, these words
have “reference to the law court.”77 The adjective δίκαιος or “righteous” refers to a judge
who judges fairly and fulfills his obligation “to try the case fairly, . . . to uphold the law,
to punish wrongdoing and to vindicate the innocent.”78 At the same time, these words also
71
N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2009), 201.
72
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:996, emphasis added.
73
Ibid., 2:804, italics original.
74
Ibid., 2:805.
75
Ibid., 2:796.
76
Ibid., italics original.
77
Ibid., 2:797.
78
Ibid.
19
refer to “the moral character of either plaintiff or defendant” or to “the status which one
or the other will have when the judge has made up his mind and pronounced the
verdict”79—although Wright insists that “the verdict, and the status which results from it,”
constitute “the primary meaning.”80 Third, because God is covenantally bound to Israel,
God’s actions toward Israel are “righteous” when they are in keeping with his covenantal
commitments, whether to punish or to restore, to judge or to vindicate.81 Finally, as
creator, Israel’s God is also “responsible for putting the world to rights in the end.”82
Since covenant and creation are linked, this final layer is not separate from the third (nor
from any of the previous layers), since “it is this link that fostered the hope, through to
Paul’s day and beyond, that when YHWH did finally judge the whole world Israel would
at last be vindicated against her enemies.”83 In short, “righteousness” language in the OT,
and therefore for Paul, has relational, forensic, covenantal, and eschatological
significance.
Wright’s view paints a comprehensive picture of how “righteousness” language
can function in the wide variety of contexts in which it is used. In particular, it captures
the way that God’s righteousness is used both with reference to God’s specific actions on
behalf of Israel and with reference to God’s broader designs for all of creation. Yet, in
order to do so, “righteousness” language has to have a bewildering complexity of
79
80
81
82
Ibid., 2:801.
83
Ibid.
20
meaning. Are all these meanings present all the time? Or are they potential meanings that
“righteousness” language may come to convey in specific contexts? Wright seems to
think the former: we cannot translate δικαιοσύνη because
we simply do not have, in contemporary English, . . . a word or even a

single phrase that can sum up the broad ethical and “relational” sense, add
to it the overtones of the law court, give it the extra dimensions of the
divine covenant with Israel and set it within a worldview-narrative that
looked ahead to a final judgment in which the creator would set all things
right at last.84
But one wonders whether any language could have such a word. To be sure, some of
these senses, overtones, or dimensions are certainly present in some OT uses of
“righteousness” language. But for Wright “righteousness” refers to this entire biblical
worldview-narrative, so it must draw on all of these meanings in combination.85
Wright’s work on “righteousness” in Paul is invaluable, particularly as it
highlights the need to interpret this phrase in light of the overall creational and covenantal
narrative of Scripture. But it is worth recollecting James Barr’s point that theological
thought “has its characteristic linguistic expression not in the word individually but in the
word-combination or sentence.”86 In light of this, Wright’s view that “righteousness” as a
lexeme has such theological weight becomes rather implausible—casting doubt
retroactively on this entire attempt to read the OT “meaning” of “righteousness” into
84
Ibid.
85
See also the complex understanding of “righteousness” in A. Katherine Grieb,
The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002), 20–25, with the conclusion that in Rom 1:17 Paul “is
probably drawing on all of the meanings of God’s righteousness I have just described”
(24).
86
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1961), 233.
21
Paul. Our next section will survey the scholars who object to such a practice on precisely
these lexical grounds.
The Lexical Backlash:

“Righteousness” as Ordinary Language
Taken as a whole, the view that “righteousness” in Paul is rooted somehow in its
OT meaning—and that this is opposed to the anthropological and individualistic
understanding of “righteousness” that has played such a large role in scholarship since the
Reformation—has come to be something of an “assured result” of modern scholarship.87
But a vocal minority of scholars have objected to this view, and we will survey their
arguments in this section.
An early objection to the notion of an OT or “Hebrew” understanding of
“righteousness of God” in Paul came from Rudolf Bultmann.88 Bultmann readily accepts
that “righteousness” in Paul has a meaning rooted in “Old Testament-Jewish usage,” but
he cites only texts that pair “righteousness” with judgment (Pss 37:6; 17:2, 15; 51:4).89
This, combined with the increasingly eschatological orientation of “Jewish piety,” means
that “righteousness” is for Paul and for his Jewish contemporaries a “forensic-
eschatological term” that refers to the status one has when one receives the verdict of
87
It is assumed by, e.g., Helmut Koester, “Paul’s Proclamation of God’s Justice
for the Nations,” in Paul and His World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 10–11.
88
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick
Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 270–87.
89
Ibid., 272–73. Bultmann cites none of the key texts that Cremer cited for his
argument apart from Psalm 51 (and even here they cite different verses).
22
90
“righteous” in the eschatological judgment. The difference for Paul is that this
“righteousness” is “already imputed to a man in the present (on the presupposition that he
‘has faith’).”91 Since this gift of righteousness has its sole origin in God’s grace, it is
properly referred to as “God’s righteousness.”92 Thus, in saying that the “righteousness of
God” is revealed in the gospel, Paul means that “through it righteousness becomes a
possibility (which in faith becomes reality) for the hearer of the gospel.”93
It is in his brief 1964 JBL article responding to Käsemann, though, that Bultmann
is more explicit about his methodology.94 He begins by arguing that there is no need for
“righteousness” or even “righteousness of God” to have the same meaning everywhere in
Paul,95 for it has different meanings in the OT itself: there the phrase “can mean both his
judicial iustitia distributiva as well as his iustitia salutifera, namely his aiding, salvation-
bringing power, to which the covenant-people as well as the devout individuals can
appeal.”96 Some of these meanings are found in Paul; the phrase refers to God’s own
iustitia distributiva in Rom 3:5, 25.97 But in Paul it can also mean the gift of
90
Ibid., 273.
91
Ibid., 274.
92
Ibid., 285.
93
Ibid., 274–75.
94
Rudolf Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” JBL 83 (1964): 12–16.
95
Ibid., 12.
96
Ibid., 13. Translations are mine throughout.
97
Ibid.
23
98
righteousness “from God,” as is clearly the case in Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3. Bultmann
does not deny that this free gift of righteousness could be understood as God’s salvation-
creating power, but he denies that this is what the language of “righteousness” or
“justify” denotes.99 Rather, “righteousness of God” refers to “the gift of God which is
based on God’s saving action . . . and which—whether conceived as present or future—is
a distinct eschatological phenomenon.”100 It is this meaning that is unique to Paul:
I cannot discover that “righteousness of God’ in the Jewish literature had

this sense. It only ever denotes the judicial or (more frequently) the
salvation-creating action of God with which the speaker (usually
petitioner) reckons, or on which he hopes. . . . The Pauline speech about
the δικ. θεοῦ is thus not a “radicalizing and universalizing” of the Jewish
speech about the righteousness of God on which the impious may hope,
but is rather a new creation [eine Neuschöpfung] of Paul.101
The last point is critical. For Bultmann, Paul can refer to the OT understanding of God’s
righteousness, but Paul is also saying something entirely new about righteousness from
God that has little relation to this OT and Jewish understanding of God’s own
righteousness.
Stephen Westerholm provides another critique along this line. Against Wright’s
covenantal approach, he insists that
Paul no doubt had his idiosyncrasies, but using ordinary words in a sense
peculiarly his own was not among them. Even when he had fresh ideas to
98
Ibid.
99
Ibid., 14: “Man kann natürlich sagen, dass in diesem δικαιοῦν Gottes
‘Heilshandeln,’ seine ‘Heilsetzende Macht’ wirksam wird. Aber dieses Heilshandeln
besteht darin, dass er gerecht macht, und eben dieses, nicht das Heilshandeln als solches,
wird durch δικαιοῦν bezeichnet.”
100
Ibid., 16.
101
Ibid., emphasis added.
24
communicate, their successful communication required that he use
ordinary words in a recognizable way. Paul certainly had striking things to
say about “righteousness,” but he used the language of “righteousness” as
others used it, to refer to what one ought to do.102
Elsewhere, Westerholm argues that Paul distinguishes “ordinary” righteousness (the
righteousness that comes from doing what is right) with “extraordinary” righteousness
(the righteousness that is given freely by God to sinners on the basis of faith).103 But the
concepts are extraordinary, not the language. As a result, in contrast to Wright,
Westerholm suggests that English has a good-enough rendering of the Greek term:
“Normally the dikaio- terminology, like that of ‘righteous(ness)’ in English, pertains to
moral behavior. . . . If, extraordinarily, sinful people may be said to ‘receive’ δικαιοσύνη
and thereby become δίκαιος in Greek, then we will have to allow that they ‘receive’
‘righteousness’ and thereby become ‘righteous’ in English.”104 Paul is saying new and
striking things by means of translatable words with ordinary meanings.
Mark Seifrid is similarly critical of lexical errors made by those who see special
meanings of “righteousness” language in Paul. His survey of such language identifies a
fundamental weakness in Cremer’s approach: “The close and direct connection between
102
Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 65, italics original.
103
Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran”
Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 263–84.
104
Ibid., 286. See also idem, “The Righteousness of the Law and the
Righteousness of Faith in Romans,” Int 58 (2004): 253–64. Cf. C. H. Dodd’s earlier point
on the semantics of Hebrew and Greek terms for “righteousness” that “where within this
field δικαιοσύνη differs from ‫צ ֶדק‬,
ֶ it is not a matter of difference in the meaning of the
terms, but of different conceptions of the content of ‘righteousness’” (The Bible and the
Greeks [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935], 44).
25
105
thought and language which he assumes simply does not exist.” Citing James Barr’s
“well-known” critique,106 Seifrid suggests that this error has infected the entire structure
that has been built on Cremer’s foundation.107 He also appeals to Schmid’s comparative
study of the OT to suggest that, since “righteousness” language is rooted in the ancient
Near East notion of “world-ordering,” this can explain its particular prominence in the
creational (rather than covenantal) discourse of the OT.108 This undermines the supposed
OT support for God’s “righteousness” as God’s “covenant faithfulness” in Rom 1:17.109
And, since Käsemann’s “salvation-creating power” leads to a redundancy, Seifrid
concludes that the phrase must refer to the righteousness that is from God.110
This critique has been fleshed out most comprehensively in the dissertation of
Charles Lee Irons.111 This work subjects the “Hebraic, relational” understanding of
“righteousness” to critical lexical scrutiny. Irons’s methodology is based on the
distinction between a lexical concept and a discourse concept. A lexical concept (or
“sense”) is a particular “mental concept” associated with a word while a discourse
105
Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early
Judaism,” in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1 of Justification and
Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 418.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid., 441.
108
Ibid., 425–26.
109
Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a
Central Pauline Theme, NovTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 214–15. This critique has
been echoed more recently by OT scholars; e.g., Whitt, “Righteousness,” 73.
110
Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 215.
111
Irons, Righteousness of God.
26
112
concept (or “referent”) is “the extra-linguistic reality to which the word points.” Thus,
“to read the theological significance that arises from the extra-linguistic realities to which
the word points in a specific context [i.e., the discourse concept] into the lexical sense of
the word itself [i.e., the lexical concept]” is to commit a subtle version of James Barr’s
“illegitimate totality transfer.”113 Only lexical meanings transfer.
To clarify the lexical concept associated with “righteousness” language, Irons
then surveys uses of this language in extrabiblical Greek, in the OT (both the Hebrew
Bible and the LXX), and in Second Temple Jewish literature. In his survey of
extrabiblical Greek texts,114 Irons finds many motifs commonly associated with OT
“righteousness” (righteousness as demonstrated through law observance, as referring to
judicial action, as given from the gods, as expressed in relationships, as expressed
through fulfillment of contractual or covenantal obligations, etc.), which decisively
undermines any notion of a contrast between “Greek” and “Hebrew” thought.115 In his
survey of OT texts,116 Irons concludes that “righteousness of God” is always God’s
distributive justice (meaning his fairness in rewarding good and punishing evil),117 even
in those instances where this “righteousness” results in salvation for God’s people: in
112
Ibid., 62.
113
Ibid., 64–65.
114
Ibid., 84–107, chapter 3.
115
Ibid., 106. Astute readers will note, however, that this also provides warrant for
understanding how “discourse concepts” expressed in Hebrew via ‫ צדק‬language would
remain comprehensible—and therefore expressible—in Greek via δικ- language.
116
117
Ibid., 193.
27
118
those instances God is exercising his distributive justice against Israel’s oppressors, or
saving/justifying Israel in a “righteous” way by making atonement for sins.119 In his
survey of Second Temple Jewish literature,120 he finds that most Jewish writings outside
Qumran use “righteousness” to mean ordinary ethical righteousness that counts before
God.121 There is a limited use of “God’s righteousness” to refer to God’s saving justice,
but Irons argues that here (as in the OT) this is nevertheless a subset of God’s distributive
justice.122
This leads to a specific interpretation of “righteousness” language in Paul. Irons
argues that, outside those occurrences of “righteousness of God” in Paul that refer to
God’s distributive justice (Rom 3:5, 25, 26), all other occurrences refer to the gift of
righteousness from God,123—that is, the “righteousness from faith.”124 Thus, for Paul,
God’s own righteousness is always his justice that punishes sin and rewards
righteousness. But he also freely gives the status of “righteous” to those who put their
faith in Jesus.
The conclusions Irons takes from this study are far-reaching. “Paul’s
‘righteousness’ language is largely understandable in terms of standard Greek usage,
118
Ibid., 178, 188 (on Psalm 143).
119
Ibid., 185 (on Psalm 51).
120
121
Ibid., 271.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid., 312.
124
Ibid., 318–21, citing Rom 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3–4; 2 Cor 5:21 (implied); and
Phil 3:9.
28
albeit with some biblical theological content drawn from the LXX (especially Gen 15:6
and Hab 2:4), but without any need for recourse to knowledge of Hebrew usage.”125 This
means that Cremer is “decisively disproven.”126 The OT saving righteousness is “judicial
activity with saving results.”127 Paul’s teaching on justification is therefore a polemic
against “the nomistic theology of Judaism.”128 Recent currents in Pauline studies are
therefore misguided, for the lexical meaning of “righteousness” directs us back to how
the Reformers read Paul.
Irons’s critique of those who have argued for an “Old Testament” or “biblical” or
“Jewish” meaning for “righteousness” without explaining how such a transfer of meaning
could occur is welcome—if not long overdue. But there are several related critiques of
this study that, without calling into question its significance, call into question the
definitiveness of its conclusions.
First, Irons’s claim that all occurrences of “God’s righteousness” in the OT must
refer to God’s distributive righteousness results in some implausible interpretations of
key OT texts. We will discuss and critique these interpretations below.129 While Irons
succeeds in showing that many instances of “righteousness” language in the OT can be
understood in a judicial or ethical sense without appealing to a “relational” or
125
Ibid., 339.
126
Ibid.
127
Ibid., 340.
128
Ibid.
129
On Psalm 143, see below, p. 128 n. 76; on Psalm 51, see below, p. 129 n. 78;
on Psalm 98, see below, p. 185 n. 215.
29
“covenantal” meaning, those instances in which such an understanding of “God’s
righteousness” results in implausible interpretations call into question the claim that
“God’s righteousness” always refers to some aspect of God’s distributive justice.
This points, second, to a more fundamental concern. Irons’s work is a lexical
analysis, and therefore it is most helpful in clarifying the lexical sense of “righteousness”
language. But “righteousness of God” is not a lexeme; it is a phrase. Lexical analysis is of
limited use when we are seeking to understand such a word combination. If the OT texts
seem to say something unique about God’s righteousness, are they altering the lexical
sense of “righteousness” or saying something unique about Israel’s God? If the latter,
why would later texts need words with altered lexical senses in order to refer to that
unique attribute of God? Lexical analysis of the constituent words in a phrase remains
important—which is why Irons’s work remains critical. But it can only be preliminary to
understanding the referent of the phrase as a whole.
This leads to the third and most significant problem. The insistence that discourse
concepts from OT texts cannot transfer to NT texts suggests that these texts are self-
contained discourses rather than texts in some degree of conversation with each other. It
is not an accident, then, that Irons’s methodology does not leave room for the possibility
of OT texts influencing the meaning of Paul’s writings. Reacting against a possible
overestimation of such influence,130 Irons suggests rather that this influence goes the other
way.131 Paul must be interpreted independently, and only then can we move to the
130
Ibid., 301–6.
131
Ibid., 308.
30
132
question of how this fits with the OT. But, while we agree that Paul rereads the OT in
light of the Christ-event and therefore must be allowed his own hermeneutic creativity
and originality, he nevertheless claims that the OT is where this same gospel is “promised
beforehand” (1:2) and where the “righteousness of God” receives its witness (3:21). The
OT is thus to some extent partially constitutive of the Christ-event and of Paul’s gospel.
Does it determine the meaning of “righteousness of God” in Paul? Certainly not lexically,
as many have seemingly claimed and as Irons has decisively disproven. But might it not
exercise an influence conceptually—or theologically? That possibility remains to be
explored.
Any such exploration, however, will be indebted to the lexical groundwork done
by Irons and others who have lodged objections against the notion of “righteousness”
having a distinct OT meaning in Paul. But lexical transfer is not the only way that texts
may interact with one another. Our final section will examine major works that have
focused on the intertextual dimension of Paul’s writings and thereby opened new
possibilities for understanding the relationship between what Paul says about God’s
righteousness and what the OT says about it.
The Intertextual Turn
In this section, we will briefly survey the scholarly attention to Paul’s “use” of the
OT and then examine more closely two major works that demonstrate two different
approaches to understanding the relationship between Paul and the OT.
132
Ibid., 311.
31
The significance of the OT in the NT has been long recognized. C. H. Dodd
argued that the similarities in the way NT writers cited the OT suggested a collection of
testimonia that predated the NT itself and thus functioned as the “substructure” of the
theological reflection of the NT.133 Attention later turned to the particular text-forms of
Paul’s citations of OT texts.134 However, this did not seem to have much influence on the
understanding of Paul’s theology: Watson has pointed out that studies of Pauline theology
during this era contain “only the most cursory attention to Paul’s scriptural interpretation
and hermeneutics.”135 Even E. P. Sanders, who did more than anyone to re-situate Paul as
a Jewish thinker, suggests that Paul cites Scripture merely to score rhetorical points.136 It
is not surprising, then, that some major studies of “righteousness of God” from this time
first examine what Paul meant by the phrase and only then situate it in the broader OT
and Jewish tradition.137 The OT is important as the source for the tradition and
133
C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament
Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 108–10.
134
See in particular the initial work of E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957); and the more refined work of Dietrich-Alex
Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum
Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986).
135
Francis Watson, “Scripture in Pauline Theology: How Far Down Does It Go?,”
JTI 2 (2008): 181–92, here 182.
136
E. P. Sanders, Paul, Past Masters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 56.
137
E.g., Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, who looks to the OT and Jewish
writings for the tradition-history (Traditionsgeschichte) that undergirds the understanding
of “righteousness of God” already arrived at on exegetical grounds (113). A similar order
can be found in Wilckens, Römer, 1:202–22.
32
terminology that would come to be expressed in Paul, but it is not necessary to
understand Paul himself.138
In light of this, we can understand the significance of two articles published in
1980. We have already surveyed Williams’s study of “righteousness of God,” but now we
can see the additional significance of his argument that “we can reasonably suppose that
he expected his readers to be familiar with the term [“righteousness of God” in Rom
1:17] already . . . from scripture.”139 In other words, Scripture plays a direct role in
constituting the meaning of that term for Paul and his readers. Likewise, Richard Hays
argues that “righteousness of God” in Romans 3 is, with Käsemann, God’s “power that
brings salvation”—but he argues this on the basis of Paul’s allusion to Psalm 143 rather
than parallels with contemporary Jewish literature.140 Both of these articles, published in
the same journal the same year, shift the focus away from the OT as the source of a
tradition that comes to modified expression in Paul and toward the OT as the textual field
in which Paul’s discourse itself is situated. They thus anticipate the more extensive
138
This is the perspective taken by Benno Przybylski in his study “righteousness”
in Matthew: “The significant time lag between the composition of the various Old
Testament writings and the time of the final redaction of the Gospel of Matthew” means
that “it cannot be taken for granted that there had been no development in the usage of
the righteousness terminology,” so the OT merely provides “the point of departure for the
development in the usage of the righteousness terminology exemplified in the later
literature” (Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought, SNTSMS 41
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980], 3–4).
139
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 260, italics original.
140
Hays, “Psalm 143,” 115.
33
studies of Paul’s hermeneutics that would open up new horizons for understanding the
role of the OT in Paul.141
Richard Hays:
Echoes and Allusions in Paul
The first of these studies is that of Richard Hays, who carried forward the
approach of his 1980 article in his highly influential 1989 monograph, Echoes of
Scripture in the Letters of Paul. As in his earlier article, Hays approached the subject of
Paul’s hermeneutics with a poetic sensibility that was attuned to far more subtle ways that
Paul “alluded” to the OT or the OT “echoed” in Paul. This study proceeded on the
assumption—which it also in turn helped to confirm—that “Paul repeatedly situates his
discourse within the symbolic field created by a single great textual precursor: Israel’s
Scripture.”142 Paul’s citations of OT texts were just the tip of a very deep intertextual
iceberg.
The first “echo” Hays investigates in Romans is how “righteousness of God” in
Rom 1:17 echoes the language of the Greek OT.143 Hays hears in Paul’s language an echo
of the hope expressed in Psalm 98 “that God’s eschatological vindication of Israel will
serve as a demonstration to the whole world of the power and faithfulness of Israel’s God,
141
Williams’s article in particular, however, still focuses on defining the precise
meaning of “righteousness of God” as a technical term. See the critique in Bray,
“Justification,” 114.
142
Hays, Echoes, 15.
143
Ibid., 36–38.
34
144
a demonstration that will bring even Gentiles to acknowledge him.” He also hears
echoes of Isa 51:4–5 and 52:10, which promise a “mighty act of deliverance” that “will
be a manifestation of God’s righteousness (dikaiosynē) because it will demonstrate,
despite all appearances to the contrary, God’s faithfulness to his covenant people.”145 This
echo of OT language means, for those with ears to hear, that in the gospel message about
Jesus Christ the promises of Israel’s Scriptures are finally fulfilled.
In one sense, then, Hays stands in the long line of those surveyed above who see a
connection between Paul’s understanding of God’s righteousness and that of the OT
(specifically, we would place him with Wright in the “vocational line”). But whereas
others had focused on the meaning of “righteousness” language for Paul, Hays heard in
this language an echo of the constellation of scriptural texts in which this language
occurs—with all the promises, expectations, and hopes that these texts express.
Hays’s study is now widely—and rightly—acknowledged as a breakthrough.146
Yet this breakthrough, important as it was, came at a cost. Because Hays studied a broad
spectrum of echoes and allusions as a general phenomenon of Paul’s writings,147 his
approach as a matter of principle said very little about what is happening at the level of
explicit communication. This is particularly evident in his discussion of Rom 1:17, where
144
Ibid., 37.
145
Ibid.
146
See, e.g., Watson, who, even though sharply disagreeing with some of Hays’s
central arguments, still acknowledges that his own work “could not have been written
without” Hays’s work (Hermeneutics of Faith, xxxv).
147
See Hays, Echoes, 26–27, where he identifies five possible loci of meaning
(Paul, the original readers, the text itself, the present reader, the present community of
interpreters) and announces his intention to “hold them all together in creative tension.”
35
Hays focuses on “the effect of the echo” and what it suggests “for hearers who share
Paul’s sensitivity to the cadences of the LXX.”148 This immediately raises the question of
why Paul would be so allusive—and therefore so elusive—at such a critical point in his
argument.149 Indeed, if Paul is directing his readers to the OT in his assertions that his
gospel was “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2)
and that the righteousness revealed in that gospel is that “to which the Law and the
Prophets testify” (Rom 3:21), this should raise at least the possibility that Paul aims to
engage the OT on a much more explicit level—and that his readers must do so also if
they wish to make sense of Paul’s own writings.
Francis Watson:
Hermeneutics of Explicit Citations
A second major work on Paul’s hermeneutics certainly understands Paul as
engaging the OT on a much more explicit level. Francis Watson’s Paul and the
Hermeneutics of Faith is a comparative study of “early reception of Jewish scripture”150
that moves between three points: how Paul reads a scriptural text, how other non-
Christian Jewish writers read those same scriptural texts, and the scriptural texts
themselves.151 Watson’s basic hypothesis is that “engagement with scripture is
148
Ibid., 37–38. This is based on the assertion that “Isaiah’s vocabulary echoes
subliminally in Paul’s diction” (37).
149
Cf. Irons, Righteousness of God, 301, who suggests that Hays’s investigation
“is performed too subjectively to provide a sound basis for exegetical and theological
conclusions.”
150
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 2.
151
Ibid., 2–4.
36
152
fundamental to Pauline and non-Christian Jewish theological construction.” This leads
Watson to make an essential insight: For Paul,
scripture is not a secondary confirmation of a Christ-event entire and

complete in itself; for scripture is not external to the Christ-event but is
constitutive of it, the matrix within which it takes shape and comes to be
what it is. Paul proclaims not a pure, unmediated experience of Christ, but
rather a Christ whose death and resurrection occur “according to the
scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3–4). Without scripture, there is no gospel; apart
from the scriptural matrix, there is no Christ.153
Thus Watson, like Hays, argues that Paul’s theology and writing is intertextual through
and through.
While Scripture provides the textual matrix for the Christ-event, Watson also
insists that Scripture has to have a degree of integrity apart from the gospel. He notes that
“Paul respects the fact that the scripture authors he cites—Moses, Isaiah, and the others—
are not in a position to share in the distinctively Christian confession of Jesus as Lord. . . .
They anticipate something of the logic of the future divine action, but they know little or
nothing of its concrete form.”154 There is thus a crucial distinction to be maintained
between the prophet (who speaks in Scripture) and the apostle (who proclaims the gospel
of Jesus Christ). This results in a noteworthy “christological reticence” in Paul’s exegesis
of biblical texts.155
This “christological reticence” extends to Paul’s use of language of “righteousness
of God.” Watson suggests that this phrase in Rom 1:17a and 3:21–31 is “nothing more
152
Ibid., 5.
153
Ibid., 15.
154
Ibid., 20.
155
Ibid., 19.
37
156
nor less than commentary” on Hab 2:4. Thus, in Rom 1:16–17, “Paul is concerned to
establish an initial correlation of ‘righteousness’ and ‘faith,’ as suggested by his
Habakkuk text.”157 For Watson, then, Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith” is derived
from this “pre-christological” reading of key scriptural texts.158 The remainder of the
book demonstrates convincingly that the antithesis between faith and works that is
inherent to this doctrine “entails an entire scriptural hermeneutic,”159 one that is
“antithetical in form and itself constructed from selected scriptural texts, which aims to
show how the true meaning of scripture is its testimony to God’s unconditional saving
action, now realized in Christ.”160
But why does Paul read these “selected scriptural texts” this way? The
comparative aspect of Watson’s study inevitably raises this question, as Watson shows
alternative ways that other Jews—both Christian and non-Christian—read the same
Scriptures. Watson resists suggesting that Paul’s reading of Scripture is better than that of
his contemporaries.161 But then the question of why Paul reads them this way—and
therefore whether we should also—remains unanswered.162 Watson’s earlier work would
156
Ibid., 37.
157
Ibid., 43.
158
See Susan Grove Eastman, “Review of Francis Watson, Paul and the
Hermeneutics of Faith,” JBL 125 (2006): 610–14, here 613.
159
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 149; cf. 22.
160
Ibid., 473.
161
Ibid., 3–4: “The semantic potential of a scriptural text may always be realized
in a variety of ways, and it will not normally be our place to adjudicate between the
various readings.”
162
So Richard B. Hays, “Paul’s Hermeneutics and the Question of Truth,” ProEccl
38
suggest that this is not a problem: the “cohesiveness” of Paul’s statements is to be found
“not primarily at the theoretical level but at the level of practical strategy.”163 He suggests
that this view does more justice to “Paul’s sense that his own agency is integral to the
divine communicative action occurring in and through the gospel.”164 And yet, in Romans
at least, this communicative action takes the form of an argument, seeking to demonstrate
that God’s “unconditional saving action” is by faith and not by works of the law. If this
argument depends on a particular interpretation of scriptural texts, then the question of
why these texts should indeed be read this way is one that cannot be entirely avoided.
Conclusion and Proposed Way Forward
Taken together, the works of Hays and Watson strongly suggest that Paul’s
writings are in constant dialogue with the OT and that this dialogue is the generating
force of much of Paul’s discourse.165 This opens up new avenues to understand how
16 (2007): 126–40, here 132–33.

163
Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New
Perspective, rev. and exp. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 54. In this case the
strategy aims “to maintain and defend his congregations’ distinctive identity over against
the Jewish community.”
164
Ibid., 26, italics original.
165
This position has received additional confirmation from studies of the OT in
Romans; e.g., N. T. Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure
of Romans 3–8,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee
on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 26–35; Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A
Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran
Sectarian Texts, WUNT 2.156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Wagner, Heralds; idem,
“Paul and Scripture,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed. Stephen Westerholm,
BCRel (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011), 154–71; Mary T. Brien, “The Psalter at Work in
Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226
39
Paul’s language of the “righteousness of God” may be rooted in such dialogue, avenues
that this study aims to explore. Hays and Watson themselves, however, arrive at
dramatically different understandings of this language. For Hays, the “righteousness of
God” is “the power and faithfulness of Israel’s God,”166 while for Watson it is “the pattern
of human conduct that God acknowledges as righteous.”167 For each, the meaning of
“righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 is determined by its intertextual relationship to the
OT. But distinct approaches to intertextuality result in very different understandings of
that relationship and therefore very different understandings of the meaning of that
phrase.
This study will borrow from both of these approaches. In our focus on how Paul
uses the OT to make explicit claims in his argument, our approach will be aligned more
closely with Watson than Hays. When Paul introduces himself as a “servant of Christ
Jesus” who is “called to be an apostle” and “set apart for the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1),
(Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 475–86; Robert C. Olson, The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s
Righteousness: Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–3:26, WUNT 2.428 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2016). See also studies of the OT in Paul in general or other Pauline letters; e.g.,
Jeremy Punt, “Paul, Hermeneutics and the Scriptures of Israel,” Neot 30 (1996): 377–
425; Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1997); Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in
Galatians 1 and 2, WUNT 2.102 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Florian Wilk, Die
Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus, FRLANT 179 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1998); Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus
Tradition, JSNTSup 181 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Christopher A. Beetham,
Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, BIS 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2008);
Matthew Scott, The Hermeneutics of Christological Psalmody in Paul: An Intertextual
Enquiry, SNTSMS 158 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
166
Hays, Echoes, 37.
167
40
he claims (among other things) to be writing with some degree of authority that comes
from this call. So unless we ignore or reject this claim, we cannot completely bypass
considerations of the communication intended by the author in this text. At the same time,
in our focus on how Paul may refer to the OT without explicitly citing it, our approach
will be aligned more closely with Hays than Watson. It is likely that these broader
connections to the OT can offer the substantiation for Paul’s hermeneutic that Watson’s
more narrow focus on explicit citations screened out. Specifically, there is a need to
examine God’s righteousness as a concept, one that takes shape via repeated OT
references and that may play a critical role in Paul’s explicit argumentation.
The idea that concepts may link the NT writings to the OT is not new. Peter
Stuhlmacher has pointed out that “the New Testament is related to the Old through the
use of a common tradition of language and life experience. This is manifested in a
common mode of expression and in common concepts.”168 More recently, Roy Ciampa
has argued for the need to examine Paul’s “use of biblical language and ideas, when he is
not citing, alluding to, or echoing specific Old Testament text(s).”169 He suggests that
concepts may be considered “biblical” if they
(1) reflect dissimilarity in some significant aspect from Greco-Roman

ideas or concepts while also demonstrating similarity to a distinctive
(generally known) Jewish concept that has its roots in Scripture, or (2) if
they reflect dissimilarity (in some significant aspect) from Greco-Roman
and Jewish ideas or concepts but are clearly explicable in terms of new or
168
Peter Stuhlmacher, How To Do Biblical Theology, PTMS 38 (Allison Park, PA:
Pickwick, 1995), 8, emphasis added.
169
Roy E. Ciampa, “Scriptural Language and Ideas,” in As It Is Written: Studying
Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSymS 50
(Leiden: Brill, 2008), 41.
41
alternative interpretations of Scripture inspired by Jesus or the context and
needs of the early church.170
The “righteousness of God,” whether understood as the righteousness given by God or
God’s own righteous character, has the potential to fit in either or both of these
categories: a concept that is both recognizably biblical and yet also potentially altered in
light of the Christ-event and the needs of Paul’s Gentile mission. There is therefore a
need to explore what role if any the concepts associated with language of “righteousness
of God” in the OT might play in clarifying the meaning of that expression in Rom 1:17.
The next section will therefore sketch the theoretical underpinnings for such an
exploration.
Theory and Approach
We have seen that the most promising approach toward understanding how Paul
uses language of “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 is an intertextual approach that
investigates how Paul’s use of this language interacts with the use of similar language in
the OT, including interaction that goes beyond Paul’s explicit citations. At the same time,
though, the goal of understanding this intertextual interaction is to clarify the argument
Paul is making in the text of Romans itself. This section will therefore build on recent
theories of communication to articulate an intertextual-communicative approach that
allows for the possibility that an author might make conceptual references; that is, might
intend the audience to infer concepts that are known from—and enriched in—other texts.
We will first briefly sketch recent theories of intertextuality and communication. Then we
170
Ibid., 54.
42
will build on one such theory of communication, relevance theory, to provide a
theoretical foundation for an alternative approach to intertextuality that understands it as
a key part of, rather than a departure from, the author’s communicative intentionality.
Finally, we will conclude with some methodological considerations that will guide this
study.
Theories of Intertextuality and Communication
At its inception, the idea of “intertextuality” broke away from the view that a text
encodes the communicative intent of its author.171 This “code” model assumed that
linguistic signs, whether spoken or written, correspond to a particular meaning and that
speakers and writers encode this meaning while listeners and readers decode it. By
contrast, Julia Kristeva coined the term intertextuality to describe the matrix in which
particular texts exist in relation to other texts, a relation that exerts an influence on
meaning apart from any conscious intentionality on the part of the author. Rejecting the
notion of the “transcendental ego,” she insisted on the duality of “the speaking subject as
a divided subject (conscious/unconscious).”172 Just as the speaking subject has both
conscious intentionality as well as unconscious drives and desires, the text has both a
“phenotext” (the signifying system for “phenomenological intuition”) and a “genotext”
171
See the overview in Dan Sperber and Gloria Origgi, “A Pragmatic Perspective
on the Evolution of Language,” in Meaning and Relevance, ed. Deirdre Wilson and Dan
Sperber (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 332–33.
172
Julia Kristeva, “The System and the Speaking Subject,” in The Kristeva
Reader, ed. Toril Moi (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 28.
43
173
(the “release and articulation of drives”). The latter is most clearly seen in “the various
deviations from the grammatical rules of the language,”174 particularly via metonymy,
metaphor, and other processes that are “transversal to the logico-symbolic processes that
function in the predicative synthesis towards establishing the language system.”175 Most
significant for our study, Kristeva includes “the over-determination of a lexeme by
multiple meanings which it does not carry in ordinary usage but which accrue to it as a
result of its occurrence in other texts” as an example of these deviations from the
grammatical rules of the language.176
This awareness of possible deviations from grammatical rules has had a strong
influence on the way biblical scholars, such as Hays, have approached the intertextual
dimension of the biblical text.177 In the meantime, however, the “code” model of
linguistic communication has been challenged from a different “pragmatic” direction.
A key work in this pragmatic turn was J. L. Austin’s 1955 William James
lectures.178 Austin observed that language does not always merely describe reality but at
times can perform actions.179 This “force” of an utterance Austin calls the “illocution,” or
173
Ibid.
174
Ibid.
175
Ibid., 29.
176
Ibid., 28.
177
For Hays’s acknowledgment of his dependence on Kristeva, see Echoes, 15.
178
These are now published as J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The
William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. J. O. Urmson and
Marina Sbisà, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975).
179
See his introduction of the concept of a “performative utterance” (ibid., 4–7).
44
what is done when one speaks, and it is distinguished both from the speech itself by
which this action is performed (the “locution”)180 and from the consequential effects of
the speech (the “perlocution”).181 “Speech act theory,” as this has come to be known, has
been put to good use by theologians and scholars to analyze the notion of God’s own
speech.182 This perspective has been particularly fruitful in Pauline studies for providing a
way out of the impasse over whether God’s act of justification is a moral transformation
or a legal fiction, suggesting rather that justification “is not a descriptive locution, but an
illocutionary speech-act of declaration and verdict.”183 Since so much of Romans 1–3
touches on speech, whether Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, the law’s condemnation of
the world, or God’s justifying verdict, we will utilize the conceptual resources of speech
act theory throughout our investigation.
180
Ibid., 98–100. An illocutionary act is the “performance of an act in saying
something,” which is to be distinguished from the locutionary act, or the “performance of
an act of saying something.” Cf. John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy
of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 22–24.
181
Austin, How to Do Things, 101–3, 110–20; cf. Searle, Speech Acts, 25–26, 42–
47.
182
See, e.g., Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 291–98; Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse:
Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 12–13, 33; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?
The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1998), 208–14; and, more recently, Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:945–
49. Most prominently, Nicholas Wolterstorff has used it to sketch a “normative theory of
discourse” (Divine Discourse, 76), one that understands speech in moral terms: to speak
is to commit oneself, or to “acquire a normative standing,” regarding the speech uttered
(82–85). It follows, then, that when God asserts, God commits himself to the truth of that
assertion; when God promises, God obligates himself to fulfill that promise; and so forth.
183
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on
the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 455–56, italics original.
45
An important question remains, though. How do utterances come to have this sort
of illocutionary force? At times, when performative verbs are used, the illocutionary force
is encoded in the sentence (e.g., “I hereby promise that . . .” or “I admit that . . .”). But
this is not usually the case.184 The same sentence, “the chair is broken,” could be a
warning, a complaint, or an admission.185 This is why the illocutionary force of an
utterance can only be understood when taking into account not just the words in the
sentence but “the issuing of an utterance in a speech situation.”186 This “speech situation”
includes who is speaking, who is listening, what circumstance prompts the speech, and so
forth. As speech act theory developed, then, it saw its task as that of analyzing the
conventions that render speech acts possible, whether linguistic conventions or social
conventions.187
A different approach was articulated by Paul Grice in his 1967 William James
lectures.188 Operating within the pragmatic turn initiated by Austin, he nevertheless
184
So François Récanati, “Some Remarks on Explicit Performatives, Indirect
Speech Acts, Locutionary Meaning and Truth-Value,” in Speech Act Theory and
Pragmatics, ed. John R. Searle and Ferenc Keifer, Synthese Language Library 10
(Boston: D. Reidel, 1980), 210–11.
185
For this example, see Jonathan Culler, “Convention and Meaning: Derrida and
Austin,” New Literary History 13 (1981): 15–30, here 17.
186
Austin, How to Do Things, 139, emphasis added.
187
Austin, e.g., allows for non-verbal illocutionary acts, not non-conventional
illocutionary acts: “Strictly speaking, there cannot be an illocutionary act unless the
means employed are conventional.” However, “it is difficult to say where conventions
begin and end” (How to Do Things, 119, cf. 107, 121–22). Searle, while holding to the
view that speech acts are “in general” rule-governed and hence conventional (Speech
Acts, 38), nevertheless identifies recognition of intention as the fundamental requirement
for the success of a speech act (ibid., 43, 47).
188
These are now published as Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words
46
189
questioned whether conventions are adequate to understand illocutionary speech acts.
He noted that in many cases statements may have a certain force beyond not only what is
semantically encoded but also what could be reasonably understood as a convention. His
opening example is worth looking at in full:
Suppose that A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now
working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies,
Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison
yet. At this point, A might well inquire what B was implying, what he was
suggesting, or even what he meant by saying that C had not yet been to
prison.190
Of course, the semantic content of the statement, “C hasn’t been to prison yet,” is
perfectly clear. What is not clear is how that statement is relevant to the topic of
conversation, and some such relevance is rather universally expected.191 In this example,
in order for what B said to be relevant something further must be implied, suggested, or
meant, and this (which Grice labels an “implicature”) “is distinct from what B said.”192 It
is difficult to imagine what conventions might have given rise to this implicature; it
seems rather to arise from the need to find relevance to what had already been said.
This insight was picked up by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson as the
foundation for a theory of “communication and cognition” that has come to be known as
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).

189
Ibid., 19–20.
190
Ibid., 24.
191
Ibid., 27.
192
Ibid., 24.
47
193
relevance theory (hereafter RT). With Grice, they suggest that there is always “a gap
between the semantic representations of sentences and the thoughts actually
communicated by utterances. This gap is filled not by more coding but by inference.”194
This inferential process is activated not by social or linguistic conventions but by the
recognition that someone is intending to communicate. This is because any act of
ostensive communication—that is, communication that intends to be understood as
such—carries a presumption of its own relevance.195 It is rare for an utterance in its pure
linguistically encoded form to be relevant on its own. But an utterance also
communicates a whole string of notions explicitly (called “explicatures”) as well as
implicitly (called “implicatures”). Explicatures are notions derived from the logical form
of the utterance, including not only the core proposition itself but also the fact of its being
communicated.196 For example, the utterance “I am leaving now” communicates not only
the first-order explicature “the speaker is leaving now” but also higher-order explicatures
193
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and
Cognition, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995); see also the summary in Deirdre
Wilson and Dan Sperber, “Relevance Theory,” in The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed.
Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 607–32. For a
good popular-level explanation of RT and an application to biblical studies, see Margaret
G. Sim, A Relevant Way to Read: A New Approach to Exegesis and Communication
(Cambridge: James Clarke, 2016), 9–28. RT was almost immediately put to use by Bible
translators—see, e.g., E. R. Hope, “Pragmatics, Exegesis and Translation,” in Issues in
Bible Translation, ed. Philip C. Stine, UBSMS 3 (London: United Bible Societies, 1988),
113–28; Karen H. Jobes, “Relevance Theory and the Translation of Scripture,” JETS 50
(2007): 773–97.
194
Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 9, emphasis added.
195
Ibid., 156.
196
Ibid., 176–83. See also Robyn Carston, Thoughts and Utterances: The
Pragmatics of Explicit Communication (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 116–25.
48
“the speaker is saying that she is leaving now” and “the speaker wants me to know that
she is leaving now.” Understanding such higher-order explicatures (i.e., understanding
why the speaker is intending to communicate this) also gives rise to implicatures, such as
“in saying this the speaker is refusing my offer to warm up her car for her before she
drives to work” or “in saying this the speaker is refusing my request for her to help me
make breakfast for the kids.”197 The premises that undergird such implicatures—such as
“the speaker and I both know that breakfast needs to be made for the kids, and she cannot
help me make it if she is leaving the house”—are called implicated premises. Listeners
infer implicatures from the interaction between these implicated premises and what is
linguistically encoded in the speech.
This inferential process occurs automatically as listeners follow the “relevance-
theoretic comprehension strategy,” which is to “construct interpretations in order of
accessibility (i.e. follow a path of least effort)” and “stop when your expectation of
relevance is satisfied.”198 This cognitive “path of least effort” is, in turn, anticipated by
the speaker, who gives enough linguistic information to guide the listener onto this
inferential path, but no more. In this way, speakers intend listeners to infer far more than
can be encoded in language.199 Notice that in the above example the phrase “leaving now”
197
See Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 193–202. Carston argues that a key
distinction is that, while explicatures are derived from the “logical form” of the utterance,
implicatures are derived “wholly by pragmatic inference” (Thoughts and Utterances,
134).
198
Carston, Thoughts and Utterances, 380. See also Sperber and Wilson,
Relevance, 39–41.
199
This is not to say that encoding and decoding do not happen: “Linguistic
coding and decoding is involved, but the linguistic meaning of an uttered sentence falls
short of encoding what the speaker means: it merely helps the audience infer what she
49
is open to a variety of interpretations, from “walking out the door now” to “beginning the
process of getting ready for work now” and everything in between. The listener will
modify the concept expressed by “leaving now” until it results in an explicature or
implicature that satisfies the listener’s expectation that what the speaker said will be
relevant. In other words, listeners will never be satisfied with their understanding of what
speakers are trying to say until they are satisfied with their understanding of why they are
trying to say that to them.
Thus the inference of meaning beyond what is linguistically encoded is not a
departure from the communicative intent of the speaker but is precisely in keeping with
that communicative intent. This of course introduces an element of flexibility and
uncertainty to the process of communication. As Sperber and Wilson put it, “We assume,
then, that communication is governed by a less-than-perfect heuristic. On this approach,
failures in communication are to be expected: what is mysterious and requires
explanation is not failure but success.”200
A key explanation for this success is the existence of mutual cognitive
environments between the speaker and the listener.201 A cognitive environment is a set of
facts that an individual could represent mentally.202 Where cognitive environments of
speakers and listeners overlap or intersect, we may speak of a mutual cognitive
means. . . . A coding-decoding process is subservient to a Gricean inferential process”

(Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 27).
200
Ibid., 45.
201
Ibid., 38–46.
202
Ibid., 39. “Representing mentally” is a technical term that refers to what we
might more colloquially refer to as “calling to mind.”
50
environment, or the set of facts that the speaker could represent and could expect the
listener to represent also. Communication succeeds as speakers draw attention to these
facts, thereby setting the listeners on the intended inferential path. Thus the “speech
situation” emphasized by Austin takes on an even more important role in RT. To return to
our first example, the locution (i.e., sentence) “the chair is broken” will have a very
different illocutionary force if spoken by a host to a guest right before sitting down for tea
than it will if spoken by a customer bringing a chair back to a furniture store. This is not
because of differing conventions for performing speech acts in those different speech
situations but because the most plausible reason why the speaker would say this is very
different in each situation. The speaker’s intention will be correctly inferred (and the
speech act will therefore have its intended illocutionary force) when the listener selects
the reason that would be relevant to that situation.
On this account, the indeterminacy of language does not limit or inhibit effective
communication but renders it possible. If speakers had to encode precisely what they
meant, language would quickly become far too cumbersome to be useful. But on the basis
of mutual cognitive environments speakers can anticipate the inferential path that their
audience will naturally follow, so they only need to give enough linguistic input to guide
them onto that path. This, we will see, is true even if that inferential path runs through
other texts.
Intertextuality and Conceptual References
In this section we will apply the insights of relevance theory to the phenomenon
of intertextuality, suggesting that RT provides the theoretical basis for intertextuality to

51
function at the level of explicit communication in the form of references to intertextually
enriched concepts.
We saw that RT explains successful communication by appealing to the cognitive
environment shared by the speaker and hearer. This mutual cognitive environment can
include the physical environment if speakers and listeners are in the same place, and this
is why RT is particularly suited to describe what happens in conversational discourse.203
However, as a unitary theory of communication, RT suggests that what we see happening
most clearly in conversational speech is actually a feature of communication considered
generally. All communication involves the speaker referring to elements in the mutual
cognitive environment and the listener inferring the speaker’s intention from these
references, to a greater or lesser degree. This means that distinctions between literary
language and conversational language, between poetry and prose, or between
metaphorical speech and literal speech are matters of degree—not kind. This leads, for
example, to a “deflationary” account of metaphors: “There is no mechanism specific to
metaphors, no interesting generalisation that applies only to them.”204 While metaphors
require more effort on the part of hearers to understand, they otherwise function in the
same way as language in general.
For our purposes, RT also offers resources to articulate a “deflationary” account
of intertextuality, an account of how intertextual connections function as part of the
203
Note that Peter Cotterell and Max Turner discuss relevance theory in the
context of the “special case of conversation” (Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation
[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989], 270–71).
204
Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, Meaning and Relevance (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012), 97–98.
52
normal process of communication. Specifically, it allows us to understand the intertextual
environment as part of the mutual cognitive environment shared by both speakers and
listeners.205 As such, speakers are able to refer to elements in the intertextual environment
with minimal linguistic input just as they can to any elements in the broader mutual
cognitive environment.206
At the same time, the intertextual environment is particularly suited to provide
one element in particular to this mutual cognitive environment: the enriched concept.
Within RT, a concept is understood as any mental representation that is both enduring
(i.e., capable of being recalled in new contexts) and communicable (i.e., capable of being
publicly shared).207 Although concepts tend to be associated with certain linguistic signs
and (as a corollary) linguistic signs (whether words or phrases) can be used to refer to
these concepts,208 concepts and words are nevertheless not the same thing.209
205
See Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 44, for literary allusion as an example of a
reference to an element in the mutual cognitive environment.
206
To be clear, then, this study is using relevance theory not as a method but as the
theoretical justification for methodological eclecticism. RT suggests that communication
succeeds when listeners process semantic input until it satisfies their expectation of
relevance, but the questions of what degree of relevance would be considered satisfactory
or of how this input would be processed remain open to interpretation.
207
This is a modification of the description in Wilson and Sperber, Meaning and
Relevance, 35–36.
208
Not all words encode concepts; linguistic signs such as “discourse
connectives” (“moreover,” “so,” “you see”) do not encode concepts but constrain the
inferential process (see Robyn Carston, “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature,”
in What Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, ed. Carlo Penco
and Filippo Domaneschi, CSLI Lecture Notes 207 [Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications,
2013], 179–80).
209
With Barr, Semantics, 211.
53
The idea that basic lexical concepts can be made more specific through their use
in discourse is nothing new: semantic theory has long drawn a similar distinction between
a word and the range of senses it might communicate, insisting that it is the task of
interpreters to disambiguate which sense best fits the context.210 Robyn Carston,
however, has taken this a step further. Working within the framework of RT, she has
suggested that this disambiguation is only one part of a much larger process of “ad hoc
concept construction” that is an essential component of successful communication. These
ad hoc concepts are “not linguistically given, but are constructed online (on the fly) in
response to specific expectations of relevance raised in specific contexts.”211 Thus the
same “expectation of relevance” that prompts listeners to engage in an inferential process
to bridge the gap between the underdetermined “what is said” and the more fully realized
“what is meant” occurs, according to Carston, when we seek to understand the concept to
which a word or phrase refers at the level of explicit communication. Listeners construct
ad hoc concepts out of the raw material of lexical concepts until their expectation of
relevance is satisfied,212 and these new ad hoc concepts may be, like all concepts, both
enduring and communicable.213
210
See Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 140–45.
211
Carston, Thoughts and Utterances, 322.
212
The notion of a “lexical concept” may be misleading if it is understood as a
full-fledged concept encoded by the lexeme. See Carston’s suggestion that we think of
“so-called content words” as having “a semantically underspecified non-conceptual
lexical meaning, that is, a concept schema (or conceptual pointer or indicator)” (“Word
Meaning,” 199–200).
213
If they occur often enough, these ad hoc concepts may begin to be associated
with the word or phrase itself. This process of “lexicalization” is how a pragmatic
modification can return back into the domain of semantics. Linguistic pragmatism is
54
To explain how this modification works, RT suggests that concepts have three
entries associated with them: logical, lexical, and encyclopedic.214 For example, the
concept dog would have a lexical entry associating it with the word “dog” and a logical
entry defining it as, perhaps, “a particular type of animal” or “a domesticated member of
the canine species.” But it also has an encyclopedic entry containing elements such as
“loyal,” “friendly,” or “sheds hair.” These encyclopedic entries are by no means
incidental to the construction of modified ad hoc concepts: first-century attitudes toward
dogs (encyclopedic entries) are critical for understanding the ad hoc concept to which
Paul refers with the word “dog” (κύων) in Phil 3:2.215 For our purposes, therefore,
knowledge such as “God’s righteousness is revealed when he saves his people” may
become a significant part of a concept of God’s righteousness—but as encyclopedic
rather than logical enrichment.
therefore not opposed to seeing polysemy as a semantic as well as a pragmatic

phenomenon (cf. Michael Devitt, “Three Methodological Flaws of Linguistic
Pragmatism,” in What Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, ed.
Carlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi, CSLI Lecture Notes 207 [Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, 2013], 285–300, here 300). It would insist, though, that “pragmatic
polysemy is surely the forerunner and source of semantic polysemy” (Carston, “Word
Meaning,” 189).
214
See Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 87–90. Note the criticism of the notion of
“lexical” entries as part of the meaning of a word in Marjolein Groefsema, “Concepts and
Word Meaning in Relevance Theory,” in Pragmatics, ed. Noel Burton-Roberts, Palgrave
Advances in Linguistics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 138. To be precise,
then, we should not say that concepts “have” lexical entries but that they are associated
with particular lexical entities.
215
“Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh.” Note,
of course, that the logical entry for dog (a particular animal) drops out of the ad hoc
concept in this verse, and the new concept is constructed solely out of the encyclopedic
entries for dog.
55
While RT allows for references to these kinds of enriched concepts, it also insists
that this only occurs in contexts in which expectations of relevance will prompt the reader
to infer such an enriched concept. If the unenriched lexical concept (or a concept
supplied from an aspect of the mutual cognitive environment more accessible than the
intertextual environment) is able to satisfy this expectation, then no further enrichment
will take place. Listeners will infer enriched concepts from an intertextual environment
only when necessary to meet their expectation of relevance. Conversely, the need for this
inference in order to meet expectations of relevance is partly what distinguishes this kind
of intertextual moment as a conceptual reference rather than an “echo” that may not have
been intended to be perceived. In that case, we are beyond ostensive communication, so
the relevance-theoretic heuristic no longer applies.
Our task of examining an enriched concept to which particular words refer will, as
Ciampa suggested, need to undertake “the kind of synthesis that is usually performed in
theological dictionaries.”216 This therefore exposes our task to the critiques leveled by
James Barr against such syntheses.217 However, from our theoretical perspective we can
more precisely evaluate the limited legitimacy of this critique. Barr is right to point out
the fundamental error of confusing a word and a concept,218 for this assumes that a
lexeme always refers to the most-enriched concept associated with it—or perhaps with all
the enriched concepts associated with it. At the same time, though, Barr allows that “a
word may be used in such a way as to suggest some wide area of recognized thought
216
Ciampa, “Language and Ideas,” 54.
217
Barr, Semantics, 207–50.
218
Ibid., 207–11.
56
which can be somehow connected with the word but which goes beyond its normal
signification.”219 In other words, concepts may be enriched through repeated use, and
certain words or phrases may in certain contexts be used to refer to these enriched
concepts. This is why, for all its potential flaws, works like TDNT remain useful.220 Barr
is right to insist that the central task is to determine the degree to which this enrichment
has happened,221 and the relevance-theoretic comprehension strategy explains how to do
this. Barr’s “illegitimate totality transfer” occurs when more enrichment is inferred than
is needed for relevance in each particular instance.222 But when an enriched concept is
needed for relevance, refusing to infer one would severely limit our ability to understand
the text.
A relatively clear example of the need to infer an intertextually enriched concept
can be found in 1 Cor 3:13. In this verse, Paul tells how the work of various ministers of
the gospel will become clear, “for the day will make it known” (ἡ γὰρ ἡµέρα δηλώσει). If
the verse were to end there, the metaphor would be as clear as, well, day: just as the
darkness of night hides things, so the light of day causes them to be visible. However,
Paul then proceeds to give a quite different reason: “because it is revealed in fire” (ὅτι ἐν
219
Ibid., 217. See also Barr’s observation that this is more likely when particular
word combinations (such as παῖς θεοῦ) occur (ibid., 234).
220
Watson suggests that, contrary to Barr, many entries in TDNT do distinguish
between regular and more theologically significant occurrences, and “this is an entirely
proper distinction in a work that purports to be a theological dictionary” (Text and Truth:
Redefining Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 20–21, italics original).
This “theologically significant sense” is what we refer to as a theologically enriched
concept.
221
Barr, Semantics, 217.
222
Ibid., 218.
57
223
πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται). Suddenly the metaphor seems to have switched. On its own, this
would be jarring—what does “day” have to do with “fire”? In other words, how is the
first statement relevant to the second?
This transition is far less jarring, though, in light of Mal 3:19. In this verse there is
a clear connection between a particular future “day” and a “fire” of testing: “‘Surely the
day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be
stubble [LXX καλάµη, “straw”], and the day that is coming will set them on fire,’ says
the LORD Almighty” (NIV).224 If this is an allusion, it is quite muted: other than “day” and
“fire,” the only other lexical connection is the use of the word “straw” in 3:12.225 It is
better to understand this not as an allusion to Mal 3:19 but as a reference to the
encyclopedic understanding of the ‘Day of the Lord’ that is expressed in that verse: it will
involve the testing of good and evil by fire. It is hard to know whether this encyclopedic
understanding originated with Mal 3:19 or is just expressed there; it is likewise hard to
know whether for Paul and his readers that enriched concept would have remained
associated with Mal 3:19 or had become part of the broader cultural cognitive
223
Note, however, that A. T. Robertson and Alfred Plummer still see the original
metaphor in play (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul
to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914], 63).
224
For the OT concept of the “Day of the Lord,” see, e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31;
3:14; Amos 5:18; Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 30:3.
225
For Mal 3:19 as one of many texts to which this text alludes (including Dan
7:9–10 and Isa 66:15), see Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, 63; David E.
Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 118. Gordon
Fee understands this broadly as “the OT Day of the Lord, a term taken over by Jewish
apocalyptic and then by Christians to express their conviction that a time for ultimate
divine justice lay still in the future” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014], 153).
58
environment. But neither question changes the fact that understanding the lexeme “day”
as a reference to something like that encyclopedically-enriched concept achieves far
greater relevance for 1 Cor 3:13.226
Thus it would be wrong to think that the Greek word for “day” (ἡµέρα) always
refers to the Day of the Lord, let alone to the Day of the Lord that will come with a fire of
testing. It would even be difficult to argue that “Day of the Lord” is one possible lexical
sense of that word. Understanding Mal 3:19 as part of the common cognitive
environment allows for the encyclopedic enrichment of a concept associated with that
word, not necessarily a shift in the lexical sense of the word itself. Thus, in 1 Cor 3:13,
expectations of relevance urge readers to infer that the word “day” refers to the concept
Day of the Lord as it is encyclopedically enriched in Mal 3:19.
In short, a “deflationary” understanding of intertextuality based on the insights of
RT suggests that the intertextual environment is part of the broader cognitive
environment and therefore functions similarly to that broader cognitive environment.227
Both provide elements to which particular language may point. As such, both may alter
226
Of course, Paul himself modifies the concept: people are tested in Malachi;
works in 1 Corinthians. But this additional modification is minimal in light of the
already-modified concept found in Malachi.
227
On intertextuality as “cognitive environment,” see Roy E. Ciampa,
“Approaching Paul’s Use of Scripture in light of Translation Studies,” in Paul and
Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley, Early Christianity and
Its Literature 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 301. This means also that we are ultimately
unconcerned with whether an enriched concept is to be found in an intertextual
environment or the broader cultural environment—one would indeed expect that in a
community in which particular texts play a formative role such a distinction would begin
to break down. In any case, for Paul’s Greek-speaking Gentile readers (see Rom 11:13)—
and for us today—the primary access to these concepts is through Israel’s Scriptures.
59
the cognitive path of least effort that listeners follow when inferring meaning from what
speakers encode in language. However, the intertextual environment in particular allows
for modified or highly enriched concepts: concepts undergo ad hoc modification in order
to be relevant to their use in discourse, and later discourse can refer to these modified
concepts by raising expectations of relevance that only these modified concepts can meet.
In this way, Kristeva’s “over-determination of a lexeme by multiple meanings which it
does not carry in ordinary usage but which accrue to it as a result of its occurrence in
other texts” could very well be precisely what the author intended. Rather than seeing
intertextual connections as impinging on the communicative intent of the author, we may
see these intertextual connections as the author directing her readers’ attention to these
other texts in order to prompt them to infer a meaning beyond what could have been
grammatically encoded.
Preliminary Methodological Considerations
Our approach to intertextuality as part of the shared cognitive environment raises
several methodological points, three of which we must consider here at the outset of our
study: which particular OT text to examine, how our study relates to the lexical studies
that have preceded it, and the degree to which Paul’s original audience was familiar with
these texts.
First, our understanding of the OT as part of the cognitive environment for Paul
and his readers immediately raises the question of which text of the OT functioned that
way. Here our lack of certainty should lead us to proceed cautiously. The LXX is the text
60
228
that Paul usually cites and that was available to Paul’s Greek-speaking audience.
Moreover, the LXX was essential for establishing which Greek lexemes would become
associated with important OT concepts. At the same time, this does not mean that we can
exclude the Hebrew text-tradition that would come to be expressed in the MT: two
studies of Paul’s citations of Isaiah suggest that Paul may have used a Greek text “that
reflects efforts to revise LXX Isaiah toward a Hebrew exemplar.”229 Given that such a
variable text for the OT was likely around in the first century, the safest approach is
therefore to examine both the LXX and the MT as the two endpoints of the range of
possible text-forms available to Paul and his readers.230 Where they converge, we may be
confident that such a reading was indeed available to Paul and his readers. Where they
diverge, we will be more cautious.
Second, this study is not a study of the meaning of “righteousness” lexemes but a
study of the ways that righteousness as a concept might be enriched intertextually, both
logically (what particular “righteousness” we are talking about) and encyclopedically
228
So Wagner, Heralds, 344; Wilk, Bedeutung, 41–42.
229
Wagner, Heralds, 344; cf. Wilk, Bedeutung, 42. Of course, as Silva points out
in his review of these works, it is just as possible that Paul made these revisions himself
by means of his own knowledge of the Hebrew text (“Review of Florian Wilk, Die
Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus; J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News:
Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans,” WTJ 66 [2004]: 433–39, here
438).
230
For this study, BHS was consulted for the text of the MT, and the Göttingen
Septuagint volumes were consulted for the text of the LXX: Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi
cum Odis, vol. 10 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 3rd ed. (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias, vol. 14 of Septuaginta:
Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).
61
231
(what we know about that “righteousness”). Still, as we argued above, lexical studies
remain important as the preliminary foundation for a study like ours. As such, here at the
outset we will summarize the results of such lexical studies on which our study aims to
build.232
The lexical senses of the verbs and adjectives are relatively straightforward. The
Hebrew verb ‫ צדק‬in the qal conveys senses of “be right”233 or “be shown to be in the
right.”234 In the piel it conveys “cause to appear right,”235 “treat as right,”236 or “declare
right.”237 In the hiphil it conveys “declare right”238 or “defend the rights (for someone).”239
In the LXX the qal stem is usually rendered with the passive form of δικαιόω,240 and the
231
See above, p. 29.
232
For following descriptions, see HALOT 3:1001–7; DCH 7:75–88; Bo Johnson,
“‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq,” TDOT 12:243–64; Klaus Koch, “‫ צדק‬ṣdq,” TLOT 2:1046–62; H. Seebass
and C. Brown, “Righteousness, Justification,” NIDNTT 3:352–77; John J. Scullion,
“Righteousness (OT),” ABD 5:724–36; Declaissé-Walford, “Righteousness,” 818–23.
233
E.g., Ps 143:2; Gen 38:6.
234
E.g., Isa 43:9, 26; Ps 51(50):6; Job 11:2.
235
E.g., Ezek 16:51–52.
236
E.g., Job 32:2.
237
E.g., Job 33:32.
238
E.g., Deut 25:1; 1 Kgs 8:32; Isa 5:23; Prov 17:15.
239
E.g., 2 Sam 15:4; Ps 82(81):3.
240
This is the case everywhere outside Job and Ezekiel (Gen 38:26; Isa 43:9, 26;
45:25; Ps 19[18]:10; 51[50]:6; 143[142]:2). In Job the qal verb is rendered with εἶναι/
ἀποφῆναι δίκαιος (“to be/be shown to be righteous”—9:2, 15, 20; 10:15; 11:2; 13:18;
25:4; 33:12; 34:5; 35:7; 40:8) or εἶναι καθαρός/ἄµεµπτος (“to be pure, innocent”—4:17;
15:14; 22:3). In Ezek 16:52, the Hebrew phrase -‫“( ִתּ ְצ ַדּ ְקנָ ה ִמ ֵמּ‬they are shown to be more
in the right than you”) is rendered with ἐδικαίωσας αὐτὰς ὑπὲρ σεαυτήν (“you show them
to be right more than yourself”).
62
241
piel and hiphil stems are usually rendered with the active form. Since outside of
biblical Greek the verb δικαιόω more commonly means “make right” in the sense of
“chastise,” “punish,” or “pass sentence upon,”242 this is a genuine instance of a calque, or
a word that, through being used to consistently translate a word in another language,
comes to convey the senses of that source word even in non-translation texts.243 The
Hebrew adjective ‫ ַצ ִדּיק‬conveys a general sense of “right,”244 or the more specific sense of
“in the right” or “innocent.”245 It is almost always rendered with the Greek δίκαιος,246
which in Hellenistic Greek has a very similar range of senses.247
241
See, for the piel, Jer 3:11; Ezek 16:51, 52; for the hiphil, Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1;
2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kgs 8:32/2 Chr 6:23; Isa 5:23; 50:8; 53:11; Ps 82(81):3. Exceptions
include instances in Job where both the piel (33:2) and the hiphil (27:5) are rendered
ἀποφῆναι δίκαιον; Job 33:32, where the piel ( ָ‫“— ָח ַפ ְצ ִתּי ַצ ְדּ ֶקךּ‬I want to vindicate you”) is
rendered with the passive (θέλω δικαιωθῆναί σε—“I want you to be vindicated”); Prov
17:15, where the hiphil is rendered δίκαιον κρίνειν; and Dan 12:3, which contains textual
issues beyond the scope of this study.
242
See LSJ s.v. III.1, 429.
243
See Irons, Righteousness of God, 70–76; James B. Prothro, Both Judge and
Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), in particular 37 n. 165.
244
Isa 41:26; Dan 9:14.
245
Gen 18:23–25; 20:4; Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Kgs 10:9; Isa 57:1.
246
Of the 197 instances of the adjective in the Hebrew Bible, there are only 15
exceptions. In 5 instances, ‫ ַצ ִדּיק‬is rendered with either εὐσεβής (Isa 24:16; 26:7; Prov
12:12), ἀληθής (Isa 41:26), or πιστός (Job 17:9). In 6 instances the noun is used, such as
Isa 26:2, where ‫גוֹי־צ ִדּיק‬
ַ is rendered λαὸς φυλάσσων δικαιοσύνην; also Ps 72(71):7; Prov
2:20; 11:21; 11:30; 20:7. In 4 instances the LXX reads quite differently: 2 Sam 23:3; Isa
49:24; Ezek 21:8–9 (LXX 21:3–4).
247
See LSJ s.v. B, 429. Earlier uses conveyed more specific senses of “observant
of custom” or “observant of duty” (LSJ s.v. A, 429; see also Seebass and Brown,
“Righteousness,” 353). See also the conclusions of John W. Olley, “Righteousness” in
the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study, SBLSCS 8 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
63
The lexical senses of the nouns are not much more complicated. Both Hebrew
nouns (the masculine ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬and the feminine ‫)צ ָד ָקה‬,

