View source

{{info}}

ROMANS 3:21-26 has for a long time
been a focal text for debate about the
atonement. With the rise of the 'new
perspective' on Paul, some of the parameters
of these debates have shifted.
Within the constraints of this essay, I
cannot attempt the full-blown interaction
that the subject demands. My aim
is more modest. I intend to discuss ten
of the turning-points in the text that
affect the outcome of one's exegesis,
and briefly indicate at least some of the
reasons why I read the text as I do.

====The Significance of the Preceding Passage 1 :18-3:20====

Disputants are unlikely to agree on the
solution to a problem if they cannot
agree on the nature of the problem.
Today's disputes focus on whether or
not the situation envisaged in 2:5-16 is
real or hypothetical; the extent to
which 2:17-28 focuses on the failure of
the nation of Israel rather than on the
individual; the extent to which Paul's
theology, which on the face of it runs
from plight to solution, betrays his own
experience, which was (it is argued)
from solution to plight; the nature and
focus of his rhetoric; the extent to
which covenant categories control this
section; and much more. Each of these
topics could call forth a very lengthy
chapter.<ref>Apart from the major commentaries, see the admirable treatment by Andrew T. Lincoln, 'From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1:18·4:25', in ''Pauline Theology. Volume III: Romans'', ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), pp. 130·159.</ref>

However such matters are resolved,
the framework must not be forgotten.
The section opens with the wrath of
God being revealed from heaven
'against all the godlessness and
wickedness of men'<ref>Romans 1:18.</ref>, and ends with a
catena of texts to prove that no one is
righteous, not even one.<ref>Romans 3:9-20.</ref> Jews and
Gentiles are alike condemned. Nor will
it do to make the failure exclusively
national (though it is not less than
national): if it is true to say that Jews
and Gentiles collectively are alike
under sin, Paul carefully goes farther
and specifies that they 'alike are ''all''
under sin.'<ref>Romans 3:9.</ref> Indeed, ''every'' mouth is to be
silenced on the last day, and there is ''no one'' righteous.<ref>Romans 3:19, 10.</ref>

What these observations establish,
then, is the nature of the problem that
Rom 3:21-26 sets out to resolve. The
problem is not first and foremost the
failure of Israel (national or otherwise),
or inappropriate use of the law,
or the urgency of linking Jews and Gentiles
(all genuine themes in these chapters),
but the wrath of God, directed
against every human being, Jew and
Gentile alike-a wrath elicited by universal
human wickedness. This is not
saying that human beings are incapable
of any good. Clearly, even those
without the law may do things about
which their consciences rightly defend
them.<ref>Romans 2:15.</ref> But the flow of argument that
takes us from 1:18-32 to 3:9-20 leaves
us no escape: individually and collectively, Jew and Gentile alike, we stand
under the just wrath of God, because of
our sin.'<ref>Surprisingly, B. W_ Longenecker, ''Eschatology and Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11'' (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991),175-81, argues that Paul's  indictment, especially in 1:18-32, is rhetorical polemic typical of the technique of ethical denunciation, but without any empirical correspondence. Not only does this argument presuppose that polemic cannot have pedagogical purpose, it presupposes that rhetoric cannot be deployed to make points about empirical reality. That would cut the ground out from
Paul's conclusion in 3:9-20.</ref>

