Why Trust a Cross? Reflections on Romans 3:21-26

From Gospel Translations

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.^[1]

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'^[2], and ends with a catena of texts to prove that no one is righteous, not even one.^[3] 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.'^[4] Indeed, every mouth is to be silenced on the last day, and there is no one righteous.^[5]

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.^[6] 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.'^[7]

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;^[8](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^[9], to the unyielding principle of performance (2:13);^[10] 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.'^[11] This does not mean the law is intrinsically evil, of course^[12]; 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.^[13]

Νυνì δὲ ('But now'), 3:21

Although this expression can signal a logical connection, here it is almost certainly temporal^[14], 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.'^[15] 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.'^[16]

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,^[17] 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.^[18]

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'. ^[19] 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^[20], 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'^[21]-or, more precisely, its ongoing validity is precisely in that to which it bears witness, which has now dawned.^[22] 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^[23], the cognate adjective 'just' (δίκαιος) occurs once^[24] and the cognate verb 'to justify' (δικαιόω) twice.^[25] 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^[26] 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

Notes

1. ↑ 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.
2. ↑ Romans 1:18.
3. ↑ Romans 3:9-20.
4. ↑ Romans 3:9.
5. ↑ Romans 3:19, 10.
6. ↑ Romans 2:15.
7. ↑ 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.
8. ↑ As Romans 9 puts it.
9. ↑ Romans 2:8.
10. ↑ 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.
11. ↑ Andrew T. Lincoln, 'From Wrath to Justification,' p. 146.
12. ↑ Romans 7:12.
13. ↑ Romans 3:20b.
14. ↑ Its customary meaning, e.g. Romans 6:22; 7:6.
15. ↑ Douglas J. Moo, Romans, p. 222
16. ↑ Romans 3:26 in the Greek text; v. 25 in the NIV.
17. ↑ 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.
18. ↑ 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.
19. ↑ Romans 3:21.
20. ↑ Cf. Romans 4:13·15; 5:20; Galatians 3:15-4:7.
21. ↑ To use the language of Hebrews 8:13.
22. ↑ This is, as I have elsewhere argued, the argument of Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17- 20.
23. ↑ Romans 3:21,22,25,26--though the last two are 'his righteousness'.
24. ↑ Romans 3:26.
25. ↑ Romans 3:24,26.
26. ↑ Romans 1:18-3:20.