ְ like the Greek noun δικαιοσύνη, can
simply convey “the quality of being right or righteous” (that is to say, they are ‫צ ִדּיק‬/
ַ
δίκαιος in nominalized form),248 at times meaning more specifically a claim that one
might rightly possess (one’s “right”).249 This leads to those more rare instances where the
nouns can also convey a sense of an official or legal recognition of being right or
righteous, meaning “acquittal” or “vindication.”250 As the uses of plural forms suggest,251
this often can come to have the sense of “acts of righteousness,” meaning either “acts that
1979), 125–26: the Greek words (in LXX Isaiah) undergo “slight semantic expansion” in
order to render the Hebrew words, but “these extensions can be readily understood by
anyone familiar with Greek usage, on the basis of the literary contexts in which they
appear.”
248
See esp. 1 Kgs 8:32/2 Chr 6:23, which use the hiphil verb, the adjective, and
the feminine noun together: “to vindicate [‫;ל ַה ְצ ִדּיק‬
ְ τοῦ δικαιῶσαι] the righteous [‫;צ ִדּיק‬ ַ
δίκαιον]” means “to give to him according to his righteousness [‫ ; ָל ֶתת לוֹ ְכּ ִצ ְד ָקתוֹ‬τοῦ
ἀποδοῦναι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ].” See also, e.g., Pss 15:2; 18(17):21, 25;
Isa 64:5; Jer 22:3.
249
2 Sam 19:29 (‫;צ ָד ָקה‬
ְ δικαίωµα); Neh 2:20 (‫;צ ָד ָקה‬
ְ δικαιοσύνη). For these
references, see Ropes, “Righteousness,” 216.
250
For this sense with ‫צ ֶדק‬/δικαιοσύνη,
ֶ see Ps 35(34):27; for this sense with ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬
(though rendered periphrastically in the Greek), see Isa 54:17; Jer 51(28):10.
251
The fact that only the feminine ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬occurs in the plural suggests that it (and
ֶ is used when concrete actions are in view (so Schmid,
not the masculine ‫)צ ֶדק‬
Gerechtigkeit, 179; Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq,” 256–57; idem, “Der Bedeutungsunterschied
zwischen ṣädäq und ṣedaqa,” ASTI [1978]: 31–39, here 35: “Während ṣädäq die
Gerechtigkeit schlechthin bezeichnet, ist ṣedaqah ṣädäq in Funktion”). Other than that,
the nouns’ semantic ranges have considerable overlap (so Scullion, “Righteousness,”
725). In the LXX both are translated with δικαιοσύνη almost 80% of the time (and with
δικ- language over 93% of the time—see Irons, Righteousness of God, 126–30, for data),
so this distinction has little significance for our study.
64
252
are right or righteous” or “acts that result in right or righteousness.” All uses of the
nouns ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬and ‫( ְצ ָד ָקה‬and δικαιοσύνη) in the OT can be related to these senses.253
Why, then, do scholars find such a “wide range of meanings, emphases, and
directions” for these words?254 An obvious answer is that this is because there is a wide
range of people, things, or actions that in different circumstances may be “right” or
“righteous.” Thus Ziesler observes that “righteousness is a situational word, its precise
meaning to be determined by the circumstances.”255 However, it is not the lexical sense
that varies in different circumstances but the enriched discourse concept, which itself
depends on the encyclopedic understanding of what is right in a particular situation or for
a particular person.256 As such, what is meant by the phrase “righteousness of God”
certainly depends on a lexical understanding of “righteousness.” But it depends no less on
an understanding of God, what it might mean for God to be “righteous” or to act
252
For “righteous acts” of human beings, see Ps 11(10):7; Ezek 3:20; 18:24; Dan
9:18. See also instances where the singular ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬or ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬are rendered with plural
δικαιοσύναι (Deut 9:4, 6; 1 Sam 26:23; Ezek 33:13) and where the plural ‫ ִצ ְדקוֹת‬is
rendered with the singular δικαιοσύνη (Isa 64:5). For “righteous acts” of God, see Judg
5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; and Mic 6:5 (all translated with the singular δικαιοσύνη).
253
Cf. Irons’s exhaustive catalogue of all instances of the Hebrew nouns,
classifying them as “legal righteousness,” “ethical righteousness,” or (more rarely)
“correctness” (Righteousness of God, 344–82). While individual instances may be up for
debate, this overall conclusion fits with Koch’s basic observation that “indubitably, ṣdq
values some human and divine modes of behavior positively” (“‫ צדק‬ṣdq,” 1049).
254
So Scullion, “Righteousness,” 726.
255
Ziesler, Righteousness, 40.
256
So Schmid, Gerechtigkeit, 169: “Die Vokabel ist konstant, der Begriff, das
Verständnis der Vokabel, ist variabel. Was ‘recht,’ ‘in Ordnung’ ist, ergibt sich nicht aus
einer vorgegebenen ‘Bedeutung’ der Vokabel, sondern aus der Theologie des jeweiligen
Autors.”
65
257
“rightly,” and what might result from such action. And, insofar as this understanding is
rooted in the OT, we have in the concept of God’s righteousness a prime candidate for an
intertextually enriched concept.
This leads, though, to our third consideration. To what degree was Paul’s audience
actually familiar with the OT? While connections between the OT and Paul’s writings
have been well-documented,258 and while many scholars have observed that “the context
of Romans suggests that the commonalities Paul anticipates with his audience are shared
understandings of the oracles of the God of Israel,”259 some scholars remain skeptical that
Paul’s audience could have actually been familiar with the OT.260 Christopher Stanley in
257
It is possible, of course, that one or several of these enriched discourse
concepts (such as “God’s righteous actions that result in salvation”) could be used as a
metonym (to refer, say, to “salvation”), as suggested by Denny Burk, “The Righteousness
of God (Dikaiosune Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification,” JSNT 34
(2012): 346–60, here 356–57. If this metonymic extension were itself to become
lexicalized (meaning that listeners began to associate this new concept with the lexeme
directly), then this would indeed be a new, distinct lexical sense—the metonym would in
this case be a “dead” metonym, on the analogy of a metaphor that has “died” through
repeated use. We will need to be alert to this possibility.
258
See above, p. 38 n. 165.
259
Christopher G. Whitsett, “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic
Exegesis in Romans 2:3–4 [sic],” JBL 119 (2000): 661–81, here 664. See also Mark A.
Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed.
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 607–8; Wayne A.
Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 146.
260
See in particular those scholars who argue that Paul’s OT citations are mainly
for rhetorical effect; e.g., Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of
Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004); and, more recently,
Katja Kujanpää, The Rhetorical Function of Scriptural Quotations in Romans: Paul’s
Argumentation by Quotations, NovTSup 172 (Leiden: Brill, 2019). See also, for a
relatively balanced view of this debate, Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old
Testament in the New (London: T&T Clark, 2008).
66
particular has argued that considerations of the “social history” of Paul’s original
audience (literacy rates, social class, access to scrolls, etc.) suggest that they could have
had only minimal knowledge of the OT.261 Stanley concedes that Paul writes as if his
audience is “broadly familiar with the Greek text of the Jewish Scriptures,” but he goes
on to argue that “these inferences apply only to the ‘implied readers’ of Paul’s quotations.
They tell us little or nothing about the actual first-century recipients of the text.”262 Others
have brought to light some significant problems with this argument,263 but we still must
admit that we cannot be absolutely certain of the degree to which Paul’s original audience
was actually familiar with the OT.
However, this lack of historical certainty is not necessarily a problem for our
communicative approach. As we stated above, the mutual cognitive environment consists
in that which a speaker could reasonably expect the listener to represent.264 As such, we
need to demonstrate here at the outset only that Scripture was potentially a part of this
cognitive environment, meaning that Paul could reasonably expect his audience to be
familiar with it.
So how could Paul’s (mostly) Gentile audience have become familiar with the
Scriptures of Israel? We cannot say with any certainty, but we may reasonably surmise
261
Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences
Understand His Biblical Quotations?,” NovT 41 (1999): 124–44.
262
Ibid., 143.
263
See, in particular, Brian J. Abasciano, “Diamonds in the Rough: A Reply to
Christopher Stanley Concerning the Reader Competency of Paul’s Original Audiences,”
NovT 49 (2007): 153–83.
264
See above, p. 50.
67
that reading, memorizing, and learning Scripture were widespread practices in the early
church.265 These early practices were likely modeled on those of the synagogue,266 in
which, additionally, readings from the Law and the Prophets were organized into a
weekly liturgy during this era.267 While the Writings were not included in this synagogue
liturgy,268 this hardly means that the Book of Psalms (the one portion of the Writings
significant for our study) was not a significant part of Jewish life: there is some evidence
that these psalms were sung regularly at meals (a practice adopted by early Christians),269
and others have suggested that the centrality of the psalms in temple worship may have
contributed to their prominence in the worship of the early church.270 In any case, though,
the practice of looking to “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” in order to
make sense of the death and resurrection of Jesus is a practice that was remembered to go
back to Jesus himself (Luke 24:44). This, incidentally, could explain why Peter, an
265
So Abasciano, “Diamonds in the Rough,” 168–69.
266
Shaye J. D. Cohen points out that the study of Scripture is the rare “activity
that the synagogues of Judea and the Diaspora have in common” (From the Maccabees to
the Mishnah, 3rd ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014], 112).
267
Ibid., 179.
268
See James W. McKinnon, “On the Question of Psalmody in the Ancient
Synagogue,” Early Music History 6 (1986): 159–91, particularly 190.
269
Ibid., 186–87, comparing Philo’s description of the psalms sung by the Jewish
Therapeutai with Tertullian’s description of the psalms sung at the Christian love-feasts
(cf. Philo, Contempl. 79–84; Tertullian, Apol. 39). See also Geoffrey J. Cuming, “The
New Testament Foundation for Common Prayer,” SL 10.3 (1974): 88–105, here 98–99.
270
See, e.g., Hughes Oliphant Old, “The Psalms of Praise in the Worship of the
New Testament Church,” Int 39 (1985): 20–33. See also Margaret Barker, Temple Themes
in Christian Worship (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), particularly her point that “the
Psalms were the hymn book of the temple” (137).
68
“unschooled” man who had nevertheless “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13), could cite and
christologically interpret two psalms already by Pentecost (Acts 2:22–36).271 Moreover,
this familiarity with the psalms and their application to the experience of the early church
was not limited to church leaders: the Jerusalem church as a whole draws on a
christological reading of Psalm 2 to understand their experience of persecution (Acts
4:25–26). If they had not become familiar with these texts as Jews, they definitely
became familiar with them as followers of Jesus. Given this widespread familiarity with
Scripture in the early church, it is certainly possible that Paul expected his original
audience to know these Scriptures as well.
For our purposes, such possibility is enough to get us started. The best indication
that such texts were actually part of the shared cognitive environment is simply that
Paul’s writings make more sense when read on the assumption of such a shared cognitive
environment. It is for this reason that our study will not end with our interpretation of
Rom 1:17a based on this assumption (part I) but will go on to show how this
interpretation ultimately leads to a more coherent reading of Paul’s subsequent argument
for justification by faith (part II). Whichever potential cognitive environment leads to a
more coherent reading of Paul is likely to have been the actual cognitive environment
that Paul expected to share with his readers.
Our intertextual-communicative approach is therefore not as concerned with the
historical “original audience”—nor even with the literary “implied reader”—but with
what we may call the intended reader. By building his argument on some of the enriched
271
See also Old, “Psalms,” 26–27.
69
concepts found in Israel’s Scriptures, Paul entrusts his readers with the task to become
more familiar with these key enriched concepts, if they are not already.272 Thus the
biblical competence of Paul’s original audience—like our biblical competence today—
should not be understood as static: Paul’s incorporation of OT language and concepts
itself directs his readers to learn and understand the OT better. As Roy Ciampa has
suggested, “Paul wants to introduce new expressions and enrich the vocabulary of those
not familiar with biblical idioms while also giving enough commentary that they can be
assimilated and adopted by those who were previously outsiders to this language.”273 For
our purposes, this observation is decisive: however biblically competent the original
readers of Romans may have been, Paul seems to be writing for readers who know the
Scriptures quite well. Our task, which may very well have also been the task of the first
readers, is therefore to become the readers Paul intends, readers who are willing to learn
the Scriptures better if that is what is necessary to understand Paul.
Paul opens Romans with references to the gospel (1:1) and the Scriptures (1:2).
These, we suggest, are the two poles of reference in the early chapters of Romans, both of
which are found in the key statement of Rom 1:16–17. By “gospel” we mean the
proclamation that Paul says he “received” and “passed on”: that Christ died for our sins,
was buried and was raised (1 Cor 15:3–4). Even in this formula these events are said to
have occurred “according to the Scriptures.” In Romans, Paul fleshes out this “according
272
It is reasonable to assume, of course, that those who first heard Paul’s letter to
the Romans had varying degrees of familiarity with Scripture.
273
Ciampa, “Translation Studies,” 315.
70
to,” showing how the events proclaimed in the gospel, though quite unexpected,
nevertheless fulfill the Scriptures.274 Thus a greater understanding of Paul’s argument in
Romans—and by extension a greater understanding of the gospel itself—depends on a
greater understanding of these Scriptures. It is to this great task that this study aims to
make a small contribution by exploring how a communicative approach to intertextuality
that sees the OT as part of the shared cognitive environment between Paul and his readers
can make sense of what Paul says about God’s righteousness in light of what the OT says
about God’s righteousness.
To do this, this study will consist of two parts. The first part, chapters 2–4, will
focus on the intertextual moment in the first half of Rom 1:17, exploring the connections
between what Paul says there about God’s righteousness and what the OT says about
God’s righteousness. Chapter 2 will first inquire about the interpretive location for Rom
1:17 and the expectations of relevance that its context raises for the concept of God’s
righteousness. This will guide and focus the much more extensive study in chapter 3 of
the OT texts in which language of “God’s righteousness” might refer to a relevant
concept. Finally, chapter 4 will return to Rom 1:17 to see how its claim about God’s
righteousness may be read in light of the enriched concept identified in chapter 3. Taken
together, these three chapters will argue that Rom 1:17 is not an initial articulation of
justification by faith but is rather a claim about how the resurrection of Jesus fulfills a key
OT expectation that God would, by means of a decisive saving action on behalf of his
covenant people, summon all nations to turn to him, trust in him, and be saved.
274
So, e.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Purpose of Romans,” in The Romans Debate,
ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. and exp. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 236.
71
The second part, chapters 5–6, will explore how this claim relates to Paul’s
subsequent argument for justification by faith. Chapter 5 will explore how our
understanding of God’s righteousness can shed light on Paul’s statements about faith in
that same verse—both that this righteousness is revealed “from faith for faith” and that
this corresponds to Habakkuk’s statement about “faith.” Chapter 6 will then trace Paul’s
argument in Rom 1:18–3:26—that the death of Jesus is no less a demonstration of God’s
righteousness than his resurrection—and will argue that Paul’s radical teaching about
righteousness by faith is rooted in this scripturally based understanding of both the death
and the resurrection of Jesus. Finally, chapter 7 will summarize the argument and explore
some of its implications.

PART I THE REVELATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS
72
CHAPTER 2
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND RELEVANCE IN ROMANS 1:17
How we understand Paul’s argument in Romans is closely intertwined with how
we understand Rom 1:16–17, for these two verses function in a dual capacity as the
conclusion of the introduction and a central statement of the argument. Jewett’s rhetorical
analysis identifies 1:16–17 as “a propositio, located in the rhetorically proper spot
between the narratio and the probatio,” which gives it “its proper weight as the
argumentative burden of the entire letter.”1 It is also where, for the first time in Romans,
Paul refers to the “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ), claiming that it is
“revealed” in his gospel “from faith for faith,” just as it is written in Hab 2:4 (verse 17),
and that this is why (γάρ) the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to all who
believe” (verse 16). As such, if these verses bear the weight of the letter, the phrase
“righteousness of God” bears much of the weight of these verses. And, to bear this
weight, this phrase likely refers to some highly enriched concept.2
1
Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 135. See also
Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2011), 71; Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A
Guide to Context and Exegesis, trans. and ed. Daniel P. Bailey (Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2006), 303.
2
As Frank Thielman suggests, the first readers would likely have initially
understood the phrase to refer to “a property of God’s character,” meaning that “he is fair,
even-handed, and equitable in the way he distributes salvation” (“God’s Righteousness as
God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient Perspective on a Significant Phrase,” JETS
73
74
But what is the source of that enrichment? Is it the OT and/or Jewish
background?3 Or is it Paul’s use of the term elsewhere?4 The question is not a simple one
to answer. Douglas Moo points out that considerations of these sources for Paul’s
meaning point in different directions.5 The use of similar phrases in the OT and Second
Temple literature would suggest that the genitive θεοῦ is an attributed genitive or genitive
of possession (or possibly a subjective genitive if we take “righteousness” as an act),
meaning God’s own “righteousness.” But Paul clearly speaks of a righteousness that is
from God in Phil 3:9 and a righteousness sought and attained (or missed) in Rom 9:30–
31.6 The situation becomes even more complicated when we recognize that Rom 1:17
sounds remarkably like both Paul’s later argument for righteousness by faith and OT
54 [2011]: 35–48, here 35; following the early interpretation of Origen, Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans 1.15, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, FC 103 [Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2001], 87). But, since it is hard to understand how
this explains the gospel as God’s power for salvation, not to mention how it relates to the
citation of Hab 2:4, this understanding is more likely to be where the inferential process
begins than where it ends.
3
So, e.g., Wright, Saint Paul, 103: “The overwhelming weight of Jewish
evidence, including many passages in scripture that Paul either quotes or alludes to,
pushes us decisively” toward an interpretation of “righteousness of God” as God’s own
righteousness.
4
So, e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:97, citing “several
occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in the Pauline letters which seem to afford strong support” for
δικαιοσύνη as “man’s righteous status which is the result of God’s action of justifying.”
5
Moo, Romans, 74.
6
There is one reference to receiving “righteousness from the God of his
salvation” in the MT of Ps 24:5 (‫;הי יִ ְשׁעוֹ‬
ֵ ‫) ְצ ָד ָקה ֵמ ֱא‬. The identity of the one who receives
such “righteousness” as one with “clean hands and a pure heart” suggests that
“righteousness” here is the vindication that accompanies God’s saving action. The LXX
renders “righteousness” as ἐλεηµοσύνη in this verse.
75
expectations and celebrations of God’s salvation for his people. The first step in
understanding “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17, therefore, is to determine which of
these two fields of discourse is more likely to be the source of the enriched concept to
which this phrase refers.
In this chapter, we will conduct a preliminary investigation of this phrase and its
relationships to these two fields of discourse. We will argue that approaching Romans as
an act of communication suggests (1) that the OT is more likely to be the source for
understanding the concept of God’s righteousness in Rom 1:17, and yet (2) that Paul’s
argument in Rom 1:17 demands a more enriched and detailed concept of God’s
righteousness than could be supplied by subtle literary allusions to OT texts. This will
prepare us to examine the OT texts that might provide such an enriched concept in the
next chapter.
Romans 1:17 and “Righteousness from God”

Elsewhere in Paul
Whatever its role in Paul’s theology, “righteousness by faith” is clearly a major
theme in the early chapters of Romans. Since Rom 1:17 occupies such a pivotal place in
the text of Romans, it is natural to assume that Rom 1:17 is an initial statement of that
theme. If so, here Paul would be asserting that the gospel reveals the righteousness that
God freely gives in his act of justification. This view should not be dismissed lightly, for
a strong case can be made that the “righteousness of God” in this verse should be
understood in light of Paul’s statements elsewhere about this “righteousness” that God
76
gives. We will review the case for this view and then suggest that the unique features of
Rom 1:17 call this interpretation into question.
The strongest argument for understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17 as the
righteousness that God gives is the chain of statements about “righteousness of God” in
Paul’s writings, stretching from Phil 3:9 to Rom 10:3 to Rom 3:21 to Rom 1:17.7 The
phrase δικαιοσύνη ἐκ θεοῦ (“righteousness from God”) in Phil 3:9 clearly refers to a
“righteousness” that comes from God.8 While there is no a priori reason to privilege this
one instance as determinative for all instances of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, the fact that the
function of the preposition ἐκ overlaps with the genitive of origin means it is certainly
possible for the shorter phrase to have the same meaning as the longer.9 In Phil 3:9 the
“righteousness from God” (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) is itself (1) “based on faith” (ἐπὶ τῇ
7
Irons, Righteousness of God, 334–36; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament
Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 357–58;
Cranfield, Romans, 1:97–98; Bultmann, Theology, 1:285. Without appealing to this
specific chain of verses, many commentators appeal to later instances of the phrase
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to understand Paul’s meaning here, including Anders Nygren,
Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949), 74–75;
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:31–
32.
8
Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2005), 160. Even those who understand δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ differently elsewhere in Paul
concede that here it clearly refers to a gift from God; see, e.g., Käsemann,
“Righteousness of God,” 169; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 39; Wright,
Justification, 150.
9
So, e.g., Silva, Philippians, 160 n. 9, who suggests that “the unambiguous
reference in this passage” should “provide a dominant perspective for the interpretation
of the ambiguous construction in Romans.” Contra Wright, Saint Paul, 104 (who says
that it is “impossible” for the two phrases to have the same referent); Williams,
“Righteousness of God,” 258–59; Ernst Kühl, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer
(Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1913), 41 (“darf man das dort gebrauchte ἐκ θεοῦ nicht als
authentische Interpretation des einfachen θεοῦ ansehen”).
77
πίστει), and is (2) contrasted with “my own righteousness” (ἐµὴν δικαιοσύνην) that is (3)
“from the law” (ἐκ νόµου) and is (4) particularly associated with life as a “Hebrew of
Hebrews” (Phil 3:5). These four features are all present in the discussion of Rom 9:30–
10:4: (1) “righteousness that is of God” (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) is also (2) described
as “righteousness that is from faith” (δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, 9:30) and is (3)
contrasted with “their own righteousness” (τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην, 10:3) that (4) “Israel”
(9:31) sought “as if from works” (ὡς ἐξ ἔργων, 9:32).10 This strongly suggests that the
“righteousness of God” (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) in Rom 10:3 is the same as the
“righteousness from God” (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) in Phil 3:9.
While not quite as clear, these elements are present also in Rom 3:21–22. The
“righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) that is now made known is “through Jesus
Christ-faith” (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 3:22) and answers the problem that “from
works of the law no flesh will be justified” (ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα
σάρξ, 3:20). This contrasting righteousness is not described as “one’s own,” but the act
that results in this “righteousness” (“being justified,” δικαιούµενοι) is described in overt
terms as coming “freely” or “gift-like,” and “by his grace” (δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι,
3:24). It is therefore highly likely that the “righteousness of God” in these verses is also
the righteousness that God gives.11
10
The differences are that the law/faith contrast of Philippians becomes a works/
faith contrast in Romans, and a diachronic contrast between Paul before and after coming
to know Christ becomes a synchronic contrast between Gentiles who have come to know
Christ and Jews who (so far) have not.
11
See further discussion below, p. 280.
78
It is worth backing up from these details to look at the overall picture. In each
instance, the righteousness that is “from God” or “given freely” and that is “on the basis
of faith” is contrasted with a different righteousness that is “from works” or “from the
law.” It is this contrast, not any particular detail (certainly not the addition of the
preposition ἐκ), that clarifies what Paul means by this “righteousness of God.” One must
infer an “extraordinary” righteousness here precisely because the “ordinary”
righteousness has been excluded.12
Once this chain of meaning has reached 3:21–22, it is often assumed that the link
between that text and 1:17 is secure. Schreiner does not argue for the link between 3:21–
22 and 1:17; he simply groups them together.13 Irons likewise simply mentions that “all
commentators recognize the linkage between Rom 3:21 and Rom 1:17.”14 Some sort of
linkage, of course, is clear: the use of the phrase “righteousness of God” with the almost
synonymous verbs “reveal” and “make known” makes it almost certain that Paul is
picking up the thread of 1:17 in 3:21. But it is worth pointing out that, both in terms of
the details and in terms of the overall picture, the indications that prompted a reading of
“righteousness” as a gift from God in the three other texts are notably lacking in 1:17.
There is no reference to a different “righteousness” that could be described as “one’s
own,” whether “from the law” or “from works.” There is no contrast with a different
“righteousness” or a different basis for “justification” at all. If Paul means to refer to a
12
For this helpful terminology (and this point), see the discussion in Westerholm,
Perspectives Old and New, 278–84. See also Ceslas Spicq, “δίκαιος,” TLNT 1:334–35.
13
Schreiner, Theology, 358: “If such is the meaning of Rom. 10, it is highly
unlikely that Paul means anything different in Rom. 1:17; 3:21–22.”
14
Irons, Righteousness of God, 336.
79
status of “righteousness” that God gives freely in contrast to a “righteousness” based on
human law observance, he has eliminated the most important linguistic signals that he
elsewhere provided for readers to infer this.15
There is one major exception to this discontinuity: Paul here, as elsewhere,
connects “righteousness” to “faith.” But even here there is a hitch. When Paul connects
“faith” to “righteousness” elsewhere, he does so via an adjectival prepositional phrase
that modifies the noun, so that “righteousness” itself is “from” or “through” faith. This is
clear from the feminine definite article in Phil 3:9 (δικαιοσύνην . . . τὴν διὰ πίστεως
Χριστοῦ) and Rom 9:30 (δικαιοσύνην . . . τὴν ἐκ πίστεως), and from the repetition of the
phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:22. In Rom 1:17, however, it is not at all clear that the
prepositional phrases “from faith for faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) modify
“righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη); there is no feminine definite article and no repetition of the
noun. Instead, the placement of the verb between the noun phrase and the prepositional
phrases suggests that the prepositional phrases adverbially modify the verb
ἀποκαλύπτεται. This tension between the more natural reading of Rom 1:17 on its own
and a reading that takes into account Paul’s usage elsewhere is seen most clearly in
Cranfield’s discussion of this phrase: admitting that “the structure of the sentence
suggests that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν was intended to be connected with ἀποκαλύπτεται,” he
nevertheless concludes that “it is probable that in Paul’s thought it was linked rather with
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.”16
15
So Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 259.
16
Cranfield, Romans, 1:100. See also Murray, Romans, 1:32.
80
How we evaluate this argument depends on how strongly the “structure of the
sentence” suggests that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν modifies the verb. Closer examination
reveals that it does so quite strongly indeed. In general, prepositional phrases are far more
likely to modify verbs than nouns,17 so some sort of contextual clue is usually needed if
the prepositional phrases are instead supposed to modify substantives.18 Still, there are
some exceptions. Paul can use attributive prepositional phrases without articles to modify
articular substantives, as in Rom 6:4 where the phrase εἰς τὸν θάνατον modifies τοῦ
βαπτίσµατος.19 Paul can also use such anarthrous prepositional phrases to modify
anarthrous substantives, as in Rom 14:17 where the phrase ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ modifies
χαρά.20 But there is a clear pattern in the word order in these constructions. Each of the
prepositional phrases comes right after (or, in the case of 1 Cor 12:31, right before) the
substantive it modifies, separated only by other words that also modify the substantive
17
Daniel Wallace suggests that “prepositions are, in some respects, extended
adverbs” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 356), although he does mention that “there
are exceptions for the adverbial force of prepositions” since “some function at times
adjectivally” (ibid., 357).
18
See BDF §272, 142, observing that, in the case of prepositional attributives
following the noun, “the repetition of the article appears to be especially necessary for the
sake of clarity.” This is why Paul uses the article to clarify that the prepositional phrases
are attributive in Phil 3:9 and Rom 9:30. A predicative use of the prepositional phrase
(“righteousness . . . is revealed to be from faith for faith”) would not take the article, but I
can find no other instance in biblical Greek where ἀποκαλύπτω carries such a sense of
“revealed to be.”
19
See also Rom 15:31; 16:10; 1 Cor 10:18; 15:18; 2 Cor 9:13; Eph 2:11, 15; 3:13
(but see the variant reading in 𝔭46); 4:1; Phil 1:26; 4:19; Col 1:4, 24; 1 Thess 4:16; 2
Thess 1:10; 1 Tim 6:17. For these, see BDF §272, 142; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of
the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman,
1934), 783–84.
20
See also 1 Cor 12:31 (cited in Robertson, Grammar, 784).
81
(e.g., 2 Thess 1:10). In none of these instances does an indicative verb come between the
substantive and the prepositional phrase modifying it.
When a verb does come between a noun and a prepositional phrase, as in Rom
1:17, the prepositional phrase is adverbial everywhere else in the Pauline corpus. A
search of sentences structured like Rom 1:17 found forty-five clauses in Paul’s writings
in which a noun in the nominative case is followed by an indicative verb (other than εἰµί
or γίνοµαι) without a direct object, which in turn is followed by an anarthrous
prepositional phrase.21 In none of these instances does the prepositional phrase modify the
noun; in all of them the prepositional phrase is adverbial.22 If the prepositional phrases
“from faith for faith” in Rom 1:17 adjectivally modify the noun “righteousness,” this
would be utterly unique in the entire Pauline corpus—it would be the only instance where
a prepositional phrase adjectivally modifies a noun that is separated from it by an
indicative verb. This is not impossible,23 but it is highly unlikely. Thus the structure of the
sentence does not merely suggest that the prepositional phrases are adverbial but suggests
21
Rom 1:8; 2:24 (quote); 3:7; 4:4; 5:5, 17; 7:1, 5, 8; 8:9, 20, 21, 39; 9:8; 10:5
(quote); 11:17; 15:3 (quote); 1 Cor 1:6, 13; 3:16; 7:39; 8:10; 10:29; 15:3, 20, 41; 2 Cor
6:11; 8:2; 9:2, 9 (quote); 11:10, 14; 12:12; Gal 3:16; 5:17; Eph 4:17; Phil 4:15; Col 3:3; 1
Thess 4:16; 1 Tim 1:15; 4:3; 5:5; 2 Tim 3:13; 4:20; Phlm 7. This includes the disputed
Pauline letters; eliminating them would reduce the weight of the evidence but not affect
the direction it points. Of these, there are three in which the noun is anarthrous like
δικαιοσύνη in Rom 1:17 (Rom 8:9, 39; 1 Cor 7:39).
22
Excepting, of course, those in which the verb is a copula that clearly makes the
prepositional phrase function as a predicate adjective (e.g., Gal 3:12: ὁ δὲ νόµος οὐκ
ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως).
23
It is always possible that Paul may be speaking elliptically, assuming an
unexpressed repetition of the noun. So, e.g., the NIV’s rendering: “the righteousness of
God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith.”
82
it with considerable strength. “Faith” language is certainly introduced in 1:17, but it
likely does not (yet) directly modify “righteousness.”
Of course, Cranfield’s appeal to “Paul’s thought” to argue for an adjectival
interpretation also has considerable strength. However, it is initially of limited value in
understanding Romans as a communicative act. That is to say, the “unbroken chain” goes
the wrong direction. If Rom 1:17 came after Paul had used “righteousness of God”
language to clearly refer to a righteousness from God, his audience would have no
problem understanding it that way. However, the audience of Romans did not have Phil
3:9 to help them understand Rom 1:17, nor on initially hearing or reading this letter
would they have Rom 3:21 or 10:3. This “chain” is still significant for how we should
understand Rom 1:17, but it could just as easily argue in the other direction: it clarifies
that Paul consistently refers to an extraordinary “righteousness” that God gives on the
basis of faith by contrasting it with an ordinary “righteousness” that would be based on
works. The absence of such a contrast in Rom 1:17 therefore becomes all the more
significant.
Could “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 still refer to the “righteousness from
God” that Paul speaks of elsewhere, but only in retrospect? Could it be that it is not until
3:21–22 that readers would know what Paul meant in 1:17? Several scholars have
understood it in this way,24 and speakers often make undefined, programmatic statements
that they then explain later. But to do so here would go against what we know of ancient
rhetorical expectations: according to Quintilian, a propositio was supposed to be “clear
24
So Wilckens, Römer, 1:88, suggesting that 3:22 is “wo 1,17 expliziert wird.”
83
and lucid, for what can be more shaming than obscurity in a passage introduced solely to
prevent other things from being obscure?”25 This is not to say, of course, that Paul is
consciously following such advice for law students when writing Romans. But it does
provide a glimpse into what expectations of relevance readers would have had for a
statement like this. We can assume, and Paul would likely have assumed, that his readers
would try to make sense of this statement as it stands—and where it stands.
That does not mean, however, that the “sense” this statement makes would have
to summarize the entirety of Paul’s subsequent argument. Quintilian, again, mentions that
at times it is advantageous to avoid a full disclosure of the aim of one’s argument at the
outset:
Sometimes however even the judge has to be misled and tricked by

various devices into thinking that our aim is other than it is. For a
Proposition is sometimes off-putting, and if the judge has foreseen it he
becomes frightened of it, like a patient who sees the surgeon’s knife before
the operation. On the other hand, if there has been no preliminary notice
and our words come upon the judge when he is off his guard, and no
warning has alerted him to them, they will achieve a credibility which they
would not have had if we had given notice of them beforehand.26
This situation envisioned by Quintilian, in which the argument that must be made is
potentially “off-putting,” is precisely Paul’s situation. He is certainly aware of the
potential for his law-free gospel to give offense, so it is easy to see why he may choose
not to lead with the potentially offensive antithesis between Christ-faith and Torah-works
25
Quintilian, Inst. 4.5.2, translation from The Orator’s Education Books 3–5,
trans. and ed. Donald A. Russell, LCL 125 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2001), 308–11.
26
Quintilian, Inst. 4.5.2, 301.
84
27
that is such a stark feature of his other references to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Paul may be
holding back what he knows will give the most offense.
We may summarize our findings so far. In Rom 1:17, Paul does not provide the
linguistic input that elsewhere clarifies that “righteousness” refers to the righteousness
that God gives. Yet rhetorical conventions would have prompted an expectation that this
verse would have a clear meaning, even if that meaning does not summarize everything
for which the subsequent discourse will argue. Romans 1:17 does not have to mean
everything, but it should mean something. And it should be able to mean that where it
stands, right at the beginning of the letter. Paul’s subsequent argument for “righteousness
from God on the basis of faith” remains important, and we will have to be able to show
how what Paul says in 1:17 informs that argument. But we should consider the possibility
that Paul is not summarizing the entirety of that argument here but is rather making the
foundational first move of that argument. And, if so, he might be saying something
distinct from—and perhaps preliminary to—what he says later about the free gift of
“righteousness from God.”
All of these considerations are, at this point, suggestive rather than conclusive.
But they suggest quite strongly that Paul is using language of “God’s righteousness”
being “revealed” to refer to a concept that was at least recognizable, if not familiar, to his
27
Cf. Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and
Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1990), 106, who argues that while Paul’s intention is to indict all of sinful humanity,
“Paul gives his audience no clue at the start (1.16–18) that such is his purpose.”
85
audience. And, if so, the most likely source of that recognition and familiarity would be
the OT.28
Romans 1:17 and “God’s Righteousness”

in the Old Testament
Understanding Scripture to be the primary interpretive context in which to
understand Paul’s language of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17 raises several possibilities
for how that phrase should be understood. In this section, we will summarize and
evaluate some of the most prominent views about how the OT might inform the meaning
of δικιαοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17.
The first possibility to consider is that the OT context is what allows δικαιοσύνη
θεοῦ to mean here what it means elsewhere in Paul’s usage: the righteousness that God
gives. This was Luther’s view. He writes that he came to understand this phrase as “the
passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith” only when he “gave
heed to the context of the words.”29 That context is the Habakkuk citation, where
“righteous” is used to describe a human being. Thus the “righteousness” that is revealed
in the gospel must be the human “righteousness” that God freely gives.30 Francis Watson
provides a more hermeneutically sophisticated and detailed argument along that same
line. He sees the language of “righteousness of God” as intertextually generated and
28
So Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 260.
29
Luther, Preface to Latin Writings, LW 34:337.
30
A similar argument is made by Frederick L. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin and Tabot W. Chambers (New York: Funk & Wagnell’s,
1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 92.
86
argues that it is Paul’s explicit citation of Hab 2:4 in the second half of the verse that
“generates” the statement about the gospel revealing the “righteousness of God” in the
first half.31 And, since Habakkuk uses “righteousness” language to refer to human
righteousness, so does Paul.32
But is the first half of this verse entirely generated by the Habakkuk citation? One
element in particular stands out as not having a corresponding element in Habakkuk: the
revelation of this righteousness in the gospel. To be sure, Watson sees “the introductory
formula ‘it is written’” as “the functional equivalent of ‘in it is revealed’ in the
antecedent.”33 But this highlights precisely the problem: Why would Paul speak of
something that is openly taught in the Scriptures as being “revealed” in the gospel? If the
“prophetic text” is “itself a disclosure of that righteousness,”34 what is left to be disclosed
in the gospel? Watson is right to insist that Paul’s central point is that his gospel
corresponds to Israel’s Scriptures. But it cannot be reduced to them.35
31
32
Ibid., 43.
33
Ibid., 47.
34
Ibid.
35
What is distinct about the gospel, and what is proclaimed newly now, is of
course Christ. Watson is right to note Paul’s reticence to speak about Christ directly in
Romans 1–4 (Hermeneutics of Faith, 33–34). But the reason he gives is questionable:
“Paul must speak of Christ with a degree of reticence and indirectness if he is to show
that his gospel can be articulated through ‘scripture alone’” (ibid., 34). It is highly
unlikely that Paul thought that his gospel could be “articulated through ‘scripture alone,’”
since this would undermine Paul’s distinction between apostle and prophet that Watson
rightly pointed out earlier (ibid., 20).
87
Our understanding of “righteousness of God” and its relationship to the OT must
acknowledge the tension in Romans between the righteousness of God as something
newly made manifest (note the νυνὶ δέ of Rom 3:21) and yet at the same time as
something to which Scripture testifies. This is not a problem unique to Watson.36 Any
view that sees Rom 1:17 as a description of the content of the gospel will struggle to
reconcile Paul’s dual assertions that it is newly revealed in the gospel and yet corresponds
to Israel’s ancient Scriptures.
It is more likely, then, that Rom 1:17 does not describe the content of the gospel
but rather its effects or character.37 Each of these has been recently suggested,
respectively, by N. T. Wright38 and Michael Wolter.39 This distinction cannot be pressed
too far: Paul never gives a summary of the content of his gospel that does not include
how it affects those who believe it (note the ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν in his summary of
36
Nor, to be fair, is it one for which Watson would not have an answer. His
approach might suggest that the Scriptures do not reveal anything on their own but only
when they are read in light of the Christ-event. I would argue, however, that such a
dialogical approach, if pushed too far, collapses the prior witness of the OT and therefore
undermines Paul’s claim that his gospel was “promised beforehand through the prophets
in the holy Scriptures” (προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις,
Rom 1:2). A promise, of course, can only function as a promise if it is, at least to some
extent, meaningful prior to its fulfillment.
37
Cf. Robert Matthew Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1,
WUNT 2.316 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), suggesting that 1:16–17 defines the
gospel’s function while 1:2–4 defines the gospel’s essence.
38
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:916–17; see also idem, “Letter to the
Romans,” NIB 10:423.
39
Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT 6/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 2014), 1:128. Rom 1:3–4 refers to the content (Inhalt) of the gospel, while
1:16–17 refers to its character or property (Eigenart).
88
40
his gospel in 1 Cor 15:3). Still, the distinction may hold in a general sense: Rom 1:3–4
focuses on the proclamation of who Jesus is and Rom 1:16–17 focuses on the effects of
that proclamation for us, even if the former cannot be fully understood without the
latter.41 This opens up the possibility that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal God’s
righteousness but rather promise that it will be revealed—and that this revelation will
happen in a great, powerful act of salvation. As many scholars have noted, in the OT and
Jewish literature God’s righteousness is often paired with his act of salvation on behalf of
his people. Paul would therefore be asserting that in the gospel message of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ this particular OT promise has been fulfilled. Since this
contention unites the otherwise very different interpretations of Wright and Wolter, we
will briefly summarize how they each understand “God’s righteousness” in Rom 1:17.
We noted above that N. T. Wright’s view of “righteousness” is multifaceted, to say
the least.42 He concludes by suggesting that “when a first-century writer, speaking of God
providing salvation in line with his covenant with Abraham, refers to God’s diakiosynē,
he is speaking (a) of an attribute of God himself and (b) more specifically of the attribute
of covenant faithfulness.”43 This faithfulness means his faithfulness to creation, to all
40
Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 1:89.
41
Cf. Seyoon Kim, “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom
1:3–4),” in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology—Essays from
the Tyndale Fellowship in honor of Martin Hengel, ed. Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 117–41, who argues for the unity between 1:3–4 and
1:16–17 as expressions of the gospel.
42
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:796. See discussion above, pp. 18–19.
43
Ibid., 2:804.
89
44
humanity, and primarily to Israel, a faithfulness to “rectify” them by condemning sin.
So when Paul says that God’s “righteousness” is “revealed” in the gospel in Rom 1:17,
what he means is that “these events concerning Jesus, and the announcement of them as
‘good news,’ therefore provide a sudden bright glimpse of the fact that this God is ‘in the
right’ in relation both to the covenant with Israel and to the problem of human sin and
cosmic corruption.”45 Thus, when we see what God has done in Christ, we see that God is
righteous.46
This is an enormously helpful perspective that corresponds very well, as we will
see below, to the way God’s righteousness often functions in the OT. However, it reverses
the logic of Rom 1:16–17. For Wright, the gospel reveals God’s righteousness because it
proclaims his “righteous” saving action. Yet, in Rom 1:17, the gospel is the power for
salvation for [γάρ] in it God’s righteousness is revealed.47 For Paul, then, the revelation of
44
Ibid., 2:926–35.
45
Ibid., 2:943.
46
For similar views, see also Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 257; Kim, “Jesus
the Son of God,” 133; J. Christiaan Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of
Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HTR 79 (1986): 10–16, here 14–15.
47
So Moo, Romans, 72; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Dallas, TX:
Word, 1988), 47. Roy A. Harrisville claims that γάρ “does not conclude but begins an
argument, with or without any link to what precedes” (Romans, ACNT [Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1980], 24), but Richard P. Carlson responds that the 144 γάρ clauses in
Romans “rarely begin an argument and almost always elucidate in some form or manner
(even broadly) that which precedes them” (“Whose Faith? Reexamining the Habakkuk
2:4 Citation within the Communicative Act of Romans 1:1–17,” in Raising Up a Faithful
Exegete: Essays in honor of Richard D. Nelson, ed. K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm
[Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010], 305–6 n. 50). Many grammarians see this as the
core function of γάρ: the information it introduces “does not advance the discourse but
adds background information that strengthens or supports what precedes” (Steven E.
Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for
Teaching and Exegesis, LBRS [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010], 52). For an analysis
90
God’s righteousness is not an aha moment when we see God’s saving action and conclude
that he has indeed been faithful to his covenant and to his creation. It is how or why the
gospel results in that salvation in the first place.
Michael Wolter, by contrast, has a far more focused view of “God’s
righteousness” in Paul. He identifies two specific OT lines of thought that influence
Paul’s “righteousness” language.48 The first line originates in Paul’s reading of Gen 15:6
as the free “gift” of righteousness that comes through God’s act of justifying those who
believe. This “righteousness” is a quality that describes humans (eine Eigenschaft des
Menschen).49 The second line, though, is the OT and Jewish understanding of
righteousness as a quality of God (eine Eigenschaft Gottes) and “its manifestation on
earth in God’s saving intervention on behalf of his people and the godly.”50 For Wolter,
then, “justification by faith” and “righteousness of God” originally referred to two
concepts that were not connected in the OT but “rather come together first only as a result
of the fact that Paul interprets God’s act of justification that is issued on the basis of
Christ-faith (Christus-Glaubens) as the event-becoming of the salvific righteousness of
God.”51 This is what Paul is saying in Rom 1:17: “By the fact that faith perceives God’s
salvific action as evidenced in the gospel, God’s righteousness to some extent emerges
of γάρ from the perspective of relevance theory, see Sim, Relevant Way to Read, 88.
48
Wolter, Römer, 1:123–24; translations that follow are my own.
49
It is this line that informs Paul’s use of “righteousness” language in Galatians,
where the phrase “God’s righteousness” does not occur, and in Phil 3:9, where
“righteousness from God” is likewise a human quality (ibid., 123).
50
Ibid., 1:123.
51
Ibid., 1:124.
91
from its hiddenness in God and becomes effective among human beings as power for
salvation.”52 The “revelation” of God’s righteousness is not its becoming known but its
becoming active, and for Paul this happens by means of the gospel.53
As a description of Paul’s thought, this has much to commend it. But, while
Wolter’s understanding of what it means for God’s righteousness to be “revealed” can
make sense of Rom 1:17, it is markedly different from what it means for God’s
righteousness to be “revealed” in the OT in two related ways. First, as we will argue in
more detail below,54 in Ps 98:2 the revelation of God’s righteousness likely retains its
more common lexical sense of “making known” rather than “actualizing” or “activating.”
In this verse, God’s salvation of Israel reveals God’s righteousness to everyone else,
meaning not that it is actualized for them but that they see and know God’s righteousness
through seeing and knowing God’s saving action for Israel. This highlights the second
difference, which is the distinction between Israel and the nations. Wolter is correct to
characterize the OT concept as God’s “saving intervention on behalf of his people and the
godly.”55 But Paul is arguing that this salvation is for all who believe, Jew and Gentile
alike (1:16), and he will go on to argue that this is even for the ungodly (4:5). Concepts,
of course, are malleable, and Paul could be modifying these concepts in precisely these
ways.56 But, since such a radically modified concept needs to be in play right away in
52
Ibid.
53
Thus for Wolter the ἐν in ἐν αὐτῷ is instrumental (ibid.).
54
See below, p. 185.
55
Wolter, Römer, 1:123, emphasis added.
56
So Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 178.
92
Rom 1:17, it would be difficult for readers to recognize the OT line of God’s
righteousness in the first place.
Thus, while their interpretations are very different, both Wright and Wolter
struggle to articulate just how the OT tradition about God’s righteousness fits with the
specific way Paul uses it in Rom 1:17—just how this righteousness, because it is revealed
in the gospel proclamation, renders the gospel God’s power for salvation to everyone who
believes. Wright’s view makes good sense of the OT tradition but overlooks Paul’s use;
Wolter’s view makes good sense of Paul’s use but severs it in key ways from the OT
tradition. From this we see that the key problem is the logical relationship between God’s
saving action and the revelation of God’s righteousness. In the OT the revelation of God’s
righteousness seems to be logically dependent on God’s saving action (God’s
righteousness is known because God has saved) whereas in Rom 1:17 God’s saving
action seems to be logically dependent on the revelation of God’s righteousness (the
gospel is the power for salvation because God’s righteousness is revealed in it). If we are
to understand Paul’s language of “righteousness of God” in relation to this OT concept,
we will have to explain this disjunction.
One description of an OT tradition that could potentially explain this is that of
Richard Hays. As we saw above, he sees Paul alluding to the OT hope “that God’s
eschatological vindication of Israel will serve as a demonstration to the whole world of
the power and faithfulness of Israel’s God, a demonstration that will bring even Gentiles
to acknowledge him.”57 The key observation Hays makes is that this demonstration
57
Hays, Echoes, 37. This means that “God’s grace in Jesus Christ simultaneously
extends salvation to the Gentiles and confirms Israel’s trust in God’s saving
93
occurs at neither the beginning nor the end of God’s saving purposes but at a key point in
the middle, between God’s saving purposes for Israel and God’s saving purposes for the
Gentiles.
In Hays’s work, centered as it is on literary allusions, this must remain only a hint.
Indeed, it would seem that the texts themselves to which Paul would be alluding only hint
at this. The most obvious candidate for an allusion would be Ps 98:2.58 However, in this
verse, the nations are the spectators to God’s salvation on behalf of Israel.59 To be sure,
this suggests that the revelation of God’s righteousness may be how God’s salvation of
his people affects the nations. But the image of them sharing in Israel’s salvation remains
just out of view. The other mention of God being about to “reveal” his righteousness (Isa
56:1) also refers to God’s imminent salvation of his people.60 The “arrival” of “God’s
righteousness” in Isa 51:4–5 does seem to affect the “nations” and the “islands,” who are
included within God’s salvific activity somewhat more explicitly than in Psalm 98. But
the verbal connections are not as strong in this verse, and again God’s righteousness is
much more directly related to Israel’s salvation, only indirectly affecting the nations.
righteousness” (ibid., 36). See above, pp. 33–35.

58
So, e.g., Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “The Psalms in Romans and Galatians,” in The
Psalms in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, The New
Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 143; Campbell,
Deliverance of God, 688–702; Desta Heliso, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of
Romans 1:17 against the Background of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature,
WUNT 2.235 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 104–5.
59
See further discussion below, p. 185.
60
Moreover, the LXX translates ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬here as ἔλεος.
94
Still, in Psalm 98 and Isaiah 51, God’s salvation of Israel spills over to the nations
and is associated somehow with God’s righteousness. This is itself noteworthy and
demands closer attention. It may be that these texts themselves refer to a more enriched
concept of the revelation of God’s righteousness, and it may be that Paul echoes their
language not to refer to these passages but to refer to the concept that they themselves
refer to with this language. It is this concept of God’s righteousness that therefore
demands closer attention.
Righteousness and Relevance:

Conclusion
This initial exploration of the source of the enriched meaning of “righteousness of
God” in Rom 1:17 has yielded the following results. While there are similarities between
this language and the language Paul elsewhere uses to refer to righteousness from God,
key indications that this language has that same referent are missing in Rom 1:17. Since
its rhetorical function as a propositio demands clarity, it likely refers to some
understanding of “God’s righteousness” that could be shared by Paul and his readers. The
OT is the most likely source of such a shared understanding. However, the general OT
understanding of God’s righteousness as what is revealed once God acts to save does not
quite match the logic of Rom 1:17, where the revelation of God’s righteousness in the
gospel is why or how the gospel is God’s power for salvation. The texts to which this
language could allude do hint that God’s saving action for his people might have an effect
on everyone else, but such allusions and hints cannot bear the argumentative weight of
such an important phrase. This means that we will have to broaden our search beyond just
95
those passages that reflect the language of Rom 1:17 to include other passages that more
fully expand, or enrich, our understanding of how the revelation of God’s righteousness
relates to salvation for Israel and for everyone else. Our next chapter will seek to do just
that.
CHAPTER 3
GOD’S SAVING RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The OT as a whole says surprisingly little about God’s righteousness. Crüsemann
observes that, while “righteousness” language appears throughout the OT, there are
actually very few references to God’s righteousness.1 Apart from a few scattered instances
where God’s righteousness refers to God’s righteous acts of deliverance,2 references to
God’s righteousness are clustered in the Psalms and in the second half of Isaiah.3 But
what these texts do say about God’s righteousness is, we will see, quite relevant to what
Paul says about God’s righteousness in Rom 1:17.
We must define “say” a bit more strictly, though, since God’s righteousness is
rarely if ever the explicit topic of these texts. Instead, these texts refer to God’s
1
Frank Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit (ṣᵉdāqāh/ṣädäq) im Alten Testament,”
EvT 36 (1976): 427–50, here 432.
2
Deut 33:20–21; Judg 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; and Mic 6:5 (ibid., 434–37; see above, p.
64 n. 252).
3
Isa 42:21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 57:12; 59:16; Pss 5:9; 7:18; 31:2; 35:24; 36:7;
51:16; 71:2, 15, 16, 19; 88:13; 89:17; 97:6; 98:2; 103:17; 111:3; 119:40, 142; 143:1, 11;
145:7 (references to the Psalms throughout are to the chapter and verse of the MT). It is
probably not a coincidence that these two books are the two that Paul cites most often in
Romans. J. Ross Wagner counts “fifteen marked citations” and “perhaps a dozen
additional allusions to Isaiah” (“Isaiah in Romans and Galatians,” in Isaiah in the New
Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, The New Testament and the
Scriptures of Israel [London: T&T Clark, 2005], 117), noting that “the only other book
that comes close to this total is Psalms with twelve citations” (ibid., 117 n. 3).
96
97
righteousness in order to make claims about God, God’s saving action, God’s people, or
the nations. We will therefore look at the various roles that the concept of God’s
righteousness plays in these various texts. This will bring to light the various implicated
premises that would need to be manifest in order for this concept to fulfill those roles.4
We may pass over the question of whether these texts reflect an already enriched concept
or, by means of specific use in context, effect this enrichment themselves—the former
would more likely have been the case for an original audience, the latter for
sociolinguistic outsiders, like Paul’s Gentile readers in the first century and us today who
encounter this enriched concept for the first time in these texts. The result is the same
either way for our purposes of exploring how the concept of God’s righteousness is
enriched in the OT.
We also may be more specific about what sort of enrichment we are looking for:
since Rom 1:17 claims that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel in order to
explain why the gospel is God’s power of salvation for everyone who believes, both Jews
and Gentiles, we will pay special attention to how the concept of God’s righteousness is
encyclopedically enriched with regard to its revelation, particularly in how that revelation
relates to salvation for Israel and the nations. Perhaps not coincidentally, the same texts
that refer most often to God’s righteousness (Psalms and the second half of Isaiah) are the
texts in which the term “righteousness” is most often found parallel to the term
“salvation.”5 This suggests that in these texts the concept of God’s righteousness is
4
See discussion above, p. 48.
5
See Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 56:1 (Heb.); 59:16; 61:10; 62:1; 63:1; Pss
24:5; 40:10; 65:5; 71:15; 98:2; 119:123. The only occurrence of this outside of the
98
enriched in a way that makes it particularly relevant to God’s saving action. The most
significant enrichment occurs, we will argue, in two places: the protest psalms enrich the
concept of God’s righteousness with reference to God’s salvation of his people, and Isa
45:18–25 enriches the concept of God’s righteousness with reference to God’s salvation
of the nations. This chapter will show that, when these clusters of texts are read together,
a highly enriched—and thus highly relevant—concept of God’s righteousness emerges as
what is revealed when God saves his people so that he might save everyone else.
God’s Righteousness and God’s People:

Protest Psalms
The protest psalms are the obvious place to begin our exploration of the enriched
concept of God’s righteousness. By “protest psalms” we simply mean “songs of
disorientation, sung by those who are in distress.”6 It is in these psalms that references to
God’s righteousness occur by far the most often.7 Moreover, Paul was certainly aware of
these psalms, and his regular citations of them,8 one in order to make a key point about
God’s righteousness,9 indicate that he expects his readers to be aware of them as well. As
Psalms and Isaiah is Zech 9:9.

6
Tremper Longman III, Psalms, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014),
39.
7
Crüsemann notes that 80% of instances of ‫( ְצ ָד ָקה‬the lexeme most often used in
connection with God’s righteousness) occur in individual lament psalms (“Jahwes
Gerechtigkeit,” 440).
8
Ps 5:9 in Rom 3:13; Ps 10:7 in Rom 3:14; Ps 140:3 in Rom 3:13; Ps 62:12 in
Rom 2:6; Ps 69:9 in Rom 15:3; and Ps 69:22–23 in Rom 11:9–10.
9
Ps 51:4 in Rom 3:4 (discussed below, pp. 271–73).
99
such, these psalms provide a good starting point for our exploration of the enriched
concept of God’s righteousness.
The significance of these psalms for understanding Paul’s references to God’s
righteousness is often recognized.10 But there remains a need to look closely at how the
concept of God’s righteousness functions in these psalms. We will therefore first sketch
the features of these psalms that are most significant for this study, then examine the two
distinct functions of God’s righteousness in these psalms, and conclude by exploring the
enrichment implied by these two distinct functions.
Protest Psalms:
Overview
Often referred to as “individual lament psalms,”11 psalms in which the psalmist
speaks from a situation of distress and implores God to alter that situation are very
common,12 and some have even suggested that they are the foundation for the whole
10
Psalm 143 is cited in this respect briefly in Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness,
2:995–96, and more extensively in Hays, “Psalm 143,” 107–15. Individual lament psalms
as a whole are mentioned briefly in Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:1056 n. 55;
idem, “Romans,” 423–24; and (more extensively) in Williams, “Righteousness of God,”
261–63; Keesmaat, “Psalms in Romans and Galatians,” 139–57; Christopher G. Norden,
“Paul’s Use of the Psalms in Romans: A Critical Analysis,” EQ 88 (2016): 71–88.
11
The term “individual laments” (Klagelieder des Einzelnen) comes from
Gunkel’s influential form-critical analysis of the psalms (Hermann Gunkel and Joachim
Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933], 172–73). Gunkel’s analysis was aimed at
the larger goal of understanding the Sitz im Leben of the psalms (Psalmen, 10–11). This,
of course, was not Paul’s purpose in reading these psalms, and neither is it ours.
However, the classification remains helpful. For an overview of the individual lament
genre, see A. A. Anderson, Psalms, NewCentBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1:37–
39.
12
Gunkel and Begrich list the following psalms as belonging to this genre: 3, 5, 6,
100
13
psalter. Common features of these psalms include laments or descriptions of the dire
situation of the psalmist; expressions of confidence that God will change this situation;
petitions asking God to hear, intervene, rescue, and/or save; and vows to praise God once
this salvation is accomplished.14 The situations described can vary dramatically, as can
the nature of the salvation requested. But the consistent formal features of these psalms
allow them to be classified as a recognizable type.
We are referring to these psalms as “protest psalms” because this term highlights
the feature of these psalms that is most significant for our study better than “individual
laments.” First, the designation “individual” obscures the fact that “there are absolutely
no cases of unmitigated isolation present in these songs”; instead, “the one who prays
participates in the prayer language of the community.”15 Goldingay, in a more recent
study of the psalms, finds a mediating category between the individual and the
7, 13, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27 (vv. 7–14), 28, 31, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61,
63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 86, 88, 102, 109, 120, 130, 140, 141, 142, and 143 (Psalmen, 172).
Anderson’s list a half-century later is slightly more restricted, omitting Pss 13, 31, 38, 64,
130, and 142 (Psalms, 1:38). Westermann’s list includes slightly more than Gunkel’s,
adding Pss 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 23, 36, 40 (vv. 13–17), 41, 52, 53, 58, 62, 73; but
omitting Pss 140–143 (The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message, trans. Ralph D.
Gehrke [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980], 55).
13
Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen, 173.
14
So Westermann, Psalms, 132.
15
Hans-Joachin Kraus, Psalms 1–59, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1988), 40. Anneli Aejmelaeus also notes that the petitions contain a large
number of “stereotyped expressions and conventional language common to most of
them” (The Traditional Prayer in the Psalms, BZAW 167 [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1986], 53). Brevard Childs concludes that, while the ‘I’ of these psalms probably had an
individual “original meaning,” the final canonical shape of the book of Psalms indicates
that these individual psalms “were often understood collectively by the later generation of
worshippers” (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1979], 519–20).
101
community in the “leader” who as an individual represents (to a greater or lesser degree)
the community.16 While the distinction between individual and communal psalms is not
entirely without merit, since certain psalms quite clearly and directly refer to the fate of
the nation as a whole,17 it is not a distinction that can be held too sharply. We are looking
at the “individual” laments simply because references to “God’s righteousness” occur
exclusively in those laments.18 As such, we will not place too much weight on the
individual nature of these psalms.
Second, the designation “lament” is also somewhat misleading. While these
psalms do contain “laments,” or moving descriptions of distress, these descriptions of
distress are subordinate to the more central petition for God to change the situation of
distress.19 We may distinguish such a petition from requests for God to continue acting in
the same way, such as are found often in praise psalms.20 By contrast, the petitions in
protest psalms are made at least in part from a situation in which God’s saving action is
notably absent. The term “protest” best captures this: the psalmist is protesting God’s
inaction and calling on God to act. This is the unique perspective offered by these psalms.
16
John Goldingay, Psalms, BCOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006–2008),
1:59.
17
Clear examples can be found in Psalms 44, 74, 79, 80, and 83 (see Gunkel and
Begrich, Psalmen, 117).
18
See the further discussion below, p. 132.
19
So Aejmelaeus, Traditional Prayer, 10; Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen, 218
(“[die Bitte] ist das Herzstück der Gattung, begreiflich, da es das Bestreben des Beters ist,
etwas von seinem Gott zu erlangen”).
20
E.g., Ps 36:11, which asks God to “extend [-ֹ ‫;משׁ‬
ְ παράτεινον] your love [A‫;ח ְס ְדּ‬
ַ
τὸ ἔλεός σου] to the ones who know you, your righteousness [A‫;צ ְד ָק ְת‬
ִ τὴν δικαιοσύνην
σου] to the upright in heart.”
102
It can—and often does—change: the same psalmist who asks God to save him in a
difficult situation can also look forward to praising God once God’s saving action has
resulted in a new situation, and such anticipated praise can be difficult to distinguish
from actual praise.21 Still, it is the experience of the absence of God’s salvation and the
shift to an anticipation of its presence that, as we will see, offers a unique and essential
enrichment to the concept of God’s righteousness.
The Dual Role of God’s Righteousness
A dual perspective characterizes these psalms of protest: they petition God from a
situation of distress, and they anticipate praising God from a situation of salvation. Not
surprisingly, the role that God’s righteousness plays is different in these two situations:
(1) in the petition, the psalmist appeals to God to save him on the basis of God’s
righteousness, and (2) in the praise-vow, the psalmist promises to proclaim God’s
righteousness once this salvation is accomplished.22 We will look at each of these roles in
turn.
21
Claus Westermann describes a “polarity of petition and praise” that governs all
the “thou-Psalms” that speak to God (Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R.
Crim and Richard N. Soulen [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981], 33).
22
So Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 440–41. For God’s righteousness as the
basis of the petition, he cites Pss 5:9; 31:2; 71:2; 143:1, 11. For God’s righteousness
declared in the praise-vow, he cites Pss 22:32; 51:16; 71:15, 16, 19, 24 (441 n. 79). If we
include the lexeme ‫( ֶצ ֶדק‬see below, p. 112 n. 45), we could add to the petition Ps 35:24
and to the praise-vow Pss 7:18 and 35:28. For the petition and the praise-vow as typical
elements of most psalms of individual lament, see Westermann, Psalms, 132; idem, The
Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965),
64–78; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 47–56; Anderson, Psalms, 1:37–39.
103
Petitions that Appeal to God’s Righteousness
The first place where we find references to God’s righteousness is in the petition
that typically opens protest psalms. It is here that we find the psalmist describing his dire
situation and asking God to save him.23 In doing so, the psalmist often appeals to several
aspects of God’s character, including God’s righteousness. By surveying these references
to God’s righteousness, it becomes clear that God’s righteousness here is the aspect of
God’s character that motivates God to act and save the psalmist.
The most common use of language of God’s “righteousness” in petitions occurs
when the psalmist asks God to save, deliver, or rescue him “in your righteousness”
(A‫;בּ ִצ ְד ָק ְת‬
ְ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου). A very clear example of this can be found in the
opening of Psalm 31:
‫ י ְהוָה ָחסִיתִ י‬pְ‫בּ‬ 2 Ἐπὶ σοί, κύριε, ἤλπισα,

‫אַל־אֵבוֹשָׁה לְעוֹלָם‬ µὴ καταισχυνθείην εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα·
‫ ַפ ְלּ ֵטנִי׃‬p ְ‫ְבּצִדְ קָת‬ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί µε καὶ ἐξελοῦ µε.
Likewise, Psalm 71 hits all the same beats in its opening verses:24
‫־י ְהוָה ָחסִיתִ י‬pְ‫בּ‬ 1 Ὁ θεός, ἐπὶ σοὶ ἤλπισα,

‫אַל־אֵבוֹשָׁה לְעוֹלָם׃‬ µὴ καταισχυνθείην εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
‫ תַּ צִּי ֵלנִי וּתְ ַפ ְלּ ֵטנִי‬p ְ‫ְבּצִדְ קָת‬ 2 ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί µε καὶ ἐξελοῦ µε,
‫ וְהוֹשִׁי ֵענִי׃‬pְ‫ַהטֵּה־ ֵאלַי אָזְנ‬ κλῖνον πρός µε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ σῶσόν µε.
23
We will use the masculine pronoun for the psalmist throughout this study. This
is not to deny that women are invited to pray these psalms themselves. Rather, we wish to
preserve the possibility that the attribution of these psalms that express utter helplessness
and dependence to a male (and a kingly warrior at that) could subvert rather than reify
patriarchal notions of gender hierarchy.
24
The connection between these psalms is noted in, e.g., Longman, Psalms, 161.
Note the assimilation in the LXX of 31:2 to 71:2 with the addition of ῥῦσαί µε.
104
In each of these, the psalmist declares that he trusts in God and prays that he will not be
put to shame. He then asks God to deliver, save, or rescue him “in your righteousness.”
The phrase “in your righteousness” also appears twice in the petitions of Psalm 143:
‫שׁמַע תְּ ִפלָּתִ י‬ ְ ‫י ְהוָה‬ 1 Κύριε, εἰσάκουσον τῆς προσευχῆς µου,

p ְ‫ַה ֲאזִינָה אֶל־תַּ חֲנוּנַי ֶבּ ֱא ֻמנָת‬ ἐνώτισαι τὴν δέησίν µου ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου,
‫׃‬p ֶ‫ֲענֵנִי ְבּצִדְ קָת‬ ἐπάκουσόν µου ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου·
‫ י ְהוָה תְּ ַחיֵּנִי‬pְ‫שׁמ‬ ִ ‫ְל ַמעַן־‬ 11 ἕνεκα τοῦ ὀνόµατός σου, κύριε, ζήσεις µε,
‫ תוֹצִיא ִמצּ ָָרה נַ ְפשִׁי׃‬p ְ‫ְבּצִדְ קָת‬ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐξάξεις ἐκ θλίψεως τὴν ψυχήν µου·
‫ תַּ ְצמִית אֹיְבָי‬p ְ‫וּ ְב ַחסְדּ‬ 12 καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐλέει σου ἐξολεθρεύσεις τοὺς ἐχθρούς µου
‫ְו ַה ֲאבַדְ תָּ כָּל־צ ֲֹר ֵרי נַ ְפשִׁי‬ καὶ ἀπολεῖς πάντας τοὺς θλίβοντας τὴν ψυχήν µου·
‫׃‬p ֶ‫כִּי ֲאנִי ַעבְדּ‬ ὅτι δοῦλός σού εἰµι ἐγώ.
Here again the psalmist asks that God hear his request and act by rescuing him from his
troubles, and again the psalmist asks that God do this “in your righteousness.”
Of course, in Psalm 143 God’s “righteousness” is not the only object of the
psalmist’s appeal. In verse 1 he also appeals to God to act “in your faithfulness” (A‫בּ ֱא ֻמנָ ְת‬,
ֶ
ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου); in verse 11 he asks God to act “on account of your name” (A‫ן־שׁ ְמ‬
ִ ‫ל ַמ ַﬠ‬,ְ
ἕνεκα τοῦ ὀνόµατός σου); and in verse 12 he asks God to act “in your steadfast love”
(A‫;בּ ַח ְס ֶדּ‬
ְ ἐν τῷ ἐλέει σου). This variety reflects the psalms in general, in which we can
find twenty-four possible instances in which a request for God to act is potentially
grounded “in” some aspect of God’s character or disposition (see table 1 on p. 105).
Not all of these instances are best understood as appeals to an aspect of God’s
character. First, some seem to appeal more to a disposition of God than to an aspect of his
character. On the negative side, the psalmist asks God not to act toward him “in” God’s
anger or wrath (Pss 6:2; 38:2), but rather to act in such a way toward his enemies (Ps
7:7). On the positive side, the psalmist can ask God to act toward Zion “in” God’s good
105
Table 1: Requests Grounded “In” God’s Character or Disposition
Reference NRSV MT LXX
(MT)
Ps 5:9 Lead me, O LORD, in your ! ֶ‫ י ְהוָה נְ ֵחנִי ְבצִדְ קָת‬κύριε, ὁδήγησόν µε ἐν τῇ
righteousness δικαιοσύνῃ σου
Ps 6:2 (2x) O LORD, do not rebuke me in !ְ‫ י ְהוָה אַל־בְּאַפּ‬Κύριε, µὴ τῷ θυµῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς
your anger, or discipline me in ! ְ‫ תוֹכִי ֵחנִי וְאַל־ ַבּ ֲחמָת‬µε µηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς
your wrath ‫ תְ יַסּ ְֵרנִי‬µε.
Ps 7:7 Rise up, O LORD, in your anger; !ֶ‫ קוּמָה י ְהוָה בְּאַפּ‬ἀνάστηθι, κύριε, ἐν ὀργῇ σου,
lift yourself up against the fury ְ ‫ ִהנָּשֵׂא ְבּ ַעבְרוֹת‬ὑψώθητι ἐν τοῖς πέρασι τῶν
‫צוֹר ָרי‬
of my enemies ἐχθρῶν µου·
Ps 21:14 Be exalted, O LORD, in your !ֶ‫ רוּמָה י ְהוָה ְבּ ֻעזּ‬ὑψώθητι, κύριε, ἐν τῇ δυνάµει
strength σου
Ps 25:5 Lead me in your truth, and ! ֶ‫ הַדְ ִרי ֵכנִי ַב ֲאמִתּ‬ὁδήγησόν µε ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν
teach me ‫ ְו ַלמְּדֵ נִי‬σου
καὶ δίδαξόν µε
Ps 31:2 in your righteousness deliver ‫ ְבּצִדְ קָתְ ! ַפ ְלּ ֵטנִי‬ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί µε
me
Ps 31:17 save me in your steadfast love ! ֶ‫ הוֹשִׁי ֵענִי ְב ַחסְדּ‬σῶσόν µε ἐν τῷ ἐλέει σου
Ps 38:2 (2x) do not rebuke me in your anger, ‫ אַל־ ְבּ ֶק ְצפְּ! תוֹכִי ֵחנִי‬µὴ τῷ θυµῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς µε
or discipline me in your wrath ‫ וּ ַב ֲחמָתְ ! תְ יַסּ ְֵרנִי‬µηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς µε
Ps 51:20 do good to Zion in your good !ְ‫ הֵיטִיבָה ב ְִרצוֹנ‬ἀγάθυνον … ἐν τῇ εὐδοκίᾳ σου
pleasure ‫ אֶת־צִיּוֹן‬τὴν Σιων
Ps 54:3 (2x) save me, O God, by your name, !ְ‫שׁמ‬ִ ‫ אֱהִים ְבּ‬Ὁ θεός, ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί σου
and vindicate me by your might ! ְ‫ְבוּרת‬
ָ ‫ הוֹשִׁי ֵענִי וּ ִבג‬σῶσόν µε καὶ ἐν τῇ δυνάµει σου
‫ תְ דִ ינֵנִי‬κρῖνόν µε
Ps 54:7 in your faithfulness, put an end ‫ ַבּ ֲאמִתְּ ! ַה ְצמִיתֵ ם‬ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου ἐξολέθρευσον
to them αὐτούς
Ps 59:12 make them totter by your !ְ‫ ֲהנִיעֵמוֹ ְבחֵיל‬διασκόρπισον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ
power, and bring them down ‫ְהוֹרידֵ מוֹ‬
ִ ‫ ו‬δυνάµει σου
Ps 69:14 (2x) in the abundance of your ‫ בּ ְָרב־ ַחסְדֶּ ! ֲענֵנִי‬ἐν τῷ πλήθει τοῦ ἐλέους σου·
steadfast love, answer me, with !ֶ‫שׁע‬ְ ִ ‫ ֶבּ ֱאמֶת י‬ἐπάκουσόν µου ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τῆς
your faithful help σωτηρίας σου
Ps 71:1 in your righteousness deliver ‫ ְבּצִדְ קָתְ ! תַּ צִּי ֵלנִי‬ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί µε
me and rescue me ‫ וּתְ ַפ ְלּ ֵטנִי‬καὶ ἐξελοῦ µε
Ps 119:37 give me life in your ways ‫ בִּדְ ָרכֶ! ַחיֵּנִי‬ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ σου ζῆσόν µε
Ps 119:40 in your righteousness give me ‫ ְבּצִדְ קָתְ ! ַחיֵּנִי‬ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ζῆσόν µε
life
Ps 143:1 (2x) give ear to my supplications in ‫ ַה ֲאז ִינָה אֶל־תַּ חֲנוּנַי‬ἐνώτισαι τὴν δέησίν µου ἐν τῇ
your faithfulness; answer me in ‫ ֶבּ ֱא ֻמנָתְ ! ֲענֵנִי‬ἀληθείᾳ σου, ἐπάκουσόν µου ἐν
your righteousness ! ֶ‫ ְבּצִדְ קָת‬τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου
Ps 143:11 in your righteousness bring me ‫ ְבּצִדְ קָתְ ! תוֹצִיא ִמצּ ָָרה‬ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐξάξεις ἐκ
out of trouble ‫ נַ ְפשִׁי‬θλίψεως τὴν ψυχήν µου
Ps 143:12 in your steadfast love cut off ‫ וּ ְב ַחסְדְּ ! תַּ ְצמִית אֹיְבָי‬καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐλέει σου
my enemies ἐξολεθρεύσεις τοὺς ἐχθρούς µου
106
pleasure (Ps 51:20). Second, while we have not included instances in which the
preposition ‫ ְבּ‬or ἐν is clearly instrumental (such as the request in Ps 83:16 for God to
terrify the enemy “with your storm” [A‫;בּ ַס ֲﬠ ֶר‬