Moreover, the closing verses of this
section establish two other points that
support this analysis, and help to prepare
for 3:21-26. ''First'', the second half
ofv.19 paints a picture that is unavoidably
forensic; and ''second'', the slight
modification of Ps 143:2 (LXX 142:2)
in Rom 3:20, by the addition of the
phrase 'by the works of the law' , establishes
(a) that although the indictment
of 1:18-3:20 embraces all of humanity,
there is special reference to Jews, precisely
because to them were given the
oracles of God;<ref>As Romans 9 puts it.</ref>(h) that in the light of
the forensic catastrophe summarized
in the preceding verse the expression
'works of the law' cannot easily be
reduced, in this context, to boundary
markers such as laws relating to circumcision,
kosher food, and Sabbath,
for in fact these 'works of the law' by
which one cannot be justified must be
tied to the judgment according to
works<ref>Romans 2:8.</ref>, to the unyielding principle of
performance (2:13);<ref>For the narrower view that connects 'works of the law' to ethnic boundary markers, see, inter alios, B. W. Longenecker, ''Eschatology'', pp. 200·202, 206-207; and James D. G. Dunn, ''Romans 1-8'', WBC no. 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), pp. 153-5. For the broader view espoused here, see, e.g., Ulrich Wilckens, 'Was heisst bei Paulus: "Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht"?' in ''Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien'' (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 77-109; idem, ''Der Brief an die Romer'', EKKNT vol. 6 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1978) 1.130·31, 145-6, 175-6; and especially Douglas J. Moo, ''The Epistle to the Romans'', NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 204-217.</ref> 
and (c) that therefore the law itself was not given, according to Paul, to effect righteousness, for even 'if the deeds by which one hopes to be justified are deeds laid down in the law, this fails to alter the universal indictment that no one passes the judgment, no one is righteous.'<ref>Andrew T. Lincoln, 'From Wrath to Justification,' p. 146.</ref> 
This does not mean the law is intrinsically evil, of course<ref>Romans 7:12.</ref>; it does mean that Paul adopts a certain salvation-
historical reading of the law's
role, and according to that reading the
law (by which he here means the lawcovenant),
while it enabled human
beings to become conscious of sin and
doubtless performed other functions
described elsewhere, could not, in the
nature of the case, justify anyone.<ref>Romans 3:20b.</ref>

====''Νυνì δὲ'' ('But now'), 3:21====
Although this expression can signal a
logical connection, here it is almost
certainly temporal<ref>Its customary meaning, e.g. Romans 6:22; 7:6.</ref>, indeed salvation-historical.
But granted the contrast
between the old era of sin's dominion
and the new era of salvation, or
between the old era of the law covenant
and the new era that Jesus Christ has
introduced (these most basic of contrasts
in Paul's eschatology). what is
the precise nature of the temporal contrast
here? If 3:21-26 is contrasted
with all of 1:18-3:20, then it is possible,
with Moo, to say, 'As the "wrath of
God" dominated the old era (1:18). so
"the righteousness of God" dominates
the new.'<ref>Douglas J. Moo, Romans, p. 222</ref> But perhaps that is not
quite Paul's focus. In general terms,
the New Testament writers, including
Paul, do not encourage us to think that
God presents himself in the old
covenant as a God of wrath, and in the
new as a God of grace (justifying
grace?). Although the point cannot be
defended here, it would be truer to say
that, just as the portrait of God as a
God of justifying grace is ratcheted up
as one moves from the old covenant to
the new, so the portrait of God as a God
of holy wrath is ratcheted up as one
moves from the old covenant to the
new. Moreover, in this very paragraph,
the ''earlier'' period is characterized as
the time of God's 'forbearance.'<ref>Romans 3:26 in the Greek text; v. 25 in the NIV.</ref>

A closer contrast lays at hand, one
that nevertheless presupposes the
shift from the old era to the new. On
this reading, 3:21-26 is tied more
tightly to the immediately preceding
verses. If in the nature of the case the
law covenant could not effect righteousness or ensure that anyone be
declared righteous -I leave the
expression open for the moment- then,
granted the universality of
human sin, under the new era what is
needed is righteousness that is manifested
apart from the law.