ְ ἐν τῇ καταιγίδι σου]), the requests for God
to act “in” God’s strength (Pss 21:14; 54:3; 59:12) should probably also be taken
instrumentally (asking God to save “with” or “by” God’s power). Third, when Ps 54:3
asks God to save “in” God’s own name, this should probably be taken as a
circumlocution for “on account of your name” (cf. Ps 143:11).25 Finally, the request for
God to “lead” the psalmist “in your righteousness” (5:9) could be understood in the same
way as other appeals to God’s righteousness for salvation, meaning that this “leading”—
and the parallel “making straight” God’s “way” before him—is part of God’s salvific
action that originates in his “righteousness.”26 But they are probably best understood as
asking God to lead the psalmist into or along ways that are righteous.27 Moreover, since
something like this is also likely what is being requested in Ps 119:37, it is likely that this
is how 119:40 should be taken as well.28 In these cases, the psalmist would be asking God
25
Contra Aejmelaeus, who understands this as instrumental (Traditional Prayer,
62).
26
So Anderson, Psalms, 1:84.
27
Cf. Pss 23:3; 27:11 (note the request to do this “because of my enemies” in both
27:11 and 5:9). So Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner,
The Book of Psalms, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 97; Longman, Psalms,
71; Aejmelaeus, Traditional Prayer, 62. This is even more likely to be how “in your
truth” should be understood in 25:5 (Longman, Psalms, 143–44)—note that the LXX
renders ‫ ְבּ‬in this case with the preposition ἐπί. Here the psalmist is asking God to lead
him along ways that are “true.”
28
Contra Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907),
2:423.
107
to guide his actions so that they may be righteous, and the phrase “God’s righteousness”
in this instance would refer to human conduct that is pleasing to God and that God assists
the psalmist in bringing about. We therefore will not include these instances of the phrase
“God’s righteousness” with the others as clear references to an aspect of God’s
character.29
What remains, then, are ten clear instances in which requests for God to act are
grounded in some aspect of God’s character. In four instances the psalmist asks God to
act “in” God’s righteousness (A‫ ְבּ ִצ ְד ָק ְת‬/A‫ ; ְבּ ִצ ְד ָק ֶת‬ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου—31:2; 71:1; 143:1;
143:11); in three the psalmist asks God to act “in” God’s faithfulness or truthfulness
(A‫;בּ ֲא ִמ ְתּ‬
ַ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου—54:7; 69:14; 143:1); and in three the psalmist asks God to
act “in” God’s steadfast love (A‫;בּ ַח ְס ֶדּ‬

ְ ἐν τῷ ἐλέει σου—31:17; 69:14; 143:12). God’s
righteousness is therefore not the only aspect of God’s character to which the psalmists
appeal. They also appeal to God’s faithfulness and to God’s love.30 But the most common
aspect of God’s character to which the psalmists appeal is God’s righteousness.
Are we sure, though, that God’s “righteousness” in these instances is an aspect of
God’s character? In addition to the problems with using Hebrew parallelism to define
Hebrew terms,31 formal parallels do not necessarily indicate a paradigmatic relationship
between the terms.32 The fact that God’s “righteousness” is appealed to alongside other
29
In this we differ from Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 441–42.
30
Aejmelaeus notes that all of these terms occur “almost without exception in
connection with petitions” (Traditional Prayer, 60).
31
See Irons, Righteousness of God, 65–68.
32
See esp. Ps 54:3, which asks God to save “by your name” (A‫;בּ ִשׁ ְמ‬
ְ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί
σου) and “by your strength” (A‫בוּר ְת‬ ִ ἐν τῇ δυνάµει σου)—the first phrase likely
ָ ְ‫;בּג‬
108
appeals to aspects of God’s character (God’s “faithfulness” and “love”) does not
necessarily indicate that God’s righteousness is itself an aspect of God’s character. Other
references to God’s “righteousness” in the OT might suggest that it refers to his powerful
saving action itself.33 In that case, the preposition “in” (‫בּ‬,

ְ ἐν) would be instrumental:
“Answer me with your righteous saving action.”34 That is certainly possible syntactically,
especially in light of several other psalms that appeal instrumentally to God’s power
(54:3; 59:12). However, in the discourse of the psalms as a whole this is less likely in
light of the common use of adjective forms of these words to describe God. For example,
in Ps 116:5 the psalmist tells that God is “gracious” (‫;חנּוּן‬

ַ ἐλεήµων) and “righteous”
(‫;צ ִדּיק‬
ַ δίκαιος), placing in parallel the adjective forms of the nouns that appear elsewhere
in parallel (e.g., 143:11, 12 and 31:2, 17). In Ps 129:4, the psalmist proclaims that God is
ַ δίκαιος) because he “has cut the rope of the wicked.”35 Finally, in Ps

“righteous” (‫;צ ִדּיק‬
expresses cause (“on account of your name”) and the second instrument (“by means of
your strength”).
33
E.g., 1 Sam 12:7 speaks of the “righteous act[s] of the Lord” (‫; ִצ ְדקוֹת יְ הוָ ה‬
δικαιοσύνην κυρίου) that God “did” (‫;ﬠ ָשׂה‬
ָ ἐποίησε).
34
So Scullion, “Righteousness,” 732; Hays, “Psalm 143,” 114. For a possible
parallel, see Ps 69:14, which asks God to “answer me with the faithfulness of your
salvation” (A‫ ; ֲﬠנֵ נִ י ֶבּ ֱא ֶמת יִ ְשׁ ֶﬠ‬ἐπάκουσόν µου ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τῆς σωτηρίας σου). This may be
understood as asking God to answer with assurance of eventual salvation or, more likely,
with an assured salvation. In either case, it refers to the form the psalmist wants this
“answer” to take. Since this is the form of the request in Ps 143:1, it is possible to
understand “in your righteousness” in this one instance instrumentally, as Hays does. But
this quickly becomes redundant, reducing to “save me with your salvation,” when the
request is itself specified as a request for deliverance or salvation, as it is most
everywhere else (including Ps 143:12). Rather than suggesting a unique meaning of the
phrase “in your righteousness” in Ps 143:1, then, it is better to understand it in line with
the other instances of that phrase as an appeal to an aspect of God’s character.
35
Heb. ‫ ִק ֵצּץ ֲﬠבוֹת ְר ָשׁ ִﬠים‬. The LXX substitutes αὐχήν (“throat”) for ‫“( ֲﬠבֹת‬rope”),
altering the emphasis from deliverance from oppression to the destruction of the
109
145:17 the psalmist declares that God is “righteous [‫;צ ִדּיק‬
ַ δίκαιος] in all his ways” and
“loving [‫;ח ִסיד‬

ָ LXX ὅσιος, “holy”] in all his works.” These last two instances are
particularly noteworthy for the way they exhibit the close connection between these
attributes of God and his actions that flow from them and display them. But they remain
adjectival descriptions of God’s person and character, and this strongly suggests that the
substantive forms we have identified in these petitions also refer to aspects of God’s own
character.36
In light of this, how do we understand the appeals themselves? Gunkel understood
them as “rationale for divine intervention” that both “make an impression on YHWH”
and “comfort the heart of the one complaining at the moment he speaks them.”37 The
oppressors themselves.
36
See also Ps 11:7, declaring that God “is righteous” and “loves acts of
righteousness” (‫ ; ַצ ִדּיק יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָדקוֹת ָא ֵהב‬δίκαιος κύριος καὶ δικαιοσύνας ἠγάπησεν). The
address of Ps 4:2 to God as “God of my righteousness” (‫;הי ִצ ְד ִקי‬ ֵ ‫ ; ֱא‬ὁ θεὸς τῆς
δικαιοσύνης µου) would also be most naturally understood as “my righteous God” (so
NIV). When a pronominal suffix is added to an attributive genitive it “usually modifies
the whole chain” rather than simply the word to which it is attached (Bruce K. Waltke
and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 150; see also GKC §135n, 440). The syntactically
stereotyped translation of the LXX here, however, probably obscures this reference.
At the same time, the LXX use of δικαιοσύνη would strongly suggest a
nominalized attribute (so Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 351–54). For the suffix -συνη as
“expressing the abstract notion of the adjective,” the “quality,” see Herbert Weir Smyth,
Greek Grammar [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956; reprint, Mansfield
Centre, CT: Martino Publishing, 2013], 231, §840.b.3). At least in these instances, then,
the Greek noun refers to a similar concept as the Hebrew (contra, e.g., Johnson, “‫ָצ ַדק‬
ṣāḏaq,” 263).
37
Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of
the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. James D. Nogalski (Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1998), 170 (ET of Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen). Aejmelaeus suggests that the
term is too vague, since the whole psalm functions as a “motivation for divine
intervention” (Traditional Prayer, 60). But her analysis of these phrases in the petitions
110
appeals to God’s character are, in their own way, expressions of confidence in God. The
psalmist knows something to be true about God’s character and can therefore appeal to
that aspect of God’s character to motivate God to act.38 The Hebrew preposition ‫ ְבּ‬is
therefore best understood as a causal ‫ ְבּ‬that “marks the reason or originating force of an
action.”39 The LXX translates it rather literally with the preposition ἐν, even though such
a “causal” use of ἐν is not common in classical Greek.40 For this reason, it likely sounded
rather archaic or stilted when read in Greek, just as those phrases sound rather archaic or
stilted when translated “literally” into English. But it would not have been
incomprehensible. The stereotyped nature of the translation means that over time this
unusual use of ἐν would have become adequately clear: the psalmist is appealing to
something that is true about God’s character as the grounds for God to act. Thus, in both
the Hebrew and the Greek, God’s “righteousness” is one of the aspects of God’s
character that the psalmists appeal to as the originating force of God’s saving action on
behalf of the psalmist.
There is one other way that these psalms can appeal to God’s righteousness in
their petitions. Psalm 35 does not ask God to “save” the psalmist “in” God’s
concludes that “in so far as the adverbial interpretation is not possible, we may speak of
‘motivations for divine intervention’” (ibid., 63).
38
So Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 261–62.
39
Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 198, citing Gen 18:28: “Will
you destroy the whole city because/on account of five [‫”?]בּ ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה‬
ַ See also HALOT s.v.
19, 1:105.
40
For the causal use of the Greek ἐν in the LXX (likely influenced by Hebrew;
note the lack of such a use in LSJ), see Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009) s.v. 11, 232. For this use in NT Greek, see BDAG
s.v. 9, 329.
111
righteousness but rather to “judge” (or, more likely, “vindicate”) the psalmist “according
to” God’s righteousness:
‫ י ְהוָה אֱ™הָי‬pְ‫שׁ ְפ ֵטנִי ְכצִדְ ק‬

ָ 24 κρῖνόν µε κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, κύριε ὁ θεός µου,
‫שׂמְחוּ־לִי׃‬ ְ ִ ‫וְאַל־י‬ καὶ µὴ ἐπιχαρείησάν µοι·
The shift in preposition (from ‫ ְבּ‬to ‫ ְכּ‬in the Hebrew, from ἐν to κατά in the Greek) may
indicate that God’s righteousness is not the originating force of God’s saving action here
but the standard according to which the psalmist asks God to judge.41 The phrase on its
own could refer to the standard of human conduct that originates in God and is acceptable
to God.42 But it could also refer, as above, to God’s own attribute of being righteous, in
this case his righteousness as a judge. The latter is far more likely in light of the clear
parallels between this psalm and Psalm 7, where the psalmist also asks God to “judge
me” (‫שׁ ְפ ֵטנִ י‬,

ָ κρῖνόν µε). In verse 9, the psalmist asks that this judgment be done
“according to” the psalmist’s own “righteousness” (‫כּ ִצ ְד ִקי‬,

ְ κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην µου).
But that does not mean that God’s righteousness is not in view: God is the “righteous
ִ ‫ ) ֱא‬according to the MT of verse 11,43 and according to both the Hebrew

God” (‫;הים ַצ ִדּיק‬
ֵ , LXX κριτὴς δίκαιος).44

and the LXX of verse 12 God is a “righteous judge” (‫שׁוֹפט ַצ ִדּיק‬
41
So Aejmelaeus, Traditional Prayer, 62. To be sure, the Hebrew ‫ ְבּ‬can overlap
with ‫ ְכּ‬and likewise mean “according to” (so HALOT s.v. 8, 1:104). But the distinct action
here (“judging” instead of “saving”) suggests that the shift is significant.
42
This is how we understand those instances that ask God to “lead” the psalmist
“in your righteousness” (5:9; 119:40—see above, p. 107).
43
The LXX takes the word for “righteous” with the next line, likely interpreting it
as modifying “help” instead of “God.”
44
For the significance of God as “righteous judge,” see Gert Kwakkel, ‘According
to My Righteousness’: Upright Behavior as Grounds for Deliverance in Psalms 7, 17, 18,
26, and 44, OTS 46 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 48–50.
112
This strongly indicates that, in those psalms that appeal to God to judge or vindicate the
psalmist on the basis of the psalmist’s own innocence, the phrase “your righteousness”45
refers to God’s own righteousness as a judge who, like a human judge, is to judge fairly
by “acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.”46 These psalms still request
salvation. But, perhaps because the present situation of distress has been “unjustly
interpreted as the consequence of a supposed wicked sin on the part of the Psalmist, or as
divine punishment,”47 this salvation will function as the psalmist’s own vindication. It is
therefore not necessarily the case that, in the OT, “before salvation can be completed,
righteousness must be manifested.”48 Here it would seem that the completed salvation is
itself understood as the manifestation of the psalmist’s righteousness.
We find, then, that in the petitions of these protest psalms the psalmists appeal to
God’s “righteousness” as either (most often) the originating force of God’s saving action
or (in one instance) the standard according to which the innocent will be vindicated by
45
The Hebrew lexeme in this verse and v. 28 is ‫צ ֶדק‬, ֶ while in the other instances
ְ Crüsemann, “Jahwes
we will look at in the protest psalms it is the lexeme ‫צ ָד ָקה‬.
Gerechtigkeit,” 438–40, argues that the difference between the two lexemes is
fundamental: ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬is virtually personified and seldom used of God, while ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is used to
describe God. This is significant for Crüsemann’s tradition-historical investigation.
However, the distinction between the two lexemes is erased when the LXX translates
both with δικαιοσύνη. Thus our study departs from Crüsemann’s by including these
instances of God’s “righteousness” with the others.
46
Deut 25:1. See also Deut 1:16–17, where judges are appointed to “judge
righteously” (‫וּשׁ ַפ ְט ֶתּם ֶצ ֶדק‬
ְ ; καὶ κρίνατε δικαίως), and Deut 16:18–20, where judges are to
“righteously pursue righteousness” (‫ ; ֶצ ֶדק ֶצ ֶדק ִתּ ְרדּ ֹף‬δικαίως τὸ δίκαιον διώξῃ) by refusing
bribes and trying cases impartially.
47
Anderson, Psalms, 1:275.
48
Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, HNTC
(New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 30, emphasis added; see also, e.g., Bultmann,
Theology, 1:270.
113
God’s saving action. And, while not every instance is unambiguous, in many instances it
is likely God’s own righteousness, which is to say, an aspect of God’s own character, to
which the psalmist appeals.
Praise-Vows that Proclaim God’s Righteousness
The second place where we find consistent references to God’s righteousness is in
the promises to praise God once the requested salvation is accomplished. These “praise-
vows” are a consistent feature of protest psalms, representing a shift in perspective that
implies “that the suppliant knows God has listened to the prayer and responded.”49 With
this new assurance, the psalmist looks forward to praising God when he is rescued from
his present state of distress. And, as we will see, the most prominent aspect of God’s
character that the psalmist looks forward to praising is God’s righteousness.
That God’s “righteousness” refers to the same thing in the petition as in the
praise-vow is evident from the three psalms in which it appears in both sections. We saw
above that Psalm 7 does not contain a direct appeal to God’s “righteousness” but instead
grounds the hope for future salvation in the fact that “God is a righteous judge.” As the
psalmist hopes for God’s righteousness to be the standard by which God acquits him and
condemns his enemies, so God’s righteousness is the standard according to which (‫;כּ‬
ְ
κατά) the psalmist will thank and praise God for his act of deliverance (verse 18):
‫אוֹדֶ ה י ְהוָה ְכּצִדְ קוֹ‬ 18 ἐξοµολογήσοµαι κυρίῳ κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ
‫ַו ֲאזַמּ ְָרה שֵׁם־י ְהוָה ֶעלְיוֹן׃‬ καὶ ψαλῶ τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου.
49
Goldingay, Psalms, 1:63.
114
We have likewise already noted that Psalm 35 asks God to “judge me according to your
righteousness” in verse 24. But just four verses later this psalm looks forward to
declaring God’s righteousness:
pֶ‫וּלְשׁוֹנִי תֶּ ְהגֶּה צִדְ ק‬ 28 καὶ ἡ γλῶσσά µου µελετήσει τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου,
‫׃‬p ֶ‫כָּל־הַיּוֹם תְּ ִהלָּת‬ ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν τὸν ἔπαινόν σου.
Finally, we have noted that Psalm 71 opens by asking God to save “in your
righteousness” (verse 2). The psalmist then looks forward to declaring God’s
righteousness as he recounts that salvation in verses 15–16:
p ֶ‫פִּי י ְ ַספֵּר צִדְ קָת‬ 15 τὸ στόµα µου ἐξαγγελεῖ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου,
p ֶ‫כָּל־הַיּוֹם תְּ שׁוּעָת‬ ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν τὴν σωτηρίαν σου,
‫כִּי ™א י ָדַ עְתִּ י סְפ ֹרוֹת׃‬ ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνων γραµµατείας.
‫אָבוֹא ִבּגְבֻרוֹת אֲדֹנָי י ְהוִה‬ 16 εἰσελεύσοµαι ἐν δυναστείᾳ κυρίου·
‫׃‬p ֶ‫ ְלבַדּ‬p ְ‫אַזְכִּיר צִדְ קָת‬ κύριε, µνησθήσοµαι τῆς δικαιοσύνης50 σου µόνου.
It is noteworthy that in verse 15 there are two parallel objects of the verb “recount” (‫;יְ ַס ֵפּר‬
ἐξαγγελεῖ): both “your righteousness” and “your salvation” (A‫שׁוּﬠ ֶת‬

ָ ‫;תּ‬ְ τὴν σωτηρίαν σου).
To tell of one is to tell of the other. The psalm finally concludes with another vow to tell
of God’s righteousness “all day long” since those who sought to harm him have been “put
to shame and confusion”:
‫גַּם־לְשׁוֹנִי כָּל־הַיּוֹם‬ 24 ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ γλῶσσά µου ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν

p ֶ‫תֶּ ְהגֶּה צִדְ קָת‬ µελετήσει τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου,
‫כִּי־ב ֹשׁוּ כִי־ ָחפְרוּ‬ ὅταν αἰσχυνθῶσιν καὶ ἐντραπῶσιν
‫ְמ ַב ְקשֵׁי ָרעָתִ י׃‬ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὰ κακά µοι.
50
Aquila and Symmachus have plural form here, meaning “I will remember your
righteous acts.”
115
Thus “God’s righteousness” refers both to the grounds for the psalmist’s appeals in the
petition and to what the psalmist anticipates proclaiming in the praise-vow.
How does God’s righteousness compare to other aspects of God’s character that
the psalmist promises to proclaim? In the psalms that contain some element of protest, we
find twenty-one instances in which the psalmist looks forward to either proclaiming some
attribute of God himself or to others proclaiming some such attribute (see table 2 on p.
116).
We note that three of these instances involve generally praising God for his (at
this point relatively undefined) saving acts: 13:6, where the psalmist looks forward to
singing to God “because he has dealt generously with me” (LXX “who has dealt
generously with me”); 71:17, where the psalmist looks forward to proclaiming God’s
“wonders”; and 64:10, where the psalmist looks forward to everyone telling “the acts of
God.” The psalmist also looks forward to singing of God’s “might” in Ps 59:17 and to
proclaiming God’s “arm” in 71:18. Apart from these, we find that the psalmist looks
forward to proclaiming God’s “righteousness” (‫;צ ָד ָקה‬

ְ δικαιοσύνη) nine times in six
psalms (7:18; 22:32; 35:28; 40:10, 11; 51:14; 71:15, 16, 24)51; God’s “faithfulness”
(‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬or ‫;א ֶמת‬

ֱ ἀλήθεια) three times in two psalms (40:11 [2x, once with the Hebrew ‫ֱא ֶמת‬
and once with the Hebrew ‫]אמוּנָ ה‬,

ֱ 71:22); and God’s “steadfast love” (‫;ח ֶסד‬
ֶ ἔλεος) twice
in two psalms (40:11; 59:17). Thus, while God’s “righteousness” is by no means the only
aspect of God’s character that the psalmist looks forward to proclaiming, it is by far the
51
The LXX of Ps 71(70):18 also understands God’s righteousness as what will be
proclaimed, but in doing so it departs from the Hebrew as it is construed in the MT (see
below, p. 117 n. 55).
116
Table 2: Praise for God’s Action and Character in Praise-Vows
Reference NRSV MT LXX
(MT)
Ps 7:18 I will give to the LORD the thanks ‫ אוֹדֶ ה י ְהוָה ְכּצִדְ קוֹ‬ἐξοµολογήσοµαι κυρίῳ κατὰ τὴν
due to his righteousness δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ
Ps 13:6 my heart shall rejoice in your E ֶ‫ יָגֵל ִלבִּי בִּישׁוּעָת‬ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ καρδία µου ἐπὶ τῷ
salvation σωτηρίῳ σου
Ps 22:32 [future generations will] proclaim ‫ יַגִּידוּ צִדְ קָתוֹ ְלעַם‬ἀναγγελοῦσιν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ
his deliverance [righteousness] to ‫ נוֹלָד‬λαῷ τῷ τεχθησοµένῳ
a people yet unborn
35:28 Then my tongue shall tell of your Eֶ‫ וּלְשׁוֹנִי תֶּ ְהגֶּה צִדְ ק‬καὶ ἡ γλῶσσά µου µελετήσει τὴν
righteousness and of your praise E ֶ‫ כָּל־הַיּוֹם תְּ ִהלָּת‬δικαιοσύνην σου, ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν
all day long τὸν ἔπαινόν σου
Ps 40:10 I have told the glad news of ‫ ִבּשּׂ ְַרתִּ י צֶדֶ ק ְבּ ָקהָל‬εὐηγγελισάµην δικαιοσύνην ἐν
deliverance [righteousness] in the ‫ ָרב‬ἐκκλησίᾳ µεγάλῃ
great congregation
Ps 40:11 I have not hidden your saving help ‫א־ ִכסִּיתִ י‬m E ְ‫צִדְ קָת‬ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου οὐκ ἔκρυψα ἐν
(5x) [righteousness] within my heart, I E ְ‫ ִלבִּי אֱמוּנָת‬p‫בְּתוֹ‬ τῇ καρδίᾳ µου, τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου καὶ
have spoken of your faithfulness ‫ אָמ ְָרתִּ י‬E ְ‫וּתְ שׁוּעָת‬ τὸ σωτήριόν σου εἶπα, οὐκ ἔκρυψα
and your salvation; I have not E ְ‫א־ ִכחַדְ תִּ י ַחסְדּ‬m τὸ ἔλεός σου καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου
concealed your steadfast love and ‫ ְל ָקהָל ָרב‬E ְ‫ַו ֲאמִתּ‬ ἀπὸ συναγωγῆς πολλῆς
your faithfulness from the great
congregation.
Ps 51:16 my tongue will sing aloud of your E ֶ‫ תְּ ַרנֵּן לְשׁוֹנִי צִדְ קָת‬ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γλῶσσά µου τὴν
deliverance [righteousness] δικαιοσύνην σου
Ps 59:17 I will sing of your might; I will Eֶ‫ ַו ֲאנִי אָשִׁיר ֻעזּ‬ἐγὼ δὲ ᾄσοµαι τῇ δυνάµει σου καὶ
(2x) sing aloud of your steadfast love in E ֶ‫ ַוא ֲַרנֵּן לַבֹּקֶר ַחסְדּ‬ἀγαλλιάσοµαι τὸ πρωὶ τὸ ἔλεός σου
the morning
Ps 64:10 Then everyone will fear; they will ‫ ַויּ ְִיראוּ כָּל־אָדָ ם‬καὶ ἐφοβήθη πᾶς ἄνθρωπος. καὶ
tell what God has brought about ‫הִים‬mֱ‫ ַויַּגִּידוּ פֹּעַל א‬ἀνήγγειλαν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ
71:15 (2x) My mouth will tell of your E ֶ‫ פִּי י ְ ַספֵּר צִדְ קָת‬τὸ στόµα µου ἐξαγγελεῖ τὴν
righteous acts, of your deeds of E ֶ‫ כָּל־הַיּוֹם תְּ שׁוּעָת‬δικαιοσύνην σου, ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν
salvation all day long τὴν σωτηρίαν σου
71:16 I will come praising [lit. “in”] the ‫ אָבוֹא ִבּגְבֻרוֹת אֲדֹנָי‬εἰσελεύσοµαι ἐν δυναστείᾳ κυρίου·
mighty deeds of the Lord GOD, I E ְ‫ י ְהוִה אַזְכִּיר צִדְ קָת‬κύριε, µνησθήσοµαι τῆς δικαιοσύνης
will praise your righteousness, E ֶ‫ ְלבַדּ‬σου µόνου
yours alone
71:17 I still proclaim your wondrous ‫ עַד־ ֵהנָּה אַגִּיד‬µέχρι νῦν ἀπαγγελῶ τὰ θαυµάσιά σου
deeds E‫נִ ְפלְאוֹתֶ י‬
71:18 do not forsake me, until I proclaim ‫אַל־תַּ ַעזְ ֵבנִי‬ µὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς µε, ἕως ἂν
your might to all the generations to Eֲ‫עַד־אַגִּיד זְרוֹע‬ ἀπαγγείλω τὸν βραχίονά σου πάσῃ τῇ
come. ‫לְדוֹר ְלכָל־י ָבוֹא‬ γενεᾷ τῇ ἐρχοµένῃ, // τὴν δυναστείαν
E ֶ‫ְבוּרת‬
ָ ‫גּ‬ σου καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου
71:22 I will also praise you with the harp ‫ ִב ְכלִי־נֶבֶל‬E ְ‫ ֲאנִי אוֹד‬ἐγὼ ἐξοµολογήσοµαί σοι ἐν σκεύει
for your faithfulness, O my God ‫הָי‬mֱ‫ א‬E ְ‫ ֲאמִתּ‬ψαλµοῦ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου, ὁ θεός
71:24 All day long my tongue will talk ‫ גַּם־לְשׁוֹנִי כָּל־הַיּוֹם‬ἡ γλῶσσά µου ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν
of your righteous help E ֶ‫ תֶּ ְהגֶּה צִדְ קָת‬µελετήσει τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου
117
52
most prominent one, occurring three times as often as any other. This strongly suggests
that there is something about God’s “righteousness” that makes it particularly relevant in
situations in which the psalmist is in distress, not only as the grounds for the appeal for
God to save but also as what will be proclaimed about God when this salvation is
accomplished.
This is even more apparent if we adopt a stricter definition of “praise-vow.” We
have already noted the “polarity” between protest and praise in these psalms, the way that
the anticipation of salvation and the promise to praise God can blend rather seamlessly
into actual praise. Two of the psalms in our list stand out for praising a variety of aspects
of God’s character: Psalms 40 and 71. We have already noted the way that Psalm 71
promises to praise God’s righteousness once the psalmist is delivered.53 But this potential
praise flows into actual praise in verse 19,54 which declares that God’s “righteousness”
reaches to the heavens in light of the fact that he has “done great things.”55 Not
52
As a whole, the psalms refer to God’s “faithfulness” almost forty times and to
God’s “righteousness” roughly the same amount. However, they refer to God’s “steadfast
love” roughly 120 times. Thus the prominence of God’s “righteousness” in the praise-
vows of protest psalms is not simply a function of the prominence of God’s
“righteousness” in the psalms more generally.
53
See above, p. 114.
54
Anderson notes that this psalm, even though most properly classified as a
lament, contains elements of other genres (Psalms, 1:510); Kraus notes that in the praise-
vow this psalm “presses forward to a ‫[ תודה‬praise]” (Psalms 60–150, trans. Hilton C.
Oswald [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 71); and Hossfeld and Zenger note the “collage-
character” of this psalm (Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. Linda M.
Maloney, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 194).
55
The LXX, by rendering A‫ וְ ִצ ְד ָק ְת‬with the accusative καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου,
connects that phrase with the previous verse as the object of the verb ἀπαγγείλω rather
than understanding it as the subject of this verse.
118
coincidentally, it is in this section of more general praise that God’s “faithfulness” is
praised in verse 22. Even more dramatically, Psalm 40 does not look forward to
proclaiming God’s righteousness nor promise to proclaim God’s righteousness but tells of
already having done so.56 In verse 10 the psalmist claims to have “announced
righteousness” (‫ ; ִבּ ַשּׂ ְר ִתּי ֶצ ֶדק‬εὐηγγελισάµην δικαιοσύνην) in the “great assembly,” and in
verse 11 he claims not to have hidden God’s righteousness in his heart. This psalm is
unusual for beginning not with a petition but with a song of praise—God’s deliverance is
presented as having been already accomplished. Some have even suggested that the first
twelve verses should be classified as a psalm of praise.57 As such, the proclamation of
God’s righteousness is the culmination of the praise-section that looks back on a past
deliverance. It is in this context that, in verse 11, the psalmist also promises to proclaim
God’s “faithfulness,” “steadfast love,” and “salvation.” To recount God’s act of salvation
is to proclaim not only God’s righteousness but also God’s faithfulness and steadfast love.
We find, therefore, that it is when these psalms move from a vow of praise to
actual praise that the regular vocabulary of praise in the psalms (highlighting God’s
56
The Hebrew verbs (‫ ִבּ ַשּׂ ְר ִתּי‬and ‫יתי‬ ִ are in the perfect tense, and the
ִ ‫)כ ִסּ‬
corresponding Greek verbs (εὐηγγελισάµην and ἔκρυψα) are in the aorist tense. The
Hebrew perfect tense (and the Greek aorist) need not always express past time action, just
as the Hebrew imperfect (and the Greek future) need not always express future time
action (see, e.g., the imperfect/future of Ps 71:17, which express ongoing action “up to
now”). However, the use of the perfect/aorist tense in Psalm 40 is unique in the psalms
we are examining, and the context suggests a description of past action here.
57
Westermann, Psalms, 55, 74; Anderson, Psalms, 1:314; Kraus, Psalms 1–59,
423. Longman rightly points out that, while the psalm is unusual for opening a lament
with a thanksgiving section, there is no need to postulate a pastiche of two different
psalms: the psalmist simply looks back to God’s past saving action and then to his present
need for an additional saving action (Psalms, 186–87).
119
steadfast love and faithfulness) comes into view. Even here, God’s righteousness remains
unusually prominent, presumably because God’s saving action is still in the foreground.
But it is when Psalms 40 and 71 move away from an anticipation of praise to actual
praise that other aspects of God’s character are praised alongside God’s righteousness.
By contrast, the two remaining occurrences of God’s “righteousness” as strictly
anticipated praise are in Psalms 51 and 22, and in both of these instances it is only God’s
righteousness that is mentioned. Both of these psalms exhibit variations of the regular
pattern of protest psalms. In Psalm 51, there are no enemies mentioned, nor is there any
description of the physical danger or oppression found in many other protest psalms.
Instead, it is the psalmist’s own guilt and sin that threaten him. The psalm thus begins as
a penitential psalm, confessing sin and asking for forgiveness. Other psalms that confess
sin and ask for forgiveness celebrate or appeal to God’s love and compassion,58 and
Psalm 51 is no different. It opens with an appeal to God to have mercy on the psalmist
“according to your [great] love” (A‫;כּ ַח ְס ֶדּ‬

ְ κατὰ τὸ µέγα ἔλεός σου) and to wipe away the
psalmist’s transgressions “according to your abundance of your compassion” (A‫; ְכּר ֹב ַר ֲח ֶמי‬
κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν οἰκτιρµῶν σου). God’s righteousness, by contrast, is not brought up
at first—it is presumably less relevant to this situation. But when in verse 16 the psalmist
makes the move to view guilt itself as a hostile force from which the psalmist needs
58
E.g., Ps 6:5 asks God to save “on account of your love” (A‫ ; ְל ַמ ַﬠן ַח ְס ֶדּ‬ἕνεκεν τοῦ
ἐλέους σου); Ps 32:10 proclaims that God’s “love” (‫;ח ֶסד‬ ֶ ἔλεος) surrounds those who fear
him; Ps 69:17 asks God to answer “because your love is good” (A‫ ; ִכּי־טוֹב ַח ְס ֶדּ‬ὅτι χρηστὸν
τὸ ἔλεός σου) and to act “according to the greatness of your compassion” (A‫; ְכּר ֹב ַר ֲח ֶמי‬
κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν οἰκτιρµῶν σου); and Ps 130:7 proclaims that “with the Lord is
unfailing love” (‫ ; ִﬠם־יְ הוָ ה ַה ֶח ֶסד‬παρὰ τῷ κυρίῳ τὸ ἔλεος). None of these psalms mentions
God’s righteousness. For these psalms as penitential psalms, see Westermann, Psalms,
69.
120
59
“rescuing,” then God is addressed as “God of my salvation” (‫שׁוּﬠ ִתי‬ ֵ ‫ ; ֱא‬ὁ θεὸς τῆς
ָ ‫;הי ְתּ‬
σωτηρίας µου) and God’s righteousness is the content of the immediately following
praise-vow:60
‫ַהצִּי ֵלנִי מִדָּ מִים‬ 16 ῥῦσαί µε ἐξ αἱµάτων,

‫אֱ™הִים אֱ™הֵי תְּ שׁוּעָתִ י‬ ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεὸς τῆς σωτηρίας µου·
‫׃‬p ֶ‫תְּ ַרנֵּן לְשׁוֹנִי צִדְ קָת‬ ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γλῶσσά µου τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου.
Here the familiar vow to praise God’s “righteousness” when delivered from one’s
enemies becomes a vow to praise God’s “righteousness” when delivered from
“bloodguilt.”61 Yet God is still addressed as the “God of my salvation,” conceptualizing
this deliverance from guilt as an act of salvation. And this salvation of the psalmist will
lead him to declare one aspect of God’s character in particular: God’s righteousness.
Whereas Psalm 51 lacks any mention of external threats, Psalm 22 offers one of
the most graphic descriptions of the dire straits of the protesting psalmist. This psalm,
59
This move is not entirely unique to this psalm; cf. Ps 39:9.
60
Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, Sprache und Ritus im altisraelitischen Kult, WMANT
19 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965), 48, notes that this verse contains both a
petition and a praise-vow.
61
Contra Aejmelaeus, Traditional Prayer, 18, who sees the psalmist as asking for
“deliverance from imminent death as a victim of ‘bloodshed’ rather than from being
‘bloodguilty.’” But nothing in this psalm indicates external danger—it is God’s righteous
judgment (v. 6) that crushes the psalmist (v. 10). For other instances of ‫ ָדּ ִמים‬as
“bloodguilt,” see Exod 22:2; Lev 17:4; Deut 19:10 (DCH 2:444). This is not as natural a
sense for the Greek αἷµα, so in some of these instances it is rendered more idiomatically
as “guilty” (ἔνοχός—Exod 22:2). In others, it is rendered “guilty with respect to
bloodshed” (αἵµατι ἔνοχος—Deut 19:10). But in one instance, the Hebrew syntax is kept,
forcing a reader to understand αἷµα as “bloodguilt”: in Lev 17:4, “bloodguilt will be
accounted to that person” (‫ ) ָדּם יֵ ָח ֵשׁב ָל ִאישׁ ַההוּא‬becomes λογισθήσεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
ἐκείνῳ αἷµα. Thus, while the Greek αἷµα does not as naturally convey a sense of
“bloodguilt” as the Hebrew ‫דּ ִמים‬,ָ it can do so if the context demands it—as the context
Psalm 51 clearly does.
121
however, is unique among the protest psalms for the dramatic shift that takes place at
verse 23, suggesting that the entire second half of the psalm represents an extended
praise-vow.62 This section opens with the psalmist himself promising to declare God’s
name and God’s praise in the assembly (verses 23–27). But then the horizon of the psalm
expands both in time and space, looking to the “ends of the earth” (verse 28) and to future
generations (verse 31). Finally, this vow culminates with a description of God’s
“righteousness” being proclaimed to unborn generations:
‫י ְ ֻספַּר לַאדֹנָי לַדּוֹר׃‬ 31 ἀναγγελήσεται τῷ κυρίῳ γενεὰ ἡ ἐρχοµένη,
‫י ָב ֹאוּ ְויַגִּידוּ צִדְ קָתוֹ‬ 32 καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ

‫ְלעַם נוֹלָד כִּי ָעשָׂה׃‬ λαῷ τῷ τεχθησοµένῳ, ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος.
The reason for this declaration is compactly expressed in the Hebrew (‫ ) ִכּי ָﬠ ָשׂה‬while the
implied subject is made explicit in the LXX (ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος). The object, on the
other hand, is left unexpressed in both, to be filled by the context of the psalm as a whole:
the dramatic deliverance of the psalmist from his enemies. By the time this psalm
mentions God’s righteousness being proclaimed it is no longer the psalmist himself who
is doing the proclaiming. Rather it is the “future generations.” Still, it is because God
accomplished this dramatic salvation for his servant that they proclaim God’s
righteousness.
We find, then, that where the psalmist looks forward to proclaiming some aspect
of God’s character after God has rescued him, the aspect that is by far the most prominent
62
So David Armitage, “Rescued Already? The Significance of ‫ עניתני‬in Psalm
22,22,” Bib 91 (2010): 335–47, here 345; Ellen F. Davis, “Exploding the Limits: Form
and Function in Psalm 22,” JSOT 53 (1992): 93–105, here 97; Robert Alter, The Book of
Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), 75 n. 22;
Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 298; Goldingay, Psalms, 1:335–36.
122
is God’s righteousness. Just as in situations of distress the psalmist appealed most often to
God’s righteousness in requesting salvation, so after that salvation the psalmist looks
forward most often to proclaiming God’s righteousness.
We may summarize our findings regarding the dual role of God’s righteousness in
the protest psalms as follows: In their petitions, Psalms 31, 71, and 143 all appeal to
God’s righteousness as the aspect of his character that is the originating force of his
saving action. Additionally, Psalms 7 and 35 appeal to God’s righteousness as the
attribute according to which he will act as a judge and will vindicate the innocent. In their
praise-vows, Psalms 7 and 35 promise to declare God’s righteousness in the future once
this future salvation takes place. In addition, Psalms 71 and 40 move from anticipating
future praise to engaging in that praise itself for a previously accomplished salvation.
Psalm 51 also looks forward to proclaiming God’s righteousness once the psalmist has
been rescued from guilt while Psalm 22 looks forward to the distant future when even
unborn generations will proclaim God’s righteousness in light of God’s great act of
salvation. These psalms thus exhibit a great deal of variety and creativity, expressing a
broad range of prayers and reflecting a broad range of situations. But in all this variety,
the two functions of God’s righteousness in these psalms remain remarkably consistent:
in situations of distress the psalmist appeals for God to save him on the basis of God’s
righteousness, and once that salvation is accomplished the psalmist will publicly proclaim
God’s righteousness.
123
Theological/Conceptual Implications
of This Dual Role
This consistent dual role for God’s righteousness in protest psalms suggests an
enduring enriched concept. We can now explore what that concept looks like. In
particular, we will look at four aspects of this enriched concept of God’s righteousness:
how it relates to God’s saving action, who benefits from this saving action, how and
when it is publicly proclaimed, and how this proclamation affects those who hear it.
God’s Righteousness and God’s Saving Action
First and foremost, there is the obvious link between God’s righteousness and
God’s saving action in these psalms. We noted that, in general, God’s righteousness is not
the most common aspect of God’s character to be praised or extolled in the psalms as a
whole. But in situations of distress, it is God’s righteousness that is most often appealed
to as the motivating force for God’s saving action, and it is God’s righteousness that is
most often praised once God accomplishes that saving action. This saving action almost
always takes the form of deliverance from physical threats. Psalm 51 is the one
exception, but just for that reason it proves the more general link between God’s
righteousness and God’s saving action. As we saw,63 it is only when the plea for
forgiveness and cleansing takes the form of a plea for rescue and salvation that God’s
righteousness comes into view—but it comes into view as soon as this occurs. This
63
See above, pp. 119–20.
124
strongly suggests a recurring enriched concept of God’s righteousness that is particularly
expressed in God’s saving action.64
It is easy to see, then, how language of God’s “righteousness” could be taken to
refer to God’s saving action or God’s saving power directly.65 This is especially the case
when we note that the terms for God’s “righteousness” (‫צ ָד ָקה‬,
ְ δικαιοσύνη) and God’s
“salvation” (‫שׁוּﬠה‬
ָ ‫תּ‬,ְ σωτηρία) appear in parallel in some of these psalms (cf. 40:11;
71:15).66 These parallels, however, are both in the praise-vows. By contrast, in the
petitions there is an important distinction between the two terms—they are not
interchangeable. When the psalmist asks God to save or deliver him, he grounds this
action “in God’s righteousness,” never “in God’s salvation.”67 Thus, while affirming the
64
Cf. Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq,” 246. Our findings therefore confirm Cremer’s view
that God’s righteousness in the OT may be characterized as God’s saving righteousness—
a iustitia salutifera (Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 33; see discussion above, pp.
5–7). However, this does not require us to accept Cremer’s point that this is the concept
in view “im ganzen Alten Testament” (ibid.). At this point all we can confirm is that
God’s saving righteousness is one possible enriched concept to which language of God’s
righteousness may refer. The question of whether this is the same as God’s judicial
righteousness must remain open for now.
65
So, e.g., Gottlob Schrenk, “δικαιοσύνη,” TDNT 2:203; Scullion,
“Righteousness,” 732; John Reumann, “Righteousness (NT),” ABD 5:748; Dunn,
Romans 1–8, 41; Campbell, Deliverance of God, 702. But note N. T. Wright’s warning
that seeing “righteousness” as equivalent to “salvation” “fails to bring out the point to
which Isaiah regularly appeals, which is that these are acts done because of YHWH’s
prior commitment to Israel” (Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:800). See also the arguments
against such equivalency in Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 258; and Seifrid,
Justification by Faith, 215.
66
On parallelism in Hebrew poetry and its limited significance for our
understanding of the OT use of “righteousness” language, see Irons, Righteousness of
God, 65–68, with references.
67
The closest is Ps 69:14, where the psalmist asks God to “answer me with the
truth/faithfulness of your saving action” (A‫ ; ֲﬠנֵ נִ י ֶבּ ֱא ֶמת יִ ְשׁ ֶﬠ‬ἐπάκουσόν µου ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τῆς
σωτηρίας σου). Here, though, the “faithful saving action” specifies the content of the
125
closest possible connection between God’s righteousness and God’s saving action, we
find an important distinction between these two concepts in the petitions of the protest
psalms.68
This distinction is not surprising, for these petitions emerge from situations in
which God’s saving action is absent. This absence of God’s saving action must not imply
an absence of God’s righteousness, for the psalmist must be able to appeal to God’s
righteousness even if God has not yet acted to save. In other words, the “protest” of these
psalms emerges from a contradiction between what the psalmist knows to be true about
God’s righteous character and what the psalmist experiences of God’s saving action.69 Yet
answer. See also Ps 106:4, the only occurrence of the phrase “in your salvation” in either
Hebrew (A‫ישׁוּﬠ ֶת‬ ָ ‫)בּ‬ִ or Greek (ἐν τῷ σωτηρίῳ σου) in the context of an appeal. Here the
psalmist asks God to “remember” him (‫ )זָ ְכ ֵרנִ י‬at the time of God’s favor toward his people
(A‫ ; ִבּ ְרצוֹן ַﬠ ֶמּ‬ἐν τῇ εὐδοκίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου). So asking God to “look to me” (‫)פּ ְק ֵדנִ י‬
ָ “in your
salvation” (A‫ישׁוּﬠ ֶת‬ ָ ‫;בּ‬ ִ ἐν τῷ σωτηρίῳ σου) likely means “when you act to save [your
people]”; the ‫ ְבּ‬and ἐν are best understood here as temporal.
68
So Ziesler, Righteousness, 41–42; see also Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions, 164–65:
“Although one may reasonably assert the inseparability of God’s righteous attribute and
his righteous action, the petitioners in these psalms do actually separate them, insofar as
they pray for action on the basis of the attribute.” See also Seifrid’s observation that even
though the LXX translators “recognize the salvific sense of the biblical usage” of
“righteousness” language, they still refuse to reduce the meaning of “righteousness” to
the idea of “salvation” (“Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic
Background,” in The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism,
ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2004], 52).
69
Thus while affirming Douglas Campbell’s call to “vigilantly resist any
dichotomy in our thinking between being and act or activity,” we disagree with his claim
that “given a dynamic understanding of ontology any reference to a divine attribute or
aspect of being must be a reference simultaneously to divine activity” (“Rereading Paul’s
ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language,” in Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the
Work of Douglas Campbell, ed. Chris Tilling [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014], 198, italics
original). When divine activity is absent, it is precisely this distinction (not dichotomy)
that the psalmist must maintain.
126
God remains righteous, and it is this righteousness that gives the psalmist confidence to
ask for salvation.70
We may conclude, then, that the link to God’s saving action belongs (at least for
now) to the encyclopedic, not logical, enrichment of the concept of God’s righteousness.
That is to say, it is not the case that language of God’s “righteousness” means, or even
directly refers to, God’s saving action. Of course, it may be possible for such an enriched
concept to be extended metonymically and thereby refer to the saving action itself.71 But
this does not yet happen in these psalms. Here God’s righteousness is encyclopedically
enriched as the originating force of God’s saving action on behalf of the psalmist.
God’s Righteousness and God’s People
Why is God’s righteousness the originating force of God’s saving action on behalf
of the psalmist? We cannot fail to notice, of course, that God’s righteousness does not
result in salvation for the psalmist’s enemies. Quite the opposite: the psalmist’s enemies
70
So Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 261–63: references to God’s
righteousness “characterize the being of the God who makes himself known in deeds;
they point to aspects of the divine nature” (261). See also Wright, Paul and the
Faithfulness, 2:800, referring to God’s “righteousness” as “an attribute revealed in
action.” It is probably best to understand God’s “righteousness” not as an attribute of
God (see the warning against understanding an attribute as “God as he is in himself” in
Ziesler, Righteousness, 186) but as an aspect of the character of God, given that by
“character” we mean who one is in one’s actions. So, e.g., K. L. Onesti and M. T. Brauch,
“Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F.
Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 827–
37, here 829 (righteousness “characterizes the character or action of God”); Moo,
Romans, 77 (“righteousness of God” is an “experienced aspect of God’s character”).
71
So Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 356.
127
72
are not saved; the precise opposite fate befalls them. The salvation that reveals God’s
righteousness is therefore a differentiated salvation, a salvation that benefits the psalmist
and not his enemies. We may say that God’s saving righteousness has a limited scope.73
So why does the psalmist think God’s righteousness will benefit him in particular?
What is it about God’s righteousness that results in such a differentiated salvation? Why
is he within the scope of God’s saving righteousness, and not his enemies?
In some psalms, the answer is clear: because of his innocence. Here, God’s
righteousness is God’s fairness as a judge in vindicating the innocent and condemning the
guilty. Thus, in both Psalms 7 and 35 it is this enriched concept of God’s righteousness
that is most relevant in light of the psalmists’ assertions of their innocence.74 Some have
therefore taken this particular enrichment of the concept as the referent for all uses of
72
E.g., 31:18–19; 35:26; 143:12. See Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness:
Paul’s Theology of Justification, NSBT 9 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 43:
“Saving righteousness and wrath parallel one another, since they are different aspects of
the same event.”
73
In fact, one psalm does speak of God’s righteousness in precisely this manner.
Psalm 69 is a protest psalm that calls down a variety of curses on those who “persecute
the one you wound” (v. 27), including a request that they might “not come into your
righteousness” (A‫ ;וְ ַאל־יָ בֹאוּ ְבּ ִצ ְד ָק ֶת‬καὶ µὴ εἰσελθέτωσαν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ σου). Modern
translations render this idiomatically, either as a wish that they not “share in your
salvation” (NIV) or as a wish that they “may have no acquittal from you” (NRSV, see
also ESV, NLT). But the Hebrew and Greek idioms here are telling: they likely reflect a
conception of God’s righteousness as the sphere in which God’s salvation is operative,
hence the anxiety of the psalmist that his enemies might somehow enter that sphere. See,
on this verse, John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Romans 9:1–23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 107.
74
See above, p. 112. Burton notes that in these psalms (and in Isa 41:10; 42:6;
45:8, 13; and 51:5), God’s righteousness is indeed in parallel with salvation, but “the
basis of such salvation is the discriminating righteousness of God” (A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1921], 462, emphasis added).
128
75
language of “God’s righteousness” in the psalms. However, not every psalm that
appeals to God’s righteousness for a differentiated salvation also appeals to the psalmist’s
innocence. In Psalm 143, right after asking God to hear him “in your righteousness” in
verse 1, the psalmist asks God not to “lead him into judgment” in verse 2:
p ֶ‫שׁפָּט אֶת־ ַעבְדּ‬

ְ ‫וְאַל־תָּ בוֹא ְב ִמ‬ 2 καὶ µὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν µετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου,
‫ כָל־חָי׃‬p‫כִּי ™א־יִצְדַּ ק ְל ָפנֶי‬ ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν.
This is a remarkable shift from those psalms in which the psalmist invited God to judge
him (e.g., Pss 7:9; 35:24). Here the psalmist asks God not to.76 This is not because the
psalmist is especially guilty or has done particularly evil acts, but because of his general
understanding that “everyone alive” will “not be righteous/vindicated/justified before
you” (A‫לֹא־יִ ְצ ַדּק ְל ָפנֶ י‬, LXX οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου). Of course, the psalmist still
asks God to “silence” his enemies and “destroy” all his oppressors (verse 12). But verse 2
suggests that the psalmist can appeal to God’s “righteousness” for such a differentiated
salvation apart from an appeal to the psalmist’s own righteousness.
75
So Irons, Righteousness of God, who sees “righteousness” language as “moving
from the judicial arena and then being extended and applied to the moral arena” (124),
meaning that “God’s righteousness is precisely iustitia distributiva” (193). See also
Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions, 158–65.
76
Irons suggests that this is a cry for God “to deliver him from his foes by a
judicial act of righteousness, that is, by vindicating him against his enemies”
(Righteousness of God, 188, cf. 307). But it is unclear what exactly is being vindicated. It
cannot be the psalmist’s own righteousness, for he has just denied that he (or anyone) is
righteous. If it is his identity as God’s servant who trusts in the God who is committed to
him (which is far more likely), then we are deep into the “covenantal” territory that Irons
insists is not central to God’s righteousness. Irons concludes that the reference to
judgment in v. 2 “demonstrates the forensic context of the whole psalm” (ibid., 190), but
it more clearly demonstrates a potential forensic context from which the psalmist is
explicitly asking to be spared.
129
Psalm 51 is even clearer. There are no physical enemies in this psalm, so there is
no differentiated salvation requested. But that is because the psalmist himself takes on the
role of the oppressor: the extended superscription identifies this psalm as the psalm of
David when he was confronted by Nathan over his sin with Bathsheba. And yet in verse
16, as we saw above, the psalmist still promises to declare God’s “righteousness” when
he is delivered. If this is remarkable in light of the statement in verse 6 that God is
“shown to be righteous” in his words of condemnation,77 it is all the more remarkable in
light of the appeals in Psalms 7 and 35. Those psalms appeal to God to show his
“righteousness” by condemning the wicked who oppress the innocent. Here God’s
“righteousness” is proclaimed when God does precisely the opposite.78
This suggests a necessary distinction between these enriched concepts of God’s
righteousness: a righteousness that saves the righteous because they are righteous cannot
77
This interpretation will be discussed further and defended below, pp. 271–73.
78
Irons acknowledges that this instance of “God’s righteousness” is “salvific”
(Righteousness of God, 184), but he nevertheless insists that the “saving righteousness”
of v. 16 “involves judicial activity” (185). This is because this salvation “comes through a
judicial act in which God declares the sinner to be guilty before him and then, by his
grace providing atonement for sin that ‘blots out iniquities’ [v. 11], declares him to be no
longer one who is reckoned among ‘transgressors’ and ‘sinners’ [v. 15] but one who has
been delivered from blood-guiltiness [v. 16] and therefore by implication one of the
righteous who enjoy God’s favor” (185, emphasis added). This is certainly possible
(although I fail to see where in v. 15 God “declares him to be no longer one who is
reckoned among ‘transgressors’ and ‘sinners’”), but it would take considerable
conceptual modification to make such a “judicial righteousness” relevant to this context.
A far shorter cognitive path is the one we outlined above (p. 123): God’s righteousness is
the originating force of God’s saving action, so when the psalmist moves to understand
the forgiveness of his sins as a saving action (rescuing him from guilt and sin itself) he
naturally can promise to proclaim God’s righteousness once this salvation is
accomplished.
130
79
be exactly the same as a righteousness that saves the unrighteous. God’s righteousness
therefore cannot always be simply his iustitia distributiva, his fairness as a judge in
giving to each what they deserve. The relationship between God’s saving righteousness
and God’s judging righteousness will be explored in chapter 6.80 For now, we may simply
observe that in spite of this tension there is a remarkable continuity in the result of God’s
righteousness throughout these psalms: God’s righteousness always results in the
salvation of the psalmist.81 This happens in a variety of situations. Sometimes the
psalmist is himself righteous, sometimes not; sometimes the threats are external enemies
who are mistreating him, sometimes the threats are internal moral sin and guilt that result
from the psalmist having mistreated others. Thus, the moral righteousness of the psalmist
himself is not a consistent factor in determining why God’s righteousness will result in
his salvation—and not that of his enemies.
Another explanation for why God’s righteousness benefits the psalmist in
particular could be God’s covenant: God has promised to deliver his people from their
79
So Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” 12–13, who argues that “im AT wird
der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit Gottes in verschiedenem Sinne gebraucht. Gottes
Gerechtigkeit kann sowohl seine richterliche iustitia distributiva bedeuten wie seine
iustitia salutifera, nämlich seine helfende, heilbringende Macht.” Contra Irons,
Righteousness of God, 193, who argues that Cremer set up a “false dichotomy between
iustitia salutifera and iustitia distributiva that has haunted scholarship ever since.” While
we certainly do not suggest a dichotomy (since the two may overlap, perhaps more often
than not), we insist that at times considerations of relevance prompt us to infer a
distinction between the two.
80
See below, p. 273.
81
See Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 442: God’s righteousness “primär auf
die Not als solche bezogen wird, nicht aber auf das Problem von Schuld und Unschuld.”
131
82
distress (of whatever sort), and therefore doing so fulfills his covenant obligations. The
enriched concept of God’s righteousness in this case would be God’s faithfulness to his
covenant promises. This is certainly possible: keeping promises is one way to be
“righteous.”83 Against this, however, stands the observation that these psalms that refer to
God’s righteousness do not contain any explicit, direct references to God’s covenant.84 Of
course, it may be that they do not need to mention the covenant because it is so
fundamentally “presupposed.”85 But other psalms do mention it. Among protest psalms,
Ps 74:20 asks God to “see to [your] covenant” (‫ ; ַה ֵבּט ַל ְבּ ִרית‬ἐπίβλεψον εἰς τὴν διαθήκην
σου) in light of the destruction of the temple (verses 3–11), and Ps 89:40 protests that
God has “repudiated the covenant [‫;בּ ִרית‬

ְ διαθήκην] with your servant” by allowing the
Davidic dynasty to be overthrown (verses 38–45). In addition, some praise psalms
celebrate the fact that God “remembered his covenant” in the past (105:8; 106:45) and
82
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:795–96, 799–801, 1055–56; Dunn,
Theology, 342–43. So Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 17: “Diese helfende, teilnehmende
Gerechtigkeit Jahwes läßt sich nur verstehen als Ausdruck des Bundes Jahwes mit seinem
Volk. . . . In diesem Sinne ist die ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes’ wesentlich sein Heilswirken
zugunsten seines Volkes.”
83
Herodotus, Historiae 2.151, uses the phrase χράοµαι δικαιοσύνῃ, “to exercise
righteousness,” to refer to fulfilling covenantal or contractual obligations. See Irons,
Righteousness of God, 87, who insists that this “application of the term beyond its
original judicial setting” does not affect the “lexical concept” associated with the term
(88). For other examples, see ibid., 105–6.
84
Crüsemann points out that the word “covenant” (‫)ב ִרית‬
ְ rarely occurs in these
texts (“Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 430). More generally, Schmid observes that “andere
Begriffe, welche ihre Wurzel weniger im kanaanäischen Erbgut des israelitischen Geistes
haben, wie ‘Bund,’ ‘Erwählung’ u. ä. fehlen im Umkreis von ‫ צדק‬weitgehend”
(Gerechtigkeit, 167). See also Irons, Righteousness of God, 125; Seifrid, “Righteousness
Language,” 423.
85
Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420–21, who argues that this is the
case in Rabbinic writings.
132
proclaim that God “will remember his covenant forever” (111:5). In all of these psalms,
however, the fortunes of the nation of Israel as a whole are in view. While the distinction
between individual and communal psalms should not be held too tightly, it is noteworthy
that the individual protest psalms, where we find references to God’s righteousness, do
not refer to God’s covenant, while the communal protest psalms, where we find
references to the covenant, do not refer to God’s righteousness.86 This is not to say that
the covenant is not in view at all. But a lack of references to the covenant is not what we
would expect if the appeals to God’s righteousness were directly appeals to God’s
covenant promises.
So to what do these psalms directly appeal? More often, they appeal to the
psalmist’s status as God’s “servant” and to God’s status as the psalmist’s “God.”87 We see
this throughout Psalm 143, where the psalmist grounds his requests for salvation with
statements that “you are my God” (‫לוֹהי‬ ַ ‫ ; ִכּ‬ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ θεός µου—verse 10) and “I
ָ ‫י־א ָתּה ֱא‬
am your servant” (A‫ ; ִכּי ֲאנִ י ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ‬ὅτι δοῦλός σού εἰµι ἐγώ—verse 12). Likewise, in Ps 22:11
the psalmist asserts that “I have been cast on you from the womb; from my mother’s
womb you are my God [‫ ; ֵא ִלי ָא ָתּה‬θεός µου εἶ σύ].” This is obviously related to God’s
covenant with the people of Israel, the covenant that boils down to God’s promise that “I
will be your God and you will be my people.”88 But it is more accurate to say that the
86
Psalm 111 is a communal praise psalm that mentions both God’s righteousness
(v. 3) and God’s remembering (v. 5) and ordaining (v. 9) the covenant.
87
Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen, 234–35.
88
See, paradigmatically, Exod 6:7 (cf. Jer 7:22; 11:3). For this phrase used in
prophetic discourse to refer to a new covenant, see Jer 30:22; Ezek 36:28.
133
psalmist appeals to the relationship that this covenant establishes rather than to this
covenant itself.89
This relationship gives rise to a singular action on the part of the psalmist that is
constantly expressed in these psalms: he trusts in God.90 This is directly connected to
God’s status as the psalmist’s God in Ps 31:15, where the affirmation of the psalmist’s
trust in God is parallel to his confession, “You are my God.” In Psalm 22, the psalmist’s
enemies mockingly acknowledge this trust (verse 9), and the psalmist himself affirms that
he has trusted in God since his birth (verses 10–11). Likewise, in Psalm 143 the psalmist
“spreads out” his hands to God (verse 6), puts his trust in him (verse 8), and hides himself
in God (verse 9). Finally, in Psalm 71 the psalmist confesses that God has been his
“hope” and his “confidence” since his youth (verse 5), and that he has relied on God
since his birth (verse 6).91 Again, God’s covenant relationship with his people likely
undergirds and precedes this trust. But it is to this trust that the psalmist explicitly
appeals.92
In light of these observations, an alternative understanding of the logical
enrichment of this concept becomes possible. God’s righteousness may result in God’s
saving action not because such saving action fulfills God’s covenant promises directly but
89
Cf. James P. Ware, “Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul’s Theology of the Law in
Romans 3:19–20,” JTS 62 (2011): 513–40, here 529–30.
90
Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen, 232: “Der Grund, auf den die Dichter der
Klagelieder am liebsten häufigsten ihre Bitte stellen, ist das Vertrauen auf Jahve.”
91
See also Pss 5:3; 7:2; 31:2, 6, 18; and 40:2.
92
So Hafemann, “Reading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language,” 221–22.
134
93
because such saving action is what is right for God to do as God of his people. In other
words, the implicated premise of this conceptual enrichment may be the expectation that
any god will listen and respond when his worshippers are in distress. This expectation
clearly underlies Isa 44:17, where the prophet mocks the idol-maker who sets up a carved
block of wood and asks it to save him, “for you are my god”—a statement that would not
be out of place in the protest psalms we have examined.94 Of course, such statements in
the psalms indirectly refer to God’s covenant faithfulness, for God is only the God of
Israel because he has covenantally promised to be that for them.95 And this would hardly
be an insignificant distinction for the prophet: in his telling,96 the idol-maker initiates a
93
So Seebass and Brown, “Righteousness,” 335: “The righteousness of God
appears in his God-like dealings with his people, i.e. in redemption and salvation”
(emphasis added). See also Eichrodt, Theology, 1:240–41. Note that, in Zech 8:8, God
promises that when he returns his people to the land, “they will be to me a people, and I
will be to them God in faithfulness and righteousness” (‫א;הים‬ ִ ‫יוּ־לי ְל ָﬠם וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶהם ֵל‬
ִ ‫ָה‬
ִ ‫ ; ֶבּ ֱא ֶמת‬ἔσονταί µοι εἰς λαόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσοµαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεὸν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἐν
‫וּב ְצ ָד ָקה‬
δικαιοσύνῃ). For this reference, see Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq,” 255.
94
See, e.g., Pss 7:2 and 86:2; see also Isa 25:9. This is likely related to an
expectation that anyone in a more powerful position will come to the aid of those who
have placed themselves under their protection; cf. 2 Kgs 16:7, where Ahaz appeals to the
king of Assyria: “I am your servant and son—come up and save me.” Koch notes that
“righteousness” can be used not only in reference to the king and subject but “in
reference to every other lord-servant relationship” (“‫ צדק‬ṣdq,” 1050; see also Ropes,
“Righteousness,” 219–20).
95
So Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:1056: “Even if we were to flatten out
the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words so that they simply meant that such [saving]
actions were the ‘right’ thing for YHWH to do, the reason why rescuing Israel was the
‘right’ thing for him to do was precisely because he was bound in a special relationship to
his people.” Our approach prefers precisely such “flattened-out” meanings.
96
One would expect the idol-maker to vehemently object: studies of cult images
have concluded that “the existence of an idol needed to be approved by the god whose
image was being made, so the gods were responsible for initiating the manufacturing
process” (John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament:
Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
135
relationship with a “god” that he himself made, whereas Israel’s God initiated (and
continues to initiate) the covenantally based relationship with a people he himself called
into existence.97 But once this relationship is in place and God is their God, this alone
suffices to explain why God’s righteousness results in salvation.98 God’s righteousness as
the originating force of God’s saving action may be a function of who God is as God of
his people.
For now we must simply hold this logical enrichment as a possibility to be
evaluated as we continue our exploration. But regardless, it remains the case that the
consistent features of the psalmist who appeals to God’s righteousness as the motivating
force for God’s differentiated saving action are that God is his God, that he is God’s
servant, and that he trusts in God alone. These features remain consistent whether or not
the psalmist affirms his own righteousness or confesses his own unrighteousness. We
may thus clarify our understanding of the encyclopedic enrichment of the concept of
2006], 114). The Babylonians did not think that the physical idol was itself a god, simply
a manifestation of its presence (ibid., 116). This critique in Isaiah 44 has therefore
“contrasted a phenomenological description of the Mesopotamian practice with a
theological portrayal of Yahwism,” and this may be “a conscious distortion forged in
polemic” (Michael B. Dick, “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image,” in Born in
Heaven Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed.
Michael B. Dick [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 45).
97
Campbell argues that, by liberating the cosmos in Christ, “God is operating as
the divine King ought to, delivering his captive creation from its bondage; he is therefore
doing the ‘right’ thing, acting as his character and role demand” (Deliverance of God,
702). However, this is a significant modification of the concept that we have found in the
psalms, where God is righteous when he saves his people who trust in him, not all
creation without distinction.
98
So Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 424: “It is misleading, therefore, to
speak of ‘God’s righteousness’ as his ‘covenant-faithfulness.’ It would be closer to the
biblical language to speak of ‘faithfulness’ as ‘covenant-righteousness.’”
136
God’s righteousness: God’s righteousness is the originating force of God’s saving action
on behalf of his people who trust in him.99
God’s Saving Action and the

Proclamation of God’s Righteousness
If God’s righteousness as the originating force of God’s saving action becomes
clear from the appeals to it in the petitions of the protest psalms, God’s saving action as
what enables the proclamation of God’s righteousness becomes clear from the promises
to proclaim God’s righteousness in the praise-vows.
In the move from the petition to the praise-vow we find a corresponding move
from the psalmist’s knowledge of and trust in God’s righteousness to the psalmist’s
proclamation of God’s righteousness. Ellen Davis has suggested that there is an
“inference of conditionality” to these praise-vows.100 The appeals to God’s righteousness
in the petitions indicate that the psalmist knows that God is righteous—that the fact of
God’s righteousness is not in doubt. However, the psalmist waits until this salvation is
accomplished to proclaim God’s righteousness. At that point, recounting the act of
salvation means also proclaiming God’s righteousness (40:11; 71:15). But, conversely,
before such salvation occurs such a proclamation is not expected to take place.
99
Whitt’s study of ‫ צדק‬in the OT, while broader and less careful to distinguish the
lexeme and the concept, likewise concludes that “the righteousness of Yahweh means that
out of his holy, morally pure, righteous character the Lord intervenes decisively,
powerfully, and effectively for all who call upon him as sovereign and loving Savior and
he brings them justice and deliverance in his gracious salvation” (“Righteousness,” 84,
emphasis added).
100
Davis, “Exploding the Limits,” 100.
137
Why is this? Why does the psalmist wait until his salvation is accomplished to
proclaim God’s righteousness? An important clue is found in the protest psalms that
connect God’s name and reputation to the psalmist’s situation (Psalms 31 and 143).101
Psalm 31, as we saw above, opens by appealing to God’s righteousness for his salvation
(verse 2). Subsequently, in verse 4 the psalmist declares that God will “lead” and “guide”
him “on account of your name” (A‫ ; ְל ַמ ַﬠן ִשׁ ְמ‬ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόµατός). The connection to
God’s righteousness is rather thin in that psalm, since it comes two verses later, is applied
to God’s guidance and direction rather than to his act of deliverance, and is expressed as
an assured future expectation rather than as a request. But the connection is much
stronger in Psalm 143. As we saw above, this psalm not only opens but also closes with a
petition that appeals to God’s righteousness. This closing petition contains an appeal for
God to act “for the sake of your name,” expressing not the cause or originating force but
the purpose for which God should act: God’s public reputation. Here the psalmist
assumes that God’s name and reputation are linked to his fate.102
As with the connection between God’s righteousness and God’s saving action, this
link implies a special relationship between God and the psalmist (note that the last line
draws attention to the fact that the psalmist is God’s “servant”). Again, that relationship is
likely undergirded by the covenant. By covenantally committing to be the God of his
101
The phrase “on account of your/his name” (‫ ְשׁמוֹ‬/A‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ֶמ‬, ἕνεκεν τοῦ
ὀνόµατός σου/αὐτοῦ) occurs in Pss 23:3 (asking for guidance); 25:11 (asking for
forgiveness); 31:4 (asking for guidance); 79:9 (asking for both forgiveness and
deliverance); 106:8 (asking for salvation); 109:21 (asking for general caring action); and
143:11 (asking for preservation). See also Ps 44:27, where the Greek reads ἕνεκεν τοῦ
ὀνόµατός σου in place of the Hebrew A‫“( ְל ַמ ַﬠן ַח ְס ֶדּ‬on account of your love”).
102
So Hafemann, “Reading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language,” 202.
138
people, God has also bound the public recognition of his righteousness to their situation.
This explains why it does not occur to the psalmist to publicly proclaim God’s
righteousness when he is in a situation of shame and distress. God’s righteousness always
exists; God is always righteous. But God’s righteousness can only be publicly proclaimed
when the psalmist is saved.
Thus, when God’s saving action on behalf of the psalmist is made known, God’s
righteousness is also made known. In these situations, the distinction between God’s
action (salvation) and the aspect of God’s character that originates that action
(righteousness) has much less significance, so the one may be proclaimed alongside the
other. This, and not some lexical overlap, explains why “righteousness” and “salvation”
can be used in parallel as objects of the psalmists’ proclamations. Moreover, while the
distinction between those two enriched concepts is necessary for their use in the petitions,
the elimination of that distinction is by no means necessary for their use in the praise-
vows. There is therefore no need for the language of “God’s righteousness” to refer to a
different concept in the petitions than in the praise-vows.103
In short, these psalms assume that God’s righteous character is the originating
force for God’s saving action, and yet this inevitably leads to a tension when this
salvation is not occurring. Even when God’s saving action is absent or delayed, the
psalmist continues to trust that God is righteous and that this righteousness will
(ultimately) result in his salvation. But it is only then that he can proclaim it to everyone
103
So Kwakkel states (on Psalm 7) that the “righteousness” praised in Ps 7:18a “is
obviously conceived of here as a quality of God that manifests itself in his saving
interference as invoked in vv. 2 and 7–10a in particular” (Upright Behavior, 56).
139
else. He knows God is righteous even when he is suffering, but he will proclaim it only
once he is saved.
We thus find a further encyclopedic enrichment of the concept of God’s
righteousness: in addition to God’s righteousness being the originating force of God’s
saving action on behalf of his people who trust in him, we find that God’s saving action
on behalf of his people who trust in him results in the proclamation of God’s
righteousness to everyone else. This is an important corollary to our finding above that
God’s righteousness results in a differentiated salvation, a salvation that particularly
benefits his people who trust in him. While God’s righteousness directly results in the
salvation of his people, this salvation itself has broader implications for other people as
well. Our final section will explore these implications.
God’s Righteousness beyond

the Salvation of the Psalmist
In the protest psalms, it is the salvation of the psalmist that is consistently in view.
Still, there are hints in these psalms that God’s salvation of his people and the resulting
public proclamation of God’s righteousness might themselves have wider consequences.
We see this in Psalms 40, 51, and 22.
We have already noted that Psalm 40 recounts publicly praising God’s
righteousness in light of God’s saving action (verses 10–11). But that is not the only
consequence of this salvation. Earlier in verse 4, the psalmist predicts that this personal
salvation will have larger future consequences: “Many will see and will fear and will
trust” in God. As we have seen, this “trust” or “hope” in God is a constant feature of
140
protest psalms, characterizing the relationship between the psalmist and God. As such,
the sight of God’s salvation of the psalmist may lead others into that same trusting
relationship with God that the psalmist has. This is not linked in any explicit way to the
proclamation of God’s righteousness in the great assembly, but both are presented as
parallel consequences of God’s salvation of the psalmist.
Psalm 51 similarly presents these two consequences of God’s salvation, but here
they are found in much closer proximity. Directly preceding the request for rescue from
guilt and the corresponding vow to proclaim God’s “righteousness” in verse 16, the
psalmist had just made a different vow in verse 15: “I will teach rebellious ones your
ways, and sinners will turn to you” (‫ יָ שׁוּבוּ‬A‫ ;וְ ַח ָטּ ִאים ֵא ֶלי‬καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἐπὶ σὲ
ἐπιστρέψουσιν). The “many” of Psalm 40 here become the “rebellious ones” and the
“sinners,” and the resulting action of “fear” and “trust” in God becomes the action of
“turning” or “returning” to God. This phrase is found throughout Deuteronomy, the
Historical Books, and the Prophets; it is consistently what Israel is summoned and
expected to do when in a state of rebellion against God.104 By identifying himself with
such “sinners” or “ungodly,” the psalmist perceives that his restoration (verse 14) will
give him a unique standing to urge them to “turn” themselves and share in this
restoration.
Aside from Psalm 51, only one other psalm—Psalm 22—looks forward to people
“turning to God” as a result of the psalmist’s salvation, and perhaps not coincidentally it
104
With ‫שׁוּב‬/ἐπιστρέφω: Deut 4:30; 30:2, 10; 1 Sam 7:3; 1 Kgs 8:33, 48 (cf. 2 Chr
6:38); 2 Kgs 23:25; 2 Chr 24:19; 30:6, 9; Neh 1:9; 9:26; Job 22:23; Isa 44:22; Jer 4:1;
24:7; Lam 3:40; Hos 6:1; 14:1–2; Joel 2:12, 13; Zech 1:3; Mal 3:7.
141
is also another psalm that clearly anticipates the proclamation of God’s righteousness. Its
second half begins, like many praise-vows, with the image of the psalmist standing in an
assembly and praising God for his act of deliverance (verse 23). At first this is clearly an
assembly of Israelites: those to whom he declares God’s name are his “brothers” in verse
23, and those invited to glorify God are “all the seed of Jacob/Israel” (‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬/‫; ָכּל־זֶ ַרע יַ ֲﬠקֹב‬
ἅπαν τὸ σπέρµα Ιακωβ/Ισραηλ) in verse 24. But by verses 28 and 29 the scope of the
audience has expanded in a universal direction.105 Now “all the ends of the earth
[‫י־א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ל־א ְפ ֵס‬ ָ πάντα τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς] will remember and turn to the Lord [‫יִ זְ ְכּרוּ וְ יָ ֻשׁבוּ‬
ַ ‫;כּ‬
ֶ µνησθήσονται καὶ ἐπιστραφήσονται πρὸς κύριον]; all the families of the nations
‫;אל־יְ הוָ ה‬
will bow down before him” (verse 28). The reason for this is that the “kingdom belongs
to the Lord” and he “reigns over the nations” (verse 29). All this builds to the final verse
of the psalm (verse 32) where they “will come and will proclaim his righteousness to a
people yet unborn, for he has done it.”
Thus, just as in Psalms 40 and 51, the psalmist foresees that his deliverance will
result in (1) God’s righteousness being proclaimed and (2) others turning to God as a
result of being told about his salvation of his servant. As in Psalms 40 and 51, the
relationship between these two events is not explored; both are presented as parallel
results of the psalmist’s salvation. But, compared to Psalms 40 and 51, both are
expanded: God’s righteousness is not just proclaimed in a worshipping assembly but
throughout space and time, and it is now the ends of the earth who turn to God as a result.
This is also linked to God’s kingdom and his reign over all the nations. It therefore hints
105
Cf. Davis, “Exploding the Limits,” 96.
142
that the salvation of God’s servant—and the proclamation of God’s righteousness that
results from it—will ultimately affect more than just God’s covenant people.
Such hints remain only suggestive. Yet a paradigmatic role of the psalmist’s
salvation comes clearly into view in these three psalms. The unique relationship God has
with the psalmist need not be unique forever. A great public act of salvation may serve to
bring others into that same relationship, may summon them to imitate the psalmist in
turning to—and trusting in—the God of his salvation.
God’s Righteousness in Protest Psalms:

Conclusion
The particular situation out of which the protest psalms are sung requires a
particularly enriched concept of God’s righteousness. The path toward the enrichment of
that concept is not always clear. In some psalms, God’s “righteousness” clearly refers to
the aspect of God’s character according to which God will judge rightly by vindicating
the righteous and condemning the guilty. But in other psalms it must refer to something
else, likely to God’s commitment to act rightly as God in delivering those whose God he
has covenantally promised to be. The result of God’s righteousness, however, remains the
same for the psalmist: God’s righteousness originates God’s saving action on behalf of
the psalmist, and thus God’s saving action allows God’s righteousness to be proclaimed
to everyone else—and may even prompt them to turn to God and trust him as the psalmist
did.
Two related findings are particularly important for our larger purposes. First, the
proclamation of God’s righteousness is logically dependent on God’s salvation of the

143
psalmist. These psalms do not conceive of a proclamation of God’s righteousness that
occurs apart from a proclamation of God’s already-accomplished salvation. Second, at
the same time, there is a clear distinction between the object of this salvation (the
psalmist) and the object of the proclamation of God’s righteousness (everyone else).
Since God’s righteousness is the originating force of his saving action, one could
certainly understand God’s salvation of the psalmist as the actualization of God’s
righteousness. But this is distinct from the proclamation of God’s righteousness. The
object of the former is the psalmist, while the object of the latter is everyone else. Thus
the proclamation of God’s righteousness is distinct from yet dependent on God’s saving
action for the psalmist.
The multiple instances of this enriched concept of God’s righteousness show that
this concept is both enduring and communicable. As these psalms were sung or recited as
part of daily life, these ad hoc enriched concepts would cease to be as ad hoc. This does
not mean that “righteousness” is now redefined lexically such that every use of the
lexemes must necessarily be enriched in this direction. But it does mean that an enriched
concept of God’s righteousness as the originating force of his salvation for his people
who trust in him and therefore what may be publicly proclaimed once that salvation is
accomplished would be part of the mutual cognitive environment of those who were
immersed in these psalms.

144
God’s Righteousness and the Nations:
Isaiah 45:18–25
While the protest psalms show a clear connection between God’s righteousness
and the salvation of his people, they are less concerned with how this might affect other
nations outside Israel. This is generally true of the OT as a whole: it is addressed to the
people of Israel, so it is not surprising that Israel’s own destiny is most often in focus. Yet
a few key texts broaden this perspective to show how Israel’s own destiny is tied to the
destiny of the world. This occurs most often in the book of Isaiah.106 Incidentally, the
second half of Isaiah contains, next to the Psalms, by far the greatest concentration of
references to God’s righteousness,107 and it also contains, with the Psalms, all but one of
the instances in which language of “righteousness” is found in parallel with language of
106
E.g., Isa 2:1–6; 5:26; 11:10–12; 14:2; 18:7; 25:7; 34:1–2; 41:1–2; 42:1; 45:20–
25; 49:1, 22; 51:4–5; 52:10, 15; 55:5; 56:7; 60:3–5; 61:11; 62:2, 10; 66:18–20. See
Richard L. Schultz, “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah:
Issues and Approaches, ed. David J. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2009), 122–44; Rikki E. Watts, “Echoes from the Past: Israel’s Ancient
Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah 40–55,” JSOT 28 (2004): 481–508;
Michael A. Grisanti, “Israel’s Mission to the Nations in Isaiah 40–55: An Update,” TMSJ
9 (1998): 41–43; Roy F. Melugin, “Israel and the Nations in Isaiah 40–55,” in Problems
in Biblical Theology: Essays in honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 249–64; Anthony Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,”
JTS 43 (1992): 377–98; John N. Oswalt, “The Mission of Israel to the Nations,” in
Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, ed. William
V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 85–95; Dwight W. Van
Winkle, “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah XL–LV,” VT
35 (1985): 446–58; H. F. van Rooy, “The Nations in Isaiah: A Synchronic Survey,” in
Studies in Isaiah: OTWSA 22, 1979 and OTWSA 23, 1980: Old Testament Essays, ed. W.
C. Van Wyk (Hercules, South Africa: NHW Press, 1982), 213–29; Robert Martin-Achard,
A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the
World, trans. John Penney Smith (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962).
107
See above, p. 96 n. 3.
145
108
“salvation.” All of this suggests that this section of Isaiah is, together with the Psalms,
critical for our understanding of how an enriched concept of God’s righteousness relates
to God’s saving action.
One text in particular shows a close connection between God’s righteousness and
the salvation of the farthest corners of the earth: Isa 45:18–25. God’s righteousness is a
major theme in these verses,109 including one of the few instances in either Isaiah or the
Psalms where God is described adjectivally as “righteous” (verse 21).110 Perhaps not
coincidentally, these verses contain the most explicit invitation to the nations to turn to
Israel’s God and join in Israel’s salvation.111 Moreover, Paul clearly knows this text, citing
Isa 45:23 in Rom 14:11 and strongly alluding to it in Phil 2:11.112 All this suggests that
108
Pss 24:5; 40:10; 65:5; 71:15; 98:2; 119:123; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8;
56:1; 59:17; 61:10; 62:1; 63:1. See also Zech 9:9.
109
John Goldingay and David Payne observe that “Israel’s entire range of ṣdq
(‘right’) words appear” in Isa 45:18–25 (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah
40–55, ICC [London: T&T Clark, 2006], 2:50).
110
See Deut 32:4; Jer 12:1; Zech 9:9; Pss 119:137; 129:4; Ezra 9:15; Neh 9:8, 33;
2 Chr 12:6. For God as the “Righteous One,” see Isa 24:15; Prov 21:12.
111
See, e.g., Jean Steinmann, Le Livre de la Consolation d’Israël et les Prophètes
du Retour de l’Exil, LD 28 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960), 152: “Pour la première fois
éclate ici vraiment l’universalisme qui était dans la logique rigoureuse du monothéisme
du Second Isaïe. . . . On ne saurait exagérer l’importance de cette première profession
d’universalisme absolu dans la Bible.”
112
On this citation, see Wagner, Heralds, 339; Shum, Isaiah in Romans, 248–50.
Note also Florian Wilk’s comment that all of Paul’s explicit citations of Isaiah in Romans
“pertain to the question of God’s faithfulness to Israel” (“Paul as User, Interpreter, and
Reader of the Book of Isaiah,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. Richard B. Hays,
Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, trans. Leroy A. Huizenga et al. [Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2009], 94; see also Craig A. Evans, “From Gospel to Gospel: The
Function of Isaiah in the New Testament,” in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of
Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans,
VTSup 70 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 682–91).
146
this text is the key moment in which the concept of God’s righteousness is enriched with
respect to salvation for those both inside and outside of Israel, and that this enrichment
could be significant for Paul.
This section will therefore examine the enriched concept of God’s righteousness
that is found in Isa 45:18–25. We will first briefly explore how the texts that lead up to
this passage describe a new salvation and redemption for Israel, how they introduce and
expand the theme of God’s speech, and how they then relate to the psalms we have
already explored. We will then examine how Isa 45:18–25 is framed by references to
Israel’s own particular salvation, raising the expectation that the speech to the nations will
be relevant to Israel’s salvation. Finally, we will analyze the function of God’s
righteousness in the offer of salvation to the nations in verses 20–24a, suggesting both
that this text refers to the enriched concept of God’s righteousness that we found in the
protest psalms and that it itself further enriches it.
Israel’s Salvation and God’s Speech

in Isaiah 40–45
Isaiah 40 announces itself immediately as an oracle of comfort for Israel. The
time of judgment that Isaiah was commissioned to proclaim in chapter 6 is now over,113
and the transition from wrath to comfort that chapter 12 looked forward to has now come
113
Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New
Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 241–42; idem, “How Is the Prophet
Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the Book? The Logic of Chapters 40–66 within the
Book of Isaiah,” JBL 115 (1996): 228–29.
147
114
to pass. Israel’s iniquity, which was the cause of her defeat and exile, has been paid for,
and as a result the promised salvation of Israel is imminent.
Only a few verses later, another key theme is also announced: the word of God. In
verse 8 we find that, in contrast to the grass that dries up and the flowers that fall, God’s
word remains forever. Along with the closing claim that God’s word will “achieve its
purpose” (55:11), this emphasis on the effective and enduring power of God’s speech
brackets Isaiah 40–55.115 Seitz has pointed out that this is not a new message but is rather
the fulfillment of the ancient word of God, and this implies both the passage of time since
the prophecy was first issued,116 as well as the emergence of a “canon consciousness.”117
Whether or not we identify this prophecy (with Seitz) as the oracles of Isaiah of
Jerusalem found in the first half of Isaiah or as Deuteronomic promises of restoration
after exile (e.g., Deuteronomy 30), the point remains that the new word of comfort
spoken to Israel is the fulfillment of the previous promise of salvation after judgment.
This notion of fulfilled speech is necessary for the correct attribution of the saving
event that this text announces.118 As the text indicates, the saving action that ends Israel’s
114
Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001),
297–98.
115
So Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 59.
116
Seitz, “Logic of Chapters 40–66,” 228.
117
Ibid., 223. This “canon consciousness” is the understanding that “the prophetic
word, and the word of God, is now constituted and freshly communicated through a past
record to which public reference can be made, by Israel, for Israel’s own sake and for the
sake of God’s effective rule over all creation.”
118
So Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 224–25.
148
exile has its most immediate referent in the geopolitical rise of Cyrus (45:1–7). But, of
course, Cyrus does not worship Israel’s God or even acknowledge him (45:5). On its
own, then, the rise of Cyrus and the defeat of Babylon would be unlikely to be attributed
to Israel’s God—it would be much more likely to be attributed to Cyrus’s. But, as this
section of Isaiah repeats again and again, Israel’s God and only Israel’s God announced
that this would happen beforehand.119 This is what differentiates Israel’s God from the
idols. And, as Israel witnesses to this, this is what ultimately will establish Israel’s God as
the exclusive God of the whole world.
The emphasis on the exclusivity of Israel’s God is mirrored by the exclusivity of
Israel’s salvation. Those who trust in Israel’s God will be saved in contrast to those who
trust in idols.120 Likewise, Israel will be saved in contrast to Israel’s enemies.121 We noted
above that in the protest psalms God’s righteousness results in a differentiated salvation
(for the psalmist and not for the psalmist’s enemies), and here we find something similar.
Such an emphasis on a differentiated salvation in Isaiah 40–55 has prompted some
scholars to suggest that any offer of salvation to the nations in this section is peripheral,122
if it is to be found at all.123 We will argue below that this is not entirely correct. But it is
119
Isa 41:22–23, 26–29; 43:9–13; 44:8; 44:25–26.
120
Isa 42:17; 44:11; 45:16; 47:12–15.
121
Isa 41:11–12; 43:14; 45:24; 47:1–11; 51:7–8, 23; 45:15.
122
So Norman Snaith, “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Studies in
Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1946), 187–200; Martin-Achard, Light to the Nations, 13.
123
R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NewCentBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
32: Deutero-Isaiah’s thought “is centred entirely on what Yahweh will do for Israel.”
149
important to note that, in these chapters, if the whole world is to know that only Israel’s
God is God then Israel’s salvation must be, at least in some sense or at some point,
uniquely Israel’s.
This brings up an important question, though. We have seen that Israel’s salvation
is in contrast both to idolators and Israel’s enemies. But are these the same groups? As a
corollary, is “Israel” and “those who trust in Israel’s God” the same group? We concluded
from our study of the protest psalms that God’s righteousness results in salvation for
God’s people who trust in him, leaving open the question of how those two qualifications
relate. Could the nations trust in Israel’s God? What about those Israelites who turn
away? The latter question is arguably the concern of this text as a whole. Isaiah 44:22
calls on Israel to “turn to me” (‫שׁוּבה ֵא ַלי‬

ָ ; ἐπιστράφητι πρός µε). Israel “turning to God” is
the purpose—the perlocutionary intent—of the announcement of salvation found in
Isaiah 40–55 as a whole. It intends that “Israel” and “those who trust in Israel’s God”
may be coterminous.
Israel is not just called to turn to God and experience God’s salvation, however.
Israel is also called to bear witness to the nations that God’s saving action is the
fulfillment of God’s saving promise. We see this most clearly in Isa 43:9–13. In contrast
to the idols who have no witnesses that can claim that they proclaimed what would
happen ahead of time (verse 9), Israel is called to witness “in order that you may know
and believe and understand” that Israel’s God alone has always been and will always be
God (verse 10) and therefore that there is no other God and no other savior (verse 11).
This is all brought together in verse 12, where God declares that it is he—and not some
foreign God—who has “revealed and saved and proclaimed.” This verse has raised
150
124
eyebrows among commentators, since the virtual synonyms “I have declared” (‫)הגַּ ְד ִתּי‬
ִ
and “I have proclaimed” (‫ )וְ ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ִתּי‬are separated by the not at all synonymous “I have
ַ ְ‫)ו‬.125 Solutions to this problem have ranged from deleting “I have saved”
saved” (‫הוֹשׁ ְﬠ ִתּי‬
as a copying error126 to giving the verb “save” (‫ )ישׁע‬a different meaning on the basis of
cognate languages.127 But there is a clear reference to God’s saving activity in the
immediately previous verse (“apart from me there is no savior [‫;מוֹשׁ ַיע‬

ִ σῴζων]”).128
Indeed, it is noteworthy that this revelation of God as savior occurs through both God’s
speech and God’s saving action. The two are brought together: God’s speech saves, and
God’s salvation speaks. The delegation of God’s speech to the prophet in chapter 40 now
124
Arnold B. Ehrlich thought that the word ‫הוֹשׁ ְﬠ ִתּי‬
ַ ְ‫“ ו‬zwischen ‫ והגדתי‬und ‫והשמעתי‬
keinen Sinn gibt” (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, vol. 4 [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1912], 157).
125
The hiphal ‫ נגד‬occurs in parallel with the hiphil ‫ שׁמע‬eleven times in Isaiah 40–
55 (41:22, 26; 42:9; 43:9, 12; 44:8; 45:21; 48:3, 5, 6, 20—see K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja,
BKAT 2 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978], 81 n. 1). However, neither occurs in
parallel with the hiphil ‫ ישׁע‬outside this one verse. The LXX mutes the parallelism with
the final verb (only the first and second are separated by καί), but the parallelism of the
first two verbs (ἀνήγγειλα and ἔσωσα) comes through and is also entirely unique for the
LXX.
126
Ehrlich, Randglossen, 157; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary,
trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 120; Whybray, Isaiah
40–66, 86; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 308.
127
G. R. Driver, “Notes on the Psalms. I. 1–72,” JTS 43 (1942): 149–60, here 158.
128
So H. G. M. Williamson, “Word Order in Isaiah XLIII. 12,” JTS 30 (1979):
499–502, here 501; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 1:289.
151
129
takes the form of delegating Israel to witness to God’s saving action. To proclaim what
Israel’s God has done is to proclaim Israel’s God.
We find, then, that the themes of God’s saving action and God’s speech intertwine
in a variety of ways in the passages leading up to Isa 45:18–25. God’s saving action is the
fulfillment of God’s previous promises, and this correspondence between the present
action and the former promises is how that saving action can be correctly attributed and
how the whole world can come to know and confess the exclusivity of Israel’s God. At
the same time, the announcement that such promised salvation is imminent is a summons
to exiled Israel to trust exclusively in Israel’s God. The saving action of God is not only
the content of God’s speech but also the means; it is how God reveals himself to Israel
and ultimately to the world.
Both speech act theory and relevance theory help to elucidate this final point. In
speech act terms, God’s saving action is a locution that carries an illocutionary force.130
The salvation of Israel will say something to the nations. But, since such a unique event
could not be expected to follow a previously established speech convention, relevance
theory is necessary to explain how such an illocution could be inferred. It would suggest
that such an inferential process would only occur if that salvation is understood as an act
129
We may note that even with this delegation the speech remains God’s own
word. Israel is called to be a witness, but God still claims to be the one who speaks: “I
have revealed and saved and proclaimed.” Cf. Gelston, “Universalism,” 383–84. For a
helpful analysis of deputized speech as one example of “double-agency discourse,” see
Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 42–51; idem, “Authorial Discourse Interpretation,” in
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 79–80.
130
For this speech act terminology, see above, p. 44.
152
of ostensive communication—that is, only if its communicative intentionality is
perceived.131 This need to perceive communicative intentionality explains why it is
critical that God’s salvation of Israel be accompanied by the witness of Israel and of
Israel’s prophets. It is this witness that directs the nations to understand this salvation as a
communicative act addressed to them.
The emphasis on God’s speech in this text distinguishes it from the protest
psalms. But this is hardly unexpected. The protest psalms record and re-enact the speech
of the psalmist in a situation of distress; Isaiah 40–55 presents (for the most part) the
speech of God who is bringing salvation. In this sense, then, they are complementary.132
The text that promises God’s saving action (Isaiah 40–55) is more likely than not to
exhibit connections to the texts that ask for God’s saving action (the protest psalms).
What are these connections? H. G. M. Williamson cites as “well-known” the fact
that “many of the Psalms, which probably represent the tradition of the Jerusalem cult,
have exerted considerable influence upon [Deutero-Isaiah] in his phraseology and in the
forms with which he chose to give expression to his message of salvation.”133 But most of
131
To take an “act” like “saving Israel” as a “locution” is to modify Austin’s
definition of “locution” in the direction of RT, which would suggest that a non-linguistic
act like that may function as a “locution” as long as the act is understood as intentionally
communicative. This is not entirely foreign to speech act theory, though; see Searle,
Speech Acts, 43, 47.
132
For the view that Isaiah 40–55 contains examples of the “priestly oracle of
salvation” that explains the shift from distress to confidence in individual lament psalms,
see Gunkel and Begrich, Psalmen, 246–47. We do not need to accept this as a historical
claim to recognize the literary complementarity between these psalms and Isaiah 40–55.
133
H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in
Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 241. See also Shalom M. Paul,
Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 56–
57; Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous
153
this discussion has centered on the relationship between Isaiah 40–66 (esp. Isaiah 52) and
the “enthronement Psalms” (esp. Psalm 98).134 Recent studies of allusions in Isaiah 40–55
tend not to find many allusions to the individual lament psalms,135 even though this is by
far the largest category of psalms. This is unsurprising given the national rather than
individual orientation of these chapters—the servant songs, where perhaps allusions like
this would be appropriate, are notably lacking in allusions altogether.136 As a result, we
should not be surprised at the lack of discussion about the intertextual connections
between Isaiah 40–55 and psalms of individual lament.
There is one exception, though. Benjamin Sommer’s study does devote a (short)
section to allusions specifically to individual lament psalms.137 But which of these psalms
he identifies as sources of allusions reveals something remarkable. They are Psalms 71
Texts in Second Isaiah, SBLDS 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 44–47; Risto
Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Second and
Third Isaiah, Studies in Judaism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006), 81–
82; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 23–27; Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 443.
134
Westermann, Praise of God, 145–51; idem, Isaiah 40–66, 23–27; see also
Willey, Remember, 44–45.
135
Willey confirms the pervasive influence of the psalms but noticeably does not
list psalms of individual lament among the “kinds of psalmic material” that “make major
appearances in Second Isaiah” (Remember, 96). The kinds that do appear often are “royal
psalms, . . . psalms associated with Zion’s divine protection, . . . laments mourning
national disaster, . . . and enthronement psalms” (ibid.). Nurmela finds isolated allusions
to psalms of individual lament, such as the “ironic reuse” of Pss 7:2; 22:11; and 51:16 in
Isa 44:17 (Mouth of the Lord, 34). However, only one of the six psalms he lists as most
commonly alluded to (Ps 35) can be classified as a psalm of individual lament (ibid., 82).
136
Nurmela, Mouth of the Lord, 82.
137
Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 119–22.
154
138 139 140 141
(most prominently), 22, 35, and 51. All of these are psalms that we surveyed
above in which God’s righteousness is proclaimed when God saves the psalmist.142 The
hunt for allusions is always subjective, and Sommer’s approach in particular has been
criticized for allowing “the perception of allusions on unduly vague grounds.”143
However, it remains intriguing that Sommer identified these particular individual lament
psalms out of the very large number of possibilities as sources of allusions in Isaiah 40–
55. This adds additional support to our suggestion that Isaiah 40–55 emphasizes the way
that God’s salvation of his people functions as God’s speech to everyone else—and
suggests that such an emphasis may be rooted in the enriched concept of God’s
righteousness found in these particular protest psalms.
In short, Isaiah 40–55 as a whole announces salvation for Israel. It therefore
emphasizes the twin themes of God’s saving action and God’s speech, themes that are
interrelated in a variety of ways. God’s imminent saving action, this text emphasizes, is
the fulfillment of his ancient promises; as such, it also reveals to the nations the
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid., 266 n. 32. See also the study of the relationship between Psalm 22 and
Isaiah in Michael A. Lyons, “Psalm 22 and the ‘Servants’ of Isaiah 54; 56–66,” CBQ 77
(2015): 641–47.
140
Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 266 n. 31.
141
Ibid., 267 n. 34.
142
Pss 35:28; 22:32; 51:16; 71:15, 16, 24. See above, pp. 113–22.
143
Nurmela, Mouth of the Lord, viii. See also Richard L. Schultz, The Search for
Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1999), 40–41, who notes that Sommer’s method of relying on stylistic
features “introduced a major subjective element into the analysis.”
155
exclusivity of Israel’s God. And the protest psalms to which this section bears the closest
linguistic resemblance are precisely those psalms in which God’s salvation of the
psalmist results in the proclamation of God’s righteousness to everyone else.
These connections simply raise the possibility that in Isa 45:18–25 the link
between the salvation of Israel and the offer of salvation to the nations is somehow
related to God’s righteousness as it is found in the protest psalms. But that there is a link
is a matter of expectations of relevance. The next section will therefore explore the
tension in Isa 45:18–25 between particular and universal salvation, and the two
subsequent sections will suggest that this tension can be resolved if we infer that the
language of God’s righteousness in this section refers to the enriched concept we found in
the protest psalms.
Particular and Universal Salvation

in Isaiah 45:18–25
The tension between a salvation particular to Israel and a universal offer of
salvation for the nations is clear from even a cursory overview of Isa 45:18–25. This text
comes immediately after a section in which Israel’s salvation clearly entails the
humiliation of other nations (verses 11–17). The nations in verse 14 will “come over to
you and will belong to you,” and they will “walk behind you and come over in chains.” It
is only Israel, in verse 17, who will be saved with “an eternal salvation.” When the very
next section extends an offer to “the ends of the earth” to “turn to me and be saved”
(verse 22), it seems to have left this strict dichotomy between humiliation for the nations
and salvation for Israel behind. And yet this dichotomy returns again in verse 25, as it is
156
“the seed of Israel” who will “be vindicated” and “will boast.” If verse 22 expands the
scope of God’s salvific action to the nations, verse 25 seems to restrict it once again to
Israel.
Scholars who have tried to come to terms with this tend to fall broadly into two
groups: (1) those who try to resolve the tension by assimilating one theme into another,
and (2) those who recognize the tension but explain it away. The first group denies that
such a tension exists by redefining some of the terms. A minority reads the expanded
scope of God’s salvific action in verse 22 in light of the more restricted scope of verse 25,
so that the phrase “ends of the earth” in verse 22 actually refers only to those Israelites
who have been scattered among the nations.144 But this phrase consistently refers to those
outside the nation of Israel who nevertheless are brought within the scope of God’s
actions,145 and the fact that verses 20–21 clearly address the nations makes it far more
likely that verse 22 also addresses them.146 A more popular view understands the
universal offer of salvation in verse 22 as expanding the scope of “the seed of Israel” in
144
E.g., Antoon Schoors, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the
Main Genres in Is. XL–LV, VTSup 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 236; D. E. Hollenberg,
“Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah XL–LV,” VT 19 (1969): 31–32; Martin-Achard,
Light to the Nations, 16–17; Snaith, “Servant of the Lord,” 196–97.
145
God’s wrath extends to the “ends of the earth” (Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:10), his
glory and rule extend there also (Mic 5:4, Zech 9:10; Pss 2:8; 72:8), they will see Israel’s
salvation (Isa 52:10; Ps 98:3), they will stream to Zion (Jer 16:19), and they will worship
and fear Israel’s God (Pss 22:27; 67:7). See also Gelston, “Universalism,” 388–89; W. A.
M. Beuken, “The Confession of God’s Exclusivity by All Mankind: A Reappraisal of Is.
45,18–25,” Bijdr 35 (1974): 342.
146
So James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the
Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, NovTSup 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2005;
reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 76. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp,
“Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism,” JSOT 41 (1988): 87.
157
147
verse 25 to include those non-Israelites who come to hope in Israel’s God. This is a
more likely reading, since verse 25 presents a dichotomy between Israel and the enemies
of Israel’s God that is already implicitly called into question by the universalist
perspective of verse 22. But the phrase “seed of Jacob/Israel” everywhere else refers to
the literal descendants of Israel,148 those whom God selected “out of all the other peoples
on the face of the earth” to be his own (Deut 7:6; 14:2). Language, of course, is flexible;
terms can be redefined. But absent more explicit indications of such, the terms “seed of
Israel” and “ends of the earth” consistently refer to distinct, non-overlapping entities:
Israel and everyone else.149 So while the former “nationalist” option reads “ends of the
earth” in verse 22 in light of verse 25, and the latter “universalist” option reads “all the
seed of Israel” in verse 25 in light of verse 22, it is best to see verses 22 and 25 as “two
sides of the coin of God’s saving purposes; one side is all nations and the other side is all
the seed of Israel.”150
147
So Jason DeRouchie, “Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets: New
Covenant Ecclesiology in OT Perspective,” JETS 58 (2015): 445–85; Childs, Isaiah, 352;
Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 40–66, NAC 15b (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 280; Andrew Wilson,
The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study in Composition and Structure, ANETS 1
(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986), 127; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 176; Beuken,
“Confession,” 348–49; Pierre-E. Bonnard, Le Second Isaïe, son Disciple et Leurs
Éditeurs: Isaïe 40–66, Études Bibliques (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972), 180.
148
So Judg 6:3; 2 Kgs 17:20; Jer 31:36–37; Ps 22:24 (MT); Neh 9:2; 1 Chr 16:13.
149
Schultz’s warning that “efforts to resolve the tension can lead one to
overinterpret or ignore textual details” is especially apt here (“Nationalism and
Universalism,” 143).
150
K. E. Bailey, “Inverted Parallelisms and Encased Parables in Isaiah and Their
Significance for Old and New Testament Translation and Interpretation,” in Literary
Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard,
and J. P. Fokkelman (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), 22, argues on rhetorical grounds that
these verses are related structurally in this passage. See also John N. Oswalt, who follows
158
The second group of interpreters preserves this tension but minimizes its
significance. Some understand this tension as the result of an awkward compression of
multiple redactional layers.151 This may explain the origin of the tension, but it does not
ask what sense can be made of the text as we now have it. The same question could be
asked of those who locate the source of the tension not in redactional layers but in the
mind of a vacillating poet who “suggests the larger horizon and then pulls back to more
conventional ground.”152 Anthony Gelston offers a more charitable variation on that
theme by suggesting “that the prophet was concerned to say one thing at a time very
forcibly, and that he did not subsequently revise his utterances to eliminate such tensions
and contradictions. Some of his points are rhetorical rather than logical.”153 This is a
Calvin in suggesting that “the saving of the Gentiles does not nullify the promises to
Israel” (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998],
225); Klaus Baltzer, who comments that “not all human beings can be ‘Israel’s seed,’ but
all can acknowledge Yahweh when they hear the testimony that Israel now already
speaks” (Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, trans. Margaret Kohl,
Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 251); and Peter D. Miscall, who also sees a
shift in reference from Gentiles in v. 22 to Israel in v. 25 (Isaiah, 2nd ed. [Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix, 2006], 137).
151
So D. Paul Volz, Jesaia II, KAT 9 (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1932), 73–74,
who takes “die beiden Zeilen als einen späteren Zusatz.” For this sort of redactional
overlap as an explanation for the tension in Isaiah 40–55 as a whole, see, e.g., Hyun Chul
Paul Kim, Ambiguity, Tension, and Multiplicity in Deutero-Isaiah, StBL (New York: Peter
Lang, 2003), whose diachronic analysis finds “shifts and changes of theological
implications at different redactional stages” that “disclose collections, or clashes, of
diverse traditions signaled by each stage, setting, or ideology” and result in “conceptual
tensions in the extant form of the text” (205); and Paul-Eugène Dion, “L’universalism
religieux dans les différentes couches rédactionnelles d’Isaïe 40–55,” Bib 51 (1970):
161–82, who reconstructs five redactional layers and finds in them “le progrès puis une
régression relative de l’universalisme religieux” (182).
152
Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, Westminster Bible Companion
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 86.
153
Gelston, “Universalism,” 378–79.
159
helpful observation worth keeping in mind as we proceed. But it still raises the question
of why such strongly contradictory rhetorical points would be so closely juxtaposed in
this passage.154 While these approaches rightly preserve the tension in this text between
its universalist and nationalist themes, they do so only by surrendering the coherence of
the text.
The coherence of this text, we will argue, can be maintained if we understand this
text to be referring to the enriched concept of God’s righteousness that we found in the
protest psalms. We will, in the next two sections, seek to show that in this text the
salvation of Israel and the salvation of the nations are distinct but are nevertheless closely
related—and this relationship is centered on the proclamation of God’s righteousness.
Israel’s Salvation and Its Purpose:

Verses 18–19, 24b–25
We begin our exploration of this passage with a look at the verses that frame it:
verses 18–19 and 24b–25. These, we will suggest, focus on the particular salvation of
Israel. However, in distinction from other passages that limit their horizons to Israel’s
salvation, even this frame hints that this particular salvation will have broader universal
154
Gelston himself joins a number of scholars who resolve the tension between
universalism and nationalism in Isaiah 40–55 by suggesting that the nations are indeed
saved but only by submitting to a humiliation before Israel (“Universalism,” 396; see also
Watts, “Echoes from the Past,” 506; Van Winkle, “Relationship of the Nations,” 446–58;
idem, “Proselytes in Isaiah XL–LV? A Study of Isaiah XLIV 1–5,” VT 47 [1997]: 341–
59; Grisanti, “Israel’s Mission,” 59–60; Martin-Achard, Light to the Nations, 17). This
via media may adequately resolve the tension, but it still leaves unanswered the question
of why the prophet would choose such seemingly contradictory rhetoric to depict this
situation.
160
results. As such, they raise the expectation that the speech to the nations in verses 20–24a
will be closely related to Israel’s particular salvation.
Israel’s particular salvation is what leads into this text in the first place. Verse 17
announces that Israel has been saved with an everlasting salvation; the immediate
contrast with the humiliation of the nations in verses 14–16 suggests that this is a
salvation limited to Israel.155 Thus, whatever larger horizons might be in view in verses
18–25, they come in the context of the particular salvation promised to Israel.
Verses 18–19 introduce a new divine oracle,156 even as this new oracle remains
connected to what came before.157 Like the other two divine speeches in the Cyrus oracle,
this speech is introduced by a description of the God who is speaking.158 Also like the
other two divine speeches, the description centers on God’s act of creation (44:24; 45:11–
12). However, a closer look at 45:18 reveals a subtle difference. In 44:24 God is
introduced as the one who forms Israel, and only then does he claim to also have made
155
Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:48; John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah,
AB 20 (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 83. See esp. those who expand the scope of the
similar phrase in v. 25 but still see v. 18 as limited to Israel—e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 355;
Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 272. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 171, who understands “Israel” in v.
18 as “those who rely upon Yahweh,” is a rare exception.
156
The extended introduction of the speaker in v. 18 indicates the beginning of a
new discourse section as in 43:1, 14, 16; 44:6, 24; 45:1, 11, 14. All of these are marked in
the MT as beginning new sections. Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 272–82; Goldingay and Payne,
Isaiah 40–55, 2:49–64; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 245; Childs, Isaiah, 355–56; Paul, Isaiah
40–66, 268–73, all take vv. 18–19 as a new section introducing the speech of vv. 20–25.
157
The Hebrew particle is best understood as evidential, meaning “for” (so
Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:51; see also Isa 52:3). This connection to the
previous passage is not explicitly marked in the Greek but likely would have been
similarly assumed.
158
Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:50.
161
all things. Likewise, in 45:11 God is introduced as the maker of Israel, and only in verse
12 does he claim to have made the earth and humankind. By contrast, in 45:18 we read,
“For this is what the Lord says, the one who created the heavens . . . and who formed the
earth and made it.” God is here introduced as the creator not of Israel but of the cosmos,
setting up the more cosmic scope of this passage.
A significant parallel between Israel and the cosmos is brought out in the content
of verses 18 and 19: they affirm that God’s calling of Israel has a purpose, just as God’s
creation of the world had a purpose. Right after introducing the God who is speaking by
affirming his creative power, verse 18 inserts an unexpected comment about the purpose
of creation: the earth was not created “empty” or “in vain” (‫ ;תֹהוּ‬εἰς κενόν) but instead
ָ κατοικεῖσθαι).159 Likewise, verse 19 connects this

was formed “to be inhabited” (‫;ל ֶשׁ ֶבת‬
purpose for creation to a purpose for God’s calling Israel.160 The link between the two
comes in the descriptions of God’s speech, which is neither “in secret” (‫;ב ֵסּ ֶתר‬
ַ ἐν κρυφῇ)
159
The Hebrew word for “formless” is ‫תֹהוּ‬, a word that might imply an allusion to
the creation account of Gen 1:2 where “the earth was formless and void [‫]תֹהוּ וָ בֹהוּ‬.” See
Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 246. The possible verbal correspondence to Genesis 1 does not
carry over into the LXX, since the terminology here is not that of Genesis 1. The use of
the word ‫ תֹהוּ‬in the next verse may have originally suggested a connection to the creation
account, implying that Israel in exile is “formless and void,” awaiting God’s creative and
redemptive word (cf. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of
the Old Testament in the New [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011], 632). But such an
allusion, if it ever existed, was not brought over into the LXX.
160
Contra Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 218, who sees the logic of this transition as
follows: “Since the universe was created for the purpose of human habitation, it is
incumbent on God to reveal that purpose to humans.” Better is Whybray, Isaiah 40–66,
111, who concludes that YHWH’s speech has “a definite and reliable purpose no less
effective than the purpose which he showed in creation.” Still, it is not any speech
identified as purposeful in this passage but specifically God’s speech calling Israel to
seek him.
162
161
nor “in a dark place” (-‫ ; ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֶא ֶרץ ח ֶֹשׁ‬ἐν τόπῳ γῆς σκοτεινῷ). In light of the assertions
about God’s speech earlier in chapter 45, these phrases would most likely be understood
as vivid poetic pictures of ineffective speech.162 Speech spoken in secret or speech spoken
where no one can hear is speech that fails to get the message across and thus fails to
accomplish its purpose. This is exactly what God’s speech is not.
It therefore follows, as the next line declares, that God’s speech to his people
Israel is not ineffective either: “I did not speak in vain to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me.’”163
161
The phrase ‫ ַבּ ֵסּ ֶתר‬is commonly used adverbially with a sense of “secretly”—
e.g., Deut 13:6; 27:15, 24; 28:57; 2 Sam 12:12; Jer 37:17; 38:16; 40:15; Ps 101:5; Job
13:10; 31:27; 21:14. In this case the ‫ ְבּ‬would express manner (see Bill T. Arnold and John
H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003] §4.1.5i, 106). However, the parallel with the phrase -‫ ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֶא ֶרץ ח ֶֹשׁ‬complicates
this interpretation. The fact that here a construct chain modifies a word that means
“place” strongly suggests that the ‫ ְבּ‬in that phrase, and thus possibly also in the previous
one, is spatial (GKC §119h). The phrase -‫“( ֶא ֶרץ ח ֶֹשׁ‬land of darkness”) is used one other
time (Job 10:21; LXX γῆ σκοτεινή), where it refers to the destination of the dead; i.e.,
Sheol. The phrase ἐν τόπῳ γῆς σκοτεινῷ as a description of what God’s speech is not also
occurs in LXX Isa 48:16, where it likely represents an assimilation to 45:19 (the MT has
the phrase ‫ ַבּ ֵסּ ֶתר‬but not -‫) ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֶא ֶרץ ח ֶֹשׁ‬.
162
So Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 111; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 259; Smith, Isaiah
40–66, 276; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:54.
163
Heb. ‫ ;לֹא ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי ְלזֶ ַרע יַ ֲﬠקֹב תֹּהוּ ַב ְקּשׁוּנִ י‬LXX οὐκ εἶπα τῷ σπέρµατι Ιακωβ
Μάταιον ζητήσατε. Some have suggested that ‫ תֹּהוּ‬here again refers to a place of
formlessness, leading to a sense that “I did not say to Jacob’s descendants (in a land of)
desolation, ‘Seek me!’” (David Toshio Tsumura, “tōhû in Isaiah XLV 19,” VT 38 [1988]:
363; see also M. Görg, “‫ תֹּהוּ‬tōhû,” TDOT 15:569; and note the proposed emendation in
BHS to ‫)בּתֹהוּ‬. ַ But this would go against much of the broader emphasis in Isaiah that
Israel, even in a land of desolation, is not beyond the creative and redemptive word of
God (see, e.g., Isa 9:2; 32:15; 35:1–2; 55:13). Many commentators suggest that this refers
to cultic practices of divination (Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 246; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 218;
McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 83; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 111; for a critique, see
Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 173). But it is more likely that ‫ תֹּהוּ‬here—as in v. 18—is an
adverbial accusative, modifying either ‫“( ַבּ ְקּשׁוּנִ י‬I did not say, ‘seek me in vain’”) or
‫“( ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי‬I did not say in vain, ‘seek me’”). The emphasis earlier in the verse on the
effectiveness of God’s speech makes the latter more likely, but both fit with our proposed
163
Just as God had a purpose for creating the world, so God had a purpose for calling
Israel.164 In this way, verses 18–19 support the promise to save Israel in verse 17 by
suggesting that this salvation of Israel is part of God’s larger purposes for having called
Israel in the first place.
If this is correct, the speech to the nations in verses 20–24a does not change the
subject away from God’s particular salvation of Israel. It instead shows how this
particular salvation fits into God’s larger universal purpose. These verses pan out, so to
speak, to depict how God’s salvation of Israel impacts everyone else. Israel’s own
salvation, though, remains in the center of the frame. The speech to the nations is meant
for Israel to overhear,165 and this brief glimpse into God’s universal purpose for his
salvation of his people serves to further comfort the people of Israel with the certainty of
their own salvation.
In light of this, we should not see the way that verses 24b–25 repeat a promise of
Israel’s salvation as a reversion away from the more universal scope of 20–24a. Nor are
these final verses an expression of that universal scope itself. Rather, they refocus on the
particular salvation of Israel that was never out of frame in the first place. Even when
describing the wider consequences of Israel’s salvation, Israel’s salvation itself remains
the point of this passage.166
reading of this text.

164
Beuken, “Confession,” 347: “Neither by this creative activity nor by his
speaking to Israel has God had in mind a worthless and deceiving result.”
165
So Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 277; Beuken, “Confession,” 346.
166
DeRouchie argues that the “seed of Israel” in v. 25 must include the nations
since “the remark about ‘the seed of Israel’ in verse 25 would be extremely abrupt if
164
But this raises an obvious question: How, exactly, can an offer of salvation to the
nations be a consequence of Israel’s salvation? Answering this question requires a closer
look at the speech to the nations in verses 20–24a.
The Offer of Salvation to the Nations:

Verses 20–24a
The speech to the nations opens by sounding a familiar theme: just as in the
previous section (verses 14–16), Israel’s salvation results in the defeat and humiliation of
the nations. This speech is addressed to the “survivors of the nations,”167 implying that
some global catastrophe has taken place.168 The nations have trusted in their own gods,
and their folly in doing so has become abundantly clear. They are now summoned to
answer for this idolatry, and they are confronted with the truth that there is no one
comparable to Israel’s God (verses 20–21). But then out of this confrontation comes an
unexpected offer of salvation (verse 22). “All the ends of the earth” are summoned to
“turn” (‫;פּנוּ‬
ְ ἐπιστράφητε) to Israel’s God in order that they might “be saved” (‫וְ ִהוָּ ְשׁעוּ‬,
σωθήσεσθε).169 This seems to come out of nowhere, and this has led some scholars to
indeed it bore no reference to the nations just addressed” (“Counting Stars,” 467). But if
the offer of salvation to the nations is a consequence of Israel’s own salvation, then the
transition back to Israel’s own salvation is hardly abrupt at all.
167
Heb. ‫יטי ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬
ֵ ‫ ; ְפּ ִל‬LXX οἱ σῳζόµενοι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν (for σῴζω with a sense of
“barely escape with one’s life,” see Jer 31:6 [LXX]; Gen 19:17; 1 Sam 19:11; cf. LEH,
602).
168
A ‫ ָפּ ִליט‬is a “survivor, escaped one, or fugitive” from a catastrophe, usually a
military defeat (DCH 6:694). Oswalt notes that this passage “seems to look forward to
the time when the judgments associated with Cyrus (45:1–3, 14, 16) have already
occurred” (Isaiah 40–66, 221).
169
The two Hebrew verbs (‫ ְפּנוּ‬and ‫)הוָּ ְשׁעוּ‬
ִ are both plural imperatives, and when
165
170
deny altogether that this is an offer of salvation to the nations. This indicates a crisis of
relevance: How is an offer of salvation to the nations relevant to the promise of salvation
to Israel? How could Israel’s salvation result in an offer of salvation to the nations?
While this passage does not connect this universal offer of salvation to Israel’s
own salvation, it does connect it to the open declaration of God’s righteousness. Indeed,
the offer of salvation to the nations in verse 22 flows directly out of God’s declaration in
verse 21 that he is the only “righteous God and savior.” The fact that God’s righteousness
appears again as an object of the universal confession of Israel’s God in verse 24a
indicates that this declaration was not without effect. The nations got the point: they
recognize that only Israel’s God is righteous. And it is on this basis that they are
summoned to turn and be saved.
I suggest that it is by inferring the encyclopedic understanding of God’s
righteousness as that which is proclaimed when God saves his people that verses 20–24a
can meet the expectations of relevance raised in verses 18–19. This, of course, is
precisely the encyclopedic enrichment we found in the protest psalms. If we take
references to God’s righteousness in this passage as references to this enriched concept,
commands in verbal sequence are joined by a vav-conjunctive the final verb often
expresses purpose or result. See Arnold and Choi, Syntax §3.5.3b, 92; Smith, Isaiah 40–
66, 278; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:57. The Greek verbs are joined by a
simple καί, and NETS is right to take this as a substitution of parataxis for hypotaxis (see
BDAG s.v. 1.b.β, 494)
170
Whybray cannot accept that this “most significant doctrinal innovation” could
occur (Isaiah 40–66, 111), and Schoors likewise argues that, since such a universal offer
would be utterly without precedent, it is unlikely to be found in this verse (God Your
Saviour, 236). Even those who argue that this passage does depict such a universal offer
still admit that this is “astonishing and unexpected” (Childs, Isaiah, 355).
166
then the declaration that only Israel’s God is righteous instantly becomes relevant to the
surrounding discussion of Israel’s salvation. Israel as a whole is in the situation of the
protesting psalmist, in a situation of distress.171 But when God acts to save Israel, then
God’s righteousness will be openly declared to the nations.
To be sure, “righteousness” language has referred to elements of this enriched
concept already since chapter 40. Both 42:6 and 45:13 use “righteousness” adverbially to
say that in raising Cyrus God is acting “in righteousness” (‫;ב ֶצ ֶדק‬
ְ ἐν/µετὰ δικαιοσύνης).
This is likely also how the Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬should be understood in 41:2 (as an adverbial
accusative), although the LXX understands it (and not an unnamed ruler “from the east”)
as the object of the verb ἐξεγείρω. Additionally, 41:10 promised (in the Hebrew) or
claimed already (in the LXX) to uphold Israel with a “righteous right hand” (‫ימין ִצ ְד ִקי‬
ִ ‫; ִבּ‬
τῇ δεξιᾷ τῇ δικαίᾳ µου). In these instances, “righteousness” characterizes God’s actions
that result in the salvation of Israel.172
Just prior to our text, in Isa 45:19 (see also verse 23) God is “speaking
righteousness” (‫ ;דּ ֵֹבר ֶצ ֶדק‬λαλῶν δικαιοσύνην) and “declaring truth/upright things” (‫ַמגִּ יד‬
‫ישׁ ִרים‬ ֵ ἀναγγέλλων ἀλήθειαν). This could mean that God declares what righteous
ָ ‫;מ‬
actions he expects of human beings,173 but it more likely means that God’s speech is “true
171
So Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 119.
172
So Goldingay and Payne comment on 41:2 that “the word ṣedeq itself will be
of key importance in Isaiah 40–55, suggesting Yhwh’s doing the right thing in the
exercise of power in the world in a way that pays due recognition to Israel’s ‘rights’ as
Yhwh’s people” (Isaiah 40–55, 1:143).
173
So Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 276.
167
174
and reliable.” Of course, the content of this speech is likely (from the context) to be
God’s call to Israel to seek him and the promise of salvation. Some scholars therefore
attribute salvific connotations to the language of “righteousness” here.175 But such an
enrichment of the concept is not necessary for relevance at this point: the contrast with
speaking “in vain” and the parallel with speaking “uprightness” or “truth” makes it more
likely that “righteousness” language refers here (and in verse 23) to the enriched concept
of “reliable” or “truthful.” As we will see, this speech is closely related to God’s saving
action. But it does not need to refer to it directly in order to be relevant to the context of
45:19.
Thus “righteousness” language, when referring to God, his speech, or his action,
can refer to the aspect of God’s character because of which he saves his people, but does
not always do so. However, even this degree of enrichment is not adequate to meet the
expectation of relevance we identified in the previous section. It is not enough for God’s
righteousness to be enriched as the source of Israel’s salvation; for the offer of salvation
to the nations on the basis of a declaration of God’s righteousness to be relevant to the
purpose of Israel’s own salvation, God’s righteousness must be encyclopedically enriched
as what is proclaimed when Israel’s salvation is accomplished. To be sure, the latter
enrichment is logically related to the former, so it is conceivable that this additional
encyclopedic enrichment could occur here as an ad hoc conceptual modification. This,
however, would require significant cognitive effort. Other options such as modifying
174
So Childs, Isaiah, 355.
175
Goldingay and Payne argue that “as usual, ṣedeq speaks of Yhwh’s purpose to
see that right is done by Israel” (Isaiah 40–55, 2:54).
168
other terms or denying coherence altogether would probably require less effort, as the
trends among modern interpreters that we surveyed above indicate. But the existence of
precisely such an encyclopedically enriched concept in the mutual cognitive environment
would significantly decrease the amount of effort required. The intertextual environment
provides a significant cognitive shortcut to the relevant enriched concept.
The significance of this cognitive shortcut becomes clear if we compare this
passage to Psalm 22. Here a dramatic act of salvation will cause both the “ends of the
earth” (‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ַ τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς) to “remember and turn [‫ ;יִ זְ ְכּרוּ וְ יָ ֻשׁבוּ‬µνησθήσονται
ָ ‫;א ְפ ֵס‬
καὶ ἐπιστραφήσονται] to the Lord” and God’s righteousness (‫;צ ְד ָקתוֹ‬

ִ τὴν δικαιοσύνην
αὐτοῦ) to be declared by an ever-expanding community (verse 32).176 From here, the
modification of the concept of God’s righteousness needed to be relevant to Isa 45:21 is
simple. Instead of the “ends of the earth” turning and the declaration of God’s
righteousness taking place as a consequence of God’s act of salvation, the “ends of the
earth” are summoned to turn (45:22) as a consequence of God’s act of salvation that itself
functions as a declaration of God’s righteousness (45:21). This modification fits perfectly
with the emphasis we identified above in Isaiah 40–55 on the relationship between God’s
speech and God’s salvific action.177 God’s salvation of his people does not just enable
people to declare God’s righteousness; it is God’s own declaration of God’s
righteousness.
176
Like Isa 45:18–25, Psalm 22 is also concerned with both “the seed of Israel”
(τὸ σπέρµα Ισραηλ; ‫זֶ ַרע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, v. 24) and the “ends of the earth” (‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ַ τὰ πέρατα
ָ ‫;א ְפ ֵס‬
τῆς γῆς, v. 28) as distinct entities that are nevertheless both affected—albeit in distinct
ways—by God’s salvific action.
177
169
This is the crucial difference between Isaiah 45 and the protest psalms. In Isaiah
45 there is no mention of Israel—or, for that matter, any human being—proclaiming
God’s righteousness. Rather, it is God himself who declares his righteousness in verse 21.
Thus the declaration of God’s righteousness and the summons to turn to him are the
illocutionary force conveyed by the locutionary action of God’s salvation of Israel.178
How does this happen? Absent some sort of speech act conventions for the self-
revelation of a deity, how could the act of “saving Israel” communicate anything to the
nations? RT would suggest that if the salvation of Israel were recognized as a divine
“ostensive act” directed toward the nations, this would initiate the inferential process that
seeks the relevance of that ostensive act. This is why the witness of Israel to the nations
about the intentionality of this act—that is to say, its ostensive nature—is so critical:
without recognizing that intentionality there would be no presumption of relevance. But
even with this, the inferential process is not left up to chance but is clarified in verses 21–
22. Only Israel’s God saves, so only Israel’s God is “a righteous God and a savior” (verse
21). But, by making this knowledge manifest to the nations, God is summoning them to
“turn to me and be saved” also (verse 22).179 In other words, because God’s salvation of
Israel definitively shows God’s unique righteousness, it summons everyone else to turn to
Israel’s God and Israel’s God alone.180 Where else could they turn? In speech act terms,
178
So Shum, Isaiah in Romans, 186: “By using a pagan king to liberate Israel,
Yahweh clearly and powerfully declares to all nations that He is not only Israel’s God but
also theirs.”
179
Contra Irons, Righteousness of God, 145, who argues that God being
“righteous” means that he accomplishes salvation by executing justice on the enemies of
God’s people “in such a way that the demands of his justice are satisfied.”
180
So Beuken, “Confession,” 355: “By leading history through the present
170
then, the nations turning and experiencing salvation themselves is an intended
perlocution of God’s declaration of his righteousness in his act of saving Israel. In this
way, God’s declaration of his righteousness to the nations is a summons for them to turn
to him in order to be saved.
We can draw four important conclusions from this reading of this passage.
First, Isa 45:18–25 functions as the answer to the complaint made in verse 15 that
the “God and savior of Israel” (‫מוֹשׁ ַיע‬ ֵ ‫ ; ֱא‬ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ σωτήρ) is a God
ִ ‫;הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬
ִ or is “unknown” (LXX καὶ οὐκ ᾔδειµεν).181 There are

who “hides himself” (Heb. ‫)מ ְס ַתּ ֵתּר‬
considerable interpretive difficulties with this verse. The identity of the speaker is
unclear, so this verse has been understood as a comment by the prophet,182 as the speech
of Israel itself,183 or (most likely in our view) as a continuation of the speech of the
nations.184 But the most significant issue is how to understand the complaint of God’s
circumstances to Israel’s salvation, he has shown that he alone is God” (italics original).
See also Évode Beaucamp, “L’univers acclame le justicier d’Israël (Psaume 98),”
BiViChr 70 (1966): 36–40, here 38: “Les nations savent désormais qu’il y a un Sauveur,
quelqu’un qui s’engage librement à l’égard de l’homme et sait tenir parole, quelqu’un qui
se souvient de sa Héséd, un justicier fidèle sur qui l’on peut absolument compter.”
181
Cf. Beuken, “Confession,” 354.
182
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 257–59; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 170–71 (“a
word after the prophet’s own heart,” if not from the prophet himself).
183
For the view that it is a statement contested by the prophet, see Meindert
Dijkstra, “Zur Deutung von Jesaja 45, 15ff.,” ZAW 89 (1977): 215–22. For the view that
it is a statement that the prophet both affirms and disputes, see Samuel E. Balentine,
“Isaiah 45: God’s ‘I Am,’ Israel’s ‘You Are,’” HBT 16 (1994): 108–10.
184
Some (including the LXX) read it as a continuation of the speech of the
ִ as BHS suggests (so Whybray,
nations, often by emending the text from ‫ ַא ָתּה‬to -‫א ָתּ‬,
Isaiah 40–66, 110). However, there is no textual evidence for this (so Balentine, “Isaiah
45,” 108). But others claim that there is no need to emend the text, and that the text as we
have it can switch its address (from Israel to Israel’s God) without also switching its
171
“hiddenness.” Many commentators see this as the paradoxical manner in which God is
the “God and savior of Israel,” as referring to the “strange and uncanny ways in which
the God of Israel intervenes in human affairs, especially touching on the destiny of his
people.”185 But the background in the psalms suggests a more mundane interpretation:
rather than describing how God saves, this verse protests that God had not yet saved—
and therefore is concealed. In other words, it is not that God saved in a “hidden” or
mysterious way, but rather that God as the “God and savior of Israel” cannot be found
until he does save his people. But once God acts to restore his people, the time of God’s
“hiddenness” will be over. Thus, while the relationship between the two statements about
God is left open in Isa 45:15 itself, “their background in the laments means that the
hearers know how to relate them. The one who has been hider is now deliverer.”186
As a contrast to God’s hiddenness, then, we may speak for the first time of God’s
declaration of his righteousness as God’s revelation of his righteousness. And, we note,
this concept of the revelation of God’s righteousness is, here at its inception, a revelation
to the nations that occurs when God saves his people.
Second, just as we saw above that the proclamation of God’s righteousness in the
protest psalms is logically dependent on God’s salvation of the psalmist, so here we find
that the declaration of God’s righteousness to the nations is likewise logically dependent
on God’s salvation of Israel. Here, though, the dependence is the dependence of an
speaker (so Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 216–17; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:46).
185
So Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 259. See also Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 271; Childs,
Isaiah, 355.
186
172
illocutionary act on the locution by which it is accomplished. The “speech” of Isa 45:21–
22 is therefore not itself an address to the nations (it is, of course, in the literary frame of
a work addressed to Israel). Rather, it clarifies the force of the future address to the
nations that will be made by means of Israel’s salvation. The illocutionary force itself is
deferred until this salvation takes place, for this salvation is the sine qua non of the
revelation of God’s righteousness—even as it can only function as such when
accompanied by this prophetic witness that clarifies its force. Conversely, since such a
salvation is itself the locution by which God reveals his righteousness, those who will
later proclaim that salvation will be relaying the very speech of God himself. In other
words, in proclaiming that saving action, the righteousness of God will be revealed, and
this revelation will itself have the divine illocutionary force of a summons to turn and be
saved.
Third, connecting God’s offer of salvation to the nations with God’s revelation of
his righteousness—and both of those with God’s salvation of his people Israel—resolves
the tension between a particular and universal salvation that we noted above. This is
because we find a two-stage salvation—first for Israel, then for everyone else.187 In the
187
We find this notion of such a two-stage salvation reflected in several key
Second Temple Jewish texts (for which see, in particular, Terence L. Donaldson, Paul
and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World [Minneapolis: Fortress,
1997], 70–77). E.g., Tobit envisions that after the restoration of Israel “the nations in the
whole world will all be converted [ἐπιστρέψουσιν] and worship God in truth” (Tob 14:6,
NRSV). Here, just like in Isa 45:18–25, it is only when God redeems his people from
exile and restores the glory of Israel that the nations “turn” to Israel’s God. Similarly,
other texts can speak both of the nations being judged (Ps. Sol. 17:21–25; Syb. Or. 3.669–
701) and of the nations turning to God when they see Israel’s salvation (Ps. Sol. 17:30–
31; Syb. Or. 3.710–31). See Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and
Its Social Setting, SVTP 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 281.
173
first stage Israel’s salvation is distinct, in contrast to the fate of the nations. But it is this
distinct salvation that reveals the distinct righteousness of Israel’s God and therefore
functions as an offer of salvation to everyone else. This leads to the second stage in which
Israel’s salvation is paradigmatic and shared with the nations. The revelation of God’s
righteousness is how the culmination of God’s salvation of Israel results in the onset of
God’s salvation of everyone else. In other words, it takes place neither at the end nor at
the beginning of God’s salvific plan but at a key, climactic point in the middle, the point
at which God’s saving action begins to extend to the whole world. As such, the revelation
of God’s righteousness marks the inflection point of salvation history.
This inflection point does not mean that Israel is left behind, though, for we noted
that even this second stage remains centered on Israel as paradigmatic for the nations.
Just as in several of the protest psalms the psalmist played a paradigmatic role vis-a-vis
those to whom he vows to declare God’s righteousness, so in Isaiah 45 Israel plays a
paradigmatic role vis-a-vis the nations. Just as the perlocutionary intent of the prophetic
speech of Isaiah 40–55 is for Israel to “turn” to God,188 so the perlocutionary intent of this
anticipated “speech” is for the nations to “turn” to God also.189
188
So Isa 44:22; see above, p. 149.
189
This is clear in the LXX, where the verb “turn” (ἐπιστρέφω) is the same in Isa
45:22 as in Isa 44:22 (and also Ps 22:28). The Heb., however, uses the verb ‫“( פנה‬turn [to
the side]”) in Isa 45:22, whereas it used the verb ‫“( שׁוב‬return”) in Isa 44:22 and Ps 22:28.
When used of Israel, ‫ פנה‬refers most often to turning (aside) to idols or their
representatives (so, e.g., Lev 19:4, 31; 20:6; Hos 3:1; Ps 40:5—see esp. Deut 31:18, 20,
where ‫ פנה‬is translated in the LXX with ἐπιστρέφω). Thus, while Israel is called to turn
back to Israel’s God, the nations are called to turn—presumably for the first time—to
Israel’s God.
174
This also explains the final verse of this passage (verse 25), in which “all the seed
of Israel” is said (in the Hebrew) to be “in the right in YHWH” (‫ ) ַבּיהוָ ה יִ ְצ ְדּקוּ‬or (in the
LXX) to “be shown to be right from the Lord” (ἀπὸ κυρίου δικαιωθήσονται). This verse
bears obvious structural similarity to verses 16–17, where Israel is saved in contrast to
idolators—here Israel is vindicated in contrast to those who have raged against Israel’s
God. We argued above that “Israel” refers to Israel in this verse and that the reference is
again to Israel’s own particular salvation. But this salvation is understood here as also
their vindication.190 It is not just the righteousness of Israel’s God that is revealed in this
great act of salvation, but Israel’s own “rightness.” Those who have turned to God are
shown to be right—and therefore everyone else is summoned to do as they have done.
Thus God’s saving action that has the illocutionary force of a declaration of God’s
righteousness also has the illocutionary force of a declaration of Israel’s righteousness.
This should not be equated with the full-fledged Pauline doctrine of justification, for it is
the “godly” who are “vindicated” here, not the “ungodly” who are “justified” as in
Romans 4:5. But the connection established in this verse between the revelation of God’s
righteousness and the making-known of Israel’s righteousness may prove to be important
to understand the logic of Paul’s argument: it establishes that God’s saving action has the
illocutionary force not only of the declaration of God’s own righteousness but also of the
righteousness of his people.191
190
So Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 446: through this saving action, “both
YHWH and Israel come to their right.”
191
With Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:1469: “The ‘righteousness’ of God
will result in the ‘righteousness’ of his people.”
175
Finally, this has an important implication for our understanding of the logical
enrichment of the concept of God’s righteousness. We find that God’s righteousness is
revealed when he saves his people Israel, and it is that revelation of God’s righteousness
that itself accomplishes God’s salvific purposes for the ends of the earth. Our
understanding of the logical enrichment of God’s righteousness must be able to satisfy
both of these observations: God’s righteousness is fully revealed when he saves Israel, yet
this revelation results in an offer of salvation to the nations. The view that God’s
righteousness refers to God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises to save Israel does not
quite satisfy the latter, and the view that God’s righteousness refers directly to God’s
faithfulness to his covenant promises to save the nations does not quite satisfy the former.
A better view is the one that emerged as a suggestion from our discussion of the protest
psalms.192 God’s salvation of Israel is righteous because it fulfills God’s covenantally
self-imposed obligation to save those whose God he is—it is his righteousness as God.
As such, this saving sovereignty is fully revealed when God saves his people. But when
this is understood by the nations as an act of ostensive communication to them in the
context of Israel’s prophetic witness, it can be correctly understood as a summons for
them to turn to the same God and share in that same salvation. In this way the revelation
of the righteousness of Israel’s God summons the nations also to turn to Israel’s God—the
only “righteous God and savior.”
192
176
God’s Righteousness in Isaiah 45:18–25:
Conclusion
We have argued that Isa 45:18–25 refers to the encyclopedically enriched concept
of God’s righteousness found in the protest psalms—that God’s righteousness is declared
when God saves his people. It does this by raising the expectation that the speech to the
nations will be relevant to the purpose of God’s calling and saving Israel. In this speech,
the offer to the “ends of the earth” to “turn” and “be saved” is not directly connected to
the salvation of Israel, complicating attempts to discern the flow of thought between a
promise of salvation to Israel and an offer of salvation to the nations. However, it is
directly connected to the declaration of God’s righteousness, and inferring the
encyclopedic enrichment that emerged from the protest psalms unifies this passage and
integrates both its particularist and universalist emphases.
But this passage does not just refer to this enriched concept; it itself also adds a
crucial encyclopedic enrichment. By understanding this declaration of God’s
righteousness in the salvation of his people as God’s own declaration—and hence
revelation—of God’s righteousness, it presents this revelation of God’s righteousness as
what summons the nations to turn and be saved. In this way, the revelation of God’s
righteousness is what connects Israel’s particular salvation with the offer of salvation to
the nations. It is by saving Israel that God reveals his righteousness so that he might save
the nations. Thus, while some have suggested that in this passage God “is savior of Israel
because he is savior of the world,”193 we find the logic of this passage to go the other
193
Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 220.
177
way: God is the God and savior of the world because—and only because—God is first
the God and savior of Israel.
God’s Righteousness Elsewhere

in Isaiah and the Psalms
Isaiah 45:18–25 is the high-water mark of the encyclopedic enrichment of the
concept of God’s righteousness. We will argue below that it is this enrichment that is
most relevant to Rom 1:17. But before we explore this, we will look briefly at how other
references to God’s righteousness in Isaiah and the Psalms might also refer to aspects of
this enriched concept. These traces of this enriched concept can be found elsewhere in
Isaiah and the Psalms, specifically in Isa 46:12–13; 51:4–8; 56:1; and Psalm 98. As we
will see, each of these likely refers to aspects of this enriched concept, and, while they do
not provide additional encyclopedic enrichment, they begin to establish the language that
refers to this concept.
Isaiah 46:12–13 and Isaiah 51:4–8:

God’s Righteousness Draws Near
The next reference to God’s righteousness after Isaiah 45 comes in the very next
chapter. Isaiah 46, however, represents a turning point. Verse 8, with its reference to “you
rebels,” indicates that “Israel’s required reaction will be the theme that now begins to
dominate the following chapters.”194 This “more confrontational stance”195 likely directly
194
Childs, Isaiah, 361.
195
178
196
addresses those who have refused to believe the oracle of salvation. As a result, the
universal horizon of that oracle fades into the background, and the message is focused
once more on Israel. This is why the concept of God’s righteousness in Isa 45:18–25 is
unique in its enrichment: when the fate of the nations is no longer in view, there is no
need for this particular enrichment of the concept.
As such, the universal dimensions of the enrichment of the concept of God’s
righteousness are not in view in this chapter. Rather, language of God’s righteousness
refers quite directly to God’s saving action on behalf of Israel in verses 12–13:
‫ִירי לֵב‬
ֵ ‫שׁמְעוּ ֵאלַי אַבּ‬ ִ 12 ἀκούσατέ µου, οἱ ἀπολωλεκότες τὴν καρδίαν
‫ה ְָרחוֹקִים ִמצְּדָ קָה׃‬ οἱ µακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης.
‫ק ֵַרבְתִּ י צִדְ קָתִ י ™א תִ ְרחָק‬ 13 ἤγγισα τὴν δικαιοσύνην µου
‫וּתְ שׁוּעָתִ י ™א תְ אַחֵר‬ καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾿ ἐµοῦ οὐ βραδυνῶ·
‫ְונָתַ תִּ י ְבצִיּוֹן תְּ שׁוּעָה‬ δέδωκα ἐν Σιων σωτηρίαν τῷ Ισραηλ
‫ְאַרתִּ י׃ ס‬
ְ ‫ְליִשׂ ְָראֵל תִּ פ‬ εἰς δόξασµα.
Interpreting “righteousness” language in these two verses is complicated by the fact that
it occurs with seemingly different meanings in each verse. The address to those who are
“far from righteousness” (‫חוֹקים ִמ ְצּ ָד ָקה‬