====''Χωρìς νόμο'' ('apart from law'}, 3:21====

Should this phrase be read with
''δικαιοσύνη θεοȗ'' ('But now a righteousness
from God apart from law, has
been made known') or with
''πεϕανέρωται'' ('But now a righteousness
from God has been made known
apart from law')? The matter cannot be
decided by mere syntactical proximity;
it is not uncommon in Greek for a prepositional
phrase to modify a verb from
which it is somewhat removed. The
question must be resolved by appealing
to context. If the first interpretation
were correct, 'a righteousness from
God apart from law', the phrase 'apart
from law' would most likely mean
'apart from doing the law' or the like, or
perhaps 'apart from the works of the
law', referring back to 3:20.
But despite the popularity of this
view,<ref>E.g. Anders Nygren,'' Commentary on Romans'' (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949), p. 148; C. E. B. Cranfield, ''The Epistle to the Romans'', ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975-
79) 1.201 (though he finds this meaning present even while holding, rightly, that the prepositional phrase modifies the verb); Brendan Byrne, ''Romans'', Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996), p. 129; Thomas R. Schreinder, ''Romans'', BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), p. 180.</ref> by itself it is not quite adequate.
It is quite correct to observe that God's
righteousness is attained without any
contribution from the 'works of the
law.' But to say that it is ''now'' obtained
without any contribution from the
'works of the law' would be to imply
that it was ''once'' obtained with (at least
some) contribution from the 'works of
the law'-and that is precisely what
Paul has ruled out in the previous
verses. So if the temporal contrast
embedded in 'But now' is taken seriously,
then it is contextually inadequate
to think that 'apart from law' is
really a short-hand for 'apart from the
works of the law' or 'apart from doing
the law' or the like. After all, as Paul
himself will point out in Rom 4, justification
has always been by faith and
apart from law.

In fact, if, as most sides agree, the
prepositional phrase is connected with
the verb ''πεϕανέρωται'', then another
reading is possible: 'a righteousness
from God has been made known apart
from law' focuses attention not on the
''reception'' of righteousness, it is
received by faith, but on the ''disclosure''
of this righteousness, it has been made
known apart from law. In that case the
expression 'apart from law' most probably
means something like 'apart from
the law-covenant'. The issue is not
whether or not people can do it, the
previous verses have insisted that they
cannot adequately keep it: all are sinners,
but 'law' as a system: this side of
the coming and death and resurrection
of Jesus the Messiah, God has acted to
vindicate his people 'apart from the
law', apart from the law as an entire
system which played its crucial role in redemptive history.<ref>18 In fact, since ''νόρου'' is anarthrous, there may be a hint not only of the Mosaic law-covenant, but of the 'law' known even to Gentiles (2:13·16): the entire demand structure could not justify men and women in the past, and now God has acted to justify men and women 'apart from' it.</ref>

But this does not mean that what
has been inaugurated in Christ is
utterly independent from what has preceded;
Paul is not 'antinomian'. Far
from it: he insists that this newly disclosed righteousness is that 'to which
the Law and the Prophets testify'. <ref>Romans 3:21.</ref> In
other words, according to Paul God
gave the law not only to regulate the
conduct of his people and, more importantly,
to reveal their sin until the fulfillment
of the promises in Christ<ref>Cf. Romans 4:13·15; 5:20; Galatians 3:15-4:7.</ref>, but
also because the law has a prophetic
function, a witness function: it pointed
in the right direction, it bore witness to
the righteousness that is ''now'' being
revealed. It is not simply that the
national identity markers are now
obsolete; there is a sense in which the
entire law· covenant is 'obsolete'<ref>To use the language of Hebrews 8:13.</ref>-or,
more precisely, its ongoing validity is
precisely in that to which it bears witness, which has ''now'' dawned.<ref>This is, as I have elsewhere argued, the
argument of Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17-
20.</ref> There is a dramatic shift in salvation history.

==== ''δικαιοσύνη θεοȗ'' ('righteousness from God') and cognates, 3:21====

This expression clearly dominates the 
passage. It occurs four times<ref>Romans 3:21,22,25,26--though the last two are 'his righteousness'.</ref>, the cognate
adjective 'just' (''δίκαιος'') occurs
once<ref>Romans 3:26.</ref> and the cognate verb 'to justify'
(''δικαιόω'') twice.<ref>Romans 3:24,26.</ref> Probably no New
Testament word-group has elicited
more discussion during the past century than this one. Few doubt that the
noun and adjective cover a range of
meanings in the New Testament, so
that any particular usage is largely
determined by context Arguably, Paul
always uses the verb in the forensic
sense, 'to justify.'

Granted the complexity of the dis·
cussion, I shall venture only a few
observations and claims, with minimal
argumentation. In part, the force of the
expressions in this passage must be
teased out in conjunction with the
delineation of the flow of the argument.