ִ ‫ ; ָה ְר‬οἱ µακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) in verse 12
could refer to those who are lacking in human righteousness, since the parallel clause
refers to those who are “stubborn-hearted” (‫ ; ַא ִבּ ֵירי ֵלב‬οἱ ἀπολωλεκότες τὴν καρδίαν).
“Righteousness” here would refer to the righteous conduct that God requires of his
people.197 Alternatively, the parallel between “my righteousness” and “my salvation” in
verse 13 suggests that “righteousness” there refers to the aspect of God’s character
196
So Smith, Isaiah 40–66, 294.
197
So Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 265.
179
because of which he saves his people. It is also possible, therefore, that this is the referent
of “righteousness” language in verse 12.198 Both would fit with the context of this
passage: it addresses those who are far from being the righteous people God wants them
to be and are not presently experiencing God’s saving righteousness. And verse 13
promises that this saving righteousness that had been promised is nevertheless near at
hand.
But does the parallel between “righteousness” and “salvation” in verse 13 do
more than inform the meanings of the terms? Might it not start to define them? Might
“righteousness” (‫;צ ָד ָקה‬

ְ δικαιοσύνην) begin to refer directly to God’s saving action? This
is certainly possible, and some scholars have taken this view.199 This would be a natural
development of the concept that we have already identified: the language that refers to
God’s righteousness as the originating force of God’s saving action could easily be
extended to refer to God’s saving action itself. Such a “metonymic extension”200 is
required not by the parallelism per se but by its use in this context: for God to “bring
near” God’s righteousness is for God to “bring near” God’s saving action. For our
purpose, then, the question is not whether the language of “my righteousness” relates to
198
So Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:86, who argue that it refers to those
who are “far from the experience of having Yhwh do right by you” in view of the laments
of God’s distance in Pss 10:1; 22:2, 12; 35:22; 38:22; 71:12; and Lam 1:16. A similar
view is taken by Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 118.
199
E.g., Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 274, who argues that in these later “strands”
of Isaiah ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬means “triumph, victory, or deliverance rather than righteousness.” See
also Olley, Righteousness, 116 (although note the observation that in the LXX “nowhere
is there any translation overlap with ‫ ;)”ישע‬von Rad, Theology, 372; John Reumann,
Righteousness in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran—
Roman Catholic Dialogue (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 15.
200
See Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 356.
180
God’s saving action but how directly this language refers to God’s saving action. In other
words, is this a “live” metonym, or has it “died” by being lexicalized?201
While it is difficult to answer this question from the Hebrew text alone, the LXX
provides a significant insight into both how this text was understood by the translators
and, as a result, how it would have been understood by those who encountered it through
the LXX. While the Hebrew of verse 13 modifies each of the parallel terms ‫ ִצ ְד ָק ִתי‬and
ָ ‫ ְת‬in the same way (with a simple first-person pronominal suffix), the LXX does
‫שׁוּﬠ ִתי‬
not. In contrast to its usual tendency to increase parallelism,202 the LXX modifies these
terms differently: “my righteousness” is rendered directly as τὴν δικαιοσύνην µου, but
“my salvation” is expanded as τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾿ ἐµοῦ (“the salvation that is from
me”). This suggests that δικαιοσύνη was not understood to have exactly the same
relationship to God that σωτηρία does. “Salvation” comes from God, while
“righteousness” is of God.203 While both phrases as a whole refer to God’s saving action,
201
For this possibility, see above, p. 65 n. 257.
202
Note that the LXX renders the third person Heb. ‫“( לֹא ְת ַא ֵחר‬it will not delay”)
as the first person οὐ βραδυνῶ (“I will not delay”) in order to “improve the parallelism”
(Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:86).
203
While the LXX typically uses παρά + gen. to speak of salvation “from” God
(Exod 14:13; Ps 36:39; Isa 52:10 [but see the simple genitive in the parallel text of Ps
98:3]; Jdt 8:17; Bar 4:24), references to righteousness “from” God or mercy “from” God
are rare. Two instances, however, are significant. First, Ps 24:5 speaks of one receiving
“righteousness from God” (‫;הים‬ ִ ‫) ְצ ָד ָקה ֵמ ֱא‬, which the LXX renders as ἐλεηµοσύνην παρὰ
θεοῦ. Second, more significantly, Isa 54:10 renders “my steadfast love” (‫)ח ְס ִדּי‬ ַ as τὸ παρ᾿
ἐµοῦ ἔλεος (the later Greek revisions revert to the more literal ἔλεός µου). This latter
alteration does not seem to be merely stylistic but rather to reflect the use in context; the
reference to this love not “departing” (‫ ;מושׁ‬ἐκλείπω) suggests an external manifestation
of this love in action rather than an internal quality or character.
181
204
we find that, at least at the time when the LXX was produced, “righteousness”
language was likely still understood to refer directly to an aspect of God’s character. It
could be extended to refer metonymically to salvation, but for now at least the metonym
seems to be alive and well.
This is also, then, how we should understand similar phrases in Isaiah 51. In verse
5 “my righteousness” (‫;צ ְד ִקי‬

ִ ἡ δικαιοσύνη µου) and “my salvation” (‫ ;יִ ְשׁ ִﬠי‬τὸ σωτήριόν
µου), both modified with a simple genitive, are again placed in parallel: both are on their
way. Unlike in chapter 46, however, the universal horizon is back in view: God’s justice
will “become a light to the nations” (verse 4), God’s arm will “bring justice to the
nations” (verse 5),205 and “the coastlands will look to me and hope in my arm” (verse 5).
Presumably, this is because of the servant who, in chapter 49, is tasked not only with
restoring the people of Israel but also with being “a light for the nations, that my
salvation may be to the ends of the earth” (verse 6). As Childs observes, “The task that
the nation Israel had been given and failed to accomplish (42:1–9) had been transferred,
not away from Israel, but rather to one who would incarnate Israel (cf. 49:1–6).”206 Childs
sees “the effect of this promise” to be that “the sharp line once separating Israel from the
nations has been overcome, and the new people of God emerges as encompassing all
204
The later revisions of Aquila and Symmachus revert to the wording of the Heb.
(σωτηρία µου), while that of Theodotion drops the pronoun altogether.
205
The LXX modifies this clause in the direction of the final clause of v. 5, saying
not that God’s arm will “judge the nations” (‫ )וּזְ ר ַֹﬠי ַﬠ ִמּים יִ ְשׁפֹּטוּ‬but that “the nations will
hope in my arm” (καὶ εἰς τὸν βραχίονά µου ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν). This may be an accidental
assimilation to the final clause of v. 5, which says the same thing about the “coastlands”
or “islands,” but it could also be motivated by the negative connotations of “judging” in
Greek (as in English) that would contradict the overall positive message of this verse.
206
Childs, Isaiah, 394.
182
207
those responding in faith to God.” But this is a slight overstatement. Such a “sharp
line” no longer limits God’s saving action or constrains those who may trust in God. But
the distinction between Israel and the nations certainly emerges unscathed from this text:
the salvation promised first to Zion (verse 3) then spills over to the nations (verses 4–
6).208 While the precise shape of this two-stage salvation is not as clear in this text as in
Isa 45:18–25, we find once more in Isaiah 51 that the “arrival” of God’s righteousness
has a salvific result first for Israel and then by extension for the nations.
This section closes by addressing those who “know what is right” (‫ ;י ְֹד ֵﬠי ֶצ ֶדק‬οἱ
εἰδότες κρίσιν) and the “people who have my law in their heart” (‫תּוֹר ִתי ְב ִל ָבּם‬
ָ ‫ ; ַﬠם‬λαός
µου, οὗ ὁ νόµος µου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν). Just as we saw in Isa 45:18–25, the promise of
a universal horizon of salvation is found in an oracle that is still primarily addressed to
Israel.209 In verse 6 God promises that “my salvation will be forever, and my
righteousness will not fail,” and in verse 8 that “my righteousness will be forever, my
salvation through all generations.” God’s salvation is dependent on God’s righteousness,
so the former is no less eternal than the latter.
In short, these passages consistently refer to God’s righteousness as the
originating force of God’s saving action on behalf of Israel. While this may be extended
metonymically in such a way as to at times refer to the saving action itself, the lexeme
still likely refers directly to the aspect of God’s character. The more universal
207
Ibid.
208
So Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:230.
209
So Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 157: “This oracle is addressed to those exiles who
are suffering some kind of humiliation at the hands of Babylonians, or perhaps even of
fellow-Jews.”
183
implications of God’s righteousness are not completely absent, but they do not receive the
same degree of focus as in Isa 45:18–25. However, this is a product of a shift in emphasis
in this text as a whole from the oracle of salvation itself to Israel’s response to the oracle
of salvation. If the universal horizons of this salvation are not as relevant to this
emphasis, neither does this emphasis deny such horizons. It should not surprise us that,
when the focus is on Israel’s own response to the message of salvation, God’s
righteousness is understood once more primarily in terms of its salvific effect on Israel.
Isaiah 56:1 and Psalm 98:2:

God’s Righteousness Revealed
In the above discussion of Isa 45:18–25, we suggested that when the declaration
of God’s righteousness is presented as God’s answer to the charge of being hidden, then
we may speak of a revelation of God’s righteousness. In the final two texts we will
examine, this is finally made explicit. As such, these texts function as a bridge from the
enriched concept we identified in the protest psalms and Isaiah 45 to the language that
Paul uses to refer to that concept in Rom 1:17.
The first text, Isa 56:1, will not play a major role in this investigation. This is
because it is one of the few texts in which God’s “righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬
ְ is not translated
with the lexeme δικαιοσύνη. Instead, the LXX renders it as ἔλεος. This does not
necessarily mean that the text used by Paul or his readers rendered it that way—every
revision of the Greek text reverts back to δικαιοσύνη. But it still means that we cannot
184
place much weight on this text for understanding what enriched concept Paul might be
referring to with his language of “God’s righteousness.”210
However, the one other explicit reference to the revelation of God’s righteousness
survives the translation into Greek. We have already noted that Ps 98:2, which declares
that God “has revealed his righteousness [‫;צ ְד ָקתוֹ‬

ִ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ] in the eyes of
the nations” exhibits the closest linguistic correspondence to Paul’s statement in Rom
1:17.211 Additionally, many scholars have noted the close connections between this psalm
and Isaiah 40–55.212 Some, then, have even concluded that the same event is in view.213
Whether or not that is the case, these parallels suggest that this psalm depends with Isaiah
210
It remains important for understanding the way “righteousness” language
unifies the book of Isaiah; see, e.g., John Goldingay, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Isaiah 56–66, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 67; Rolf Rendtorff,
“Isaiah 56:1 as a Key to the Formation of the Book of Isaiah,” in Canon and Theology:
Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, trans. and ed. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 181–89; John N. Oswalt, “Righteousness in Isaiah: A Study of the
Function of Chapters 55–66 in the Present Structure of the Book,” in vol. 1 of Writing
and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C.
Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 177–91. It combines the
emphasis on God’s righteousness as God’s saving action of 40–55 with righteousness and
justice as what God desires to characterize his people of 1–39 (for the latter, see, e.g.,
Moshe Weinfeld, “‘Justice and Righteousness’—‫—משׁפט וצדקה‬The Expression and Its
Meaning,” in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence, ed.
Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, JSOTSup 137 [Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1992], 228–46; H. Gossai, Justice, Righteousness and the Social Critique of
the Eighth-Century Prophets, AUS 7.141 [New York: Peter Lang, 1993]).
211
See above, p. 93.
212
To cite just one example, Kraus finds parallels between v. 1 and Isa 42:10;
52:10; 59:16; 63:5; between v. 3 and Isa 40:5; 52:10; 66:18; between v. 4 and Isa 52:9;
between v. 5 in Isa 51:3; and between v. 7 and Isa 55:12 (Psalms 60–150, 263).
213
So Goldingay, Psalms, 3:120–21.
185
214
40–55 on a “shared tradition of praise.” As such, it is worth examining how the concept
of God’s righteousness in this psalm relates both back to Isa 45:18–25 and forward to
Rom 1:17.
The first thing to note is the clear distinction between the already accomplished
salvific act described in verses 1–3 (where the Hebrew verbs are perfect and the Greek
aorist) and the future universal act of salvation in verse 9 (note the Hebrew imperfect
‫ יִ ְשׁפֹּט‬and the [likely] Greek future κρινεῖ). Moreover, as verse 3 makes clear, the already-
accomplished salvific act was a salvation for Israel.215
At the same time, verses 2 and 3 make clear that the nations witness this salvation.
God’s “love” and “faithfulness” are directed toward Israel (verse 3), yet the nations see
God’s “righteousness” (verse 2) and the ends of the earth see God’s “salvation” (verse 3).
Just as in Isa 45:21, what this salvation of Israel shows to the nations is God’s
214
Ibid., 3:120. See Ellen F. Davis, “Psalm 98,” Int 46 (1992): 171–75, here 172.
215
In 98:3 the “ends of the earth” (‫י־א ֶרץ‬ָ ‫ל־א ְפ ֵס‬ ָ πάντα τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς) see
ַ ‫כ‬,
God’s salvation, but this salvation is characterized as God having remembered “his love
and faithfulness to the house of Israel” (‫ ַח ְסדּוֹ וֶ ֱאמוּנָ תוֹ ְל ֵבית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ τῷ
Ιακωβ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ). See Goldingay, Psalms, 3:121, who also
sees v. 3 as clarifying the fact that Israel is the recipient of this salvation; and Jörg
Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem
kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1987), 135, who notes that the nations play a “minor role” (Nebenrolle) since
this salvation is primarily for God’s covenant people.
This text causes problems for Irons’s view that God’s righteousness is always his
distributive righteousness in the OT. Here he suggests that it must refer to the fact that
“God will reveal his righteousness and his salvation by judging the Babylonians who
took his people into exile” (Righteousness of God, 187). But then it is odd that this
punitive aspect of God’s saving action is never elsewhere mentioned in Psalm 98: the
psalm focuses exclusively on the salvation of Israel and does not elsewhere mention
Israel’s enemies (as enemies, that is—the “nations” are certainly mentioned, but not their
enmity).
186
righteousness. This indicates that the revelation of God’s righteousness is somehow
related to the global repercussions of God’s salvation of Israel. But does it refer to the
salvation of the nations themselves? Several scholars understand Israel’s salvation here to
be paradigmatic for the nations: Goldingay suggests that this psalm “makes explicit in a
new way an implication of other psalms, that Yhwh’s acts of deliverance for Israel
(verses 1–3) are good news for other peoples (verses 4–9) because they reveal the kind of
God Yhwh is and the way Yhwh also acts for other peoples.”216 But “makes explicit”
might be too strong. Crucially, the nations are never explicitly offered to join in Israel’s
salvation or to share in the experience of God’s saving righteousness. Presumably, they
are to join with all the earth in welcoming God’s arrival as a righteous judge (verse 9),
but other than that there is no response from them other than passive witness to what God
has done on behalf of Israel.
However, while this salvific effect of the revelation of God’s righteousness is not
expressed in this psalm as fully as in Isa 45:18–25, enough other elements of that
enriched concept are present to suggest that the same concept is in view.217 Specifically,
here again God’s righteousness is the aspect of God’s character that is revealed to
everyone else when God saves his covenant people. But if the revelation of God’s
righteousness results in an offer of salvation to the nations here too, it is only implied.
Such weak implicatures may still be present: Anderson suggests that “the redemption of
216
Goldingay, Psalms, 3:121. See also Jeremias, Königtum Gottes, 136, who
suggests that this psalm expresses the conviction that God will soon inaugurate the same
kind of action universally that he already has for Israel.
217
The connection between Psalm 98 and Isaiah 45 is highlighted by Beaucamp,
“L’univers acclame,” 39–40.
187
Israel will provide the opportunity for the nations to turn to Yahweh,” citing Isa 45:22–25
as a parallel.218 But in this case it is an echo of an encyclopedic enrichment that has
already taken place elsewhere and here remains in the background.
The unique enrichment that this psalm provides for the concept of God’s
righteousness is not, therefore, any additional encyclopedic enrichment to the concept,
but rather the crucial lexical link: it, along with Isa 56:1 (in the Hebrew), begins to
establish the language used to refer to this concept. We argued that the context of Isa
45:18–25, where the salvation of Israel answers the problem of God’s hiddenness to the
nations, suggested that Isa 45:21 referred to a revelation of God’s righteousness. Now the
actual language of “revelation” is associated with that concept. Thus the specific
language of “God’s righteousness” being “revealed” can now refer to how the particular
salvation of God’s chosen people affects everyone else.
God’s Saving Righteousness in the Old Testament:

Conclusion
While the OT does not say much about God’s righteousness, it does say enough to
enrich the concept in key ways. The protest psalms say that God’s righteousness is why
God will save his people who trust in him and that it will be declared once God
accomplishes that salvation—possibly prompting others to trust in God as well. Isaiah
45:18–25 says that God’s salvation of his people is God’s own declaration of his
righteousness, and this functions as a summons to the nations to turn and be saved. Other
texts—Isa 46:12–13; 51:4–8; 56:1; and Psalm 98—refer to aspects of this same event
218
Anderson, Psalms, 2:692.
188
with the language of an “arrival” or “revelation” of “God’s righteousness.” Thus a highly
enriched concept becomes associated with that language. For a community deeply
familiar with these texts, to say that “God’s righteousness has been revealed” would
strongly imply that God has saved his people who trusted in him, has thereby declared
that he is God of the whole world, and in doing so has summoned all peoples to trust in
him for their salvation as well.
While God’s righteousness is the basis both for God’s saving action on behalf of
his chosen people and for God’s saving action on behalf of all other peoples, the
revelation of God’s righteousness relates to these two distinct saving actions in two
distinct ways. The revelation of God’s righteousness results from God saving his people,
and yet this very revelation of God’s righteousness is what ultimately results in salvation
for others as well. God’s righteousness is therefore the middle term between God’s
particular salvation of his people and God’s salvation of everyone else. This clarifies the
logical enrichment of this enriched concept of God’s righteousness as well.219 This
righteousness is God’s unique unwavering commitment to save his people who trust in
him, his commitment to act “rightly” as their God.220 This righteousness is expressed in
God’s saving sovereignty. When it is only Israel—or perhaps a small remnant within
Israel—who, in covenantal relationship with God, knows him and trusts in him while
everyone else is following after other gods, this righteousness results in the particular,
219
See above, pp. 134–35, 175.
220
God is thus free to choose who will be his people, and thus to determine the
“scope” of this saving righteousness (contra Campbell, Deliverance of God, 702; see
above, p. 135 n. 97). But, in choosing to be their God, God is committing himself to act
“rightly” as their God by saving them when they are in distress and call to him.
189
exclusive salvation of Israel. But as that salvation makes this only “righteous God and
savior” known to everyone else, it summons them to turn and trust in Israel’s God
themselves and in that way to share in Israel’s salvation.
This logical enrichment, however, is not as critical to Paul’s reference in Rom
1:17 as the encyclopedic enrichment. In particular, we have found a clearly defined and
consistent relationship between the revelation of God’s righteousness and God’s saving
action for his people and for everyone else: God reveals his righteousness in the salvation
of his people who trust in him, and thus the proclamation of this salvation is God’s own
powerful summons to all nations to turn, trust, and be saved.

CHAPTER 4
THE REVELATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS
IN THE GOSPEL
In Rom 1:17, Paul asserts that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel. In
chapter 2, we saw that Paul raises some very high expectations of relevance that the
enriched concept referred to by language of “God’s righteousness” would have to meet.
In chapter 3, then, we studied how the concept of God’s righteousness is encyclopedically
enriched in the OT, particularly how the revelation of God’s righteousness relates to
God’s salvation of his people and God’s salvation of everyone else. We identified an
enriched concept of God’s saving righteousness, the revelation of which occurs when
God saves his people and functions as God’s summons to everyone else to turn and be
saved.
In this chapter, then, we will show how this highly enriched concept meets the
high expectations for relevance demanded by the context of Rom 1:17 and is therefore
likely to be the concept that Paul expects his readers to infer as the referent for his
language of “righteousness of God” in that verse. In other words, the language of “God’s
righteousness” being “revealed” draws on this intertextually formed encyclopedic
understanding of the saving self-revelation of God. When we understand this verse in this
way, the claim that emerges is striking in its specificity: the OT expectation that God
would reveal his righteousness in a particular saving action that results in a broader
190
191
saving action is taking place, and it is taking place in the proclamation of the gospel. We
will therefore explore how this is relevant to what Paul says about the effect of the gospel
and what it might therefore suggest about the content of the gospel before concluding
with an initial exploration of how this might reorient our reading of Romans.
God’s Righteousness and the Effect

of the Gospel
Of all the ways that the concept of God’s righteousness is encyclopedically
enriched in the OT, the enrichment concerning the effect of the revelation of God’s
righteousness offers the most immediate relevance to the context of Rom 1:17.
Specifically, the encyclopedic knowledge that the revelation of God’s righteousness is
God’s summons to turn to him and be saved is what explains why the gospel is the power
of God for salvation. We found in Isa 45:18–25 that the revelation of God’s righteousness
occurs in God’s own powerful speech, speech that both declares his own utterly unique
righteousness (verse 21) and on that basis summons the nations to turn and be saved
(verse 22). This speech, Isaiah 55 teaches, will not return to God empty but will
accomplish the saving purposes for which he sent it. So, because God speaks this in the
gospel, the gospel is the power of God for salvation.1
1
Contra Campbell, who argues that the subject of 1:16b should not be “gospel”
(implied from 1:16a) but “power of God,” since otherwise Paul would be privileging
“preaching and the acquisition of right information” (Deliverance of God, 703; see also
Heliso, Pistis, 75–83). But this is unlikely: it severs 16b from 16a, for the “gospel” in that
case is not mentioned again until v. 17 (taking it as the antecedent of αὐτῷ). Besides, Paul
is perfectly comfortable speaking about the “power” of the message about Jesus (1 Cor
1:18; 1 Thess 2:13; etc.).
192
As such, Paul’s proclamation of the gospel functions as God’s own powerful
address to all the nations, an address that summons them to turn to the God of Israel and
be saved. This is, in fact, precisely what Paul celebrates in 1 Thess 1:9, where the gospel
proclamation has resulted in his readers “turning to God [ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεόν]
from idols.” These Thessalonian Gentiles have responded precisely to the summons of
LXX Isa 45:22 to “turn to me [ἐπιστράφητε πρός µε] and be saved.”2 Of course, Paul
does not use “righteousness” language in regard to the gospel in 1 Thessalonians,3 and he
can summarize his gospel proclamation in 1 Cor 15:3–7 without any “righteousness”
language at all. But this is not unexpected: Rom 1:17 does not describe what Paul says
when he proclaims the gospel—language of “righteousness of God” could hardly prompt
an audience unfamiliar with Israel’s Scriptures to infer this enriched concept anyway.4
Rather, Rom 1:17 describes what God does when Paul proclaims the gospel.5 It refers
most directly not to the locution of Paul’s gospel proclamation but to the illocution or,
2
Cf. Paula Fredriksen, “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments,
and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith,’” JBL 133 (2014): 801–8, here 806. For the use of
ἐπιστρέφειν in other philosophical traditions, especially that of Epictetus, see Abraham J.
Malherbe, “Conversion to Paul’s Gospel,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in
honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris, and James W.
Thompson, NovTSup 90 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 230–44, here 238.
3
So Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 145.
4
Nor, then, should we understand “righteousness of God” as “a comprehensive
expression for [Paul’s] proclamation, a kerygmatic ‘brief formula’” (Karl Kertelge,
“δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωµα,” EDNT 1:327). It does not sum up Paul’s gospel; it is
“revealed” in Paul’s gospel.
5
So Wolter, Römer, 1:116: “In diesem Sinne deutet Paulus seine Verkündigung
des Evangeliums als ein Geschehen, in dem Gott selbst handelt.”
193
6
better, the perlocution. And it is this identification of the gospel proclamation as the
locus of the revelation of God’s righteousness (verse 17) that explains why the gospel is
itself God’s power of salvation to everyone who believes that message (verse 16).
Understanding the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel as a divine
speech act sheds light on how the gospel can both be God’s own power for salvation and
leave room for the human response of believing the gospel.7 A speech act often intends a
response in those to whom it is directed in order for its purposes to be accomplished.8 An
order intends to be obeyed, a warning intends to be heeded, a promise intends to be
believed. The human response to God’s speech is therefore necessary for this speech to
have its intended effect. At the same time, this response—the “believing” of 1:16—may
6
Strictly speaking, the revelation of God’s righteousness would be considered a
perlocution, the intended result of a speech act rather than the speech act itself—
Wolterstorff insists, correctly, that “revealing” is not properly an illocution (Divine
Discourse, 19–36, esp. 33). To describe the illocution, it would be more correct to say
that in the gospel God declares that he alone is righteous and thereby summons his
audience to turn to him. But that declaration, particularly to those who did not previously
know this God, would (if heeded) result in a “revelation” of God’s righteousness. We
may therefore refer to the speech act as a whole as the “revelation of God’s
righteousness.”
7
Cf. Francis Watson, “Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scripture: Why They
Need Each Other,” IJST 12 (2010): 118–43, here 124: “God’s saving action is as such
also communicative action, and does not take place without a corresponding speech in
which its reality is announced, with a view to human participation” (italics original).
8
This response is what distinguishes the perlocutionary aspect of the speech act
from the illocutionary. One can argue (illocution) without persuading (perlocution), just
as one can make an offer (illocution) without making a deal (perlocution). The latter
requires a particular response from the audience in order to take place, while the former
does not. Still, the point of arguing is to persuade, and the point of making an offer is to
make a deal. The speech act as a whole thus includes these perlocutionary effects. See,
esp., Austin, How to Do Things, 101.
194
9
still be understood as itself an effect (i.e., a perlocution) of that speech. “Faith comes
from hearing” (Rom 10:17), and thus “the faith spoken of here is the openness to the
gospel which God Himself creates.”10 Eliciting faith is one of the perlocutionary acts that
God performs by means of the illocutionary act of declaring his righteousness and
summoning all to turn to him.11 And, since the result of that is salvation, we may include
this consequent salvation of those who believe as an additional perlocution that results
from the revelation of God’s righteousness.
Finally, this emphasis on the revelation of God’s righteousness as a speech act
explains the tense of the verb ἀποκαλύπτω. This, of course, is a significant shift from the
language of Psalm 98: instead of the Greek aorist (ἀπεκάλυψεν), which corresponded to
the Hebrew perfect (‫)גִּ ָלּה‬, Paul uses the present tense (ἀποκαλύπτεται). This indicates
that, in some sense, this divine speech act is performed continuously, again and again,
whenever the gospel is proclaimed.12 The content of the gospel is focused on the past,
completed work of God in Christ. But the saving perlocutionary effects of this gospel
proclamation are ongoing and continuous because this gospel proclamation is itself the
ongoing and continuous “word of God that is at work in you who believe” (1 Thess 2:13).
9
So Francis Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-
Language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn,” JSNT 80 (2000): 99–124, here 110.
10
Cranfield, Romans, 1:90.
11
See Austin, How to Do Things, 108, for the observation that locutions,
illocutions, and perlocutions may all involve “doing many things at once to be complete.”
12
So Wright, “Romans,” 424: “The apocalypse happens again, every time the
message about Jesus is announced, as God’s righteousness is unveiled before another
audience.”
195
The gospel, whenever it is proclaimed, is God’s own present and powerful address to the
world.13
In these ways, then, we see that the concept of God’s righteousness becomes most
relevant to the context of Rom 1:17 when it is encyclopedically enriched with regard to
the effects of its revelation. This enrichment occurs most clearly in Isa 45:18–25, where
God declares his righteousness to the nations (45:21) so that they will turn to him and be
saved (45:22). This particular enrichment is not entirely unique: we also found that in key
protest psalms the proclamation of God’s righteousness is correlated with the audience’s
response of turning to God, and Psalm 98 reflects the notion that God reveals his
righteousness to the nations (98:2) when the nations see God’s salvation of God’s people
(98:3). But it is in Isaiah, with its overall emphasis on the word of God, that this is
understood most clearly as God’s own speech, speech that has the perlocutionary effect of
salvation precisely because it bears the illocutionary force of God’s own declaration of
his unique righteousness that summons all to turn to him.
But an important question remains: Given that the revelation of God’s
righteousness is God’s own speech with the illocutionary force and the perlocutionary
effects we have explored above, what is the “locution” of this speech? In other words,
what is it that the gospel proclaims that allows it to have such illocutionary force? To
13
So Thiselton, First Corinthians, 146: “To proclaim the gospel is initially an
illocutionary speech act which presupposes a call and commission from God on the part
of the speaker and the performance of divine promise” (italics original). For a discussion
of how human speech could carry the illocutionary force of a divine address, see the
discussion of “deputized speech” above (p. 151 n. 129).
196
answer this, we will need to explore what the claim that God’s righteousness is revealed
in the gospel might suggest about the content of that gospel.
God’s Righteousness and the Content

of the Gospel
In our preliminary exploration of how “God’s righteousness” in the OT might
relate to Paul’s use of such language in Rom 1:17, we suggested that the major problem
was relating the seemingly opposite views of the relationship between God’s saving
action and the revelation of God’s righteousness.14 Does the revelation of God’s
righteousness result from God’s saving action (so most of the OT) or does the revelation
of God’s righteousness result in God’s saving action (so Rom 1:17)? Our answer was
both. In the OT the revelation of God’s righteousness is related to the two stages of God’s
saving action in two different ways: it results from God’s salvation of his covenant people
but results in God’s salvation of everyone else. And, as we saw above, it is what the
revelation of God’s righteousness results in—a universal summons to salvation—that is
most relevant to the context of Rom 1:17.
But what does this say about the saving action that the revelation of God’s
righteousness results from? The encyclopedic understanding that this revelation results
from God’s salvation of his covenant people is expressed far more consistently: while we
found a clear articulation that this revelation results in salvation in one text and hints of
this in a few others, we found the idea that this revelation results from a completed act of
salvation in virtually all of the texts we have examined in which God’s righteousness is
14
See above, p. 92.
197
proclaimed, declared, or revealed. In the protest psalms God’s righteousness is
proclaimed only once God saves the psalmist; in Isa 45:18–25 God declares his
righteousness when the nations see the salvation he has accomplished for his people; and
in Psalm 98 God reveals his righteousness to the nations when the nations see his
salvation of Israel. The claim, then, that God’s righteousness has been revealed strongly
implies that some decisive, public act of salvation has taken place. So to say that God’s
righteousness is revealed in the gospel would strongly imply that the gospel proclaims
such a decisive, public act of salvation.
Paul’s gospel does proclaim precisely such a decisive, public act of salvation: the
resurrection of Jesus.15 Paul consistently points to the resurrection as part of the content
of his gospel proclamation16 as well as of the faith that responds to that proclamation.17
Most significantly, Paul highlights the resurrection in his summary of the gospel in Rom
1:4. While Paul’s summaries of the gospel include the death of Jesus no less than his
resurrection,18 and while it is certainly the case that, “for Paul, every statement about the
death of Jesus entails a tacit reference to his resurrection, and that every statement about
15
For the idea that Jesus’s resurrection is the salvation and vindication promised
to God’s servants in the OT, see, e.g., Markus Barth and Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by
Resurrection (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 49–52.
16
1 Cor 15:4, 12, 15; Gal 1:1; 2 Tim 5:8.
17
Rom 4:24; 10:9; Col 2:12. Scholars who have highlighted the importance of the
resurrection in Romans include Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A
Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 2nd ed., BThS (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1987); Kirk, Unlocking Romans; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 241–67.
18
See esp. 1 Cor 2:2; 15:3–4.
198
19
his resurrection entails a reference to his atoning death,” the fact that there has been no
direct reference to the death of Jesus so far in Romans 1 means that the resurrection has
been distinctly foregrounded. To be sure, Paul will go on to argue that the death of Jesus,
no less than the resurrection, displays God’s righteousness (3:25–26), and we will explore
below how the meaning Paul ascribes to the death of Jesus reorients our understanding of
the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel.20 But by foregrounding the resurrection
of Jesus in Romans 1, Paul does nothing here to prevent readers from making what is at
this point the most obvious inference on the basis of the OT concept of God’s
righteousness—that his statement about the revelation of God’s righteousness in the
gospel refers in particular to the effect of the proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection.
This inference, we are arguing, is a cognitive effect intended by the
communicative action in this verse. Paul does not explicitly say, “the role of Israel and
Israel’s salvation in the OT expectations regarding the revelation of God’s righteousness
has been accomplished by Jesus and his resurrection,” but this is the implicated premise
of what we are understanding Paul to say in this verse—that the OT expectation that God
would reveal his righteousness by a decisive, public act of salvation has been fulfilled in
the events proclaimed by the gospel.21 Moreover, if this cognitive effect were indeed
19
Watson, “Triune Divine Identity,” 116.
20
We note that there is an imbalance between the relative emphasis on Jesus’s
death and resurrection in this study versus in Romans itself. In Romans, we suggest, Paul
highlights the resurrection of Jesus in 1:1–17 but then highlights the death of Jesus in all
of 1:18–3:26, giving much more weight to the importance of Jesus’s death. Our relative
emphasis on Jesus’s resurrection in this study is solely due to its focus on Rom 1:17.
21
This implication that Jesus has fulfilled the role of Israel necessarily raises the
question of what role remains for Israel as a whole. In other words, Rom 1:17 is not the
beginning of Paul’s answer to a theodicy question (contra Hays, Echoes, 40) but is rather
199
Paul’s intention, we would expect to see this same “effect” reflected in his writings
elsewhere. We can identify three such reflections in particular.
First, we found above that it is in this act of salvation for his people that God
makes himself known.22 It is therefore unsurprising that, for Paul, God is now known as
the God who raised Jesus.23 This is how God is identified as the object of faith in Rom
4:24 (we “believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead”); Rom 8:11 (“the one
who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies”); 2 Cor 1:9 (“so
that we might not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead”) and 2 Cor 4:14
(“we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with
Jesus”). Perhaps most significantly, the first verse of Galatians identifies God the Father
as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (1:1).24 This defining identity of the God of
Israel as the God who raised Jesus from the dead is, in Romans 4, even read back into the
foundational Abraham narrative itself.25 Thus the expectation that God would make
what gives rise to the theodicy question of God’s faithfulness to his covenant people in
the first place (so Rikki E. Watts, “‘For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel’: Romans 1:16–
17 and Habakkuk 2:4,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D.
Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 3–25, here 22–23).
22
See above, p. 189.
23
See Watson, “Triune Divine Identity,” 99–124, esp. 106; Wesley Hill, Paul and
the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015),
52–70.
24
The radical nature of this identification is highlighted by J. Louis Martyn,
Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33a (New York:
Doubleday, 1997), 85; Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 70.
25
So Watson, “Triune Divine Identity,” 106–8; Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 56
(“God’s raising of Jesus from the dead enables Paul to limn God’s identity, as the
guarantor of offspring for Abraham, as already bearing a christological shape even before
200
himself known as “the only righteous God and savior” in the salvation of Israel is
fulfilled when God makes himself known as such in the resurrection of Jesus.26
Second, we found above that, because the salvation of God’s people discloses the
identity of God as the God for all nations, the particular salvation of God’s covenant
people was to be paradigmatic for the salvation of everyone else who turns to God on that
basis.27 Sure enough, we find that in Paul’s writings the resurrection of Jesus is
consistently understood as paradigmatic for the resurrection of believers.28 In 1 Cor 6:14
and 2 Cor 4:14, the same God who raised Jesus will raise us also. In Rom 8:11, the
presence of the Spirit who raised Jesus (cf. 1:4) guarantees that God will raise our bodies
by that same Spirit.29 In 1 Cor 15:42–49, the πνευµατικόν resurrection body of Jesus is
the model for our πνευµατικά resurrection bodies. In Rom 6:5 and Phil 3:10–11, sharing
the raising of Jesus”).

26
By contrast, while the atoning, salvific death of Jesus is clearly understood by
Paul as an act of God (Rom 3:25; 5:8; etc.), parallel statements in Paul identifying God
with this action are more rare. The closest is 8:32, which identifies God as “he who did
not spare his own Son,” but there the formulation is negative and thus more indirect. This
is in no way to minimize the importance of the death of Jesus for Paul or to suggest that
the resurrection somehow overshadows the death of Jesus. It is rather to observe that
statements of God’s identity in Paul more typically refer directly to God’s action of
raising Jesus.
27
See above, pp. 142, 173.
28
Gaffin finds the central theme throughout Paul’s material on the resurrection to
be “the unity of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers”
(Resurrection, 33). Likewise, Geerhardus Vos emphasizes the “continuity” between what
“took place in Jesus” and “what will take place at the parousia in them that are Christ’s”
(The Pauline Eschatology [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1930; reprint,
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994], 156).
29
See Wright, Resurrection, 256: the future resurrection of the body of believers
“is in exact parallel to what happened to Jesus himself.”
201
in Christ’s death results in sharing in his resurrection. In 1 Cor 15:20, Christ’s
resurrection is understood as the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” and in Col
1:18 Jesus is the “firstborn from the dead.” In short, the “order” (τάγµα) of “Christ the
firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:23) reflects the “order” of the two-
stage salvation of the OT, where the initial salvation of God’s people is the paradigm for
the salvation of everyone else.30
Third, if this expectation for Israel’s salvation has been fulfilled in Jesus’s
resurrection, this indicates that the role of “Israel” in this particular expectation has been
fulfilled by Jesus.31 This corresponds to one of N. T. Wright’s long-running central theses.
In one of his earliest works on Paul, he suggests that “the Messiah sums up his people in
himself, so that what is true of him is true of them.”32 In a more mature work, he
concludes that Paul “applies to Jesus ideas which in Jewish thought belonged to Israel as
a whole,” meaning that Paul “treats Jesus precisely as Messiah, Israel’s anointed
representative.”33 And in his recent magnum opus on Paul, he proposes that “the purpose
30
On this two-stage eschatology in Paul, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s
Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2001), 49–50.
31
This particular fulfillment does not necessarily suggest that there is no longer
any eschatological significance for what we may call “ethnic Israel”; contra, e.g., N. T.
Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 249–50. We need not even conclude that this particular
fulfillment is without remainder—Israel’s future restoration may in its own way reveal
God’s righteousness once more. But it does suggest that the initial salvation of Israel that
would reveal God’s righteousness to the nations and thereby summon them to turn to
Israel’s God has taken place. Paul’s Gentile mission would otherwise be premature.
32
N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynBul 29 (1978):
61–88, here 66.
33
Wright, Climax, 43, which summarizes the argument of 21–35. See also idem,
202
for which the covenant God had called Israel had been accomplished, Paul believed,
through Jesus,”34 and this is encapsulated “in the notion of Messiahship.”35 This happens
primarily in Jesus’s resurrection,36 so the key text for this view is 1 Corinthians 15.37
Since Wright’s reading of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Rom 1:17 precludes
him from understanding Paul as making this move directly in this verse,38 our reading of
this verse therefore provides a degree of independent confirmation of his thesis that
“Jesus, as Messiah, has drawn together the identity and vocation of Israel upon
himself.”39
The particular strength of this view is that it explains how the statement of Jesus’s
messianic status that opens the letter (1:3–4; cf. the resumption of many of these themes
in 15:7–13) can be relevant to its central argument.40 It is widely noted that Romans does
Resurrection, 726.
34
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:815, italics removed. See the entire
discussion in 2:815–36.
35
36
See, in particular, ibid., 2:828: “The resurrection also declared, for Paul, that the
divine purpose for Israel had been fulfilled, uniquely and decisively, in this Messiah, this
Jesus. He was, in effect, Israel in person. And it was precisely as Messiah that he
therefore represented his people” (italics original).
37
Wright, Climax, 26–35; see also idem, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:820–21.
38
See Wright, “Romans,” 424, who interprets the “revelation of God’s
righteousness” in the gospel as meaning that “the gospel message about Jesus . . . opens
people’s eyes to see for the first time that this was what God had been up to all along”
(italics original). This fits with Wright’s view of God’s “righteousness” as God’s
“covenant promise to bless the nations through Israel” (idem, Paul and the Faithfulness,
2:841)—see the critique of this view above, p. 175.
39
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:825, italics removed.
40
Ibid., 2:818–21.
203
not have much overt discussion of christology—it “does not, apparently, figure in the
issues with which Paul and the Romans are concerned.”41 As a result, the (likely)
traditional language in this christological statement42 is often taken to have a rhetorical
function rather than a logical connection to the rest of the argument: it is Paul’s way of
“showing that he shared the same basis of faith as the Christians at Rome.”43 But if Paul
will need to show that Jesus represents Israel, then this statement of “messianic
christology”44 takes on greater logical importance as what Paul is arguing from.45 The
41
Moo, Romans, 49.
42
While there are debates about where the traditional material begins and about
how Paul might have modified it, the unique features of these verses (e.g., the phrase
“Spirit of Holiness,” the reference to Jesus’s descent from David, the use of ὁρίζω)
suggest the presence of some traditional material or language. See Paul Beasley-Murray,
“Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus,” TynBul 31 (1980):
147–54, here 147–48; Käsemann, Romans, 10–11; Cranfield, Romans, 1:57; Dunn,
Romans 1–8, 22–23; Whitsett, “Son of God,” 662–63; Jewett, Romans, 97–98; Matthew
W. Bates, “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronment: Romans 1:3–4 as Unified,
Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory,” CBQ 77 (2015): 107–27; Hultgren, Romans, 48–
49. We must add, however, that even if this reflects an early Jewish-Christian tradition,
Paul himself was an early Jewish Christian, so Pauline authorship (or heavy editing) of
these verses cannot be ruled out entirely. In any case, “it is necessary at least to maintain
that whatever Paul quotes, he himself affirms” (Moo, Romans, 44 n. 36).
43
Käsemann, Romans, 13. See also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 23.
44
This term is used with full awareness of its potential redundancy and is
borrowed from Wright, Climax, 146.
45
So Stephen L. Young, “Romans 1.1–5 and Paul’s Christological Use of Hab. 2.4
in Rom. 1.17: An Underutilized Consideration in the Debate,” JSNT 34 (2012): 277–85,
here 279–80. For Young, the “christological use” requires an interpretation of πίστις as
“faithfulness,” referring here to Christ’s “faithful death.” He acknowledges that it is a
potential problem that Rom 1:1–5 does not contain any reference to Christ’s faithfulness
or Christ’s death, but that it is assumed by the “contrast and transition” that occurs
between Rom 1:3 and 1:4 (281). Recently, however, Nathan C. Johnson has rightly
questioned whether these two verses should be understood as contrasting—that is, as
“antithetical parallelism” (“Romans 1:3–4: Beyond Antithetical Parallelism,” JBL 136
[2017]: 467–90). We suggest that a more natural “christological use” centers on Jesus’s
204
traditional material is not merely a nod to the already-existing faith of both Jewish and
Gentile believers but is Paul’s way of rooting the central move in his argument in that
shared basic faith.46
But to what extent does this shared basic faith include the notion of Jesus as
representative Messiah? In Rom 1:4, the resurrection is Jesus’s installation as “Son of
God,” a term that refers to his “royal status and role” such as we find in Psalm 2 or 2
Samuel 7,47 and this unique lordship of Christ remains essential for Paul.48 We should
therefore understand Rom 1:4 as reflecting and affirming the early understanding of
Jesus’s resurrection as God’s “decree” that establishes Jesus, the son of David (1:3), as
God’s appointed eschatological king, lord, and judge (cf. Rom 2:16).49 Nowhere here is
faith as the grounds for his resurrection, which fits better with what Paul does say both in
Rom 1:3–4 and in Rom 1:17.
46
Contra James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans
I. 3–4,” JTS 24 (1973): 40–68, here 51, who argues from the flesh-Spirit antithesis that
Paul would understand Jesus being “of the seed of David” as “a dangerously defective
and misleading half-truth.”
47
Larry W. Hurtado argues convincingly against those (such as Bultmann and
Bousset) who think Paul uses the term “son of God” with a Hellenistic meaning of
divinity (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003], 104). See also idem, “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 223–28; Beasley-Murray, “Early Confession,” 151; Whitsett, “Son of
God,” 674–77; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 41–42; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness,
2:818–19.
48
We see this in the many references to “Jesus our Lord” in Romans (1:4; 4:24;
5:1, 11, 21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 15:6, 30) and, particularly, in the confession of faith that
“Jesus is Lord” (correlated with the belief that “God raised him from the dead”) in 10:9.
49
Chip Anderson, “Romans 1:1–5 and the Occasion of the Letter: The Solution to
the Two-Congregation Problem in Rome,” TrinJ 14 (1993): 25–40, here 32. He points out
that Jesus is also “appointed” judge in Acts 10:42 and 17:31. See also Kirk, Unlocking
205
any suggestion that this resurrection functions as Israel’s salvation or that Jesus represents
Israel. However, the notion that the Davidic king represents his people is consistently
present in the encyclopedic background of the concept of the Messiah. Wright draws
attention to “a fluctuation between the king and his people,” citing the “Davidic
overtones” of the Abraham stories, the “solidarity” expressed in 2 Sam 5:1–3, and “the
transference of royal promises to the people at large” in Isaiah 55.50 Elsewhere he cites
the narrative in 1 Samuel 17 where David is found “representing the whole nation and
fighting its battle all by himself.”51 Finally, the “son of God” title is itself a description
that echoes the description of the people of Israel (Exod 4:22), and the language
celebrating the Israelite king “by whom all nations will find blessing/be blessed” in Ps
72:17 echoes the language of the promise given to Abraham concerning his descendants
(Gen 12:3; 22:18).52 In short, the notion that the Davidic king would in some way
represent his people is present in the textually-formed encyclopedia of both Paul and his
readers.
As a result, while Rom 1:3–4 may seem on the surface to be unrelated to the
subsequent discourse of Romans,53 it nevertheless functions as the foundation of Paul’s
Romans, 42.
50
Wright, Climax, 25.
51
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:829 (italics original).
52
In the Heb., the verb for “they will be blessed by” in Ps 72:17 and Gen 22:18 is
a hithpael (‫)וְ ִה ְת ָבּ ֲרכוּ ְב‬, while the verb in Gen 12:3 (‫ )וְ נִ ְב ְרכוּ ְב‬is a niphal. Both could be
understood as middles, meaning “find blessing” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15,
WBC 1 [Waco, TX: Word, 1987], 277). The LXX translates the verb in all three instances
with the future passive [ἐν]ευλογηθήσονται ἐν.
53
E.g., the mention of Jesus as the “son of David” is never brought up again in
206
54
argument that will follow. The resurrection establishes Jesus as the Davidic Messiah,
and it is as Messiah that he can represent Israel. This representative function is deep in
the background of the concept of the Messiah, so it is not highlighted in the traditional
confessional material that Rom 1:3–4 reflects. But it is nevertheless present, in latent
form at least, as part of the encyclopedic enrichment of that concept. Thus, if in Rom 1:17
Paul is strongly implying that Jesus represents Israel, then in Rom 1:3–4 Paul is laying
the foundation for that move in the messianic Christology that all Roman believers, Jews
and Gentiles, would already affirm.
In these three ways, then, we find the identification of Jesus’s resurrection as the
saving act by which God reveals his righteousness to be reflected elsewhere in Paul’s
writings: this act of raising Jesus is now central to God’s identity, Jesus’s resurrection is
paradigmatic for the resurrection of everyone else, and Jesus’s role representing Israel is
rooted in his messianic status that Paul highlights and affirms at the beginning of
Romans. These reflections support our finding that the claim that God’s righteousness is
revealed in the gospel implies a particular understanding not just of the effect but also of
Romans (David is only hereafter cited as a biblical witness in 4:6 and 11:9). Neither is the
notion of Jesus being “appointed” (this is the only Pauline use of the verb ὁρίζω, but cf.
Eph 1:20–21). The closest parallel to Rom 1:4 is the correlation between the confession
of Jesus as “Lord” and the belief that God “raised him from the dead” in 10:9, where they
form (as in 1:3–4) a summary of the foundational content of faith.
54
We note that here also the resurrection of Jesus is understood as God’s own
speech act. The language of Rom 1:4 echoes the language of Psalm 2, where God’s
decree, “you are my son” (2:7), is how God installs the king on Zion (2:6). This decree
that appoints Jesus as the Son of God occurs, according to Rom 1:4, in the “locution” of
Jesus’s resurrection. Thus, while the installation of the Son of God and the revelatory
salvation of Israel are separate eschatological expectations in the OT, it is not difficult to
see how both could be understood to have occurred in the resurrection of Jesus.
207
the content of the gospel, as it situates Jesus’s resurrection as the saving action by which
God’s righteousness is revealed.55 Thus the OT expectation that the nations would be
summoned to turn to Israel’s God on the basis of a great act of salvation is fulfilled in the
summons to turn to the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6, cf. 2 Cor
1:3; 11:31), the God who has now made himself known to the world as the God who
raised Jesus from the dead.56
God’s Righteousness and the Gospel:

Conclusion
In the OT, the revelation of God’s righteousness is how God’s salvation of his
people affects everyone else, summoning them to turn to him, to trust in him, and to share
in the salvation of his people. This, we have concluded, is the critical encyclopedic
enrichment that makes the OT concept of God’s righteousness highly relevant to Rom
1:17: the gospel is the power for salvation because in it God is revealed as the only
righteous God and Savior, the God who summons all to turn to him and be saved.
Moreover, this revelation always results from a completed act of salvation for God’s
servant or God’s people. For Paul to claim that this revelation occurs in the gospel
55
David J. Southall argues that Paul personifies “Righteousness” as Christ in
Romans 6 and 9–10 (Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē
within Metaphoric and Narratorial Settings, WUNT 2.240 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008]). Whether or not Paul does this later in Romans, he does not do so in 1:17. Here
God’s righteousness is revealed in Jesus’s resurrection—not as Jesus himself.
56
Seyoon Kim highlights the logical connection between the proclamation of
Jesus’s resurrection and the summons to turn to God in his discussion of 1 Thess 1:9–10
(“Jesus the Son of God,” 119–20).
208
therefore strongly implies that this role of Israel and Israel’s salvation has been
accomplished by Jesus and his resurrection.
We conclude, then, that Paul’s initial language of “righteousness of God” that is
“revealed” in Rom 1:17 most likely does not refer directly to the righteous status that
results from God’s justifying action (a newly made known righteousness from God) but to
God’s self-revelation that occurs in God’s sovereign saving action for his covenant people
and results in God’s sovereign saving action for the whole world (God’s own saving
righteousness). In terms of a significant twentieth-century debate about Pauline theology,
then, Paul uses language of “righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 to make a claim not
directly about justification per se, but about the inflection point of salvation history.57
This inflection point is where the God of Israel becomes known and acknowledged as the
God of the whole world. The claim that this occurs in the proclamation of the gospel
therefore binds together the saving action that is the content of the gospel (what the
revelation of God’s righteousness results from) and the saving action that is the effect of
the gospel (what the revelation of God’s righteousness results in). This is because the
saving action announced in the gospel is God’s own self-revelation that summons all to
turn to him and be saved.
57
The central voices in this debate were Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and
the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199–215, who argues that
Romans is not about how an individual gets right before God but is rather about the
historically situated first-century debate regarding Jew-Gentile relations; and Ernst
Käsemann, “Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans,” in
Perspectives on Paul, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 60–78, who
responds that, while we cannot deny the theme of salvation history, justification remains
central to Paul as “the centre, the beginning and the end of salvation history” (76).
209
This saving action announced in the gospel, we have seen, is likely the
resurrection of Jesus. This is the act by which God reclaims all of creation.58 We found in
the OT a universal, even cosmic, significance to the salvation of Israel, a significance tied
to the fact that it reveals God’s righteousness to the nations. Without affirming this as the
definition or meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, we may conclude with Käsemann that for Paul
the revelation of God’s righteousness is indeed “God’s sovereignty over the world
revealing itself eschatologically in Jesus.”59 In raising Jesus, God declares himself to be
the God of the whole world, summoning all to turn to him.
But what does it mean to “turn” to the God of Israel?60 Does it mean to observe
Torah (to some extent at least), and in so doing to identify as a member of the people of
God (to some extent at least)? This would be an obvious conclusion: if Israel’s salvation
is to be paradigmatic for the nations, the summons to the nations to turn to Israel’s God
would entail a summons to become in some sense like Israel. Some OT texts suggest that
those foreigners who wish to have Israel’s God as their God must join Israel,61 and
58
So C. Clifton Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,” JBL 103
(1984): 413–33, here 428: “The Lordship of Christ, sealed by his resurrection from the
dead, functions as nothing less than the universal reclamation of God’s sovereignty over
everything that has been created.”
59
Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 180. Note that, contra Käsemann (and
others, such as Onesti and Brauch, “Righteousness,” 837), we are not understanding this
to be what God’s righteousness is but what occurs when God’s righteousness is revealed.
60
Thus E. P. Sanders notes, regarding Isaiah 2, that “this prophecy of the
eschatological pilgrimage of Gentiles does not give legal detail about precisely what the
Gentiles should do when they turn to the God of Israel. . . . All the biblical passages on
the inclusion of the Gentiles are equally vague: they are prophetic or poetic, and they do
not specify what worship of the God of Israel entails—except, of course, abandoning the
worship of other gods” (Paul, 50). See also Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 73–74.
61
Ruth 1:16; Isa 14:1; cf. Exod 12:38.
210
Israelite identity is centered on the observance of Torah. Of course, central to Jewish
identity and law observance is a whole-hearted trust in the God of Israel. Our analysis
above found this trust to be the human component of the protesting psalmist’s appeal to
God’s righteousness.62 The salvation of the one who trusts in God is also, necessarily, a
vindication of that trust. But it is not at all obvious that this trust in Israel’s God could
ever be separated from observance of the law that God gave to Israel.63 Nor does the
proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection as the revelation of God’s righteousness necessarily
lead to such a separation. After all, Jesus himself was, as Paul readily admits, a
circumcised Jew who was born, lived, and died “under the law” (cf. Gal 4:4). Would not
Jesus’s resurrection then also be a vindication of the law, of circumcision, and of Jewish
identity?
It seems, then, that identifying the gospel announcement of Jesus’s resurrection as
the locus of the revelation of God’s righteousness provides support for a Gentile mission
and Gentile inclusion, but not necessarily for a law-free Gentile mission or Gentile
inclusion apart from the law. This, however, is precisely the point of contention.64 The
issue for those Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah was not whether but how Gentiles
62
See above, p. 133.
63
It is often pointed out that Paul’s opponents in Galatia “saw no reason why the
Christ-event should reduce or relativize the authority of the Torah” (John M. G. Barclay,
Paul and the Gift [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015], 335).
64
So Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 255. See also Don Garlington, The
Obedience of Faith: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context, WUNT 2.38 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1991; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 259, who concludes that
“the whole controversy, in other words, centred around the question, ‘What constitutes
the obedience of faith?’ For Israel it was the whole of what God had commanded through
Moses; but for Paul much of what had betokened Israel’s distinctiveness has now passed
away in Christ.”
211
65
were now to be brought in. Moreover, Paul has strong views on this issue: he will go on
to argue in Romans, as he has in Galatians, that Jews and Gentiles alike “are justified by
faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28; cf. Gal 2:16). It is this antithesis between
Christ-faith and Torah-works that forms the sharp, polemic edge of Paul’s thought.
Understanding the salvation-historical significance of the revelation of God’s
righteousness therefore illuminates Paul’s large-scale, cosmic vision of how the gospel
announcement of Jesus’s resurrection summons all people to Israel’s God. But on its own
it does not explain the sharp antithesis that is found at the center of this vision, the
antithesis between Christ-faith and Torah-works as the basis for justification. How can
Paul move from the claim that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel to the claim
that God justifies freely on the basis of faith? The task of the next two chapters will be to
explain this.
In short, identifying a conceptual reference in Rom 1:17 hardly exhausts Paul’s
teaching about God’s righteousness. But our understanding of Paul’s argument in Romans
perhaps begins by recognizing that both how God’s righteousness would be revealed (by
God saving his chosen people) and the result of God’s righteousness being revealed (that
the nations would turn to Israel’s God and be saved themselves) were “promised
beforehand in the Holy Scripture,” promises now fulfilled in Christ. Paul’s language of
God’s “righteousness” being “revealed” refers to the enriched OT concept of God’s
righteousness. And yet, since that concept itself bases this revelation on God’s dramatic,
public salvation of God’s people, it finds its fulfillment in Jesus, whom God raised from
65
So E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1983), 18.
212
the dead. In this way, Paul points to the OT in order to point to Jesus. So it will be our
task moving forward to explore how this scripturally constituted Christ-event motivates
and shapes what Paul says about the salvation that comes through him.
PART II GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
213
CHAPTER 5
GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FAITH IN ROMANS 1:17
In part I, we looked closely at Paul’s claim that “God’s righteousness” is
“revealed” in the gospel. We found that, by referring to the encyclopedic understanding
of God’s righteousness as what is revealed in the salvation of God’s people and therefore
results in a summons to salvation for everyone else, the claim that “God’s righteousness”
is “revealed” in the gospel explains why the gospel proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection
can itself be God’s power to save Jews and Gentiles alike.
But Paul’s statement is more specific than that. He does not just claim that the
gospel is God’s power to save Jews and Gentiles alike but that it is God’s power to save
everyone who believes. And he does not just claim that the righteousness of God is
revealed in the gospel, he claims that it is “from faith for faith,” just as Hab 2:4 says.
Arguably, this is the main claim of Rom 1:17: not just that God’s righteousness is
revealed in the gospel so that God may save Jew and Gentile alike, but that this revelation
and this saving action for Jew and Gentile alike occur on the basis of faith.1 We have
avoided using “faith” language in our exploration of God’s righteousness in the OT for
the simple reason that it is not found in the OT texts we explored. Instead, the human
response was characterized in those texts with language of “trusting” (Heb. ‫חסה‬/‫ )בטח‬or
1
So Wolter, Römer, 1:119, who argues that the statement about faith and not the
statement about “righteousness of God” is “das entscheidende Argument” of Rom 1:17a.
214
215
2 3
“hoping” (LXX ἐλπίζω) in God, and of “turning” (‫שׁוב‬/‫פנה‬, ἐπιστρέφω) to God. But
Paul consistently connects “faith” language to “righteousness” language.4 This is a
particular challenge for any view that (like ours) privileges the OT usage of
“righteousness” language over Paul’s usage elsewhere as the context in which to
understand Rom 1:17: the major feature of Paul’s discourse on “righteousness of God”—
that it is consistently connected to “faith”—is notably absent from the OT discourse on
“righteousness of God.”5
The task of this chapter is therefore to show how understanding God’s
righteousness in Rom 1:17 in terms of such an enriched concept can make sense of what
Paul says about faith in that same verse. First, understanding the revelation of God’s
righteousness as the middle term between the particular and the general saving acts of
God sheds light on the highly contested phrase “from faith for faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς
πίστιν), suggesting that these two prepositional phrases refer respectively to the ground
and the goal of the revelation of God’s righteousness. Second, this results in an
understanding of Jesus’s faith that stresses its continuity with both the prior faith of Israel
2
E.g., Pss 22:10; 31:2, 7, 15; 40:4; 71:1; 143:8.
3
E.g., Ps 22:28; Isa 45:22.
4
So Rom 3:22, 25, 26; 9:30–10:3; Phil 3:9. The one exception is 2 Cor 5:21.
Geoffrey Turner suggests that Paul uses terminology of πίστις instead of ἔλπις on account
of the terminology of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6 (“The Righteousness of God in Psalms and
Romans,” SJT 63 [2010]: 285–301, here 292).
5
Käsemann, famously, suggested that the phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν was
“related only loosely to the preceding statement,” meaning only that the revelation of
God’s righteousness, “because it is bound to the gospel, takes place always only in the
sphere of faith” (Romans, 31).Watson suggests that this is an unfortunate consequence of
his “having hypostatized the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ” (Hermeneutics of Faith, 44 n. 52).
216
and the subsequent faith of believers. Finally, the identification of Jesus’s resurrection as
the saving action by which God reveals his righteousness suggests that Paul is reading
Hab 2:4 in a relatively straightforward sense: as a statement not directly about
“righteousness by faith” but about the grounds of the eschatological life of the
“righteous”—referring primarily to Jesus and his resurrection life but by extension also to
believers and their resurrection life. Taken together, then, an understanding of “faith” in
Rom 1:17 emerges that is rooted in the scripturally understood resurrection of Jesus and
that is therefore the grounds of our ultimate salvation as well.
The Ground and Goal of the Revelation

of God’s Righteousness
A large number of suggestions have been made about what the phrase “from faith
for faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) might mean.6 We will therefore first explore and
evaluate the most compelling options and then show how our understanding of the
revelation of God’s righteousness might offer some important clarification to the meaning
of that phrase.
One common view reads “from faith for faith” in light of Paul’s other statements
about “righteousness” that is “through faith” (διὰ πίστεως), “from faith” (ἐκ πίστεως), or
“on the basis of faith” (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει).7 Paul may be saying here, as there, that the gospel
reveals a righteous status that results from God’s free act of justifying on the basis of
6
See surveys in Moo, Romans, 78–80; Terry Wardlaw, “A Reappraisal of ‘From
Faith to Faith’ (Romans 1:17),” EJT 21.2 (2012): 107–19, here 108; Charles L. Quarles,
“From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,”
NovT 45 (2003): 1–21, here 2–5; Cranfield, Romans, 1:99.
7
Rom 3:22; 9:30; Phil 3:9.
217
faith. The addition of εἰς πίστιν simply adds rhetorical weight to ἐκ πίστεως, resulting in
an idiom that means something like the 1984 NIV’s “by faith from first to last.”8 The two
phrases together are therefore equivalent to sola fide.9 The continuity with Paul’s other
statements is the obvious and considerable strength of this view, as is the connection
between ἐκ πίστεως in 1:17a and ἐκ πίστεως in 1:17b that emerges if both are understood
as the grounds for “righteousness.” But, as we already suggested, the indications
elsewhere that these “faith” phrases are adjectival (modifying the noun “righteousness”)
are absent in Rom 1:17, where the “faith” phrases are most naturally read as adverbial
(modifying “revealed”).10 Moreover, the very existence of the ἐκ-εἰς prepositional series
as an idiom of emphasis has been called into question by Quarles’s study of the
collocation of ἐκ-εἰς phrases throughout ancient Greek literature.11 He finds no evidence
8
So Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: James S. Claxton,
1864), 47; Frederick Brooke Westcott, St Paul and Justification (London: Macmillan,
1913), 130; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC (New York: Harper,
1932), 13–14; Barrett, Romans, 30–31; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 263; Douglas
J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 1st ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 76;
Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 54; Thomas R.
Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 79; Maureen W.
Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul, WUNT 2.147 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 207–8.
See also BDAG s.v. 6d, 298.
9
So Nygren, Romans, 78–79; Cranfield, Romans, 1:100; J. A. Ziesler, Paul’s
Letter to the Romans, TPINTC (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 71;
Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2003), 78.
10
See above, p. 79.
11
Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 5–13. John W. Taylor’s study also leads him to
abandon the notion that this is an idiom of emphasis (“From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17
in the Light of Greek Idiom,” NTS 50 [2004]: 337–48, here 342), although the view he
adopts (that it expresses growth in faith) is harder to fit with the immediate context.
218
that this series of prepositions ever functions as an idiom of emphasis. Rather, it “often
expresses range, duration, repetition, source and destination, previous state and new state
or progression.”12 In each of these instances, including Paul’s use of the same ἐκ-εἰς
prepositional series in 2 Cor 2:16,13 the prepositions retain their usual senses, making an
idiom of emphasis in Rom 1:17 exceedingly unlikely.
A variation on this view sees these phrases as adverbial (modifying “revealed”),
meaning that “faith” is both the ground and the goal of the revelation of God’s
righteousness.14 This interpretation preserves the more natural adverbial function of the
phrase series and allows both prepositions to retain their most common functions.15 But
12
Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 13. This calls into question Schreiner’s use of Silva’s
“principle of maximal redundancy” (Silva cites linguist Martin Joos for this principle that
“the best meaning is the least meaning” in Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An
Introduction to Lexical Semantics, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 153–54) as
support for the emphatic interpretation of εἰς πίστιν (Romans, 78). We doubt this principle
should apply if, as in this case, the “meaning” is otherwise unattested.
13
Quarles notes that “since the noun ὀσµή was a neutral term that could describe
either a pleasant fragrance or a repulsive stench, the ἐκ phrases functioned to define more
precisely the sense of the noun” while “the εἰς phrases show the impact of Paul and his
companions on those who embraced or rejected them” (“Faith to Faith,” 11–12). He
concludes, then, that “the prepositions retain their common senses and express source and
result respectively” (ibid., 12). Margaret Thrall likewise suggests that “to separate the ἐκ-
phrases from the εἰς-phrases, and to give the one the sense ‘originating from,’ and the
other the meaning ‘resulting in’” would be “preferable grammatically” (A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994], 1:204; see also Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 [Waco, TX: Word,
1986], 49). Some take the “source” to indicate the state of the person who smells the
scent rather than the scent itself (e.g., George H. Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, BECNT [Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015], 170–71), but this does not change the overall point that
the prepositions indicate source and result.
14
So J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1957), 250; Schlatter, Romans, 24: “God’s righteousness is not only revealed on the basis
of faith . . . but also for the purpose of faith.”
15
Schlatter states that “the weightier the causal significance of ek and the
219
this view struggles to explain how the same faith could be both the ground and the goal
of this revelation. Schlatter’s answer, that both of these were opposed to the “Jewish
argument” that saw God’s righteousness as revealed “because of works” or, even if it
were revealed on the basis of faith, “proceeded with works,” is the most compelling.16
But, as Quarles points out, “Paul frequently and explicitly denies that justification is ἐξ
ἔργων but never explicitly rejects that justification is εἰς ἔργα.”17 Another option, that by
εἰς πίστιν Paul simply meant “to those who believe,”18 is also unlikely: if this is what Paul
meant, he could have used the simple dative of indirect object (τῷ πιστεύοντι, the phrase
used in 1:16) since this is the consistent way to express the indirect object of “reveal” in
teleological dimension of eis, the more meaningful the statement becomes and the more
capable it is to express the content and goal of the Pauline gospel and of the letter to the
Romans” (Romans, 25).
16
Schlatter, Romans, 24. Godet understands it similarly as “a righteousness of
faith offered to faith” that is contrary to “a righteousness of works and for works”
(Romans, 97).
17
Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 16. He goes on to suggest, in light of Rom 8:1–30 and
Gal 5:6, that Paul probably would not object “to the notion that good works were a goal
of the revelation of God’s righteousness.” Some suggest that this is a reference to the
“continuing activity” of faith throughout the life of the believer (Kertelge,
Rechtfertigung, 89; Reumann, Righteousness, 67; Wardlaw, “Reappraisal,” 115–16; the
1984 NIV rendering “by faith from first to last” could also be understood this way). But,
while “duration” can be expressed via the ἐκ-εἰς prepositional series, the objects of those
prepositions refer to the beginning and the end of that duration, not to something that is
itself repeated throughout (so Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 8).
18
So Hill, Greek Words, 157; Murray, Romans, 1:31–32. While his view of “from
faith for faith” is very different, Hays also glosses εἰς πίστιν as “to those who believe”
(“‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s Apocalyptic
Hermeneutics,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in honor of J. Louis
Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, JSNTSup 24 [Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1989], 208).
220
19
the NT, including in Paul. Thus, while stronger than the previous view, this view shares
the difficulty of making sense of Paul’s claim that God’s righteousness is not only
revealed “from faith” but is also revealed “for faith.”
It is noteworthy that these modern interpretations each struggle to explain how the
same “faith” could function as the object of both prepositions. Ancient interpreters, by
contrast, consistently found a different referent for “faith” in the two prepositional
phrases,20 and several of these ancient interpretations have recently commended
themselves to modern interpreters. Augustine thought that these phrases meant “from the
faith of those who proclaim it to the faith of those who are obedient to it.”21 A similar
view has been taken recently by Mark Seifrid.22 Alternatively, Ambrosiaster understood
them to mean “through the faith of the God who promises the righteousness of God might
be revealed in the faith of the man who believes,”23 thus expressing motion “from the
faithfulness of God to human faith.” More recently, scholars from Karl Barth to James
19
See, e.g., Matt 11:25/Lk 10:21; Matt 16:17; Phil 3:15; 1 Pet 1:12 (note the
passive). Cf. BDAG s.v. b, 112.
20
Cf. the English phrases “from coast to coast” or “from sea to shining sea”: the
referents of the nouns are different (they refer to two different coasts, to two different
seas), but the sense of the nouns remains the same (both are a “coast,” and both are a
“sea”). So Frank Thielman, Romans, ZECNT 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 83.
21
Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter 18 (xi), trans. John Burnaby, in Augustine:
Later Works, LCC 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 208.
22
Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Reflections on
Israel’s Exile in Romans,” in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in honor of
Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. Sang Wong (Aaron) Son (New York: T&T
Clark, 2006), 135–36. See also idem, Justification by Faith, 218.
23
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans, in Ambrosiaster: Commentaries on
Romans and 1–2 Corinthians, ed. and trans. Gerald L. Bray, ACT (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2009), 9 (col. 56).
221
24
Dunn and N. T. Wright have taken this view. Finally, Chrysostom writes that the phrase
“from faith to faith” “sends the hearer back to the dispensations of God, which took place
thus in the Old Testament.”25 Quarles takes this as expressing motion “from the faith of
the old dispensation to the faith of the new dispensation,”26 and he commends this
interpretation at the conclusion of his study.27 Each of these views thus finds a motion
from one instance of “faith” to another, reflecting the most likely meaning of the ἐκ-εἰς
series of prepositions.28
Each of these interpretations also allows for the second prepositional phrase “for
faith” to retain its normal sense as an expression of a goal or result (cf. εἰς σωτηρίαν in
the previous verse); “faith” results from the revelation of God’s righteousness in Paul’s
24
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London:
Oxford University Press, 1933), 41; idem, A Shorter Commentary on Romans, trans. D.
H. van Daalen (London: SCM, 1959; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 22;
Dunn, Romans 1–8, 44; Wright, “Romans,” 425.
25
John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. B. Morris, W.
H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens, in Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles
and the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Philip Schaff, NPNF¹ 11 (Buffalo, NY: Christian
Literature Publishing, 1889; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 349.
26
Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 18. Note, however, Wardlaw’s observation that
Chrysostom does not quite say explicitly that this is the meaning of “from faith to faith”
in Rom 1:17 (“Reappraisal,” 109). Still, Chrysostom’s reading would suggest something
like this understanding of “from faith to faith.”
27
Quarles, “Faith to Faith,” 18–20; see also Moo, Romans, 80.
28
This allows both prepositions to retain their most natural senses; note Dunn’s
point that “following a verb like ‘reveal’ the ἐκ is more naturally to be understood as
denoting the source of the revelation . . . and the εἰς as denoting that to which the
revelation is directed” (Romans 1–8, 44). See also Thomas D. Stegman, “Paul’s Use of
Dikaio- Terminology: Moving beyond N. T. Wright’s Forensic Interpretation,” TS 72
(2011): 496–524, here 512.
222
gospel. This integrates very well with the first half of Rom 1:17, as it would mean that
the revelation of God’s righteousness summons and elicits saving faith.29
Each of these views, however, struggles to explain how the revelation of God’s
righteousness could be “from faith.” This is most serious for Augustine’s view that “from
faith” refers to the faith of the preacher, for, while it is certainly true that Paul sees a close
connection between the proclamation of the gospel and faith (both of the proclaimer and
the hearer),30 it is not clear why Paul would use the word “faith” to refer to that
proclamation.31 It is also a difficulty for Ambrosiaster’s view that God’s righteousness is
revealed “from God’s faithfulness.” While this is how Hab 2:4 might be read in the LXX,
Paul’s alteration of this reading (see discussion below, pp. 240–42) suggests that he
understands πίστις in Hab 2:4 as the πίστις of the one who is granted life rather than the
πίστις of the God who grants that life.32 Finally, while Chrysostom’s reading leads us to
expect a reference to the OT like Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4, it cannot explain how that
citation actually supports Paul’s claim: Paul’s claim would simply describe a motion
29
See discussion above, p. 194.
30
Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Habakkuk,” 136.
31
Paul does refer to his own faith (e.g., Rom 4:24; 2 Cor 4:13; Gal 2:16, 20 [?])
and to his calling to proclaim the gospel, but never (that I can find) to both in close
proximity. More typical is the language of 1 Cor 15:11: “So we preach and so you
believed.”
32
Campbell calls the “systematic equation that exists in Romans (and Galatians)
between the phrase ἐκ πίστεως and the text of Hab 2:4” the “Achilles’ heel” for this
interpretation (“Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate,”
JBL 113 [1994]: 265–85, here 278). This is also the problem with Jewett’s interpretation
that “the progression in this verse refers to missionary expansion of the gospel, which
relies on the contagion of faith” (Romans, 144; see also Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions, 186;
Thielman, Romans, 83).
223
“from faith” while the citation seems to describe an action of God “on the basis of
faith.”33
In short, the ἐκ . . . εἰς phrase leads us to expect two distinct references for πίστις
rather than a single emphatic referent, but these referents are not clarified in the text
itself.34 In other words, both instances of “faith” are highly linguistically
underdetermined.
It is here that the enriched concept of God’s righteousness supplies the missing
determination for the distinct referents of πίστις. If God’s righteousness is revealed when
God saves his people, then the grounds for that salvation would also be the grounds for
that revelation. And if this revelation is intended to result in salvation for others, then the
intended response to that revelation would be its goal. What it means for everyone else to
“turn” to God would be determined by the paradigmatic nature of the salvation of God’s
people.35 That is to say, when everyone else sees on what basis God saves his people,
they will also see on what basis they themselves are offered salvation. Thus the grounds
of the salvation that reveals God’s righteousness determine what that revelation summons
its audience to do—that is, the grounds determine the goal.
33
Moo helpfully identifies this need to find “a different meaning of ἐκ πίστεως
than it has in the immediately following quotation” as “the most important objection to
this view” (Romans, 80 n. 251).
34
Cf. Wolter, Römer, 1:126, who argues against any interpretation that involves a
shift in subjects of “faith” on the grounds that Paul does not give any indication of such a
switch and “dass er auch in der Lage war, den Lesern deutlich zu machen, wie er
verstanden werden wollte.” See also Schreiner, Romans, 78.
35
We identified such a paradigmatic role in Psalms 40; 51; and 22 (see above, p.
142), and in Isaiah 45 (see above, p. 173).
224
That both the ground and the goal are the same is therefore entirely to be
expected. That both are “faith,” though, is less expected. This is the new vocabulary that
Paul brings into the picture. But while the vocabulary is new, the concept certainly is not.
We found above that God’s righteousness is his commitment to save his people who trust
in him, and the notion that God’s saving action is grounded in the trust of the one whom
God saves is found throughout the protest psalms.36 Psalm 31:2 is just one example of the
psalmist appealing to his trust in God in one breath and God’s righteousness in the next:
“In you, O Lord, I have put my trust. Do not let me ever be put to shame. Deliver me in
your righteousness.” Psalm 22 also contains a memorable expression of lifelong trust:
“For you are the one who brought me from the womb; you caused me to trust [‫יחי‬
ִ ‫;מ ְב ִט‬
ַ
LXX ἡ ἐλπίς µου, “you are my hope”] from the breast of my mother. From birth I was
cast upon you; ever since my mother’s womb you are my God” (verses 10–11). The
references to this trust existing “from birth” suggest that the origin of his trust is outside
the psalmist, presumably as a function of his membership in the covenant people of
God.37 Thus, it is certainly not the case that this human trust originates God’s saving
action; the ultimate source of God’s saving action can be nothing other than God
himself.38 But the psalmist has no hesitation in pointing to this trust when asking God to
36
In addition to those psalms that also mention God’s righteousness (discussed
above, p. 133), see also Pss 25:1–2; 86:2.
37
This would be explicit if we understand the Heb. hiphil participle ‫יחי‬
ִ ‫ ַמ ְב ִט‬to
mean “causing me to trust” (so NIV; see HALOT 1:120). However, it could also be
understood more generally to mean “keeping me safe (and thus inspiring confidence)”;
so, e.g., NRSV. In either case, though, any causative notion present in the Heb. verb does
not carry over into the LXX. The broader notion of trusting from birth, however, does
carry over.
38
Ps 22:11 also suggests that the psalmist’s trust is entailed by God being his God:
225
save. And, for these expressions of trust to be relevant to these requests for salvation, the
implicated premise is likely that God’s righteous saving action toward the psalmist is in
some way grounded in the trust of the psalmist.
If we are right, then, that the saving act that reveals God’s righteousness in the
gospel is the resurrection of Jesus, then the faith that is the grounds for that saving action
would be Jesus’s own faith.39 Cranfield is incredulous about this, asking, “Could Paul
whatever one has as one’s God is what one trusts for salvation.
39
Many have argued recently that Jesus’s own “faith” is significant for Paul,
particularly those who understand the genitive in πίστις Ἰησοῦ/Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22, 26;
Gal 2:16; 3:22; Phil 3:9) as a subjective genitive. These include, most prominently,
Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians
3:1–4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Luke Timothy Johnson, “Rom 3:21–
26 and the Faith of Jesus,” CBQ 44 (1982): 77–90; Léonard Ramaroson, “La Justification
par la foi du Christ Jésus,” ScEs 39 (1987): 81–92; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,”
in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990), 165–86; idem, “Another Look at πίστις Χριστοῦ,” SJT 69 (2016): 46–62;
Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 265–85; idem, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans
3:22,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, ed.
Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 57–71. By
contrast, those who insist on the significance of faith of believers and therefore
understand the phrase as an “objective” genitive include James D. G. Dunn, “ΕΚ
ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ: A Key to the Meaning of ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” in The Word Leaps the Gap:
Essays on Scripture and Theology in honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J. Ross Wagner, C.
Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 351–66; R. Barry
Matlock, “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and πίστις Χριστοῦ,” CBQ 64 (2002): 300–
318; Moisés Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in The Paradoxes of Paul,
vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and
Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 217–48; Francis Watson, “By
Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and Its Scriptural Solution,” in The Faith of
Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 147–63. Those who think πίστις
refers to the faith of believers (so aligning mostly with the “objective” view) but
nevertheless suggest a broader sense for the genitive than simply as object include Arland
J. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63; Karl
Friedrich Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma pistis Christou und zum
paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung, WUNT 2.227 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007), 251; Mark A. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ:
226
have expected those who heard his letter read to realize that they were to understand the
quotation as referring to Christ, when he had not mentioned Christ since vv. 8 and 9, but
had clearly referred to the Christian believer in v. 16?”40 To this we reply that he certainly
could have expected that, since in verse 17 he mentions that this happens in the gospel,
which he has already identified as having as its content Jesus Christ and particularly his
resurrection (1:1–5).41 At the same time, though, this faith is what elicits the faith of
believers. Cranfield is right to point out that the most immediate reference is to the
Christian believer, but (on our reading) the point of 1:16–17 is not to direct attention to
Christ by directing attention away from the Christian believer but to show how the
resurrection of the former relates to the salvation of the latter. The gospel summons its
hearers to faith by proclaiming a salvation that is itself grounded in faith.42 The sense of
the word πίστις therefore remains the same,43 and the verbal form in the previous verse
Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M.
Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 129–46; Wolter, Römer, 1:250. See also
Augustine, Spirit and Letter 18 (xi), 208, where “faith of Jesus Christ” is understood as
faith “which Christ has conferred upon us.” For an overview of the πίστις Χριστοῦ
debate, see, most helpfully, Debbie Hunn, “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in
Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and
Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2009), 15–31.
40
C. E. B. Cranfield, “On the Πίστις Χριστοῦ Question,” in On Romans and
Other New Testament Essays (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 88.
41
So Reumann, Righteousness, 65: “Implied in 1:16–17 (and stated elsewhere) are
the points that this gospel concerns Jesus Christ, God’s Son.” See also Young, “Romans
1.1–5,” 277–85.
42
Thus the continuity of the sense of πίστις (“faith”) between the terms is
suggested by the way each is related to the enriched concept of God’s righteousness, not
necessarily by linguistic constraints related to the ἐκ-εἰς idiom.
43
Contra Barth, then, we do not find a “play on words” that moves from (God’s)
227
(with the participle τῷ πιστεύοντι) clarifies that Paul is talking about the act of
“believing” or “trusting.”44 This means, then, that the πίστις that is the grounds of the
revelation of God’s righteousness is the faith, rather than the faithfulness, of Christ.45
In the previous chapter we found that the revelation of God’s righteousness was
the middle term between two distinct saving actions, and here we find yet additional
relevance that this claim yields in Paul’s argument: it ties together the salvation
announced in the gospel and the salvation effected by the gospel. Because it proclaims
“faithfulness” to (human) “faith” (Shorter, 22; see also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 44).
44
See Brian Dodd, “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate?,” JBL 114 (1995): 470–73: “While ‘good faith,’ ‘trustworthiness,’ or
‘faithfulness’ are other possible meanings of the noun πίστις, there is no such possibility
for the verb πιστεύειν in Greek” (471)—see LSJ, 1408. Cf. Wardlaw, “Reappraisal,” 115,
who refers to the “semantic priming” of πιστεύω in 1:16 for the meaning of πίστις in
1:17.
45
Matlock points out that “the sense of πίστις that would (arguably) create the
least semantic disruption on a subjective genitive reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ” is “Jesus’
‘faith,’ that is, his ‘trusting’ or ‘believing,” but this view “seems not to have commended
itself” (“Detheologizing the πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical
Semantic Perspective,” NovT 42 [2000]: 1–23, here 10). Indeed, most interpreters who
take πίστις Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive understand πίστις as Christ’s faithfulness or
obedience (e.g., Johnson, “Faith of Jesus,” 87–90; Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of
Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994], 202;
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, throughout but esp. 2:858–59; Campbell, Deliverance
of God, 613). However, for the view that it refers to Jesus’s own faith or trust, see Erwin
R. Goodenough and A. Thomas Kraabel, “Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity,” in
Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob
Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 45: “This faith of Christ is simply his trusting that
the cross would not be the end, and that God would save him from death because God is
pistos, God is the righteous one who is absolutely supreme in that he is beyond life and
death” (italics original). For the argument that Paul does not include “faithfulness” in the
concept of “faith” in Romans, see James D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,”
in Pauline Theology Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, ed. E. Elizabeth Johnson
and David M. Hay, SBLSymS 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 75–76 (although Dunn
for that reason rejects the subjective genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ).
228
that Jesus was raised to life by faith, the gospel summons us to faith as well, that we too
may live by faith. This is the form, then, that “turning” to “the only righteous God and
savior” takes: faith. The revelation of God’s righteousness has our faith as its goal
because it has Jesus’s faith as its grounds.
The Faith of Israel, of Jesus, and of Believers
In the previous section, we argued that understanding the revelation of God’s
righteousness as the middle term between God’s particular saving action and God’s
universal saving action suggests an understanding of “from faith for faith” as referring to
the faith exercised by the recipients of those saving actions: both Jesus and those who
respond to the good news about him. We will show in the next section how this can make
sense of Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 as the basis for this claim. But before we do that, in
this section we will explore the nature of the “faith of Jesus” that we have suggested is
the implied reference of the faith that grounds the revelation of God’s righteousness.
Specifically, we will argue that, in contrast to most interpreters who find references to
Jesus’s own “faith” in Paul’s writings, this faith stands in continuity with both the prior
faith of Israel and the subsequent faith of those who believe the gospel message.
First, Jesus’s faith is not an unprecedented faith.46 It is the faith that he, like the
psalmist, shares with his ancestors.47 We noted in the previous section that Psalm 22
46
Contra, e.g., Wright, who sees the significance of Jesus’s “faithfulness” in its
contrast with Israel’s unfaithfulness: “The ‘faithfulness’ which was required of Israel, but
not provided, has now been provided by Israel’s representative, the Messiah” (Paul and
the Faithfulness, 2:836, emphasis added).
47
So Ian G. Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions,
SNTSMS 84 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8. Of course, this must be
229
describes the lifelong trust of the one whose salvation results in the proclamation of
God’s righteousness. But Psalm 22 is also significant for the way it speaks about the trust
of the psalmists’s ancestors, the trust that grounded God’s mighty saving acts in the
history of God’s covenant people: “In you our fathers trusted. They trusted, and you
delivered them. To you they cried and were saved. In you they trusted, and they were not
put to shame” (verses 5–6). Even if (as the next verse indicates) the psalmist’s own
situation is far more dire, the psalmist’s own trust nevertheless stands in continuity with
the trust of his ancestors. He is by no means the first to trust in God.48 His act of trust is
itself unoriginal; it is the “faith” shared with those who stand in covenant relationship to
God.49
Moreover, these psalms do not just describe this continuity of faith. Their
repetition in the life of the covenant community is what establishes this continuity. Thus,
when the gospel traditions remember Jesus quoting these protest psalms on the cross,50
they are remembering his participation in the prayer-life—and therefore by extension the
balanced with a recognition that, for Paul, faith had “come” and “been revealed” quite
recently (Gal 3:23–25).
48
This is not to suggest that Jesus did not exercise an extraordinary faith, nor is it
to suggest that Jesus did not exercise faith in an extraordinary situation. It is to suggest
that Jesus’s faith as faith was not entirely original. His ancestors, also, at times at least
put their trust in God and experienced some form of God’s deliverance.
49
This is also not to suggest that faith was a constant feature of the history of the
covenant community, nor that unbelief and distrust were never present. It is simply to
suggest that the psalmist sees historical precedent for his faith in the faith of (at least
some of) his ancestors.
50
Ps 22:1 in Matt 27:46/Mk 15:34 (cf. Ps 22:23 in Heb 2:12); Ps 31:6 in Luke
23:46. Each of these statements on the cross is from protest psalms that refer to God’s
righteousness.
230
51
faith—of Israel. This explains why the NT can effortlessly attribute the speech of the
psalms,52 or prayer-material from elsewhere in the OT,53 to Jesus, even apart from any
explicit memory of Jesus uttering those words in his lifetime.54 Paul does this too: he
attributes speech from a protest psalm to Jesus when he cites Ps 69:9 in Rom 15:3,55 and a
few verses later (probably) attributes speech from a praise psalm to Jesus when he cites
Ps 18:50 in Rom 15:9.56 As the psalms are the prayers of Israel, so are they the prayers of
Jesus.
As these words are expressions of trust, then, attributing them to Jesus implies
that Jesus also trusted, also had faith. This implication is made explicit in two of the
citations attributed to Jesus that express trust: Ps 31:6 in Luke 23:46 (“into your hands I
commit my spirit”) and Isa 8:17 in Heb 2:13 (“I will put my trust in him”). But in Paul’s
51
Jesus also is remembered to have applied Ps 41:10 to himself in John 13:18.
52
So Ps 16:8 in Acts 2:25–28 (note Peter’s explicit hermeneutical procedure:
David said this, but it is not true of David but of Jesus, so he was referring to Jesus, but
doing so in the first-person); Ps 40:7–9 in Heb 10:5–7 (speech attributed directly to
Christ); and Ps 69:10 in John 2:17 (first-person speech applied to Christ).
53
So Isa 8:17–18 in Heb 2:13.
54
Hays (“Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early Christian Exegetical
Convention,” in The Future of Christology: Essays in honor of Leander E. Keck, ed.
Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 122–36)
points out that this “christological ventriloquism” (125) is presupposed “without
comment or justification,” indicating that “this exegetical strategy was embedded in
Christian reading of the Scriptures from the earliest identifiable time” (127).
55
See Anthony T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 15–16; Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 122–23. See also,
notably, Barth, Romans, 525: “He passes through the Old Testament as the great Sufferer.
It is, therefore, congruous that He should appear before us as the Crucified One.”
56
Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 123–24. The attribution of this speech to
Christ is less direct but still likely.
231
writings only the brief citation of Ps 116:10 in 2 Cor 4:13—“I believed, therefore I
spoke”57—has been argued by some to be a reference to Jesus himself “believing.”58 Most
commentators, however, rightly see Paul connecting his belief to the belief of the
psalmist, not that of Jesus.59 This leaves us, then, without any explicit statement from
Paul (outside the contested πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases, of course) that Jesus believed.
At the same time, though, Paul participates fully in the broader NT tradition that
understands the death and resurrection of Jesus in light of the psalms, and these psalms
are full of—and are themselves best characterized as—expressions of trust in God. This
leads us to conclude that Jesus’s faith, just like the trust of the psalmist in Psalm 22, is
something he has in common with others who have trusted God. The faith of Israel could
therefore be assumed to be also the faith of Israel’s Messiah. If Paul does not speak of its
57
LXX 115:1—it is the LXX that is quoted, but the Hebrew also refers to the
psalmist trusting (‫)ה ֱא ַמנְ ִתּי‬.
ֶ
58
Anthony T. Hanson, Paul’s Understanding of Jesus: Invention or
Interpretation? (Hull: University of Hull Publications, 1963), 11–13; idem, Paul’s
Technique, 17–18; Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” 128; Morna D. Hooker, “Interchange
and Suffering,” in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990), 50–51; Thomas D. Stegman, “Ἐπίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα (2
Corinthians 4:13): Paul’s Christological Reading of Psalm 115:1a LXX,” CBQ 69 (2007):
725–45; Douglas A. Campbell, “2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul that Christ
Believes,” JBL 128 (2009): 337–56.
59
In contrast to 2 Cor 4:13, in Rom 15:3 “Christ is explicitly introduced” (Jan
Lambrecht, “A Matter of Method: 2 Cor 4,13 and Stegman’s Recent Study,” ETL 84
[2008]: 175–80, here 178). See also Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 239–42, esp. 241 n. 10; Frank J. Matera, II
Corinthians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 112;
Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 351–52; Jan Lambrecht, Second
Corinthians, SP 8 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999), 74. Margaret Thrall comes the
closest, suggesting that the psalmist’s own faith is itself a faith that looks forward to Jesus
(Second Corinthians, 1:340).
232
independent existence, neither perhaps should we—we know of Jesus’s faith only as we
understand Jesus as participating in this community of faith.60 This explains why, even
outside Paul, the most explicit statements of Jesus’s faith or trust in the NT are made via
citations of the OT. The trust of the psalmist and the faith of Jesus are by no means novel
occurrences, nor are they presented as great achievements. Indeed, if faith takes its
character from its object, not its subject, then Jesus’s faith should be considered
extraordinary only due to the extraordinary God in whom he trusted. Of course, Jesus
himself is (to put it mildly) extraordinary, as is the situation in which he exercised faith.
But, especially if we take into account Jesus’s own statements about faith the size of a
mustard seed (Matt 17:20; Luke 17:6), we should be open to the possibility that to speak
of “extraordinary faith” is to make a category error. This, then, may explain Paul’s
relative silence about Jesus’s own faith: it is unremarked upon because it is in itself
unremarkable.
It is with this understanding of Jesus’s faith as unoriginal and unremarkable that
we may speak of Jesus’s faith, second, as paradigmatic for believers.61 If the object of
60
Crucially, this means that such an understanding of Jesus’s faith emerges only
when Paul and his gospel are rooted in their Jewish and OT context.
61
Erwin Goodenough argued that “as we identify with Christ, become one with
him, we ourselves are given the faith of Christ” (“Hellenization,” 45, italics original).
Hays critiques this view, arguing that “we are saved by Christ’s faith(fulness), not by
having a faith like his” (Faith of Jesus Christ, 158 n. 136).
Karl Barth, however, argues at the conclusion of his discussion of the doctrine of
justification that “in faith in its character as justifying faith we do have to do with an
imitatio Christi” (The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. IV/1 of Church Dogmatics, trans.
G. W. Bromiley [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2010], 634). Faith is “an imitation of Jesus Christ, an analogy to His attitude and action”
(ibid.). Because “a man finds his justification as he believes in this One who became
poor,” therefore “faith itself . . . becomes a poverty, a repetition of this divine downward
233
faith—rather than the subject—determines the nature of faith, then to look at someone’s
faith is always (to some extent at least) to look through their faith to its object.62 Thus the
notion of Jesus’s faith as paradigmatic could mean nothing other than that the object of
Jesus’s faith is paradigmatic, meaning that, at least here at the outset, to imitate Jesus’s
faith means simply to trust in the same God in whom Jesus trusted.63
This understanding of Jesus’s faith as paradigmatic suggests that a reference in
Rom 1:17 to Jesus’s faith supports Paul’s emphasis on the faith of “everyone who
believes.” This is in contrast to those interpreters who adopt the “subjective genitive”
interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ in order to guard against an emphasis on human faith
that, they are concerned, might become turned in on itself.64 We may certainly affirm this
movement” (ibid., 635).

62
So D. H. van Daalen, “‘Faith’ according to Paul,” ExpTim 87 (1975): 83–85,
here 84: “If I say that I have faith in someone, I do not mean that I have some wonderful
quality called faith but simply that he or she is someone who can be relied upon; I am not
really saying something about myself at all but about the other person.” This is an
overstatement: It is possible to draw attention to one’s own act of trust, so we do not
agree with the linguistic determinism evident in the statement that “the idea that one
could discuss ‘faith’ without any reference to the object of that faith could never have
occurred to them because they had no word for it” (ibid.). But Daalen is right to point out
that the very act of trusting itself says something about—and to some extent draws
attention to—the object of that trust.
63
This “faith” will take on a more particular shape as Paul describes God’s
salvation in Christ in more detail (see below, p. 305). And, since faith is always to be
expressed in obedience, Paul would certainly affirm that imitating Jesus’s faith would
lead to imitating his obedience (e.g., 1 Cor 11:1). But it remains significant that, on our
account, Paul points to faith rather than obedience as the grounds of salvation.
64
So, e.g., Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 119; Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 272;
Leander E. Keck, “‘Jesus’ in Romans,” JBL 108 (1989): 443–60, here 454. Much of this
anxiety is likely a reaction to Bultmann, whom Hays retrospectively identifies as the
“unnamed elephant in the room” throughout much of his work (Faith of Jesus Christ,
xxvi; see also Roy A. Harrisville III, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ and the New Perspective on Paul,”
Logia 19 [2010]: 19–28, here 20–21). Bultmann’s definition of faith is significant: “Faith
234
concern: it is important that faith not become faith in our own faith. But that does not
mean that human faith or trust plays no role in God’s saving action. We have argued that
Paul’s discourse on God’s righteousness is rooted in the OT discourse on God’s
righteousness, particularly in the discourse of the protest psalms. In these psalms, the
psalmists are certainly not shy about drawing attention to their own trust in God. This
trust does not originate in them, nor is it something for which the psalmists could take
credit. But this does not stop the psalmists from appealing explicitly to this trust when
requesting deliverance—even to the point of suggesting that this trust in God (instead of
other gods) is what marks them out for salvation.65 The psalmists are innocent of any
concern that this trust may be oriented toward itself rather than toward God, so they are
unafraid to draw attention to it as the grounds for God’s saving action.
Paul is similarly unconcerned.66 He is writing to those who have already believed
the gospel, whose faith is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether that faith needs to be
supplemented with (or must take the form of) Torah observance.67 When faith is
is the act in virtue of which a man, responding to God’s eschatological deed in Christ,
comes out of the world and makes a radical reorientation to God” (“The πίστις Group in
the New Testament,” TDNT 6:216). Faith is thus a human action responding to God’s
action, but it is noteworthy how much emphasis lies on faith as human action; Hays (and
others) are right to be concerned. But note that, while Bultmann does allow for an
element of “trust” to “faith” (ibid., 218), no sense of trusting is found in this key
statement. We suggest that restoring the basic OT emphasis on trust to Paul’s sense of
human πίστις is preferable to downplaying the role of such human faith in Paul’s
soteriology.
65
See, e.g., Ps 31:7, 18.
66
So Matlock, “Detheologizing,” esp. 22–23.
67
As Matlock memorably puts it, the Galatians had “faith aplenty but foreskins
resolutely intact” (ibid., 22).
235
68
presented as a condition for salvation, it is presented as such to those in whom that
condition has already been met precisely in order to exclude any other conditions.
Our view therefore sees the reference in Rom 1:17 to Jesus’s faith, the grounds for
the resurrection announced in the gospel, as supporting and strengthening the reference to
the faith that the gospel elicits as the exclusive grounds for our salvation as well.69 This
means, incidentally, that our view does not entail a commitment to interpreting all or even
most instances of πίστις Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive. It may be that the more clearly
we understand God’s righteousness to be revealed ἐκ πίστεως (from Christ’s own faith),
the more clearly we understand it to be revealed εἰς πίστιν (to our own faith that is based
on and oriented toward Jesus; i.e., “Christ-faith”).
In short, while our view leads us to draw a distinction between Christ’s faith (the
grounds of the revelation of God’s righteousness) and the faith of believers (the goal of
that revelation), it prevents us from drawing any sharp distinction between the character
of Jesus’s faith and that of the rest of God’s people. Jesus’s faith is not an entirely novel
occurrence but exists in continuity with Israel’s faith, and it is this simple faith in an
extraordinary God that the gospel elicits in its hearers.
68
It is grammatically a condition in Rom 10:9. Still, this should be balanced by
1:16–17, where, we have argued, the human response of faith is itself elicited by God’s
self-revelation in the gospel.
69
This corresponds with Michael Allen’s argument (from a dogmatic perspective)
that “a theology of the gospel must also move to speak of Jesus as the one who not only
believes, but who also demands and elicits faith in others” (“‘It Is No Longer I Who
Live’: Christ’s Faith and Christian Faith,” JRefT 7 [2013]: 2–26, here 14). See also his
overall treatment of the dogmatic significance of Jesus’s faith in The Christ’s Faith: A
Dogmatic Account, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology (London: T&T Clark,
2009).
236
This continuity, however, means that the gospel summons people to faith by
announcing a salvation that took place on the basis of faith. Thus Paul’s claim that the
gospel is the power of salvation for everyone who believes depends largely on this claim
about faith being the grounds of Jesus’s resurrection. And it is to support this important
claim that Paul cites Hab 2:4.
“As It Is Written”:
Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17
The end of Rom 1:17 contains a clear and obvious intertextual moment. This is in
contrast to the beginning: while the statement that “God’s righteousness” is “revealed” in
the gospel is, we argued, a reference to an encyclopedically enriched concept found in the
intertextually mediated cognitive environment shared between Paul and his readers, the
statement that “the righteous will live by faith” is a marked citation of Hab 2:4. For
1:17a, the intertextual moment is both constituted and recognized by the high degree of
correspondence between the OT concept and the shape of Paul’s argument—apart from
this correspondence there would be no intertextual moment. For 17b, though, the
intertextual moment—and hence a high degree of correspondence—is claimed via the
citation formula “as it is written” (καθὼς γέγραπται). While we disagreed with Watson
that the Habakkuk citation generates the entire preceding statement,70 it certainly does
support the claim on which all of Rom 1:16–17 is based.71 This first explicit citation of
70
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 47. See discussion above, p. 86.
71
For the structural significance of ἐκ πίστεως in Paul’s argument and its basis in
Hab 2:4, see Douglas A. Campbell, “The Meaning of πίστις and νόµος in Paul: A
Linguistic and Structural Perspective,” JBL 111 (1992): 91–103, here 101–2.
237
the Scriptures in Romans therefore confronts us with the question of the correspondence
between what Habakkuk says and what Paul says Habakkuk says.72
This section will therefore examine Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b in light of
the above interpretation of God’s righteousness and the consequent understanding of
“from faith for faith” in Rom 1:17a. In each of these, we found the resurrection of Jesus
to be the indirect referent, and now we aim to show that this interpretation allows Paul’s
use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b to be far more straightforward and direct than it is often
understood to be.73 Specifically, we will argue that Paul cites Hab 2:4 to support his
critical point about the grounds of God’s saving, life-giving action, and Hab 2:4 does
indeed support that point. We will first explore the literary context of the verse and
examine some of the textual issues involved in Paul’s citation of it, then analyze how the
“meaning” of this text changes when it is recontextualized in Paul’s discourse, and finally
examine how Paul applies this text to Christ in order to apply it to believers as well.
72
Cf. Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 117: “‘As it is written’ is a call to active
participation in the task of interpretation—an invitation to the reader to revisit the
scriptural text in order to subject the alleged correspondence to critical testing.”
73
Those interpreters who find a dramatic reinterpretation of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17
include Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1941),
5, who argues that Paul could use Hab 2:4 as the source of his “great anti-Jewish motto”
only by “giving to it a new meaning”; Käsemann, Romans, 32, who states that “Paul’s
interpretation of Hab 2:4 neither does justice to the OT text nor finds any support in
Jewish exegesis,” meaning that “the problem of the primitive Christian proof from
Scripture arises already in this verse”; Lohse, Römer, 82, who argues that “die für den
Apostel entscheidenden Stichworte sind ihm durch das Schriftzitat vorgegeben, werden
nun aber inhaltlich von seinem Verständnis des Evangeliums her gefüllt”; Alice Ogden
Bellis, “Habakkuk 2:4b: Intertextuality and Hermeneutics,” in Jews, Christians, and the
Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky,
SBLSymS 8 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 369, who argues that “New Testament authors have
lifted it from its original context and dramatically reinterpreted it for use in a different
theological world.”
238
The Context and Text of Habakkuk 2:4
Habakkuk is unique among the prophets for beginning with a complaint.74 While
other prophetic books contain laments,75 in no other prophetic book is a complaint so
central to the structure.76 In its shift from complaint (chapter 1) to praise (chapter 3),
Habakkuk bears striking similarity to the protest psalms that we examined in the previous
chapter.77 While scholars differ in how they number and divide the complaints,78 in either
74
See Hab 2:1, with the reference to “my complaint” (‫תּוֹכ ְח ִתּי‬,
ַ ὁ ἔλεγχός µου).
Philip Whitehead notes that the use of a lament “is striking in response to a situation of
injustice that is elsewhere responded to by a prophetic announcement of impending
judgment” (“Habakkuk and the Problem of Suffering: Theodicy Deferred,” JTI 10
[2016]: 265–81, here 269).
75
Notably, Jer 15:10–11; see Whitehead, “Habakkuk,” 269.
76
Watson points out that “the book of Habakkuk is unique in its focus on the
human word addressed to God” (Hermeneutics of Faith, 128).
77
Francis Andersen notes that “there is general agreement that Habakkuk’s
prayers resemble psalms that have been called ‘complaints’ or ‘laments’” (Habakkuk: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25 [New York: Doubleday,
2001], 20). See also J. Gerald Janzen, “Eschatological Symbol and Existence in
Habakkuk,” CBQ 44 (1982): 394–414, here 398; Klaus Seybold, “Habakuk 2,4b und sein
Kontext,” in Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments: FS Georg Sauer zum 65. Geburtstag,
ed. Siegfried Kreuzer and Kurt Lüthi (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 99–107,
here 104–5. It should be noted that Habakkuk’s complaints concern observed injustice
rather than (as in the Psalms) experienced injustice.
78
Most interpreters read 1:2–4 as an initial complaint, 1:5–11 as an initial answer,
and 1:12–17 as a second complaint. See Childs, Introduction, 448; Walter E. Rast,
“Habakkuk and Justification by Faith,” CThM 10.3 (1983): 169–75, here 170–72; J. J. M.
Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1991), 82; F. F. Bruce, “Habakkuk,” in vol. 2 of The Minor
Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 837; Andersen, Habakkuk, 15; R. David Moseman,
“Habakkuk’s Dialogue with Faithful Yahweh: A Transforming Experience,” PRSt 44
(2017): 261–74, here 263–68; Whitehead, “Habakkuk,” 266. Some, however, see 1:5–11
not as a response but as “a heightened form of the very complaint” (Marshall D. Johnson,
“The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk I 4,” VT 35 [1985]: 257–66, here 261; see also
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 128–30).
239
case the complaint as a whole primarily concerns the “continuing non-occurrence of
divine saving action.”79 Like the protest psalms, Habakkuk looks forward to God’s saving
action that is not yet present.
The answer God gives to Habakkuk opens with the instruction to write (2:2). The
revelation concerns an “appointed time” beyond Habakkuk’s own historical moment
(2:3). Its certainty should not be called into question by the fact that it lingers (2:3), that
in the meantime the arrogant enemy continues to oppress (2:4–5). The horizon of the text
thus expands beyond the historical situation that originally called it forth.80 The tendency
of later interpreters—whether the Qumran community, Paul, the author of Hebrews, or
the early rabbis—to apply this text to their new situation is thus in keeping with the
original intent of the text itself.81 Moreover, these later interpreters were right to see 2:4b
(“the righteous by his/my/its faithfulness [‫בּ ֱאמוּנָ תוֹ‬,

ֶ ἐκ πίστεώς µου] will live”) as the
central, enduring contribution of this text. This is how the still-lingering revelation can
affect its readers prior to its fulfillment, the “crucial point which links the course of
human history with the divine will.”82
Thus Habakkuk, like the protest psalms and like Isaiah 40–55, looks forward to
God’s saving action. It has at its center a vision of salvation on the other side of
judgment, and it presents “faithful adherence” to that vision as central to the “life” of the
79
80
So Childs, Introduction, 453.
81
This point is made with particular force by Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith,
131–35.
82
Childs, Introduction, 453.
240
“righteous.” Since Paul has just argued that God’s saving action occurs in the event and
proclamation of the gospel (Rom 1:16–17), an event that was “promised beforehand”
(Rom 1:2), it is not surprising that Paul turns to this text to shed light on this saving
event.
How Paul cites this text, however, is complicated by textual variations between
the Hebrew (as witnessed by the MT and Qumran) and the LXX.83 The Hebrew has a
third-person pronominal suffix attached to ‫אמוּנָ ה‬,

ֱ meaning most likely “his faithfulness,”
or alternatively, “its faithfulness” (meaning, perhaps, its reliability) if the antecedent of
the pronoun is the “revelation.”84 However, most manuscripts of the LXX (most
prominently ‫ א‬and B) attach a first-person possessive pronoun to that noun, meaning “my
faithfulness” or possibly “faith in me” (πίστεώς µου), and a minority of manuscripts (A
and C) move that first-person possessive pronoun to “righteous one” (δίκαιος µου).85
83
See Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im
Neuen Testament,” ZNW 76 (1985): 68–85, here 70–71; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk
2:3–4 and the New Testament,” in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove, 1998), 236–46; Yeung, Faith, 203–4;
Matthias Millard, “‘Der Gerechte wird aus Glauben leben’ (Röm 1,17): Hab 2,4b in
seinen textlichen und inhaltlichen Varianten im Alten Testament und Qumran sowie bei
Paulus, Rabbi Simlay und Martin Luther,” in Textual History and the Reception of
Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen
Christentum, ed. Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, SBLSCS 60 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013),
252–53; Moo, Romans, 80 n. 252.
84
It is taken that way by Andersen, Habakkuk, 215; Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk,
VTSup 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 59.
85
The reading preserved by ‫ א‬and B is more likely to be the original LXX reading
(so Koch, “Hab 2:4b,” 84; Wolfgang Kraus, “Hab 2,3–4 in der hebräischen und
griechischen Texttradition mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament,” in Die
Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum—The Septuagint and Christian Origins, ed.
Thomas Scott Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 277 [Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011], 159).
241
86
Since in Habakkuk the LXX in general adheres quite closely to the Hebrew, the
alteration is likely a result of confusing the Hebrew vav with yodh.87 The later Greek
revisions of Aquila and Symmachus revert to the Hebrew.
The text Paul uses in his citation is unique, but his alterations result in opening up
rather than closing down interpretive options.88 His use of the phrase ἐκ πίστεως for the
Hebrew phrase ‫ ֶבּ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬likely reflects a general reliance on the text-tradition that underlies
the LXX89—a more natural way to translate the Hebrew preposition ‫ ְבּ‬in this instance
would be with the Greek preposition ἐν (so Aquila) or simply with a dative (so
Symmachus). This fits with Paul’s usual practice of following the LXX when he quotes
Scripture,90 and it makes it all the more notable that he departs from the LXX (and all
other textual traditions known to us) by dropping the personal pronoun altogether.
However, given that this is where the LXX disagrees with the MT, this may be an attempt
to split the difference between the two text-traditions and keep all options open
semantically.91 The LXX text-form would prevent understanding πίστις as the faith of the
86
See Yeung, Faith, 200–201.
87
Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk 2:3–4,” 240.
88
So Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions, 188.
89
So Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk 2:3–4,” 242. See also D. Moody Smith’s point that the
postpositive δέ is hard to explain if Paul is not reading the LXX (“ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως
ζήσεται,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in honor of Kenneth
Willis Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, SD 29 [Salt Lake City: University
of Utah Press, 1967], 13–25, here 15).
90
See Wagner, Heralds, 344–45; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language
of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature,
SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 254–60.
91
So Dunn, Romans 1–8, 45; Yeung, Faith, 204.
242
92 93
righteous one, but Paul’s text-form allows for that understanding as a possibility. This
does not mean that Paul intends all possible meanings,94 but that he is confident that he
has provided adequate contextual signals for the correct meaning to be inferred without
the need for additional semantic input.95 If Paul has found new meaning in Hab 2:4, this
is not due to alterations of the text but due to the new situation and context into which he
now invites Habakkuk to speak. It is this potential new meaning that we will explore
next.
New Meanings in a New Context?
We have argued that the context of Hab 2:4 looks forward to God’s saving action,
making it natural for Paul to cite it in order to understand the saving action that has
occurred now in the gospel. We have also shown that the text-form that Paul cites opens
up interpretive possibilities rather than shutting them down. It remains the case, however,
92
It would not, however, eliminate it entirely. It could still be possible to
understand it as an “objective” genitive, “by faith in me” (suggested by Debbie Hunn,
“Habakkuk 2.4b in Its Context: How Far Off Was Paul?,” JSOT 34 [2009]: 219–39, here
222; and understood as such by Kraus, “Hab 2,3–4,” 165).
93
It might be an overstatement to claim that in citing this form of the text “Paul
intends to eliminate this possibility” of God’s own “faithfulness” (Schreiner, Romans,
81). But it certainly argues against Wright’s point that, if Paul meant to refer to “a human
quality which counted as ‘righteousness’ in God’s sight, he would have done better not to
back it up with a verse which, in the Greek Bible at least, was seen as referring to God’s
own ‘faithfulness’” (Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:1468). If Paul intended it to mean
God’s faithfulness, his alteration of the Greek text which he otherwise tends to follow is
very difficult to explain.
94
Contra Dunn, Romans 1–8, 45, 48; Carlson, “Whose Faith,” 324.
95
Cf. Heliso, Pistis, 167–70, who also concludes that the text-form is less
significant than the context for understanding this citation.
243
that in Paul’s new context this statement will inevitably have some new significance. We
will argue in this section that this new significance requires neither reinterpreting the
syntax nor assigning new meanings to key terms. Specifically, for both Paul and
Habakkuk the prepositional phrase continues to modify the verb rather than the noun, the
verb “will live” likely refers to eschatological life or deliverance from judgment and
death, and the noun ‫אמוּנָ ה‬/πίστις

ֱ refers to a narrowed or enriched concept of faith—
although without the antithesis between faith and works that will come to characterize
Paul’s argument.
First, if Paul is not appealing to Habakkuk directly for his doctrine of
righteousness by faith,96 he can still read the phrase “by faith” as modifying “will live”
rather than “righteous,”97 as most scholars agree is the more likely interpretation of both
the Hebrew and Greek of Hab 2:4.98 For Habakkuk, the “righteousness” of the
96
See above, p. 208.
97
On this point we agree with Godet, Romans, 98; William Sanday and Arthur C.
Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896), 28; Lightfoot, Notes, 250–51; Schlatter,
Romans, 26; James A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in
Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1993), 99–100; Fitzmyer, Romans, 264–65; Lohse, Römer, 82;
Jewett, Romans, 146; Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Habakkuk,” 135. Contra A. Feuillet, “La
citation d’Habacuc 2:4 et les huit premiers chapitres de l’epitre aux Romains,” NTS 6
(1959): 52–80, here 52; Käsemann, Romans, 32; Cranfield, Romans, 1:101–2; Wilckens,
Römer, 1:89–90; Watts, “Not Ashamed,” 16; Sanders, “Habakkuk,” 100; Bruce,
“Habakkuk,” 860–61; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary,
trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 29; Hultgren,
Romans, 79; Thielman, Romans, 84; Moo, Romans, 81.
98
So, e.g., Smith, “ὁ δίκαιος,” 13–15; O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 177; Andersen,
Habakkuk, 215. Contra Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 178, who
understands “the righteous” in Hab 2:4 as a “deliberate echo of Gen. 15:6,” so that “the
244
“righteous” is not in question—they are identified unproblematically as “righteous”
previously in 1:4 and 1:13.99 Instead, “Habakkuk’s quest, to which this word is the
answer, is not faith or righteousness, but life.”100 Our reading of Rom 1:17 suggests that it
is precisely this “word” that supports Paul’s argument.
Against this, we should note that Paul’s other citation of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11 has
been taken as “decisive evidence” that Paul takes “by faith” in Hab 2:4 with
“righteous.”101 Here Paul clearly is speaking about justification by faith: Hab 2:4 “makes
clear” (δῆλον) that “by law no one will be justified before God” (ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς
δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον) because “the righteous will live by faith” (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ
πίστεως ζήσεται). However, Paul then goes on in the next verse to contrast this with Lev
18:5, “the one who does these things will live by them” (ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν
αὐτοῖς) in order to establish that “the law is not ‘by faith’” (ὁ νόµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ
πίστεως). The contrast between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 is strengthened if one understands
both to be expressing two alternative sources of “life.”102 While certainly not decisive,
justified of Hab. 2:4b therefore are the ‘justified by faith’” (italics original); Millard,
“Hab 2,4b,” 248–49; David Andrew Dean, “The Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in the New
Testament (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38)” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas
Theological Seminary, 2008), 81–82.
99
Moseman sees the tension between 1:5, which says “you would not believe” (‫לֹא‬
ַ what God is about to do, and 2:4, which says that the righteous will live “by
‫)ת ֲא ִמינוּ‬
faith,” as calling Habakkuk’s own righteousness into question (“Habakkuk’s Dialogue,”
273), but this is unlikely.
100
Andersen, Habakkuk, 216.
101
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 257 n. 49. See also Kühl, Römer, 44;
Nygren, Romans, 89.
102
So H. C. C. Cavallin, “‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith’: A Decisive
Argument for the Traditional Interpretation,” ST 32 (1978): 33–43, here 40; Dodd,
245
this observation opens up the possibility that, in both citations, Paul reads Hab 2:4 as an
indirect witness to righteousness by faith that comes via its direct witness to life by
faith.103 If Paul’s doctrine of justification is that “not merely salvation (the result) is the
gift of God but even the condition for it is already the gift of God Himself,”104 then we
should respect the fact that in neither Hebrew nor Greek does Habakkuk quite say that.105
For Paul’s argument, he needs Habakkuk to bear witness to how the “righteous” will live,
not (yet) how they became righteous in the first place.
Second, we have suggested that the promise of “life” in Paul’s argument refers to
the resurrection of Jesus. While different interpretations can be defended, it is not
implausible that “life” in Hab 2:4 also refers to eschatological life that results from God’s
saving action. The prepositional phrase that modifies “will live” makes it unlikely to refer
Romans, 15; Smith, “ὁ δίκαιος,” 19. Anthony Hanson similarly argues that the
contrasting passage (Lev 18:5) is quoted “precisely in order to show that it is a question
of two ways of life: either one lives by faith, or by the Law” (Paul’s Technique, 47).
This case could be strengthened by the fact that there is a passage that explicitly
links doing the law to “righteousness,” Deut 6:25 (‫ה־לּנוּ ִכּי־נִ ְשׁמֹר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬
ָ ֶ‫וּצ ָד ָקה ִתּ ְהי‬
ְ
‫ל־ה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת‬ ָ ‫“— ֶא‬it will be righteousness to us when we are careful to do all this
ַ ‫ת־כּ‬
commandment”). However, this is one of the instances where the LXX translates
“righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ with ἐλεηµοσύνη, limiting the possible relevance of this verse for
a Greek-speaking audience.
103
It therefore sets the stage for “Paul’s consistent pairing of ‘righteousness’
language and faith throughout Romans” (Moo, Romans, 82, who rightly presents this as
the strongest evidence for “taking ‘by faith’ with ‘righteous’”). But it need not itself be
the first instance of such a pairing.
104
Bultmann, Theology, 1:271.
105
Note Seifrid’s warning against either reading the Hebrew into Paul or Paul into
the Hebrew (“Paul’s Use of Habakkuk,” 135).
246
106
to a mode or manner of living. The Greek preposition ἐκ, found in both the LXX and
Paul, usually indicates origin, source, or basis rather than manner.107 While the
corresponding Hebrew preposition ‫ ְבּ‬has a wider semantic range that can include
manner,108 other prepositional phrases with ‫ ְבּ‬that modify ‫ חיה‬almost invariably refer to
the means or source of life.109 Abraham’s soul “will live by” Sarah colluding with his
deceit (Gen 12:13), and an impoverished widow and her sons “will live by” what remains
of the oil God miraculously provided through Elisha (2 Kgs 4:7). In these instances, the
preposition ‫ ְבּ‬clearly refers to the source of life, indicating that “live” refers to physical
survival rather than manner of life. Thus a reference to manner of life that the LXX
discourages is unlikely in the Hebrew as well.
Moreover, the same phrase “to live by” (‫ )חיה ְבּ‬refers to the life promised to those
who obey God’s commands: one “lives by” obeying God’s laws (Lev 18:5; see also Ezek
20:13, 21; Neh 9:29), but one cannot “live by” one’s former righteous acts if they have
since been discontinued (Ezek 33:12). Here “to live” refers more specifically to the
106
See in particular Hunn, “How Far Off?,” 228–32.
107
See BDAG s.v. 3, 296–97. It is also used in the LXX to render the Heb. ‫מן‬, ִ at
times rather idiomatically (e.g., Isa 1:24; see LEH, 177), but I can find no instance in
which it expresses manner (see Muraoka, Lexicon, 201–3).
108
So, e.g., Ps 73:8 (MT): ‫“( וִ ַיד ְבּרוּ ְב ָרע‬and they speak in wickedness”; LXX καὶ
ἐλάλησαν ἐν πονηρίᾳ). See HALOT s.v. 15, 1:105.
109
Hunn claims to find no instances “where it means ‘to behave’ or ‘to conduct
life in a given manner’” (“How Far Off?,” 229). She is right that this is not listed as a
possible meaning of ‫ חיה‬in the qal in either HALOT or DCH. But we do not need to go so
far as to say that such a sense is entirely unattested: Hunn brings up the reference to Esau
living “by your sword” (A‫ל־ח ְר ְבּ‬ ַ ἐπὶ τῇ µαχαίρῃ σου) in Gen 27:40, and this at least
ַ ‫ﬠ‬,
could be taken to describe Esau’s manner of life. The consistent meaning of the
collocation of ‫ חיה‬with ‫ ְבּ‬is more significant.
247
110
possession of covenant life granted to God’s people. This more specific covenant life is
therefore a likely referent for the life promised in Hab 2:4 also.
But is this covenant life eschatological—that is to say, life that results from God’s
decisive future salvation of his people? Could it simply be ongoing life in covenant with
God, “given to the faithful in the immediate present”?111 This is likely how it would be
understood in Lev 18:5 and related texts, so in this case ἐκ πίστεως could refer to the
continuous source of this ongoing life. However, relevance to the situation of Habakkuk
suggests a more eschatologically enriched concept of covenant life. Covenant life in the
present is precisely what the righteous are not experiencing. The righteous are being
oppressed by the wicked (1:4, 13), and the arrogant are destroying the nations without
pity (1:17). The present hope expressed in chapter 3 is hope for God’s decisive saving
action that would rescue the righteous and restore them to life. Moreover, this saving
action is explicitly deferred into the distant future in 2:3. Covenant life is elsewhere
enriched as future life on the other side of judgment in Deut 30:6, and even perhaps as
resurrection life in Deut 32:39 (“I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I
will heal”). The context of Hab 2:4 does not quite demand that “will live” be enriched all
the way to will be resurrected to life—will be restored to life would probably be relevant
enough. But, in either case, we may conclude that understanding “will live” as a
110
So Hunn, “How Far Off?,” 229: “If ‘live by them’ means ‘walk in them,’ the
text introduces a pointless redundancy.”
111
Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi, Int (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 47,
who argues that the NT extends the meaning of “life” beyond Habakkuk’s sense into an
eschatological sense.
248
reference to this restored, eschatological life that comes from God’s saving action fits
well with the context of Hab 2:4.112
Third, it is commonly thought that whereas Habakkuk uses ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬to mean
“faithfulness,” Paul uses πίστις to mean “faith.”113 The reason for this is straightforward:
in order for the Habakkuk citation to support Paul’s argument, πίστις has to have the
sense of “faith,”114 yet other instances of ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬in the Hebrew Bible most likely have the
sense of “faithfulness,” even when applied to human beings.115 Hebrew lexicons are
ֱ 116 And
therefore correct not to give “faith” or “trust” as a possible gloss of ‫אמוּנָ ה‬.
translators and interpreters have good reason, therefore, to understand ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬in Hab 2:4
as “faithfulness.”117
Nevertheless, the particular form that “faithfulness” has to take in this context
comes close to “faith.” This is an instance of “conceptual narrowing” that is “free from
112
So David S. Dockery, “The Use of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17: Some
Hermeneutical and Theological Considerations,” WesleyanTJ 22.2 (1987): 24–36, here
30: “For Paul, as for other Jews, ‘life’ and salvation were practically synonymous.”
113
So, e.g., Dodd, Romans, 14–15; Cranfield, Romans, 1:100; Seifrid, “Romans,”
608–9. Käsemann sees this shift as predating Paul, who “took it over from the Jewish-
Christian mission” (Romans, 31); Watson sees this shift as occurring already in the
Habakkuk Pesher of the Qumran community (Hermeneutics of Faith, 111).
114
See above, p. 228.
115
1 Sam 26:23; 2 Kgs 12:15; 22:7; Isa 59:4; Jer 5:1, 3; 7:28; 9:3; Ps 119:30
(MT); Prov 12:17, 22; 28:20; 2 Chr 19:9; 31:15, 18; 34:12.
116
See HALOT 1:163; DCH 1:314–16.
117
Alfred Jepsen, e.g., interprets ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬in Hab 2:4 in light of its use in 1 Sam
26:23 as “sincerity, faithfulness, reliability, and stability” (“ʾāman ‫א ַמן‬,”
ָ TDOT 1:318).
See also R. W. L. Moberly, “‫אמן‬,” NIDOTTE 1:430. NIV and NLT give “faithfulness” in
the text but suggest “faith” as an alternative; NRSV and ESV give “faith” in the text but
suggest “faithfulness” as an alternative.
249
linguistic dictate and is entirely motivated by pragmatic considerations, that is,
considerations of relevance.”118 The argument for pragmatically enriching “faithfulness”
to “faith” in this context is simply that “faith” or “trust” is what it means to be “faithful”
to a salvation oracle.119 This encyclopedic understanding emerges from other key texts
that use the verb ‫ אמן‬in the hiphil stem, meaning “to trust” or “to believe,” to express the
response to a salvation oracle.120 Exodus speaks of the Israelites “believing” when Moses
tells them of God’s plan to redeem them (4:31) and “trusting” God after he brings them
through the sea (14:31; see also Ps 106:11), and Isaiah speaks of the need to “believe” the
salvation oracle (7:9) and to “trust” the cornerstone God will lay in Zion (28:16).121 The
Ninevites’ response to Jonah’s message of condemnation is to “believe” in Jonah’s God
(Jonah 3:5),122 and Israel’s response to a salvation oracle in the time of Jehoshaphat is to
“trust” in God and in his prophets (2 Chr 20:20).123 The reference to Abraham “believing”
God in Gen 15:6, which will become central to Paul’s argument in Romans 4, likely also
118
Carston, Thoughts and Utterances, 328.
119
So E. Ray Clendenen, “Salvation by Faith or by Faithfulness in the Book of
Habakkuk?,” BBR 24 (2014): 505–13, here 511; Hunn, “How Far Off?,” 227; Eichrodt,
Theology, 2:285.
120
See H. Wildberger, “ʾmn ‫אמן‬,” TLOT 1:144, for the suggestion that ‫ אמן‬in the
hiphil has its Sitz im Leben in the salvation oracle.
121
Jepsen, “ʾāman ‫א ַמן‬,”i303,
ָ 305. J. van Ruiten cautions against overstating the
relationship between Habakkuk and Isaiah (“‘His Master’s Voice’? The Supposed
Influence of the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Habakkuk,” in Studies in the Book of
Isaiah: FS Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, BETL 132
[Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997], 397–411), but some parallels (such as Isa 11:9
and Hab 2:14) are obvious and indicate some sort of relationship between the two books.
122
Jepsen, “ʾāman ‫א ַמן‬,”i308.
ָ
123
Moberly, “‫אמן‬,”i433.
250
124
stands in this stream. Of course, in each of these instances this trust and belief led to
specific actions: the Ninevites mourned and repented, the Israelites marched out
confidently—not to mention the extraordinary response of Abraham. But the verb ‫ אמן‬in
the hiphil refers specifically to the initial response of trust and belief. In short, what it
means to be “faithful” to God’s word is first and foremost to believe it and trust the one
who gave it, and this trusting response to God’s word is what we may call “faith.”
There is also a simple explanation for why Habakkuk used a word usually
understood as “faithfulness” if he meant something like “faith”: it was the only word
available to him.125 Thus Wildberger suggests that the use of ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬in Hab 2:4 “offers
indirect testimony” to the use of ‫ אמן‬in the hiphil stem,126 Moberly suggests that it
nominalizes the use of the hiphil verb “believe” in Isa 28:16,127 and Clendenen suggests
that ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬is the best word available to allude to Abraham’s “belief” Gen 15:6.128 All
these salvation oracles anticipate a response of “faith,” and the closest Hebrew noun for
that is ‫אמוּנָ ה‬.

ֱ While the word ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬refers lexically to the general concept of faithfulness,
124
Wildberger, “ʾmn ‫אמן‬,”i144.
125
So Barr, Semantics, 173; Dodd, Bible and the Greeks, 68; Robertson, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 179–80; Clendenen, “Salvation,” 510–11. A search for
English glosses in both DCH and HALOT confirms that no Hebrew noun is glossed with
the words “faith” or “belief.”
There is one instance of a nominalized form of the common verb ‫בטח‬, “to trust”:
‫ ִבּ ְט ָחה‬occurs only in Isa 30:15. But while ‫ בטח‬has a more general sense of “trust,” the
trusting response to speech (i.e., “believing”) is consistently expressed with ‫ אמן‬in the
hiphil.
126
Wildberger, “ʾmn ‫אמן‬,”i144.
127
Moberly, “‫אמן‬,”i432.
128
Clendenen, “Salvation,” 511.
251
the ad hoc concept it likely refers to in Hab 2:4 is the narrower concept of faith, since
faith is what it means to respond faithfully to God’s promise of salvation.129
At the same time, unlike the Greek πίστις which has “faith” or “trust” as an
established lexical concept, the Hebrew ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬only refers to “faith” or “trust” as an ad
hoc enriched concept; it is modified from another lexical concept rather than existing as a
concept previously associated with a lexeme. This means that the “faith” of Hab 2:4
remains much more closely connected to the more general concept of faithfulness.130 And
faithfulness, for those who live under God’s covenant with Israel, would involve obeying
Torah.131 Thus the early Jewish interpretations of ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬in Hab 2:4 as closely related to
the “faithfulness” that includes, commends, or even consists of Torah-observance are not
without a solid, “canonical” basis.132 Here we face a critical divergence of
129
With Hunn, “How Far Off?,” 227; Bruce, “Habakkuk,” 861.
130
So, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 81; Whitehead, “Habakkuk,” 274; Watson,
Hermeneutics of Faith, 148 (“if ‘faith’ has been substituted for ‘faithfulness’ in the
citation of Habakkuk 2.4, the semantic loss is minimal”).
131
This becomes particularly clear in Ps 119:30, where the “the way of
faithfulness” (‫־אמוּנָ ה‬-
ֱ ‫ ֶ)דּ ֶר‬is the way of whole-hearted Torah observance. As we saw
above, the actions that flow from believing God’s word are often more specific (or, in the
case of the Ninevites, more general) than just obeying Torah. But here we are referring
not to actions that flow from “faith” but to the broader understanding of “faithfulness” of
which “faith” forms a more specific instantiation.
132
So 1QHab 8:1–3 (on which, see William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of
Habakkuk, SBLMS 24 [Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1979], 125–30; Fitzmyer,
“Habakkuk 2:3–4,” 238–39); m. Mak. 24a, b (on which, see Shimon Bakon, “Habakkuk:
From Perplexity to Faith,” JBQ 39 [2011]: 25–30, here 28; Devora Steinmetz,
“Justification by Deed: The Conclusion of Sanhedrin-Makkot and Paul’s Rejection of
Law,” HUCA 76 [2005]: 133–87, here 135–40). It is not only early Jewish interpreters
who take Hab 2:4 this way. Martyn suggests that “for Habakkuk, faith is life lived in
accordance with the life-giving commandments of God” (Galatians, 312; see the critique
in Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 148 n. 60).
252
133
interpretation. For Paul, works of the law are excluded from ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬while, for the
Qumran community and for the Rabbis, they are central to it.
Therefore, if “the point he seeks to establish” on the basis of Hab 2:4 is that “the
prophetic ‘by faith’ entails the corollary, ‘not by works of law,’”134 Paul is on quite shaky
ground.135 The text he is relying on could go either way. In Galatians, Paul solves this
problem by insisting at the outset on an antithetical hermeneutic: “The law is not ‘of
faith’” (Gal 3:12).136 But Paul does not make this move yet in Rom 1:17. He will
eventually introduce such an antithesis in Romans, citing Lev 18:5 as the antithesis to
“righteousness from faith” in Rom 10:5–9. But here Paul does not cite Hab 2:4 directly as
one side of that antithesis. Indeed, there is no antithesis in Rom 1:17 at all. The reason for
this change in argumentative strategy is undoubtedly related to the distinct rhetorical
function of Rom 1:17. We suggested above that he is likely doing what Quintillian
recommends and holding back what will give most offense,137 and we suggest here that he
133
So Bakon, “Perplexity to Faith,” 28: “It is the interpretation of the term
emunah that caused the division of Judaism and Christianity.”
134
135
The problem is expressed best by Westcott, St Paul and Justification, 52:
“‘Law’ and ‘Faith’ are far apart; but ‘Law’ and ‘Loyalty’ are not so disconnected. For
loyalty [=‘faithfulness’] is revealed in prompt and ready obedience.” In other words, the
connection between “faith” and “faithfulness” in Habakkuk has the potential to
undermine Paul’s antithesis between “faith” and “works.” Westcott’s solution is to
quarantine the Habakkuk citation, claiming that it “is not of vital movement” for Paul’s
actual argument.
136
So Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 149: “The antithesis between ‘faith’ and
‘works of law’ entails an entire scriptural hermeneutic. . . . If Habakkuk 2.4 represents
one side of this fault line, Leviticus 18.5 represents the other.”
137
See above, p. 84.
253
is doing the same with Hab 2:4. He will eventually show that this “faith” that Habakkuk
says is the grounds for life is “apart from works of the law” (χωρὶς ἔργων νόµου, Rom
3:27)—but not yet.
In short, Paul does not directly appeal to Habakkuk for his teaching about
justification by faith, and neither does Paul directly appeal to Habakkuk for the antithesis
between faith and works of the law. Paul will argue for each of these later. For now, he
appeals to Habakkuk for one thing and one thing only: the grounds for the life that is
bestowed in God’s eschatological, saving action is faith. And it is not at all implausible
that something like this is what the prophet himself meant to say.
Paul’s Christological Application

of Habakkuk 2:4
In the first section, we suggested that Habakkuk responds to a situation of
oppression, distress, and death with a promise of God’s saving action that will restore life
to the righteous. In the previous section, we argued that Paul does not dramatically
reinterpret Hab 2:4 when he cites it in Rom 1:17. We will now suggest that Paul applies
this text primarily to Christ—but by extension to everyone who believes.
We begin by distinguishing such a christological application of Hab 2:4, which
suggests that the text teaches something about the grounds for resurrection life that is
applied to Christ but not limited to him, from a messianic interpretation of Hab 2:4,
which suggests that the text is to be read as a prophecy that comes to complete fulfillment
in Christ. Many scholars have argued for the latter: Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4
254
138
“presupposes an apocalyptic/messianic interpretation of that text,” meaning that “Paul
understood Hab. 2.4 as an apocalyptic testimonium to the coming of an eschatological
deliverer”139 or as “a messianic proof-text.”140 This view gains some support from the way
the LXX renders Hab 2:3: the masculine Hebrew word for “vision,” ‫חזוֹן‬,
ָ is rendered with
the feminine word ὅρασις, yet the pronouns in the rest of that verse, which speaks of
waiting for “it” because “it” will not delay, remain masculine. Thus the LXX could be
taken as saying that “he” will come and not delay, meaning perhaps the Messiah, the
“expected deliverer of the righteous.”141
However, even if we grant that this is what the LXX is saying, it is notable that
the “coming one” is distinguished from the “righteous,” meaning that the part of the text
Paul chooses to cite is precisely the part that does not refer to the Messiah.142 Moreover,
this is not necessarily an interpretive move on the part of the LXX—it could simply be a
matter of “inept translation” that assimilated the gender of the pronouns to the Hebrew
without regard for the gender of the Greek antecedents.143 While the reasoning behind this
138
Hays, “Eschatological Deliverer,” 192. See also idem, Faith of Jesus Christ,
134–35; Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 281–84; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 46–48; Young,
“Romans 1.1–5,” 280.
139
Hays, “Eschatological Deliverer,” 211.
140
Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 281.
141
T. W. Manson, “The Argument from Prophecy,” JTS 46 (1945): 129–36, here
134 (he thinks, however, that Paul used this text “as a prophecy about Christians rather
than Christ”); see also Hanson, Paul’s Technique, 42–43; Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ,
135.
142
So Taylor, “From Faith to Faith,” 339.
143
Suggested by Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 135; see also Watts’s suggestion that
the LXX just “resorted to slavish literalism” (“Not Ashamed,” 10).
255
translation decision must remain unknown, we suggest that readers would have been
unlikely to assume an otherwise unmentioned Messiah or deliverer as the masculine
antecedent when the text provides another masculine noun in verse 3 that would work
fine as the antecedent: the “appointed time” (‫)מּוֹﬠד‬

ֵ is translated with the masculine noun
καιρός, and it could easily be this “appointed time” that is to be awaited and that will
come without delay.144 Another argument for a messianic interpretation is that “the
righteous one” was an early epithet for the Messiah in Jewish and Christian texts outside
Paul.145 But this makes the absence of any such language for Jesus in Paul’s writings all
the more striking: for whatever reason, Paul notably avoids describing Jesus as “the
righteous one.”146
Paul clearly can interpret OT texts as messianic prophecies, such as his insistence
that the singular “seed” in Gen 12:7 “is Christ” (Gal 3:16). Because it explicitly excludes
alternative points of reference for the “seed” (it is “not many” but “one, who is Christ”),
this is a clear instance of a messianic interpretation. Of course, as that example shows,
Paul tends to tell his readers when he is doing that. But does he always? Hays brings up
an important counter-example when he suggests that “Paul might presuppose the
christological exegesis of Hab. 2.4 without commenting on it, just as he presupposes
144
So NETS. It is therefore quite an overstatement to say that “the LXX rendering
of Hab 2:3–4 would have appeared to Paul as unmistakably messianic” (Hays, Faith of
Jesus Christ, 135); and it is not at all necessary for a masculine participle to “imply
personal subject and be understood in terms of a messiah’s coming” (Heliso, Pistis, 45).
145
Hays, “Eschatological Deliverer,” 193–206; Hanson, Paul’s Technique, 43–45.
146
Watts, “Not Ashamed,” 16–17; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 46 n. 59; and
Moo, Romans, 81. See also the (admirably inconclusive) discussion in Heliso, Pistis,
122–64. The closest Paul comes is the reference to Jesus’s “righteous deed” (δικαίωµα) in
Rom 5:18, but the emphasis is clearly on the righteous act, not the righteous person.
256
147
without comment the christological exegesis of Psalm 69 in Rom. 15.3.” This
presupposed christological hermeneutic is the strongest argument (apart from the overall
fit with Paul’s argument) for taking Hab 2:4 as a reference to Christ. But it is worth
noting that Paul applies Psalm 69 to Christ precisely in order to apply it to believers. The
scripturally constituted Christ is brought up in 15:3 in order to ground the exhortations of
15:1–2 to believers, and immediately afterward Paul claims that all of Scripture,
“whatever was written beforehand” (ὅσα προεγράφη), is “for our instruction” (εἰς τὴν
ἡµετέραν διδασκαλίαν). Scripture speaks to us by speaking through Christ. Christ is the
focal point, not the limit, of the application of the text.
Our view would suggest that Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 works much
more like his citation of Ps 69:10 in Rom 15:3 than his citation of Gen 12:7 in Gal 3:16.
That is to say, it is a christological application rather than a messianic interpretation.148 As
such, it does not exclude further application but invites it.149 Any righteous one who lives
will live by faith.150 Paul cites Hab 2:4 to say something about Christ and at the same
time to say something about us; to say something about his faith and at the same time to
147
Hays, “Eschatological Deliverer,” 209. See additional discussion above, p. 230.
148
Note Helsio’s admission of “a lack of decisive evidence in favour of the
messianic reading of ὁ δίκαιος in the Habakkuk citation in Rom 1:17” (Pistis, 242).
149
So Hanson, Paul’s Technique, 43: “Paul interprets it of Christians but only, I
maintain, because it was first true of Christ.”
150
This reads the singular substantival adjective “righteous” (‫;צ ִדּיק‬
ַ ὁ δίκαιος) with
the common OT sense of those who do right and/or are in right covenant relationship
with God, usually in contrast to “the wicked” (‫ ָ;ר ָשׁע‬ὁ ἀσεβής)—so, e.g., Gen 18:23, 25;
Deut 25:1; 1 Kgs 8:32/2 Chr 6:23; Pss 11:5; 34:22; 55:23; 58:12; 75:11; Hab 1:4.
257
say something about ours; to say something about his resurrection life and at the same
time to say something about ours.
This possibility is deliberately closed off by most who take it as a messianic
interpretation,151 and for good reason. If the πίστις in view is Christ’s extraordinary
faithfulness, expressed in his willingness to go to the cross,152 then this text can be about
nothing other than that unique and unrepeatable event. But then considerable problems
arise relating this to Paul’s broader argument: Moo is right to challenge this view on the
basis of the observation that elsewhere “Paul consistently uses the combination of
‘righteous’ words and faith with reference to humans.”153 However, if it is Christ’s faith—
and an unoriginal and unremarkable faith at that—that is in view, then this text can speak
about our faith as the basis for our resurrection life precisely because it speaks about
Jesus’s faith as the basis for his. Thus Paul applies Hab 2:4 to Jesus but thereby applies it
also to those who believe the gospel announcement of his resurrection and trust the God
who accomplished it, promising that they also will live by their faith in that same God.
Habakkuk cannot be called as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus. He numbers
not among the apostles but among the prophets, those who “anticipate something of the
logic of the future divine action” but “know little or nothing of its concrete form.”154 Still,
151
See, e.g., Leander E. Keck, Romans, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 54:
“Paul did not read the quotation anthropologically (referring to believers) but
christologically—as a statement about Christ, the Righteous one” (emphasis added).
152
E.g., Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 280–81; Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 140;
Kirk, Unlocking Romans.
153
Moo, Romans, 81.
154
258
his witness to this logic of the Christ-event is crucial for Paul’s argument. The apostles
can tell what happened: Christ was raised to new life. But Paul invites Habakkuk to tell
us how this eschatological salvation occurred: by faith. And this life from faith confirms
the promise of salvation and life to all who believe.
God’s Righteousness and Faith:

Conclusion
Language of “faith” is not prominent, if it is to be found at all, in the OT texts that
enrich the concept of God’s righteousness. At the same time, language of “faith” is very
prominent in the Pauline texts that discuss “righteousness.” This observation is an
obvious challenge to the view that Paul’s use of “righteousness” language refers to the
OT concept of God’s righteousness that we identified in the previous chapter. As a
response to this challenge, this chapter has argued that in Rom 1:17 faith is both the
grounds for the salvation that reveals God’s righteousness and the intended goal of this
revelation. This is the force of the otherwise enigmatic phrase “from faith to faith.” And
we know that faith is the grounds of this salvation because of what Hab 2:4 says—that
the righteous will live “by faith.” Each of these are centered, for Paul, on Christ, whose
resurrection is the “salvation” that reveals God’s righteousness, and therefore whose faith
is the grounds for that life and salvation.
How unexpected would this have been? We argued in the previous chapter that
Israel was to be paradigmatic for the nations. This could easily lead to the conclusion that
once God acts to save his people, the nations were to adopt—at least to some extent—the
defining feature of his people; namely, Torah observance. Since it was Israel’s obedience
259
to Torah that was to be the grounds of Israel’s righteousness and therefore of Israel’s life,
the revelation of God’s righteousness in their vindication and salvation would summon
the nations to obedience to Torah as well. This Torah-observance obviously has at its
heart trusting in God and believing his word—that is, “faith.” Moreover, this faith is
expressed, and even constituted, in the texts that cry out for God to save “in your
righteousness.” For Paul to point to “faith” as the grounds for the revelation of God’s
righteousness, then, would not have been unexpected or controversial. The faith of Israel,
and therefore of Israel’s Messiah, could be simply assumed as the grounds for God’s
salvation.
What is unusual is the exclusive reference to faith. Paul does not introduce the
antithesis between faith and Torah-works in Rom 1:17, but the silence about Torah in this
verse itself will come to speak volumes. After all, Habakkuk is not the only one who
promises life. Moses, as Paul knows very well, also promises that “the one who does
these things will live by them” (Lev 18:5), and that being careful to obey the law will be
Israel’s “righteousness” and “life” (Deut 6:24–25). Habakkuk may offer testimony that
strongly supports Paul’s claim about the grounds for the revelation of God’s
righteousness, but other witnesses with other testimony are waiting in the wings.
All of this suggests that Paul still has some explaining to do. His claim that the
gospel is God’s power of salvation for everyone who believes rests on the view that the
grounds for the resurrection of Jesus are those articulated by Habakkuk, not those
articulated by Moses. This is what his subsequent argument will have to show.
But just because this broader claim will need additional support does not mean
that Rom 1:17 does not make an important contribution to that claim in its own right. It
260
ties the content of the gospel to the effect of the gospel, and it finds this connection in the
way the new proclamation of the gospel fulfills the prior testimony of Scripture. This
connection is not the sum total of Paul’s argument in Romans but is rather the critical first
step.155 As we see in the next chapter how Paul brings this to bear on us in Rom 1:18–
3:26, we must keep in mind the possibility “that Paul, in speaking of the man of whom
[Hab 2:4] was said, originally and primarily did not think of the hearer and receiver of the
Gospel, but of the One who is its content, i.e. the man Jesus Christ, . . . whose life, i.e.
whose resurrection from the dead (1.4), is that revelation, already prophesied in the OT,
which Paul is now going to explain.”156
155
Thus, instead of the view that 1:16–17 “contains the theme or thesis of
Romans,” which Jewett notes “is almost universally accepted among commentators”
(Romans, 135), we suggest that 1:16–17 makes the vital first move in that argument, the
move on which everything else will be based.
156
Barth, Shorter, 23.
CHAPTER 6
GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTIFICATION
IN ROMANS 1:18–3:26
In part I of our study, we argued that Paul’s language of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom
1:17 referred to the concept of God’s righteousness that was enriched encyclopedically in
the OT. We found that in the OT God’s righteousness is revealed when God saves his
people who trust in him, and this revelation functions as God’s own summons to the
nations to turn, trust, and be saved themselves. The claim that God’s righteousness is
revealed in the gospel, then, explains why the gospel is the power of God for salvation
(the effect of the gospel): the gospel is God’s own speech that summons all to turn to him.
But it also strongly implies that the event that the gospel proclaims (the content of the
gospel) fulfills the function of the first stage of the promised salvation of Israel, the
salvation that would reveal God’s righteousness to the nations. The most obvious event
that would function as the “salvation of Israel” would be the resurrection of Jesus, Israel’s
Messiah. In the last chapter, then, we saw how this implicit reference to Jesus can make
sense of the rest of Rom 1:17. Specifically, the first “faith” in the “from faith for faith”
formulation and the “faith” in the Habakkuk citation refer most directly to Jesus’s own
faith as the grounds for his resurrection life, the resurrection life by which God reveals
God’s own righteousness and summons all to turn in faith to him.
261
262
We concluded from this that Rom 1:17 does not summarize or introduce Paul’s
teaching about justification by faith. Rather, it makes the first critical move in that
argument by grounding the Christ-event in the OT expectations surrounding the
revelation of God’s righteousness. Our task in this chapter will be to survey Paul’s
argument in Romans 1:18–3:26 in order to sketch how his understanding of justification
by faith emerges from this explosive event.1 Specifically, we will argue that, while Rom
1:17 situates the resurrection of Jesus as the revelation of God’s righteousness, Rom
1:18–3:26 situates the death of Jesus as no less of a demonstration of God’s
righteousness, and it is from this scripturally-rooted understanding of both the death and
the resurrection of Jesus that Paul’s understanding of justification by faith emerges in full
force.
To make this argument, we will focus as much as possible on the main points of
Paul’s discourse rather than on the details that contribute to those points. As a result, this
chapter will not argue on exegetical grounds for the particular ways these details should
be construed. Instead, it will offer a more general reading of Paul’s argument for
justification by faith in this text that emerges from our interpretation of Rom 1:17.
1
The decision to limit this inquiry to Rom 1:18–3:26 should not be taken as a
claim about the overall structure of Romans. Rather, it aims to trace the thread of Paul’s
argument that ties God’s act of justification (Rom 3:24) to God’s own righteousness
(3:25), a connection that is made explicit in 3:26. After that, while “justification” and
“righteousness” continue to be mentioned, God’s righteousness is not mentioned again
until 9:30–10:4, a section that draws on the argument made in Romans 1–3 to shed light
on the new question of “Israel according to the flesh”—a question that is, of course,
critical to understanding Romans as a whole but that lies outside the specific purview of
this study.
263
Four points from this interpretation in particular will influence this reading. First,
the OT concept of God’s saving righteousness can, and at times must, be distinguished
from the OT concept of God’s judging righteousness. Second, to say that God’s
righteousness is revealed in the gospel implies that it is primarily the gospel proclamation
of the resurrection of Jesus that is the source of that revelation. Third, this claim implies
that the role of Israel in this eschatological expectation has been fulfilled, at least in part,
by Jesus, so any discussion of the role of Israel in salvation history is also indirectly a
discussion of the role of Jesus in salvation history. Finally, this role for God’s people in
the revelation of God’s righteousness was expected to be paradigmatic for everyone else.
This prompts us to look to the events of the gospel—the death and resurrection of
Jesus—to understand our own justification by faith. It is with these points in mind that we
will first survey Rom 1:18–3:20 and then look more closely at Rom 3:21–26.
Judgment without Distinction:

Romans 1:18–3:20
In this first section we will sketch the main points of Paul’s argument in Rom
1:18–3:20. We will look, first, at how Paul correlates the revelation of God’s
righteousness with the revelation of God’s wrath and judgment in 1:18–32. Second, we
will explore Paul’s claim in chapter 2 that this wrath and judgment fall on all without
distinction, since “you who judge do the same thing.” Third, we will examine the
paradoxically revised understanding of the purpose of Israel’s election and the function of
the law in 3:1–20. Together, these three points prepare the reader for the understanding of
Jesus’s death that we will explore in the next section.