(a) The preceding section<ref>Romans 1:18-3:20.</ref> has
established the need for this righteousness.
That need is bound up with
human sin, and the inevitability of universal human guilt before God. That
already constitutes some support for
the view that this 'righteousness from
God' is God's eschatological justifying
or vindicating activity.

(b) Despite the extraordinary popularity
of the view that the expression
actually means something like 'God's
covenant faithfulness' or the like,
recent research is making such a view
harder and harder to sustain. The history
of the interpretation is itself suggestive;
more important yet is the fact
that in the Hebrew Bible the terms
''διαθήκη'' ('covenant') and ''δικαιοσύνη'' 
('righteousness'), despite their very
high frequency, almost never occur in
close proximity.<ref>On both points, see the excellent discussion by Mark A. Seifrid, 'Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism', in ''Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism'', ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), pp. 415-442. See further Douglas J. Moo, ''Romans'', pp. 70-90; and, more briefly, Peter Stuhlmacher, ''Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary'', trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 61-65.</ref> In general, 
<blockquote>one does not 'act righteously or unrighteously' with respect to a covenant. Rather, one 'keeps,' 'remembers,' 'establishes' a covenant, or the like. Or, conversely,
one 'breaks,' 'transgresses,' 'forsakes,' 'despises,' 'forgets,' or 'profanes' it. <ref>Ibid., p. 424.</ref></blockquote>

Righteousness language is commonly
found in parallel with terms for
rightness or rectitude over against evil.
The attempt to link 'being righteous'
with 'being in the covenant' or with
Israel's 'covenant status,' especially in
Qumran and rabbinic literature, does
not fare very well either.

(c) Even at the level of philology, the
''δικ''- words are so commonly connected
with righteousness/justice that
attempts to loosen the connection
must be judged astonishing.

(d) Not least in this paragraph, but
also elsewhere, there is a dual concern
that God be vindicated and that his people
be vindicted.<ref>Romans 3:26; see below.</ref> So also here at the
beginning of the passage: this is a
righteousness 'from God,' i.e. it is first
and foremost God's righteousness<ref>Romans 3:2.</ref>,
but it is precisely ''this'' righteousness
from God which comes to all who
believe (v. 22).<ref>Romans 3:22. Pace N. T. Wright, 'Romans and the Theology of Paul,' in ''Pauline Theology. Volume III: Romans'', ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), pp. 38-9, who claims that 'righteousness' means 'covenant faithfu1ness', and therefore that this 'righteousness' is 'not a quality or substance that can be passed or transferred from the judge to the defendant' (p. 39). The righteousness of the judge is simply the judge's 'own character, status, and activity' (p. 39), demonstrated in doing various things; the 'righteousness' of the defendants is their status when the court has acquitted them-and obviously this righteousness must not be confused with the latter. 'When we translate these forensic categories back into their theological context, that of the covenant, the point remains fundamental: the divine covenant faithfulness is not the same as human covenant membership' (p. 39). Wright's errors here can be traced first of all to a misunderstanding of ''δικαιοσύνη'', and, second (as we shall see) to a less plausible reading of the passage at hand.</ref>