264
First, in 1:18–32, Paul correlates the revelation of God’s righteousness with the
revelation of God’s wrath and judgment. Right after declaring that God’s righteousness is
being revealed “from faith for faith” in the gospel, Paul adds in 1:18 that God’s wrath is
being revealed “against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of human beings.” This
announces the theme of all of 1:18–3:20, where “sin, wrath, and judgment occupy center
stage.”2
This is not surprising in light of God’s righteousness in the OT, for there the
events that reveal God’s righteousness result in both destruction and salvation, both death
and life, both condemnation and vindication. In the Psalms, the salvation of the psalmist
coincides with the destruction of his enemies. In Isaiah 45, Israel’s vindication coincides
with the shame of idolators. That the righteousness-revealing salvation of God’s people
would entail judgment on God’s enemies is entirely to be expected.
If God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel, one would expect that God’s
wrath would be revealed there also.3 At the same time, this wrath is not revealed entirely
in the gospel, for Paul does go on to describe precisely the “observable situation” of a
sinful world.4 Moreover, Paul is not the first to make these observations; he draws on
standard Jewish indictments of the sinful Gentile world such as those found in Wisdom of
Solomon, particularly chapters 11–14.5 Whether Paul is “consciously basing his argument
2
Moo, Romans, 102.
3
With Barth, Shorter, 25; contra, e.g., Stuhlmacher, Romans, 35–36.
4
Barrett, Romans, 34; see also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 55; Hultgren, Romans, 88;
Moo, Romans, 112, focusing on vv. 24–28.
5
On these comparisons, see Byrne, Romans, 64–65; Frank Thielman, Paul and
the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 169; Moo,
265
6
on the template provided by Wisdom” or simply arguing “out of a defined tradition in
Hellenistic Judaism,”7 his argument would have been familiar to his readers, depicting
“the Gentile world we all know.”8 While Paul will ultimately say something quite new, he
incorporates some very familiar points into this new proclamation.9
This emphasis on God’s wrath means that righteousness language in this section
has two major referents: the unrighteousness of human beings and the righteous judgment
of God. This section opens with the word “unrighteousness” (ἀδικία)—paired with
“ungodliness” (ἀσέβεια)—to describe the object of God’s wrath (1:18).10 In 1:29, the
word “unrighteousness” (along with “wickedness,” “greed,” and “evil”) refers to the
whole panoply of sins listed in 1:29–31.11 This emphasis on human sin calls forth an
emphasis on God’s righteousness as judge. In 1:32, the word δικαίωµα refers to God’s
Romans, 124; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 372–78; Sean F. Winter, “Paul’s Attitudes
to the Gentiles,” in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed.
David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, LNTS 499 (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 148;
Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and
Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation, NovTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2013),
93–121.
6
7
Byrne, Romans, 65.
8
Ibid.
9
So Käsemann, Romans, 35: “The tradition is put to use here from a different
perspective.”
10
The two words may have distinct shades of meaning, but here they are likely
used as a hendiadys, “summing up the total sinfulness and rampant unrighteousness of
pagan humanity” (Fitzmyer, Romans, 278; see also the discussion in Moo, Romans, 113
n. 50)
11
Keck, Romans, 59; Byrne, Romans, 71. See also Jewett, Romans, 184–85.
266
12
“righteous decree” that “the ones who do such things are worthy of death.” The
righteous judgment of God is, to some extent at least, unsurprising even to the Gentiles.
In chapter 2, however, Paul makes a very surprising second point: God’s judgment
falls on Jews and Gentiles alike. Right at the beginning, Paul addresses “each one of you
who judges” and immediately charges them as being “without excuse” (ἀναπολόγητος),
recalling the key adjective from 1:20.13 This stands in stark contrast to Wisdom 15, where
the author rejoices in the special status his community has before God: “Even if we sin
we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you
acknowledge us as yours. For to know you is complete righteousness, and to know your
power is the root of immortality” (15:2–3, NRSV). The root sin of idolatry is one from
which God’s people are spared, and this is the fundamental distinction between them and
everyone else. By contrast, Paul insists that those who think the accusations in Romans 1
do not apply to them are gravely mistaken.
The reason for this charge is presented right away in verse 1: “You who judge do
the same things.” Many commentators note that such a charge is unlikely to have been
uncontested.14 For now, though, Paul does not focus his attention on substantiating that
12
Paul also uses δικαίωµα to refer to a “righteous requirement” or “righteous
decree” in Rom 2:26 and 8:4. In 5:18 it more likely refers to a “righteous act” (so
Fitzmyer, Romans, 290).
13
The conjunction διό (“therefore”) that opens chapter 2 likely therefore refers all
the way back to 1:18, which declares that God’s wrath is revealed on all unrighteousness
and ungodliness (so Moo, Romans, 139–40; see also Jewett, Romans, 196).
14
E.g., Byrne, Romans, 81; Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early
Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 209; Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 139. Elliott suggests that the
characterization is hypothetical, meaning that a condition is implied (“if you judge others
and do the same things,” Rhetoric, 125). But Paul bases his argument on this accusation
267
15
particular charge. Presumably, Paul expects “you who judge,” like David when
confronted by Nathan, to recognize and affirm this indictment.16 We may suppose that
Paul, just like Nathan, arrived at this knowledge through some form of special revelation,
but the source of this revelation is not immediately disclosed. Rather, Paul confronts the
notion that the “one who judges” is in some way protected from God’s judgment by a
special relationship to God. In other words, instead of substantiating his critique of
Wisdom’s claim that “we will not sin,” Paul first proceeds to confront Wisdom’s claim
about what happens “even if we sin”17 with the biblical teaching about the righteous
judgment of God.18
being upheld.
15
Paul Minear points out that the only way for this charge to be substantiated is
for Paul to have redefined the “root sin of the Gentiles” as the failure to honor and thank
God in 1:21 (The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans,
SBT [London: SCM Press, 1971; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003], 48–49). But
the closest—and therefore most obvious—referent for “these things” is the list of sins at
the end of chapter 1. Likewise, Cranfield suggests that the sins need not be identical and
appeals to Jesus’s teaching about inward obedience to the commandments (Romans,
1:142). But, again, this is never made explicit by Paul.
16
For this parallel, see Hays, Echoes, 49–50. Of course, this strategy of turning an
accusation against the nations back onto Israel is thoroughly in keeping with Israel’s
prophetic tradition; see, e.g., Amos 1–2.
17
Elliott is right to point out that the two claims in this verse should both be
acknowledged, so Wis 15:2 should not be taken as “a presumption on God’s grace”
(Rhetoric, 178).
18
Rom 2:6 (“God will pay back to each according to their works”) is virtually a
direct quote of Ps 62:13 (LXX 61:13) and Prov 24:12 (so, e.g., Seifrid, “Romans,” 611;
Jewett, Romans, 204; Moo, Romans, 147 n. 245). Likewise, the key statement that “there
is no favoritism [προσωποληµψία] with God” in v. 11 reflects the OT statements that God
“shows no partiality” (οὐ θαυµάζει πρόσωπον) in Deut 10:17 and 2 Chr 19:7 (so, e.g.,
Keck, Romans, 77).
268
Paul’s discussion of this judgment leads to two significant uses of “righteousness”
language. First, in verse 5 Paul claims that this time of wrath is delayed, and what was
intended to mercifully grant time for repentance ends up storing up wrath.19 Paul refers to
that day of wrath as the day of “the revelation of the righteous judgment of God”
(ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ). This language is reminiscent of 1:17, where
God’s righteousness is “revealed” in the gospel. Here, though, it is clearly God’s judging
righteousness that is in view,20 the exercise of which also would reveal God to be
righteous as a judge.
This same event is likely in view in the second significant use of “righteousness”
language in this section. In 2:13 Paul declares, “For the hearers of the law are not
righteous before God [οὐ δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ], but rather the doers of the law will be
justified [δικαιωθήσονται].” Two observations are significant here. First, Paul speaks of
God’s action of “declaring righteous” (δικαιόω) interchangeably with the human status of
being “righteous” (δίκαιος)—neither occur on the basis of having the law, but only on the
basis of doing it. Second, it is likely that this future divine verdict in verse 13 refers to the
same event as the “revelation of the righteous judgment of God” in verse 5.21 As in 1:17,
God is revealed as righteous through a divine speech act. Here, though, this speech act is
a forensic speech act, a legal verdict, highlighting once more God’s righteousness as
19
So Moo, Romans, 144–45.
20
Moo points out that this “continues a central theme of this section of Romans:
the reality of God’s judgment and the fact that this judgment will be absolutely just”
(Romans, 145).
21
The future δικαιωθήσονται is therefore a genuine future, referring to an
eschatological event (so Käsemann, Romans, 62; Jewett, Romans, 212), rather than
“logical or gnomic” (so Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” 15).
269
22
judge. This concept of God’s judicial righteousness matches a concept of God’s
righteousness that we found in the OT.23 We saw in Psalms 7 and 35 that God’s
righteousness is clearly God’s fairness as a judge in treating each as they deserve.24 In
these psalms, then, the rescue of the psalmist is understood as his vindication by the God
who judges righteously.25
It is this righteous judgment that Paul claims will fall on Jews and Gentiles alike.
This will happen in a future event in which God will declare the righteous righteous and
the unrighteous unrighteous on the basis of what they have done. Paul is, once again,
drawing on OT teaching of God’s righteous judgment to make this rather uncontroversial
claim. What is controversial, though, is the accusation that “you who judge do the same
thing.” Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, would insist that God’s people do not do the
22
Thus this first direct mention of “justification” as God’s action in Romans is as
a forensic and eschatological event. These aspects of justification are highlighted by, e.g.,
Bultmann, Theology, 1:271–73; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology,
trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 163.
23
See above, p. 111. It is also found in later Jewish texts, such as 1QM 18:7–8 and
Sib. Or. 3:702–9 (Wilckens, Römer, 1:125; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 84).
24
In light of the possible distinction between the two Hebrew “righteousness”
lexemes (see above, p. 112 n. 45), it is perhaps noteworthy that in both of these psalms
the word used for both human righteousness and God’s righteousness is ‫( ֶצ ֶדק‬see 7:9, 18;
35:24, 27, 28). This may indicate a rough lexical distinction between God’s
“righteousness” as God’s impartiality as a judge (which is indicated by ‫)צ ֶדק‬ ֶ and God’s
“righteousness” as God’s commitment to save his people (which is indicated by ‫)צ ָד ָקה‬. ְ
Of course, this lexical distinction (to the extent that it holds, see below, p. 272 n. 29) is
lost in the translation of the LXX, so it does not play a role in our argument here.
25
Since this role of a judge includes the execution of the judgment, this
vindicating judgment is made manifest in the rescue of the innocent and the punishment
of the guilty. To put it another way, the sentence reveals the verdict. See Campbell,
Deliverance of God, 692, who helpfully points out that “language of the lawcourt” can
“describe what a modern person would view as an executive political action.”
270
same thing, since God’s election of his people has resulted in their avoidance of idolatry
and therefore of the multitude of sins that stem from it. From this perspective, God’s
righteousness as the savior of his people and God’s righteousness as the judge of the
whole world converge: God’s election of his people and his gift of the law to them results
in their being uniquely righteous, so that his judicial action results in salvation and
vindication for them. But if God’s people “do the same thing” as the unrighteous, these
two aspects of God’s righteousness must stand in some tension.
Third, this tension leads to Paul’s revised understanding of the purpose of Israel’s
election and the function of the law. Having relativized the advantages of being a Jew
“outwardly” and of being “physically” circumcised in 2:28–29, Paul in 3:1 asks the
question that this would naturally raise: Is there any point of being a Jew “outwardly” or
of being “physically” circumcised? The distinction between Jew and Gentile that had
been dramatically undercut in chapter 2 is now strongly reaffirmed and centered on Jews
being “entrusted with the oracles of God” (3:2). While Paul’s argument up to this point
has reflected themes and emphases of the OT, it is here that Paul’s argument shifts to
“explicitly scriptural premises.”26 And the first explicit citation of Scripture in this
chapter, the citation of Ps 51:6 in Rom 3:4, makes an important claim about God’s
righteousness.
In chapter 3, we looked at Psalm 51 as one of the protest psalms that refers to
God’s righteousness.27 There we focused on verse 16, where the psalmist promises to
26
Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 219.
27
271
proclaim God’s righteousness once he is delivered from bloodguilt. We suggested that
this fit with the broader pattern in protest psalms of the psalmist promising to proclaim
God’s righteousness once he is saved. But when Paul cites Psalm 51 in Romans 3, he
does not cite the reference to God’s righteousness in the praise-vow but a very different
reference to God’s righteousness that comes in the context of a confession of sin. Rather
than functioning as the basis of an appeal for deliverance or as the content of anticipated
praise, it affirms that God would be just in issuing judgment against the psalmist:
‫ ָחטָאתִ י‬p ְ‫ ְלבַדּ‬pְ‫ל‬ 6 σοὶ µόνῳ ἥµαρτον

‫ ָעשִׂיתִ י‬p‫ְוה ַָרע ְבּעֵינֶי‬ καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα,
p‫ְל ַמעַן תִּ צְדַּ ק בְּדָ ב ְֶר‬ ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου
‫׃‬pֶ‫שׁ ְפט‬
ָ ‫תִּ זְכֶּה ְב‬ καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε.
Because his sin is before God alone, the psalmist confesses that God himself “is
ִ LXX δικαιωθῇς) in his verdict of judgment.28

righteous/justified” (‫תּ ְצ ַדּק‬,
This confession stands in continuity with similar OT confessions that God is
“righteous” when he acts in judgment against sinners, such as Exod 9:27; 2 Chr 12:6; and
28
See Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 503: “In a confession of guilt over against God
himself, the petitioner submits to the righteous judgment of Yahweh. ‫ דבר‬is (as the
parallel passage shows) God’s sentence of judgment.” See also Cranfield, Romans, 1:183;
John Piper, “The Righteousness of God in Romans 3.1–8,” TZ 36 (1980): 3–16, here 7–8;
David R. Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” NTS 29 (1983): 183–97, here 187–88;
Prothro, Judge and Justifier, 166–70; Moo, Romans, 197.
Contra those scholars who see God’s “righteousness” confessed in v. 6 as

equivalent to God’s saving righteousness proclaimed in v. 16—e.g., Jackson Wu, “Why Is
God Justified in Romans? Vindicating Paul’s Use of Psalm 51 in Romans 3:4,” Neot 51
(2017): 291–314; Hays, “Psalm 143,” 108–11; Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 268;
Byrne, Romans, 109; Jewett, Romans, 246–47; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:844;
Évode Beaucamp, “Justice Divine et Pardon: ‘Et justificeris in sermonibus tuis’ (Ps.,
LI,6b),” in A la rencontre de Dieu: Mémorial Albert Gelin, BFCTL 8 (Le Puy: Editions
Xavier Mappus, 1961), 129–44.
272
29
Dan 9:14. Similar language in Second Temple literature also likely reflects this
tradition.30 These confessions occur in a variety of situations and are made by a variety of
people (a pagan king, Israel’s unfaithful leaders, a pious prophet, etc.). But in all of these
instances there has been a negative “verdict,” issued either through the disaster brought
upon the “defendant” or through the prophetic announcement of such a disaster. Just as
we saw that God’s salvation could be understood as a judicial speech act with the
illocutionary force of the vindication of those he saves,31 so here we find that disaster or
destruction from God could be understood as a judicial speech act with the illocutionary
force of the condemnation of those he punishes.32 And, when this happens, God is
confessed to be “righteous” in his judgment.33
29
Cf. Crüsemann, “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit,” 433; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 503;
Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq,” 257; von Rad, Theology, 377 n. 17. Von Rad argues here that this
should not be understood as an aspect of God’s ‫צדקה‬, and he would prefer to understand
“righteous” in these instances as “innocent of charges brought” in order to preserve his
claim that “‫ צדקה‬bestowed on Israel is always a saving gift” (377, italics original); he is
followed in this assertion by, e.g., Koch, “‫ צדק‬ṣdq,” 1056; and recently Declaissé-
Walford, “Righteousness,” 822. We have argued that there is a conceptual distinction
between God’s righteousness that is confessed as an acceptance of his judgment and
God’s righteousness that is proclaimed when God saves. But this conceptual distinction
does not necessarily map onto a lexical distinction (nor does any supposed lexical
distinction carry over into Greek). Isa 5:16, in which God will be “proved holy in
righteousness” (‫נִ ְק ָדּשׁ ִבּ ְצ ָד ָקה‬, LXX δοξασθήσεται ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) when he brings disaster
on his people, is the obvious counter example (von Rad addresses it, inadequately in our
view, in 377 n. 17). See Irons, Righteousness of God, 135–36; Seifrid, Christ, Our
Righteousness, 43.
30
E.g., Pss. Sol. 2:15–16; 4:8; 8:7 (cited in Cranfield, Romans, 1:183 n. 1).
31
See above, p. 174.
32
On these Gerichtsdoxologie passages, see von Rad, Theology, 357–59; Seifrid,
“Paul’s Use of Righteousness,” 44.
33
We thus take both the Hebrew ‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן‬and the Greek ὅπως ἄν as expressing the
purpose of the confession of sin, not the purpose of the sin itself (with Anderson, Psalms,
273
This means, therefore, that Psalm 51 exhibits two distinct enrichments of the
concept of God’s righteousness. In verse 6, God is declared to be righteous when God
condemns sin. Yet in verse 16, as we saw in chapter 3, the psalmist will sing of God’s
righteousness when God delivers the psalmist from bloodguilt. The significance of this
can hardly be overstated. Here, in the span of a single psalm, God is “righteous” when
God judges sin and God is “righteous” when God delivers from the guilt of sin. Neither
of these references to God’s righteousness enriches the concept in a unique or novel way:
verse 6 refers to the concept already enriched in the broader tradition of confessing God’s
righteousness when God judges, while verse 16 refers to the concept already enriched in
the broader tradition of proclaiming God’s righteousness when God saves. This psalm
refers to both of these enriched concepts because both are relevant to the speech-situation
of this psalmist. The psalmist is a sinner confessing his sin to a God who consistently
judges impartially—that is, a God who is righteous. The psalmist is also a supplicant
requesting deliverance from a God who consistently saves his people who trust in him—
that is, a God who is righteous.34
This makes Ps 51:6 particularly significant for Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18–
3:20. Paul has been arguing that God’s “righteous judgment” falls on Jews and Gentiles
alike. Here we find a clear statement that God’s judgment, even on God’s covenant
1:394; Cranfield, Romans, 1:183).

34
Piper argues that “for Paul God’s righteousness is neither a strict distributive
justice nor a merely saving activity. It is more fundamental to God’s nature than either of
these and thus embraces both mercy and justice” (“Romans 3.1–8,” 15). But it is not
necessary to infer a singular concept that embraces distributive justice and saving
activity—we may simply suggest that language of “God’s righteousness” can refer to
either enriched concept.
274
35
people, even on God’s anointed king, is “righteous.” More than that, Psalm 51 sets a
remarkable precedent for juxtaposing the two distinctly enriched concepts of God’s
righteousness, which shows that, even if there is tension between them, both can—and
must—be affirmed together. God is righteous when God saves his people who trust in
him. But that does not negate the fact that God is also righteous when God judges, even
when God judges his covenant people.
Thus Romans 3 begins with an affirmation that God’s chosen people are unique in
their having been entrusted with the words of God. But in the citation of Psalm 51 it also
affirms that these words of God themselves declare that God’s people are not exempt
from God’s righteous judgment. Paul affirms the continuing and abiding election of Israel
precisely in order to deny that Israel’s election exempts them from God’s judgment.
This helps us to see the significance of Paul’s argument in verses 9–20. Paul
opens this section by reaffirming the lack of distinction with regard to ultimate matters of
judgment, reminding his readers that he has already charged Jews and Gentiles as all
being “under sin” (ὑφ᾿ ἁµαρτίαν; verse 9). Now, though, he supports that assertion with a
catena of citations from the prophets and the writings that give witness to the “verdict” of
the law.36 Paul opens with a citation that conflates Pss 14:1–3; 53:2–4; and (possibly)
Eccl 7:20, texts that clearly affirm that “there is no one righteous.” In this way, the
35
Watson rightly argues (against Hays) that the citation of Ps 51:6 means that the
usage of “God’s righteousness” here in Rom 3:4–5 is different from that elsewhere in
Romans (Hermeneutics of Faith, 61 n. 76).
36
See Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 51.
275
description of the “wicked” in the other citations are recontextualized to speak of all
human beings without exception.37
What is most significant, though, is how Paul concludes this section in 3:19:
“Whatever the law says it speaks to those under the law, in order that every mouth may
be silenced and the whole world might be liable to judgment [ὑπόδικος] before God.”
The verdict of judgment falls specifically and primarily on those “under the law”
precisely so that it may also fall on the whole world. This, finally, is a clear statement of
the re-evaluation of Israel’s role that has been implicit throughout chapter 3: Israel’s role
was not to receive the verdict of “righteous”—in contrast to the “guilty” verdict of the
rest of the world—presumably based on Israel’s observance of the law. Instead, Israel’s
role was to receive the same verdict as the rest of the world, to show most clearly the
situation of the entire world before God.38 This, for Paul, is the dark purpose of Israel’s
election: they are not to be the shining example of what human beings could be before
God but to be the stark representation of what human beings actually are. The distinct
37
So Kujanpää, Rhetorical Function, 57: “The quoted psalms passages can only
support Paul’s assertion when they are decontextualized from their original literary
setting and read together in the new framework created by Paul.” The hermeneutic
rationale for this will be revisited below (p. 310).
38
This is the reason for the “oscillation between the notion of a historical and
particularist Torah and that of a general universal force” (Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the
Law [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 21). It also explains how it could be that “even the
Gentiles were, in Paul’s mind when dictating this passage [Gal 3:13–14], under the curse
of the law” (ibid., 20, italics original). There is no need, then, to explain this inclusion of
Gentiles “under law” as “an unconscious generalization” (Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s
Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988], 195).
276
role of Israel is not to be different from the rest of humanity but to represent the rest of
humanity.39
This re-evaluation of the purpose of Israel’s election necessarily entails a re-
evaluation of the purpose of the law. Paul brings this out in 3:20: the law does not
prescribe works that could be the grounds of justification (ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ
δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, alluding to Ps 143:2), but rather, the law is the
means by which sin and its effects can be known as they truly are (διὰ γὰρ νόµου
ἐπίγνωσις ἁµαρτίας, see also 4:15; 5:13; 7:7–25). In receiving the verdict of
condemnation from the law, Israel stands in the place of the rest of humanity, even as the
rest of the world is included in rather than excluded from that condemnation. Israel is “set
apart” not to have a unique and privileged standing before God with regard to judgment
but to be emblematic of the standing of the whole world before God’s judgment.
In this way all of 1:18–3:20 anticipates an event that reveals the righteous
judgment of God in the negative verdict of the law. Moreover, Paul has already
mentioned that this righteous judgment against sin is carried out in death (1:32). And,
perhaps most strikingly of all, Paul has highlighted David’s confession that God is
righteous to bring about this judgment even on himself. If we understand David in light of
Rom 1:3 as the “precursor of the Messiah,”40 this section as a whole suggests that even
the Messiah’s own death could itself be an expression of the righteous judgment of God.
It is this possibility that breaks onto the scene in Rom 3:21–26.
39
For this representative role for Israel as a consequence of Paul’s shift to a
Christ-centered paradigm, see Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 211, 245.
40
Hays, Echoes, 49.
277
Righteousness without Distinction:
Romans 3:21–26
It is hard to find any passage in Paul, or perhaps even all of the NT, that is as
dense as Rom 3:21–26. The completed work of Christ is introduced for the first time
since chapter 1 (2:16 speaks of a future work), and after these verses there is no further
direct reference to Christ until 4:24. As such, this remarkably short passage (it has just six
verses, fewer than 120 Greek words) is a lynchpin of Paul’s argument, resolving the
situation that has been described since 1:18 and setting up the situation discussed in the
rest of the book of Romans.
In this section, then, we aim to show how our interpretation of Rom 1:17 and our
consequent reading of Rom 1:18–3:20 results in a reading of this dense passage that
grounds Paul’s teaching about righteousness that is from God and is by faith in the death
and resurrection of Jesus. First, we will argue that, in Rom 3:21–24a, Paul’s language of
“righteousness of God” that is “made known” refers to the righteous status that results
from God’s gracious act of justification, a righteousness from God that is both distinct
from God’s own righteousness referred to in 1:17 and yet utterly dependent on it for its
existence. Second, we will argue that, in Rom 3:24b–26, Paul understands the death of
Jesus as the moment when God’s righteous verdict of condemnation is issued on the sin
of the whole world. Finally, we will argue that it is when we combine this understanding
of the death of Christ with the understanding of his resurrection from 1:17 that Paul’s
teaching about justification by faith emerges with full force.

278
Justification and Righteousness from God:
Romans 3:21–24a
Right after closing the previous section by denying that anyone “will be justified
by works of the law,” Paul opens this section by saying that now a “righteousness of
God” has been newly made known. In this section we will argue that this “righteousness
of God” is best understood as the free gift of righteousness that God gives in his act of
justification, a righteousness that is distinct from but utterly dependent on God’s own
righteousness.
The language that opens this section is clearly meant to hearken back to Rom
1:17. There “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) “is revealed” (ἀποκαλύπτεται)
while here “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) “has been made known”
(πεφανέρωται).41 In 1:17 the present tense, we argued, indicated the ongoing nature of
that revelation whenever and wherever the gospel account of Jesus’s death and
resurrection is proclaimed. In 3:21 the perfect tense seems to speak from within that
proclamation, speaking of what has been decisively made known in the “now” that has
been inaugurated with Jesus’s death and resurrection.42
41
The verb φανερόω is basically synonymous with the verb ἀποκαλύπτω (used in
1:17)—so Dunn, Romans 1–8, 165; Moo, Romans, 241 n. 710. However, the use of this
word mutes the connection to the concept expressed in, e.g., Psalm 98; this leaves open
the possibility that it is not this concept that is directly in view. Different shades of
meaning may be intended: God’s own righteousness always exists but must be “unveiled”
in God’s saving action, but a freely given “righteousness” from God is newly “made
known” because it is newly spoken into existence in the Christ event.
42
So Dunn, Romans 1–8, 176. The word νυνί thus has a temporal force, referring
to the salvation-historical transition; so Murray, Romans, 1:108; Cranfield, Romans,
1:201; Lohse, Römer, 129–30; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 164; Schreiner, Romans, 188; Moo,
Romans, 241.
279
But what exactly is it that is “made known”? We suggested above that the
reference in 3:21–22 is to the righteousness that comes from God, and we cited two
strong arguments for this reading.43 First, the repetition of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ right before
the two prepositional phrases (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and εἰς πάντας τοὺς
πιστεύοντας—“through Jesus-Christ-faith” and “for all who believe”) strongly suggests
that these phrases (like the “faith” prepositional phrases in Rom 9:30; 10:6; and Phil 3:9)
adjectivally modify δικαιοσύνη.44 This does not mean that they do not have an adverbial
function within the phrase itself: “righteousness that is through faith” likely refers to a
righteousness that comes or is given or is bestowed “through faith.” It does mean, though,
that the verbal idea modified by the prepositional phrases is implied by the noun itself,
rather than (as in 1:17) stated explicitly as the main verb of the sentence (“revealed” or
“made known”). And, if we are speaking of a “righteousness” that is given “through
faith,” this is almost certainly the human righteousness that God gives rather than God’s
own righteousness.45
Second, this reference to “righteousness” is couched between references to “being
justified” in 3:20 and 3:24. In 3:20, as we saw, “all flesh will not be justified before him”
43
See above, p. 77. This allows for the possibility that “apart from the law” (χωρὶς
νόµου) adjectivally modifies “righteousness of God” rather than adverbially modifying
“made known.” But each possibility fits with a reference to righteousness from God since
that righteousness would only be “made known” in an act of justification.
44
Contra scholars who argue that a resumption of the verb πεφανέρωται is
assumed in 3:22, so the prepositional phrases are adverbial (e.g., Williams,
“Righteousness of God,” 272). It is the noun that is explicitly resumed, not the verb.
45
So Käsemann, Romans, 94; Cranfield, Romans, 1:203; Schreiner, Romans, 189.
We could, of course, understand “faith” as God’s own faithfulness, but that is harder to fit
with the context here. For the end of v. 22 as clarifying that God’s righteousness is not
simply God’s own “saving righteousness,” see Ziesler, Righteousness, 191.
280
(οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ) “by means of works of law.” We noted
above that the link between having the status of “righteous” (δίκαιος, adjective) and
“being justified” (δικαιόω as a passive verb) is clear from Rom 2:13.46 By problematizing
how this “justification” and therefore this “righteousness” come about, Paul has brought
this concept distinctly into the foreground, increasing the likelihood that this concept will
be inferred from the language of δικαιοσύνη. This is confirmed in 3:24 where “all”
(assuming a resumption of πάντες from 3:23) “are being justified freely by his grace”
(δικαιούµενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). This clarifies the force of the genitive θεοῦ in
3:21–22 as from or by God, meaning as a free gift by God’s grace. The similar
collocation—in a passing reference, no less—of “righteousness” with “grace” and “gift”
language as something “received” in 5:19 confirms that this language has been used to
refer to this freely granted righteousness.47 In short, the immediate context of these
references to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21–22 strongly suggests that it refers to the
righteousness that God freely gives in his gracious, justifying verdict.48
There is, of course, a very strong objection at this point. We argued above that in
1:17 δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ refers to the OT concept of God’s own saving righteousness, the
revelation of which would occur when God saved his people so that everyone else could
turn to him and be saved as well. This concept was highly relevant to 1:17. So the same
46
See above, p. 268.
47
So, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 1:98.
48
So Wilckens, Römer, 1:205: this “righteousness from faith” here (and in 10:3)
should be understood as “durch Rechtfertigung der Sünder geschenkte Gerechtigkeit.”
281
phrase referring to a different concept is admittedly an unlikely proposition on semantic
grounds.
This proposition becomes far more likely, however, when we remember that it
was not just the logical but the encyclopedic enrichment of the concept of “God’s
righteousness” that was most relevant to the context of Rom 1:17. This is because aspects
of that encyclopedic enrichment of “God’s righteousness” foreground the notion of the
human “righteousness” that would be made known when God’s righteousness is revealed.
In exploring the encyclopedic enrichment of that concept, we found that the salvation of
God’s people would also be their vindication, making their righteousness publicly known
to all.49 The same saving action that reveals God’s righteousness also makes known the
righteousness of his people. Thus God’s saving action is also a speech act with the
illocutionary force of a declaration that the object of this saving action is righteous, which
is to say, a justifying speech act.50
49
See above, p. 112 (in the Psalms) and p. 174 (in Isaiah).
50
For “justification” as a forensic speech act, a legal declaration that someone is
righteous (which confers the status of “righteous” on its object), see Moo, Romans, 248.
Our understanding of the relationship between righteousness and salvation is in contrast
to, e.g., Bultmann’s understanding of righteousness as the condition for salvation
(Theology, 1:270) and as the legal status that results from the verdict that acknowledges
and confers the status of “righteous” (ibid., 272–73). Indeed, if we adopt Thiselton’s view
of justification as “an illocutionary speech-act of declaration and verdict” (First
Corinthians, 455–56), then we have to ask what locution conveys that illocutionary force.
And the answer we found in the OT is that by saving someone God declares that person
to be righteous. Thus, being declared to be righteous is not the condition for salvation;
rather, being saved is how one is declared to be righteous. This highlights how striking it
is that Paul can separate our already-completed justification from our not-yet-fulfilled
salvation in Rom 5:9 (highlighted by Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, The Death of Jesus:
Some Reflections on Jesus-Traditions and Paul, WUNT 299 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013], 172–74), which we will address below (p. 305).
282
In this expectation, of course, there is a clear distinction between God’s
righteousness and human righteousness. They are related in that both are seen in God’s
salvation of his people. But one could hardly be mistaken for another: the righteousness
of a judge is not the same thing as the righteousness of a defendant,51 and the
righteousness because of which God saves his people is not the same as the righteousness
of those people who are the recipients of this salvation. These distinct concepts of
righteousness exist in close relationship to each other, but it is a complementary rather
than an overlapping relationship.
Paul at times can describe the righteousness of a defendant as “before God” (παρὰ
[τῷ] θεῷ; Rom 2:13), and the same phrase occurs in Gal 3:11, where Paul declares that it
is “clear” (from Hab 2:4, no less) that “by the law no one will be justified before God”
(ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ).52 This righteousness that comes from the law
in both Rom 2:13 and Gal 3:11 would be a righteousness that is presented to God for
approval, a righteousness that (in theory at least) is to count before God. In this sense,
God’s act of “justification” would be best understood as an official public declaration
of—meaning a vindication of—an already-existing righteousness.53
51
Wright makes this point repeatedly—e.g., Justification, 68–69; Paul and the
Faithfulness, 2:799.
52
This phrase is found with reference to God not being “unrighteous” in Rom
9:14 (µὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ), using the same idiom that denies “favoritism with God” in
Rom 2:11 (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωποληµψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ).
53
So Ziesler, Righteousness, 190–91. Commenting on how 3:10 leads to 3:20, he
concludes that “these statements belong together: the impossibility of justification is
consequent upon the non-existence of law-righteousness, the forensic upon the ethical.”
283
Paul, however, notably never describes the “righteousness from faith” as “before
God” (παρὰ τῷ θεῷ). Rather, this “righteousness” is related to God in Romans with a
simple genitive θεοῦ in 3:22 (and, we are arguing, in 3:21 as well). What are we to make,
then, of the fact that this is the exact phrase used in 1:17? With several interpreters, we
suggest that the righteousness that is from God is so closely linked with God’s own
righteousness that it comes close to being identified with it.54 Murray brings out this point
well: understanding “righteousness of God” in 3:21 as a reference to the same concept as
in 1:17, he suggests that, even though this “righteousness” is clearly the human
righteousness that is from God, it is nevertheless “so intimately related to God that it is a
righteousness of divine property and characterized by divine qualities. It is a ‘God-
righteousness.’ . . . The particular emphasis rests upon its divine property and is therefore
contrasted not only with human unrighteousness but with human righteousness.”55 This
last point is critical. The righteousness that is now made known is a new kind of
righteousness, an “extraordinary” righteousness.56 And the first thing we see about this
righteousness is that it is closely identified with God’s own righteousness.
The reason for this identification comes into view in the next two-and-a-half
verses: God’s act of justification is without distinction (3:22–24),57 and it is thus an act of
54
So, e.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Theme of Romans,” in The Romans Debate,
ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. and exp. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 339: “Paul
can signify (in a typically Jewish manner) both poles of the event of justification with the
one concept ‘the righteousness of God’: the gracious activity of God himself and the end
result of the divine work in the form of righteousness granted to the sinner.”
55
Murray, Romans, 1:30–31.
56
See above, p. 78.
57
On the relationship between the participle δικαιοούµενοι in v. 24 and the finite
284
sheer grace (3:24). The notion of gracious justification was, of course, present elsewhere
in Second Temple Judaism.58 But it is intensified here by the lack of any distinction,59
meaning that God justifies apart from any “fittingness” on the part of those justified.60
This in turn makes clear that the righteous status that results from that justification is
entirely dependent for its existence on that free act of justification—it has no existence,
not even a hidden or unrecognized existence, not even a provisional or partial existence,
prior to God’s justifying speech act.61 Just as God’s word at the beginning created all
things out of nothing (cf. Rom 4:17), so now God’s justifying speech act creates
verb ἥµαρτον in v. 23, see Cranfield, Romans, 1:205; Moo, Romans, 247–48.
58
See, most strikingly, 1QS 11.3–14; Sanders concludes from the parallelism of
11:13–14 that “the primary meaning of tsedaqah is ‘mercy’” (Paul and Palestinian
Judaism, 309).
59
The primary distinction Paul would be referring to is, of course, the distinction
between Jew and Gentile. But from this striking concrete instance all other applications
may be derived. If in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile,” then there is certainly
“neither slave nor free, nor male and female” (Gal 3:28). For this connection, see William
S. Campbell, “No Distinction or No Discrimination? The Translation of Διοστολή in
Romans 3:22 and 10:12,” TZ 69 (2013): 353–71, here 360.
60
Barclay convincingly shows that this emphasis on the “incongruity” of grace as
a key aspect of Paul’s thought is nevertheless not unique in this regard (see the summary
statement in Paul and the Gift, 565). Not all Second Temple writings perfect the
incongruity of grace as Paul does, but some do. Still, we may ask whether even
“incongruous grace,” where found, is everywhere the same. Qumran emphasized the
incongruity of God’s grace with human worthlessness and Pseudo-Philo with the
sinfulness of Israel, but in each the clear distinction stands between those in the covenant
and those outside. All other forms of “fittingness” may be denied, but there remains
everywhere else a covenantal fittingness. For Paul to deny even that makes his account of
God’s incongruous grace uniquely radical.
61
So Otfried Hofius, “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied in den Briefen des Neuen
Testaments,” in Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, ed.
Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, FAT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 129–
30 (on Romans 4).
285
62
righteousness out of the ungodly (cf. Rom 4:5). Since it is in this case a righteousness
that has no existence apart from God’s justifying speech act, and since God’s justifying
speech act has as its sole originating force God’s own righteousness, this righteousness
that comes from God can never be independent of God’s own righteousness.63 Or, as
Luther put it, the righteousness of God should be understood like “the power of God,
with which he makes us strong,” and “the wisdom of God, with which he makes us
wise.”64 The righteousness of God is the righteousness with which he makes us righteous,
such that we may never speak of our righteousness as anything other than the
righteousness of God.65
This is, of course, a remarkable claim. But it is even more remarkable that Paul
does not assert it as a bare fact but suggests that this extraordinary and new
“righteousness of God” is something that “has been made known” now that the Christ-
event has taken place. Our analysis of the language of 3:21–24a can therefore only be
provisional, for this language points away from itself to this other revelatory locus and
62
So, e.g., Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 68.
63
Thus, although we disagree with where exactly Paul refers to these respective
concepts, we agree with Wilckens that “die Glaubensgerechtigkeit gründet in der
Gottesgerechtigkeit” (Römer, 1:208, italics original).
64
Luther, Preface to Latin Writings, LW 34:337. As Bray points out
(“Justification,” 110), Luther and Calvin are fully aware that “righteousness of God”
remains an aspect of God’s character even as it is given to us.
65
This is likely why in 2 Cor 5:21 Paul can speak of us “becoming” the
“righteousness of God.” As Thomas Stegman points out, in this verse “there seems to be
a genuine sense of continuity between God’s righteousness and Paul’s” (“Terminology,”
503; see also 523). Contra Stegman, though, this does not require downplaying the
forensic component of this righteousness (ibid., 524). For the argument that
“righteousness of God” has a forensic sense also in 2 Cor 5:21, see Seifrid, Justification
by Faith, 213–14.
286
thereby invites us to examine how this remarkable claim can arise from it. Specifically, as
we will see in the next section, this arises by understanding the significance of the death
of Jesus.
“The Redemption that Is in Christ Jesus”:

Romans 3:24b–26
In the previous section, we explored Paul’s claim that a distinct righteousness has
been made known “now,” a righteousness that is “of God” because it is dependent on
God’s free and gracious justifying speech act. Now in this section we will explore Paul’s
claim that this only happens “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” since it is
only through his death as an “atoning sacrifice” that God can be both “righteous” and
“the one who justifies.” We will argue that this presents the death of Jesus as the point at
which Jesus took on himself God’s righteous verdict of condemnation of the sin of the
whole world.
“The redemption that is in Christ Jesus” is presented as the means by which those
who believe may be justified: they are justified “through” (διά) that redemption. This
may refer to the death of Christ as the price of redemption,66 or it may simply refer to the
fact of God’s “definite and decisive action”67 or the “eschatological event”68 that
66
So Barrett, Romans, 76; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 1:169 (hinted as a possibility);
Moo, Romans, 250.
67
Cranfield, Romans, 1:207 (suggesting the former possibility also).
68
Käsemann, Romans, 96.
287
accomplishes our deliverance. In any case, though, the point is to locate God’s act of
justification specifically in the Christ-event.69 God justifies always and only “in Christ.”
It is clear that Paul is focusing on the death of Jesus in verse 25, where he claims
that Jesus was “set forth” by God as a ἱλαστήριον. There is broad agreement that this
term refers to the cover of the ark of the covenant (the ‫ )כפרת‬in the holy of holies.70 Since
this is a concrete object (not an idea or an action),71 Paul is likely referring metonymically
to the Day of Atonement ritual.72 In that ritual, the sanctuary was cleansed by the high
priest, who poured the blood of a sacrificed bull on the “atonement cover” as his own sin
offering and the blood of the sacrificed goat as a sin offering for the rest of the people
(see Lev 16:11–17).73 This reference is confirmed by the statement that this occurs “by
his blood” (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵµατι), prompting us to understand the blood of Jesus as in
some way parallel to the blood shed by the sacrificed animals in that ritual.
Further specificity beyond this, however, is complicated by the brevity of this
text. Paul does not explain how the death of Jesus relates to the Day of Atonement
69
Thus Dunn, Romans 1–8, 169: “The distinctively Christian note is not given in
the ἀπολύτρωσις, but in the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ” (followed here by Jewett, Romans, 283).
70
So, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 78; Daniel P. Bailey, “Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The
Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25,” TynBul 51
(2000): 155–58; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:845; Moo, Romans, 252–55.
71
This point is particularly brought out by Bailey, “Mercy Seat,” 155.
72
The reference to God sending his Son as a “sin offering” (περὶ ἁµαρτίας) in
Rom 8:3 likely also alludes to the way that the LXX translates “sin offering” in the
description of the Day of Atonement ritual (περὶ τῆς ἁµαρτίας, LXX Lev 16:11).
73
So, e.g., Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21–
26, JSNTSup 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 133. This metonymic reference,
in our view, answers Cranfield’s objection against “likening Christ . . . to something
which was only an inanimate piece of temple furniture” (Romans, 1:215).
288
ritual—he seems to expect his audience to know. Whether or not the wording of these
verses reflects a pre-Pauline tradition,74 it seems that Paul “can put this forward as a bare
assertion, without substantive supporting argument” because he expects that “the
recipients of the letter would accept it without argument, as part of their shared faith.”75
Paul is not introducing or correcting their understanding of Christ’s death as a sacrifice
but is bringing out the significance of that understanding.
The particular significance for Paul is that this “demonstrates” God’s
“righteousness” (3:25–26). But which “righteousness” does this demonstrate? Some have
suggested that it is God’s saving righteousness, demonstrated “through” (διά) the
“passing over” (πάρεσις) of sins that occurs now in light of Christ’s atoning death.76 But
74
Scholars who find pre-Pauline fragments (of various lengths) in vv. 24–26a
include Bultmann, Theology, 1:46–47; Ernst Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis von Römer
3,24–26,” ZNW 43 (1951): 150–54; idem, Romans, 96–101; (most recently) Richard N.
Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 397–98. Scholars who find 25–26a to be pre-Pauline
include Byrne, Romans, 126 (“possibly”); Lohse, Römer, 129; Jewett, Romans, 269–71.
Others who are skeptical about our ability to recognize any such formula in the first place
include Cranfield, Romans, 1:200–201 n. 1; Campbell, Rhetoric, 57; Moo, Romans, 240.
Benjamin J. Ribbens is likewise skeptical of arguments for a quotation, but he remains
rightly convinced that Paul “is interacting with an early, Christian tradition” (“Forensic-
Retributive Justification in Romans 3:21–26: Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in Dialogue
with Hebrews,” CBQ 74 [2012]: 548–67, here 554).
75
Dunn, Romans 1–8, 164.
76
E.g., N. T. Wright, “God Put Jesus Forth: Reflections on Romans 3:24–26,” in
In the Fullness of Time: Essays in Christology, Creation, and Eschatology in honor of
Richard Bauckham, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, Grant Macaskill, and Jonathan T. Pennington
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 155–57. This is a sharp shift from Wright’s earlier
commentary on this passage: “The first question at issue, then—the aspect of God’s
righteousness that might seem to have been called into question and is now demonstrated
after all—is God’s proper dealing with sins—i.e., punishment. Whatever Paul is saying in
the first half of v. 25, it must be such as to lead to the conclusion that now, at last, God
has punished sins as they deserved” (“Romans,” 473).
289
πάρεσις is far more likely to refer to overlooking an offense than to dealing decisively
with it.77 Moreover, if it is by means of this “passing over” sins that God’s righteousness
is demonstrated, this would require the preposition διά to express instrument or means
(“through”). But, as Moo observes, “an instrumental translation of διά followed by an
accusative, while possible in Hellenistic Greek, is so rare that compelling contextual
reasons must be present if it is to be adopted.”78 It is far more likely, then, that God’s
passing over in his forbearance of sins committed beforehand is what necessitates a
demonstration of his righteousness (διά meaning “for the sake of” or “because of” is far
more common when it takes an accusative object), rather than what serves to actually
demonstrate that righteousness.79 If so, then this righteousness that is demonstrated in the
77
With, e.g., Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background
and Origin of a Concept, HDR 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 28; Jan
Lambrecht, “Two Brief Notes: Romans 3,19–20 and 25b–26,” in The Letter to the
Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 735. The verb is often
used for ignoring or neglecting offenses. See, e.g., Sir 23:2–3, which asks that there not
be a πάρεσις of sins (οὐ µὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁµαρτήµατα αὐτῶν) “lest my acts of ignorance be
multiplied and my sins increase”; Josephus, Ant. 15.48, where Herod discovered that
Alexandra was trying to sneak away from him “but passed by her sin” (παρῆκεν δὲ τὴν
ἁµαρτίαν) out of fear of insulting Cleopatra. These examples are cited in BDAG, 776.
78
Moo, Romans, 260 n. 798; see also Jewett, Romans, 290; Lambrecht, “Two
Brief Notes,” 735. A brief survey of Paul’s use in Romans confirms this. Of the other 20
instances of διά with an accusative object in Romans, it clearly conveys a sense of
“because of” or “for the sake of” in 17 instances (1:26; 2:24; 4:16, 23, 24, 25 [2x]; 5:12;
6:19; 8:10 [2x; ?]; 8:20 [?]; 9:32; 11:28 [2x]; 13:5 [2x], 6; 14:15 [?]; 15:9, 15) while in 3
instances this sense is more likely but the instrumental sense of “through” is possible
(8:10 [2x]; 14:15). There are no instances where the instrumental sense is necessary.
79
So, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 79. In keeping with the salvation-historical emphasis
of this passage, then, it is likely that “sins committed beforehand” refer to sins committed
before the death and resurrection of Jesus, particularly those sins of Israel under the old
covenant. See Moo, Romans, 260–61.
290
death of Jesus is God’s righteousness as a judge, the righteousness that is expressed in his
condemnation of sin.
But how does the death of Jesus demonstrate this righteousness, particularly when
many former sins have been overlooked in the past? Here is where the imagery of the
Day of Atonement ritual provides the key. The salient aspect of this imagery is the notion
of inclusive place-taking.80 The sacrificed animal takes the place of the worshippers—but
only because the worshippers identify with the sacrificed animal. This is the notion that
Paul likely brings out in Rom 3:25: Jesus takes the place of sinners, but in such a way
that we identify with him in his death.81 As such, his condemnation is the condemnation
of us and of our sin as well.
80
For this as a key aspect of the Day of Atonement ritual, see Hartmut Gese, “Die
Sühne,” in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge, 2nd ed. (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 97: “In der (einschließenden) Stellvertretung durch das Sühnopfer
tritt Israel bei der kultischen Sühne in den Kontakt mit Gott” (ET “The Atonement,” in
Essays on Biblical Theology, trans. Keith Crim [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981], 106: “in
the inclusive substitution by means of atoning sacrifice, this ritual brings Israel into
contact with God”); Otfried Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen
Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in Paulusstudien, 2nd ed., WUNT 51 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 44: “Denn Paulus begreift . . . den Sühnetod Jesu als ein
Geschehen inkludierender, den sündigen Menschen als Ganzen einschließender
Stellvertretung” (italics original). Daniel Bailey suggests the English phrase “place-
taking” or, “perhaps even more abstractly, ‘in-our-place-ness’” for the German
Stellvertretung (“Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus
and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger Jr.
and William R. Farmer [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998], 223; see
Richard H. Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” JTS 53 [2002]: 1–27, here 9 n. 44).
For “inclusive place-taking” in Isaiah 53, see Morna D. Hooker, “Did the Use of Isaiah
53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus?,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah
53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 102.
81
So Stuhlmacher, Revisiting, 59: in light of Gese’s work on the atonement, “one
can say that Christ has passed through the death sentence for sinners and that they have
gone with him.”
291
This fits exactly with how Paul has reconfigured Israel’s role in the previous
section of Romans: Israel’s role is to inclusively take the place of the whole world.82
Paul’s argument in 1:18–3:20 that Israel is also under God’s judgment and wrath is
therefore not simply describing the “plight” from which both Jews and Gentiles need
saving but is also describing the means of that salvation itself. In his death on the cross,
Jesus as Israel’s Messiah bears the verdict that God as the righteous judge speaks against
sinful humanity.83 This is even more explicit in Rom 8:3, where God, “by sending his
own son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin-offering,” thus “condemned sin in the
flesh.” Here again, the point of understanding Jesus’s death in sacrificial terms is to
understand it as God’s condemnation of sin.84 The sacrificial logic is that Jesus, when
82
So Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 245: “As the representative individual of
the representative family, Christ is the representative of all.”
83
We thus affirm Richard Bell’s argument that “soteriology depends on
christology” (“Sacrifice and Christology,” 11). For Bell, however, the Christology that
undergirds soteriology is a divine Christology: it is only “because Christ is the pre-
existent and incarnate Son of God” that “he is able fully to stand in our place” (ibid., 23).
This is certainly true, and the tradition Paul utilizes may have emphasized that. But Paul
does not emphasize divine Christology in this passage. Rather, we have argued that Paul’s
argument has emphasized a messianic Christology, a Christology that sees Jesus as the
one who fulfills the vocation and identity of Israel. It is as Messiah that Jesus takes the
place of Israel and, by extension, of the whole world.
84
On destruction having the illocutionary force of condemnation, just as salvation
has the illocutionary force of vindication or justification, see the discussion above, p. 272.
Of course, this condemnation is expressed in the punishment—see, e.g., Simon J.
Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–
4:25,” in The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A.
Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004),
179, who notes that for Paul “death is by definition a penalty.” However, as Rom 8:3
indicates, Paul’s emphasis is not on punishing sin but on condemning sin. The verb
κατακρίνω in 8:3 consistently refers to the speech act of condemnation (“pronounce a
sentence on,” BDAG, 519), unlike, e.g., ἐκδικέω, which refers to various acts of
punishment (e.g., 2 Cor 10:6).
292
dying on the cross, takes our place. As such, his death on the cross is God’s righteous
verdict of judgment on the whole world.85
This, then, is how the fact that God “put Jesus forth as a sacrifice of atonement”
results in a demonstration of his righteousness in the present age (verse 26). God had not
demonstrated his righteousness when sin remained uncondemned. But now in the death
of Christ God’s “righteous decree” against sin has been spoken (see 1:32) and sin has
been condemned.86 Since Jesus as Messiah inclusively takes the place of the whole world,
God’s righteous judgment has been spoken against the whole world by being spoken on
the cross of Christ.
This means that, as Moo puts it, “‘God’s righteousness’ in v. 25 (and 26) means
something different than it does in vv. 21–22, where the focus was on a positive and
saving expression of his righteousness.”87 But this is hardly surprising. We saw that Paul
foregrounded God’s saving righteousness in 1:17 but then highlighted God’s judging
righteousness in 1:18 and beyond. And, as we saw above,88 Psalm 51 brought these two
distinct enriched concepts of God’s righteousness into the same field of discourse and
Rom 3:1–8 happily set them on a collision course. The juxtaposition of these two
concepts in 3:21–26 is the inevitable result.
85
So Gaffin, Resurrection, 116: “Everything Paul teaches about the death of
others applies, mutatis mutandis, in the light of Romans 8:3, to the death of Christ.”
86
So Gathercole, “Justified by Faith,” 181.
87
Moo, Romans, 261. See also, e.g., Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 65–66;
Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 549–50.
88
See above, p. 273.
293
We therefore understand the final result clause of verse 26, “so that he might be
righteous [δίκαιον] and the one who justifies [καὶ δικαιοῦντα],” as combining the two
distinct enriched concepts of God’s righteousness. This combination may be reflected in
the two uses of “righteousness” language in that clause: the adjective (God is
“righteous”) refers to the most recently referred to judging “righteousness” of God that is
only demonstrated now in the cross of Christ, and the participle (God is “the one who
justifies”) refers to the justification that occurs “freely by his grace” in verses 21–24. The
καί would therefore have an adversative sense, meaning “and yet.”89 But it is also
possible that the combination of these two enriched concepts occurs in the adjective
itself: God is “righteous” in the fullest sense of the word, entirely righteous in every
respect, meaning both that God “righteously” judges sin and “righteously” saves his
people who trust in him.90 If so, this would free up the participle to refer to both of those
actions that flow from this aspect of God’s character: the condemnation of sin is a critical
aspect of the larger action of “justification” that God accomplishes. This second
possibility is tantalizing, particularly in how it would come full circle to demonstrating
that “righteousness” of God that was itself “revealed” in 1:17. But, since it would require
additional conceptual modification beyond the most recent use of “righteousness”
89
So Cranfield, Romans, 1:213; Gathercole, “Justified by Faith,” 181; Lambrecht,
“Two Brief Notes,” 736–37; Moo, Romans, 262–63. For this use of καί, see Robertson,
Grammar, 1182–83, citing (among others) Matt 3:14; Luke 12:24; John 3:19; 6:49; 7:30;
Rom 1:13.
90
So, e.g., Moo, Romans, 261 (understanding God’s righteousness as “God’s
‘consistency’ in always acting in accordance with his own character”); John Piper, “The
Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26,” JSNT 7 (1980): 2–32,
here 26 (understanding God’s righteousness as “God’s unwavering commitment to act for
his own name’s sake”).
294
language, and since such modification is not necessary to achieve relevance, the first
possibility is slightly preferable. In either case, though, Paul’s point is to demonstrate that
the death of Christ is a key event that reveals God’s righteousness no less than the
resurrection of Christ: it reveals that God’s righteousness includes God’s righteousness as
the judge of all the earth who will not ultimately allow sin to be overlooked.
In this way, Paul shows how God’s free act of justification nevertheless comes at
a steep price. Because God’s righteousness includes the righteousness of a judge, God
does not issue a verdict of justification for sinners without first issuing a verdict of
condemnation on sin. But in the death of Jesus that verdict of condemnation has indeed
been issued. This is why God’s free act of justification can only be “by means of” (διά)
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (verse 24a): because God is both the righteous God
who judges the whole world and the righteous God who justifies and saves those who
trust in him.
So if we ask how God justifies, the answer Paul consistently gives in Romans is
that God justifies by means of the death of Jesus (see, in addition to 3:24–26, 5:9, 18–19).
But this is a different question than how Paul can say that “a person is justified by faith
apart from works of the law” (3:28). We have argued that in the death of Jesus we see
God’s verdict of condemnation on the sins of the whole world. Where, then, do we see
God’s verdict of justification on those who believe? Our final section will explore how
this “righteousness from God” that is “by Christ-faith for those who believe” emerges
when we combine the understanding of Jesus’s death in Rom 3:24–26 with the
understanding of Jesus’s resurrection from Rom 1:17.

295
Righteousness from God Made Known
In this section, we will seek to show that righteousness that is “from God” and is
“through faith” is made known when both the death and the resurrection of Jesus are
understood as manifestations of God’s righteousness, the former of God’s judging
righteousness and the latter of God’s saving righteousness. The notion that Jesus’s
resurrection is itself God’s act of justification has been long recognized.91 But we will
now argue more specifically that the resurrection of Jesus is particularly a justification
that is apart from the law, by faith, and of the ungodly.
First, if the death of Jesus is the final verdict of the law, then the new justifying
verdict enacted in the resurrection of Jesus must be apart from the law. We saw in 3:9–20
that the verdict of condemnation is the verdict of the law.92 It is not for that reason not the
91
Michael Horton argues that “the resurrection . . . is the justification of Christ
himself and therefore of us as well” (Justification, NSD [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2018], 2:261, italics original). Gaffin argues (on Rom 4:25) that Christ’s resurrection “is
his justification as the last Adam, the justification of the ‘firstfruits.’ This and nothing less
is the bond between his resurrection and our justification” (Resurrection, 123). Vos
suggests that this view of the resurrection “as a declarative vindicatory, justifying act,
forms a very old, if not perhaps the oldest, element in Paul’s doctrine on the subject”
(Eschatology, 152). See also Barth and Fletcher, Acquittal, 35–48; Michael F. Bird, The
Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective,
PBM (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 40–59. More recently, Prothro has argued that
Paul’s statement in Rom 6:7 that “the one who died has been justified from sin” refers to
Jesus and the vindication that occurred at his resurrection (Judge and Justifier, 186–98).
Outside Romans, this view gains some support from 1 Tim 3:16 (ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύµατι),
particularly if the “justification” of Jesus that occurred “in” or “by” the Spirit is
understood to have occurred at his Spirit-powered resurrection (so Barth and Fletcher,
Acquittal, 35–37; Gaffin, Resurrection, 121).
92
This is likely the key difference that separates Paul’s understanding of
“atonement” from, e.g., that of 4 Maccabees. The deaths of the martyrs are referred to as
“the propitiation of their death” (τὸ ἱλαστήριον τοῦ θανάτου) and were the means by
which God saved his people (17:22, trans. H. Anderson, OTP 2:563). At the same time,
though, they themselves claim that they are dying “for the sake of the law” (διὰ τὸν
296
verdict of God—otherwise the verdict could not uphold God’s righteousness (3:26),
otherwise Paul himself could not uphold the law (3:31), and otherwise the law would not
be holy, righteous, and good (7:12).93 In other words, this verdict from the law is not an
incorrect verdict that God has to set right; it is God’s own verdict on all humankind,
enacted on the one who represents all humankind, who inclusively takes the place of all
humankind.94 But it remains of utmost significance for Paul’s reading of the OT that God
gives this verdict through the law. This means that the law, which could potentially either
condemn or acquit (2:12–13), only actually condemned (3:10–20; cf. Gal 2:21).95 Paul
νόµον, 6:27; OTP 2:561). Their death functioned as an atoning sacrifice, but that never
suggested that their ultimate vindication would be “apart from the law.”
93
So Leander E. Keck, “Justification of the Ungodly and Ethics,” in
Rechtfertigung: FS Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes Friedrich,
Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 200–201.
94
Wright correctly notes that the resurrection of Jesus vindicated Jesus (The Day
the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion [New York:
HarperOne, 2016], 322), and “this could then be seen as a legal verdict, with the same
two meanings (covenantal and forensic) as before: Jesus really was Israel’s
representative, the Messiah, fulfilling God’s covenant purposes; and Jesus was ‘in the
right’” (323). However, Wright goes on to contrast this latter “forensic” verdict of “in the
right” with “the verdict of the court that had sent him to his death” (ibid.). But in
Romans, the shocking point is that the vindicating verdict of the resurrection occurs not
despite the human verdict of condemnation but despite God’s own verdict of
condemnation on the cross.
95
For this reason we think that the “righteous Gentiles” of Rom 2:14–15 are more
likely meant to be understood (retrospectively from Romans 3, at least) as those who do
some righteous deeds but are nevertheless under sin and therefore ultimately under
condemnation. So, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 62–66; Wilckens, Römer, 1:133; Andrew A.
Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 181; Hultgren,
Romans, 117–18; Moo, Romans, 158–61. Contra those who understand them as Gentile
Christians—e.g., Augustine, Spirit and Letter 43–44 (xxvi), 226–28; Barth, Shorter, 36;
Cranfield, Romans, 1:155–56; Simon J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The
Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49; Jewett, Romans, 213;
Bird, Saving Righteousness, 170–71.
297
will have to work through the reason for this in Romans 7 (with hints in Rom 4:15; 5:13–
14, 20). But he does not argue from an a priori anthropological pessimism to a revised
understanding of the law. His anthropological pessimism is a direct result of his
understanding that the death of Jesus on the cross was the final, unequivocal, and
righteous verdict of the law on Israel and therefore on the whole world. The law had its
say on the cross, and it has nothing more to say. To paraphrase Paul in Rom 10:4, the
death of Christ is the final culmination of the judicial function of the law. As such, the
resurrection of Jesus becomes the paradigmatic instance of justification apart from the
law.
If the law and its works are excluded as the grounds for the justifying verdict of
the resurrection, what then are its grounds? Paul finds the answer in Gen 15:6 and Hab
2:4, where “the Law and the Prophets” testify to righteousness and life from faith.96 These
texts are not connected to the picture of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the OT,
but Paul draws on them to understand how that picture has been reconfigured by the
death of Jesus. As these OT texts indicate, faith has always been present in the life of
God’s covenant people and has always been the basis for their righteousness and life. But
it is only in Jesus that this righteousness from faith is made known—that is, openly
declared in the justifying verdict of resurrection life.
Moreover, it is only in the resurrection of the one who the law had condemned
that this righteousness is made known to be from faith exclusively, not faith integrated
96
Thus Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 are not simply proof-texts that contain “one or more
of the key words in his argument” (Sanders, Paul, the Law, 22); they are all that remain
as witnesses to life and righteousness once “doing the law” has been eliminated.
298
with works of the law. This is because these texts also have new meaning in light of their
new function, for the death and resurrection of Jesus splits this “righteousness of faith”
off from the elsewhere-attested “righteousness from the law.”97 It is only now (3:21) that
this “righteousness from faith” is made known as a new righteousness, distinct from a
righteousness that would be “from the law”—a new righteousness that is always and only
“from God.”98 In other words, Paul’s antithetical hermeneutic is indeed rooted in an
antithesis between works of the law and faith,99 and this antithesis itself is rooted in the
antithesis between the death of Christ and his resurrection, between the condemnation
issued at his cross and the justification issued in his life.
Whose “faith,” then, does Paul mean when he says that this righteousness is
“through faith of Jesus Christ” (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 3:22)? As we saw in our
discussion of Rom 1:17,100 the expectation that Israel’s salvation would be paradigmatic
can explain why Paul does not need to clarify whose faith is in view: Paul likely would
see continuity between Christ’s faith and ours as the grounds of salvation and life. The
same is likely the case in this passage. Whereas Paul argued in 1:17 on the basis of Hab
2:4 that the ground for life and salvation is exclusively faith, so now Paul argues that the
97
See Paul’s citation of Lev 18:5 in both Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 as testimony to
the “righteousness from the law” that is contrasted with righteousness by faith.
98
Räisänen correctly identifies the magnitude of this rupture: “Paul tears apart,
not without violence, what belonged together in ‘genuine’ Judaism. It is he who drives a
wedge between law and grace, limiting ‘grace’ to the Christ event” (Paul and the Law,
187). We concur, although we suggest that Paul did not understand himself to be the one
who tore these apart but rather simply one who clearly perceived that they are torn apart
in the Christ event itself.
99
In this sense, we can confirm a major thesis of Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith.
100
See above, p. 233.
299
ground for the righteousness that results from God’s justifying verdict is exclusively
faith. And just as in 1:17 the life of Jesus “from faith” was paradigmatic for the life “from
faith” of all who believe, so in 3:21–26 the righteous verdict spoken in his resurrection
“from faith” is paradigmatic for the righteousness “from faith” that is given to all who
believe.
In light of this, we can determine more precisely two of the three references to
“faith” (πίστις) in this section. The last of these, which refers to God as the one who
justifies “the one who is of faith of Jesus” (3:26), can be understood in light of the similar
phrase in 4:16 that refers to God establishing the promise “for the one who is of the faith
of Abraham” (τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάµ).101 The context of the latter reference clearly
indicates that it refers to those who believe as Abraham did, meaning those who have the
same faith as Abraham. Likewise, then, “the one who is of Christ-faith” in 3:26 likely
refers to the one who shares the faith of Jesus.102 As we have suggested, Christ-faith is
something that Paul can understand as in some way new, something that has recently
“come” or “been revealed” (cf. Gal 3:23–25). But, in one important respect, it is at least
as old as Abraham: Christ-faith and Abraham’s faith have the same object, the God who
gives life to the dead (4:16–24). Those who are “of the faith of Abraham” are also “of the
101
So, e.g., Johnson, “Faith of Jesus,” 80. Johnson points out that this is the only
place where the phrase πίστις Ἰησοῦ is used, likely emphasizing the personal (rather than
representative) nature of this faith (see also Wallis, Faith of Jesus, 87). If this is indeed
Paul’s emphasis (and this is a big “if”—cf. Cranfield, “On Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” 90), then this
most restricted reference to Jesus’s own faith comes precisely in a larger phrase that
refers to those who share that faith.
102
Wright understands this as “everyone who shares in the faithfulness of Jesus”
(Paul and the Faithfulness, 2:845)—we agree with the “sharing” but disagree with the
translation of πίστις as “faithfulness.”
300
faith of Jesus,” since the same God is the object of faith for both. It is because God
justified Christ “by faith” that God also justifies “the one who is of Christ-faith.”
Likewise, then, the first reference to the “faith of Jesus Christ” (πίστεως Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ) in 3:22, describing the means by which (διά) this righteousness is given “to all
who believe,” likely refers to the faith of anyone who has “Christ-faith.”103 This of course
includes Christ himself, and that is how the justification that occurred at his resurrection
can reveal the righteousness that is paradigmatically given to all who believe.104 But it
also includes those subsequent believers, those who likewise will be justified by faith.
Thus the resurrection of Jesus is the paradigmatic instance of justification by faith.
But can Jesus’s justification that comes by faith be a paradigmatic justification
that is “freely, by his grace” (3:24)? Is not at least Jesus’s own resurrection, and therefore
his justification, entirely merited and entirely fitting?105 To be sure, Paul can speak of
103
Thus, contra Cranfield, “On Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” 90, we do not think that “to say
that someone . . . participates in Jesus’ faith is surely to say much more than to say that
someone believes in, trusts, Jesus Christ,” opening the door for “justification by works
with a vengeance.” Instead, we hold that the latter clause defines the former—to have
“Christ faith” is simply “to believe.”
104
The “faith” phrases in this verse have overlapping referents but are not for that
reason redundant. The first emphasizes the character of this faith and the grounds for this
righteousness, while the second emphasizes this righteousness as a gift and its universal
availability to all who believe. See R. Barry Matlock, “The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul:
Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9,” JSNT 30 (2007): 173–203, here
184, for the argument that multiple “faith” statements are not redundant; against, e.g.,
Johnson, “Faith of Jesus,” 79; Keck, “Jesus,” 456; Campbell, Rhetoric, 62.
105
So, e.g., Gaffin, Resurrection, 122: “[Jesus’s] resurrected state is the reward
and seal which testifies perpetually to his perfect obedience.” Bird concludes that “it is
Christ’s faithfulness to the point of death upon a cross . . . that constitutes the basis of his
justification” (Saving Righteousness, 59), and later extends that to argue that “Christ, the
representative of believers, has demonstrated his righteousness in his sacrificial death and
has been vindicated as righteous in his resurrection and it [sic] exclusively by connection
301
Jesus’s action as “righteous”: when he describes his actions in the large-scale terms of the
contrast between Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12–21), he emphasizes that Christ’s act of
dying for us (cf. 5:8) was (in verse 18) a “righteous act” (δικαίωµα) that “resulted in the
justification of life” (εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all people and (in verse 19) an “act of
obedience” (ὑπακοή) through which many will be made “righteous” (δίκαιοι).106 From
this perspective, Paul understands Jesus’s death as an act of righteousness that is
ultimately the source of our justification and righteousness.
But that larger perspective is not yet in view in Romans 3, leading us to ask here
the more specific question of whether Jesus’s act of righteousness (or faithfulness or
obedience) is itself what is vindicated in his resurrection. Understanding Jesus’s
resurrection as a vindication of his righteousness leads to understanding it as a reversal of
with him that believers apprehend a righteous status in God’s eyes” (ibid., 79). Markus
Barth argues that Jesus’s resurrection “signifies that his works are justified, as he himself
is justified” (Justification: Pauline Texts Interpreted in the Light of the Old and New
Testaments, trans. A. M. Woodruff III [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 54). Horton
likewise suggests that Jesus, in doing God’s will, “has merited justification for himself
and for us” (Justification, 2:266). Vos is the most explicit: Jesus’s resurrection is “on the
basis of merit. . . . The resurrection was the de facto declaration of God in regard to his
being just” (Eschatology, 151).
106
So, e.g., Wright, “Romans,” 529: “Christ’s dikaiōma in the middle of history
leads to God’s dikaiōsis on the last day.” See, however, Hooker’s argument that δικαίωµα
in v. 18 has the same sense as in v. 16, meaning “acquittal” or “justification,” in which
case we have a “skewed” contrast “between the παράπτωµα of Adam, and the grace of
God at work through Christ to set things right, rather than between actions of Adam and
Christ” (“Raised for Our Acquittal [Rom 4,25],” in Resurrection in the New Testament:
FS J. Lambrecht, ed. R. Bieringer, V. Koperski, and B. Lataire, BETL 165 [Leuven:
Peters, 2002], 327). This is an intriguing interpretation, but the use of the term δικαίωµα
to refer to a “righteous act” elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Rev 19:8) limits this to a
suggestion.
302
107
the condemnation of the cross. In one sense this is of course true: resurrection life is by
definition a reversal of death. But, as we argued above, the condemnation of the cross is
what demonstrates God’s righteousness, a demonstration that would be significantly
undermined were this condemnation itself to be reversed. However we understand the
resurrection of Jesus, we must understand it as the resurrection of one who, as the
representative of sinful humanity, was rightly condemned.
It is this representative function of Jesus as the Messiah that provides the answer,
for of course it is only as such that Jesus could be “rightly” condemned. He, Paul insists
elsewhere, “knew no sin” and yet was “made sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). On the cross, Jesus
identified fully with sinful human beings, bearing the condemnation that rightly falls on
the whole world. And there is no reason to think that this identification with sinners or
with the ungodly ceases at the cross rather than extending on into his resurrection.108 If so,
then the justifying verdict issued at the resurrection does not reverse, remove, or annul
the condemning verdict. Rather, it transcends it.109 Jesus continues to identify with rightly
condemned sinners even in his resurrection. As such, the resurrection of Jesus does not
107
So, e.g., Gaffin, Resurrection, 122: “The eradication of death in [Jesus’s]
resurrection is nothing less than the removal of the verdict of condemnation and the
effective affirmation of his (adamic) righteousness.” Likewise, Vos, Eschatology, 151:
Jesus’s resurrection “had annulled the sentence of condemnation.”
108
For the suggestion that Jesus’s resurrection, not just his death, fulfilled a
representative role, see Wedderburn, Death of Jesus, 177.
109
So Otfried Hofius, although not emphasizing the christological aspect, is right
to state that the justification of the ungodly “wird als unverdiente Gabe Gottes dem
Menschen zuteil, der ausweglos der Sünde verfallen ist und als Sünder unter dem
Todesurteil des Gesetzes steht” (“‘Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen’ als Thema biblischer
Theologie,” in Paulusstudien, 2nd ed., WUNT 51 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 126,
italics original).
303
110
reveal God to be the God who vindicates the righteous. It reveals God to be the God
who justifies sinners—who justifies the ungodly.111 This need not conflict with the
perspective of Romans 5 that focused on Jesus’s act of righteousness. Rather, in Romans
3, we see that this righteous act consisted precisely in identifying with the unrighteous,
thereby surrendering the rights that come from being righteous himself.
Thus, where the OT expected that in the revelation of God’s righteousness God
would declare himself to be the only “righteous God and Savior” of the whole world, in
the death and resurrection of Jesus God declares himself to be the “righteous God and
Savior” specifically of the ungodly, and for that reason of the whole world.112
This can explain Paul’s radical statements about God as the object of faith in
Romans 4: in verse 5 faith is in “God who justifies the ungodly,” in verse 17 Abraham
believed in “God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not,” and
in verse 24 we believe in “him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” John Barclay
has argued that the entire chapter is unified by the theme of the “incongruity between
110
Contra recent studies that see a fundamental congruity in God’s action in
raising Jesus. E.g., Joshua Jipp (Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology [Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2015]) argues that since Jesus was faithful, obedient, and righteous (211), God
“rightly” rescued him (216). Daniel Kirk likewise argues that, in Romans 1:17, “God’s
righteousness is unveiled . . . in the resurrection of the one who showed his justice by
becoming faithfully obedient unto death” (Unlocking Romans, 47). In each of these
interpretations, the resurrection of Jesus is fundamentally a vindication of the righteous,
fundamentally a congruous act.
111
So, crucially, Keck, “Justification of the Ungodly,” 207: “The God who
vindicates the condemned Jesus justifies the ungodly.”
112
Again, while coming into greater focus in the death and resurrection of Jesus,
this stands as the fulfillment of key OT texts—e.g., the summons of Isa 55:7 to “the
wicked” and “the unrighteous” to turn to the God who will “freely pardon.”
304
113
divine action and human status.” There is a consistent mis-fittingness between God’s
action and the objects of that action.114 This is clearest in 4:5, since, as Barclay puts it,
“the biblical (but also universal) definition of the just judge” is “the one who does not
declare the guilty righteous.”115 Yet for Paul the faith that will be “reckoned as
righteousness” is faith in the God who does just that, who “justifies the ungodly.” On
what basis can Paul make such a claim, not just that God might do this but that this action
is rooted in the very character of God? If we are right that Jesus so identified with the
ungodly that his death functions as God’s righteous judgment against our sin, then the
basis for Rom 4:5 (that God justifies the ungodly) is Rom 4:24 (that God raised Jesus
from the dead). As such, the “incongruity between divine action and human status” is
rooted in the resurrection of the crucified Messiah. When God is revealed as the God who
raised Jesus from the dead, God is revealed as the God who justifies the ungodly.116
113
Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 481 (see also the entire section, 479–90).
114
Cf. ibid., 486.
115
Ibid., 486 n. 99, citing Exod 23:7; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23. See also, e.g., Keck,
“Justification of the Ungodly,” 199, who argues that this claim “is even more offensive
than claims about Jesus or justification by faith, . . . for it offends the most elemental
moral perception.”
116
Contra, e.g., Dunn, Theology, 345, who argues that Paul’s “emphasis on the
initiative of divine grace within his teaching on justification” is “simply a restatement of
the first principles of his own ancestral faith.” Of course Paul knew God was gracious
before knowing Christ—justification by faith fulfills rather than abolishes what was
known prior to Christ. But it remains significant that it is only now (in light of the Christ
event) that God is known as the one who justifies the ungodly. Hofius, then, is right to
find in the OT “Aussagen über Gottes Zuwendung zu seinem abtrünnigen und in Sünde
verlorenen Volk” but wrong to suggest that “hier von dem die Rede ist, was Paulus die
‘Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen’ nennt” (“Rechtfertigung,” 143). See, rather, Koch, “‫צדק‬
ṣdq,” 1055: “The bestowal of ṣᵉdāqâ on the rāšāʿ, i.e., a ‘vindication of the godless,’ is
unthinkable, not only in the Psa[lms] but in the entire OT.”
305
At the same time, the resurrection of Jesus is more than just a paradigmatic
instance of God justifying the ungodly. Because Jesus continues to identify with us and
represent us, it is the representative instance of God justifying the ungodly. Just as Jesus
inclusively takes our place so that we stand condemned with him at his cross, so Jesus
inclusively takes our place so that we stand justified with him at his resurrection.117 As
such, Jesus’s own death is “for our sins,” and Jesus’s own resurrection is “for our
justification” (4:25).118 This is also, then, how Paul can speak of those who believe in
Christ as being justified already, even if they themselves have not yet experienced the
same salvation that he experienced in his resurrection (5:1, 9).119 Since this justification
can only itself be just because God has first condemned sin at the cross, this justification
is always and only “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:24). The faith by
which we are justified is therefore faith in Christ, meaning nothing less than in what
Christ has done for us and in what God has done for us in Christ. This cannot be excluded
from what Paul means by Christ-faith, or πίστις Χριστοῦ.120 But, precisely because what
117
Thus being justified by Christ-faith means that “we ourselves are found to be
sinners” (Gal 2:17). But “we” find ourselves to be such in light of the cross, where that
sin is condemned so that we sinners may with him be justly justified.
118
On Jesus’s resurrection as “efficacious” for our justification in this verse, see
Vos, Eschatology, 151–52. See also Hooker, “Raised,” 339: “The fact that Christ died for
our sins was possible because he shared our humanity. . . . But the statement that ‘he was
raised for our acquittal’ requires us to share in what he is” (italics original).
119
On the connection between resurrection and justification in this passage, see,
e.g., Christiane Zimmermann, “Leben aus dem Tod: Ein Spezifikum in der Gottesrede
des Römerbriefs,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven:
Peeters, 2009), 512.
120
It is this focus on Christ that renders this faith new, in continuity with but yet
distinct from the prior covenant faith of Israel. For this reason, Paul insists that even
Israel must (and did) hear the message of Christ (10:14–18).
306
Christ did for us was to join us in our sinful state, Christ-faith also believes with Christ,
meaning it believes in the God who is revealed in the life of the crucified Messiah to be
the God of all who trust in him, even the unrighteous and the ungodly.
It is in light of this that we can make sense of the most cryptic reference to “faith”
in this section. In Rom 3:25, we are told that God put forth Jesus as the place of
atonement “through faith” (διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως). While we may be open to the suggestion
that “faith” here refers to Jesus’s own faith,121 it is not likely that this is what Paul intends.
The reason is that an atoning sacrifice itself involves the worshippers identifying with
that sacrifice,122 and faith involves identifying with Christ.123 Precisely because this
identification is a constitutive component of the sacrifice of atonement itself, it is best to
understand “through faith” as adjectivally modifying the noun ἱλαστήριον, rendering the
whole phrase, “God set forth Christ as a through-faith-hilastērion.”124 Since it is “through
faith” that believers identify with Christ, it is “through faith”—here specifically the faith
of believers—that Jesus’s death becomes for them the definitive sacrifice of atonement.
121
So, e.g., Williams, Jesus’ Death, 47–51; Keck, “Jesus,” 457; Campbell,
Rhetoric, 65.
122
See above, p. 290.
123
So Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology,” 9; and, more specifically, Ulrichs,
Christusglaube, 251: “Mit πίστις Χριστοῦ versucht Paulus in Rechtfertigungskontexten
die partizipatorisch gedachte Gemeinschaft mit Christus zu formulieren.” “Christ-faith”
thus identifies with and participates with Christ.
124
So Moo, Romans, 257, who suggests that “the phrase modifies hilastērion and
indicates the means by which individuals appropriate the benefits of the sacrifice.”
307
125
At the same time, just as we saw in 1:17, this human response of “faith” is
included in God’s action.126 In this case, our identification with Christ is simply the
acknowledgment that, on the cross, Jesus first and foremost identified with us.127 This
means, once again, that “faith” has an exclusive force: one does not identify with Israel’s
Messiah through joining the people of Israel but simply through believing that this
Messiah already identified with each one of us. And, since the cross reveals that this
identification was with the ungodly, the resurrection of Jesus is God’s representative and
decisive justification of the ungodly.
God’s Righteousness and Justification by Faith:

Conclusion
We closed part I by concluding that the reference to “God’s righteousness” in
Rom 1:17 is not directly a reference to the righteousness that is from God but to God’s
own righteousness, the revelation of which would take place in the salvation of Israel so
that the nations would turn to him. It therefore referred more directly to this inflection
125
See above, p. 194.
126
This eliminates some (but not all) of the awkwardness of the syntax: Paul is
still speaking of God’s action in Christ even when speaking of human faith. Though it is
not emphasized in this section of Romans, this creative act is specifically an act of the
Holy Spirit (so, e.g., Rom 5:5; 8:15–16; cf. also the reference to the saving confession
“Jesus is Lord” in Rom 10:9 with the statement in 1 Cor 12:3 that this can be spoken only
by the Spirit).
127
This, as we argued above, is entailed in the confession of Jesus as Messiah:
Jesus as the Messiah represents Israel (see p. 201), Paul argues that Israel represents all
humanity (see p. 276), and therefore Jesus as Messiah represents all humanity (see p.
292). Moreover, this identification with the one who was condemned is why “‘the faith of
Jesus’—that is, the faith that comes from the crucified and risen Lord—includes within
itself confession of guilt and repentance” (Seifrid, “Romans,” 622).
308
point of salvation history than to Paul’s teaching about justification by faith. And, by
claiming that the revelation of God’s righteousness takes place in the gospel proclamation
of the resurrection of Jesus, Paul situates Jesus as the one in whom these particular
expectations about the salvation of Israel are fulfilled.
In this chapter, we have attempted to trace how Paul’s teaching about justification
by faith emerges from precisely this salvation-historical understanding of the revelation
of God’s righteousness. Specifically, we have seen how these expectations are
reconfigured in light of the death of Jesus. We have seen that in 1:18–3:20 Paul
foregrounds God’s righteousness as the righteousness of a judge and insists that God is
righteous in bringing judgment even on his covenant people. This leads Paul to a new
understanding of Israel’s salvation-historical role: it is not to escape the judgment that
would fall on the rest of the sinful world but to represent the sinful world in bearing that
righteous judgment. This is what, in Rom 3:21–26, Paul says that Jesus did: he took on
God’s righteous condemnation of the whole world by inclusively taking the place of
sinful human beings. This reconstitutes the resurrection of Jesus not as the vindication of
the righteous but as the justification of the one who identified with and as the ungodly.
Since the law issued the condemnation, this justifying resurrection had to occur, as Hab
2:4 says, on the basis of faith. Thus the death and resurrection of Jesus together reveal
both the judging and saving righteousness of the God who justifies the ungodly on the
basis of faith.
309
We have therefore found three distinct enriched concepts in Romans 1–3 that can
all be referred to with “righteousness of God” language.128 There is God’s saving
righteousness that is revealed in the gospel (1:17). There is also God’s judging
righteousness that is demonstrated in the death of Jesus (3:25–26; also 2:5; 3:4). Finally,
there is the righteousness from God that is now made known and that results from his free
and gracious act of justification (3:21–22; see also 3:24, 26). Paul therefore reflects the
polyvalent OT use of language of “God’s righteousness” to refer to both God’s
righteousness as judge of the whole world and God’s righteousness as savior of his
people who trust in him. But because both are demonstrated in Israel’s Messiah, there
emerges the additional, striking concept of the righteousness that God freely gives on the
basis of faith.129
We see from this that Paul’s understanding of the shape of the OT is dramatically
reconfigured by the Christ-event. On what grounds do the righteous live? Texts such as
Lev 18:5 and Deut 6:24–25 say that life and righteousness come from obedience to the
law, yet the law’s verdict on Christ was one of condemnation and death. These other texts
must therefore be read in antithesis to, not in synthesis with, the promise in Hab 2:4 that
128
We agree that “righteousness of God” is a polyvalent phrase (so, e.g.,
Thielman, “Righteousness,” 47; see also idem, Romans, 82) or “multidimensional
concept” (Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring
[Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], 318), even if we insist that Paul probably does
not intend multiple meanings in single instances.
129
Thus, in Rom 9:30–10:4, “righteousness” is something that can be “attained”
(καταλαµβάνω, 9:30), and yet “God’s righteousness” is something to which one must “be
subject” (ὑποτάσσοµαι, 10:3). Both are made known in Christ, meaning that those who
reject Christ will necessarily be ignorant of both (10:3).
310
130
the righteous will live by faith (1:17). Do God’s people experience God’s righteous
judgment or God’s righteous salvation? Texts such as Psalms 5 and 7 could be read as a
promise that God will righteously save his servants in contrast to their enemies who will
experience judgment, yet Paul sees the death of the Messiah Jesus as the decisive
expression of God’s righteous judgment. Those texts that speak of the unrighteousness of
the psalmist’s enemies therefore speak of the unrighteousness of the whole world (Rom
3:13–14, 18). And one text that speaks of God being righteous in his words of judgment
on his covenant people therefore determines the identity and role of Israel in salvation
history (Rom 3:4). The Law and the Prophets do indeed give witness to this righteousness
that is from faith, but only as they are understood to be fulfilled in the death and
resurrection of Jesus.
Thus the Christ-event retrospectively reconfigures the shape of the OT witness to
righteousness from faith. But it can do that only because the Christ-event itself is the
fulfillment of the prior promises and expectations of the OT. It is precisely when the
death and resurrection of Jesus are understood as the fulfillment of the expectations of the
revelation of God’s righteousness that the righteousness from faith, testified to by the
Law and the Prophets, is made known.
Paul’s teaching about justification by faith is therefore rooted in the gospel
proclamation, and that proclamation is itself rooted in the OT. Because the Christ-event is
the fulfillment of what was “promised beforehand” in the Scriptures, the resurrection of
130
In light of this, the γάρ of 1:18 is best understood as clarifying that all of 1:18–
3:20 supports Paul’s contention in 1:17b that God’s saving righteousness is revealed only
“from faith” (as Habakkuk says), since the verdict of the law is exclusively one of
condemnation (3:20).
311
Jesus is the revelation of God’s righteousness that summons the whole world to turn to
Israel’s God. But the death of Jesus is the righteous judgment of that same God that is
issued through the law against the whole world. This means that Jesus’s resurrection is
not the paradigmatic vindication of the righteous but the representative justification of the
ungodly. In the death and resurrection of Jesus, the saving righteousness of God extends
down to the depths of sin and unrighteousness, meaning God claims the ungodly, the
unrighteous, the sinners, and even his enemies as his own, summoning all to turn to him
and—with, as, and in his Son—to trust in him as their very own “righteous God and
Savior.”
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
This study has explored how what Paul says about “righteousness of God” in
Rom 1:17 relates to what the OT says about God’s righteousness. Rather than exploring
the lexical senses of key terms or seeking to find subtle allusions to specific texts, our
intertextual-communicative approach aimed to find concepts that were enriched in the OT
and that considerations of relevance would prompt readers of Paul’s letter to the Romans
to infer. In this way, a reference to an intertextually enriched concept could be understood
as part of Paul’s communicative intent.
In part I, we explored how Paul’s statement in Rom 1:17a that the “righteousness
of God” is revealed in the gospel might refer to such an intertextually enriched concept.
We began in chapter 2 by noting that, even though the language sounds much like Paul’s
statements elsewhere about the righteousness that God gives, key semantic indications
that Paul elsewhere provides to clarify this are missing in this verse. At the same time,
ancient rhetorical expectations that a propositio should be clear suggested that Paul would
expect his audience to make sense of that statement where it stands. This meant that Paul
expected his audience to have a degree of familiarity with what he meant by
“righteousness of God.” The most likely source for this familiarity would be the OT, and
the specific expectations raised for this concept—that the revelation of God’s
312
313
righteousness in the gospel would explain the gospel’s power for salvation to everyone
who believes—suggested that it is a well-defined or highly enriched concept.
In chapter 3, then, we explored how the concept of God’s righteousness is
enriched in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah. In the protest psalms, God’s
righteousness is appealed to in the petitions and proclaimed in the praise-vows. We found
that at times God’s righteousness seems to be the righteousness of a judge, but other
times it clearly was not. In either case, though, God’s righteousness is consistently the
originating force of God’s saving action on behalf of his people who trust in him. At the
same time, God’s righteousness is only proclaimed once this saving action takes place,
and this proclamation might even cause others to turn to God. This is the particular focus
of the key reference to God’s righteousness in Isa 45:18–25, where the salvation of Israel
functions as God’s own speech to the nations, declaring his righteousness to them and
thereby summoning them to turn and be saved also. While other texts in Isaiah and the
Psalms did not provide additional detail, they did establish that this event could be
referred to with language of God “revealing” his righteousness. The revelation of God’s
righteousness, in other words, is how God’s salvation of his people summons the whole
world to turn and be saved as well.
We found in chapter 4 that this enriched concept is highly relevant to Rom 1:17,
for it explains why the gospel, as the locus of the revelation of God’s righteousness, is
God’s own power for salvation. At the same time, because the revelation of God’s
righteousness was to result from a public saving action, it strongly implies that the gospel
itself proclaims some public saving action. The most obvious candidate for this public
saving action proclaimed in the gospel is the resurrection of Jesus. This meant that Jesus,
314
as Israel’s Messiah, fulfills the role of Israel in this particular expectation, so that God is
known as the God who raised Jesus from the dead and will likewise save those who
respond to this by turning to him.
Part II then traced how this understanding of Rom 1:17 relates to Paul’s
subsequent argument for justification by faith. In chapter 5, we examined how this
understanding of God’s righteousness can make sense of Paul’s statements about “faith”
in Rom 1:17b. Our conclusion in the previous chapter that the revelation of God’s
righteousness has one act of salvation as its ground and another as its goal suggested that
the phrase “from faith for faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) refers respectively to the ground
and the goal of this revelation of God’s righteousness. The faith that is the goal would
therefore be the faith of believers who respond to the gospel message. But the faith that is
the grounds is likely the faith of Jesus himself. We found that the psalmists often point to
their trust as the grounds of their salvation, meaning that something like the faith of
Israel’s Messiah could be assumed. If this is what Paul means by “from faith,” it allows
Paul to support this claim from Hab 2:4 more directly. We saw that Habakkuk was told to
write about a future promised salvation in which the righteous would be granted life “by
faith.” Paul, we argued, applies this to Jesus and his resurrection precisely to apply it also
to us and our salvation.
Finally, in chapter 6 we explored how this understanding of God’s righteousness
in Rom 1:17 forms the basis for Paul’s argument for justification by faith in 1:18–3:26.
We found that in this section Paul highlights the death of Jesus as a manifestation of
God’s righteousness no less than his resurrection. Paul correlates God’s wrath with God’s
righteousness, foregrounding the OT concept of God’s judicial righteousness. Then Paul

315
claims that this wrath and judgment fall on all without distinction since “you who judge
do the same thing.” This does not mean that there is no value to Israel’s election though;
in 3:1–20, Paul insists that they are entrusted with the oracles of God. However, these
very oracles claim that God is righteous to judge even his covenant people. Paul
concludes this section by citing a string of texts as the verdict of the law: all are
unrighteous and are therefore under the righteous judgment of God. This “verdict” is
spoken to Israel precisely to shut the mouths of everyone, meaning that Israel’s role in
salvation history has been reconfigured from being righteous in distinction from everyone
else to being representative of the unrighteous state of the whole world.
This reconfigured role for Israel prepares us to understand the death of Israel’s
Messiah under the righteous judgment of God as the fulfillment of this role. First, Paul’s
reference to a “righteousness of God” that has “now” been “made known” (3:21) likely
refers to the righteous status that results from God justifying “freely, by his grace” (3:24).
This righteousness from God is distinct from God’s own righteousness and yet
completely dependent on it. The way this righteousness is “made known” depends on
Paul’s new understanding of the death of Jesus as God’s righteous verdict of
condemnation against the sin of the whole world. Because this death is the verdict of the
law, the justifying verdict of the resurrection must be “apart from the law.” This leaves
Habakkuk’s witness to life “by faith” as the only remaining possible grounds for this
righteousness. The resurrection of Jesus therefore makes known a righteousness by faith
apart from works of the law. And, because Jesus fully identified with the ungodly to the
extent of representing us in his death, his resurrection is the definitive and representative
justification of the ungodly.

316
This claim that God justifies everyone—even the ungodly—who believes is
radically new. It is unprecedented in Second Temple Jewish literature and even pushes
back against some claims in the OT itself. Yet this claim emerges precisely when the
gospel is understood as the fulfillment of the OT expectations concerning the revelation
of God’s righteousness. The fact that this revelation occurs in the resurrection of the same
one whose death demonstrated God’s righteous judgment reconfigures our understanding
of both God’s righteousness and ours. And it is this “righteousness of God”—both God’s
own righteousness as judge and as savior and the righteousness that he freely gives to all
who believe—that constitutes the radical claim at the heart of Paul’s gospel.
Luther caught this radical claim, and his interpretation of Romans changed the
church and the world. But by interpreting each instance of “righteousness of God” in
Romans as a reference to the righteousness given to us by God, he deflected the OT
pressure that is the source of that radical claim in the first place. The OT kept pushing,
though, and in the last century it has constituted a serious challenge to Luther’s reading of
Romans. In response, we have sought to allow OT pressure at precisely the place where
Luther inadvertently deflected it—at Paul’s claim in Rom 1:17 that “the righteousness of
God” is “revealed” in the gospel. And we have found that it is precisely when the weight
of the OT understanding of God’s righteousness is brought to bear on the gospel message
of Jesus Christ that Paul’s claims about justification by faith emerge with their full force.
When it is focused on the gospel, the pressure of the OT does not damage Luther’s “gate
to paradise.” It blows it wide open.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abasciano, Brian J. “Diamonds in the Rough: A Reply to Christopher Stanley Concerning

the Reader Competency of Paul’s Original Audiences.” Novum Testamentum 49
(2007): 153–83.
Achtemeier, Elizabeth R. Nahum–Malachi. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986.
______. “Righteousness in the Old Testament.” In vol. 4 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary

of the Bible, edited by George A. Buttrick, 80–85. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. The Traditional Prayer in the Psalms. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Allen, R. Michael. The Christ’s Faith: A Dogmatic Account. T&T Clark Studies in
Systematic Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2009.
______. “‘It Is No Longer I Who Live’: Christ’s Faith and Christian Faith.” Journal of
Reformed Theology 7 (2013): 2–26.
Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W.
Norton, 2007.
Ambrosiaster. Commentary on Romans. In Ambrosiaster: Commentaries on Romans and

1–2 Corinthians, edited and translated by Gerald L. Bray, 1–118. Ancient
Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009.
Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Anderson, A. A. Psalms. 2 vols. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1972.
Anderson, Chip. “Romans 1:1–5 and the Occasion of the Letter: The Solution to the Two-
Congregation Problem in Rome.” Trinity Journal 14 (1993): 25–40.
Armitage, David. “Rescued Already? The Significance of ‫ עניתני‬in Psalm 22,22.” Biblica
91 (2010): 335–47.
317
318
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Augustine. The Spirit and the Letter. Translated by John Burnaby. In Augustine: Later
Works, 182–250. Library of Christian Classics 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at
Harvard University in 1955. Edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Bailey, Daniel P. “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53.” In Jesus

and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H.
Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer, 223–50. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1998.
______. “Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of
Hilasterion in Romans 3:25.” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000): 155–58.
Bailey, K. E. “Inverted Parallelisms and Encased Parables in Isaiah and Their

Significance for Old and New Testament Translation and Interpretation.” In
Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, edited by L. J.
de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman, 14–30. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996.
Bakon, Shimon. “Habakkuk: From Perplexity to Faith.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 39

(2011): 25–30.
Balentine, Samuel E. “Isaiah 45: God’s ‘I Am,’ Israel’s ‘You Are.’” Horizons in Biblical
Theology 16 (1994): 103–20.
Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Translated by Margaret

Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Barker, Margaret. Temple Themes in Christian Worship. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Harper’s New
Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
319
Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol. IV/1 of Church Dogmatics. Edited by
G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1956; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010.
______. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford
University Press, 1933.
______. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. Translated by D. H. van Daalen. London:

SCM, 1959; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012.
Barth, Markus. Justification: Pauline Texts Interpreted in the Light of the Old and New
Testaments. Translated by A. M. Woodruff III. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Barth, Markus, and Verne H. Fletcher. Acquittal by Resurrection. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
Bates, Matthew W. “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronment: Romans 1:3–4 as

Unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77
(2015): 107–27.
Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1999.
Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in
the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Beasley-Murray, Paul. “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of

Jesus.” Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980): 147–54.
Beaucamp, Évode. “Justice Divine et Pardon: ‘Et justificeris in sermonibus tuis’ (Ps.,
LI,6b).” In A la rencontre de Dieu: Mémorial Albert Gelin, 129–44. Bibliothè que
de la Faculté Catholique de Thé ologie de Lyon 8. Le Puy: Editions Xavier
Mappus, 1961.
______. “L’univers acclame le justicier d’Israël (Psaume 98).” Bible et vie chré tienne 70
(1966): 36–40.
Beetham, Christopher A. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians.

Biblical Interpretation Series 96. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Beker, J. Christiaan. “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to
the Romans.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 10–16.
Bell, Richard H. “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul.” Journal of Theological Studies 53

(2002): 1–27.
320
Bellis, Alice Ogden. “Habakkuk 2:4b: Intertextuality and Hermeneutics.” In Jews,
Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden
Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky, 369–85. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium
Series 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2000.
Beuken, W. A. M. “The Confession of God’s Exclusivity by All Mankind: A Reappraisal

of Is. 45,18–25.” Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 35 (1974):
335–56.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the
New Perspective. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2007.
Black, C. Clifton. “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 103 (1984): 413–33.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 9th–10th ed. Translated and edited by Robert W. Funk.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002.
______. “Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 41 (1988): 83–103.
Bonnard, Pierre-E. Le Second Isaïe, son Disciple et Leurs Éditeurs: Isaïe 40–66. Études
Bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972.
Brauch, Manfred T. “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German

Discussion.” Appendix to Paul and Palestinian Judaism, by E. P. Sanders, 523–
42. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Bray, Gerald. “Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship.”
Churchman 109 (1995): 102–26.
Brien, Mary T. “The Psalter at Work in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In The Letter to the
Romans, edited by Udo Schnelle, 475–86. Bibliotheca ephemeridum
theologicarum lovaniensium 226. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907.
321
Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Society of Biblical Literature
Monograph Series 24. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1979.
Bruce, F. F. “Habakkuk.” In vol. 2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository

Commentary, edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey, 831–96. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1993.
Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 40–66. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1998.
Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting. Studia in
Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by Kendrick

Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.
______. “The πίστις Group in the New Testament.” In vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated and edited by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley, 203–28. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
______. “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 12–16.
Burk, Denny. “The Righteousness of God (Dikaiosune Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A
Grammatical Clarification.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34
(2012): 346–60.
Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.
Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina 6. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.
Calhoun, Robert Matthew. Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.316. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011.
Campbell, Douglas A. “2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul that Christ Believes.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 337–56.
______. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
______. “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ:
Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle, 57–71. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
______. “The Meaning of πίστις and νόµος in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural
Perspective.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 91–103.
322
______. “Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language.” In Beyond Old and New Perspectives on
Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell, edited by Chris Tilling, 196–
213. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014.
______. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21–26. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament: Supplement Series 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992.
______. “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate.” Journal
of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 265–85.
Campbell, William S. “No Distinction or No Discrimination? The Translation of

Διοστολή in Romans 3:22 and 10:12.” Theologische Zeitschrift 69 (2013): 353–
71.
Carlson, Richard P. “Whose Faith? Reexamining the Habakkuk 2:4 Citation within the
Communicative Act of Romans 1:1–17.” In Raising Up a Faithful Exegete:
Essays in honor of Richard D. Nelson, edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm,
293–324. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Carston, Robyn. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication.

Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.
______. “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” In What Is Said and What Is
Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, edited by Carlo Penco and Filippo
Domaneschi, 175–203. CSLI Lecture Notes 207. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, 2013.
Cavallin, H. C. C. “‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith’: A Decisive Argument for the
Traditional Interpretation.” Studia theologica 32 (1978): 33–43.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1983.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress,

1979.
______. Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by W. H. Simcox J.

B. Morris, and George B. Stevens. In Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the
Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, edited by Philip Schaff, 335–564. NPNF¹
11. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1889; reprint, Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994.
323
Ciampa, Roy E. “Approaching Paul’s Use of Scripture in light of Translation Studies.” In
Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, edited by Christopher D.
Stanley, 293–318. Early Christianity and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2012.
______. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
______. “Scriptural Language and Ideas.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of

Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 41–57. Society
of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Clendenen, E. Ray. “Salvation by Faith or by Faithfulness in the Book of Habakkuk?”

Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (2014): 505–13.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2014.
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1989.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.
______. “On the Πίστις Χριστοῦ Question.” In On Romans and Other New Testament
Essays, 81–97. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
Cremer, Hermann. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer

geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1899.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Jahwes Gerechtigkeit (ṣᵉdāqāh/ṣädäq) im Alten Testament.”

Evangelische Theologie 36 (1976): 427–50.
Culler, Jonathan. “Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin.” New Literary History
13 (1981): 15–30.
Cuming, Geoffrey J. “The New Testament Foundation for Common Prayer.” Studia
liturgica 10.3 (1974): 88–105.
Daalen, D. H. van. “‘Faith’ according to Paul.” Expository Times 87 (1975): 83–85.
Das, Andrew A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001.
Davis, Ellen F. “Exploding the Limits: Form and Function in Psalm 22.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 53 (1992): 93–105.
______. “Psalm 98.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 171–75.

324
Dean, David Andrew. “The Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in the New Testament (Romans 1:17,
Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38).” Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary,
2008.
Declaissé-Walford, Nancy. “Righteousness in the OT.” In vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s

Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld et al., 818–23.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2009.
Declaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of
Psalms. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2014.
DeRouchie, Jason. “Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets: New Covenant
Ecclesiology in OT Perspective.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
58 (2015): 445–85.
Devitt, Michael. “Three Methodological Flaws of Linguistic Pragmatism.” In What Is

Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, edited by Carlo
Penco and Filippo Domaneschi, 285–300. CSLI Lecture Notes 207. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications, 2013.
Dick, Michael B. “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image.” In Born in Heaven
Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, edited by
Michael B. Dick, 1–53. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield

Phoenix, 1993–2011.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “Zur Deutung von Jesaja 45, 15ff.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 215–22.
Dion, Paul-Eugène. “L’universalism religieux dans les différentes couches

rédactionnelles d’Isaïe 40–55.” Biblica 51 (1970): 161–82.
Dockery, David S. “The Use of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17: Some Hermeneutical and
Theological Considerations.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22.2 (1987): 24–36.
Dodd, Brian. “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate?”
Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995): 470–73.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology.

London: Nisbet, 1952.
______. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935.
325
______. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Moffat New Testament Commentary. New
York: Harper, 1932.
Donaldson, Terence L. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional
World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Driver, G. R. “Notes on the Psalms. I. 1–72.” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1942):

149–60.
Dunn, James D. G. “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans I. 3–4.” Journal

of Theological Studies 24 (1973): 40–68.
______. “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” In Pauline Theology Volume IV: Looking
Back, Pressing On, edited by E. Elizabeth Johnson and David M. Hay, 61–81.
Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
______. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38a. Dallas, TX: Word, 1988.
______. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
______. “ΕΚ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ: A Key to the Meaning of ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” In The Word
Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in honor of Richard B. Hays,
edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb, 351–66.
Eastman, Susan Grove. “Review of Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of
Faith.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 610–14.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Vol. 4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,

1912.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. 2 vols.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.
Elliger, K. Deuterojesaja. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1978.
Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s
Dialogue with Judaism. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement
Series 45. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.
Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Evans, Craig A. “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament.”
In vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive
Tradition, edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, 651–91. Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
326
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Feuillet, A. “La citation d’Habacuc 2:4 et les huit premiers chapitres de l’epitre aux
Romains.” New Testament Studies 6 (1959): 52–80.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.” In To Advance the
Gospel: New Testament Studies, 236–46. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Livonia, MI: Dove, 1998.
______. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible
33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Fredriksen, Paula. “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan
‘Justification by Faith.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014): 801–8.
Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. 2nd
ed. Biblical & Theological Studies. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1987.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Garlington, Don. The Obedience of Faith: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.38. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1991; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.
Gathercole, Simon J. “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of

Romans 3:21–4:25.” In The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2 of Justification and
Variegated Nomism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A.
Seifrid, 147–84. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
______. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited.” Journal
for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002): 27–49.
______. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–
5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Gelston, Anthony. “Universalism in Second Isaiah.” Journal of Theological Studies 43

(1992): 377–98.
Gese, Hartmut. “The Atonement.” In Essays on Biblical Theology, translated by Keith

Crim, 93–116. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981.
______. “Die Sühne.” In Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge, 85–106.

2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983.
327
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910.
Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin

and Tabot W. Chambers. New York: Funk & Wagnell’s, 1883; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Goldingay, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 56–66. International

Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2014.
______. Psalms. 3 vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006–2008.
Goldingay, John, and David Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–
55. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
Goodenough, Erwin R., and A. Thomas Kraabel. “Paul and the Hellenization of
Christianity.” In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell
Goodenough, edited by Jacob Neusner, 23–68. Studies in the History of Religions
(supplements to Numen) 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Görg, M. “‫ תֹּהוּ‬tōhû.” In vol. 15 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited

by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, translated
by David E. Green, 565–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Gossai, H. Justice, Righteousness and the Social Critique of the Eighth-Century

Prophets. American University Studies 7.141. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.
Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1989.
Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Grisanti, Michael A. “Israel’s Mission to the Nations in Isaiah 40–55: An Update.” The
Masters Seminary Journal 9 (1998): 39–61.
Groefsema, Marjolein. “Concepts and Word Meaning in Relevance Theory.” In

Pragmatics, edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, 136–57. Palgrave Advances in
Linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der
religiösen Lyrik Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933.
______. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated
by James D. Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998.
328
Guthrie, George H. 2 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 44. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Hafemann, Scott. “Reading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language: A Response to Douglas

Campbell’s ‘Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language.’” In Beyond Old and New
Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell, edited by
Chris Tilling, 214–29. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014.
Hall, David R. “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 183–
97.
Hanson, Anthony T. Paul’s Understanding of Jesus: Invention or Interpretation? Hull:

University of Hull Publications, 1963.
______. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005.
Harrisville, Roy A. Romans. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1980.
Harrisville, Roy A., III. “Πίστις Χριστοῦ and the New Perspective on Paul.” Logia 19
(2010): 19–28.
Hays, Richard B. “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early Christian Exegetical
Convention.” In The Future of Christology: Essays in honor of Leander E. Keck,
edited by Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks, 122–36. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993.
______. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1989.
______. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
______. “Paul’s Hermeneutics and the Question of Truth.” Pro Ecclesia 16 (2007): 126–
40.
______. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(1980): 107–15.
329
______. “‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s
Apocalyptic Hermeneutics.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in
honor of J. Louis Martyn, edited by Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, 191–215.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 24. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1989.
Heliso, Desta. Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans 1:17 against the
Background of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature. Wissenschaftliche
Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. Sprache und Ritus im altisraelitischen Kult. Wissenschaftliche

Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1965.
Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of
Soteriological Terms. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 5.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: James S. Claxton, 1864.
Hofius, Otfried. “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments.” In
Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, edited by
Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, 107–27. Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
______. “‘Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen’ als Thema biblischer Theologie.” In

Paulusstudien, 121–47. 2nd ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
______. “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu.”
In Paulusstudien, 33–49. 2nd ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Hollenberg, D. E. “Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah XL–LV.” Vetus Testamentum

19 (1969): 23–36.
Hooker, Morna D. “Another Look at πίστις Χριστοῦ.” Scottish Journal of Theology 69

(2016): 46–62.
______. “Did the Use of Isaiah 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus?” In Jesus
and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H.
Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer, 88–103. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1998.
330
______. “Interchange and Suffering.” In From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, 42–55.
______. “Raised for Our Acquittal (Rom 4,25).” In Resurrection in the New Testament:
FS J. Lambrecht, edited by R. Bieringer, V. Koperski, and B. Lataire, 323–41.
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 165. Leuven: Peters, 2002.
______. “Πίστις Χριστοῦ.” In From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, 165–86.

Hope, E. R. “Pragmatics, Exegesis and Translation.” In Issues in Bible Translation, edited

by Philip C. Stine, 113–28. United Bible Societies Monograph Series 3. London:
United Bible Societies, 1988.
Horton, Michael. Justification. Vol. 2. New Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2018.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100.

Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2011.
______. “The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul.” Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 248–
63.
Hunn, Debbie. “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century

Scholarship.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological
Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 15–31. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2009.
______. “Habakkuk 2.4b in Its Context: How Far Off Was Paul?” Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 34 (2009): 219–39.
Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” In Romans
and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His
65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 217–33. Grand
______. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Irons, Charles Lee. The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-
Faithfulness Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2.386. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
331
Janzen, J. Gerald. “Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 394–414.
Jepsen, Alfred. “ʾāman ‫א ַמן‬.”

ָ In vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, translated by John T.
Willis, 292–323. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Jeremias, Jörg. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem
kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1987.
Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Jipp, Joshua W. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.
Jobes, Karen H. “Relevance Theory and the Translation of Scripture.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007): 773–97.
Johnson, Bo. “Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen ṣädäq und ṣedaqa.” Annual of the
Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1978): 31–39.
______. “‫ ָצ ַדק‬ṣāḏaq.” In vol. 12 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited

by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, translated
by Douglas W. Stott, 243–64. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Rom 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 44 (1982): 77–90.
Johnson, Marshall D. “The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk I 4.” Vetus Testamentum 35

(1985): 257–66.
Johnson, Nathan C. “Romans 1:3–4: Beyond Antithetical Parallelism.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 136 (2017): 467–90.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand

______. “Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans.” In

Perspectives on Paul, translated by Margaret Kohl, 60–78. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1969.
______. “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” In New Testament Questions of Today,

translated by W. J. Montague, 168–82. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
______. “Zum Verständnis von Römer 3,24–26.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 43 (1951): 150–54.
332
Keck, Leander E. “‘Jesus’ in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 443–
60.
______. “Justification of the Ungodly and Ethics.” In Rechtfertigung: FS Ernst

Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang
Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher, 199–209. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976.
______. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.
Keesmaat, Sylvia C. Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. Journal
for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 181. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1999.
______. “The Psalms in Romans and Galatians.” In The Psalms in the New Testament,
edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, 139–61. The New Testament
and the Scriptures of Israel. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Kertelge, Karl. “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus. 2nd ed. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

n.s. 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1971.
______. “δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωµα.” In vol. 1 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New

Testament, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 325–35. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. Ambiguity, Tension, and Multiplicity in Deutero-Isaiah. Studies in
Biblical Literature. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Kim, Seyoon. “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4).” In
Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology—Essays from the
Tyndale Fellowship in honor of Martin Hengel, edited by Michael F. Bird and
Jason Maston, 117–41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand
Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and
Exegesis. Translated and edited by Daniel P. Bailey. Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2006.
Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen
Testament.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985): 68–85.
______. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und
zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
333
Koch, Klaus. “‫ צדק‬ṣdq.” In vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by
Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, translated by Mark E. Biddle, 1046–62.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden:
Brill, 1994–1999.
Koester, Helmut. “Paul’s Proclamation of God’s Justice for the Nations.” In Paul and His
World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context, 3–14. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2007.
Kraus, Hans-Joachin. Psalms 1–59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1988.
______. Psalms 60–150. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Kraus, Wolfgang. “Hab 2,3–4 in der hebräischen und griechischen Texttradition mit
einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament.” In Die Septuaginta und das frühe
Christentum—The Septuagint and Christian Origins, edited by Thomas Scott
Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger, 153–73. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 277. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Kristeva, Julia. “The System and the Speaking Subject.” In The Kristeva Reader, edited
by Toril Moi, 24–33. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Kühl, Ernst. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1913.
Kujanpää, Katja. The Rhetorical Function of Scriptural Quotations in Romans: Paul’s

Argumentation by Quotations. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 172. Leiden:
Brill, 2019.
Kwakkel, Gert. ‘According to My Righteousness’: Upright Behavior as Grounds for

Deliverance in Psalms 7, 17, 18, 26, and 44. Old Testament Studies 46. Leiden:
Brill, 2002.
Lambrecht, Jan. “A Matter of Method: 2 Cor 4,13 and Stegman’s Recent Study.”
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 84 (2008): 175–80.
______. Second Corinthians. Sacra Pagina 8. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999.
______. “Two Brief Notes: Romans 3,19–20 and 25b–26.” In The Letter to the Romans,
edited by Udo Schnelle, 733–37. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum
lovaniensium 226. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
334
Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. Greek-English Lexicon.
9th ed. with rev. supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.
Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Linebaugh, Jonathan A. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and

Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation. Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 152. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue
Testament 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.
Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
Longman, Tremper, III. Psalms. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2014.
Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 3rd ed.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1–30) and Helmut T.
Lehmann (vols. 31–55). Philadelphia: Muhlenberg; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–
1986.
Lyons, Michael A. “Psalm 22 and the ‘Servants’ of Isaiah 54; 56–66.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 77 (2015): 640–56.
Macchia, Frank D. “Justification by Faith: A Case of Hearing the One Gospel through
Historically Dissimilar Traditions.” In The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine
Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions,
edited by Randal Heskett and Brian Irwin, 223–34. The Library of Hebrew Bible/
Old Testament Studies 469. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Conversion to Paul’s Gospel.” In The Early Church in Its

Context: Essays in honor of Everett Ferguson, edited by Abraham J. Malherbe,
Frederick W. Norris, and James W. Thompson, 230–44. Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 90. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Manson, T. W. “The Argument from Prophecy.” Journal of Theological Studies 46

(1945): 129–36.
335
Martin-Achard, Robert. A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception
of Israel’s Mission to the World. Translated by John Penney Smith. Edinburgh:
Oliver & Boyd, 1962.
Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary 40. Waco, TX: Word, 1986.
Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible 33a. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Matera, Frank J. II Corinthians: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Matlock, R. Barry. “Detheologizing the πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate: Cautionary Remarks

from a Lexical Semantic Perspective.” Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 1–23.
______. “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and πίστις Χριστοῦ.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 64 (2002): 300–318.
______. “The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and
Philippians 3.9.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2007): 173–203.
McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3rd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. New York: Doubleday, 1968.
McKinnon, James W. “On the Question of Psalmody in the Ancient Synagogue.” Early
Music History 6 (1986): 159–91.
Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983.
Melugin, Roy F. “Israel and the Nations in Isaiah 40–55.” In Problems in Biblical
Theology: Essays in honor of Rolf Knierim, edited by Henry T. C. Sun, Keith L.
Eades, James M. Robinson, and Garth I. Moller, 249–64. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997.
Millard, Matthias. “‘Der Gerechte wird aus Glauben leben’ (Röm 1,17): Hab 2,4b in
seinen textlichen und inhaltlichen Varianten im Alten Testament und Qumran
sowie bei Paulus, Rabbi Simlay und Martin Luther.” In Textual History and the
Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity—Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption
im frühen Christentum, edited by Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, 237–57.
Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 60. Atlanta: SBL,
2013.
336
Minear, Paul S. The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans. Studies in Biblical Theology. London: SCM Press, 1971; reprint,
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.
Miscall, Peter D. Isaiah. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Moberly, R. W. L. “‫אמן‬.” In vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 427–33. Grand
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. 1st ed. New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
______. The Epistle to the Romans. 2nd ed. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Moseman, R. David. “Habakkuk’s Dialogue with Faithful Yahweh: A Transforming

Experience.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 44 (2017): 261–74.
Moyise, Steve. Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New. London: T&T
Clark, 2008.
Müller, Christian. Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9–
11. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 86.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1. New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Nebe, Gottfried. “Righteousness in Paul.” In Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes

and Their Influence, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, 131–
53. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 137. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1992.
Norden, Christopher G. “Paul’s Use of the Psalms in Romans: A Critical Analysis.” The
Evangelical Quarterly 88 (2016): 71–88.
Nurmela, Risto. The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Second
and Third Isaiah. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2006.
Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949.
337
Old, Hughes Oliphant. “The Psalms of Praise in the Worship of the New Testament
Church.” Interpretation 39 (1985): 20–33.
Olley, John W. “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study. Society

of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1979.
Olson, Robert C. The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: Paul’s Use of
Isaiah in Romans 1:1–3:26. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2.428. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Onesti, K. L., and M. T. Brauch. “Righteousness, Righteousness of God.” In Dictionary

of Paul and His Letters, edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid,
827–37. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.
Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans—Books 1–5. Translated by Thomas P.

Scheck. Fathers of the Church 103. Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press, 2001.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
______. “The Mission of Israel to the Nations.” In Through No Fault of Their Own? The
Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, edited by William V. Crockett and James
G. Sigountos, 85–95. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
______. “Righteousness in Isaiah: A Study of the Function of Chapters 55–66 in the

Present Structure of the Book.” In vol. 1 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of
Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig
A. Evans, 177–91. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical

Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1941.
Piper, John. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7 (1980): 2–32.
______. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
______. “The Righteousness of God in Romans 3.1–8.” Theologische Zeitschrift 36

(1980): 3–16.
338
Prothro, James B. Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of
Justifying in Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
2.461. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Society for
New Testament Studies Monograph Series 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1980.
Punt, Jeremy. “Paul, Hermeneutics and the Scriptures of Israel.” Neotestamentica 30

(1996): 377–425.
Quarles, Charles L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional

Series in Romans 1:17.” Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 1–21.
Quintilian. The Orator’s Education Books 3–5. Translated and edited by Donald A.
Russell. Loeb Classical Library 125. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2001.
Rad, Gerhard von. The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Vol. 1 of Old Testament
Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis. Vol. 10 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Ramaroson, Léonard. “La Justification par la foi du Christ Jésus.” Science et esprit 39
(1987): 81–92.
Rast, Walter E. “Habakkuk and Justification by Faith.” Currents in Theology and Mission
10.3 (1983): 169–75.
Récanati, François. “Some Remarks on Explicit Performatives, Indirect Speech Acts,

Locutionary Meaning and Truth-Value.” In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics,
edited by John R. Searle and Ferenc Keifer, 205–20. Synthese Language Library
10. Boston: D. Reidel, 1980.
Rendtorff, Rolf. “Isaiah 56:1 as a Key to the Formation of the Book of Isaiah.” In Canon
and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, translated and edited by
Margaret Kohl, 181–89. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Reumann, John. “Righteousness (NT).” In vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by

David Noel Freedman, 745–73. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
______. Righteousness in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States

Lutheran—Roman Catholic Dialogue. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
339
Ribbens, Benjamin J. “Forensic-Retributive Justification in Romans 3:21–26: Paul’s
Doctrine of Justification in Dialogue with Hebrews.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
74 (2012): 548–67.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de

Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. Old Testament

Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.
Robertson, A. T., and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. International Critical
Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New

International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Rooy, H. F. van. “The Nations in Isaiah: A Synchronic Survey.” In Studies in Isaiah:

OTWSA 22, 1979 and OTWSA 23, 1980: Old Testament Essays, edited by W. C.
Van Wyk, 213–29. Hercules, South Africa: NHW Press, 1982.
Ropes, James Hardy. “‘Righteousness’ and ‘The Righteousness of God’ in the Old
Testament and in St. Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 22 (1903): 211–27.
Ruiten, J. van. “‘His Master’s Voice’? The Supposed Influence of the Book of Isaiah in
the Book of Habakkuk.” In Studies in the Book of Isaiah: FS Willem A. M.
Beuken, edited by J. van Ruiten, and Marc Vervenne, 397–411. Bibliotheca
ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 132. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1997.
Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical

Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Lexham Bible Reference Series.
Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1896.
Sanders, E. P. Paul. Past Masters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
______. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
______. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983.
340
Sanders, James A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” In Paul and the
Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 98–117.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.
Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God. Translated by Siegfried S.

Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
______. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology.
Translated by Andreas J. Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Schmid, H. H. “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the

Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology.” In Creation in the Old Testament, edited by
Bernhard W. Anderson, 102–17. Issues in Religion and Theology 6. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984.
______. Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des

alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 40.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968.
Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring.
Schoors, Antoon. I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in
Is. XL–LV. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 24. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
______. Romans. 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2018.
Schrenk, Gottlob. “δικαιοσύνη.” In vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated and edited by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley, 192–210. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Schultz, Richard L. “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah.” In Interpreting Isaiah:

Issues and Approaches, edited by David J. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, 122–
44. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009.
______. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1999.
Scott, Matthew. The Hermeneutics of Christological Psalmody in Paul: An Intertextual

Enquiry. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 158. New York:
341
Scullion, John J. “Righteousness (OT).” In vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by
David Noel Freedman, 724–36. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:

Seebass, H., and C. Brown. “Righteousness, Justification.” In vol. 3 of The New

International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown,
translated by G. H. Boobyer et al., 352–77. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. New

Studies in Biblical Theology 9. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.
______. “The Faith of Christ.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and
Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 129–46.
______. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
______. “Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Reflections on Israel’s Exile in
Romans.” In History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in honor of Dr. E.
Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, edited by Sang Wong (Aaron) Son, 133–49.
New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
______. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic Background.” In

The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, edited by
D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 39–74. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2004.
______. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated
Nomism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 415–42.
______. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,
edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607–94. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2007.
Seitz, Christopher R. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in
the Book of Isaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 229–47.
______. “How Is the Prophet Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the Book? The Logic of
Chapters 40–66 within the Book of Isaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115
(1996): 219–40.
342
Seybold, Klaus. “Habakuk 2,4b und sein Kontext.” In Zur Aktualität des Alten
Testaments: FS Georg Sauer zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer and
Kurt Lüthi, 99–107. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992.
Shum, Shiu-Lun. Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter
to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. Wissenschaftliche
Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
______. “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians.” In The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2 of
Justification and Variegated Nomism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien,
and Mark A. Seifrid, 217–48. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
______. Philippians. 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
______. “Review of Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus, and J.
Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the
Letter to the Romans.” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 433–39.
Sim, Margaret G. A Relevant Way to Read: A New Approach to Exegesis and

Communication. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2016.
Smith, D. Moody, Jr. “ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.” In Studies in the History and
Text of the New Testament in honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, edited by Boyd L.
Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, 13–25. Studies and Documents 29. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1967.
Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 40–66. New American Commentary 15b. Nashville: B&H, 2009.
Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956;
reprint, Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing, 2013.
Snaith, Norman. “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah.” In Studies in Old

Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson, edited by H.
H. Rowley, 187–200. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1946.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Southall, David J. Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē

within Metaphoric and Narratorial Settings. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2.240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
343
Sperber, Dan, and Gloria Origgi. “A Pragmatic Perspective on the Evolution of
Language.” In Meaning and Relevance, edited by Deirdre Wilson and Dan
Sperber, 331–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.
Spicq, Ceslas. “δίκαιος.” In vol. 1 of Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, edited
by Ceslas Spicq, translated by J. D. Ernest, 318–47. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994.
Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters
of Paul. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
______. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles
and Contemporary Literature. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
______. “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical
Quotations?” Novum Testamentum 41 (1999): 124–44.
Stegman, Thomas D. “Paul’s Use of Dikaio- Terminology: Moving beyond N. T. Wright’s

Forensic Interpretation.” Theological Studies 72 (2011): 496–524.
______. “Ἐπίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα (2 Corinthians 4:13): Paul’s Christological Reading of

Psalm 115:1a LXX.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69 (2007): 725–45.
Steinmann, Jean. Le Livre de la Consolation d’Israël et les Prophètes du Retour de l’Exil.

Lectio divina 28. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960.
Steinmetz, Devora. “Justification by Deed: The Conclusion of Sanhedrin-Makkot and

Paul’s Rejection of Law.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 133–87.
Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.”
Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199–215.
Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1994.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. 2nd ed. Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966.
______. How To Do Biblical Theology. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 38.

Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1995.
344
______. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
______. “The Purpose of Romans.” In The Romans Debate, edited by Karl P. Donfried,
231–42. Rev. and exp. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
______. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.
______. “The Theme of Romans.” In The Romans Debate, edited by Karl P. Donfried,
333–45. Rev. and exp. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Taylor, John W. “From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom.” New
Testament Studies 50 (2004): 337–48.
Thielman, Frank. “God’s Righteousness as God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient

Perspective on a Significant Phrase.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 54 (2011): 35–48.
______. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1994.
______. Romans. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 6. Grand

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000.
______. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians. Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1994.
Tsumura, David Toshio. “tōhû in Isaiah XLV 19.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 361–63.
Turner, Geoffrey. “The Righteousness of God in Psalms and Romans.” Scottish Journal
of Theology 63 (2010): 285–301.
Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich. Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma pistis Christou und zum
paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung. Wissenschaftliche
Van Winkle, Dwight W. “Proselytes in Isaiah XL–LV? A Study of Isaiah XLIV 1–5.”
Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 341–59.
345
______. “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah XL–LV.”
Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 446–58.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the
Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Volz, D. Paul. Jesaia II. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 9. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche,
1932.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1930; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994.
Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter
to the Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
______. “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians.” In Isaiah in the New Testament, edited by
Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, 117–32. The New Testament and the
Scriptures of Israel. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
______. “Paul and Scripture.” In The Blackwell Companion to Paul, edited by Stephen
Westerholm, 154–71. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 2011.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wallis, Ian G. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions. Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Wardlaw, Terry. “A Reappraisal of ‘From Faith to Faith’ (Romans 1:17).” European

Journal of Theology 21.2 (2012): 107–19.
Ware, James P. “Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul’s Theology of the Law in Romans
3:19–20.” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011): 513–40.
______. The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of
Ancient Judaism. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005;
reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
346
Watson, Francis. “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and Its Scriptural
Solution.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological
Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 147–63. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
______. “Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scripture: Why They Need Each Other.”
International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 118–43.
______. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 2016.
______. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Rev. and exp. ed.
______. “Scripture in Pauline Theology: How Far Down Does It Go?” Journal of
Theological Interpretation 2 (2008): 181–92.
______. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
______. “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-Language, in

Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 80
(2000): 99–124.
Watts, Rikki E. “Echoes from the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the
Nations in Isaiah 40–55.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004):
481–508.
______. “‘For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel’: Romans 1:16–17 and Habakkuk 2:4.”
In Romans and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 3–
25. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. The Death of Jesus: Some Reflections on Jesus-Traditions

and Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 299.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “‘Justice and Righteousness’—‫—משׁפט וצדקה‬The Expression and Its

Meaning.” In Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence,
edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, 228–46. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 137. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1992.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Westcott, Frederick Brooke. St Paul and Justification. London: Macmillan, 1913.

347
Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent
Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
______. Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2013.
______. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics.
______. “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans.”
Interpretation 58 (2004): 253–64.
Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker.

Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
______. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim and Richard N.
Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.
______. The Praise of God in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim. Richmond, VA:
John Knox, 1965.
______. The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message. Translated by Ralph D. Gehrke.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980.
Whitehead, Philip. “Habakkuk and the Problem of Suffering: Theodicy Deferred.”

Journal of Theological Interpretation 10 (2016): 265–81.
Whitsett, Christopher G. “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in

Romans 2:3–4 [sic].” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 661–81.
Whitt, R. Keith. “Righteousness and Characteristics of Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical and

Pneumatological Research 3 (2011): 71–84.
Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1975.
Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Evangelisch-katholischer
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6. Benziger: Braunschweig; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987–1989.
Wildberger, H. “ʾmn ‫אמן‬.” In vol. 1 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited
by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, translated by Mark E. Biddle, 134–57.
Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 179. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1998.
348
______. “Paul as User, Interpreter, and Reader of the Book of Isaiah.” In Reading the
Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A.
Huizenga, translated by Leroy A. Huizenga et al., 83–99. Waco, TX: Baylor
Willey, Patricia Tull. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in
Second Isaiah. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 161. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997.
Williams, Sam K. Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a
Concept. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1975.
______. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99

(1980): 241–90.
Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and

Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
______. “Word Order in Isaiah XLIII. 12.” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979):
499–502.
Wilson, Andrew. The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study in Composition and Structure.

Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 1. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge
______. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence R.

Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–32. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
Winter, Sean F. “Paul’s Attitudes to the Gentiles.” In Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient

Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by David C. Sim and James S. McLaren,
138–53. Library of New Testament Studies 499. London: T&T Clark, 2014.
Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. 1. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar

zum Neuen Testament 6/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas P. “Authorial Discourse Interpretation.” In Dictionary for

Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G.
Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, 78–80. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005.
______. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks.
349
Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
______. The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s
Crucifixion. New York: HarperOne, 2016.
______. “God Put Jesus Forth: Reflections on Romans 3:24–26.” In In the Fullness of
Time: Essays in Christology, Creation, and Eschatology in honor of Richard
Bauckham, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner, Grant Macaskill, and Jonathan T.
Pennington, 135–61. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
______. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2009.
______. “The Letter to the Romans.” In vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible: A
Commentary in Twelve Volumes, edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville:
Abingdon, 2002.
______. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3–8.” In
Romans and the People of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright,
26–35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
______. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.
______. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61–
88.
______. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
______. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Wu, Jackson. “Why Is God Justified in Romans? Vindicating Paul’s Use of Psalm 51 in
Romans 3:4.” Neotestamentica 51 (2017): 291–314.
Yeung, Maureen W. Faith in Jesus and Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum

Neuen Testament 2.147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Young, Stephen L. “Romans 1.1–5 and Paul’s Christological Use of Hab. 2.4 in Rom.
1.17: An Underutilized Consideration in the Debate.” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 34 (2012): 277–85.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Isaias. Vol. 14 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 3rd ed.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
350
Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological
Enquiry. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 20. Cambridge:
______. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. TPI New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, 1989.
Zimmermann, Christiane. “Leben aus dem Tod: Ein Spezifikum in der Gottesrede des
Römerbriefs.” In The Letter to the Romans, edited by Udo Schnelle, 503–20.
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 226. Leuven: Peeters,
2009.

A Righteous God and Savior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Righteous God and Savior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“A RIGHTEOUS GOD AND SAVIOR”:

ROMANS 1:17 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

B.A. (Music and Ancient Languages), Wheaton College, 2005

Submitted to the Faculty

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All Rights Reserved.

understood as a reference to a particular OT concept of God’s righteousness. It engages

this widely discussed question by means of an intertextual-communicative approach that

1:16–17. Specifically, in these texts the revelation of God’s righteousness occurs in a

proclaimed in the gospel—the resurrection of Jesus—fulfills this particular OT

the resurrection of Jesus should be understood as the representative justification by faith

language of “righteousness of God” is rooted in the conceptual world of the OT.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Overview of History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Old Testament “Righteousness” in Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The “Relational Line” from Cremer to Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The “Apocalyptic Line” from Käsemann to Campbell . . . . . . . . 11

The “Vocational Line” from Williams to Wright . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Lexical Backlash: “Righteousness” as Ordinary Language . . . . . . 21

The Intertextual Turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Richard Hays: Echoes and Allusions in Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Francis Watson: Hermeneutics of Explicit Citations . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conclusion and Proposed Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Theory and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Theories of Intertextuality and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Intertextuality and Conceptual References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Preliminary Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

PART I THE REVELATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . . . . . . . 72

2. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND RELEVANCE IN ROMANS 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . 73

Romans 1:17 and “Righteousness from God” Elsewhere in Paul . . . . . . . 75

Righteousness and Relevance: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

3. GOD’S SAVING RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. . . . . . . 96

God’s Righteousness and God’s People: Protest Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Protest Psalms: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

The Dual Role of God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Petitions that Appeal to God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Praise-Vows that Proclaim God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Theological/Conceptual Implications of This Dual Role . . . . . . . . . 123

God’s Righteousness and God’s Saving Action . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

God’s Righteousness and God’s People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

God’s Saving Action and the Proclamation of God’s Righteousness . 136

God’s Righteousness beyond the Salvation of the Psalmist . . . . . . 139

God’s Righteousness in Protest Psalms: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

God’s Righteousness and the Nations: Isaiah 45:18–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Israel’s Salvation and God’s Speech in Isaiah 40–45 . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Particular and Universal Salvation in Isaiah 45:18–25. . . . . . . . . . . 155

Israel’s Salvation and Its Purpose: Verses 18–19, 24b–25 . . . . . . . . . 159

The Offer of Salvation to the Nations: Verses 20–24a . . . . . . . . . . . 164

God’s Righteousness in Isaiah 45:18–25: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 176

God’s Righteousness Elsewhere in Isaiah and the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Isaiah 56:1 and Psalm 98:2: God’s Righteousness Revealed . . . . . . . 183

God’s Saving Righteousness in the Old Testament: Conclusion . . . . . . . . 187

God’s Righteousness and the Effect of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

God’s Righteousness and the Content of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

God’s Righteousness and the Gospel: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

PART II GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. . . . 213

5. GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FAITH IN ROMANS 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . 214

The Ground and Goal of the Revelation of God’s Righteousness . . . . . . . 216

The Faith of Israel, of Jesus, and of Believers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

“As It Is Written”: Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

The Context and Text of Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

New Meanings in a New Context? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242