====δια πίστεως ’Ιησο Χριστου ('through faith in Jesus Christ'), 3:22====
Traditionally, this phrase has been
understood to establish Jesus Christ as
the object of faith, the objective genitive
reading. More recently, influential
voices have argued for either a possessive
genitive, 'through the faith of
Jesus Christ,' or, more commonly, a
subjective genitive, taking ''πίστις'' to
mean 'faithfulness', 'through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ'. <ref>E.g. Luke T. Johnson, 'Rom 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 77-90; Bruce W. Longenecker, ''Eschatology'', pp. 149- 50; G. Howard, 'The Faith of Christ,' ''ExpT'' 85 (1973-74), pp. 212-214; D. W. B. Robinson, '"Faith of Jesus Christ"-A New Testament Debate', RTR 29 (1970), pp. 71-81; Richard B. Hays, 'PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake', in ''Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers'', ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 714-29.</ref> Even if the
subjective genitive were to prevail, the
traditional interpretation of the paragraph
as a whole remains plausible:
after all, some New Testament writers
make much of the obedience, and thus
the faithfulness, of Jesus Christ in
accomplishing his Father's will, especially
John and Hebrews. But the subjective
genitive reading can be used to
support a 'new perspective' interpretation
of this passage, in a way that the
objective genitive cannot: the
'covenant faithfulness', 'righteousness', on this reading, of God is
revealed through the faithfulness of
Jesus the Messiah for the benefit of all.
Indeed, N. T. Wright goes so far as to
say that 'the success of this way of
reading this passage is the best argument
in favor of the subjective genitive
(faith "of" Christ) in some at least of
the key passages' .<ref>N. T. Wright, 'Romans and the Theology of Paul', p. 37 n.9.</ref>
The linguistic arguments, though
complex, are far from conclusive.<ref>Among the better treatments, see Douglas J. Moo, ''Romans'', pp. 226-8; Thomas R. Schreiner, ''Romans'', pp. 181-7; James D. G. Dunn, ''Romans'' 1.166-7; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ''Romans'', AB no. 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 345-6; and the literature cited in these works.</ref> 
Perhaps the one exegetical argument that
carries an initial weight against the
objective genitive is something that is
lost in English, viz. the apparent tautology
generated by the objective genitive
in Greek: ''διὰ Ιπίστεως ησου Χριστου  ε'ις πιστεύοντας'' ('through
trust in Jesus Christ to all who exercise
trust' or 'through ''faith'' in Jesus Christ to
all who have ''faith'' '<ref>Italics added.</ref>). The apparent tautology
is lost in most of our English
translations because of the difference
in root behind our noun 'faith' and our
verb 'believe' ('through ''faith'' in Jesus
Christ to all who ''believe'' '<ref>Italics added.</ref>). Yet closer
inspection discloses that there is a profound
reason for this repetition, viz. the
prepositional phrase 'for all'. The point
may be demonstrated by the somewhat
paraphrastic rendering, 'This righteousness
from God comes through
faith in Jesus Christ-to ''all'' who have
faith in him. ' <ref>Similar arguments can be mounted in other passages where a charge of tautology is levelled, e.g. Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:19.</ref>

The advantages of this explanation
of the repetition are many.

(a) It takes the crucial expressions,
including 'righteousness' and 'faith',
in their most natural ways. For
instance, ''πίστις'' almost always means
'faith' in Paul; it takes strong contextual
support to permit 'faithfulness',
and such support is lacking here.

(b) Moreover, although, as we have
seen, other New Testament writers
develop the theme of Christ's obedience
or faithfulness, this is not, demonstrably,
a theme that Paul develops,
even, as in Romans 4, where he might
have had an excuse for doing so.<ref>A point shrewdly made by James D. G. Dunn, ''Romans'' 1.167.</ref>

(c) More importantly, this reading
ties the passage to the preceding section.
Romans 1:18-3:20 demonstrates
that ''all'', Jews and Gentiles alike, are
guilty before God; but now, Paul
argues, a righteousness from God has
appeared that is available to ''all'' without
distinction, but on condition of faith.
The connection is explicit in the text,
highlighted by the repetition of the
word 'all' and by two logical connectors.
We might continue our rendering:
'This righteousness from God comes
through faith in Jesus Christ-to all
who have faith in him. For [yap) there
is no difference, for [yap) all [ 1TaVTEI;)
have sinned<ref>I would here prefer to see what tradition·
al grammarians would caIl a 'global aorist',
i.e. 'for all sin'-but that is another issue.</ref> and come short of the
glory of God.'

(d) This reading also prepares us for
the last clause of 3:26, and for Paul's
argument in 3:27-31, with its massive
emphasis on faith.

To summarize the argument so far:
Paul has established that all are condemned,
Jew and Gentile alike, apart
from the cross of Christ; all stand
under his judicial condemnation and
face his wrath. But now, he says, a new
righteousness has appeared in the history
of redemption to deal with this.
Paul first relates this righteousness to
Old Testament revelation.<ref>Romans 3:21.</ref> Then he
establishes the availability of this
righteousness to all human beings
without racial distinction, but solely on
condition of faith. He now turns to the
source of this righteousness from God.

====Notes====
<references />